| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Boogerd_Fan
Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 3205
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Bio that would make some sense, a smaller team/inexperienced riders doing it "ricco" style overcook their doses more frequently.
_________________
Has the new Boogie arrived?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Slapshot 3
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 5904
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Biosphere wrote: | | Mrs John Murphy wrote: | | I suspect that if the UCI/WADA don't appeal then we will start seeing every national fed say 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander' and will start acquitting everyone no matter how spurious their stories are. |
They have to appeal - strict liability is finished if they don't.
|
....and that may be the end game in the Contador case.
I went to a doping conference in Edinburgh a few years back sponsored by SportScotland. It was part of our development programe and some of the information that came out was pretty interesting. Anyway at a Q&A session someone quizzed the UKAD guy about strict liability, primarily they used the Alain Baxter story as the basis of the question. I'll assume most of us know the story. If strict liability had not existed Baxter would have been cleared.
The discussion ended up with the statement from the UKAD guy that Strict Liability would eventually disappear when someone had the money to challenge it. It wouldn't matter what it was for, different preparations of a medicine in two different countries like the Baxter case or a minute amount of Clenbuterol in a sample that could be linked to cross contamination.
I'll go back to what I said earlier, Francos case was a passport case and that made all the difference
_________________
S Marauder Memorial Trophy Winner 2009, 2012
Cycling Revealed Trivia Quiz/Just Cycling Winner 2010
Superlance now has the same number of Tour titles as me
Last edited by Slapshot 3 on Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:19 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kathy
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 11526
Location: Formerly Hen Wlad fy Nhadau, now, Oliva, Valencia, Spain
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SlowRower wrote: | | Interesting - Whilst there are differences in the appraoches of different Federations, the key difference here appears to be that FP was considered expendable by Leaky whereas Bert and Valverde weren't by their teams. |
Precisely. Must say i'll be sorry Pellizotti won't be riding anymore. I always found him an exciting rider.
I see Di Luca is riding again in TA, despite failing about three dope tests in recent years - Has he taken out Spanish nationality? 
_________________
"You can't win races with passion alone."
Fabian Cancellara (2008) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SlowRower
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 4058
Location: 62 West Wallaby Street, Wigan
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mrs John Murphy wrote: | | So where does this leave say TV at AG2R who has also been cleared but is unable to ride. |
I read - can't find the link, unfortunately - that TV had been re-instated by his team following being cleared by his Federation. The quote from the DS was along the lines of "We had no choice - there is no reason to justify not re-employing him. It's an employment law issue."
If this quote is correct then it strongly suggests that the team have taken the action to suspend him and they are not happy about him being cleared, so even if not technically suspended any more, I guess he'll just keep getting not selected.
If teams are making the decisions then there will be no consistency as such - each team will do what it considers best to promote its own interests, within the framework of local laws. I wonder which country's employment laws apply. All EU registered teams would presumably have the same laws, but teams registered elsewhere may be able to legitmately play by other rules re suspending riders following adverse findings etc.
Not specifically related to TV, but I also read that there are no absolutes re what consitutes an adverse passport reading, so there is subjectivity about who gets "fingered" and who doesn't. Whoever makes the decision has huge power in this respect; do we know if the sanctioning decision is made initially by the UCI or WADA?
_________________
You don't like cheese? Not even Wensleydale? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SlowRower
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 4058
Location: 62 West Wallaby Street, Wigan
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Slapshot 3 wrote: | | The discussion ended up with the statement from the UKAD guy that Strict Liability would eventually disappear when someone had the money to challenge it. |
The British lifetime ban from the OGs for dopers having served a two year ban will go fairly soon as well, I would guess. The ban has already been downgraded from a ban following any doping sanction to be exlictly one for two year bans - the BOA has to get Christine O back in somehow!
When Dwayne Chamber's application for an injunction against the BOA's ban was rejected in 2008, it was because he requested the injunction several months after he knew he'd be needing it. Thus, the application for the injunction was invalid, not the merits of his case. (Injunctions need to be applied as soon as practical after the need has been identified.) The judge made it clear that there was merit in the case and that a similar one brought properly in the future could be successful.
That would cause a few microphones to be swallowed by the BBC athletics commentators.
_________________
You don't like cheese? Not even Wensleydale? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bartali
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 11560
Location: Hertfordshire
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kathy wrote: | | I see Di Luca is riding again in TA, despite failing about three dope tests in recent years - Has he taken out Spanish nationality? |
No, he's still Italian ... which I guess is why he suffered a ban! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kathy
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 11526
Location: Formerly Hen Wlad fy Nhadau, now, Oliva, Valencia, Spain
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
But I thought it was supposed to be two strikes and you're out!
_________________
"You can't win races with passion alone."
Fabian Cancellara (2008) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bartali
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 11560
Location: Hertfordshire
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fair point ... I assume the first one didn't count as he didn't fail a test?
What's happening in the Mozzie case? That seems really odd - as far as I know he hasn't even had his B sample tested? What's the inside story there?
_________________
OGGI CI DAREMO UNA BOTTA - F.COPPI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MS
Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm tired of indignant declarations when these guys get busted. They knew the game they were playing and it caught up with them. At least have the dignity to play it like the others who get caught and either take the punishment and return or quietly ride into the sunset.
_________________
"Bloody cheats!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guiness
Joined: 03 Nov 2009
Posts: 887
Location: County of Kent
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bartali wrote: | | Fair point ... I assume the first one didn't count as he didn't fail a test? |
Bingo! Only two doping offences after he served a three-month suspension in the 'Oil for Drugs' affair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mrs John Murphy
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 7975
Location: Stepping on Cadel's dog
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bartali wrote: | | kathy wrote: | | I see Di Luca is riding again in TA, despite failing about three dope tests in recent years - Has he taken out Spanish nationality? |
No, he's still Italian ... which I guess is why he suffered a ban! |
Which is more than most Spanish riders suffer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HuwB
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 11754
Location: Deep in the Black Mountains.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the other issue here is the amount of resources the UCI put into this single case, to rebutt CONI's findings and their clearing of Pellizotti.
All cycling's scientific big wigs gave evidence.
On this case, it is clear that the bio passport would stand or fall.
So the UCI were always going to prosecute here with far more fervor than any other individual case.
As a result Franco got hit harder than a rider testing positive for EPO, for instance.
I'm am not entirely happy with a set of publicly hidden statistics warranting harsher punishment than positive "A" and "B" samples.
I also think that the UCI now has little option but to pursue a full sanctioning of Contador, or else suffer the repercussions of another Italian backlash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SlowRower
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 4058
Location: 62 West Wallaby Street, Wigan
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HuwB wrote: | | I also think that the UCI now has little option but to pursue a full sanctioning of Contador, or else suffer the repercussions of another Italian backlash. |
I'd agree with this except if the UCI gets genuine legal advice that their appeal would most likely fail. Not appealing is better than having an appeal chucked out, I'd say, as no legal precendent would be created. A failed appeal might legitimise the "steak" defence or create a minimum threshold for failures where no minimum currently exists, which might not be a price worth paying to keep the Italians happy for a relatively short period of time.
If such legal advice was given then it would need to be disclosed. To not appeal and not make it clear exactly why would be the worst of all worlds, I'd say. (So this is probably what will happen!)
Rightly or wrongly, the legal world appears to cut riders more slack than the "clean cycling at all costs" lobby would like, so I think it would be wise to set expectations relative to the legal world in which we exist. (And should the BBC be reading this, please tell Alison Curbishley that life bans for a first doping offence are not going to happen, no matter how many times she says it's what she wants and that she'd sooner Dwayne Chambers wasn't competing any more!)
_________________
You don't like cheese? Not even Wensleydale? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slapshot 3
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 5904
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HuwB wrote: | I think the other issue here is the amount of resources the UCI put into this single case, to rebutt CONI's findings and their clearing of Pellizotti.
All cycling's scientific big wigs gave evidence.
On this case, it is clear that the bio passport would stand or fall.
So the UCI were always going to prosecute here with far more fervor than any other individual case.
|
This is exactly what I've been suggesting, they had to hammer this one with everything they had even at the risk of failure, the passport would have died completely had Pellizotti been cleared.
| Quote: |
I also think that the UCI now has little option but to pursue a full sanctioning of Contador, or else suffer the repercussions of another Italian backlash. |
I disagree, I don't think the UCI have the bollox to go for it because they can't come out squeaky clean, they tried to hush it up remember. I don't believe that they could faithfully go to the UCI with that in Contador's defensive bag.
I think they will hope that WADA will take it on more resources, less potential for embarrassment, that sort of thing, however, as I said in an earlier post, Contador has enough money to challenge "Strict Liability" especially if the Spanish authorities back him. Whatever happens, It's not done yet but I can't even hypothesise how it will pan out.
_________________
S Marauder Memorial Trophy Winner 2009, 2012
Cycling Revealed Trivia Quiz/Just Cycling Winner 2010
Superlance now has the same number of Tour titles as me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Biosphere
Site Admin
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 5507
Location: Der Schweiz
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SlowRower
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 4058
Location: 62 West Wallaby Street, Wigan
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting link off this one about TV...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/v...cing-with-turkish-team-manisaspor
He did race again for AG2R but did not have his contract renewed and is now racing for a Turkish team.
Thus, it seems clear that what happens after being cleared by the national federation is the same, irrespective of nationality - the rider can race until and unless the "clear" verdict is overturned by CAS, so long as there's a team that wants said rider on their active roster. This decision will be primarily driven by the rider's commercial value to their current or potential future team.
_________________
You don't like cheese? Not even Wensleydale? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Biosphere
Site Admin
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 5507
Location: Der Schweiz
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SlowRower wrote: | | Interesting link off this one about TV... |
Hadn't spotted that. I think you've sussed the rules and it seems that national feds clearing riders is not exactly an Iberian phenomenon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mrs John Murphy
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 7975
Location: Stepping on Cadel's dog
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Slapshot 3 wrote: | | HuwB wrote: | I think the other issue here is the amount of resources the UCI put into this single case, to rebutt CONI's findings and their clearing of Pellizotti.
All cycling's scientific big wigs gave evidence.
On this case, it is clear that the bio passport would stand or fall.
So the UCI were always going to prosecute here with far more fervor than any other individual case.
|
This is exactly what I've been suggesting, they had to hammer this one with everything they had even at the risk of failure, the passport would have died completely had Pellizotti been cleared.
| Quote: |
I also think that the UCI now has little option but to pursue a full sanctioning of Contador, or else suffer the repercussions of another Italian backlash. |
I disagree, I don't think the UCI have the bollox to go for it because they can't come out squeaky clean, they tried to hush it up remember. I don't believe that they could faithfully go to the UCI with that in Contador's defensive bag.
I think they will hope that WADA will take it on more resources, less potential for embarrassment, that sort of thing, however, as I said in an earlier post, Contador has enough money to challenge "Strict Liability" especially if the Spanish authorities back him. Whatever happens, It's not done yet but I can't even hypothesise how it will pan out. |
Sorry but I have to disagree with you.
Contador has done nothing to challenge strict liability. For one basic reason - he has yet to demonstrate that the clen in his system came from the beef. All we have as proof is his word - no sample, no receipt, no evidence.
To challenge strict liability he would need to have demonstrated firstly that the beef was tainted and only from there would he be able to argue that he was not responsible for the positive test. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Biosphere
Site Admin
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 5507
Location: Der Schweiz
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mrs John Murphy wrote: | | . . . Contador has done nothing to challenge strict liability . . . |
Agreed and that's why WADA or UCI have to appeal to CAS or else it's finished as an adjudicating principle.
For information (from WADA)
What is strict liability?
The principle of strict liability is applied in situations where urine/blood samples collected from an athlete have produced adverse analytical results.
It means that each athlete is strictly liable for the substances found in his or her bodily specimen, and that an anti-doping rule violation occurs whenever a prohibited substance (or its metabolites or markers) is found in bodily specimen, whether or not the athlete intentionally or unintentionally used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault.
Where does this principle come from?
Prior to the January 1, 2004, implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code)—the core document that provides the framework for harmonized anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations within sports organizations and among public authorities—, the principle of strict liability had been applied by the International Olympic Committee in its Anti-Doping Code as well as by the vast majority of pre-Code anti-doping sports rules. In accordance with WADA’s stakeholders’ wishes, the Code continues to apply the same principle.
Is there any flexibility to take into consideration the circumstances or intention of the athlete?
Yes, there is flexibility when a sanction is being considered.
The rule is the starting point so that, while an anti-doping rule violation occurs regardless of the athlete’s intention, there is flexibility in the sanctioning process to consider the circumstances.
How is the principle put into practice?
If the sample came from an in-competition test, then the results of the athlete for that competition are automatically invalidated. This rule helps to establish fairness for the other athletes in the competition.
As relates to subsequent sanctions (Art. 10 of the Code), the athlete has the possibility to avoid or reduce sanctions if he or she can establish to the satisfaction of the tribunal how the substance entered his or her system, demonstrate that he or she was not at fault or significant fault or in certain circumstances did not intend to enhance his or her sport performance. This means that the burden of proof is on the athlete.
The strict liability principle set forth in the Code has been consistently upheld in the decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Swiss Federal Court.
Did WADA make any change in relation to the strict liability principle as part of the revised World Anti-Doping Code that took effect on January 1, 2009?
No. The strict liability principle remains in the Code.
As consistently confirmed by CAS, the strict liability rule for the finding of a prohibited substance in an athlete's specimen, with a possibility that sanctions may be modified based on specified criteria, provides a reasonable balance between effective anti-doping enforcement for the benefit of all clean athletes and fairness in the exceptional circumstance where a prohibited substance entered an athlete’s system through no fault or negligence on the athlete’s part
Even if he wins CAS appeal (which appears unlikely given the apparent lack of proof to demonstrate his innocence), it seems inevitable to me he loses last years Tour title. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SlowRower
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 4058
Location: 62 West Wallaby Street, Wigan
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Biosphere wrote: | | Hadn't spotted that. I think you've sussed the rules and it seems that national feds clearing riders is not exactly an Iberian phenomenon. |
I wouldn't disagree with MJM that the Spanish do seem to take a more sympathetic approach than other nations though. The Spanish doping authorities do have a political angle to deal with, so it may be inappropriate to direct our ire solely at them. If the PM is Twittering his support for Berto, one can only imagine what goes on behind the scenes.
Berto's "defence" seems laughable to me, but he can afford much better legal advice than I can. I guess the case will ultimately hinge on some technical interpretation of strict liability which won't make much sense to the layman, with the result that the arguments rumble on for some time yet. The only definitive result would be for CAS to overturn the Spanish not-guilty verdict, as "Test positive = ban because of strict liability" is a position that is well understood. Anything else will leave a lot of questions unanswered.
_________________
You don't like cheese? Not even Wensleydale? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
