Legal challenge to "Whereabouts" system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/7844918.stm
I suppose a lawyer challenging the policy was inevitable. I bet Alex Ferguson's pleased.
I suppose a lawyer challenging the policy was inevitable. I bet Alex Ferguson's pleased.
0
Comments
-
Hope it falls on its arse. Clearly the Pot Belge traditions run deep ?0
-
The problem is that they may actually have a good legal case. Hopefully WADA will be able to argue that a proper doping system is the only way to protect athletes' health, and that might get priority over the right to privacy.
Otherwise, back to the good old days? :roll:
Looking at the video, how come the BBC is now employing reporters who can't form a proper conditional sentence, using the subjunctive?0 -
Was there not similar case a few years back which did fall on its @rse? I think the judgement was that while such a system would be in breach of the right to privacy if it applied to the community at large, the rule, as applied to individuals who voluntarily signed up to the rules and regs of a sporting organisation, was acceptable.
It will be interesting to see claims to "privacy" from many of the current generation of sports media-whores who are never off my bloody TV!'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
I should think there are many acceptable arguments in favour of 'whereabouts' which are argue for it on grounds of human rights (see above protecting the athlete) or employment (other industry e.g. construction has a drug testing stipulation). I just can't see it getting anywhere. It is an attempt to raise the profile of the anti-whereabouts lobby and agruments and the first stage of many to start driving a wedge under it drip by drip, compromise by compromise. Hopefully the defence will do a proper job and the court will chuck it out.
The bee in my bonet is that they athletes have brought it on themselves through years of proven cheating and lying - defrauding their employers, the public, sponsors and the media. It isn't unreasonable that these entities would want some protection and given the sophistication (and in some cases bleeding edge risk taking) of the dopers the anti doping side of things needs a robust system in place to prevent the athletes harming themselves and continuing to defraud and cheat.
I'm sure there is a coherent argument in there somewhere, I just don't have the knowledge or skills to present it.0 -
wasn't kashicken also challenging his + on simialr grounds...that they had not the right to test him at such a late hour rather than query the + itself.0
-
This is what one Belgian footballer is quoted as saying. He's talking rubbish, all you have to do is make an hour a day when you can be tested. It's easy, you can say from 0700-0800 when most footballers will be in bed, or during week days specify a time when you know you'll be at the training ground."We have to inform them of everything," the 24-year-old said. "If I want to go to the cinema, I have to update the site to say I'm going to the cinema. "But I can't always get to a computer. If they call me and I'm not in the right place they can suspend me. I don't think that's right."
Trying to say you trips to the cinema are affected sound like excuses to me.0 -
It is an excuse and an attempt to do some PR mangling. Footballers are scared of it - why? They are paid professionals, a lot of much more amateur atheletes manage it despite training and working for a living. As Kleber says all they've got to do is say see me at the training ground any weekeday between 10am and 11am. Simple.0
-
skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:It is an excuse and an attempt to do some PR mangling. Footballers are scared of it - why? They are paid professionals, a lot of much more amateur atheletes manage it despite training and working for a living. As Kleber says all they've got to do is say see me at the training ground any weekeday between 10am and 11am. Simple.
Its not that simple - while they are supposed to be at the training ground between 10 and 11am, they are as likely to be: i) -under arrest for assault, ii)- hungover, iii)-launching an interest -free autobiography called "My Story", iv) -promoting some designer fragrance that smells like a blend of Brut and p!ss or v) -busy poking the losing quarter-finalist from "Upper Saxony's Got Talent". Thay haven't got the time to be facilitating some WADA lackey.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
LangerDan wrote:skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:It is an excuse and an attempt to do some PR mangling. Footballers are scared of it - why? They are paid professionals, a lot of much more amateur atheletes manage it despite training and working for a living. As Kleber says all they've got to do is say see me at the training ground any weekeday between 10am and 11am. Simple.
Its not that simple - while they are supposed to be at the training ground between 10 and 11am, they are as likely to be: i) -under arrest for assault, ii)- hungover, iii)-launching an interest -free autobiography called "My Story", iv) -promoting some designer fragrance that smells like a blend of Brut and p!ss or v) -busy poking the losing quarter-finalist from "Upper Saxony's Got Talent". Thay haven't got the time to be facilitating some WADA lackey.
Er, I don't think that this applies to the players of the mighty KV Mechelen, although they did win the Cup Winners' Cup in 1988.
On a more serious note, the article says that Belgian footballers, athletes, volleyball players and.... CYCLISTS are backing the legal challenge. Looks like the lessons of the last decade have been learnt then
0
