Interesting "whereabouts" story

terongi

I can't really see what there is to argue about here.

The whereabouts system is a good system, but like any set of rules you have to keep focussed on its purpose, not just blindly follow the rules.

The purpose of the system is to catch out of competition dopers without them knowing in advance when they are going to be tested.

The nub of this story is that a tester turned up and asked for some kind of internal fluid sample - the rider was at or about to leave for a crematorium/cemetery for the funeral of his own infant child. I have 5 children of my own - that is about the worst thing I could possibly imagine.

So let's focus on the purpose of the anti-doping system. You are the dope tester and the rider asks if you could excuse him having to pee into a bottle or whatever, just this once when he has to go and dispose of the remains of his recently deceased child. Do you think:

(a) this rider is using this family tragedy as a cover up for his doping
(b) this rider is lying about the death of his own son as a cover up for doping; or
(c) I will let this guy off and give him the benefit of the doubt, because there are some things in life more important than a dope test and what is the worst that could happen if I don't take a sample from this rider right now?

A dope test is part of the rules of the job of a pro cyclist. Think about the "rules" of your own jobs and whether you would ask to be excused because of a family tragedy. Day off work? Missing a deadline at work? Failing to file your accounts or tax return on time?

What would you think of a boss or government tax inspector who demands that you fulfil your legal obligations regardless of such a tragedy. Bike riders are people just like us.

We all need to get some perspective. Maybe that was Dennis's "hidden" message.

dennisn

afx237vi wrote:

Kléber wrote:

That's why there's a "three strikes" rule, you can miss a test or two.

The whole system only works because it is so inflexible, but something about this case doesnt add up.

I'm not sure I agree with that(I know, go figure, I don't agree with anything) but completely inflexible systems usually don't last that long. They can't respond to change if so required and humans are not completely black or completely white(so to speak). If the ruler of a country were completely inflexible how long would he be in power???? There is give and take in all of society.

afx237vi

dennisn wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Kléber wrote:

That's why there's a "three strikes" rule, you can miss a test or two.

The whole system only works because it is so inflexible, but something about this case doesnt add up.

I'm not sure I agree with that(I know, go figure, I don't agree with anything) but completely inflexible systems usually don't last that long. They can't respond to change if so required and humans are not completely black or completely white(so to speak). If the ruler of a country were completely inflexible how long would he be in power???? There is give and take in all of society.

You can't drive your car at 100 mph just because you're in a bit of a hurry, or pay your taxes a week late because you have some other stuff to spend your money on. If you allow leniency for certain, small matters, then eventually the whole system would break down.

Sure, you can get a speeding ticket and appeal it later if you have mitigating circumstances, but you can't get permission to speed in advance.

terongi

afx237vi wrote:

You can't drive your car at 100 mph just because you're in a bit of a hurry, or pay your taxes a week late because you have some other stuff to spend your money on. If you allow leniency for certain, small matters, then eventually the whole system would break down.

Who's allowing leniency for "small matters"?

The guy was on his way to the funeral of his own child...how much bigger do "matters" get than that?

afx237vi wrote:

Sure, you can get a speeding ticket and appeal it later if you have mitigating circumstances, but you can't get permission to speed in advance.

And how was Kevin Van Impe supposed to appeal the tester's visit afterwards? Does he make an application for the return of his urine?

Stuey01

terongi wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

You can't drive your car at 100 mph just because you're in a bit of a hurry, or pay your taxes a week late because you have some other stuff to spend your money on. If you allow leniency for certain, small matters, then eventually the whole system would break down.

Who's allowing leniency for "small matters"?

the article says he was arranging the funeral, not on his way to it.

The guy was on his way to the funeral of his own child...how much bigger do "matters" get than that?

afx237vi wrote:

Sure, you can get a speeding ticket and appeal it later if you have mitigating circumstances, but you can't get permission to speed in advance.

And how was Kevin Van Impe supposed to appeal the tester's visit afterwards? Does he make an application for the return of his urine?

he could have refused to take the test and then appealed afterwards.

Though I don't think he should have had to.
If you get done by a speed camera then you have to appeal afterwards, but if you get done by a flesh and blood policeman and have mitigating circumstances (wife in labour for example), then the policeman may well exercise their discretion and let you off. That is what I think should have happened in this case. The tester is not a robot, he is a person with capacity for independant thought and could have exercised his discretion upon discovering the circumstances.

afx237vi

terongi wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

You can't drive your car at 100 mph just because you're in a bit of a hurry, or pay your taxes a week late because you have some other stuff to spend your money on. If you allow leniency for certain, small matters, then eventually the whole system would break down.

Who's allowing leniency for "small matters"?

The guy was on his way to the funeral of his own child...how much bigger do "matters" get than that?

afx237vi wrote:

Sure, you can get a speeding ticket and appeal it later if you have mitigating circumstances, but you can't get permission to speed in advance.

And how was Kevin Van Impe supposed to appeal the tester's visit afterwards? Does he make an application for the return of his urine?

Firstly, I wasn't suggesting that the funeral of a child is a small matter. I was making a more general point about the system in reply to Dennis.

Secondy, as I've already said, we only know half of the story. Look at it from the tester's POV. He has a name, a place and a time on his sheet and has probably been warned about rider's trying to dodge tests. He knows nothing about Van Impe's circumstances and we don't know what Van Impe said to him. Did he explain that he was making funeral arrangements or did he just say "come back later" and shut the door? It would be understandable, but unless the tester knew his circumstances, it could be seen as suspicious.

dennisn

afx237vi wrote:

terongi wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

You can't drive your car at 100 mph just because you're in a bit of a hurry, or pay your taxes a week late because you have some other stuff to spend your money on. If you allow leniency for certain, small matters, then eventually the whole system would break down.

Who's allowing leniency for "small matters"?

The guy was on his way to the funeral of his own child...how much bigger do "matters" get than that?

afx237vi wrote:

Sure, you can get a speeding ticket and appeal it later if you have mitigating circumstances, but you can't get permission to speed in advance.

And how was Kevin Van Impe supposed to appeal the tester's visit afterwards? Does he make an application for the return of his urine?

Firstly, I wasn't suggesting that the funeral of a child is a small matter. I was making a more general point about the system in reply to Dennis.

Secondy, as I've already said, we only know half of the story. Look at it from the tester's POV. He has a name, a place and a time on his sheet and has probably been warned about rider's trying to dodge tests. He knows nothing about Van Impe's circumstances and we don't know what Van Impe said to him. Did he explain that he was making funeral arrangements or did he just say "come back later" and shut the door? It would be understandable, but unless the tester knew his circumstances, it could be seen as suspicious.

I'm going to assume that the tester's job is to get a urine sample, period. Not to judge or threaten. Or maybe they can threaten this or that???
In any case it sounds like the tester overstepped his authority, both as a tester and a human being. He made a bad situation worse. Stupid on his part but he's human too.

terongi

dennisn wrote:

In any case it sounds like the tester overstepped his authority, both as a tester and a human being. He made a bad situation worse. Stupid on his part but he's human too.

+1

LangerDan

Suppose Van Impe had 2 strikes on the "whereabouts" rule, this situation would make 3 and the tester decided not to proceed? People would be equally incensed.

The truth is, no-one here knows exactly what happened. Who's to say that the tester didn't contact his superiors, advised them of the situation and was told to collect the sample regardless? He may not be permitted to have "discretion".

Testers can threaten nothing. Frequently they are contracted by commerical sample collecition / testing firms and paid piece-work rates to visit people who don't want to see them early in the morning and watch them urinate in a bottle.

There was a case here some years ago where testers made an early morning visit to one of most prominent Olympians who, let us say, had "form". There were many delaying tactics as well as suspected sample tampering and the testers noted this in their report. Despite the fact that the athlete ultimately received a 4 year ban for sample tampering, the testers - a couple who had given years of service to Irish sport at all levels - were subjected to verbal abuse and threats for having the temerity to carry out their job. Four years later, the same tester was manhandled out of a dressing room when he came to carry out tests at a GAA match.

TBH, I don't know how they do it. Its not for financial gain (unless the rates have improved dramatically), its not to be liked. I guess that, like the guy who marshalls a junction in the rain or the race organiser who has to put up with phone calls at past midnight from people who can't manage to fill in an entry form, these people do it "to give something back". I'd like to know the full story before tearing lumps out of them.

(....and relax)

dennisn

LangerDan wrote:

Suppose Van Impe had 2 strikes on the "whereabouts" rule, this situation would make 3 and the tester decided not to proceed? People would be equally incensed.

The truth is, no-one here knows exactly what happened. Who's to say that the tester didn't contact his superiors, advised them of the situation and was told to collect the sample regardless? He may not be permitted to have "discretion".

Testers can threaten nothing. Frequently they are contracted by commerical sample collecition / testing firms and paid piece-work rates to visit people who don't want to see them early in the morning and watch them urinate in a bottle.

There was a case here some years ago where testers made an early morning visit to one of most prominent Olympians who, let us say, had "form". There were many delaying tactics as well as suspected sample tampering and the testers noted this in their report. Despite the fact that the athlete ultimately received a 4 year ban for sample tampering, the testers - a couple who had given years of service to Irish sport at all levels - were subjected to verbal abuse and threats for having the temerity to carry out their job. Four years later, the same tester was manhandled out of a dressing room when he came to carry out tests at a GAA match.

TBH, I don't know how they do it. Its not for financial gain (unless the rates have improved dramatically), its not to be liked. I guess that, like the guy who marshalls a junction in the rain or the race organiser who has to put up with phone calls at past midnight from people who can't manage to fill in an entry form, these people do it "to give something back". I'd like to know the full story before tearing lumps out of them.

(....and relax)

I would think you would have to have been standing there in order to fully understand the complete "incident" and how it "went down". Still, at the very, very least, an insensitive thing to do on the testers part. He should have had a bit more "tact" than that.

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

I would think you would have to have been standing there in order to fully understand the complete "incident" and how it "went down". Still, at the very, very least, an insensitive thing to do on the testers part. He should have had a bit more "tact" than that.

Which part was insensitive? As you said, unless you were there, you wouldn't know what happened.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I would think you would have to have been standing there in order to fully understand the complete "incident" and how it "went down". Still, at the very, very least, an insensitive thing to do on the testers part. He should have had a bit more "tact" than that.

Which part was insensitive? As you said, unless you were there, you wouldn't know what happened.

Let's call my "insensitive" remark an opinion, shall we????

markwalker

delete :oops:

markwalker

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I would think you would have to have been standing there in order to fully understand the complete "incident" and how it "went down". Still, at the very, very least, an insensitive thing to do on the testers part. He should have had a bit more "tact" than that.

Which part was insensitive? As you said, unless you were there, you wouldn't know what happened.

Iain, we know for a fact that a sample was sought at a time and in circumstances that most reasonable human being s would consider grossly innapropriate. whatever the circumstances of it "going down"

I think that is a good measure of the insensitivity.

iainf72

markwalker wrote:

Iain, we know for a fact that a sample was sought at a time and in circumstances that most reasonable human being s would consider grossly innapropriate. whatever the circumstances of it "going down"

I think that is a good measure of the insensitivity.

Agreed. Based on what we know. That's all I'm saying - I think it was an awful thing to happen but I don't think anyone was being malicious on purpose.