One rule for Rugby.....

Moomaloid

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... -fair.html

lochindaal

That's a crap article.

The Springbok players unknowingly took a banned substance that was in a supplement given to them and had never been an issue or found in previous drug tests. Once the players were caught the banned substance was traced back to this supplement after an investigation.

Contador has yet to provide the meat ever existed and how he was the only one effected.

That's without considering the platicisers

ozzzyosborn206

lochindaal that still doesn't get away from the fact that if the same thing had happened in cycling they would more than likely been banned. I think articles like that are good for cycling as it is so true that people think cycling has so many more dopers than other sports when the main reason for it is we are fighting it whereas other sports just brush it under the carpet

paulnettles

lochindaal wrote:

Contador has yet to provide the meat ever existed

...which kind of goes to the heart of what - I think - the writer is getting at.

He shouldn't HAVE to prove anything - innocent until proven guilty, and all that. It should be for the doping authorities to prove that the meat did NOT exist and that Contador DID dope wilfully and with intent.

If they can't prove that - and, seems to me they're having a bit of bother with the whole "proof" thing, hence the truncated ban - then he shouldn't be banned, simple.

If they COULD prove (beyond a reasonable doubt, or whatever the required standard of proof is) that he had doped, I'm sure the full ban would have been applied.

FWIW, I think the point that the author of the article was trying to make was that with the Springbok case there was always an assumption of innocence on the part of the players, whereas with cycling and athletics the presumption is almost universally of guilt.

tim000

contador had CLEN in his body . it is a banned substance . he tested positive. he is proven guilty. if he says it came from meat he needs to provide evidence.

iainf72

paulnettles wrote:

He shouldn't HAVE to prove anything - innocent until proven guilty, and all that. It should be for the doping authorities to prove that the meat did NOT exist and that Contador DID dope wilfully and with intent.

But it doesn't work like that. Strict liability says whatever is in your body is your responsibility. The authorities proved his guilt (a+b sample positive)

This is not a court of law - It's a doping case and the rules are clear.

blazing_saddles

Why all the negativity?
It isn't every day that a UK mainstream journo points out that cycling is
the whipping boy for PED abuse in pro sport.
He isn't saying Contador is innocent, rather the SA players should have been sanctioned.
Imagine if a cycling boss claimed they handed out a substance, but hadn't known it contained a banned stimulant.
Would that wash?

iainf72

In the early 90's in SA it was pretty common to refer to the sport as drugby

lochindaal

Why all the negativity?
It isn't every day that a UK mainstream journo points out that cycling is
the whipping boy for PED abuse in pro sport.

I just think he picked such a bad comparison to write his article.

In all sports if you are found to test positive for a banned substance you have to prove your innocence. The Sprongboks did this, Contador didn't (hasn't)

In reality the Boks should have been punished in some way as well. Alain Baxter's 3 month ban as an example. I still don't think this gives any justification for AC though

blazing_saddles

lochindaal wrote:

I just think he picked such a bad comparison to write his article.

In all sports if you are found to test positive for a banned substance you have to prove your innocence. The Sprongboks did this, Contador didn't (hasn't)

How so?
If Martinelli said he gave a banned substance to Contador by mistake,would Contador get a free pass?
If so, then the answer has been staring all the cheats in the face for years.
Ignorance is not a defence. They are supposed to carry out the necessary checks to ensure these mistakes are not made, for this very reason.
The team management are liable and if all the players had tested positive, they should all have got 2 years.

As to why anyone would want to give players a stimulent as they are about to start a match is beyond me. :roll:

lochindaal

From the BBC website

the stimulant was in a widely-used substance which had been tested in a laboratory to ensure it complied with WADA regulations before being given to the players in the warm-up to the game in Dublin.

On 1 January, it was reclassified as a "specified stimulant", which means it will join the list of drugs that are more susceptible to being taken by mistake.

But as a result of the case, SARU has changed its approach to supplements.

"We have always been wary of supplements but have tried to manage the risk as the players do want to use them," said Clint Readhead, SARU medical manager.

"We did everything in our power to ensure that the supplements we supplied to the players were safe and we thought we'd put in place enough safeguards to minimise that risk.

"We received a certificate from the lab saying that the product met WADA specifications.

So the SA team had previously had the product checked and then the players still failed. After an investigation they could then isolate the product that caused the positive test and prove they had not been "cheating" for want of a better word.

AC still hasn't been able to prove he wasn't cheating.

I am not saying that rugby is clean, Scott MacLeod failing due to alcohol + asthma inhaler would have been a better example, though again he had some "proof".

I think the original article is just lazy and a better comparison could have been found to try to prove his point. Using AC to get his point across is also pointless as he is currently guilty.

Tom Butcher

I believe that they unknowingly gave them a supplement with a banned drug in it about as much as I believe Contador ate a contaminated steak. After all the cases where supplements have been blamed for positive tests we are supposed to believe they just go and give players these things without strict tests to see if they are clean ?

ozzzyosborn206

yeah why would this supplement suddenly have a banned substance in it, also if it happened in cycling there i sno way they would let it go, although it would seem harsh on them as they 'did all they could' to make sur eit was safe, that banned substance is there for a reason and what is to say they would have done aswell if they had not had it. The team they beat must feel a bit peeved about it no?

ynyswen24

lochindaal:

"I am not saying that rugby is clean, Scott MacLeod failing due to alcohol + asthma inhaler woulld have been a better example, though again he had some "proof". "

Scott MacLoed is an interesting example. Does this refer to the time he was sanctioned for using a non-approved asthma medication or the subsequent time he was caught with an illegal level of testosterone in his body (and blamed it on a heavy drinking session)? Either way, he was ' careless' for a professional sportsman I think you'd have to admit.

stagehopper

iainf72 wrote:

In the early 90's in SA it was pretty common to refer to the sport as drugby

Frightening the number of England players in the last 15 years who clearly show evidence of use of HGH etc. Total facial reconstruction in some cases.

RichN95.

stagehopper wrote:

Frightening the number of England players in the last 15 years who clearly show evidence of use of HGH etc. Total facial reconstruction in some cases.

The HGH = facial changes reasoning is generally a myth. The sportsmen who are definitely known to have taken it don't show these symptoms.

Some people detect changes in a face over a few years (generally through the 20s) and cry HGH, but the truth is, their friends have probably have similar changes - it's just ageing.

If I was a pro cyclist, I guarantee, you'd accuse me of HGH use, because I have the 'obvious symptoms' - promenent brow, square jaw - but I've never touched it. It's just the way I look.

(Rugby players may use it, but their faces aren't going to change any more than usual. You can't accuse Martin Johnson just for being ugly).

LangerDan

RichN95 wrote:

You can't accuse Martin Johnson just for being ugly.

Dunno - seems a perfectly rational basis given that cyclists have been accused of doping on the basis of the colour and length of their socks.

Moomaloid

I think any article that draws attention to fact that Cycling is doing far more than other major sports to eradicate the doping problem is a good thing..

Also the rules state that the sportsman in responsible for all that they consume. Seems the Rugby authorities have just flexed their muscles and done whatever they want....

gethmetal

Alberto likes the article, he's posted a link to it on farcebook.

ddraver

The difference in favour of the 'boks is that they were able to prove the link between the supplement and the banned substance - AC has NOT been able to prove the link between the meat and the Clenbuterol

Don't forget that "facial reconstruction" will happen with or without HGH when you play pro Rugby for a few years - it aint a game that will keep you young 'n beautiful

gsk82

anyone could add a banned substance to a supplement then claim the supplement is usually clean so it's not their fault. why were they using a supplement that could come into contact with the banned stuff in the first place? i bet maximuscle don't have a stash of EPO next to their promax mixing machine.

ddraver

gsk82 wrote:

anyone could add a banned substance to a supplement then claim the supplement is usually clean so it's not their fault. why were they using a supplement that could come into contact with the banned stuff in the first place? i bet maximuscle don't have a stash of EPO next to their promax mixing machine.

We re getting back into the realms of whats the point of drug testing at all given that...like...an alien could have abducted them and injected them with the substance to help with the probe a bit now....