Millar cleared to race at Olympics...
Comments
-
-
I thought the principle of the WADA code was to help weed out the whole doping thing by setting minimium rules for countries to abide by. Isn't it abit weird that countries who try to use the WADA code then have stricter rules in place are the countries that are being made an example of here?
Then when countries say Spain don't apply the rules as stated to their sportsman i.e Contador. so it is then left to the UCI/WADA to battle it out in the courts?0 -
It's because you're either banned, or you're not. You can't be excluded from a specific event if you're not banned. So if an athlete is banned, when the ban is up, they can compete.
You can't, and shouldn't, be punished for the same thing twice.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Ron Stuart wrote:Can't resist this gaff though.....
'Olympic 400m silver medallist Roger Black told BBC Radio 5 live that he was saddened by the latest development.
"I think it's a sad day because you have to accept that we will have people competing for our country who have cheated the system," he said.
Doesn't the idiot remember this.....? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/15052681
yay waydago ron - nice post calling someone an idiot for making a good point and then making a 'gaff' because he (like the majorty of people) doesn't follow pro racing :roll:'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
I think whatever your views on the ruling it clearly isn't fair. Usain Bolt could line up against 7 ex drug cheats in the 100m final. Does it really matter if Dwain Chambers is one of them?
Don't get me started on the cyclists FFS!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
The punishment is also strange because it only affects athletes good enough to get into the olympics.0
-
Banned from for everything for 2 years. Then banned at the pinicle (for the majority of sports) of Elite sports for the rest of your career. Doesn't stop you from making a living.
I'd like the same thing to happen but more harsh. I.e Banned from the Olympics + the others a examples.
Tennis, banned from all major Grand Slams.
Football, banned from competiting in Worldcup/Regional comps (i.e Euro Champs, African nations etc). Possibly banned for playing for your country.
Rugby, Banned from World Cup and other major events (i.e 6 nations etc). Possibly banned from playing for your nation also.
It's not really punishing someone for the same crime twice. simply making the point that if you mess around with doping you give up your right to be competiting in the highest level for your sport.0 -
Dave's best years are past as a TTer anyway, but in 2004, Dave would 've 1 in Athens0
-
-
You can certainly make a case for it, but for top level competitors, that's what it amounts to, isn't it?rebs effectively wrote:Banned for life from any competition they might actually want to enter0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Dave's best years are past as a TTer anyway, but in 2004, Dave would 've 1 in Athens
Silver in 2010 world TT isn't to be sniffed at.
true, but Cance on top form or Martin when is make it tricky for DavidM...in 2001 and 2003 Millar was best TTer other than LA -Ullrich in July's battle. I liked Millar and my username comes from jumping into my first http://www.cycling+ forum debate in July 2004 the week he admitted he had doped..(not 2006 as on my profile when forum migrated to bikeradar). I didn't know Micky Rodgers who got handed DM's 2003 world title after DM's sanction would later be shown to have driven some distance to Germany in week 1 of 2006 TDF for no innocent reason..so the 2003 World TT champs ..Dave_1 and proven so perhaps0 -
Sure, but he's not a bad shout for a podium. By the sounds of it Martin won't be particularly in form come August.
Either way he's a better shout than any other Brit who isn't Wiggins. Millar's a good guy to have on the road, and is handy for a #2 TTer behind Wiggins.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Sure, but he's not a bad shout for a podium. By the sounds of it Martin won't be particularly in form come August.
Either way he's a better shout than any other Brit who isn't Wiggins. Millar's a good guy to have on the road, and is handy for a #2 TTer behind Wiggins.
yeah, fair point. I reckon the collarbone injury might lead to a better mid/late season as when he starts racing again,he will not treat it like early season no pressure races..but have the urgency of needing form for near deadlines. I remember he broke his collarbone in 2009 as well and first race back was the Giro which he did most of. I wouldn't be surprised if we see him appear at the Giro and do 16 days, then TDF fully..he will bounce back from TDF better than most0 -
josame wrote:Ron Stuart wrote:Can't resist this gaff though.....
'Olympic 400m silver medallist Roger Black told BBC Radio 5 live that he was saddened by the latest development.
"I think it's a sad day because you have to accept that we will have people competing for our country who have cheated the system," he said.
Doesn't the idiot remember this.....? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/15052681
yay waydago ron - nice post calling someone an idiot for making a good point and then making a 'gaff' because he (like the majorty of people) doesn't follow pro racing :roll:
Not a good point when Black didn’t take account of the fact that in Millar's case he has at 'World Championship ' level already represented Great Britain and also represented his Country 'Scotland' in the Commonwealth games winning gold in the TT.
The fact that the B.O.C may loose this current case does in no way stop Chambers, Millar or anyone else from representing their country. It has only been the Olympics. I do not understand why it is only a "sad day" when someone who has "cheated the system" is allowed to take part in the Olympics, surely then it's already been a "sad day" for representing in Millar's case GB and Scotland.
Surely you are just assuming that Black doesn't follow cycling?
Further more Iain makes the excellent point on this thread again in pointing out that what the B.O.C. are attempting to do is to try and punish again athletes that have already served the sentence dealt out by the administering body W.A.D.A the same Governing body that the B.O.C signed up to.
What the B.O.C should be doing if they feel it should be a life ban for "cheating the system" is to canvas W.A.D.A to implement life bans in first instance.
They no doubt in their arrogance feel that because it's the Olympics it somehow is far more important than any other event. To fight drug abuse in sport we need strong and consistent supervision with a unified approach. What has bedevilled in particular cycling is just the lack of this with too many separate bodies national and otherwise dealing differently with essentially the same thing.0 -
Ron Stuart wrote:Further more Iain makes the excellent point on this thread again in pointing out that what the B.O.C. are attempting to do is to try and punish again athletes that have already served the sentence dealt out by the administering body W.A.D.A the same Governing body that the B.O.C signed up to.
What the B.O.C should be doing if they feel it should be a life ban for "cheating the system" is to canvas W.A.D.A to implement life bans in first instance.
They no doubt in their arrogance feel that because it's the Olympics it somehow is far more important than any other event.
The BOC by-law has been around since the early 1990's, long before either WADA or their code existed. Since the days when Olympic committees all made up their own rules. The by-law just never got rescinded as no-one has challenged it until recently. It's not 'arrogance' at all.Twitter: @RichN950 -
It's 'gaffe' by the way.0
-
RichN95 wrote:Ron Stuart wrote:Further more Iain makes the excellent point on this thread again in pointing out that what the B.O.C. are attempting to do is to try and punish again athletes that have already served the sentence dealt out by the administering body W.A.D.A the same Governing body that the B.O.C signed up to.
What the B.O.C should be doing if they feel it should be a life ban for "cheating the system" is to canvas W.A.D.A to implement life bans in first instance.
They no doubt in their arrogance feel that because it's the Olympics it somehow is far more important than any other event.
The BOC by-law has been around since the early 1990's, long before either WADA or their code existed. Since the days when Olympic committees all made up their own rules. The by-law just never got rescinded as no-one has challenged it until recently. It's not 'arrogance' at all.
Doesn't matter how long B.O.C's way of doing things have been around they are a member of the International Olympic Committee who have signed up to the W.A.D.A code. The W.A.D.A code was formed in 1999. The B.O.C’s by-law as you put it would seem from what we have heard today to have been rightly superseded and it is by definition that the B.O.C have acted with arrogance.
Arrogance:- Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. 2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward ... in this case a previous ruling.0 -
Well put Ron -You can switch it around. If, for example, the National Olympic Committee of Nowhereland ignored all positive tests because the tests were unreliable and their athlete were, of course, perfect. Would that law be allowed to stand if they joined the WADA code?
I think that global consistency is needed and that means that all "WADA codees" have to move into the centre ground, whether they are ahead or not.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Ron Stuart wrote:
Doesn't matter how long B.O.C's way of doing things have been around they are a member of the International Olympic Committee who have signed up to the W.A.D.A code. The W.A.D.A code was formed in 1999. The B.O.C’s by-law as you put it would seem from what we have heard today to have been rightly superseded and it is by definition that the B.O.C have acted with arrogance.
Arrogance:- Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. 2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward ... in this case a previous ruling.
The WADA code dates from 2004, not 1999 - that was when WADA was formed (even Roger Black knows that). And there has been no previous ruling.
The BOA have always argued that their by-law (and it is a by-law) is a selection policy rather than a sanction - and therefore outside the code. And no-one has until questioned it, so, at the overwhelming behest of British athletes it has remained.
Now, I disagree with thier stance. They should have dropped it when requested to by WADA. However, their opinions are valid and, to a certain degree, supportable. Moreover, they reflect the wishes of their members. To go against those wishes would be true arrogance.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Now, I disagree with thier stance. They should have dropped it when requested to by WADA. However, their opinions are valid and, to a certain degree, supportable. Moreover, they reflect the wishes of their members. To go against those wishes would be true arrogance.
I think you're right here in one respect. When WADA asked them to drop it, they should have. Going before CAS and wasting money with the whole thing because they think they have some moral high ground is pure and utter arrogance.
The question for their members should have been "should we sign up to the WADA code or not?" because that's effectively what it was.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:
I think you're right here in one respect. When WADA asked them to drop it, they should have. Going before CAS and wasting money with the whole thing because they think they have some moral high ground is pure and utter arrogance.
The question for their members should have been "should we sign up to the WADA code or not?" because that's effectively what it was.
It's not arrogance to defend your position if you believe you have a valid point. Nor is it arrogance to appeal a decision to the courts. And nor is it arrogance to disagree with the policy of an authority and challenge it. The BOA may feel that bringing the issue of WADA policy into the spotlight is money well spent (I don't, but they might).
The truth is that WADA, under Dick Pound, were quite happy turning a blind eye to this and the IOC's by-law until LaShawn Merritt challenged the IOC one, forcing WADA to insist on parity.
As for the idea of not signing up for the WADA code - well that's not really a credible option unless you willing to go into the sporting wilderness as a nation - political suicide. So everyone is forced to fall into line with the unelected and unaccountable WADA's code (now that's arrogance). The only way to challenge them is via the courts - so how can it be arrogant to do so?Twitter: @RichN950 -
It's like show photos to the blind :roll:0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Sure, but he's not a bad shout for a podium. By the sounds of it Martin won't be particularly in form come August.
Either way he's a better shout than any other Brit who isn't Wiggins. Millar's a good guy to have on the road, and is handy for a #2 TTer behind Wiggins.
Given how Froome time trialled in the Vuelta shouldn't he be in the frame too?0 -
Looks like the BOA might be lumbered with all the legal bills
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... mpete.html?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
phreak wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Sure, but he's not a bad shout for a podium. By the sounds of it Martin won't be particularly in form come August.
Either way he's a better shout than any other Brit who isn't Wiggins. Millar's a good guy to have on the road, and is handy for a #2 TTer behind Wiggins.
Given how Froome time trialled in the Vuelta shouldn't he be in the frame too?
You have to ask how useful Froome would be in a one day race. His racecraft (as opposed to how many watts he puts out) is very poor apparently. He apparently made it through the Vuelta by literally being told EXACTLY what he needed to do by Wiggins. That's not much use in the road race, which you'd imagine is #1 priority. I also think Millar's got a better record in both big TTs and as a domestique/road captain. That traction in the peleton counts for a lot, especially when deals need to be made.
Of course they could take both at the expense of someone else but again, I refer you to the racecraft.0 -
I mentioned Froome earlier in the thread as an alternative if they didn't want to pick Millar on ethical grounds, there would be no other reason to pick him over Millar. A guy who has ridden well for 3 weeks once, versus a guy who's been winning top level races for more than a decade and has pretty much seen it all."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0
-
Froome was pretty darn good during World Champs. Up there with Wiggins as their biggest rider during it.
Ned Boulting is almost certainly exaggerating Froome's issues, which have always been about when to his use energy, and when to relax in the peloton.
When Froome gets healthy again we'll see where he's at, but if he's close to Vuelta form then he's a better rider than Millar, with Millar having the advantage of experience.0 -
I'd still go with Millar as the calm experienced head. Froome might be able edge Millar for pure power, or in the TT, but even then it's pretty marginal. I reckon you take Millar because he's head and shoulders above Froome for what he gives to the team for the Road Race.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0
-
andrew_s wrote:
So, which 4 riders are the BOA selecting for the team pursuit?RichN95 wrote:The BOA have always argued that their by-law (and it is a by-law) is a selection policy rather than a sanction - and therefore outside the code.
Clancy, Thomas, Burke and Kennaugh. Your point is?Twitter: @RichN950
