Millar cleared to race at Olympics...

RonB

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/17853070

BOA statement today seems to confirm that banned athletes can compete.

rick_chasey

RonB wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/17853070

BOA statement today seems to confirm that once banned athletes can compete.

Corrected :P

RonB

Thanks :oops:

symo

Pathetic. CAS has effectively said, if you get caught nevermind.

iainf72

symo wrote:

Pathetic. CAS has effectively said, if you get caught nevermind.

No. They've said "if you get caught, you can get a ban within the framework provided by WADA, but you can't have a secondary sanction"

Said better than I could by Mr Moore.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sun ... LY.twitter

Full Merckx

FFS. Is Millar an ideal road Captain to facilitate a Cavendish Gold at the OLY's - YES. Is he allowed to compete - YES. Is this morally correct - DEBATE. Millar is the best choice for the OLY's without any shred of doubt. FWIW I think the BOA are right, just because WADA have no balls it does not mean that intentional premeditated cheating should not be punished by a lifetime ban. Pro Tour cycling is their job, the OLY's are not. I really, really really want to like Millar as a fellow Scot, but he fails to convince me in his stuporous diatribe of a book of both his ethnicity and his contrition. Anyway x times up box hill, tough call for Cav.

Tusher

Thanks for the link, Iain- that was a beautifully written piece by Richard Moore.

symo

iainf72 wrote:

symo wrote:

Pathetic. CAS has effectively said, if you get caught nevermind.

No. They've said "if you get caught, you can get a ban within the framework provided by WADA, but you can't have a secondary sanction"

Said better than I could by Mr Moore.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sun ... LY.twitter

It is indeed a well written piece, however it does not look at a comment within the WADA code central to the arguement. Looking through the WADA code there is a clear statement in the comments that allow for individual bodies to define their own best practice model.

WADA Code 2009 Page 13 wrote:

"These model rules and regulations will provide alternatives from which stakeholders may select. Some stakeholders may choose to adopt the model rules and regulations and other models of best practices verbatim. Others may decide to adopt the models with modifications. Still other stakeholders may choose to develop their own rules and regulations consistent with the general principles and specific requirements set forth in the Code."

So what WADA have done is not in line with that comment. The sanction that the BOA imposed is in line with being a model of best practice (you knowingly took performance enhancing drugs therefore you cannot be considered a fair competitor in line with BOA ideal).

If WADA want to be the only game in town then they better stop asking their testers to sign confidentiality agreements and also stop listening to other bodies (ie the UCI and UEFA). WADA with CAS support has effectively harmed fair competition. I don't care what other countries do, we need to have fair play enforced and the BOA had an effective weapon to ensure all it's athletes complied. Now with Chambers 'eligable' for the team and Millar too, the BOA have had the rug pulled from under them.

What I mean when I said 'Pathetic' is that WADA have shown the world that they are the start and end of sanctions against athletes; athlete's who were in possession of a substance they knew to banned, who took active steps to get hold of a known banned substance and then used that banned substance in competition against other athletes. I don't mind professional sportsmen being allowed back to earn a living but the Olympics ('Olympics' is a copyrighted term for use only in associations of items sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee. Groups and individuals wishing to use the term 'Olympics', 'London 2012', '2012', the Olympic rings and the London 2012 logo (you know the one that looks like Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob) should send envelopes stuffed full of cash to our HW in Lausanne, Switzerland where transparent accounting laws mean there will be no record of it), should be an ideal of the cleanest athletes if possible.

Mind you, only my opinion.

Ron Stuart

symo,

What you haven’t done is repeated that which follows on from your extract; and that is an explanation of what can and can’t be substantively changed by a national authority and I repeat this below....

[Comment: Those Articles of the Code which must be incorporated into each Anti-Doping Organization’s rules without substantive change are set forth in Article 23.2.2 For example, it is critical for the purpose harmonization that all Signatories base their decisions on the same list of anti-doping rule violations, the same burdens of proof and impose the same Consequences for the same anti-doping rule violations. These rules must be the same whether a hearing takes place before an International Federation, at the national level or before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

End of extract, my gut feeling is that going from a two year ban to a lifetime ban is a tad more than non substantive.

You can rant and argue till the cows come home about what the penalties should be but it is absolutely essential and well recognised by WADA that we need those penalties whatever they maybe to be equal and equally dealt out no matter which Country/Organisation is a Signatory.

jonginge

Good bloggery from the guys at scienceofsport on the subject:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/04 ... rings.html
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/04 ... ebate.html

shinyhelmut

You beat me to it, I was just about to post those links.

symo

Ron Stuart wrote:

symo,

What you haven’t done is repeated that which follows on from your extract; and that is an explanation of what can and can’t be substantively changed by a national authority and I repeat this below....

[Comment: Those Articles of the Code which must be incorporated into each Anti-Doping Organization’s rules without substantive change are set forth in Article 23.2.2 For example, it is critical for the purpose harmonization that all Signatories base their decisions on the same list of anti-doping rule violations, the same burdens of proof and impose the same Consequences for the same anti-doping rule violations. These rules must be the same whether a hearing takes place before an International Federation, at the national level or before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

End of extract, my gut feeling is that going from a two year ban to a lifetime ban is a tad more than non substantive.

You can rant and argue till the cows come home about what the penalties should be but it is absolutely essential and well recognised by WADA that we need those penalties whatever they maybe to be equal and equally dealt out no matter which Country/Organisation is a Signatory.

Ron, good point and I did fail to read on, it does appear that they state 'follow the best practice stated here as a minimum' but "don't think you can apply harsher sanctions in your own organisation". It is simply disjointed, if I were signing that as a contract I would have questioned the ability to whether or not I would allow persons back in to remain within my own remit.

JonGinge wrote:

Good bloggery from the guys at scienceofsport on the subject:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/04 ... rings.html
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/04 ... ebate.html

Great articles Jon.

Daz555

Lets hope this whole sorry affair prompts WADA to increase the bans across the board. The current "deterrent" is a complete joke.

rick_chasey

Liked his tweet just now:

David Millar ‏ @millarmind Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
I love racing. Went a little deep in the first two hours but it was too much fun not to. Until I nuked like a junior. That wasn't fun.

Ron Stuart

Rick Chasey wrote:

Liked his tweet just now:

David Millar ‏ @millarmind Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
I love racing. Went a little deep in the first two hours but it was too much fun not to. Until I nuked like a junior. That wasn't fun.

Nuked or puked is it the same thing?

rick_chasey

Ron Stuart wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Liked his tweet just now:

David Millar ‏ @millarmind Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
I love racing. Went a little deep in the first two hours but it was too much fun not to. Until I nuked like a junior. That wasn't fun.

Nuked or puked is it the same thing?

I think nuked as in "big explosion".

frenchfighter

And now previously sanctioned riders can ride in the Italian nationals:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian ... ned-riders

rick_chasey

David Millar ‏ @millarmind
Returning from training today & struggling the final 5km home alone I heard myself say out loud, "Oh God. I'm so fucked." GROSS OVERLOAD.

Another excellent tweet.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

David Millar ‏ @millarmind
Returning from training today & struggling the final 5km home alone I heard myself say out loud, "Oh God. I'm so farked." GROSS OVERLOAD.

Another excellent tweet.

Really? :roll:

rick_chasey

BigMat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

David Millar ‏ @millarmind
Returning from training today & struggling the final 5km home alone I heard myself say out loud, "Oh God. I'm so farked." GROSS OVERLOAD.

Another excellent tweet.

Really? :roll:

You = old.

Me = young = cool = likes the tweet.

Pross

Thinking about the Millar situation, it's a lot different to Chambers really. In athletics the two fastest at the trials plus one other get selected providing they've reached the qualifying time. Therefore, under this ruling by CAS, Chambers would be able to demonstrate the policy isn't being followed if he qualifies but isn't selected by UK Athletics which stops them being able to make a stance. The cycling team is just a selection by the relevant people in BC of who they want in the team. Therefore, if British Cycling wanted to make an anti-doping stance they could still refuse to select Millar. This is highly unlikely as they have selected him for the Worlds on several occassions post-ban so they presumably feel he has served his time.

Personally, I would agree with Dianne Modahl who says that atheletes should get a 4 year ban for a first doping offence which would include at least one Olympic games. This would give a harsher penalty whilst still giving a second chance, the longer ban would also hopefully enable any benefits of the banned substance to have left the body before the athlete resumed competition.

bigmat

Rick Chasey wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

David Millar ‏ @millarmind
Returning from training today & struggling the final 5km home alone I heard myself say out loud, "Oh God. I'm so farked." GROSS OVERLOAD.

Another excellent tweet.

Really? :roll:

You = old.

Me = young = cool = likes the tweet.

LOL. The funny thing is me = the same age as David Millar = Millar being "down with the kids" = not cool. Possibly.

rick_chasey

BigMat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

David Millar ‏ @millarmind
Returning from training today & struggling the final 5km home alone I heard myself say out loud, "Oh God. I'm so farked." GROSS OVERLOAD.

Another excellent tweet.

Really? :roll:

You = old.

Me = young = cool = likes the tweet.

LOL. The funny thing is me = the same age as David Millar = Millar being "down with the kids" = not cool. Possibly.

Think you zinged me there.

Bazing!

Ron Stuart

Pross you are largely correct and I also largely agree with Dianne Modahl but with the exception that an Athlete should miss an Olympics not more than one, this then would keep the penalty still in line with the Wada Code bearing in mind consistency of the sanction.
Regards "Therefore, if British Cycling wanted to make an anti-doping stance they could still refuse to select Millar." Well BC are constantly wanting to make a stance regards doping. It is an intrinsic part of what they stand for, it's a question of how that stance manifests itself.
Dave Brailsfield was the first to help David Millar on a personal level when Millar 'came out' about his drug involvement, Brailsfield at cost financially to himself and his professional position supported Millar all through his difficult times. It was because he believed in Millar and new that in Millar's case it was the industry that was to blame and in particular the team mentality that surrounded Millar that led Millar to give in to the dope.
That is an area that needs to be sorted out and penalised much more than it has in the past, it has been to easy for team management to stand by, even encourage doping of their riders and yet when a rider gets caught it is he and he only that pays the penalty in most cases. From a bad environment you will always get bad results, Millar more than anyone in the industry with the exception of Brailsfield wants to change the culture, therefore whatever capacity Millar continues in the sport the sport would be the lesser for losing him. 8)