Drugs in other sports and the media.

1…1920222425…218

Comments

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    I'd actually quite like it to be the person Race Radio suggests, but I'm becoming doubtful we will find out.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,717
    Joel want as all to know he's talking about Paula Radcliffe. Can we talk normally now please?

    I would not be overly surprised it it were, marathon runners are going to be doing the same thing as desperate cyclists
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    ddraver wrote:
    Joel want as all to know he's talking about Paula Radcliffe. Can we talk normally now please?
    But how are we going to know who the clever insiders are now? For goodness' sake, people's self-esteem is at stake here!
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,692
    Zerotails99 wrote:
    I was talking about in General. most people are regularly using some sort of stimulants or drugs so they can do their jobs. athletes are no different. in the grand scheme of things, compared to everything else, the risk posed by Micro dosing PEDs are extremely small providing it is properly supervised by a doctor.

    And if micro dosing with PEDs supervised by a doctor is the norm, then that's just the start of the arms race for advantage. Others out there will be doing far worse. And if anti doping isn't working, through eg corruption, then my concern regarding possible career choice of my child isn't addressed.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,262
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Zerotails99 wrote:
    I was talking about in General. most people are regularly using some sort of stimulants or drugs so they can do their jobs. athletes are no different. in the grand scheme of things, compared to everything else, the risk posed by Micro dosing PEDs are extremely small providing it is properly supervised by a doctor.

    And if micro dosing with PEDs supervised by a doctor is the norm, then that's just the start of the arms race for advantage. Others out there will be doing far worse. And if anti doping isn't working, through eg corruption, then my concern regarding possible career choice of my child isn't addressed.
    Isn't it better to continue on a path with the option of turning back if your fears are realised than to never walk the path due to fears which may be unfounded?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,692
    RichN95 wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Zerotails99 wrote:
    I was talking about in General. most people are regularly using some sort of stimulants or drugs so they can do their jobs. athletes are no different. in the grand scheme of things, compared to everything else, the risk posed by Micro dosing PEDs are extremely small providing it is properly supervised by a doctor.

    And if micro dosing with PEDs supervised by a doctor is the norm, then that's just the start of the arms race for advantage. Others out there will be doing far worse. And if anti doping isn't working, through eg corruption, then my concern regarding possible career choice of my child isn't addressed.
    Isn't it better to continue on a path with the option of turning back if your fears are realised than to never walk the path due to fears which may be unfounded?

    Yes, I'd agree with that.

    The debate actually came from dennis' characterisation of anyone concerned with drugs in sport as some sort of obsessive hero-worshipper. Seems to have gone a fair way from that now... :-)
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    ddraver wrote:
    Joel want as all to know he's talking about Paula Radcliffe. Can we talk normally now please?

    I would not be overly surprised it it were, marathon runners are going to be doing the same thing as desperate cyclists

    It would be one of the greatest sporting hypocrisies though given her previous comments in respect to doping.
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    According to Race Radio all the media have been told in no uncertain terms that if they release the name of this person then they will be hammered legally. Stupid UK law again.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,262
    Joelsim wrote:
    According to Race Radio all the media have been told in no uncertain terms that if they release the name of this person then they will be hammered legally. Stupid UK law again.
    It's not stupid. The law is there to protect people, not facilitate your need for gossip. The law prefers due process to trial by media. You just want the name to be released so you can say 'I told you so' to your mates.

    If there was an actual link to doping, rather than a watchlist about little is really known, there would be nothing to stop the media, but there isn't.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,593
    Plus, if these media outlets have proof then they are perfectly free to take the chance and publish then defend themselves in court. They can't be guilty of libel if they are able to prove they have said the truth.
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    RichN95 wrote:
    Joelsim wrote:
    According to Race Radio all the media have been told in no uncertain terms that if they release the name of this person then they will be hammered legally. Stupid UK law again.
    It's not stupid. The law is there to protect people, not facilitate your need for gossip. The law prefers due process to trial by media. You just want the name to be released so you can say 'I told you so' to your mates.

    If there was an actual link to doping, rather than a watchlist about little is really known, there would be nothing to stop the media, but there isn't.

    Not the case at all Rich. I have not named this person and won't do as I have no proof and have not seen the figures that relate. You may be aware of David Walsh and The Sunday Times with Lance. Was that fair and just? It has absolutely nothing to do with 'I told you so' so stop being so offensive and aggressive please.
  • Mad_Malx
    Mad_Malx Posts: 5,183
    But this isn't a positive is it? I thought these are the risk cases that were flagged for investigation, but dropped subsequently because there is insufficient evidence, or even god forbid, no case to answer.

    I really hope none of you ever get called for jury service.

    Edit - didn't read page 33 before commenting.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,262
    Joelsim wrote:
    You may be aware of David Walsh and The Sunday Times with Lance. Was that fair and just?
    That was settled out of court.

    But should we rip up our entire legal system just because of one case.

    What about the demonisation of Christopher Jeffries (as dramatised by ITV recently). Was that fair and just?
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    As you well know the UK has pretty much the strictest libel laws in the world, which can actually be a hindrance to justice in many cases IMO. I can't comment on Christopher Jeffries because I don't know anything about it at all.

    And the Walsh case was settled the wrong way as the ST didn't have the means to fight.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,730
    Joelsim wrote:
    According to Race Radio all the media have been told in no uncertain terms that if they release the name of this person then they will be hammered legally. Stupid UK law again.

    Yes, it's a shame that social media zealots will be denied the opportunity to pass another guilty verdict with only the aid of one dodgy value to go on.
    If only doping authorities were as efficient and as quick to judgement.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,262
    The UK has the strictest libel laws largely because it has the most malevolent journalists.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    I suspect they are just finding a little more evidence before taking the plunge.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,262
    Joelsim wrote:
    I suspect they are just finding a little more evidence before taking the plunge.
    Why do you? They don't usually bother
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,692
    Well if the list is genuine and the athlete's name is on it, then it's not libel to publish that.

    To infer that the athlete was a doper based on inclusion in the list would be.

    Personally, given the dubious understanding of testing in the general public, and the lack of an actual biological passport at the time, I'm not in favour of any of the names coming out.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    RichN95 wrote:
    Joelsim wrote:
    I suspect they are just finding a little more evidence before taking the plunge.
    Why do you? They don't usually bother

    To counter the potential costs of legal action. The person is hardly likely to sue if there is overwhelming evidence against her.
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    https://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio/status ... 1816614912

    Seems there are other things going on.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,696
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    Well if the list is genuine and the athlete's name is on it, then it's not libel to publish that.

    That was my thinking too. If the papers have a copy of the list and simply report who's on it then it's simply a matter of fact.

    I wonder if there's one of those "super injunction" things in play where not only is there an injunction against publishing the information but an injunction against publishing the existence of the original injunction. Ryan Giggs apparently had one of those when he was trying to keep it quiet that he was boffing his sister-in-law, not that it did him much good!
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Anyone remember the first day Puerto broke, back in 06?

    And the rumoured non-cyclist name on the list?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    iainf72 wrote:
    Anyone remember the first day Puerto broke, back in 06?

    And the rumoured non-cyclist name on the list?
    Fraid not. I remember there being links to Real and Barca but as usual that all got buried and ignored
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    iainf72 wrote:
    Anyone remember the first day Puerto broke, back in 06?

    And the rumoured non-cyclist name on the list?

    Who was it alleged to have been?
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,717
    Mad_Malx wrote:
    But this isn't a positive is it? I thought these are the risk cases that were flagged for investigation, but dropped subsequently because there is insufficient evidence, or even god forbid, no case to answer.

    That's what I thought, can anyone confirm this? If it's true then PR has nothing to answer for at all!
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    From what I can make out someone's (unconfirmed name) is on the IAAF list for having very suspect blood values. In addition there is further evidence potentially being gathered from various sources which could support why those blood values are suspect. And that is probably the reason why, having been warned off by aggressive solicitors, the UK and international media are keeping their powder dry.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,730
    Joelsim wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Anyone remember the first day Puerto broke, back in 06?

    And the rumoured non-cyclist name on the list?

    Who was it alleged to have been?

    You really don't know?
    You wouldn't have missed it if you'd been around then.
    Seems Spain have the same law, so we can't say now.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    Are you talking about a tennis player?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Joelsim wrote:
    According to Race Radio all the media have been told in no uncertain terms that if they release the name of this person then they will be hammered legally. Stupid UK law again.

    I gave race radio sh!t for asking irritating rhetorical questions at Paula Radcliffe and he then private messaged me saying 'I know the answer already', which was even more irritating.

    I then realised that because he 'doesn't follow' me, that I couldn't message back. :roll:
    _

Categories