IAAF minimum 4 years doping ban
Comments
-
The minimum business is a bit misleading - its the planned increase from 2 to 4 years for serious 1st time offences. So in theory something like Frank Schleck's case still wouldnt result in a 4 year ban - but yeah, being done for EPO which cant be ingested in a supplement or via any other way than purposeful injection, should result in a 4 year slamdown.
And its provided for in the re-worked 2015 WADA Code that's going up for final approval at a major AD conference in Nov - which is why the IAAF can talk 4 year bans from 2015.
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/wada-fi ... 45988.html
And so this will cover all signatories including the UCI
The thing is that the IAAF - beleagured by the mass of positives coming out of athletics - are taking the initiative to put out a strong positive message and give the impression of being serious about tackling doping in their sport. Whilst the UCI remain silent even though they basically have exactly the same message they could spin.0 -
Seems like the IAAF are prepared to take the action needed to deter dopers in Athletics, despite WADA. It was newsworthy enough to be on the BBC this morning.
Over to you UCI, what about growing a pair and taking the same stance? We all know that two years is not working.0 -
The UCI did "grow a pair" - the two saggy old knackers at the top that so many people want to see the back of...0
-
The WADA code is changing from 2015 to allow this (although I don't think it's fully confirmed yet). There's every chance that the UCI will follow suit - they were one of the ones pushing for the change.Pross wrote:From 2015 apparently. So, if that is the case, how comes they can increase their minimum ban when we are being told the UCI can't do so because it is against WADA guidance? I assume the IAAF are also WADA code signatories?
The IAAF have probably announced it early as they just had a big doping story, while the UCI have other things on their mind right now.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
The WADA code is changing from 2015 to allow this (although I don't think it's fully confirmed yet). There's every chance that the UCI will follow suit - they were one of the ones pushing for the change.Pross wrote:From 2015 apparently. So, if that is the case, how comes they can increase their minimum ban when we are being told the UCI can't do so because it is against WADA guidance? I assume the IAAF are also WADA code signatories?
The IAAF have probably announced it early as they just had a big doping story, while the UCI have other things on their mind right now.
I heard this on the news today. I fully expect there will be challenges to 4 year bans under the Human Rights Convention. Some dopers won't take the punishment on the chin.0 -
I don't suppose it's a coincidence that this is announced a couple of days before the world championships starts.0
-
Yellow Peril wrote:I fully expect there will be challenges to 4 year bans under the Human Rights Convention.
It was some legal challenge or another that resulted in 4 year bans being reduced to 2 year bans in the early 90s, if memory serves. The legal view at the time was that a 4 year ban for a first offence was unduly harsh, given penalties for offences in other walks of life.
It will be interesting to see how things go this time. I assume no-one would be planning changing the ban length unless they'd taken legal advice that it would stick. Doping seems to have a higher profile and be considered more seriously now, so maybe the longer bans will stick.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
The WADA code is changing from 2015 to allow this (although I don't think it's fully confirmed yet). There's every chance that the UCI will follow suit - they were one of the ones pushing for the change.Pross wrote:From 2015 apparently. So, if that is the case, how comes they can increase their minimum ban when we are being told the UCI can't do so because it is against WADA guidance? I assume the IAAF are also WADA code signatories?
The IAAF have probably announced it early as they just had a big doping story, while the UCI have other things on their mind right now.
Yep, I was aware that WADA were proposing it but as it hasn't been ratified the IAAF are going to have egg on their faces having announced they will be doing it if WADA subsequently don't ratify the proposal and they have to back down. It's a bit of spin from the IAAF to try to look tough in the face of more high profile doping cases (the sport itself never seems to get as badly criticised for doping as cycling though for some reason) when in reality all Olympic sports will presumably take the same stance if WADA make it part of their code?0 -
In other WADA news, the next President is almost certain to be Craig Reedie - former British Olympic Association boss.
So in a few months WADA and the UCI may both be British run with the top team British. The conspiracy nuts will have a field day.
More seriously, if Cookson and Reedie are both in charge the stupid p1ssing contests might stop.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:In other WADA news, the next President is almost certain to be Craig Reedie - former British Olympic Association boss.
So in a few months WADA and the UCI may both be British run with the top team British. The conspiracy nuts will have a field day.
More seriously, if Cookson and Reedie are both in charge the stupid p1ssing contests might stop.
They're reported to have a decent relationship - which would be a first for any president of an int'l sports governing body and any president of WADA0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:I fully expect there will be challenges to 4 year bans under the Human Rights Convention.
It was some legal challenge or another that resulted in 4 year bans being reduced to 2 year bans in the early 90s, if memory serves. The legal view at the time was that a 4 year ban for a first offence was unduly harsh, given penalties for offences in other walks of life.
It will be interesting to see how things go this time. I assume no-one would be planning changing the ban length unless they'd taken legal advice that it would stick. Doping seems to have a higher profile and be considered more seriously now, so maybe the longer bans will stick.
I think the only people who would argue that its unduly harsh would be dopers. The four year ban, if and when it is introduced, needs to be included, in writing, in the pro riders licence. Anyone not wishing to sign up to the new licence can go and do something else, because we will all know why they don't agree with the new rules.0 -
I wouldn’t say increased punishments is the same as ‘action needed to deter dopers’, as you write.mike6 wrote:Seems like the IAAF are prepared to take the action needed to deter dopers in Athletics, despite WADA. It was newsworthy enough to be on the BBC this morning.
Over to you UCI, what about growing a pair and taking the same stance? We all know that two years is not working.
The threat of increased punishments deter less than one third in real crime, so I don’t hold out too much hope that increased bans for doping in sport alone will deter those who feel doping is the way to success.
Obviously a different moral attitude about doping would be better, but failing that, perhaps the threat of more testing would be the best way to inhibit doping.
Is there a legal reason why, say after a Tour stage, 25-30 riders can’t be called to provide samples, even though the lab might only then actually test a randomly-chosen 5-6 samples?
Such an increased chance of being tested might prove a bigger deterrent, and since not all samples would be tested, the lab costs wouldn’t significantly increase.0 -
No legal reason, but the staffing costs might make it impractical. The biggest block to any anti-doping strategy is having to pay for it.knedlicky wrote:Is there a legal reason why, say after a Tour stage, 25-30 riders can’t be called to provide samples, even though the lab might only then actually test a randomly-chosen 5-6 samples?
Such an increased chance of being tested might prove a bigger deterrent, and since not all samples would be tested, the lab costs wouldn’t significantly increase.
And wouldn't the chance of being randomly tested remain the same? (Actually tested, not asked to give a sample)
It's a decent idea though.Twitter: @RichN950 -
knedlicky wrote:
I wouldn’t say increased punishments is the same as ‘action needed to deter dopers’, as you write.mike6 wrote:Seems like the IAAF are prepared to take the action needed to deter dopers in Athletics, despite WADA. It was newsworthy enough to be on the BBC this morning.
Over to you UCI, what about growing a pair and taking the same stance? We all know that two years is not working.
The threat of increased punishments deter less than one third in real crime, so I don’t hold out too much hope that increased bans for doping in sport alone will deter those who feel doping is the way to success.
Obviously a different moral attitude about doping would be better, but failing that, perhaps the threat of more testing would be the best way to inhibit doping.
Is there a legal reason why, say after a Tour stage, 25-30 riders can’t be called to provide samples, even though the lab might only then actually test a randomly-chosen 5-6 samples?
Such an increased chance of being tested might prove a bigger deterrent, and since not all samples would be tested, the lab costs wouldn’t significantly increase.
Well, a two year ban, and a quick return to a Pro Tour team has not worked, has it? Some/many? are prepared to take the two years as it seems its an acceptable time out for the benefits that come from cheating.
Four years and the loss of titles and winnings whilst doped would seem a fair deterrent. Then, a life ban for second offenders, to protect guys like Ricco from themselves. :!:0 -
mike6 wrote:knedlicky wrote:
I wouldn’t say increased punishments is the same as ‘action needed to deter dopers’, as you write.mike6 wrote:Seems like the IAAF are prepared to take the action needed to deter dopers in Athletics, despite WADA. It was newsworthy enough to be on the BBC this morning.
Over to you UCI, what about growing a pair and taking the same stance? We all know that two years is not working.
The threat of increased punishments deter less than one third in real crime, so I don’t hold out too much hope that increased bans for doping in sport alone will deter those who feel doping is the way to success.
Obviously a different moral attitude about doping would be better, but failing that, perhaps the threat of more testing would be the best way to inhibit doping.
Is there a legal reason why, say after a Tour stage, 25-30 riders can’t be called to provide samples, even though the lab might only then actually test a randomly-chosen 5-6 samples?
Such an increased chance of being tested might prove a bigger deterrent, and since not all samples would be tested, the lab costs wouldn’t significantly increase.
Well, a two year ban, and a quick return to a Pro Tour team has not worked, has it? Some/many? are prepared to take the two years as it seems its an acceptable time out for the benefits that come from cheating.
Four years and the loss of titles and winnings whilst doped would seem a fair deterrent. Then, a life ban for second offenders, to protect guys like Ricco from themselves. :!:
Deterrents just don't work if you think you won't get caught. The penalty for crashing your car at 90mph is death or disablement, people still do it, especially the young.
The main benefit I can see for increasing the ban to four years is to allow a decrease in the punishment for those that cooperate. It's not a deterrent, it's an incentive to grass.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:mike6 wrote:knedlicky wrote:
I wouldn’t say increased punishments is the same as ‘action needed to deter dopers’, as you write.mike6 wrote:Seems like the IAAF are prepared to take the action needed to deter dopers in Athletics, despite WADA. It was newsworthy enough to be on the BBC this morning.
Over to you UCI, what about growing a pair and taking the same stance? We all know that two years is not working.
The threat of increased punishments deter less than one third in real crime, so I don’t hold out too much hope that increased bans for doping in sport alone will deter those who feel doping is the way to success.
Obviously a different moral attitude about doping would be better, but failing that, perhaps the threat of more testing would be the best way to inhibit doping.
Is there a legal reason why, say after a Tour stage, 25-30 riders can’t be called to provide samples, even though the lab might only then actually test a randomly-chosen 5-6 samples?
Such an increased chance of being tested might prove a bigger deterrent, and since not all samples would be tested, the lab costs wouldn’t significantly increase.
Well, a two year ban, and a quick return to a Pro Tour team has not worked, has it? Some/many? are prepared to take the two years as it seems its an acceptable time out for the benefits that come from cheating.
Four years and the loss of titles and winnings whilst doped would seem a fair deterrent. Then, a life ban for second offenders, to protect guys like Ricco from themselves. :!:
Deterrents just don't work if you think you won't get caught. The penalty for crashing your car at 90mph is death or disablement, people still do it, especially the young.
The main benefit I can see for increasing the ban to four years is to allow a decrease in the punishment for those that cooperate. It's not a deterrent, it's an incentive to grass.
The difference now being that you will get caught. The Armstrong case and the recent re testing of old samples proves that. It needs to be made clear to riders that no matter how sophisticated a doping system is, when testing eventually catches up you will be caught, and you will forfeit the results, and you will have to pay back money made on the back of those results.
Introduce sporting fraud, like they have in France, show riders the section in David Millars book where he is in custody, and loses everything. Then see how many are prepared to take the risk of being a short term winner, and a long term loser.0 -
dupe post0
-
Mike, there is no certainty that every single cheat will be caught. You cannot say 'you will be caught.'
Not now, not in the near future. I think the chances have increased a hell of a lot that dopers will be detected thanks to various advances in AD (eg the EPO tests that are now sentitive enought to detect micro-dosing), but there's still room for some to slip through the net. And as long as that's the case, there will still be a mentality in some that the reward outweighs the risk.
So take retrospective testing, and what we know so far of what the approach has been. Last year IOC re-tested samples from the 2004 Olympics just before the SoL ran out. 100 samples, 5 of which came up positive. That 100 sample set can only be a small percentage of the total number of samples stored from the '04 Games.
Why not test more? Its down to funding. More money needs to be allocated to fighting doping. According to the latest WADA report for the second year in a row the WADA budget has been frozen because governments wont agree more funding for the organisation - so they go into the red to cover shortfalls. Not really the ideal situation to lead the fight against doping.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Mike, there is no certainty that every single cheat will be caught. You cannot say 'you will be caught.'
Not now, not in the near future. I think the chances have increased a hell of a lot that dopers will be detected thanks to various advances in AD (eg the EPO tests that are now sentitive enought to detect micro-dosing), but there's still room for some to slip through the net. And as long as that's the case, there will still be a mentality in some that the reward outweighs the risk.
So take retrospective testing, and what we know so far of what the approach has been. Last year IOC re-tested samples from the 2004 Olympics just before the SoL ran out. 100 samples, 5 of which came up positive. That 100 sample set can only be a small percentage of the total number of samples stored from the '04 Games.
Why not test more? Its down to funding. More money needs to be allocated to fighting doping. According to the latest WADA report for the second year in a row the WADA budget has been frozen because governments wont agree more funding for the organisation - so they go into the red to cover shortfalls. Not really the ideal situation to lead the fight against doping.
I see where you are coming from Rich, what I meant was that If riders "believe" testing in the future has a very good chance of catching them, they will think twice. If you dope to win races the chances are you will be tested, often. If two years down the line you are outed as a cheat, you are in trouble. Do you have enough in the bank to repay all the people and organisations that will come after you?
I realise no system is foolproof, but lets face it, If we can reduce the number of riders prepared to take the huge risk that a positive would present, If the rules were changed, we could then end up with just the nutters like Ricco who, lets face it, just dont care. In any walk of life you will never get rid of them.0
