Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

CAS rule in Riis' favour

iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,782
edited October 2013 in Pro race
So Berts points now count.

Not surprised though.
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
«1

Posts

  • ddraverddraver Posts: 21,080
    No not surprised

    another victory for the cow eyes...

    1206.jpg

    oh no sorry

    Contador138490510.jpg

    Bless him :roll:
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • jongingejonginge Posts: 5,945
    Not surprised. It's an additional sanction going against the WADA code. CAS overturned the BOA 'no olympics selection' rule for the same reason.
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • ThomThomThomThom Posts: 3,574
    Not as relevant for them as it was, is it.. The team isn't as rubbish now.
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    edited October 2013
    Another joke decision from a joke body/organisation/club....I dont know, what would they call themselves? :(
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,782
    mike6 wrote:
    Another joke decision from a joke body/organisation/club....I dont know, what would they style themselves?

    You mean the UCI, right?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 24,263
    jonginge wrote:
    Not surprised. It's an additional sanction going against the WADA code. CAS overturned the BOA 'no olympics selection' rule for the same reason.
    I was unsure that it would be seen as an additional sanction and am still not sure that it is. The points thing never prevented Contador from riding anything. It was just an arbitary system of deciding who the top teams were. CAS may as well outlaw all point related league tables as it 'sancitions' teams for doing things like not winning enough.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • mike6 wrote:
    Another joke decision from a joke body/organisation/club....I dont know, what would they style themselves?



    Not really, Mike. As others have said, it was a similar scenario to the ban by some national Olympic committees on ex-dopers being allowed to compete for their country in Olympics ever again after returning from their ban. A kind of double jeopardy as far as the law's concerned.

    It might not be palatable but you can see the legal argument.
  • frenchfighterfrenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    El Pistelero triumphs again.

    stage20-2.jpg
    Contador is the Greatest
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 21,080
    Sorry when else did he triumph this year?
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • ddraver wrote:
    Sorry when else did he triumph this year?


    Rider with the most bovine eyes. Always wins it.
  • dsoutardsoutar Posts: 1,746
    ddraver wrote:
    Sorry when else did he triumph this year?


    Rider with the most bovine diet Always wins it.

    FTFY :twisted:
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    mike6 wrote:
    Another joke decision from a joke body/organisation/club....I dont know, what would they style themselves?



    Not really, Mike. As others have said, it was a similar scenario to the ban by some national Olympic committees on ex-dopers being allowed to compete for their country in Olympics ever again after returning from their ban. A kind of double jeopardy as far as the law's concerned.

    It might not be palatable but you can see the legal argument.

    Oh, I quite understand your point Rich, but surely when the competitors signed up to there governing body they understood the rules as they were. We, as guys in the street, knew what the BOCs rules were regarding dopers not being able to represent Britain in the Olympics.
    What I meant was they, the IOC and CAS, are obviously not intent on eradicating doping from sport. Regardless of the law, If you sign up for the rules, as they stand, you sign up for them. They can, rightly or wrongly, be changed in the future, for the new generation, but the athletes who signed up for the Olympic ban rule should have been made to abide by the rule.
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 15,896
    ddraver wrote:
    Sorry when else did he triumph this year?

    He won stage 6 of the Tour De San Luis.
    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 21,080
    ddraver wrote:
    Sorry when else did he triumph this year?

    He won stage 6 of the Tour De San Luis.

    Ah yes, a day I rememb...erm...sorry what were we talking about? ;)
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • mike6 wrote:
    mike6 wrote:
    Another joke decision from a joke body/organisation/club....I dont know, what would they style themselves?



    Not really, Mike. As others have said, it was a similar scenario to the ban by some national Olympic committees on ex-dopers being allowed to compete for their country in Olympics ever again after returning from their ban. A kind of double jeopardy as far as the law's concerned.

    It might not be palatable but you can see the legal argument.

    Oh, I quite understand your point Rich, but surely when the competitors signed up to there governing body they understood the rules as they were. We, as guys in the street, knew what the BOCs rules were regarding dopers not being able to represent Britain in the Olympics.
    What I meant was they, the IOC and CAS, are obviously not intent on eradicating doping from sport. Regardless of the law, If you sign up for the rules, as they stand, you sign up for them. They can, rightly or wrongly, be changed in the future, for the new generation, but the athletes who signed up for the Olympic ban rule should have been made to abide by the rule.
    I am sad the BOA rule went, but can understand CAS's ruling based on your comment of "when the competitors signed up to there governing body they understood the rules as they were". If those rules are grossly unfair, what other body can they sign up to? Or should they just not be professional sportsmen?
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,692
    El Pistelero triumphs again.

    stage20-2.jpg


    It's funny that his nickname is that, Luis Suarez also goes by that name as well.
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    mike6 wrote:
    mike6 wrote:
    Another joke decision from a joke body/organisation/club....I dont know, what would they style themselves?



    Not really, Mike. As others have said, it was a similar scenario to the ban by some national Olympic committees on ex-dopers being allowed to compete for their country in Olympics ever again after returning from their ban. A kind of double jeopardy as far as the law's concerned.

    It might not be palatable but you can see the legal argument.

    Oh, I quite understand your point Rich, but surely when the competitors signed up to there governing body they understood the rules as they were. We, as guys in the street, knew what the BOCs rules were regarding dopers not being able to represent Britain in the Olympics.
    What I meant was they, the IOC and CAS, are obviously not intent on eradicating doping from sport. Regardless of the law, If you sign up for the rules, as they stand, you sign up for them. They can, rightly or wrongly, be changed in the future, for the new generation, but the athletes who signed up for the Olympic ban rule should have been made to abide by the rule.
    I am sad the BOA rule went, but can understand CAS's ruling based on your comment of "when the competitors signed up to there governing body they understood the rules as they were". If those rules are grossly unfair, what other body can they sign up to? Or should they just not be professional sportsmen?

    No one I have spoken to, or have read articles from, and are involved in cycling or other sports, have mentioned they thought the BOC rule was grossly unfair. I believe it was a good deterrent for any athlete thinking about doping. They may have been prepared to take the chance of having to serve a two year ban, but I think a lifetime Olympic ban was a big deterrent to most.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,782
    mike6 wrote:

    No one I have spoken to, or have read articles from, and are involved in cycling or other sports, have mentioned they thought the BOC rule was grossly unfair. I believe it was a good deterrent for any athlete thinking about doping. They may have been prepared to take the chance of having to serve a two year ban, but I think a lifetime Olympic ban was a big deterrent to most.

    Punishments are not deterrents.

    If you're reader, there is an excellent piece in the new Gladwell book about it.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    iainf72 wrote:
    mike6 wrote:

    No one I have spoken to, or have read articles from, and are involved in cycling or other sports, have mentioned they thought the BOC rule was grossly unfair. I believe it was a good deterrent for any athlete thinking about doping. They may have been prepared to take the chance of having to serve a two year ban, but I think a lifetime Olympic ban was a big deterrent to most.

    Punishments are not deterrents.

    If you're reader, there is an excellent piece in the new Gladwell book about it.

    So we just let everyone get away with anything? I don't think so. Most right minded people think about the consequences of there actions and if that meant loss of earning or prison they would not take that action. Are you also saying a two year ban is not a deterrent to doping?

    I am a big reader, but not interested in some academic pontificating on theories or statistics. Someone else made a great point about statistics.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,782
    mike6 wrote:

    So we just let everyone get away with anything? I don't think so. Most right minded people think about the consequences of there actions and if that meant loss of earning or prison they would not take that action. Are you also saying a two year ban is not a deterrent to doping?

    I am a big reader, but not interested in some academic pontificating on theories or statistics. Someone else made a great point about statistics.

    Yes, there must be consequences to actions. But those consequences aren't deterrents. I would assume the reason you don't break laws has little to do with the possible punishments but for some other reason.

    A high probability of being caught is a deterrent. A low possibility with a high penalty if you are is not. Risk vs reward - So if you can do something that will result in greater rewards, and there is fairly low risk (of being caught), you'll do it.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • MacaloonMacaloon Posts: 5,545
    There are also practical and moral consideration. The closer you get to ending a career, the more expensive the process and the higher the threshold to making a conviction. Tougher punishments may result in fewer cheaters being caught.

    To draw an obscene parallel, capital punishment costs more than whole life sentences, and seems to act as no deterrent: http://www.economist.com/node/13279051
    ...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    iainf72 wrote:
    mike6 wrote:

    So we just let everyone get away with anything? I don't think so. Most right minded people think about the consequences of there actions and if that meant loss of earning or prison they would not take that action. Are you also saying a two year ban is not a deterrent to doping?

    I am a big reader, but not interested in some academic pontificating on theories or statistics. Someone else made a great point about statistics.

    Yes, there must be consequences to actions. But those consequences aren't deterrents. I would assume the reason you don't break laws has little to do with the possible punishments but for some other reason.

    A high probability of being caught is a deterrent. A low possibility with a high penalty if you are is not. Risk vs reward - So if you can do something that will result in greater rewards, and there is fairly low risk (of being caught), you'll do it.

    You have been reading too many academic theorists. They don't live in the real world, you know.

    I would not commit a crime just because I thought there was a good chance I would not get caught, the consequences, however slim, would put me off. What about you?
  • deejaydeejay Posts: 3,138
    edited October 2013
    mike6 wrote:
    I would not commit a crime just because I thought there was a good chance I would not get caught, the consequences, however slim, would put me off. What about you?
    It always has. :!:

    Except that is for excessive speeding in a car. (I've been lucky since my last fine in 1976) :roll:
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,782
    mike6 wrote:

    I would not commit a crime just because I thought there was a good chance I would not get caught, the consequences, however slim, would put me off. What about you?

    Really? So the only reason you'd not commit a crime is because of punishment? No bigger reason that you just wouldn't do it? Like your own morality, for example?

    We'll have to agree to disagree. People must pay for offences. But it's not a deterrent.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • deejaydeejay Posts: 3,138
    edited October 2013
    iainf72 wrote:
    mike6 wrote:

    I would not commit a crime just because I thought there was a good chance I would not get caught, the consequences, however slim, would put me off. What about you?

    Really?
    I read that as, he wouldn't commit a crime anyway.
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 21,080
    There's a wonderful closing line to a chapter in a book i read by Christopher Brookmyre (I think, Scottish crime writer, writes in Glaswegian vernacular a lot) where the cops have just sprung onto one of the bad guys minions. I won't try and recreate the vernacular but it's a long the lines of "you can have all the punishments, minimum sentences and jail time you like for a crime, it ll never make any difference because NAE censored EVER THINKS HE'LL GET CAUGHT"
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • MacaloonMacaloon Posts: 5,545
    ddraver wrote:
    There's a wonderful closing line to a chapter in a book i read by Christopher Brookmyre

    Wildly OT but Brooky also has an endless supply of outstanding sectarian footy jokes:

    "Give that man a pipe and deerstalker. Then, for his next
    case, he could deduce that the identity of the lifeless corpse
    discovered in the Rangers eighteen-yard-box was Bert
    Konterman."

    From The Sacred Art of Stealing
    ...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    iainf72 wrote:
    mike6 wrote:

    I would not commit a crime just because I thought there was a good chance I would not get caught, the consequences, however slim, would put me off. What about you?

    Really? So the only reason you'd not commit a crime is because of punishment? No bigger reason that you just wouldn't do it? Like your own morality, for example?

    We'll have to agree to disagree. People must pay for offences. But it's not a deterrent.

    That is morality. Its not merely the punishment it is living with the shame. People with little morality would appear to have little or no shame. Armstrong anyone?
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 52,578 Lives Here
    Morality is fickle, relative, and is of minor concern when it relates to money and bring professional.
  • rayjayrayjay Posts: 1,384
    Cycling has morals
    mike6 wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    mike6 wrote:

    I would not commit a crime just because I thought there was a good chance I would not get caught, the consequences, however slim, would put me off. What about you?

    Really? So the only reason you'd not commit a crime is because of punishment? No bigger reason that you just wouldn't do it? Like your own morality, for example?

    We'll have to agree to disagree. People must pay for offences. But it's not a deterrent.

    That is morality. Its not merely the punishment it is living with the shame. People with little morality would appear to have little or no shame. Armstrong anyone?

    You can not just name Armstrong. That's to simple. Cyclists doped well before Armstrong. When he came along he was only doing what everyone else was doing. Armstrong doped because that is the culture of cycling.
    It has become a complex issue. Athletes Take PEDs to win at their sport. You or I do not get hurt. The Athletes have to deal with the consequences of their actions and the people close to them. Its still only sport. Its not a criminal activity. It's not that long ago when you could dope legally. You cannot stop athletes taking PED's.
Sign In or Register to comment.