Doping Life Bans

Crankbrother

rayjay wrote:

So what about not letting ex dopers back into pro teams?

As others have alluded to ... Far too costly and time consuming a process to make stick as soon as anyone challenges the ruling ...

Bit different with the DS/Team Owner as they have a position of responsibility so the same as in the real world, certain convictions will bar you from taking up certain positions ...

rayjay

Coriander wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

It's easy to find out what new drugs there are - just monitor patent applications. For all people saying that the dopers will always be a step ahead the ones that have spoken about it seem to be using the same stuff they used twenty years ago. What changes is not the drugs but methods of evading detection - often by using less drugs. (And a lot of the talk of new drugs is created by dealers trying to flog some crap to the gullible and desperate).

That only works so far, Viagra wasn't patented for its performance enhancment.

Just a woman's point of view - but doesn't Viagra enhance endurance rather than performance???

True that,,,,,,errrrrrr I mean I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about

ddraver

There are also the arguments above that would apply equally. It's effectively the same thing, just enforced by teams not the UCI

rayjay

RichN95 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

So what about not letting ex dopers back into pro teams?

If they did that, you wouldn't have anything to talk about.

I don't see your name cropping up on the other road threads. Mine is there. go take a look.

Richmond Racer

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/06/ ... ons_179000

UCI rule 1.1.006.2

'The measure goes into effect on July 1, and will not be applied retroactively. The rule will not affect a manager like Bjarne Riis, who admitted to doping during his 1996 Tour de France victory and now runs the Saxo Bank-Sungard team. However, the new policy (UCI rule 1.1.006.2) means that any rider who violates UCI anti-doping rules after that date will be inelligible to obtain the license need to work on a UCI-recognized team'

Offence has to have been committed 1 Jul 2011 onwards

Richmond Racer

rayjay wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

So what about not letting ex dopers back into pro teams?

If they did that, you wouldn't have anything to talk about.

I don't see your name cropping up on the other road threads. Mine is there. go take a look.

Then you need to look a bit harder

rayjay

Crankbrother wrote:

rayjay wrote:

So what about not letting ex dopers back into pro teams?

As others have alluded to ... Far too costly and time consuming a process to make stick as soon as anyone challenges the ruling ...

Bit different with the DS/Team Owner as they have a position of responsibility so the same as in the real world, certain convictions will bar you from taking up certain positions ...

If strict and clear comprehensive rules are applied then surly the would be no recourse to challenge as costs would be incurred by the challenger. If you get me

rayjay

Richmond Racer wrote:

rayjay wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

So what about not letting ex dopers back into pro teams?

If they did that, you wouldn't have anything to talk about.

I don't see your name cropping up on the other road threads. Mine is there. go take a look.

Then you need to look a bit harder

Then so do you .

rayjay

Richmond Racer wrote:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/06/news/uci-to-ban-doping-violators-from-team-staff-positions_179000

UCI rule 1.1.006.2

'The measure goes into effect on July 1, and will not be applied retroactively. The rule will not affect a manager like Bjarne Riis, who admitted to doping during his 1996 Tour de France victory and now runs the Saxo Bank-Sungard team. However, the new policy (UCI rule 1.1.006.2) means that any rider who violates UCI anti-doping rules after that date will be inelligible to obtain the license need to work on a UCI-recognized team'

Offence has to have been committed 1 Jul 2011 onwards

So What I suggested, more than once has now been put into place

TheBigBean

Richmond Racer wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

I'm OK with strict liability. To move from strict liability, you start to get into the alternative which is for the federation in question to have to prove that the athlete took the substance intentionally to benefit.

I'm not against strict liability, but I think its existence needs to be considered when deciding punishments. Imagine Rogers was younger and he accidentally digested the clen - does he deserve a ban for his stupidity? I think he does, but not a lifetime one.

One of the points I was trying to make is that there is no automatic across-the-board ban of say 2 years - it that is, the athlete chooses to put up a defence. If its credible enough the panel can give the athlete a reduced sanction - eg 6/12/18 months - or in some cases, no ban at all. And that does happen.

If I were a betting RR, I'd lay a monkey on Rogers, maybe Breyne too, getting a reduced sanction. Now whether Tinkov will have him back at the end of whatever that term is, dunno.

Well consistency would be nice. Everyone should get the same sanction for stupidity.

I've posted this a few times, but I like it:

"You can’t say what he said. I don’t know what he told the investigators – he must have said something if they reduced his ban – but compare Di Luca and Tom Zirbel. Zirbel was banned for two years by USADA having tested positive for DHEA. He didn’t know how it got into his body and he definitely didn’t take it intentionally. Nonetheless, he admitted that what enters an athlete’s body was his responsibility and he wasn’t able to prove that it was contamination, perhaps because he didn’t have the money and the lawyers. Anyway, he couldn’t prove it and he got banned for two years. There was another case - Zirbel heard about it - of an athlete who did manage to prove that he’d taken a contaminated supplement and the company got sued – but the athlete still only got a three-month reduction to his ban. Then along comes Di Luca, who’s already been charged twice - once for consulting a doctor who’s banned from cycling for life and now for this. Di Luca tests positive, admits he did it and then he provides the investigators with information, which he can do because he’s an expert in the field, and they give him a nine-month reduction. Then what? He throws his hands up in the air and says, “I didn’t name any names. I didn’t spit in the soup. I just explained my doping methods.” So as an expert in the field, he’s told the investigators how you go about doping. At this point Zirbel says, “Ah, it’s a shame that I’m not an expert in doping. I should have pretended to be one then I’d be able to start racing again next year. Because I’m an idiot, though, and I let this substance get into my system without knowing how, I’ve got two years and I’m stuck with it.”

Crankbrother

rayjay wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

rayjay wrote:

So what about not letting ex dopers back into pro teams?

As others have alluded to ... Far too costly and time consuming a process to make stick as soon as anyone challenges the ruling ...

Bit different with the DS/Team Owner as they have a position of responsibility so the same as in the real world, certain convictions will bar you from taking up certain positions ...

If strict and clear comprehensive rules are applied then surly the would be no recourse to challenge as costs would be incurred by the challenger. If you get me

So ban all doping riders from Tour Down Under? Or do you expect the EU to bow to your Kangaroo Court ruling?

ddraver

rayjay wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/06/news/uci-to-ban-doping-violators-from-team-staff-positions_179000

UCI rule 1.1.006.2

'The measure goes into effect on July 1, and will not be applied retroactively. The rule will not affect a manager like Bjarne Riis, who admitted to doping during his 1996 Tour de France victory and now runs the Saxo Bank-Sungard team. However, the new policy (UCI rule 1.1.006.2) means that any rider who violates UCI anti-doping rules after that date will be inelligible to obtain the license need to work on a UCI-recognized team'

Offence has to have been committed 1 Jul 2011 onwards

So What I suggested, more than once has now been put into place

How well do you think it's worked for the last 3 years..?

Big bean - the problem, which we re trying to explain to rayjay with limited success, is that PROVING who is one or the other is the problem not what is written in the rule book.

Richmond Racer

The UCI ruling is about riders who've been popped after 1 Jul 2011, becoming a DS/coach/manager etc of a UCI-reg team after the rider retires. Its not a ban from a rider returning from a ban and being hired - nor is it a lifetime ban (which the UCI dont have the powers to rule on)

rayjay

Crankbrother wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

rayjay wrote:

So what about not letting ex dopers back into pro teams?

As others have alluded to ... Far too costly and time consuming a process to make stick as soon as anyone challenges the ruling ...

Bit different with the DS/Team Owner as they have a position of responsibility so the same as in the real world, certain convictions will bar you from taking up certain positions ...

If strict and clear comprehensive rules are applied then surly the would be no recourse to challenge as costs would be incurred by the challenger. If you get me

So ban all doping riders from Tour Down Under? Or do you expect the EU to bow to your Kangaroo Court ruling?

Why is it a Kangaroo ruling?

rayjay

Richmond Racer wrote:

The UCI ruling is about riders who've been popped after 1 Jul 2011, becoming a DS/coach/manager etc of a UCI-reg team after the rider retires. Its not a ban from a rider returning from a ban and being hired - nor is it a lifetime ban (which the UCI dont have the powers to rule on)

Still will have quite an impact.

Unless they go into commentary

Crankbrother

In the absence of The Truth we'll have to make do with ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

Richmond Racer

USOC and BOA thought they had clear rulings re their bans on sanctioned athletes being selected for future Olympic Games.

Dwain Chambers challenged his ban in the High Courts - the BOA ban was upheld

LaShawn Merritt took his ban to CAS - CAS overturned USOC's ban, on the basis of a kind double-jeopardy.

Clear and consistent are laudable objectives - but it can be very expensive to get there.

rayjay

ddraver wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/06/news/uci-to-ban-doping-violators-from-team-staff-positions_179000

UCI rule 1.1.006.2

'The measure goes into effect on July 1, and will not be applied retroactively. The rule will not affect a manager like Bjarne Riis, who admitted to doping during his 1996 Tour de France victory and now runs the Saxo Bank-Sungard team. However, the new policy (UCI rule 1.1.006.2) means that any rider who violates UCI anti-doping rules after that date will be inelligible to obtain the license need to work on a UCI-recognized team'

Offence has to have been committed 1 Jul 2011 onwards

So What I suggested, more than once has now been put into place

How well do you think it's worked for the last 3 years..?

Big bean - the problem, which we re trying to explain to rayjay with limited success, is that PROVING who is one or the other is the problem not what is written in the rule book.

No I do understand that. I was making a point. Please don't talk down about me.

After all a suggestion I made as now come into place. Thanks

above_the_cows

rayjay wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

rayjay wrote:

So what about not letting ex dopers back into pro teams?

As others have alluded to ... Far too costly and time consuming a process to make stick as soon as anyone challenges the ruling ...

Bit different with the DS/Team Owner as they have a position of responsibility so the same as in the real world, certain convictions will bar you from taking up certain positions ...

If strict and clear comprehensive rules are applied then surly the would be no recourse to challenge as costs would be incurred by the challenger. If you get me

So ban all doping riders from Tour Down Under? Or do you expect the EU to bow to your Kangaroo Court ruling?

Why is it a Kangaroo ruling?

Because the UCI and pro-teams are still subject to employment and human right's law exercised by states and supranational bodies like every other employer. I could explain to you situations where this might not pertain but then I'd have to start waffling on about Agamben and the exception and I really can't be ars*d, I'm tired and anyway I can't actually see in practice as opposed to theoretically a situation where the UCI could become the sovereign exception.

rayjay

Richmond Racer wrote:

USOC and BOA thought they had clear rulings re their bans on sanctioned athletes being selected for future Olympic Games.

Dwain Chambers challenged his ban in the High Courts - the BOA ban was upheld

LaShawn Merritt took his ban to CAS - CAS overturned USOC's ban, on the basis of a kind double-jeopardy.

Clear and consistent are laudable objectives - but it can be very expensive to get there.

I agree , but it should be. Consistency is needed from all country's.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

So at Sochi there is an insulin type drug being used - WADA admit it's not detectable. I'd rather money was spent on finding a test for it than on legal fee's for daft punitive measures.

Errrr more details on this please.

A quick google only brings up this thread.

Richmond Racer

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

So at Sochi there is an insulin type drug being used - WADA admit it's not detectable. I'd rather money was spent on finding a test for it than on legal fee's for daft punitive measures.

Errrr more details on this please.

A quick google only brings up this thread.

Have this for starters

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1715477

blazing_saddles

Wow, now we are up to 5 pages that contain just two things.
Measured and reasoned posts that unfortunately appear to go around and around and......

This post was made by rayjay who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Lifetime bans because new drugs always appear on the market, so we won't know who's doing what is
no argument at all.

Pross

Does anyone else think there should be life bans for posters who open new accounts to start repetitive doping discussions?

rayjay

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Wow, now we are up to 5 pages that contain just two things.
Measured and reasoned posts that unfortunately appear to go around and around and......

This post was made by rayjay who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Lifetime bans because new drugs always appear on the market, so we won't know who's doing what is
no argument at all.

Can you clarify your point?

rayjay

Above The Cows wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

rayjay wrote:

So what about not letting ex dopers back into pro teams?

As others have alluded to ... Far too costly and time consuming a process to make stick as soon as anyone challenges the ruling ...

Bit different with the DS/Team Owner as they have a position of responsibility so the same as in the real world, certain convictions will bar you from taking up certain positions ...

If strict and clear comprehensive rules are applied then surly the would be no recourse to challenge as costs would be incurred by the challenger. If you get me

So ban all doping riders from Tour Down Under? Or do you expect the EU to bow to your Kangaroo Court ruling?

Why is it a Kangaroo ruling?

Because the UCI and pro-teams are still subject to employment and human right's law exercised by states and supranational bodies like every other employer. I could explain to you situations where this might not pertain but then I'd have to start waffling on about Agamben and the exception and I really can't be ars*d, I'm tired and anyway I can't actually see in practice as opposed to theoretically a situation where the UCI could become the sovereign exception.

Yet the UCI have ignored all your point's and gone ahead anyway.

ddraver

Again I need to ask you how you think it has been working over the last 3 years?

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

So at Sochi there is an insulin type drug being used - WADA admit it's not detectable. I'd rather money was spent on finding a test for it than on legal fee's for daft punitive measures.

Errrr more details on this please.

A quick google only brings up this thread.

Have this for starters

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1715477

Now THIS is actually interesting.

ddraver

Anyone know what the biathletes were caught with? I don't see much use for a muscle builder in XC skiing or cycling really...

rick_chasey

Quick google for the product MGF brought up this which is quite readable.

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013 ... eoport.pdf