Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a España, Tour Down Under and more
TG, I get your angle but this stuff is easier for me to see a parallel with accusations of asbestos coverups or holocaust denial. In the realm of sport, cheating is considered extremely poor form. Deliberately breaking the rules is punished harshly, ultimately suspension or exclusion from the game is the most extreme punishment the UCI or FIFA or the AFL or NBA or IOC can hand out. It is the prison sentence of sport. Such is the nature of that exclusion that even suggesting cheating tars the rider, or the person accusing if innocence is proven.
I feel it is the same as asbestos coverups because if you want to drag a company to hell, some substantiated accusations are a good way to destroy their reputation. If you want to guarantee someone will be excluded from public life, holocaust denial evidence is a great way to do it. You could be the next Ghandi but that slip up destroys your future.
I agree that evidence is accompanying the doping stuff. No question. The issue is that since it isn't criminal, the parading of evidence in the public domain before the case is resolved gives rise to defamation of the accused, until the case is closed. Rogers could not ride for months, has the Aussie fan lost a lot of joy from supporting a clearly great rider?
Yep, this is basically it.
Being allowed to participate in bike racing is not a "right" as such.
It is a privilege granted by fulfilling a certain accreditation process. Part of this accreditation is that you have a valid biological passport and ensure that you are available for doping checks.
If you don't satisfy the criteria, you don't compete.
"Under Australian Law" (which may not apply to other countries)..
Are you entitled to due process, to freedom from defamation of your character, to work a job without third party constraint, to have your professional misconduct managed properly to protect your privacy?
I'm not sure that the WADA/UCI approach to these cases meets the criteria for natural justice.
If they are guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, then hang them high. I can accept that. But the process concerns me, because we don't accept "HE'S GUILTY, BURN HIM AT THE STAKE" for baby killers, we put them through a process of trial and judgment and the media is kept at arms length. I don't get the same impression that is what we do for sportspeople. You don't tell the public that their bank manager was suspended because of suspected misconduct, you say No Comment. Because you just don't know until you've finished the process.
Have a think about it. Positive A and negative B samples are rare, but what do you think you would do about a rising star in your club getting pinged for PEDs on an A sample, and the club announcing that "rising star" is suspended pending a B sample? Uncool. Due process is key here, if faith in the justice is to mean anything.
This. The rider agrees to the anti-doping regulations and processes, which include those surrounding how information is treated. Sometimes the anti-doping and administrations get that bit wrong, but in essence there is a prior agreement in place concerning when and how the public notification of positive samples or of show cause notices relating to doping controls or bio-passport.
The rider can of course help his or her cause by not doping in the first place.
Nevertheless, it's still more a dope test than a doping test.
An obscure reference to the 'dogs blood bag' or the 'vanishing twin'?
From 2012: Tyler Hamilton says “vanishing twin” alibi wasn’t his idea
I would suggest that'd be good club policy. It's also been part of the WADA code since inception of the code, and is a requirement for any sport that is a signatory, and by definition is an automatic requirement for any member competing in those sports.
Provisional suspension makes total sense. It's also normal policy for many walks of life - provisional suspension pending conclusion of investigation of an infraction with a reasonably solid preliminary evidence. Indeed in many circumstances it would be uncool not to do that.
Considering I've had this very experience, i.e. a team mate go positive, it still makes sense to me.
Provisional suspension is fine... but posting the suspension on the club's facebook page before checking the B sample isn't fair. It's not the suspension that is the problem - it's the public relations surrounding it. This stuff destroys reputations. I know people raise eyebrows about my "hefty" use of supplements, I'm not ashamed at all but there is something "not right" about a dude on 5 shots of espresso and a bunch of other stimulants even if it's race legal.
WADA define what is doping and hence draw the line for us, we need not concern ourselves with decisions about what is and is not doping. I've used this diagram to help people get their heads around this:
Nice graph, I like it. I reckon my issue is another circle that could have its outer edges touching d and e. Unethical, Doping and "all ok" can be extremely close to each other, and the community sees any doping accusation as H, even if it potentially could be above D and fully OK. Mick Rogers, case in point, and more seriously the second rider who attempted suicide on the same charge at the same time. Suicide when you might be found to be clean? When a similar charge saw Berty stripped of a TDF.... I question the process when we know it isn't perfect. I don't need perfect, I need fairness. For the accused as well as the peloton.
Your issue isn't the classification, it's the consequences and individual's reactions. Not all consequences can be managed, as that's an individual thing.
How is it fair to everyone else that a rider who does have a positive sample be permitted to continue? It isn't. And I think you agree with such an approach to provisionally suspend.
However if you wish that nothing be said publicly after an initial positive and provisional suspension, well that's just not going to work. Say the rider is suspended. How does the team explain their sudden absence from racing and training with the team? Then it becomes a cover up, which is often worse than the original offence and makes people appear more guilty than they might otherwise be. The rider then has to live the lie. And that can have other equally dire consequences.
Astana rider failed the IQ test:
http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/uci-sta ... iglinskiy/
He has admitted to doping and been sacked by Astana. Clearly keen to deter any accusations of a team wide doping plan.
And if you believe that, have I got a bridge for you!
Jens Voight had some interesting comments in an old interview, basically stating that he couldn't talk crap about people because he needed to keep doors open. It's impossible to say Astana or this guy was responsible because Astana could be gone in two years and contracts might need to be negotiated. Seems a bit ridiculous to speculate about doping conspiracies because you just don't know. Maybe biker jk is an OGE plant
I rode today with an Italian who competed with Nibali in the juniors and the stories he told me.
Might have mentioned this before but I use a preworkout from Bulk Nutrients.com.au which has a few things in it, I checked and it's all legal. Anyways, the heart starter wasn't enough for some people, so they just released a stronger preworkout with a particular compound that is one atom from being banned. They have specifically requested a confirmation from ASADA for its use in drug restricted competition. The sports lab they use wouldn't test for it's illegality either. ASADA would not provide it; we've basically got a situation where someone has to test positive to actually know if it's restricted.
These teams are doing everything they can to gain an edge. They are pumping their guys full of drugs and chemicals to get that edge. We hope they are legal and aren't breaking ethical boundaries, but we aren't privy to their drug lists. I agree there are problems when you have professional athletes on cancer patient recovery drugs, but what is doping and what is supplementation? I can't help think it's more grey than we assume. I reckon something is up with Nibali, too strong for his own good. But, I'm not testing. I'm not responsible for him. I don't like their kit colours, I won't buy the jersey just because he won. I don't even know what Astana sells. It is a sponsor brand, right? Too much interest in dragging this stuff through the muck for me to not feel suspicious about it.
Anti-doping authorities only provide advice on what is prohibited. That's pretty straightforward.
They are not in the business of endorsing any product.
That's easy. WADA define doping. You need not concern yourself with having to make that distinction. It's already been done for you.
I have fundamental problems with accepting what WADA does, and does not, define as doping. Those kinds of decisions, left to a ruling body, assume mistakes aren't made and that agendas aren't involved. The Bont Chronos shoe was defined as illegal, despite the silly sperm TT helmets being legal. Makes no sense.
The BN preworkout wasn't presented for endorsement - they asked for a ruling "is this product considered doping or not?" and ASADA would not give them an answer, and they couldn't get it lab tested themselves either. I understand WADA decides what is doping - but if they won't tell you that product X is dope in advance, because the manufacturer isn't sure, it casts a cloud over the legitimacy of their authority. Doping is considered a black and white crime, yet it seems that there is more grey than we'd expect. It's not speed, or EPO, or steriods. But if it's getting close, they should be able to tell you "no that's too far" beforehand, otherwise they are just making it up as they go along.
I'm not doing anything unethical when I take creatine before a weights cycle, this enhances performance. Drinking half a dozen coffees isn't unethical either... why is the preworkout powder have a cloud over it?
Yet all signatories to the WADA code don't (which includes every Olympic sports and Olympic competing nations, plus a scores of other non-Olympic sports).
That's OK if you don't, but then don't sign your license and agree to it. You are bound by it if you wish to race.
Cycling equipment has nothing to do with WADA or doping. WADA and doping are not sport specific and this is a red herring argument. Equipment regulation is a decision of the sports administrators. Take it up with them. Like it or not, at least everyone has to compete under the same equipment rules.
Again, no anti-doping agency is going to do such a thing. And nor should they.
All this product's manufacturer need do is to present to ASADA a list of compounds and ASADA can help advise what if any of those are prohibited. That's precisely what the ASADA helpline is for. e.g. say I get some medicine but I'm not sure if it contains anything prohibited. I ring the hotline, tell them precisely what the compounds are, and they will help me out.
A supplement brand name isn't a list of compounds.
The fact that it wasn't presented for endorsement isn't the issue. Once an anti-doping agency issues a notice that "Supplement X is not prohibited", then that's precisely how it will be used by the manufacturer. Anti-doping agencies have no control over the production and quality control of supplements, nor what goes into them at any time which can and does change.
There is nothing preventing a supplement company from getting their own testing to find out what's in their product. Indeed it's pretty important they do because cross contamination of supplements is very common, as is not disclosing the full contents on labels.
Give me one valid reason why a manufacturer can't provide detailed list of all compounds used or found in their product? To be frank, if they are unable to do this, then I sure as hell wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. It's not the anti-doping authority's problem a supplement manufacturer doesn't know what's in their supplement.
Doping is not a crime in most jurisdictions, it's simply a breach of sports' regulations and it is treated as such by the sports regulatory processes, although some countries have also made some forms of doping illegal.
Some prohibited substances are of course also illegal in most jurisdictions (e.g. cocaine) and use is of course then subject to the law, although whether it is a criminal or civil matter will vary with local jurisdiction.
It's seems you have little knowledge of WADA processes.
WADA have, and have had for many many years, a monitoring program for substances/methods not on the prohibited list but which are being assessed for potential misuse patterns and/or determination as to whether they should become prohibited (also some substances on the prohibited list are occasionally considered for removal from the list). All such substances/methods on this monitoring list are published well in advance by WADA, and substances/methods that move onto the prohibited list are notified well in advance before appearing on the following year's prohibited list (it's updated annually).
It's clear you have never really read the WADA Code, or if you have, you have not understood it.
I suggest familiarising yourself with the WADA Code. It's a pretty good read and deals with all of these concerns in a consistent, logical and sensible manner. The methodology about whether a substance or method should be considered for inclusion on the prohibited list are clearly articulated in the Code.
Ethics, illegality and doping are three separate issues. Don't conflate them. Of course they can overlap. I use this Venn diagram to help people recognise these are separate issues not to be confused:
e.g. for you, I'd put use of creatine supplementation into Category A.
However if you were coaching an U13 cyclist and put them on such a supplementation regime, I'd put it into Category D (which is of course subjective). However neither case represents doping.
More a reference to the fact that it's only the really dumb or unlucky that get caught. Well, that's how I read Alex's comment.
In relation to Hamilton's adverse finding, I have no doubt the finding was accurate. I think Hamilton was bloody lucky that it was a compatible type (pun intended). Given the sheer number of blood bags his doctor was handling (even without considering likelihood that his assistant was suffering early stages of dementia), the risk that someone would get the wrong blood bag was a matter of when, not if.
This, folks, is why the practice is banned.
And I think Tyler now realises that.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen
Not sure if I posted already, but the chances of being caught if you dope regularly and with no regard to when testing is most likely to occur, are fairly slim.
Consider this scenario for an anti doping body:
1000 riders in testing pool
5% are tested at random every month
A doper uses a product 3 times per month, every month.
They have a glow time of two days each time.
This is the probability over time based on scenario described above they will provide a positive sample:
IOW a complete fool still only has a 50:50 chance of being caught after 6 years. 9.4 years for a 2/3rds chance of being caught.
Now consider a doper who times their doping to avoid typical testing times (e.g. at races and/or when readily accessible to dope testers). What chance is there they will be caught? Bugger all. Hence why it's more of an IQ test.
Yes - it was my attempt at humour an example of a 'dopey' excuse to explain doping.
On the stories you hear... it also includes the ones about those who didn't make it because they were clean. But I am not the judge or jury.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users