Log in:  

Register

General Doping Thread.

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Eshnar, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

28 Jun 2018 16:52

Maybe he wanted to make sure she didn't simply hide in her panic room again....?
The poster formerly known as yespatterns.
User avatar GraftPunk
Member
 
Posts: 757
Joined: 21 Feb 2017 21:15
Location: High Desert Steppe

29 Jun 2018 12:10

This is actually quite interesting. I'm unsure on how long an anti-doping tester is allowed to wait for someone to show up at their home when it is not a "whereabouts test". Anyone know? I would guess they can sit there all day if they want but they can't refuse to leave private property, They'd have to sit outside and wait.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,451
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re:

29 Jun 2018 12:52

King Boonen wrote:This is actually quite interesting. I'm unsure on how long an anti-doping tester is allowed to wait for someone to show up at their home when it is not a "whereabouts test". Anyone know? I would guess they can sit there all day if they want but they can't refuse to leave private property, They'd have to sit outside and wait.
From a WADA DCO toolkit (PDF - emphasis added):
If the ADO requests that the DCO attempt to locate the Athlete outside of the 60-minute time-slot, the ADO will provide specific instructions for the DCO to follow during the attempt. This may include requiring the DCO to stay at location for a reasonable amount of time but no less that 30 minutes; proceeding to second specified location for that given day if provided; and continuing this process until all of the relevant specified locations for that Athlete on that day have been visited by the DCO. The attempt(s) made by the DCO outside the designated 60-minute period should also be detailed in writing.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

29 Jun 2018 13:11

Failure to be found outside of the 60 minutes window can result in a Filing Failure being claimed. It can also result in a claim of deliberately having missed a test.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

29 Jun 2018 14:17

Thanks. So it seems there's no maximum time but they must wait at least 30 minutes. Would be interesting to know the timeline then. The article says the test didn't happen but they don't say if Serena turned up while the tester was there. I'm guessing she didn't.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,451
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: General Doping Thread.

29 Jun 2018 14:38

Serena would have to be the number 1 athlete for me that I wish got pinged for PEDs.
Scarponi
Member
 
Posts: 1,670
Joined: 21 Apr 2015 08:56

Re: General Doping Thread.

29 Jun 2018 15:23

Scarponi wrote:Serena would have to be the number 1 athlete for me that I wish got pinged for PEDs.

I can't decide between her and Bolt.
User avatar LeakyBoat
Junior Member
 
Posts: 81
Joined: 19 Jul 2010 10:40

29 Jun 2018 16:29

This was not a test under the whereabouts system - It was a surprise/unannounced test which falls outside the window of the whereabouts system - Surely if the athlete is not at their premises ( which has to be likely ), then you can't just stay at the athletes residence for hours on end - Strange indeed !
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,497
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re:

29 Jun 2018 17:53

yaco wrote:This was not a test under the whereabouts system - It was a surprise/unannounced test which falls outside the window of the whereabouts system - Surely if the athlete is not at their premises ( which has to be likely ), then you can't just stay at the athletes residence for hours on end - Strange indeed !
I do wish that you would bother to educate youself before chucking in your two cents. You don't appear to understand the rules, again.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

29 Jun 2018 18:27

King Boonen wrote:Thanks. So it seems there's no maximum time but they must wait at least 30 minutes. Would be interesting to know the timeline then. The article says the test didn't happen but they don't say if Serena turned up while the tester was there. I'm guessing she didn't.
Best-case scenario here (for USADA) is that there was an eleventh hour whereabouts change which the DCO was ignorant of (or some other 'blame the DCO excuse). Otherwise, USADA should be arguing filing violation (wrong info, strike one of three) which the athlete can obvs appeal and is not revealed publicy. Or USADA can argue she was avoiding a test (whatever the baseball terminology for **** is).
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

29 Jun 2018 18:37

fmk_RoI wrote:
yaco wrote:This was not a test under the whereabouts system - It was a surprise/unannounced test which falls outside the window of the whereabouts system - Surely if the athlete is not at their premises ( which has to be likely ), then you can't just stay at the athletes residence for hours on end - Strange indeed !
I do wish that you would bother to educate youself before chucking in your two cents. You don't appear to understand the rules, again.


My post was in reference to article/s which stated it was an unannounced test - In other words not under the whereabouts system - Now if the author's are wrong please inform them.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,497
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

29 Jun 2018 18:49

yaco wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
yaco wrote:This was not a test under the whereabouts system - It was a surprise/unannounced test which falls outside the window of the whereabouts system - Surely if the athlete is not at their premises ( which has to be likely ), then you can't just stay at the athletes residence for hours on end - Strange indeed !
I do wish that you would bother to educate youself before chucking in your two cents. You don't appear to understand the rules, again.


My post was in reference to article/s which stated it was an unannounced test - In other words not under the whereabouts system - Now if the author's are wrong please inform them.
The author was right. Once again it is you not knowing the rules...
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

29 Jun 2018 18:57

fmk_RoI wrote:
yaco wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
yaco wrote:This was not a test under the whereabouts system - It was a surprise/unannounced test which falls outside the window of the whereabouts system - Surely if the athlete is not at their premises ( which has to be likely ), then you can't just stay at the athletes residence for hours on end - Strange indeed !
I do wish that you would bother to educate youself before chucking in your two cents. You don't appear to understand the rules, again.


My post was in reference to article/s which stated it was an unannounced test - In other words not under the whereabouts system - Now if the author's are wrong please inform them.
The author was right. Once again it is you not knowing the rules...


Please inform me of the rules !
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,497
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re:

30 Jun 2018 13:12

GraftPunk wrote:Since a magic-pill type of doping was being discussed ... well, everywhere... in the context of sky's trans-formative abilities I'll just leave this here as a possible data point:https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/13/health/athletes-gene-editing-doping-sport-intl/index.html


Seems to suggest gene doping and gene editing is not only already banned, but detectable anyway by WADA?
samhocking
Member
 
Posts: 1,953
Joined: 13 Mar 2013 22:44

Re: Re:

30 Jun 2018 13:49

yaco wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
yaco wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
yaco wrote:This was not a test under the whereabouts system - It was a surprise/unannounced test which falls outside the window of the whereabouts system - Surely if the athlete is not at their premises ( which has to be likely ), then you can't just stay at the athletes residence for hours on end - Strange indeed !
I do wish that you would bother to educate youself before chucking in your two cents. You don't appear to understand the rules, again.


My post was in reference to article/s which stated it was an unannounced test - In other words not under the whereabouts system - Now if the author's are wrong please inform them.
The author was right. Once again it is you not knowing the rules...


Please inform me of the rules !
Are you incapable of informing yourself?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re:

30 Jun 2018 15:11

King Boonen wrote:So it seems there's no maximum time but they must wait at least 30 minutes.
Curiously, I don't seem to be able to find any CAS judgements that discuss what 'reasonable' means. I'm probly not looking hard enough, this must have come up by now.
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

Re: Re:

30 Jun 2018 15:18

fmk_RoI wrote:
King Boonen wrote:So it seems there's no maximum time but they must wait at least 30 minutes.
Curiously, I don't seem to be able to find any CAS judgements that discuss what 'reasonable' means. I'm probly not looking hard enough, this must have come up by now.

I’m guessing any athlete who here’s a tester is waiting just goes for a long tea at a mates house, or maybe the only athletes caught out have been ones who can’t afford an appeal. You would think someone would challenge it if it happened.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,451
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re: Re:

30 Jun 2018 15:44

King Boonen wrote:
fmk_RoI wrote:
King Boonen wrote:So it seems there's no maximum time but they must wait at least 30 minutes.
Curiously, I don't seem to be able to find any CAS judgements that discuss what 'reasonable' means. I'm probly not looking hard enough, this must have come up by now.

I’m guessing any athlete who here’s a tester is waiting just goes for a long tea at a mates house, or maybe the only athletes caught out have been ones who can’t afford an appeal. You would think someone would challenge it if it happened.
But that still produces a filing failure: 'You said you'd be at X, we checked and you weren't, you were off having a long cuppa with Y.' But yeah, you'd still need two other strikes, and then deep pockets, for it to get to CAS.

Is funny how, for the tennis world, this is whether five OOC tests for a top player can be called harassment yet all I seem to care about is whether it was or wasn't a filing failure. (No cycling fan in their right mind would call five OOC tests harassment. Though they would raise an eyebrow at the tenacity of the testers...)
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

30 Jun 2018 15:51

I’m unsure on that. You provide an exact location for 60 minutes and then a general idea of where you will be. I think if it’s outside the window it’s unlikely to result in a filing error unless they can show you purposefully avoided them? It’s only in the 60 minute window where you’ll automatically get a filing error I would have thought.
Vincenzo Nibali:
"I know how to ride a bike"

Reduce your carbon footprint, ride steel.
User avatar King Boonen
Administrator
 
Posts: 7,451
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 14:38

Re:

30 Jun 2018 16:32

King Boonen wrote:I’m unsure on that. You provide an exact location for 60 minutes and then a general idea of where you will be. I think if it’s outside the window it’s unlikely to result in a filing error unless they can show you purposefully avoided them? It’s only in the 60 minute window where you’ll automatically get a filing error I would have thought.
No, it's quite onerous really, you have to say where you'll be and you can be tested there anytime. From the IST:
[Comment to I.1.1(b): The purpose of the 60-minute time slot is to strike a balance between the need to locate the Athlete for Testing and the impracticality and unfairness of making Athletes potentially accountable for a Missed Test every time they depart from their previously-declared routine. Anti-Doping Organizations that implemented whereabouts systems in the period up to 2009 reflected that tension in different ways. Some demanded “24/7” whereabouts information, but did not declare a Missed Test if an Athlete was not where he/she had said he/she would be unless (a) he/she could still not report for Testing despite being given notice in the form of a phone call; or (b) the following day he/she was still not where he/she had said he/she would be. Others asked for details of the Athlete’s whereabouts for only one hour per day, but held the Athlete fully accountable during that period, which gave each side certainty but limited the Anti-Doping Organization’s ability to test the Athlete outside that hour. After extensive consultation with stakeholders with substantial whereabouts experience, the view was taken that the best way to maximize the chances of finding the Athlete at any time, while providing a reasonable and appropriate mitigation of “24/7” Missed Test liability, was to combine the best elements of each system, i.e., requiring disclosure of whereabouts information on a “24/7” basis, while limiting exposure to a Missed Test to a 60-minute time slot.]
With a filing failure and a missed test being the same thing when counting strikes I can only presume it's easier to argue your way out if a filing failure than a missed test.

(What would be really useful would be some stats on distribution of OOC tests between the specified hour, outide that, and the overnight option you need to provide a reason to use.)
User avatar fmk_RoI
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,850
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

Back to top