Log in:  

Register

Doping in XC skiing

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

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

22 Aug 2017 17:03

I am more interested in that Jodagh was represented by Morgan and Jacobs who are famous for getting reduced sentences for athletes with AAF - Morgan and Jacobs only take on cases where the athlete admits guilt - So this is one of their few failings.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,950
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

22 Aug 2017 17:32

Norwegian media was in full on leave-Britney-alone levels of hysteria earlier today, too many articles to link to, but among them, Norway should boycott the olympic games, all anti-doping work has been seriously undermined by this ruling against an *entirely innocent athlete*, that the judgement is extremely harsh (it's not, in comparison with similar cases) and so on. Surely the possibility, and actually likelihood, that she would miss the olympics must have been anticipated? These reactions really are very undignified. But not very surprising.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

Re: Doping in XC skiing

22 Aug 2017 17:41

Good. I actually expected that she would be forced to miss the olympics as the FIS and CAS couldn't afford to be so soft in this case. The arrogant and self-righteous attitude shown by Johaug's camp effectively guaranteed that she couldn't get off lightly. Still I did worry that she is somehow able to wriggle out of this, which, thankfully, didn't happen.

Obviously I agree with those who think she actually got off lightly despite missing the olympics. With the attitude shown by Johaug herself and people around her, full four year suspension would have been thoroughly deserved.
User avatar Põhja Konn
Member
 
Posts: 397
Joined: 01 Sep 2012 17:09

Re:

22 Aug 2017 18:11

python wrote:^^
yep, just was logging in to post the rulling link I saw in the vg article...reading it now. it does look though as there were no diverging arbitrators. as if there was one, an opinion as to why would typically be provided at the end of a ruling.


So the CAS panel was definitely not unanimous on virtually anything. It was majority decision. Not a hard guess who would've let Therese go with warning...

Couple of things I find funny, but also extremely rich of Johaug's layers:

- they claim Johaug has done precisely as regulated in her sports contract by consulting with team doctor on any medication, thus there is no fault. Obviously they did not mention a prevailing clause in the same contract where she is obliged to follow WADA codes rigorously

- they claim she could and had a right to delegate her responsibilities of doping conduct to another person (Doctor of course). They have another case where that has been granted. That case was for RACING HORSE! I found the CAS panel response extremely amusing saying something like "Ms Johaug is expected by the panel to handle her medical usage better than the athelete in particular case" :D
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

Re: Re:

22 Aug 2017 19:45

bambino wrote:
python wrote:^^
yep, just was logging in to post the rulling link I saw in the vg article...reading it now. it does look though as there were no diverging arbitrators. as if there was one, an opinion as to why would typically be provided at the end of a ruling.


So the CAS panel was definitely not unanimous on virtually anything. It was majority decision. Not a hard guess who would've let Therese go with warning...

Couple of things I find funny, but also extremely rich of Johaug's layers:

- they claim Johaug has done precisely as regulated in her sports contract by consulting with team doctor on any medication, thus there is no fault. Obviously they did not mention a prevailing clause in the same contract where she is obliged to follow WADA codes rigorously

- they claim she could and had a right to delegate her responsibilities of doping conduct to another person (Doctor of course). They have another case where that has been granted. That case was for RACING HORSE! I found the CAS panel response extremely amusing saying something like "Ms Johaug is expected by the panel to handle her medical usage better than the athelete in particular case" :D


There you have the flaw with CAS - A guilty verdict should only occur if the arbitrators are in unanimous agreement - Majority verdicts should not be acceptable at this level.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,950
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

22 Aug 2017 19:52

yaco wrote:
bambino wrote:
python wrote:^^
yep, just was logging in to post the rulling link I saw in the vg article...reading it now. it does look though as there were no diverging arbitrators. as if there was one, an opinion as to why would typically be provided at the end of a ruling.


So the CAS panel was definitely not unanimous on virtually anything. It was majority decision. Not a hard guess who would've let Therese go with warning...

Couple of things I find funny, but also extremely rich of Johaug's layers:

- they claim Johaug has done precisely as regulated in her sports contract by consulting with team doctor on any medication, thus there is no fault. Obviously they did not mention a prevailing clause in the same contract where she is obliged to follow WADA codes rigorously

- they claim she could and had a right to delegate her responsibilities of doping conduct to another person (Doctor of course). They have another case where that has been granted. That case was for RACING HORSE! I found the CAS panel response extremely amusing saying something like "Ms Johaug is expected by the panel to handle her medical usage better than the athelete in particular case" :D


There you have the flaw with CAS - A guilty verdict should only occur if the arbitrators are in unanimous agreement - Majority verdicts should not be acceptable at this level.


In that case they should also change the rule that the parties can select one of the panel members. Otherwise you will never get decisions out.
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

22 Aug 2017 20:47

On the bright side, the olympics will be marginally more exciting:) Mother Bjørgen to demolish everyone, show the lightweights how its done! I'm expecting 4 gold medals from her. The level of competition amongst the womens xc skiing is just laughable... The men's race however, Ustiugov is my main man, awsome to watch him race, I just hope Northug gets one, 50k would be awsome.
Oude Geuze
Junior Member
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 03 Apr 2016 21:16

23 Aug 2017 08:16

Just three years ago, it was a call for a eight year ban in doping violations. The span would be 5-8 years. The call was made by the newly elected president of the European Athletic Association, Norwegian Svein Arne Hansen, in August 2015.
http://www.vg.no/sport/friidrett/friidrett/vil-ha-aatte-aar-utestengelse-for-doping/a/23513631/

Of course we have heard nothing like this being called out after the verdicts against Johnsrud Sundby and Johaug.
Current president of the Norwegian Confederation of Sports, Tom Tvedt, yesterday said about the Johaug verdict: It’s hard to understand that the use of a lip balm without performance enhancing effects will be so severely punished. http://www.rbnett.no/ntb/sport/2017/08/22/Idrettspresident-Tvedt-om-dommen-%E2%80%93-Kan-v%C3%A6re-vanskelig-%C3%A5-forst%C3%A5-15189532.ece

Tvedt’s comments are perfectly in line with Norwegian media, especially state radio and television, top leaders like Løfshus and Røste, lawyers and athletes like Bjørgen. The double standars, meritoriously illustrated by ToreBear, are through the roof. Norwegian sports community is embarrassing itself on full display to the world, bearing more resemblance with a religious sect than a modern and civilized part of northern Europe. It's completely nauseating. :(
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Re:

23 Aug 2017 09:19

yaco wrote:
bambino wrote:
python wrote:^^
yep, just was logging in to post the rulling link I saw in the vg article...reading it now. it does look though as there were no diverging arbitrators. as if there was one, an opinion as to why would typically be provided at the end of a ruling.


So the CAS panel was definitely not unanimous on virtually anything. It was majority decision. Not a hard guess who would've let Therese go with warning...

Couple of things I find funny, but also extremely rich of Johaug's layers:

- they claim Johaug has done precisely as regulated in her sports contract by consulting with team doctor on any medication, thus there is no fault. Obviously they did not mention a prevailing clause in the same contract where she is obliged to follow WADA codes rigorously

- they claim she could and had a right to delegate her responsibilities of doping conduct to another person (Doctor of course). They have another case where that has been granted. That case was for RACING HORSE! I found the CAS panel response extremely amusing saying something like "Ms Johaug is expected by the panel to handle her medical usage better than the athelete in particular case" :D


There you have the flaw with CAS - A guilty verdict should only occur if the arbitrators are in unanimous agreement - Majority verdicts should not be acceptable at this level.


Rubbish! The CAS-panel is not a jury, they are judges and in any system I know it is perfectly normal that cases decided by judges can go on majority decisions.
Last edited by GJB123 on 24 Aug 2017 08:51, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar GJB123
Member
 
Posts: 1,088
Joined: 30 Sep 2010 13:47
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Re:

23 Aug 2017 09:33

The case might not be necessarily totally over, as according to the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, Johaug's lawyers are at least considering the possibility of appealing to the Swiss Supreme Court, a few have tried and - as far as I know - without success.

https://www.dagbladet.no/sport/gir-ikke-opp-ol-johaug-vurderer-a-anke-dommen-slik-kan-det-utrolige-likevel-skje/68614687

A Finnish sports law specialist Olli Rauste commented that the CAS-decision will not be overruled unless there is clearly something to the magnitude of bribery or biased composition of the CAS-panel or something similar.

http://www.is.fi/maastohiihto/art-2000005337041.html
User avatar Aragon
Junior Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 17:44
Location: Finland

23 Aug 2017 09:45

..wanted to quickly register a thought about lil therese that isn't directly related to her doping.

i now watched several of her public appearances related to the case (as well as 2-3 dozens of her races over a decade). in almost every case she demonstrated an extreme emotional bipolar reaction - either wild, uncontrolled screaming or a crushed, always-flooded-in-tears sobbing...turns out - at least that's what the cas ruling mentioned - she:
a) played a clip of her teared press conferences to the arbitrators
b) flooded the hearings room floor with her tears again during a personal testimoy

a couch psychoanalyst in me thinks the this girl could be mentally unstable ? or is she just boundlessly absorbed in self pity ? or is it an involuntary reaction to incite a public reaction to herself, sort of like a spoiled child cry ?
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,434
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: Doping in XC skiing

23 Aug 2017 10:24

Põhja Konn wrote:Good. I actually expected that she would be forced to miss the olympics as the FIS and CAS couldn't afford to be so soft in this case. The arrogant and self-righteous attitude shown by Johaug's camp effectively guaranteed that she couldn't get off lightly. Still I did worry that she is somehow able to wriggle out of this, which, thankfully, didn't happen.

Obviously I agree with those who think she actually got off lightly despite missing the olympics. With the attitude shown by Johaug herself and people around her, full four year suspension would have been thoroughly deserved.


While i understand the sentiment you have to sentence the offence, not the person.
Singer01
Member
 
Posts: 816
Joined: 18 Nov 2013 19:04

23 Aug 2017 14:20

..read the 35-page pdf award and decided to post the following immediate impressions:

1. the FIS asked for an expedited, 1-arbiter procedure but Johaug insisted on a full,3-person hearing. thus the process taking so long was entirely due to Johaug.
2. i found a total 3 references, starting with para.195, to the 'majority of this panel'...so, yes, as bambino posted, the ruling was NOT unanimous
3. the gist of the Johaug insistence on 'no fault' was that she delegated her antidoping obligations to her doctor. since it was a 'delegation', she argued she was blameless. no amount of explanation that a doctor consultation does NOT equal a delegation seemed to penetrate. the ridiculousness of the argument (supported by a score of her lawyers) is that nowhere in wada or cas documents there could be found even a trace of factual support for such an obviously false concept.
4. When everything failed, she and her lawyers obviously took the Panel and the fis lawerfor idiots and tried to move the start of her ban to the date of her test. BTW, the fis was represented by a single lawyer (Dr Netzle) and the little cutes was defended by the 4 high powered attorneys and a lawyer from a norge olympic committee...As we all remember she explicitly rejected the opportunity to start her suspension earlier. this attempt to backdoor an obviously illegal advantage points to her teams dirty tactics, legally speaking.
5. i found it amusing that dr bendiksen explained his blunder by ...the stress due to sundby and his wife's eye operation. not to be outdone, the lil' therese also pointed to her stress as a cause of her lack of diligence. it probably sounded so ridiculous, that the panel chose to specifically mention it in the writing.
6. I found not a single mention of the wada in the award. which is surprising considering their authorship of the wada code.. either they chose to act quietly, or there was a tactical disagreement btwn the fis and wada. this still mystifies me...

the bottom line, johaug - just as it seem the entire norwegian nation still fail to recognize even the slightest degree of the compatriot responsibility for missing a clearly visible doping warning. :rolleyes:
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,434
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

23 Aug 2017 14:24

Overall a fairly dull affair. We've found out that Johaug was unable to act like an adult and thus got herself banned from the Olympics, big deal. Much ado about very little.
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,498
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

Re: Doping in XC skiing

23 Aug 2017 14:43

Singer01 wrote:
Põhja Konn wrote:Good. I actually expected that she would be forced to miss the olympics as the FIS and CAS couldn't afford to be so soft in this case. The arrogant and self-righteous attitude shown by Johaug's camp effectively guaranteed that she couldn't get off lightly. Still I did worry that she is somehow able to wriggle out of this, which, thankfully, didn't happen.

Obviously I agree with those who think she actually got off lightly despite missing the olympics. With the attitude shown by Johaug herself and people around her, full four year suspension would have been thoroughly deserved.


While i understand the sentiment you have to sentence the offence, not the person.


Of course, but I don't believe for a second that negligence was Johaug's only crime in this case.
User avatar Põhja Konn
Member
 
Posts: 397
Joined: 01 Sep 2012 17:09

23 Aug 2017 15:36

It’s quite comical that when Norwegian media now has understood that the verdict was unanimous, everyone assumes that one of the arbitrators wanted a lower ban.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/johaug-tatt-i-doping/norsk-cas-ekspert-aapenbart-at-dommerne-var-uenige/a/24123865/

My best guess is that it was the Finnish arbitrator who wanted a 24 month ban.

It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body and that no Prohibited Method is Used
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

23 Aug 2017 15:59

"The CAS 2014/A/3591 case is also factually distinct from Ms Johaug’s situation. It pertained to the delegation of responsibility in the context of equine sport where a rider was likely to rely on third parties to a significant degree, a situation that is different from human athletic endeavor."

You don't say.
User avatar meat puppet
Member
 
Posts: 1,836
Joined: 29 May 2011 06:57

Re:

23 Aug 2017 17:08

meat puppet wrote:"The CAS 2014/A/3591 case is also factually distinct from Ms Johaug’s situation. It pertained to the delegation of responsibility in the context of equine sport where a rider was likely to rely on third parties to a significant degree, a situation that is different from human athletic endeavor."

You don't say.

:) I say it reveals quite a lot about the legal teams view on Ms Johaug's intellectual capabilities. To equate her with a horse.
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Re:

23 Aug 2017 17:24

bambino wrote:
yaco wrote:
bambino wrote:
python wrote:^^
yep, just was logging in to post the rulling link I saw in the vg article...reading it now. it does look though as there were no diverging arbitrators. as if there was one, an opinion as to why would typically be provided at the end of a ruling.


So the CAS panel was definitely not unanimous on virtually anything. It was majority decision. Not a hard guess who would've let Therese go with warning...

Couple of things I find funny, but also extremely rich of Johaug's layers:

- they claim Johaug has done precisely as regulated in her sports contract by consulting with team doctor on any medication, thus there is no fault. Obviously they did not mention a prevailing clause in the same contract where she is obliged to follow WADA codes rigorously

- they claim she could and had a right to delegate her responsibilities of doping conduct to another person (Doctor of course). They have another case where that has been granted. That case was for RACING HORSE! I found the CAS panel response extremely amusing saying something like "Ms Johaug is expected by the panel to handle her medical usage better than the athelete in particular case" :D


There you have the flaw with CAS - A guilty verdict should only occur if the arbitrators are in unanimous agreement - Majority verdicts should not be acceptable at this level.


In that case they should also change the rule that the parties can select one of the panel members. Otherwise you will never get decisions out.


CAS is flawed - It's a creature of the IOC which has little relevance to Non-Olympic Sports and you could even argue Non-Europeans.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,950
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

23 Aug 2017 17:29

GJB123 wrote:
yaco wrote:
bambino wrote:
python wrote:^^
yep, just was logging in to post the rulling link I saw in the vg article...reading it now. it does look though as there were no diverging arbitrators. as if there was one, an opinion as to why would typically be provided at the end of a ruling.


So the CAS panel was definitely not unanimous on virtually anything. It was majority decision. Not a hard guess who would've let Therese go with warning...

Couple of things I find funny, but also extremely rich of Johaug's layers:

- they claim Johaug has done precisely as regulated in her sports contract by consulting with team doctor on any medication, thus there is no fault. Obviously they did not mention a prevailing clause in the same contract where she is obliged to follow WADA codes rigorously

- they claim she could and had a right to delegate her responsibilities of doping conduct to another person (Doctor of course). They have another case where that has been granted. That case was for RACING HORSE! I found the CAS panel response extremely amusing saying something like "Ms Johaug is expected by the panel to handle her medical usage better than the athelete in particular case" :D


There you have the flaw with CAS - A guilty verdict should only occur if the arbitrators are in unanimous agreement - Majority verdicts should not be acceptable at this level.


Rubbish! The CAS-panerl is not jury, they are judges and in any system I know it perfectly normal that cases decided by judges can go on majority decisions.


In fact many of the CAS Arbitrators are not judges - Many are merely practicing legal practitioners - I believe CAS should have a higher threshold for guilty verdicts - WE are talking about 3 arbitrators per hearing - Possibly if you had 7,8 or 9 arbitrators you could consider a majority verdict- And consider that in this case it was allegedly the Norwegian Arbitrator who was out of step with their fellow arbitrators - This shows what a joke is CAS.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,950
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avoriaz, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Norks74 and 23 guests

Back to top