CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

[macbindle]

The mere fact that there was a DCMS hearing on Team Sky and a GMC hearing on Team Sky's doctor is a sure sign that there really is nothing to see and we should all move on

 

[samhocking]

The mere fact that there was a DCMS hearing on Team Sky and a GMC hearing on Team Sky's doctor is a sure sign that there really is nothing to see and we should all move on

DCMS report in relation to Jiggygate is entirely based on 'If Sutton sold Lawton the truth' and 'if this had happened in this theoretical circumstance that has no evidence to support it, it would cross an ethical line beyond WADA code'.
3 years on from jiffygate, Jackson QC has just spent a week discussing the legal practice of IA within the rules and if a doctor should do this in a hotel room like all other cycling team doctors, all totally unrelated to knowing he ordered Testogel for an athlete to rub in his chest.
GMC haven't called Lawton as a witness as requested, Lawton now refusing to cooperate while GMC also denies allowing Section 35A to reveal jiffygates whistleblower and failed to even summons Sutton as a witness, allowing him to fly out of UK leaving his family in UK, now living in Spain he told GMC was his hole??
What exactly is GMC, Lawton and Sutton sho afraid of from the defence requesting all this. Should't jiffygate at least put a huge nail into the defence?

 

[gillan1969]

So long as the medical reason was justified, that's EXACTLY why the TUE exist, so the rider can take the substance you or I could and go to work with in our system. To know something was 'bypassed' requires more than assumption. The TUE doesn't exist to not be used does it. It is there to be used by riders, in races otherwise it would never have been part of WADA in the first place.

Sam...please catch up......doping used to be undertaken by the rider...doping is now having a "medical reason" to take substances which improve performance...that is why Freeman sought that non-compliant certain doctors were removed and more compliant ones installed. Its the docs that enable...the riders are removed from the responsibility....if you can't read that from between the lines from the e-mail below then.....er....what is the Ullrich quote??? lol

“I like the idea of four to five doctors experienced in pro cycling......Specifically in areas such as management of infection, vomiting and recovery. I know Dr CC [Hulse] will not be able to adapt his views to reach a consensus decision fit for Sky’s purpose.......[Palfreeman]will not cope with the uncertainty of doping within professional cycling and will worry himself, and the team, to death......The second [Roberts] is a cycling nut first. He is not what Team Sky would need to move forward and put Sky in a place to compete to win and a friend of Dr CC [Hulse].”

 

[samhocking]

You need to catch up this will go nowhere but a higher court unless Jackson can actually deal with the charges!

 

[gillan1969]

You need to catch up this will go nowhere but a higher court unless Jackson can actually deal with the charges!

lol...who needs a court to decide what went on...we're the jury...we can see the evidence

 

[pastronef]

lol...who needs a court to decide what went on...we're the jury...we can see the evidence

I was asking on twitter the other day: outside twitter and the Clinic, are the main news outlets in UK on it? I mean, if you read here or the 12 accounts in twitter such as Glen Cottingley and co it looks bleak. but it´s a medical tribunal and twitter and forums have no voice in that. as Sam said, doping is a legal matter. for now the tribunal is quite far from it.

 

[macbindle]

AFAIK doping isnt a legal matter in the UK, and no the news is barely reporting tge tribunal

 

[fmk_RoI]

outside twitter and the Clinic, are the main news outlets in UK on it?

Seriously? Who's covering the hearings? Who from the Clinic is there day in, day out? Who from the tinfooil wing of Twitter is there, day in, day out?

The BBC's there. The Guardian''s there. The Mail's there. They're the ones you're getting the story from. They're not main outlets in the UK?

 

[Parker]

Seriously? Who's covering the hearings? Who from the Clinic is there day in, day out? Who from the tinfooil wing of Twitter is there, day in, day out?

The BBC's there. The Guardian''s there. The Mail's there. They're the ones you're getting the story from. They're not main outlets in the UK?

There's certainly some coverage, but generally by journalists who, to use a poker term are 'pot committed'. They've gone in big in big the past, awarded each other prizes, and now they need some substance to back those stories up.

 

[samhocking]

AFAIK doping isnt a legal matter in the UK, and no the news is barely reporting tge tribunal

Doping is always a legal matter only. WADA Code have no ethical code within the prohibited lists. An element exist in the TUE application, but in terms of Freeman ordering Testosterone to administer to a rider, it's purely a legal matter of evidence for there to be a WADA Code violation. GMC's burden of proof doesn't require evidence, it just needs to persuade the panel to 'believe' beyond reasonable doubt of the charge being valid.

 

[gillan1969]

Doping is always a legal matter only. WADA Code have no ethical code within the prohibited lists. An element exist in the TUE application, but in terms of Freeman ordering Testosterone to administer to a rider, it's purely a legal matter of evidence for there to be a WADA Code violation. GMC's burden of proof doesn't require evidence, it just needs to persuade the panel to 'believe' beyond reasonable doubt of the charge being valid.

...(post a watch of the Untouchabes out of respect for the bold Sean).....and Capone was just a tax evader...yes?

 

[macbindle]

Doping is always a legal matter only. WADA Code have no ethical code within the prohibited lists. An element exist in the TUE application, but in terms of Freeman ordering Testosterone to administer to a rider, it's purely a legal matter of evidence for there to be a WADA Code violation. GMC's burden of proof doesn't require evidence, it just needs to persuade the panel to 'believe' beyond reasonable doubt of the charge being valid.

As opposed to what?

It isnt a legal matter as there are no laws concerning doping in sports. Doping in the UK is governed by WADA regulations. WADA regulations are not law.

As far as doping is concerned, the law can only be invoked in so far as issue such as breach of contract, or use of controlled substances.

 

[samhocking]

I'm using the term in the sense that doping in sport is defined and decided by rules only. ie is a legal process. No ethics come into the decision. The substance and conditions of using it is very clear in being either prohibited or not prohibited. Even a TUE is not decided ethically, it's a medical process using rules.

 

[Merckx index]

I'm using the term in the sense that doping in sport is defined and decided by rules only. ie is a legal process. No ethics come into the decision. The substance and conditions of using it is very clear in being either prohibited or not prohibited. Even a TUE is not decided ethically, it's a medical process using rules.

One of WADA's criteria for a doping violation is "It violates the spirit of sport."

That sure sounds like ethics to me. In fact, the WADA Code makes this explicit:

The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is reflected in values we find in and through sport, including:

• Ethics, fair play and honesty

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada_anti-doping_code_2019_english_final_revised_v1_linked.pdf

In fact, the whole notion that ethics has nothing to do with following rules is flawed. How can ethical behavior possibly be defined without reference to rules?

 

[samhocking]

And Spirit of the Sport is to not dope ie not break WADA Code in order to cheat and win. IV Recup, supplements, TUE isn't doping, isn't cheating, isn't decided using ethics whatsoever. WADA's ethical definition is even decided using the code itself lol! CAS is a legal process with appeals, essentially to the Swiss Supreme Court.

 

[Merckx index]

And Spirit of the Sport is to not dope ie not break WADA Code in order to cheat and win. IV Recup, supplements, TUE isn't doping, isn't cheating, isn't decided using ethics whatsoever. WADA's ethical definition is even decided using the code itself lol! CAS is a legal process with appeals, essentially to the Swiss Supreme Court.

I responded to your claim that ethics are not involved in a decision about doping. What I quoted from the WADA Code shows in the clearest possible way that isn't so.

Your claim that spirit of the sport is defined in terms of the Code has it backwards. The spirit precedes the Code, the Code simply acknowledges that the spirit is a valid criterion. Not all doping decisions are based on so-called spirit, but even those that aren't may involve ethics. The law is not static, and how it changes has a lot to do with ethics. E.g., it's entirely plausible that the Code could be changed to allow some performance-enhancing substances to be permitted, and that a specific legal precedent might set the standard. A recent example is clenbuterol, where the process now takes into account that an athlete might have consumed contaminated beef. Ethics very definitely comes into this decision. It isn't just the presence of a PE substance in the athlete's system, but how it got there, what the athlete's intention was. This involves ethics.

You seem to think that because it's possible to act legally but unethically, therefore ethics are not involved in any legal process. That simply isn't so. An obvious, everyday example is when judges determine the severity of a sentence according to the defendant's character and previous behavior. Or more generally, when a judge shows mercy. Decisions like these are not based, certainly not entirely based, on any written code, but they are based on ethical rules, often subjective.

 

[samhocking]

Name the last ADRV and its sanction that was decided using ethics and spirit of the sport to tip the balance from innocent to guilty then Merckx? You won't find one because doping is always only ever legal matter of what the rules say is cheating and doping, not an ethical judgement. One mans 2,000 mg of synthetic vitamin C in a tablet with his morning coffee is unethical to a man who's ethics say that 2,000 mg must be taken naturally by eating 40 oranges to get the same benefit. The ethics and spirit of sport don't say who is cheating, the rules simply define neither are cheating and ethics ignored.

 

[gillan1969]

S

And Spirit of the Sport is to not dope ie not break WADA Code in order to cheat and win. IV Recup, supplements, TUE isn't doping, isn't cheating, isn't decided using ethics whatsoever. WADA's ethical definition is even decided using the code itself lol! CAS is a legal process with appeals, essentially to the Swiss Supreme Court.

TUE is doping if you don't have doc sign off.....

 

[samhocking]

TUE is doping if you don't have doc sign off.....

Of course, but a TUE still isn't decided using ethics, it's decided using medical diagnosis and justification against ISTUE Protocol by the TUEC signing it off.

 

[gillan1969]

Of course, but a TUE still isn't decided using ethics, it's decided using medical diagnosis and justification against ISTUE Protocol by the TUEC signing it off.

lols...have you not read the good docs e-mails??...it was all about ethics...some would play ball and some wouldn't...to paraphrase Groucho...'if you don't like this diagnosis I can provide others' lols

 

[samhocking]

lols...have you not read the good docs e-mails??...it was all about ethics...some would play ball and some wouldn't...to paraphrase Groucho...'if you don't like this diagnosis I can provide others' lols

That was 'personal' ethics, nothing to do with WADA's. This is my entire point. Freemans ethics were within WADA's definition what is not cheating and not doping, be it the teams IV protocol in light of Gonzalez death arguably exacerbated by Dr Hulse refusing to use IV and Needles on staff/riders in exactly the same as a doctors persona ethics might not ethically agree with WADA's or that a TUE is allowed when it satisfies ISTUE.

 

[pastronef]

well, at end of the day we are arguing about Tues, ketones, IV recup, testo patches, OOC cortisone.
as much as many hope, those won´t turn magically into epo and blood overnight I fear

 

[Merckx index]

Name the last ADRV and its sanction that was decided using ethics and spirit of the sport to tip the balance from innocent to guilty then Merckx? You won't find one because doping is always only ever legal matter of what the rules say is cheating and doping, not an ethical judgement.

I guess you never read the CAS case vs. Petacchi. After presenting a ton of evidence that Petacchi's urine level could not have been the result of inhaling the allowed dose, including an enantiomer test that basically is used to prove that the drug was taken orally rather than by inhalation, the panel concluded:

The Panel is satisfied that Mr. Petacchi is not a cheat, and that the adverse analytical finding in this case is the result of Mr. Petacchi simply, and, possibly, accidentally, taking too much Salbutamol on the day of the test, but that the overdose was not taken with the intention of enhancing his performance.

Page 49 - CMS Doping in sport revelations/discussion

Page 49 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

forum.cyclingnews.com

There was nothing in the evidence presented that supported the conclusion that Petacchi took too much, yet did not do so intentionally.. To come to that conclusion, after all the evidence against, can only be the result of ethics. There is no rule anywhere in WADA that specifies that conclusion. The panel simply showed some mercy. The rules did allow the panel to reduce the sentence, according to no significant fault, but again, there is nothing in the WADA rules that specified that particular conclusion.

To repeat, your fundamental misunderstanding is believing that decisions made by specific rules are 100% legal, and have nothing to do with ethics. In the first place, the rules themselves reflect ethics. When a rider is sanctioned for having some substance in his system, this is a judgment based on ethics. Without ethics, there would be no reason to have that rule.

Second, even by your flawed view of ethics as having nothing to do with laws or rules, ethical judgments come into play. The Petacchi case is only one example. WADA says that the evidence of a positive should be somewhere between preponderance of evidence, > 50%, and beyond a reasonable doubt, < 95-99%. There is nothing specific in WADA’s rules that instructs where to come down in that range. It’s left up entirely to the arbiter or judge. There is no formula one can use. Making that judgment inevitably brings ethics into the process.

One reason Froome got off is because the arbiters couldn’t believe he would knowingly take the risk of a salbutamol positive. There was a definite, non-zero probability that he took salbutamol intentionally as a performance enhancer—despite all the efforts of WADA/UCI to cover up the process, to make it as non-transparent as possible, they couldn’t hide that fact--but this was weighed against the likelihood that he would risk his career. Again, there is nothing specific in WADA’s rules that tells any judge how to carry out that weighing process.

 

[samhocking]

So that's a no, you couldn't find a case? Pettachi's case was because of an AAF according to CODE, not ethics.

Where in 'the adverse analytical finding in this case is the result of Mr. Petacchi simply, and, possibly, accidentally, taking too much Salbutamol' do you see the application of ethics to decide the AAF isn't one or is one? The conclusion of how it happened has an ethical argument of it's a possible accident, but the Code still makes it an ADRV even if an accident Merckx, therefore ethics really not part of the decision applied. AAF exists, ADRV exists regardless.

Doping is always a legal matter, there's never been a case of unethical doping in the history of sport, just like there's never been a case of unethical speeding tickets. You are are either too fast or you are not.

 

[Merckx index]

I originally responded to your statement “doping in sport is defined and decided by rules only. ie is a legal process. No ethics come into the decision.”

I quoted a passage directly from the WADA Code, in which they specifically state that ethics are part of one criterion that determines whether a doping violation has occurred. For anyone thinking logically and rationally, that would have been the end of the discussion. I also pointed out that “rules only” is NOT equal to a legal process only, since ethics ALSO involve rules. You continue to make the mistake of believing that if a case is decided on how or whether it conforms to specific rules, it must be wholly legal. This simply is not so.

In fact, there is no such thing as a purely legal process, since all laws are rooted in ethics, in assumptions about what desirable behavior constitutes. If the speed limit is 65 mph, and a cop catches you doing 70, you have broken the law. But the cop may decide not to cite you. That decision involves ethics. The cop may have rules that s/he isn’t fully aware of that determine that decision, but in any case, a strict reading of the law isn’t involved.

You then moved the goalposts, by demanding that I name a case that was “tipped” from innocent to guilty. There may be such examples, but none is necessary to support my original case. I did point out that Petacchi’s sanction was not determined solely by any rules written in the Code, which by your own definition would mean it was not determined solely by a legal process. You seem blind to the fact that judges in all kinds of legal processes frequently make decisions that are not entirely determined by the law, but by subjective judgments that may involve ethics. This is one major reason why we still have trials by human judges and juries, rather than simply have a computer determine what the law is and whether someone broke it. The law is organic, constantly subjected to interpretation, and interpretation generally involves ethics.

I could have gone even further, though. One of Petacchi’s arguments was that if his urine SG had been taken into account, his salbutamol concentration would have been below the maximum allowed. The panel rejected this claim, but they didn’t have to, and of course the rules were changed, very conveniently for Froome, in 2017. Suppose the panel had decided to allow Petacchi’s argument? On the basis of what legal rule would that have been made? How do you rationalize this scenario with your claim that "the Code still makes it an ADRV"?