• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Dopers get to do 2012

May 21, 2010
808
0
0
Visit site
http://www1.skysports.com/olympics/story/15234/7226899
I wouldnt mind but this dude got a 21 month ban,odd length you might think,21 and a bit months later was world athletics championships.Nice on US athletics keep up the good fight why dont you. O yes means Millar might get too ride in 2012.his tweet @ the news.....
"CAS ruling on IOC Rule 45 a good thing for future of international sport. Only a matter of time till all countries respect WADA Code"
Ill be more than ****** if the uk selcets chambers or millar.
 
Aug 31, 2011
324
0
0
Visit site
I think that the BOA bylaw - which prevents Chambers and Millar racing for example - is still in place and is not in itself overturned by this, although it is now substantially weakened, and will no doubt be challenged again in the coming months. I read in the paper this morning that ultimately, the BOA can select whichever athletes they like for the Olympics so theoretically, even if Chambers runs the qualifying time, they don't have to select him. With Millar, it's obviously more subjective picking a cycling team ,so might not be such an issue.
I find it bizarre that the US authorities were supporting Merritt so strongly - seems to send out completely the wrong message. In this article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/15159806.stm - published a few days ago, the USADA boss says that the BOA bylaw is better than the IOC law, but the BOA bylaw should be scrapped because it's trying to take the law into its own hands by going above and beyond the IOC. Whose side is he on?!?!

As a humorous aside, when Merritt was busted for his 'male enhancement product,' he said, 'to know that I've tested positive, is extremely difficult to wrap my hands around.' :D
 
Sep 27, 2009
1,008
0
0
Visit site
Was the rule knocked out because it was badly written, or something technical or has the whole idea been knocked out? Can the IOC implement the same thing just in a different way?
 
LukeSchmid said:
Was the rule knocked out because it was badly written, or something technical or has the whole idea been knocked out? Can the IOC implement the same thing just in a different way?

It was knocked out because of the (legal) "ne bis in idem"-priciple, meaning that you cannot punish someone twice for the same offence. If they get it incoporated as such in the WADA "poenal law" on doping sanctions it might get a second life. As it is, it was quite justifiably ruled non-valid by the CAS (imho, and absed on legal principles as I also explained in one of the "David Millar is a hypocritical whiner"-threads ;)).

Regards
GJ
 
I'm disappointed and hope the BOA stick to their own guidelines.

All 2 year bans are not the same, if inside that 2 year happens to be an olympic games, thats a harsher punishment than a 2 year ban mid-cycle.

I hope WADA incoporates the principle of missing the next scheduled major international event into its guidleines and bans.

To include Olympics, Commonwealth games, Pan-American, FIFA world cup, rugby world cup etc.
 
bobbins said:
So the 2012 games will be remembered as the Games no one got tickets for to go see dopers win gold medals. Pretty good legacy for London!

As if excluding convicted dopers means you will only see clean athletes win gold medals :rolleyes:. You are in dire need of a reality check!

Regards
GJ
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
For those of you that are in disagreement with the ruling, answer me this...what is so special about the Olympics in regards to professional cycling, and why are you not arguing for lifetime bans if an athlete tests positive? Do you really think that the threat of non participation in a single event is going to change anything for the majority of sports?
 
Mar 11, 2009
748
0
0
Visit site
I don't think this is a good thing..
As far as double punishment, if you are convicted of a felony in the USA you no longer get A vote.. if you dope you ain't an Olympian. Seems fair enough.
 
Apr 15, 2010
330
0
0
Visit site
i don't like the idea of bans that are partial, or longer than their specified length.

getting a 2 year ban and then a subsequent ban for a month a year later seems really silly.

wasn't a fan of the valverde ban where he missed the key part of his season, and then a 2 year ban either.


with regards to the BOA

in my mind Chambers has much more right to represent the UK at the olympics than christine ohouragu (sp?). at least he came clean and gave evidence as to how he did it.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
dolophonic said:
I don't think this is a good thing..
As far as double punishment, if you are convicted of a felony in the USA you no longer get A vote.. if you dope you ain't an Olympian. Seems fair enough.

Do think that Michael Vick should have been banned from a return to professional football (NFL)? He could probably care less that he can no longer vote in national elections. Bad analogy IMO.
 
Jun 21, 2011
322
0
0
Visit site
lancaster said:
in my mind Chambers has much more right to represent the UK at the olympics than christine ohouragu (sp?). at least he came clean and gave evidence as to how he did it.

Don't get me started on Ohuruogu. She got a lifetime ban from the Olympics by BOA which she appealled but CAS upheld. Ohuruogu appealled again but stated if it was unsuccessful she would compete for another country and all of a sudden it gets overturned. If Chambers had the talent of Bolt the BOA wouldn't think twice about overturning the decision, which is itself a problem.
 
Mar 11, 2009
748
0
0
Visit site
spetsa said:
Do think that Michael Vick should have been banned from a return to professional football (NFL)? He could probably care less that he can no longer vote in national elections. Bad analogy IMO.

No that is his profession.. the Olympics are not Professional.. they are supposed to be the pinnacle. There is a difference.M Vic was not convicted of doping.. i was pointing out that participating in the Olympics is a privilege not a right. Don't get M Vic involved. That is another thread. You analogy is the bad one..
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Lifetime bans are draconian and do little to reduce doping. Increasing the likelihood of getting caught is a far greater deterrent than increasing punishment. While lifetime bans may give some a feeling of "justice" in reality they do nothing to decrease doping.....they do a lot to strengthen the Omerta.

Engagement is the key to success. Dismantling the support structure should be a focus and to do this you need the help of the riders. Most of the doping networks that have been taken down have come because of information from Athletes. This needs to be encouraged, not closed.

If we want to increase punishment focus on Teams and Directors. They have no skin in the game yet are a key ingredient in the support structure.
 
Feb 16, 2011
1,456
4
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Lifetime bans are draconian and do little to reduce doping. Increasing the likelihood of getting caught is a far greater deterrent than increasing punishment. While lifetime bans may give some a feeling of "justice" in reality they do nothing to decrease doping.....they do a lot to strengthen the Omerta.

Engagement is the key to success. Dismantling the support structure should be a focus and to do this you need the help of the riders. Most of the doping networks that have been taken down have come because of information from Athletes. This needs to be encouraged, not closed.

If we want to increase punishment focus on Teams and Directors. They have no skin in the game yet are a key ingredient in the support structure.

Yeah, I think this is right.

The engagement and enforcement needs to be conducted by the police, mainly, and independent bodies such as WADA.
 
spetsa said:
For those of you that are in disagreement with the ruling, answer me this...what is so special about the Olympics in regards to professional cycling, and why are you not arguing for lifetime bans if an athlete tests positive? Do you really think that the threat of non participation in a single event is going to change anything for the majority of sports?

For professional cycling, the Olympics isn't the pinnacle, however in mnay other sports it is.

Blanket lifebans don't work, they drive the culture underground and the occasional "accident" (and yes they do happen - not every sport has full tiem medics on call to check ingredients) gets punished too severely.

Dopers will likly dope anyway, but in the sposrt where the olympoics is the pinnacle, maybe just maybe the threat of a ban from the games could push someone away from those first steps down the road.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
dolophonic said:
No that is his profession.. the Olympics are not Professional.. they are supposed to be the pinnacle. There is a difference.M Vic was not convicted of doping.. i was pointing out that participating in the Olympics is a privilege not a right. Don't get M Vic involved. That is another thread. You analogy is the bad one..

I made no analogy, I asked a question and made a statement.
 
dolophonic said:
I don't think this is a good thing..
As far as double punishment, if you are convicted of a felony in the USA you no longer get A vote.. if you dope you ain't an Olympian. Seems fair enough.

Than that is obviously part of the laws in the US. Problem here is that it wasn't part of any anti-doping regulations that govern sports and doping. More or less like a punishment in poenal law not agreed upon by the parliament but ivented and used by one organiser/police/prosecutor/judge/henchman roled into one who thinks it is fair and just. See the difference?

If the IOC or other people feel it is fair and just to exclude convicted athletes from the Olympics they should update the rules that govern sports and anti-doping accordingly. As it is the IOC haven't done their homwework and are solely to blame for the consequences.

Regards
GJ
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
1
0
Visit site
Catwhoorg said:
For professional cycling, the Olympics isn't the pinnacle, however in mnay other sports it is.
Blanket lifebans don't work, they drive the culture underground and the occasional "accident" (and yes they do happen - not every sport has full tiem medics on call to check ingredients) gets punished too severely.

Dopers will likly dope anyway, but in the sposrt where the olympoics is the pinnacle, maybe just maybe the threat of a ban from the games could push someone away from those first steps down the road.

Just for the record, I do not believe in lifetime bans, unless as RR mentioned it was for those in management positions, doctors etc. He is correct in regards to the origin of the problem. These individuals will be around much longer than the average lifespan of an athlete's career.
 
Mar 11, 2009
748
0
0
Visit site
I agree with R.R. the lifetime ban is not the answer. for some reason i feel that professional athletes that are caught doping in their "day job's" should not be "Olympian's" there is some difference for me.. maybe i am not seeing this in the modern context.
the IOC WADA UCI ... don't really ever seem to get it right.
 
Apr 8, 2010
329
0
0
Visit site
As a British person, I am proud of the fact that UK athletes are banned permanently from competing in the Olympics if they are caught doping, and will be disappointed if this is revoked.

I do not want even ex-dopers to represent my country at the Olympics, especially if my tax money is being used to support them.