Doping in XC skiing

Page 193 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
lustforlife said:
Long time reader of this thread but first time posting.

It is real surprise FIS appeals ADNO:s verdict on Johaug. Not in regards to Kaspers public words early on, but if it is the case that Rasmus Damsgaard is involved, as implied in a recent post, as a representative of FIS. I really did not think he would initiate a case against Norway. That is very surprising to me.

But I have to admit, I have no idea what part of FIS is appealing the verdict, and what people is part of this very department. I tried to find out but could not get the picture straight.
FIS Medical Committee (that has made the decision to appeal) has Chair, Vice Chair (notable Inggard Lereim btw. :D ), 34 members (doctors/medical experts from all over the world), 4 honorable members (Dinosaurs of medical treatment in sports) and Damsgaard as FIS antidoping expert. So I don't think you can say that Damsgaard was the one filing a case against Norway. There were 38 others involved.

https://data.fis-ski.com/for-embed-content/fis-committees.html?committee_id=139&committee_nation=

They more or less appeal that Johaug has violated the rule of strict liability which more or less means the athlete is solely responsible what goes into his/her system, unless it is proved he/she couldn't know. Big red doping sign in the tube and package, the name of the steroid visible etc. makes FIS medical committee believe she had all the tools to validate what she is taking, thus she violated her strict liability. And I think in WADA's code, violating the strict liability in case of steroids (even when it is proved that the intention isn't performance enhancing) means minimum 2 years ban.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Discgear said:
bambino said:
Discgear said:
IOC is not going to appeal Johaug verdict.
https://www.nrk.no/sport/ioc-dropper-johaug-anke-1.13412614

Tomorrow we will know if FIS is going to appeal.

If not, than we have to wait for WADA and CAS.

Btw, just came home from 90 minutes aerobic training. Had planned to do 10K XC but it's way to cold outside. Inhaled two doses of Symbicourt before the workout. Didn't need the Bricanyl luckily. Can't believe that Bjørgen or Johnsrud Sundby are real asthmatics when I watch them blast the goal line seeminlgy unaffected after stunning performances. Johnsrud Sundby just 80% lung capacity, come on!

It's quite disturbing actually, all those ridiculous claims and doses, when you really suffer from allergic and exercise-induced asthma since childhood.
The news are out, FIS will appeal to CAS in Johaug's case. The medical panel thinks 13 months is not enough for such doping violation.

I have to admit to be mighty surprised about the decision.
That was a welcome surprise. I think an independent verdict was inevitable after the strange handling in the first "trial", where the judge openly discussed how different suspensions would inflict her participation in the Olympics. Also, I think the situation might had looked differently, if Johaug had sued the team doctor. Not doing so is highly damaging for the official story.

Here is the appeal: http://www.fis-ski.com/mm/Document/document/General/10/06/38/FISappealstoCASondecisioninThereseJohaugcase_Neutral.pdf
However, the FIS Doping Panel has found that the sanction imposed is on the low end of the
range of reasonable sanctions and fails to adequately reflect the fact that the athlete Therese
Johaug failed to read the doping warning label printed in red on the package despite the fact that the medication was unknown to her and was purchased in a foreign country.
as both of you, not only i am surprised with the appeal itself, but also with the timing. a cynic in me thought they are buying time to claim on the last day that 'after a through consideration blah blah blah...'

i was wrong. it is also quite logical that the course of action was taken after wada firmly said to fis, they will appeal regardless. clearly fis would look bad then, even worse that their inaction regarding the sundby doping.

i like it !
 
bambino said:
lustforlife said:
Long time reader of this thread but first time posting.

It is real surprise FIS appeals ADNO:s verdict on Johaug. Not in regards to Kaspers public words early on, but if it is the case that Rasmus Damsgaard is involved, as implied in a recent post, as a representative of FIS. I really did not think he would initiate a case against Norway. That is very surprising to me.

But I have to admit, I have no idea what part of FIS is appealing the verdict, and what people is part of this very department. I tried to find out but could not get the picture straight.
FIS Medical Committee (that has made the decision to appeal) has Chair, Vice Chair (notable Inggard Lereim btw. :D ), 34 members (doctors/medical experts from all over the world), 4 honorable members (Dinosaurs of medical treatment in sports) and Damsgaard as FIS antidoping expert. So I don't think you can say that Damsgaard was the one filing a case against Norway. There were 38 others involved.

https://data.fis-ski.com/for-embed-content/fis-committees.html?committee_id=139&committee_nation=

They more or less appeal that Johaug has violated the rule of strict liability which more or less means the athlete is solely responsible what goes into his/her system, unless it is proved he/she couldn't know. Big red doping sign in the tube and package, the name of the steroid visible etc. makes FIS medical committee believe she had all the tools to validate what she is taking, thus she violated her strict liability. And I think in WADA's code, violating the strict liability in case of steroids (even when it is proved that the intention isn't performance enhancing) means minimum 2 years ban.
FIS Doping Panel was behind today’s decision. Who they are is hidden in the shadows except the chair, who is Canadian Patrick Smith. I don’t think that FIS Medical Committee with 34 members is the same as FIS Doping Panel. From Kowalczyk verdict we know they were four altogether. They made a fool of themselves in her case and last year when they acquitted Johnsrud Sundby. Maybe they have changed their members now? Or maybe they didn’t want to lose face again. My guess it was the FIS Medical Committee who protested against the Doping Panel when they failed to see any wrong doings in Johnsrud Sundby case. It would be so very interesting to have information of who is seated in the panel now and before.
 
Mar 7, 2017
4
0
0
bambino said:
lustforlife said:
Long time reader of this thread but first time posting.

It is real surprise FIS appeals ADNO:s verdict on Johaug. Not in regards to Kaspers public words early on, but if it is the case that Rasmus Damsgaard is involved, as implied in a recent post, as a representative of FIS. I really did not think he would initiate a case against Norway. That is very surprising to me.

But I have to admit, I have no idea what part of FIS is appealing the verdict, and what people is part of this very department. I tried to find out but could not get the picture straight.
FIS Medical Committee (that has made the decision to appeal) has Chair, Vice Chair (notable Inggard Lereim btw. :D ), 34 members (doctors/medical experts from all over the world), 4 honorable members (Dinosaurs of medical treatment in sports) and Damsgaard as FIS antidoping expert. So I don't think you can say that Damsgaard was the one filing a case against Norway. There were 38 others involved.

https://data.fis-ski.com/for-embed-content/fis-committees.html?committee_id=139&committee_nation=

They more or less appeal that Johaug has violated the rule of strict liability which more or less means the athlete is solely responsible what goes into his/her system, unless it is proved he/she couldn't know. Big red doping sign in the tube and package, the name of the steroid visible etc. makes FIS medical committee believe she had all the tools to validate what she is taking, thus she violated her strict liability. And I think in WADA's code, violating the strict liability in case of steroids (even when it is proved that the intention isn't performance enhancing) means minimum 2 years ban.
Of course I don't see R Damsgaard facing Norway all alone. I just don't see him facing Norway at all, in the very end. But I haven't scrutinised his recent track record, so to speak. I find him well dodgy.
 
Discgear said:
IOC is not going to appeal Johaug verdict.
https://www.nrk.no/sport/ioc-dropper-johaug-anke-1.13412614

Tomorrow we will know if FIS is going to appeal.

If not, than we have to wait for WADA and CAS.

Btw, just came home from 90 minutes aerobic training. Had planned to do 10K XC but it's way to cold outside. Inhaled two doses of Symbicourt before the workout. Didn't need the Bricanyl luckily. Can't believe that Bjørgen or Johnsrud Sundby are real asthmatics when I watch them blast the goal line seeminlgy unaffected after stunning performances. Johnsrud Sundby just 80% lung capacity, come on!

It's quite disturbing actually, all those ridiculous claims and doses, when you really suffer from allergic and exercise-induced asthma since childhood.
You could have subclinical asthma, FEV1% between 81 and 95 fx. Regular people would be fine with it, but not if you're a top athlete.

Lung capacity is something entirely different than obstructivity measured in asthmatics. Your lung capacity could be reduced quite a lot without noticable reduction in performance. Obstruction, not so much, you'll get acidic really fast and feel like you're dying out of breath.

You should find something else than symbicort to inhale before training. Doubling the inhaled corticosteroids wont do much good short term. Find another long acting beta2 agonist without steroids, or just use ventoline in a chamber with aerosol instead of powder. Or use a nebulizer. Same dosage, but much better penetrance to the bronchioles.

Its possible to be a top athlete with asthma, I have trained with a lots of asthmatics growing up, including some of the current norwegian sprint team athletes. But you have to use medication properly and sometimes in increasingly high doses due to receptor fatigue.
 
Re:

ToreBear said:
But I thought the Norwegian skiing federation controlled FIS?! :lol:
And I thought the Norwegians were cleans.

Joking aside, FIS appealing was a bit of a surprise to me. But as many have pointed out in this thread from october on, the willingness to cling onto strict liability (or to act as though this is the case) seems to have been the underlying reason.

Better than nothing, I would say.
 
Oude Geuze said:
Discgear said:
IOC is not going to appeal Johaug verdict.
https://www.nrk.no/sport/ioc-dropper-johaug-anke-1.13412614

Tomorrow we will know if FIS is going to appeal.

If not, than we have to wait for WADA and CAS.

Btw, just came home from 90 minutes aerobic training. Had planned to do 10K XC but it's way to cold outside. Inhaled two doses of Symbicourt before the workout. Didn't need the Bricanyl luckily. Can't believe that Bjørgen or Johnsrud Sundby are real asthmatics when I watch them blast the goal line seeminlgy unaffected after stunning performances. Johnsrud Sundby just 80% lung capacity, come on!

It's quite disturbing actually, all those ridiculous claims and doses, when you really suffer from allergic and exercise-induced asthma since childhood.
You could have subclinical asthma, FEV1% between 81 and 95 fx. Regular people would be fine with it, but not if you're a top athlete.

Lung capacity is something entirely different than obstructivity measured in asthmatics. Your lung capacity could be reduced quite a lot without noticable reduction in performance. Obstruction, not so much, you'll get acidic really fast and feel like you're dying out of breath.

You should find something else than symbicort to inhale before training. Doubling the inhaled corticosteroids wont do much good short term. Find another long acting beta2 agonist without steroids, or just use ventoline in a chamber with aerosol instead of powder. Or use a nebulizer. Same dosage, but much better penetrance to the bronchioles.

Its possible to be a top athlete with asthma, I have trained with a lots of asthmatics growing up, including some of the current norwegian sprint team athletes. But you have to use medication properly and sometimes in increasingly high doses due to receptor fatigue.
Thank's for good advices. The main point however with my private litania was to show the absurdity in Johnsrud Sundby claims. For me it truly sounds absurd. You simply cannot compete on a world class level in the toughest of aerobic sports with such a handicap from early childhood. You would go into other sports.
I never during all the years come across recommendations from my asthma doctors in the neighbourhood of MJS claims. On the contrary everyone recommends me to be restrictive but treat it regurarly on a low dosage.

The thing is if I was competing; I would find it exceedingly remarkable, knowing my condition, if I suddenly were able to win races with extreme doses of medication. Being diagnosed or not.
 
Sep 12, 2012
41
0
8,580
Discgear said:
FIS Doping Panel was behind today’s decision. Who they are is hidden in the shadows except the chair, who is Canadian Patrick Smith. I don’t think that FIS Medical Committee with 34 members is the same as FIS Doping Panel. From Kowalczyk verdict we know they were four altogether. They made a fool of themselves in her case and last year when they acquitted Johnsrud Sundby. Maybe they have changed their members now? Or maybe they didn’t want to lose face again. My guess it was the FIS Medical Committee who protested against the Doping Panel when they failed to see any wrong doings in Johnsrud Sundby case. It would be so very interesting to have information of who is seated in the panel now and before.
Andreas Selliaas, a norwegian independent journalist, contacted FIS Communications Manager Jenny Wenneke yesterday(?) asking this exact question. Did not help him much.
Write-up (in norwegian) here: http://www.andreasselliaas.no/2017/03/07/johaug-saken-dreier-seg-kun-om-politikk/
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
olhell said:
Discgear said:
FIS Doping Panel was behind today’s decision. Who they are is hidden in the shadows except the chair, who is Canadian Patrick Smith. I don’t think that FIS Medical Committee with 34 members is the same as FIS Doping Panel. From Kowalczyk verdict we know they were four altogether. They made a fool of themselves in her case and last year when they acquitted Johnsrud Sundby. Maybe they have changed their members now? Or maybe they didn’t want to lose face again. My guess it was the FIS Medical Committee who protested against the Doping Panel when they failed to see any wrong doings in Johnsrud Sundby case. It would be so very interesting to have information of who is seated in the panel now and before.
Andreas Selliaas, a norwegian independent journalist, contacted FIS Communications Manager Jenny Wenneke yesterday(?) asking this exact question. Did not help him much.
Write-up (in norwegian) here: http://www.andreasselliaas.no/2017/03/07/johaug-saken-dreier-seg-kun-om-politikk/
good information, thanx.

if andreas selliaas is an independent journo, i wonder WHY he did not inquire about the names of the secret fis panel DURING the sundby doping trial. the fis doping panel was secret then(when it went the norwegian way) and it is secret now, when it went against the norwegian darling...

i could be wrong, but discgear will correct me, the question of who sat on the fis sundby panel that acquitted him was first raised by me in this thread. not that i am seeking some fame or something, but to me it was a natural, logical question to ask. needless to mention i read the major norwegian media daily. i searched and searched and not once had i seen the natural question raised by ANY norwegian journo. discgear came to the same conclusion too. independently. i can assure everyone we do not pm or email each other.

suddenly, we have some 'independent' norwegian concerned with the fis secrecy as if it was just instituted to screw up lil therese.

moreover, that piece by andreas is remarkable in another way. besides alluding to the idiotic gender theory that it could have been the 17 old white men (of the total 19 fis council members) that colluded...it also builds a possible conspiracy by the fis swedish, finnish and russian members.

independent my arse that journo is :rolleyes:
 
Blaaswix said:
There's been plenty more paranoia and conspiracy theories in the comments sections in the Norwegian media, Python. :rolleyes:

The skiforbundet is deciding whether to continue covering Johaug's legal costs. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/-Skiledelsen-i-hastemote-for-a-avgjore-Johaug-stotte-231872b.html Sundby cost 3.3. million NOK, Johaug 600 000 so far. To be consistent, they should.
The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?
 
Discgear said:
Blaaswix said:
There's been plenty more paranoia and conspiracy theories in the comments sections in the Norwegian media, Python. :rolleyes:

The skiforbundet is deciding whether to continue covering Johaug's legal costs. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/-Skiledelsen-i-hastemote-for-a-avgjore-Johaug-stotte-231872b.html Sundby cost 3.3. million NOK, Johaug 600 000 so far. To be consistent, they should.
The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?
Their choice was illusory.

IIRC the law of employment, would deem them responsible either way. The same way for Sundby. Their employee(doctor) made a mistake, leading to their other employee/contractee(Sundby, Johaug) testing positive and loosing income or potential income. Sundby could have sued the Ski Federation and they would pay exactly what they did(case cost for CAS and the money he lost from winnings) in addition to case costs in the Norwegian court. Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.

Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.
 
Jan 3, 2016
300
0
0
Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.
That is the crux of the matter. The Sundby case is gone, but what if CAS come to a very different conclusion to the Norwegian authorities? The skiforbundet had very little choice, looking at the way they have backed her so far, they couldn't fund Sundby's case and not Johaug's.
 
ToreBear said:
Discgear said:
Blaaswix said:
There's been plenty more paranoia and conspiracy theories in the comments sections in the Norwegian media, Python. :rolleyes:

The skiforbundet is deciding whether to continue covering Johaug's legal costs. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/-Skiledelsen-i-hastemote-for-a-avgjore-Johaug-stotte-231872b.html Sundby cost 3.3. million NOK, Johaug 600 000 so far. To be consistent, they should.
The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?
Their choice was illusory.

IIRC the law of employment, would deem them responsible either way. The same way for Sundby. Their employee(doctor) made a mistake, leading to their other employee/contractee(Sundby, Johaug) testing positive and loosing income or potential income. Sundby could have sued the Ski Federation and they would pay exactly what they did(case cost for CAS and the money he lost from winnings) in addition to case costs in the Norwegian court. Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.

Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.
Well, providing you're reasoning's are correct, then look to the first bolded part: Why haven't the Norwegian Ski Federation sued the team doctors?
Now on to the second bolded part. Could you give a legal source to that claim? In my opinion it sounds pretty home cooked and with no bearing to the WADA-code.
 
Discgear said:
ToreBear said:
Discgear said:
Blaaswix said:
There's been plenty more paranoia and conspiracy theories in the comments sections in the Norwegian media, Python. :rolleyes:

The skiforbundet is deciding whether to continue covering Johaug's legal costs. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/-Skiledelsen-i-hastemote-for-a-avgjore-Johaug-stotte-231872b.html Sundby cost 3.3. million NOK, Johaug 600 000 so far. To be consistent, they should.
The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?
Their choice was illusory.

IIRC the law of employment, would deem them responsible either way. The same way for Sundby. Their employee(doctor) made a mistake, leading to their other employee/contractee(Sundby, Johaug) testing positive and loosing income or potential income. Sundby could have sued the Ski Federation and they would pay exactly what they did(case cost for CAS and the money he lost from winnings) in addition to case costs in the Norwegian court. Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.

Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.
Well, providing you're reasoning's are correct, then look to the first bolded part: Why haven't the Norwegian Ski Federation sued the team doctors?
Now on to the second bolded part. Could you give a legal source to that claim? In my opinion it sounds pretty home cooked and with no bearing to the WADA-code.
I'm going off among other things law I had in High School(20+years ago) as an optional class.

They could sue the employee if his guilt reached above a certain level. Establishing guilt level/or responsibility level is part of the issue.

Lets say you are a mechanic. If you were moving a car from inside the shop to outside on the parking lot and you crashed the car. In this scenario, this falls under employer responsibility to cover the damages.

Compare that to you taking the car you just fixed out for a joyride with your friends and then crashing.
In this scenario you clearly went outside of your duties and the responsibility to cover the dammages falls on you.

Now lets say you fixed something and have to make sure it's okay. So you drive out on the highway to test the car and you crash.
This scenario is between the two extremes. Here it becomes more difficult to establish if this falls under employee or employer responsibility. I think it would fall under employer responsibility, but I'm not sure. This is were lawyers and judges come in. They have to assess the degree of guilt.

So if we relate that to Sundby and Johaug cases, it's a simple mistake they make carrying out their duties. In Sundbys case the doctor assumed he understood the rules correctly. And in Johaugs case, a lack of attention/vigilance caused him to give her a forbidden substance.

Relating to Sundby and Johaug, using drugs to enhance performance would be going outside your duties. Like if you stole the car you just fixed and went street racing and crashing. This would fall under the criminal code(theft) as well as responsibility to cover the damage to the car.

This law is about the employer not being allowed to put the employee in a situation where the employee fails, causes dammage and can wash his hands of responsibility later. The court could argue that the garrage in the first example should have had a routine where someone was stopping other traffic when moving the vehicle out of the garage.

This is not related to the WADA code, it's related to the employee/employer relationships. IIRC the law in question is Arbeidsmiljø loven(workers environment law) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-06-17-62
 
Blaaswix said:
Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.
She's lost sponsorship and she can't win any prize money, for starters.
And this is future earnings. Here it's a bit more complicated. I think in the US you could sue and get a lot of money, but in Norwegian law it's not so simple AFAIK anyway.
 
Blaaswix said:
Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.
That is the crux of the matter. The Sundby case is gone, but what if CAS come to a very different conclusion to the Norwegian authorities? The skiforbundet had very little choice, looking at the way they have backed her so far, they couldn't fund Sundby's case and not Johaug's.

You can't mix your terms here or you will end up with wrong conclusions.

The Sundby case came as a result of Fis testing. If I understood the results management process correctly, that means that ADN/sports federation weren't' involved like in the Johaug case were the testing was carried out by ADN.

The question here is who do you mean by the Norwegian authorities? If you mean the AD panel, it has nothing to do with the authorities. If you mean the work environment law, that is not something that CAS can do anything about.

As both Judgements stand now, it's the federations responsibility. The Sundby case is final. If CAS came to the conclusion that this was Johaug doping. Then the federation could let her handle the bill, and even demand repayment of the money they had already spent. Unless they were in on it and she was following orders.
 
ToreBear said:
Discgear said:
ToreBear said:
Discgear said:
Blaaswix said:
There's been plenty more paranoia and conspiracy theories in the comments sections in the Norwegian media, Python. :rolleyes:

The skiforbundet is deciding whether to continue covering Johaug's legal costs. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/-Skiledelsen-i-hastemote-for-a-avgjore-Johaug-stotte-231872b.html Sundby cost 3.3. million NOK, Johaug 600 000 so far. To be consistent, they should.
The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?
Their choice was illusory.

IIRC the law of employment, would deem them responsible either way. The same way for Sundby. Their employee(doctor) made a mistake, leading to their other employee/contractee(Sundby, Johaug) testing positive and loosing income or potential income. Sundby could have sued the Ski Federation and they would pay exactly what they did(case cost for CAS and the money he lost from winnings) in addition to case costs in the Norwegian court. Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.

Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.
Well, providing you're reasoning's are correct, then look to the first bolded part: Why haven't the Norwegian Ski Federation sued the team doctors?
Now on to the second bolded part. Could you give a legal source to that claim? In my opinion it sounds pretty home cooked and with no bearing to the WADA-code.
I'm going off among other things law I had in High School(20+years ago) as an optional class.

They could sue the employee if his guilt reached above a certain level. Establishing guilt level/or responsibility level is part of the issue.

Lets say you are a mechanic. If you were moving a car from inside the shop to outside on the parking lot and you crashed the car. In this scenario, this falls under employer responsibility to cover the damages.

Compare that to you taking the car you just fixed out for a joyride with your friends and then crashing.
In this scenario you clearly went outside of your duties and the responsibility to cover the dammages falls on you.

Now lets say you fixed something and have to make sure it's okay. So you drive out on the highway to test the car and you crash.
This scenario is between the two extremes. Here it becomes more difficult to establish if this falls under employee or employer responsibility. I think it would fall under employer responsibility, but I'm not sure. This is were lawyers and judges come in. They have to assess the degree of guilt.

So if we relate that to Sundby and Johaug cases, it's a simple mistake they make carrying out their duties. In Sundbys case the doctor assumed he understood the rules correctly. And in Johaugs case, a lack of attention/vigilance caused him to give her a forbidden substance.

Relating to Sundby and Johaug, using drugs to enhance performance would be going outside your duties. Like if you stole the car you just fixed and went street racing and crashing. This would fall under the criminal code(theft) as well as responsibility to cover the damage to the car.

This law is about the employer not being allowed to put the employee in a situation where the employee fails, causes dammage and can wash his hands of responsibility later. The court could argue that the garrage in the first example should have had a routine where someone was stopping other traffic when moving the vehicle out of the garage.

This is not related to the WADA code, it's related to the employee/employer relationships. IIRC the law in question is Arbeidsmiljø loven(workers environment law) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-06-17-62
In Sweden and most of the civilized world, all medical doctors in the private sector by law must have an insurance for malpractice. Maybe not in the land of exceptions? Both Johnsrud Sundby and Johaug’s case, according to the official version, are splendid examples of malpractice. Considering the strange paragraph were NSF have written that the athletes must follow the doctor’s advice – in conflict with the WADA code – you would expect that MJS or TJ have a perfect case to sue the NSF. Instead NSF pay for all their legal costs which make it impossible for the athletes to sue them.

But here we have des Pudels Kern. The only logical extension is that NSF sues the team doctors who both – with a reservation for the land of exceptions – have an insurance against malpractice.
I don’t have to explain the logical conclusion you would draw from the fact they are not suing the doctors.
 
Michael Rasmussen has a dig at the Norwegians handling of the Johaug case:

http://www.tv2.no/sport/8981902/

But look at the title of the article: "Dansk doper ler av Norges Johaug-behandling" Reminding us all that Rasmussen is a former doper and that we should keep that in mind....

And here is Rasmussen's tweet: https://twitter.com/MRasmussen1974/status/839840654721171456

And this is the article he shared via Twitter: http://www.adressa.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/Skiforbundet-fortsetter-a-stotte-Johaug-okonomisk-231929b.html?cx_Deling=AddThis
 
Discgear said:
ToreBear said:
Discgear said:
ToreBear said:
Discgear said:
The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?
Their choice was illusory.

IIRC the law of employment, would deem them responsible either way. The same way for Sundby. Their employee(doctor) made a mistake, leading to their other employee/contractee(Sundby, Johaug) testing positive and loosing income or potential income. Sundby could have sued the Ski Federation and they would pay exactly what they did(case cost for CAS and the money he lost from winnings) in addition to case costs in the Norwegian court. Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.

Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.
Well, providing you're reasoning's are correct, then look to the first bolded part: Why haven't the Norwegian Ski Federation sued the team doctors?
Now on to the second bolded part. Could you give a legal source to that claim? In my opinion it sounds pretty home cooked and with no bearing to the WADA-code.
I'm going off among other things law I had in High School(20+years ago) as an optional class.

They could sue the employee if his guilt reached above a certain level. Establishing guilt level/or responsibility level is part of the issue.

Lets say you are a mechanic. If you were moving a car from inside the shop to outside on the parking lot and you crashed the car. In this scenario, this falls under employer responsibility to cover the damages.

Compare that to you taking the car you just fixed out for a joyride with your friends and then crashing.
In this scenario you clearly went outside of your duties and the responsibility to cover the dammages falls on you.

Now lets say you fixed something and have to make sure it's okay. So you drive out on the highway to test the car and you crash.
This scenario is between the two extremes. Here it becomes more difficult to establish if this falls under employee or employer responsibility. I think it would fall under employer responsibility, but I'm not sure. This is were lawyers and judges come in. They have to assess the degree of guilt.

So if we relate that to Sundby and Johaug cases, it's a simple mistake they make carrying out their duties. In Sundbys case the doctor assumed he understood the rules correctly. And in Johaugs case, a lack of attention/vigilance caused him to give her a forbidden substance.

Relating to Sundby and Johaug, using drugs to enhance performance would be going outside your duties. Like if you stole the car you just fixed and went street racing and crashing. This would fall under the criminal code(theft) as well as responsibility to cover the damage to the car.

This law is about the employer not being allowed to put the employee in a situation where the employee fails, causes dammage and can wash his hands of responsibility later. The court could argue that the garrage in the first example should have had a routine where someone was stopping other traffic when moving the vehicle out of the garage.

This is not related to the WADA code, it's related to the employee/employer relationships. IIRC the law in question is Arbeidsmiljø loven(workers environment law) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-06-17-62
In Sweden and most of the civilized world, all medical doctors in the private sector by law must have an insurance for malpractice. Maybe not in the land of exceptions? Both Johnsrud Sundby and Johaug’s case, according to the official version, are splendid examples of malpractice. Considering the strange paragraph were NSF have written that the athletes must follow the doctor’s advice – in conflict with the WADA code – you would expect that MJS or TJ have a perfect case to sue the NSF. Instead NSF pay for all their legal costs which make it impossible for the athletes to sue them.

But here we have des Pudels Kern. The only logical extension is that NSF sues the team doctors who both – with a reservation for the land of exceptions – have an insurance against malpractice.
I don’t have to explain the logical conclusion you would draw from the fact they are not suing the doctors.
I don't know much/about what kind of insurance doctors have to have. The thing is malpractice by doctors are handled by Norsk Pasientskade Erstatning. https://www.npe.no/

It's a central authority responsible for paying out damages. It's to avoid a US problem with rising insurance cost due to an expanded view of damages in the US justice system.

And this entity is more about damage to the health. Whether that might include giving medication that results in a doping positive is questionable. It would probably be the first case of it's kind to handle that, and would probably be appealed to eternity. Meaning the cost would likely outstrip any potential benefit for Johaug/Sundby.

But in this case I would say it's pretty clear that the mistake is so small that it would be the employer being responsible.(see above)
In the Sundby case, If the doctor had a rutine to call ADN and ask about nebulizer use, this likely wouldn't have happened. This seems quite simple for the employer to have in order. Hence it goes under employer responsibility.

In the Johaug case, if there was a routine where medicines were bought abroad, the doctor would call home for a double check, this wouldn't have happened. Thats a pretty simple precaution that the employer should have had in place. Hence this also falls under employer responsibility.

So the simple reason nobody is suing is that Norges Ski Forbund would loose under the employment law. The athletes could try and sue NPE, but they would likely have to appeal to eternity to get anything. And if they loose they will be stuck with a massive case bill.

The Athletes could sue Norges Ski Forbund, but the suit would only give them what they have already gotten.

This is the logical conclusion I draw from them not suing the doctors.

Our justice system does not award a gazillion dollars if you get burned by a hot cup of cofee at Mcdonalds.
 
Jan 3, 2016
300
0
0
Sweden's olympic committee wants the rules on asthma medicine use tightened https://www.nrk.no/sport/svensk-idrettstopp-vil-ha-strengere-regler-for-astmamedisin_-_-utviklingen-er-uforsvarlig-1.13416436
They want to talk to the IOC and FIS and get a rule change before the 2018 olympics.
"We want a limit set for the grey zone. We want the FIS and the IOC to turn every stone and take a step in that direction", said the leader of Sweden's olympic committee, Peter Reinebo.

Hope it gets some results.
 
Expecting the worst (or so I thought), I skimmed through the Holmenkollen 30km footage. Glad I did, as it was way worse. 2.05 minutes...

On the 50km, it ws interesting to see that former champions and specialists of this event were minutes off the pace. The depth of the Russian team, having to do without a good number of their star skiers, is much better than the Astma train. Yet, Sundby is just way way stronger than any of them. A convincted doper, compared to most of the Russians merely alleged and assumed.
Why did the old champions (not beingtoo old to fall off a performance cliff) lose minutes to Sundby? Is there a new normal with few having gotten the memo, or full clearance?
 
Re:

Cloxxki said:
Expecting the worst (or so I thought), I skimmed through the Holmenkollen 30km footage. Glad I did, as it was way worse. 2.05 minutes...

On the 50km, it ws interesting to see that former champions and specialists of this event were minutes off the pace. The depth of the Russian team, having to do without a good number of their star skiers, is much better than the Astma train. Yet, Sundby is just way way stronger than any of them. A convincted doper, compared to most of the Russians merely alleged and assumed.
Why did the old champions (not beingtoo old to fall off a performance cliff) lose minutes to Sundby? Is there a new normal with few having gotten the memo, or full clearance?
I looked at the results, didn't watch the race, thought about watching it, but not sure I will. There was no doubt in my mind she would win big. I thought she would win by more to be honest, but whatever.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
danielovichdk2 The Clinic 3

ASK THE COMMUNITY