Doping in XC skiing

Page 199 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

ToreBear said:
Kokoso said:
ToreBear said:
Since you guys seem to have the most trouble with my arguments regarding perception error
Biggest trouble for me is yourargumentation being to funny :razz: Another big trouble for me is you saying athlete is not responsible for what he takes.

I have no problem with perception error, since I don't really think it's an issue here. Doctor has to be too damn aware of possible forbiden substance, so I expect him to be really meticulous. Athlete has to be aware of possible forbiden substance presence, so I expect him to be really meticulous, too. If they were so careless not to care about what is inside the tube, they should ne punished anyway. Every athlete proffesional athlete's agree's to follow anti-doping rules. To take care what's inside any tube is his/her responsibility.

You have more steps of control here: first is doctor, second Johaug. I hold my stance that it is not thing of wrong perception at all. First step Ok, so doctor is mentally *** or whatever and doesn't care about what is inside the tube (which is not only about seeing the DOPING inscription and red sign, but also check composition, so that makes another step of control where you can notice mistake). That is minus two steps of control. You have thid one and that is athlete, who asks: "what is inside the tube? Isn't forbidden substance there? Shom me/tell me, doc". Now doctor says "I didn't check, use it." Athlete uses it. :) That is at least three, or four steps of control. Definitely not thing of wrong preception. If athletes doesn't care of what he/he uses and only relied on doctor, it's athlete's fault anyway, cause he/she obligued to follow anti-doping rules.

P.S. do you really think that was good example how Johaug and doctor fail to notice that sign? Do you think it's comparable? Do you think that four pharmacologists at pharmacy were passing the box with tube inside and doctor or Johaug had to catch it and unwrap it while pharmacologists were trying to take that away from them? :) Totally ridiculous example.
I don't see many of the premises of arguments being grounded in facts, and there seems to be a lot of confusion here. I can't correct it all because I don't have the time or the patience.

First the Doctor:
He arrived at the pharmacy needing a cream that could replace the one that was supposed to be in the medical box. The cream he needed would need to contain antibiotics.

He arrived wearing XC national team atire and explained to the pharmacist that he was from the national team, and what Johaugs problem was and that she needed cream or something for the problem.
- Here the doctor is likely to assume that she might have a general idea that doping= bad. He might then assume he is steered clear of such products especially since...
So many wrongs of you ToreBear, and since you have followed the thread I call it flat out dishonesty by you.

You know very well that the medic didn't go to one of the two real pharmacies in Livigno. Instead, he took a 125 meter walk from the hotel to a parafarmacia (drugstore).

And your first sentence about the doctor is ridiculous as is the Johaug explanation. If "her cream" had been in the medical box, the medic wouldn't have had to travel from Norway to Italy to help her. Then someone else could had given her the desperately needed lip cream. So, the doctor must have known that "her cream" was missing.

Why the heck then, didn't he bring the right cream from Norway? He had 4 days to acquire it after Johaug calling, before he travelled. Or if he forgot to bring it: Why didn't he go to a pharmacy in Livigno.
 
Jan 3, 2016
300
0
0
Norwegian media reporting that the Johaug CAS verdict has been delayed again, it should have been released at the latest tomorrow. Popcorn ready for Tuesday the 21st, afternoon.

What might the delay mean?
 
Re: Re:

Discgear said:
ToreBear said:
Kokoso said:
ToreBear said:
Since you guys seem to have the most trouble with my arguments regarding perception error
Biggest trouble for me is yourargumentation being to funny :razz: Another big trouble for me is you saying athlete is not responsible for what he takes.

I have no problem with perception error, since I don't really think it's an issue here. Doctor has to be too damn aware of possible forbiden substance, so I expect him to be really meticulous. Athlete has to be aware of possible forbiden substance presence, so I expect him to be really meticulous, too. If they were so careless not to care about what is inside the tube, they should ne punished anyway. Every athlete proffesional athlete's agree's to follow anti-doping rules. To take care what's inside any tube is his/her responsibility.

You have more steps of control here: first is doctor, second Johaug. I hold my stance that it is not thing of wrong perception at all. First step Ok, so doctor is mentally *** or whatever and doesn't care about what is inside the tube (which is not only about seeing the DOPING inscription and red sign, but also check composition, so that makes another step of control where you can notice mistake). That is minus two steps of control. You have thid one and that is athlete, who asks: "what is inside the tube? Isn't forbidden substance there? Shom me/tell me, doc". Now doctor says "I didn't check, use it." Athlete uses it. :) That is at least three, or four steps of control. Definitely not thing of wrong preception. If athletes doesn't care of what he/he uses and only relied on doctor, it's athlete's fault anyway, cause he/she obligued to follow anti-doping rules.

P.S. do you really think that was good example how Johaug and doctor fail to notice that sign? Do you think it's comparable? Do you think that four pharmacologists at pharmacy were passing the box with tube inside and doctor or Johaug had to catch it and unwrap it while pharmacologists were trying to take that away from them? :) Totally ridiculous example.
I don't see many of the premises of arguments being grounded in facts, and there seems to be a lot of confusion here. I can't correct it all because I don't have the time or the patience.

First the Doctor:
He arrived at the pharmacy needing a cream that could replace the one that was supposed to be in the medical box. The cream he needed would need to contain antibiotics.

He arrived wearing XC national team atire and explained to the pharmacist that he was from the national team, and what Johaugs problem was and that she needed cream or something for the problem.
- Here the doctor is likely to assume that she might have a general idea that doping= bad. He might then assume he is steered clear of such products especially since...
So many wrongs of you ToreBear, and since you have followed the thread I call it flat out dishonesty by you.

You know very well that the medic didn't go to one of the two real pharmacies in Livigno. Instead, he took a 125 meter walk from the hotel to a parafarmacia (drugstore).

And your first sentence about the doctor is ridiculous as is the Johaug explanation. If "her cream" had been in the medical box, the medic wouldn't have had to travel from Norway to Italy to help her. Then someone else could had given her the desperately needed lip cream. So, the doctor must have known that "her cream" was missing.

Why the heck then, didn't he bring the right cream from Norway? He had 4 days to acquire it after Johaug calling, before he travelled. Or if he forgot to bring it: Why didn't he go to a pharmacy in Livigno.
The medical box travels with the team with a standard content. I imagine he would want to see whats wrong for himself rather than recomend treatment over the phone.

As for the pharmaci/parafarmacia thing, I have observed people get riled up about it(like everything else). I can't remember it being an issue. The investigator who went there would have reported it if it was important. I can't remember it having been mentioned in any of the court transcripts or the ruling itself.

In Norway we don't have a differentiation between drugstore and pharmacy. So I don't see what the big deal is.
 
Re: Re:

ToreBear said:
Discgear said:
ToreBear said:
Kokoso said:
ToreBear said:
Since you guys seem to have the most trouble with my arguments regarding perception error
Biggest trouble for me is yourargumentation being to funny :razz: Another big trouble for me is you saying athlete is not responsible for what he takes.

I have no problem with perception error, since I don't really think it's an issue here. Doctor has to be too damn aware of possible forbiden substance, so I expect him to be really meticulous. Athlete has to be aware of possible forbiden substance presence, so I expect him to be really meticulous, too. If they were so careless not to care about what is inside the tube, they should ne punished anyway. Every athlete proffesional athlete's agree's to follow anti-doping rules. To take care what's inside any tube is his/her responsibility.

You have more steps of control here: first is doctor, second Johaug. I hold my stance that it is not thing of wrong perception at all. First step Ok, so doctor is mentally *** or whatever and doesn't care about what is inside the tube (which is not only about seeing the DOPING inscription and red sign, but also check composition, so that makes another step of control where you can notice mistake). That is minus two steps of control. You have thid one and that is athlete, who asks: "what is inside the tube? Isn't forbidden substance there? Shom me/tell me, doc". Now doctor says "I didn't check, use it." Athlete uses it. :) That is at least three, or four steps of control. Definitely not thing of wrong preception. If athletes doesn't care of what he/he uses and only relied on doctor, it's athlete's fault anyway, cause he/she obligued to follow anti-doping rules.

P.S. do you really think that was good example how Johaug and doctor fail to notice that sign? Do you think it's comparable? Do you think that four pharmacologists at pharmacy were passing the box with tube inside and doctor or Johaug had to catch it and unwrap it while pharmacologists were trying to take that away from them? :) Totally ridiculous example.
I don't see many of the premises of arguments being grounded in facts, and there seems to be a lot of confusion here. I can't correct it all because I don't have the time or the patience.

First the Doctor:
He arrived at the pharmacy needing a cream that could replace the one that was supposed to be in the medical box. The cream he needed would need to contain antibiotics.

He arrived wearing XC national team atire and explained to the pharmacist that he was from the national team, and what Johaugs problem was and that she needed cream or something for the problem.
- Here the doctor is likely to assume that she might have a general idea that doping= bad. He might then assume he is steered clear of such products especially since...
So many wrongs of you ToreBear, and since you have followed the thread I call it flat out dishonesty by you.

You know very well that the medic didn't go to one of the two real pharmacies in Livigno. Instead, he took a 125 meter walk from the hotel to a parafarmacia (drugstore).

And your first sentence about the doctor is ridiculous as is the Johaug explanation. If "her cream" had been in the medical box, the medic wouldn't have had to travel from Norway to Italy to help her. Then someone else could had given her the desperately needed lip cream. So, the doctor must have known that "her cream" was missing.

Why the heck then, didn't he bring the right cream from Norway? He had 4 days to acquire it after Johaug calling, before he travelled. Or if he forgot to bring it: Why didn't he go to a pharmacy in Livigno.
The medical box travels with the team with a standard content. I imagine he would want to see whats wrong for himself rather than recomend treatment over the phone.

As for the pharmaci/parafarmacia thing, I have observed people get riled up about it(like everything else). I can't remember it being an issue. The investigator who went there would have reported it if it was important. I can't remember it having been mentioned in any of the court transcripts or the ruling itself.

In Norway we don't have a differentiation between drugstore and pharmacy. So I don't see what the big deal is.
Right... because you don't differentiate in Norway, it means that it is not a big deal in everywhere else in the world.

Thank you for giving the best laughs for a while by saying ADNO is so good because they say so. There can't be state led doping in Russia with that logic... because they say there isn't.

If you would slowly move from biased "Norway is the best and most honest country in the world - thus center of the world" mentality, you would probably actually realize how stupid and utterly naive your arguments sound.

But I guess you won't, because at the end you enjoy so much debating/troll with all of us (including me) who fails to fall into your trap time and time again.

I truly hope Therese will get what she deserves by violating the strickt liability. I doubt though as I have a feeling that 2 of the 3 CAS judges (maybe the Finnish one won't) wants to let her go.
 
@bambino

If I don't differentiate, why should I make a big deal out of it?

I know my arguments sound Naive and stupid in the clinic. In the clinic everyone dopes and no one is cleaner than anyone else.

Sorry but I take no pleasure debating with someone who is not inclined to listen. I try to correct what I see as factual errors and sometimes I write my opinions as well.

When someone calls me a troll I tend to be alert for trolls. Trolls love to complain about others supposedly trolling.
 
Re:

ToreBear said:
@bambino

If I don't differentiate, why should I make a big deal out of it?

I know my arguments sound Naive and stupid in the clinic. In the clinic everyone dopes and no one is cleaner than anyone else.

Sorry but I take no pleasure debating with someone who is not inclined to listen. I try to correct what I see as factual errors and sometimes I write my opinions as well.

When someone calls me a troll I tend to be alert for trolls. Trolls love to complain about others supposedly trolling.
Yes, you do love to try to correct factual errors of others. Your own factual errors that others correct though are "no big deals". That to me is trolling at its best.

You have never commented whether she violated the strickt liability or not. Never. So did she?
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
ToreBear said:
@bambino

If I don't differentiate, why should I make a big deal out of it?

I know my arguments sound Naive and stupid in the clinic. In the clinic everyone dopes and no one is cleaner than anyone else.

Sorry but I take no pleasure debating with someone who is not inclined to listen. I try to correct what I see as factual errors and sometimes I write my opinions as well.

When someone calls me a troll I tend to be alert for trolls. Trolls love to complain about others supposedly trolling.
Yes, you do love to try to correct factual errors of others. Your own factual errors that others correct though are "no big deals". That to me is trolling at its best.

You have never commented whether she violated the strickt liability or not. Never. So did she?
I don't think she did.
 
Re: Re:

ToreBear said:
bambino said:
ToreBear said:
@bambino

If I don't differentiate, why should I make a big deal out of it?

I know my arguments sound Naive and stupid in the clinic. In the clinic everyone dopes and no one is cleaner than anyone else.

Sorry but I take no pleasure debating with someone who is not inclined to listen. I try to correct what I see as factual errors and sometimes I write my opinions as well.

When someone calls me a troll I tend to be alert for trolls. Trolls love to complain about others supposedly trolling.
Yes, you do love to try to correct factual errors of others. Your own factual errors that others correct though are "no big deals". That to me is trolling at its best.

You have never commented whether she violated the strickt liability or not. Never. So did she?
I don't think she did.
Is it just your own opinion or you can back that with something else than an opinion that one can be released from very clear liability with mistake of doctor? You do know what liability mean, right?


That would/will set very dangerous presedent to any doping work.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
ToreBear said:
bambino said:
ToreBear said:
@bambino

If I don't differentiate, why should I make a big deal out of it?

I know my arguments sound Naive and stupid in the clinic. In the clinic everyone dopes and no one is cleaner than anyone else.

Sorry but I take no pleasure debating with someone who is not inclined to listen. I try to correct what I see as factual errors and sometimes I write my opinions as well.

When someone calls me a troll I tend to be alert for trolls. Trolls love to complain about others supposedly trolling.
Yes, you do love to try to correct factual errors of others. Your own factual errors that others correct though are "no big deals". That to me is trolling at its best.

You have never commented whether she violated the strickt liability or not. Never. So did she?
I don't think she did.
Is it just your own opinion or you can back that with something else than an opinion that one can be released from very clear liability with mistake of doctor? You do know what liability mean, right?


That would/will set very dangerous presedent to any doping work.
Just my opinion based on the information I have gathered. I don't see the point in rehashing arguments from two months ago. Especially not when my nose smells troll.
 
Re: Re:

ToreBear said:
bambino said:
ToreBear said:
bambino said:
ToreBear said:
@bambino

If I don't differentiate, why should I make a big deal out of it?

I know my arguments sound Naive and stupid in the clinic. In the clinic everyone dopes and no one is cleaner than anyone else.

Sorry but I take no pleasure debating with someone who is not inclined to listen. I try to correct what I see as factual errors and sometimes I write my opinions as well.

When someone calls me a troll I tend to be alert for trolls. Trolls love to complain about others supposedly trolling.
Yes, you do love to try to correct factual errors of others. Your own factual errors that others correct though are "no big deals". That to me is trolling at its best.

You have never commented whether she violated the strickt liability or not. Never. So did she?
I don't think she did.
Is it just your own opinion or you can back that with something else than an opinion that one can be released from very clear liability with mistake of doctor? You do know what liability mean, right?


That would/will set very dangerous presedent to any doping work.
Just my opinion based on the information I have gathered. I don't see the point in rehashing arguments from two months ago. Especially not when my nose smells troll.
Ok so the doctor mistake it is. Does the WADA rule say that one can be exempt from strickt liability due to other people/doctors mistake?
 
Re:

Blaaswix said:
Norwegian media reporting that the Johaug CAS verdict has been delayed again, it should have been released at the latest tomorrow. Popcorn ready for Tuesday the 21st, afternoon.

What might the delay mean?

What might it mean? Who the heck knows at this point. They've delayed the verdict on the Russians many times as well.

Either they don't have 'enough' and are debating like the 12 jurors in a jury room or something is going on behind the scenes that is alarming.
 
Re: Re:

BullsFan22 said:
Blaaswix said:
Norwegian media reporting that the Johaug CAS verdict has been delayed again, it should have been released at the latest tomorrow. Popcorn ready for Tuesday the 21st, afternoon.

What might the delay mean?

What might it mean? Who the heck knows at this point. They've delayed the verdict on the Russians many times as well.

Either they don't have 'enough' and are debating like the 12 jurors in a jury room or something is going on behind the scenes that is alarming.
Remember there are one judge selected by Johaug, one by FIS and one generically appointed. Of course there are arguments and behind the scenes plays between the judges. CAS definitely isn't un-touchable of politics although it publically claims otherwise.
 
ToreBear, the example of Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle was because her positive test at the Olympics was allegedly caused by a contaminant or unlabelled ingredient of a herbal tea concoction recommended to her by an advisor (not an official team doctor though). So interested in how you feel strict liability plays out in Evi's case compared to Therese's, considering on the face of it she should be more innocent (there was far less reason for her to know the forbidden substance was in the item than Johaug) but the fact the doctor wasn't official and that she had previous (the hematocrit incident at the Torino Olympics) also play into the roles.

I've also noted that back in February, you used the same explanation for why you didn't feel the Norwegians' use of asthma treatment was playing in grey areas - that it is common practice among other teams. However, when pressed for more detail on who outside of Norway used asthma treatment this way, Manificat was the only example you had to hand. Are there any others to back up your point, or where has this argument that it is common practice come from?

And how, pray tell, is people who do not have asthma using asthma treatment not playing in the grey areas? After all, there are numerous members of the XC team who declare they do not have asthma but sometimes use the treatment. Only Emil Iversen declares that he doesn't use the nebulizers, out of 5 who announce they don't have asthma (including a lot of my favourites such as Røthe, too). Brandsdal and Tønseth fob us off with "when it is necessary" (different worlds, but La Bomba springs to mind) and "when there are similar symptoms". Maybe that's what the Austrians have been doing wrong - if only Johannes Dürr had explained that he had felt similar symptoms to kidney disease, so a preventative course of EPO was the only logical response ;)

Your arguments about the Norwegian Anti-Doping authorities might even be relatively persuasive if they weren't prefaced by a comment ("because they say so") that is clearly incendiary and designed to spark a hostile response. After all, I can dig out quotes where the Russians claim the excellent status of their anti-doping regulations, and Andreas Klöden testifying that Astana have among the best internal controls in the pro péloton. Your other arguments on this point hold much more value and don't need to be held back by an appeal to that kind of cheap heat. Reliance on the "you are mis-informed" counterargument can only get you so far - what are the information sources we need to be using to be adequately informed, and can you vouch for their objectivity?

Like I said before, there might be a bit of the Mick Rogers Clenbuterol Blues here, in that Therese might actually just have made a mistake. A colossal brain-fade mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, but the perception of sanctimoniousness on the Norwegian part meant that it was seen in a way as some kind of karma for a big Norwegian name to fall in such a way. I can even see the argument that the intention was not performance-enhancing here, but certain features of the story really don't stack up which leads towards one of the following:

- genuine mistake, but the fact that both doctor and athlete failed to recognize an obvious sign, which is an oversight of such magnitude that ignorance is no appropriate defence and a suspension is warranted for the gross failure in due diligence. And defending this as the doctor's fault is a ridiculous level of absolving Therese of any responsibility for her own actions; she's not a child, she's not a naïve rookie either, she's a grown woman who's been at the pinnacle of the sport for half a decade.
- wilful mistake, i.e. the "don't ask questions don't hear lies" school of thought. Which is reckless when playing about with potential bans, and unlikely as a result as you would have thought similar cases would proliferate among the team if so. Willfully ignoring a warning on the label is a dangerous option in which case she deserves everything she gets.
- knew that what Therese was taking was banned but banking on not being tested as it was out of season and out of competition. In which case it was a gamble that didn't pay off and the ban is deserved.

There is no way to say that Therese was innocent and not responsible for what was used unless they can maybe prove the doctor discarded the box with the doping warning, or forcibly applied the cream against her will or without her knowledge; the former is reckless and counter to the officially-presented explanation, and the latter is extremely unlikely; both would likely have resulted in lawsuits against the doctor, which have not been forthcoming. Otherwise, to reprieve her is to completely remove the basic tenet of strict liability, because absolving her of responsibility leaves the implication that athletes are unthinking, unknowing automatons at the mercy of the staff and under no obligation to actually understand and think about the anti-doping code. She may not have intended to gain any advantage from the cream, but you also seem to believe that she should not have to take any responsibility for her own actions, which is the only way you can justify her not facing consequences for the oversight.

"Learning without thinking is useless. Thinking without learning is dangerous" - Confucius
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Re:

Blaaswix said:
Norwegian media reporting that the Johaug CAS verdict has been delayed again, it should have been released at the latest tomorrow. Popcorn ready for Tuesday the 21st, afternoon.

What might the delay mean?
oh boy, it was so entertaining to read the old and incurable norge fanboy thrashing (guess the handle :lol:) by just about everyone :D a word of advice to you folks, take it easy on the dude or he will call you, like it was a case with me 2-3 years ago, a child molesters or whatever his 'retort' was to me seeing a norwegian doping apologist for what he was ...he should be careful though, according to some most recent feedback, he can earn a lifeban for the very singular reference :idea:

anyways, the cas delay as you pointed out is interesting...i just read they will publish the decision on the 22nd aug.
Why the delay ? hard to tell, but it could have been EITHER a delay granted by the panel for submitting some document, or, more likely, there is a split within the 3-person panel as to the final decision. 2 vs 1 or 1 vs 2...

I see our lil threrese tearing profusely again...and it wont be with joy. simply b/c the national anti-doping favoritism was way to arrogant for most non norges...my humble opinion.
 
Re: Re:

python said:
Blaaswix said:
Norwegian media reporting that the Johaug CAS verdict has been delayed again, it should have been released at the latest tomorrow. Popcorn ready for Tuesday the 21st, afternoon.

What might the delay mean?
anyways, the cas delay as you pointed out is interesting...i just read they will publish the decision on the 22nd aug.
Why the delay ? hard to tell, but it could have been EITHER a delay granted by the panel for submitting some document, or, more likely, there is a split within the 3-person panel as to the final decision. 2 vs 1 or 1 vs 2...

I see our lil threrese tearing profusely again...and it wont be with joy. simply b/c the national anti-doping favoritism was way to arrogant for most non norges...my humble opinion.
I agree that it's probably a 2 vs 1 situation. Either it is the finn that is pushing a strict punishment, maybe even a four year ban or the lawyer chosen by Johaug is going for a ridicously low punishment, that the other two can't support.
 
Apr 22, 2012
3,570
0
0
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
- genuine mistake, but the fact that both doctor and athlete failed to recognize an obvious sign, which is an oversight of such magnitude that ignorance is no appropriate defence and a suspension is warranted for the gross failure in due diligence. And defending this as the doctor's fault is a ridiculous level of absolving Therese of any responsibility for her own actions; she's not a child, she's not a naïve rookie either, she's a grown woman who's been at the pinnacle of the sport for half a decade.
Yep, that's what I've said, too.
 
Apr 22, 2012
3,570
0
0
Re: Re:

bambino said:
Ok so the doctor mistake it is. Does the WADA rule say that one can be exempt from strickt liability due to other people/doctors mistake?
Well said, bambino.
 
Apr 22, 2012
3,570
0
0
Re: Re:

ToreBear said:
Kokoso said:
ToreBear said:
Since you guys seem to have the most trouble with my arguments regarding perception error
Biggest trouble for me is yourargumentation being to funny :razz: Another big trouble for me is you saying athlete is not responsible for what he takes.

I have no problem with perception error, since I don't really think it's an issue here. Doctor has to be too damn aware of possible forbiden substance, so I expect him to be really meticulous. Athlete has to be aware of possible forbiden substance presence, so I expect him to be really meticulous, too. If they were so careless not to care about what is inside the tube, they should ne punished anyway. Every athlete proffesional athlete's agree's to follow anti-doping rules. To take care what's inside any tube is his/her responsibility.

You have more steps of control here: first is doctor, second Johaug. I hold my stance that it is not thing of wrong perception at all. First step Ok, so doctor is mentally *** or whatever and doesn't care about what is inside the tube (which is not only about seeing the DOPING inscription and red sign, but also check composition, so that makes another step of control where you can notice mistake). That is minus two steps of control. You have thid one and that is athlete, who asks: "what is inside the tube? Isn't forbidden substance there? Shom me/tell me, doc". Now doctor says "I didn't check, use it." Athlete uses it. :) That is at least three, or four steps of control. Definitely not thing of wrong preception. If athletes doesn't care of what he/he uses and only relied on doctor, it's athlete's fault anyway, cause he/she obligued to follow anti-doping rules.

P.S. do you really think that was good example how Johaug and doctor fail to notice that sign? Do you think it's comparable? Do you think that four pharmacologists at pharmacy were passing the box with tube inside and doctor or Johaug had to catch it and unwrap it while pharmacologists were trying to take that away from them? :) Totally ridiculous example.
I don't see many of the premises of arguments being grounded in facts, and there seems to be a lot of confusion here. I can't correct it all because I don't have the time or the patience.
Can't argue with that results in "I have no time" "argument" and "lot of confusion" "argument" (of course you are aware this is faul) etc. No explanation/reaction in a "this specific argument is not grounded in fact" way. Thank you, I don't think you have to say more. :)

However it was his job to make sure, and he failed in that.
Or maybe not, actually.

Then Johaug:
Johaug assumed since it came from the team doctor, and she had asked for confirmation that she had done the required dilligence.
I have problem with this. She should not assume. Not to assume is her responsibility. You are making some kind of robot without her own will here.

Since she found out the instruction leaflet in Italian she might have concluded that any further investigation of the tube/package etc was pointless.
I am missing logic in here. So when you find something in language you don't understand and you don't know what it is, you assume any further investigation is pointless? I'd say it's normally other way round; when someone finds something potentionally dangerous and knows nothing about that, then he/she tries to find out more, not just say, well, I'll use and lets see if it harms me or not. What would you do? Try to imagine.

It does not seem like you watched the whole video.
Yep, I haven't.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
ToreBear, the example of Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle was because her positive test at the Olympics was allegedly caused by a contaminant or unlabelled ingredient of a herbal tea concoction recommended to her by an advisor (not an official team doctor though). So interested in how you feel strict liability plays out in Evi's case compared to Therese's, considering on the face of it she should be more innocent (there was far less reason for her to know the forbidden substance was in the item than Johaug) but the fact the doctor wasn't official and that she had previous (the hematocrit incident at the Torino Olympics) also play into the roles.

I've also noted that back in February, you used the same explanation for why you didn't feel the Norwegians' use of asthma treatment was playing in grey areas - that it is common practice among other teams. However, when pressed for more detail on who outside of Norway used asthma treatment this way, Manificat was the only example you had to hand. Are there any others to back up your point, or where has this argument that it is common practice come from?

And how, pray tell, is people who do not have asthma using asthma treatment not playing in the grey areas? After all, there are numerous members of the XC team who declare they do not have asthma but sometimes use the treatment. Only Emil Iversen declares that he doesn't use the nebulizers, out of 5 who announce they don't have asthma (including a lot of my favourites such as Røthe, too). Brandsdal and Tønseth fob us off with "when it is necessary" (different worlds, but La Bomba springs to mind) and "when there are similar symptoms". Maybe that's what the Austrians have been doing wrong - if only Johannes Dürr had explained that he had felt similar symptoms to kidney disease, so a preventative course of EPO was the only logical response ;)

Your arguments about the Norwegian Anti-Doping authorities might even be relatively persuasive if they weren't prefaced by a comment ("because they say so") that is clearly incendiary and designed to spark a hostile response. After all, I can dig out quotes where the Russians claim the excellent status of their anti-doping regulations, and Andreas Klöden testifying that Astana have among the best internal controls in the pro péloton. Your other arguments on this point hold much more value and don't need to be held back by an appeal to that kind of cheap heat. Reliance on the "you are mis-informed" counterargument can only get you so far - what are the information sources we need to be using to be adequately informed, and can you vouch for their objectivity?

Like I said before, there might be a bit of the Mick Rogers Clenbuterol Blues here, in that Therese might actually just have made a mistake. A colossal brain-fade mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, but the perception of sanctimoniousness on the Norwegian part meant that it was seen in a way as some kind of karma for a big Norwegian name to fall in such a way. I can even see the argument that the intention was not performance-enhancing here, but certain features of the story really don't stack up which leads towards one of the following:

- genuine mistake, but the fact that both doctor and athlete failed to recognize an obvious sign, which is an oversight of such magnitude that ignorance is no appropriate defence and a suspension is warranted for the gross failure in due diligence. And defending this as the doctor's fault is a ridiculous level of absolving Therese of any responsibility for her own actions; she's not a child, she's not a naïve rookie either, she's a grown woman who's been at the pinnacle of the sport for half a decade.
- wilful mistake, i.e. the "don't ask questions don't hear lies" school of thought. Which is reckless when playing about with potential bans, and unlikely as a result as you would have thought similar cases would proliferate among the team if so. Willfully ignoring a warning on the label is a dangerous option in which case she deserves everything she gets.
- knew that what Therese was taking was banned but banking on not being tested as it was out of season and out of competition. In which case it was a gamble that didn't pay off and the ban is deserved.

There is no way to say that Therese was innocent and not responsible for what was used unless they can maybe prove the doctor discarded the box with the doping warning, or forcibly applied the cream against her will or without her knowledge; the former is reckless and counter to the officially-presented explanation, and the latter is extremely unlikely; both would likely have resulted in lawsuits against the doctor, which have not been forthcoming. Otherwise, to reprieve her is to completely remove the basic tenet of strict liability, because absolving her of responsibility leaves the implication that athletes are unthinking, unknowing automatons at the mercy of the staff and under no obligation to actually understand and think about the anti-doping code. She may not have intended to gain any advantage from the cream, but you also seem to believe that she should not have to take any responsibility for her own actions, which is the only way you can justify her not facing consequences for the oversight.

"Learning without thinking is useless. Thinking without learning is dangerous" - Confucius
The Evi case: I didn't know any of this. From a quick reading of your description. If the substance was not listed as an ingredient and she can prove contamination then IMHO, she should be freed.

I don't remember right now the source for that information. It might have been from the team coaches meting during the world champs in Lahti, were the swedes said they were all alone. A here is an article about that.
https://www.dagbladet.no/sport/sverige-foler-seg-helt-alene-etter-astmamote-i-lahti---vi-er-nok-ensomme-om-dette/67341694

As for who gets treated with asthma meds, I thought we had cleared that up back in february? My understanding is that asthma medication has other medical approved uses than pure asthma. Also it is also beneficial to use as a prophilactic.
It's all in the Asthma report:
https://www.skiforbundet.no/contentassets/de0fe93897e34b2fa2c2cf71811a2c04/utvalgsrapport-15.2.2017.pdf
IIRC The Swedish specialist felt the athletes were often under medicated....
I'm sure Durr would have had the medical community backing him on this..... ;)

As for Anti Doping, I have read a lot and learned a lot. It has become implicit knowledge for me. If you are interested. a simple google search could help get you started:
"What is efficient doping control?"

The first link that comes up for me is http://www.idrottsforum.org/push/efficient_doping_control.pdf

Seems you didn't complete the video attention test.
viewtopic.php?p=2171414#p2171414

Otherwise this seems to be a repeat of 2-6 months old arguments.
New information might be a new report into prescribing medication to top athletes:
http://www.olympiatoppen.no/om_olympiatoppen/aktuelt/media53137.media

Sorry for so much being in Norwegian. I don't know of any English translations.
 
Re: Re:

python said:
Blaaswix said:
Norwegian media reporting that the Johaug CAS verdict has been delayed again, it should have been released at the latest tomorrow. Popcorn ready for Tuesday the 21st, afternoon.

What might the delay mean?
oh boy, it was so entertaining to read the old and incurable norge fanboy thrashing (guess the handle :lol:) by just about everyone :D a word of advice to you folks, take it easy on the dude or he will call you, like it was a case with me 2-3 years ago, a child molesters or whatever his 'retort' was to me seeing a norwegian doping apologist for what he was ...he should be careful though, according to some most recent feedback, he can earn a lifeban for the very singular reference :idea:

anyways, the cas delay as you pointed out is interesting...i just read they will publish the decision on the 22nd aug.
Why the delay ? hard to tell, but it could have been EITHER a delay granted by the panel for submitting some document, or, more likely, there is a split within the 3-person panel as to the final decision. 2 vs 1 or 1 vs 2...

I see our lil threrese tearing profusely again...and it wont be with joy. simply b/c the national anti-doping favoritism was way to arrogant for most non norges...my humble opinion.
I didn't call you a child molester, I was pointing out that lies can be just as hurtful as the truth.

Either you are *** and unable to comprehend context or you are trolling. I'm going to be gracious and assume trolling.
Context:
It starts from this post:
viewtopic.php?p=1392554#p1392554


Python really doesn't like people pointing out his mistakes. Or was it intentional misinformation?

So please lay of the trolling Python. You should know better.
 
Re: Re:

ToreBear said:
Libertine Seguros said:
ToreBear, the example of Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle was because her positive test at the Olympics was allegedly caused by a contaminant or unlabelled ingredient of a herbal tea concoction recommended to her by an advisor (not an official team doctor though). So interested in how you feel strict liability plays out in Evi's case compared to Therese's, considering on the face of it she should be more innocent (there was far less reason for her to know the forbidden substance was in the item than Johaug) but the fact the doctor wasn't official and that she had previous (the hematocrit incident at the Torino Olympics) also play into the roles.

I've also noted that back in February, you used the same explanation for why you didn't feel the Norwegians' use of asthma treatment was playing in grey areas - that it is common practice among other teams. However, when pressed for more detail on who outside of Norway used asthma treatment this way, Manificat was the only example you had to hand. Are there any others to back up your point, or where has this argument that it is common practice come from?

And how, pray tell, is people who do not have asthma using asthma treatment not playing in the grey areas? After all, there are numerous members of the XC team who declare they do not have asthma but sometimes use the treatment. Only Emil Iversen declares that he doesn't use the nebulizers, out of 5 who announce they don't have asthma (including a lot of my favourites such as Røthe, too). Brandsdal and Tønseth fob us off with "when it is necessary" (different worlds, but La Bomba springs to mind) and "when there are similar symptoms". Maybe that's what the Austrians have been doing wrong - if only Johannes Dürr had explained that he had felt similar symptoms to kidney disease, so a preventative course of EPO was the only logical response ;)

Your arguments about the Norwegian Anti-Doping authorities might even be relatively persuasive if they weren't prefaced by a comment ("because they say so") that is clearly incendiary and designed to spark a hostile response. After all, I can dig out quotes where the Russians claim the excellent status of their anti-doping regulations, and Andreas Klöden testifying that Astana have among the best internal controls in the pro péloton. Your other arguments on this point hold much more value and don't need to be held back by an appeal to that kind of cheap heat. Reliance on the "you are mis-informed" counterargument can only get you so far - what are the information sources we need to be using to be adequately informed, and can you vouch for their objectivity?

Like I said before, there might be a bit of the Mick Rogers Clenbuterol Blues here, in that Therese might actually just have made a mistake. A colossal brain-fade mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, but the perception of sanctimoniousness on the Norwegian part meant that it was seen in a way as some kind of karma for a big Norwegian name to fall in such a way. I can even see the argument that the intention was not performance-enhancing here, but certain features of the story really don't stack up which leads towards one of the following:

- genuine mistake, but the fact that both doctor and athlete failed to recognize an obvious sign, which is an oversight of such magnitude that ignorance is no appropriate defence and a suspension is warranted for the gross failure in due diligence. And defending this as the doctor's fault is a ridiculous level of absolving Therese of any responsibility for her own actions; she's not a child, she's not a naïve rookie either, she's a grown woman who's been at the pinnacle of the sport for half a decade.
- wilful mistake, i.e. the "don't ask questions don't hear lies" school of thought. Which is reckless when playing about with potential bans, and unlikely as a result as you would have thought similar cases would proliferate among the team if so. Willfully ignoring a warning on the label is a dangerous option in which case she deserves everything she gets.
- knew that what Therese was taking was banned but banking on not being tested as it was out of season and out of competition. In which case it was a gamble that didn't pay off and the ban is deserved.

There is no way to say that Therese was innocent and not responsible for what was used unless they can maybe prove the doctor discarded the box with the doping warning, or forcibly applied the cream against her will or without her knowledge; the former is reckless and counter to the officially-presented explanation, and the latter is extremely unlikely; both would likely have resulted in lawsuits against the doctor, which have not been forthcoming. Otherwise, to reprieve her is to completely remove the basic tenet of strict liability, because absolving her of responsibility leaves the implication that athletes are unthinking, unknowing automatons at the mercy of the staff and under no obligation to actually understand and think about the anti-doping code. She may not have intended to gain any advantage from the cream, but you also seem to believe that she should not have to take any responsibility for her own actions, which is the only way you can justify her not facing consequences for the oversight.

"Learning without thinking is useless. Thinking without learning is dangerous" - Confucius
I don't remember right now the source for that information. It might have been from the team coaches meting during the world champs in Lahti, were the swedes said they were all alone. A here is an article about that.
https://www.dagbladet.no/sport/sverige-foler-seg-helt-alene-etter-astmamote-i-lahti---vi-er-nok-ensomme-om-dette/67341694
Come on, do you think everyone here has the memoral capacity of a jellyfish? When the Swedes said they felt alone, it was directed on the use of Nebulizers.
ToreBear said:
As for who gets treated with asthma meds, I thought we had cleared that up back in february? My understanding is that asthma medication has other medical approved uses than pure asthma. Also it is also beneficial to use as a prophilactic.
It's all in the Asthma report:
https://www.skiforbundet.no/contentassets/de0fe93897e34b2fa2c2cf71811a2c04/utvalgsrapport-15.2.2017.pdf
IIRC The Swedish specialist felt the athletes were often under medicated....
I'm sure Durr would have had the medical community backing him on this..... ;)
Once again you're blurring what was said.

- Firstly, remember that the report was a commission by the Norwegian Ski Federation. The "independent" observers were heavily connected to Norwegian sports and especially the Swedish expert is a notorious asthma medication junkie with both legs deeply buried in the medical industrial complex.
- Secondly, the report did only scrutinize the use of medicines concerning asthma and respiratory. This was of course highly problematic since it is a well known fact that with different combinations of drugs, you can achieve performance enhancing effects, especially with Beta2-agonists and different steroids. Not anywhere in the report were to be find anything about which TUEs had been granted to the Norwegian skiers.
- Thirdly, FIS doping expert Rasmus Damsgaard, basically agreed with the Swedish team and said in the reports aftermath: if you need a Nebulizer you should stay at home and not participate in races. Further on he said that you should have scientific evidence before you treat people.

What bothers me ToreBear, is that I suspect you're an educated person. There's some aboslute freaks - both Swedes and Norwegians - on different Swedish forums debating the very same issues. But they are clearly not equipped with a scientific mindset and they are basically a Nordic version of WT. But your argumentation is so selective, so dishonest, so one-sided, so hyper nationalistic, that it really casts a shadow on Norwegians in general and Norwegian ski supporters in particular. And if educated, it also casts a shadow over Norwegian higher education.

Your arguments the last week are sickening. Period.
 
@Disgcear I think this is also a rehash. We have had this discussion before. Its because of my scientific mindset that I have come to the conclusions I have.

Your are saying I'm bluring, while with my eyes it looks like you are bluring. It doesn't seem like we can agree on basic facts. The medical and Norwegian sporting industrial complex is an interesting take. Don't think there were any unusual connections between Norwegian sport and the independent observers. But I'm sure coauthoring papers 20 years ago is a clear sign of collusion and is totally abnormal in your world.

I really don't see anyway you will be convinced of anything other than some Norwegian doping conspiracy. It's not there, but you will keep looking, and every little bit of information you get is twisted until it supports your theory of its existence.

I've noticed some forums and there people seem to have created their little world of doping conspiracies. No amount of factual information seems to penetrate and be internalized.

So why should I waste more time on it?
 
"No amount of factual information seems to penetrate and be internalized" - perfect description of the Betonkopf, no?

Anyway, how are you getting on with your list of nations who are using the "common practice" of using asthma treatment for non-asthmatics in the same fashion as Norway? Since last time your assertion that this was common practice in several nations was questioned, you could only name Maurice Manificat as an example. As you've gone back to the assertion that it is done by several nations and trump up your scientific mindset, I can only presume that you have unearthed further evidence that backs up your assertion, as restating an unsatisfactory conclusion would surely be a no-no?

And again, your remarks seem designed to draw hostility. Firstly because of the use of terms like "it's not there", just like your earlier use of arguments like the Norwegian anti-doping authority is excellent "because they say they are" and appeals to the higher Norwegian moral fibre regarding doping, implies a level of certainty that is simply impossible to back given the history of the sport and the behaviours we've seen (I mean ffs, "no rules have been broken" is one thing, and "there has been no convincing evidence to date" is perhaps a better and less combative way to make the same point). And secondly because making selective arguments and refusing point blank on several occasions to take any counter-argument on board, or cede any ground even when massively compromised (seriously, continuing to argue "Therese is innocent, it's the doctor's fault" makes a mockery of the basic tenet of strict liability and also begs a serious question as to why the Norwegians haven't taken action against the doctor responsible for letting down a star athlete in such a spectacular way, and continuing to argue that there isn't even any grey area in gaining advantage by presenting athletes with health treatments they don't need for conditions that they don't have does nobody any good - just admit "they gained advantage without breaking the rules, so anybody else could do it if they so wished and if they didn't, more fool them" and it would be far less combative), makes you a hypocrite when you then criticise others for failing to take on board your points. Even when the video you so love pointing people to, about the gorilla and the basketball, has been pointed out for its flaws in relevance to the particular incident on more than one occasion (and nevertheless, you insist that if anybody doesn't now agree with you, they must not have watched the video in full).

It's also not that everybody thinks there is a colossal doping conspiracy going on involving every member of the Norwegian Ski Federation or anything. It's just that in the manner you post, you act like you're refusing to even entertain the possibility that any of the Norwegians might not be as pure as the driven snow. With the little asides about why Johaug being Norwegian should be taken into account as an additional factor as to why her protestations of innocence should be treated with more credence, it's hard to believe that you're not just on the wind-up, or at the very least are determined to hold on to Norway's claim to the moral high ground until the bitter end and have decided attack is the best form of defence.
 
Jan 3, 2016
300
0
0
Reading the comments under the line on the few articles in the Norwegian press about Johaug in recent days, I detect a growing tiredness with the whole affair and a change in the way norwegians view the case. There are still a few that take the Tore Bear approach, but they seem to be a lot fewer and there are more that seem irritated by the presumption by the assorted media that it's some sort of a patriotic duty to support Johaug no matter what. There is, I think, some sort of small reaction against the whole circus now.
 
I live in Norway. Naïvety as displayed by ToreBear is dime a dozen here, so his posts don't surprise me one bit.

A dysfunctional anti-doping agency that couldn't even catch a cold and a borderline maniacal sense of patriotism will do that to people. Some Norwegians genuinely believe the lack of Norwegian positives is because our athletes don't dope, and that they're just naturally 10-15% better than everyone else. It's sad.

Our athletes aren't better, but our anti-doping agency is definitely sh*t.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
danielovichdk2 The Clinic 3

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts