Doping in XC skiing

Page 201 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Singer01

BANNED
Nov 18, 2013
2,043
2
5,485
Põhja Konn said:
Good. I actually expected that she would be forced to miss the olympics as the FIS and CAS couldn't afford to be so soft in this case. The arrogant and self-righteous attitude shown by Johaug's camp effectively guaranteed that she couldn't get off lightly. Still I did worry that she is somehow able to wriggle out of this, which, thankfully, didn't happen.

Obviously I agree with those who think she actually got off lightly despite missing the olympics. With the attitude shown by Johaug herself and people around her, full four year suspension would have been thoroughly deserved.
While i understand the sentiment you have to sentence the offence, not the person.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
..read the 35-page pdf award and decided to post the following immediate impressions:

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

the bottom line, johaug - just as it seem the entire norwegian nation still fail to recognize even the slightest degree of the compatriot responsibility for missing a clearly visible doping warning. :rolleyes:
 
Singer01 said:
Põhja Konn said:
Good. I actually expected that she would be forced to miss the olympics as the FIS and CAS couldn't afford to be so soft in this case. The arrogant and self-righteous attitude shown by Johaug's camp effectively guaranteed that she couldn't get off lightly. Still I did worry that she is somehow able to wriggle out of this, which, thankfully, didn't happen.

Obviously I agree with those who think she actually got off lightly despite missing the olympics. With the attitude shown by Johaug herself and people around her, full four year suspension would have been thoroughly deserved.
While i understand the sentiment you have to sentence the offence, not the person.
Of course, but I don't believe for a second that negligence was Johaug's only crime in this case.
 
"The CAS 2014/A/3591 case is also factually distinct from Ms Johaug’s situation. It pertained to the delegation of responsibility in the context of equine sport where a rider was likely to rely on third parties to a significant degree, a situation that is different from human athletic endeavor."

You don't say.
 
Re:

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

You don't say.
:) I say it reveals quite a lot about the legal teams view on Ms Johaug's intellectual capabilities. To equate her with a horse.
 
Re: Re:

bambino said:
yaco said:
bambino said:
python said:
^^
yep, just was logging in to post the rulling link I saw in the vg article...reading it now. it does look though as there were no diverging arbitrators. as if there was one, an opinion as to why would typically be provided at the end of a ruling.
So the CAS panel was definitely not unanimous on virtually anything. It was majority decision. Not a hard guess who would've let Therese go with warning...

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

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

- they claim she could and had a right to delegate her responsibilities of doping conduct to another person (Doctor of course). They have another case where that has been granted. That case was for RACING HORSE! I found the CAS panel response extremely amusing saying something like "Ms Johaug is expected by the panel to handle her medical usage better than the athelete in particular case" :D
There you have the flaw with CAS - A guilty verdict should only occur if the arbitrators are in unanimous agreement - Majority verdicts should not be acceptable at this level.
In that case they should also change the rule that the parties can select one of the panel members. Otherwise you will never get decisions out.
CAS is flawed - It's a creature of the IOC which has little relevance to Non-Olympic Sports and you could even argue Non-Europeans.
 
Re: Re:

GJB123 said:
yaco said:
bambino said:
python said:
^^
yep, just was logging in to post the rulling link I saw in the vg article...reading it now. it does look though as there were no diverging arbitrators. as if there was one, an opinion as to why would typically be provided at the end of a ruling.
So the CAS panel was definitely not unanimous on virtually anything. It was majority decision. Not a hard guess who would've let Therese go with warning...

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

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

- they claim she could and had a right to delegate her responsibilities of doping conduct to another person (Doctor of course). They have another case where that has been granted. That case was for RACING HORSE! I found the CAS panel response extremely amusing saying something like "Ms Johaug is expected by the panel to handle her medical usage better than the athelete in particular case" :D
There you have the flaw with CAS - A guilty verdict should only occur if the arbitrators are in unanimous agreement - Majority verdicts should not be acceptable at this level.
Rubbish! The CAS-panerl is not jury, they are judges and in any system I know it perfectly normal that cases decided by judges can go on majority decisions.
In fact many of the CAS Arbitrators are not judges - Many are merely practicing legal practitioners - I believe CAS should have a higher threshold for guilty verdicts - WE are talking about 3 arbitrators per hearing - Possibly if you had 7,8 or 9 arbitrators you could consider a majority verdict- And consider that in this case it was allegedly the Norwegian Arbitrator who was out of step with their fellow arbitrators - This shows what a joke is CAS.
 
Re: Re:

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

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

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

http://www.is.fi/maastohiihto/art-2000005337041.html
This will get nowhere - There was a case of the EFC 34 ( Australian rules footy ) who were guilty in the most tenous of circumstances - They appealed unsuccessfully to the Swiss Supreme Court who in their judgement seem affronted the EFC 34 even appealed.
 
Re:

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

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

the bottom line, johaug - just as it seem the entire norwegian nation still fail to recognize even the slightest degree of the compatriot responsibility for missing a clearly visible doping warning. :rolleyes:
It was worth the effort seeing they employed Jacobs and Morgan as their lawyers - These two have a good record of convincing panels to give their athletes reduced penalties and often ridiculously short penalties - Morgan and Jacobs worked their magic and Johaug is at the Olympics.
 
Re: Re:

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

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

the bottom line, johaug - just as it seem the entire norwegian nation still fail to recognize even the slightest degree of the compatriot responsibility for missing a clearly visible doping warning. :rolleyes:
It was worth the effort seeing they employed Jacobs and Morgan as their lawyers - These two have a good record of convincing panels to give their athletes reduced penalties and often ridiculously short penalties - Morgan and Jacobs worked their magic and Johaug is at the Olympics.
You mean 2022 Olympics?
 
Re: Re:

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

You don't say.
:) I say it reveals quite a lot about the legal teams view on Ms Johaug's intellectual capabilities. To equate her with a horse.
Again like I said before, some of the arguments that have been made to absolve her of responsibility credit her with so little intelligence you'd think she'd rather just be labelled a cheat and spare herself the embarrassment.
 
Re: Re:

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

You don't say.
:) I say it reveals quite a lot about the legal teams view on Ms Johaug's intellectual capabilities. To equate her with a horse.
Again like I said before, some of the arguments that have been made to absolve her of responsibility credit her with so little intelligence you'd think she'd rather just be labelled a cheat and spare herself the embarrassment.
Equaite her ability to take care her medical matters to a horse sounds to me like insult rather than defence. But it is pretty hilarious. :D
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
As was discussed earlier in this thread, the lip cream defense was most likely just a cover story. There were too many inconsistencies for it to be believable - the red DOPING sign on the packaging was just one.

Yet the lip cream theory was accepted by FIS in its appeal, and by CAS in its decision. Curiously, CAS even agreed that the low amount of doping substance in the test sample was "evidence" of non-intentional use - whereas it could have easily been the remnants of intentional doping that was stopped some time earlier.

Moral of the story? If you're doping, make sure you have a "innocent" cover story. Declare the "innocent" medication in your pre-test form. That will reduce the sanction from an automatic 4 years to 2 years. If you can further come up with attenuating circumstances, such as a collusion with an experienced Dr (who can't read), you can drop the penalty to a range from 1 to 2 years.

Johaug got off easy. CAS could have chosen to not believe the cover story altogether. But thanks to the stiffened penalty range of the new WADA code, a sanction that earlier could have been just few months (like the non-sanction for Sundby), now ended up being an effective 2 years since xc-skiing is a winter-only sport.
 
Many have wondered why Johaug isn’t suing Bendiksen or the Norwegian Ski Federation.
Norwegian lawyer Helge Husebye Haug to The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (my translation):
Lawyer Helge Husebye Haug expresses that Therese Johaug is on solid ground to make economical claims against the Norwegian Ski Federation in a lawsuit

Both the manager and the lawyer of Johaug denies any plans of suing Bendiksen or the Ski Federation.
(my translation) Those claims upsets Haug:
-it’s of course voluntary to make a lawsuit, but I find it weird if they don’t pursuit.


https://www.nrk.no/sport/mener-johau...det-1.13652871

A lawsuit in my opinion is the only logical continuation on the official and strange chain of events. But on the other hand, if the official story is a cover up which I do firmly believe, it of course fully makes sense in not suing either Bendiksen or NSF
 
Feb 15, 2015
158
0
2,680
Re:

Discgear said:
A lawsuit in my opinion is the only logical continuation on the official and strange chain of events. But on the other hand, if the official story is a cover up which I do firmly believe, it of course fully makes sense in not suing either Bendiksen or NSF
And with the NSF keeping her on the payroll through her ban, it even makes perfect sense.
 
Jan 3, 2016
300
0
0
Re:

python said:
The article says Prime Minister Erna Solberg posted on social media that she 'hopes the Norwegian people will support her an help her return'. Erna is in fact hoping the Norwegian people will help Erna back to the prime ministership after the elections next month. :p

What shall culture minister and WADA VP Hellestad say? Join in the popular Norwegian criticism of WADA? Or defend WADAs authority to a critical Norwegian public?

Sundby thinks it's all very unfair https://www.nrk.no/sport/sundby-mener-johaug-straffen-ma-fore-til-endringer-1.13654413 and the rules should be changed.
 
Re: Re:

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

You don't say.
:) I say it reveals quite a lot about the legal teams view on Ms Johaug's intellectual capabilities. To equate her with a horse.
Again like I said before, some of the arguments that have been made to absolve her of responsibility credit her with so little intelligence you'd think she'd rather just be labelled a cheat and spare herself the embarrassment.
This is how Jacobs and Morgan roll - Many athletes have successfully used their services with success It's the result that matters.
 
Perhaps someone could code a virtual Johaug so that she can still attend.

Nothing fancy, really. In hilly distance races, she beats the actual winner by 20-90sec 85-90% percent of the time and comes second otherwise. In less hilly distance races, the time margins are a bit harder to predict, but she finishes 1st with a 40% probability, 2nd 25% and 3rd 20%, and 15% worse than that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY