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