Singer01
BANNED
Põhja Konn said:
While i understand the sentiment you have to sentence the offence, not the person.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
While i understand the sentiment you have to sentence the offence, not the person.
..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.
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.
Overall a fairly dull affair. We've found out that Johaug was unable to act like an adult and thus got herself banned from the Olympics, big deal. Much ado about very little.
Singer01 said:
Of course, but I don't believe for a second that negligence was Johaug's only crime in this case.
It’s quite comical that when Norwegian media now has understood that the verdict was unanimous, everyone assumes that one of the arbitrators wanted a lower ban.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/johaug-tatt-i-doping/norsk-cas-ekspert-aapenbart-at-dommerne-var-uenige/a/24123865/
My best guess is that it was the Finnish arbitrator who wanted a 24 month ban.
It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body and that no Prohibited Method is Used
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/johaug-tatt-i-doping/norsk-cas-ekspert-aapenbart-at-dommerne-var-uenige/a/24123865/
My best guess is that it was the Finnish arbitrator who wanted a 24 month ban.
It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body and that no Prohibited Method is Used
"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.
You don't say.
Re:
I say it reveals quite a lot about the legal teams view on Ms Johaug's intellectual capabilities. To equate her with a horse.
meat puppet said:
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:
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.
bambino said:yaco said:bambino said:python said:
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"
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:
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.
GJB123 said:yaco said:bambino said:python said:
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"
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:
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.
Aragon said:
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:
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.
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.
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:
You mean 2022 Olympics?
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.
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:
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.Discgear said:meat puppet said:
Re: Re:
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.
Libertine Seguros said: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.Discgear said:meat puppet said:
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.
Seems like a lot of people are tired of the constant apologizing of Johaug. Which is good. The big media outlets are still quite apologetic though.
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.
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
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
tom pettersson hits the nail on the head again and again...must read !!
http://www.expressen.se/sport/kronikorer/tomas-pettersson/ar-hapnadsvackande-rannsaka-er-norge/
http://www.expressen.se/sport/kronikorer/tomas-pettersson/ar-hapnadsvackande-rannsaka-er-norge/
Re:
And with the NSF keeping her on the payroll through her ban, it even makes perfect sense.Discgear said:
Re:
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.
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.
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.
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:
This is how Jacobs and Morgan roll - Many athletes have successfully used their services with success It's the result that matters.
Libertine Seguros said: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.Discgear said:meat puppet said:
This is how Jacobs and Morgan roll - Many athletes have successfully used their services with success It's the result that matters.
Re:
But I bet the hyper nationalistic fanboy will be back when the skiing season starts, ranting as if nothing has happened.
bambino said:
But I bet the hyper nationalistic fanboy will be back when the skiing season starts, ranting as if nothing has happened.
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.
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 978
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram