General Doping Thread.

Page 23 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

yaco said:
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
This was not a test under the whereabouts system - It was a surprise/unannounced test which falls outside the window of the whereabouts system - Surely if the athlete is not at their premises ( which has to be likely ), then you can't just stay at the athletes residence for hours on end - Strange indeed !
I do wish that you would bother to educate youself before chucking in your two cents. You don't appear to understand the rules, again.
My post was in reference to article/s which stated it was an unannounced test - In other words not under the whereabouts system - Now if the author's are wrong please inform them.
The author was right. Once again it is you not knowing the rules...
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
This was not a test under the whereabouts system - It was a surprise/unannounced test which falls outside the window of the whereabouts system - Surely if the athlete is not at their premises ( which has to be likely ), then you can't just stay at the athletes residence for hours on end - Strange indeed !
I do wish that you would bother to educate youself before chucking in your two cents. You don't appear to understand the rules, again.
My post was in reference to article/s which stated it was an unannounced test - In other words not under the whereabouts system - Now if the author's are wrong please inform them.
The author was right. Once again it is you not knowing the rules...
Please inform me of the rules !
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
fmk_RoI said:
yaco said:
This was not a test under the whereabouts system - It was a surprise/unannounced test which falls outside the window of the whereabouts system - Surely if the athlete is not at their premises ( which has to be likely ), then you can't just stay at the athletes residence for hours on end - Strange indeed !
I do wish that you would bother to educate youself before chucking in your two cents. You don't appear to understand the rules, again.
My post was in reference to article/s which stated it was an unannounced test - In other words not under the whereabouts system - Now if the author's are wrong please inform them.
The author was right. Once again it is you not knowing the rules...
Please inform me of the rules !
Are you incapable of informing yourself?
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
King Boonen said:
So it seems there's no maximum time but they must wait at least 30 minutes.
Curiously, I don't seem to be able to find any CAS judgements that discuss what 'reasonable' means. I'm probly not looking hard enough, this must have come up by now.
I’m guessing any athlete who here’s a tester is waiting just goes for a long tea at a mates house, or maybe the only athletes caught out have been ones who can’t afford an appeal. You would think someone would challenge it if it happened.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
fmk_RoI said:
King Boonen said:
So it seems there's no maximum time but they must wait at least 30 minutes.
Curiously, I don't seem to be able to find any CAS judgements that discuss what 'reasonable' means. I'm probly not looking hard enough, this must have come up by now.
I’m guessing any athlete who here’s a tester is waiting just goes for a long tea at a mates house, or maybe the only athletes caught out have been ones who can’t afford an appeal. You would think someone would challenge it if it happened.
But that still produces a filing failure: 'You said you'd be at X, we checked and you weren't, you were off having a long cuppa with Y.' But yeah, you'd still need two other strikes, and then deep pockets, for it to get to CAS.

Is funny how, for the tennis world, this is whether five OOC tests for a top player can be called harassment yet all I seem to care about is whether it was or wasn't a filing failure. (No cycling fan in their right mind would call five OOC tests harassment. Though they would raise an eyebrow at the tenacity of the testers...)
 
I’m unsure on that. You provide an exact location for 60 minutes and then a general idea of where you will be. I think if it’s outside the window it’s unlikely to result in a filing error unless they can show you purposefully avoided them? It’s only in the 60 minute window where you’ll automatically get a filing error I would have thought.
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
I’m unsure on that. You provide an exact location for 60 minutes and then a general idea of where you will be. I think if it’s outside the window it’s unlikely to result in a filing error unless they can show you purposefully avoided them? It’s only in the 60 minute window where you’ll automatically get a filing error I would have thought.
No, it's quite onerous really, you have to say where you'll be and you can be tested there anytime. From the IST:
[Comment to I.1.1(b): The purpose of the 60-minute time slot is to strike a balance between the need to locate the Athlete for Testing and the impracticality and unfairness of making Athletes potentially accountable for a Missed Test every time they depart from their previously-declared routine. Anti-Doping Organizations that implemented whereabouts systems in the period up to 2009 reflected that tension in different ways. Some demanded “24/7” whereabouts information, but did not declare a Missed Test if an Athlete was not where he/she had said he/she would be unless (a) he/she could still not report for Testing despite being given notice in the form of a phone call; or (b) the following day he/she was still not where he/she had said he/she would be. Others asked for details of the Athlete’s whereabouts for only one hour per day, but held the Athlete fully accountable during that period, which gave each side certainty but limited the Anti-Doping Organization’s ability to test the Athlete outside that hour. After extensive consultation with stakeholders with substantial whereabouts experience, the view was taken that the best way to maximize the chances of finding the Athlete at any time, while providing a reasonable and appropriate mitigation of “24/7” Missed Test liability, was to combine the best elements of each system, i.e., requiring disclosure of whereabouts information on a “24/7” basis, while limiting exposure to a Missed Test to a 60-minute time slot.]
With a filing failure and a missed test being the same thing when counting strikes I can only presume it's easier to argue your way out if a filing failure than a missed test.

(What would be really useful would be some stats on distribution of OOC tests between the specified hour, outide that, and the overnight option you need to provide a reason to use.)
 
Ryan Lochte breaks new ground in getting a 14 month doping suspension:

USADA said Lochte was suspended after basically incriminating himself on social media. The release said on May 24, Lochte posted a picture of himself getting “an intravenous infusion of permitted substances at an infusion clinic in a volume greater than 100 mL in a 12-hour period without a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE).” USADA investigated and found that Lochte did not have a TUE and applied the penalty.
If he'd had a better lawyer, I'm sure he could have shown that picture was consistent with no more than 100 ml.

Judging from Lochte’s Instagram photo, he received the disqualifiying infusion at Revival IV Lounge in Gainesville. The business’ website advertises 15 items on its “IV Menu,” ranging in price from $65 to $175 and offering treatments ranging from basic hydration to allergy relief to alleviating migraines.
https://sports.yahoo.com/ryan-lochte-suspended-14-months-u-s-anti-doping-agency-164804861.html
 
Lochte must be silly after the case involving the Spanish football player - Curious as to how this 15 month penalty compares to similar cases - My guess is IV transfusions are ' part and parcel ' of professional sport.
 
Re:

gerundium said:
https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2244211-verontrustend-misbruik-van-schildklierhormoon-door-topsporters.html

apparently dutch speedskating athletes are using thyroid hormones for alleged weight-loss benefits. it's not currently on the WADA list but does pose health risks. dutch ADA is now calling on WADA to put it on the doping list.

marginal gains at work here.
Also pro-cyclists are mentioned (not by name) in this report.
 
I really think the primary reason for doping controls is to make sure that the competitors don't drop dead. Nobody wins under that scenario.

Cycling used to be more honest about doping too. After Tom Simpson died that was no longer an option.
 
Former female boxing champion Mia St. John admits she used steroids and lots of other stuff for most of her career, and that "everyone does it and everyone in boxing knows it." Never failed a doping test.

But the testing works, guys. Honest.
 
Dunno if this might need its own thread, but I'm too lazy to make one.

So, is there any sort of competition where you couldn't get an advantage what-so-ever from taking some kind of drugs?
I mean, even in competitive sleeping you could get an advantage from taking drugs...
 
Re:

RedheadDane said:
Dunno if this might need its own thread, but I'm too lazy to make one.

So, is there any sort of competition where you couldn't get an advantage what-so-ever from taking some kind of drugs?
I mean, even in competitive sleeping you could get an advantage from taking drugs...
Chess?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
danielovichdk2 The Clinic 3

ASK THE COMMUNITY