• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Leading GB cyclist tests positive (yikes)!

Page 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 31, 2012
5,221
0
0
So is a 4-month unintentional doping ban a thing with precedence or did they conjure this offense from thin air?
 
Aug 22, 2014
302
0
0
Re:

SeriousSam said:
So is a 4-month unintentional doping ban a thing with precedence or did they conjure this offense from thin air?
Vegard Robinson Bugge got a four month ban for using the same substance last year, don't know if that was also classed as unintentional doping mind.
 
Mar 13, 2009
12,232
0
0
good guy
speaks english
rides for Australian team
time off for good behaviour
4 months and one nights probation with Stuey Mate and Whitey Mate has the driving non drinking duties alliterationz
 
A very disappointing sanction of effectively just one month. Even if the judges were somehow 100% certain of Simon Yates' innocence accidental doping has to receive a stronger sanction than that surely. This sends a message to ever doper to spend some time constructing dubious medical stories incase it helps you to get off when you are busted.

A far cry from when the downhill skier Alan Baxter got stripped of a bronze medal due to inconsistencies in Vicks inhalers on either side of the Atlantic. That didn't even produce a PED in his bloodstream but they still took his medal. He must puke if he reads of such lenient treatment.
 
Jan 20, 2010
554
0
0
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
MatParker117 said:
hrotha said:
Wait, why does the 4-month ban start counting from March or whatever if he wasn't provisionally suspended and we were told he could race?
Taken from the date of the failed test.
Yes, but why?
I would say he elected to provisionally suspend himself and OGE weren't entirely accurate in their statement.
 
Re:

Fergoose said:
A very disappointing sanction of effectively just one month. Even if the judges were somehow 100% certain of Simon Yates' innocence accidental doping has to receive a stronger sanction than that surely. This sends a message to ever doper to spend some time constructing dubious medical stories incase it helps you to get off when you are busted.

A far cry from when the downhill skier Alan Baxter got stripped of a bronze medal due to inconsistencies in Vicks inhalers on either side of the Atlantic. That didn't even produce a PED in his bloodstream but they still took his medal. He must puke if he reads of such lenient treatment.
Mate - There is no conspiracy - The substance was listed on his doping control form - So there was no hiding or making up stories - It was an unforgiveable oversight by the team doctor.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Catwhoorg said:
Interestingly the decision document is not posted on UKAD (at least yet).
Some doping authorities or tribunals are lucky to post one reasoned decision per year.
I was thinking the UCI managed this rather than UKAD but do correct me if I am wrong. If UKAD was not the tribunal, would they post the decision directly?
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Fergoose said:
A very disappointing sanction of effectively just one month. Even if the judges were somehow 100% certain of Simon Yates' innocence accidental doping has to receive a stronger sanction than that surely. This sends a message to ever doper to spend some time constructing dubious medical stories incase it helps you to get off when you are busted.

A far cry from when the downhill skier Alan Baxter got stripped of a bronze medal due to inconsistencies in Vicks inhalers on either side of the Atlantic. That didn't even produce a PED in his bloodstream but they still took his medal. He must puke if he reads of such lenient treatment.
Mate - There is no conspiracy - The substance was listed on his doping control form - So there was no hiding or making up stories - It was an unforgiveable oversight by the team doctor.
Sorry, yes I know that. But by being so lenient with something judged to be a mistake the system gives a lot of options to serious and thoughtful dopers. If I can conjure an effective backstory in the event I am caught I could get away with just one months ban? Makes it more tempting to gamble than if you had a guaranteed minimum of say six months for any infraction.
 
Aug 26, 2014
1,218
0
0
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Fergoose said:
A very disappointing sanction of effectively just one month. Even if the judges were somehow 100% certain of Simon Yates' innocence accidental doping has to receive a stronger sanction than that surely. This sends a message to ever doper to spend some time constructing dubious medical stories incase it helps you to get off when you are busted.

A far cry from when the downhill skier Alan Baxter got stripped of a bronze medal due to inconsistencies in Vicks inhalers on either side of the Atlantic. That didn't even produce a PED in his bloodstream but they still took his medal. He must puke if he reads of such lenient treatment.
Mate - There is no conspiracy - The substance was listed on his doping control form - So there was no hiding or making up stories - It was an unforgiveable oversight by the team doctor.
Forgive me - I don't understand the order of submission of such things.

When is the doping control form filled in and submitted, cf. the application for a TUE and cf. the race?
 
Re: Re:

wrinklyvet said:
yaco said:
Catwhoorg said:
Interestingly the decision document is not posted on UKAD (at least yet).
Some doping authorities or tribunals are lucky to post one reasoned decision per year.
I was thinking the UCI managed this rather than UKAD but do correct me if I am wrong. If UKAD was not the tribunal, would they post the decision directly?

I suspect that is the case, but its almost unheard of to not have some sort of documentation there. Even a one page summary of "this is the decision agreed upon"
 
Re: Re:

Electress said:
yaco said:
Fergoose said:
A very disappointing sanction of effectively just one month. Even if the judges were somehow 100% certain of Simon Yates' innocence accidental doping has to receive a stronger sanction than that surely. This sends a message to ever doper to spend some time constructing dubious medical stories incase it helps you to get off when you are busted.

A far cry from when the downhill skier Alan Baxter got stripped of a bronze medal due to inconsistencies in Vicks inhalers on either side of the Atlantic. That didn't even produce a PED in his bloodstream but they still took his medal. He must puke if he reads of such lenient treatment.
Mate - There is no conspiracy - The substance was listed on his doping control form - So there was no hiding or making up stories - It was an unforgiveable oversight by the team doctor.
Forgive me - I don't understand the order of submission of such things.

When is the doping control form filled in and submitted, cf. the application for a TUE and cf. the race?
The Doping control form is filled out each and every time you give a sample.
 
Re: Re:

I posted my summary of the relevant UCI regulations elsewhere. Quelle surprise, the UCI appear to be ignoring their own regulations by not treating this as what it is, a simple doping violation.

Yates was charged with:
"Presence and Use of the specified prohibited substance Terbutaline"

Article 2.2.1

It is each Rider’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters
his or her body and that no Prohibited Method is Used. Accordingly it is not
necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Rider’s part be
demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a
Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.
Next the relevant articles on getting a TUE for a Prohibited Substance

Article 4 PROHIBITED LIST AND THERAPEUTIC USE EXEMPTIONS

[Comments to Article 4.4.3: A Rider should not assume that his/her
application for grant or recognition of a TUE (or for renewal of a TUE) will be granted.
Any Use or Possession or Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method
before an application has been granted is entirely at the Rider’s own risk.
Sanctions
Sanctions for positive tests.

Article 10.2

Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of a
Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method

10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility shall be four years where:

10.2.1.1 The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance,
unless the Rider or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule
violation was not intentional.

10.2.1.2 The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance and the
UCI can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional.
So, from my reading:
- the rider is solely responsible everything that goes into their body
- Terbutaline is a, specified prohibited substance
- a rider cannot, & should not ever assume the granting of a TUE
- the sanction of the intentional, & in this case admitted, consumption of a prohibited substance is a 4 year ban

The only way that I think the UCI can justify not imposing a whole hearted sanction for the positive, is by claiming the that somehow the violation was accidental.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
good summary, keeponrollin, tahnks.

the shouts from the clean riders for a harder penalty for Yates are deafening.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS