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

Leading GB cyclist tests positive (yikes)!

Page 16 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
sniper said:
good summary, keeponrollin, tahnks.

the shouts from the clean riders for a harder penalty for Yates are deafening.
I am ok with that, I must admit I am not anti-doping

but the bolded part describes the pro peloton in a nutshell
for the record, i'm not primarily antidoping either.
i'm first and foremost anti-hypocrisy and anti-getting-my-brain-insulted by the 'cycling is now clean' brigade.
 
Re:

sniper said:
good summary, keeponrollin, tahnks.

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

In the age of Cookson’s independent transparency for anti-doping we will never know how the CADF came to their conclusion nor what evidence Orica submitted.

You never know WADA might appeal against the sentence? :lol:
 
Someone asked directly

grassy Retweeted UK Anti-Doping
Why are there no Decision notes on the website?

UK Anti-Doping Retweeted grassy
Hi @134grassy. This case is managed by @UCI_cycling. For more information please contact them directly.
 
Re: Re:

Fergoose 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.
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.
How can you conjure up a backstory when the substance is listed on the doping control - It's there in BLACK and WHITE - Reckon the system is wrong - It should be the doctor who is suspended not the athlete in this case.
 
Re: Re:

Catwhoorg said:
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.
Though studies have shown that only around 35 to 40% of athletes fill in the doping control forms.
 
Re: Re:

keeponrollin said:
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.
Again you have it wrong - A Four year penalty under the WADA Code is when you wilfully take a banned substance and it can be proven you are deliberately cheating and if you fail to admit guilt - This is the maximum penalty under this scenario - A two year penalty (read Sharapova ) is when you test positive, acknowledge your guilt and can prove you didn't know the substance was banned - This is the maximum penalty under this scenario and of course there can be discounts for various reasons.

I will give you a hint - Why do athletes appoint lawyers when according to your ' Black and White' interpretation of the WADA Code all penalties must be 4 years ? Why would an athlete waste money on lawyers ? Why are their specialist Anti-Doping legal Firms and lawyers who are in demand ? Simply because there are provisions in the WADA Code to reduce penalties after taking into account individual circumstances.

To suggest Yates should have got a four year penalty based on publically available information relating to his case is laughable.
 
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
Someone asked directly

grassy Retweeted UK Anti-Doping
Why are there no Decision notes on the website?

UK Anti-Doping Retweeted grassy
Hi @134grassy. This case is managed by @UCI_cycling. For more information please contact them directly.
Don't hold your breath waiting - For example, the Australian Anti-Doping Agency (ASADA ) rarely posts reasoned decisions, whereas the USA equivalent is much better at this practice.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Catwhoorg said:
Someone asked directly

grassy Retweeted UK Anti-Doping
Why are there no Decision notes on the website?

UK Anti-Doping Retweeted grassy
Hi @134grassy. This case is managed by @UCI_cycling. For more information please contact them directly.
Don't hold your breath waiting - For example, the Australian Anti-Doping Agency (ASADA ) rarely posts reasoned decisions, whereas the USA equivalent is much better at this practice.

Correct me if I’m wrong that this was handled by the UCI’s new anti-doping board which was meant to take out the “bias” that some national ADs would provide to their athletes. However now decisions go into a black hold and you never know exactly what occurred, you just get the outcome at some point on a PDF. The concerning part is that if the British Cycling didn’t leak the positive we may never have heard about it and likely there would have been no sanction.
 
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Again you have it wrong - A Four year penalty under the WADA Code is when you wilfully take a banned substance and it can be proven you are deliberately cheating and if you fail to admit guilt
Are you suggesting that the team doctor held Yates down & forced the inhalor into his mouth, to administer the Terbutaline ?

Yates has admitted he took it, & he has acknowledged that he has ever had a TUE for the substance. The fact that he knew he needed a TUE, is itself an acknowledged that he knew it was a banned substance. Any admitting of guilt is irrelevant, they know he's guilty, the test sample told them that.

So go ahead & tell us how his positive wasn't wilful & deliberately !

The rules are absolutely explicit that the responsibility is on the rider; both for what drugs are in their body, & that the correct TUE's are in place. So the fault isn't the Doctor, the Team, the UCI, or anyone else, its solely & completely the Riders.

yaco said:
This is the maximum penalty under this scenario - A two year penalty (read Sharapova ) is when you test positive, acknowledge your guilt and can prove you didn't know the substance was banned - This is the maximum penalty under this scenario and of course there can be discounts for various reasons.
Did you actually read the rules I posted !

yaco said:
I will give you a hint - Why do athletes appoint lawyers when according to your ' Black and White' interpretation of the WADA Code all penalties must be 4 years ? Why would an athlete waste money on lawyers ? Why are their specialist Anti-Doping legal Firms and lawyers who are in demand ? Simply because there are provisions in the WADA Code to reduce penalties after taking into account individual circumstances.

To suggest Yates should have got a four year penalty based on publically available information relating to his case is laughable.
Because the anti-doping process is rife with corruption, & favoritism, at every level, & NADO's are only too happy to let the guilty off on the flimsiest of excuses, (see Impeys case), & I don't know how many documentary investigations in the last 30 years have confirmed this. The UCI is more concerned with box office than cheating, which is something it has in common with ITF, & with Reedie running WADA, its now following exactly the same agenda.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
yaco said:
Catwhoorg said:
Someone asked directly

grassy Retweeted UK Anti-Doping
Why are there no Decision notes on the website?

UK Anti-Doping Retweeted grassy
Hi @134grassy. This case is managed by @UCI_cycling. For more information please contact them directly.
Don't hold your breath waiting - For example, the Australian Anti-Doping Agency (ASADA ) rarely posts reasoned decisions, whereas the USA equivalent is much better at this practice.

Correct me if I’m wrong that this was handled by the UCI’s new anti-doping board which was meant to take out the “bias” that some national ADs would provide to their athletes. However now decisions go into a black hold and you never know exactly what occurred, you just get the outcome at some point on a PDF. The concerning part is that if the British Cycling didn’t leak the positive we may never have heard about it and likely there would have been no sanction.
So you support British Cycling who may have wilfully leaked these results to divert attention from the public uproar from the alleged 'bullying' culture in British cycling - In what world do two wrongs make a right.

You are making a big assumption that this would have been swept under the carpet - Suspensions for these type of violation have in the past attracted a 4 to 6 mth sanction - Whether you like it or not TUE and their retrospectivity are often applied in sports and not just cycling.

At the end of the day, Athlete confidentiality is one of the foundations of any Anti-Doping Framework - It's a pity that some believe confidentiality is unimportant - It's a reflection of the society we inhabit.
 
Re: Re:

keeponrollin said:
yaco said:
Again you have it wrong - A Four year penalty under the WADA Code is when you wilfully take a banned substance and it can be proven you are deliberately cheating and if you fail to admit guilt
Are you suggesting that the team doctor held Yates down & forced the inhalor into his mouth, to administer the Terbutaline ?

Yates has admitted he took it, & he has acknowledged that he has ever had a TUE for the substance. The fact that he knew he needed a TUE, is itself an acknowledged that he knew it was a banned substance. Any admitting of guilt is irrelevant, they know he's guilty, the test sample told them that.

So go ahead & tell us how his positive wasn't wilful & deliberately !

The rules are absolutely explicit that the responsibility is on the rider; both for what drugs are in their body, & that the correct TUE's are in place. So the fault isn't the Doctor, the Team, the UCI, or anyone else, its solely & completely the Riders.

yaco said:
This is the maximum penalty under this scenario - A two year penalty (read Sharapova ) is when you test positive, acknowledge your guilt and can prove you didn't know the substance was banned - This is the maximum penalty under this scenario and of course there can be discounts for various reasons.
Did you actually read the rules I posted !

yaco said:
I will give you a hint - Why do athletes appoint lawyers when according to your ' Black and White' interpretation of the WADA Code all penalties must be 4 years ? Why would an athlete waste money on lawyers ? Why are their specialist Anti-Doping legal Firms and lawyers who are in demand ? Simply because there are provisions in the WADA Code to reduce penalties after taking into account individual circumstances.

To suggest Yates should have got a four year penalty based on publically available information relating to his case is laughable.
Because the anti-doping process is rife with corruption, & favoritism, at every level, & NADO's are only too happy to let the guilty off on the flimsiest of excuses, (see Impeys case), & I don't know how many documentary investigations in the last 30 years have confirmed this. The UCI is more concerned with box office than cheating, which is something it has in common with ITF, & with Reedie running WADA, its now following exactly the same agenda.
S.Yates sanction has no relationship to corruption - Follow your line and S.Yates would have got off scott free - We are discussing the current WADA Anti-Doping Code and the implementation of sanctions for AAF's - Its simple - You get four years if an Anti-Doping Tribunal can prove you willingly took a banned substance to cheat and you still fail to acknowledge your guilt after an AAF - That is what attracts 4 years - To say that S.Yates who actualy wrote the banned substance on his Doping Control Form and where there seems to be an administrative oversight is plain wrong.

Athletes have and will always cheat - To think otherwise is naive at best and silly at worst - We have choices in life - No-one is forcing you to follow sport - That is your choice.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

yaco said:
keeponrollin said:
yaco said:
Again you have it wrong - A Four year penalty under the WADA Code is when you wilfully take a banned substance and it can be proven you are deliberately cheating and if you fail to admit guilt
Are you suggesting that the team doctor held Yates down & forced the inhalor into his mouth, to administer the Terbutaline ?

Yates has admitted he took it, & he has acknowledged that he has ever had a TUE for the substance. The fact that he knew he needed a TUE, is itself an acknowledged that he knew it was a banned substance. Any admitting of guilt is irrelevant, they know he's guilty, the test sample told them that.

So go ahead & tell us how his positive wasn't wilful & deliberately !

The rules are absolutely explicit that the responsibility is on the rider; both for what drugs are in their body, & that the correct TUE's are in place. So the fault isn't the Doctor, the Team, the UCI, or anyone else, its solely & completely the Riders.

yaco said:
This is the maximum penalty under this scenario - A two year penalty (read Sharapova ) is when you test positive, acknowledge your guilt and can prove you didn't know the substance was banned - This is the maximum penalty under this scenario and of course there can be discounts for various reasons.
Did you actually read the rules I posted !

yaco said:
I will give you a hint - Why do athletes appoint lawyers when according to your ' Black and White' interpretation of the WADA Code all penalties must be 4 years ? Why would an athlete waste money on lawyers ? Why are their specialist Anti-Doping legal Firms and lawyers who are in demand ? Simply because there are provisions in the WADA Code to reduce penalties after taking into account individual circumstances.

To suggest Yates should have got a four year penalty based on publically available information relating to his case is laughable.
Because the anti-doping process is rife with corruption, & favoritism, at every level, & NADO's are only too happy to let the guilty off on the flimsiest of excuses, (see Impeys case), & I don't know how many documentary investigations in the last 30 years have confirmed this. The UCI is more concerned with box office than cheating, which is something it has in common with ITF, & with Reedie running WADA, its now following exactly the same agenda.
S.Yates sanction has no relationship to corruption - Follow your line and S.Yates would have got off scott free - We are discussing the current WADA Anti-Doping Code and the implementation of sanctions for AAF's - Its simple - You get four years if an Anti-Doping Tribunal can prove you willingly took a banned substance to cheat and you still fail to acknowledge your guilt after an AAF - That is what attracts 4 years - To say that S.Yates who actualy wrote the banned substance on his Doping Control Form and where there seems to be an administrative oversight is plain wrong.

Athletes have and will always cheat - To think otherwise is naive at best and silly at worst - We have choices in life - No-one is forcing you to follow sport - That is your choice.
Yates is responsible for what he takes, end of. He had a banned substance in his body. No TUE. Doesn't matter whether he puts it on the form at drug testing time. Others have served longer bans for same substance. So that speaks of corruption.

We have choices as fans and most of us expect the federations to be strict in the imposing the rules of the sport on those who participate. No one is being naive here or silly in asking that sport follows its own codes!!!
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
yaco said:
keeponrollin said:
yaco said:
Again you have it wrong - A Four year penalty under the WADA Code is when you wilfully take a banned substance and it can be proven you are deliberately cheating and if you fail to admit guilt
Are you suggesting that the team doctor held Yates down & forced the inhalor into his mouth, to administer the Terbutaline ?

Yates has admitted he took it, & he has acknowledged that he has ever had a TUE for the substance. The fact that he knew he needed a TUE, is itself an acknowledged that he knew it was a banned substance. Any admitting of guilt is irrelevant, they know he's guilty, the test sample told them that.

So go ahead & tell us how his positive wasn't wilful & deliberately !

The rules are absolutely explicit that the responsibility is on the rider; both for what drugs are in their body, & that the correct TUE's are in place. So the fault isn't the Doctor, the Team, the UCI, or anyone else, its solely & completely the Riders.

yaco said:
This is the maximum penalty under this scenario - A two year penalty (read Sharapova ) is when you test positive, acknowledge your guilt and can prove you didn't know the substance was banned - This is the maximum penalty under this scenario and of course there can be discounts for various reasons.
Did you actually read the rules I posted !

yaco said:
I will give you a hint - Why do athletes appoint lawyers when according to your ' Black and White' interpretation of the WADA Code all penalties must be 4 years ? Why would an athlete waste money on lawyers ? Why are their specialist Anti-Doping legal Firms and lawyers who are in demand ? Simply because there are provisions in the WADA Code to reduce penalties after taking into account individual circumstances.

To suggest Yates should have got a four year penalty based on publically available information relating to his case is laughable.
Because the anti-doping process is rife with corruption, & favoritism, at every level, & NADO's are only too happy to let the guilty off on the flimsiest of excuses, (see Impeys case), & I don't know how many documentary investigations in the last 30 years have confirmed this. The UCI is more concerned with box office than cheating, which is something it has in common with ITF, & with Reedie running WADA, its now following exactly the same agenda.
S.Yates sanction has no relationship to corruption - Follow your line and S.Yates would have got off scott free - We are discussing the current WADA Anti-Doping Code and the implementation of sanctions for AAF's - Its simple - You get four years if an Anti-Doping Tribunal can prove you willingly took a banned substance to cheat and you still fail to acknowledge your guilt after an AAF - That is what attracts 4 years - To say that S.Yates who actualy wrote the banned substance on his Doping Control Form and where there seems to be an administrative oversight is plain wrong.

Athletes have and will always cheat - To think otherwise is naive at best and silly at worst - We have choices in life - No-one is forcing you to follow sport - That is your choice.
Yates is responsible for what he takes, end of. He had a banned substance in his body. No TUE. Doesn't matter whether he puts it on the form at drug testing time. Others have served longer bans for same substance. So that speaks of corruption.

We have choices as fans and most of us expect the federations to be strict in the imposing the rules of the sport on those who participate. No one is being naive here or silly in asking that sport follows its own codes!!!
Your posting is effectively saying WADA's drug code is flawed. Yates suspension was in line with past suspensions for this particular substance - I can assure WADA can appeal to CAS if they wish.

Your post is verging on the delusional.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Benotti69 said:
yaco said:
keeponrollin said:
yaco said:
Again you have it wrong - A Four year penalty under the WADA Code is when you wilfully take a banned substance and it can be proven you are deliberately cheating and if you fail to admit guilt
Are you suggesting that the team doctor held Yates down & forced the inhalor into his mouth, to administer the Terbutaline ?

Yates has admitted he took it, & he has acknowledged that he has ever had a TUE for the substance. The fact that he knew he needed a TUE, is itself an acknowledged that he knew it was a banned substance. Any admitting of guilt is irrelevant, they know he's guilty, the test sample told them that.

So go ahead & tell us how his positive wasn't wilful & deliberately !

The rules are absolutely explicit that the responsibility is on the rider; both for what drugs are in their body, & that the correct TUE's are in place. So the fault isn't the Doctor, the Team, the UCI, or anyone else, its solely & completely the Riders.

yaco said:
This is the maximum penalty under this scenario - A two year penalty (read Sharapova ) is when you test positive, acknowledge your guilt and can prove you didn't know the substance was banned - This is the maximum penalty under this scenario and of course there can be discounts for various reasons.
Did you actually read the rules I posted !

yaco said:
I will give you a hint - Why do athletes appoint lawyers when according to your ' Black and White' interpretation of the WADA Code all penalties must be 4 years ? Why would an athlete waste money on lawyers ? Why are their specialist Anti-Doping legal Firms and lawyers who are in demand ? Simply because there are provisions in the WADA Code to reduce penalties after taking into account individual circumstances.

To suggest Yates should have got a four year penalty based on publically available information relating to his case is laughable.
Because the anti-doping process is rife with corruption, & favoritism, at every level, & NADO's are only too happy to let the guilty off on the flimsiest of excuses, (see Impeys case), & I don't know how many documentary investigations in the last 30 years have confirmed this. The UCI is more concerned with box office than cheating, which is something it has in common with ITF, & with Reedie running WADA, its now following exactly the same agenda.
S.Yates sanction has no relationship to corruption - Follow your line and S.Yates would have got off scott free - We are discussing the current WADA Anti-Doping Code and the implementation of sanctions for AAF's - Its simple - You get four years if an Anti-Doping Tribunal can prove you willingly took a banned substance to cheat and you still fail to acknowledge your guilt after an AAF - That is what attracts 4 years - To say that S.Yates who actualy wrote the banned substance on his Doping Control Form and where there seems to be an administrative oversight is plain wrong.

Athletes have and will always cheat - To think otherwise is naive at best and silly at worst - We have choices in life - No-one is forcing you to follow sport - That is your choice.
Yates is responsible for what he takes, end of. He had a banned substance in his body. No TUE. Doesn't matter whether he puts it on the form at drug testing time. Others have served longer bans for same substance. So that speaks of corruption.

We have choices as fans and most of us expect the federations to be strict in the imposing the rules of the sport on those who participate. No one is being naive here or silly in asking that sport follows its own codes!!!
Your posting is effectively saying WADA's drug code is flawed. Yates suspension was in line with past suspensions for this particular substance - I can assure WADA can appeal to CAS if they wish.

Your post is verging on the delusional.
Delusional is an insult.

Can you name all the others who the same suspensions as Yates?

I know one 1 Belgian, can you name the rest? Can you even name the Belgian rider?

WADA is flawed. Check the WADA thread. ;)
 
Try Australian hockey Player, Hana Peake who got a four month suspension from December 2015 to April 2016 - As I posted previously, 4 to 6 months is the standard penalty for Terbutaline.

The saddest thing is people can post the UCI guidelines related to prohibited substances from the WADA ode to support their argument, but FAIL to understand what they are reading.

S.Yates was never going to receive a four year penalty.
 
Oct 10, 2012
926
0
0
I'd say Sky are probably now eyeing him up as their next pet project. Especially as they can't touch Simon due to his past!
 
May 26, 2009
2,762
0
0
Re:

ontheroad said:
I'd say Sky are probably now eyeing him up as their next pet project. Especially as they can't touch Simon due to his past!
Don't they like riding together? So unless Sky do some in-house rule fudging to allow themselves to sign Simon too, I doubt Adam will join them, but then again $$$$$$$$ talks.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

BYOP88 said:
ontheroad said:
I'd say Sky are probably now eyeing him up as their next pet project. Especially as they can't touch Simon due to his past!
Don't they like riding together? So unless Sky do some in-house rule fudging to allow themselves to sign Simon too, I doubt Adam will join them, but then again $$$$$$$$ talks.
This ^^^ Sky wanted one of them, they want to ride together. I think Sky wanted Simon, not Adam, not sure.
 
May 26, 2009
2,762
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
BYOP88 said:
ontheroad said:
I'd say Sky are probably now eyeing him up as their next pet project. Especially as they can't touch Simon due to his past!
Don't they like riding together? So unless Sky do some in-house rule fudging to allow themselves to sign Simon too, I doubt Adam will join them, but then again $$$$$$$$ talks.
This ^^^ Sky wanted one of them, they want to ride together. I think Sky wanted Simon, not Adam, not sure.
I'm sure Brailsford can say 'Simon didn't do hard drugs, just asthma meds' and could then get the chief sports writer of the Sunday Times to do a few pieces about it saying it was just an honest mistake etc etc etc. Oh would probably help if Simon then took over the role of St. Millar and becomes the *prominent anti-doping campaigner in the peloton™.


*In Millar's mind anyway.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS