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!
blackcat said: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
and ban his doctor who screw up for 5 years and 2 days.,bikinggirl said:They should have given Simon Yates 4 years ban....it stinks!!
Yes, but why?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.
It really doesn't make sense but this is the UCI afterallhrotha said:Yes, but why?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.
hrotha said:Yes, but why?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.
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.
Catwhoorg said:Interestingly the decision document is not posted on UKAD (at least yet).
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?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.
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.
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.
wrinklyvet said: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?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.
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?
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.
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
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.
sniper said:good summary, keeponrollin, tahnks.
the shouts from the clean riders for a harder penalty for Yates are deafening.
for the record, i'm not primarily antidoping either.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
sniper said:good summary, keeponrollin, tahnks.
the shouts from the clean riders for a harder penalty for Yates are deafening.