Michael Pepper, SA cyclist, tested positive for Clen and T. He admitted guilt, instead of claiming it was from contaminated mongoose or something. Anyway, I'll leave Khalid Galant, CEO of the Institute for Drug-Free Sport, to take up the story on the punishment:
http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Cycling/Lengthy-ban-for-top-SA-cyclist-20110210
What the hell? What kind of message does this send out? If you argue the result on some ridiculous technicality you will get a one year ban, whereas if you admit guilt and make the process easy on all parties, it's increased to three years? What kind of twisted logic is that?
Oh yeah, the UCI approved "shut the f*** up or else" logic.
“Because two banned substances were found in the athlete’s sample, and the fact that he admitted guilt, the tribunal panel felt they could increase the ban from two years to three years,”
http://www.sport24.co.za/OtherSport/Cycling/Lengthy-ban-for-top-SA-cyclist-20110210
What the hell? What kind of message does this send out? If you argue the result on some ridiculous technicality you will get a one year ban, whereas if you admit guilt and make the process easy on all parties, it's increased to three years? What kind of twisted logic is that?
Oh yeah, the UCI approved "shut the f*** up or else" logic.