Dr. Maserati
BANNED
cyclequip said:
Beyond a reasonable doubt?
That standard is applied in the USA - there are different standards in different countries.
-
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!
Beyond a reasonable doubt?
That standard is applied in the USA - there are different standards in different countries.
Dr. Maserati said:
Oh very well than, A DUI is not a problem because you are driving skunk drunk but because you are intoxicated with alcohol. Same difference. It is not the alcohol in your blood that is the problem, it is the fact you chose to drive a car with alcohol in your blood. That is what invokes the strict liability. I call straw man.
As far as the mouthwashes go, I would bet there is a label on it stating that it contains alcohol. Heck it might even have a label warning that excessive use of the mouthwash (which you generally don't swallow) might impair your ability to drive cars or operate heavy machinery. In any case it can hardly be called inadvertently or unknowingly if it is on the freakin' label. As we all know, there generally isn't a label on meat stating that it contains clenbuterol. Still a different ball game therefore.
Regards
GJ
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
DUI is not a perfect comparison but certainly reasonable.GJB123 said:Oh very well than, A DUI is not a problem because you are driving skunk drunk but because you are intoxicated with alcohol. Same difference. It is not the alcohol in your blood that is the problem, it is the fact you chose to drive a car with alcohol in your blood. That is what invokes the strict liability. I call straw man.
As far as the mouthwashes go, I would bet there is a label on it stating that it contains alcohol. Heck it might even have a label warning that excessive use of the mouthwash (which you generally don't swallow) might impair your ability to drive cars or operate heavy machinery. In any case it can hardly be called inadvertently or unknowingly if it is on the freakin' label. As we all know, there generally isn't a label on meat stating that it contains clenbuterol. Still a different ball game therefore.
Regards
GJ
Again you are confusing DUI with just alcohol - DUI, Driving Under the Influence also relates to substances (drugs) that impair the driver.
Also you dont have to be skunk drunk to fail a DUI - and I have no idea if mouthwashes have a label as you suggest (my one (sadly) has no alcohol) - and indeed you asked earlier what substances could invoke a DUI, so it would appear that you didn't know a mouthwash could do so, many other people would think the same.
The only strawman appears that you are trying to make this about Contador - it isn't.
brianf7 said:
If the UCI was playing it straight a rider wouldn't need a second sample to fight back. Unfortunately the UCI history of uneven enforcement would agree with you. If I was a big-time rider with any history that the UCI could exploit I'd have my own team doctor standing with me during sampling. Of course I'd want one with soft hands, maybe played by Jane Seymour or the like.....but I wouldn't want to trust my fate under the current circumstances.
I am not making this about Contador at all. Al I am saying is that if WADA want to play by the rules of criminal law it should do so in all aspects and not just the ones that suit them or save them money (if that is indeed the case at all when scrapping B-samples). I didn't bring up the DUI. Yes, I referred to contaminated meat but only because that is in the current times the most discussed way of ingesting banned substances unwittingly. I could also have used food supplements that are accurate on their labels as to the exact content and I am more than willing to leave the Contador case out of this discussion (although I think the comments from Howman cannot be seen entirely free from that case).
You are correct that DUI is more than just alcohol. Some countries even have breathalysers for other substances such as weed. However even if one is to ingest marijuana inadvertently (for example by eating space cake), you will certainly realize quite quickly that something is not okay at all. The point remains that while realizing or while one could or should have realized to be under the influence of a substance impairing the ability to drive, one choses to drive nevertheless. Hence it is the driving under influence that is prohibited not the being under influence per say and it is the driving under influence that carries the strict liability not the being under influence.
If we transpose that to inadvertent ingestion of banned substances (be that meat or supplements or whatever) the person is generally not aware of that nor could he reasonably be aware of that because the dosage is generally so low that it will have zero or no effect on his general wellbeing of feeling of wellbeing nor will he all of a sudden set new sporting records. In other words the sportsman wouldn't have a clue that he ingested anything illegal until the adverse analytical finding.
So, although the DUI comparison might seem reasonable at face value when comparing strict liability in criminal law to strict liability in doping law, it clearly is not a good or reasonable comparison in imho on second glance.
Regards
GJ
You are correct that DUI is more than just alcohol. Some countries even have breathalysers for other substances such as weed. However even if one is to ingest marijuana inadvertently (for example by eating space cake), you will certainly realize quite quickly that something is not okay at all. The point remains that while realizing or while one could or should have realized to be under the influence of a substance impairing the ability to drive, one choses to drive nevertheless. Hence it is the driving under influence that is prohibited not the being under influence per say and it is the driving under influence that carries the strict liability not the being under influence.
If we transpose that to inadvertent ingestion of banned substances (be that meat or supplements or whatever) the person is generally not aware of that nor could he reasonably be aware of that because the dosage is generally so low that it will have zero or no effect on his general wellbeing of feeling of wellbeing nor will he all of a sudden set new sporting records. In other words the sportsman wouldn't have a clue that he ingested anything illegal until the adverse analytical finding.
So, although the DUI comparison might seem reasonable at face value when comparing strict liability in criminal law to strict liability in doping law, it clearly is not a good or reasonable comparison in imho on second glance.
Regards
GJ
Kennf1 said:
I am OK with that as long as he agrees to lose his job and repay 5x his annual salary after the first false positive in a WADA approved lab.
Wait, no, actually, I am not OK with that at all.
The only "negliable" number of contradicting samples is 0, given what it means for the livelihood of riders.
Tyler Hamilton.Ferminal said:
Technically speaking the B- sample was damaged but if the process didn't exist he would have been guilty.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
In most countries the levels to be DUI are tiny - you do not have to be 'drunk' to be caught DUI.GJB123 said:
We mentioned mouthwash earlier - which can cause a DUI - do you feel drunk after you use mouthwash?
As to Howmans comments - initially when I saw the headline I was not in agreement.
However, what he has proposed is to have a debate on the issue and to bring in any new measures in 2015.
My view is debate away - I would be interested in hearing all sides although I think that Howmans view that it would save costs is pretty hollow - samples only need to be stored for 3 months and B samples only come in to play with an AAF.
Kennf1 said:
I am OK with that as long as he agrees to lose his job and repay 5x his annual salary after the first false positive in a WADA approved lab.
Wait, no, actually, I am not OK with that at all.
The only "negligible" number of contradicting samples is 0, given what it means for the livelihood of riders.
A complicating factor is that some tests benefit more from a B sample than others. For example, the EPO test is somewhat subjective, so it's probably useful to have confirmation. OTOH, any substance identified by GC-MS or other highly precise state-of-the-art techniques probably does not need a second analysis ASSUMING the technician did the analysis correctly. This would not include synthetic testosterone, since the test involves determining isotope ratios, and here again I think a B sample is useful.
IOW, the rationale is not simply to ensure that the first test was done correctly. It's to provide a second piece of data that improves the significance of the first result. The degree of precision is generally sufficient for a single test for identification of substances by GC-MS and the like, but when you deal with more complicated factors like isotope ratios, the variability is larger and having a second test allows you to conclude with greater confidence where the values lie. The value of the B was very apparent, to me at least, in Floyd's case, where some but not all of the metabolites reached criterion in the isotope ratio. Having a second set of values to compare to the A allowed one to conclude much more confidently that the high ratios were real.
Though this is not mentioned or probably considered as a justification for eliminating the B sample, having a single analysis would permit more tests, because there would be more urine to work with. As more and more new tests are developed, there may be a need or a desire to test any one sample for more and more substances. This not only increases expense, but requires more sample, so having access to the entire original sample provided by the rider would have a major benefit.
IOW, the rationale is not simply to ensure that the first test was done correctly. It's to provide a second piece of data that improves the significance of the first result. The degree of precision is generally sufficient for a single test for identification of substances by GC-MS and the like, but when you deal with more complicated factors like isotope ratios, the variability is larger and having a second test allows you to conclude with greater confidence where the values lie. The value of the B was very apparent, to me at least, in Floyd's case, where some but not all of the metabolites reached criterion in the isotope ratio. Having a second set of values to compare to the A allowed one to conclude much more confidently that the high ratios were real.
Though this is not mentioned or probably considered as a justification for eliminating the B sample, having a single analysis would permit more tests, because there would be more urine to work with. As more and more new tests are developed, there may be a need or a desire to test any one sample for more and more substances. This not only increases expense, but requires more sample, so having access to the entire original sample provided by the rider would have a major benefit.
How about TAKING enough for both an A and B sample?
A sample: pos - usual channels, with the opportunity for the athlete to subpoena the B and have it tested on their own dime (at a mutually accredited lab).
The onus should be on the one who tested pos. Give them the avenue to do it at their expense.
B samples need to be taken, but make the 'positives' pay for testing the second round - providing it's within the mandate and structure of WADA or CAS (not some independent quack).
A sample: pos - usual channels, with the opportunity for the athlete to subpoena the B and have it tested on their own dime (at a mutually accredited lab).
The onus should be on the one who tested pos. Give them the avenue to do it at their expense.
B samples need to be taken, but make the 'positives' pay for testing the second round - providing it's within the mandate and structure of WADA or CAS (not some independent quack).
JMBeaushrimp said:
That could potentially create a 2 class system of those that can afford and those that can't.
WADA isn't just cycling and many athletes from developing countries are still amateurs and their associations don't have huge budgets behind them.
Putting the cost of testing of the B onto the athlete or even federation could have some negative side effects.
python said:
You have no idea what you are talking about. The athletes are NEVER charged for the testing of their B-sample. And second, there are no "handling and transportation costs" associated with the testing of the B sample because it's always done at the same lab where the B-sample already resides.
How on earth can you just come in here and make stuff up like that and then pass it off as truth?
The only thing an athlete pays for is an expert to go there and watch the B-sample be tested. But that is optional. An athlete can likewise request the B-sample be tested and not provide their own expert witness.
GJB123 said:
I don't know why you people keep putting so much focus on this "unknowing ingestion" nonsense. The fact that it's in your body means you have an advantage so WHY it got there....HOW it got there... is irrelevant to the fact that it IS there.
Finding out HOW a substance got into your body might solve your little Nancy Drew mystery, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that that substance gave you an unfair advantage in an athletic competition (or training for one) and you cheated athletes who did NOT have that banned substance in their body. So I don't know why this is such a big sticking point for everyone.
One of the reasons why athletes take supplements is because they swear it helps them. It's no wonder. Because now we are beginning to find out that the reason most of these supplements help athletes is probably because they were laced with steroid, steroid precursors, and steroid derivatives.
So athletes who religiously take supplements are essentially knowingly taking steroids, and then claiming they simply "didn't know" they are contaminated with steroids (or other PEDs). How valid is this argument given the dozens of supplement cases that get a fair amount of press, yet doesn't stop athletes from taking this stuff?
Off the top of my head....Scott Moninger, Brooke Blackwelder, Amber Neben, Jessica Hardy, Kicker Vencill, and most recently Tom Zirbel.
Yet the next athlete that tests positive for steroids is still going to claim they "didn't know." You watch. That's why Zirbel's excuse is so lame.
So this really brings into question whether athletes should even be allowed to assert a claim of inadvertent contamination regarding supplements anymore when we know they frequently contain steroids and other illegal substances.
Second, there really are no substances I can think of that can be ingested without the athlete's knowledge, as you claim. That entire argument is just some big Red Herring. All these clenbuterol cases...I don't buy them.
Why? Because where are all the Chinese athletes testing positive for clenbuterol who LIVE in China and eat this supposed contaminated meat every day? How come none of them ever test positive in international competition at the rate that one would expect if the prevalence of contaminated meat claims were in fact true? Shouldn't we have already seen hundreds of Chinese gymnasts and swimmers and speed skaters test positive for clenbuterol already? Same with South American athletes.
My God, how unlucky it must be to be a cyclist or ping pong player from Europe... and in your short stay in China or Mexico you happen to eat the contaminated meat that the athletes who LIVE in China or Mexico their entire careers never seem to also ingest. Gee, what an unfortunate coincidence.
Statistically speaking, if clenbuterol were so prevalent in the meat in China and South America, you would except dozens if not hundreds of clenbuterol cases from athletes residing in those countries. But we don't see that. I wonder why?
Also, in the pending Clenbutador case...where are all the other Spanish athletes who eat the same supposed contaminated 'cuts of meat' as Contador...how come they never tested positive for clenbuterol? That's funny how "A.C" is unlucky like that and just so happened to win the lottery.
Isn't the negative test results of thousands of Spanish athletes over the past decade proof that the meat in Spain isn't contaminated with clenbuterol? Oh, I think it is (and evidently so does WADA). And so does anyone who understands probability statistics.
So besides clenbuterol, which is questionably being attributed to meat contamination these days, can you name ONE other substance that athletes have a risk of ingesting "unknowingly" - to quote your word?
I suppose you can claim cocaine, which Boonen successfully did. But that really didn't look too credible when he tested positive the second time, now did it? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...
And can you name all the cases where athletes have been wrongly penalized by WADA for "unknowingly" ingesting banned substances? I want to see this mythical list that has all you pseudo-righteous people up in arms like you're some freedom fighter protecting your daughter from being raped by some oppressive government that doesn't exist.
There's just not that many when you actually look.
And between you and me, probably 100% of the clenbuterol positives in cycling were due to not only intentional ingestion of clenbuterol, but elaborate doping programs that simply got sloppy when the re-infusion of blood still contained trace amounts of clenbuterol from the ramp up period when their handlers were experimenting with new elixirs in the motel room on the Canary Islands....or the refrigerator chaperones of stored blood bags were spiking the bags unbeknownst to the riders in order to cash in on their performance clauses (it was demnstrated in Operacion Puerto that the doping doctors had special clauses in their doping contracts with riders to receive extra money if athletes won certain races, so they would have an incentive to spike bags with a little "pep" sauce without even telling the riders).
So that's probably why Albuterol Clenbutador tested positive and yet still thinks he's innocent.
Alberto wants everyone to believe that he won the meat contamination lottery in Spain...and he just so happened to test positive during the EXACT same time when one would expect a guy whose initials were found in the Operacion Puerto dossier to re-infuse blood during a 3-week Grand Tour.
And all those THOUSANDS of Spanish athletes who eat the very same ' cuts of meat' somehow passed all their doping tests for the past 10 years.
Poor Alberto...the little innocent Spanish boy fighting the big bad WADA bull as his clueless fans cheer him on.
cyclequip said:
Ever hear of the saying that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." What does that tell you about the importance of establishing mens rea?
Also, drop the BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT stuff, okay. Most juries use a standard called "I think he did it and even if he didn't I want to go home already" standard.
If you really think people who never went to college make all these minute distinctions and gradations of guilt and hold prosecutors to ANY standard, you are kidding yourself. Most juries decide cases on wether or not they like or don't like what the defendant wears in court.
TERMINATOR said:
I wasn't aware doping and/or CAS-procedures were actually jury procedures. Oops, I guess they are not. Stop being pedantic, obtuse and US-centric.
Regards
GJ
teminator, with black and white, categorical statements, you have revealed your ignorance and incompetence too many times to be taken seriously.stop pretending to be a wada insider, stop making up stuff. instead, read the wada code, bring examples or quotes when you argue with people's opinion. it will help you to avoid the embarrassment.
just for you again, incopetento: athletes do pay for the b test and there are expenses to be saved on handling and transportation.
just for you again, incopetento: athletes do pay for the b test and there are expenses to be saved on handling and transportation.
Oldman said:
you could have picked anyone and you went with Dr Quinn? i respect that but i would have gone in another direction...
Good point of view.Merckx index said:
On the bolded part I don't think that was the main purpose because he was referring to saving money. With your suggestion, being a good one, they would end up spending more money.
In conclusion, does the rider pays for the B-sample to be tested or not?
I would imagine not, because of the many poor athletes that would not have the means to pay all these procedures. That includes third world countries with athletes that bearly make the living.
I would imagine not, because of the many poor athletes that would not have the means to pay all these procedures. That includes third world countries with athletes that bearly make the living.
whether a poor athlete has money or not is not the way most federations look at anti-doping process.Escarabajo said:
i know you can do research, and it's not difficult to find dozens of links that confirm the simple issue.
here is one example
http://www.abbf.asia/index.pdf
I think Cobblestones had probably the best idea, a few pages about, about retaining both tests, but adjusting the procedure for tests results. Hence, an admission after an A result resulting in a shorter suspension than a verified B sample.
I never should have doubted you!python said:
Well, what is the point of the money argument then?
Let's see where this is going.
Thanks Kiwirider for the reference.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 7: Foligno – Perugia, 40.6k (ITT)
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 572
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d’Italia 2024, Stage 6, Torre del Lago Puccini (Viareggio) – Rapolano Terme, 180km
- Started by Nick2413
- Replies: 376
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2024 Stage 2: San Francesco al Campo – Santuario di Oropa (Biella), 161.0 km- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 515
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d‘Italia 2024 Stage 3, Novara-Fossano, 166 km- Started by QueenStagiaire
- Replies: 360
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d‘Italia 2024, Stage 5, Genova-Lucca, 178 km- Started by QueenStagiaire
- Replies: 245
-
2024 Giro d'Italia, Stage 1: Venaria Reale - Torino, 140 km (Saturday, May 4)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 588
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d‘Italia 2024, Stage 4 Acqui Terme-Andora, 190 km- Started by QueenStagiaire
- Replies: 206
Latest posts
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Cian Uijtdebroeks - From the wetlands to the top of cycling- Latest: Logic-is-your-friend
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram