|
News in May
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:51
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Malkael wrote:
As for intent, isn't that often used in Law to revolve matters such as Self-Defense and whether someone has committed manslaughter or murder?
Absolutely but you are talking about criminal matters where they have a lot more tools available to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt in the first place. Witnesses can be called to testify under oath, forensic investigation can take place, there might be a tangible crime scene to gather evidence from etc.
We don't even get a crime scene in doping offences just the detetction of a substance after the event. Proving how it got there and any intent retrospectively, with limited tools and powers is a stretch.
Please correct me if I'm wrong in terms of what is possible in investigation as I don't claim to know all the ins and outs.
Edited by ianrussell on 14-05-2013 13:53
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:54
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
ianrussell wrote:
Malkael wrote:
As for intent, isn't that often used in Law to revolve matters such as Self-Defense and whether someone has committed manslaughter or murder?
Absolutely but you are talking about criminal matters where they have a lot more tools available to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt in the first place. Witnesses can be called to testify under oath, forensic investigation can take place, there might be a tangible crime scene to gather evidence from etc.
We don't even get a crime scene in doping offences just the detetction of a substance after the event. Proving how it got there and any intent retrospectively, with limited tools and powers is a stretch.
Which is why the responsibility should be put upon the rider to prove innocence as well. WADA will have shown that they had a banned substance, so the rider, if they are innocent, should have to prove it was an accident etc. if they want the ban to reduced.
|
| |
|
|
| ianrussell |
Posted on 14-05-2013 13:56
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3440
Joined: 09-10-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Yes I'd agree with that setup the onus has to be on the rider to actively prove how it got their and that is practically impossible to do. |
| |
|
|
| Alesle |
Posted on 14-05-2013 14:15
|
Stagiare
Posts: 192
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
@Alesle
"much" intent... any intent is very very bad. Might be a bit odd (depends on your view), but the guy doped. If it was peculiar, then a 2 year is a good thing, as it allows him to come back and compete at a decent level.
And if it is viewed as odd or unfair, then the community will forgive and the rider will continue.
I find it peculiar in the sense that it was hardly a very performance enhancing substance (it was even removed from the banned substance list for a couple of years). His intent was allegedly to treat cramps. He did make a grave mistake in not conferring with the team doctor and attempt to find some legal treatment though, and hence a suspension was warranted.
However, although treating cramps can certainly be seen as performance enhancing, I don't consider the intent to dope as being at the same level as say blood doping, and as such feel he was entitled to a less severe punishment. The authorities were seemingly in agreement with that viewpoint, considering they only handed him a 3-month suspension.
Also just to make it clear, I'm simply arguing that the suspensions should be in proportion to the offence. I wouldn't mind Fofonov getting 2 years if "serious" violations like blood doping got lifetime suspension at first offence. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 14-05-2013 14:17
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Simple: marginal gains. A bunch of drugs that each have a small effect = combine for big effect
Yaay I just used "Marginal gains" without sarcasm 
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Alesle |
Posted on 14-05-2013 14:39
|
Stagiare
Posts: 192
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
When I said "serious" violation I wasn't necessarily thinking about how effective the drug is, but more about the "purpose" of or intent behind the use of it. If there is a clear intent on gaining a performance advantage on the competition I don't see why they even need a 2nd chance, though I realize that assessing the "intent" can perhaps be very subjective and difficult to evaluate.
I just don't think all violations are identical and deserve the same punishment. |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 14-05-2013 14:42
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Alesle wrote:
When I said "serious" violation I wasn't necessarily thinking about how effective the drug is, but more about the "purpose" of or intent behind the use of it. If there is a clear intent on gaining a performance advantage on the competition I don't see why they even need a 2nd chance, though I realize that assessing the "intent" can perhaps be very subjective and difficult to evaluate.
I just don't think all violations are identical and deserve the same punishment.
But why would take a performance enhancer without the purpose or intention of gaining a performance advantage? Simple fact: you wouldn't
|
| |
|
|
| Alesle |
Posted on 14-05-2013 14:47
|
Stagiare
Posts: 192
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Spoiler Alesle wrote:
When I said "serious" violation I wasn't necessarily thinking about how effective the drug is, but more about the "purpose" of or intent behind the use of it. If there is a clear intent on gaining a performance advantage on the competition I don't see why they even need a 2nd chance, though I realize that assessing the "intent" can perhaps be very subjective and difficult to evaluate.
I just don't think all violations are identical and deserve the same punishment.
But why would take a performance enhancer without the purpose or intention of gaining a performance advantage? Simple fact: you wouldn't
You could be careless with what you put into your body and get something in your system that you didn't intend on. |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 14-05-2013 14:52
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Alesle wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
But why would take a performance enhancer without the purpose or intention of gaining a performance advantage? Simple fact: you wouldn't
You could be careless with what you put into your body and get something in your system that you didn't intend on.
Like Contadors "steak"? At that point its just making excuses for being caught.
The team doctor should be checking every medicine being used. During competition the team should know the catering is clean, etc.
I can see some medicines could get in as part of a cream or something, but there are rules allowing for certain situations, and the team doctor has the responsibility to check everything he gives out. Plus the rider should double check everything they are given. I check every medication i get to make sure there is nothing hidden in it, and i don't race!
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 14:54
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Alesle |
Posted on 14-05-2013 15:05
|
Stagiare
Posts: 192
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Alesle wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
But why would take a performance enhancer without the purpose or intention of gaining a performance advantage? Simple fact: you wouldn't
You could be careless with what you put into your body and get something in your system that you didn't intend on.
Like Contadors "steak"? At that point its just making excuses for being caught.
The team doctor should be checking every medicine being used. During competition the team should know the catering is clean, etc.
I can see some medicines could get in as part of a cream or something, but there are rules allowing for certain situations, and the team doctor has the responsibility to check everything he gives out. Plus the rider should double check everything they are given. I check every medication i get to make sure there is nothing hidden in it, and i don't race!
If Contador had been able to prove that it was likely that he'd gotten clenbuterol in him through no fault of his own; then yes. There have also been cases with food supplements containing substances not mentioned on the label, though obviously that is very rare. It is also not inconceivable that the team doctor could make a mistake when treating an injury. |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 14-05-2013 15:09
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
But how do you differentiate between what is a mistake by a doctor, and a doctor claiming it was a mistake.... fairly?
And i would be worried if there was food with high enough amounts of those substances to show up  But again then it should be easily provable by the team/rider, so they could appeal and have the ban rescinded/shortened based upon that proof.
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 14-05-2013 15:16
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Alesle wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
Spoiler Alesle wrote:
When I said "serious" violation I wasn't necessarily thinking about how effective the drug is, but more about the "purpose" of or intent behind the use of it. If there is a clear intent on gaining a performance advantage on the competition I don't see why they even need a 2nd chance, though I realize that assessing the "intent" can perhaps be very subjective and difficult to evaluate.
I just don't think all violations are identical and deserve the same punishment.
But why would take a performance enhancer without the purpose or intention of gaining a performance advantage? Simple fact: you wouldn't
You could be careless with what you put into your body and get something in your system that you didn't intend on.
Then don't be careless.
|
| |
|
|
| Alesle |
Posted on 14-05-2013 15:31
|
Stagiare
Posts: 192
Joined: 30-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
But how do you differentiate between what is a mistake by a doctor, and a doctor claiming it was a mistake.... fairly?
And i would be worried if there was food with high enough amounts of those substances to show up But again then it should be easily provable by the team/rider, so they could appeal and have the ban rescinded/shortened based upon that proof.
I acknowledged that it could be difficult to differentiate between them (the "intent" ). I’m just arguing that not all violations are the same, and that a black and white "4 year ban for everyone" could be unfair in some [very rare] instances. Reading your last sentence I actually don't think we're in much of a disagreement. |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 14-05-2013 15:35
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Alesle wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
But how do you differentiate between what is a mistake by a doctor, and a doctor claiming it was a mistake.... fairly?
And i would be worried if there was food with high enough amounts of those substances to show up But again then it should be easily provable by the team/rider, so they could appeal and have the ban rescinded/shortened based upon that proof.
I acknowledged that it could be difficult to differentiate between them (the "intent" ). I’m just arguing that not all violations are the same, and that a black and white "4 year ban for everyone" could be unfair in some [very rare] instances. Reading your last sentence I actually don't think we're in much of a disagreement.
I agree that bans can be undone if the riders/teams/doctors can prove innocence/accident. But that any 1st time failed test has to be given the same treatment initially, which i think should be two years. 2nd, 3rd etc. time offenses can be handled individually. (but it should be a lifetime ban, no questions asked)
|
| |
|
|
| Lachi |
Posted on 14-05-2013 17:03
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8516
Joined: 29-06-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
To be honest, we normal people also have to live with the possibility to lose our job for reasons outside of our control.
So if an athlete is banned by mistake, I don't care that much. Some people just have bad luck. And it is not the end of his/her live, but doping can and does kill people.
As long as there is no death sentence for doping, I am fine with harsh sanctions for violations of the anti-doping rules. |
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 14-05-2013 17:48
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Well, you're right, it's all relative
Still, innocent people paying, never good. |
| |
|
|
| admirschleck |
Posted on 14-05-2013 17:51
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6690
Joined: 11-10-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Lachi wrote:
To be honest, we normal people also have to live with the possibility to lose our job for reasons outside of our control.
So if an athlete is banned by mistake, I don't care that much. Some people just have bad luck. And it is not the end of his/her live, but doping can and does kill people.
As long as there is no death sentence for doping, I am fine with harsh sanctions for violations of the anti-doping rules.
So much thruth in few sentences.
|
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 14-05-2013 18:01
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
Well, you're right, it's all relative
Still, innocent people paying, never good.
Welcome to the real world  Here shit happens and you have to just deal with it. The jerk gets the girl, the idiot the job, the cheat the money, and the nice guy wonders what the fuck just happened
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 14-05-2013 18:22
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
Well, you're right, it's all relative
Still, innocent people paying, never good.
Welcome to the real world Here shit happens and you have to just deal with it. The jerk gets the girl, the idiot the job, the cheat the money, and the nice guy wonders what the fuck just happened
So I'm not supposed to dislike it or try to do anything against it? |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 14-05-2013 18:27
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
TheManxMissile wrote:
Ian Butler wrote:
Well, you're right, it's all relative
Still, innocent people paying, never good.
Welcome to the real world Here shit happens and you have to just deal with it. The jerk gets the girl, the idiot the job, the cheat the money, and the nice guy wonders what the fuck just happened
So I'm not supposed to dislike it or try to do anything against it?
Well on a forum of nice guys you can complain but nothing will come of it 
|
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
