Bernice Wilson positive

[Anthony Treacher]

readtherules again makes it all worthwhile:

....When it comes to a system that has all the signs and words of being a legal system but actually is not then all sorts of abuses can occur....

[fangio]

Anthony, stop pretending you are commenting on Bernice and get over the fat that no one is interested in you rocntinual whining about your own situation.
RTR - Ignorance is no defence, and the point made was tht teh ones cheating know th erules better than most they look (like you do ) for possible loopholes and lines of defence they can pretend are gennuine after they fail a test.

[TheRealSub10]

What happened to athleted giving an hour a day for testers ? Why on earth would they 'turn up at work' ? can you name one instance of this happening ?

If you are registered as an athlete (that means anyone from a 9 year old to a vet) they can turn up to test you at any time (day or night at any venue around the world) without notice. However if you are not there they cannot then say you missed a test if they don't find you.

If you are on out of competition testing register then you have 1 hour a day where you must be 'available' for testing. If they turn up during this one hour and you are not present or they cannot find you then you have missed a test. Watch the videos on the UKAD website for all the information. I know several examples of people in the UK being tested at work. In print there are a few in the book 'Positive' that blew the lid on Australia's doping programme before Sydney.

[BigGut]

I can see where therre may be issues with the testers turning up at your work where you are not on ADAMS. If they tried it where I work they would be denied access to the building. If somebody worked as, for example a police officer then it may not be practical to sit around for 1 hour trying to pee.

That said, if the only place a tester knows that an athlete would be is their work they would have little choice but to use that site for testing them. Nobody seems to be saying that anybody has been tested at work, outside of ADAMS, and that would seem to back up the notion that it is an inefficient and undesirable method, because you don't know if the person will be able to be tested there.

I honestly cannot think of an alternative for non-ADAMS registered competitiors than allowing testing wherever the testers know they will be able to find the person, we have to give the testers half a chance of actually being able to test the athletes without notification. The only move that would seemingly make this unnecessary would be for everybody to be on ADAMS. Until that day we should probably leave the rules as they stand and trust that the testers will test whereveer they feel is most appropriate. It is afterall a small inconvenience to athletes who have nothing to hide.

[readtherules]

I can see where therre may be issues with the testers turning up at your work where you are not on ADAMS. If they tried it where I work they would be denied access to the building. If somebody worked as, for example a police officer then it may not be practical to sit around for 1 hour trying to pee.

That said, if the only place a tester knows that an athlete would be is their work they would have little choice but to use that site for testing them. Nobody seems to be saying that anybody has been tested at work, outside of ADAMS, and that would seem to back up the notion that it is an inefficient and undesirable method, because you don't know if the person will be able to be tested there.

I honestly cannot think of an alternative for non-ADAMS registered competitiors than allowing testing wherever the testers know they will be able to find the person, we have to give the testers half a chance of actually being able to test the athletes without notification. The only move that would seemingly make this unnecessary would be for everybody to be on ADAMS. Until that day we should probably leave the rules as they stand and trust that the testers will test whereveer they feel is most appropriate. It is afterall a small inconvenience to athletes who have nothing to hide.

What about testing at work when you are on Adams.And coming to someones elses location without the testing van.

[readtherules]

What happened to athleted giving an hour a day for testers ? Why on earth would they 'turn up at work' ? can you name one instance of this happening ?

If you are registered as an athlete (that means anyone from a 9 year old to a vet) they can turn up to test you at any time (day or night at any venue around the world) without notice. However if you are not there they cannot then say you missed a test if they don't find you.

If you are on out of competition testing register then you have 1 hour a day where you must be 'available' for testing. If they turn up during this one hour and you are not present or they cannot find you then you have missed a test. Watch the videos on the UKAD website for all the information. I know several examples of people in the UK being tested at work. In print there are a few in the book 'Positive' that blew the lid on Australia's doping programme before Sydney.

The Edwards decision said that by being a club member is enough to be subject to doping rules.
Also if your whereabouts filing is not accurate over and above the one hour then this can bring an automatic ban.

[BigGut]

readtherules,

You ask what about testing at work if you are on ADAMS. Well since you are required to give an hour a day where you will be and can be tested then you need to ensure that if that hour is at work that you will be able to be tested. If that doesn't fit with your work then don't put down your 1 hour as during work time.

If you decide to put down an hour when you are at work it is up to you to ensure that you will be available and that your employer will allow the tester on site to be able to carry out the test. Simples!!!

[readtherules]

readtherules,

You ask what about testing at work if you are on ADAMS. Well since you are required to give an hour a day where you will be and can be tested then you need to ensure that if that hour is at work that you will be able to be tested. If that doesn't fit with your work then don't put down your 1 hour as during work time.

If you decide to put down an hour when you are at work it is up to you to ensure that you will be available and that your employer will allow the tester on site to be able to carry out the test. Simples!!!

Fully agree,yes as far as you have gone it is "simples" but that was not my point.

But it seems you have still not concidered testing out of the one the hour.Adams requires you give all your whereabouts for all parts of the day.

[jjimbojames]

readtherules,

You ask what about testing at work if you are on ADAMS. Well since you are required to give an hour a day where you will be and can be tested then you need to ensure that if that hour is at work that you will be able to be tested. If that doesn't fit with your work then don't put down your 1 hour as during work time.

If you decide to put down an hour when you are at work it is up to you to ensure that you will be available and that your employer will allow the tester on site to be able to carry out the test. Simples!!!

Fully agree,yes as far as you have gone it is "simples" but that was not my point.

But it seems you have still not concidered testing out of the one the hour.Adams requires you give all your whereabouts for all parts of the day.

You might want to tell them that - as they seem to disagree!

Athletes can easily enter their whereabouts information on ADAMS. Athletes are trained to use ADAMS by their IF or NADO, which were themselves trained by WADA. In addition, WADA offers a number of resources to users (user guides, etc.).

Athletes can update their whereabouts information at all times, including by emailing or text messaging their relevant ADO.

Under the revised International Standard for Testing which went into force on January 1, 2009, the limited number of top elite athletes included in the registered testing pool of their IF or NADO are required to specify 1 hour each day (between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m.) during which they can be located at a specified location for testing. If they are not at the indicated location at the specified time, they expose themselves to the risk of a missed test.

In addition, they are required to indicate their regular activities for testing purposes. This information does not have to cover every 24/7 movement of the athlete but only recurring or regular activities, for example:

Overnight home (address)
Morning training (address)
14:00 – 15:00: training (available for testing).

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/ADAMS/QA-on-ADAMS-/

In short, athletes don't need to give every minute of their day. If they put down certain places and times, they just need to stick to those, or tell them if different e.g. if going to a race rather than training, you can drop a text/email to tell them.

I don't even know why we're having this conversation - it all came out when TBO was going through her case. Athletes like Becky Lyne were on one or two, and so the process was highlighted. It's a part of being an athlete - if you don't read the rules, you are likely to break them and get punished.

[readtherules]

readtherules,

You ask what about testing at work if you are on ADAMS. Well since you are required to give an hour a day where you will be and can be tested then you need to ensure that if that hour is at work that you will be able to be tested. If that doesn't fit with your work then don't put down your 1 hour as during work time.

If you decide to put down an hour when you are at work it is up to you to ensure that you will be available and that your employer will allow the tester on site to be able to carry out the test. Simples!!!

Fully agree,yes as far as you have gone it is "simples" but that was not my point.

But it seems you have still not concidered testing out of the one the hour.Adams requires you give all your whereabouts for all parts of the day.

You might want to tell them that - as they seem to disagree!

Athletes can easily enter their whereabouts information on ADAMS. Athletes are trained to use ADAMS by their IF or NADO, which were themselves trained by WADA. In addition, WADA offers a number of resources to users (user guides, etc.).

Athletes can update their whereabouts information at all times, including by emailing or text messaging their relevant ADO.

Under the revised International Standard for Testing which went into force on January 1, 2009, the limited number of top elite athletes included in the registered testing pool of their IF or NADO are required to specify 1 hour each day (between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m.) during which they can be located at a specified location for testing. If they are not at the indicated location at the specified time, they expose themselves to the risk of a missed test.

In addition, they are required to indicate their regular activities for testing purposes. This information does not have to cover every 24/7 movement of the athlete but only recurring or regular activities, for example:

Overnight home (address)
Morning training (address)
14:00 – 15:00: training (available for testing).

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/ADAMS/QA-on-ADAMS-/

In short, athletes don't need to give every minute of their day. If they put down certain places and times, they just need to stick to those, or tell them if different e.g. if going to a race rather than training, you can drop a text/email to tell them.

I don't even know why we're having this conversation - it all came out when TBO was going through her case. Athletes like Becky Lyne were on one or two, and so the process was highlighted. It's a part of being an athlete - if you don't read the rules, you are likely to break them and get punished.

You have not dealt with those athletes who are not full time and do have jobs in the morning and afternoon.These parts of the day have to go on Adams.

[Anthony Treacher]

jjimbojames. Well done but

...... It's a part of being an athlete - if you don't read the rules, you are likely to break them and get punished.

It is not quite like that is it? Some British athletics organisations do not have rules. A BMAF athlete can read the WMA competition and IAAF rules. And yet get punished for insisting that his BMAF Team Manager follow them.

[readtherules]

I have posted on doping news the Adams advice link in order to take all this away from the Wilson case.

[BigGut]

On the Wilson case. If she cannot explain, definatively, how the drugs got into her system then do you accept that she should be banned?

[readtherules]

On the Wilson case. If she cannot explain, definatively, how the drugs got into her system then do you accept that she should be banned?

You have missed my post on challenging any breaches of ISL and IST.I have no idea if there are any but in the ME case UKAD had to admit they dont know where the sample is post collection etc.But ,leaving that aside then, under the rules that exist then the panel should find her guilty.Had it just been clen then we may have to wait until WADA publish their new thinking and, of course it would depend on the levels.I think that the TE AAF ,if substantiated by IRMS,would cause me to say,come what may,banned.
Interesting if they link the two then aggravated offence may lead to a 3 yr ban.Bet UKAD go for this.

She could explain that she took the drugs.
She could turn queens evidence etc.
Interesting times given her connections and connections from there.

Does anyone know the number tested on that day or if they were blood testing ?

[jjimbojames]

readtherules,

You ask what about testing at work if you are on ADAMS. Well since you are required to give an hour a day where you will be and can be tested then you need to ensure that if that hour is at work that you will be able to be tested. If that doesn't fit with your work then don't put down your 1 hour as during work time.

If you decide to put down an hour when you are at work it is up to you to ensure that you will be available and that your employer will allow the tester on site to be able to carry out the test. Simples!!!

Fully agree,yes as far as you have gone it is "simples" but that was not my point.

But it seems you have still not concidered testing out of the one the hour.Adams requires you give all your whereabouts for all parts of the day.

You might want to tell them that - as they seem to disagree!

Athletes can easily enter their whereabouts information on ADAMS. Athletes are trained to use ADAMS by their IF or NADO, which were themselves trained by WADA. In addition, WADA offers a number of resources to users (user guides, etc.).

Athletes can update their whereabouts information at all times, including by emailing or text messaging their relevant ADO.

Under the revised International Standard for Testing which went into force on January 1, 2009, the limited number of top elite athletes included in the registered testing pool of their IF or NADO are required to specify 1 hour each day (between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m.) during which they can be located at a specified location for testing. If they are not at the indicated location at the specified time, they expose themselves to the risk of a missed test.

In addition, they are required to indicate their regular activities for testing purposes. This information does not have to cover every 24/7 movement of the athlete but only recurring or regular activities, for example:

Overnight home (address)
Morning training (address)
14:00 – 15:00: training (available for testing).

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/ADAMS/QA-on-ADAMS-/

In short, athletes don't need to give every minute of their day. If they put down certain places and times, they just need to stick to those, or tell them if different e.g. if going to a race rather than training, you can drop a text/email to tell them.

I don't even know why we're having this conversation - it all came out when TBO was going through her case. Athletes like Becky Lyne were on one or two, and so the process was highlighted. It's a part of being an athlete - if you don't read the rules, you are likely to break them and get punished.

You have not dealt with those athletes who are not full time and do have jobs in the morning and afternoon.These parts of the day have to go on Adams.

RTR, I could be wrong, but I find the fact that one part of the above says "available for testing" as perhaps illustrative that you could say where you work and then "unavailable for testing" (at that location) - testers would still have your details, but know to test you either at training or at home etc. Note it is only regular activities, not 24/7, so there is clearly some give there

[readtherules]

readtherules,

You ask what about testing at work if you are on ADAMS. Well since you are required to give an hour a day where you will be and can be tested then you need to ensure that if that hour is at work that you will be able to be tested. If that doesn't fit with your work then don't put down your 1 hour as during work time.

If you decide to put down an hour when you are at work it is up to you to ensure that you will be available and that your employer will allow the tester on site to be able to carry out the test. Simples!!!

Fully agree,yes as far as you have gone it is "simples" but that was not my point.

But it seems you have still not concidered testing out of the one the hour.Adams requires you give all your whereabouts for all parts of the day.

You might want to tell them that - as they seem to disagree!

Athletes can easily enter their whereabouts information on ADAMS. Athletes are trained to use ADAMS by their IF or NADO, which were themselves trained by WADA. In addition, WADA offers a number of resources to users (user guides, etc.).

Athletes can update their whereabouts information at all times, including by emailing or text messaging their relevant ADO.

Under the revised International Standard for Testing which went into force on January 1, 2009, the limited number of top elite athletes included in the registered testing pool of their IF or NADO are required to specify 1 hour each day (between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m.) during which they can be located at a specified location for testing. If they are not at the indicated location at the specified time, they expose themselves to the risk of a missed test.

In addition, they are required to indicate their regular activities for testing purposes. This information does not have to cover every 24/7 movement of the athlete but only recurring or regular activities, for example:

Overnight home (address)
Morning training (address)
14:00 – 15:00: training (available for testing).

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/ADAMS/QA-on-ADAMS-/

In short, athletes don't need to give every minute of their day. If they put down certain places and times, they just need to stick to those, or tell them if different e.g. if going to a race rather than training, you can drop a text/email to tell them.

I don't even know why we're having this conversation - it all came out when TBO was going through her case. Athletes like Becky Lyne were on one or two, and so the process was highlighted. It's a part of being an athlete - if you don't read the rules, you are likely to break them and get punished.

You have not dealt with those athletes who are not full time and do have jobs in the morning and afternoon.These parts of the day have to go on Adams.

RTR, I could be wrong, but I find the fact that one part of the above says "available for testing" as perhaps illustrative that you could say where you work and then "unavailable for testing" (at that location) - testers would still have your details, but know to test you either at training or at home etc. Note it is only regular activities, not 24/7, so there is clearly some give there

I see your point.But if you are not training and only working then they would need to find you during the day.You could only be at home for sleeping times.The Adams ,like most of WADA ,was primary set up for full time athletes and or thosewho reside in training camps.Regular activities would clearly be work.However clearly some ambiguity.The earlier paper whereabouts did make specific ref to work.

[BigGut]

I see your point.But if you are not training and only working then they would need to find you during the day.You could only be at home for sleeping times.The Adams ,like most of WADA ,was primary set up for full time athletes and or thosewho reside in training camps.Regular activities would clearly be work.However clearly some ambiguity.The earlier paper whereabouts did make specific ref to work.

If you are working and not training then if you are on ADAMS you need to find one hour a day where you will be avqailable for testing. I realise that this may be an inconvenience for some people, but given the European Working Time Directive there should be some of the day when you are not working and not sleeping. It really isn't that much of an imposition, afterall if you are on the ADAMS register then you are clearly not going to be "not training" very often, your post seems to suggest that there are people who are good enough to be on ADAMS without doing daily training, they may not be full time athletes but people at that level are clearly goign to be doing some form or training every day.

[readtherules]

Sorry but I dont understand your point; thought it was about testing at work.

Not all top athletes train every day.Seems to be the modern way.Loads of rest and recovery.Unlikely to be MD boys etc
Holidays.
Injuries.
End of season rest .
pre comp rest.
etc etc

Working time directive.If in sports employment must have 20 days away from work and a rest day (>note testers cant appear).This is law with prison waiting for those who force breaches.

[BigGut]

My point is that you only need to give 1 hour per day and you were saying that people may only be at home when they sleep and may not be training.

Well you have to find ONE HOUR in every day when you will be somewhere you say you will and available for training. You don't need to put down your work address, you can be somewhere else for ONE HOUR a day. For most athletes at the ADAMS level they will be at training for ONE HOUR virtually every day. If they are on a rest period even better, they have even more free time to fit the ONE HOUR into.

If people don't want to be tested at work then don't put down an hour when you are at work. Thanks to the working time directive everybody in Europe should have plenty of time when they are not at work and can be availble for testing.

Can you please show the LAW that says that testers cannot appear for 20 days a year. Yet again you make an unsubstantiated claim that makes a giant leap from the supposed supporting evidence.

[fangio]

He's clearly trying to play the card that the European Workign Time Directive means tha atheltees should have a rest day and 20 days holiday a year. However it was the legal opinion of Michael Beloff QC that the EU Workign Time Directive was irrelavant as the the drug testing procedure was a Health and Safety safeguard and therefore was nto subject to the Directive. It seems pretty clear that the Belgian athetes considering challenging the rules based upont eh Europena Workign |Time Directive did not do so, most probably because they were advised that as a helth and safety measure the tests are not subject to the directive.

It is clear the Belgians had littel understanding of the law, and that RTR is goign to bring up anythign regardless of whether it was completley erroneous, that he thinks he can pretend makes the rules illegal. They did not break the European Workign Time Directive, to suggest they did is incorrect.

[readtherules]

My point is that you only need to give 1 hour per day and you were saying that people may only be at home when they sleep and may not be training.

Well you have to find ONE HOUR in every day when you will be somewhere you say you will and available for training. You don't need to put down your work address, you can be somewhere else for ONE HOUR a day. For most athletes at the ADAMS level they will be at training for ONE HOUR virtually every day. If they are on a rest period even better, they have even more free time to fit the ONE HOUR into.

If people don't want to be tested at work then don't put down an hour when you are at work. Thanks to the working time directive everybody in Europe should have plenty of time when they are not at work and can be availble for testing.

Can you please show the LAW that says that testers cannot appear for 20 days a year. Yet again you make an unsubstantiated claim that makes a giant leap from the supposed supporting evidence.

You have failed to comprehend that the issue at hand is NOT the one hour rule we are full agreement.

If and I say if an athlete is in an employment position regarding his sport then the law that YOU have refered to applies ie Working Tme Directive.
The question of track and field athletes and employment and the relation WTD is one that I would guess would be subject to debate.We saw in the BBC self employed women who sued on agism that employment law applied even though she was not an employee.A bit like human Rights ;a living document.

Any comment on testing at a friends house when staying there without the testing van turning up ?

[readtherules]

He's clearly trying to play the card that the European Workign Time Directive means tha atheltees should have a rest day and 20 days holiday a year. However it was the legal opinion of Michael Beloff QC that the EU Workign Time Directive was irrelavant as the the drug testing procedure was a Health and Safety safeguard and therefore was nto subject to the Directive. It seems pretty clear that the Belgian athetes considering challenging the rules based upont eh Europena Workign |Time Directive did not do so, most probably because they were advised that as a helth and safety measure the tests are not subject to the directive.

It is clear the Belgians had littel understanding of the law, and that RTR is goign to bring up anythign regardless of whether it was completley erroneous, that he thinks he can pretend makes the rules illegal. They did not break the European Workign Time Directive, to suggest they did is incorrect.

I have to say thank you for your ref to Beloff.I am not aware of this,can you please send me the link.I have said that athletes and employment is interesting and have added that it may well be a living "law".Beloff has been as the forefront of legal opinion that all is a matter of Private Law.He has his own axe to grind and test cases may be different.

However the IST does make ref to collection should comply with H and S so real laws are not too far away.

[BigGut]

readthrules,

You are clearly talking nonsense again. People are not tested by virtue of their employment status. Therefor testing does not relate to their job. Whether they are in full time employment in sport is irrelevant. If you are not paid by anyone to be an athlete then you can still be subject to testing, so testing is not an employment issue and is not subject to the working time directive.

So you cannot take a holiday from testing, you can take one from your job but testing still applies as it is not related to your job. You are not being tested because you are employed as an athlete, you are being tested because you are an athlete.

[fangio]

Beloff was asked by an ATHLETES group, so it is interesting that his legal opinion came down on the EWTD NOT being applicable, as this may not have been what they wanted to hear. It also makes the point that the rules do not break the privacy laws in themsleves, specifically refering to the Human Rights Act. Here is the link.

http://www.euathletes.info/uploads/medi ... ter__3.pdf

So clearly legal opinion by a leading QC in the UK (as well as previous cited ones from other cuntries and by one fo the Judges on the EHRC) is that the rules DO NOT break the law, glad we cleared that up, hopefully you can now stop pretending that they do.

[readtherules]

Beloff was asked by an ATHLETES group, so it is interesting that his legal opinion came down on the EWTD NOT being applicable, as this may not have been what they wanted to hear. It also makes the point that the rules do not break the privacy laws in themsleves, specifically refering to the Human Rights Act. Here is the link.

http://www.euathletes.info/uploads/medi ... ter__3.pdf

So clearly legal opinion by a leading QC in the UK (as well as previous cited ones from other cuntries and by one fo the Judges on the EHRC) is that the rules DO NOT break the law, glad we cleared that up, hopefully you can now stop pretending that they do.

I note that you do not have the actual opinion from Beloff.But thanks for the link.

I present it below and ask readers to see if what is written is actually the same as you wish to imply.Still seems unsettled esp if you see last para,


Professional Players Federation worried about
Whereabouts Requirements.
The UK’s Professional Players Federation has received an expert
legal opinion on whether the proposed WADA Whereabouts
Requirements for drugs testing are lawful.
Simon Taylor, general secretary, said “At the EU Athletes conference in Amsterdam
we heard about anti-doping concerns from many European player associations. We
then came back to learn that our biggest member – the Professional Footballers
Association – was complaining about whereabouts reporting and drug testing at
home. The PPF talked with the members and decided to get a legal opinion to see
just how far the anti-doping authorities could boss players about.”
One of the UK’s leading sports lawyers, Michael Beloff QC, kindly agreed to look at
the issue. He was asked whether the proposed requirement for athletes to report
their exact whereabouts for one hour each day for 365 days a year was in breach of
the athletes Right to Privacy (under the Human Rights Act). As a secondary issue
he was also asked whether a players right to a holiday under the Working Time
Directive would be undermined.
• As was to be expected this is a complicated area with no simple answers.
This is compounded by the fact that different judges are likely to interpret
the same Right to Privacy in different ways.
• Overall, the view was that WADA’s proposed Athlete Whereabouts
Requirements may be unlawful on the basis of proportionality but this
would depend upon how they were applied. He did not consider that they
were unlawful in themselves.
• It was not believed that Athlete Whereabouts Requirements violated the
right to a holiday under the Working Time Directive as they were both
concerned with protecting athletes’ Health and Safety.
As a result of the legal opinion, the PPF has written to WADA expressing its
concerns about the lawfulness of its proposed whereabouts requirements. We
have urged WADA to ensure that its revised International Testing Standards allow
for different anti-doping regimes that are proportionate and specific to the risk
profile of each sport. The PPF is urging WADA to ensure that National Anti-
Doping Organisations work with recognised player associations to justify and
develop anti-doping regimes on a sport by sport basis. The alternative is likely to be
a series of expensive legal disputes.

[readtherules]

readthrules,

You are clearly talking nonsense again. People are not tested by virtue of their employment status. Therefor testing does not relate to their job. Whether they are in full time employment in sport is irrelevant. If you are not paid by anyone to be an athlete then you can still be subject to testing, so testing is not an employment issue and is not subject to the working time directive.

So you cannot take a holiday from testing, you can take one from your job but testing still applies as it is not related to your job. You are not being tested because you are employed as an athlete, you are being tested because you are an athlete.

I wish you would pay attention.
I have said the employment position of track is questionable esp in this country.
However for those in football it is far more likely.Test cases will follow or WADA will do a deal.I think UKAD have already done a deal with the PFA.

[fangio]

RTR

It's cler that BElhoff was the one givng them the opinion, and that they have sumamrised it as such.

The legal opinion of a foreign expert was in the document to WADA YOU posted up previously, you chose to ignore it as it didn't fit your agenda.

The opinion of a Judge for the ECHR was itn eh same document, gain you ignore it as it doesn't fit yor opinion.

So every leagl opinion shown so far is that you are wrong.

If you awnat to know the law ask a QC or Judge, if you want to get an opinion backed by little (if any) udnerstanding of the law that contradicts it we shoudl all ask you. I know which I put my faith in, and it isn't you.

[readtherules]

RTR

It's cler that BElhoff was the one givng them the opinion, and that they have sumamrised it as such.

The legal opinion of a foreign expert was in the document to WADA YOU posted up previously, you chose to ignore it as it didn't fit your agenda.

The opinion of a Judge for the ECHR was itn eh same document, gain you ignore it as it doesn't fit yor opinion.

So every leagl opinion shown so far is that you are wrong.

If you awnat to know the law ask a QC or Judge, if you want to get an opinion backed by little (if any) udnerstanding of the law that contradicts it we shoudl all ask you. I know which I put my faith in, and it isn't you.

The ref you refer to where prior to UNESCO and UKAD.The Sec of State has said that UKAD is governed by Human rights laws.this is the current situation and not one of 9 yrs ago.

I have discussed all this with experts in the legal field.It is all a matter of time.Living laws.

[fangio]

If you have discussed it with legal experts they will have told you that at the moment the rules DO NOT break the law. So please stop saying they do. All this talk of a "living law" is just an excuse for you to give an opinion that has nothgin to do with how the law stands at the moment. At the moment is what concerns the case of Bernice wilson, just as the law as it stood appleid to all previous cases. In addition the law as it stands IS NOT broken so your previous statements that the rules break the law were untrue.

[Geoff]

Contaminated sample led to failed test - Bernice Wilson

Lincolnshire athlete Bernice Wilson has claimed a contaminated sample was the cause of her positive test for banned steroids testosterone and clenbuterol.
Wilson has been provisionally banned after failing a test at a meet in July.
"Evidence suggests testing procedures were not kept under the official rules of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the IAAF," said a statement on her behalf.
"The incomplete and insufficient way the testing procedure was carried out allowed the sample to be contaminated."
The statement also called for UK Anti-Doping, who administer drug testing in the UK, to withdraw the case against the European Indoor 60m semi-finalist and open an internal investigation to determine the cause of the contamination.
It added: "Bernice Wilson expresses her disappointment on how such a serious mistake can occur and her disbelief on the way that UK Athletics handled her case."
Wilson tested positive following a routine drug test at the Bedford International Games on 12 July.
If found guilty she could face a suspension of up to two years.
UK Anti-Doping say they will not comment on individual cases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/9550546.stm