Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

[Geoff]

BBC....
1456 ATHLETICS: Jonathan Edwards on doping row: "The issue highlights that we need a constant standard across everybody. I have always felt this issue could be solved in a stroke if they reintroduced four year bans. The IOC try to do this where if you tested positive between Games you missed the next Games. I don't believe in lifetime bans. The BOA by-law came in because bans were reduced to two years. If it had stayed at four years probably wouldn't be it this situation."

This is pretty much where I stand on this. The BOA should accept harmonisation and work with WADA towards a 4 year ban for serious first offences.

[readtherules]

Geoff.

I wish St Jon would bother to read the rules.

"Serious offences" would mean when the athlete made a deliberate attempt to cheat.Such is already covered by agravated offences which has a four year ban already.

The absence of any mention of four year bans and agravated offences in any of the media is remarkable.

They should both read the rules and read readtherules.

I think the BOA byelaw came into being before we came down to 2 yr bans.

[readtherules]

BOA ban etc.

Tomlinson has come out against "druggies"but like ,what seems all the recent quoted athletes,want tough sanctions but wants a unform rule.As such they cant be and are not in favour of the byelaw as it stands.

Where does BOA gets its view that 95% want the byelaw ?

[Geoff]

First of all serious offences in my mind are deliberate use of steroids, human growth hormone, EPO etc. Aggravated circumstances are deliberate misleading of the authorities, lack of cooperation, trafficking etc. The first should result in a ban of more than 2 years with the aim to increase it towards 4 years. The second should receive an additional period of sanctions.

With regard to the BOA's claim that more than 90% support their bylaw it depends on the question and when you ask it. The CAS ruling appears to have changed the legality of the bylaw which, together with other countries changing their rules to conform, must have an effect on people's opinion. If you ask whether you support a life ban from the Olympics for serious drug cheats most would say yes. If you ask this but point out the WADA code, harmonisation and attempts to seek information then many would say no.

This might still be a little contoversial but you can't escape the belief that Chambers, who was a stupid and irresponible drug cheat who deprived others of medals and blackened the sport, is continuing to be victimised by establishment figures unlike anyone else in sport. It is now 8 years since he received his 2 year ban and some perceive Moynihan's stubborness as a personal attempt to block Chambers' eligibilty to compete in London. If chambers had given up 8 years ago would the BOA still be taking on WADA with the same vitriol?

Once again Moynihan seems to be a little out of touch with athlete's opinions. The BOA should drop the bylaw, get a firm commitment from WADA to push for stronger sanctions, lobby other Olympic Associations for realistic proposals, present good PR to the public emphasing opposition to drug cheats, push to make use of performance enhancing drugs illegal, push to ban countries who continually contravene the WADA code etc, etc, etc.

[readtherules]

Geoff.

I think,without double checking,that agravated incs deliberate use as part of a plan and this would embrace what most would mean by "serious".So we already have 4 yrs available.

Lord M can save face by publically lobbying for the matters you raise.
But I again point out the impossiblity of making illegal in any functioning way one billioneth of a gram of something that was taken acidentily,by contamination of supplements,by contamination of normal food ,by WADA banned products being authorised to be in food.Then we have no defintion of related compounds.Remember ALL who do sport would be embraced by any new legal code.
Then we have the evidence.WADA labs would have to open up and explain what they do and publish SOP's.Chain of custody would have to survive examination and the DCO's would have to have legal powers and most prob have to work in pairs.
Would whereabouts forms survive when they would never be introduced for terror suspects ?

No wonder UKAd says "no" to making sports doping illegal.

I am very interested in how Italy makes it work,and France also.But I was told by a leading French athlete that you cant test during holidays.

[GBSupporter]

I am aware of the differences between the BOAor IOC , WADA and the IAAF but the average punter is not . Harmonisation is the best option if its accepted as fair and reasonable and most importantly its conclusive those coming back after a ban do not have the advantage of taking enhancing drugs previously .
The fact remains a banned athlete is tarnished and any achievement like the Russian women this year at the Worlds raises doubts in peoples minds. Can we be sure other countries adopt a strict policy like GB ? Unless there is absolute confidence in the system doubts will remain .
I still have doubts myself as WADA does not exactly ease my doubts .

[BigGut]

Geoff.

I think,without double checking,that agravated incs deliberate use as part of a plan and this would embrace what most would mean by "serious".So we already have 4 yrs available.

Lord M can save face by publically lobbying for the matters you raise.
But I again point out the impossiblity of making illegal in any functioning way one billioneth of a gram of something that was taken acidentily,by contamination of supplements,by contamination of normal food ,by WADA banned products being authorised to be in food.Then we have no defintion of related compounds.Remember ALL who do sport would be embraced by any new legal code.
Then we have the evidence.WADA labs would have to open up and explain what they do and publish SOP's.Chain of custody would have to survive examination and the DCO's would have to have legal powers and most prob have to work in pairs.
Would whereabouts forms survive when they would never be introduced for terror suspects ?

No wonder UKAd says "no" to making sports doping illegal.

I am very interested in how Italy makes it work,and France also.But I was told by a leading French athlete that you cant test during holidays.

Yet again another sermon basiocally saying allow the cheats to get away with it. Do you work for steroid producers? A bgenuine question as you are always looking for a way to allow people to use them.

[Geoff]

Taking the debate to another level and assumimg the BOA drop there lifetime Olympic ban:

Returning drugs cheats will not receive funding, says UK Sport
• Funding will be withheld even if BOA bans are overturned
• 'A two-year ban is a lifetime ban from public funding'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/no ... ssociation

The thought of funding athletes convicted of serious doping offences will get most people up in arms. So it's reassuring to hear Liz Nicholl say they won't but is she right?

[readtherules]

Geoff.

I think,without double checking,that agravated incs deliberate use as part of a plan and this would embrace what most would mean by "serious".So we already have 4 yrs available.

Lord M can save face by publically lobbying for the matters you raise.
But I again point out the impossiblity of making illegal in any functioning way one billioneth of a gram of something that was taken acidentily,by contamination of supplements,by contamination of normal food ,by WADA banned products being authorised to be in food.Then we have no defintion of related compounds.Remember ALL who do sport would be embraced by any new legal code.
Then we have the evidence.WADA labs would have to open up and explain what they do and publish SOP's.Chain of custody would have to survive examination and the DCO's would have to have legal powers and most prob have to work in pairs.
Would whereabouts forms survive when they would never be introduced for terror suspects ?

No wonder UKAd says "no" to making sports doping illegal.


I am very interested in how Italy makes it work,and France also.But I was told by a leading French athlete that you cant test during holidays.

Yet again another sermon basiocally saying allow the cheats to get away with it. Do you work for steroid producers? A bgenuine question as you are always looking for a way to allow people to use them.

How on earth can you view my comments onthe WADA policy on agravated offences and the criminalising of sports drugs (following the lead from UKAD) as justifying your thinking.
Insluts insults ,in an attempt to steer readers from my comments.

[readtherules]

Taking the debate to another level and assumimg the BOA drop there lifetime Olympic ban:

Returning drugs cheats will not receive funding, says UK Sport
• Funding will be withheld even if BOA bans are overturned
• 'A two-year ban is a lifetime ban from public funding'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/no ... ssociation

The thought of funding athletes convicted of serious doping offences will get most people up in arms. So it's reassuring to hear Liz Nicholl say they won't but is she right?

Are UKS a signatury to WADA via UKAD ?

Please will someone come up with an agrred meaning of serious offences.

[BigGut]

How on earth can you view my comments onthe WADA policy on agravated offences and the criminalising of sports drugs (following the lead from UKAD) as justifying your thinking.
Insluts insults ,in an attempt to steer readers from my comments.

No your little missive slipped in about the amount found, which is irrelevant when we are talking about exogenous substances, especially those with a short half life.

It slipped in about food contamination, which is adequately dealt with already since if you can show that it was in all probability food contamination, ie testing on the food stuff, proof of mass failure due to an acknowledged problem in a particular geographic are, then you are basically let off. If you say you had contaminated food in an area where there is not an issue and cannot provide a sample then you don't.

It slipped in substances being legally in the food chain, though you haven't shown a single case of anyone being tested positive or banned as a result of any such substance.

What you have done is say that all convictions should be overturmned simply by claiming you didnt take anything and the authroties having no way to prove you did, hence it is yet another missive calling for drug cheating scum to be allowed to take whatever they plead and then just say it must have been, insert pathetic hypotheical untetstable excuse, so you have to let me off.

You continually ignore that there are areas of law where you do not have tyo prove that somebody did something intentionally. Drink driving is a classic example. the police don't need to show how the alcohol got into your blood. It's there so you are guilty. Same with drugs in your system, it's in your system, you cannot account for how, you go down. Simple.

You still have not shown any alternative, all you do is say that cheats should be allowed to just get away with it.

[Geoff]

Readtherules,

UKAD are independent of UK Sport so probably not a signatory. A serious offence in my mind is one that carries a two year ban but the IOC used 6 months and the BOA appear to choose 1 year. What grounds do UK Sport use to withold funding? Is it Olympic eligibility tied in with the BOA bylaw? Several athletes convicted of doping offences receive funding and what about coaches?

I don't see this as a straight forward issue and agin it may come down to legalities.

[readtherules]

How on earth can you view my comments onthe WADA policy on agravated offences and the criminalising of sports drugs (following the lead from UKAD) as justifying your thinking.
Insluts insults ,in an attempt to steer readers from my comments.

No your little missive slipped in about the amount found, which is irrelevant when we are talking about exogenous substances, especially those with a short half life.

It slipped in about food contamination, which is adequately dealt with already since if you can show that it was in all probability food contamination, ie testing on the food stuff, proof of mass failure due to an acknowledged problem in a particular geographic are, then you are basically let off. If you say you had contaminated food in an area where there is not an issue and cannot provide a sample then you don't.

It slipped in substances being legally in the food chain, though you haven't shown a single case of anyone being tested positive or banned as a result of any such substance.

What you have done is say that all convictions should be overturmned simply by claiming you didnt take anything and the authroties having no way to prove you did, hence it is yet another missive calling for drug cheating scum to be allowed to take whatever they plead and then just say it must have been, insert pathetic hypotheical untetstable excuse, so you have to let me off.

You continually ignore that there are areas of law where you do not have tyo prove that somebody did something intentionally. Drink driving is a classic example. the police don't need to show how the alcohol got into your blood. It's there so you are guilty. Same with drugs in your system, it's in your system, you cannot account for how, you go down. Simple.

You still have not shown any alternative, all you do is say that cheats should be allowed to just get away with it.

My post concerned the problems if sports doping was to be criminalised.You fail to deal with this.
Criminalisation would ,as does WADa ,deal with both endogenious and exogenous.
Do you really think that the law is going to get involved that an athlete has a billioneth of a gram of a product that is freely available over the counter.Really really think about this.
I have said said "cheats should be allowed just to get away with it".Why do you continue to mis- respresent.

[readtherules]

Readtherules,

UKAD are independent of UK Sport so probably not a signatory. A serious offence in my mind is one that carries a two year ban but the IOC used 6 months and the BOA appear to choose 1 year. What grounds do UK Sport use to withold funding? Is it Olympic eligibility tied in with the BOA bylaw? Several athletes convicted of doping offences receive funding and what about coaches?



I don't see this as a straight forward issue and agin it may come down to legalities.

The WADA code says that funding shall not be provided during a ban.This implies that funding is not restricted after ban.

If DC get back will he be in relay and if so how will funding of relay go.

[BigGut]

Cheat takes clenbuterol, cheat is not tested for 3 days. Cheat tests positive for small amount of clenbuterol.

In the current world, cheat is rightly banned for having an illegal substance in his body.

In RTR world cheat says I didnt take any and we all say OK that's fine carry on cheating.

[readtherules]

Cheat takes clenbuterol, cheat is not tested for 3 days. Cheat tests positive for small amount of clenbuterol.

In the current world, cheat is rightly banned for having an illegal substance in his body.

In RTR world cheat says I didnt take any and we all say OK that's fine carry on cheating.

Quite a fantastic contribution to the debate.

I repeat for those who wish a debate that the WADA code cant seperate of cheats from the errorsome.

[fangio]

That's the point, your solution is to let off anyone who claims it was an error, even without providing any reasonable evidence of this.

You would let them say, it was an error, provide no real evidence that it was, and presume they were not cheating. How could anyone be convicted on that basis without them being caught taking it red handed?

You say we can't tell the difference so let them off wihout proving they took it by accident, I say that's stupid you woudl never be able to convict anyone.

My opinion, absed upon your position, is that you want to protect the cheats more than the sport.

[readtherules]

Fangio.

You realy promised to put me on the ignore list.

The debate about new four year bans,even though we have them now as a potential, has become one of seperating serious cheats from those that have made errors.The debate of how we do this and get round the one size fits is one that is testing the minds of most.

You cant ,in the long term have a system that prosecutes the errorsome on the same basis as the cheats to the degree that more negligent get done than the cheats.

Would you not agree with that.

[fangio]

No I would not agree with that. IF the evidecne does not allow you to distinguish between the two then they get the same ban.

However, your assumption seems to be that doing this would result in more negligent prosecutions than cheats being prosecuted. I can only assume your basis for making this assumption is that you believe anyone who says they were merely negligent. You have no evidence whatsoever (as you cannot show intent or negligence for those cases where it was not proven) on which to say that the system would prosecute more negligent than cheats, and as such it is a non sequitar.

[readtherules]

fangio.

I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what on earth your last post .

However I have tried my best and provide this link to a nadp decision as I think it applies to your post;

http://www.ukad.org.uk/docLib/Drugs_fin ... on_268.pdf

[readtherules]

I missed "said" at the end of first line in my above post.

[fangio]

OK let me try again as you obviously don't understand.

You asked if I agreed that "You cant ,in the long term have a system that prosecutes the errorsome on the same basis as the cheats to the degree that more negligent get done than the cheats."

I do not think that we have such a system, and you (unless you can read minds) cannot say that the current system does that. I have no clue whatsoever as to how the NADP link you gave has any bearing on this. The guy could not in any way demonstrate he as not cheating, it was just his word that he wasn't. So as I said at the start of my post I think he shoudl get a ban as a cheat, as it is impossible to distinguish between whether he is a cheat or made an error. You seemingly posted it to try to point to someone getting caught for an error (although as usual you haven't actually said what teh point of your post was or how it is relevant in any way whatsoever, why is that? Is it just becuase you wnat to waste peopel'e time reading the garbage you put up or do you actually have a poitn ot make form the link, because you haven't made one and it actually backs my point of view more than yours).

So how exactly would you establish that more negligent people are being prosecuted than cheats unless you can read minds? Apart form just taking someone's word for it?

[readtherules]

OK let me try again as you obviously don't understand.

You asked if I agreed that "You cant ,in the long term have a system that prosecutes the errorsome on the same basis as the cheats to the degree that more negligent get done than the cheats."

I do not think that we have such a system, and you (unless you can read minds) cannot say that the current system does that. I have no clue whatsoever as to how the NADP link you gave has any bearing on this. The guy could not in any way demonstrate he as not cheating, it was just his word that he wasn't. So as I said at the start of my post I think he shoudl get a ban as a cheat, as it is impossible to distinguish between whether he is a cheat or made an error. You seemingly posted it to try to point to someone getting caught for an error (although as usual you haven't actually said what teh point of your post was or how it is relevant in any way whatsoever, why is that? Is it just becuase you wnat to waste peopel'e time reading the garbage you put up or do you actually have a poitn ot make form the link, because you haven't made one and it actually backs my point of view more than yours).

So how exactly would you establish that more negligent people are being prosecuted than cheats unless you can read minds? Apart form just taking someone's word for it?

I refer you to my previous posts.

You may find the Lord M quote within "Doping" of interest as he raises the same problems as I. You know that he is very very anti doping so that should make you think.

The NADP link was important as he was not deemed cheating more that he was negligent in doing proper searches inc the manufacturer.Look at the other NADP links for MMA and see that the panel did in one case feel that the contents were contaminated,yet he still got done.Not the 2 years in the other case but the panel did work out if he was cheating.A thing you say cant be done.

[fangio]

OK.

1. The case you linked to shows he did not have anythgin other than his word to back himself up, there was no way they could say whether he was a cheat or made an error based on his word alone. CLearly this relates precisely tot eh situation I outlined, and in this case it was treated as cheating not an error, because there was zero corroborating evidence.

2. If you haev aquote from Lord M that is pertinent post it in this deabte, and instead of the usual garbage of "you might find interesting" why not state what you think it actually shows? Are you completly unable to discuss things senisbly?

3. The NADP does not conclude that he did nto cheat. I would like you to point out where it concludes he was negligent. It concludes that there is no evidece to back up his assertion that he was merely negligent. Why pretend that they foudn that he was negligent not cheating when cleerly they did not.

4. I have not said that you cannot prove negligence or cheating. I have clearly used the words IF, and WHERE IT CANNOT BE PROVEN. WHy pretend otherwise. In those case you would need to read minds

[Geoff]

Please try to keep postings more on-topic with other stuff placed in the doping section. This thread relates to Chambers and the BOA by-law with related aspects including WADA and possibly lottery funding. I think that's quite enough for one thread!

[readtherules]

Geoff.

Agree;that is why I have put the Lord M stuff on Doping.Lets hope Big g deals with matters there.

[BigGut]

RTR,

You are the one taking it off topic by including matters such as food contamination, legal substances in food etc which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed. If you make comments aboutt hese matters then you have to expect others to take you to task. So I suggest you leave these issues ont he doping thread instead of constantly trying to sneak them onto other parts of the board.

[readtherules]

Big g.

Wrong ! You just cant resist mis-representation.


I was following Geoff when he said that doping in sport should be criminalised.Then you got invoved with mis reprsentation and insults.
If you want to continue post a topic within Doping.

[BigGut]

Please stop pretending you are the injured party.

[Kermit]

BOA is offside and not playing by the rules with its anti-doping bylaw

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... bylaw-wada

The same might have been said for the International Olympic Committee's "Osaka Rule", recently declared invalid by the court of arbitration for sport. The IOC, unlike the BOA, has accepted the decision and will pursue the matter during the next code review.