Bernice Wilson positive

[readtherules]

The solicitor has not mentioned contamination due to anything other than not following proceedure and so this paper IS completely irrlevant to this case.

I don't care what the paer says. What do you explictly want to happen.

What does means it has to be part of the evaluation mean? Does it mean letting people off or disregarding the possible contamination and banning them? It cannot be one rule for one person and one for another, are you saying contamination means letting people off or not?

Clearly contamination lets people of.
Individual case management.Same rules but applied individually to each case with such as mens rea taken into accouint for the punishment.
Wonderful you dont care what a WADA funded peer reviewed paper has to say.Condemed from your own mouth.Thank you.

[BigGut]

There is no mens rea in strict liability. The presence is enough to convict without showing intent. This is identical to drink driving whee no mens era is required to be proved.

I don't care what the WADA funded paper says because I am not debating with them I am debating with you and I want to know what you think should happen as a result of the paper. The paper is a year old and yet we still have strict liability, so I don't se that WADA thought that contamination was so bad we should let people off for simply saying it was contamination.

Yet again you try to wriggle. Does claiming contamination, without proof that the individual sample was contaminated, mean that you should be let off? If there is no proof of contamination then each case is identical there is no room to let some off and not others because you would not be doing it based on evidence. SO ANSWER THE ACTUAL QUESTION!

Saying clearly contamination does let people off is not answer. At present where there is prrof of comntamination or of not following the process, which may lead to contamination, you already do get let off. We aren't talking about contamination letting pele off, we are talking about cleaning there was contamination without any actual evidence of it.

[readtherules]

Read previous posts ref strict liability and guilty mind.
why should I have to represent/rewrite in my own words the paper I have submitted.You deal with the paper.
No case is identical.

[2dodgy]

RTR

If you believe that BW's sample was contaminated by airborne particles in doping control, why, do you suppose, that of the other samples collected that day (in the same doing control room) none produced similar adverse analytical finding(s)?

[readtherules]

Geoff.

Never said such.

A poster said that there could be no contamination.
I said, not directly in the context of Wilson,that such is possible and provided some possibilities inc contamination within the DCO's bag from previous testing.She could have been tested after a rival etc etc.Unlikely but...

They use a unsealed and multi use absorbant mat for testing several people (to put containers on etc.How satisfactory is that.

However it would be quite possible for one sample to be contaminated and others not.Airborne or from surfaces etc.After all that is why science does not respond to one example but runs many repeats and controls.

Again I am not protesting her innocence but pointing out how complicated it all is and that UKAd should spend more money on testing to bring it up to the standards to be expected elsewhere.

Remember the toilets they use are normal toilets used by sportspeople and the very place they would use if upto no good.

In one case a whole loads of Doctors were asked to comment on what would be required if testing in a public toilets.
To a person they said it should be out of the question to test in a public toilet.

[Geoff]

Bernice Wilson facing four-year ban from athletics following positive drugs test
Sprinter Bernice Wilson, who made her international debut for Britain at the European Indoor Championships in Paris in March, is facing a maximum four-year ban from athletics following her positive test this summer for two performance-enhancing drugs.

The Lincolnshire athlete, who tested positive for the anabolic steroid testosterone and the slimming aid clenbuterol during the Bedford International Games on June 12, was suspended for four years after first appearing before a disciplinary panel in July.

Her punishment is the maximum permitted under the World Anti-Doping Agency code for a first time offence. According to the code, the mandatory two-year ban can be raised to four years if “the athlete or other person used or possessed multiple prohibited substances”.

It is understood that Wilson has appealed against the sanction, and her hearing will take place in the New Year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... -test.html

[readtherules]

Note 4 yr ban.
Aggravated offence and thus clear that 4 yr bans exist already.Would Lord M please note before committing scarce resources to the CAS case.

[trickstat]

Note 4 yr ban.
Aggravated offence and thus clear that 4 yr bans exist already.Would Lord M please note before committing scarce resources to the CAS case.

Yes it does exist but it does appear to be very much the exception rather than the norm and there are very likely athletes getting 2 year bans who have actually been taking all sorts of stuff.

[Curley55]

The Guardian are reporting that Bernice Wilson has failed a test for Clenbuterol at the Bedford International Games last month and has been provisionally suspended from competition.

A real shame that she went down this route (if proven guilty), although I'd imagine she felt it was the only way to break through to world class, I can however forsee the contaminated food excuse coming out again for this one a la Alberto Contador (same substance he failed for).

If the suspension's upheld she's blown her chance of competing in a home olympics. Very sad.

[readtherules]

Note 4 yr ban.
Aggravated offence and thus clear that 4 yr bans exist already.Would Lord M please note before committing scarce resources to the CAS case.

Yes it does exist but it does appear to be very much the exception rather than the norm and there are very likely athletes getting 2 year bans who have actually been taking all sorts of stuff.

Exception,maybe ,but not the way UKA are dealing with prosecutions now.

4 yr bans exist for serious guilty mind offences,ie deliberate cheating.
BOA note please.

You cant have rules and bans for "very likely taken all sorts of stuff"

[trickstat]

Note 4 yr ban.
Aggravated offence and thus clear that 4 yr bans exist already.Would Lord M please note before committing scarce resources to the CAS case.

Yes it does exist but it does appear to be very much the exception rather than the norm and there are very likely athletes getting 2 year bans who have actually been taking all sorts of stuff.

Exception,maybe ,but not the way UKA are dealing with prosecutions now.

4 yr bans exist for serious guilty mind offences,ie deliberate cheating.
BOA note please.

You cant have rules and bans for "very likely taken all sorts of stuff"

RTR

Please refrain from chopping up people's sentences, changing tenses etc and putting quotation marks around what you've come up with.

[readtherules]

trickstat.

sorry but done for economy and hardly changes anything.sorry.

[trickstat]

Well I certainly wasn't suggesting rules and bans for people who might have taken all kinds of stuff!

What I have an issue with is that you appear to be implying that all those who receive 2 year bans are guilty of being careless, unlucky, misled, ignorant or naive. Maybe this is true in some cases but I doubt if I'm the only one who will take some convincing to believe that is always or usually the case.

Also if it's UKA who are pushing for these 4 year bans, it can hardly be said to significantly undermine the BOA's position as Athletics isn't the only sport in the Olympics.

[readtherules]

Trickstat.

What is interesting about the rules is that 4 yrs is the ban for those who have made deliberate attempts to cheat.By some sort of logic this means that the 2 yr ban is for those you classify as "of being careless, unlucky, misled, ignorant or naive".

I realise that the way the bans are handed out does not quite follow this and 2 yr bans have been the norm.However this should not detract from what the rules actually say and indeed is the way UKAD are prosecuting.

If UKAD's prosecutions were to be seen as the new norm then this would go a very long way to satisfy those who want an Olympic ban but not the present life ban.This point has not been given one press airing but I think it is an orginal point of some merit.

I made a typo in a very recent post.
"Exception,maybe ,but not the way UKA are dealing with prosecutions now".

As per previous comment I should have re-said UKAD as they of course prosecute now and have done since Dec 2009.I think UKAD prosecute for nearly all the Olympic sports.Football being a very noticeable exception !

As

[Geoff]

UK Anti-Doping

20 January 2012

UK Anti-Doping has confirmed that Bernice Wilson has been given a four-year suspension following an anti-doping rule violation.

Ms Wilson tested positive for the anabolic steroids testosterone and clenbuterol on 12 June 2011 and was provisionally suspended from all competition on 9 July 2011. Ms Wilson is banned from participation in sport up to and including 8 July 2015. An independent National Anti-Doping Panel found that this case warranted the maximum sanction of a four-year ban. Ms Wilson appealed, and the Appeal panel confirmed the four-year ban.

http://www.uka.org.uk/media/news/januar ... ad-wilson/

Interesting that she has been requested to pay the cost of the test on the 'B' sample, over a £1,000 including VAT!

It does seem to be the exception rather than the rule for 2 year bans to be handed out. Fletcher 4 years, Wilson 4 years, Edwards 3 years.

[readtherules]

Geoof.

Aggravated offences bring 4 yrs, only made less if cooperation.

As this becomes more universal I cant see the WADA code changing in 2013 to give automatic 4 yr bans.This neatly gets round the prob of an Olympic /WChamps and still allows football to step away from 4 yr bans.

[Geoff]

The full report of the tribunal where Wilson is represented by her coach and not a lawyer. An interesting read for all sorts of reasons:

http://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/F ... on_276.pdf

[readtherules]

Geoff.
Whilst clearly guilty there are some points of interest.
The athete is confronted by two significant people,in this case in a car park at work,and given the charge.The reaction and words are noted and then held against the athlete.
The UKA rules had the wrong version of the IAAF rules.
The athlete signs the doping form saying that "all is ok" but does so without knowing what the rules are for the collection nor any forensic requirements that underpin them.Further if any breaches of unknown rules are not noted in "a car park" then this is held against the athlete.

Should athletes be given education in these matters prior to being likely to be drug tested.

Also it is noted that the gloves provided were not sealed.The rules say that all equipment ,this incs gloves, must be sealed.This point was not picked up by anyone.

Again,she is very guilty,but there must be improved methods and protections for all.

[javman]

The full report of the tribunal where Wilson is represented by her coach and not a lawyer. An interesting read for all sorts of reasons:

http://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/F ... on_276.pdf

Thanks Geoff, quite an interesting read. Her defence was quite possibly the most stupid thing I have read for awhile, even the panel were strongly encouraging her to blame the drink her coach gave her. Instead her misplaced loyalty to her coach has meant she will probably never come back to athletics. Whilst her loss to athletics will not be felt, is the coach being banned as well?

[fangio]

To ban the coach you would actually need evidence that the coach had done something against the rules. Unless the vitamin drink was analysed and found to be the source I can't see what anyone can do. The evidence agaisnt Wilson is the drugs in her system, she must have ingested them.

There is no evidence that the coach must have provided them, or knew about them, so what do you expect UKAD to do? Do you want them to ban any coach who has an athlete fail a drug test without needing evidence that they knew about it, or supplied anything. I agree there is potential that it was the drink that he provided, but there is no evidence or any such claim from Wilson that it was the cause, and certainly no evidence that there was anything dodgy in the drink.

[javman]

Fangio, I partially with what you are saying. Unfortunately it is quite clear that the coach has used the misplaced loyalty of the athlete to deviate any hint of blame towards him.

Perhaps you can't pin much on him, but he needs to be carefully monitored by UKA.

[fangio]

I totally agree he should be monitored, and efforts should be made to get hold of the German "vitaming drink". I don't see how he can be banned though without the evidence. There is little UKAD or anyone else can do when there is no evidence that he did anything wrong whatsoever, there is no strict liability for coaches, rightly so they can't be there wiht th athlete at all times.

[bevone]

This thread has evloved as the facts from the case are now known. The problem is this. Clenbuterol and testosterone have showed up in a sample - and this athlete has made big recent improvements and her physiique has also changed which suggests that maybe this is the reason for this. IF she was not improving and had not changed shape then maybe she would not have failed a test or maybe had a case - ie if i took anything they obviously arent working!

Because these sunstances have appeared in the sample - as a defence you can either try and explain how this came about (contaminated meat in Mexico!) or this drink from germany that she happily drank without knowing its contents and a drink the coach told everyone would make them better. The contents of this drink were never investigated by the defence - which was lead by the coach himself. I would suggest that itwoudl not be in his int rest to investigate this and on this basis the pannel offered MsWilson the chance to change council as the coach obviosly had to declare an interest, which she refused. It is also alleged that thecoach is also the boyfriend and as an older man may have had more of an influence over her actions that she realised. It was also mentioned that he required and interpreter from time to time -which again is not ideal in this situaiton.

The other line of defence is to sugget that there was some technicality fault. This has been tried before and no evidence was presented apart from suugesting that someone had it in for her. There was no corroberating evidence and has never worked before. The law is clear so vague statements will not do. The technicality defence as well also impllies that the defendant will make no attempt to explain why doping substances appeared int he sampe and in these cases it is guilty until proved innocence as the failed test is indicative of a guilty act. Novody else failed a test that day, and to spray the two substances at her only is fanciful and the fact that the doctor explained how both drugs would hae to be taken with the athletes knowledge makes a liar out of the defendant and possibly why she got such as hard sentence. Takign a drink of whose contnents you nothing of is no excuse. The coach should have declared an interests but also having such an influence over the case and her, he was able ot manipulate the case so he was not found to be at fault and nobody is the wise rto wo gave therthe drugs. All in all, a sad and tragic case where it appears someone was taken advatage of for anothers benefit. It seems if anyone is caught the coach should be the first person to interview to see how much they knew or suspected. As I said - a sad state of affairs

[bevone]

This thread has evloved as the facts from the case are now known. The problem is this. Clenbuterol and testosterone have showed up in a sample - and this athlete has made big recent improvements and her physiique has also changed which suggests that maybe this is the reason for this. IF she was not improving and had not changed shape then maybe she would not have failed a test or maybe had a case - ie if i took anything they obviously arent working!

Because these sunstances have appeared in the sample - as a defence you can either try and explain how this came about (contaminated meat in Mexico!) or this drink from germany that she happily drank without knowing its contents and a drink the coach told everyone would make them better. The contents of this drink were never investigated by the defence - which was lead by the coach himself. I would suggest that itwoudl not be in his int rest to investigate this and on this basis the pannel offered MsWilson the chance to change council as the coach obviosly had to declare an interest, which she refused. It is also alleged that thecoach is also the boyfriend and as an older man may have had more of an influence over her actions that she realised. It was also mentioned that he required and interpreter from time to time -which again is not ideal in this situaiton.

The other line of defence is to sugget that there was some technicality fault. This has been tried before and no evidence was presented apart from suugesting that someone had it in for her. There was no corroberating evidence and has never worked before. The law is clear so vague statements will not do. The technicality defence as well also impllies that the defendant will make no attempt to explain why doping substances appeared int he sampe and in these cases it is guilty until proved innocence as the failed test is indicative of a guilty act. Novody else failed a test that day, and to spray the two substances at her only is fanciful and the fact that the doctor explained how both drugs would hae to be taken with the athletes knowledge makes a liar out of the defendant and possibly why she got such as hard sentence. Takign a drink of whose contnents you nothing of is no excuse. The coach should have declared an interests but also having such an influence over the case and her, he was able ot manipulate the case so he was not found to be at fault and nobody is the wise rto wo gave therthe drugs. All in all, a sad and tragic case where it appears someone was taken advatage of for anothers benefit. It seems if anyone is caught the coach should be the first person to interview to see how much they knew or suspected. As I said - a sad state of affairs

[readtherules]

Why on earth was she positive,and not marginaly so, at a comp when "they" knew testing took place ?

[bevone]

Why would they be so stupid to ... is not the best defence. POSITIVE TESTS ARE RARE AND THEY USUALY HAVE SOME CIRcumstances surrounding them such as recent imporvment or change in body shape. People will always try and cheat the system and as I always tell my athletes or anyone who is thinking about taking drugs - you dont need them, just work hard. In some jobs like teaching, forces,police or any civil servant - where you are supposed to be a role model, getting caught doping can be a career ending outcome so you better consider the consequences before taking that road. As the song from grange hill went just say no!

[readtherules]

Bevone.
The irony of the Grange Hill kids was that they were taking drugs at the time of the advert.Truth and facts with drugs = oxymoron.
The prob with the Wilson decision is that we still dont know the facts.

The view has been that the greek bringing gifts has been non singular and thus wonder why such trusted player should be part of a positive at a known test.

[readtherules]

Has she lost her job ?
Did her employers suspend her after the doping charge was made ?