WADA & Contador: "strict liability"

Scott wrote:
You think there actually was some meat involved?

Spanish cucumbers seem to be quite potent too.

In article
,
Randall wrote:

Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

(http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...er-so-the-uci-
is-appealing_165162 )
"While the WADA Code and the UCI’s anti-doping rules have evolved over
the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of “strict
liability� when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
not used the same substance.

In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
Spanish federation’s conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
de France results negated."

First across the line wins.

--
Old Fritz

In article
,
Randall wrote:

On May 31, 1:05Â*am, DC wrote:
Randall said the following on 31/05/2011 12:20 PM:

Personally I think a unilateral rule of Â*"strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

Good luck trying to prove intent. You would just make it a free for all.

I am not exactly certain what the solution is.

There is no solution because there is no problem.

But there needs to be
some middle ground in determining guilt.

Due process.
Guards against unreasonable search and seizure.
A jury of one's peers.

--
Old Fritz

On May 31, 8:53*am, Simply Fred wrote:
Scott wrote:
You think there actually was some meat involved?

Yes there is the possiblity. Spanish meat has had clenbuterol.

"The UCI issued a statement reporting that the concentration was 50
picograms per millilitre, and that this was 400 times below the
minimum standards of detection capability required by WADA, and that
further scientific investigation would be required. Contador was
provisionally suspended from competition, although this had no short-
term effect as he had already finished his racing programme for the
2010 season.[96][97][98] Contador had been informed of the results
over a month earlier, on August 24.[99] Later the amount discovered
was clarified as 40 times below the minimum standards, rather than the
400 times originally reported by the UCI. Contador's scientific
adviser claimed that he would have needed 180 times the amount
detected to gain any benefit in his performance.[100]"

Spanish cucumbers seem to be quite potent too.

On May 31, 2:35*pm, Randall wrote:
On May 31, 8:53*am, Simply Fred wrote:

Scott wrote:
You think there actually was some meat involved?

Yes there is the possiblity. Spanish meat has had clenbuterol.

"The UCI issued a statement reporting that the concentration was 50
picograms per millilitre, and that this was 400 times below the
minimum standards of detection capability required by WADA, and that
further scientific investigation would be required. Contador was
provisionally suspended from competition, although this had no short-
term effect as he had already finished his racing programme for the
2010 season.[96][97][98] Contador had been informed of the results
over a month earlier, on August 24.[99] Later the amount discovered
was clarified as 40 times below the minimum standards, rather than the
400 times originally reported by the UCI. Contador's scientific
adviser claimed that he would have needed 180 times the amount
detected to gain any benefit in his performance.[100]"





Really, you think there actually was some contaminated meat? Really??

Dumbass, if you want to race bikes, fly planes and drive school buses
you give up those rights.
=======
As far as I know, airline pilots and school bus drivers are not
subject to forced blood tests.

-ilan
=======

Don't know about school bus drivers, but airline pilots most certainly
are required to take all manner of tests, including blood tests, on a
regular basis. Every 6 months if you're over 40, every 12 months if
under. Basically a full physical including an array of tox screens far
beyond the norm.

There are all manner of things we choose to do that require giving up
various rights (primarily to privacy). It's likely that a case has to be
made for why such tests are essential for safety and job performance.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"ilan" wrote in message
...
On May 31, 3:43 pm, Choppy Warburton
wrote:
On May 31, 8:34 am, ilan wrote:









On May 31, 3:26 pm, ilan wrote:

On May 31, 6:20 am, Randall wrote:

Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show
intent to
dope.

(http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...er-so-the-uci-
is-appealing_165162 )
"While the WADA Code and the UCI’s anti-doping rules have
evolved over
the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of
“strict
liability” when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is
that
if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it
gives
him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes
who had
not used the same substance.

In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue
might be
to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree
with the
Spanish federation’s conclusion that no fault existed, but argue
that
even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010
Tour
de France results negated."

This stuff is probably contrary to the European declaration of
human
rights. Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer already stated that he was
going
to appeal current anti-doping rules to the European court of human
rights, but Kasheshkin gave up before he could do that. Too bad,
because I believe that there is already a good case that the
current
system violates European employment laws, not to mention human
rights.

-ilan

Actually, the argument is quite clear. Taking a blood sample is a
form
of personal search and seizure which, for example in France, can
only
be done when ordered by a prosecutor in a criminal investigation. In
the US, such a search requires probable cause, but just doing your
job
cannot be legally regarded as such.

I suppose that the current justification is that riders have given
the
anti-doping authorities the right to do this, however, the point is
that one cannot be forced to give up a fundamental right, and in
this
case, it is a form of coercion since professional cyclists can't do
their job without giving it up.

-ilan

Dumbass, if you want to race bikes, fly planes and drive school buses
you give up those rights.

As far as I know, airline pilots and school bus drivers are not
subject to forced blood tests.

-ilan

Randall wrote:
Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

(http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...er-so-the-uci-
is-appealing_165162 )
"While the WADA Code and the UCI’s anti-doping rules have evolved over
the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of “strict
liability” when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
not used the same substance.

In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
Spanish federation’s conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
de France results negated."

In football you get 6 months, most of which is served in the off season:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/26/kolo-toure-six-month-ban

On Jun 1, 6:24*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
Dumbass, if you want to race bikes, fly planes and drive school buses
you give up those rights.

=======
As far as I know, airline pilots and school bus drivers are not
subject to forced blood tests.

-ilan
=======

Don't know about school bus drivers, but airline pilots most certainly
are required to take all manner of tests, including blood tests, on a
regular basis. Every 6 months if you're over 40, every 12 months if
under. Basically a full physical including an array of tox screens far
beyond the norm.

There are all manner of things we choose to do that require giving up
various rights (primarily to privacy). It's likely that a case has to be
made for why such tests are essential for safety and job performance.

--Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"ilan" wrote in message

...
On May 31, 3:43 pm, Choppy Warburton
wrote:









On May 31, 8:34 am, ilan wrote:

On May 31, 3:26 pm, ilan wrote:

On May 31, 6:20 am, Randall wrote:

Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show
intent to
dope.

(http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...er-so-the-uci-
is-appealing_165162 )
"While the WADA Code and the UCI’s anti-doping rules have
evolved over
the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of
“strict
liability” when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is
that
if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it
gives
him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes
who had
not used the same substance.

In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue
might be
to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree
with the
Spanish federation’s conclusion that no fault existed, but argue
that
even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010
Tour
de France results negated."

This stuff is probably contrary to the European declaration of
human
rights. Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer already stated that he was
going
to appeal current anti-doping rules to the European court of human
rights, but Kasheshkin gave up before he could do that. Too bad,
because I believe that there is already a good case that the
current
system violates European employment laws, not to mention human
rights.

-ilan

Actually, the argument is quite clear. Taking a blood sample is a
form
of personal search and seizure which, for example in France, can
only
be done when ordered by a prosecutor in a criminal investigation. In
the US, such a search requires probable cause, but just doing your
job
cannot be legally regarded as such.

I suppose that the current justification is that riders have given
the
anti-doping authorities the right to do this, however, the point is
that one cannot be forced to give up a fundamental right, and in
this
case, it is a form of coercion since professional cyclists can't do
their job without giving it up.

-ilan

Dumbass, if you want to race bikes, fly planes and drive school buses
you give up those rights.

As far as I know, airline pilots and school bus drivers are not
subject to forced blood tests.

-ilan

What you say makes sense, but even in the case of airline pilots, I
would conjecture that the blood tests, etc., are simply part of
regular fitness checkups, to make sure they are healthy (and maybe
also to see if they are taking drugs).

However, I doubt that airline pilots are woken up without notice at
6am to give blood, as happens in cycling.

Once again, I have no doubt that the current anti-doping practices
would be found illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

-ilan