Doping git thread

[Flying_Monkey]

Paolini is banned under anti-doping rules so it's a doping violation. If it wasn't he wouldn't be. Therefore this is a 2nd violation. Under the UCI rules, Katusha should be excluded. They're ducking the rule and they're either ducking it because it's a shoot rule and they now realize that or they're ducking it for more Machiavellian reasons to do with influence and conflict of interest and none of that has anything to do with Paolini needing some sympathy and help, after all, he remains banned no matter what the decision. It remains to be seen whether Katusha will suspend themselves under the voluntary MPCC code.

I think you are missing some of the facts. The decision about Paolini's 'recereational' use was made by the Disciplinary Commission. This is a separate body from the Anti-Doping Tribunal, which actually has yet to rule on Paolini's case. In addition, in most legal systems, both the letter and the spirit of the law are considered. Sports tribunals are no exception. In general, recreational use is treated more sympathetically even when it is technically a violation of the rules - look at the case of Ross Rebagliati, the Olympic gold-medal snowboarder who was done for smoking dope, but then later reinstated.

This is is all irrespective of Makarov and his potential conflict-of-interest. That no doubt exists, but the fact remains that the Paolini case is not the ammunition Katusha's enemies, or clean sport advocates, are looking for.

 

[Crackle]

I think you are missing some of the facts. The decision about Paolini's 'recereational' use was made by the Disciplinary Commission. This is a separate body from the Anti-Doping Tribunal, which actually has yet to rule on Paolini's case. In addition, in most legal systems, both the letter and the spirit of the law are considered. Sports tribunals are no exception. In general, recreational use is treated more sympathetically even when it is technically a violation of the rules - look at the case of Ross Rebagliati, the Olympic gold-medal snowboarder who was done for smoking dope, but then later reinstated.

This is is all irrespective of Makarov and his potential conflict-of-interest. That no doubt exists, but the fact remains that the Paolini case is not the ammunition Katusha's enemies, or clean sport advocates, are looking for.

He's still provisionally suspended under anti-doping rules whether they've ruled or not. And the discussion is around that recreational ruling, which most are arguing should not be the case, given how and why he was using it. It also seems his use was known about, so, possibly, the team missed an opportunity to intervene, who knows. The UCI could have suspended them and then re-instated them after appeal. They haven't and seem to be ducking their own rule under the cover of this recreational use finding, which is the arguable bit.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

The UCI could have suspended them and then re-instated them after appeal. They haven't and seem to be ducking their own rule under the cover of this recreational use finding, which is the arguable bit.

Your problem is that you seem to be asking the UCI to act over the heads of its own separate committees. if it did that, it would be corrupt and there would an outcry. 'The UCI' is not acting here, its Disciplinary Committee and Tribunal are acting, separately, as they must. And, as I have already shown, there is nothing unusual about a recreational finding.

 

[Crackle]

Your problem is that you seem to be asking the UCI to act over the heads of its own separate committees. if it did that, it would be corrupt and there would an outcry. 'The UCI' is not acting here, its Disciplinary Committee and Tribunal are acting, separately, as they must. And, as I have already shown, there is nothing unusual about a recreational finding.

It's not about the procedure and I'm not asking anything over the rule in place. You seriously think that a finding of recreational use is appropriate. This wasn't an out of competition test, he was in the middle of a race, not just a race but the Tour.

And here's the rule again which seems pretty clear but apparently not.

7.12.1 If two Riders and/or other Persons within a Team registered with the UCI are notified within a twelve-month period of an Adverse Analytical Finding for a Prohibited Method or a Prohibited Substance that is not a Specified Substance, or receive notice of an asserted anti-doping rule violation arising from an Adverse Passport Finding or Atypical Passport Finding after a review under Article 7.5 or other asserted anti-doping rule violation as per Articles 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 or 2.10, the Team shall be suspended from participation in any International Event for a period determined by the President of the UCI Disciplinary Commission or a member of the Disciplinary Commission, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Yep, it's writ clear. UCI have failed to act on their rules. A new dawn, eh?

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Nail 'em up, eh?

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

Nail 'em up, eh?

Whether the rules are correct or not is not being debated*, what is clear is that they are not following their current rules. The fact that their rules are not fit for purpose is a whole different debate. A governing body which can decide which of its own rules it follows is not a fit governing body and remains open to corruption and external influence; which is what the "new dawn" promised to change (did it? I'm not sure anymore...)

*and I agree with your position re Paolini

 

[Flying_Monkey]

My other point (beyond Paolini) is that law is more than what is written. It always is. Everyone knows this. People who demand completely inflexible adherence to the 'letter of the law' inevitably get into knots eventually because laws cannot encompass every possibility or anticipate evry situation.

 

[User169]

This was the third notification in a 12 month period. Whilst Paolini might be due some sympathy, that's more a question of determining the sanction, rather than a question of whether or not the conditions of 7.12.1 are met.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

This was the third notification in a 12 month period.

If that was clearly the case, then I would agree. But it's not clear that it is at all and certainly no-one was arguing that at the Disciplinary Committee level. I appreciate that this is exactly how dirty teams wriggle out of things, and Katusha are dirty as dirty can be, but there's going to have to be clear-cut and unequivocal evidence before they are, so that there is no opportunity for interpretation.

Further, as Inner Ring also notes, if the UCI did suspend Katusha on grounds that are anything but open and shut, it could be open by external legal challenge, because collective sanctions are not part of the the WADA Code.

 

[smutchin]

what is clear is that they are not following their current rules

I don't think that is at all clear. There are protocols to follow and, as FM says, they have to make sure the ground they are on is very firm before taking such drastic action as suspending a WT team.

The worst case scenario would be a knee-jerk descision that leads to the same kind of arbitration debacle we had the last time they tried to revoke Katusha's licence.

 

[User169]

If that was clearly the case, then I would agree. But it's not clear that it is at all and certainly no-one was arguing that at the Disciplinary Committee level. I appreciate that this is exactly how dirty teams wriggle out of things, and Katusha are dirty as dirty can be, but there's going to have to be clear-cut and unequivocal evidence before they are, so that there is no opportunity for interpretation.

Further, as Inner Ring also notes, if the UCI did suspend Katusha on grounds that are anything but open and shut, it could be open by external legal challenge, because collective sanctions are not part of the the WADA Code.

Yes, I suspect the last bit is the reality.

 

[Berk on a Bike]

So David Millar has taken a role mentoring young British riders. The reaction on social media has been interesting. Is it the case that there really is no bigger prude than a reformed whore?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-millar-takes-on-mentor-role-at-british-cycling/

 

[Flick of the Elbow]

Millar is a fine choice for the role. Intelligent, articulate, tactically astute and with all the top level racing experience that you could wish for in the role. If British Cycling had the current set up back in his day I'm very confident he wouldn't have made the mistake that he did.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Francesco Reda has been banned for 8 years for taking EPO at the Italian Championship, where he was a very surprising 2nd last year. This guy seems to be another one of those utterly shameless cheating Italian Pros: he is the same guy who was thrown out of the Ras for taking a tow, and he's narrowly escaped a ban before because he agreed to testify on drugs issues despite having point-black refused to take tests...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/francesco-reda-suspended-for-eight-years-for-epo-positive/