Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Simon Yates fails dope test

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    RobFowl wrote: »
    He took an inhaler given to him by a team doctor who fecked up by not doing the paperwork.
    It's a permitted substance if the correct paperwork is done and treating all failed tests as equally heinous is simplistic.

    But in the absence of the paperwork he had a positive test for a banned substance. That's the rule, the sanction for beach is a ban. If they let him off what message does that send out? Robust process to catch all dopers as you allude to? I don't think so.
    He is supposed to be on top of what goes into his body. The UCI don't test Dr's. Maybe your frustration at this should be directed toward the Team Mgt/Dr?


  • Options
    #93
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    The UCI don't test Dr's. Maybe your frustration at this should be directed toward the Team Mgt/Dr?

    My frustration is a sick athlete is now permanently tarnished while others are doping away with out getting touched.

    Sanctions for this are not even in the same ball park as the likes of EPO etc.

    Riders are using HGH, blood pressure meds, thyroxine, hypoxic chambers, xenon gas training, corticosteroids as well as many more and not being touched.

    The system is f*cked and this sort of nonsense will be trotted out as proof it is "working".


  • Options
    #94
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,477 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    That's the rule, the sanction for beach is a ban.
    Is that the case though? Do they have the power to issue a suspended ban for example? Equally can they simply accept "mistake" as a defence in some circumstances?

    My own view is they must apply their rules, yes. However I do not know what those rules allow for in these circumstances.


  • Options
    #95
    Lusk_Doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Lusk_Doyle


    RobFowl wrote: »
    Its a little unfair but we're back watching races where riders are zooming up hills with their mouths closed

    Maybe there was lots of flies out?


  • Options
    #96
    fishfoodie
    Registered Users Posts: 564 ✭✭✭fishfoodie


    Beasty wrote: »
    Is that the case though? Do they have the power to issue a suspended ban for example? Equally can they simply accept "mistake" as a defence in some circumstances?

    My own view is they must apply their rules, yes. However I do not know what those rules allow for in these circumstances.

    How about we operate on the simple principle:

    If Sample A Positive && Sample B Positive && ! Valid TUE
    Then
    4 Year Ban

    They're all Professionals, they're all are part of Professional teams, & they're all are supposed to be held responsible for everything that goes into their body.

    Decisions like this & the Impey farce; the UCI is completely undermining any small progress they had previously made.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    @Robfowl
    I am not without sympathy if the error was not his, but he is a professional athlete, surrounded by professional staff. If it were an amateur riding the Rás, one would have more sympathy though!
    Same for Sharapova. Ignorance of a change in doping regs is not a very good defence.

    In Yeats case, maybe he is not pleading ignorance but if it was me, I would want to know the TUE was applied for before I took anything!
    Does anyone know if he mentioned it on the post sample questionnaire/control form? If he did, it would give some weight to him knowing he was on it and believing a TUE was in force/active.


  • Options
    #98
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    Beasty wrote: »
    Is that the case though? Do they have the power to issue a suspended ban for example? Equally can they simply accept "mistake" as a defence in some circumstances?

    My own view is they must apply their rules, yes. However I do not know what those rules allow for in these circumstances.

    I don't know the sentencing/sanctioning criteria. One would assume if it's on a banned list, they are obligated to ban, unless and it can be proved, the drug was not knowingly taken.

    If one is in front of a judge and convicted, a suspended sentence is still a sentence and on ones record. So I doubt a suspended sentence would be any less damaging to Yeats reputation / long term career. He may get the benefit of the doubt from teams but some other more famous riders did not, and struggled to get new contracts.
    Will he sue his employer? He has every right to if it was someone else's mistake that made his reputation go down the tubes.


  • Options
    #99
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    @Robfowl
    I am not without sympathy if the error was not his, but he is a professional athlete, surrounded by professional staff. If it were an amateur riding the Rás, one would have more sympathy though!
    Same for Sharapova. Ignorance of a change in doping regs is not a very good defence.

    In Yeats case, maybe he is not pleading ignorance but if it was me, I would want to know the TUE was applied for before I took anything!
    Does anyone know if he mentioned it on the post sample questionnaire/control form? If he did, it would give some weight to him knowing he was on it and believing a TUE was in force/active.

    Yes it was fully declared on the sample documentation and he was open that he had been taking it.

    Anyone who has asthma knows that when wheeze and sob you will take near anything if you think it will make you better.

    Sharapova took a drug licensed for heart failure and had no valid reason for it.completelt different situation.


  • Options
    #100
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    Sharapova claimed to be taking that for years. It was on a watch list and only added to banned list in Jan 16. Yes, it's a different situation, but not totally. In both cases the athletes said it was their medical team that was at fault. I think Yeats had the better argument but a banned substance was still found in his body. He has accepted that.

    Raising potential matters of continual EPO abuse, hypoxic chambers, HGH treatment etc is speculation on general doping in cycling without proof and in your own words a completely different matter to the Yates case.


  • Options
    #101
    fishfoodie
    Registered Users Posts: 564 ✭✭✭fishfoodie


    RobFowl wrote: »
    Yes it was fully declared on the sample documentation and he was open that he had been taking it.

    Sorry, but that's completely & utterly irrelevant.

    He had a prohibited substance in his body, & he had no valid TUE in place for the substance. He should be banned, just the same as any other positive !

    If he then wants to blame/sue the team, or the UCI, because his paperwork wasn't in order; that's up to him, but he is the sole person responsible for the positive, so he's the one who gets banned.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,477 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    fishfoodie wrote: »
    He should be banned, just the same as any other positive !
    Is it? That's why I am asking. Do the rules state that it's an automatic ban? I don't know what penalties the rules provide for. I know a ban is an option, but I do not know if it's a requirement. Do you?


  • Options
    #103
    Lusk_Doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Lusk_Doyle


    Beasty wrote: »
    Is it? That's why I am asking. Do the rules state that it's an automatic ban? I don't know what penalties the rules provide for. I know a ban is an option, but I do not know if it's a requirement. Do you?

    What else could the penalty be in reality other than a ban and a fine? A fine alone would need to be large and include the team for it to be effective in isolation from a ban.


  • Options
    #104
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,085 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Being benched for the TdF seems like a reasonable outcome to me. It was the team that screwed up and the team that will (presumably) have to pay his wages while he's out of action and suffer the loss of his services.

    He'll be back in time for the Vuelta.

    Riders miss races all the time, no different than a broken collarbone.

    If there was no penalty there'd be no incentive to comply with the regs.


  • Options
    #105
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    fishfoodie wrote: »
    Sorry, but that's completely & utterly irrelevant.

    He had a prohibited substance in his body, & he had no valid TUE in place for the substance. He should be banned, just the same as any other positive !

    If he then wants to blame/sue the team, or the UCI, because his paperwork wasn't in order; that's up to him, but he is the sole person responsible for the positive, so he's the one who gets banned.

    I was answering a question !


  • Options
    #106
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,477 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    I've deleted a post as well as a number of follow-ups.

    If you have a problem with a post or poster report them - keep it on-topic and leave the modding to the mods

    Thanks


  • Options
    #107
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,477 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Lusk_Doyle wrote: »
    What else could the penalty be in reality other than a ban and a fine? A fine alone would need to be large and include the team for it to be effective in isolation from a ban.
    I have no problem with the 4 month ban issued in this instance

    All I'm trying to establish is whether anyone posting actually knows what the rules in connection with potential penalties are here, and it would appear, based on answers to date, that no-one does.


  • Options
    #108
    pelevin
    Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭pelevin


    I don't see how anyone can reasonably be upset at this sanction of 4 months. Yates had apparently never previously had permission to use the relevant banned substance, so the idea he could use it pre-supposing permission would be granted is imo an obvious act that has to be punished. Talking about bigger crimes going unpunished is totally besides the point. Go to court for instance & defend yourself for tossing a bag of rubbish on the roadside by going on about bankers & murderers. "He has a point. Case dismissed."


  • Options
    #109
    RobFowl
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 11,667 Mod ✭✭✭✭RobFowl


    I think my point is being missed here.
    We and Wada are still p*ssing about testing for meds which shouldn't need a TUE while not testing for banned drugs such as epo to save money while many athletes are doping away with new drugs not on the banned list while others on the list have no test available.

    Small fry and administration fails put our there as proof the system works while racing reverts to the mid to late 90s and early 00s patterns.


  • Options
    #110
    Lusk_Doyle
    Registered Users Posts: 4,338 ✭✭✭Lusk_Doyle


    RobFowl wrote: »
    I think my point is being missed here.
    We and Wada are still p*ssing about testing for meds which shouldn't need a TUE while not testing for banned drugs such as epo to save money while many athletes are doping away with new drugs not on the banned list while others on the list have no test available.

    Small fry and administration fails put our there as proof the system works while racing reverts to the mid to late 90s and early 00s patterns.

    Can't be called doping though if it's not banned, can it?


  • Options
    #111
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    There are still people getting caught for the obvious - EPO, Clenbuterol etc.

    What drugs are on the list that there is not test for? It makes sense to have anything on the banned list that is performance enhancing even when currently undetectable so retrospective testing can be done and sanction imposed (eh Lance/EPO & Doping)
    It was the case that drugs cheats/chemists were ahead of the testers, so drugs were then added to the banned list when they became known to exist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Trojan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,413 ✭✭✭✭Trojan


    RobFowl wrote: »
    I think my point is being missed here.
    We and Wada are still p*ssing about testing for meds which shouldn't need a TUE while not testing for banned drugs such as epo to save money while many athletes are doping away with new drugs not on the banned list while others on the list have no test available.

    I get your point.

    If the substance requires a TUE and shouldn't, then start a campaign and get it off the TUE list (and anything else that shouldn't be on there while you're at it).

    My take on, and I think that of the others who agree with the punishment it is that, however innocently, he did the crime and needs to do the time.

    We all know this is a far cry from Lance, but the last thing cycling needs is for people to start getting backdated TUEs.

    Yates is unfortunate but he's not a completely innocent victim here, he still took a substance that required a TUE with no TUE and then got on the bike to race. He had the option of pulling out, which in hindsight would have been better.

    🎙️ The Recognized Authority Podcast



  • Options
    #113
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,408 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    RobFowl wrote: »
    Its a little unfair but we're back watching races where riders are zooming up hills with their mouths closed, blowing out all the climbers with no explanations while a rider who was demonstrably unwell is getting all the adverse publicity.

    Do you remember the EPO days? Racing is nothing like that now. We don't have sprinters and roleurs turning into mountain goats. I haven't seen one unbelievable performance this year.

    Yates failed a drug test. It was his responsibility to have a TUE, he didn't. Now he's banned.

    It's not as if the UCI and WADA wasted their time here and ignored other potential cheats.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #114
    fishfoodie
    Registered Users Posts: 564 ✭✭✭fishfoodie


    Ok Kids,

    I did a scan of the UCI Regulations & here is my analysis for what it's worth:

    Yates was charged with:
    "Presence and Use of the specified prohibited substance Terbutaline"
    Article 2.2.1

    It is each Rider’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters
    his or her body and that no Prohibited Method is Used. Accordingly it is not
    necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence or knowing Use on the Rider’s part be
    demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use of a
    Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.

    Next the relevant articles on getting a TUE for a Prohibited Substance
    Article 4 PROHIBITED LIST AND THERAPEUTIC USE EXEMPTIONS

    [Comments to Article 4.4.3: A Rider should not assume that his/her
    application for grant or recognition of a TUE (or for renewal of a TUE) will be granted.
    Any Use or Possession or Administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method
    before an application has been granted is entirely at the Rider’s own risk.

    Sanctions
    Article 10.2

    Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use, or Possession of a
    Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method

    10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility shall be four years where:

    10.2.1.1 The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance,
    unless the Rider or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule
    violation was not intentional.

    10.2.1.2 The anti-doping rule violation involves a Specified Substance and the
    UCI can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was intentional.


    So, from my reading:
    - the rider is responsible everything that goes into their body
    - Terbutaline is a, specified prohibited substance
    - a rider should not assume the granting of a TIE
    - the sanction of the intentional, & in this case admitted, consumption of a prohibited substance is a 4 year ban

    Can anyone see a flaw in my logic ?


  • Options
    #115
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,477 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    fishfoodie wrote: »
    Can anyone see a flaw in my logic ?
    In this case I think it is accepted by all that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional

    That's why we are not talking 4 years in this case.

    I presume, as no-one has provided any information to the contrary, that for cases of non-intentional anti-doping rule violation there is no minimum suspension, and therefore it is possible (although not the decision in this case) for a rider to get off with a warning and/or possibly a suspended suspension


  • Options
    #116
    fishfoodie
    Registered Users Posts: 564 ✭✭✭fishfoodie


    Beasty wrote: »
    In this case I think it is accepted by all that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional

    That's why we are not talking 4 years in this case.

    I presume, as no-one has provided any information to the contrary, that for cases of non-intentional anti-doping rule violation there is no minimum suspension, and therefore it is possible (although not the decision in this case) for a rider to get off with a warning and/or possibly a suspended suspension

    Is he claiming he tripped & fell & that how the inhaler got in his mouth ?

    I think Occams razor says that the UCI is just ignoring it's own rules, & to tidy things up, is granting a retrospective TUE; & we all know how much flak they've gotten for giving those out in the past !


  • Options
    #117
    Kaisr Sose
    Registered Users Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Kaisr Sose


    Beasty wrote: »
    In this case I think it is accepted by all that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional

    That's why we are not talking 4 years in this case.

    I presume, as no-one has provided any information to the contrary, that for cases of non-intentional anti-doping rule violation there is no minimum suspension, and therefore it is possible (although not the decision in this case) for a rider to get off with a warning and/or possibly a suspended suspension

    I suggest you Google it if you want to know that. There has to be substantial published rulings on these things. He is not appealing so why the big fuss on length of ban? A suspended sentence would seem lenient for a doping offence!
    He took a banned substance, without (and I mean before) a TUE was in place. He has no defence other that it was innocent error/ it was not me and I won't do it again/ dog ate my homework type stuff.
    Unless some people had a bet on him to win the TDF I don't see what the clamber to his defence is here. Professional athlete...knows the rules...took a drug...
    To put in perspective : If you are caught drink driving-can you blame the barman for telling you 'you'll be grand'?.....


  • Options
    #118
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,660 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    The case brings the whole area of TUE under scrutiny. I can't see the logic behind a system whereby a drug is banned, unless the team doctor deems it necessary for the athlete to sue it, and then its ok.

    I can understand where an athlete has a long standing medical condition, such as asthma, that rugs are required but surely they need to stick to drugs that have been given the all clear by WADA.

    In this particular case Yates was using an accepted drug for years, pre-cleared and not on the banned list. Suddenly he needs a new type of drug. Surely the right thing to do, medically, is to medically suspend him for racing until such time as the reason for the sudden chance has been identified and/or a better drug has been sourced and tested.

    Simply taking a banned substance and handing in, what is in effect, a note from your doctor, seems very lax. At the very least I would have expected that a WADA offical would have to review the case (which going by the regs posted above stating that TUE should not be deemed to be automatic might be the case) then Yates claim that they simpy forgot to send in the TUE is not really the core mistake here as he should have expected to hear back from WADA.

    Surely he asked before he raced did they ever get the all clear? This excuse that the Doc simply forgot to fill in the form is a nice scapegoat by the team and it is what everyone focused on but it totally ignores all the other issues in the case such as why the team never followed up with WADA about the TUE, why the team never questioned why this sudden change in Yates medically


  • Options
    #119
    12 sprocket
    Registered Users Posts: 382 ✭✭12 sprocket


    RobFowl wrote: »
    I think my point is being missed here.
    We and Wada are still p*ssing about testing for meds which shouldn't need a TUE while not testing for banned drugs such as epo to save money while many athletes are doping away with new drugs not on the banned list while others on the list have no test available.

    Small fry and administration fails put our there as proof the system works while racing reverts to the mid to late 90s and early 00s patterns.

    WADA IS A JOKE https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/wada-heard-of-russian-doping-in-2010-didnt-investigate-until-media-reports/2016/06/02/9ec77acc-28e7-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html


  • Options
    #120
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,951 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    I disagree with Rob about the potential benefits, thats why it is on there, unlike the other asthmatic drugs, it is hard to d tell if it was taken as an inhaler dosage or higher oral dose if I understand it correctly.

    The other asthamtic drugs while not banned can lead to sanctions being issued if dosages far exceed what an asthmatic should be taken but I don't know if they actually test for them or not.
    Brian? wrote: »
    Do you remember the EPO days? Racing is nothing like that now. We don't have sprinters and roleurs turning into mountain goats. I haven't seen one unbelievable performance this year.
    I thought times were faster nowadays. While there are reasons, improved training, better nutrition, bikes that way half the amount, I am not niave enough to think that doping is out of the peloton.

    This said, I do think that cycling is far cleaner than other sports, it just doesn't seem to gloss over it like other sports and fans do.
    Yates failed a drug test. It was his responsibility to have a TUE, he didn't. Now he's banned.
    Precisely, Yates admitted to it, he had it on the sheets, it genuinely seem slike a clerical error but if you let this slide, then why not let other things slide. Other Brits have gotten away with far more potent things in their system by blaming Chinese Beef.
    It's not as if the UCI and WADA wasted their time here and ignored other potential cheats.
    Why at pro level there is not just blanket testing is beyond me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,477 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Kaisr Sose wrote: »
    I suggest you Google it if you want to know that. There has to be substantial published rulings on these things. He is not appealing so why the big fuss on length of ban? A suspended sentence would seem lenient for a doping offence!
    As I have already stated I have no issue with the 4 month ban in this case

    The question I was raising was more about a number of posters here stating a ban was automatic without having checked/confirmed if that was the case.


Advertisement