Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soboleva, Six Other Russians Banned Two Years Each

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • eldrick
    replied
    the point is, even if they were serial urine tests, any 2 identical tests from different athletes is definite cheating

    these are high profile athletes who get tested very often & in the course of no more than a few weeks, they wouda probably got batches of 2 or 3 identical urines permuting 2 or 3 out of 7

    software couda either cross-correlated the known identical tests or a bit of elbow grease sitting down with pen & paper for a coupla hours wouda done it

    this means it still shoudn't have taken more than a few weeks to identify 7 athletes who at one time produced identical tests to someone else

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    it isn't rocket science

    as soon as they analysed the urine tests for these 7, they wouda found out that these samples had exactly the same measurement parameters - specific gravity, urinary electrolytes, etc

    this "cross-analysis" of all samples shoud be already standard part of the software & take about 0.001s to screen-up 7 identical samples

    what took another 15 months 30 days 23 hours 59 minutes 59.999 seconds ???
    The urine at the same DNA, but not necessarily from the same point in time, so maybe those other things were not the same. Also, the samples were not run in parallel, but in serial; it is not clear when they noticed that the samples were all derived from the same source. Again, in an instance like this, I have NO sympathy; to complain because it took a while to put it together and to have what they felt was an ironclad case (it was the first, and hence test, case).

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    it isn't rocket science

    as soon as they analysed the urine tests for these 7, they wouda found out that these samples had exactly the same measurement parameters - specific gravity, urinary electrolytes, etc

    this "cross-analysis" of all samples shoud be already standard part of the software & take about 0.001s to screen-up 7 identical samples

    what took another 15 months 30 days 23 hours 59 minutes 59.999 seconds ???

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    Originally posted by eldrick
    IAAF President Lamine Diack said “It is unacceptable to the IAAF that these athletes who have committed serious and deliberate breaches of our anti-doping Rules would receive an effective ban of approximately 9-10 months and see them eligible to compete again in the summer of 2009. What is more, I consider the circumstances surrounding these cases warrants the IAAF to seek an extended ban over and above the minimum two year period.
    if he runs an organisation so mickey-mouse that they take over 1y to get a derisory mouth swab from 7 athletes, he deserves no sympathy whatsoever
    Eldy, who said that they anomalous DNA was discovered the day after they took the first test. I do not recall completely but I think that someone noticed something after they had run the standard "A" tests, possibly by matching them up (and failing to match them up) with the DNA from later tests. Since this sort of thing can only come about from some organized and orchestrated cheating, I have zero sympathy for them, but certainly do not think that the amount of time that it took to get it all sorted out should count as 'time served'.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    IAAF President Lamine Diack said “It is unacceptable to the IAAF that these athletes who have committed serious and deliberate breaches of our anti-doping Rules would receive an effective ban of approximately 9-10 months and see them eligible to compete again in the summer of 2009. What is more, I consider the circumstances surrounding these cases warrants the IAAF to seek an extended ban over and above the minimum two year period.
    if he runs an organisation so mickey-mouse that they take over 1y to get a derisory mouth swab from 7 athletes, he deserves no sympathy whatsoever

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    The IAAF is appealing these cases to CAS.

    http://www.iaaf.org/aboutiaaf/news/newsid=48434.html

    1) The IAAF has appealed that in each case, and in accordance with IAAF Rules, the date of any applicable sanction cannot begin earlier than the day the athlete was first provisionally suspended from competition.

    2) The IAAF has appealed that in each case the period of ineligibility be lengthened to more than the minimum 2 year sanction under IAAF Rules if the athletes are found guilty of the above doping offences.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    Originally posted by Swoosher
    eg it is not just a blanket ban of 2 years - but you can get less if the circumstances warrent (eg you convince the panel that it was inadvertant etc etc)
    this is the problem

    iaaf iirc has hardly ever, if ever, accepted the "inadvertent" excuse

    national feds try for short ban for their athletes because they see extenuating circumstances, but iaaf immediately want it jacked up to 2y & take it almost without hesitation to cas if national fed doesn't agree

    i'd have to say, in iaaf's eyes, "inadvertent" excuse is hogwash - they never believed it before & i can't see why they will change thier stance now

    complete & utter waste of time taking an "inadvertent" excuse to iaaf, so I see no reason why they shoud get their 4y bans if they never compromise on the 2y ones as some national feds do

    Leave a comment:


  • Swoosher
    replied
    yeah - agree on your point about the inadvertant use.

    my understanding was that this is what the new parts of the wada Code were designed to help with (although I think they make it more complicated). Some parties wanted a uniform move to 4 year first time bans and the argument as usual was about EU laws, fairness etc....and to be honest I think some sports simply don't want a 2 year ban even for steroids so were arguing against it.

    As a "compromise" the Code allows for individual circumstances of the case to be taken into consideration - eg it is not just a blanket ban of 2 years - but you can get less if the circumstances warrent (eg you convince the panel that it was inadvertant etc etc) and you can get a longer ban like 4 years if the situations show you really went out of your way to cheat.

    That is why I thought 4 year bans were now maybe more possible (again I don't know the EU law well enough). But there is more fairness in the system that you can get a reduced ban - but as a spin off you can also get a higher ban....to me this seems fair and I am very much in favour of the stronger ban in cases like this one.

    What will be interesting to see is how all the sports including the IAAF manage the new powers to determine sanctions (now that it is not a fixed 2 years)......I have a very strong feeling that in lots of sports..not naming any names but the "world game" comes to mind - you will never again see a 2 year ban for steroids.....6 months maybe :roll:

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    i feel 2y is fair

    the problem is unintentional dopers ( spiked drinks/food, foods/drink with unknown prohibited substances ( nandrolone in beef, etc ) ) also get 2y ban

    you have to give the unintentional dopers a 2nd chance & 4y is too long for a 'mistake'

    as authorities do not seem to accept inadvertent ingestion as an excuse, then true dopers also only get 2y as a result

    Leave a comment:


  • Swoosher
    replied
    Ahh the good old EU laws. It is great to know that someone who deliberately cheats and frauds his/her fellow "co-workers" in the sport of athletics is so well protected.

    2 years is like a slap on the wrist and as long as it exists then doping will be rife (and probably would even if we had life bans!).

    at least I take solace that by currently working in Europe - I know that if I cheat and steal from my co-workers here I will be welcomed back with open arms and allowed to work in the same industry again as the EU laws will protect me. I assume if I was a lawyer and was caught deliberately telling big fat lies to the judge it would be illegal to stop me from working in the field of Law?......

    anyway - your point is valid and true...just that I don't agree with the law (not that I can change it !!!)....but this probably isn't the place for that argument....I am off to see who I can steal from and lie to.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    they initially reduced bans from 4y to 2y because of conflict with eu employment laws

    those laws haven't changed, so i don't see anything but big trouble ahead for wada if they try to go back to 4y

    Leave a comment:


  • Swoosher
    replied
    I would start my post by saying I don't have a perfect (or even reasonable) idea of the leagal systems/principles....

    But do you think that CAS would be more favourable towards a longer ban (4 years) given that the WADA Code from 2009 will explicitly allow (or ask) for increased bans in the case where you can prove "aggrivated circumstances"?

    The fact that the IAAF rules do allow for bans longer than 2 years already (as noted it is a minimum) - combined with the idea that the new WADA Code will allow longer bans (and shorter ones as well) - might easily mean a 4 year ban would stand up in this case...even if challenged by an athlete.

    I guess we don't know until an appeal is placed and held....until then we are speculating.

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    i specifically mentioned excluding her mickey-mouse case

    it was a nonsensical initial sentence for a non-analytical +ve

    at the time, it was suggested she fight it because they convicted for biochemical abnormalities as ridiculous as 'having raised cholesterol is a sign of her steroid abuse' !?

    usada had immediately trimmed it to 4y in return for her dropping the case

    if she'd had the money/lack of guilty conscious to take it to cas, she'd almost certainly have had it reduced to 2y & if she'd hired a 1/2 decent biochemist for her team wouda probably got the case thrown out

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Michelle Collins originally received an 8-year ban for her first offence, appealed and only had it reduced to 4 years

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    i've seen the rules & i don't recall any 1st offenders having more than a 2y ban for 1st offence which stood up when challenged in court

    they reduced 1st offence to 2y from 4y many years ago because eu human rights/employment law woudn't stand for 4y bans for 1st offences

    the ruskies aren't eu citizens but cas won't rule for a longer sentence than for eu nationals

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X