World doping news

Remove this Banner Ad

TWLS said:
Well the situation with the Russian girl is typical - She gets off because of her age - The Olympic boss with a german name - Bach - is to put it mildly a bit dodgy.
Click to expand...
Without a doubt and I'm sure their are cases we won't hear about as swept under the rug if it involves Chinese athletes
 
The CAS hearing overturned the provisional suspension given to the Russian athlete - The doping offence will be heard at a later date - It's a pity that so few actually understand the issue.
 
yaco55 said:
The CAS hearing overturned the provisional suspension given to the Russian athlete - The doping offence will be heard at a later date - It's a pity that so few actually understand the issue.
Click to expand...
Actually questions are going to be asked about the Russian entourage that accompanied the girl. The optics of Russia and doping will never be good.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

TWLS said:
Actually questions are going to be asked about the Russian entourage that accompanied the girl. The optics of Russia and doping will never be good.
Click to expand...

Except, she never got off because of her age - I suggest you read the judgement.
 
Aussie in exile said:
I wonder how many Chinese participants will be found guilty of any drug taking at these winter Olympics?
Click to expand...
probably copied what the yanks did for over a decade and tested them 2 or 3 months out, any caught told to clean up their act, and then tested them a few weeks before the games again, and if not clean, they don't go.

They wouldn't be as stupid as the Russians and the FSB dirty tricks campaign in Sochi.
 
yaco55 said:
Except, she never got off because of her age - I suggest you read the judgement.
Click to expand...
Pretty much it was because of her age. If she wasn't a protected person, RUSADA couldn't have removed the provisional suspension, and CAS wouldn't have had a hearing about such a narrow issue.

The CAS Panel has given the following reasons for its decision:

1) It has affirmed the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division in this matter and has overruled the preliminary objections raised by the Athlete and the ROC in this regard;

2) On the basis of the very limited facts of this case, and after consideration of the relevant legal issues, it has determined that no provisional suspension should be imposed on the Athlete due to the following exceptional circumstances:

a) The Athlete is a “Protected Person” under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC);

b) The RUSADA Anti-Doping Rules and the WADC are silent with respect to provisional suspension imposed on protected persons, while these rules have specific provisions for different standards of evidence and for lower sanctions in the case of protected persons;

c) The Panel considered fundamental principles of fairness, proportionality, irreparable harm, and the relative balance of interests as between the Applicants and the Athlete, who did not test positive during the Olympic Games in Beijing and is still subject to a disciplinary procedure on the merits following the positive anti-doping test undertaken in December 2021; in particular, the Panel considered that preventing the Athlete from competing at the Olympic Games would cause her irreparable harm in these circumstances;

d) The CAS Panel also emphasized that there were serious issues of untimely notification of the results of the Athlete’s anti-doping test that was performed in December 2021 which impinged upon the Athlete’s ability to establish certain legal requirements for her benefit, while such late notification was not her fault, in the middle of the Olympic Winter Games Beijing 2022.

3) In conclusion, the Panel determined that permitting the provisional suspension to remain lifted was appropriate.

The CAS Ad hoc Division was requested to determine the narrow issue as to whether a provisional suspension should be imposed on the athlete. It was not requested to rule on the merits of this case, nor to examine the legal consequences relating to the results of the team event in figure skating, as such issues will be examined in other proceedings.


If it's not because of her age what am I missing? Or are you saying the bold bit below means she hasn't got off yet?

It was not requested to rule on the merits of this case, nor to examine the legal consequences relating to the results of the team event in figure skating, as such issues will be examined in other proceedings.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
a) The Athlete is a “Protected Person” under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC);
Click to expand...

As an aside, this is a pretty great argument for athlete's that fall in to the Protected Person category to be ineligible to compete beyond a certain level, if they're not old enough to be fully sanctioned, are they really old enough to be competing at a level where doping is (IMO) likely to be happening?
 
owen87 said:
As an aside, this is a pretty great argument for athlete's that fall in to the Protected Person category to be ineligible to compete beyond a certain level, if they're not old enough to be fully sanctioned, are they really old enough to be competing at a level where doping is (IMO) likely to be happening?
Click to expand...
Unfair on the innocent who are good enough at 15 or younger. Especially those who compete in a country that isnt into state sponsored doping.

16 and 17 year olds who are elite athletes and are part of a registered testing pool ie good enough to make world champs and olympics, are minors under the WADA code but not protected persons.

16 and 17 year old amateur types are therefore protected persons.

I put the definitions from a 2021 WADA athletes guide in the winter olympics thread, but as Im on my phone so I cant copy and paste it.
 
Last edited:
RussellEbertHandball said:
Unfair on the innocent who are good enough at 15 or younger. Especially those who compete in a country that isnt into state sponsored doping.

16 and 17 year olds who are elite athletes and are part of a registered testing pool ie good enough to make world champs and olympics, are minors under the WADA code but not protecred persons.

16 and 17 year old amateur types are therefore protected persons.

I put the definitions from a 2021 WADA athletes guide in the winter olympics thread, but as Im on my phone so I cant copy and paste ir.
Click to expand...

Perhaps unfair on some, but there's a number of sports where athletes are used and abused by the end of their teens because they start way too young and the system is pretty toxic; gymnastics and figure skating are the two you generally hear about.

Lifting the minimum age might help fix some of the problems with those sports.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Unfair on the innocent who are good enough at 15 or younger. Especially those who compete in a country that isnt into state sponsored doping.

16 and 17 year olds who are elite athletes and are part of a registered testing pool ie good enough to make world champs and olympics, are minors under the WADA code but not protected persons.

16 and 17 year old amateur types are therefore protected persons.

I put the definitions from a 2021 WADA athletes guide in the winter olympics thread, but as Im on my phone so I cant copy and paste it.
Click to expand...
If we are serious about the drug problem any athlete that tests positive for PED's a 2nd time should be banned from all sports for life at all levels, and the test should be carries out by independent agency's, and not the governing bodies of that sport
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Aussie in exile said:
If we are serious about the drug problem any athlete that tests positive for PED's a 2nd time should be banned from all sports for life at all levels, and the test should be carries out by independent agency's, and not the governing bodies of that sport
Click to expand...

You still don't understand after ten years - Much of the drug testing is carried out by independent bodies whether they be National Doping Agencies or outsourced testing agencies - Not much testing is done by agencies which fit under an individual's sports agency.

You should be more worried about the testing labaratory getting wrong Peter Bol's EPO test.
 
yaco55 said:
You still don't understand after ten years - Much of the drug testing is carried out by independent bodies whether they be National Doping Agencies or outsourced testing agencies - Not much testing is done by agencies which fit under an individual's sports agency.

You should be more worried about the testing labaratory getting wrong Peter Bol's EPO test.
Click to expand...
Much, but not all, and it should be all
 
owen87 said:
New doco in the Untold series on Netflix about the BALCO scandal for anyone interested - called Untold Hall of Shame.
Click to expand...
Might have to get Netflix just to watch this.





 
Last edited:
Glorfindel said:
Interesting that Serena Williams dished out a couple of backhanded comments while one of Simona's supporters is Williams' ex-coach.
#awks

www.tennis.com

Simona Halep receives four-year ban after tribunal findings assert she was "likely doping" | Tennis.com

The former world No. 1 can appeal, but isn't eligible to return until October 6, 2026 as of now.
www.tennis.com www.tennis.com
Click to expand...
Lets be honest any drug cheat should get at least a 4 year ban, and drug test should be carried out be independent companies and not companies with connections to any sports
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top