Doping

Posted on
Page
of 359
First Prev
/ 359
  • Is it usual for tests to be created and conducted for non banned substances?

  • Is it usual for tests to be created and conducted for non banned substances?

    It seems that this was a targeted raid, presumably based on intelligence, by a public health service. I'm guessing they had reasonable grounds to suspect that the substance had been supplied other than through the regulated channel, which might involve some criminality under French domestic law.

    It doesn't seem to have been an anti-doping raid.

    The use of hair samples points to the intelligence being related to administration from several days to several weeks prior to the raid.

  • It’s certainly an interesting case. Which raises both some broader and specific questions.

    It also ties to the notion, that the athlete as 100% individually accountable to be a flawed philosophy. Particularly for professional athletes who might have a team of medical professionals. Any one of which may well have their own motivations and or pressures.

  • It also ties to the notion, that the athlete as 100% individually accountable to be a flawed philosophy

    I don't really go with this, certainly at the world tour level. Riders should know what they're taking. During the 90s the "confessions" are rife with riders saying that their doctor told them to trust them and just take the pill, the injection, use the cream etc. Even if we assume those statements are true (I suspect some are, some aren't), it shows that taking what the team doctor gives you without question can lead into dangerous places.

  • Riders should know what they're taking.

    Of course I just don’t see how that’s practical though.

  • True, but the space between "I made sure I knew everything I took" and "I trusted my doctor" hides many evils.

  • Of course but can be reduced by holding medical staff on teams to account?
    Obviously that has complexity. But as previously stated this case poses some interesting questions around doping and ethics.

  • I think in France a doping doctor would be struck off or face penalties but it doesn’t help if they’re not a French doctor.

    The only way to do it would for WADA to certify doctors who work in sports and if any rider under their care tests positive their license to practice is either removed entirely or suspended for all sports.

  • the athlete as 100% individually accountable to be a flawed philosophy. Particularly for professional athletes

    Why "particularly"? I'd say the opposite, that the fact of being a pro makes it particularly important that an athlete should refuse any treatment about which he has even the slightest question.

  • Including bidons? Do they ensure a new tub of massage cream is opened in front of them or perhaps they should purchase it themselves?
    My opinion is professional athletes and indeed the more successful are required to delegate and entrust more than amateurs. I’d suggest your point highlights this exact paradox.

  • There are two different issues here, the question of whether you trust your staff to give you the things you've consented to, and the question of whether you trust their judgement when recommending things. Of course there is always a possibility that a malfeasor will give you something without telling you, but this is the less likely scenario. What is more likely is that an unscrupulous team will find what they think is a loophole and suggest that you exploit it. In this case you should certainly take independent advice, since the downside for you if they've got it wrong is that you lose your livelihood, whereas the downside for them is only that their reputation might be very slightly diminished; since the reputation of sports team owners could hardly be lower, this isn't much of a risk.

    "Trust me, I'm a doctor" rings pretty hollow when the doctor is in the pay of somebody who has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

  • Which is precisely why it shouldn’t be solely on the athlete.

  • it shouldn’t be solely on the athlete

    It isn't. Article 2.5 to 2.9 ADRVs can be committed by athlete support persons, and they can be disqualified from acting as athlete support persons if found guilty. The problem, as with financial fraud, is linking the behaviour to the senior management. A low level member of staff gets thrown under the bus and everybody in a senior position says they knew nothing about that one bad apple who let the team down (by acting under incentives provided by senior management to achieve the results called for by senior management)

  • Discuss: Is Sportwashing /Greenwashing a greater threat to cyclesport than doping?

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre­e/2022/jun/19/the-guardian-view-on-qatar­s-migrant-workers-football-owes-them

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Doping

Posted by Avatar for Banned @Banned

Actions