Adverse analytical finding in recent mountain bike stage race

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Are you suggesting that cyclo sport licensees should be allowed more rope to dope?

 

Not as simple as that, Swiss - and you know that.

[Thor Buttox]

that's fine, they can change their minds and upgrade to a racing licence, they had just better know that they will become subject to testing and had better be clean, as we have seen, for longer than 6 months prior to doing so.

In principal, . There's just this flea scratching at the back of my mind telling me you're opening the door for people to game the system. Having been in a very competitive environment in another sport (strictly amateur) and having put in many, many long days to see unbelievably strange sudden performances that will never get picked up, it's disheartening. Maybe I'm just looking at it through a "not-just-cycling & protect the amateur youngsters from the drugs" view by putting strong disincentives down.

[Thor Buttox]

ROFL. I was a bit flabbergasted for a moment, tbh. Thought your reason and logic had been frequenting the restaurant at the end of the universe...

 

But Agreed. In terms of testing, rules regs and so on, there should be a black and white delineation between pro & amateur for testing purposes etc.

 

Also agreed that it gets a bit tricky when it comes to the local Church race, where you may have a good chance of winning but (like me) you're on supplements that contain a banned substance (like pseudo-ephedrine)

 

It may be as simple as a logical conclusion from the dopers side of things though. If you're on the juice, you shouldn't "race" for a position. Just ride. But there are myriad different scenarios where the "doper" may not necessarily know whether he has a banned substance in his system or not.

 

Case in point, this situation. 6 months is a helluva long time for a trace amount of dwelms to be in a system. So in terms of the reasonable man argument, Barry was spot on when he signed that he was not taking any PED's. He plain wasn't at the time, and hadn't been for 6 months before the race itself. So he was fully within his rights to sign that waiver.

 

Take an example of that cough syrup, or some of the flu medication. If he had had flu-end (a common flu medication containing pseudo ephedrine) up to 2 weeks before the ride, it still may have been in his system. And he would have been bust again. Wilful infringement or harmless error?

 

Was he racing for position? No. He was bottom half of the pack. Logic follows that he should receive a ban (as any person above him would have received) but as it was a harmless medication that he may not have known contained a banned substance (not being a paid athlete, therefore not being bound by UCI's rules as he is not a licensed UCI accredited rider) should he have been targeted at all?

 

My argument is no...

The deeply thoughtful, metaphysical response I have received from my own personal "Deep Thought" (hence it being deeply, thoughtful) is........

 

....

 

....

 

I agree.

[Tumbleweed]

ROFL. I was a bit flabbergasted for a moment, tbh. Thought your reason and logic had been frequenting the restaurant at the end of the universe...

 

But Agreed. In terms of testing, rules regs and so on, there should be a black and white delineation between pro & amateur for testing purposes etc.

 

Also agreed that it gets a bit tricky when it comes to the local Church race, where you may have a good chance of winning but (like me) you're on supplements that contain a banned substance (like pseudo-ephedrine)

 

It may be as simple as a logical conclusion from the dopers side of things though. If you're on the juice, you shouldn't "race" for a position. Just ride. But there are myriad different scenarios where the "doper" may not necessarily know whether he has a banned substance in his system or not.

 

Case in point, this situation. 6 months is a helluva long time for a trace amount of dwelms to be in a system. So in terms of the reasonable man argument, Barry was spot on when he signed that he was not taking any PED's. He plain wasn't at the time, and hadn't been for 6 months before the race itself. So he was fully within his rights to sign that waiver.

 

Take an example of that cough syrup, or some of the flu medication. If he had had flu-end (a common flu medication containing pseudo ephedrine) up to 2 weeks before the ride, it still may have been in his system. And he would have been bust again. Wilful infringement or harmless error?

 

Was he racing for position? No. He was bottom half of the pack. Logic follows that he should receive a ban (as any person above him would have received) but as it was a harmless medication that he may not have known contained a banned substance (not being a paid athlete, therefore not being bound by UCI's rules as he is not a licensed UCI accredited rider) should he have been targeted at all?

 

My argument is no...

 

The rules about doping at the Epic seem a bit odd. All riders are subject to the lifetime ban from the race, but the rules add extra conditions for UCI-licensed riders and go on to list sections of the UCI's doping code, which seems to make a mockery of the UCI letter to Barry.

[Paulst12]

Change your name on registration forms... who will ever know its you?

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

The deeply thoughtful, metaphysical response I have received from my own personal "Deep Thought" (hence it being deeply, thoughtful) is........

 

....

 

....

 

I agree.

 

42.

[Thor Buttox]

The rules about doping at the Epic seem a bit odd. All riders are subject to the lifetime ban from the race, but the rules add extra conditions for UCI-licensed riders and go on to list sections of the UCI's doping code, which seems to make a mockery of the UCI letter to Barry.

In terms of helping Barry defend himself through conflicting requirements?

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

The rules about doping at the Epic seem a bit odd. All riders are subject to the lifetime ban from the race, but the rules add extra conditions for UCI-licensed riders and go on to list sections of the UCI's doping code, which seems to make a mockery of the UCI letter to Barry.

 

Agreed. And was Barry a UCI Licensed rider? No. Not as far as I understand it, at least...

[Thor Buttox]

42.

DD!!

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

DD!!

 

CAN'T! BREATHE!

 

or,

 

 

BRAAAAAAAAAP!

[Tumbleweed]

Thor, armpies, seems that way. It makes provision for the UCI riders to abide by the UCI's code. There is an earlier doping mention pertaining to all riders, but it doesn't seem to include provisions of the UCI laws regardings costs.

[Slowbee]

6 months the drug is still in your system. Does that mean it is still having an effect on said system after 6 months?

 

All those runners bust for "out of competition" drugs. This story is about as clear as cheese on my tomato sandwich.

[Baaisikilist]

@ MTBaaisikilist

 

During the course of reading this thread, you said you would happily face the consequences of your actions. Well those consequences are here, and I am of the opinion that you should still face them, whatever they are.

 

That being said, I learnt a few things through the various posts this morning. The fine seems not to be a fine at all, but a fee of sorts. That I cannot get my head round. As others have suggested, you should be a little more obtuse in getting an explanation as to why "the fine" exists and what they can do with it. Preferably not pineapples, since they do not go well on pizza (nor steak). Maybe mango's.

 

Am I correct in saying there is still another round of hearings? Maybe something will come out of that.

 

Let's clear a few things up. There has not even been a preliminary, or any other type of hearing yet. From my understanding, the UCI is following the same protocol that they would for a professional athlete caught doping. I doubt there are 2 sets of rules, one for pro's and one for amateurs. The acceptance of sanction is just an 'option' for me to consider. By the looks of things, I have the option to waive this, and should I choose to, then the UCI will allow CSA to take the matter over from there. To date the only communication between myself and CSA has been William's initial call to me and the email the next day, followed by me calling him to ask WTF about the press release. I'm quite sure the process will now be handled between CSA and myself. Let's not all jump the gun n become experts on what are still hypothetical scenarios. The consequences you're saying are 'here', aren't exactly yet. Nothing has been finalised, and I'm following the process as it unfolds, using what rights I appear to have been given.

 

Would everyone's 'BUUUURN HIM...!!!' opinions be the same if it wasn't steroids...? What if it was weed or cold medication...? Does R26+k seem fair...? Would you simply take that on the chin...?

[Wolfie1]

Look what happened to some of the Bulls Players who use protine you can buy of the shelf at dischem......banned substances found there as well. Suppose that anything you take orally needs to be looked at now a days!!!! I reckon depending on the amount found in his blood, give the guy a 12 month ban. At this point in time drunk driving is taking more lives than doping cyclists and even they get a second chance after 6 moths

[EZRider]

Not as simple as that, Swiss - and you know that.

 

Agreed, it isn't that simple but having different rules for pros vs amateurs doesn't make sense.

My son competes in the schools XCO league. They are amateurs and many take it very seriously indeed, there are some kids on 50 k racing bikes riding XCO and half marathon races. My son, as an amateur, needs to be protected by the same rules as everyone.

Before you think that kids don't and wont use PEDs just take a look at school rugby (in which my boy also takes part). There is PLENTY of steroid use in first league, amateur, schoolboy rugby.

[EZRider]

Let's clear a few things up. There has not even been a preliminary, or any other type of hearing yet. From my understanding, the UCI is following the same protocol that they would for a professional athlete caught doping. I doubt there are 2 sets of rules, one for pro's and one for amateurs. The acceptance of sanction is just an 'option' for me to consider. By the looks of things, I have the option to waive this, and should I choose to, then the UCI will allow CSA to take the matter over from there. To date the only communication between myself and CSA has been William's initial call to me and the email the next day, followed by me calling him to ask WTF about the press release. I'm quite sure the process will now be handled between CSA and myself. Let's not all jump the gun n become experts on what are still hypothetical scenarios. The consequences you're saying are 'here', aren't exactly yet. Nothing has been finalised, and I'm following the process as it unfolds, using what rights I appear to have been given.

 

Would everyone's 'BUUUURN HIM...!!!' opinions be the same if it wasn't steroids...? What if it was weed or cold medication...? Does R26+k seem fair...? Would you simply take that on the chin...?

 

The 26 k isn't fair no matter what you are on!