Seyffert receives two year ban from competition

[NotSoBigBen]

We always hear of the riders but who gave him the script?

The Dr's and coaches are just as responsible as the riders.

 

I thought we had established this would be 'procured' from non 'script' means .... and normally shady characters anyway!

[Chro Mo]

No. I didn't intend it to go like that. It dawned on me (thanks to scull breaker's nice post) that a true pro will know his stuff. If I'm a tax auditor, I can't be forgiven for making an error on my tax return. Me as an amateur, it is possible and perhaps even excusable. OK perhaps tax is a bad example but still. I didn't take the argument further...I simply haven't given that side of it any thought.

Let it be noted that although I am suited to breaking sculls, I rarely, if ever, contemplate doing so.

 

The people at the apex of our sport are no longer "convicts of the road" - they are highly specialised athletes.

 

My point at the end is as JB said - professional cyclists do not do anything that impacts their craft/profession without due consideration.

[Eldron]

My point at the end is as JB said - professional cyclists do not do anything that impacts their craft/profession without due consideration.

 

I gotta disagree with this. People are people. Some pros study and take drugs on purpose, some get sucked into it by coches/team/leader, some chance upon it, some unwittingly.

 

"Pro athlete" doesn't describe a person - it only describes their job.

[Chro Mo]

I gotta disagree with this. People are people. Some pros study and take drugs on purpose, some get sucked into it by coches/team/leader, some chance upon it, some unwittingly.

 

"Pro athlete" doesn't describe a person - it only describes their job.

Point taken.

 

That may well be true.

[Wonder Woman]

But then surely you have to punish professionals differently to the poor dude coming 380 in the Epic just trying to survive?

 

Sorry, I guess I am on the wrong thread here

 

Let me go home and leave you to it.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Wonder Woman

[Eldron]

But then surely you have to punish professionals differently to the poor dude coming 380 in the Epic just trying to survive?

 

Sorry, I guess I am on the wrong thread here

 

Let me go home and leave you to it.

 

Nope.

 

One rule for everybody.

 

A two year ban from riding the Epic, Sani2c etc is little more than a slap on the wrist for a backmarker - no financial penalties etc.

[Garfield2010]

Ok I have a stupid question.

 

Why would someone mask whatever they have taken with another illegal substance?

 

Rather get 2 years for thinz than 2 years for EPO or am I missing something here??

[EZRider]

What kind of idiot 'dopes' to come that far back in the fie.... .... Oh, wait...

 

Ha Ha, thanks for that!

[GoLefty!!]

Nope.

 

One rule for everybody.

 

A two year ban from riding the Epic, Sani2c etc is little more than a slap on the wrist for a backmarker - no financial penalties etc.

 

 

actually thats not true since many companies have a no drugs at work policy. Random testing and a possitive for something on a list of banned substances can land Joe Blogs in hot water, even disciplinary or termination.

 

How many non pro's research everything they're using and generally when people can obtain something over the counter they assume its legal and if it works for themselves and their peers then its tough to convince them to go and research whats in the pharmaceutical.

 

I feel that the sports authorities and events organisers really ought to be more scientific in their approach, It is wy easier for a non pro to make an honest mistake so why punish them by placing their livlihod at risk? If one cannot be treated fairly why would I want to ride in an event?

 

 

Garfield thats a good point.

[SwissVan]

 

Garfield thats a good point.

 

 

Where's Chunky (note: not chunkymonkey lite) when we need some expert opinion

[SwissVan]

Where's Chunky (note: not chunkymonkey lite) when we need some expert opinion

 

Chunky Member Since 15 Jun 2005

Offline Last Active Jun 15 2005 04:16

 

[Eldron]

actually thats not true since many companies have a no drugs at work policy. Random testing and a possitive for something on a list of banned substances can land Joe Blogs in hot water, even disciplinary or termination.

 

How many non pro's research everything they're using and generally when people can obtain something over the counter they assume its legal and if it works for themselves and their peers then its tough to convince them to go and research whats in the pharmaceutical.

 

I feel that the sports authorities and events organisers really ought to be more scientific in their approach, It is wy easier for a non pro to make an honest mistake so why punish them by placing their livlihod at risk? If one cannot be treated fairly why would I want to ride in an event?

 

 

Garfield thats a good point.

 

Not sure I'm following you here.

 

Typically companies have tests for dagga, cocaine etc. I'm not sure they test or care about appetite supplresants and EPO...

 

Plus I don't think any company would fire someone for failing a SAID test.

 

A 2 year ban from all CSA events is almost zero sanction to a non pro. He doesn't earn a salary from riding or earn any prize money or appear on SuperCycling etc.

 

Edit: and alcohol for companies of course.... I think the drugs tested for in companies versus drugs in cycling are diofferent enough that your cycling positive will not impact on your job.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Eldron

[Tumbleweed]

Chunky Member Since 15 Jun 2005

Offline Last Active Jun 15 2005 04:16

 

 

He was banned and his account was deleted. Came back briefly, but was canned again.

[GoLefty!!]

Not sure I'm following you here.

 

Typically companies have tests for dagga, cocaine etc. I'm not sure they test or care about appetite supplresants and EPO...

 

Plus I don't think any company would fire someone for failing a SAID test.

 

A 2 year ban from all CSA events is almost zero sanction to a non pro. He doesn't earn a salary from riding or earn any prize money or appear on SuperCycling etc.

 

Edit: and alcohol for companies of course.... I think the drugs tested for in companies versus drugs in cycling are diofferent enough that your cycling positive will not impact on your job.

 

 

if you as an amateur gets nailed for using a appetite suppresant by CSA for example, you would be charged with using an banned substance. your employer gets wind of it and youre in hot water. Read your employment contract. Unless you have prescription, youre ****ed even if you were using it for innocent weight loss to get into shape or whatever

Edited July 24, 2013 by GoLefty!!

[Eldron]

if you as an amateur gets nailed for using a appetite suppresant by CSA for example, you would be charged with using an banned substance. your employer gets wind of it and youre in hot water. Read your employment contract. Unless you have prescription, youre ****ed

 

Banned by CSA and banned by law are two different things. My contract contains the words illegal substance and alcohol over the legal driving limit. Doesn't say anything about CSA rules.

 

Practically I don't see how your company would even find out and if they did no company in their right mind would try and fire you for using completely legal drugs like appetite suppressants, stimulants etc. CCMA would tear them a bew one.

[ricochet_rabbit]

We already have a two tier licence structure ie: you either have a racing or cyclosport licence.

Prize money, provincial colours & podiums etc should only be awarded to those with a racing licence and similarly only those with a racing licence should be tested and banned.