bob_the_builder Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 You guys are funny. Like GO says, if you hold a licence, you are bound to certain things. Fair. But there is for sure a right and a wrong way for the relevant authorities to carry out their obligations. Williedog, there is so much logic missing from your argument, we wont even go there.
Willehond Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 You guys are funny. Like GO says' date=' if you hold a licence, you are bound to certain things. Fair. But there is for sure a right and a wrong way for the relevant authorities to carry out their obligations. Williedog, there is so much logic missing from your argument, we wont even go there.[/quote'] I understand that that my argument is not 100% consistant, but I do think it is quite logical. There must be certain limits. I just happen to think the boundry is a lot higher than you. Waking up in the middle of the night or being visited on holiday is very annoying and an invasion of privacy agreed, but it is something you sign up to and an occupational hazard. ...but when you are on your way to hospital or at a funeral?! That just seems overly officious and that is where I draw the line. I think most decent human beings would agree. Like I said, not a witertight consistent argument, but one where I think officials need to be forgiving. Call it my "compasionate" clause.
GreyOwl Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 I'm gonna play Devils advocate here!! I think a drug test is in fact a very easy thing to give, and simple without fuss. If they arrived at the crematorium, they are out of line. But if they pitched up 30mins prior to Van Impe leaving his house, he could have given a test without any real hinderance or hassle. He knows he's got to give the test regardless of wether iths then, or that afternoon. Why not just get it over and done with? A bit of urine, a quick draw of blood and they are outta your hair...
slowpoke Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 GO, yes, i agree that as long as it doesn't impact or delay proceeding, but this was not the case here. what they should've done was quietly wait for it all to be over and then drawn the samples afterwards.
Willehond Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 GreyOwl, you might actually be right. Not too much to do, but I think the UCI could have saved themselves the bad PR by waiting for him at home. It's not like they need the bad PR at the moment?
fiasm Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/van-impe-tested-at-crematorium-15187?CPN=RSS&SOURCE=BRROADNEWSthis is a different angle on the same story.
slowpoke Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 confirms that all they had to do was wait till he'd finished and then ask - what difference would an hour or so make in this instance? especially if the tester quietly waited in the background keeping an eye on him.
GreyOwl Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 I think a lot of the time, the testers treat the athletes like they are already guilty of doping. And the second they try to postpone the test, they look like they are hiding something. But with a bit of research, and timing the tests can be done quite easily and without any drama. I know of someone who was approached while he was at gym. Had to give the test there and then(in SA)
ewep Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 OK, this can only be said in afrikaans, ek sou hulle 'n NOL gedruk het! Wrong place and time, so stuff them. I'm sure the Sport Arbitration Court would've agreed!
GreyOwl Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 If you read FIASM's link, it say's he was "planning" the funeral. Not at the actual funeral from what I can determine. But it remains a very poor judgement on behalf of the testers...
Spinnekop Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 bob-the-builder' date=' so how will you make sure that you aren't stuck in a room with someone who snores so badly that you can't sleep? a few minutes lost sleep is NOT comparable to delaying a funeral[/quote'] It's not just a few minutes. It takes anything from an hour up to 3 hours......all depends how much water you drank........and how shy you are......
Sammajoor Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 testing in the middle of the night is fine. a few minutes less sleep isn't a big issue. female inspectors monitoring showersw is not acceptable though. and delayingh te departure to hospital is potentially life threatening for the baby - NOT acceptable. holding up a funeral - NOT acceptable. fscking w@nkers. Why don't they like it when the women can't hang out either
slowpoke Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 GO, he was signing the papers - to delay signing them would delay the funeral so it is equally poor timing for the sake of waiting a few minutes. spaaidy, these guys pee in front of the TV cameras on their bikes while riding, surely as long as you drank a glass of water before goign to bed you'd be ready for the testers???
Wonder Woman Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 Slowpoke, if you are doing Panorama, I'll wake you up in the middle of the night and see how happy you will be about it!!
slowpoke Posted March 17, 2008 Posted March 17, 2008 WW, no i'm not doing panorama, but tell you what - next year if i do you can go for it - wake me up and make me stay awake until i've had a pee and then i'll go back to sleep. if you really want you can also cut my arm to make me bleed as much as a blood test would require as well.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now