Yolande de Villiers sanctioned for anti-doping rule violation

[raptor-22]

seems this banning for life is a double standard then. We won't test you on our event but don't get caught elsewhere

[Christie]

Race organizers have got nothing to do with testing afik, it is completely organized by the anti-doping bodies.

[CogitoErgoSum]

It is my understanding that CSA knew that she was using the meds as it was prescribed. CSA failed to issue a TUE according to international regulations. The directive came from the UCI to suspend her. CSA did not follow procedures insuring the TUE conditions are met

[Shebeen]

I've never been tested despite having raced for years. In the last Epic I did, I think we were the first or second non-pro team home (around 30th place). The first Cape Pioneer when there wasn't much of a field me and Ro Exelby came second and won two or 3 stages - no tests...

So you're the opposite of Lance, never passed a doping control? :-)

[TALUS]

I hope that is the case. I can (unfortunately) believe that they could bungle up something as important as that. It will also explain the bizarre sentence.

[raptor-22]

I hope that is the case. I can (unfortunately) believe that they could bungle up something as important as that. It will also explain the bizarre sentence.

 

 

I simply do not trust CSA. Easy to throw someones name away and bugger the consequences.

[CogitoErgoSum]

Please don't get me wrong - I absolutely despise people cheating (being corrupt) in life. But if CSA didn't follow procedure RE a TUE and that their actions resulted in the UCI banning her, she would have some grounds for legal recourse against CSA? I believe that she has to pay back prize money.

[Tumbleweed]

Is it CSA or Drug Free who issue the TUE?

[CogitoErgoSum]

Is it CSA or Drug Free who issue the TUE?

I don't know, merely speculating. If Drug Free (or who ever else other than CSA) issues it, CSA had to apply for it to be issued. So it is CSA duty to protect its members...... But CSA fails its members time and again

[Barend de Arend]

Is it CSA or Drug Free who issue the TUE?

 

In South Africa, you ask SAIDS for a TUE.  CSA is not involved.

 

This is a good thing.  You can't have the fox guarding the hen house.

[Tumbleweed]

In South Africa, you ask SAIDS for a TUE.  CSA is not involved.

 

This is a good thing.  You can't have the fox guarding the hen house.

 

That's why I thought. Ta for the confirmation. 

[Barend de Arend]

I don't know, merely speculating. If Drug Free (or who ever else other than CSA) issues it, CSA had to apply for it to be issued. So it is CSA duty to protect its members...... But CSA fails its members time and again

 

No.

 

You apply at SAIDS.  SAIDS issues it.  At the end of a race, SAIDS does the tests, and you present the TUE to SAIDS when you're tested.

 

If you're positive (bad word in this context), SAIDS notifies CSA (and, I presume, SASCOC)  I'm not sure CSA is involved until the very end.  At least, in theory.

 

It's not CSAs responsibility to get your doctor and SAIDS to talk.  It's yours.  And you could end up feeling like a middle-man in a broken telephone game.  I did.

 

If you end up without a TUE when you need one, it's your responsibility.

 

If you do need a TUE, I urge you to speak to both SAIDS and CSA (and TSA or any other sporting body in SA where you participate.)  Do not take my word for it.

[CogitoErgoSum]

No.

 

You apply at SAIDS. SAIDS issues it. At the end of a race, SAIDS does the tests, and you present the TUE to SAIDS when you're tested.

 

If you're positive (bad word in this context), SAIDS notifies CSA (and, I presume, SASCOC) I'm not sure CSA is involved until the very end. At least, in theory.

 

It's not CSAs responsibility to get your doctor and SAIDS to talk. It's yours. And you could end up feeling like a middle-man in a broken telephone game. I did.

 

If you end up without a TUE when you need one, it's your responsibility.

 

If you do need a TUE, I urge you to speak to both SAIDS and CSA (and TSA or any other sporting body in SA where you participate.) Do not take my word for it.

Thanks for clarifying. Just another example of the shlep and red-tape in a flawed process. I just get the feeling that she was 'setup' for failure (no conspiracy theory) by the system.

 

This is hectic - to have your career/life pulled out from under you.

 

For me there is a distinction between someone taking EPO/other PEDS, someone refusing to be tested, and someone being prescribed a med that could be harmful.

[Edgar]

As far as I'm aware, this is the final UCI ruling. (This has nothing to do with SAIDS or CSA) She would have had an opportunity to make representations to them and however else was involved. 

 

Any and all of these circumstances would have been presented by her you would assume, at the very least she would have had the opportunity to do so. And looking at the TL of events and the announcement this has been an ongoing process for some time. 

 

As with Mr Impey, mitigating circumstances are consider when sentencing. Until we are given further information as with Mr Croeser and MR Evans it is all speculation and conjecture. 

[Pure Savage]

My father sits on SASCOC as a president of a federation, SASCOC does not really get involved with doping. 

 

The federation either orders the tests or the international body does the tests here or at world champs and gets it processed in Switzerland. Then corresponds with player and federation about issues picked up and the back and forth. His biggest role is making sure the player co operates and does not take part in the sport until the issue is settled with the International body.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Pure Savage

[Edgar]

Thanks for clarifying. Just another example of the shlep and red-tape in a flawed process. I just get the feeling that she was 'setup' for failure (no conspiracy theory) by the system.

 

This is hectic - to have your career/life pulled out from under you.

 

For me there is a distinction between someone taking EPO/other PEDS, someone refusing to be tested, and someone being prescribed a med that could be harmful.

 

 

Can you clarify what you mean in the last part?