Anti-Doping Rule Violation: Tyronne White

[Escapee..]

yes, you should have asked - what if you were allergic and died?

 

Also, I'm not sure if no-needles is a UCI policy or a WADA policy. 

 

[andydude]

 

 

If the meds were right, can the doc sue for bringing his name in disrepute? [emoji317]

 

If the meds were right, and did not contain a banned substance?

If the meds were right, contained a banned substance, but the cyclist was correctly informed?

My uninformed opinions, and assuming you ask one question of whether the doctor can sue, but based on different scenarios?

 

Yes, technically any person can sue.

 

But as far as I know, the doctor only has to provide the name of the medicine given. He has no duty to know of or inform the patient if it's on some banned list, because that's not law. That responsibility to find out is on the athlete and as far as I know it is clearly stated in the UCI rules. Thus the doctor can sue for e.g. defamation.

 

If doctor gives and informs of correct medicine given, no problem for doctor. If incorrect medicine given, doctor can be sued in personal capacity for both malpractise and that evidence can also be used in the doping case.

 

Patches raises good qurstions which I have also thought about. We should explore them. "Doping" in sport is very grey. The only problem is that real cheaters use that grey to try and get out of being caught or being found guilty, which kind of messes it up for everyone.

[Shebeen]

Also, I'm not sure if no-needles is a UCI policy or a WADA policy.

I'm sure this was brought up when pourke chop tried his they were for tubeless sealant schpiel, but what is the no needless line?

 

Nothing to be injected. No IV drips. No needles at all (not even for popping blisters or getting stitches).

[fandacious]

I'm sure this was brought up when pourke chop tried his they were for tubeless sealant schpiel, but what is the no needless line?

 

Nothing to be injected. No IV drips. No needles at all (not even for popping blisters or getting stitches).

 

yeah, but that was and international thing. I'm not quite sure if no-needles applies to local riders?

[Mamil]

There are 2 separate processes here i think.

 

First if a doc hands you a panado and it turns out to be something else he is negligent and you would be able to lay a complaint at the health profesdions council which, if doc was found guilty, would censure him. Probably a fine, in extreme cases suspension. Such a guilty finding would open thr path for you to lay a civil case against him for damages caused you by his negligence.

 

In terms of the doping that would be the cycling body's decision and separate from the doc's legally mandated medical service competence. My personal view is that the athlete should not be punished if he were given med a which is allowed and which turned out to be med b which is banned.

 

 

Again, the hypothetical question was: IF the Doc hands you a pill and says its a Panado, you check it on WADA app, it says all clear, you take it.... BUT the doc by mistake handed you something else...... How would we deal with that?

 

Again, these are hypothetical questions, so that some sort of constructive discussion can take place, they are not necessarily about Tyronne's case.

[Skubarra]

Again, the hypothetical question was: IF the Doc hands you a pill and says its a Panado, you check it on WADA app, it says all clear, you take it.... BUT the doc by mistake handed you something else...... How would we deal with that?

 

Again, these are hypothetical questions, so that some sort of constructive discussion can take place, they are not necessarily about Tyronne's case.

 

What you are describing is very similar to what supposedly happened to Daryl Impey? (In a roundabout way)

[andydude]

What you are describing is very similar to what supposedly happened to Daryl Impey? (In a roundabout way)

Exactly. The unintentional defense. But you have to have a strong case and it's for you to proof your innocence as far as I know.

 

Conrador tried the same with his steak, but in his case they found that the probability of the steak being contaminated was just too low and thus impropable.

[SwissVan]

Oh ****..I see his partner on j2ç was Andrew hill.. Who is the most straight down the line nice chap your will ever meet.. Hope he doesn't feel the repercussions of this

12 years ago thats what I thought of LAnce.....

Never ever trust anyone when it to competition, not even your best mate... true story!!

[jcza]

Reminds me of the guy that got done for Coke (can't remember his name) claimed it came from the lady bits of a prostitute

[Patchelicious]

What you are describing is very similar to what supposedly happened to Daryl Impey? (In a roundabout way)

Sort of yes.

 

So in Daryl's case, he was found innocent because the pharmacist was negligent.

 

So whatever happened to that pharmacist? Surely Daryl should have sued? I for one demand to know who it was so that I can avoid the pharmacy and protect my family from possible poisoning!

[shaper]

Seems more interesting to discuss hypothetical rather than facts!

[RocknRolla]

My questions have nothing to do with Ty's case. His case merely sparked my questions. My discussion has rather been about potential mistakes/gaps in the medical tents in a general discussion.

 

Not sure why it's so difficult to have conceptual discussions.

Then we need a conceptual font... I'm still on holiday and my attent...oh look an unopened beer....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[V12man]

Again, the hypothetical question was: IF the Doc hands you a pill and says its a Panado, you check it on WADA app, it says all clear, you take it.... BUT the doc by mistake handed you something else...... How would we deal with that?

 

Again, these are hypothetical questions, so that some sort of constructive discussion can take place, they are not necessarily about Tyronne's case.

There is a similar incident with a certain pro whose pharmacist said he gave him something in error by reusing capsules...... which previously could contained a banned drug - so I guess the precedent exists for getting off scott free.

[Patchelicious]

There is a similar incident with a certain pro whose pharmacist said he gave him something in error by reusing capsules...... which previously could contained a banned drug - so I guess the precedent exists for getting off scott free.

Who the negligent pharmacist?

[Bloukrans]

Who the negligent scapegoat pharmacist?

Fixed

[the nerd]

There is a similar incident with a certain pro whose pharmacist said he gave him something in error by reusing capsules...... which previously could contained a banned drug - so I guess the precedent exists for getting off scott free.

 

yeah, that was interesting to say the least!