Field Narrowed for TdF

"ilan" schreef in bericht
...



OK, but there is still the fact that if he accidentally ingested
clenbuterol from meant, then he's "innocent" but if he accidentally
ingests it form a supplement, then he's "guilty."


No, he would also have been guilty if he accendently ingested clebuterol.
See the case of tennisplayer Manuel Puerta. It was accepted he didn't
deliberately or knowingly ingest effortil, but they suspended him all the
same for six years, because "we cannot see how it need have occurred at all
if the player had exercised the utmost caution." The utmost caution, of
course, is not eating or drinking at all.

Benjo

On Feb 8, 11:12*pm, ilan wrote:
On Feb 8, 5:18*pm, "A. Dumas" wrote:

Yes. But I don't see how that makes my statement "not quite true." They
were definitely aiming, independent of the fact that their goal could
not be reached, at least not strictly according to the rules.

OK, maybe I should have said: "not quite relevant to the point I'm
making right now." I hope that clears things up. More generally, any
statement that doesn't conform to my opinion* will be treated
similarly.

-ilan

*I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time without prior
notice.

If your opinion is found to be dopey, the CAS can and will
retroactively change your opinion for you, even several
years after the fact.

Fredmaster Ben

"ilan" schreef in bericht
...

On Feb 9, 8:42 pm, Jeff Jones wrote:
Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very
different because that's what the WADA code says.

I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and
hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.

Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code,
then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught
red handed to get a penalty.

This basically comes down to the fact that strict liability is
incorrect. The current WADA code goes against basic human rights, this
was the basic argument proposed by Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer a
couple of years ago, but that idiot Kasheshkin ended up firing him
before he could take it to the European court of human rights.

The Cas stated in 1994 that strict liability might be unfair, but is
nevertheless necessary, since without it for sport federations it would be
far too expensive to pursue the struggle against doping. It's also much
cheaper to hang all the suspects, instead of spending a lot of money trying
to find out who is really guilty.

Benjo

On Feb 10, 1:04*am, "Benjo Maso" wrote:
"ilan" *schreef in ...

On Feb 9, 8:42 pm, Jeff Jones wrote:

Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very
different because that's what the WADA code says.

I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and
hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.

Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code,
then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught
red handed to get a penalty.

This basically comes down to the fact that strict liability is
incorrect. The current WADA code goes against basic human rights, this
was the basic argument proposed by Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer a
couple of years ago, but that idiot Kasheshkin ended up firing him
before he could take it to the European court of human rights.

The Cas stated in 1994 that strict liability might be unfair, but is
nevertheless necessary, since without it for sport federations it would be
far too expensive to pursue the struggle against doping. It's also much
cheaper to hang all the suspects, instead of spending a lot of money trying
to find out who is really guilty.

Benjo

Thanks for that information which confirms the CAS's bizarre stance.
The argument that anti-doping practices violate human rights is
simple: I assume that in most countries any "search and seizure" must
be ordered by a prosecutor of approved by a judge, that is certainly
the case in the US and France. In particular, in France, the police
does not have the right to do a full body search without an explicit
request by a prosecutor, and then must be done in the presence of a
doctor, not a technician, but a medical doctor)(of course, that is
routinely violated by the police, but that is another question).
Since drawing blood consists of a search and seizure, to do it without
any legal (that is, criminal justice) justification is a violation of
individual rights. Now, as the CAS has ruled, these searches are
necessary to fight doping, but that doesn't mean that they should be
allowed.

-ilan

Benjo Maso wrote:
The utmost caution, of course, is not eating or drinking at all.

But that would increase your power to weight ratio and VAM so it must be
illegal.

On Feb 10, 12:35*am, ilan wrote:
On Feb 10, 1:04*am, "Benjo Maso" wrote:



"ilan" *schreef in ...

On Feb 9, 8:42 pm, Jeff Jones wrote:

Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very
different because that's what the WADA code says.

I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and
hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.

Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code,
then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught
red handed to get a penalty.

This basically comes down to the fact that strict liability is
incorrect. The current WADA code goes against basic human rights, this
was the basic argument proposed by Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer a
couple of years ago, but that idiot Kasheshkin ended up firing him
before he could take it to the European court of human rights.

The Cas stated in 1994 that strict liability might be unfair, but is
nevertheless necessary, since without it for sport federations it would be
far too expensive to pursue the struggle against doping. It's also much
cheaper to hang all the suspects, instead of spending a lot of money trying
to find out who is really guilty.

Benjo

Thanks for that information which confirms the CAS's bizarre stance.
The argument that anti-doping practices violate human rights is
simple: I assume that in most countries any "search and seizure" must
be ordered by a prosecutor of approved by a judge, that is certainly
the case in the US and France. In particular, in France, the police
does not have the right to do a full body search without an explicit
request by a prosecutor, and then must be done in the presence of a
doctor, not a technician, but a medical doctor)(of course, that is
routinely violated by the police, but that is another question).
Since drawing blood consists of a search and seizure, to do it without
any legal (that is, criminal justice) justification is a violation of
individual rights. *Now, as the CAS has ruled, these searches are
necessary to fight doping, but that doesn't mean that they should be
allowed.

-ilan

There have been human rights challenges to parts of the WADA code,
e.g. the whereabouts system http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/7844918.stm
but none have been successful so far.

On Feb 10, 11:04*am, Jeff Jones wrote:
On Feb 10, 12:35*am, ilan wrote:









On Feb 10, 1:04*am, "Benjo Maso" wrote:

"ilan" *schreef in ...

On Feb 9, 8:42 pm, Jeff Jones wrote:

Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very
different because that's what the WADA code says.

I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and
hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.

Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code,
then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught
red handed to get a penalty.

This basically comes down to the fact that strict liability is
incorrect. The current WADA code goes against basic human rights, this
was the basic argument proposed by Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer a
couple of years ago, but that idiot Kasheshkin ended up firing him
before he could take it to the European court of human rights.

The Cas stated in 1994 that strict liability might be unfair, but is
nevertheless necessary, since without it for sport federations it would be
far too expensive to pursue the struggle against doping. It's also much
cheaper to hang all the suspects, instead of spending a lot of money trying
to find out who is really guilty.

Benjo

Thanks for that information which confirms the CAS's bizarre stance.
The argument that anti-doping practices violate human rights is
simple: I assume that in most countries any "search and seizure" must
be ordered by a prosecutor of approved by a judge, that is certainly
the case in the US and France. In particular, in France, the police
does not have the right to do a full body search without an explicit
request by a prosecutor, and then must be done in the presence of a
doctor, not a technician, but a medical doctor)(of course, that is
routinely violated by the police, but that is another question).
Since drawing blood consists of a search and seizure, to do it without
any legal (that is, criminal justice) justification is a violation of
individual rights. *Now, as the CAS has ruled, these searches are
necessary to fight doping, but that doesn't mean that they should be
allowed.

-ilan

There have been human rights challenges to parts of the WADA code,
e.g. the whereabouts systemhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/7844918.stm
but none have been successful so far.

Thanks for that reference. Kasheshkin's lawyer also failed in his
first legal challenge. However, both that case and the one you cite
failed at the local Belgian level and were not brought before the
European court of human rights. In particular, Kasheshkin fired his
lawyer before that step could be undertaken. So an actual human
rights challenge before the appropriate court has yet to occur.

By the way, IIRC, Kasheshkin's case was quite poor, in particular, the
UCI people did the test at the Tour of Turkey but failed to take into
account the time zone, so they were one hour over the allowed lateness
limit.

Interestingly, human rights also involves Ciprelli, because he
confessed while in "garde a vue". In 2010, France was condemned by the
European Court of Human Rights for excessive use of this detention and
French law had to be modified so that "garde a vue" can only be used
in cases where the penalty is at least 5 years in prison. I doubt that
this is the case for CIprellli, and he can appeal for violation of the
law and his human rights (in fact, France had to change the law
because cases were being routinely overturned for this exact reason).

-ilan

"ilan" schreef in bericht
...



Thanks for that reference. Kasheshkin's lawyer also failed in his
first legal challenge. However, both that case and the one you cite
failed at the local Belgian level and were not brought before the
European court of human rights.


The CAS and UCI have nothing to fear from the European court of human
rights. To elude possible unpleasant decicions of the court is one of the
main reason why they established in Switserland, which isn't member of the
European Union.

Benjo

In article
,
Jeff Jones wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:35Â*am, ilan wrote:
On Feb 10, 1:04Â*am, "Benjo Maso" wrote:



"ilan" Â*schreef in ...

On Feb 9, 8:42 pm, Jeff Jones wrote:

Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very
different because that's what the WADA code says.

I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and
hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.

Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code,
then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught
red handed to get a penalty.

This basically comes down to the fact that strict liability is
incorrect. The current WADA code goes against basic human rights, this
was the basic argument proposed by Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer a
couple of years ago, but that idiot Kasheshkin ended up firing him
before he could take it to the European court of human rights.

The Cas stated in 1994 that strict liability might be unfair, but is
nevertheless necessary, since without it for sport federations it would be
far too expensive to pursue the struggle against doping. It's also much
cheaper to hang all the suspects, instead of spending a lot of money trying
to find out who is really guilty.

Thanks for that information which confirms the CAS's bizarre stance.
The argument that anti-doping practices violate human rights is
simple: I assume that in most countries any "search and seizure" must
be ordered by a prosecutor of approved by a judge, that is certainly
the case in the US and France. In particular, in France, the police
does not have the right to do a full body search without an explicit
request by a prosecutor, and then must be done in the presence of a
doctor, not a technician, but a medical doctor)(of course, that is
routinely violated by the police, but that is another question).
Since drawing blood consists of a search and seizure, to do it without
any legal (that is, criminal justice) justification is a violation of
individual rights. Â*Now, as the CAS has ruled, these searches are
necessary to fight doping, but that doesn't mean that they should be
allowed.

There have been human rights challenges to parts of the WADA code,
e.g. the whereabouts system http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/7844918.stm
but none have been successful so far.

The UCI is bent on destruction. This will get worse before it gets better.
When it finally gets better, the attendant mess will make all
doping cases pale in comparison.

--
Old Fritz

On Feb 10, 5:12*pm, "Benjo Maso" wrote:
"ilan" *schreef in ...

Thanks for that reference. Kasheshkin's lawyer also failed in his
first legal challenge. However, both that case and the one you cite
failed at the local Belgian level and were not brought before the
European court of human rights.

The CAS and UCI have nothing to fear from the European court of human
rights. To elude possible unpleasant decicions of the court is one of the
main reason why they established in Switserland, which isn't member of the
European Union.

Benjo

That is a good point and an attempt to discourage this process.
However, since the events are taking place in the European Union, that
means that the European Court of Human Rights has final jurisdiction.
Basically, it can disallow the UCI from continuing its current doping
programme in EU countries. This is the basis of the process started by
Kasheshkin's lawyer and by Jeff's reference above.

-ilan