WADA & Contador: "strict liability"

Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

(http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...er-so-the-uci-
is-appealing_165162 )
"While the WADA Code and the UCI’s anti-doping rules have evolved over
the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of “strict
liability” when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
not used the same substance.

In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
Spanish federation’s conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
de France results negated."

Randall said the following on 31/05/2011 12:20 PM:
Personally I think a unilateral rule of "strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

Good luck trying to prove intent. You would just make it a free for all.

On May 31, 1:05*am, DC wrote:
Randall said the following on 31/05/2011 12:20 PM:

Personally I think a unilateral rule of *"strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

Good luck trying to prove intent. You would just make it a free for all.

I am not exactly certain what the solution is. But there needs to be
some middle ground in determining guilt. In Contadors case there is a
possibility that the meat was unknowingly contaminated.

On May 31, 6:05*am, Randall wrote:
On May 31, 1:05*am, DC wrote:
Randall said the following on 31/05/2011 12:20 PM:

Personally I think a unilateral rule of *"strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

Good luck trying to prove intent. You would just make it a free for all..

I am not exactly certain what the solution is. But there needs to be
some middle ground in determining guilt. *In Contadors case there is a
possibility that the meat was unknowingly contaminated.

Or knowingly.

R

On May 31, 4:05*am, Randall wrote:
On May 31, 1:05*am, DC wrote:

Randall said the following on 31/05/2011 12:20 PM:

Personally I think a unilateral rule of *"strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

Good luck trying to prove intent. You would just make it a free for all..

I am not exactly certain what the solution is. But there needs to be
some middle ground in determining guilt. *In Contadors case there is a
possibility that the meat was unknowingly contaminated.

You think there actually was some meat involved?

On May 31, 6:20*am, Randall wrote:
Personally I think a unilateral rule of *"strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

(http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...er-so-the-uci-
is-appealing_165162 )
"While the WADA Code and the UCI’s anti-doping rules have evolved over
the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of “strict
liability” when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
not used the same substance.

In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
Spanish federation’s conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
de France results negated."

This stuff is probably contrary to the European declaration of human
rights. Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer already stated that he was going
to appeal current anti-doping rules to the European court of human
rights, but Kasheshkin gave up before he could do that. Too bad,
because I believe that there is already a good case that the current
system violates European employment laws, not to mention human rights.

-ilan

On May 31, 3:26*pm, ilan wrote:
On May 31, 6:20*am, Randall wrote:









Personally I think a unilateral rule of *"strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

(http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...er-so-the-uci-
is-appealing_165162 )
"While the WADA Code and the UCI’s anti-doping rules have evolved over
the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of “strict
liability” when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
not used the same substance.

In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
Spanish federation’s conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
de France results negated."

This stuff is probably contrary to the European declaration of human
rights. Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer already stated that he was going
to appeal current anti-doping rules to the European court of human
rights, but Kasheshkin gave up before he could do that. Too bad,
because I believe that there is already a good case that the current
system violates European employment laws, not to mention human rights.

-ilan

Actually, the argument is quite clear. Taking a blood sample is a form
of personal search and seizure which, for example in France, can only
be done when ordered by a prosecutor in a criminal investigation. In
the US, such a search requires probable cause, but just doing your job
cannot be legally regarded as such.

I suppose that the current justification is that riders have given the
anti-doping authorities the right to do this, however, the point is
that one cannot be forced to give up a fundamental right, and in this
case, it is a form of coercion since professional cyclists can't do
their job without giving it up.

-ilan

I am not exactly certain what the solution is. But there needs to be
some middle ground in determining guilt. *In Contadors case there is a
possibility that the meat was unknowingly contaminated.

Just like Lance's refrigerator and ball patches were unknowingly
contaminated. With only one testicle how's one to know there's
testosterone in that patch?

On May 31, 8:34*am, ilan wrote:
On May 31, 3:26*pm, ilan wrote:



On May 31, 6:20*am, Randall wrote:

Personally I think a unilateral rule of *"strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

(http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...er-so-the-uci-
is-appealing_165162 )
"While the WADA Code and the UCI’s anti-doping rules have evolved over
the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of “strict
liability” when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
not used the same substance.

In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
Spanish federation’s conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
de France results negated."

This stuff is probably contrary to the European declaration of human
rights. Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer already stated that he was going
to appeal current anti-doping rules to the European court of human
rights, but Kasheshkin gave up before he could do that. Too bad,
because I believe that there is already a good case that the current
system violates European employment laws, not to mention human rights.

-ilan

Actually, the argument is quite clear. Taking a blood sample is a form
of personal search and seizure which, for example in France, can only
be done when ordered by a prosecutor in a criminal investigation. In
the US, such a search requires probable cause, but just doing your job
cannot be legally regarded as such.

I suppose that the current justification is that riders have given the
anti-doping authorities the right to do this, however, the point is
that one cannot be forced to give up a fundamental right, and in this
case, it is a form of coercion since professional cyclists can't do
their job without giving it up.

-ilan

Dumbass, if you want to race bikes, fly planes and drive school buses
you give up those rights.

On May 31, 3:43*pm, Choppy Warburton
wrote:
On May 31, 8:34*am, ilan wrote:









On May 31, 3:26*pm, ilan wrote:

On May 31, 6:20*am, Randall wrote:

Personally I think a unilateral rule of *"strict liablity" is too
harsh to be applied in all cases. I think WADA should show intent to
dope.

(http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/...er-so-the-uci-
is-appealing_165162 )
"While the WADA Code and the UCI’s anti-doping rules have evolved over
the years, there is still a commitment to the principle of “strict
liability” when it comes to doping violations. The reasoning is that
if an athlete, even accidentally, ingests a banned substance, it gives
him or her an unfair competitive advantage over those athletes who had
not used the same substance.

In other words, the most logical course for the UCI to pursue might be
to concede the whole question of bovine contamination, agree with the
Spanish federation’s conclusion that no fault existed, but argue that
even so, Contador must at least be penalized by having his 2010 Tour
de France results negated."

This stuff is probably contrary to the European declaration of human
rights. Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer already stated that he was going
to appeal current anti-doping rules to the European court of human
rights, but Kasheshkin gave up before he could do that. Too bad,
because I believe that there is already a good case that the current
system violates European employment laws, not to mention human rights..

-ilan

Actually, the argument is quite clear. Taking a blood sample is a form
of personal search and seizure which, for example in France, can only
be done when ordered by a prosecutor in a criminal investigation. In
the US, such a search requires probable cause, but just doing your job
cannot be legally regarded as such.

I suppose that the current justification is that riders have given the
anti-doping authorities the right to do this, however, the point is
that one cannot be forced to give up a fundamental right, and in this
case, it is a form of coercion since professional cyclists can't do
their job without giving it up.

-ilan

Dumbass, if you want to race bikes, fly planes and drive school buses
you give up those rights.

As far as I know, airline pilots and school bus drivers are not
subject to forced blood tests.

-ilan