Azed 2736 Last 2 Confirmation And...
Crosswords4 mins ago
Opinions?
Following the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport to allow drug cheats to compete in the London Olympics, I came across this comment. I thought is was really funny.
We have crooks running the country, we might as well have crooks running FOR the country.
But seriously, surely removing the life ban was not a good idea. In my opinion it sends out the wrong message.
We have crooks running the country, we might as well have crooks running FOR the country.
But seriously, surely removing the life ban was not a good idea. In my opinion it sends out the wrong message.
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sir.prize. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It is a terrible terrible decision.
I feel so sorry for all the "honest" drug-free athletes who may have finished 4th or 5th at the Olympics, beaten by athletes who were taking drugs (but who were never caught) who now have a gold or silver or bronze medal.
The threat of a life time ban may be anough of a threat to STOP an athlete taking drugs, now they know they may be "let off" after a few years.
Makes a mockery of all athletics and makes the results always suspect.
I feel so sorry for all the "honest" drug-free athletes who may have finished 4th or 5th at the Olympics, beaten by athletes who were taking drugs (but who were never caught) who now have a gold or silver or bronze medal.
The threat of a life time ban may be anough of a threat to STOP an athlete taking drugs, now they know they may be "let off" after a few years.
Makes a mockery of all athletics and makes the results always suspect.
From elsewhere on here...
This is a very important piece of sports law that's being looked at just now, the BOA's Lifetime Ban was being challenged by WADA, the World Anti Doping Authority.
Background: When WADA was created by the IOC to be the WORLD Authority on doping it was with the backing of EVERY national Olympic Authority and a multitude of sports federations who wanted to take part in Olympic Competition, being a signatory is compulsory if you want to compete. The WADA Code is The Sports Law which governs Anti Doping and as a signatory BOA like many other federations must comply. If you are found guilty of a doping offence you serve a TWO year suspension and that's it you are entitled to compete again you cannot have additional sanctions. The BOA's Lifetime Ban (though I agree with it) is against the Sporting Laws created and managed by WADA at their behest as an IOC body.
What this means is that sporting law is becoming fairer and more open. While it may not be right that the likes of Chambers and David Millar are allowed to compete it means that Team GB compete on the same level playing field as every other Olympic Nation, I'd rather have that.
This judgement by the Court for Arbitration in Sport, a body set up by the IOC and it's members to rule in these cases, will allow a fairer application of the WADA Code as it currently stands. The WADA Code is also currently being looked at to revise, evolve and create new rules to govern sport fairly for all, this is likely to include new guidance on sanctions and do away with the Strict Liability Clause which has seen many athletes unfairly convicted of offences over the years, Alain Baxter the British Skier jumps to mind and Alberto Contador the Spanish cyclist. Alain used a Vicks Nasal Spray which was legal in the UK but a different US formulation of the spray rendered him guilty, the Strict Liability Clause did for him. In Contadors case a trace of Clenbuterol so small it can only be measured electronically was found in his system. Neither the cyclist, the UCI (cycling's governing body), WADA or CAS were able to prove what caused the drug to be in his system but had to sanction him because of strict liability.
While you don't want to lose your place to a doper at any time how would feel in fourth knowing the whole podium had past doping offences against them but could legally compete?
What the BOA fails to talk about is the number of times they have turned a blind eye to athletes who have been sanctioned under anti doping law, the most prolific being Christina Ohurugu at the Beijing Games, favourite for a GB gold on the Track therefore she gets a pass. This hypocracy within British sport needs to be wheedled out to remove any threat of unfairness. Sport has to be fair on a global scale.
Full ruling is here is anyone is interested
http://www.tas-cas.or...ward20265820FINAL.pdf
This is a very important piece of sports law that's being looked at just now, the BOA's Lifetime Ban was being challenged by WADA, the World Anti Doping Authority.
Background: When WADA was created by the IOC to be the WORLD Authority on doping it was with the backing of EVERY national Olympic Authority and a multitude of sports federations who wanted to take part in Olympic Competition, being a signatory is compulsory if you want to compete. The WADA Code is The Sports Law which governs Anti Doping and as a signatory BOA like many other federations must comply. If you are found guilty of a doping offence you serve a TWO year suspension and that's it you are entitled to compete again you cannot have additional sanctions. The BOA's Lifetime Ban (though I agree with it) is against the Sporting Laws created and managed by WADA at their behest as an IOC body.
What this means is that sporting law is becoming fairer and more open. While it may not be right that the likes of Chambers and David Millar are allowed to compete it means that Team GB compete on the same level playing field as every other Olympic Nation, I'd rather have that.
This judgement by the Court for Arbitration in Sport, a body set up by the IOC and it's members to rule in these cases, will allow a fairer application of the WADA Code as it currently stands. The WADA Code is also currently being looked at to revise, evolve and create new rules to govern sport fairly for all, this is likely to include new guidance on sanctions and do away with the Strict Liability Clause which has seen many athletes unfairly convicted of offences over the years, Alain Baxter the British Skier jumps to mind and Alberto Contador the Spanish cyclist. Alain used a Vicks Nasal Spray which was legal in the UK but a different US formulation of the spray rendered him guilty, the Strict Liability Clause did for him. In Contadors case a trace of Clenbuterol so small it can only be measured electronically was found in his system. Neither the cyclist, the UCI (cycling's governing body), WADA or CAS were able to prove what caused the drug to be in his system but had to sanction him because of strict liability.
While you don't want to lose your place to a doper at any time how would feel in fourth knowing the whole podium had past doping offences against them but could legally compete?
What the BOA fails to talk about is the number of times they have turned a blind eye to athletes who have been sanctioned under anti doping law, the most prolific being Christina Ohurugu at the Beijing Games, favourite for a GB gold on the Track therefore she gets a pass. This hypocracy within British sport needs to be wheedled out to remove any threat of unfairness. Sport has to be fair on a global scale.
Full ruling is here is anyone is interested
http://www.tas-cas.or...ward20265820FINAL.pdf
VHG and Daisya....was it fair that the BOA effectivley turned a blind eye to Christina Ohurougu's doping sanction prior to Beijing to allow her the chance of the gold medal GB's ONLY LIKLEY TRACK MEDAL before the Beijing games??? Is it right the BOA don't talk about the other missed doping tests or positives that have affected athletes over the years???
Slapshot - nothing is fair when it comes down on the side of a cheat IMO so as far as I'm concerned anyone caught taking drugs, has past record of drug taking to enhance their performance should banned. That will send the right message to those thinking about it one hopes. It's about time people were brought to book for what is being a cheat - turn the clocks back and see that money isn't too involved in sport and then we may just get the "sport" back into sport!
Your last comment hits the nail....it's about money. If sport were all amateur there would be less motivation to cheat, it would still be there though. Nothing will stop the urge in some to gain advantage in everything they do whether that be sport or something else.
In this case the BOA are being forced to follow rules that they demanded be created.
In this case the BOA are being forced to follow rules that they demanded be created.
1 to 13 of 13
