Adverse analytical finding in recent mountain bike stage race

Burry Stander's Killer Walks Free

another thread,,,,,and PEOPLE are saying its justice that OP MUST PAY A FINE

FFS!!!!!!! seriaaaas

 

 

Fair point. But look at that list that TW posted, no one got fines, why should he then?

This is not a fine. It is for the costs of the admin around the test.

And seeing as you've been hubbing for years now, you can tell.

All I said was 2013 (as in this year)...

At OP.

Tell them to shove the fine sideways up their arses.

Tell them you know you are a doper and will take the two year ban without any hesitation.

The fine they can shove so deep that their pupils look like dollar signs .

You are not a pro, did not threaten the GC and did not take any money away from fellow competitors due to your overall results.

If they harp on about the fact that these tests cost money, tell the ***** that they should have spent that money on the real dopers and cheats and not what looked like an easy target.

Yes you knew what you did, yes you are a tjop for doing it, yes we detest dopers (especially FanD)

You took it on the chin, you took it like man, your name has been ridiculed enough and you and you actually acknowledged what you did wrong, but to expect you to pay a fine ?

Did they graduate from the same school as our current government.

All else fails, I am sure Slowbee can start a charity run so we can get the bucks together for you, that way he stays happy and the UCI are happy and Mr. Warmback the doper who rattles the cages of Sauser and Coolharvey ,will forever be known as the cyclists the UCI singled out to drag their own credibility even further through the mud.

I am out.

what they gonna do.....? Summon him to Geneva? LOL

what they gonna do.....? Summon him to Geneva? LOL

Ja.

I can see it already.

Will Barry Big Guns Warmback please appear for arbitration.

If you read the rules posted by NINJA, you will see they make provision for recovering the "results management costs" and specify the amount. So it is not a fine.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but we are all probably ignorant, and when we enter a sanctioned event, we accept the rules etc of the governing bodies. In so doing, we have "signed" a contract. And to our detriment, without reading and understanding the consequences.

 

So we become liable. Not that we change the terms, but we could decide not to partake !

This was my earlier quote. The amount is stated in the rules, which we accept when we take part in a sanctioned event, or buy a license, be it a day license or a year license. So the is essentially a contract which we accept when entering a race.

Doping is doping, whether by a back marker or a pro. How can you stop doping when you say it is ok for casual riders but not for serious riders. Rules are rules. This was a random test, and he was unlucky.

Remember, some of those " casual" riders end up in teams later in life or at age group worlds etc. only 1 place to draw the line........same rules for everybody.

He was not fined, which if he was a pro, he would have been, up to equivalent of a years salary.

So in that context he got off lightly ( although 2500 Swiss francs could be a years salary in SA terms )

Koukie, lets not get personal. There is no need for that.

 

The ruling is a fine and a ban. That is what he should do.

I don't see that as personal, more direct, but personal, no.

LYRICS COME TO MIND

oh lord its hard to be humble WHEN YOU SO PERFECT in every way,,i cant wait to look in the mirror, because i get SO PERFECT EVERYDAY(i altered for effect)

I bet (Barry Warmback)

Google rating has shot up this month

Interesting to read about 10 pages where so many people are indignant that somebody who admitted breaking the rules of cycling will have to pay a "fine" as well as serve his suspension -- well it is not a fine, it is a recovery of costs as per UCI rules, which you agree to when entering any race sanctioned by the UCI (and as far as I am aware that includes all races sanctioned by CSA, or a provincial MTB commission or CSA registered club or .....).

FROM UCI RULES

Costs

274. Subject to article 275 and in the absence of a specifically justified decision, each party shall bear the

costs which it incurs.

275. If the License-Holder is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation, he shall bear:

1. The cost of the proceedings as determined by the hearing panel.

2. The cost of the result management by the UCI; the amount of this cost shall be CHF 2,500,

unless a higher amount is claimed by the UCI and determined by the hearing body.

3. The cost of the B Sample analysis, where applicable.

4. The costs incurred for Out-of-Competition Testing; the amount of this cost shall be CHF 1,500,

unless a higher amount is claimed by the UCI and determined by the hearing body.

5. The cost for the A and/or B Sample laboratory documentation package where requested by

the rider.

6. The cost for the documentation package of the blood samples analyzed for the Biological

Passport where applicable

The License-Holder shall owe the costs under 2) to 6) also if they were not awarded in the decision.

The National Federation shall be jointly and severally liable for its payment to the UCI.

(text modified on 1.02.11).

There was an earlier post about the rider racing other events and they will never check - I know ROAG do check the licence of every single entrant so I would imagine a few other entry systems do as well.

Interesting to read about 10 pages where so many people are indignant that somebody who admitted breaking the rules of cycling will have to pay a "fine" as well as serve his suspension -- well it is not a fine, it is a recovery of costs as per UCI rules, which you agree to when entering any race sanctioned by the UCI (and as far as I am aware that includes all races sanctioned by CSA, or a provincial MTB commission or CSA registered club or .....).

 

FROM UCI RULES

Costs

274. Subject to article 275 and in the absence of a specifically justified decision, each party shall bear the

costs which it incurs.

275. If the License-Holder is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation, he shall bear:

1. The cost of the proceedings as determined by the hearing panel.

2. The cost of the result management by the UCI; the amount of this cost shall be CHF 2,500,

unless a higher amount is claimed by the UCI and determined by the hearing body.

3. The cost of the B Sample analysis, where applicable.

4. The costs incurred for Out-of-Competition Testing; the amount of this cost shall be CHF 1,500,

unless a higher amount is claimed by the UCI and determined by the hearing body.

5. The cost for the A and/or B Sample laboratory documentation package where requested by

the rider.

6. The cost for the documentation package of the blood samples analyzed for the Biological

Passport where applicable

The License-Holder shall owe the costs under 2) to 6) also if they were not awarded in the decision.

The National Federation shall be jointly and severally liable for its payment to the UCI.

(text modified on 1.02.11).

 

 

There was an earlier post about the rider racing other events and they will never check - I know ROAG do check the licence of every single entrant so I would imagine a few other entry systems do as well.

None of us like dopers, they ruin the professional sport, but not everything in the world is clear black and white. We have rapists in this country getting bail for less than R25k, yet this guy is expected to shell out that sort of money for a relatively harmless mistake. He is not a pro, does not make money out of this and unless he had roid rage on the singletrack and shoved someone off a cliff, this is a complete farce!

Sure, get back the costs of the test, I know it is around R2000, maybe add in some admin fees and ***, hell he would probably pay R5k, but R25k is ridiculous. It's like getting locked up and gang raped because you jay-walked...

I know a guy who returned a positive test (some sinusitis med he did not disclose). He only received a 2 year ban and no fine that I can recall

 

Sure, get back the costs of the test, I know it is around R2000, maybe add in some admin fees and ***, hell he would probably pay R5k, but R25k is ridiculous. It's like getting locked up and gang raped because you jay-walked...

"sorry kids....we cant go on holiday because i have to pay a fine for that cough mixture i took before the Sani2C"

Interesting to read about 10 pages where so many people are indignant that somebody who admitted breaking the rules of cycling will have to pay a "fine" as well as serve his suspension -- well it is not a fine, it is a recovery of costs as per UCI rules, which you agree to when entering any race sanctioned by the UCI (and as far as I am aware that includes all races sanctioned by CSA, or a provincial MTB commission or CSA registered club or .....).

 

FROM UCI RULES

Costs

274. Subject to article 275 and in the absence of a specifically justified decision, each party shall bear the

costs which it incurs.

275. If the License-Holder is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation, he shall bear:

1. The cost of the proceedings as determined by the hearing panel.

2. The cost of the result management by the UCI; the amount of this cost shall be CHF 2,500,

unless a higher amount is claimed by the UCI and determined by the hearing body.

3. The cost of the B Sample analysis, where applicable.

4. The costs incurred for Out-of-Competition Testing; the amount of this cost shall be CHF 1,500,

unless a higher amount is claimed by the UCI and determined by the hearing body.

5. The cost for the A and/or B Sample laboratory documentation package where requested by

the rider.

6. The cost for the documentation package of the blood samples analyzed for the Biological

Passport where applicable

The License-Holder shall owe the costs under 2) to 6) also if they were not awarded in the decision.

The National Federation shall be jointly and severally liable for its payment to the UCI.

(text modified on 1.02.11).

 

 

There was an earlier post about the rider racing other events and they will never check - I know ROAG do check the licence of every single entrant so I would imagine a few other entry systems do as well.

I AM NO longer signing anything before a race

Interesting to read about 10 pages where so many people are indignant that somebody who admitted breaking the rules of cycling will have to pay a "fine" as well as serve his suspension -- well it is not a fine, it is a recovery of costs as per UCI rules, which you agree to when entering any race sanctioned by the UCI (and as far as I am aware that includes all races sanctioned by CSA, or a provincial MTB commission or CSA registered club or .....).

 

FROM UCI RULES

Costs

274. Subject to article 275 and in the absence of a specifically justified decision, each party shall bear the

costs which it incurs.

275. If the License-Holder is found guilty of an anti-doping rule violation, he shall bear:

1. The cost of the proceedings as determined by the hearing panel.

2. The cost of the result management by the UCI; the amount of this cost shall be CHF 2,500,

unless a higher amount is claimed by the UCI and determined by the hearing body.

3. The cost of the B Sample analysis, where applicable.

4. The costs incurred for Out-of-Competition Testing; the amount of this cost shall be CHF 1,500,

unless a higher amount is claimed by the UCI and determined by the hearing body.

5. The cost for the A and/or B Sample laboratory documentation package where requested by

the rider.

6. The cost for the documentation package of the blood samples analyzed for the Biological

Passport where applicable

The License-Holder shall owe the costs under 2) to 6) also if they were not awarded in the decision.

The National Federation shall be jointly and severally liable for its payment to the UCI.

(text modified on 1.02.11).

 

 

There was an earlier post about the rider racing other events and they will never check - I know ROAG do check the licence of every single entrant so I would imagine a few other entry systems do as well.

But does that apply to Barry? He's not racing in UCI cats, so isn't a UCI licence-holder…

At OP.

Tell them to shove the fine sideways up their arses.

Tell them you know you are a doper and will take the two year ban without any hesitation.

The fine they can shove so deep that their pupils look like dollar signs .

You are not a pro, did not threaten the GC and did not take any money away from fellow competitors due to your overall results.

If they harp on about the fact that these tests cost money, tell the ***** that they should have spent that money on the real dopers and cheats and not what looked like an easy target.

 

Yes you knew what you did, yes you are a tjop for doing it, yes we detest dopers (especially FanD)

You took it on the chin, you took it like man, your name has been ridiculed enough and you and you actually acknowledged what you did wrong, but to expect you to pay a fine ?

Did they graduate from the same school as our current government.

 

All else fails, I am sure Slowbee can start a charity run so we can get the bucks together for you, that way he stays happy and the UCI are happy and Mr. Warmback the doper who rattles the cages of Sauser and Coolharvey ,will forever be known as the cyclists the UCI singled out to drag their own credibility even further through the mud.

 

I am out.

On form today !

My issue is not whether a fine should be issued or not. It has nothing to do with being an amateur or a pro. Those are all different discussion points all getting blurred on here.

Having said that (and yes Stretch I did read the confession), if you take steroids you have to accept that there is a chance you will get caught. How many times have hubbers said some lessons are hard learnt. He did not expect to be tested as a backmarker, but he was. Well this falls into that category, a hard lesson.

This issue here is, he said he would take whatever sanctions come his way. Now that they are here, the tune changes. That is the issue.

On form today !

 

My issue is not whether a fine should be issued or not. It has nothing to do with being an amateur or a pro. Those are all different discussion points all getting blurred on here.

 

Having said that (and yes Stretch I did read the confession), if you take steroids you have to accept that there is a chance you will get caught. How many times have hubbers said some lessons are hard learnt. He did not expect to be tested as a backmarker, but he was. Well this falls into that category, a hard lesson.

 

This issue here is, he said he would take whatever sanctions come his way. Now that they are here, the tune changes. That is the issue.

Well here is where the moral dilemma then kicks in.

@2 year ban and a fine.

let's ask if that is really the extent they need to go to.

Even hardened criminals will receive reduced sentences.

The fine is laughable, the UCI have more than enough of a budget for testing.

On form today !

 

My issue is not whether a fine should be issued or not. It has nothing to do with being an amateur or a pro. Those are all different discussion points all getting blurred on here.

 

Having said that (and yes Stretch I did read the confession), if you take steroids you have to accept that there is a chance you will get caught. How many times have hubbers said some lessons are hard learnt. He did not expect to be tested as a backmarker, but he was. Well this falls into that category, a hard lesson.

 

This issue here is, he said he would take whatever sanctions come his way. Now that they are here, the tune changes. That is the issue.

No I didn't think so...

"sorry kids....we cant go on holiday because i have to pay a fine for that cough mixture i took before the Sani2C"

steroids != cough syrup

Well here is where the moral dilemma then kicks in.

@2 year ban and a fine.

let's ask if that is really the extent they need to go to.

Even hardened criminals will receive reduced sentences.

The fine is laughable, the UCI have more than enough of a budget for testing.

agreed - compared to the real crime going on, this seems ridiculous.

A better way of punishing would just be permanently banned from UCI sanctioned races.

On form today !

 

My issue is not whether a fine should be issued or not. It has nothing to do with being an amateur or a pro. Those are all different discussion points all getting blurred on here.

 

Having said that (and yes Stretch I did read the confession), if you take steroids you have to accept that there is a chance you will get caught. How many times have hubbers said some lessons are hard learnt. He did not expect to be tested as a backmarker, but he was. Well this falls into that category, a hard lesson.

 

This issue here is, he said he would take whatever sanctions come his way. Now that they are here, the tune changes. That is the issue.

 

The fine is laughable, the UCI have more than enough of a budget for testing.

It's not like they charge the guys who have no problems for the tests either...

Imagine that - "We randomly drug tested you - you are clean - and here is your bill...."

Maybe you should just go into a hearing and tell your story. About how you're from the "souf" and if you don't have big guns you wont look kiff in your tapout shirt. I'm sure they'll understand.

Fine, it's in the rules... god help you though if they for whatever stupid reason decide to test you in the middle of the pack at the next MTN race and your cough mixture contains a stimulant.

Personally I think taking steroids and cough mixture for an illness are two very different things. There is a mechanism in the UCI / WADA rules for amateurs to take medicine. The TUE allows for you take medicine (if you are tested you can admit to it and that will be taken into consideration (basically you can take cough medicine as long as you have a cough))

Sure, in this case it definitely seem as if the steroids are pretty harmless, but where is the line between harmless and deliberate, and how is it policed effectively? If I come fourth as a 50+ year old master and miss out on a prize will make me pretty pissed off with the guy who came third on steroids, and in my mind he is no less guilty than the winner in the elite category, but to the general public maybe only came 103rd in the race so he should not have been tested?

But does that apply to Barry? He's not racing in UCI cats, so isn't a UCI licence-holder…

My understanding is that it does ... you have to have a CSA licence (even if it is only a temporary day licence) to enter a CSA sanctioned event so he does have a licence -- I may be wrong on that but that is my understanding. Getting the licence implies following the rules.