Adverse analytical finding in recent mountain bike stage race

The fine is obscene, especially in a country where murder suspects get R1000 bail.

Who did the testing for the Epic? SAIDS?

The fine is obscene, especially in a country where murder suspects get R1000 bailwhen the cost of the race itself is ridiculous.

There fixed!

Maybe the fine is so steep cos the figure "oh you can afford to ride the Epic... this will be a slap on the wrist".

maybe they just need to give him a good spanking....oh wait....thats another thread

The fine is obscene, especially in a country where murder suspects get R1000 bail.

But the "costs of testing" or "fine" was not thought out by our country or our law, it was calculated in the governing body's home country. But still, if you go to court in this country and you lose your case or even plead guilty, you are still responsible to pay the accusers legal fee's, same applies here.

Its bad that he is in this situation, but still, rules are rules. How many people complain about Taxi's and that they should be held responsible for their actions.

You should check your fine print, always.

I have been pondering the following for a while.

Can anyone here be 100% confident that you would pass a "drug" test? Taking the following into consideration:

1. The supplement industry in SA is not governed at all (perhaps someone employed in this industry can comment).

2. We are not pharmacists. I do not know 99% of the items in the banned list or in which off-the-counter products you can find it, let alone prescription medicine (and I don't think all our doctors are experts on banned sports items either).

3. Even if you are advised by your doctor that there is some banned substence in a prescribed medicine you need, how long before you take a chance to race (or for me and the "OP", take part)?

Edit: spelling (and there may be more)

PAT WANTS YOU

http://d4nuk0dd6nrma.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CORVOS_00019964-018.jpg

I reckon the 2 year ban is punishment enough. The fine is because you tapped Pat's mom didn't you? You naughty naughty boy

I have been pondering the following for a while.

 

Can anyone here be 100% confident that you would pass a "drug" test? Taking the following into consideration:

 

1. The supplement industry in SA is not governed at all (perhaps someone employed in this industry can comment).

2. We are not pharmacists. I do not know 99% of the items in the banned list or in which off-the-counter products you can find it, let alone prescription medicine (and I don't think all our doctors are experts on banned sports items either).

3. Even if you are advised by your doctor that there is some banned substence in a prescribed medicine you need, how long before you take a chance to race (or for me and the "OP", take part)?

 

Edit: spelling (and there may be more)

The supplement industry may not be governed , but they are under scrutiny, all the time especially the bigger names.

Also bear in mind that if you as a supplement supplier was to sponsor a top athlete who would be tested, you better make sure you have your ducks in a row.

So they don't run as rife as some believe.

Dude, are you seriously comparing Barry here (a weekend warrior by his own admission) to a dude on the TDF, who makes a living out of cycling and IS there for monetary benefit? If Barry were Georgie Porgie, then yeah fine. But he's not. Also the TDF is only open to licensed, qualified cyclists. The Epic is open to all.

Howdy, it seems we haven't been party to a discussion in a while, and you think I've lost my marbles??

No, of course I understand that there is a massive difference between a pro and a non-pro. Let's assume any discussion of employed pro's as a moot point. The issue that still stands is one of stratification in the amateur ranks, or the semi-pro's. Perhaps someone in the Epic comes a hundredth and is far down in the list of achievers, and then goes to a local well-sponsored race and cleans up? In terms of the Epic, it means nothing, but to the local oke who is taking his cycling seriously, it matters.

Perhaps it's simply a professional/amateur decision as Wonder Woman says. But in my book a young amateur looking to compete as a pro needs as much regulation as the pro's themselves. It can become very convoluted. An when you start getting into "People over 35 who have never competed professionally, but who might in future want to compete in a professional Masters category at a local race, but not at a UCI sanctioned race" type scenario for deciding where testing is necessary or not, it's just stupid.

Unless you follow the logic to it's conclusion, keep it simple.

What I do SERIOUSLY agree with though is that there are PED's and their masking agents and then there is cough mixture. So I don't believe it's black and white either. I just think the rules need to be as close to anti-grey as possible.

Just had a quick read of the race rules. The language may be problematic and the demand for CHF2500. Seems the UCI-licensed riders do have a different set of rules to other riders when it comes to doping.

It's fairly simple. Separate the Pros (and future stars) from the weekend warriors. We, in SA, already have two licence categories, namely a racing or cyclosport licence. It then become simple. If you want to podium and get prize money or race for your province then, no matter your age, you need a racing licence and are subjected to all UCI rules. If you want to ride socially then get a cyclosport licence but if riding on a cyclosport licence you podium expect to be demoted.

it's similar to the US Open or British Open in golf. Amateurs can enter and do get through to the main tournament but they are not eligible for any prize money.

It's fairly simple. Separate the Pros (and future stars) from the weekend warriors. We, in SA, already have two licence categories, namely a racing or cyclosport licence. It then become simple. If you want to podium and get prize money or race for your province then, no matter your age, you need a racing licence and are subjected to all UCI rules. If you want to ride socially then get a cyclosport licence but if riding on a cyclosport licence you podium expect to be demoted.

Totally agree in principal. If you could get people to sign a "We promise never to compete competitively ever. Seriously... I mean ever" document, and get it contractually binding, we'd have no problem. I just don't think it's going to fly legally.

People's minds and circumstances change.

 

1. The supplement industry in SA is not governed at all (perhaps someone employed in this industry can comment).

 

This is a topic all on it's own.

Globally the governance of the supplement industry is problematic, try the states it's like a bush fire. SA is actually in a better position than many.

Totally agree in principal. If you could get people to sign a "We promise never to compete competitively ever. Seriously... I mean ever" document, and get it contractually binding, we'd have no problem. I just don't think it's going to fly legally.

 

People's minds and circumstances change.

that's fine, they can change their minds and upgrade to a racing licence, they had just better know that they will become subject to testing and had better be clean, as we have seen, for longer than 6 months prior to doing so.

It's fairly simple. Separate the Pros (and future stars) from the weekend warriors. We, in SA, already have two licence categories, namely a racing or cyclosport licence. It then become simple. If you want to podium and get prize money or race for your province then, no matter your age, you need a racing licence and are subjected to all UCI rules. If you want to ride socially then get a cyclosport licence but if riding on a cyclosport licence you podium expect to be demoted.

Are you suggesting that cyclo sport licensees should be allowed more rope to dope?

Howdy, it seems we haven't been party to a discussion in a while, and you think I've lost my marbles??

 

What I do SERIOUSLY agree with though is that there are PED's and their masking agents and then there is cough mixture. So I don't believe it's black and white either. I just think the rules need to be as close to anti-grey as possible.

ROFL. I was a bit flabbergasted for a moment, tbh. Thought your reason and logic had been frequenting the restaurant at the end of the universe...

But Agreed. In terms of testing, rules regs and so on, there should be a black and white delineation between pro & amateur for testing purposes etc.

Also agreed that it gets a bit tricky when it comes to the local Church race, where you may have a good chance of winning but (like me) you're on supplements that contain a banned substance (like pseudo-ephedrine)

It may be as simple as a logical conclusion from the dopers side of things though. If you're on the juice, you shouldn't "race" for a position. Just ride. But there are myriad different scenarios where the "doper" may not necessarily know whether he has a banned substance in his system or not.

Case in point, this situation. 6 months is a helluva long time for a trace amount of dwelms to be in a system. So in terms of the reasonable man argument, Barry was spot on when he signed that he was not taking any PED's. He plain wasn't at the time, and hadn't been for 6 months before the race itself. So he was fully within his rights to sign that waiver.

Take an example of that cough syrup, or some of the flu medication. If he had had flu-end (a common flu medication containing pseudo ephedrine) up to 2 weeks before the ride, it still may have been in his system. And he would have been bust again. Wilful infringement or harmless error?

Was he racing for position? No. He was bottom half of the pack. Logic follows that he should receive a ban (as any person above him would have received) but as it was a harmless medication that he may not have known contained a banned substance (not being a paid athlete, therefore not being bound by UCI's rules as he is not a licensed UCI accredited rider) should he have been targeted at all?

My argument is no...

Are you suggesting that cyclo sport licensees should be allowed more rope to dope?

Not as simple as that, Swiss - and you know that.

that's fine, they can change their minds and upgrade to a racing licence, they had just better know that they will become subject to testing and had better be clean, as we have seen, for longer than 6 months prior to doing so.

In principal, . There's just this flea scratching at the back of my mind telling me you're opening the door for people to game the system. Having been in a very competitive environment in another sport (strictly amateur) and having put in many, many long days to see unbelievably strange sudden performances that will never get picked up, it's disheartening. Maybe I'm just looking at it through a "not-just-cycling & protect the amateur youngsters from the drugs" view by putting strong disincentives down.

ROFL. I was a bit flabbergasted for a moment, tbh. Thought your reason and logic had been frequenting the restaurant at the end of the universe...

 

But Agreed. In terms of testing, rules regs and so on, there should be a black and white delineation between pro & amateur for testing purposes etc.

 

Also agreed that it gets a bit tricky when it comes to the local Church race, where you may have a good chance of winning but (like me) you're on supplements that contain a banned substance (like pseudo-ephedrine)

 

It may be as simple as a logical conclusion from the dopers side of things though. If you're on the juice, you shouldn't "race" for a position. Just ride. But there are myriad different scenarios where the "doper" may not necessarily know whether he has a banned substance in his system or not.

 

Case in point, this situation. 6 months is a helluva long time for a trace amount of dwelms to be in a system. So in terms of the reasonable man argument, Barry was spot on when he signed that he was not taking any PED's. He plain wasn't at the time, and hadn't been for 6 months before the race itself. So he was fully within his rights to sign that waiver.

 

Take an example of that cough syrup, or some of the flu medication. If he had had flu-end (a common flu medication containing pseudo ephedrine) up to 2 weeks before the ride, it still may have been in his system. And he would have been bust again. Wilful infringement or harmless error?

 

Was he racing for position? No. He was bottom half of the pack. Logic follows that he should receive a ban (as any person above him would have received) but as it was a harmless medication that he may not have known contained a banned substance (not being a paid athlete, therefore not being bound by UCI's rules as he is not a licensed UCI accredited rider) should he have been targeted at all?

 

My argument is no...

The deeply thoughtful, metaphysical response I have received from my own personal "Deep Thought" (hence it being deeply, thoughtful) is........

....

....

I agree.

ROFL. I was a bit flabbergasted for a moment, tbh. Thought your reason and logic had been frequenting the restaurant at the end of the universe...

 

But Agreed. In terms of testing, rules regs and so on, there should be a black and white delineation between pro & amateur for testing purposes etc.

 

Also agreed that it gets a bit tricky when it comes to the local Church race, where you may have a good chance of winning but (like me) you're on supplements that contain a banned substance (like pseudo-ephedrine)

 

It may be as simple as a logical conclusion from the dopers side of things though. If you're on the juice, you shouldn't "race" for a position. Just ride. But there are myriad different scenarios where the "doper" may not necessarily know whether he has a banned substance in his system or not.

 

Case in point, this situation. 6 months is a helluva long time for a trace amount of dwelms to be in a system. So in terms of the reasonable man argument, Barry was spot on when he signed that he was not taking any PED's. He plain wasn't at the time, and hadn't been for 6 months before the race itself. So he was fully within his rights to sign that waiver.

 

Take an example of that cough syrup, or some of the flu medication. If he had had flu-end (a common flu medication containing pseudo ephedrine) up to 2 weeks before the ride, it still may have been in his system. And he would have been bust again. Wilful infringement or harmless error?

 

Was he racing for position? No. He was bottom half of the pack. Logic follows that he should receive a ban (as any person above him would have received) but as it was a harmless medication that he may not have known contained a banned substance (not being a paid athlete, therefore not being bound by UCI's rules as he is not a licensed UCI accredited rider) should he have been targeted at all?

 

My argument is no...

The rules about doping at the Epic seem a bit odd. All riders are subject to the lifetime ban from the race, but the rules add extra conditions for UCI-licensed riders and go on to list sections of the UCI's doping code, which seems to make a mockery of the UCI letter to Barry.

Change your name on registration forms... who will ever know its you?

The deeply thoughtful, metaphysical response I have received from my own personal "Deep Thought" (hence it being deeply, thoughtful) is........

 

....

 

....

 

I agree.

42.

The rules about doping at the Epic seem a bit odd. All riders are subject to the lifetime ban from the race, but the rules add extra conditions for UCI-licensed riders and go on to list sections of the UCI's doping code, which seems to make a mockery of the UCI letter to Barry.

In terms of helping Barry defend himself through conflicting requirements?

The rules about doping at the Epic seem a bit odd. All riders are subject to the lifetime ban from the race, but the rules add extra conditions for UCI-licensed riders and go on to list sections of the UCI's doping code, which seems to make a mockery of the UCI letter to Barry.

Agreed. And was Barry a UCI Licensed rider? No. Not as far as I understand it, at least...