Adverse analytical finding in recent mountain bike stage race

42.

DD!!

DD!!

CAN'T! BREATHE!

or,

BRAAAAAAAAAP!

Thor, armpies, seems that way. It makes provision for the UCI riders to abide by the UCI's code. There is an earlier doping mention pertaining to all riders, but it doesn't seem to include provisions of the UCI laws regardings costs.

6 months the drug is still in your system. Does that mean it is still having an effect on said system after 6 months?

All those runners bust for "out of competition" drugs. This story is about as clear as cheese on my tomato sandwich.

@ MTBaaisikilist

 

During the course of reading this thread, you said you would happily face the consequences of your actions. Well those consequences are here, and I am of the opinion that you should still face them, whatever they are.

 

That being said, I learnt a few things through the various posts this morning. The fine seems not to be a fine at all, but a fee of sorts. That I cannot get my head round. As others have suggested, you should be a little more obtuse in getting an explanation as to why "the fine" exists and what they can do with it. Preferably not pineapples, since they do not go well on pizza (nor steak). Maybe mango's.

 

Am I correct in saying there is still another round of hearings? Maybe something will come out of that.

Let's clear a few things up. There has not even been a preliminary, or any other type of hearing yet. From my understanding, the UCI is following the same protocol that they would for a professional athlete caught doping. I doubt there are 2 sets of rules, one for pro's and one for amateurs. The acceptance of sanction is just an 'option' for me to consider. By the looks of things, I have the option to waive this, and should I choose to, then the UCI will allow CSA to take the matter over from there. To date the only communication between myself and CSA has been William's initial call to me and the email the next day, followed by me calling him to ask WTF about the press release. I'm quite sure the process will now be handled between CSA and myself. Let's not all jump the gun n become experts on what are still hypothetical scenarios. The consequences you're saying are 'here', aren't exactly yet. Nothing has been finalised, and I'm following the process as it unfolds, using what rights I appear to have been given.

Would everyone's 'BUUUURN HIM...!!!' opinions be the same if it wasn't steroids...? What if it was weed or cold medication...? Does R26+k seem fair...? Would you simply take that on the chin...?

Look what happened to some of the Bulls Players who use protine you can buy of the shelf at dischem......banned substances found there as well. Suppose that anything you take orally needs to be looked at now a days!!!! I reckon depending on the amount found in his blood, give the guy a 12 month ban. At this point in time drunk driving is taking more lives than doping cyclists and even they get a second chance after 6 moths

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

Agreed, it isn't that simple but having different rules for pros vs amateurs doesn't make sense.

My son competes in the schools XCO league. They are amateurs and many take it very seriously indeed, there are some kids on 50 k racing bikes riding XCO and half marathon races. My son, as an amateur, needs to be protected by the same rules as everyone.

Before you think that kids don't and wont use PEDs just take a look at school rugby (in which my boy also takes part). There is PLENTY of steroid use in first league, amateur, schoolboy rugby.

Let's clear a few things up. There has not even been a preliminary, or any other type of hearing yet. From my understanding, the UCI is following the same protocol that they would for a professional athlete caught doping. I doubt there are 2 sets of rules, one for pro's and one for amateurs. The acceptance of sanction is just an 'option' for me to consider. By the looks of things, I have the option to waive this, and should I choose to, then the UCI will allow CSA to take the matter over from there. To date the only communication between myself and CSA has been William's initial call to me and the email the next day, followed by me calling him to ask WTF about the press release. I'm quite sure the process will now be handled between CSA and myself. Let's not all jump the gun n become experts on what are still hypothetical scenarios. The consequences you're saying are 'here', aren't exactly yet. Nothing has been finalised, and I'm following the process as it unfolds, using what rights I appear to have been given.

 

Would everyone's 'BUUUURN HIM...!!!' opinions be the same if it wasn't steroids...? What if it was weed or cold medication...? Does R26+k seem fair...? Would you simply take that on the chin...?

The 26 k isn't fair no matter what you are on!

The bigger the fine/penalty, the better. That way future dopers may think twice.

Isn't that what we want?

Dope - Get busted - Get nailed

Agreed, it isn't that simple but having different rules for pros vs amateurs doesn't make sense.

My son competes in the schools XCO league. They are amateurs and many take it very seriously indeed, there are some kids on 50 k racing bikes riding XCO and half marathon races. My son, as an amateur, needs to be protected by the same rules as everyone.

Before you think that kids don't and wont use PEDs just take a look at school rugby (in which my boy also takes part). There is PLENTY of steroid use in first league, amateur, schoolboy rugby.

No, EZ - this is the thing. As soon as you put it into competition, ie: league, prize money, logs and recognition, you HAVE to be registered through a body. ITO your son, that is through his school, and there is a structure in place. For all intents and purposes, he is NOT an amateur. He is a competitor. As such there are different rules associated with this. As with league rugby, professional rugby etc

Likewise with my wife's squash league. In competition (JARVIS / Kaplan / WP open etc) they HAVE to abide by the WADA rules & regs, as they are playing in competition for prize money. Comparing that to a recreational rider in ANY race not an accurate or fair comparison...

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

What I'm attempting to do is separate the serious cyclists from the not so serious who if they doped would be fooling nobody except themselves because if they did win or podium they would be demoted. It would also take the burden off CSA to do expensive testing on weekend warriors and it allows the weekend warrior to take an off the shelf decongestant without having then to suddenly worry he might be tested and banned.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in doping, but there are plenty of times when I've been to the doc and he's prescribed me this or that and I just take it...could I have possibly been tested and banned ?...probably....do CSA really want to be dealing with TUE's from hundreds of weekend warriors? All that will do is increase costs to administer which then gets added to race/licence fees. The simplest solution, whilst admittedly, not perfect is to only test and allow prize money & podium places for those with racing licences. If a person really wants to take PEDs to beat his mates for bragging rights then let him.

Let's clear a few things up. There has not even been a preliminary, or any other type of hearing yet. From my understanding, the UCI is following the same protocol that they would for a professional athlete caught doping. I doubt there are 2 sets of rules, one for pro's and one for amateurs. The acceptance of sanction is just an 'option' for me to consider. By the looks of things, I have the option to waive this, and should I choose to, then the UCI will allow CSA to take the matter over from there. To date the only communication between myself and CSA has been William's initial call to me and the email the next day, followed by me calling him to ask WTF about the press release. I'm quite sure the process will now be handled between CSA and myself. Let's not all jump the gun n become experts on what are still hypothetical scenarios. The consequences you're saying are 'here', aren't exactly yet. Nothing has been finalised, and I'm following the process as it unfolds, using what rights I appear to have been given.

 

Would everyone's 'BUUUURN HIM...!!!' opinions be the same if it wasn't steroids...? What if it was weed or cold medication...? Does R26+k seem fair...? Would you simply take that on the chin...?

Sorry, don't mean to pre-judge the issue. Am just trying to get my head around the procedures.

With my past, I could never judge you if it was weed! Hahahaha!

When you enter the Epic, I assume you sign an agreement to abide by the governing body rules, which appends to be the UCI. Also you need at least a day license which binds you to CSA which binds you to UCI. So no doubt about jurisdiction.

There is a rule book that states the fines and admin costs, and you accept this when entering the race.

So everybody is bound by this.

When caught and have to pay, you feel like when caught in a speed trap. You know you were wrong, but still hate the fact you have to pay up and were caught. The same rules apply to everyone.

I mentioned before, a junior cyclist riding for fun, dopes and then gets a pro contract based on those performances. Not fair over the junior, non-pro, who didn't dope. It's impossible to draw some imaginary line. The same doping rules have to apply to everyone who competes in any way.

The Epic is the Tour de France of mountain biking, and has the highest UCI ranking for a mtb race. They are going to be more strict and test anyone in the event. That's zero tolerance.

When you enter the Epic, I assume you sign an agreement to abide by the governing body rules, which appends to be the UCI. Also you need at least a day license which binds you to CSA which binds you to UCI. So no doubt about jurisdiction.

 

There is a rule book that states the fines and admin costs, and you accept this when entering the race.

 

So everybody is bound by this.

 

When caught and have to pay, you feel like when caught in a speed trap. You know you were wrong, but still hate the fact you have to pay up and were caught. The same rules apply to everyone.

 

I mentioned before, a junior cyclist riding for fun, dopes and then gets a pro contract based on those performances. Not fair over the junior, non-pro, who didn't dope. It's impossible to draw some imaginary line. The same doping rules have to apply to everyone who competes in any way.

 

The Epic is the Tour de France of mountain biking, and has the highest UCI ranking for a mtb race. They are going to be more strict and test anyone in the event. That's zero tolerance.

Incorrect. The junior who doped would have to go through a rigorous testing regimen in order to get that pro sponsorship, and if he had doped it shoudl show up. If he stops doping after the fact, his results will show for it and he will be booted.

As far as the UCI rules go - you're correct - for all the LICENSED riders. There's a difference between a cyclosport license, and a racing license, like the one you HAVE to get when you enter a UCI event like the XCO / DHI events in order to qualify to ride in teh Elite / Sub Vet / Vet racing class. If you just go along for the ride, you're in the Sports class. Different rules, no UCI points allocation nothing, as far as I understand.

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

Erhmm no not really, that's why I asked.

What was RR suggesting, tell me in slow text because I still don't get it

 

Would everyone's 'BUUUURN HIM...!!!' opinions be the same if it wasn't steroids...? What if it was weed or cold medication...? Does R26+k seem fair...? Would you simply take that on the chin...?

 

I don't understand this what IF it was some cold medication or wasn't steroids argument, what's the point.... totally irrelevant in this case isn't it?

That's like me saying what IF you finished on the podium at the CE or some other major race.

Does 26K seem fair..... TBH if I was bust for a steroid i'd say yes, for a less significant over the counter hidden in an flu medication substance then I would say no.

Let me ask you...If this did not happen to you but to some one similar who lived in the EU or overseas where the currency is stronger would you honestly think having to pay the costs in Swissies is unfair?

In the long run it boils down to your word against theirs, you say it was a long time before the test that last you took the stuff (for body building purposes) and not to gain an advantage in the epic...fair enough in theory BUT how do the UCI / CSA know that you are not lying like the majority of dopers do?

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

Who cares whether the cyclo sport licensees dope? They're not competing for prize money so there's no unfair advantage. Testing them just wastes a lot of money when it should be used for testing where it matters.

Unless you think that the funriders that dope should be disqualified so that they can't enter the lucky draw at the end of the funride.

Also you need at least a day license which binds you to CSA which binds you to UCI. So no doubt about jurisdiction.

 

 

No you don't ,you need a letter from your doctor saying that he declares you medically fit to do the event.

No, EZ - this is the thing. As soon as you put it into competition, ie: league, prize money, logs and recognition, you HAVE to be registered through a body. ITO your son, that is through his school, and there is a structure in place. For all intents and purposes, he is NOT an amateur. He is a competitor. As such there are different rules associated with this. As with league rugby, professional rugby etc

 

Likewise with my wife's squash league. In competition (JARVIS / Kaplan / WP open etc) they HAVE to abide by the WADA rules & regs, as they are playing in competition for prize money. Comparing that to a recreational rider in ANY race not an accurate or fair comparison...

I see your point.

Who cares whether the cyclo sport licensees dope? They're not competing for prize money so there's no unfair advantage. Testing them just wastes a lot of money when it should be used for testing where it matters.

Unless you think that the funriders that dope should be disqualified so that they can't enter the lucky draw at the end of the funride.

Got FA to do with lucky draws

TBH I think its hypocritical to complain about any professional athlete doping but then to expect yourself (not you directly but all of us average joes that complain about doping) to be treated differently.

Anyway as far as i know anti doping is not only about cheating but also protecting athletes from harmful substances and practices, where does that leave the average joe who takes steroids or equivalent?

@ Swiss. You mean like medinite, medlemon, most protein shakes and cold / flu meds, most vitamin supplements and countless other substances? I reckon 80% of the amateur field would test positive for some banned substance.

Erhmm no not really, that's why I asked.

What was RR suggesting, tell me in slow text because I still don't get it

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand this what IF it was some cold medication or wasn't steroids argument, what's the point.... totally irrelevant in this case isn't it?

That's like me saying what IF you finished on the podium at the CE or some other major race.

 

Does 26K seem fair..... TBH if I was bust for a steroid i'd say yes, for a less significant over the counter hidden in an flu medication substance then I would say no.

 

Let me ask you...If this did not happen to you but to some one similar who lived in the EU or overseas where the currency is stronger would you honestly think having to pay the costs in Swissies is unfair?

 

In the long run it boils down to your word against theirs, you say it was a long time before the test that last you took the stuff (for body building purposes) and not to gain an advantage in the epic...fair enough in theory BUT how do the UCI / CSA know that you are not lying like the majority of dopers do?

Swiss, essentially you are allowing cyclosport riders to do what they want but since they can't win the race, podium or get prize money (Podiums, prize money etc are only for racing licensed riders) what would they be achieving > ...... absolutly nothing. Ah, then you ask about the youngster who misses out on a sponsorship....well, why would he, because the kid who possibly doped but on a cyclosport license would be demoted in the final results to behind those with racing licenses. Also you would hope that sponsors only sponsor riders with racing licenses.

The overall point is to try and keep things fair amongst the competitive athletes and to also consider the average Joe in the street who doesn't want to be worried bout taking some over the counter medication for his snotty nose, or old running/rugby injury.

There is no delineation between pseudo ephedrine from flu meds vs "doping" by injecting or ingesting ephinedrine.

@ Swiss. You mean like medinite, medlemon, most protein shakes and cold / flu meds, most vitamin supplements and countless other substances? I reckon 80% of the amateur field would test positive for some banned substance.

sadly alcohol is also a banned substance

sadly alcohol is also a banned substance

 

 

sadly alcohol is also a banned substance

Then I'm definitely screwed.