Events

Kevin Evans accepts doping charge

By Press Office · 1614 comments

Cycling South Africa reports that the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) has charged mountain bike cyclist, Kevin Evans with doping after identifying serious irregularities in his Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) – a profile of the athlete’s blood parameters.

ccs-62657-0-90136700-1453116564.jpgPhoto credit: Dave Macleod/
Gameplan Media

Mr. Evans accepted the charge of doping and did not contest the findings. The ABP is a longitudinal analysis and the suspicious readings were identified over a period of time, therefore the athlete’s results extending back to 14 March 2014 will be disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.

He will be banned from sport for four years as of 4 March 2015 until 3 March 2019. The athlete has however indicated that he has retired from professional cycling.

Cycling South Africa respects the independence of the SAIDS process. Cycling South Africa further reiterates its zero-tolerance approach to doping in sport and will continue working with SAIDS in the promotion of a drug-free sport via its awareness and extensive testing programmes.

Comments

jcza

Jan 26, 2016, 8:08 AM

Litigation has nothing to do with right or wrong but everything to do with the deepest pockets and the biggest ego. 

BDF

Jan 26, 2016, 8:08 AM

Lets not forget the bigger picture here:

 

David George: Busted for doping, negatively affects the sport.

Brandon Stewart: Busted for doping, negatively affects the sport.

Kevin Evans: Busted for doping, negatively affects the sport.

Rourke Croeser: Busted for doping, negatively affects the sport

 

ZK, hurt their feelings.... we flame HIM?

 

The logic astounds me.

Just added one...

Tumbleweed

Jan 26, 2016, 8:08 AM

As the question posed clearly said "had the matter progressed to trial"  how will KE make his case without an affidavit or testimony ?

 

He wouldn't necessarily have to. The plaintiff would have to provide evidence of the truthfulness of his statements. 

 

The matter would never have gone to court other than to get a court order for a take-down notice. The extent of damages would probably have been too slight to bother suing for defamation.

 

Let's say the matter did go to court stemming from the original letter and hadn't been resolved by the time of the SAIDS announcement. Would the court have entertained the introduction of the announcement as new evidence? Don't think so.      

Edgar

Jan 26, 2016, 8:09 AM

Again...no horse in this race for me and no favourite either....but when you make fleeting statements about a convicted cyclists riding partner....then the odds are already very thin and with a little bit of logic everyone knows who you are referring to...no need to even mention a name....kinda like a boomerang effect....KE went on a rampage and understandably so...it's human nature to want to defend ourselves and our honour...what I would not have done if I was KE....I would not have gone on that that rampage if I knew that I was actually doping...

 

Then why not do it now?

 

SAIDS and KE should issue more detailed statements. IMO. 

 

Consider the given TL, the Emma Letter and the sanctioned ABP start date. 

 

As an aside, I see the Old Coot quietly removed his twatter feed. Again.

Maybe it was hurting Rush Sports reputation? 

Captain Fastbastard Mayhem

Jan 26, 2016, 8:09 AM

I agree with you a million times over...the bold bit is where I am a little more stubborn....ZK was being flamed because he had no conclusive evidence....ZK might now get flamed again because his motives for being an anti-doping crusader is called in to question....I think in the end of the day...don't dope....don't say stuff in public you might regret....in short...don't be an @$$hole (not referring to you) unless of course we want to be stravasholes.....

And, in closing, lack of names is no defence in a defamation suit. Inference is libellous as well. 

 

So, ZK - while I applaud you for addressing it, your post was inferring KE. He was the only person it could have been, as has been said before, and you had no proof to back it up - only hearsay and speculation. 

 

As valid as that speculation may have been, it's still speculation unless it is provable. That's why you have to be very, very careful when it comes to social media. Always employ the reasonable man test. Logically.

BarHugger

Jan 26, 2016, 8:14 AM

Then why not do it now?

 

 

I am not sure...maybe because his wife decided to take over...

Eldron

Jan 26, 2016, 8:18 AM

Maybe just maybe all parties involved learnt a lesson or two?

 

Edit: In random other news - I just placed an order with Rush :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

BDF

Jan 26, 2016, 8:19 AM

Just added one...

Oh and Daryl Impey: Busted for doping, negatively affects the sport BUT presents an amazing defence and is "UNBUSTED", thereby positively affecting the sport.

BarHugger

Jan 26, 2016, 8:22 AM

Oh and Daryl Impey: Busted for doping, negatively affects the sport BUT presents an amazing defence and is "UNBUSTED", thereby positively affecting the sport.

And even there people took to tweeta calling it a load of hogwash and suggested the pharmacist was paid to lie.....

Thor Buttox

Jan 26, 2016, 8:22 AM

And, in closing, lack of names is no defence in a defamation suit. Inference is libellous as well.

 

So, ZK - while I applaud you for addressing it, your post was inferring KE. He was the only person it could have been, as has been said before, and you had no proof to back it up - only hearsay and speculation.

 

As valid as that speculation may have been, it's still speculation unless it is provable. That's why you have to be very, very careful when it comes to social media. Always employ the reasonable man test. Logically.

Thanks, M, you summed that up perfectly.

 

But that said, I still find a bit of a :thumbup: for the whistle-blower portion of what he did. It must be the hardest thing in the world (to follow through with whistle blowing) - and even if the method was off, I can t fault the conviction.

SwissVan

Jan 26, 2016, 8:22 AM

all hubber hate dopers, except when its a SA pro or a mate. Then they will find every excuse under the sun not to crucify the guy.

 

pick a side. Either you hate doping and dopers or you dont.

 

Almost no-one here has any balls. You're all fickle. Everyone calls for a clean sport. But when a local "nice" rider gets busted, then theres a million excuses, stories, diversions.

 

As long as cyclists continue making excuses for dopers we will NEVER have a clean sport

 

I think its because they are more familiar with local "heroes" and are more exposed to them and as a result its more difficult (on average) to treat them like just a name of some unseen pro from eurousaozetc...land.

 

Kind of like if your brother / sister / mother / father gets caught... you might display some form of surprise or shock but would you crucify them?

 

I don't know KE, never met him other than having seen him here and there, been to the shop in Plett and met his old man who i found to be friendly and helpful... so i admit because of this and probably because he represents my home country I'm kind of hoping that there is some sort of logical explanation that will come out and perhaps clear him....however at the same time i'm not entirely naïve nor surprised and shocked and would not loose any sleep if it was all true.

Tumbleweed

Jan 26, 2016, 8:25 AM

Oh and Daryl Impey: Busted for doping, negatively affects the sport BUT presents an amazing defence and is "UNBUSTED", thereby positively affecting the sport.

 

Now that confusing everything. Wasn't Rourke also unbusted for something? Not sure if the effect was positive for the sport though. Then charged for another?  :huh:

 

Charging athletes is such an ambiguous term...

Paul Ruinaard

Jan 26, 2016, 8:26 AM

Hmm,

 

and defending his wife for defending him, - assuming she didn't know?

 

Its pretty interesting to see all this now being scrutinised in a very harsh way.

 

Remember Lance's wife and the fact that she knew all along and struggled to live with it and has distanced herself from him in a big way.

 

So there are many other aspects of this sorry tale.

 

If she did know - then she was also implicated.

 

If she didn't know - what else doesn't she know about him 

Captain Fastbastard Mayhem

Jan 26, 2016, 8:28 AM

Thanks, M, you summed that up perfectly.

 

But that said, I still find a bit of a :thumbup: for the whistle-blower portion of what he did. It must be the hardest thing in the world (to follow through with whistle blowing) - and even if the method was off, I can t fault the conviction.

Absolutely. 

Andrew Steer

Jan 26, 2016, 8:28 AM

Oh and Daryl Impey: Busted for doping, negatively affects the sport BUT presents an amazing defence and is "UNBUSTED", thereby positively affecting the sport.

 

Would make for a great episode for MythBusters

SwissVan

Jan 26, 2016, 8:29 AM

I wonder who the other one or two are.... will it come out before the Epic, or Olympics... is it a mountain biker.... Come on Fand time to move on :whistling:

BarHugger

Jan 26, 2016, 8:29 AM

Hmm,

 

and defending his wife for defending him, - assuming she didn't know?

 

 

I missed the bit where anyone here defended her....can you point us to those posts ?

Paul Ruinaard

Jan 26, 2016, 8:31 AM

I missed the bit where anyone here defended her....can you point us to those posts ?

yes - they are further down - need to run to a meeting.

 

This is a big thread but its there.

fandacious

Jan 26, 2016, 8:32 AM

I wonder who the other one or two are.... will it come out before the Epic, or Olympics... is it a mountain biker.... Come on Fand time to move on :whistling:

 

Theres a supplier who everyone is desperately wanting to get bust, but i doubt it will happen because he's never raced pro.

BDF

Jan 26, 2016, 8:33 AM

Now that confusing everything. Wasn't Rourke also unbusted for something? Not sure if the effect was positive for the sport though. Then charged for another?  :huh:

 

Charging athletes is such an ambiguous term...

RC "bust" #1: having needles, got let off because he was using them to lance his saddle sores and fill his wheels or something like that.

"Bust" #2: doping... hearing still to come though from what I understand.

fandacious

Jan 26, 2016, 8:35 AM

RC "bust" #1: having needles, got let off because he was using them to lance his saddle sores and fill his wheels or something like that.

"Bust" #2: doping... hearing still to come though from what I understand.

 

 

apparently he almost got bliksemed for the needles thing because the whole team very nearly got sent home

NotSoBigBen

Jan 26, 2016, 8:43 AM

I wonder who the other one or two are.... will it come out before the Epic, or Olympics... is it a mountain biker.... Come on Fand time to move on :whistling:

 

it's 'imminient' Swiss or at least I keep getting told that .... lucky I didn't hold my breath I'd be brown bread!

BDF

Jan 26, 2016, 8:48 AM

apparently he almost got bliksemed for the needles thing because the whole team very nearly got sent home

..as in not just "naughty Rourke! Now go put your needles away!" ?

NotSoBigBen

Jan 26, 2016, 8:54 AM

I also heard the rumours about the stuff in the fridge...very much as the many stories about the Jozi ICG group....but without actually seeing anything which would make it conclusive...it makes it nothing more than speculation which could lead to defamation....

 

Mmmmmm ......  :ph34r:  :ph34r:

intern

Jan 26, 2016, 8:57 AM

Watch Juju take credit for Twitter failing...

 

Did you see that story about them thinking about introducing a "long-form" Twitter?  

I did. That would make it Posterous.

Add a comment

You must log in to comment