Seyffert receives two year ban from competition

But then surely you have to punish professionals differently to the poor dude coming 380 in the Epic just trying to survive?

Sorry, I guess I am on the wrong thread here

Let me go home and leave you to it.

But then surely you have to punish professionals differently to the poor dude coming 380 in the Epic just trying to survive?

 

Sorry, I guess I am on the wrong thread here

 

Let me go home and leave you to it.

Nope.

One rule for everybody.

A two year ban from riding the Epic, Sani2c etc is little more than a slap on the wrist for a backmarker - no financial penalties etc.

Ok I have a stupid question.

Why would someone mask whatever they have taken with another illegal substance?

Rather get 2 years for thinz than 2 years for EPO or am I missing something here??

What kind of idiot 'dopes' to come that far back in the fie.... .... Oh, wait...

Ha Ha, thanks for that!

Nope.

 

One rule for everybody.

 

A two year ban from riding the Epic, Sani2c etc is little more than a slap on the wrist for a backmarker - no financial penalties etc.

actually thats not true since many companies have a no drugs at work policy. Random testing and a possitive for something on a list of banned substances can land Joe Blogs in hot water, even disciplinary or termination.

How many non pro's research everything they're using and generally when people can obtain something over the counter they assume its legal and if it works for themselves and their peers then its tough to convince them to go and research whats in the pharmaceutical.

I feel that the sports authorities and events organisers really ought to be more scientific in their approach, It is wy easier for a non pro to make an honest mistake so why punish them by placing their livlihod at risk? If one cannot be treated fairly why would I want to ride in an event?

Garfield thats a good point.

 

Garfield thats a good point.

 

Where's Chunky (note: not chunkymonkey lite) when we need some expert opinion

Where's Chunky (note: not chunkymonkey lite) when we need some expert opinion

Chunky Member Since 15 Jun 2005

Offline Last Active Jun 15 2005 04:16

actually thats not true since many companies have a no drugs at work policy. Random testing and a possitive for something on a list of banned substances can land Joe Blogs in hot water, even disciplinary or termination.

 

How many non pro's research everything they're using and generally when people can obtain something over the counter they assume its legal and if it works for themselves and their peers then its tough to convince them to go and research whats in the pharmaceutical.

 

I feel that the sports authorities and events organisers really ought to be more scientific in their approach, It is wy easier for a non pro to make an honest mistake so why punish them by placing their livlihod at risk? If one cannot be treated fairly why would I want to ride in an event?

 

 

Garfield thats a good point.

Not sure I'm following you here.

Typically companies have tests for dagga, cocaine etc. I'm not sure they test or care about appetite supplresants and EPO...

Plus I don't think any company would fire someone for failing a SAID test.

A 2 year ban from all CSA events is almost zero sanction to a non pro. He doesn't earn a salary from riding or earn any prize money or appear on SuperCycling etc.

Edit: and alcohol for companies of course.... I think the drugs tested for in companies versus drugs in cycling are diofferent enough that your cycling positive will not impact on your job.

Chunky Member Since 15 Jun 2005

Offline Last Active Jun 15 2005 04:16

 

He was banned and his account was deleted. Came back briefly, but was canned again.

Not sure I'm following you here.

 

Typically companies have tests for dagga, cocaine etc. I'm not sure they test or care about appetite supplresants and EPO...

 

Plus I don't think any company would fire someone for failing a SAID test.

 

A 2 year ban from all CSA events is almost zero sanction to a non pro. He doesn't earn a salary from riding or earn any prize money or appear on SuperCycling etc.

 

Edit: and alcohol for companies of course.... I think the drugs tested for in companies versus drugs in cycling are diofferent enough that your cycling positive will not impact on your job.

if you as an amateur gets nailed for using a appetite suppresant by CSA for example, you would be charged with using an banned substance. your employer gets wind of it and youre in hot water. Read your employment contract. Unless you have prescription, youre ****ed even if you were using it for innocent weight loss to get into shape or whatever

if you as an amateur gets nailed for using a appetite suppresant by CSA for example, you would be charged with using an banned substance. your employer gets wind of it and youre in hot water. Read your employment contract. Unless you have prescription, youre ****ed

Banned by CSA and banned by law are two different things. My contract contains the words illegal substance and alcohol over the legal driving limit. Doesn't say anything about CSA rules.

Practically I don't see how your company would even find out and if they did no company in their right mind would try and fire you for using completely legal drugs like appetite suppressants, stimulants etc. CCMA would tear them a bew one.

We already have a two tier licence structure ie: you either have a racing or cyclosport licence.

Prize money, provincial colours & podiums etc should only be awarded to those with a racing licence and similarly only those with a racing licence should be tested and banned.

Let's look at the differences between pro's and amateurs.

An amateur doing the Epic is likely to be getting up and 4am in the morning to train, then go to work full day and only gets to do two long rides on Saturday and Sunday. Therefore even on his off day for training he is at work getting stress and pressure. He probably paid for the Epic out of his own pocket so when he gets a little flu symptoms before the Epic there is no way he is going to pull out. His aim is just to go and experience the Epic.

The pro on the other hand gets up at 7am is out on the bike at 8am and can ride all day if he wants. He gets home, has lunch and a snooze and then hits the gym later. He goes in well rested and prepped for the Epic. His aim however is to win.

So in my opinion, the motivation behind the drugs on the amateur and the pro is totally different and THAT makes a huge difference in my opinion. Doping comes down to motive, not to what the person is actually taking. So why test a middle of the pack guy who is there to just enjoy the tour? Seems a bit ludicrous to me.

Let's look at the differences between pro's and amateurs.

 

An amateur doing the Epic is likely to be getting up and 4am in the morning to train, then go to work full day and only gets to do two long rides on Saturday and Sunday. Therefore even on his off day for training he is at work getting stress and pressure. He probably paid for the Epic out of his own pocket so when he gets a little flu symptoms before the Epic there is no way he is going to pull out. His aim is just to go and experience the Epic.

 

The pro on the other hand gets up at 7am is out on the bike at 8am and can ride all day if he wants. He gets home, has lunch and a snooze and then hits the gym later. He goes in well rested and prepped for the Epic. His aim however is to win.

 

So in my opinion, the motivation behind the drugs on the amateur and the pro is totally different and THAT makes a huge difference in my opinion. Doping comes down to motive, not to what the person is actually taking. So why test a middle of the pack guy who is there to just enjoy the tour? Seems a bit ludicrous to me.

A lot of our local pros also have day jobs, because the pay isn't good enough.

I agree, why bother wasting money testing the guys at the back

I gotta disagree with this. People are people. Some pros study and take drugs on purpose, some get sucked into it by coches/team/leader, some chance upon it, some unwittingly.

 

"Pro athlete" doesn't describe a person - it only describes their job.

I disagree with this.

Professional means that you have a responsibility to be informed. As much about drug policies as riding with an iPod, its your job. Like JB said, if an accountant fiddled with a tax return, big trouble. If they did it accidentally... Still big trouble, why? Because its their job. Even though they are "just people".

If a hair dresser is having a bad day and puts veet on a clients hair instead of colour, is that ok?

If a civil eng makes a calculation error in a bridge and if falls, is that ok?

I can go on forever, but that fact that it is their job places extra responsibility on them.

Accidental is not accidental for a professional

Is it possible to access transcripts of the hearings?

A lot of our local pros also have day jobs, because the pay isn't good enough.

My whole point however is the motive behind why they are taking whatever they took....the problem is it's impossible in this world of liars to distinguish the two.

He was banned and his account was deleted. Came back briefly, but was canned again.

Does admin do drug tests?

2nd time round life ban

Man I wish he (Chunky) would reincarnate himself back on the hub

A lot of our local pros also have day jobs, because the pay isn't good enough.

Their main focus is still on racing and not their day job. They'll often give that up to race.

My father was a springbok gymnast and his boss told him he cannot leave early to go to nationals, you guess what he gave up? And he never earned a cent doing gym, not like the cyclists these days.

 

An amateur doing the Epic is .......... when he gets a little flu symptoms before the Epic there is no way he is going to pull out. His aim is just to go and experience the Epic.

 

The pro on the other hand ............. His aim however is to win.

 

So in my opinion, the motivation behind the drugs on the amateur and the pro is totally different and THAT makes a huge difference in my opinion. Doping comes down to motive,

WW, there are two points i believe are relevant.

First, an amateur (or pro for that matter) who has flu symptoms or anything else that needs treating medically can get a Theraputic use Exemption. The system provides for it, so that is not a problem. You can take almost anything if it is medically required AND it is declared upfront.

Second, there are a good number of amateurs who dope to improve their performance. Mr CEO of the business who's ego needs him to be "a winner" even if it just beating his mates; guys for whom a sub 3 hour Argus is an important goal; being one of the manne who have "done the Epic"; etc. Bragging rights is a huge motivator to cheat.

Check out MTBaaisikelist' s finishing 300th on day one of the Epic and having to pee in the bottle thread. It is quite good fun.......

My case aside though eddy, where do you draw the line...?

You and your wife enter the 94.7 for the 1st time and get seeded as amateurs in batch ZZ. You're feeling a bit of a sinus issue the day before and decide, as you do every time u have a sinus issue, to take a couple of Sinucon tabs, 2 tabs 3 times that day, and another 2 on the morning of the race.you're a social rider, no hope of placing anywhere significant. You're not a pro, so what the hell is a TUE anyway, you've never heard of it. You finish in 5 hours. But you don't know that by having that quantity of pseudoephedrine in your system, you just cheated. Then Robert's your Father's brother, "Please sir, won't you accompany me to this tent over here and part with no less than 90ml of your finest excrement". DOPER...!!!

Would be interesting to see who out of the Hub will actually back up MTBaaisikilist with regards to the ban and paying back funds etc and who thinks he should just suffer the consequences?

I say it again, it ALL comes down to motive.

Yes, unfortunately there is a contract signed so legally the court can fine MTBaaisikilist but that doesn't necessarily mean what they doing is right.

Makes me wonder if I ever really do want to get back into the sport. I think UCI is now seriously over-reacting to a problem and not actually solving any part of the real problem.

My case aside though eddy, where do you draw the line...?

 

You and your wife enter the 94.7 for the 1st time and get seeded as amateurs in batch ZZ. You're feeling a bit of a sinus issue the day before and decide, as you do every time u have a sinus issue, to take a couple of Sinucon tabs, 2 tabs 3 times that day, and another 2 on the morning of the race.you're a social rider, no hope of placing anywhere significant. You're not a pro, so what the hell is a TUE anyway, you've never heard of it. You finish in 5 hours. But you don't know that by having that quantity of pseudoephedrine in your system, you just cheated. Then Robert's your Father's brother, "Please sir, won't you accompany me to this tent over here and part with no less than 90ml of your finest excrement". DOPER...!!!

One niggling question, why you, why did they single you out ?

is it the big guns, did you perhaps brag a little as to what you took ?

Why you ?

Said it before, will say it again. All the focus on athletes is fine and dandy, though ultimately it's window dressing until the coaches, doctors, officials etc also start to feel the heat.

Scenario, oh you're a pharmacist and a mate of jimny kriket who won tour de spruit. Ok well he got bust and you're proven as a supplier, he's received a ban from competitive sport. And you, well you sir have had your licence to practice pulled. Thanks for playing, go **** yourself.

That's how it should be. Too many athletes getting bust and publicly flogged, but years down the line the same names behind the scenes pop up.