Yolande de Villiers sanctioned for anti-doping rule violation

A question: is it only cycling that has a no needle policy..?

No, it's a directive from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) 

So essentially adopted by the federation of any sporting code classed as an olympic sport. 

(edit) - Actually found this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/ioc-extends-no-needle-ban-to-all-sports-in-2012-2309415.html

How many times were you tested during your 2 Epics?

I've never been tested despite having raced for years. In the last Epic I did, I think we were the first or second non-pro team home (around 30th place). The first Cape Pioneer when there wasn't much of a field me and Ro Exelby came second and won two or 3 stages - no tests...

seems this banning for life is a double standard then. We won't test you on our event but don't get caught elsewhere

Race organizers have got nothing to do with testing afik, it is completely organized by the anti-doping bodies.

It is my understanding that CSA knew that she was using the meds as it was prescribed. CSA failed to issue a TUE according to international regulations. The directive came from the UCI to suspend her. CSA did not follow procedures insuring the TUE conditions are met

I've never been tested despite having raced for years. In the last Epic I did, I think we were the first or second non-pro team home (around 30th place). The first Cape Pioneer when there wasn't much of a field me and Ro Exelby came second and won two or 3 stages - no tests...

I hope that is the case. I can (unfortunately) believe that they could bungle up something as important as that. It will also explain the bizarre sentence.

I hope that is the case. I can (unfortunately) believe that they could bungle up something as important as that. It will also explain the bizarre sentence.

I simply do not trust CSA. Easy to throw someones name away and bugger the consequences.

Please don't get me wrong - I absolutely despise people cheating (being corrupt) in life. But if CSA didn't follow procedure RE a TUE and that their actions resulted in the UCI banning her, she would have some grounds for legal recourse against CSA? I believe that she has to pay back prize money.

Is it CSA or Drug Free who issue the TUE?

Is it CSA or Drug Free who issue the TUE?

I don't know, merely speculating. If Drug Free (or who ever else other than CSA) issues it, CSA had to apply for it to be issued. So it is CSA duty to protect its members...... But CSA fails its members time and again

Is it CSA or Drug Free who issue the TUE?

In South Africa, you ask SAIDS for a TUE.  CSA is not involved.

This is a good thing.  You can't have the fox guarding the hen house.

In South Africa, you ask SAIDS for a TUE.  CSA is not involved.

 

This is a good thing.  You can't have the fox guarding the hen house.

That's why I thought. Ta for the confirmation. 

I don't know, merely speculating. If Drug Free (or who ever else other than CSA) issues it, CSA had to apply for it to be issued. So it is CSA duty to protect its members...... But CSA fails its members time and again

No.

You apply at SAIDS.  SAIDS issues it.  At the end of a race, SAIDS does the tests, and you present the TUE to SAIDS when you're tested.

If you're positive (bad word in this context), SAIDS notifies CSA (and, I presume, SASCOC)  I'm not sure CSA is involved until the very end.  At least, in theory.

It's not CSAs responsibility to get your doctor and SAIDS to talk.  It's yours.  And you could end up feeling like a middle-man in a broken telephone game.  I did.

If you end up without a TUE when you need one, it's your responsibility.

If you do need a TUE, I urge you to speak to both SAIDS and CSA (and TSA or any other sporting body in SA where you participate.)  Do not take my word for it.

No.

 

You apply at SAIDS. SAIDS issues it. At the end of a race, SAIDS does the tests, and you present the TUE to SAIDS when you're tested.

 

If you're positive (bad word in this context), SAIDS notifies CSA (and, I presume, SASCOC) I'm not sure CSA is involved until the very end. At least, in theory.

 

It's not CSAs responsibility to get your doctor and SAIDS to talk. It's yours. And you could end up feeling like a middle-man in a broken telephone game. I did.

 

If you end up without a TUE when you need one, it's your responsibility.

 

If you do need a TUE, I urge you to speak to both SAIDS and CSA (and TSA or any other sporting body in SA where you participate.) Do not take my word for it.

Thanks for clarifying. Just another example of the shlep and red-tape in a flawed process. I just get the feeling that she was 'setup' for failure (no conspiracy theory) by the system.

This is hectic - to have your career/life pulled out from under you.

For me there is a distinction between someone taking EPO/other PEDS, someone refusing to be tested, and someone being prescribed a med that could be harmful.

As far as I'm aware, this is the final UCI ruling. (This has nothing to do with SAIDS or CSA) She would have had an opportunity to make representations to them and however else was involved. 

Any and all of these circumstances would have been presented by her you would assume, at the very least she would have had the opportunity to do so. And looking at the TL of events and the announcement this has been an ongoing process for some time. 

As with Mr Impey, mitigating circumstances are consider when sentencing. Until we are given further information as with Mr Croeser and MR Evans it is all speculation and conjecture. 

My father sits on SASCOC as a president of a federation, SASCOC does not really get involved with doping. 

The federation either orders the tests or the international body does the tests here or at world champs and gets it processed in Switzerland. Then corresponds with player and federation about issues picked up and the back and forth. His biggest role is making sure the player co operates and does not take part in the sport until the issue is settled with the International body.

Thanks for clarifying. Just another example of the shlep and red-tape in a flawed process. I just get the feeling that she was 'setup' for failure (no conspiracy theory) by the system.

 

This is hectic - to have your career/life pulled out from under you.

 

For me there is a distinction between someone taking EPO/other PEDS, someone refusing to be tested, and someone being prescribed a med that could be harmful.

Can you clarify what you mean in the last part? 

Can you clarify what you mean in the last part?

Intention.....

Again, I am not justifying anyone's behaviour. She was aware of possible interference of the meds if samples were to be taken. The process/system behind obtaining TUE seems to be badly managed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, by dr's, by CSA, by SAIDS.

What the real intentions were for her, for Croesser, for Evans - no one will know. If the UCI really wants to clean up cycling, all parties involved should improve their act

................... If the UCI really wants to clean up cycling, all parties involved should improve their act

Agreed, starting with the cyclists themselves breaking the toxic code of silence and ratting out the dirty ones and the helpers!

There are other ways to control high blood pressure besides diuretics. Really awful coincidence that the meds used by this top cyclist are on the WADA banned list. Guilty or really f**ken stupid are the only two conclusions I can come to.

There are other ways to control high blood pressure besides diuretics. Really awful coincidence that the meds used by this top cyclist are on the WADA banned list. Guilty or really f**ken stupid are the only two conclusions I can come to.

Top sports people rarely has high blood pressure. A lowered resting HR normally means low blood pressure. But I am no dr.

I don't understand either the reasoning behind taking a diuretic for water retention when you cycle. I sweat like a pig when I ride. A diuretic will place increased demands on the liver and kidneys.

Apparently Yolande has been on these blood pressure meds for 4 years... and has been declaring the use of it for 4 years. Might explain the very lenient sentencing? Might explain the lack of transparency from SAIDS...

Starting to sound a bit like some administrative failure, regardless of what led us to this outcome...

Options: She's been allowed to use her blood pressure meds for three years, but not the fourth year?

She's never been allowed to use them and it took 3/4 years for the penny to drop with SAIDS?

This is just a little spin doctoring to save some face?

It's hard to know what is actually going on when there is no transparency, no accountability... we're always left fumbling around in the dark looking for the truth.

Top sports people rarely has high blood pressure. A lowered resting HR normally means low blood pressure. But I am no dr.

 

I don't understand either the reasoning behind taking a diuretic for water retention when you cycle. I sweat like a pig when I ride. A diuretic will place increased demands on the liver and kidneys.

You are absolutely correct! I am no doctor either but it seems logical that diuretics and meds like beta blockers would negatively impact physical performance.

So I google it and guess what: "Exercise performance is impaired when an individual is dehydrated by as little as 2% of body weight. Losses in excess of 5% of body weight can decrease the capacity for work by about 30% (Armstrong et al. 1985; Craig and Cummings 1966; Maughan 1991; Sawka and Pandolf 1990)."

This is just a little spin doctoring to save some face?

 

Saying nothing at all has everyone in a spin.