RMweb Premium njee20 Posted August 8, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 8, 2017 WADA List Couldn't see liquorice on there, you're probably safe! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Do Liquorice allsorts count ? I seem to be addicted to them. I notice that sausage is also missing from the list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Gilbert Posted August 9, 2017 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 9, 2017 I notice that sausage is also missing from the list. Presumably that means someone has been playing "hide the sausage".... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete the Elaner Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I find it funny that nobody boo'd Gatlin in 2012 but they do now. Nothing has changed in the interim. My thoughts are that once caught and confirmed, you're banned for life. That is very black & white, but there are grey areas. 1 example is Shane Warne. After gaining some weight while out injured, he wanted to get back in shape & to help this, he took a 'fat pill' (or probably a course of them) recommended by his mother. After testing positive, he discovered that this contained a substance banned because it can mask performance enhancing drugs. Maria Sharapova is another example. She was taking some pills which were entirely legal...until the banned substance list was updated. Should both of these deserve lifetime bans, or was a 1 year ban for each sufficient? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold john new Posted August 9, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 9, 2017 That is very black & white, but there are grey areas. 1 example is Shane Warne. After gaining some weight while out injured, he wanted to get back in shape & to help this, he took a 'fat pill' (or probably a course of them) recommended by his mother. After testing positive, he discovered that this contained a substance banned because it can mask performance enhancing drugs. Maria Sharapova is another example. She was taking some pills which were entirely legal...until the banned substance list was updated. Should both of these deserve lifetime bans, or was a 1 year ban for each sufficient? Personally I'm happy with appropriate decisions on first offences. However, for second offences it should be out for life. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I once renumbered a Class 47 while off my face on painkillers, am I still allowed a layout? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdw7300 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 That is very black & white, but there are grey areas. 1 example is Shane Warne. After gaining some weight while out injured, he wanted to get back in shape & to help this, he took a 'fat pill' (or probably a course of them) recommended by his mother. After testing positive, he discovered that this contained a substance banned because it can mask performance enhancing drugs. Maria Sharapova is another example. She was taking some pills which were entirely legal...until the banned substance list was updated. Should both of these deserve lifetime bans, or was a 1 year ban for each sufficient? Gatlin's first "offence" was "less bad" than the two examples listed above. Medication to control his ADD, disclosed the relevant authorities and authorised. As agreed, he stop taking it a few days before an event, however traces of the medication where present in samples taken at the event. I'll not comment on Gatlin's excuse for second offence as it seems a tad far fetched. This article is worth a read http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/demonising-justin-gatlin/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I once renumbered a Class 47 while off my face on painkillers, am I still allowed a layout?Not if you're going to run a duff on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) As quick as tests are developed for one, another undetectable one seems to be developed. Hard to know who is clean and who isn't...... Edited August 9, 2017 by BlackRat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekl Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 "Those are the rules. Almost everyone seems to be unimpressed by them, but it seems impossible to change them.I'm not sure why the courts have to be involved with this kind of thing. Surely the IAAF could be considered a private member's club, with its own rules on membership........" Part of the problem is that Human Rights kick in. As the athletes are professionals they cannot be deprived of the right to earn a living. If the national federations set out rules that make these cheats eligible then they have to select them. In cricket the rules leave the selectors a wider choice. If the rules say that you win a trial then you are automatically selected then the sports controlling bodies are stuffed. They say they want to tighten the rules but as Coe said yesterday the have not been able to do so. I wonder just how hard they have tried and how much behind the scenes pressure has been applied by rather wealthy interested parties. I feel some sympathy for Gatlin as there are far worse people about. ......... The "problem" is not the Human Rights Act. These organisations as all properly incorporated clubs have rules. The members are expected to conduct themselves according to the rules. If they don't or as is more likely there is a dispute as to interpretation there will be some internal method to resolve the issue. If that does not, then the aggrieved party has recourse to the courts. That is why we have courts - where there is a dispute in society, whether involving the common law or statute, or the affairs of private clubs, there is an independent arbiter. So even if the IAAF was considered a private club, the last resort for rule book interpretations remains the courts, although it remains last resort. There is alos no way of excluding recourse ot teh courts as final arbiter in any agreement. (I have truncated the comments to exclude material irrelevant to my point). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium njee20 Posted August 9, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 9, 2017 The Sharapova case is an interesting one, she was banned for taking a masking agent which was prescribed by her "family doctor", despite her living thousands of miles away and being surrounded by physicians and other highly capable staff. She could provide no justification for taking it whatsoever, other than having done so for 'health problems' for 10 years. She also waltzed back in and picked up loads of sponsorship deals again as if nothing had ever happened. Zero punishment. Epitomises everything that's wrong with tennis IMO, which (unlike, for example, cycling) totally hides its head in the sand! Alain Baxter is a better example of potentially 'unfair' positive testing, he took an over the counter Vicks inhaler, which in the UK was absolutely fine, but the US recipe contained a banned ingredient. That said, it's their livelihood, they should probably know to check stuff like that. Mark Cavendish's book talks about the "whereabouts" thing athletes have to fill in so WADA can get hold of them at any time of day. Yes, it's onerous, possibly even draconian, but it's also their job to complete it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 Maria Sharapova is another example. That heavenly creature is an example of so many things, I shall have to go and lie down in a darkened room for a little while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium njee20 Posted August 11, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 11, 2017 And that, right there, is why she earns so much money. Not her tennis (she's not the best), not because she's clean (clearly she's not), no it's because of lecherous men admiring her! Still, good for her for capitalising on that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 not because she's clean (clearly she's not) STOP! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now