11/21/24
November 13, 2003
Nice. No double standard there whatsoever. However, I would like to see some big names. These guys are small fish.
posted by worldcup2002 at 09:48 AM on November 13, 2003
I can't decide if that policy is smart, under-handed, unfair, or a combination of all three. Depending on the outcome of this scandal, the IAAF may force a change.
posted by garfield at 09:56 AM on November 13, 2003
I don't really understand why the general proceedure is to release names after the A sample when they're not guilty unless the B sample tests positive. Canadian cyclist Genevieve Jeanson was found with high hemocrit levels (an indicator of EPO usage). She was kicked out of the World Championships and later cleared after the 2nd test. See http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/5169.0.html for more info. There's also this discussion on the Bicycling Magazine website http://tinyurl.com/uvnt. I can understand not allowing an athlete who fails a test to compete - that would be unfair if they are cheating. But to release names after a failed first test only taints the athlete's name by association. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
posted by kokaku at 11:11 AM on November 13, 2003
I agree with your point about guilt by association, but whatever happened to incentive not to use? Doesn't it make the playing field uneven by having a different disclosure policy, thereby giving a sense of security/privacy not enjoyed by competitors? If someone thinks they can escape punishment, is not one more tempted to bend the rules?
posted by garfield at 11:19 AM on November 13, 2003
You Canadians and your Moral Standards. Pah.
posted by Samsonov14 at 01:30 PM on November 13, 2003
You Americans and your lack thereof. Bah.
posted by garfield at 01:51 PM on November 13, 2003
That picture is digustingly innacurate and a horrible characture of a proud fighting force... And we're not that well-equipped. Not everyone has hats.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:54 PM on November 13, 2003
Why isn't the Canuck in the middle wearing underpants?
That truly is commando.
Is that a skirt, or a mumu?
posted by lilnemo at 02:10 PM on November 13, 2003
Aren't they going to separate those american siamese triplets? Oh wait, here's my bayonet.
posted by garfield at 02:26 PM on November 13, 2003
(oh - there's the switch to get this thread back on track) I agree there should be a consistent rule, but lean towards not naming names unless the athlete fails both tests, with an exception for tests during competitions, since the athlete would be removed from competition and it would be hard to keep it a secret then. I keep wondering when the THG scandal is going to roll into the cycling world.
posted by kokaku at 03:22 PM on November 13, 2003
I don't think there will ever come a day when athletes aren't doping with something that can't be detected. Sad. True.
posted by Samsonov14 at 03:39 PM on November 13, 2003
It just seems a like a race between the cheaters and the detectors. So now the detectors have found something new but surely the cheaters have been working on the next gen doping agents already (if they are not already in use). ... and those can't be Canadians in the picture. They aren't wearing toques.
posted by gspm at 08:55 AM on November 14, 2003
I will repeat my position from an earlier, similar thread: let the athletes use what they want (over the age of 18). I don't see this as being much different than improvements in equipment and training. Sure the athletes may damage their bodies but look at athletes now who blow out knees or collapse in the heat.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:20 PM on November 14, 2003
"This is the only country at the moment which doesn't give us the names right after the A (samples). All the others provide the names. This little issue is still to be brought into line with IAAF regulations."