The Council of Europe considers that the FIFA ethics investigator is not up to the job.
Try AFL and IAAF , which inherited Clothier, former AFL ethics official.
Does WADA have an ethics officer.?
1 Like
Looks like that pr!ck culbert is at it again on twitter.
New Zealand , which is being touted by Howman as a model for anti-doping, has reportedly charged 80 athletes after they were caught buying clenbuterol from a site with that name. Reportedly, around 40% rugby players. NZ must have a crash hot anti-doping education program. Hope for the Wallabies yet.
3 Likes
Strange how he never tweets about IAAF corruption, on which he may be better informed- but don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
5 Likes
Culbert is a hypocrite of the biggest order - Happily takes money from the IAAF and the UCI to promote their events - Strangest thing is the media never calls him out.
7 Likes
Contrary to Hunt’s understanding, it appears that NZ Rugby has its own separate judiciary for doping and other disciplinary matters.
1 Like
ahhh twitter.
outing ■■■■ heads since 2006.
2 Likes
In a joint press release of 12 December , UKAD, Tyson and Hughie Fury notified a negotiated settlement as an alternative to judicial proceedings. Some, but not all, competition results disqualified , some charges dropped ( refusal to test) and suspension period backdated so they can compete in December.
Very generous.
ukad.org.uk
1 Like
So in other words if you take a NADO to court you may receive a favorable outcome - Pity this didn’t work for the EFC34.
1 Like
On the revelations of Froomes’s positive test for salbutamol at the Vuelta ( at twice the WADA limits) it seems that the UCI only fessed up after some collaborative digging by Le Monde and the Guardian.
Froome can contest by showing that his intake was within prescribed dosage limits / time periods and pharmakinetic evidence on excretion. But it won’t change the fact that he was riding at twice the legal limits.
As for Tyson Fury, it sure helps if you are the world champion and British to boot.
1 Like
Because salbutamol is a specified substance there is no prescribed penalty if he fails the follow up tests - Hence no provisional suspension and why it has correctly remained private - Any penalty can vary but it’s likely to be months, rather than years - My biggest concern is the positive test occurred the stage after which Froome struggled on the climb up Muchacho - Sky has a dodgy reputation for using things like TUE’s at the most opportune times.
WADA has intitated a stakeholder consultation process for a review of the Code. Details are on the WADA website.
The main drafter on the WADA team is Richard Young , the one and same who prosecuted Essendon players at CAS.
Let’s hope stakeholder submissions are made public.
4 Likes
I can’t understand the TUE references in relation to salbutamol . As I understand it, a TUE is not required up to a certain tolerance level . Above that level WADA deems that it is not taken for therapeutic purposes.
As to the WADA review the explanation on the WADA site provides that the Foundation Board wanted to keep it narrow to a few technical issues, including to correct some CAS interpretations of significant fault. There is a throwaway reference to the interests of some in basing considerations on performance enhancing effects.
But overall, sounds like the Hunt review - to be seen to be doing something. Great play is made of how good is the 2015 Code, including in regard to non-analytical findings as interpreted in CAS.
1 Like
Might be time for someone to have another go at this Bock thingy?
All the pre-conditions to claim an exemption by ASADA appear to have expired.
6 Likes
BOCK.
What’s the go there? Lots of evidence, witness statements and even admissions to wrong doing … but still no follow up.
Seems like they have got their scapegoats.
Nothing to see here, lets all move on.
please excuse my pointing out of these double standards.
13 Likes
Fine words from Paul Marsh at the signing of the Universal Declaration of Player Rights.
Now Paul, try putting those words into effect in regard to those anti-doping clauses in player contracts, which deny them their rights under Australian law and which impose on them the decisions and processes of private foreign bodies.
8 Likes
Stabby
18 months on from the decision to not release I reckon it’s time to have another go and I will.
Surely ASADA can’t claim release would prejudice and ongoing investigation four years after operation Cobia.
10 Likes
Wait for next ASADA play - can’t rely on hearsay ( not like CAS). ASADA has said in the past that it was waiting for Dank to volunteer the evidence.
1 Like
was any part of Dank’s conviction related to the Bock case???
1 Like
Don’t think it covered any Australian rules players.
The joke is that ASADA is fully aware from the ACC evidence - including sworn testimony from Dank. But it is prevented from using that evidence.
1 Like