Alemar
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2017
- Messages
- 8,432
This case seems to be different.
CAS also thought so.
This case seems to be different.
There you go. Since yesterday, people have been talking about the example with Sha'Carri Richardson, who was banned from the Tokyo Olympics because she smoked a joint (FML with banning pot, man!). There was just no way for her to appeal, and the US did not defend her while the entire ROC put its weight to support someone who has traces of an illegal substance that has been banned since 2014. The worst in all of this mess is the message it sends to other athletes out there, subscribing to the same rules better than the vast majority.I guess the challenge (like with @RedDevilQuebecois post above) is that a lot of athletes get banned quickly with little/no leeway apparent. This case seems to be different.
She was caught well before the olympics, and she confirmed the violation herself - so the situation was clear.There you go. Since yesterday, people have been talking about the example with Sha'Carri Richardson, who was banned from the Tokyo Olympics because she smoked a joint (FML with banning pot, man!).
The situation is pretty clear here too. Unless you actually believe the “it’s my grandpa’s medicine” nonsense.She was caught well before the olympics, and she confirmed the violation herself - so the situation was clear.
It increases blood flow efficiency. A Chinese swimmer and a Russian bobsledder have tested positive for it in the past.Apparently it's a form of heart medication they detected?
Nothing is clear here. Not all positive A-samples mean anti-doping violations - spectrum of possibilities is broader than this, and sometimes athletes are fully cleared in the end.The situation is pretty clear here too. Unless you actually believe the “it’s my grandpa’s medicine” nonsense.
It's a messed up situation when we're wondering how to tackle the issue of a child seemingly having failed a drugs test and it basically seems a lose-lose whatever the IOC do. Boot her out now when there seems some, even minor, element of doubt over the testing procedure and it's unfair, particularly on a kid. If she does ultimately get the gold stripped though, assuming she wins, it's a pretty shitty way for the silver medallist to receive the gold, getting in the post with no ceremony.
The people berating her need to take a step back. She's a 15 year old child who was in tears clutching a soft toy after her last performance, not some PED-gobbling mastermind. She's no doubt been horribly advised and/or manipulated.
Gutted I missed both team sprints due to work. But never have I been happier to be wrong! Valnes, you absolute beast!!!
Happy for the German ladies as well. Anyone but Sweden. Always!
I was dreading a win for Sweden once things went wrong for our girls. Admittedly Germany are now closing in on us as far as gold medals go, but I don't think they'll overtake us. We've still got a couple more in us, if we want it.
It's a messed up situation when we're wondering how to tackle the issue of a child seemingly having failed a drugs test and it basically seems a lose-lose whatever the IOC do. Boot her out now when there seems some, even minor, element of doubt over the testing procedure and it's unfair, particularly on a kid. If she does ultimately get the gold stripped though, assuming she wins, it's a pretty shitty way for the silver medallist to receive the gold, getting in the post with no ceremony.
The people berating her need to take a step back. She's a 15 year old child who was in tears clutching a soft toy after her last performance, not some PED-gobbling mastermind. She's no doubt been horribly advised and/or manipulated.
I get the gripe about the perception of rules not being applied consistently. The delay in the reporting of the test is very weird though- it seems a bit more convoluted than many other cases, speaking as a layman.The point that I already touched yesterday is that athletes are normally put under a ban immediately upon finding out a positive test to an illegal substance. Then the ban stays up at least until they clear their name in front of the authorities of the federation overlooking the discipline - the ISU here. That is what happened to Laurence Vincent-Lapointe (like probably a few others), for whom the ban was only cleared AFTER she won her case at her hearing at the ICF by pointing out that it was an exchange of bodily fluids with her then-boyfriend (who consumed that illegal substance) explains why she had traces.
One thing I just do not understand here is why rules have to be different because Valieva is a child while dozens of athletes had to go in the one-size-fits-all process of being suspended and then defending the case in front of the federation authorities. If Valieva got the boot and then gets cleared later, she will have all the chances in the world to compete in Milan 2026 at age 19 and with more than enough maturity to go at the peak of her powers. If Valieva is mentally strong enough, she would definitely be competing in 2026. For the record, Yuna Kim was 19 when she won gold in Vancouver.
Rules have to be black and white and applicable on the same standards to everybody. That is my gripe.
One thing I just do not understand here is why rules have to be different because Valieva is a child
Besides, CAS is not sure there was any violation at all - hence concerns for irreversible harm. In most of the cases there are no doubts, but here too many factors lead to very serious ones
But if she was sabotaged or took contaminated product, then she would have missed the olympics for nothing.If she got the boot 2 days ago and then gets cleared later, where is the harm?
And don't you think that about all other athletes are exposed to similar risks as well? In the case involving the Canadian canoer, she was also at risk of missing out the Tokyo Olympics before her hearing went the right way for her.But if she was sabotaged or took contaminated product, then she would have missed the olympics for nothing.
Luckily enough, CAS doesn’t share your opinion.Valieva should have been suspended and set to have a hearing later just like dozens have done before her.
CAS are corrupt as feck then, just like their ruling on Manchester City.Luckily enough, CAS doesn’t share your opinion.
I don’t, but what to debate if almost everything is in WADA regulations? If a sportsman is 16+ years old, he is suspended more or less automatically (same automatic suspension happens to a sportsman of any age if a positive probe is taken during the Olympics). If the sportsman is below 16, however, WADA rules are not clear enough, there are no peculiar rules for suspension of protected persons in their regulations, and it’s up to CAS to decide taking all the info into consideration.Still avoiding to answer or debate the question, I see.
Watching some of sports and the Canadian athletes I see have French names.
Do most of the athletes come from Quebec or is it just a coincidence that I happen to come across them?
I've not followed the curling as much as I have in previous olympics, but I don't get what happened on the final stone of the first end in our men's semi final. We had the last stone, the US had one in the house, and we cleared it hard but hit on the side and so the end was blanked? Given how accurate these guys are why would they have played the stone at such a pace, surely it was simple to hit and leave yourself scoring?
Yeah, I just read up and saw that you retain the hammer. Thanks!1 point when you have the final stone is useless. If you blank you keep the final stone in the next end.