Armisted :missed test ; interesting questions

Competing in the Olympics is not a human right.

Also, what are you talking about?

All good questions. I'll take them one by one. I think they are pretty difficult to sort of adjudicate in a full way because they would apply across so many different jurisdictions:

1. I don't think hotels have to allow anybody on their site, especially when the purpose of that presence is to pester their guests. This may be different in some place like Spain or Italy, where the drug testers may have police authorization and even accompaniment. Of course most hotels are pretty much open access anyway, so there is not an easy way for the hotel to keep people from being there either.

2. Not 100% sure what you are asking here. Hotels do have insurance for incidents on their property. The hotel would generally have a very low duty of care for uninvited guests. I would also assume that the testers would have some sort of workman's compensation coverage from their employer. But this question is very reliant on law (both employment and liability) in so many different jurisdictions that it is impossible to state much generally.

3. By "independent worker" do you mean an independent contractor status? Or something else? Anyway, I would guess testers would have some training such as universal precautions, but I am guessing. Again would depend on employment law throughout a wide variety of jurisdictions

4. Don't know the details of what is required of the athlete.

5. Yes, that would appear to be a violation of the protocol.

6. I've written on this before. I will stand by that answer for now.

Lazio

Competing in sport esp if employment has associated human rights ,specifically European Human rights act , that cover privacy and right to a family life .

Entry to your house and viewed urination are clear breaches .

"Earlier on Monday Armitstead was cagey when questioned on her absence from recent races"

The drug tester is trained in fluids collection. It's basic medical training far below, say, a nursing credential.

If you are certified in collecting blood and urine, you try to get hired by the global contractor the federations use to collect samples. From there, the test collector is supposed to be trained and follow the WADA protocol.

If the collector didn't call her back, there's nothing she can do and the tester failed in their duties.

Separately from Ms. Armistead's case:

In the history of doping scandals and near-scandals, running away from surprise tests and delaying surprised tests is quite common. The funniest one I can recall at the moment is the Williams sister who hid in her panic room from the tester.

http://www.gamingzion.com/gamblingnews/serena-williams-and-the-ideal-female-body-image-in-tennis-7985

Obviously clean.

Yet another way for a determined doper to never test positive.

Birmingham wrote:6. Why , when the detail of whereabouts requirements are made clear to the public is there not any question within the liberal press about human rights and privacy etc. Note that you can't be forced to sign your rights away esp if it is a condition of employment ( and sport for many is employment).

Actually, you can agree to sign your rights away, at least in the US. As a condition of employment, you can be forced to agree to keep employers' information confidential, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can be forced to agree to arbitrate disputes with your employer, regardless of the normal right to trial. You can be forced to agree to drug testing, similar to athletes. There are plenty of other examples.

If an athlete doesn't want to be subject to drug testing, the athlete can do something else. There is no right to compete as an elite athlete.

As for your questions about hotels, it's the athlete's responsibility to be available for testing. An athlete can't avoid that responsibility by staying at a hotel that won't let testers in or passing the buck in some other way.

Mr Obvious

If the hotel had insurance for injury to non guests such would be very likely but such would have to state which workers would be covered esp as such workers are not under the control or invite of the hotel.

If you have a factory or such you have to have health and safety control over visitors they can't just walk in to test an athlete .

Further no employer could possibly demand a viewed urination and partial stripping .

"Note that you can't be forced to sign your rights away esp if it is a condition of employment ( and sport for many is employment).

In general; I find it fascinating how easy it is to bury our assumptions of normality because of some other perceived needs . In this case the arbitrary rules of a non elected body : the IOC."

You don't get paid for performing in the Olympics. You might get a bonus from a shoe company.

But there is no employment contract between you and the IOC.

Any assumptions that you have about normality, are just assumptions. There is nothing to be buried, because they are just personal illusions.

In the US, you can agree to sign away "some" of your rights. There are others that cannot be signed away and many examples of where courts will not uphold specific provisions.Other countries have much stronger employment protections. When we talk about international organizations like WADA we have to think about the big picture.

************ wrote:

Actually, you can agree to sign your rights away, at least in the US. As a condition of employment, you can be forced to agree to keep employers' information confidential, regardless of the 1st amendment. You can be forced to agree to arbitrate disputes with your employer, regardless of the normal right to trial. You can be forced to agree to drug testing, similar to athletes. There are plenty of other examples.

If an athlete doesn't want to be subject to drug testing, the athlete can do something else. There is no right to compete as an elite athlete.

As for your questions about hotels, it's the athlete's responsibility to be available for testing. An athlete can't avoid that responsibility by staying at a hotel that won't let testers in or passing the buck in some other way.

Birmingham wrote:

Mr Obvious

If the hotel had insurance for injury to non guests such would be very likely but such would have to state which workers would be covered esp as such workers are not under the control or invite of the hotel.

If you have a factory or such you have to have health and safety control over visitors they can't just walk in to test an athlete .

Further no employer could possibly demand a viewed urination and partial stripping .

I go to a hotel where my friend is staying. The hotel isn't aggressively controlling access to my friend's room. I go to the room and knock on the door.

The hotel doesn't care if a test collector shows up.

I would remind all that testing is a requirement of nearly all sport at all levels and not just elite .

Most drug positives in the uk are non elite .

In the uk and most of Europe you can't sign your rights away esp in employment .

Birmingham wrote:

Mr Obvious

If the hotel had insurance for injury to non guests such would be very likely but such would have to state which workers would be covered esp as such workers are not under the control or invite of the hotel.

If you have a factory or such you have to have health and safety control over visitors they can't just walk in to test an athlete .

Further no employer could possibly demand a viewed urination and partial stripping .

So, I don't know how this applies to other countries, but in the US:

the hotel can have a blanket policy which would cover all sorts of accidents and persons not specifically enumerated.

hotels and other open, public spaces would be treated much differently under the law than factories or other closed spaces. Specifically because people can just walk in.

I'd be interested in the outcome of a case about the partial stripping and viewed urination.

At least in the US, I think courts would be very reluctant to interfere as they have basically ceded jurisdiction over sports conflicts to CAS. I don't think that means they would NEVER interfere or here a case, just that it is a high bar to even make it into the courtroom. I don't know enough about european jurisprudence to have any opinion, but would like to hear more.

Birmingham wrote:

Mr Obvious

If the hotel had insurance for injury to non guests such would be very likely but such would have to state which workers would be covered esp as such workers are not under the control or invite of the hotel.

If you have a factory or such you have to have health and safety control over visitors they can't just walk in to test an athlete .

Further no employer could possibly demand a viewed urination and partial stripping .

At least in the US, and I expect most other places, any reputable hotel would have significant insurance coverage for injuries to visitors. I don't see how this is relevant to drug testing in any case.

Birmingham wrote:

Lazio

Competing in sport esp if employment has associated human rights ,specifically European Human rights act , that cover privacy and right to a family life .

Entry to your house and viewed urination are clear breaches .

Wrong again. The athlete waives a number of rights when paying to join their WADA-signed sports federation.

If you have a license from your IAAF-affiliated national federation, you too agreed to be tested on demand. The registered testing pool is more rigorous, but same basic rules apply.

************ wrote:

Birmingham wrote:

Mr Obvious

If the hotel had insurance for injury to non guests such would be very likely but such would have to state which workers would be covered esp as such workers are not under the control or invite of the hotel.

If you have a factory or such you have to have health and safety control over visitors they can't just walk in to test an athlete .

Further no employer could possibly demand a viewed urination and partial stripping .

At least in the US, and I expect most other places, any reputable hotel would have significant insurance coverage for injuries to visitors. I don't see how this is relevant to drug testing in any case.

I think the causal link goes like this:

If the hotel can't get insurance on the worker, than the prudent thing to do is to prevent them from accessing the hotel. The tester then would not have access to the athlete and could not test at that place. And this would not be the decision of the athlete.

You can't sign your rights away .

If you join a sports club ie WADA covered you can agree to give up your health and safety rights just because the club rules say you have .Ditto EHRA.

Armistead admitted that her cell phone was on silent so she didn't hear the call. Don't know how this is the testers fault.

Birmingham, you're talking out of your a ss right now. Stop trolling.

This is not about the right or wrong of the cyclist in question esp as there are no rules about having to be on the phone let alone the unanswered point about the correctness of the tester giving notice .

A further example of how you can't sign your rights away by joining a sports club.

Who can tell me that you can agree to be bound by rules that say you can be mocked for your sexuality or race and thus can't have recourse to the police or courts.

You can't sign away your rights away .

How is this trolling ?