Thank you!! European court rules 'whereabouts' system for drug testing doesn't violate an athletes human rights

rojo wrote:

They argued that the system violated the the provision in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights concerning "respect for private and family life".

That is a vague phrase. It is no wonder this had to go to court.

What would be a violation of the respect for private and family life by the drug tester ?

The whereabouts system is a violation of athletes' human rights.

Although, it is understandable that because athletes would run off into the mountains for months on end and dope up to the gills without being tested, whereabouts was put in place. It still doesn't give WADA, USADA etc. the right to make athletes inform them where they are at all times. Its even more a violation when you consider that out of competition testing doesn't actually do what it is supposed to do - deter athletes, and catch those that are using banned substances. Given that less than 2% of out of competition tests return back positive, testing from whereabouts is ineffective and if i was on the whereabouts system I would be pissed.

There are more important things in life than athletics you arrogant ignoramus. She is right.

Except that nobody forces you to be a professional athlete. If you do not like the Whereabout system, choose a different career path.

But you don't have to be a professional athlete to be on the whereabouts. Its a harsh a punishment if someone competes recreationally, does very well, and is then told by an organisation that you have to tell them where you are for every single day of the year. If you don't comply you will be banned from all sport for four years

Bored Student wrote:

you have to tell them where you are for every single day of the year.

If you don't comply you will be banned from all sport for four years

Unless you are from UK, when you get three boo-boos, and even then the whole thing gets called a "do-over" because the UKAD tester "fouled up" rather than it being your fault.

They argued that the system violated the the provision in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights concerning "respect for private and family life".

European courts have no authority over "human rights" per se.

They only have authority over "European human rights" of/c.

The Strasbourg based panel decided that the public interest of ensuring doping-free sport justified any intrusion.

Why should so-called "public interest" be the route to deny basic human rights from being followed?

It's a correct ruling. It would be a violation of human rights for ordinary people to have to give their whereabouts at all times. These are not ordinary people. They are people who have chosen to join sports where success is largely based on physical abilities that can be improved by cheating (doping). The whereabouts rule exists for a good reason--to prevent or deter this cheating by out of competition testing. If you don't like the rules of the sport, don't engage in the sport at a professional or competitive level.

Longo is free to ride her bicycle wherever or whenever she wants. She's just not able to ride it in competitions without agreeing to abide by the rules of the competition. She can't pick and choose which rules she is willing to follow.

You might as well argue that it violates free speech if a baseball player can't cuss out the umpire or argue balls and strikes. If you want to speak freely to the umpire, buy a ticket and yell from the stands or hang out on a public street corner and say whatever you want. But if you choose to compete in a sport you have to abide by its rules.

[quote]Just follow the rules wrote:

It would be a violation of human rights for ordinary people to have to give their whereabouts at all times.

Are athletes not ordinary people? Just because they have a special ability does not mean they should be treated differently. The whole process of doping control is invasive and against a lot of human rights. Since when is it acceptable to piss into a cup in front of a complete stranger?

The fact is, you could be 13 years old and told you have to conform to all of these rules because WADA say so.

Do athletes not get a say in what actually happens to them?

You're right troll...

Good thing she's committed to a life of a doped athlete, where it isn't!

Bored Student wrote:Are athletes not ordinary people? Just because they have a special ability does not mean they should be treated differently. The whole process of doping control is invasive and against a lot of human rights. Since when is it acceptable to piss into a cup in front of a complete stranger?

The fact is, you could be 13 years old and told you have to conform to all of these rules because WADA say so.

Do athletes not get a say in what actually happens to them?

It has nothing to do with her having a special ability. If Longo wants to use her special ability to ride a bicycle fast there are roads all over France where she can do it whenever she wants. That's what ordinary people do.

What she wants to do is enter a professional competition as a way to make money. That competition has rules and some of the rules are to prevent cheating by doping. If she doesn't like the rules she doesn't have to join the competition.

That competition has rules and some of the rules are to prevent cheating by doping. If she doesn't like the rules she doesn't have to join the competition.

I understand your point that there are rules and as athletes we are signing up to these rules, but just because a competition has rules does not make these rules right. At one point in time women were banned from running a marathon or it was illegal to have a coach. Right now, WADA enforces the rules and they want to know where athletes' are every single day. If you fail to do this, then you're out of the sport. Even if you haven't taken a drug, you are kicked out the sport.

These are the rules athletes are faced with, and if you take a step back from the bubble of sport, they are against human rights.

The whereabouts system currently exists, and athletes currently dope, so the whole idea that the whereabouts system prevents doping is invalid. If the whereabouts system does not prevent doping, then why does it exist at all?

?[/quote]

It has nothing to do with her having a special ability. If Longo wants to use her special ability to ride a bicycle fast there are roads all over France where she can do it whenever she wants. That's what ordinary people do.

What she wants to do is enter a professional competition as a way to make money. That competition has rules and some of the rules are to prevent cheating by doping. If she doesn't like the rules she doesn't have to join the competition.[/quote]

Exactly right.

it doesn't prevent doping wrote:

The whereabouts system currently exists, and athletes currently dope, so the whole idea that the whereabouts system prevents doping is invalid. If the whereabouts system does not prevent doping, then why does it exist at all?

The rules of football don't prevent all chop blocks, facemask grabbing, spearing, etc. The rules of baseball don't prevent all cases of pitchers throwing at the batter's head. So should those plays be made legal?

The fact that doping prevention isn't perfect is not an argument against doping rules. The doping rules try to deter doping and avoid a situation where everyone has to dope in order to be successful in a sport. If doping rules are at least reducing the amount of doping in the sport--which they are based at a minimum on the numbers of people caught--then they are serving their purpose.

If you want to argue that the benefits of drug testing aren't worth the trade-off in added cost, trouble, inconvenience to athletes and so on, fine. Most people in track and field disagree with you. But lack of perfection is not an argument against a rule.

Not perfect? You have failed to prove that the whereabouts system has any impact at all.