Or I might have read you wrong.
If you meant that hopefully Coleman gets cleared then that's my fault.
But yeah we do need Coleman to break the WR in the 100.
Or I might have read you wrong.
If you meant that hopefully Coleman gets cleared then that's my fault.
But yeah we do need Coleman to break the WR in the 100.
rekrunner wrote:
rule reader wrote:
Most posts say that you join a club and sign your rights away.Thus it needed stating that law is above Wada.
What does work with actually mean?Such implies too much.
You and and do not have big differences but most on this site do on the issue of the legal independence of sport.
My core point is that Wada is draconian and athletes have their rights restricted compared with every other element of life and hence Thomas has a huge reputational problem. Back to first post!
This is true with most every contract -- you commit to obligations, and agree to limit some of your freedoms in exchange for some benefits.
Of course such contracts are subject to, and must not violate, applicable local, state, or national laws, and any international conventions.
But that seems to not be the case here, as the legality was tested in the ECHR, and passed.
Generally, when disputes with athletes arrive in the courts, they are dismissed as the parties agreed to settle disputes in arbitration -- an acceptable form of justice recognized by the courts, for club disputes.
WADA works with governments several ways: through National Olympic committees, and National Anti-doping Organizations, and also by regional representation in WADA's board, and any number of committees and working groups.
Here for example is a footnote regarding how WADA worked with Europe, with athletes, with NADOs, with governments and with International Federations to update the Whereabouts rule:
To comply with European law, WADA oversaw the drafting of the latest World Anti-Doping Code, which came into force in 2015, by the French judge Jean-Paul Costa, former President of the ECHR. In addition, the ongoing review of the Code and its various processes includes close collaboration with athletes and other important stakeholders. Because the effectiveness and efficiency of Whereabouts depends on the compliance of athletes, the perspective of elite athletes and others has been an important aspect of its development. Whereabouts rules are endorsed by athletes’ associations, National Anti-Doping Organizations, governments, International Federations and Major Event Organizations.
I'm sure I quoted this statement from WADA before:
Without question, the fight against doping is in the public interest and is the responsibility of both the sports movement and the public authorities. It receives universal support, including from the United Nations (via UNESCO’s International Convention against Doping in Sport) and the Council of Europe (via its Anti-Doping Convention).
You keep citing the necessity to state that WADA is not acting above the law, but it's not clear that anyone else ever believed that, and it's clear that WADA is continuously working within the applicable laws and working with athletes on the best compromise to respect the athletes while making anti-doping as effective as they can.
I think Thomas does not have a huge reputational problem, except from the more extreme core zero-tolerance mentality "fans" of the sport.
You quote from Wada’s own publicity.
Wada claim more rights than much of our legal system as the original Wada code said that it existed outside of the law.
No court decision on viewed ruination of adults nor kids.
No court decision on home testing of those not on whereabouts.
No challenge on the predictability of the laws about related compounds.Ah, yes there is; about a Liverpool footballer. We await the decisions or settled out of court.
rule reader wrote:
You quote from Wada’s own publicity.
Wada claim more rights than much of our legal system as the original Wada code said that it existed outside of the law.
No court decision on viewed ruination of adults nor kids.
No court decision on home testing of those not on whereabouts.
No challenge on the predictability of the laws about related compounds.Ah, yes there is; about a Liverpool footballer. We await the decisions or settled out of court.
You questioned what "works with government" means -- that is how WADA explains the steps they took to work with all stakeholders, including governments.
Ironic that you point out I quote fro WADA's publicity, then in the next sentence you quote from the original WADA code (except you paraphrased it, so I don't really know what the original code says).
As far as I know, these other things haven't even been challenged in court, so it is normal to have no court decision.
rekrunner wrote:
rule reader wrote:
You quote from Wada’s own publicity.
Wada claim more rights than much of our legal system as the original Wada code said that it existed outside of the law.
No court decision on viewed ruination of adults nor kids.
No court decision on home testing of those not on whereabouts.
No challenge on the predictability of the laws about related compounds.Ah, yes there is; about a Liverpool footballer. We await the decisions or settled out of court.
You questioned what "works with government" means -- that is how WADA explains the steps they took to work with all stakeholders, including governments.
Ironic that you point out I quote fro WADA's publicity, then in the next sentence you quote from the original WADA code (except you paraphrased it, so I don't really know what the original code says).
As far as I know, these other things haven't even been challenged in court, so it is normal to have no court decision.
Read page 16/17 of the current Code on Wada site.
Makes it clear that drug control is not to be constrained by normal legal matters as they are sports rules that you have to accept.
This conflict between Wada and the rest of normality continues.
Viewed urination of adults let alone children is not allowed in any other circumstances; how can you have a parallel system of justice go on unchallenged just because it is sport.
Can’t have a parallel system for health and safety etc
rule reader wrote:
Read page 16/17 of the current Code on Wada site.
Makes it clear that drug control is not to be constrained by normal legal matters as they are sports rules that you have to accept.
This conflict between Wada and the rest of normality continues.
Viewed urination of adults let alone children is not allowed in any other circumstances; how can you have a parallel system of justice go on unchallenged just because it is sport.
Can’t have a parallel system for health and safety etc
It's poor form to refer me to read two pages to search for the part that is relevant to your point.
Once again, you are quoting from WADA.
WADA speaks of their intent, including the intent to respect human rights, and the distinct nature, and asks the courts to be aware of and respect the distinct nature of these sport-specific rules and procedures.
As far as I know, courts are not signatories to, nor subject to the WADA code. They can take WADA's intent and the distinct nature and the broad spectrum of consensus under advisement.
Viewed urination of adults is allowed in domains like the fetish movie industry, apparently unchallenged legally. I suppose with a parents consent, it would be allowed for children too.
rekrunner wrote:
rule reader wrote:
Read page 16/17 of the current Code on Wada site.
Makes it clear that drug control is not to be constrained by normal legal matters as they are sports rules that you have to accept.
This conflict between Wada and the rest of normality continues.
Viewed urination of adults let alone children is not allowed in any other circumstances; how can you have a parallel system of justice go on unchallenged just because it is sport.
Can’t have a parallel system for health and safety etc
It's poor form to refer me to read two pages to search for the part that is relevant to your point.
Once again, you are quoting from WADA.
WADA speaks of their intent, including the intent to respect human rights, and the distinct nature, and asks the courts to be aware of and respect the distinct nature of these sport-specific rules and procedures.
As far as I know, courts are not signatories to, nor subject to the WADA code. They can take WADA's intent and the distinct nature and the broad spectrum of consensus under advisement.
Viewed urination of adults is allowed in domains like the fetish movie industry, apparently unchallenged legally. I suppose with a parents consent, it would be allowed for children too.
Most of the two pages are concerned with the point at hand. Intellectual adventure sometimes requires two minutes effort.
Now ! You really have hit the brain dead limits.Comparing Wada with what is allowed in films.And even to suggest that parents could give consent for children to be filmed .
Utterly contemptible.
You have shown yourself to be intellectually challenged and morally moribund.
rule reader wrote:
Now ! You really have hit the brain dead limits.Comparing Wada with what is allowed in films.And even to suggest that parents could give consent for children to be filmed .
Utterly contemptible.
You have shown yourself to be intellectually challenged and morally moribund.
You are the one who keeps bringing up viewing urination many times.
You said it wasn't allowed in any other circumstances. There is at least one circumstance.
You keep saying that people cannot sign away their rights, but it happens in virtually every contract ever created, provided there is consent among the parties, or in the case of minors, consent of their parent or legal guardian.
The enforceability of contracts can always be challenged, if it is argued to break laws.
This happened in the ECHR, which found no violation of privacy.
I'm unaware if viewing urination, either of adults or minors, has ever been legally challenged, but I guess it would fall under the same "privacy" laws, and found to be permitted.
rekrunner wrote:
Viewed urination of adults is allowed in domains like the fetish movie industry, apparently unchallenged legally.
Link?
The Dirty Duck wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Viewed urination of adults is allowed in domains like the fetish movie industry, apparently unchallenged legally.
Link?
Exactly
rekrunner wrote:
rule reader wrote:
Now ! You really have hit the brain dead limits.Comparing Wada with what is allowed in films.And even to suggest that parents could give consent for children to be filmed .
Utterly contemptible.
You have shown yourself to be intellectually challenged and morally moribund.
You are the one who keeps bringing up viewing urination many times.
You said it wasn't allowed in any other circumstances. There is at least one circumstance.
You keep saying that people cannot sign away their rights, but it happens in virtually every contract ever created, provided there is consent among the parties, or in the case of minors, consent of their parent or legal guardian.
The enforceability of contracts can always be challenged, if it is argued to break laws.
This happened in the ECHR, which found no violation of privacy.
I'm unaware if viewing urination, either of adults or minors, has ever been legally challenged, but I guess it would fall under the same "privacy" laws, and found to be permitted.
Unfair contracts in the 2015 Consumer Rights Act.
Most contracts say that you can’t give up your Statutory Rights written within them..
You can’t give up your Health and Safety Rights at work nor rights to minimum wages etc.
A child can sue parents if they give child’s rights away..
You can’t sign your rights away under ECHR ; that is was the French decision said.
I am not allowed to be rude about your intelligence level and your right to free speech however.
The Dirty Duck wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Viewed urination of adults is allowed in domains like the fetish movie industry, apparently unchallenged legally.
Link?
Use videos.google.com, with your desired search terms.
rule reader wrote:
Unfair contracts in the 2015 Consumer Rights Act.
Most contracts say that you can’t give up your Statutory Rights written within them..
You can’t give up your Health and Safety Rights at work nor rights to minimum wages etc.
A child can sue parents if they give child’s rights away..
You can’t sign your rights away under ECHR ; that is was the French decision said.
I am not allowed to be rude about your intelligence level and your right to free speech however.
You seem to be spinning your wheels at square zero around some untested legal theories which no one else seems to share.
Pointing now to mainstream films, they often film intimate moments and broadcast them publicly to the world. Did anyone sign a contract waiving their right to privacy?
How about when an investigative reporter uses a hidden camera and then later publishes the secret recordings of acts and statements thought to be private? Do the victims of such subterfuge have any legal recourse? They didn't even sign a contract or give their consent.
How are doctors exams even possible?
I'm not sure how you are reading the French decision, as I saw things like "public interest" and "no violation of Article 8" at the ECHR website announcing the decision in English. Perhaps you are just not a very good rule reader.
I suggest the next step, rather than continuing to argue with me and failing to persuade due to the many real world counter-examples, is to substantiate your legal theories into reality.
When an athlete successfully argues your point in court for a violation of privacy, or a child successfully sues their parent for the non-private humiliation, please feel free to resurrect this thread, and publish the judges decision that confirms your theories.
rekrunner wrote:
rule reader wrote:
Unfair contracts in the 2015 Consumer Rights Act.
Most contracts say that you can’t give up your Statutory Rights written within them..
You can’t give up your Health and Safety Rights at work nor rights to minimum wages etc.
A child can sue parents if they give child’s rights away..
You can’t sign your rights away under ECHR ; that is was the French decision said.
I am not allowed to be rude about your intelligence level and your right to free speech however.
You seem to be spinning your wheels at square zero around some untested legal theories which no one else seems to share.
Pointing now to mainstream films, they often film intimate moments and broadcast them publicly to the world. Did anyone sign a contract waiving their right to privacy?
How about when an investigative reporter uses a hidden camera and then later publishes the secret recordings of acts and statements thought to be private? Do the victims of such subterfuge have any legal recourse? They didn't even sign a contract or give their consent.
How are doctors exams even possible?
I'm not sure how you are reading the French decision, as I saw things like "public interest" and "no violation of Article 8" at the ECHR website announcing the decision in English. Perhaps you are just not a very good rule reader.
I suggest the next step, rather than continuing to argue with me and failing to persuade due to the many real world counter-examples, is to substantiate your legal theories into reality.
When an athlete successfully argues your point in court for a violation of privacy, or a child successfully sues their parent for the non-private humiliation, please feel free to resurrect this thread, and publish the judges decision that confirms your theories.
The ECHR made it 100 % clear that human rights apply to sports rules.It was tested and proved.
You can’t sign your statutory rights away in sport or anything else.
Wada hoped you could but the Courts say otherwise.
rule reader wrote:
The ECHR made it 100 % clear that human rights apply to sports rules.It was tested and proved.
You can’t sign your statutory rights away in sport or anything else.
Wada hoped you could but the Courts say otherwise.
WADA also made it clear the intent of the code is to respect human rights. See page 17.
That makes complete sense as the ECHR rejected the legal challenge and found that the WADA Code did not violate the right to privacy.
In other words, no one signs away their right to privacy by signing the WADA code.
The sports rules were tested in court and WADA passed the test with flying colors.
Looks like everyone is in complete agreement and synchronized with each other -- except you.
hsisjegdus wrote:
She's still dirty. No clean athlete misses three tests, even if they end up thrown out on some technicality.
All this shows is that they don't care about weeding out cheats. All governing bodies should do everything possible to make sure not one athlete anywhere on the planet is taking anything even questionable even if it isn't banned yet.
Agree 100%. This decision does not make her look better in my eyes, it makes her look worse. She got caught cheating and instead of paying the price she gets to continue racing and beating clean athletes. Shameful.
rekrunner wrote:
rule reader wrote:
The ECHR made it 100 % clear that human rights apply to sports rules.It was tested and proved.
You can’t sign your statutory rights away in sport or anything else.
Wada hoped you could but the Courts say otherwise.
WADA also made it clear the intent of the code is to respect human rights. See page 17.
That makes complete sense as the ECHR rejected the legal challenge and found that the WADA Code did not violate the right to privacy.
In other words, no one signs away their right to privacy by signing the WADA code.
The sports rules were tested in court and WADA passed the test with flying colors.
Looks like everyone is in complete agreement and synchronized with each other -- except you.
You are not bright are you?
The courts have jurisdiction over human rights in sport.
You can’t sign away your statutory rights .
Some sports rules passed but the fact that they had to pass means courts have jurisdiction.
Wada code p16/17 says otherwise.
rule reader wrote:You are not bright are you?
The courts have jurisdiction over human rights in sport.
You can’t sign away your statutory rights .
Some sports rules passed but the fact that they had to pass means courts have jurisdiction.
Wada code p16/17 says otherwise.
Of course WADA's rules must operate within the law and is subject to the courts.
Of course the courts are not subject to the WADA code, including p16/17.
Does anyone think otherwise?
rekrunner wrote:
rule reader wrote:You are not bright are you?
The courts have jurisdiction over human rights in sport.
You can’t sign away your statutory rights .
Some sports rules passed but the fact that they had to pass means courts have jurisdiction.
Wada code p16/17 says otherwise.
Of course WADA's rules must operate within the law and is subject to the courts.
Of course the courts are not subject to the WADA code, including p16/17.
Does anyone think otherwise?
Yippe !
And you can’t sign your statutory rights away unlike what p16 and 17 of the Code say.
rule reader wrote:Yippe !
And you can’t sign your statutory rights away unlike what p16 and 17 of the Code say.
Of course you can't -- this was a strawman all along.
Pages 16/17 don't say otherwise. On the contrary, these pages express an intent to respect human rights.
The ECHR confirmed that signing the WADA code doesn't sign away your right to privacy.
Bump