sanootage wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Seriously? What is your source for that?
Rule 12 in world athletics Doping rules
Read it ! Please.
Has it been read yet?
And it follows from the extra charge presented in that she has refused to hand her devices over.
Support staff are treated the same as athletes.
So you are charged and then they ask for your devises ; what happened to the right to silence of even the 5th.
Appalling.
Read the whole of Rule 12 but pay particular attention. to 12.3.6.
I assure you that you will never ever have read anything like this appalling breach of basic rights as this.
sanootage wrote:
Read the whole of Rule 12 but pay particular attention. to 12.3.6.
I assure you that you will never ever have read anything like this appalling breach of basic rights as this.
its difficult to breach peoples rights for voluntary membership of a club.
dont like it, dont join the club.
pupil3142 wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Read the whole of Rule 12 but pay particular attention. to 12.3.6.
I assure you that you will never ever have read anything like this appalling breach of basic rights as this.
its difficult to breach peoples rights for voluntary membership of a club.
dont like it, dont join the club.
Wrong
Wada code say human rights must be respected as have European Courts.
And wada code enforced by Govt Agencies.
You have loads of rights that you can’t give up by joining a club.
Even more if you are a professional club player.
And they wish to apply these rules to those who have never joined a club.
sanootage wrote:
And wada code enforced by Govt Agencies.
You have loads of rights that you can’t give up by joining a club.
Even more if you are a professional club player.
And they wish to apply these rules to those who have never joined a club.
I think the issue is how you are interpreting the application of “human rights”.
In the first instance, everyone has a right to medical privacy. However, when you become a professional athlete, you conditionally forfeit that right by submitting to doping controls in order to compete.
If you subsequently register an anti-doping violation on a doping control, WADA or the NADO responsible can deliver a suspension of any length based on the substance. In the case of a serious breach for a one-off offence, that would be anywhere from 2 years to 4 years.
Let’s say your argument is that the violation was not intentional and you did not conspire to violate anti-doping rules. Well, WADA/NADOs may have intelligence which contradicts your version of events and Rule 12 basically acts ancillary to the original charge. So either offer up information as a form of cooperation to prove your story, or refuse to do so, and be charged with failure to cooperate.
You can’t be charged with failure to cooperate unless you are charged with an anti-doping violation, which is already a voluntary forfeiture of privacy, so I don’t see how it violates your rights of privacy.
Trainwreck watcher wrote:
sanootage wrote:
And wada code enforced by Govt Agencies.
You have loads of rights that you can’t give up by joining a club.
Even more if you are a professional club player.
And they wish to apply these rules to those who have never joined a club.
I think the issue is how you are interpreting the application of “human rights”.
In the first instance, everyone has a right to medical privacy. However, when you become a professional athlete, you conditionally forfeit that right by submitting to doping controls in order to compete.
If you subsequently register an anti-doping violation on a doping control, WADA or the NADO responsible can deliver a suspension of any length based on the substance. In the case of a serious breach for a one-off offence, that would be anywhere from 2 years to 4 years.
Let’s say your argument is that the violation was not intentional and you did not conspire to violate anti-doping rules. Well, WADA/NADOs may have intelligence which contradicts your version of events and Rule 12 basically acts ancillary to the original charge. So either offer up information as a form of cooperation to prove your story, or refuse to do so, and be charged with failure to cooperate.
You can’t be charged with failure to cooperate unless you are charged with an anti-doping violation, which is already a voluntary forfeiture of privacy, so I don’t see how it violates your rights of privacy.
It’s similar to when prosecutors offer defendants a chance to cut a deal if they will provide information on who their associates and accomplices are. If you refuse to cooperate, they throw the book at you and seek the harshest sentence possible.
Trainwreck watcher wrote:
Trainwreck watcher wrote:
I think the issue is how you are interpreting the application of “human rights”.
In the first instance, everyone has a right to medical privacy. However, when you become a professional athlete, you conditionally forfeit that right by submitting to doping controls in order to compete.
If you subsequently register an anti-doping violation on a doping control, WADA or the NADO responsible can deliver a suspension of any length based on the substance. In the case of a serious breach for a one-off offence, that would be anywhere from 2 years to 4 years.
Let’s say your argument is that the violation was not intentional and you did not conspire to violate anti-doping rules. Well, WADA/NADOs may have intelligence which contradicts your version of events and Rule 12 basically acts ancillary to the original charge. So either offer up information as a form of cooperation to prove your story, or refuse to do so, and be charged with failure to cooperate.
You can’t be charged with failure to cooperate unless you are charged with an anti-doping violation, which is already a voluntary forfeiture of privacy, so I don’t see how it violates your rights of privacy.
It’s similar to when prosecutors offer defendants a chance to cut a deal if they will provide information on who their associates and accomplices are. If you refuse to cooperate, they throw the book at you and seek the harshest sentence possible.
But you don’t get an extra separate offence for not handing you stuff over.Correct?!
Read 5.7 of the rules and be prepared to be horrified.
Rights ripped up.
It would be easier if you'd quote right from the start what you were talking about... Article 12 of WA's Anti-Doping Rules: "Disciplinary Proceedings for Failure to Comply or Offensive Conduct"
12.1 Where an Athlete or other Person (i) refuses or fails without compelling justification to comply with any provision of these Anti-Doping Rules but such refusal or failure does not fall within any of the anti-doping rule violations defined in Rule 2; or (ii) engages in offensive conduct towards a Doping Control official or other Person involved in Doping Control...
12.2 The Disciplinary Tribunal will ensure that the Athlete or other Person subject to any proceeding is provided with a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a fair, impartial and Operationally Independent hearing panel.
12.3 The Disciplinary Tribunal, and any Panel of the Disciplinary Tribunal, will have all powers necessary for, and incidental to, the discharge of its responsibilities in any proceeding brought under Rule 12, including (without limitation) the power, whether on the application of a party or of its own motion:
....
12.3.6 to order any party to make any property, document or other thing in its possession or under its control available for inspection by the Disciplinary Tribunal and/or any other party;
Is that really so special? In a criminal proceeding, the prosecution would get a warranty and then raid and seize. Here it's actually easier on the suspect, who has some time to gather the requested documents (and can thus happily delete and burn damning documents).
None of that has anything to do with
sanootage wrote:
the right to silence of even the 5th
casual obsever wrote:
It would be easier if you'd quote right from the start what you were talking about...
Article 12 of WA's Anti-Doping Rules: "Disciplinary Proceedings for Failure to Comply or Offensive Conduct"
12.1 Where an Athlete or other Person (i) refuses or fails without compelling justification to comply with any provision of these Anti-Doping Rules but such refusal or failure does not fall within any of the anti-doping rule violations defined in Rule 2; or (ii) engages in offensive conduct towards a Doping Control official or other Person involved in Doping Control...
12.2 The Disciplinary Tribunal will ensure that the Athlete or other Person subject to any proceeding is provided with a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a fair, impartial and Operationally Independent hearing panel.
12.3 The Disciplinary Tribunal, and any Panel of the Disciplinary Tribunal, will have all powers necessary for, and incidental to, the discharge of its responsibilities in any proceeding brought under Rule 12, including (without limitation) the power, whether on the application of a party or of its own motion:
....
12.3.6 to order any party to make any property, document or other thing in its possession or under its control available for inspection by the Disciplinary Tribunal and/or any other party;
Is that really so special? In a criminal proceeding, the prosecution would get a warranty and then raid and seize. Here it's actually easier on the suspect, who has some time to gather the requested documents (and can thus happily delete and burn damning documents).
None of that has anything to do with
sanootage wrote:
the right to silence of even the 5th
Criminal procedures require a Warrant signed by an independent judge , not at the whim of an AIU investigator.Thus rule of law.
sanootage wrote:
Trainwreck watcher wrote:
It’s similar to when prosecutors offer defendants a chance to cut a deal if they will provide information on who their associates and accomplices are. If you refuse to cooperate, they throw the book at you and seek the harshest sentence possible.
But you don’t get an extra separate offence for not handing you stuff over.Correct?!
Correct ?
Trainwreck watcher wrote:
sanootage wrote:
And wada code enforced by Govt Agencies.
You have loads of rights that you can’t give up by joining a club.
Even more if you are a professional club player.
And they wish to apply these rules to those who have never joined a club.
I think the issue is how you are interpreting the application of “human rights”.
In the first instance, everyone has a right to medical privacy. However, when you become a professional athlete, you conditionally forfeit that right by submitting to doping controls in order to compete.
If you subsequently register an anti-doping violation on a doping control, WADA or the NADO responsible can deliver a suspension of any length based on the substance. In the case of a serious breach for a one-off offence, that would be anywhere from 2 years to 4 years.
Let’s say your argument is that the violation was not intentional and you did not conspire to violate anti-doping rules. Well, WADA/NADOs may have intelligence which contradicts your version of events and Rule 12 basically acts ancillary to the original charge. So either offer up information as a form of cooperation to prove your story, or refuse to do so, and be charged with failure to cooperate.
You can’t be charged with failure to cooperate unless you are charged with an anti-doping violation, which is already a voluntary forfeiture of privacy, so I don’t see how it violates your rights of privacy.
Don’t think you need to be charge with a separate offence first.
And how would you have already agreed a voluntary forfeiture of privacy …. how??
sanootage wrote:
Trainwreck watcher wrote:
I think the issue is how you are interpreting the application of “human rights”.
In the first instance, everyone has a right to medical privacy. However, when you become a professional athlete, you conditionally forfeit that right by submitting to doping controls in order to compete.
If you subsequently register an anti-doping violation on a doping control, WADA or the NADO responsible can deliver a suspension of any length based on the substance. In the case of a serious breach for a one-off offence, that would be anywhere from 2 years to 4 years.
Let’s say your argument is that the violation was not intentional and you did not conspire to violate anti-doping rules. Well, WADA/NADOs may have intelligence which contradicts your version of events and Rule 12 basically acts ancillary to the original charge. So either offer up information as a form of cooperation to prove your story, or refuse to do so, and be charged with failure to cooperate.
You can’t be charged with failure to cooperate unless you are charged with an anti-doping violation, which is already a voluntary forfeiture of privacy, so I don’t see how it violates your rights of privacy.
Don’t think you need to be charge with a separate offence first.
And how would you have already agreed a voluntary forfeiture of privacy …. how??
Come on them….. how.
sanootage wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Don’t think you need to be charge with a separate offence first.
And how would you have already agreed a voluntary forfeiture of privacy …. how??
Come on them….. how.
I think the hard line anti drugs supporters have been beaten by the citing of the rules about forced disclosure in Rule 12 and 5.
They have all gone into hiding as I think they have read the rules as I have.
Athletes at all levels and support people who could include parents all have to support investigations by handing over all their devises.
Where do they go?
When do you get your phone back?
What data security is there esp noting that Monaco is not in the European Economic Area for exchange of data let alone highly personal data?
Don’t think the Starsi claimed these rights.
Staggering breaches of human rights.
World athletics antidoping rules are incompatible with western values and laws.
sanootage wrote:
World athletics antidoping rules are incompatible with western values and laws.
I repeat the above.
Wow, nice! 5 years for doping plus five years for refusing to co-operate. Very interesting. I wonder why this cheat got these additional five years, while most of the other cheats did not.
casual obsever wrote:
Wow, nice! 5 years for doping plus five years for refusing to co-operate. Very interesting. I wonder why this cheat got these additional five years, while most of the other cheats did not.
Think they were after her suppliers and drug advisors and the groups other users.
But then such an argument would be sat somewhere in most other cases.
AIU showing the way it is going to be.
Rodckenko Act applied to supplier.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Official Suzhou Diamond League Discussion Thread (7-9 am ET+ Instant Reaction show at 9:05 am ET)
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
Article: Director of BU track and field, cross country steps down following abuse allegations
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
