JS7 Appeal, FIM Extension

FreshTopEnd wrote:

CAS is who the appeal is before, but how is this penalty CAS's doing? By signing onto to the Code, the FIM adopted and agreed to...

CAS is who the appeal is before, but how is this penalty CAS's doing?

By signing onto to the Code, the FIM adopted and agreed to follow the Code and WADA's penalty guidelines, and WADA retained the right to challenge the FIM's penalty determination before CAS (as was the case with the West) if the FIM doesn't abide by the Code..

CAS is wholly independent, and the process similarly allows an athlete to challenge a penalty as inconsistent with the rules he agreed to abide by, as unsupported by facts, or alleging some due process violation that would vitiate the violation or the penalty assigned to the violation. The FIM doesn't have to do anything before it enforces its penalty; it is completely up to the athlete to challenge it.

BTW, as of yesterday, there still was no indication of an appeal filed with CAS or any hearing set.

Maybe the parties are trying to work something out.

FreshTopEnd wrote:

CAS is who the appeal is before, but how is this penalty CAS's doing? By signing onto to the Code, the FIM adopted and agreed to...

CAS is who the appeal is before, but how is this penalty CAS's doing?

By signing onto to the Code, the FIM adopted and agreed to follow the Code and WADA's penalty guidelines, and WADA retained the right to challenge the FIM's penalty determination before CAS (as was the case with the West) if the FIM doesn't abide by the Code..

CAS is wholly independent, and the process similarly allows an athlete to challenge a penalty as inconsistent with the rules he agreed to abide by, as unsupported by facts, or alleging some due process violation that would vitiate the violation or the penalty assigned to the violation. The FIM doesn't have to do anything before it enforces its penalty; it is completely up to the athlete to challenge it.

BTW, as of yesterday, there still was no indication of an appeal filed with CAS or any hearing set.

Maybe the parties are trying to work something out.

Flex wrote:

The penalty is FIMs doing. The appeal is with CAS. The testing is with WADA. Not hard to explain and obv you dont understand what i...

The penalty is FIMs doing. The appeal is with CAS. The testing is with WADA. Not hard to explain and obv you dont understand what i am saying

FreshTopEnd wrote:

CAS is who the appeal is before, but how is this penalty CAS's doing? By signing onto to the Code, the FIM adopted and agreed to...

CAS is who the appeal is before, but how is this penalty CAS's doing?

By signing onto to the Code, the FIM adopted and agreed to follow the Code and WADA's penalty guidelines, and WADA retained the right to challenge the FIM's penalty determination before CAS (as was the case with the West) if the FIM doesn't abide by the Code..

CAS is wholly independent, and the process similarly allows an athlete to challenge a penalty as inconsistent with the rules he agreed to abide by, as unsupported by facts, or alleging some due process violation that would vitiate the violation or the penalty assigned to the violation. The FIM doesn't have to do anything before it enforces its penalty; it is completely up to the athlete to challenge it.

BTW, as of yesterday, there still was no indication of an appeal filed with CAS or any hearing set.

Maybe the parties are trying to work something out.

Flex wrote:

The penalty is FIMs doing. The appeal is with CAS. The testing is with WADA. Not hard to explain and obv you dont understand what i...

The penalty is FIMs doing. The appeal is with CAS. The testing is with WADA. Not hard to explain and obv you dont understand what i am saying

DonM wrote:

Ok......you seem to know everything...or at least think you do...I would tend to think Michael knows a slight bit more about this than you.

Flex wrote:

The penalty is FIMs doing. The appeal is with CAS. The testing is with WADA. Not hard to explain and obv you dont understand what i...

The penalty is FIMs doing. The appeal is with CAS. The testing is with WADA. Not hard to explain and obv you dont understand what i am saying

hvaughn88 wrote:

^ this could get entertaining

Flex wrote:

The penalty is FIMs doing. The appeal is with CAS. The testing is with WADA. Not hard to explain and obv you dont understand what i...

The penalty is FIMs doing. The appeal is with CAS. The testing is with WADA. Not hard to explain and obv you dont understand what i am saying

FreshTopEnd wrote:

So, to be clear, you're saying that the FIM does its testing through WADA, but the FIM held on to the discretion to disregard the penalty...

So, to be clear, you're saying that the FIM does its testing through WADA, but the FIM held on to the discretion to disregard the penalty regime WADA has set out in the Code, and instead the FIM implements it's own penalty regime if the WADA test lab return a positive on the athlete?

Flex wrote:

The penalty is FIMs doing. The appeal is with CAS. The testing is with WADA. Not hard to explain and obv you dont understand what i...

The penalty is FIMs doing. The appeal is with CAS. The testing is with WADA. Not hard to explain and obv you dont understand what i am saying

FreshTopEnd wrote:

So, to be clear, you're saying that the FIM does its testing through WADA, but the FIM held on to the discretion to disregard the penalty...

So, to be clear, you're saying that the FIM does its testing through WADA, but the FIM held on to the discretion to disregard the penalty regime WADA has set out in the Code, and instead the FIM implements it's own penalty regime if the WADA test lab return a positive on the athlete?

Flex wrote:

WADA provides testing and guidelines for penaltys. They don't make a decision but they can appeal the decision if it is to light or heavy. Clearly...

WADA provides testing and guidelines for penaltys. They don't make a decision but they can appeal the decision if it is to light or heavy.

Clearly you know what you are talking about, and I would say I know a bit about this as well. I don't want to keep arguing I just want to wait for confirmation on the extension that the FIM has requested, to CAS (I believe, that could be wrong). Only time will tell.

Randy Savage wrote:

Here's a thought. How about the powers that be on the American side of the house lets Stewart race Nationals. When the FIM raises a fuss...

Here's a thought. How about the powers that be on the American side of the house lets Stewart race Nationals. When the FIM raises a fuss about it, those same powers that be can say "Fuck you."

What could the FIM do? Ban the US from competing in the MXdN maybe? (and watch ticket sales plummet)

Maybe I am missing something. Does the FIM have some sort of SWAT team that will show up at Glen Helen for Round 1 and prevent the race from happening if Stewart is on the line?

I'll answer my own question. Because someone over here is getting paid to adhere to their (FIM) standards. That is the ONLY possible reason.

disbanded wrote:

Did JS7 ever fire the person that forgot to file the paperwork?

disbanded wrote:

Did JS7 ever fire the person that forgot to file the paperwork?

gsxrcr28 wrote:

In the TWMX interview he blamed himself for not reading everything, he said he knew he needed a prescription but didn't know anything about a TUE...

In the TWMX interview he blamed himself for not reading everything, he said he knew he needed a prescription but didn't know anything about a TUE. I don't think people should blame his team (not saying you are) unless he says it was someone else's fault. He said only the people closest to him knew about the condition, and it was Coy Gibbs who recommended he get tested for ADHD.

TeamGreen wrote:

So, a World Class Marathon Champion, Rita Jeptoo, gets caught taking EPO...that's an INTENTIONAL PED...and what does she get? 2 years. That's what "I don't get"...

So, a World Class Marathon Champion, Rita Jeptoo, gets caught taking EPO...that's an INTENTIONAL PED...and what does she get?

2 years.

That's what "I don't get": 2 years for INTENTIONAL AND DILIBERATE USE OF AN EPO versus 16 months for failure to file and acknowledged "Valid TUE".

That's my only complaint. I can understnd the DQ'ing of any results from the affected time period that he lacked a TUE and a penalty that MAKES SENSE.

The Penalties for those that're intentionally CHEATING is virtually the same as this TUE SNAFU.

I would think that this is a valid reason for an appeal to CAS.

TeamGreen wrote:

So, a World Class Marathon Champion, Rita Jeptoo, gets caught taking EPO...that's an INTENTIONAL PED...and what does she get? 2 years. That's what "I don't get"...

So, a World Class Marathon Champion, Rita Jeptoo, gets caught taking EPO...that's an INTENTIONAL PED...and what does she get?

2 years.

That's what "I don't get": 2 years for INTENTIONAL AND DILIBERATE USE OF AN EPO versus 16 months for failure to file and acknowledged "Valid TUE".

That's my only complaint. I can understnd the DQ'ing of any results from the affected time period that he lacked a TUE and a penalty that MAKES SENSE.

The Penalties for those that're intentionally CHEATING is virtually the same as this TUE SNAFU.

I would think that this is a valid reason for an appeal to CAS.

FreshTopEnd wrote:

No, it's not a valid reason. You don 't seem to get that everyone agreed to this regime. It's not a trick they pulled out of...

No, it's not a valid reason. You don 't seem to get that everyone agreed to this regime. It's not a trick they pulled out of the bag, it was entirely clear and predictable what the consequences were ~ that's the hallmark of fairness, that you are told what's going to happen under the circumstances, and the outcome tracks that. That's the case here. There's no excuse and no complaint after the fact when those consequences and requirements are so clearly spelt out. One can say the system should be changed, but there's no complaint that the system as is was applied inconsistently

What's astounding is the sheer ignorance, entitlement and delusion so many people in this sport, and the willful denial that they chose not to understand what rules were governing them and the clear penalties for violation. If you "don't get it." it's because you chose not to understand how the rules work when they sport embraced them. The notion that Suzuki had any expectation that Stew would line up at A1 and invested in his prep is only slightly less shocking than the fact that they complained about it. And no one was professional enough to take whatever steps were clearly spelled out to make sure he was papered up correctly beforehand. That's a head scratcher, but when you start reading CAS review of WADA penalties, you see that it's pretty hard to overestimate how careless and unprepared some athletes with no intention to cheat can be.

There a real systemic problem in this industry of people not liking what they agreed to and blaming others when what they agreed to bites them. There's a point where fighting for your rights just starts looking like a tantrum in the overall scheme of things.

BTW, the same thing can happen if people boot out sanctioning bodies, etc. At some point in any sport someone is going to be disciplined by somebody for something, and the only real issue is whether someone had the chance to understand the rule beforehand (and object then if its unbalanced), and then whether the application of the rule was predictable. That's your baseline, and it was met here.

BTW II, the issue wasn't that it was EPO (which can be used therapeutically, just as amphetamines in Stews case can be), but that they found that Jeptoo intended to enhance her performance. If it makes you feel better, the code has been revised to make it more harsh for people who are found to deliberately cheat, but it is not any easier on someone who failed to get a TUE for a medicine that can be used both therapeutically or for performance enhancement. Pretty much the same baseline penalties exist for those "mistakes" in the revised code as did in the 2009 version that has been in place for all these years without anyone in this sport objecting or doing anything but clamor for broader testing across all series.

TeamGreen wrote:

So, a World Class Marathon Champion, Rita Jeptoo, gets caught taking EPO...that's an INTENTIONAL PED...and what does she get? 2 years. That's what "I don't get"...

So, a World Class Marathon Champion, Rita Jeptoo, gets caught taking EPO...that's an INTENTIONAL PED...and what does she get?

2 years.

That's what "I don't get": 2 years for INTENTIONAL AND DILIBERATE USE OF AN EPO versus 16 months for failure to file and acknowledged "Valid TUE".

That's my only complaint. I can understnd the DQ'ing of any results from the affected time period that he lacked a TUE and a penalty that MAKES SENSE.

The Penalties for those that're intentionally CHEATING is virtually the same as this TUE SNAFU.

I would think that this is a valid reason for an appeal to CAS.

FreshTopEnd wrote:

No, it's not a valid reason. You don 't seem to get that everyone agreed to this regime. It's not a trick they pulled out of...

No, it's not a valid reason. You don 't seem to get that everyone agreed to this regime. It's not a trick they pulled out of the bag, it was entirely clear and predictable what the consequences were ~ that's the hallmark of fairness, that you are told what's going to happen under the circumstances, and the outcome tracks that. That's the case here. There's no excuse and no complaint after the fact when those consequences and requirements are so clearly spelt out. One can say the system should be changed, but there's no complaint that the system as is was applied inconsistently

What's astounding is the sheer ignorance, entitlement and delusion so many people in this sport, and the willful denial that they chose not to understand what rules were governing them and the clear penalties for violation. If you "don't get it." it's because you chose not to understand how the rules work when they sport embraced them. The notion that Suzuki had any expectation that Stew would line up at A1 and invested in his prep is only slightly less shocking than the fact that they complained about it. And no one was professional enough to take whatever steps were clearly spelled out to make sure he was papered up correctly beforehand. That's a head scratcher, but when you start reading CAS review of WADA penalties, you see that it's pretty hard to overestimate how careless and unprepared some athletes with no intention to cheat can be.

There a real systemic problem in this industry of people not liking what they agreed to and blaming others when what they agreed to bites them. There's a point where fighting for your rights just starts looking like a tantrum in the overall scheme of things.

BTW, the same thing can happen if people boot out sanctioning bodies, etc. At some point in any sport someone is going to be disciplined by somebody for something, and the only real issue is whether someone had the chance to understand the rule beforehand (and object then if its unbalanced), and then whether the application of the rule was predictable. That's your baseline, and it was met here.

BTW II, the issue wasn't that it was EPO (which can be used therapeutically, just as amphetamines in Stews case can be), but that they found that Jeptoo intended to enhance her performance. If it makes you feel better, the code has been revised to make it more harsh for people who are found to deliberately cheat, but it is not any easier on someone who failed to get a TUE for a medicine that can be used both therapeutically or for performance enhancement. Pretty much the same baseline penalties exist for those "mistakes" in the revised code as did in the 2009 version that has been in place for all these years without anyone in this sport objecting or doing anything but clamor for broader testing across all series.

FreshTopEnd wrote:

No, it's not a valid reason. You don 't seem to get that everyone agreed to this regime. It's not a trick they pulled out of...

No, it's not a valid reason. You don 't seem to get that everyone agreed to this regime. It's not a trick they pulled out of the bag, it was entirely clear and predictable what the consequences were ~ that's the hallmark of fairness, that you are told what's going to happen under the circumstances, and the outcome tracks that. That's the case here. There's no excuse and no complaint after the fact when those consequences and requirements are so clearly spelt out. One can say the system should be changed, but there's no complaint that the system as is was applied inconsistently

What's astounding is the sheer ignorance, entitlement and delusion so many people in this sport, and the willful denial that they chose not to understand what rules were governing them and the clear penalties for violation. If you "don't get it." it's because you chose not to understand how the rules work when they sport embraced them. The notion that Suzuki had any expectation that Stew would line up at A1 and invested in his prep is only slightly less shocking than the fact that they complained about it. And no one was professional enough to take whatever steps were clearly spelled out to make sure he was papered up correctly beforehand. That's a head scratcher, but when you start reading CAS review of WADA penalties, you see that it's pretty hard to overestimate how careless and unprepared some athletes with no intention to cheat can be.

There a real systemic problem in this industry of people not liking what they agreed to and blaming others when what they agreed to bites them. There's a point where fighting for your rights just starts looking like a tantrum in the overall scheme of things.

BTW, the same thing can happen if people boot out sanctioning bodies, etc. At some point in any sport someone is going to be disciplined by somebody for something, and the only real issue is whether someone had the chance to understand the rule beforehand (and object then if its unbalanced), and then whether the application of the rule was predictable. That's your baseline, and it was met here.

BTW II, the issue wasn't that it was EPO (which can be used therapeutically, just as amphetamines in Stews case can be), but that they found that Jeptoo intended to enhance her performance. If it makes you feel better, the code has been revised to make it more harsh for people who are found to deliberately cheat, but it is not any easier on someone who failed to get a TUE for a medicine that can be used both therapeutically or for performance enhancement. Pretty much the same baseline penalties exist for those "mistakes" in the revised code as did in the 2009 version that has been in place for all these years without anyone in this sport objecting or doing anything but clamor for broader testing across all series.

dazzlindino wrote:

FTE....I hear what your saying.... however....the "government of sports" agreed to this b.s. ... not the fans..... hell....the fans didn't even get to vote these "officials"...

FTE....I hear what your saying....
however....the "government of sports" agreed to this b.s. ...
not the fans.....
hell....the fans didn't even get to vote these "officials" in...we don't have to like a damn thing they come up with....

FreshTopEnd wrote:

No, it's not a valid reason. You don 't seem to get that everyone agreed to this regime. It's not a trick they pulled out of...

No, it's not a valid reason. You don 't seem to get that everyone agreed to this regime. It's not a trick they pulled out of the bag, it was entirely clear and predictable what the consequences were ~ that's the hallmark of fairness, that you are told what's going to happen under the circumstances, and the outcome tracks that. That's the case here. There's no excuse and no complaint after the fact when those consequences and requirements are so clearly spelt out. One can say the system should be changed, but there's no complaint that the system as is was applied inconsistently

What's astounding is the sheer ignorance, entitlement and delusion so many people in this sport, and the willful denial that they chose not to understand what rules were governing them and the clear penalties for violation. If you "don't get it." it's because you chose not to understand how the rules work when they sport embraced them. The notion that Suzuki had any expectation that Stew would line up at A1 and invested in his prep is only slightly less shocking than the fact that they complained about it. And no one was professional enough to take whatever steps were clearly spelled out to make sure he was papered up correctly beforehand. That's a head scratcher, but when you start reading CAS review of WADA penalties, you see that it's pretty hard to overestimate how careless and unprepared some athletes with no intention to cheat can be.

There a real systemic problem in this industry of people not liking what they agreed to and blaming others when what they agreed to bites them. There's a point where fighting for your rights just starts looking like a tantrum in the overall scheme of things.

BTW, the same thing can happen if people boot out sanctioning bodies, etc. At some point in any sport someone is going to be disciplined by somebody for something, and the only real issue is whether someone had the chance to understand the rule beforehand (and object then if its unbalanced), and then whether the application of the rule was predictable. That's your baseline, and it was met here.

BTW II, the issue wasn't that it was EPO (which can be used therapeutically, just as amphetamines in Stews case can be), but that they found that Jeptoo intended to enhance her performance. If it makes you feel better, the code has been revised to make it more harsh for people who are found to deliberately cheat, but it is not any easier on someone who failed to get a TUE for a medicine that can be used both therapeutically or for performance enhancement. Pretty much the same baseline penalties exist for those "mistakes" in the revised code as did in the 2009 version that has been in place for all these years without anyone in this sport objecting or doing anything but clamor for broader testing across all series.

FreshTopEnd wrote:

No, it's not a valid reason. You don 't seem to get that everyone agreed to this regime. It's not a trick they pulled out of...

No, it's not a valid reason. You don 't seem to get that everyone agreed to this regime. It's not a trick they pulled out of the bag, it was entirely clear and predictable what the consequences were ~ that's the hallmark of fairness, that you are told what's going to happen under the circumstances, and the outcome tracks that. That's the case here. There's no excuse and no complaint after the fact when those consequences and requirements are so clearly spelt out. One can say the system should be changed, but there's no complaint that the system as is was applied inconsistently

What's astounding is the sheer ignorance, entitlement and delusion so many people in this sport, and the willful denial that they chose not to understand what rules were governing them and the clear penalties for violation. If you "don't get it." it's because you chose not to understand how the rules work when they sport embraced them. The notion that Suzuki had any expectation that Stew would line up at A1 and invested in his prep is only slightly less shocking than the fact that they complained about it. And no one was professional enough to take whatever steps were clearly spelled out to make sure he was papered up correctly beforehand. That's a head scratcher, but when you start reading CAS review of WADA penalties, you see that it's pretty hard to overestimate how careless and unprepared some athletes with no intention to cheat can be.

There a real systemic problem in this industry of people not liking what they agreed to and blaming others when what they agreed to bites them. There's a point where fighting for your rights just starts looking like a tantrum in the overall scheme of things.

BTW, the same thing can happen if people boot out sanctioning bodies, etc. At some point in any sport someone is going to be disciplined by somebody for something, and the only real issue is whether someone had the chance to understand the rule beforehand (and object then if its unbalanced), and then whether the application of the rule was predictable. That's your baseline, and it was met here.

BTW II, the issue wasn't that it was EPO (which can be used therapeutically, just as amphetamines in Stews case can be), but that they found that Jeptoo intended to enhance her performance. If it makes you feel better, the code has been revised to make it more harsh for people who are found to deliberately cheat, but it is not any easier on someone who failed to get a TUE for a medicine that can be used both therapeutically or for performance enhancement. Pretty much the same baseline penalties exist for those "mistakes" in the revised code as did in the 2009 version that has been in place for all these years without anyone in this sport objecting or doing anything but clamor for broader testing across all series.

moer wrote:

You understand that being predictable and fair are two different things, right? The goal of being predictable is to be fair yes but it doesn't make...

You understand that being predictable and fair are two different things, right? The goal of being predictable is to be fair yes but it doesn't make any sense to be unfair just to be predictable. In this case the sentence doesn't fit the crime plain and simple. Do you really think that everyone (James, Suzuki, Feld, AMA, FIM, other racers, teams..) agreed to every little clause of this?