Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but paid users have great benefits. Paid member benefits:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2024 SX, MX, and SMX series (regularly $30).
The Shop
(7) Testing is not as frequent and widespread as it should be.
And this is all on the FIM. They have to be the ones who ultimately hand over the suspension in this case. I'd be interested to know if someone like Herlings or Cairoli tested positive for the same substance as Broc, what would the difference be in the speed of getting things sorted out?
The machine had a tilt sensor. You just knew if you shook the machine too much you lost your
quarter. You didn't get to argue whether it was justified, you just lost your quarter.
If you are in the top tier of the sport, you need to know what's going to get you kicked out.
Maybe WADA should have some facilities that you can send product in for testing or
at a minimum, an advisory system to clarify compliance, what is and isn't going to get you
kicked out. Maybe you could send in your own blood for testing to see if what you're doing
is producing a result that will get you kicked out (without penalty)?
As long as people get away with PEDs, the new up and comers will look to them to compete.
It has to be strict enough that if you don't cheat you're not at a disadvantage. Meaning do more
to catch the cheaters.
I agree re the FIM. Big orgs protect their own, like the UCI and the Armstrong era.
Pit Row
I do agree, there is probably a significant parallel between the FIM and the UCI in terms of corruption. I just find it hard to believe that the FIM would treat Herlings the same way they've treated Tickle or JS7 when it comes to communication and expedient decision making.
Without some kind of oversight, Wada is free to ruin careers with no more than their own say-so. Bogus.
The lack of fixed procedures to expeditiously resolve appeals while a provisional suspension is in effect.
The lack of a responsive single point of contact at the regulating body with whom an athlete can communicate about a pending matter.
Frankly, the cost relative to our sport. If you test once a year, then essentially you're relying on a "you might get caught" theory of deterrence (hence the big penalties) rather that testing frequently enough to be effective at creating the mindset that "you will get caught." But that level of testing would be cost prohibitive.
That would include knowing what the defenses are in the event of a mistake and assuring yourself that you have a system that will provide the exonerating evidence one may need down the road when results come down, some system of records and maintaining residual productin its original container, date marked, and likely sealed in some way to guard against an inference that it was concocted after the fact. Basic chain of custody best practices.
Knowing the rules well would inform that a rider who claims inadvertent exposure has to prove his defenses: the way it was consumed and identity of the product that originated the positive hit. Because all ~ innocents, knuckleheads, and cheats ~ can say "I have no idea how why what," but it is up to the innocent and the knucklehead to prove he's not a cheat under the Code. That takes being able to identify what exactly one took that originated the hit, and then establishing that based on labeling and available information the athlete could not have known she or he would have been exposed. That's a high bar, one CAS has ruled is almost impossible to overcome without being able to trace it back and credibly make the case.
But maybe that conscientious record keeping is the prevailing practice in the sport, like the rigor of logging part lifecycle, suspension settings in testing, or jetting/mapping. But man the axe swings hard if you haven't planned for that in advance. No one lost four years of his career because his bike blew up.
Yep, you are spot on with those comments. Tracking intake if it isn't done by all athletes is something that should be done. Even with all of that, the athlete can find him/herself in the unenviable position of proving a negative. I liked Roczen's explanation of just not taking anything that isn't natural.
I really can't figure out why things can't be handled during the provisional suspension period so that a hearing and decision is reached within say 45-60 days of testing of the B sample. We aren't litigating the AT&T anti-trust case. Seems kind of simple, FIM comes in and says, here are the test results, it then shifts to the Athlete to explain it ( i.e. TUE, innocent ingestion, etc) so that the appropriate penalty can be determined. It's just the idea of issuing a provisional suspension and then having the problem disappear into a black hole to resurface at some later "reasonable" time that disturbs me.
If you mean the actual world, then the reactions of teams, sponsors and the general public to high profile athletes testing positive says otherwise.
Post a reply to: The biggest flaw with Current PED testing is?