Performance enhancing substances

Discussion and debate about the MotoGP class
kenup283
Posts: 1314
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

The answer is no. They do not take anything into consideration. With the WADA code, which FIM adopts without any further clarification or amendment, once your have an adverse finding it is written as guilty until you can prove your innocence, at which time if successful you get 2 yrs ban. If can’t then it’s 4 yrs.

Only time I saw mention of motorcycling as a skill sport in a ruling was when it helps their case. Take Ant West they claimed since he did not crash in the wet race while others did that it shows he did have a cognitive advantage and heightened awareness benefit. I’ll have to go back and look at James Stewart but recall similar.

So while full ruling is yet to be out for Iannone I doubt they will see that as he crashed out of the race for which he tested positive and others did not that it means he gained no advantage..

User avatar
Mikesbytes
Posts: 2482
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:04 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Mikesbytes »

I tracked the drug rules in Australia for bicycle racing and power lifting and they both route back to the exact same orgainisations, same web pages. From what I could see there is no difference whatsoever between different sports, nor is there any difference in punishments.

Gobert was an idiot smoking weed, there's no accidental there, he new the rules and broke them. Last I heard of Gobert he stole a handbag off a lady in Surfers Paradise

West and Iannone are probably the victim of accidental consumption but as much as it sucks unless you can totally prove that to be the case your done. It appears that you need to log everything you consume so at least you can accurately exhibit where it came from and any medication you take, even cough medicine needs to be approved by the MotoGP doctor
My signature isn't particularly interesting

kenup283
Posts: 1314
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

It’s sad how Gobert downward spiral went and continues, though any tests he failed would have been those imposed by his employer not WADA as it didn’t exist yet.

Ironically the only relaxing of punishments WADA is interested in are for drugs like weed, heroine, cocaine, ecstasy, the type of stuff that brought Gobert down.

From Jan 2021 these things will have a 1 month ban now with agreement to therapy, or 3 months without, for out of competition use. Their reason “because they are frequently abused in society outside of the context of sport.”

I can’t say I’m opposed, I think those are an issue with yourself, family, friends, and employer, on how well you can control them, but I’d also offer 3 months lost time from racing is fair enough deterrent for any of the doping substances on a first violation, accidental or not. After that increase to season ending, and from there career.

So Tony would fit in just fine in WADAs 2021 new idea on recreational drugs.

atropos
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:04 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by atropos »

Schwantz34 wrote:
Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:29 pm
I think the sentence handed to Iannone is ridiculous.

Sure the defence he offered was total bullshit, but the advantages of using such substances in motorcycling must be minimal compared to proper athletic sports eg cycling, running etc.
Do they not take this into account for sentencing?
No, they don't. They don't even take into account if the banned substance is actually detrimental to a particular sport. If you test positive to a banned substance - that's it.

User avatar
MiniNinjaMk5
Posts: 1676
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 12:57 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by MiniNinjaMk5 »

Pretty amusing article on Motogpnews if you haven't read it..
http://motogpnews.com/2020/11/10/iannon ... our-years/

Apparently Iannonne's defence consisted of this drawing of a muscular cow threatening another cow
Image

I guess for me there should only be a penalty if there is any kind of advantage that it gives you as either doing the sport itself or for training for it. If Iannone did manage to lose weight without loss of muscle mass (not sure if this is correct, but have read somewhere) then that's not fair on the guys that have been busting their balls in the gym for hours on end. So he needed to be penalised. 4 years does sound really draconian, that is worse than I have seen comparatively in other sports for out-and-out steroid abuse. (But isn't the longer length partly as a result of the appeal?)

kenup283
Posts: 1314
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

There were two appeals. Iannone against FIM saying 18 months is to harsh, and WADA against the FIM saying 18 months is letting him off too easy.

WADA often appeal the various sporting orgs to make sure it’s being upheld to the fullest. They were coming more than likely anyway, but the extra attention of appealing just invites them in and made it a certainty.

He should have taken what he had been dealt but appealing did not change the standard of punishment. That is based on the WADA code fully adopted by the FIMs Medical Code and set at 4 years to make sure riders can’t participate in the next Olympic Games should they decide to take up motorcycle racing as an event.

Schwantz34
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:07 pm

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Schwantz34 »

I read on the BBC that CAS have decided to reduce Russia's ban, issued by WADA, from 4 years to 2.

So a country who engaged in state sponsored doping have their ban halved..............and a motorcycle racer who ingested a weight loss steroid giving virtually no performance enhancement has his ban more than doubled??????

At face value it smells of inconsistency at best, corruption at worst.

Post Reply