Performance enhancing substances

Discussion and debate about the MotoGP class
User avatar
Tourn46
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 5:09 pm
Location: UK

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Tourn46 »

kenup283 wrote:Rossifumi I know that is what will be said, but just how long should that ban be...

Over a certain point I dont think it helps anyone by making it that long or longer for a first offense. I think for motorcycle racing a DQ for the race preceding the positive test, and a ban for two further races would be sufficient.

I also think somthing similar would be appropriate for other skill sports too. After a second offense then I'd say ok throw the book at them, but there is no room given here for honest mistakes, and bieng signed onto same deal as other sports where human power is the primary mover just seems disproportionate to me.

Especially when there is so much here to keep up with, unless you are on a top level team already and have someone helping you to understand all this that you trust with your life, then it is simply just seen as a riders problem and tough cookies if you don't already know that geranium oil contains Methylhexaneamine.
How can you prove an honest mistake? I don't mean to sound like I'm being awkward, but it wouldn't work if you made exceptions.

I believe that it's part of the rules and the participants know this before they enter. I think it's no different to punching the ball into the back of the net in a football match. If something is in the rules then you have to abide.

I understand what you are saying regarding punishments though... What is a sufficient/excessive ban? This is something which you could easily sit 100 people in a room and get 100 different answers, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Again it comes back to the rules being the rules which you choose to agree to when you choose to participate.

Hanuman
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:53 am
Location: 37°50'S, 145°0'E

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Hanuman »

kenup283 wrote:
Now I have a different curiously / question...

How would you feel if MM tested positive tomorrow for somthing like this?

And then the strict liabilty, hardline, zero tillearnce apporach sees him suspended for the rest of the season and he is banned from all off next year too.

Would you still say this is the right thing for motorcycle racing?

Would it be the aha moment to explain why he so easily beats the other top level riders?

I think not.
If MM tested positive, I'd again trot out the Dick Pound quote.

I completely agree with you that taking some 'supplements' isn't going to be the differentiator between the likes of Marquez and others.

And I also agree that often the punishment doesn't suit the crime. Here in Melbourne, we have an ongoing case whereby a whole team stands accused of the systemic use of PEDs and have been able thus far avoid any sanction at all from ASADA by throwing lawyers at the problem. Meantime, some junior player got done for something like 18 months for an energy drink. Quite frankly, it's bollox. And as I've written before, it appears that busting these minnows are used as propaganda to demonstrate how tough the governing bodies are on the issue of PEDs.


The problem is, the FIM has signed up for this as part of their code, so the riders are now beholden to it.

So the choices are; 1) ensure that ALL riders are well educated and properly supported in avoiding stupid bans due to drinking an energy drink or taking Thermogen; 2) ensure that the testing regime is so slack that it's actually a surprise when someone gets busted; 3) divesting themselves of WADA code completely.

3) as mentioned before, is almost impossible in international sport given the manner in which any government funding, sponsorship, etc is provided. So I guess they should strengthen 1) while happily continuing on with 2).

User avatar
Fingernails
Posts: 1584
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:41 pm

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Fingernails »

Interesting discussion here.

I agree that PED testing in MotoGP should be under WADA. PED abuse and testing is a technological battle, and in order for testing to be accurate, the latest testing technology needs to be used.

It is true that the same length of ban may be different in different sports, as competitors careers last for differing lengths of time, and re-entry to the sport after an enforced layout may be more or less difficult in different sports. But if this is a problem, then sports governing bodies should negotiate directly with the drugs testing bodies to get different punishment scenarios for different sports. Withdrawing from state of the art testing is not the answer IMHO as a small sport like MotoGP won't have the resources including people and laboratories to apply state of the art testing.

It is unfortunate that competitors drinking and energy drink or consuming a herbal remedy may accidentally (no quotes) consume a banned substance and be penalised. But, as well has having rules that are fair, you need to have rules that are workable. If the 'accidental consumption' excuse was accepted, then you may get large numbers of athletes 'accidentally' (now with quotes) taking these drinks and supplements knowing that there are banned performance enhancing substances in them, but maintaining plausible deniability. You may even get a market for energy drinks and herbal remedies that do contain these substances, intended for consumption by athletes maintaining plausible deniability. I don't think giving too much leeway for accidental consumption is practicable, because it creates loopholes, and opens the door for abuse.

Low levels of detection don't necessarily mean that PEDs are not a problem, as mentioned. Lance Armstrong passed many drugs tests. We now know it's because he was using PED technology that was ahead of detection technology. The same could easily apply in MotoGP now, though TBH I suspect that it isn't.

If MM was found to be taking banned substances and banned, it would be bad for MotoGP. But if MM was found to be taking banned substances and somehow was let off, that would be even worse for MotoGP. If MotoGP didn't test, there would most likely be a wide perception that this was a 'doping sport', and this may be bad for MotoGP. If there were MotoGP riders dropping dead at 31 which happens in some sports, that would be bad for MotoGP. I can't see a better solution than MotoGP continuing testing, and if a big name falls, then a big name falls.

Just one additional comment. I believe that the penalties for PED use in any sport should not be relative to the unfair advantage gained. The penalties should be sufficient to be a powerful deterrent. This may mean that the subjective effect of the penalties may be different in different sports. Otherwise you get small advantage but small risk in some sports. And the actual perceived worth of the PED considering the risk of detection may not be a simple linear ratio of risk:reward. Also, while the advantage of PEDs in MotoGP may be smaller than in some more physical sports, the differences between the athletes is also smaller. E.g. on many tracks a second a lap difference in qualifying may be a 1% difference (if we have a 1:40 lap). That's a time equivalent to a 400m run. When was the last time you saw a 400m race with the competitors as close as a typical MotoGP qualifying? There is potential for more gain in terms of result placings for a smaller %age performance difference in MotoGP compared to some other sports. So, comparison of effect is quite complicated.

BTW: The Serena Williams panic room incident seems very odd. I can't find information about whether or not she did actually submit to the drugs test that was the purpose of the 'intruder's' visit. http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspo ... -test.html

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

Tourn46 wrote:How can you prove an honest mistake? I don't mean to sound like I'm being awkward, but it wouldn't work if you made exceptions.

I believe that it's part of the rules and the participants know this before they enter. I think it's no different to punching the ball into the back of the net in a football match. If something is in the rules then you have to abide.

I understand what you are saying regarding punishments though... What is a sufficient/excessive ban? This is something which you could easily sit 100 people in a room and get 100 different answers, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Again it comes back to the rules being the rules which you choose to agree to when you choose to participate.
I agree that exemption based is flawed. That is exactly the problem with the current system.

What I was proposing was for any first offense, intentional or not, that the punishment be a season set back but a recoverable one... I dont think this is legally possible as a signatory with WADA though. So we are left with the points Hanuman mentions.

As it is the two year minimum ban is followed by exemptions which sound really good and fair but in practice are never granted for all the reasons you and others have mentioned above about the athletes ultimate responsibility for what they eat, drink, rub on their skin, etc.

You can look at the West case report and how they benchmarked his punishment off another case as a good example. In that case a swimmer had gotten letter of indemnity from the manufacture that their product, a nutritional supplement, contained nothing from the banned substance list. She also consulted her trainer, coach, and physician prior to use. She got a 12 month ban for doing everything in her ability to ensure she didn't commit a violation. Ant.West had done none of those things so he could receive no less, and in the minds of arbitrators he got a break at just 18 months.


For 2015 the WADA Code raises the standard punishment to a four year ban and throws in the words for intentional violations. So a defense will now begin with aurguing that it wasn't intentional just to try and get to a two year ban, by which time you're probably run out of good reasons to make it any lower.

Obviously other sports still have problems that an increase here is deemed necessary.... I do not think motorcycle racing is one of them. I just think somehow the FIM need to get ahead of this before it needlessly makes a mess of or ends someone's career for otherwise avoidable violations.

I truley appritate all the good comments, and I know I'm not going to change anything personally here, just raising awareness I guess...

Hanuman
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:53 am
Location: 37°50'S, 145°0'E

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Hanuman »

I'm enjoying this thread Kenup, so thank you for starting it up.

The penalties seem completely arbitrary and in many cases draconian. I believe that the heavy penalties are used as a offset to the fact that the testing regimes conducted by the sporting bodies are often so haphazard and frankly, weak. So WADA has had to ramp up the deterence factor. Not to mention the image of being super-tough on drugs, such massive penalties imply.

That said, there are many cases where penalties are back-dated, or just flat-out reduced below the 2 year 'standard'. A recent case in Australia saw several players in a Rugby League team get done for Peptides. They were first offered a 6-month ban if they owned up (which they declined), fought the case for around 18 months and an ended up with a 12 month mab back-dated almost a year, so the players only got a few matches penalty.

To me this is what happens when there's money and a league involved. The many affected parties - the players, the NRL, ASADA, the sponsors - all stand to lose a lot if a team is destroyed. Therefore, lots of lobbying, deals, lawyers and in the end a 'weak' penalty. Woe betide you if you can be jettisoned from the team safely, or if you're a minnow they can make an example of.

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

So as expected James Stewart is finished for 2015. 16 month ban time served since april last year. All results and winnings lost.

Stewart's indicated he'd be forced to retire if this happened.


http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/no_c ... 5D=Library

andrebt
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:57 am
Location: orlando, florida

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by andrebt »

kenup283 wrote:So as expected James Stewart is finished for 2015. 16 month ban time served since april last year. All results and winnings lost.

Stewart's indicated he'd be forced to retire if this happened.


http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/no_c ... 5D=Library

well it looks like retirement is no longer an option for JS:

http://www.foxsports.com/motor/story/ja ... rsy-121914

honestly though I was caught off guard in regards to this, but retiring a would've been a weak way of going out.

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

I think the key is his sponsors and team have stood behind him. But It's a real shame in my opinion that a clear consise rule for punishment does not exist....

I started following this stuff only with the Ant West case, and having read the ruling, thinking holy cow this is really bad...

It is also ironic that the exact same FIM appointed judge citing the exact same paragraphs of the FIM doping code who ruled for a one month ban and race DQ for Ant West , now finds here that a 16 month ban is appropriate in addition to a probation period while deliberations were ongoing.

The only thing that changed now is the FIM is afraid of WADA and are now enforcing what they think won't get appeald again. So basically they aren't in charge. And more over their judges are clearly influenced behind close doors...

Optimistically, the 2015 change in WADA to a four year min ban is an opportunity to split with the punishment part of their code and adopt somthing clearer and swift.

Pessimistically, if the FIM adopt the boiler plate standard from WADA then they are doing a huge disservice to the sport and the head of the CMI (FIM comity on medical) should be fired immediately.

Hanuman
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:53 am
Location: 37°50'S, 145°0'E

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Hanuman »

kenup283 wrote:I think the key is his sponsors and team have stood behind him. But It's a real shame in my opinion that a clear consise rule for punishment does not exist....

I started following this stuff only with the Ant West case, and having read the ruling, thinking holy cow this is really bad...

It is also ironic that the exact same FIM appointed judge citing the exact same paragraphs of the FIM doping code who ruled for a one month ban and race DQ for Ant West , now finds here that a 16 month ban is appropriate in addition to a probation period while deliberations were ongoing.

The only thing that changed now is the FIM is afraid of WADA and are now enforcing what they think won't get appeald again. So basically they aren't in charge. And more over their judges are clearly influenced behind close doors...

Optimistically, the 2015 change in WADA to a four year min ban is an opportunity to split with the punishment part of their code and adopt somthing clearer and swift.

Pessimistically, if the FIM adopt the boiler plate standard from WADA then they are doing a huge disservice to the sport and the head of the CMI (FIM comity on medical) should be fired immediately.
Stewart got busted for Adderall.
If he has - as he's stated in his laughable defence - been prescribed this for 'a long-term condition', then his competitors have been competing (and losing) against a guy on amphetamines. Lucky them, eh?

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

Hanuman, I think it is clear that neither of us have the data to discuss specifics of his case. The details just haven't been realesed yet.

When they are the question will be what is the theremputic limit and what was his amounts in comparison.

We don't know this yet, so we cannot say at this moment he has bogus excuses. In same way we can't say either that it really was just paperwork either. My feeling is the later, yours may be the former, but no sense getting into it until we have more data.

We know the FIM waited for Stewart to be granted a thereputuc use exemption prior to issuing their decision. Perhaps they found he was overusing his prescription, who knows, we don't have that data.

My opinions here are formed over the apparent change in precedent in punishment in cases after Ant West. Even there you could say that those cases were outliers themselves; alchool, celerabutenoul, and some undisclosed amount of amphetamine.

But given that the FIM had to increase West punishment and are now doing the same across the board to all those that come after, it is a fair inference that they have ratcheted up the enforcement dramatically. I think it would be miss management to continue on as they are and increasing the min punishment to four years.

User avatar
Squidpuppet
Posts: 3924
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: CdA, ID

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Squidpuppet »

kenup283 wrote: I think it would be miss management to continue on as they are and increasing the min punishment to four years.
Am I reading you correctly? Their ultimate future target will be a 4 year ban for offenders? That's nuts.

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

Squidpuppet wrote:
kenup283 wrote: I think it would be miss management to continue on as they are and increasing the min punishment to four years.
Am I reading you correctly? Their ultimate future target will be a 4 year ban for offenders? That's nuts.

Yep, effective Jan 1st 2015.

And just as I was about to bash the FIM for not releasing their updated code before it became active, they just realesed it today. Funny that now they have big bold letters on the cover saying we're just doing what WADA says.

Oh and the reason, to harmonize with all other sports and make sure the riders are forced to sit out the next Olympic Games in case they ever decide to pick up badminton...

http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/no_c ... 5D=Library

Hanuman
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:53 am
Location: 37°50'S, 145°0'E

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Hanuman »

kenup283 wrote:Hanuman, I think it is clear that neither of us have the data to discuss specifics of his case. The details just haven't been realesed yet.

When they are the question will be what is the theremputic limit and what was his amounts in comparison.

We don't know this yet, so we cannot say at this moment he has bogus excuses. In same way we can't say either that it really was just paperwork either. My feeling is the later, yours may be the former, but no sense getting into it until we have more data.

We know the FIM waited for Stewart to be granted a thereputuc use exemption prior to issuing their decision. Perhaps they found he was overusing his prescription, who knows, we don't have that data.

My opinions here are formed over the apparent change in precedent in punishment in cases after Ant West. Even there you could say that those cases were outliers themselves; alchool, celerabutenoul, and some undisclosed amount of amphetamine.

But given that the FIM had to increase West punishment and are now doing the same across the board to all those that come after, it is a fair inference that they have ratcheted up the enforcement dramatically. I think it would be miss management to continue on as they are and increasing the min punishment to four years.
Excuse? He tested positive, did he not?
If he had a TUE, he could have waved it in WADA's faces and avoided a ban.
He did not, so he could not.
(though he did think it a good idea after he was busted, given that he's supposedly been on it "long-term", he's had plenty of time to get that TUE...)
If I had his salary to protect, I'd be a little bit fussier about what I consume. Gee, I might even pay some guy to keep me on the right side of the line. Maybe I'd google a bit, USADA's website would raise my eyebrow in about 2 minutes...

I agree about the bizarre punishment regime. I have written before that they are capricious and often do not make much sense. What we have here is piss-weak testing regimes across many sports, with the big Boss WADA at an arms length, trying to throw his weight around. Most sports can't and don't have a regime to really attack PED use, so instead WADA carries the big stick and really goes for the jugular on the few cases that are caught.

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

Update on the speedway track rider Darcy Ward case.

http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/down ... o_cache/1/

10 month ban for testing over limit (0.1 BAC) for alcohol.

It means he miss half the 2015 season in addition to half of 2014 that he sat out on probation awaiting his hearing.

I'm a bit surprised to be honest that they've gone a bit softer on this than they have for inconsequential amounts of performance enhancers. Either way, at two seasons down the tubes, it more or less has the same effect.

Also interesting that it took 6 months for that hearing to take place.

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

The Stewart case full report has been posted.

http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/down ... o_cache/1/

It more or less tells the story as we know it. No real news.

Intersting points are :

- Stewart signed his license which acknowledges his full compliance to the FIM doping code
- He had been prescribed Aderall in 2012 and been taking it regularly (twice daily) since
- At begining of 2014, just months before the failed test, he reported "no" in his medical questioner to the question "do you take any medicine or drugs regularly"
- At the second race of the year the FIM held an awareness training. One rider attended, Kevin Wyndam.
- immediately following the postive test, Stewart's trainer began process of applying for the Thereputic Use Exemption, which was ultimatley granted later that year but woukd not be allowed to apply retroactively.
- The FIM doping code came into effect at end of 2009 (edit: for the AMA series). Prior AMA codes do not require TUE and it was sufficient just to have a prescription.


In the end the arbitrators agreed that was a light fault and upheld the reduced punishment of 16 months as he was able to establish how the prohibited substances entered his system. So in the end the arbitrators see it as not just a paperwork issue but a lack of regard for the FIM code and punished him for that.


The ruling for the case I mentioned earlier of sidecar motocross passenger who tested positive for celerabutenoul has also been posted.

http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/down ... o_cache/1/

In that case WADA appealed against the FIM, stating the 15 months was too lieneint. WADA won their appeal aurguing that he failed to determine exactly the source of the prohibited substance. The arbitration panel saying he should have submitted evidence to support his hypothesis of possible sources bieng food adatives of dietary supplements. They also stated he should have put more effort into defending his case.

The intersted point here is the now 2 year ban is effective from date of this award, jan 2015. when the failed test was July 2013. So this guy cannot compete until 2017. A four and a haf year ban, that previously was 15 months... Crazy.


Lastly speaking of strange, the details of the FIM decision in the Alchool case for Darcy Ward, speedway track rider, was also published.

http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/down ... o_cache/1/

It shows he tested 0.52 prior to intending to race on the day of competion....
Last edited by kenup283 on Thu May 14, 2015 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kropotkin
Site Admin
Posts: 3160
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Dieren, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Kropotkin »

kenup283 wrote: Lastly speaking of strange, the details of the FIM decision in the Alchool case for Darcy Ward, speedway track rider, was also published.

http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/down ... o_cache/1/

It shows he tested 0.52 prior to intending to race on the day of competion....
That doesn't surprise me. There have been private reports of GP riders turning up over the limit. I guess when you are addicted to excitement, other addictions are easy to pick up.
--
http://www.motomatters.com/ - MotoGP News, Analysis and Race Reports

User avatar
Squidpuppet
Posts: 3924
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:14 pm
Location: CdA, ID

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Squidpuppet »

kenup283 wrote:
It shows he tested 0.52 prior to intending to race on the day of competion....
:shock: That's more than 6 time the legal limit for driving in the US.

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

Putting this up since was recently a topic in presser at Qatar and now this years standard testing has just netted a Supercross racer in th US.

Looks like he's done for and will go down the road towards a 4 year ban and work like hell to get it to two. Game over.

http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/down ... o_cache/1/


"The Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM) has advised US Supercross rider Broc Tickle that he is provisionally suspended pursuant to Article 7.9 of the FIM Anti-doping Code. The decision to provisionally suspend Mr. Tickle was taken following the receipt of a report from the WADA accredited laboratory in Cologne indicating an Adverse Analytical Finding of 5-methylhexan-2-amine, a specified substance under Section 6 (Stimulants) of the 2018 FIM Prohibited List, in a urine sample collected from him at an in-competition test carried out by the FIM at the round of the Monster Energy AMA Supercross, an FIM World Championship held in San Diego, California, USA, on 10 February 2018.
Mr. Tickle has the right to request and attend the analysis of his B sample.
Mr. Broc Tickle is provisionally suspended with effect from 14 April 2018. He is therefore barred from participating in any Sports competition until further notice (Art. 10.12 of the FIM Anti-doping Code). Under Article 7.9.3.2 of the FIM Anti-doping Code, Mr. Tickle may request lifting of his provisional suspension."

User avatar
Tourn46
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 5:09 pm
Location: UK

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Tourn46 »

I do apologise for derailing a very legitimate thread...

...but...

Mr Tickle?

:lol:

AJracing
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 3:27 am
Location: Calgary, AB - Canada

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by AJracing »

Did a quick search on this chemical - couldn't find much concrete studies. It did say on one website that it can be used for treatment for a variety of issues...also cutting weight?

Since this is happening in the US...is USADA involved?

User avatar
speeddog
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:43 pm
Location: The hotness of SoCal Inland Valley

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by speeddog »

Steve Cox has some sensible commentary:
http://magazine.cyclenews.com/h/i/42575 ... 5-april-17

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

speeddog wrote:Steve Cox has some sensible commentary:
http://magazine.cyclenews.com/h/i/42575 ... 5-april-17
Agreed, thanks for posting that link. The case he makes is the reason why I went through the effort a few years back to find every press realese from the FIM on the topic, add up all the riders tested, and review the details and outcomes of all the adverse finding cases. I wonder if he had even came across this thread in his reaserch. I hope some do as this is about awareness primarily but that said I have yet to find a case that were performance enhancement. However, as chronologed in this thread he FIM has continued going further down this rabbit hole.

User avatar
Mikesbytes
Posts: 2529
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:04 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Mikesbytes »

Recreational substances were a significant factor in the troubles that Anthony Gobert incurred, he ended up that low that he stole $40 from a retiree and a handbag the following day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Gobert
My signature isn't particularly interesting

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by kenup283 »

Link to press realease and excerpt below. Personally I’m not a fan at all of linking the penalties up with WADA and been worried about this four year thing since it came out.

This now being the first time it is enforced hopefully the FIM take notice and institute their own criteria for punishment. This is not the first time WADA has called them in to say they’ve been too lenient in their initial rulings. So clearly the FIM internally feel a need for lesser punishment left to themselves.

Time to negotiate from a position of strength as the best form of motor sport going and level with sponsors etc that will keep doping out of the sport with same testing and banned lists etc as they are now but will just have in the FIM Medical Code a page amending the penalties to be more representative and clear cut for motorcycle racing.


https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_ ... cision.pdf

The CAS Panel found that Andrea Iannone had failed to establish neither the precise type of meat he had consumed nor the origin of said meat. Moreover, the Panel found that neither Andrea Iannone nor his experts were able to establish specifically that there was an issue of meat contamination by Drostanolone in Malaysia. The Panel considered therefore that an ADRV has been committed.

Andrea Iannone essentially left the Panel with protestations of innocence, his clean record and his alleged lack of incentive to dope. Factors which were insufficient to establish, on a balance of probability that Andrea Iannone’s ADRV was not intentional (in case of an unintentional ADRV, the applicable period of ineligibility would have been of two years maximum).

Since it is for an athlete to establish on the balance of probabilities that an ADRV is not intentional, his inability to do so means that he is deemed to have committed an intentional ADRV, pursuant to the applicable anti-doping rules. The Panel’s conclusion does not of itself rule out the possibility that Andrea Iannone’s ADRV may be the result of consumption of meat contaminated by Drostanolone but means that Andrea Iannone has not been able to provide any convincing evidence to establish that the ADRV he committed was unintentional.

Accordingly, the Panel found, contrary to the Appealed Decision, that the ADRV committed by Andrea Iannone was to be treated as intentional for purposes of the applicable anti-doping rules, and therefore upheld WADA’s Appeal. The CAS award sets aside the decision rendered by the FIM International Disciplinary Court dated 31 March 2020 and imposes a four-year period of ineligibility on Andrea Iannone.

Schwantz34
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:07 pm

Re: Performance enhancing substances

Post by Schwantz34 »

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?

Post Reply