BBC Blog Network

User Profile

ventoux

Listed below are comments made by ventoux between Tuesday, 23rd December 2008 and Wednesday, 13th May 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Blatter blunders while Wada walks the beat 1:59pm on 13 May 2009 HRDC99, I agree that football in particular has a host of problems to address (I'll go along with your list), and for that sport individually, it may be that the doping issue is of lesser importance... however, we can't really take it in isolation, because that creates issues for other sports...

My sport in particular, cycling, takes a big "hit" for the amount of drug use, and I would not wish to defend it blindly, BUT if sports like football (where there IS a drug problem) can get away with saying "we don't have a problem in our sport...", then it tarnishes cycling to a greater degree than is fair...

oh, and cycling does have other problems too - in particular (&I'll try & address this delicately, so I don't get bumped off here...!) the current obsession with a returning former champion, whose political power in the sport is overshadowing almost everything else. For example, one might ask why the Italian champion has been refused entry to the most important race in Italy (the same one who "upset" the big cheese by talking about doping practices...)? I could go on (but daren't!!!)

So, whilst I accept that football has it's own particular problems, then so do other sports - doping is endemic, I think, in most major sports, and requires an across the board strategy (including football) to tackle it...
Blatter blunders while Wada walks the beat 1:35pm on 13 May 2009 Maybe no drug to make you a "better footballer", but plenty (including EPO & steroids) that will improve your endurance & strength... we're always being told that footballers are fitter & faster than ever before... are you not the least bit suspicicious that some of them might be using illegal substances to achieve this...?

There's plenty of evidence, for example in the list of names implicated in Operacion Puerto, that footballers are no better than anyone else in seeking to gain the maximum advantage from whatever they can. Obviously not all footballers, but then it's not all athletes, cylists or rowers either...

There is no sport I can think of (except maybe chess, as it seems that's designated a "sport" now) where there is not potential for advantage to be gained by the use of drugs... saying "we don't have a problem, therefore we don't need testing" is, as I have said before, just being naive...
Blatter blunders while Wada walks the beat 1:08pm on 13 May 2009 Sorry HRDC99... if you think there are any major sports that don't have a drug problem you're being just a touch naive... high profile drugs cases can indicate that a particular sport has a problem, OR just that they are active in seeking it out. Football in particular has been great at saying "we don't have a problem, therefore we don't need this nuisance of testing...." errr... what about the top club (not named as I don't want my post removed!) that was openly engaged in blood-spinning, because it wasn't banned in football (even though almost every other sport had banned it) What about the footballers (& tennis players) named in Operacion Puerto..?

Wherever there are large rewards (financial or glory) there will be those tempted to gain an advantage - seemingly intelligent people who place their health at great risk.... in any sport...
Blatter blunders while Wada walks the beat 12:43pm on 13 May 2009 If you do any sort or reading around this subject, you'll know that giving any sort of notice allows dopers to manipulate their blood and/or urine content... for example, within 30 minutes Haemocrit levels (amongst many other things) can be reduced. Hence the fuss when it appeared that Lance Armstrong "delayed" his tests by 20 minutes or more in France recently.

A comprehensive doping regime relies much more on "out of competition" doping than "in-competition" (you'd need to be quite mad to dope during competition now!) This is why unannounced, out-of-competition testing is essential, and why the bleating of footballers & tennis players should be ignored.
The Battle of Broughton 6:19pm on 03 Apr 2009 All this stuff about seeing INSIDE peoples' houses... nothing I've seen on Street View comes even close to that.... and even if it did I wouldn't be that interested in finding out you need a new 3-piece suite....
The Battle of Broughton 2:42pm on 03 Apr 2009 Can't believe with everything there is to worry about at the moment, that these people are worried I might see an old photo of their house on the web... even though I could walk past & look at it very closely any time I like... think there's some people in Broughton who would do better to get out in the wide world & see if they can find themselves a life!
Ohuruogu happy to do things her way 11:45am on 07 Jan 2009 Funny then that the Court of Arbitration website states the following:-

The IAAF has noted the outcome of the Christine Ohuruogu case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS Panel held, as contended by the IAAF, that
i) the athlete had committed a doping violation of 3 missed tests; and
ii) that the IAAF’s 1-year sanction for three missed test is proportional as a matter of law.
The athlete was provisionally suspended on 6 August 2006, the athlete is banned accordingly until 5 August 2007

No mention of "innocence" there...
Ohuruogu happy to do things her way 12:58pm on 05 Jan 2009 Fact 1: CO was found guilty of missing three tests
Fact 2: Many dopers pass any number of tests before getting caught (if they ever do)
Fact 3: The process of deliberate test avoidance to enable scheduling of doping is well documented
Fact 4: The BOA rules state that an athlete who has missed three tests is not eligible for selection for the olympics

I have frequently indicated that I have no opinion on CO's motivation for missing tests, as I don't have any evidence one way or the other - but it seems to be OK for "supporters" of CO to make the assumption that she is "innocent" - where are the facts to support that view?
Ohuruogu happy to do things her way 5:48pm on 23 Dec 2008 so. you'd be happy if we knocked this rule on the head completely? I don't have a problem with that, if there's a rationale for it.... (like saying it's OK to set a bad example, for instance, or missing three tests cannot be interpreted as potentially "masking" a doping programme..) - or would you want to keep the rule and apply it selectively (as was done in this case...)

I still can't work out how you (think) know it was the correct decision...? Maybe a pragmatic decision.... but no-one except CO knows whether it was the correct one...
Ohuruogu happy to do things her way 11:33am on 23 Dec 2008 OK, my post 37 has been removed.... not totally clear why, BUT essentially it was to share ilelolose's condemnation of Carl Lewis et al.... focusing on this particular thread, and the actions & treatment of CO, should not lead to the assumption that I do not condemn those who have (allegedly!) committed greater sins...

The rules (of the BOA) state a lifetime olympic ban for those who miss three tests... CO did that but was allowed to compete all the same... and that is the issue here for me...

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

ventoux