[Ali]

Belgium footballers have a launched a case against WADA, based on human rights aspects, especially privacy.

I think they'll win and the #### will hit the fan big time. There's no way out of this for (ex)Dick's boys and girls. The anti-doping crowd are going to have to come up with new bright ideas. Personally, I'd point them in the direction of DQueued. His model for doping reform is impeccable: He has all the facts. End of.

Ali

[Velo]

I think they'll win and the #### will hit the fan big time. There's no way out of this for (ex)Dick's boys and girls. The anti-doping crowd are going to have to come up with new bright ideas.

Ali

If you're anti-anti-doping, then are you pro-doping? Actually, come to think of it, that's a fitting description. I think we should start calling you guys pro-dopers from now on. Yeah, I kinda like that. Has a good ring to it. Thanks, Ali.

[Ali]

If you're anti-anti-doping, then are you pro-doping? Actually, come to think of it, that's a fitting description. I think we should start calling you guys pro-dopers from now on. Yeah, I kinda like that. Has a good ring to it. Thanks, Ali.

I'm anti anything which infringes people's basic human rights. It's sad that so many people view elite athletes as nothing more than dancing bears in a circus, who's only role in life is to entertain the spectators. I may be a minority here, but I'm pretty comfortable with my views.

PS Here's the link to the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/front_page/7844918.stm

PPS Read it. It's a thought provoking story which may open some people's eyes.

This post has been edited by Ali: 24 January 2009 - 09:43 AM

[ZigZagged]

Can I be a called a pro-doper as well since I also believe in the priority of civil and human rights over popping every athlete who may have doped at some point in his career or is tainted by simply being an athlete? I'd like the honor of being called an apologist or even "pro-doper" by the Cycling Nihilist crowd.

[Ali]

Can I be a called a pro-doper as well since I also believe in the priority of civil and human rights over popping every athlete who may have doped at some point in his career or is tainted by simply being an athlete? I'd like the honor of being called an apologist or even "pro-doper" by the Cycling Nihilist crowd.

Zig,

A movement is forming ... and I don't just mean here. Athletes everywhere have had enough and are starting to fight back. Reality is starting to seep into the fascist world of anti-doping and the subjects are starting to react. This is the best news I've heard in a long time.

At this point, I still think anti-anti-doping is preferable to pro-doping. Let's sit on the fence and see how this one rides out before committing to the correct course of action. Big changes ahead, I think.

Ali

[Velo]

Can I be a called a pro-doper as well since I also believe in the priority of civil and human rights over popping every athlete who may have doped at some point in his career or is tainted by simply being an athlete? I'd like the honor of being called an apologist or even "pro-doper" by the Cycling Nihilist crowd.

Sure, no problem. Hey, did you catch "24" last night? Those scenarios aren't real either, you know. A bit exaggerated compared to what happens in real life.

[Steve in ATL]

If you're anti-anti-doping, then are you pro-doping? Actually, come to think of it, that's a fitting description. I think we should start calling you guys pro-dopers from now on. Yeah, I kinda like that. Has a good ring to it. Thanks, Ali.

And we'll refer to you as totalitarian fascists and pro-human-rights-violators.

So there!

[Andrew]

The Belgian footballers' case will be kicked out of court for being what it is: a frivolous lawsuit. Ali, do you really think dopers should go unpunished? Did you follow last year's races at all? (My suspicion is you didn't--that you're not a cycling fan so much as a Floyd partisan, or a doping in sports obsessive.) As a quick recap: in the Giro and the Tour de France a few riders were taking a particular form of EPO, and winning stages and threatening for the overall. They were caught in the Tour and after and punished. Do you really think Ricco, Sella, Kohl, Schumacher and Piepoli should have gone undetected and unpunished? What about the rights of all the riders who aren't taking drugs? Again, do you really pay any attention to the actual races?

Oh wait--what's that I've got in my cheek? A hook? With some bait on it? Yes, it's a stupid conversation. I'm going to go ride my bike in the snow.

[ZigZagged]

Sure, no problem. Hey, did you catch "24" last night? Those scenarios aren't real either, you know. A bit exaggerated compared to what happens in real life.

Much obliged, I'll wear the title as a badge of honor from ya.
But no, I've never watched "24". So sorry, I don't get the analogy, though I have heard of the lead's style seeping into the public consciousness as an acceptable and effective way to get info from terrorists. Is that what you advocate to fight doping?

[The Rake]

Didn't Kasheckin try to take the human rightd violation stance when he was busted in Turkey?

[Ali]

Didn't Kasheckin try to take the human rightd violation stance when he was busted in Turkey?

The key difference here is that there are a large number of athletes and they haven't been busted. In other words, they do have a leg, many legs infact, to stand on.

[Velo]

Much obliged, I'll wear the title as a badge of honor from ya.
But no, I've never watched "24". So sorry, I don't get the analogy, though I have heard of the lead's style seeping into the public consciousness as an acceptable and effective way to get info from terrorists. Is that what you advocate to fight doping?

Simply that the worst case, oversimplified, hypothetical scenarios are often held up as the rule when in fact they are very much the exception, if they even occur at all.

I guess I just don't really see where these horrible, egregious human rights violations are occurring among cyclists. I'll grant you the Vasseur incident, but that had nothing to do with the UCI or WADA. What I see are athletes voluntarily becoming members of an organization to gain the benefits of being a member of that organization. No rider has the "right" to be a member of the UCI any more than I have the "right" to get into Harvard Law School, and if by some massive screw-up I were to be accepted into HLS, I still could only attend if I agree to abide by the rules, terms, and conditions set by the school, or I get tossed. No different with the UCI - if a rider doesn't want to have to provide details of his whereabouts or to pee into a cup regularly, he can go elsewhere. It's entirely his choice to become a UCI-licensed rider (provided he qualifies, of course). And the UCI or USADA etc don't exist in a legal vacuum - they're still subject to the laws of the country that holds jurisdiction, so there's absolutely nothing stopping a rider from suing in federal court if he thinks the UCI is violating his civil liberties. I find it a bit odd that has never happened, considering all these terrible human rights violations that are supposedly occurring - could it be because the busted riders know that they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on? All sports have to have some sort of tradeoff to function - is it a violation of a hockey players human rights that he can be shipped off to any city in NA with virtually no say in the matter and run out of the NHL if he refuses to go? Nope. Just part of the mutual agreement.

So again, I guess I just don't see where these horrible human rights violations you guys keep going on about are occurring, considering that it's entirely voluntary to become (or remain) a member of the UCI, and by doing so, explicitly agreeing to the terms and conditions of membership, regardless of whether a rider likes them or not. Arresting reporters or protesters and letting them rot in jail without fair trial is a human rights violation; ethnic cleansing is a human rights violation; denying someone employment because of the color of their skin is a human rights violation.

Having cyclists who have voluntarily become members of an organization in order to gain the benefits of membership report their whereabouts or pee in a cup once in a while to make sure they're not cheating really, really is not a violation of their human rights.

[Steve in ATL]

Having cyclists who have voluntarily become members of an organization in order to gain the benefits of membership report their whereabouts or pee in a cup once in a while to make sure they're not cheating really, really is not a violation of their human rights.

THis is the crux of the matter that everyone seems to have a problem getting past: To my kowledge, every single athlete belonging to some type of Olympic-movement sport (and certainly most if not all professional sporting leagues that have anti-doping rules), voluntarily sing an agreement to be drug tested. You can waive away rights contractually - they just can't be (legally) taken from you on an involuntary basis. It's a little too late to cry about your human rights eing violated after you've read / signed that agreement.

[Hombre]

THis is the crux of the matter that everyone seems to have a problem getting past: To my kowledge, every single athlete belonging to some type of Olympic-movement sport (and certainly most if not all professional sporting leagues that have anti-doping rules), voluntarily sing an agreement to be drug tested. You can waive away rights contractually - they just can't be (legally) taken from you on an involuntary basis. It's a little too late to cry about your human rights eing violated after you've read / signed that agreement.

Agree.

US law though might take the view that it doesnt matter what you have signed if your rights guaranteed by the constitution are being violated or some other overarching law say federal law or rulings on workplace conditions.

But I agree, a court will have trouble sympathising, in this economy, with guys making millions a year to kick a ball around the field for complaining that they have to tell everyone where they are all the time.
Dont know about the euro system though

This post has been edited by Hombre: 26 January 2009 - 04:20 PM

[fab]

The answer is simple: every day between 8H and 18H football player from beligian team should stay in their office into their stadium!
It will be easier to test them.

[Ali]

THis is the crux of the matter that everyone seems to have a problem getting past: To my kowledge, every single athlete belonging to some type of Olympic-movement sport (and certainly most if not all professional sporting leagues that have anti-doping rules), voluntarily sing an agreement to be drug tested. You can waive away rights contractually - they just can't be (legally) taken from you on an involuntary basis. It's a little too late to cry about your human rights eing violated after you've read / signed that agreement.

This word voluntarily is being bandied around a bit too freely in my opinion. In the case of cycling, what we're talking about is a "closed shop" scenario, as was common in industrial union movements until whenever. Yes, it's true that nobody is holding a gun to your head to join the UCI, but on the other hand, if you don't join, you don't work. Closed shops have been outlawed for many years. I'm not going to pretend I know the history to how that came about, but governments clearly thought it infringed some sort of right of the individual (and I'm pretty sure that workers back then were not forced to let the union know their whereabouts every waking moment of the day and undergo the humiliation of having to urinate into a cup whilst being closely observed by a complete stranger).

Anyway, if enough athletes agree it's not acceptable, things will have to change. What I think is irrelevant

[Steve in ATL]

This word voluntarily is being bandied around a bit too freely in my opinion. In the case of cycling, what we're talking about is a "closed shop" scenario, as was common in industrial union movements until whenever. Yes, it's true that nobody is holding a gun to your head to join the UCI, but on the other hand, if you don't join, you don't work.

Codswallop. If you don't sign, you can't race a bike. There are other professions open to you if you do not wish to be tested for drugs. Careers at the airlines, sercurity organizations, the military, and cycling are out if you are not willing to voluntarily be tested for drugs.

[The Rake]

Closed shops have been outlawed for many years. I'm not going to pretend I know the history to how that came about, but governments clearly thought it infringed some sort of right of the individual

Not quite. It may be the spin they put on it, but it was more a desire to dilute the collective bargaining power of the workers against the owners/governments. Divide and conquer

[ZigZagged]

... What I see are athletes voluntarily becoming members of an organization to gain the benefits of being a member of that organization. No rider has the "right" to be a member of the UCI any more than I have the "right" to get into Harvard Law School...

True enough, and that's why in the past I've stated that at least part of me feels that one must be an idiot to subject themselves to the "guilty until innocent" and "pin cushion" environment in which pro cyclists exist.

On the other hand, in general they are in it because it's what they do best at and they can make solid money riding a bike. And they do it because they love it. I'd like to think it'd be easy for a rider to say that the lack of privacy and the inability to travel without checking in with mommy and daddy sucks and isn't worth it, so they'll do something else for a living, but I'm sure it ain't that easy. "Voluntary" may be technically correct in describing a cyclist's submission to conditions I find objectionable (including getting ragged on in forums like this simply because they are top athletes), but in spirit I think it's anything but voluntary.

[Velo]

True enough, and that's why in the past I've stated that at least part of me feels that one must be an idiot to subject themselves to the "guilty until innocent" and "pin cushion" environment in which pro cyclists exist.

On the other hand, in general they are in it because it's what they do best at and they can make solid money riding a bike. And they do it because they love it. I'd like to think it'd be easy for a rider to say that the lack of privacy and the inability to travel without checking in with mommy and daddy sucks and isn't worth it, so they'll do something else for a living, but I'm sure it ain't that easy. "Voluntary" may be technically correct in describing a cyclist's submission to conditions I find objectionable (including getting ragged on in forums like this simply because they are top athletes), but in spirit I think it's anything but voluntary.

You don't have to be part of the UCI to be a professional cyclist, but riders join cause they know that the UCI has an agreement with most of the prestigious races, and the only way that they can participate is to become a UCI-licensed rider, which means agreeing to their rules. That's the tradeoff, and it's the same with any sport, really - want to play in the NHL? Then you're going to have to accept the fact that you and your family can be sent to any city in NA at any time, with virtually no say in the matter. Just the cost that a hockey player has to agree to in order to gain access to the benefits of playing in the NHL.

What bothers me the most is that the guys who are truly victimized are the non-dopers, guys like Moncoutie and McGee and even Lemond who (potentially) could've had much more successful careers (and lost out financially by not having more succesful careers) if it weren't for the fact that they had to race against dopers. And that's nothing compared to guys like Davy, Bassons, van Hoodyonck, Delion, etc who basically had their careers cut short simply because they chose not to dope - they are the real victims when it comes to doping-related "rights violations" (for lack of a better term), not the Landis' and Hamilton's and Heras' et al. One of the reasons I call you guys "pro dopers" is not cause I think you support doping, but because you seem to reserve your outrage/sense of injustice solely for those caught in the doping net, and never for those who's rights really have been trampled over.