RE :Page
Jonathan Page missed a random UCI drug test in Europe.
The process is, if I'm not mistaken, the UCI notifies USADA, USADA follows up with the "packet' to Page, Page responds by either signing off on the "I'm guilty" acceptance letter that's conveniently provided (on top, I might add) or returns the packet with an explanation of "significant justification" for missing the test (of which there is none, per the rules, though I'd be curious to see their ruling on medical evacuation) and possibly signs the temporary agreement to not race until the process is finished.
Next, USADA rules on Page's explanation - likely issuing the 2yr standard suspension for his acceptance pleasure. The rider likely responds with a request for a 1 or 3 panel arbitration hearing. Then begins the fun of "building" your case.
Athletes have no basis or grounds to stand on to warrant a "no fault" situation regarding missing a test. I have yet to find any precedence for no fault case (the example of Jeanson involved a male chaperon for a female athlete, grounds I believe influenced the only "loss" for USADA").
I (as did Redpath) received a "no substantial fault" ruling - I was responsible for missing the test, ultimately. I suppose it would have required an abduction by aliens or hostile forces to negate my own personal responsibility and receive the "no fault" ruling.
Redpath and Gilliespie's case resulted in a new rule or creative loophole that USADA employed - loosely explained - such that when an athlete is an alternate random, potentially if the primary random had presented a sample, then the alternate random potentially might have not needed to provide a sample, and in which case the rider who failed to appear (alternate random) wouldn't have necessarily provided a sample anyway.
Brilliant.
When I missed my test, the promoter, who I have a personal relationship with, notified me that USADA was looking for me, the following day. I called USADA the next business day and can't say they could have been any more casual about the missed test or under prepared us for the substantial consequences a missed test has. It took many days and attempts to even elicit the benign answers I received. The OOC testers who took my sample at home 2 days later didn't know of the missed test, either. I've ranted on all of this before, but USADA does their best to dis empower the athlete once you're in their system.
And it is their system.
To find an athlete not guilty, or without fault, is a loss, and its my opinion that USADA doesn't like to lose.
This is Jonathan Page's situation. Why it is in the press before USADA rules on his justification letter is a disservice to Page, because there is the .0001% chance they could take his letter and nothing would come of it...hypothetically speaking, of course.
That's all I have to say about that.
The process is, if I'm not mistaken, the UCI notifies USADA, USADA follows up with the "packet' to Page, Page responds by either signing off on the "I'm guilty" acceptance letter that's conveniently provided (on top, I might add) or returns the packet with an explanation of "significant justification" for missing the test (of which there is none, per the rules, though I'd be curious to see their ruling on medical evacuation) and possibly signs the temporary agreement to not race until the process is finished.
Next, USADA rules on Page's explanation - likely issuing the 2yr standard suspension for his acceptance pleasure. The rider likely responds with a request for a 1 or 3 panel arbitration hearing. Then begins the fun of "building" your case.
Athletes have no basis or grounds to stand on to warrant a "no fault" situation regarding missing a test. I have yet to find any precedence for no fault case (the example of Jeanson involved a male chaperon for a female athlete, grounds I believe influenced the only "loss" for USADA").
I (as did Redpath) received a "no substantial fault" ruling - I was responsible for missing the test, ultimately. I suppose it would have required an abduction by aliens or hostile forces to negate my own personal responsibility and receive the "no fault" ruling.
Redpath and Gilliespie's case resulted in a new rule or creative loophole that USADA employed - loosely explained - such that when an athlete is an alternate random, potentially if the primary random had presented a sample, then the alternate random potentially might have not needed to provide a sample, and in which case the rider who failed to appear (alternate random) wouldn't have necessarily provided a sample anyway.
Brilliant.
When I missed my test, the promoter, who I have a personal relationship with, notified me that USADA was looking for me, the following day. I called USADA the next business day and can't say they could have been any more casual about the missed test or under prepared us for the substantial consequences a missed test has. It took many days and attempts to even elicit the benign answers I received. The OOC testers who took my sample at home 2 days later didn't know of the missed test, either. I've ranted on all of this before, but USADA does their best to dis empower the athlete once you're in their system.
And it is their system.
To find an athlete not guilty, or without fault, is a loss, and its my opinion that USADA doesn't like to lose.
This is Jonathan Page's situation. Why it is in the press before USADA rules on his justification letter is a disservice to Page, because there is the .0001% chance they could take his letter and nothing would come of it...hypothetically speaking, of course.
That's all I have to say about that.
posted by jsager at 10:42 AM
4 Comments:
sounds like some Free J Page wristbands need to be printed soon...
what's with the pile of cash? What it costs when this happens?
Should racers make a habit of going up to the doping control after every race and ask if they are a random test?
It costs in so many ways.
It costs in legal fees if the racer chooses to fight the sanction.
It costs in current salary when you are suspended from your team.
It costs in future salary because of tainted images and holes in the race resume during a suspension.
It costs financially, it costs emotionally, and can even cost physically/physiologically.
Post a Comment
<< Home