Now you've done it, logella. Put on some coffee or tea and find a good comfy chair.

The inhaler appears to be working seeing as she won IM Coz on the weekend... At least now she has a TUE for it, still surprised that she didn't get a ban from the first offense... The only way to eradicate doping is to make the punishments harsh enough such that, the potential costs outweigh the potential benefits. If being sloppy in terms of getting a TUE only cost you one result and a little prize money, that's not a huge deterrent... If it costs you a 2 or 4 year ban, then people will be a lot more careful with what they put in their bodies... We'll have a lot less of this stuff if accidental offences get a 2 or 4 year ban, and non-accidental cases are auto-lifetime bans... and while yes there is the damage to one's image caused by the court of public opinion which will no doubt cost her on sponsor dollars, but when the penalty is a slap on the wrist, it's not going to change behavior...

still surprised that she didn't get a ban from the first offense... The only way to eradicate doping is to make the punishments harsh enough such that, the potential costs outweigh the potential benefits. //

Just to set the record straight here, she did get a ban. It was the race result from Germany and she lost that prize money, sponser bonuses, and any start fees paid. A lot of you seem to be under the impression she lost nothing. It may be a one day ban but it was a day where she made good money, so not the hand slap many are portraying here.


I'm inclined to go along with the USADA stance in this case, it does not seem to be a case of willful doping to gain an unfair advantage. It does seem to be a case of negligence on her part, around a drug that is commonly used and not really a performance enhancer to those without asthma. Besides the cost to her reputation, she did lose money in the final result, so lets keep that in mind in the discussion..

If you believe that there was negligence on her part, with no intent of gaining an unfair advantage, then you must also believe that USADA did not follow their own regulations. In such a case, there is no situation in which they are allowed to hand down anything less than a 1 year ban, even with a lot of mitigating circumstances. Less than one year is only in the case of no fault or negligence.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

developed exercise-induced asthma at 46 with no prior symptoms, now 57 progressed to full-blown asthma attacks, ended up in ER with the last one. Breathing is not overrated..

agree with monty and slowman - Lisa was foolish/careless, got punished, that's enough for me.

then you must also believe that USADA did not follow their own regulations. //

First of all I don't claim to know what the regulations and/or guidelines USADA uses for their internal decisions. Someone posted something earlier that seems to indicate they ruled within their guidelines, you seem to think not. I guess you could enact a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the women that won prize money in this past race in Mexico and see if your stance has any legs to stand on.


I'm just going to go with it was within their purview to do what they did. And I'm not really all that interested in digging further as I do not believe that this case warrants it. I would put more energy into one of the big 4 drugs, or even their maskers. But this common use asthma medication with someone with a know history of the ailment, just does not boil my blood like some here.


It may also be because I actually suffered from the same exact thing, got my asthma at 32 and it got worse and worse over the next decade. It was quite common for people in my demographic to get adult onset exercise induced asthma. Growing up in LA during the Beijing like smog as a kid, in a house with parents that smoked, and then living next to the LA airport sandwiched between the Chevron plant in El (Smell) Segundo where every house had mold from the ocean air. Any one of those things was found to be risk factors for Adult onset asthma, I had the grand slam.


And come to find out later that it was entirely environmental, at least what triggered it in me. I moved to the desert and got rid of all carpets, and over a short period of time I was able to throw away all my inhalers and pills. Dan went through the same exact same thing, only he had it worse than me, think he was taking 3 medications for his..

Uh, just to set the record straight, there was no ban. She had her results nullified for the period when she competed doped. That is a common penalty when athletes are caught doping. Everyone has their results nullified at the event they failed the test up until their suspension begins. At no point was Roberts barred from competition.

She had her results nullified for the period when she competed doped. //

Ok you got me I used the wrong word, congratulations. Did you get my point though?? Now that I agree about the wording, do you have anything to add to that point??

If you don't care what the rules are then fine. The person who indicated this was within the regulations was wrong. The person who earlier posted a correct interpretation of the rules along with a link and the relevant page number to make it easy to read the rules was right. Minimum 1 year ban required. We can't just say that the rules do not apply to this athlete but they do apply to others.

Obviously I cannot (and would not even if I could) start a class action lawsuit. Is this a really egregious doping violation? No. Should we want it handled correctly? Yes.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Sure, I can add more to my point.
Roberts got off light and USADA didnÂ’t follow their own rules in doling out the appropriate penalty. I think that is BS. Do you really need me to list all the reasons that thats wrong and damages the credibility of both the sport and USADA?

Roberts got off light //

Ok then, that was my point. Many or even most against the ruling seem to have been of the mind that she got off scott free. My only real point was that was not the case, there was a pretty severe financial penalty levied against her. You think it was too light, I think just about right, so degree of punishment seems to be our minor disagreement.

i think the point ed is really trying to make is that what USADA has ultimately done in this decision is remove faith in their system and application of rules. sure, lisa may only "deserve" what she received, but i think less of USADA for not strictly applying the rules throughout their case load.

if lisa had been served with the stated ruling for her case, the outcome at Cozumel would be just one example of how much USADA can matter.

Dude!
That’s the entire point of this thread. That’s the actual topic! What we were/are discussing specifically is why the punishment was inappropriate. You incorrectly “set the record straight”, I corrected you because it was germane to the question of the correct penalty. Whether or not you think the punishment fit the crime, the punishment did not, in fact, fit the crime per USADA rules. That’s a fact.

ultimately done in this decision is remove faith in their system and application of rules.//

So says you and some others here, thats fine. I don't see it that way, as others here, and find the fine tuning on the very low end of violations to be refreshing. I put this in the poppy seed bagel category, or one extra cup of coffee to barley cross the threshold. The lets throw all the cheaters in jail never held well with me. Having been on the testing end at least a few dozen times, and during the years when things were changing quickly all the time, I have a little empathy for athletes caught out in these situations, as it appears USADA does too. When that bagel violation hit or the tainted supplement ones, it was unnerving every time we would take a test. I was always thinking what is going to be the next thing no one has thought of yet that is unavoidable.


I do agree that it is more defined now and it has been part of the culture of pro athletes long enough that they should be on top of everything at all times. Just feel that there should be a sliding scale where there is something at the very bottom and heinous crimes at the very top, with lots in the middle. 2/1 year bans as the lowest punishments doesn't say to me that there are super minor infarctions that just barley cross low hanging lines. To me he financial penalty was in order with the infraction. But like you say, a lot of people seem to agree with you and you have a valid argument to make..

Precedent by other AD bodies, reasonable expectation of universal and fair treatment (from a tax payer funded body), possible blue print or “plausible deniability” for use by others (ie she got away with it)

These are my concerns and how it affects the credibility of USADA. In Canada we arenÂ’t perfect either.

(Not a lawyer so uncertain if the term “plausible deniability” is the correct one to use here)

Maurice,

Yea, just look at how ubiquitous "tainted meat" has become!

(obviously, contador served a ban, so not a direct comparison)

I suspect many find a "fine tuning" as a slippery slope. We have lots of past examples of national testing bodies "fine tuning" positive results so that their nation's athletes can compete on the world stage in direct violation of anti-doping rules (think USA track and field before the 84 Olympics burying positive tests).

When bodies ignore their own rules, it hurts credibility, transparency and introduces a huge element of subjectivity (which inevitably is abused). If WADA et al wants to fine tune its rules, it can do so by changing their rules first, not by ignoring them on a case by case basis.

I suspect many find a "fine tuning" as a slippery slope. //

Or some of us see it as just doing the right thing in the right circumstances. Of course there have been and are abuses, do you think that is what this case of a common asthma medication, in a minor sport of a virtually unknown athlete is? I mean if your slippery slope means that others that got the death penalty for this type of infraction or the proverbial poppy seed bagel will not in the future, then lube up that slope. I was around when Rick DeMont was stripped of a gold medal that was one of the closest races ever in olympic history. We all felt then that it was a pretty harsh penalty, about as bad as it can get actually. Anyone interested this is an old article on his story;

http://articles.latimes.com/...17603_1_olympic-gold


But as in most things in life that are controversial, there is this pendulum swing from one extreme to another. We went from head in the sand to using a hammer on every situation, and now perhaps the swing gets closer to the center where it ought to be..

So now imagine the rules specifically said DeMont's situation required a one year ban and he got one. Then a week later another swimmer does exactly the same thing but USADA doesn't ban swimmer B and says "we think swimmer B didn't mean to do it so we are going to ignore the rules and impose a one meet penalty instead".

Wouldn't that be an issue? It is that sort of thing that giving doping agencies discretion to ignore their own guidelines can cause.