David Millar eligible for London 2012 Olympics



swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,109
442
83
BOA bylaw found to be in violation of WADA code

David Millar will be eligible to compete for Great Britain at the London 2012 Olympics after the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that the British Olympic Association bylaw barring athletes who had previously tested positive from competing at the Games is in contravention of the WADA code.

In a statement released on Monday afternoon, CAS confirmed that it had agreed with WADA’s contention that the BOA stance was not compliant with the WADA code, and rejected BOA’s appeal.

“The Bye-Law is a doping sanction and is therefore not in compliance with the WADA Code. The CAS confirms the view of the WADA Foundation Board as indicated in its Decision. Therefore, the appeal of BOA is rejected and the Decision of the WADA Foundation Board is confirmed.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/millar-in-line-for-london-2012-olympics-after-cas-ruling

About time this nonsense was settled. The last thing that sports need is multiple organizations having different rules on a given matter.
 
I for one, was glad to see David Millar named to the Olympic team. Smart move for GB because they have a talented rider in Millar who will be content to work for either Wigg or Cav and just be happy to be on the team.
 
There's a lot of opposition, particularly in the British Olympic team generally, to the selection of athletes who have been previously convicted of doping/cheating.

Dwain Chambers selection is being opposed by athletes of the calibre of Paula Radcliffe for example.

I think Radcliffe is correct to oppose cheats being selected.
Millar shouldn't be allowed compete.

Just my two cents worth
 
I can understand the argument in favor of giving a life time Olympic ban to anyone who has been caught in the past or even had a credible cloud of suspicion around them in order to keep the games as clean as possible, however that would mean that some Olympic events or sports lend themselves more heavily to PEDs and others do not because of physical demands and/or the culture around the sport itself. What are the chances a power lifter, sprinter or thrower has doped at one time? Pretty good. What are the chances a badminton player has doped? Probably pretty low (at least I hope so).

As a competitive distance runner I can say PEDs are not part of the culture, whereas they are in some sports, and the usual PEDs are as "necessary" for distance running as other sports and here's why:

1) EPO: you can live and train at elevation and/or sleep in an oxygen chamber cranked up to 15,000 ft every night. You then come down to sea level three weeks prior to your event. You taper and rest properly and your body has a chance to heal in order for you to get it up come the big day. You're ready to pop when you need your body to pop. In pro-cycling, you're pounding and destroying your body constantly and your blood gets depleted of red blood cells and other nutrients on a regular basis. The pro cyclist is traveling constantly making oxygen chambers and other tools used by distance runners very challenging.

2) Blood doping (aka training at altitude in the off season when your blood is "healthier" and richer in red blood cells and other nutrients, taking your blood out and putting it back in prior to competition. They've done a lot of studies and some of the greatest Olympic distance runners ever have blood doped when it was legal (Lasse Viren is a prime example) but there not even sure what increased blood volume does regarding performance. There's a lot of conflicting information on how helpful it would be. We only know that "in theory" it should help. We also know that at those key times in long tours or stage races, it would be helpful to put healthier blood in during that time when your blood is sapped. Distance runners don't need this nearly as much because we are able to taper and rest and unless we've over trained, won't go into competition fatigued like pro-cyclists.

3) Testosterone: this is helpful to all athletes, but, if you're an elite athlete, I guarantee you're producing a high level of testosterone. Also, with the number of advanced ways there are out there to recover pumping yourself full of testosterone for a distance runner isn't as important as for pro-cyclists who will go through phases of producing low T counts due to training and racing fatigue.

The hottest and latest recovery methods such as cryogenic recovery can be used by runners and not cyclists because very few exist and the runners can be brought to the technology. Not so with pro-cyclists.

I just think some sports, whether due to the culture of the sport, or the psychological demands, lend itself more to PED usage. Also a lot of athletes that most believe to be squeaky clean have had their run ins with PED or at the very least highly controversial procedures: Carl Lewis, Dana Torress. PEDs have been part of sprinting since the beginning of time and they've never really fully exercised those demons. Dwain Chambers, like most sprinters didn't dope in season, "merely" out of season. He got caught.

There is a fine line between what is considered cheating and what is merely using medical and scientific breakthroughs to your advantage.

I have admired Radcliffe for a long time and would love to see her medal in 2012 but I guarantee she either sleeps in an oxygen chamber or spends several months a year at altitude and returns to sea level a few weeks prior to competition and cryogenic recovery chambers and other technology not available to most other athletes. How is that not an advantage? If USADA can't figure out how to regulate a practice or procedure, they won't touch it, giving the impression athletes who have never been embroiled in a drug scandal just work hard and are talented (and they are), but they are also using everything they can to get an advantage.
 

Similar threads