Drug scandal rocks Australian cycling

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by DRS, Jun 18, 2004.

  1. DRS

    DRS Guest

    "A drug scandal has rocked Australia's Olympic preparations, with explosive
    claims in Federal Parliament that up to six elite cyclists used an
    Australian Institute of Sport residence as a "shooting gallery"."

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245113326.html

    --

    A: Top-posters.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
     
    Tags:


  2. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "A drug scandal has rocked Australia's Olympic preparations, with

    explosive
    > claims in Federal Parliament that up to six elite cyclists used an
    > Australian Institute of Sport residence as a "shooting gallery"."
    >
    > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245113326.html
    >
    > --
    >
    > A: Top-posters.
    > Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
    >
    >



    *YAWNS* <sarcasm> What a shock! Athletes using performance enhancing
    drugs!</sarcasm> Must be a slow news day over at The Age.....

    Now, where did I put my syringe?
     
  3. L'acrobat

    L'acrobat Guest

    I'm stunned.

    Athletes, who can get huge endorsements if they win, are prepared to cheat
    to do so.


    "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "A drug scandal has rocked Australia's Olympic preparations, with

    explosive
    > claims in Federal Parliament that up to six elite cyclists used an
    > Australian Institute of Sport residence as a "shooting gallery"."
    >
    > http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245113326.html
    >
    > --
    >
    > A: Top-posters.
    > Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
    >
    >
     
  4. Unkey Munkey

    Unkey Munkey Guest

    L'acrobat wrote:
    > I'm stunned.
    >
    > Athletes, who can get huge endorsements if they win, are prepared to cheat
    > to do so.


    .... and then they don't like to pay tax on these endorsements:

    From
    <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9888318%255E2702,00.html>

    THE High Court will determine a test case on whether government grants
    and prize money given to amateur athletes should be liable for taxation
    because they constitute a business.

    Justices Michael Kirby and Bill Gummow yesterday granted the federal
    Taxation Commissioner leave to appeal a decision that javelin thrower
    Joanna Stone's $136,448 in prizes and grants were tax-exempt because,
    unlike sponsorships, they were not considered "carrying on a business".
    .... etc etc

    See also
    <http://www.gf.com.au/articles_222.htm>
    <http://www.olympics.com.au/default.asp?pg=home&spg=display&articleid=2502>

    This shits me. Why the hell shouldn't they pay tax? In this case the
    claim that over $100k a year in earnings is not carrying on a business.
    An amateur that gets $100k a year? I can understand someone who wins,
    say $10k per annum not wanting to declare it as income, but come on.

    Which leads me to another pet hate .. that professional athletes don't
    have to pay back any of the money spent on them at the AIS. I have to
    pay HECs on my university training, why can't they pay it on their
    sports training?

    - Munk3y
     
  5. "Unkey Munkey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > L'acrobat wrote:
    > > I'm stunned.
    > >
    > > Athletes, who can get huge endorsements if they win, are prepared to

    cheat
    > > to do so.

    >
    > ... and then they don't like to pay tax on these endorsements:
    >
    > From
    >

    <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9888318%5E2
    702,00.html>
    >
    > THE High Court will determine a test case on whether government grants
    > and prize money given to amateur athletes should be liable for taxation
    > because they constitute a business.
    >
    > Justices Michael Kirby and Bill Gummow yesterday granted the federal
    > Taxation Commissioner leave to appeal a decision that javelin thrower
    > Joanna Stone's $136,448 in prizes and grants were tax-exempt because,
    > unlike sponsorships, they were not considered "carrying on a business".
    > ... etc etc
    >
    > See also
    > <http://www.gf.com.au/articles_222.htm>
    >

    <http://www.olympics.com.au/default.asp?pg=home&spg=display&articleid=2502>
    >
    > This shits me. Why the hell shouldn't they pay tax? In this case the
    > claim that over $100k a year in earnings is not carrying on a business.
    > An amateur that gets $100k a year? I can understand someone who wins,
    > say $10k per annum not wanting to declare it as income, but come on.


    I have to agree wholeheartedly. My wife working part time to earn $25k will
    have tax taken out of her salary, so why the f#&k shouldn't some high flying
    athlete on a 6 figure payroll have to pay a damn sight more tax too!

    Cheers
    Peter
     
  6. hippy

    hippy Guest

    >Originally posted by L'Acrobat Athletes, who can get huge endorsements
    >if they win, are prepared to cheat to do so.


    Is it still cheating if everyone is doing it?

    hippy



    --
     
  7. hippy

    hippy Guest

    >Originally posted by Unkey Munkey This shits me. Why the hell shouldn't
    >they pay tax? In this case the claim that over $100k a year in earnings
    >is not carrying on a business. An amateur that gets $100k a year? I can
    >understand someone who wins, say $10k per annum not wanting to declare
    >it as income, but come on.


    You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
    winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..

    >Which leads me to another pet hate .. that professional athletes don't
    >have to pay back any of the money spent on them at the AIS. I have to
    >pay HECs on my university training, why can't they pay it on their
    >sports training?


    Never thought about this. I thought it was all down to these guys having
    to give up everything in order to pursue a sport for the glory of the
    country..? or something like that :)

    Maybe they pay with their health by volunteering their bodies for all
    the testing, drugs, supplements, etc. they have to endure?

    Remember that people going to uni/school on scholarships aren't paying
    for their education - same thing here?

    Check: http://www.ais.org.au/overview.htm

    hippy



    --
     
  8. "hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]
    > >Originally posted by Unkey Munkey This shits me. Why the hell shouldn't
    > >they pay tax? In this case the claim that over $100k a year in earnings
    > >is not carrying on a business. An amateur that gets $100k a year? I can
    > >understand someone who wins, say $10k per annum not wanting to declare
    > >it as income, but come on.

    >
    > You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
    > winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..
    >


    Hmm...
    So does that mean you can claim depreciation and maintainance costs of your
    bike?
    Or laundry costs of your cycling knicks?
    And travel costs for that last event you went to?
    And what about those Carboshotz? Are they to help you earn your income or
    did you eat them in your own time?

    Time to add another volume to the taxation rules.

    Marty "Tax Free" Wallace
     
  9. Unkey Munkey

    Unkey Munkey Guest

    hippy wrote:
    >
    > You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
    > winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..


    It would be a simple matter to set an annual threshold, or have a tiered
    system.
    >
    >
    >>Which leads me to another pet hate .. that professional athletes don't
    >>have to pay back any of the money spent on them at the AIS. I have to
    >>pay HECs on my university training, why can't they pay it on their
    >>sports training?

    >
    >
    > Never thought about this. I thought it was all down to these guys having
    > to give up everything in order to pursue a sport for the glory of the
    > country..? or something like that :)


    So if they do it for the glory of their country, then surely they
    wouldn't mind paying tax on their earnings?
    Like Pat Rafter being a citizen of Bermuda when he was awarded
    Australian of the Year?

    >
    > Maybe they pay with their health by volunteering their bodies for all
    > the testing, drugs, supplements, etc. they have to endure?


    I don't they would do anything that is detrimental to their health. And
    I'm sure they would all be queing up to sue AIS tested a drug on them
    that was detrimental (pro sportsmen being a particularly litigious lot
    these days).

    >
    > Remember that people going to uni/school on scholarships aren't paying
    > for their education - same thing here?
    >
    > Check: http://www.ais.org.au/overview.htm
    >
    > hippy
    >


    The only uni graduates I know who don't pay HECS are the folks at ADFA.
    ... and I don't see any of them making $100k+ TAX FREE from endorsements
    and winnings.

    Even trainee police have to pay HECS to go to the police academy.

    - Munk3y
     
  10. Unkey Munkey

    Unkey Munkey Guest

    Marty Wallace wrote:
    > "hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:eek:[email protected]
    >
    >>>Originally posted by Unkey Munkey This shits me. Why the hell shouldn't
    >>>they pay tax? In this case the claim that over $100k a year in earnings
    >>>is not carrying on a business. An amateur that gets $100k a year? I can
    >>>understand someone who wins, say $10k per annum not wanting to declare
    >>>it as income, but come on.

    >>
    >>You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
    >>winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..
    >>

    >
    >
    > Hmm...
    > So does that mean you can claim depreciation and maintainance costs of your
    > bike?
    > Or laundry costs of your cycling knicks?
    > And travel costs for that last event you went to?
    > And what about those Carboshotz? Are they to help you earn your income or
    > did you eat them in your own time?
    >
    > Time to add another volume to the taxation rules.
    >
    > Marty "Tax Free" Wallace
    >
    >

    You would only be able to claim against the proportion of tax paid on
    your earnings for that activity, so in this case Hippy would get his $1
    back.

    - Munk3y
     
  11. hippy

    hippy Guest

    >Originally posted by Peter Signorini
    >>Unky posted this stuff: Justices Michael Kirby and Bill Gummow
    >>yesterday granted the federal Taxation Commissioner leave to appeal a
    >>decision that javelin thrower Joanna Stone's $136,448 in prizes and
    >>grants were tax-exempt because, unlike sponsorships, they were not
    >>considered "carrying on a business". ... etc etc

    >
    >I have to agree wholeheartedly. My wife working part time to earn $25k
    >will have tax taken out of her salary, so why the f#&k shouldn't some
    >high flying athlete on a 6 figure payroll have to pay a damn sight
    >more tax too!


    Well, as far as I am aware, Joanna Stone is a police officer. She would
    be being taxed on that income just like your wife. If your wife took up
    a sport, won lots and received sponsorship and prize money - would you
    be so willing to have her pay tax on that?

    I'd like to see taxes on 4wd's brought into line before worrying about
    the winnings of a sports star..

    hippy



    --
     
  12. hippy

    hippy Guest

    >>Unky posted this stuff: Justices Michael Kirby and Bill Gummow
    >>yesterday granted the federal Taxation Commissioner leave to appeal a
    >>decision that javelin thrower Joanna Stone's $136,448 in prizes and
    >>grants were tax-exempt because, unlike sponsorships, they were not
    >>considered "carrying on a business". ... etc etc


    Furthermore... (can you tell I'm up for a whinge/argument? :) )

    This explains the reasoning behind the decision:
    http://www.gf.com.au/articles_222.htm

    A point to note: If you were skilled at darts or something and travelled
    around country fairs earning money on similar games of skill.. would you
    declare that income? Is it only because she earned $100k+ that it's an
    issue for you? Where's the cutoff? Is it okay to earn $20k prize money
    and not pay tax on it? $50k?

    Just out of curiosity - how much tax does Tiger Woods or Michael
    Jordan pay?

    hippy



    --
     
  13. In article <[email protected]>,
    Unkey Munkey <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Like Pat Rafter being a citizen of Bermuda when he was awarded
    > Australian of the Year?


    For the record: resident, not citizen.

    --
    Shane Stanley
     
  14. In article <[email protected]>,
    hippy <[email protected]> wrote:

    > You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
    > winnings or none.


    Not necessarily. For example, a professional farmer pays tax and clainms
    deductions, but a small hobby farmer does neither. Same goes for
    professional punters, as opposed to the mug in the street. There's
    plenty of precedent.

    --
    Shane Stanley
     
  15. Jack Russell

    Jack Russell Guest

    Marty Wallace wrote:

    >"hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:eek:[email protected]
    >
    >
    >>>Originally posted by Unkey Munkey This shits me. Why the hell shouldn't
    >>>they pay tax? In this case the claim that over $100k a year in earnings
    >>>is not carrying on a business. An amateur that gets $100k a year? I can
    >>>understand someone who wins, say $10k per annum not wanting to declare
    >>>it as income, but come on.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
    >>winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Hmm...
    >So does that mean you can claim depreciation and maintainance costs of your
    >bike?
    >Or laundry costs of your cycling knicks?
    >And travel costs for that last event you went to?
    >And what about those Carboshotz? Are they to help you earn your income or
    >did you eat them in your own time?
    >
    >Time to add another volume to the taxation rules.
    >
    >Marty "Tax Free" Wallace
    >
    >
    >
    >

    At the risk of being serious the tax office already have this sorted.
    "Hobbies" are not deductible and you do not pay tax on the money
    received. See a boring accountant for the definition of a hobby!

    --
    Remove norubbish to reply direct

    Jack Russell
     
  16. Unkey Munkey

    Unkey Munkey Guest

    hippy wrote:
    >>>Unky posted this stuff: Justices Michael Kirby and Bill Gummow
    >>>yesterday granted the federal Taxation Commissioner leave to appeal a
    >>>decision that javelin thrower Joanna Stone's $136,448 in prizes and
    >>>grants were tax-exempt because, unlike sponsorships, they were not
    >>>considered "carrying on a business". ... etc etc

    >
    >
    > Furthermore... (can you tell I'm up for a whinge/argument? :) )


    ... okay .. you, me , carpark - now!
    >
    > This explains the reasoning behind the decision:
    > http://www.gf.com.au/articles_222.htm


    yes, the descision found *against* her in respect of money earned from
    appearance fees, sponsorships and endorsements. She didn't want to pay
    tax on this money, I think she should, and the court agreed with me.

    >
    > A point to note: If you were skilled at darts or something and travelled
    > around country fairs earning money on similar games of skill.. would you
    > declare that income? Is it only because she earned $100k+ that it's an
    > issue for you? Where's the cutoff? Is it okay to earn $20k prize money
    > and not pay tax on it? $50k?


    I can't see why not. Musicians, poets and artists are assessed on all
    their income, I can't see what makes sportspeople a special case.

    >
    > Just out of curiosity - how much tax does Tiger Woods or Michael
    > Jordan pay?
    >


    No idea, but probably more than me.


    - Munk3y
    ... proving that you can't avoid death, taxes, and hearing my opinion.
     
  17. "Jack Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    >
    > Marty Wallace wrote:
    >
    > >"hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:eek:[email protected]
    > >
    > >
    > >>>Originally posted by Unkey Munkey This shits me. Why the hell shouldn't
    > >>>they pay tax? In this case the claim that over $100k a year in earnings
    > >>>is not carrying on a business. An amateur that gets $100k a year? I can
    > >>>understand someone who wins, say $10k per annum not wanting to declare
    > >>>it as income, but come on.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
    > >>winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >Hmm...
    > >So does that mean you can claim depreciation and maintainance costs of

    your
    > >bike?
    > >Or laundry costs of your cycling knicks?
    > >And travel costs for that last event you went to?
    > >And what about those Carboshotz? Are they to help you earn your income or
    > >did you eat them in your own time?
    > >
    > >Time to add another volume to the taxation rules.
    > >
    > >Marty "Tax Free" Wallace
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    > At the risk of being serious the tax office already have this sorted.
    > "Hobbies" are not deductible and you do not pay tax on the money
    > received. See a boring accountant for the definition of a hobby!
    >
    > --
    > Remove norubbish to reply direct
    >
    > Jack Russell
    >


    You obviously missed the earlier postings. We were trying to establish what
    defined a taxable income. At what point does a sport become a job?

    Also, a sport isn't the same as a hobby.

    Marty
     
  18. Jack Russell

    Jack Russell Guest

    Marty Wallace wrote:

    >"Jack Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >
    >
    >>Marty Wallace wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>"hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>news:eek:[email protected]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>Originally posted by Unkey Munkey This shits me. Why the hell shouldn't
    >>>>>they pay tax? In this case the claim that over $100k a year in earnings
    >>>>>is not carrying on a business. An amateur that gets $100k a year? I can
    >>>>>understand someone who wins, say $10k per annum not wanting to declare
    >>>>>it as income, but come on.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
    >>>>winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>Hmm...
    >>>So does that mean you can claim depreciation and maintainance costs of
    >>>
    >>>

    >your
    >
    >
    >>>bike?
    >>>Or laundry costs of your cycling knicks?
    >>>And travel costs for that last event you went to?
    >>>And what about those Carboshotz? Are they to help you earn your income or
    >>>did you eat them in your own time?
    >>>
    >>>Time to add another volume to the taxation rules.
    >>>
    >>>Marty "Tax Free" Wallace
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>At the risk of being serious the tax office already have this sorted.
    >>"Hobbies" are not deductible and you do not pay tax on the money
    >>received. See a boring accountant for the definition of a hobby!
    >>
    >>--
    >>Remove norubbish to reply direct
    >>
    >>Jack Russell
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >You obviously missed the earlier postings. We were trying to establish what
    >defined a taxable income. At what point does a sport become a job?
    >
    >Also, a sport isn't the same as a hobby.
    >
    >Marty
    >
    >
    >
    >

    No I saw the earlier postings. I think the tax office would regard a
    sport as a hobby for this purpose. Much the same rules apply to so
    called hobby farms. To be cynical I think they become a "profession" as
    soon as the income is greater than the expenses i.e. the ATO can get
    something out of you, but I am sure they do have a definition. I just
    consulted "she who knows everything" and she said there are pages on it
    but my cynical definition is a good summary.

    On a different subject the reason I prefer to top post is that my
    spelling checker picks up errors from earlier postings which is a pain!

    --
    Remove norubbish to reply direct

    Jack Russell
     
  19. Plodder

    Plodder Guest

    "hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]
    <snip>
    > You can't have it both ways... either ALL athletes pay tax on their
    > winnings or none. That means that my $10 crit wins will now be $9..


    What's wrong with that? It's easily administered: Just put in a cut-off for
    declaring winnings or sponsorship as income at a level where it's not worth
    the admin costs to pursue the tax - say, (example only) $5K/annum. If you
    win less than that, it's notionally taxable but not pursued. You can (and
    should, under law) declare it, but if you don't it's too trivial for the ATO
    to bother with. There are precedents, like being able to claim certian
    expenses below a threshold without supplying receipts. It's known to be
    rorted but it's not worth the expense to audit. I know it's dishonest,
    costing us honest taxpayers a fortune, (as WE all are - declaring every
    cent! :p ) etc., but it's the real world.

    >
    > Never thought about this. I thought it was all down to these guys having
    > to give up everything in order to pursue a sport for the glory of the
    > country..? or something like that :)
    >
    > Maybe they pay with their health by volunteering their bodies for all
    > the testing, drugs, supplements, etc. they have to endure?


    Tosh. Sportspeople are simply entertainers like any actor, musician, etc. I
    see no reason to treat sportspeople differently from any other entertainer.
    A muso who doesn't earn much still pays tax.

    Check the paragraphs in the article posted earlier that say, "The taxpayer
    also submitted that none of the amounts were a reward for services and were
    not relied on by her to meet her daily expenditure such that they had a
    character of income." and"...However, that of itself is insufficient. Ms
    Stone has not performed a service by throwing her javelin. She has not
    charged a fee for entertainment"
    Of course they are rewards for services. They area part-time entertainers.
    Again, no different from a bunch of young mechanics putting together a
    garage band and playing paying gigs at the local pub where people pay for
    admittance. The band will get a portion of the money made by the pub
    (whatever the arrangement - includes fees 'in kind' like free beer for the
    night).

    There's no disputing that some people are passionate about their 'chosen art
    form' but entertinment is entertainment; sport is no different, unless you
    exclude spectators and other non-participants, in which case, who's going to
    sponsor anyone? Sponsorship relies on somone else seeing and being
    influenced by the adverts carried by the entertainer (athlete, actor,
    whatever) and being influenced to buy the advertised product. No observer =
    no gain for the sponsor = no point sponsoring the entertainer. Simply by
    accepting sponsorship an entertainer is providing a service.

    I'm surprised you missed putting in the tongue-in-cheek indicator in your
    comments!

    >
    > Remember that people going to uni/school on scholarships aren't paying
    > for their education - same thing here?


    Hmmm... what do I pay to the Uni every semester? Scotch mist? Certainly
    feels like money...

    Cheers,

    Frank (who's a bad spectator because he hates the idea of watching someone
    else having a good time while all I'm doing is watching!)
     
Loading...
Loading...