Bored Members - Guests | Media | White Bored | Interview | Bored Anthem - Songs | Boredwaani | Cartoons | Facebook | Twitter | Login

WADA: bcci emerges winner...

by straight point

so finally icc has rightly snubbed wada and its whereabouts clause and adopted its own cricket specific code and dope policy...

this is what i said earlier on wada and bcci's stand...

arguments we have heard in support of the wada whereabouts clause...

'how come others did not spot it...'

'how can so many people be so ignorant...'

'why have others not raised their voice before signing...'

'571 bodies who have signed the code can't be wrong...'

i would say that's exactly what the 571st said before signing...

most must have had reservations... but they signed thinking that nobody has raised the issue so far...

it took bcci to raise its voice against the practicality of the 'whereabouts' clause and it has given a platform for others to voice their inner doubts... and now we are seeing others pitching in...

the lone fighter, bcci, who unlike some 'cricket saving' boards, did not take it lying down and raised strong concerns refusing to sign until it is cricket specific, are now having the last laugh... and with it are smiling silently the same boards who succumbed meekly and signed it in the 'larger interest of the game' to wada's whereabouts clause, knowing fully well that it is the effort and stand of bcci which has made this possible...

but now, since icc has snubbed wada, i am yet to count a single article from 'experts' and 'cricket historians' who were yelling from roof top about save WADA code and specially the stand taken by 'ill informed' 'irrational'  'hugely spoilt' indian players... and bcci who backed them to the hilt...

11 comments:

Mahek said...

Well aren't they the beacons of virtue. They've saved cricket from WADA's anarchy. Now players can juice up without worrying about getting caught unless they're out for a prolonged period.

Homer said...

@Mahek,

Partial knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Cheers,

Mahek said...

You should say the same to those enlightened and principled folk at the BCCI.

Homer said...

@Mahek,

Question - What makes you categorically state "Now players can juice up without worrying about getting caught unless they're out for a prolonged period" - Is it your ignorance or your bias?

Cheers,

straight point said...

yes mahek... they all were waiting for this to 'juice up' their life... if ever they needed second invitation icc has given them...

anyways in the history of more than 100 years 2-3 cases here and there makes up for quite a continuity against the rarity of other sports where not a week passes without one get caught or one does not confess...

Mahek said...

It is my cynicism toward professional athletes. That and the fact that players have tested positive even with cricket's casual attitude toward doping.

People can continue to believe cricketers don't juice up just as they thought terrorists would never target cricketers. I'd rather want a situation which is tried, tested and mostly successful.

SP

The rarity you are flaunting as the sign of the sport's cleanliness is something that was flaunted by numerous other sports. It's only when the authorities got serious that people realised how that sport was corrupted by PEDs.

achettup said...

They've saved cricket from WADA's anarchy. Now players can juice up without worrying about getting caught unless they're out for a prolonged period.
It's only when the authorities got serious that people realised how that sport was corrupted by PEDs.
So basically you're saying the ICC is not serious about protecting the sport against drugs because WADA's draconian laws will not be implemented? Because there is only one way to do things, the wrong way, and nobody should ever challenge that, right?

Mahek said...

Draconian my ass. These players give away their location every bloody time they tweet.

I never said there is only one way of doing this. But considering the disparity in the experience the two bodies have in dealing with the issue of doping, I'd go with the one which knows what it's doing. The changes the ICC has made aren't something I agree with anyway.

http://theoldbatsman.blogspot.com/2010/07/drugs-do-work.html

achettup said...

Mahek we've argued about this several times before. WADA exercises authority outside of its jurisdiction by banning people without even having to show proof that they have used drugs. It bans them on suspicion because they haven't been at an appointed location two or three times in a row. That is draconian.
By linking to OB's article, I take it that once again you're taking the view that people are belittling the threat of drug use, something I have never done, as evidenced from our argument in this post Dopehead Wada Wada. There is no doubt that there will always be a section of professional athletes who believe they advantage they get from performance enhancing drugs is worth the risk. The challenge to the authorities is coming up with a system that is able to catch offenders. As we have argued before, why must WADA immediately ban a player who has skipped location, why not enforce a rigorous check within 24-72hours or whatever the time before a masking agent removes traces of itself and the ped, from the scheduled check, failing upon which the athlete must surrender to monitored training and regular checks?
As mentioned in that article I wrote on Bored, the WTA hung Yanina out to dry by agreeing to WADA's blanket laws without first looking at the interests of their players. The BCCI and therefore the ICC was not prepared to do this. How would you feel if as a software developer, an organization proclaimed as the vanguards against piracy and intellectual theft, insisted that all employees be stripped searched at random and that if they refuse, they be forbidden to code ever again. Now what if your company agreed to it, and one day in a hurry you ran out the back door? You'd be banned because of a flawed methodology and because your company left you no option by agreeing to it without considering how harmful it might be for its employees.
Put yourself in the shoes of a professional athlete. They spend their lives focusing on one sport. Once their short careers are over, they have to have earned enough (both monetarily and reputation-wise) for the next stage, whether it is coaching, commentating etc. A ban for doping ruins their lives. If they deliberately took a ped, then they deserve this. But if they are banned for doping despite never going near a ped, why should their lives be ruined by a flawed system?
If WADA was genuinely concerned about both the players and the catching cheats, they would fix their system. Instead they choose to insult organizations that try to.
Btw, the cricketers have a choice of giving away their location, they can turn that option off. I don't buy their argument about concealing their location, but their principled stand against WADA is correct.

achettup said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
achettup said...
This comment has been removed by the author.