| Scuttlebutt Forum |
For all your commentary, questions, and updates.
Click here to view.
|
|
|
|
Scuttlebutt Poll:
Determining guilt based on a drug test
(October 1-2, 2007) Simon Daubney, genoa trimmer for the defender Alinghi, tested positive for a banned substance during the 32nd America’s Cup. Following the jury hearing, and based on the evidence presented, it was found that he did not knowingly take the substance, and that Daubney bears no fault or negligence with regard to its presence in his system.
Doping in sport is not new, though a high profile case such as this one in sailing is. There are currently seven sailors that are serving out ISAF sanctions, of which three are due to doping violations.
After reviewing the jury findings in the case of Simon Daubney, the poll question asked how much consideration should a positive result from a drug test be given when a sailor is suspected of a doping violation, and the risk of sanctions by the sport exist (first violation is two years ineligibility)?
On a scale of 1 to 5, the 'buttheads consider that the drug test deserved:
1 - Hardly any consideration - 9.55%
2 - Evenly considered along with other evidence - 35.00%
3 - Strongly considered; more so than other evidence - 20.00%
4 - Primary consideration; other evidence is a distant second - 15.91%
5 - Complete consideration; if the test is positive, the individual is guilty - 19.55%
Click here to read the comments.
|
|
|
