FIFA_WADA_BCCI : What is the difference

[Guest gaurav_indian]

So you are Ok with WADA giving preferential treatment to FIFA? If so I want end this discussion now. Here is CA speaking to why they signed http://www.cricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/417949.html Paul Marsh, who heads the Australian Cricketers' Association (ACA), told Cricinfo. "The solution is something we are not necessarily completely happy with but for public relations and the government funding of sport connected to the WADA code, we can't help it." England's case is explained better by Sean Morris, the chief executive of their Players Cricket Association (PCA), who says WADA-compliance is a must though the cricketers are not happy with the whereabouts clause. "Genuinely, we understand why the Indian players have a problem, but where there a slight difference is because of the way our sport is funded; we have government money going to grassroot programmes," Morris told Cricinfo. "That money is conditional upon certain criteria, one of which is the board being WADA-compliant. "We are sympathetic to what the BCCI are arguing but we are bound by our own national requirements: under Australian legislation, national sporting organizations are required to have a WADA compliant code," Peter Young, the Cricket Australia's spokesperson, said So the rest of the boards do have a problem, but don't have the power (read money) to do anything about it.

Yes if all of them stand up against WADA then i dont have any problem. And it does makes sense then. But in this case BCCI is alone. ICC and other cricket boards didnt consult other member boards before signing that clause. In FIFA's case all their members were united right? But this is also true ? "The (WADA) code was accepted (by FIFA), and I might add unanimously, with those whereabouts requirements, and nothing has changed as far as we are concerned," WADA president Fahey had told reporters in Montreal following the executive board meetings on May 10 this year. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Attention-BCCI-FIFA-is-fully-WADA-compliant/articleshow/4854168.cms

[The Outsider]

oh bhai mere abhi upar tumne kya kaha tha Dhoni and sachin ko Z security cover milta hai and i am talking about that security which they get during off season.

What would you rather have - LeT not able to track down Tendulkar or his security cover shooting terrorists down, "Dhishkaun, Dhishkaun"?

[Guest gaurav_indian]

What would you rather have - LeT not able to track down Tendulkar or his security cover shooting terrorists down' date=' "Dhishkaun, Dhishkaun"?[/quote'] Good question. Email it to any indian news channel.

[cricketrulez]

Yes if all of them stand up against WADA then i dont have any problem. And it does makes sense then. But in this case BCCI is alone. ICC and other cricket boards didnt consult other member boards before signing that clause. In FIFA's case all their members were united right?

Thats by far the worst argument you could make. If others protest I'll also protest, if others are ok with it, then i'll be ok with it? why can't BCCI take a stand on the merits of the issue regardless of what what others do? If anything that is the sign of strong well run board.

[zubinpepsi]

Gaurav_Indian, no offense meant.. but ur good in photoshopping..i mean damn good....:winky:

[kabira]

abey pehle post ko samajh toh liya karo kabira speaking. :giggle:

abey pehle khud pad.

[cricketrulez]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Attention-BCCI-FIFA-is-fully-WADA-compliant/articleshow/4854168.cms

That statement by itself has no meaning. FIFA is WADA compliant after they made special rules for FIFA. Let WADA change the rules for ICC/BCCI then cricket will be WADA compliant.

[Guest gaurav_indian]

Thats by far the worst argument you could make. If others protest I'll also protest, if others are ok with it, then i'll be ok with it? why can't BCCI take a stand on the merits of the issue regardless of what what others do? If anything that is the sign of strong well run board.

If thats the case then this thread should be closed isnt it? You were comparing FIFA with BCCI. FIFA is an international governing body of football. In FIFA's case all of their members opposed against this clause. But here you have BCCI who is a member of ICC and threatning them to shun WADA just becoz they are financially powerful. Are they going to sit and sort it out or just keep threatening ICC? Thats what my problem is.

[Guest gaurav_indian]

Gaurav_Indian' date=' no offense meant.. but ur good in photoshopping..i mean damn good....:winky:[/quote'] :whack::whack: Thanks. :hatsoff:

[kabira]

gaurav is hell bent on why BCCI has problems whereas all other boards have signed up 1) No other board has players on hit list and no other boards' players have z class security 2) So if all other boards have no issues, our board should jsut follow them, its like saying entire generation of indians did not protest british rule, other should not have done it.....

[Guest gaurav_indian]

gaurav is hell bent on why BCCI has problems whereas all other boards have signed up 1) No other board has players on hit list and no other boards' players have z class security 2) So if all other boards have no issues, our board should jsut follow them, its like saying entire generation of indians did not protest british rule, other should not have done it.....

haan baar baar wohi post karta rah lol kal se teesri baar kar chuka hai :finger:

[punjabi_khota]

Hitler. There, I said. End of thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[cricketrulez]

Hitler. There, I said. End of thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

LOL! I agree!

[Guest gaurav_indian]

Hitler. There, I said. End of thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Ok. End of discussion.

[cricketrulez]

If thats the case then this thread should be closed isnt it? You were comparing FIFA with BCCI. FIFA is an international governing body of football. In FIFA's case all of their members opposed against this clause. But here you have BCCI who is a member of ICC and threatning them to shun WADA just becoz they are financially powerful. Are they going to sit and sort it out or just keep threatening ICC? Thats what my problem is.

Good god you are slow witted! BCCI is not doing it becos FIFA did it. BCCI is doing it becos it genuinely has a problem with the clause. The point being made with the FIFA is the double standard prcticed by WADA this is my last post on this thread and my last discussion with you ever!

[Guest gaurav_indian]

Good god you are slow witted! BCCI is not doing it becos FIFA did it. BCCI is doing it becos it genuinely has a problem with the clause. The point being made with the FIFA is the double standard prcticed by WADA this is my last post on this thread and my last discussion with you ever!

Good for you.:winky:

[kabira]

haan baar baar wohi post karta rah lol kal se teesri baar kar chuka hai :finger:

ha tune jawab nahin diya isliye

[Feed]

Can ICC negotiate its International Registered Testing Pool (IRTP) on the FIFA pattern? ICC has had no out-of-competition testing so far. Complete exclusion from ‘whereabouts’ requirements looks unlikely for cricket. More... Can ICC negotiate IRTP on the FIFA pattern? K.P. Mohan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ICC has had no out-of-competition testing so far Complete exclusion from ‘whereabouts’ requirements looks unlikely for cricket -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW DELHI: The International Football Federation (FIFA) does not have the top players of the world in its International Registered Testing Pool (IRTP). Instead, it has those who are international-level players serving doping-related suspensions plus those branded as ‘high risk’ because of injuries. Any other player could also be included in the list if evidence of ‘suspicion’ is provided, for example alteration of hormone profile and/or alteration of blood parameters. The FIFA IRTP is not a fixed list and thus there are no minimum numbers prescribed for inclusion. Apparently an understanding was reached in Zurich last April at a meeting between FIFA representatives and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Director General, David Howman. “There has been no difference in the way we have approached this to any other sport,” Howman told AP then. “It was done because they specifically said they would appreciate it.” Details unknown Even as the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) set out to back the Indian players included in the IRTP against the ‘whereabouts’ clause in the International Cricket Council (ICC) anti-doping code, the details of FIFA’s arrangement were unknown except that it had a smaller IRTP and it would include ‘high risk’ players who could be targeted. The BCCI did point out that FIFA had a different arrangement without elaborating. Now, it turns out, the list, though it might meet the stipulations in the Code, basically zeroes in on injured players and those under doping suspensions. There could be a maximum of three tests per player per year in the IRTP testing. Obviously FIFA is of the opinion that injuries and doping are closely related. Steroids generally speed up recovery after injuries. The list is not based on rankings of teams or countries. It is a dynamic list and could evolve, but basically FIFA has stuck to its argument that team sport has to be treated differently, giving a ray of hope for other team sports in their fight against the ‘whereabouts’ rules. Meeting the requirements The FIFA procedure, explained in its letter to members last May, meets the requirements given in the 2009 WADA Code and 2009 International Standards for Testing (IST). The IST states that the “criteria used should reflect the IF (International Federation)’s evaluation of the risks of out-of-competition doping in that sport.” It also says those serving suspensions should be in the list. FIFA also has a FIFA testing pool (FTP) which would be a larger pool with a maximum of 940 players and a sample target of 480 in a year. The players would be drawn from teams competing in the UEFA League. Teams are expected to file ‘whereabouts’ information. Players who are injured could move up to the IRTP, depending on their injuries. Can the ICC, which has set up a Working Group that includes three Indians, negotiate a similar IRTP with the WADA and thus ‘reprieve’ the 11 Indian players who have refused to submit ‘whereabouts’ requirements on the ground that the procedure invaded their privacy and could compromise their security? It could work out a compromise formula, but the problem could be, the ICC has already defined the criteria for the inclusion of players in the list as prescribed by the Code. It has further published its list of IRTP players and the Indian players have already committed one breach, a ‘filing failure’ on July 31. How the ICC came up with a proposal to have a list of 11 players each, including two women, from the top-eight ODI countries and got it approved when it was free to assess the “risk of out-of-competition doping” in its sport, will remain a mystery. The ICC has had no out-of-competition testing in cricket so far and the few violations reported in out-of-competition testing in recent years, Shane Warne by the Australian anti-doping agency, and Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif by Pakistan Cricket Board, were through tests done by other agencies. Can there be any going back from this stage? WADA has repeatedly stated that it was not going to give any concession to any sport and that it would review the whole issue at the end of the year when the FIFA arrangement would also come up for scrutiny. A complete exclusion from ‘whereabouts’ requirements looks unlikely for cricket even if WADA agrees to make concessions. Out-of-competition-testing is the most important weapon in the fight against doping and ‘whereabouts’ remain central to that scheme. Even when the dust settles on the ongoing ‘whereabouts’ issue, the ICC will find itself non-compliant since not all its members have anti-doping rules — the BCCI is yet to have its code — and the ICC rules extend only to international cricketers not to all players. By all assessment, especially from the zero ‘positive’ reported from ICC events since it started testing in select events in 2002, cricket need not have too much worries about a rash of dope cases. Yet, the Shoaib Akhtar-Mohammad Asif doping episode prior to the 2006 Champions Trophy in India was a reminder to ICC that cricket was not hundred per cent ‘clean’. The latest report of a ‘positive’ returned by Dale Steyn and the 2008 incident in which Asif tested positive a second time in his career, were from the IPL, an ICC-sanctioned event. When Asif tested positive a second time, the ICC rules became irrelevant all over again, as was the case in 2006. The IPL rules did not extend beyond IPL and the ICC code was limited in it scope. Asif is now serving a one-year suspension from the game for a steroid violation that no one has imposed! The IPL hearing panel did impose a one-year suspension, running up to September, but that was only from the IPL.

[cricketrulez]

Are FIFA and UEFA going to get abused like BCCI? http://indiatoday.intoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&issueid=121&task=view&id=58986&sectionid=84&Itemid=1 In a vindication for BCCI's stand against World Anti-Doping Agency's drug testing policies, FIFA and UEFA - the two most powerful football associations - have rejected the controversial testing clause. The WADA dictat requires sportspersons to furnish details of their whereabouts for one hour each day three months in advance. WADA then uses this information to conduct random dope tests. If the testers cannot find an athlete at the mentioned place and time, it counts as a missed dope test. Three misses in an 18-month period results in a two-year ban from international cricket. FIFA and UEFA said that training practices of individual athletes and sportspersons differ from team sport players who are "easy to locate" as they train six days a week with the team. Last month, the BCCI became the first sports body in the world to bunk WADA's policy because of the whereabouts clause. It stated that the clause was intrusive, unnecessary and cited the Indian constitution to say it denied the cricketers their right to privacy. High-profile cricketers such as Sachin Tendulkar, against whom there have been terrorist threats in the past, also see the clause as weakening their security. The whereabouts clause has been frowned upon by some of the leading sports stars, who nonetheless have accepted it. FIFA and UEFA have urged WADA to amend the contentious clause and make it acceptable for footballers.

[DomainK]

Good. The world is taking strength from India. Well done BCCI.:two_thumbs_up: