Some interesting logic happening here… A court in Liège, Belgium began hearing the case between Kazakh rider Andrey Kashechkin and the UCI yesterday. Kashechkin was suspended after returning a non-negative anti-doping sample in an out of competition test taken in Turkey while the rider was on holidays on August 1. Kashechkin, whose sample allegedly showed evidence of blood doping, has taken the UCI to court as he believes that a private sports body is in breach of human rights by subjecting athletes to out of competition testing. A decision on the case is expected with in two weeks.
Human rights are a wonderful thing. They only apply to humans, of course, as animals in general (setting aside that humans are indeed flesh and blood animals) are devoid of rights, or at least of rights granted by humans. Indeed humans grant themselves these rights, which is interesting in an arrogant but understandable sort of way. For example, understandably and regrettably we have human rights abuses where one human (or more often a system of humans in concert) take as granted their right to deprive another human of one or more of these basic features of a civilised world: food; shelter; freedom to travel; freedom to speak up; to congregate; to practise their faith or beliefs; or even to live. I think such abuses are clear enough.
But the human right not to be tested out of competition? The mind boggles.
Some interesting logic happening here… A court in Liège, Belgium began hearing the case between Kazakh rider Andrey Kashechkin and the UCI yesterday. Kashechkin was suspended after returning a non-negative anti-doping sample in an out of competition test taken in Turkey while the rider was on holidays on August 1. Kashechkin, whose sample allegedly showed evidence of blood doping, has taken the UCI to court as he believes that a private sports body is in breach of human rights by subjecting athletes to out of competition testing. A decision on the case is expected with in two weeks.
Human rights are a wonderful thing. They only apply to humans, of course, as animals in general (setting aside that humans are indeed flesh and blood animals) are devoid of rights, or at least of rights granted by humans. Indeed humans grant themselves these rights, which is interesting in an arrogant but understandable sort of way. For example, understandably and regrettably we have human rights abuses where one human (or more often a system of humans in concert) take as granted their right to deprive another human of one or more of these basic features of a civilised world: food; shelter; freedom to travel; freedom to speak up; to congregate; to practise their faith or beliefs; or even to live. I think such abuses are clear enough.
But the human right not to be tested out of competition? The mind boggles.
