IAAF - European domination

Re: IAAF - European domination

The problem is that, at its root, this is not an ethical/moral argument, but, as Gerry has noted, it's a legal one. And the portion of the IAAF laws he cited are pretty clear as to the limitations involved in this case.

[michael lewis]

Re: IAAF - European domination

"this is not an ethical/moral argument"

If cheating and lying are not in the territory of ethics and morals, would you please explain what parallel universe you believe yourself to be in?

[Powell]

Re: IAAF - European domination

Actually, at this point it's ONLY an ethical case - there's no legal one, as has already been pointed out. Still, methinks equalling drug-takers with war criminals is taking things WAY too far. In a typical (i.e. non-Canadian) legal system, crimes against humanity are the only crimes not subject to statutes of limitation. This does not mean that you can't morally condemn a robbery 10 years after it happened - you acknowledge that a crime has been committed, but think it's pointless to punish the guilty after so much time has passed.

Re: IAAF - European domination

The current rules state that the statute of limitations is 5 years. From a legal standpoint, the IAAF cannot take back medals, nor remove records, based on new information that take place more than 5 years prior. If it did happen, the affected person would have every right to sue and would, in almost all certainty, win.

From an ethical/moral standpoint, I would guess that the IAAF would like to act. If they could go back in time, I'm sure they would not have included this provision in the bylaws. Unfortunatetly, they did and now their stuck.

Since this will probably not be the last time someone comes forward years later and confesses to being a cheat, the IAAF should act now and amend the rules. Remove the statute of limitations provision. While the new rule could not be enforced retroactively to incidents from the past, at least the IAAF would be allowed to remove tainted records in the future.

Re: IAAF - European domination

Mr. Hill:

I find it DAMNED CONVENIENT that it took the Dubin inquiry to prompt the IAAF to pass a "statute of limitations" rule! HYPOCRISY! LIARS! CHEATS! NOW I KNOW THAT THE ONLY..ONLY..ONLY!!! INTEREST THAT THE IAAF HAS IN THE SPORT IS TO LINE IT'S OWN POCKETS WITH MONEY!

Well, Mr. Hill. I think you just may have prompted me to either give up the sport I have loved for 30 years or to go on a campaign against the IAAF and all of it's supporters. I will spare no one or no entity if I choose to do so. I'm going to give this one a long hard thought process.

Kurt Francis

[bhall]

Re: IAAF - European domination

This thread is now starting to violate Guideline 4

>>4. This is a track & field (or, as some prefer to think of
it, field & track) board and posts should be restricted to that subject. If
you want to discuss politics or religion, there are other sites
far better equipped to handle your desires.<<

Also, enough with the caps lock. As a software engineer (my day job) and one who works on the Internet constantly I don't read caps lock, no matter what it says. It is the same thing as yelling and unless you're a cop with a whistle and a gun yelling isn't going to get me to pay you any attention. People will read you messages and get the point without the caps lock.

Re: IAAF - European domination

>Also, enough with the
>caps lock.

Paying attention Michael?

[michael lewis]

Re: IAAF - European domination

You bore me. Period.

[michael lewis]

Re: IAAF - European domination

I don't have a problem with your point re: caps lock. You can read it or not, that's your business. Curious where the religion/politics bit comes in. If you mean that discussing the "politics" of the IAAF, then I would have to disagree with you. Otherwise, I'd like to know what politics you are talking about.

Re: IAAF - European domination

OK, he loses a couple of points for using block caps, but at least he called them cheats, rather than cheaters. That correct usage of cheat as a noun (which is all too infrequently seen these days) ought to be worth a few points on the plus side.

[dl]

Re: IAAF - European domination

There should be more European control of athletics, IMHO. What experience do Africans and those from smaller nations in Asia and South America have when it comes to big time track & field? And what does the IAAF expect to achieve by concentrating efforts there?

I'm tired of reading IAAF releases about the rise in Sri Lankan athletics or about some training center being opened up in Ouagadougou.

Europe is where the fans and money are. The U.S. produces the athletes. Let's concentrate our efforts in those two areas.

Re: IAAF - European domination

"If cheating and lying are not in the territory of ethics and morals, would you please explain what parallel universe you believe yourself to be in?"

The acts of cheating and lying are clearly in the realm of ethics and morals. However, inflicting penalties upon people is clearly in the realm of law, and as CAH points out, to do so in contravention of the IAAF's clearly stated rules would open them up to all sorts of potential problems.

Similarly, if they repealed this "statute of limitations" type rule (which I'm not saying they shouldn't do) then it is highly likely that many fewer atheletes would step forward. Part of the reason this was passed in reaction to Dubin was to encourage people to come forward with their stories without fear of penalty in the greater interest of seeking out the truth and working on more effective means of detection and enforcement.

Re: IAAF - European domination

>Instead, I am
>trying to alert my fellow USA citizens that no
>legally recognized body (and the USATF and USOC
>are definitively one of those) should be
>subservient to any foreign bodies where their
>systems conflict with our US Constitution.

Please forward these ideas to our current President and Congress as they consider the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement, along with NAFTA, WTO, etc. Leave the rest of us alone.

[michael lewis]

Re: IAAF - European domination

"Similarly, if they repealed this "statute of limitations" type rule (which I'm not saying they shouldn't do) then it is highly likely that many fewer atheletes would step forward. Part of the reason this was passed in reaction to Dubin was to encourage people to come forward with their stories without fear of penalty in the greater interest of seeking out the truth and working on more effective means of detection and enforcement."

Ok, now this makes even less sense than b4. Issajenko testified at Dubin (1990) and was penalized retroactively for a 3 year period. She lost her silver from the world indoors 1987 and her name was stricken from the books for that meet. She also was stripped of a world indoor 50m record (6.06) set in 87 or 88. Now, if I am reading you correctly, something like a 5 or 6 year statute of limitations comes after Dubin (in response to dubin??), after Issajenko? And to make it clear for some on this board who need it, I don't care that Issajenko was Canadian. I was firmly a fan of her arch-rival Angela Bailey (finalist at Helsinki, LA and Rome) whose guts she hated enough to try to punch her out at a meet here in Toronto. That Issajenko is Canadian has NEVER been the point (aw shucks caps lock again)

[michael lewis]

Re: IAAF - European domination

"This thread is now starting to violate Guideline 4"
breathe, then
"unless you're a cop with a whistle and a gun yelling isn't going to get me to pay you any attention"

Hmmmm.....