Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

    Pego, it looks like they are trying to eliminate the "related substances" wording and also caffeine and pseudoephedrine, but add Modafinil according to Ljungqvist b4 the Olympics.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

      "anyone who tries to re-litigate this question is probably wasting his time and money, even though the result is that the sport has a weaker antidoping program than it ought to."

      Any ideas on how to toughen the sport's antidoping program? Apologies in advance if I have missed something you already posted.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

        Vince, this does not surprise me. I am REALLY waiting to see what happens with Kelli White and USTAF. To punish somebody for taking a drug NOT on the prohibited list flies in the face of any legal concept I know of. Even more interesting to me is the question if modafinil does have a "performance enhancing" effect. It has shown some efficacy in hypersomnia of narcolepsy and even more so in treating fatigue in people having chronic neurological conditions, especially Multiple Sclerosis. What it does to a healthy athlete, I don't think, anybody knows.
        "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
        by Thomas Henry Huxley

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

          Remember, USATF has handed testing and discipline for doping off to USADA. I think it's a very important distinction to note.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

            Dear Pego,

            There is a precedence for athletes losing Olympic medals, SLC 2002 based on taking a drug not on the banned list. The type of blood booster taken by Johann Muelegg, Larissa Lazutina and Olga Danilova was not on the list of banned substances but because it is related to EPO they were banned for two years and Muelegg lost his medals, Larrissa L. as well - Olga is still in court. I'm not saying the penalty for blood boosting agents should be the same as a mild stimulant but the precedence is there.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

              >Vince, this does not surprise me. I am REALLY
              >waiting to see what happens with Kelli White and
              >USTAF. To punish somebody for taking a drug NOT
              >on the prohibited list flies in the face of any
              >legal concept I know of.

              From the USADA site:

              -the detected presence of a prohibited substance
              constitutes doping even if the substance is not listed as an example
              -new drugs containing prohibited substances, some of which may be especially designed for doping purposes, are prohibited by inclusion as "related substances". The term "and related substances" describes drugs having pharmacological action(s)
              and/or chemical structure similar to a prohibited substance. (my caps) IF A SUBSTANCE IS NOT LISTED, IT MAY STILL BE PROHIBITED AS A "RELATED SUBSTANCE".
              -even when used for legitimate medical treatment, the detected presence of a prohibited substance constitutes doping and will be subject to penalties.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                >Turned off...

                Then there needs to be a
                >complete overhaul of our sport and right now its
                >in the IAAF's hands to do that. Explain to me
                >why the IAAF can not make all the athletes
                >participating in IAAF sanctioned events sign a
                >contract agreeing to abide by the rules set forth
                >the The Establishment? I'm serious, I don't know
                >what would prohibit this from
                >happening.

                Michael>


                Conto I'm not sure the athletes would sign something like this particularly after consulting with an attorney. Suppose there was a false positive?

                It's a noble idea but may not be practical.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                  Natasha and 3XPicky. I know this has happened. I am saying it's absurd and to be honest with you, I consider this outrageous. Civilized law considers you innocent until proven guilty. This concept is being turned on it's head. I still remember the Butch Reynolds fiasco. I was in that New Orleans stadium (Tad Gormley if memory serves) at the 1992 trials. The whole stadium stood firmly by Butch (and I doubt they were all those libertarian bleeding hearts such as myself). If Signor Nebiolo or Gyulai Úr happened to be there, they would have been booed out of the house.
                  "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                  by Thomas Henry Huxley

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                    >Civilized law
                    >considers you innocent until proven guilty. This
                    >concept is being turned on it's head.

                    How? She has been "charged" based on some evidence. She now as a chance to give her case to the USADA. I don't know the exact protocol but I think the USATF likely blesses what they come up with and if the IAAF doesn't like it, there is a final arbritration court that she can go to. She won't actually be "guilty" until she has exhausted all of these avenues. All the organizations of which she is a member have agreed to this procedure. Like Ben Hall or someone said, if you don't like it, lobby the USATF and the IAAF to get it changed.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                      I was not talking about Kelli White. I am OK with that process. I was responding to the postings of Natasha and Picky X3.
                      "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                      by Thomas Henry Huxley

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                        >I was not talking about Kelli White. I am OK with
                        >that process. I was responding to the postings of
                        >Natasha and Picky X3.

                        But the Kelli White process falls right into the USADA rules which are the same as WADA? So if you don't have a problem with what is happening with White, why do you have a problem with the USADA process?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                          Dear Pego,

                          I see your point about being innocent until proven guilty and you have reminded me well about that. I couldn't imagine a world without that. The hard part for me is the challenge facing WADA and the sport governing bodies that the doctors of the cheaters are a step ahead of the testers. How can they make a list with that in mind?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                            <<She has been "charged" based on some evidence. She now as a chance to give her case to the USADA. I don't know the exact protocol but I think the USATF likely blesses what they come up with and if the IAAF doesn't like it, there is a final arbritration court that she can go to.>>

                            Yes, Kelli will get her day in court (USADA), but it's pretty clear she's already been judged guilty. By it's own rules (as Garry pointed out in another thread), the IAAF must allow the national federation to investigate the case, present it's own findings and administer any punishment, if necessary. If the IAAF doesn't like what it see's, then the Court of Arbitration for Sport hears the case.

                            Do you believe that the IAAF will accept the USADA's decision if they find her innocent? By it's own actions and statement, the IAAF has all but declared her guilty. It really doesn't matter what USADA says.

                            One would think that the process is similar to the US judical system (or many other systems throughout the world). The USADA is the trial court, the IAAF acts as an appeals court, and the Court of Arbitration is the Supreme Court. Normally, the trial court would render a decision. If there are questions, the appeals court would uphold or reverse the decision and so on...

                            So, there's a hierarchy to the system -- trial court acts first, appeals court second, and finally the Supreme Court. However, this does not appear to be the case here. The IAAF (the appeals court) has already declared her guilty. No they're waiting to see if the trial court agrees.

                            Doesn't sound right, does it?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                              I can't give you chapter and verse, but I THINK that the IAAF has accepted the judgement of federations. I think a more apt analogy would be that the IAAF has acted--to put it in U.S. terms--as a grand jury and decided that there's enough evidence that the case should proceed. The U.S. (now USADA, not USATF) will take a detailed look at the case and make its finding, for or against (and it's certainly no slam-dunk either way).

                              That decision is then forwarded to IAAF, which examines the finding and decides whether or not it buys the action. Obviously, if USADA says guilty, it's over. If USADA says innocent, IAAF will examine the USADA evidence and if it doesn't go for it, then it's off to CAS.

                              At least I THINK that's how it works.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

                                OK, I can see your point. Let's hope that really is the way that it works! Otherwise, the whole system stinks...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X