Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

[bhall]

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

I found this the other day when I was trying to find some privacy information on the procedures for positive A samples.

A quite handy little flow chart of the process.

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/USADA ... m11_00.pdf

Of course, I didn't find what I was looking for. So goes the Internet.

[michael lewis]

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

"Track's transgressions, in the context of the NFL and MLB drug use, is chump change"

True, however, isn't there at least one significant difference: Records are of much greater importance in athletics than they are in football and baseball. Track and field fans and athletes place more importance on them than in NFL and MLB. Look at how ubiquitous they are - records by sex, age, country, region, meet, and entire world. Cheat, put a record out of reach for decades, a generation gets ripped off. Or two generations, maybe more, it's too early to tell but it sure doesn't look hopeful in many events that we will see any more records before the next century, and this one has barely started.

[Guest]

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.<<

A couple of points. First, if USADA decides there's enough in a charge to warrant it (as I expect they will do in the KW case), they will send it to an arbitration panel for a hearing. That panel is affiliated with the American Arbitration Association and with CAS and is independent of USADA. So it's not quite accurate to say that USADA will make the decision. The hearing panel will.

The IAAF will be offered the opportunity to participate in this hearing and, if the arb panel finds for White, the IAAF will have the opportunity to appeal and participate in the appellate arbitration proceedings.

For further information, see http://www.usantidoping.org/files/USADA_Protocol.pdf

[michael lewis]

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

" ... Randy Barnes was dealt a lifetime ban after the second offense, as was Ben Johnson. Neither of these two men won any kind of court case that reversed this decision. If one can be banned after the 2nd offense, he can surely be banned after the first."

Reading down from that point in this thread, can someone PLEASE explain what is wrong (if anything) with this argument?

[Guest]

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

The criminal justice systems in most countries do differentiate between first and subsequent offenses.

[Vince]

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

........I'm glad this thread wasn't yanked, it turned into a good one.

Natasha, you made a salient point when you reminded us that Muelegg, Danlova, and Lazutina were caught using Darbepoetin which was classified as a "related substance". More important is the fact that they also appealed their penalties to the court of arbitration and lost.

In regards to Kelli White, Modafinil is not as strong a drug as Darbepoetin, but other than that she has an uphill battle.

[Guest]

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

>>The IAAF will be offered the opportunity to
participate in this hearing and, if the arb panel
finds for White, the IAAF will have the
opportunity to appeal and participate in the
appellate arbitration proceedings.<<

I should have added that if the arb panel finds against White, she has the right to appeal as well. Either way, both she and the IAAF have the right to participate in all proceedings.

[Guest]

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

>"Track's transgressions, in the context of the
>NFL and MLB drug use, is chump change"

True,
>however, isn't there at least one significant
>difference: Records are of much greater
>importance in athletics than they are in football
>and baseball. Track and field fans and athletes
>place more importance on them than in NFL and
>MLB. Look at how ubiquitous they are - records by
>sex, age, country, region, meet, and entire
>world. Cheat, put a record out of reach for
>decades, a generation gets ripped off. Or two
>generations, maybe more, it's too early to tell
>but it sure doesn't look hopeful in many events
>that we will see any more records before the next
>century, and this one has barely started.

This has real impact on athlete's paychecks, too. If standards in an event are far lower now than they once were due to changes in drug use, it means it's IAAF scoring tables are out of line with present-day reality. Thus many throwers have no real chance of winning the $100,000 that goes with the end-of-the-season top computer ranking.