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

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vince
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Who thinks the penalty for drugs is too light?

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

    Leave a comment:


  • michael lewis
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • michael lewis
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bhall
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Natasha
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • MJD
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MJD
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X