Continues today.
Here is the Torri Edwards CAS Case:
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/20 ... 797863.pdf
Story:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-me-dop ... -headlines
Several key points brought up by the author:
The cards can appear stacked against athletes, and, in Torri Edwards case, seem to crumble when she believed to have them all lined up in her favour.
One key element to the story I, personally, found interesting was: If athletes want due process, then USADA want full search and seizure capabilities. This does paint a grim picture of athletes being against the wall and guilty until proven innocent - rather than the other way around.
Here is the Torri Edwards CAS Case:
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/20 ... 797863.pdf
Story:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-me-dop ... -headlines
Several key points brought up by the author:
- Athletes are presumed guilty and denied routine access to lab data potentially relevant to their defense.
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - Trivial and accidental violations draw penalties similar to those for intentional use of illicit performance-enhancing substances.
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - Anti-doping authorities or sports federations have leaked details of cases against athletes or made public assertions of their guilt before tests were confirmed or appeals resolved.
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - The presumption shifts the burden to the athlete to prove that the lab:s work fell short of scientific standards and that its failures affected the outcome. The effect is to render the athlete guilty unless proved innocent.
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - Arbitrators are bound by rules drafted and enforced by the World Anti-Doping Agency and its affiliates, including USADA. They have almost no discretion to adjust penalties to fit individual circumstances.
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - Accused athletes find that challenging a system stacked against them can be extraordinarily costly, prompting some to abandon any effort at defense.
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - USADA has never lost an arbitration case in its history (spanning more than six years and over 40 proceedings). USADA brass say that record is a testament to their skill at bringing only bulletproof cases.
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - One arbitrator believes the system is not serving its purpose
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - Only three times has an arbitrator in a U.S. case even filed a dissent -- all by the same arbitrator: San Francisco lawyer Christopher L. Campbell
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - The tilt toward the prosecution in arbitration cases begins with the selection of arbitrators themselves
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - Many arbitrators have current or prior professional relationships with USADA, WADA or other sports organizations that frequently serve as the prosecution in anti-doping cases.
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - 22 of the 38 arbitrators in the North American pool in 2001 attended an expense-payed visit to the UCLA lab, capped out by a night out at a Santa Monica restaurant. One athlete lawyer, Edward G. Williams, states that anyone who attended that session should be disqualified (the words bribery can be read in-between the lines of his statement).
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - A WADA rule prohibits members of its 34 accredited laboratories from testifying in defense of an athlete in a doping case (as to avoid potential pressure from high-profile athlete corners).
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - WADA reserves the expertise of most of the top doping scientists in the world for use exclusively by the prosecuting agency, makling it tough, says one law professor who has defended a number of athletes, to go up against people doing this for a living.
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - Athletes attorneys face hurdles in obtaining technical documents from the agencies. Under USADA rules, the it is required to produce only records concerning the specific test performed on the athlete:s own sample. No way to check how they treated other similar cases, states the author.
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - Only one athlete has had a suspension waived in the "no fault" defense application.
[/*:m:1yovt7ke] - USADA officials have said that they have proposed revisions to the WADA Code allowing arbitrators more latitude to reduce penalties in inadvertent cases — or to impose enhanced penalties in egregious cases, but WADA is leaning in the opposite direction.[/*:m:1yovt7ke]
The cards can appear stacked against athletes, and, in Torri Edwards case, seem to crumble when she believed to have them all lined up in her favour.
One key element to the story I, personally, found interesting was: If athletes want due process, then USADA want full search and seizure capabilities. This does paint a grim picture of athletes being against the wall and guilty until proven innocent - rather than the other way around.
Comment