IAAF Meeting on MJ Case on Friday

[EPelle]

Source

"Do we send out a strong message? Do we accept and close the door on this or do we go to CAS?" IAAF spokesman Nick Davies said Friday. "Is (two years) enough?"

Davies said the IAAF, which holds a two-day council meeting in Monaco, also might consider whether to ask Jones to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money and appearance fees. Jones, however, is reportedly broke.

"The normal procedure would be to request the return of the prize money," Davies said.

The IOC is awaiting recommendations from the IAAF before deciding on how to revise Jones' medals, and may ultimately have to decide whether her Olympic relay teammates are stripped of theirs.

The IAAF has authority over the Olympic results, while the IOC has final say on the medals. The IAAF has authority over both results and medals at its own world championships.

[gh]

There are some troubling statement/concepts expressed in there. At least to me. In the same piece is this <<IAAF president Lamine Diack has branded Jones "one of the biggest frauds in sporting history.">>

That and Nick Davies questioning whether two years is enough.

Exactly what did Jones do (other than being a bigger name) that sets her up for an extraordinary penalty?

Is sentencing now to be based on how famous you are/were? Sprinters and milers get 4 years where hammer throwers only get 2?

People who get medals in multiple events get a separate 2-year penalty for each medal earned?

Jones clearly an evildoer who should get the boot. But why should her penalty be any different than those who have gone before her?

[Flumpy]

I don't think he was suggesting that Marion's punishment alone should be longer than others. He was just questioning whether the penalty itself is sufficient.

I think it's high time the IAAF looked in to increasing bans to 4 years once again and if it takes this case to persuade them to do so, then at least something good has come out of it.

[26mi235]

I don't think he was suggesting that Marion's punishment alone should be longer than others. He was just questioning whether the penalty itself is sufficient.

I think it's high time the IAAF looked in to increasing bans to 4 years once again and if it takes this case to persuade them to do so, then at least something good has come out of it.

I am not sure that four years will 'fly' for legal reasons that have already come into play in the past. However, 2.5 might and might be an important, if small, increment. What it means is that if the infraction is 'in season' at all, three summer cycles are missed, not two. An additional penalty that might fly is that if the infraction is at the WC/OG, then it is increased to 3+ years because of the damage to the sport.

[Jon]

The IAAF recently issued a four-year ban to a Chinese athlete:
http://www.iaaf.org/news/Kind=107374182 ... 42364.html

Don't know why he deserved a longer ban than others (it was his first offence), but there must have been some reason.

With Marion, whatever 'ban' they give her will be completely moot anyway as she has already announced her retirement. And claiming back prize winnings is not all that unusual - they did the same with Dwain Chambers.

[EPelle]

RULE 40 (Page 60)

7. Where, arising from the same test, an athlete is found to have
committed an anti-doping rule violation involving both a specified
substance and another prohibited substance or prohibited method,
the athlete shall be considered to have committed a single antidoping
rule violation but the sanction imposed shall be based on the
violation that carries with it the more severe sanction.

http://www.iaaf.org/newsfiles/33048.pdf

A four-year ban on a "retired" athlete would almost ensure they don:t attempt to make a comeback. This particular athlete would likely never do so with all things considered.