Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soboleva, Six Other Russians Banned Two Years Each

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by jjimbojames
    If this were a legal matter going through court system, sentence starts from date of being found guilty, taking into account any time already served

    To start their punishment from when the IAAF first started gathering evidence is ridiculous - it should be from just before Oly Games, but lose money / times etc from period of surveilance etc as they knew all was not right (in the same way that the PD might have an undercover agent on the case - they know wrong doing is taking place, but are gathering more and more hardcore evidence)

    Eldy - agree, 16 months seems rather long, but I guess they were limited with the access they had to the athletes, and wanted a water-tight case against them, as it involved so many athletes, and particularly given the implications/rumours on the national governing body that ensued
    somehow, it has to be 2y ban - which means 2y of results scrubbed/non-competing

    it is a 1st offence for all, so they cannot have more than 2y ban

    either, include the last 16/12 as part of ban, despite them competing & scrub all the WRs, medals, prize-money - they did compete, but none of those results count - therefore, the fact they actually competed means it was all wasted effort ( moreso than watching at home - it's a lot more painful to see all those achievements scrubbed rather than watching from home & having done nothing for those 16/12 ) - add therefore 8/12 more as the non-competing ban - this is in accordance with your suggestion jimbo, of time "already served"

    alternatively, they start the 2y ban from just before the OG & allow them to keep all the WRs, medals, prize-money from preceding 16/12

    you can't have it both ways to maintain a 2y ban for 1st offence

    it's the iaaf fault for the delay & no, it's a joke to take 16/12 over it - they simply had to send a message to the 7 as soon as they were suspicious, that testers were going to ruskie to take DNA samples ( it's just a mouth-swab for heaven's sake ! ) - you can't "mask" a DNA test - it couda been done in 1/52 & 1/52 to analyse results

    Comment


    • #17
      There was no way they could ban them until they were sure and as I understand it the final piece of evidence did not become available until after this year's Russian championships. I expect the scenario will be 2 years from the date of initial suspension, results annulled back to April 2007.
      There is ample precedent for this.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by eldrick
        somehow, it has to be 2y ban - which means 2y of results scrubbed/non-competing

        it is a 1st offence for all, so they cannot have more than 2y ban
        Yes, they can. 2 years is the minimum ban period. The national federation can decide to impose a more severe punishment.
        Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

        Comment


        • #19
          So they will be back in Berlin next year...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by tandfman
            [.....
            Of course, in order to be reinstated, she will have to return all of the money she earned from and after the date when she gave the sample that was deemed positive.
            Is that completley true, or does that apply only to things under the IAAF's direct control,like the Worlds?

            I ask because my recollection is that Dwain Chambers was allowed an "immediate" return to competition, but that he was lamenting that he might never earn enough on the Circuit to pay back what the IAAF said he owed them. Did he somehow ever get that done with his limited appearances?

            Comment


            • #21
              According to this article, she owes $120,000:

              http://news.mail.ru/sport/2109013

              $30,000 - 2007 World Champs silver
              $40,000 - 2008 Indoor Championships gold
              $50,000 - World Record at 2008 Indoors

              In a statement a few months ago, Soboleva was freaked out because she had already invested that money in a new apartment.


              Also, here's an interview with Balahnichev and statement by Soboleva. I guess they won't know until November whether the IAAF will allow them to start the ban in spring of 2007 or not.

              http://www.rg.ru/2008/10/21/doping.html

              translation via google:
              http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... l=ru&tl=en

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by gh
                Originally posted by tandfman
                [.....
                Of course, in order to be reinstated, she will have to return all of the money she earned from and after the date when she gave the sample that was deemed positive.
                Is that completley true, or does that apply only to things under the IAAF's direct control,like the Worlds?

                I ask because my recollection is that Dwain Chambers was allowed an "immediate" return to competition, but that he was lamenting that he might never earn enough on the Circuit to pay back what the IAAF said he owed them. Did he somehow ever get that done with his limited appearances?
                The rules (IAAF 40.11 and 40.12) don't seem to be limited to meets under the IAAF's direct control and in fact covers both prize and appearance money.

                I don't know the answer to the Chambers question.

                Comment


                • #23
                  soboleva was lucky she didn't invest in stocks....at least, with an apartment, you can get another buyer...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by The Captain
                    There was no way they could ban them until they were sure and as I understand it the final piece of evidence did not become available until after this year's Russian championships. I expect the scenario will be 2 years from the date of initial suspension, results annulled back to April 2007.
                    There is ample precedent for this.
                    as pointed out, it woud take no more than 1/52 for a tester to meet everyone of the 7 & 1/52 to get DNA tests back - it's ludicrous it took 16/12 !

                    i'd be interested in precedent : i can't recall any case that took 1y+ to decide someone was doping on result of a simple analytical test ( & before anyone mentions michelle collins, that was a mickey-mouse non-analytical +ve, where outcome wasn't dependent on result of a simple test - they coudn't find a +ve ! )

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by tandfman
                      [....
                      The rules (IAAF 40.11 and 40.12) don't seem to be limited to meets under the IAAF's direct control and in fact covers both prize and appearance money.

                      I don't know the answer to the Chambers question.
                      From the front page way back when The Guardian in May of '06:

                      <<.....Dwain Chambers must pay £120,000 to return to competition following his two-year ban for taking performance-enhancing drugs. That is how much the International Association of Athletics Federations has decided the Londoner earned illegally during the period from 2002 and 2003 when he was using Tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) given to him by Victor Conte, the founder and owner of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative.

                      They have reached the figure after studying prize money the European 100 metres champion won and also by consulting meeting directors across Europe about what they paid him to appear in their meetings. Chambers has officially completed his two-year suspension but will be unable to return until he has agreed a schedule to repay the money. The IAAF is willing to accept repayment in instalments but how quickly Chambers can discharge the debt will depend on how much money he earns upon his return.....>

                      Since he apparently didn't have a quarter-million bucks stashed away, one has to surmise that he hasn't actually repaid the money even now, but is nibbling away at it. Not the kind of thing I'd expect the IAAF to go public with, however.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by gh
                        <<.....Dwain Chambers must pay £120,000 to return to competition following his two-year ban for taking performance-enhancing drugs. . . . .

                        Since he apparently didn't have a quarter-million bucks stashed away, one has to surmise that he hasn't actually repaid the money even now,
                        It does appear likely that he has not repaid the money, but I must point out that with the British Pound down to $1.67, he no longer needs a quarter-million bucks stashed away--a mere 200 thou will do.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Powell
                          Originally posted by eldrick
                          somehow, it has to be 2y ban - which means 2y of results scrubbed/non-competing

                          it is a 1st offence for all, so they cannot have more than 2y ban
                          Yes, they can. 2 years is the minimum ban period. The national federation can decide to impose a more severe punishment.
                          1st offence is 2y

                          a national fed may impose a longer ban, but if athlete appeals to iaaf/cas, it will inevitably be reduced to 2y

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by eldrick
                            Originally posted by Powell
                            Originally posted by eldrick
                            somehow, it has to be 2y ban - which means 2y of results scrubbed/non-competing

                            it is a 1st offence for all, so they cannot have more than 2y ban
                            Yes, they can. 2 years is the minimum ban period. The national federation can decide to impose a more severe punishment.
                            1st offence is 2y

                            a national fed may impose a longer ban, but if athlete appeals to iaaf/cas, it will inevitably be reduced to 2y
                            That said, in this case, the concept might be the wrong way round - whilst I don't see the IAAF saying no to a longer ban (and even the CAS might agree, given the way the evidence was collected etc), I really don't see the Russian national body wanting them to get a longer ban - they've supported them all along and are suggesting moving the ban back to 2007.

                            Wouldn't have thought money was an issue either - if Russia wanted the girls back, they'd simply pay any monies owing - it may well be their cheapest way of getting medals next year, after all (one has to believe Tomashova and Soboleva would at least be in the final when 'clean', and there wasn't that much on show this year without them)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Question: Is Soboleva even a 1.56-1.57 800m runnner outdoors "clean"?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by tandfman
                                Originally posted by gh
                                <<.....Dwain Chambers must pay £120,000 to return to competition following his two-year ban for taking performance-enhancing drugs. . . . .

                                Since he apparently didn't have a quarter-million bucks stashed away, one has to surmise that he hasn't actually repaid the money even now,
                                It does appear likely that he has not repaid the money, but I must point out that with the British Pound down to $1.67, he no longer needs a quarter-million bucks stashed away--a mere 200 thou will do.
                                But he's using pounds to pay IAAF in Euros, then I'm guessing the total remains about the same, as both have fallen against the dollar, although not in lockstep.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X