No announcement yet.

Soboleva, Six Other Russians Banned Two Years Each


Unconfigured Ad Widget

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I'm not sure what he owes. I believe all of the prize money given at IAAF events (both championships and GL/GP) is listed--and presumably paid--in dollars. So it's possible that his debt is in dollars.


    • #32
      Originally posted by joeltetreault
      According to this article, she owes $120,000:

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

      As noted in Chambers material which followed this, in assigning payback value, IAAF included appearance money, etc., so it wouldn't be just the Championship prizes they'd be going after (at least not if they applied the same ruliong they did to Chambers).


      • #33
        As noted in the discussion of Chambers, the IAAF rules don't limit the repayment obligation to Championship prizes.


        • #34
          Originally posted by eldrick
          a national fed may impose a longer ban, but if athlete appeals to iaaf/cas, it will inevitably be reduced to 2y
          Why would it:
          Rule 40.1 of the IAAF Competition Rules clearly states "first violation: for a minimum period of two years’ ineligibility". Many athletes have received longer bans and the IAAF never had a problem with that.
          Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...


          • #35
            i've seen the rules & i don't recall any 1st offenders having more than a 2y ban for 1st offence which stood up when challenged in court

            they reduced 1st offence to 2y from 4y many years ago because eu human rights/employment law woudn't stand for 4y bans for 1st offences

            the ruskies aren't eu citizens but cas won't rule for a longer sentence than for eu nationals


            • #36
              Michelle Collins originally received an 8-year ban for her first offence, appealed and only had it reduced to 4 years
              Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...


              • #37
                i specifically mentioned excluding her mickey-mouse case

                it was a nonsensical initial sentence for a non-analytical +ve

                at the time, it was suggested she fight it because they convicted for biochemical abnormalities as ridiculous as 'having raised cholesterol is a sign of her steroid abuse' !?

                usada had immediately trimmed it to 4y in return for her dropping the case

                if she'd had the money/lack of guilty conscious to take it to cas, she'd almost certainly have had it reduced to 2y & if she'd hired a 1/2 decent biochemist for her team wouda probably got the case thrown out


                • #38
                  I would start my post by saying I don't have a perfect (or even reasonable) idea of the leagal systems/principles....

                  But do you think that CAS would be more favourable towards a longer ban (4 years) given that the WADA Code from 2009 will explicitly allow (or ask) for increased bans in the case where you can prove "aggrivated circumstances"?

                  The fact that the IAAF rules do allow for bans longer than 2 years already (as noted it is a minimum) - combined with the idea that the new WADA Code will allow longer bans (and shorter ones as well) - might easily mean a 4 year ban would stand up in this case...even if challenged by an athlete.

                  I guess we don't know until an appeal is placed and held....until then we are speculating.


                  • #39
                    they initially reduced bans from 4y to 2y because of conflict with eu employment laws

                    those laws haven't changed, so i don't see anything but big trouble ahead for wada if they try to go back to 4y


                    • #40
                      Ahh the good old EU laws. It is great to know that someone who deliberately cheats and frauds his/her fellow "co-workers" in the sport of athletics is so well protected.

                      2 years is like a slap on the wrist and as long as it exists then doping will be rife (and probably would even if we had life bans!).

                      at least I take solace that by currently working in Europe - I know that if I cheat and steal from my co-workers here I will be welcomed back with open arms and allowed to work in the same industry again as the EU laws will protect me. I assume if I was a lawyer and was caught deliberately telling big fat lies to the judge it would be illegal to stop me from working in the field of Law?......

                      anyway - your point is valid and true...just that I don't agree with the law (not that I can change it !!!)....but this probably isn't the place for that argument....I am off to see who I can steal from and lie to.


                      • #41
                        i feel 2y is fair

                        the problem is unintentional dopers ( spiked drinks/food, foods/drink with unknown prohibited substances ( nandrolone in beef, etc ) ) also get 2y ban

                        you have to give the unintentional dopers a 2nd chance & 4y is too long for a 'mistake'

                        as authorities do not seem to accept inadvertent ingestion as an excuse, then true dopers also only get 2y as a result


                        • #42
                          yeah - agree on your point about the inadvertant use.

                          my understanding was that this is what the new parts of the wada Code were designed to help with (although I think they make it more complicated). Some parties wanted a uniform move to 4 year first time bans and the argument as usual was about EU laws, fairness etc....and to be honest I think some sports simply don't want a 2 year ban even for steroids so were arguing against it.

                          As a "compromise" the Code allows for individual circumstances of the case to be taken into consideration - eg it is not just a blanket ban of 2 years - but you can get less if the circumstances warrent (eg you convince the panel that it was inadvertant etc etc) and you can get a longer ban like 4 years if the situations show you really went out of your way to cheat.

                          That is why I thought 4 year bans were now maybe more possible (again I don't know the EU law well enough). But there is more fairness in the system that you can get a reduced ban - but as a spin off you can also get a higher me this seems fair and I am very much in favour of the stronger ban in cases like this one.

                          What will be interesting to see is how all the sports including the IAAF manage the new powers to determine sanctions (now that it is not a fixed 2 years)......I have a very strong feeling that in lots of sports..not naming any names but the "world game" comes to mind - you will never again see a 2 year ban for steroids.....6 months maybe :roll:


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Swoosher
                            eg it is not just a blanket ban of 2 years - but you can get less if the circumstances warrent (eg you convince the panel that it was inadvertant etc etc)
                            this is the problem

                            iaaf iirc has hardly ever, if ever, accepted the "inadvertent" excuse

                            national feds try for short ban for their athletes because they see extenuating circumstances, but iaaf immediately want it jacked up to 2y & take it almost without hesitation to cas if national fed doesn't agree

                            i'd have to say, in iaaf's eyes, "inadvertent" excuse is hogwash - they never believed it before & i can't see why they will change thier stance now

                            complete & utter waste of time taking an "inadvertent" excuse to iaaf, so I see no reason why they shoud get their 4y bans if they never compromise on the 2y ones as some national feds do


                            • #44
                              The IAAF is appealing these cases to CAS.


                              1) The IAAF has appealed that in each case, and in accordance with IAAF Rules, the date of any applicable sanction cannot begin earlier than the day the athlete was first provisionally suspended from competition.

                              2) The IAAF has appealed that in each case the period of ineligibility be lengthened to more than the minimum 2 year sanction under IAAF Rules if the athletes are found guilty of the above doping offences.


                              • #45
                                IAAF President Lamine Diack said “It is unacceptable to the IAAF that these athletes who have committed serious and deliberate breaches of our anti-doping Rules would receive an effective ban of approximately 9-10 months and see them eligible to compete again in the summer of 2009. What is more, I consider the circumstances surrounding these cases warrants the IAAF to seek an extended ban over and above the minimum two year period.
                                if he runs an organisation so mickey-mouse that they take over 1y to get a derisory mouth swab from 7 athletes, he deserves no sympathy whatsoever