Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Have Blake and company qualified for the WC?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Have Blake and company qualified for the WC?

    In a televison appearance on TVJ this evening Dr. Paul Wright, a WADA representative as far as I could ascertain, and Mr. Teddy McCook of IAAF, raised the interesting spectre, that the 5 athletes who tested positive - even if they are absolved of all blame or let off with a warning - may not go to the WC for the simple reason that, wittingly or unwittingly, they breached the terms and condtions of the trials. This seems logical on the face of it.

  • #2
    The terms of trials are determined by each nation's federation and not the IAAF. The IAAF sets the qualifying standards, but the team selection process is done differently in each country.

    Comment


    • #3
      iThe reason why you don't recognize a wind-assisted time for record purposes is because records establish benchmarks. Only the experts on this board can compare vastly different times and adjust for varying wind readings. So too with a trial. The trial is held to see how athletes will compete against each other in the same conditions, and that applies across the board including the levels of pharmachological assistance. Any perceived advantage - however innocently acquired - invalidates the spirit of the trial. The real Blake did not turn up, for all intents and purposes, so he couldn't qualify.

      Comment


      • #4
        That is looking at it from a moral perspective and I am not going to argue that. The actual rules are based on other criteria, though, so the moral speculation is purely academic in this case. Should the athletes be cleared with just a warning, it is up to the Jamaican Federation to decide whether or not the athletes should compete in Berlin. They have achieved the qualifying standard independent of this particular meet which is the determining factor for their eligibility aside from the potential doping ban.

        Comment


        • #5
          Zackly. As long as the athletes have qualifying standards and are eligible to compete, it's up to the national federation to decide who to enter in the WCh. If USATF decided to enter three 10.20 athletes instead of Rodgers, Patton and Edwards, they could do that. The national federations, not IAAF or WADA, pick their own teams as they see fit.
          Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

          Comment


          • #6
            ...in that same newscast, the Dr and Teddy McCook were smarting over the fact that 5 athletes from 4 different camps tested positive for the same substance...i want to know too.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rudawal
              iThe reason why you don't recognize a wind-assisted time for record purposes is because records establish benchmarks. Only the experts on this board can compare vastly different times and adjust for varying wind readings. So too with a trial. The trial is held to see how athletes will compete against each other in the same conditions, and that applies across the board including the levels of pharmachological assistance. Any perceived advantage - however innocently acquired - invalidates the spirit of the trial. The real Blake did not turn up, for all intents and purposes, so he couldn't qualify.
              Blake didn't qualify anyways. He was 6th in the open 100m and he was added to JA's relay pool, and as far as I know there really isn't a qualification process for that (technically I believe they look at the first 6). I'm sure Jamaica can add and take off who they want on their relay teams.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes Blake and the other athletes qualified for the Jamaican team whether in an individual event or as part of the relay pool...Maybe the question should be, have the athletes who tested positive been allowed to still compete at WC's ...
                ~ I bleed BLACK, GREEN, and YELLOW~

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tammy_Baby
                  Yes Blake qualified for the Jamaica team as part of the relay pool...Maybe the question should be, have the athletes who tested positive been allowed to still compete at WC's ...
                  Not sre about WCs, but there were athletes who tested positive in the 88 season and ran in the Olympics.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [quote=guruof track]
                    Originally posted by "Tammy_Baby":1b78glfz
                    Yes Blake qualified for the Jamaica team as part of the relay pool...Maybe the question should be, have the athletes who tested positive been allowed to still compete at WC's ...
                    Not sre about WCs, but there were athletes who tested positive in the 88 season and ran in the Olympics.[/quote:1b78glfz]

                    For Jamaica????
                    ~ I bleed BLACK, GREEN, and YELLOW~

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      [quote=Tammy_Baby][quote="guruof track":mmw2u8nb]
                      Originally posted by "Tammy_Baby":mmw2u8nb
                      Yes Blake qualified for the Jamaica team as part of the relay pool...Maybe the question should be, have the athletes who tested positive been allowed to still compete at WC's ...
                      Not sre about WCs, but there were athletes who tested positive in the 88 season and ran in the Olympics.[/quote:mmw2u8nb]

                      For Jamaica????[/quote:mmw2u8nb]

                      No. Another country.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        [quote=guruof track][quote="Tammy_Baby":2xeo3hjh][quote="guruof track":2xeo3hjh]
                        Originally posted by "Tammy_Baby":2xeo3hjh
                        Yes Blake qualified for the Jamaica team as part of the relay pool...Maybe the question should be, have the athletes who tested positive been allowed to still compete at WC's ...
                        Not sre about WCs, but there were athletes who tested positive in the 88 season and ran in the Olympics.[/quote:2xeo3hjh]

                        For Jamaica????[/quote:2xeo3hjh]

                        No. Another country.[/quote:2xeo3hjh]

                        Oh, I was about to say :wink: ...But me mentioning the bold, is to say that the question rudawal posed is kind of a rhetorical question... His question should be more " Will Blake and company still be allowed to compete at WC's"
                        ~ I bleed BLACK, GREEN, and YELLOW~

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          From what I understand, their cases need to be escalated in order for them to be able to participate. That is, they need to have a hearing and an end result be given by some time this week, or whatever is the final day to produce the final team for each nations WC's roster. If their cases are not resolved by that date(again I think its this week), they will not be able to compete without the approval of the IAAF signing off on the situation/cases of each athlete.

                          I am sure someone will/can come in and be more specific as to the nature of their case and getting it resolved before the WC's begin in 2 weeks.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Dr. Paul Wright made the point that even if the five athletes are given the least severe punishment of a verbal warning, that warning is accompanied by a mandatory disqualification of the results of the event from which the in-competition positive came from.

                            Simply stated, that would mean that none of the five would have any result from the National Championships.

                            Item #1 from the JAAA Selection Criteria reads as follows:

                            1. Athletes must compete in the National Championships unless an exemption has been granted by the JAAA.

                            The word "must" is the key. In strict technical terms, if the results of the five athletes are disqualified from the meet, they in effect did not compete, and as such cannot be a part of the team for Berlin. None of them received an exemption from the JAAA prior to the event, so there should be no possibility of that coming into play. I say "should be", as the politics of it may result in an exemption being granted after the fact, ie. after the warning. I won't put my neck on the block for anyone by saying that won't happen.

                            Dr. Paul Wright was explicit in stating last night that if the five receive any sort of punishment they will not make it to Berlin. The only way they go to Berlin is if they are completely exonerated of all charges, a situation that can happen if the B samples come back negative.

                            TVJ News reported last night that all five B samples will be tested today. Supposedly all five athletes will be at a hearing tomorrow. My understanding is that the full team roster must be presented on Thursday, I will double check that. In addition, TVJ News reported last night that the substance was not the one that was being widely publicized. Dr. Paul Wright in the program after the news stated that the substance was on the Specified Stimulants list. That list is available on the IAAF and WADA websites.
                            Regards,
                            toyracer

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Even if the results from the trial were to be annulled, Blake could/should still be selected to represent jamaica in the relays based on his performances before and after the trials.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X