Overreaction?

[Truth Squad]

Re: Overreaction?

>Well my vision is truly failing, but not in this instance. Your 60.2, section blah, blah, paragraph blah, blah is from 2002, and the World Doping Code v.3.0 was accepted by the IAAF in March 2003.

Get your facts straight b4 starting your Ad Hominem attacks.<


I'm on Huh's side on this one. He's absolutely correct. While the IAAF agreed to accept the WADA Code in principle earlier this year, the IAAF Rules have not yet been amended to reflect that adoption. So the section Huh? cited is still in effect. It applies to IAAF doping cases being brought to this day. The WADA Code does not.

By the way, although the IAAF agreed to accept the WADA Code in principle, that does not mean that the IAAF is bound to adopt every word of it verbatim. It's not required and I wouldn't be surprised if, in this instance, the IAAF stuck to their guns and left in the possibility of a penalty longer than two years when they reviss their doping rules to conform generally to WADA, which I assume they will do at some point.

[Lie detector]

Re: Overreaction?

>the IAAF agreed to accept the WADA Code<.... >that does not mean that the IAAF is bound to adopt every word <

Let me guess Truth Squad or Huh?, you are either an American lawyer or a politician because accepting the code in your mind doesn't really mean accepting the code.

The code is set to be in place by Athens, and the IAAF is signaling they want concrete wording that solidifies the 2 year ban and is not open-ended.

>I wouldn't be surprised if, in this instance, the IAAF stuck to their guns and left in the possibility of a penalty longer than two years<

That is pure speculation on your part, with no basis in fact.

[Law dude]

Re: Overreaction?

>>Let me guess Truth Squad or Huh?, you are
either an American lawyer or a politician because accepting the code in your mind doesn't really mean accepting the code.<<

OK, I am an American lawyer. I've no idea whether Truth Squad or Huh? are the same person or whether he/she/they are lawyers or politicians. But I can tell you that neither American lawyers or politicians have a monopoly on the ability to read words carefully. That's what Huh? did and people started attacking him. (Or maybe that was just one person. Who ever knows with this Board?)


>I wouldn't be surprised if, in this
>instance, the IAAF stuck to their guns and left in the possibility of a penalty
>longer than two years<

That is pure speculation on your part, with no
>basis in fact.<<

It may have been speculation yesterday, but it's documented fact today. The IAAF has just put its new anti-doping rules on its website and guess what?--the operative words are "a minimum period of two years' ineligibility." (See the new Rule 40.1.)

[Vince]

Re: Overreaction?

>see rule 40.1<

My vision is getting worse....I see rule 60.1, not 40.1, but it's getting late here and I'm tired.

[Powell]

Re: Overreaction?

>My vision is getting worse....I see rule 60.1, not 40.1

Once you've got yourself a new pair of glasses, go to http://www.iaaf.org/newsfiles/23484.pdf and see page 57