Overreaction?

[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

[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.

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[Vince]

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.

[huh?]

Re: Overreaction?

>>Looking at the Doping Code, I see no use of the term "minimum" unless you are talking about non-performance enhancing drugs.<

What "Doping Code" are you talking about? I was referring to IAAF Rules, and since you seem to have vision problems, let me point you to IAAF Rule 60.2(a)(i). The phrase "a minimum of two years" is right there.

[Vince]

Re: Overreaction?

>the IAAF rules provide for a minimum 2 year....there's nothing inconsistent with the USATF zero tolerance program<

Looking at the Doping Code, I see no use of the term "minimum" unless you are talking about non-performance enhancing drugs.

[huh?]

Re: Overreaction?

>The new USATF proposed rules are now in line with the current IOC rules. Now it's time for the IAAF "to walk the walk, and stop talking the talk". WADA is publicly attacking anything the USATF does instead of supporting tougher doping rules.<

You're right in criticizing WADA, wrong in criticizing the IAAF. The IAAF rules already provide for a penalty of a MINIMUM of two years. There's nothing at all inconsistant with the USATF zero tolerance program.

[Vince]

Re: Overreaction?

The new USATF proposed rules are now in line with the current IOC rules. Now it's time for the IAAF "to walk the walk, and stop talking the talk". WADA is publicly attacking anything the USATF does instead of supporting tougher doping rules. The IAAF brought this on themselves. Brilliant move by Masback.

Re: Overreaction?

The article hits the spot for sure. USATF sure knows how get the heat off its back without actually doing anything to solve the drug-problem in US track and field. Now blaming IAAF (along with other organizations), which has tried to get the US to take the drug-issue more seriously for years, is just ridiculous. And trying to implement an impossible drug-ban is another PR deal. Like I said in a previous post: US federation talks the talk, but does not walk the walk... And this writer was an editor of track and field news???

Re: Overreaction?

Jeff Hollobaugh's ESPN.com column on the subject

http://espn.go.com/oly/columns/hollobaugh/1682166.html

"Years ago I studied public relations. My instructor, a guy named George Robeck, knew his stuff, and taught by using real-life case histories. He showed us that there is good news and bad news, but if you handled the PR side of it well, it could be nearly all good. He would love Craig Masback."

Re: Overreaction?

I read the most disgusting thing in the Globe
>and Mail today, about a cannibal ring busted in Germany that included doctors
>and other professionals. One victim replied to an ad on the internet
>requesting "people for manslaughter". How thick can you get? What the hell
>did he expect? Maybe he wanted it to happen. But do I feel sorry for him?
>Uh, no.

Absolutely nothing to do with T&F but an intersting and somewhat amusing article in the UKs Telegraph yesterday about the German canibal. Incredible!

http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/ ... tid=107146

[michael lewis]

Re: Overreaction?

<<They just think that
a. they won't get caught
or
b. the benefit is worth the risk of the consequence

So we pass 'lifetime bans' in order to deter the second set. It's hard to have sympathy for this group because they knew what the punishment was before they commited the offense. The first group is irredeemable.>>

I think the first group is irredeemably stupid, and the second group slightly less so. I read the most disgusting thing in the Globe and Mail today, about a cannibal ring busted in Germany that included doctors and other professionals. One victim replied to an ad on the internet requesting "people for manslaughter". How thick can you get? What the hell did he expect? Maybe he wanted it to happen. But do I feel sorry for him? Uh, no.

Re: Overreaction?

>Regards, Wilmar
PS Some time ago somebody wrote that harsh
>punishments (like lifelong bans) were difficult to enforce in the US because of
>laws protecting people's right to make a living (or something like that). Will
>the lifelong ban by the USATF be enforcable in civil court?>

I doubt that a lifetime ban would stand up in the US. I believe a 4 year ban had trouble in other countries, one being Germany.