Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chambers out

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • abinferno
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    If someone had first hand knowledge about an impropriety performed by a track athlete and shared his anecdote here, would that be against the rules, even if it is a fact that the person witnessed or participated in it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Track fan
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    Butch Reynolds and I have the same clearing house cheques for millions sitting in an drawer waiting to be cashed if we just send in the next sweepstakes entry form...........

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    At this point a post was removed in which the poster named several baseball players he was convinced--citing anecdotal evidence--were steroid users. T&FN doesn't allow such accusations, no matter how "obvious" it might seem to one and all. We try to stick to facts only. Thanks.

    gh

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    >It seems that the process works much more swiftly in other pro sports -- we
    >have stronger commissioners in basketball, football -- they've suspended
    >athletes for various drug offenses (mostly the recreational drugs, though we'll
    >see this Spring about steroids), and though the athletes may protest or appeal,
    >it doesn't seem to drag out. My guess is there's more empowerment for the
    >commissioners -- if you're an athlete in this league, you MUST comply. Is
    >track just too loose a deal (no league) to do it this way? We do have
    >governing authorities -->>

    What the pro sports have is a union (separate unions for each sport). As part of their collective bargaining agreement they agree to certain levels of drug testing (which in most cases has been basically zero) and certain penalties. They sign a contract stipulating this. Why don't track athletes have contracts? Don't know where Diack and current Council as a whole stands on it, but Nebiolo was always forcefully loud about stating "there will be no union." With a union, too much of the power devolves away from "management" and goes to the athletes and the IAAF understandably doesn't want to give this up. They'd view it as the inmates running the asylum.

    The other reason things proceed quickly in the pro sports is because the penalties have traditionally not been made to hurt (in a relative sense). The amount of money these guys make, suspensions amounting to 10s (100s?) of thousands of dollars are just a hiccup; part of the price they have to pay for staying on the cutting edge.

    And if it doesn't hurt that much, you simply accept it and walk away. To put it in personal (and reductio ad absurdum) terms, if a cop walked through your door in the next 5 minutes and gave you a $25 parking ticket,you'd almost certainly shut up and pay it. If he walked through the door and charged you with armed robbery you'd hire a lawyer. If he charged you with multiple murder and said you'd hang, you'd hire 127 lawyers and spend the next 10 years fighting execution.

    Which is why, IMHO, track got off on the wrong footing in a PRACTICAL sense (although not a moral one) with 4-year penalties. They were in effect death penalties, and the reaction of those charged was to fight it to the bitter end. By doing the right thing we succeeded mainly only in convincing the public we were a dirty-dirty sport.

    Leave a comment:


  • MJD
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    >>Just how much money did Reynolds actually get from the IAAF?<

    Not a dime.
    >The case was thrown out on appeal (on jurisdictional grounds).

    I think that was Asterix's point...

    Leave a comment:


  • Law dude
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    >Just how much money did Reynolds actually get from the IAAF?<

    Not a dime. The case was thrown out on appeal (on jurisdictional grounds).

    Leave a comment:


  • Asterix
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    > My guess is there's more empowerment for the
    >commissioners -- if you're an athlete in this league, you MUST comply. Is
    >track just too loose a deal (no league) to do it this way? We do have
    >governing authorities --

    Note the plural on "governing authorities". You've got domestic authorities (USATF, USOC, USADA) and international authorities (IAAF, IOC, WADA), each of which has their own agenda and interpretations of the rules.

    Mainstream pro sports have a concentrated monopoly in a single coherent and well structured premiere league (NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL) with heirarchial controls and authority clearly delineated from the team through to the league brass.

    There is little basis to compare track to those others.

    Leave a comment:


  • MJD
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    Yeah, let's take our queue from major league sports...

    Leave a comment:


  • miler monkey
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    It seems that the process works much more swiftly in other pro sports -- we have stronger commissioners in basketball, football -- they've suspended athletes for various drug offenses (mostly the recreational drugs, though we'll see this Spring about steroids), and though the athletes may protest or appeal, it doesn't seem to drag out. My guess is there's more empowerment for the commissioners -- if you're an athlete in this league, you MUST comply. Is track just too loose a deal (no league) to do it this way? We do have governing authorities --

    Leave a comment:


  • Asterix
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    >...and miss the Olympics due to the
    >process taking too long, they'll sue USATF/WADA/IAAF for a gazillion dollars
    >and win - it will be Butch Reynolds all over again.

    Just how much money did Reynolds actually get from the IAAF?

    Leave a comment:


  • Law dude
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    You are right, Powell. There are some very negative effects of delays in process. The impact on those who are waiting to be crowned World Champion is probably the most unfortunate of those effects. I suppose it's the US lawyer in me (I am what I am) that makes me accustomed to procedural delays in litigation/arbitration. And, particularly where the defendants' careers and reputations are at stake, I am reluctant to say "Screw the procedural niceties--let's just be done with it."

    Like so much in life, these are not simple issues with simple answers. I fully agree that the sooner all these cases are concluded, the better off everyone will be. For better or for worse, my profesional experience diminishes my expectations of promptness and enhances my understanding of the occasional need for what seem to most people to be unduly extended legal procedures.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    That
    >being so, I don't know why it matters when the cases are concluded.

    If yoy don't know, I'm happy to tell you: if by any chance they're declared not guilty in a year's time and miss the Olympics due to the process taking too long, they'll sue USATF/WADA/IAAF for a gazillion dollars and win - it will be Butch Reynolds all over again. If they are found guilty, it will not be much better. It's half a year after the World Champs and we still don't know who are the world champions in 3 events. Try to put yourself in the shoes of Torri Edwards and Anastasiya Kapachinskaya... by the time they may receive their gold medals, everyone will have forgotten there was a world championship in Paris. They will have lost a lot of money in appearance fees etc. just because they could not have been called 'world champions' due to a technicality.

    Leave a comment:


  • Law dude
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    >>At this rate, they'll all get to compete in the Olympics before their cases are decided.<<

    Not possible. Under USADA and IAAF procedures, they are suspended pending the resolution of the cases. So unless they are completely exonerated before then (which I wouldn't want to bet on), they will not compete in the Olympics regardless of how quickly or slowly the cases proceed.

    That being so, I don't know why it matters when the cases are concluded. American lawyers do tend to protract things, and it is possible that some or all of the pending THG cases will still be pending in August. So what? The runners won't be on the track.

    I, for one, would be perfectly happy to see these cases drag on, so that every procedural issue that has been and will be raised by the lawyers can be properly argued and decided. At the end of the day, good process helps everyone and we shouldn't be afraid of it just because it can take some time. As long as the athletes are on the sidelines, the playing field is level and the sport is not further harmed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    >If the timeline that TFN provides on this whole mess is correct and I have no
    >reason to think it isn't then Chambers was formally charged as a positive on
    >November 6. The first USADA positives weren't announced until December 30 and
    >Jacobs wasn't announced until January 16.

    So if the same kind of protocol
    >is followed for the Americans as was followed for Chambers it could easily be
    >as long as more than two months from now before any Jacobs resolution is
    >reached.

    Obviously, the protocol wasn't the same. The Americans tested positive at about the same time as Chambers (if not earlier), but the results of their tests were announced 2 months later... At this rate, they'll all get to compete in the Olympics before their cases are decided.

    Leave a comment:


  • Track fan
    replied
    Re: Chambers out

    Jacobs will be out too, just because of her age at 40 years old taking any time off is a death sentence.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X