Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

[lagsun]

The public warning of the 4 US athletes for testing positive for Modafinil doesn't seem to make sense.

I understand Modafinil wasn't a banned substance when the athletes took this prescription medicine for "narcolepsy" but now getting caught using it carries a 2-year suspension. So why just a public warning and forfeiture of results?

Second, whatever happened to USATF's "Zero Tolerance" anti-doping plan? I just re-read the press release (http://www.usatf.org/news/showRelease.a ... -10-22.xml) and it only discusses steroids. Does this mean it doesn't apply to other performance-enhancing substances?

Lastly, has USATF publicly reprimanded/penalized Korchemny for his part in this Modafinil fiasco? In the Zero Tolerance press release it states:

· Punish Coaches of athletes found guilty. USA Track & Field will create a program to ban the coaches of athletes who test positive from our sport. In addition, the coaches will be fined up to $100,000, will not be eligible to be the coach of a U.S. Team, and will not be eligible for any USATF benefits.

Is USATF serious about "Zero Tolerance" or is it more Masback lip service about the drug problem?

[TrackIsGreat]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

I think since the positive tests occurred last year, the sanction at that time was a public warning and DQ. Now, that same offence would be two years.

USATF has no authority after the grandstanding they made last fall on zero tolerance. They have to follow the rules of tha anti-doping agencies and IAAF.

[Realist]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

>>I understand Modafinil wasn't a banned substance
>when the athletes took this prescription medicine for "narcolepsy" but now
>getting caught using it carries a 2-year suspension. So why just a public
>warning and forfeiture of results?>>

Paging Law Dude! I would assume that there is a basic rule of jurisprudence that you finish your trial under the law in force at the beginning of the trial. When Modafinil first turned up in Paris the IAAF boffins put their heads together and decided it was a one-day-suspension item and proceeded with these cases on that basis. WADA subsequently changed it to a 2-year, but the clock was already ticking on all of last year's people. And it can't be changed, right?


<<Second, whatever happened to USATF's
>"Zero Tolerance" anti-doping plan? I just re-read the press release
>(http://www.usatf.org/news/showRelease.a ... -10-22.xml
>and it only discusses steroids. Does this mean it doesn't apply to other
>performance-enhancing substances?

Lastly, has USATF publicly
>reprimanded/penalized Korchemny for his part in this Modafinil fiasco? In the
>Zero Tolerance press release it states:

? Punish Coaches of athletes found
>guilty. USA Track & Field will create a program to ban the coaches of athletes
>who test positive from our sport. In addition, the coaches will be fined up to
>$100,000, will not be eligible to be the coach of a U.S. Team, and will not be
>eligible for any USATF benefits.>>

USATF removed Korch. from the indoor coaching staff a couple of months ago. But he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet, so pretty hard for USA T&F to proceed with further penalties. I have wondered since the beginning about this "be fined" thing. I would assume that that must be tied in with reinstatement. Otherwise, why would anybody ever pay the fine? Private organizaitons have no legal standing to fine anybodydo they? Law Dude?

[lagsun]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

Paging Law Dude! I would assume that there is a basic rule of
>jurisprudence that you finish your trial under the law in force at the
>beginning of the trial. When Modafinil first turned up in Paris the IAAF
>boffins put their heads together and decided it was a one-day-suspension item
>and proceeded with these cases on that basis. WADA subsequently changed it to a
>2-year, but the clock was already ticking on all of last year's people. And it
>can't be changed, right?

Then how can they proceed with the THG cases under the like substance rule? There was no rule in effect at the time for THG.

USATF
>removed Korch. from the indoor coaching staff a couple of months ago. But he
>hasn't been found guilty of anything yet, so pretty hard for USA T&F to proceed
>with further penalties. I have wondered since the beginning about this "be
>fined" thing. I would assume that that must be tied in with reinstatement.
>Otherwise, why would anybody ever pay the fine? Private organizaitons have no
>legal standing to fine anybodydo they? Law Dude?

How hard could be it be for USATF to proceed against Korch? Several of his athletes have come out publicly that he provided them with Modafinil, which is a prescription drug. Since he is not a doctor, isn't this illegal?

[MJD]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

Then how can they proceed with the THG cases under the like
>substance rule? There was no rule in effect at the time for
>THG.

The like substance rule as you call it.

>Since he is not a doctor, isn't this illegal?

Separate issue.

[lagsun]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

The like substance
>rule as you call it.

That's where I get confused. Wouldn't Modafinil fall under the like substance rule as well, especially since it now carries a 2-year ban?

>Since he is not a doctor, isn't this
>illegal?

Separate issue.

I understand it's separate issue from a legal standpoint, but if USATF was really getting tough with its so-called "Zero Tolerance" plan then isn't there enough evidence out there for them to take additional action against Korch? Didn't Phillips admit to receiving Modafinil from him?

[Law dude]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

>>Paging Law Dude! I would assume that there is a basic rule of jurisprudence that you finish your trial under the law in force at the beginning of the trial. When Modafinil first turned up in Paris the IAAF boffins put their heads together and decided it was a one-day-suspension item and proceeded with these cases on that basis. WADA subsequently changed it to a 2-year, but the clock was already ticking on all of last year's people. And it can't be changed, right?<<

Basically right.


>>USATF removed Korch. from the indoor coaching staff a couple of months ago. But he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet, so pretty hard for USA T&F to proceed with further penalties. I have wondered since the beginning about this "be fined" thing. I would assume that that must be tied in with reinstatement. Otherwise, why would anybody ever pay the fine? Private organizaitons have no legal standing to fine anybody do they? Law Dude?<<

I haven't been following the Korch thing closely, so I can't comment on where he stands. In general, private organizations can fine people only if the fines are provided for in their rules and the person being fined has done something to subject him/herself to those rules. Of course, they would have to resort to the civil courts to collect any fine. In any event, I don't see how a fine can be levied retroactively to penalize someone for an offense that did not call for a fine when it was committed.

[Law dude]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

>Then how can they proceed with the THG cases under the like substance rule? There was no rule in effect at the time for THG.<

Of course there was. What you refer to as the "like substance rule" has been part of the doping rules for a long time. The banned list itself has always included "chemically or pharmacologically related compounds" that are not themselves mentioned by name.

[lagsun]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

>>Then how can they proceed with the THG cases under the like substance rule?
>There was no rule in effect at the time for THG.<

Of course there was. What
>you refer to as the "like substance rule" has been part of the doping rules
>for a long time. The banned list itself has always included "chemically or
>pharmacologically related compounds" that are not themselves mentioned by
>name.

Wasn't the like substance rule used for Modafinil as well? I'm confused.

[gh]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

<<Wasn't the like substance rule used for Modafinil as
>well? I'm confused.>>


What part is confusing you? Modafinil was identified as a stimulant, almost all of which are illegal (there's a short list of legal ones). At first it was decided (by the IAAF) that it was a "mild" stimulant so only worth a 1-day suspension. WADA then did some research and decided it should be upped to a 2-year one.

[lagsun]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

What part is confusing you? Modafinil was identified as a
>stimulant, almost all of which are illegal (there's a short list of legal
>ones). At first it was decided (by the IAAF) that it was a "mild" stimulant
>so only worth a 1-day suspension. WADA then did some research and decided it
>should be upped to a 2-year one.

I guess what confuses me the most is the lack of consistency in the rules and how they are policed.

First, Modafinil wasn't on the banned substance list, but when it crops up at the WCs it is considered a mild stimulant. After further investigation it is now considered serious enough to warrant a 2 year suspension. However, the four positive athletes with "narcolepsy" (or just needing a boost to stay awake/alert) get off with a public warning instead of 2 years. Why? Shouldn't they get two years if that is the current penalty especially since there was no penalty in place at the time?

Compare this with THG. Unknown until after the WCs, US athletes testing positive for it are now facing bans like Chambers from the UK. Like Modafinil, it wasn't on the banned substance list, but taking it is a two year offence under the like substance rule.

Given the just-handed down ruling for the Modafinil abusers, doesn't this provide a similar precedent for the 5 athletes currently accused of taking THG? Am I missing something here? Or are stimulants with 2 year bans viewed differently than steroids with 2 year bans?

Personally, I think this ruling opens the door for Jacobs et al to get off with a wrist slap and compete at the Olympic Trials and quite possibly the Olympics. Am I a conspiracy theorist or does my analysis hold any (legal) water?

[Law dude]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

>Personally, I think this ruling opens the door for Jacobs et al to get off with a wrist slap and compete at the Olympic Trials and quite possibly the Olympics. Am I a conspiracy theorist or does my analysis hold any (legal)water?<

It doesn't, but I don't have time right now to explain why. I'm going to be out of town and off the Board for a few days--I'll try to catch up with this next week.

[abinferno]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

Modafinil was on the banned list already as a mild stimulant as has been stated before. That's why they were being tested for it. If it weren't on the banned list, no one would have tested positive for it.

[lagsun]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

>Modafinil was on the banned list already as a mild stimulant as has been stated
>before. That's why they were being tested for it. If it weren't on the banned
>list, no one would have tested positive for it.

Modafinil was NOT on the banned list during the World Championships.

Here are some quotes from an article regarding the Kelli White situation when she tested positive after the 100:

"White said she didn't apply for a medical waiver or include the medication on her doping control form as required because it wasn't named on the prohibited drug list."

"While not specified by name on the banned list, modafinil is covered under the stimulants category of "related substances," the IAAF has said."

Here is the URL to the full article as well:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/ ... 1303.shtml

[TrackIsGreat]

Re: Questions about USADA Sanctions and USATF Zero Tolerance

It was not on banned list by name but falls under related substances. That post is old and inaccurate, as things have changed since September.

It does not matter if she listed modafinil on the doping control form.