Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Prick Admin
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Having a kiki
    Posts
    42,367
    vCash
    506
    Rep Power
    25076

    Olympic ban ruled invalid by CAS

    Article

    The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has cleared the way for several dozen former doping offenders to compete at next year's London Olympics after dismissing the validity of an International Olympic Committee (IOC) eligibility rule.


    The controversial Rule 45, introduced in 2008, banned athletes, including Olympic 400 metres champion LaShawn Merritt, from participating at the next Olympic Games - summer or winter - if they have been suspended for six months or longer, but the regulation was rejected as invalid and unenforceable by CAS.
    To think that fun is simple fun, while earnest things are earnest, proves all too plain that neither one thou truthfully discernest.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Age
    30
    Posts
    4,967
    vCash
    1670
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by allezfred View Post
    I expected this ruling after US decided to fight the case.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    11,774
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Yes, excellent ruling! I don't give two shits about Merritt and his penis problems, but I support this.

    Crime and punishment. You do the crime, you endure the punishment ... the lost competition and money, the lost reputation and goodwill, the lost "time in your prime". Then, you should be able to return ... shouldn't be punished on top of punishment.

    I fully support the IOC checking itself and making sure that future bans and other penalties for the offenses committed are tough enough.

  4. #4
    Tranquillo
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    behind the gruppetto
    Posts
    24,958
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    35429
    While I wish the federations themselves might do more to impose longer penalties or enforce their own bans, this ruling seems right in terms of which entities have authority to try and enforce punishments.

    Absolute rules tend to be overly broad and have unintended consequences. However, the problem is that I don't have much confidence in a lot of federations and local committees, and the potential for inconsistent treatment is high.
    "The Devil is joining in, and that's never a good sign." Phil Liggett

  5. #5
    Prick Admin
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Having a kiki
    Posts
    42,367
    vCash
    506
    Rep Power
    25076
    Most of the tweets that I'm reading from athletes are of the opinion that cheats should be banned for life. I think this ruling really sends the wrong message.
    To think that fun is simple fun, while earnest things are earnest, proves all too plain that neither one thou truthfully discernest.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Age
    43
    Posts
    16,627
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Me too. It is a shame.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,961
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    6943
    Quote Originally Posted by allezfred View Post
    Most of the tweets that I'm reading from athletes are of the opinion that cheats should be banned for life. I think this ruling really sends the wrong message.
    I'm all in favor of testing for doping and sanctioning athletes, but I can't see a lifetime ban for a first failure.

    You hardly ever hear the drug testing agency speak about false positives, but as we test more and more athletes for lower and lower levels of banned substances, we are surely arriving at some true false positives. (From a statistical standpoint.) We are also facing a reality that too many food products (not supplements) contain adulterants that can cause athletes to test positive. If athletes are foolish enough to use supplements that end up being contaminated, too bad for them, but somebody consuming beef, pork, or rutabagas from the market shouldn't face penalties because some farmer did something illegal.

    I'd be okay with having different levels of sanctions for different levels of different drugs to recognize that a smidgen of something banned is different than a high value result, and that a high value result is tremendously less likely to be the result of a false positive.

    It is well known that people with certain auto-immune diseases, like lupus, can test false positive for syphilis. I would be surprised if there weren't other conditions that could trigger false positives, especially as the tests become more and more sensitive to smaller and smaller quantities.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •