doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Should the results stand after 24 hours?

Poll ended at Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:22 pm

We should track down cheaters forever
12
67%
24 hours may not be the right number but something would be
6
33%
 
Total votes : 18

Postby BruceFlorman » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:55 am

It seems to me that we've got some conflicting terms here. I'm not saying a cheat should get off without penalty. I've got no particular problem with retroactive fines. But rewriting results after the fact just makes the sport look silly.

Pulling in another off-topic example: The N.E. Patriots were caught cheating in their season opener against the Jets. They received a heavy dollar fine and lost a future draft pick, but I haven't heard anyone with any influence suggesting that the results of the game should be overturned and the Pat's record revised to 8-1 (or whatever). Would you have greater respect for the NFL if they did that?
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:56 am

oldvaulter wrote:As for track and field joining the WWF, your proposals would guarantee that. Just as with the WWF, the "infinity" policy eliminates all meaningful competition.
I'm growing weary of this dialog because common sense has been ruled out. I'm also discouraged because I know you are a big fan of the sport and if fans such as you are ready to trash the sport completely, then I'm afraid it's dead already.

We have a major disconnect there. :(
I think the infinity policy 'legitimizes' the competition, not 'eliminates' it. If we all (esp. athletes) know that cheaters will continue to be rooted out, then we can proceed with a clear conscience that we doing everything we can to prevent PEDs.

How has common sense been ruled out? I am most certainly NOT ready to trash the sport! I want to protect it from cheaters (losing battle, but that's our lot right now). If we don't show an iron will to ferret out cheaters, WHENEVER they present themselves, they will prevail, and then the sport will INDEED be dead.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:58 am

BruceFlorman wrote:It seems to me that we've got some conflicting terms here. I'm not saying a cheat should get off without penalty. I've got no particular problem with retroactive fines. But rewriting results after the fact just makes the sport look silly.

Pulling in another off-topic example: The N.E. Patriots were caught cheating in their season opener against the Jets. They received a heavy dollar fine and lost a future draft pick, but I haven't heard anyone with any influence suggesting that the results of the game should be overturned and the Pat's record revised to 8-1 (or whatever). Would you have greater respect for the NFL if they did that?


Excellent points. Thank you for bringing this clarification to the discussion. The big issue under discussion here is the nullification and revision of past results. Drug cheaters can still be dealt with in various ways such as fines and suspensions.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:01 pm

tafnut wrote:
oldvaulter wrote:As for track and field joining the WWF, your proposals would guarantee that. Just as with the WWF, the "infinity" policy eliminates all meaningful competition.
I'm growing weary of this dialog because common sense has been ruled out. I'm also discouraged because I know you are a big fan of the sport and if fans such as you are ready to trash the sport completely, then I'm afraid it's dead already.

We have a major disconnect there. :(
I think the infinity policy 'legitimizes' the competition, not 'eliminates' it. If we all (esp. athletes) know that cheaters will continue to be rooted out, then we can proceed with a clear conscience that we doing everything we can to prevent PEDs.

How has common sense been ruled out? I am most certainly NOT ready to trash the sport! I want to protect it from cheaters (losing battle, but that's our lot right now). If we don't show an iron will to ferret out cheaters, WHENEVER they present themselves, they will prevail, and then the sport will INDEED be dead.


Yes, yes you sound very righteous. You're just ignoring the FACT that no definitive results means no meaningful competition means no respectable sport. If it weren't for that all-important caveat, I would be agreeing with you. As long as you continue to ignore this all-important point, there is nothing to be gained by further discussion.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:04 pm

oldvaulter wrote:The big issue under discussion here is the nullification and revision of past results. Drug cheaters can still be dealt with in various ways such as fines and suspensions.

The opening poll does not say anything about nullifying results. I am expressly talking about banning cheaters after the fact. The debate about nullifying results and reordering medal placements is an altogether different can of worms that I intentionally did not address. Paradoxically, I could not care less whether they do that or not - we know the truth.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:07 pm

tafnut wrote:
oldvaulter wrote:The big issue under discussion here is the nullification and revision of past results. Drug cheaters can still be dealt with in various ways such as fines and suspensions.

The opening poll does not say anything about nullifying results. I am expressly talking about banning cheats after the fact. The debate about nullifying results and reordering medal placements is an altogether different can of worms.


You're wrong. The original question is about having RESULTS STAND, and thus not subject to nullification, after a certain period of time. The question, and the subsequent discussion (if you would bother to read it) has been about the absurdity of nullifying and revising results after-the-fact.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby BruceFlorman » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:09 pm

tafnut wrote:The opening poll does not say anything about nullifying results.

The opening poll says: Should the results stand after 24 hours?

The key word seems to be results.
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:21 pm

BruceFlorman wrote:
tafnut wrote:The opening poll does not say anything about nullifying results.

The opening poll says: Should the results stand after 24 hours?
The key word seems to be results.

and I responded to (and has been obvious in all my posts):

We should track down cheaters forever?


My answer is: yes.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby BruceFlorman » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:31 pm

And when you catch one, what should be done?
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Re: doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:33 pm

Dave wrote:After the Marion Jones debacle, I suggest from here on that all medal ceremonies take place 24 hours after the race. If the athlete cannot be disqualified within that 24 hours, then the results stand.

Changing the results 7 years later is ridiculous. Are we going after all of the results from the 70s and 80s?

Of course, doping is wrong and diminishes the accomplishments of the rest of the competitors. But in other sports, if you don't catch someone cheating immediately then the results stand. Track and field should live with the same standard for all aspects.

I don't expect people to be wild about this proposal but it would introduce some sanity into a silly situation.


Tafnut, since it's obvious that you missed it, here is Dave's original post which he submitted along with the poll. Note that it's all about certifying results so that they are not subject to later nullification or revision. If you failed to notice that, the subsequent posts should have tipped you off. If you've been talking about something else, then you should have started a new thread about whatever subject you think you're talking about. In any case, since you obviously missed the whole point of the thread, your posts should be ignored.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Re: doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:43 pm

BruceFlorman wrote:And when you catch one, what should be done?

ban him/her.

oldvaulter wrote:your posts should be ignored.

Feel free. It has always been your perogative.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations

Postby Dave » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:00 pm

tafnut wrote:
BruceFlorman wrote:And when you catch one, what should be done?

ban him/her.

oldvaulter wrote:your posts should be ignored.

Feel free. It has always been your perogative.



My "statute of limitations" would affect results. If you catch someone cheating during the course of the year or at the time of the competition, then all of the normal penalties should apply.
Dave
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby Dave » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:08 pm

tafnut wrote:
oldvaulter wrote:No definitive results means no meaningful competition.

The reason I went with 'infinity' is because MOST cheaters beat the test at the meet. They would like nothing better to know that the window of opportunity slams shut the next day. I want them to worry about consequences down the line. It MIGHT actually dissuade SOME from cheating. If a crime is commited against you, do you really want the perp to go free if he can just wait out the statute of limitations?


From the perspective of the athletes, your view makes sense.

From the perspective of the spectator, they go to a competition and they see someone seemingly win but who knows what will happen 5 years down the road when something will happen that will change the results. I want there to be rigor in testing at the meet and during the year. If someone is found dirty, then disqualify them from then on and if it is in the 24 hours between end of competition and the medal ceremony then disqualify them. After that, then we are done. The result is final and we wait until the next competition.
Dave
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:15 pm

Dave wrote:After that, then we are done. The result is final and we wait until the next competition.

I 'hate' the fact that the EG women cheated so thoroughly and put up marks that were completely 'false'. I would love to see them stripped of everything. The flip side of that, however, is that we have no idea who else was dirty then. It's a no-win situation. But I still say, punish the known guilty.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Dave » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:21 pm

tafnut wrote:
Dave wrote:After that, then we are done. The result is final and we wait until the next competition.

I 'hate' the fact that the EG women cheated so thoroughly and put up marks that were completely 'false'. I would love to see them stripped of everything. The flip side of that, however, is that we have no idea who else was dirty then. It's a no-win situation. But I still say, punish the known guilty.


I seem to remember as a kid reading about steroid use at the Mexico City games along with payoffs from the shoe companies. This is a very very old problem.
Dave
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby oldvaulter » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:42 pm

Dave wrote:I seem to remember as a kid reading about steroid use at the Mexico City games along with payoffs from the shoe companies. This is a very very old problem.


Were drugs illegal in 1968? I've been wondering about this. I think I asked this question on this forum several years ago but either I didn't get a definitive answer or else I've forgotten it: When were drugs outlawed in track and field?

It seems logical that if retroactive nullification and revision of results is the rule, as the majority evidently favor in the poll here, that the cut off would be when the drugs were made illegal. All results in all competitions affected by the drug ban are tentative since that time. We haven't had a definitive Olympic champion since the last Olympics held without rules regarding PEDs. Even the King's "Jesse Owens" accomplishment in 1984, as well as his four LJ golds in row, are only tentative results. They're not final. As long as there is no statute of limitations allowing the certification of truly final results, nothing is decided.

New technologies will be developed. King Carl's body will be exhumed in a couple hundred years when it will be possible to examine whatever cells remain to determine if he ever took steroids. If the result is "yes", then his results from a couple centuries before will be nullified. The medals will be awarded to other athletes, posthumously of course. No achievement in the sport is ever final or definitive. It's always open to revision. The race is never over. There is no finish line. What a sport!
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby Dave » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:29 pm

Nah, by that time no one will much care about either the Olympics or track. it will have all gotten too confusing about who wins or loses that no one will care.
Dave
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby Dave » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:34 pm

oldvaulter wrote:
Dave wrote:I seem to remember as a kid reading about steroid use at the Mexico City games along with payoffs from the shoe companies. This is a very very old problem.


Were drugs illegal in 1968? I've been wondering about this. I think I asked this question on this forum several years ago but either I didn't get a definitive answer or else I've forgotten it: When were drugs outlawed in track and field?

It seems logical that if retroactive nullification and revision of results is the rule, as the majority evidently favor in the poll here, that the cut off would be when the drugs were made illegal. All results in all competitions affected by the drug ban are tentative since that time. We haven't had a definitive Olympic champion since the last Olympics held without rules regarding PEDs. Even the King's "Jesse Owens" accomplishment in 1984, as well as his four LJ golds in row, are only tentative results. They're not final. As long as there is no statute of limitations allowing the certification of truly final results, nothing is decided.

New technologies will be developed. King Carl's body will be exhumed in a couple hundred years when it will be possible to examine whatever cells remain to determine if he ever took steroids. If the result is "yes", then his results from a couple centuries before will be nullified. The medals will be awarded to other athletes, posthumously of course. No achievement in the sport is ever final or definitive. It's always open to revision. The race is never over. There is no finish line. What a sport!


From what I can find on the web, steroids were banned in 1967.

http://www.google.com/views?q=steroids+ ... &ct=tlmore
Dave
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations

Postby BruceFlorman » Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:43 pm

tafnut wrote:
BruceFlorman wrote:And when you catch one, what should be done?

ban him/her.

Is that all, or do you also rewrite the results? If someone asks, "Who won the 100?", should we be able to give a difinite answer, or must we forever preface the answer with: "From what we know so far ..."
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Re: doping: a modest proposal for a statute of limitations

Postby tafnut » Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:40 pm

BruceFlorman wrote:
tafnut wrote:ban him/her.

Is that all, or do you also rewrite the results? If someone asks, "Who won the 100?", should we be able to give a difinite answer, or must we forever preface the answer with: "From what we know so far ..."

Leave the results, but with the Scarlet Asterisk attached. :twisted:
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby donley2 » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:14 am

oldvaulter wrote:Yes, yes you sound very righteous. You're just ignoring the FACT that no definitive results means no meaningful competition means no respectable sport. If it weren't for that all-important caveat, I would be agreeing with you. As long as you continue to ignore this all-important point, there is nothing to be gained by further discussion.


Your logical conclusions I find a serious stretch. Other institutions (say the NCAA) engage in after the fact disqualifications and re-naming of champions in sports such as football and basketball and I tend to think it has exactly zero affect on there popularity. If the long after the fact disqualifications in track and field are actually having any affect on the sports popularity I would estimate it the be miniscule. The damage to the sport is done when the drug story breaks, with or without new medals being handed out.
donley2
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Postby oldvaulter » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:23 am

donley2 wrote:Other institutions (say the NCAA) engage in after the fact disqualifications and re-naming of champions in sports such as football and basketball


I've never heard of a single case of the winner of an NCAA football or basketball game being changed after the fact. Can you give specific examples?
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby donley2 » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:33 am

oldvaulter wrote:
donley2 wrote:Other institutions (say the NCAA) engage in after the fact disqualifications and re-naming of champions in sports such as football and basketball


I've never heard of a single case of the winner of an NCAA football or basketball game being changed after the fact. Can you give specific examples?


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2933008
donley2
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Postby oldvaulter » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:54 am

donley2 wrote:http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2933008


Good example, but you don't think this is bad for sports? For NCAA sports? For Oklahoma University sports? For Oklahoma football? The nullification of games is very unfortunate for all the athletes and fans. It has a very damaging effect on the sport. I think the NCAA and the U. of O. would agree with this.

Game results were nullified due to rule violations, but I didn't see any mention of doping, which is what we've been taking about in this thread. Also the context of this discussion has been largely about professional sports at the world and Olympic level.

I have no objection to results being nullified if it's done immediately, or within a specified statute of limitations. That's what I've been arguing for in this thread -- not that there would never be a nullification or revision of results, only that it be done within a predetermined specified time, and after that time expires, the results stand if they have not already been nullified.

Are you sure that that was not the case in the Oklahoma football case you mentioned? It's possible that after a certain period of time it may not have been possible to go back and nullify results. Maybe they just acted within their own statute of limitations. Do you know?

Why do you think that professional sports such as football, basketbal, and baseballl do NOT nullify the results of completed games even if it turns out later that there was some infraction of the rules?
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby Justin Clouder » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:07 am

There have been examples in both club and international football (soccer) of results being altered, notably when crowd violence disrupts the game or an ineligible player is fielded. The usual decision is to award the game 3-0 to the non-offending team.

Two examples - a tiny club were (very harshly) thrown out of the FA Cup (major English soccer competition) last year for fielding an ineligible player and a Sweden-Denmark international match which finished 3-3 was awarded 3-0 to Sweden after a Danish fan attacked the referee.

Not quite the same I know, but they illustrate that the principle of changing the official results of sports events afterwards is far from confined to T&F.

Justin
Justin Clouder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:14 am
Location: London, UK

Postby oldvaulter » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:09 am

donley2 wrote:http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2933008


Looking further at the article you cited, I notice that the nullification of game results was subject to appeal by Oklahoma and that they were planning an appeal at the time of the article. So it's not clear whether the game nullifications finally stood or not.

Also, the infraction involved was about athletes who got paid for work they apparently didn't do. When I was at UCLA in the sixties, on an NCAA championship track team (1966), phony "make-work" "jobs" for athletes were pretty common. There were sometimes work requirements to get certain types of grants given to athletes, and the work was usually nominal, super-easy, or basically non-existent. This sounds like the same kind of setup that was cited in the Oklahoma football case. Since this was the case at UCLA in the sixties, do you think that UCLA should now be stripped of its 1966 NCAA track and field title, and all the results from all competitions that season nullified?
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby oldvaulter » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:11 am

Justin Clouder wrote:There have been examples in both club and international football (soccer) of results being altered, notably when crowd violence disrupts the game or an ineligible player is fielded. The usual decision is to award the game 3-0 to the non-offending team.

Two examples - a tiny club were (very harshly) thrown out of the FA Cup (major English soccer competition) last year for fielding an ineligible player and a Sweden-Denmark international match which finished 3-3 was awarded 3-0 to Sweden after a Danish fan attacked the referee.

Not quite the same I know, but they illustrate that the principle of changing the official results of sports events afterwards is far from confined to T&F.


Are these cases where there is no statute of limitations and the results of the game can be nullified or changed no matter how long after the event -- even many years? (As in the case of Marion's Sydney results.)
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby Justin Clouder » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:42 am

Not in the cases I cited since each was part of a championship - the FA Cup is a knockout competition so the offending team had to be thrown out before the next round. The international match was part of qualifying for next year's European soccer champs so again all issues had to be sorted out reasonably promptly - the qualifying round matches finish on Wednesday.

I don't know what would happen if a team which fielded an ineligible player (for example) had already played a subsequent round before their infringment was discovered.

There have been examples in football of wrongdoing coming to light long after the event - bribing the referee in one infamous example - and no action was taken.

Justin
Justin Clouder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:14 am
Location: London, UK

Postby tandfman » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:51 am

oldvaulter wrote: When I was at UCLA in the sixties, on an NCAA championship track team (1966), phony "make-work" "jobs" for athletes were pretty common. There were sometimes work requirements to get certain types of grants given to athletes, and the work was usually nominal, super-easy, or basically non-existent. This sounds like the same kind of setup that was cited in the Oklahoma football case. Since this was the case at UCLA in the sixties, do you think that UCLA should now be stripped of its 1966 NCAA track and field title, and all the results from all competitions that season nullified?

Based on a single unsubstantiated post by someone on an Internet message board recalling events that happened more than 40 years ago, no.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby oldvaulter » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:53 am

Justin Clouder wrote:Not in the cases I cited since each was part of a championship - the FA Cup is a knockout competition so the offending team had to be thrown out before the next round. The international match was part of qualifying for next year's European soccer champs so again all issues had to be sorted out reasonably promptly - the qualifying round matches finish on Wednesday.

I don't know what would happen if a team which fielded an ineligible player (for example) had already played a subsequent round before their infringment was discovered.

There have been examples in football of wrongdoing coming to light long after the event - bribing the referee in one infamous example - and no action was taken.


The types of competition you refer to here are good examples of why it is necessary to certify the results of sporting events as final, either immediately after the event or after a specified statute of limitations as we have been discussing in this thread. Leaving the results open-ended and forever subject to change is not only detrimental to the sport, it's completely unworkable in many instances such as those you cite.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby oldvaulter » Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:55 am

tandfman wrote:
oldvaulter wrote: When I was at UCLA in the sixties, on an NCAA championship track team (1966), phony "make-work" "jobs" for athletes were pretty common. There were sometimes work requirements to get certain types of grants given to athletes, and the work was usually nominal, super-easy, or basically non-existent. This sounds like the same kind of setup that was cited in the Oklahoma football case. Since this was the case at UCLA in the sixties, do you think that UCLA should now be stripped of its 1966 NCAA track and field title, and all the results from all competitions that season nullified?

Based on a single unsubstantiated post by someone on an Internet message board recalling events that happened more than 40 years ago, no.


The difficulty in substantiating events that took place years ago is one of the many reasons why there needs to be a statute of limitations allowing the certiification of the results of athletic events as final. (This is also one of the reasons why statutes of limitation apply to most crimes.)

But I wonder from your comment, if it were possible to provide credible documentation of the kind of activity I cited, would you favor nullifying a result from 41 years ago? That's really the relevant question here.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby Justin Clouder » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:12 pm

BTW, don't the IOC have a 8-year statute of limitations? Which would be why none of the GDR results from the 1970s have been annuled.

Justin
Justin Clouder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:14 am
Location: London, UK

Postby oldvaulter » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:18 pm

Justin Clouder wrote:BTW, don't the IOC have a 8-year statute of limitations? Which would be why none of the GDR results from the 1970s have been annuled.


Interesting. I don't know the IOC rules on this. The majority of respondents in this poll are obviously against such an SOL and would prefer to see retroactive nullifications without any time limitation. I favor the SOL and would be glad to know if the IOC has one in place as you suggest. I think eight years is a bit on the long side, but much better than nothing.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby tandfman » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:23 pm

oldvaulter wrote:
tandfman wrote:
oldvaulter wrote: When I was at UCLA in the sixties, on an NCAA championship track team (1966), phony "make-work" "jobs" for athletes were pretty common. There were sometimes work requirements to get certain types of grants given to athletes, and the work was usually nominal, super-easy, or basically non-existent. This sounds like the same kind of setup that was cited in the Oklahoma football case. Since this was the case at UCLA in the sixties, do you think that UCLA should now be stripped of its 1966 NCAA track and field title, and all the results from all competitions that season nullified?

Based on a single unsubstantiated post by someone on an Internet message board recalling events that happened more than 40 years ago, no.

The difficulty in substantiating events that took place years ago is one of the many reasons why there needs to be a statute of limitations allowing the certiification of the results of athletic events as final. (This is also one of the reasons why statutes of limitation apply to most crimes.)

But I wonder from your comment, if it were possible to provide credible documentation of the kind of activity I cited, would you favor nullifying a result from 41 years ago? That's really the relevant question here.

Does the NCAA rules have a statute of limitations that would apply to violations like that? I've no idea, but if they have no statute of limitations, then I'd favor enforcing the rules. If they do have a statute of limitations that would prevent that enforcement, then so be it.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby oldvaulter » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:29 pm

tandfman wrote:Does the NCAA rules have a statute of limitations that would apply to violations like that? I've no idea, but if they have no statute of limitations, then I'd favor enforcing the rules. If they do have a statute of limitations that would prevent that enforcement, then so be it.


So I guess your opinion is "whatever the existing rules are". Fine, but the question posed in this thread is whether or not you think there should be an SOL or not.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby Pego » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:29 pm

oldvaulter wrote:
Justin Clouder wrote:BTW, don't the IOC have a 8-year statute of limitations? Which would be why none of the GDR results from the 1970s have been annuled.


Interesting. I don't know the IOC rules on this. The majority of respondents in this poll are obviously against such an SOL and would prefer to see retroactive nullifications without any time limitation. I favor the SOL and would be glad to know if the IOC has one in place as you suggest. I think eight years is a bit on the long side, but much better than nothing.


I agree. Eight years is way too long. One Olympiad should be the maximum upper limit. If the don't catch you in four years, you beat the system. I can already hear Marion haters howl.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Justin Clouder » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:34 pm

Just to clarify I don't know for sure that there is an 8-yr rule, I just seem to recall that being cited as the reason all the East German results still stand.

Justin
Justin Clouder
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:14 am
Location: London, UK

Postby oldvaulter » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:40 pm

Pego wrote:I agree. Eight years is way too long. One Olympiad should be the maximum upper limit. If the don't catch you in four years, you beat the system. I can already hear Marion haters howl.


I've been thinking about this because a specific time was mentioned in the original poll that began this thread, but it was put forward tentatively, not a firmly recommended SOL time. I've avoided mentioning any specific SOL time limit in my many posts in this thread because I couldn't come up with a number that "seemed right". However, hearing your suggestion, I think it is quite reasonable and good working figure.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Postby donley2 » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:58 pm

Justin Clouder wrote:Just to clarify I don't know for sure that there is an 8-yr rule, I just seem to recall that being cited as the reason all the East German results still stand.

Justin


I am reasonably certain current WADA code has an 8 year statute of limitations. This link http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/docu ... les_v2.pdf (on page 31) seems to support that.
donley2
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Postby oldvaulter » Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:11 pm

ARTICLE 16 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
No action may be commenced under these Anti-Doping Rules against an Athlete or other Person for a violation of an anti-doping rule contained in these Anti-Doping Rules unless such action is commenced within eight years from the date the violation occurred.


From the small sampling of poll results here it seems that the majority favor repealing this rule and having no SOL. I applaud the SOL and would like to see it shortened. As conditions are today, pego's suggestion of one Olympic cycle seems reasonable.

I would actually prefer a much shorter SOL, but given the difficulty in detecting PEDs with today's technology, that may be a ways off. I have in mind a futuristic machine that might look something like those doorframe metal detectors in the airports. Except when you walk through it it gives an instant readout of not only every substance in your body, but also looks at subtle metabolic markers which would indicate past use of prohibited substances, masking agents, or whatever. If you pass the test as you enter the competition arena, you are eligible to compete and your results count. Otherwise not. I think such a machine may be 50 to 100 years in the future, unfortunately.
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest