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 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: 10198
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: 2060
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

Postby Dave » Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:19 pm

oldvaulter wrote:
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.


I have no idea what others know but this is new information for me. I agree that the period should be much shorter. I really like the idea of ratifying results within 24 hours unless a protest has been lodged. Once the results have been ratified, they stand. An Olympic cycle still seems way too long.
Dave
 
Posts: 2120
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Postby oldvaulter » Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:26 pm

Dave wrote:I agree that the period should be much shorter. I really like the idea of ratifying results within 24 hours unless a protest has been lodged. Once the results have been ratified, they stand. An Olympic cycle still seems way too long.


I like the 24-hour idea too. I think it would be best for the sport, the athletes, and the fans. But PEDs are a serious problem and I'm afraid the technology of detection is just too primitive now. I wonder if we had a one year SOL if it would spur advances in the detection technology? Perhaps the eight year SOL encourages sluggishness in making advances in this area, or in pursuing suspected violations. (Not underestimating the technological challenges in doing this, however.)
oldvaulter
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: rural Northern California

............................................................

Postby Mats Nilsson » Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:06 pm

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Last edited by Mats Nilsson on Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mats Nilsson
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:20 am

Postby tafnut » Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:02 pm

Mats Nilsson wrote:.I especially feel your hypocrisy. What about the US women? Do you feel the same hate towards them? Will you spit on Marion's grave as well? At least the East block women were not caught with a positive test. The population of the good ole' red/white/blue drug-monster keeps on living in denial...

I'm beginning to feel you'll NEVER get it, Mats. I hate USA cheaters even MORE!!!
a. not getting caught is a non-starter. Very FEW got caught back then.
b. NO ONE is in denial about the amount of cheating going on.
c. We KNOW that the DDR was systemically dirty - across the board.
d. We know that many western athletes were dirty - we just don't know which ones. We ban the ones we DO know.
e. did you even READ my post??!!
:roll:
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby tafnut » Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:10 pm

tafnut wrote:I would like to save it, but that would require a Zero Tolerance policy that no one has the courage to institute.

headline from home-page

European AA General Director Milz Pushes For Zero Tolerance

Glad to see he read my post! Wink
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Powell » Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:35 am

Speaking of retroactively changing results - the 1912 OG decathlon results were changed some 70 years after the event took place :!:
Powell
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Postby Andrea_T » Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:37 am

tafnut wrote:I'm beginning to feel you'll NEVER get it, Mats. I hate USA cheaters even MORE!!!
a. not getting caught is a non-starter. Very FEW got caught back then.
b. NO ONE is in denial about the amount of cheating going on.
c. We KNOW that the DDR was systemically dirty - across the board.
d. We know that many western athletes were dirty - we just don't know which ones. We ban the ones we DO know.
e. did you even READ my post??!!
:roll:


a. Agreed
b. I don't know, you seemed to deny Marion Jones was doped right til the end. Rose tinted glasses and all that.
c. No we do not. Not every athlete is mentioned, there is no record of certain athletes - fact. If you are making the assumption that every GDR athlete was doped because some are mentioned in government files, then we can just as easily assume that every American woman sprinter is doped because of Jones, White, Gaines, Edwards, Jenkins etc. At the very least that any athlete that has been coached by their coach is/was doped, no?
d. Oh I don't know, some are blindingly obvious.
e. Yes. :lol:
Andrea_T
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby Andrea_T » Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:30 am

tafnut wrote: 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.


Are these the same EG women that were beaten by a 'clean' Ashford, a 'clean' Brisco, a 'clean' JJK, a 'clean' Flo Jo? Is 7,291 really a 'true' mark and 47.60 a 'false' mark?
Andrea_T
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby tafnut » Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:20 am

Andrea_T wrote:Are these the same EG women that were beaten by a 'clean' Ashford, a 'clean' Brisco, a 'clean' JJK, a 'clean' Flo Jo? Is 7,291 really a 'true' mark and 47.60 a 'false' mark?

As soon as you show me the proof that the others were dirty. That's exactly what I said about Marion also. When the proof came, I believed it. As it stands know, everyone else is in the same boat: 'not guilty'. Except the DDR women whom we know weren't.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby MJD » Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:23 am

Dave wrote:no comments? and 5 votes?.


I think you may have put an expiry time on it. I can't vote. That doesn't help.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Andrea_T » Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:01 am

tafnut wrote:As soon as you show me the proof that the others were dirty. That's exactly what I said about Marion also. When the proof came, I believed it. As it stands know, everyone else is in the same boat: 'not guilty'. Except the DDR women whom we know weren't.


Right, so 7,291 is a clean, un-aided human feat in your eyes?

What EG women do you know that were doped? Tell me which ones are mentioned in the stasi files please - all of them? I think you'll find they're not all mentioned. Do you know which ones are and which ones aren't? I'd say you don't. I'd say you have read somewhere that x has been, and so you have assumed there is evidence that all the women were doped, without there actually being the evidence.

The fact is we do not know that ALL EG women were doped, because the evidence does not exist that shows they all were - fact.
Andrea_T
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Royal Britannia

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests