Four-Year Ban for Gatlin


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.

Postby bambam » Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:58 am

Pego wrote:VII. CONCLUSION
It is deeply disturbing how the majority has played fast and loose with the facts and the
law in justifying discriminating against Mr. Gatlin. To find fault and fail to provide a
reasonable accommodation for the first violation of an athlete testing positive because of
a legitimately disability is an affront to the federal law and human rights. Such
discrimination is incompatible with the public policy of the United States and
Switzerland

It is signed Christopher Campbell. Does anybody know, who he is?


Chris Campbell was a wrestler who won a bronze medal in light-heavyweight freestyle for the United States at Barcelona in 1992. He became a lawyer and has spent a lot of time defending athletes related to drug accusations.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Postby Chrome Dome » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:01 am

So it seems Gatlin is guilty re the 2nd incident. The only question is was he duped or was it deliberate on his part. In fact this question is not that relevent as it now stands.

What is now important I think is that he is going to appeal the 1st incident decision.

If he is successful in the IAAF/IOC courts, then he can move on. Successful can only mean having the ban reduced to 2 years. Would he make the US olympic team? In the 200 I think not. However, in the 100 I think he would, since there is little depth outside of Gay & Dix. ( I do not think Holliday can be a consistent sub 9.90 guy. He is a little overrated since he has been really the only "new kid on the block" in the last year. I hope I am wrong. The only other is Carter, and he remains only a potential 100 candidate at this time, though I think he will develop this year. Hopefully, someone new will develop though. In an olympic year there usually is much more depth coming out in the sprints).

If he is not successful then it could get complicated. I think he will not be successful in the IAAF/IOC courts.

Then comes appeal in the US federal court of law. If he is not successful, end of his options I guess.

In the latter he seems to have a case in his favor based on discrimination relating to his illness. On the other hand, the length of time elapsed since the 1st decision will count against him probably.

If he is successful in the law court, then it may not have any financial impact on the IAAF/IOC., but would certainly be embarrasing & harm the credibilty of both organizations. However it would be a serious blow to the USATF/USOC I would think, because of the near certainty of damages, possibly punative.

So it would appear prudent to the USATF/USOC to consider finding some way for the international orgs to cut off the appeals.Maybe a preemptive reduction in the ban. Such a move would also result in loss of credabilty, but less so than if they lose in court, and would avoid financial risk.
Chrome Dome
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Over the hill

Postby Pego » Sat Jan 12, 2008 11:22 am

EPelle, bambam, thanks.

Now that I looked at EPelle's link, I just hit myself in the forehead. I do remember him as an Iowa wrestler.

I have to say, I like him. How else, he shares my opinion :wink: .
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:20 am

Gatlin team hires Landis attorney in attempt to reverse ban:
http://africa.reuters.com/sport/news/usnBAN330431.html
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:42 am

Pego wrote:EPelle, bambam, thanks.

Now that I looked at EPelle's link, I just hit myself in the forehead. I do remember him as an Iowa wrestler.

I have to say, I like him. How else, he shares my opinion :wink: .


Serendipity in the middle of the night.

I remember him as "that upstate New York lawyer who got up at 4am to train for the Olympics." He puts to shame the masses of whiny distance runners, who compete in the least time intensive of all sports and complain that they don't have enough time to train. Boo freaking hoo!

Double thanks for the memory refresher.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:32 am

EPelle wrote:Gatlin team hires Landis attorney in attempt to reverse ban:
http://africa.reuters.com/sport/news/usnBAN330431.html


Yes, that has worked out so well for Landis? How about the Ball State volunteers instead?
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:52 am

Won:t capture the un-informed public:s imagination:

Volonteer team to tackle on Supreme Court! Actually, perhaps it will, as some death-row folks have been known to get off the hook by volonteer teams.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:52 am

eldrick wrote:how about all his -ve drug tests ?


What's your point?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:07 pm

-ve drug tests as proof of being "clean"

wada/iaaf use those criteria

if that doesn't satisfy you & you think the athlete is still a cheat, then perhaps you can suggest another method to show they're clean ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby MJD » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:10 pm

eldrick wrote:-ve drug tests as proof of being "clean"


Funny.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:11 pm

MJD, this is the only figure you need to throw out there: 167-0.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:14 pm

MJD wrote:
eldrick wrote:-ve drug tests as proof of being "clean"


Funny.


& your suggestion...
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby MJD » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:16 pm

Not my problem. I'm not the one that has to be convinced of anything.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:18 pm

then why bring it up ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby marknhj » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:18 pm

eldy - would you like to see PEDs allowed in T&F?
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:22 pm

eldrick wrote:then why bring it up ?


I didn't. I gave my default position(convicted liar/cheat has the burden of proof shifted to them) which was challenged by a bunch of legalistic arguments which, as we all know, has nothing to do with common sense. Criminal vs civil so to speak.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:24 pm

marknhj wrote:eldy - would you like to see PEDs allowed in T&F?


no

just interested in rules being followed properly
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby MJD » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:25 pm

eldrick wrote:
marknhj wrote:eldy - would you like to see PEDs allowed in T&F?


no

just interested in rules being followed properly


Who is saying that they shouldn't be?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:27 pm

MJD wrote:
eldrick wrote:then why bring it up ?


I didn't. I gave my default position(convicted liar/cheat has the burden of proof shifted to them) which was challenged by a bunch of legalistic arguments which, as we all know, has nothing to do with common sense. Criminal vs civil so to speak.


in gatlin's case, he had -ve tests etween '02 - '06 & no mention of any missed tests during that period

what more do you have expected him to have done to have "shifted the burden of proof" ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:28 pm

Followed properly...by whom, the athletes? You weren:t interested in Rule 167-0, which is in direct relation to Gatlin:s.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby marknhj » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:32 pm

eldrick wrote:
MJD wrote:
eldrick wrote:then why bring it up ?


what more do you have expected him to have done to have "shifted the burden of proof" ?


To have not taken drugs at any time during his career, perhaps?
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:36 pm

marknhj wrote:
eldrick wrote:
MJD wrote:
eldrick wrote:then why bring it up ?


what more do you have expected him to have done to have "shifted the burden of proof" ?


To have not taken drugs at any time during his career, perhaps?


you mean prescribed medication ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:42 pm

EPelle wrote:Followed properly...by whom, the athletes? You weren:t interested in Rule 167-0, which is in direct relation to Gatlin:s.


from the authorities

from dissenter's statement :

The specific instruction of USAFT and USADA for athletes with ADD regarding the standard of care (i.e., merely stop taking your medication before competition) would override the general language of IAAF Rule 55 (5.1). This is particularly the case
because IAAF Rule 55 (5.3) creates an ambiguity when its states that a TUE would not be granted for Out-of-Competition use.
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby marknhj » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:42 pm

eldrick wrote:
marknhj wrote:
eldrick wrote:
MJD wrote:
eldrick wrote:then why bring it up ?


what more do you have expected him to have done to have "shifted the burden of proof" ?


To have not taken drugs at any time during his career, perhaps?


you mean prescribed medication ?


If he followed the rules that's fine, of course. I really am curious about this next question. As a fan of T&F are you interested in seeing Gatlin compete again, after all the legal stuff has been resolved? Assuming his best case scenario and he's back on the track this year.
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:43 pm

el, forget the first bust, the second bust is enough for us to feel that burden of proof AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED has shifted to him. Are you not getting that is what we are saying? Neither one of us isn't saying the legal process shouldn't play itself out.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:46 pm

if he's served the ban, then i have as much objection to him competing as any european/african/asian who also returns to competition after serving the appropriate punishment for a drug +ve
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby marknhj » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:50 pm

eldrick wrote:if he's served the ban, then i have as much objection to him competing as any european/african/asian who also returns to competition after serving the appropriate punishment for a drug +ve


That wasn't my question, apologies if I was less than clear. Do you, personally, as a fan of T&F, have an interest in watching him run on the track again?
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:50 pm

MJD wrote:el, forget the first bust, the second bust is enough for us to feel that burden of proof AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED has shifted to him. Are you not getting that is what we are saying? Neither one of us isn't saying the legal process shouldn't play itself out.


& what precisely is your time-frame for this burden of proof ?

'02 - '06 : all -ve tests, so has that satisfied the burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?

if/when he returns & the remainder of his career until retirement has -ve tests, does that satisfy your burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:53 pm

marknhj wrote:
eldrick wrote:if he's served the ban, then i have as much objection to him competing as any european/african/asian who also returns to competition after serving the appropriate punishment for a drug +ve


That wasn't my question, apologies if I was less than clear. Do you, personally, as a fan of T&F, have an interest in watching him run on the track again?


yes

i'd be interested in watching him
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby MJD » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:53 pm

I am not going to repeat myself about the negative tests. You keep bringing up legalistic arguments and that isn't what I am talking about here.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:53 pm

eldrick wrote:& what precisely is your time-frame for this burden of proof ?

'02 - '06 : all -ve tests, so has that satisfied the burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?

if/when he returns & the remainder of his career until retirement has -ve tests, does that satisfy your burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?

Seriously, does 167-0 mean nothing to you with respect to your particular point-of-view and presumptions?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 12:55 pm

MJD wrote:I am not going to repeat myself about the negative tests. You keep bringing up legalistic arguments and that isn't what I am talking about here.


then suggest something constructive
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby bad hammy » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:01 pm

marknhj wrote:That wasn't my question, apologies if I was less than clear. Do you, personally, as a fan of T&F, have an interest in watching him run on the track again?

Not that you asked, but put me down for a yes. At this level I believe that most participants in most pro sports are guilty of PED use, some regularly, some circumstantially (injury rehabs, etc.) Gatlin was one of the unlucky ones who got caught. He deserved a two year vacation (the initial test failure being a clerical issue) and should be back on the track later this year.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:03 pm

EPelle wrote:
eldrick wrote:& what precisely is your time-frame for this burden of proof ?

'02 - '06 : all -ve tests, so has that satisfied the burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?

if/when he returns & the remainder of his career until retirement has -ve tests, does that satisfy your burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?

Seriously, does 167-0 mean nothing to you with respect to your particular point-of-view and presumptions?


i got my answer from 55(5.3)
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby MJD » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:07 pm

eldrick wrote:
MJD wrote:I am not going to repeat myself about the negative tests. You keep bringing up legalistic arguments and that isn't what I am talking about here.


then suggest something constructive


We are talking about something to change my view which seem to bother you. I say again, not my problem.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby marknhj » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:07 pm

bad hammy wrote:
marknhj wrote:That wasn't my question, apologies if I was less than clear. Do you, personally, as a fan of T&F, have an interest in watching him run on the track again?

Not that you asked, but put me down for a yes. At this level I believe that most participants in most pro sports are guilty of PED use, some regularly, some circumstantially (injury rehabs, etc.) Gatlin was one of the unlucky ones who got caught. He deserved a two year vacation (the initial test failure being a clerical issue) and should be back on the track later this year.


"Gatlin was one of the unlucky ones to get caught"? You can't be serious in writing that, surely?

eldy - I think I just realised something. You want him and others back so you can get legit, un-PEded times, to stick in your formulas, right?!

I could care less if anyone caught, even once, ever sets foot on a track again. These people are ruining our sport and I resent them for it.
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:10 pm

MJD wrote:
eldrick wrote:
MJD wrote:I am not going to repeat myself about the negative tests. You keep bringing up legalistic arguments and that isn't what I am talking about here.


then suggest something constructive


We are talking about something to change my view which seem to bother you. I say again, not my problem.


believe you me, i have no bother whatsoever on your views on this matter
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:11 pm

eldrick wrote:
EPelle wrote:
eldrick wrote:& what precisely is your time-frame for this burden of proof ?

'02 - '06 : all -ve tests, so has that satisfied the burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?

if/when he returns & the remainder of his career until retirement has -ve tests, does that satisfy your burden of proof for that time-frame for you ?

Seriously, does 167-0 mean nothing to you with respect to your particular point-of-view and presumptions?


i got my answer from 55(5.3)

This is why MJD thought it was funny, and, incedentally, so do I. Rule 167-0 trumps 55(5,3) any time day or night year after year... as a matter of fact, it was written in the spring of 1997.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:16 pm

not according to chris campbell it doesn't
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 1:18 pm

I:ll leave it open to the floor for someone else to explain it to you.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest