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.
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.
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!
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.
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" ?
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
.