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 Chrome Dome » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:07 pm

Let's hope the appeal process is effective so as to render a decision soon enough to allow him to qualify for the olympic trials if he is successful. Or maybe he would automatically qualify as the current Olympic Champion.
Chrome Dome
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Over the hill

Postby donley2 » Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:39 pm

Chrome Dome wrote:Let's hope the appeal process is effective so as to render a decision soon enough to allow him to qualify for the olympic trials if he is successful. Or maybe he would automatically qualify as the current Olympic Champion.


While I seriously doubt Gatlin's legal team can pull a rabiit out of their hat in time to allow that, it would be interesting to note if the fact he chose to compete at USATF in 2006 could extend the time frame past the trials making that impossible.
donley2
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Postby justblaze1011 » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:29 pm

BillVol wrote:I have little sympathy for someone who made a conscious decision to choose the coach he chose. In fact, I have no sympathy. Justin has hurt so many people who supported him.



Justin didn't choose his coach, Nike told him he had to go to Graham. He had no choice in the matter, or he would of stayed with Coach Anderson, formerly of Tenn. now coaching at Texas A&M. This is facts, not heresay!
justblaze1011
 
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: Arrogant Avenue!!!

Postby EPelle » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 pm

Conflicting with this, however:

"I've told Justin, 'You're judged by the company you keep,'" Nehemiah said.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:31 am

donley2 wrote:
Chrome Dome wrote:Let's hope the appeal process is effective so as to render a decision soon enough to allow him to qualify for the olympic trials if he is successful. Or maybe he would automatically qualify as the current Olympic Champion.


While I seriously doubt Gatlin's legal team can pull a rabiit out of their hat in time to allow that, it would be interesting to note if the fact he chose to compete at USATF in 2006 could extend the time frame past the trials making that impossible.

The 2008 Trials will be more than two years after 2006 USATF, so even if he had run the 2006 USATF, if the penalty were reduced to two years, it would be possible for him to run the Trials.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Pego » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:03 am

I'd like to join Eldrick's position. The first "offense" is a crying shame. Adderall has practically zero PED value. It should have been rescinded.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:26 am

    6.8 In attacking any reliance on his first violation as a basis for finding the present case to be a second violation, Mr. Gatlin first argues it is too old and too insignificant to count as a first offense. He argues that the WADA Code is somehow unfair in that it does not impose a time limit on the interval between the first violation and the second violation, as may be the case in other legal settings. For example, Mr. Gatlin asserts this Panel should consider the requirements of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines (“Guidelines”) Manual for criminal cases, to determine an appropriate sanction for Mr. Gatlin’s second violation. The Panel rejects this contention.

    6.9 Mr. Gatlin further argued that the Guidelines limit the duration of time an offense of a juvenile can be considered to five (5) years. He asserts that because the first event was in the 2001 U.S. Junior Nationals, an age restricted event, Mr. Gatlin, though 19 at the time, should be considered a minor for the purposes of the Panel’s evaluation under the Guidelines. This argument is similarly rejected with the same cautionary note as with the prior argument.
    6.16 Mr. Gatlin then goes to the heart of his argument. He argues his first violation was vacated by the IAAF. Therefore, as a result of that action by the IAAF, there can be no first violation upon which to enhance the penalty in this case. Either the decision of a first doping violation was vacated and hence of no effect, or the IAAF, in finding “exceptional circumstances,” implicitly made a finding of no fault or negligence for the first violation. It is this issue which has occupied this Panel and lead to the reopening of the record and supplemental briefing herein.

    6.17 First, the Panel must note that the 2001 AAA Panel’s decision was not overturned or vacated by the IAAF. That is not within the purview of the IAAF, but within that of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”). Rather, the IAAF was able to act under its code to reinstate an athlete despite a finding of a doping violation, and that appears to be what was done in 2002. Second, the Panel must note that no appeal to CAS was taken from the 2001 first finding of a doping violation. Finally, the Panel notes that the 2001 AAA Panel decision, while “retain[ing] full jurisdiction . . . so that it may reconsider the two-year suspension” which was imposed by that Panel, the 2001 AAA Panel did find a doping violation and did impose a period of ineligibility.

    Circumstances intervened so that, although retaining “full jurisdiction,” the 2001 AAA Panel was never called upon by Mr. Gatlin to reconsider the case, nor did it take it upon itself to reconsider or otherwise finalize its decision and award once the IAAF found “exceptional circumstances” and reinstated Mr. Gatlin. That 2001 AAA Panel never surrendered juridiction either.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:36 am

Pego wrote:I'd like to join Eldrick's position. The first "offense" is a crying shame. Adderall has practically zero PED value. It should have been rescinded.


Sorry, you and Eldrick are merely MDs. What the hell do you know compared to a bunch of suits?
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Chrome Dome » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:50 am

I had told myself I would not read any doping related threads once I started reading this site last spring. Alas, here I am. So I apologize if the points I am considering have come up before.

This does seem to be a special case. Assuming Gatlin does exercise all avenues of appeal , here are some thoughts coming from a lay - person , ie, not a legal professional:

1. If he is successful in appeal by June 28 (the day the 100 M begins), then there is no problem since he automatically qualifies to compete as a reigning olympic medalist (in this case, gold).

2. If his case is still o/s in the legal courts ( as opposed to IAAF/IOC) at that time, unless there has already been a decision by IOC/IAAF favourable to him, then there is a problem, maybe to them. There might be a risk if he was successful subsequently in the Court of Law, under principle of discrimination because of his illness/disability, and, given the concept of "justice delayed is justice denied", that he could initiate suite for damages.

So it might, if such is true, be prudent for IOC/IAAF to just reduce the penalty to 2 years to reduce the risk.
Chrome Dome
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Over the hill

Postby Flumpy » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:22 pm

Chrome Dome wrote:
1. If he is successful in appeal by June 28 (the day the 100 M begins), then there is no problem since he automatically qualifies to compete as a reigning olympic medalist (in this case, gold).


There is no such rule.

Reigning World Champions (No medalists) get to defend their titles but Oly champs have to qualify lie everyone else.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Chrome Dome » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:14 pm

On the Trials web site it appears to me to state that all olympic medalists in 2004 qualify automatically for the Trials.
Chrome Dome
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Over the hill

Postby tandfman » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:19 pm

Flumpy wrote:
Chrome Dome wrote:
1. If he is successful in appeal by June 28 (the day the 100 M begins), then there is no problem since he automatically qualifies to compete as a reigning olympic medalist (in this case, gold).

There is no such rule.

Yes, there is. It's a USATF rule and it applies to the USATF National Championships and Olympic Trials. Anyone who has won an individual medal in the OG or WCh in the previous four years is automatically qualified for the USA National Championshps and Olympic Trials. The qualifying time requirement that would otherwise be applicable is waived for such individuals.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:05 pm

If this mess is not cleared up WADA and all of its related agencies will have zero chance of influencing drug use regulation in USA profession sports. You cannot have such extreme requirement to conform to an arbitrary rule that you get stupid results that ruin careers.

flumpy et al can be as high and mighty as they want to be but defending an arbitrary rule for the purposes of saying he should be banned forever is way over the top and will not be tolerated in the world of professional sports. Those guys are not that stupid. However, the history of AAU/Olympic stuff has shown that those organizations have been corrupt and if they are not banning all of those with real legal conflicts and corrupt acts from their own governing body then they should not hold others to a much higher code of conduct and expect others to applaud.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Flumpy » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:43 pm

Chrome Dome wrote:On the Trials web site it appears to me to state that all olympic medalists in 2004 qualify automatically for the Trials.


Sorry we've got our wires crossed. I thought you were talking about competing at the Olympics, not the trials.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:44 am

26mi235 wrote:If this mess is not cleared up WADA and all of its related agencies will have zero chance of influencing drug use regulation in USA profession sports. You cannot have such extreme requirement to conform to an arbitrary rule that you get stupid results that ruin careers.


Here:s an issue from earlier-mentioned decision:

Gatlin did NOT appeal to CAS from the 2001 first finding of a doping violation -- exactly what IAAF called it, though they stated there were "exceptional circumstances" in the case and re-instated him DESPITE that finding (rather than removing the word "violation"). The 2006-2007 arbitration Panel noted that the 2001 AAA Panel decision, while “retain[ing] full jurisdiction . . . so that it may reconsider the two-year suspension” which was imposed by that Panel, the 2001 AAA Panel did find a doping violation and it did impose a period of ineligibility. Gatlin never asked for intervention, he did not request the 2001 AAA Panel to reconsider the case, nor did the panel take it upon itself to reconsider or otherwise finalise its decision and award once the IAAF found “exceptional circumstances” did exist in the case against Gatlin; USADA even stated Gatlin wasn:t a doper, per sé, but no one struck the "offense" from the record. Further to that point, he did not request the IAAF to remove the word "violation" or the word "offense" from record as to state there was no such initial transgression of their anti-doping code.

Gatlin, six years later, has never contested the terms "offense" or "guilty", rather has now stated that he was a minor back then, and in the US courts, minors would be judged differently than had they committed the same offense as an adult.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:57 am

EPelle wrote:Gatlin, six years later, has never contested the terms "offense" or "guilty", rather has now stated that he was a minor back then, and in the US courts, minors would be judged differently than had they committed the same offense as an adult.

He was 19 years old then, and I don't think US courts conisder 19-year old people to be minors for purposes of determining how they should be treated by the courts. The relatively young age of an adult may influence a sentencing decision, but I believe a 19-year old is still tried as an adult, not a minor.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:51 am

Thanks for bringing the age up. Here:s what was stated regarding being 19 at the time:

6.9 Mr. Gatlin further argued that the Guidelines limit the duration of time an offense of a juvenile can be considered to five (5) years. He asserts that because the first event was in the 2001 U.S. Junior Nationals, an age restricted event, Mr. Gatlin, though 19 at the time, should be considered a minor for the purposes of the Panel’s evaluation under the Guidelines. This argument is similarly rejected with the same cautionary note as with the prior argument.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:56 am

I'm not sure I understand that reasoning. Was his law dude arguing that because Gatlin could have been 17 years old and still competed in that meet he should be treated as a 17-year old even though he was, in fact, 19? (I suppose I should read the opinion(s) for further enlightenment, but I haven't done that.)
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:05 am

In all, he:s going to need IAAF to rescind their 2001 verdict of being "guilty" with extenuating circumstances. AAA state this will make a big difference in how they view the second offense. Why he never contested the 2001 IAAF result, "guilty", (or had an attorney file on his behalf) is beyond me.

He may have been a 19-year-old "juvenile" back then, but a good law dude would have requested the word "guilty" be stricken from IAAF and AAA language -- up through CAS if need be, as it would (and does now) have any number of negative consequences attached to it.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Chrome Dome » Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:55 am

I suspect that Gatlin did not follow up the ruling initially because he wanted to get on with his life and leave it all behind. He wasn't planning on using drugs etc, so he didn't look forward, which his what his lawyer should have done.

Then it appears from what is said above that he was pressured into aligning with the wrong coach ( he was very young). So it is possible he was a victim of circumstances, and, call me naive if you wish, but, even after the Jones fiasco, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Chrome Dome
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Over the hill

Postby gh » Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:35 am

EPelle wrote:.....

He may have been a 19-year-old "juvenile" back then, but a good law dude would have requested the word "guilty" be stricken from IAAF and AAA language -- up through CAS if need be, as it would (and does now) have any number of negative consequences attached to it.


There's nothing his law dude could have done to get the original "guilty" removed. He took the stuff and admitted it, and had to pay a minor price, given the draconian nature of the doping rules.

But the way the case was adjudicated, I imagine everybody came away thinking it had been pretty much a case of no-harm, no-foul. Here's how T&FN reported it in the June '02 issue:

<<Just days after Justin Gatlin's stunning performances created positive headlines at the SEC, the Tennessee soph became the focus of a positive drug test.

USADA announced a decision confirming that Gatlin had "inadvertently committed a doping violation" at last year's USATF Juniors. He tested positive for an amphetamine--a substance which carries a 2-year ban--in prescription medication he has taken for a decade.....

Gatlin stopped taking the medication several days before the meet, but it had not fully cleared his system and trace amounts in his urine resulted in the positive test.

The final decision, made by a 3-member panel of arbitrators from the American Arbitration Association and the North American Court Of Arbitration For Sport, found that "Mr. Gatlin's inadvertent violation of [IAAF] rules was at most a 'technical' or 'paperwork' violation."

The panel also stated the belief that Gatlin neither cheated nor intended to cheat. "At most, his mistake was in not raising his medical condition for a review before the [meet], instead of after it," the statement said.

Per IAAF rules, Gatlin was given a 2-year suspension from IAAF-sanctioned events, but retroactive to last July. The arbitration panel stated it wouldn't impose the full 2 years and "expressly retained jurisdiction of the case pending a satisfactory response from the IAAF Council to Gatlin's request for early reinstatement based on the exceptional circumstances in this case."

Gatlin's attorney, John Collins, says, "We have a great respect for the [IAAF][ and want to make sure we operate within their system. Everyone understands this isn't a case of Justin having done anything wrong."

Gatlin nonetheless forfeits the 100, 200 and 110H titles he won at the '01 Juniors but the decision affects neither any past NCAA victories, individual or team, nor his eligibility for this year's NCs.......>>
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Chrome Dome » Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:03 pm

Thanks GH for taking the time to reproduce the June 02 report. The report definitely helps one to understand the situation.

So he was guilty under the IAAF rules, no doubt . Maybe they need to modify the rules to provide for exceptional circumstances such as this which are so obvious . I suspect right now there are some of the tall foreheads over there who wish maybe they had.

This has become a Shakespearian tragedy.
Chrome Dome
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Over the hill

Postby gh » Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:05 pm

New story on front page says they may file a federal lawsuit over the whole thing.
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:10 am

gh wrote:New story on front page says they may file a federal lawsuit over the whole thing.


I am not a law dude, but I would not want to be on the other side:

1 the authorities admit that there was no competitive advantage
2 that it was minor and not intentional
3 that the drugs were prescribed by the doctor and taken as prescribed and for a medically recognized disability
4 that he was young and suffered substantially (loss of awards that were not obtained by artificial means

This is a case that the IAAF/WADA ought to figure out a way to make go away or they risk having the whole 'guilty no matter what' either taken away from them or to be at risk of diminished. They also might be risking a potentially costly lawsuit. Such a lawsuit might either have to be settled generously or they are going to face discovery obligations and heaven help them if there is something on the record somewhere that is not kosher.

Finally, to think that Gatlin, at 19, in college and not able to earn any money should have been thinking about a costly legal challenge is rather naive at best.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby gh » Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:08 am

law dude?
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Pego » Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:19 am

26mi235 wrote:
gh wrote:New story on front page says they may file a federal lawsuit over the whole thing.


I am not a law dude, but I would not want to be on the other side:

1 the authorities admit that there was no competitive advantage
2 that it was minor and not intentional
3 that the drugs were prescribed by the doctor and taken as prescribed and for a medically recognized disability
4 that he was young and suffered substantially (loss of awards that were not obtained by artificial means

This is a case that the IAAF/WADA ought to figure out a way to make go away or they risk having the whole 'guilty no matter what' either taken away from them or to be at risk of diminished. They also might be risking a potentially costly lawsuit. Such a lawsuit might either have to be settled generously or they are going to face discovery obligations and heaven help them if there is something on the record somewhere that is not kosher.

Finally, to think that Gatlin, at 19, in college and not able to earn any money should have been thinking about a costly legal challenge is rather naive at best.


I am not a law dude either, but I like Gatlin's chances in the federal court. 2 years was appropriate, 4 is excessive.
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby MJD » Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:38 am

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

Postby steve » Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:10 pm

MJD wrote:http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=423226#423226


I disagree
steve
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:46 pm

MJD wrote:http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=423226#423226


Are you saying that if you and markhj feel that way, it is so :shock: ?
Pego
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby eldrick » Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:53 pm

steve wrote:
MJD wrote:http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=423226#423226


I disagree


2nd that

( i agreed with steve on a point - i need a nootropic ! )

mjd, your default position is faulty

i cannot believe that a naive 19y kid on prescribed meds under a respected college coach wouda been anaboliking

they have drug tests for that

he failed none
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby marknhj » Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:06 pm

eldrick wrote:
steve wrote:
MJD wrote:http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=423226#423226




they have drug tests for that

he failed none


LMAO...!
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:36 pm

Same bunch were backing Marion. Some still are for crying out loud. I'm fine with where I am.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby eldrick » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:42 pm

if you are applying same argument to queen marion in '00 as no-name 19y ole justin of '01, then i am disappointed...
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby MJD » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:50 pm

Marion was even younger the first time she got busted. What's your point. I am not a big believer in ageism.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:53 pm

You're distorting the facts. The first time she got "busted" was when she missed a test as a high schooler when, as I recall, FedEx package went awry. Equating jaywalking with grand theft auto is silly.
gh
 
Posts: 46333
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby MJD » Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:57 pm

Maybe for anyone else but her crimes were systemic. Who knows what else she was doing at the time, as I said in my earlier post. And I won't even bring up her disappearing from the scene. malmo's oil well fire comes to mind here.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby eldrick » Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:13 pm

you suggesting a 16y gal was using drugs to win a school meet ?!


disappearing from scene ?

- you mean when she went to play lucrative basketball in mid-'90s ?

- pregnant in '02 ( drug use is teratogenic - you abort under this possibility ) ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby MJD » Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:15 pm

I am saying it is just as plausible as anything you might believe. Both of us have our theories but there is a difference with mine.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby eldrick » Thu Jan 10, 2008 6:33 pm

plausible range is

<0.0001% - 99.999%<

i'd reckon even the odds on oil dropping to 90 than bouncing to 100+ within 1/12 are better !
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby steve » Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:01 pm

eldrick wrote:
2nd that

( i agreed with steve on a point - i need a nootropic ! )

mjd, your default position is faulty

i cannot believe that a naive 19y kid on prescribed meds under a respected college coach wouda been anaboliking

they have drug tests for that

he failed none


Now I know I was wrong!!!
:D :D :D

There aren't enough nootropics on the planet..................you get the picture!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
steve
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests