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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.......>>
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ) ?
The obvious disappearance which was not mentioned here was in 2003.
CA State Meet is not a school meet by any stretch of the imagination, and having stated so blackens your argument, not helps it. It is (arguably) the most difficult state to win a championship in. She won nine titles.
to me it's an insignificant school meet - show me 10.9/22-flat times from it & then i'm interested
Since you decided to use hand times: 10,9 = 11,14.
11,14 places top-5 at plenty of GP meets. MJ won 1992 CIF State Meet in 11,14, and 1991 state meet in 11,17 -- both under allowable winds. Kelli White was sixth in the 11,14 race.
Last edited by EPelle on Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
EPelle wrote:One doesn:t take two days (!) off from their training to have a baby, resume training, then miss an entire year to raise their kid
what does this nonsense mean ?
she had her baby june '03
for 3-4/12 before she'd have been too heavily pregnant & then afterwards she'd have been in no shape to compete for at least 3/12 to get the weight off
so mr obstetrician, please tell us how on earth you expected her to compete in '03 to any elite standard ?
to me it's an insignificant school meet - show me 10.9/22-flat times from it & then i'm interested
Since you decided to use hand times: 10,9 = 11,14.
11,14 places top-5 at plenty of GP meets. MJ won 1992 CIF State Meet in 11,14, and 1991 state meet in 11,17 -- both under allowable winds. Kelli White was sixth in the 11,14 race.
eldrick wrote:to me it's an insignificant school meet - show me 10.9/22-flat times from it & then i'm interested
Even if you are right, you won't get much agreement on this board that CA HS track isn't some of the best in the world. Now, suddenly, when talking about MJ, CA HS meets have been reduced to twilight meets with tafnut interfering near the pole vault pit. Quite funny. I can easily buy a 16 year old breaking the rules then. She had access to some of the best legal advice anyone could get-what is so unreasonable about her having access to PEDs at that age? I say again, what is with this MJ, Gatlin defending stuff? Shouldn't we all be happy these blights on the sport got busted, hope they are gone for good and move on?
for 3-4/12 before she'd have been too heavily pregnant & then afterwards she'd have been in no shape to compete for at least 3/12 to get the weight off
so mr obstetrician, please tell us how on earth you expected her to compete in '03 to any elite standard ?
Alas, a new title and plaque for my wall. May I choose which university from which I was awarded this? I:ll go with Stanford University School of Medicine. Gosh, how shall I integrate this degree with my current ones?
Need an answer? Ask Jones and Riddick -- who used her pregnancy as a basis of increased strength.
During her pregnancy, Marion gained only 27 pounds. Within two weeks of giving birth, she'd lost 25 pounds. How did she stay so fit? "I trained throughout the entire pregnancy," she says. "The only days I took off were the day before Monty was born and the day he was born. Two weeks after he was born, I started training again."
11,14 still places at nearly ever GP meet. Don:t avoid the obvious. You like to use NCAA-competition times as some sort of leverage in your arguments when appropriate (Gatlin), but not CA High School meet. Whatever. Good luck holding this argument with anyone else here who has the inclination or desire to play in the streets with you.
EPelle wrote:May I choose which university from which I was awarded this? I:ll go with Stanford University School of Medicine.
Good choice - altho the Law and Biz Schools are equally appealing! Actually almost all of Stanford's Grad schools are in the top 5 of the nation, so feel free to browse!
MJD, EPelle, don't you think you are arguing ad absurdum?
Marion was caught cheating, period. Anything before that is pure, unwaranted speculation. To argue that she continued using steroids during her pregnancy boggles the mind. No woman would do that for whatever reason.
Comparison of Gatlin's "first offense" with Marion's BALCO situation lacks any common points.
Pego wrote:To argue that she continued using steroids during her pregnancy boggles the mind
Please find where I said that. eldrick CONCLUDED that is what I was implying. You guys are trying to find arguments where they don't(and shouldn't) exist. I have no doubt they have both been serial offenders. Only comparison I have been making. I thought we were operating with blinders off now?
?
