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.

Four-Year Ban for Gatlin

Postby EPelle » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:05 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02614.html

In a split decision among three U.S. arbitrators that included a 53-page opinion and 22-page dissent, two arbitrators said they could not dole out less than a four-year ban to Gatlin because of a previous positive test, according to a person who had reviewed the decision. The opinion had not been publicly released as of last night.


One of the arbitrators, Chris Campbell, wrote in his dissent that Gatlin had been discriminated against under the Americans With Disabilities Act and had proven his sabotage claim only 33 percent, not the required 50.1 percent, according to the person who reviewed the opinion.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby dukehjsteve » Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:34 am

What's a Gatlin ? Didn't he invent the machine gun or something ?
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby RJMB_1 » Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:35 am

dukehjsteve wrote:What's a Gatlin ? Didn't he invent the machine gun or something ?


Exceedingly cutting!!!
RJMB_1
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: POKE 9450,173, Unlimited Kilobytes

Postby tafnut » Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:45 am

I can't see a successful comeback now.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby dukehjsteve » Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:19 am

tafnut wrote:I can't see a successful comeback now.


sob, sob, another lying BS'ing cheater goes down the drain....
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby pherekydes » Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:28 am

dukehjsteve wrote:sob, sob, another lying BS'ing cheater goes down the drain....


How do you know he was cheating?
pherekydes
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:18 pm

Postby marknhj » Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:45 am

"....discriminated against through the ADA...."

It's early, but best laugh of the year so far.....
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby nokick » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:29 am

well, if Gatlin only got 4 years--then, it is safe to say that it wasn't all cut and dry.

I am curious to the specific PED in question (I heard it was estrogen).

I am curious to know why not the mandatory 8 year ban.
nokick
 

Postby gh » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:32 am

They said from the get-go that they'd consider lightening his penalty if he'd "turn state's evidence," and apparently he was fully cooperative up and down the line.
gh
 
Posts: 46302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:41 am

Official.

USADA general counsel Bill Bock confirmed the report to The Associated Press, saying arbitrators acknowledged the help Gatlin provided to federal authorities "in investigating doping in sport, to extent of wearing wire in communications with his former coach," Trevor Graham.

Bock said USADA argued Gatlin didn't provide the agency with "real material assistance" in its investigation. But Bock said Jeff Novitzky, the lead investigator in the BALCO steroid investigation, testified about the assistance Gatlin provided to federal authorities in the Graham case.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iA1n ... AD8TT8TQO0
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

The Grid for Gatlin?

Postby bijanc » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:19 pm

Will Goodell let him play football?

Possible NFL career
I
t has also been reported that Gatlin plans to serve his eight year ban from the track on a football field. Following the 2007 NFL Draft Gatlin worked out with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Tennessee Titans in hopes of being a wide receiver...

...On May 4th 2007 The Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFL team announced that Gatlin would be one of 28 free agents taken to their 2007 rookie camp on tryout contracts, and is considered to be the most intriguing unsigned athlete in attendance. Gatlin will be trying out for the team as a wide receiver...

(fr. Wikipedia)
bijanc
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Grid for Gatlin?

Postby tandfman » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:43 pm

bijanc wrote:...On May 4th 2007 The Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFL team announced that Gatlin would be one of 28 free agents taken to their 2007 rookie camp on tryout contracts, and is considered to be the most intriguing unsigned athlete in attendance. Gatlin will be trying out for the team as a wide receiver...

Since the 2007 has come and gone without Gatlin, I imagine the intrigue faded quickly.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby dukehjsteve » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:47 pm

pherekydes wrote:
dukehjsteve wrote:sob, sob, another lying BS'ing cheater goes down the drain....


How do you know he was cheating?


I don't absolutely KNOW, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and finally is formally labelled a duck by experts, well then, I am quite sure that it is indeed a duck.
dukehjsteve
 
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fishers, IN

Postby tjallen » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:09 pm

NYTimes article contains this quote:

''We have no higher priority than the commitment we have made to clean competition,'' U.S. Olympic Committee spokesman Darryl Seibel said. ''If that means leaving behind when we go to the Games an athlete who has the talent and ability to break world records, but has also cheated, so be it. That's an easy choice to make. It's what the American public expects, and it's what the overwhelming majority of our athletes who choose to compete clean deserve.''


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-RUN-Gatlin-Doping.html

hmmmm
tjallen
tjallen
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: VA

Postby eldrick » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:59 am

as some of us have been arguing since '02 ( time of 1st ban ) & since the 2nd offense in '06, a contestation of the 1-strike for the '01 offense by team gatlin :

Both the opinion and dissent focused primarily on the 2001 case with considerably less discussion given to the second. Gatlin, 25, had argued that the first case should not count


the 1st-strike was vastly more important than the minor ban he got in '01

he shoud have fought then & there to have it not counted as a 1-strike, as for rest of his career he woud be walking a tight-rope

it was ludicrous to call a 1st strike for a minor drug, which has no proven stimulant properties ( the manufacturers list it in their datasheet as a "possible" side-effect, along with about 100 other "possibles" ), for which he'd been on for ~5y & which authorities knew about - all the requirements were, were to note it on the medical-form prior to competition & stop taking it 3 days before any competition ( which he'd probably done 20 or 30 times during his competitive life upto that point ) & he had fufilled the medical exemption criteria

he had important exams the week of the failed drug test, took the drug in order to be ready for these & overstepped the 3 day absence period & the drug showed up in his urine

a ban was required, but the 1st strike shouda been tooth-n-nail there & then ( but obviously he was a college-kid at the time with no money for lawers - it shouda been his college/ncaa's job to have fought against the 1st strike on his behalf )

even the panel seemed to acknowledge this & are indicating that he shoud now fight that 1st strike :

In the majority opinion, Colbert wrote that Gatlin's case was "particularly nettlesome" given the 2001 violation. The opinion actually urged Gatlin to try to take the first case to the world governing body of track and field (IAAF) or the original panel that reviewed it to see if either would declare that Gatlin had "no fault" in the violation. (The original panel had stated only that Gatlin did not intend to cheat and did not succeed in cheating.)

Should Gatlin obtain such a declaration, Colbert wrote, the panel could consider reducing the ban further.


in retrospect, he shouda fought that 1st strike soon as he had money to do so on his own - i e from '03 onwards

he had the sword of damocles hanging over his head since '01 & did nothing about it when he had the means/money - stupid management

personally, i think iaaf wouda rescinded the 1st strike years ago in light of the medical evidence, but now it's too late & too momentous a decision
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:05 am

Washington Post follow-up (From TFN front page):

"None of the stuff I have done to try to show my innocence, that I had nothing to do with the situation, helped at all," he said. "I feel like I got stuck in a bank that was getting robbed, and then they accused me of robbing the bank.

"The whole point of being sabotaged, you're not going to be able to prove 100 percent that you've been sabotaged. . . . They've taken away everything I've worked hard for."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02051.html
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:33 am

no one is contesting the 2nd ban - sabotage or not, it turned up in his system & that means a ban

the whole decision has come down to what some have been saying it woud do - get that 1st strike contested/lifted
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby BillVol » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:25 am

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.
Last edited by BillVol on Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
BillVol
 
Posts: 3758
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Postby EPelle » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:24 am

He wasn:t without warning with respect to that coaching choice. His parents were even warned.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:58 am

“No matter how much training you do, that’s a long time not to have stepped on to a track. He’s also not now earning a living from the sport, so it is unlikely he can continue as a full-time athlete.

“I’m a big fan that anyone who is caught should be banned for life. They would be no loss to the sport.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 122647.ece
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:02 am

It's completely irrelevant whether the first ban stood or not. If he hadn't taken drugs the 2nd time it wouldn't matter.

If indeed he didn't take drug and they were actully rubbed into his legs by disgruntled masseuse :roll: then i still have no sympathy whatsoever considering who his coach was. I agree with BillVol, anybody who made a conscious decision to be coached by him, deserves all they get.
Last edited by Flumpy on Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am

whether he got a 1st strike or not in '01 matters immensely

if he hadn't got that against his name at the time ( or gets it rescinded on appeal - for him, the appeal outcome woud have to be within months ), the steroid conviction becomes the 1st offence & as with any standard 1st offence ( there are no mickey-mouse michelle collins circumstances re: guilt to extend a 1st offence ), he gets a 2y ban

that means he's eligible to resume competition in may '08 & able to compete in trials & bejiing if he qualifies thru them

discussion re: his '01 1st strike isn't just about semantics/blowing hot air/etc

for him it means difference between a shot at bejiing or not
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Flumpy » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:18 pm

You've missed my point eldy but i hav a plane to catch so I haven't time to clarify.

Maybe later.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:29 pm

if it's going to be a post on personal opinions of the man/coach/uncle tom cobbleigh's roadsweeper, then leave it out : we have 2 dozen+ locked topics on that & i doubt gh is interested in reading/allowing much O2 to another one

bottom line :

decision on the 1st strike has potentially big impact on the bejiing 100m

that is the main topic of interest
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:40 pm

Gatlin:s counsel may take suspension to federal court

"We may have to file multiple actions at the same time," attorney John Collins told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Gatlin can appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, take the 2001 case back to the International Amateur Athletics Federation or challenge the ruling in federal court. A suit would maintain that his first offense should be thrown out because it violates Gatlin's rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/m ... index.html
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:28 pm

Dissent
http://www.usada.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/AAA%20CAS%20Decision%20(Dissent)%20-%20Justin%20Gatlin%20-%20January%202008.pdf

Mr. Gatlin’s first offence would be covered by art. 8 because it was a mental disability and he obviously faced a disadvantage because of it. Incidentally, so did Mr. Ricky Harris. These Fundamental Rights must be respected by private entities such as the USOC, USADA, USATF and the IAAF. Article 35 states:

Realization of Fundamental Rights
1. The fundamental rights shall be realized in the entire legal system.
2. Whoever exercises a function of the state must respect the fundamental
rights and contribute to their realization.
3. The authorities shall ensure that the fundamental rights also be respected in relations among private parties whenever the analogy is applicable.67 (emphasis added)

Mr. Gatlin, Mr. Harris and any other athlete who has received sanctions because of taking medicine for their disability have their fundamental rights violated. In the case of Mr. Gatlin, he will not be allowed to work in his chosen profession for two years above what he should have been sanctioned. In Mr. Harris’ case, he was not allowed to work for a year and faces the same draconian predicament that Mr. Gatlin is experiencing. As stated above, there is no justifiable reason to limit these athletes’ fundamental rights. There is no goal pursued by the Anti-Doping Organizations that a retroactive award would inhibit. The sanctions are a violation of the law.


Arbitration Ruling

If the IAAF “eliminated” any period of ineligibility because it believed that, under the circumstances either there should have been no finding of a doping violation or because Mr. Gatlin had “no fault” in that violation, then the first offense should not be considered to be a prior offense for purposes of the award for a second violation. This Panel is unable, on the record before it, to ignore the first doping violation, but shall retain jurisdiction to amend this award in the event that Mr. Gatlin receives from IAAF or otherwise, a ruling which might alter the view of the first offense in 2001.


The Dissent hereing makes an impassioned case that the facts and circumstances of that first offense, namely the advice of the USATF and USADA that it was sufficient for athletes simply to discontinue their non-competition use of medications, and law, namely the Americans with Disabilities Act and Swiss Law, compel the conclusion that Mr. Gatlin essentially had no fault at all in the first offense. The Dissent does not explain, then, why that first panel found a doping violation. If the standard in 2001 was simply negligence, and Mr. Gatlin was not negligent because the actions and advice of the USATF and USADA had to be considered as part of the anti-doping rules or an interpretation of those rules, then the appropriate conclusion would, it appears to the majority, have been a finding of no doping offense. However, that was not the case.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mal » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:51 pm

eldrick wrote:whether he got a 1st strike or not in '01 matters immensely

if he hadn't got that against his name at the time ( or gets it rescinded on appeal - for him, the appeal outcome woud have to be within months ), the steroid conviction becomes the 1st offence & as with any standard 1st offence ( there are no mickey-mouse michelle collins circumstances re: guilt to extend a 1st offence ), he gets a 2y ban

that means he's eligible to resume competition in may '08 & able to compete in trials & bejiing if he qualifies thru them

discussion re: his '01 1st strike isn't just about semantics/blowing hot air/etc

for him it means difference between a shot at bejiing or not


I'm with you on this one. This is a legal issue as well as an emotional one. His choice of coach is not relevant to his penalty. There are lots of "reformed" drug takers running today. And some who may be awarded Olympic Medals as a result of the MJ thing.

Then there are those who are still recognized among the greats, despite inside knowledge and common sense and the "little secret".

Until that hypocrisy is redressed lets stick to the legal side.

If its a first offense it should be 2 years.
mal
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:21 pm

thanks for support !

in the end it has to come down to legalities

anyhows, now the 1st offence comes under vital scrutiny & time to dredge up ole news :

http://www.iaaf.org/news/Kind=2/newsId=20152.html

He opened 2002 with a successful defence of his indoor titles, and continued his dominance outdoors, quickly lowering his PBs to 10.05 and 20.06 in April.

However, just days after he completed one of the finest single day displays in collegiate athletics history (a 10.11/19.86 double win at May's Southeast Conference Championships, along with a second placed finish in the 110m hurdles in 13.41, and a leg in the victorious 4x100 relay) came the announcement that Gatlin had tested positive for amphetamine during the 2001 US Junior Championships, and he was given a two-year suspension.

The banned substance was a prescribed medication Gatlin had been taking for several years to treat Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). He stopped using the medication a few days prior to the competition, but trace amounts still turned up in his test.

The ban stripped him of his 2001 national junior titles, however, since the medication is not on the NCAA's banned list, Gatlin was provided the opportunity to defend his outdoor crowns, which he did with ease, becoming the first man to repeat as double sprint champion since Bobby Morrow accomplished the feat in 1957. He finished the year undefeated both indoors and out.

Gatlin harboured no resentment for the suspension.

"I knew the right thing to do was accept the suspension," he said in May. "I just broke the rules, which were the rules."

He's even put a positive spin on the suspension, using it as a motivating force.

"It motivated me to do better this year," he admits. "A lot of people can't back from something like that. It hurts them mentally and physically. I want to prove to everyone that I'm a strong person and that I have what it takes to be one of the best in the world."

In early July, the IAAF Council granted Gatlin an early reinstatement, citing that he had a genuine medical explanation for his positive test, but stressed that he had indeed committed a doping offence and issued a warning that any repetition of his positive result would result in a life ban.


iaaf let him off accepting it was for medical use, but screwed him by keeping the 1st strike in place

it may have appeared small-print stuff at the time - iaaf's codicile to call it 1st strike, but given reduced ban & acknowledgement of drug for medical use, but that codicile came to f*!k him up bad

i'll have to look up the drug in question ( it wasn't ritalin, it may have been methylphenidate )
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:30 pm

this was what he was prescribed :

http://www.adderallxr.com/

& the datasheet :

http://www.adderallxr.com/assets/pdf/pr ... mation.pdf

of note is higher-up mention in adverse effects of weight-loss, which can aid sprinters ( roughly, a 75kg guy who can run 10.00, may run ~ 9.94 if he lost 1kg ), but it's well-known that continued use of amphetamines ( or similar substances ) doesn't maintain long-term weight loss
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Flumpy » Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:52 pm

eldrick wrote:if it's going to be a post on personal opinions of the man/coach/uncle tom cobbleigh's roadsweeper, then leave it out : we have 2 dozen+ locked topics on that & i doubt gh is interested in reading/allowing much O2 to another one

bottom line :

decision on the 1st strike has potentially big impact on the bejiing 100m

that is the main topic of interest


Thanx for that eldy. As you can clearly read my mind I won't bother clarifying. After all you willful misunderstanding of everything anyone says so that you can continue with a redundant arguments is nothing new.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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: 2058
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: 15041
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: 10196
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: 46302
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: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest