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 » 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: 16337
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: 3901
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: 46335
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: 46335
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: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby gh » Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:08 am

law dude?
gh
 
Posts: 46335
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: 10203
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: 10203
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: 46335
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

Postby EPelle » Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:56 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 ) ?

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.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:40 am

how about having a new born baby & taking a year out to raise it ?

is this "concept" new to you ?

as for school meet - i'm familiar with "proper" track - euro meets & gp

to me it's an insignificant school meet - show me 10.9/22-flat times from it & then i'm interested
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:03 am

Funny.

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
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:10 am

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.


i don't do hand times

where's my 10.9 ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby MJD » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:22 am

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

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:29 am

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
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:42 am

EPelle wrote:May I choose which university from which I was awarded this? I:ll go with Stanford University School of Medicine.

:D 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! :D
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Pego » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:13 am

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
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:22 am

Pego, please re-read those posts. There is not now, nor has there been, a suggestion a pregnant woman took performance-enhancing drugs.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:24 am

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

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests