Chambers Stated to Be Making Comeback


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.

Chambers Stated to Be Making Comeback

Postby EPelle » Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:48 pm

"I've got to get in touch with my agent as the indoor season only lasts about five weeks," said Chambers. "I'm still in the early stage of my comeback. I just want to concentrate on my track and let my presence be known. The Olympics was always going to be a nono, but what option do I have?"

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

Postby eldrick » Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:25 pm

it's time for someone to challenge the absurd BOA stance of 1 ban means life-long ban from the OG

this is not compatible with euro human rights charter, which forbids work discrimination

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/ ... 4_01en.pdf

Article 15
Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work
1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.
2. Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State.
3. Nationals of third countries who are authorised to work in the territories of the Member States are entitled to working conditions equivalent to those of citizens of the Union.
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:29 am

The "Eligibility for Membership of Team GB of persons found guilty of a doping offence” language is not written in employment terms, and §2,2 of the agreement signed between athlete and BOA implicitly states:
    2.2 The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is not a contract of employment and the Athlete’s agreement to become a member of the WCP and his participation in WCP activities will not create an employment relationship between the Athlete and the NGB.
There is no basis for discrimination.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:18 am

that is a nonsense contract & will likely take a hammering if a banned athlete takes it to court

the boa believe stating in a contract that "this is not a contract of employment" thinking it is a viable clause & therefore a way out is ludicrous

1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.


the boa is preventing athletes from doing such - i e engage in work in bejiing

that is discrimination

dwain simply has to point out to other eu countries og committees, who don't give life-time bans as part-basis of his case

boa is not an employer but it prevents athletes from pursuing this clause of human rights charter

dwain, if he has the money shoud take his case to court
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:49 am

One may not want to tell Chambers to take this to court if he has money, because if Chambers has money, the IAAF will take him to court.

Austria, which you know is here in the EU, bans athletes from Olympic competition for certain rules violations. Pointing back to other EU member states or their Olympic committees may not be the best option for a solicitor attempting to make a justification on their client:s behalf that Olympic banishment for British athletes is unfair and unjust when compared to other member organisations under the European charter.

She companies and the like can choose to pass on Chambers, and provide contracts to other athletes in his class as they see fit. Would this be discrimination against him, because he was in violation of a set of rules to which he ascribed? Chambers is still granted an opportunity to earn a living on the European Circuit and at any championships other than the Olympics, which does not pay him or any other athlete to win medals. Your NGB may provide money for the victors -- I don:t know, but to qualify for an Olympic Games, you need to be invited. Unfortunately in Chambers case, IOC has not stated the BOA contract violates the spirit of competing in the Olympics.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:06 am

EPelle wrote:One may not want to tell Chambers to take this to court if he has money, because if Chambers has money, the IAAF will take him to court


yes

he'd have to pay the money back

but if only way he can do that quickly is to compete in bejiing, then iaaf are hamstrung - if they want their money back quickly, then he needs to compete there ( can pay back money from any sponsorship deals, etc if he maybe wins a medal )

Austria, which you know is here in the EU, bans athletes from Olympic competition for certain rules violations. Pointing back to other EU member states or their Olympic committees may not be the best option for a solicitor attempting to make a justification on their client:s behalf that Olympic banishment for British athletes is unfair and unjust when compared to other member organisations under the European charter.


ehh ?

~ 20 eu countiries og commitee have no lifetime ban for 1 offense - austria & gb make 2 who do

why are 20 eu countries wrong ?

She companies and the like can choose to pass on Chambers, and provide contracts to other athletes in his class as they see fit. Would this be discrimination against him, because he was in violation of a set of rules to which he ascribed?


he ascribed to a set of draconian rules which are unfair & had no possibility of changing at the time

now is his time to change them

Chambers is still granted an opportunity to earn a living on the European Circuit and at any championships other than the Olympics, which does not pay him or any other athlete to win medals. Your NGB may provide money for the victors -- I don:t know, but to qualify for an Olympic Games, you need to be invited


it's an "employment opportunity"

he's being denied any access to it

Unfortunately in Chambers case, IOC has not stated the BOA contract violates the spirit of competing in the Olympics.


if ioc wishes to do "business" in eu, it needs to conform to eu business laws & that means adhering to the human rights charter

if the ioc wants to only ever hold it's games in switzerland, then by all means, stick to it's olympic charter, but if it wants to hold a games in eu countries, then it needs to address this discrimination
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:20 am

boa eligibility law passed in '92 with modifications after :

http://tinyurl.com/358yuk

no mention at all that it's rules have taken european human rights charter into consideration
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:42 am

eldrick wrote:~ 20 eu countiries og commitee have no lifetime ban for 1 offense - austria & gb make 2 who do

why are 20 eu countries wrong ?

They aren:t, somehow you have interpreted them as being wrong.

Dig a bit deeper and one finds that two member states not named Great Britain or Austria take anti-doping matters up with government and polis help, meaning that an offender might be kept off an Olympic team due to being incarcerated. This is not the same as being banned from Olympic Games for life. However, in the EU, anti-doping matters are taken very seriously (UNESCO-level), and there is not a rule which states that violating anti-doping rules will not result in loss of Olympic privileges. EU has a goal of "protecting athletes and ethics in sport". Your country seems to have taken that to its limit in ensuring that ethics are maintained by not permitting athletes who:ve violated certain priniciples to compete in an invitational event watched by millions across the world, and in so doing, protecting those athletes who have not violated codes of conduct to which they have ascribed.

Nevertheless, Chambers may take this to court, but one believes that the EU:s stance on anti-doping may favour his Olympic committee, not him. If there is a discrimination case to be heard, Chambers can offer himself as the model. I have an suspicion he wouldn:t be the first to attempt to go down that road, however.

Let:s give this a break until more can chime in, as we:re as much as +9 hours in front of the other coast.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:20 am

eldrick wrote:it's an "employment opportunity"

Doesn't employment usually involve compensation? There's no prize money at the OG.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:51 am

tandfman wrote:
eldrick wrote:it's an "employment opportunity"

Doesn't employment usually involve compensation? There's no prize money at the OG.


how much is the monetary value of a gold medal at auction ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:01 am

EPelle wrote:
eldrick wrote:~ 20 eu countiries og commitee have no lifetime ban for 1 offense - austria & gb make 2 who do

why are 20 eu countries wrong ?

They aren:t, somehow you have interpreted them as being wrong blah, blah...


what the hell has incarceration got to do with it ?

how an earth does a phrase like "protecting athletes and ethics in sport" add anything to the debate ?

that's normal rhetoric spouted by any body involved in any way with sport - find one which doesn't say something along those lines

also, there is no eu rule which states that an athlete will lose og competing privileges

eu will certainly not favour boa if/when this case goes to court

i've talked to a lawyer about this & the stance they gave was that he has served his sentence as proscribed by wada & is free to compete as any other athlete - if an og is held in a eu country, then he will have a right to work in an eu country under eu work laws - boa will have a difficult case to make - however situation may be different with bejiing, as that is being held in a non-eu country, where he doesn't have eu work law rights
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:05 am

Polish swimmer Otylia Jedrzejczak famously sold her 100-m butterfly gold medal from the 2004 Olympics. Prior to the Sydney games, according to TIME Europe:

[Jedrzejczak] read a novella by Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt called Oscar and the Lady in Pink, about a 10-year-old boy dying of leukemia, who, encouraged by a hospital volunteer, writes letters to God about his experiences. The tale inspired Jedrzejczak. "Before my first start, I told my friends, If I win [a gold medal], I'll sell it for the children."

She was true to her word, putting the medal up for auction in December 2004. It sold for more than $82,000. This was admittedly a special case, and surely the winning bidder, a Polish food company, was at least as interested in donating to charity (and the accompanying publicity) as it was in purchasing a souvenir. If Jedrzejczak had been selling her medal with a "Why lie? Need money for booze" sign, I'm sure it would have sold for much, much less.

I took a look on eBay and found two medals for sale, both shipping from Romania. The "Buy It Now" prices were $2,800 for the Montreal 1976 silver medal in canoe, and $1,999 for the Cortina 1956 bronze medal (unspecified sport). That's perhaps a more realistic estimate of the "street value" of Olympic medals.

http://www.hispeed.rogers.com/yahoo/ans ... am060308#3
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:07 am

lets see what american lawyers make of this hypothetical situation :

an american athlete returns to competition after a 2y drug ban

they plan to compete in the OG

USOC turn around to them & states :

"forget it - you are not eligible to compete in the OG, even if you qualify thru trials, as we don't allow anyone who has served a drug ban to go to the OG"

what are the chances of the athlete getting a succesful reversal of this decision in an american court ?
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:11 am

First of all, one needs to understand that USA is going to zero tolerance. What Olympic consequences will that have for future athletes in that predicament?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:14 am

i asked for an american lawyer's opinion

are you an american lawyer ?

i've got the opinion of a british lawyer with 20y experience on dwain's likely chances in a british court, so i'm happy with that aspect, now i want opinion across the pond if a similar situation arose there
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:20 am

i asked for an american lawyer's opinion

Actually, you didn:t. Instead, you stated: "what are the chances of the athlete getting a succesful reversal of this decision in an american court ?"

Nevertheless, wait for a Law Dude to chime in.
Last edited by EPelle on Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:21 am

don't be an idiot

read what the top line of my post said
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Law dude » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:27 am

eldrick wrote:lets see what american lawyers make of this hypothetical situation :

an american athlete returns to competition after a 2y drug ban

they plan to compete in the OG

USOC turn around to them & states :

"forget it - you are not eligible to compete in the OG, even if you qualify thru trials, as we don't allow anyone who has served a drug ban to go to the OG"

what are the chances of the athlete getting a succesful reversal of this decision in an american court ?

I can't speak for all American lawyers, but here's what I think. As far as I know, the USOC has no rule that says what the BOA rule says. Therefore, if they just said to an athlete "we don't allow anyone who has served a drug ban to go to the OG," I think a good law dude could get the athlete/client on the team.

However, if the USOC did have such a rule, I believe there is a good chance that the US courts would allow them to enforce it.
Law dude
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests