Are Olympic bans worthwhile?

[Jon Mulkeen]

For years the BOA had one rule for drug cheats, while most other Olympic committees went by another. Then the IOC brought in their rule whereby athletes who had served a doping suspension were forbidden from competing at the next Olympics. But now LaShawn Merritt has challenged that rule and had his Olympic ban overturned.

What are your thoughts? Should there be a world-wide rule to make it a completely level playing field? Does the BOA's rule penalise the British team unfairly, or should they be applauded for leading the way? And should championship bans apply to drugs cheats for ALL championships (including World Champs, European Champs, etc)?

[gruffalo]

I no way condone the use of drugs but the unilateral decision by the BOA never sat well with me. The IOC run the Olympics not the BOA in the same way IAAF run athletics not UKA. WADA in charge of the doping related procedures.

I remember a few years ago before the changes to whereabouts rules how ignorant (I mean uninformed rather than stupid) UK Athletes were with respect to their international counterparts. The rules at the time were guidelines not rules or laws and every National Association could implement regulations within those guidelines. The UK Sport implementation was draconian and was later, when the new rules came, in "indirectly" referred to as "unfair on the Athlete". An American athlete on the other hand could go missing for nearly 24hrs without incurring a missed test.

I had the opportunity to put the question of these "discrepancies" with a number of people from various (Inter)National associations (including IAAFand UK) and all welcomed the change with everybody playing by the same rules.

Same goes for the BOA bylaw. BOA aren't above the IOC. It has to be removed.

[Geoff]

Virtually no one doubts the moral and ethical stance of the BOA and most people support tougher sanctions on athletes found guilty of serious doping offences. The problem the BOA have is that all organisations are signed up to the WADA code which tries to harmonise sanctions throughout the world and in all sports. Here lies the dilemma of ethics/morals versus laws/rules and as we have seen time and time again it opens up all sports and organisations to legal challenge if rules do not conform to international agreements.

The BOA's rules on selection and their view they are free to select who they like is far from reality. They have to conform to all applicable international and national laws as well as conform to rules of their parent organisation the IOC. There is little doubt, in legal terms, the BOA's by-law is out of step with all three because the BOA have accepted WADA rules. To go against these rules opens up the BOA to legal challenges and further unwanted publicity.

Following the CAS ruling and calls from WADA and UKAD to drop their by-law can the BOA resist all challenges? There is no doubt Lord Moynihan could bankroll any legal defence of their position and will, no doubt, flex this muscle to deter any athlete from daring to take the BOA on. This may work for a while and might put athletes off for long enough for the BOA to work with others to strengthen world wide sanctions. It's probably going to come down to whether or not either David Millar or Dwain Chambers take action this winter. If they can be warded off it gives everyone time to have something in place for Rio in 2016.

However, I am not convinced a ban applying to just the Olympic Games will be acceptable. What about sports not in the Olympics who will not have this sanction? To harmonise penalties across all sports requires a common period of ineligibility so perhaps we should be pushing to a return to four year bans for all sports. This would, obviously, mean an athlete missing an Olympic Games or a footballer missing a world cup (if they do indeed follow the WADA code!). I am not in favour of a life ban but 4 years tends to rule most athletes from returning to the sport.

The last thing we want is a hearing in the high court just before the Olympics similar to Dwain Chambers' case in 2008 which attracted unwanted publicity at the expense of our Olympic athletes. Perhaps the BOA should voluntarily take this to CAS, as the IOC did, and test whether its rules are acceptable or not?

[jnathletics]

I'm always for giving people a second chance. So, I think the british rule is unfair. But lifetime bans should be in place for the 2nd offense. As one and done rule doesn't leave any exceptions for mistakes or accidents. As there are accidents in doping offenses, as how many of you out there pay attention to every single label for everything you digest?

If it's a systematic approach like the BALCO schandal then fine 4 years and no next Olympics & WC's, but accidents should be 2 years on first offenses.

[mump boy]

I'm on the side of the Athletes as should you all be

http://www.supersport.com/athletics/int ... for_dopers

[trickstat]

[quote="jnathletics"]I'm always for giving people a second chance. So, I think the british rule is unfair. But lifetime bans should be in place for the 2nd offense. As one and done rule doesn't leave any exceptions for mistakes or accidents. As there are accidents in doping offenses, as how many of you out there pay attention to every single label for everything you digest?

If it's a systematic approach like the BALCO schandal then fine 4 years and no next Olympics & WC's, but accidents should be 2 years on first offenses.[/quote]

I think in cases where an athlete has made a mistake and taken something inadvertently, there is every likelihood the BOA will lift the ban. A good example is Alain Baxter, the skier who was stripped of a bronze medal at the 2002 Winter Games for testing positive for a substance contained in a nasal inhaler that was not found in the British version of the same brand. He went on to ski in the 2006 Games.

[mump boy]

[quote="jnathletics"]I'm always for giving people a second chance. So, I think the british rule is unfair. But lifetime bans should be in place for the 2nd offense. As one and done rule doesn't leave any exceptions for mistakes or accidents. As there are accidents in doping offenses, as how many of you out there pay attention to every single label for everything you digest?

If it's a systematic approach like the BALCO schandal then fine 4 years and no next Olympics & WC's, but accidents should be 2 years on first offenses.[/quote]

I don't have to pay attention to everything i digest, i'm not a professional sportsperson !!

I agree with the premise of our point that there should be 4 year drug bans and inadvertant offenses should be treated more leniently. There is no way of proving if something is inadvertant so the idea of longer bans for aggravated offenses is very welcome to me.

[readtherules]

[quote="mump boy"][quote="jnathletics"]I'm always for giving people a second chance. So, I think the british rule is unfair. But lifetime bans should be in place for the 2nd offense. As one and done rule doesn't leave any exceptions for mistakes or accidents. As there are accidents in doping offenses, as how many of you out there pay attention to every single label for everything you digest?

If it's a systematic approach like the BALCO schandal then fine 4 years and no next Olympics & WC's, but accidents should be 2 years on first offenses.[/quote]

I don't have to pay attention to everything i digest, i'm not a professional sportsperson !!

I agree with the premise of our point that there should be 4 year drug bans and inadvertant offenses should be treated more leniently. There is no way of proving if something is inadvertant so the idea of longer bans for aggravated offenses is very welcome to me.[/quote]

If you compete at any level you must be aware and comply with the banned list.If you are a support staff in any regards you have an obligation to ensure those you are under you are compliant and note food stuffs etc.

You are correct in saying there is no way to check for inadvertant use.However there is har5dly any way to ensure that there was advertant use.Eventually this will be the demise of WADA.

[trickstat]

[quote="readtherules"]
You are correct in saying there is no way to check for inadvertant use.However there is har5dly any way to ensure that there was advertant use.Eventually this will be the demise of WADA.[/quote]

Yes WADA is the enemy of those whose coffee gets spiked with a large dose of EPO, Stanozolol, THG....

And you wonder why people see you as some kind of drugs apologist!

[mump boy]

[quote="readtherules"][quote="mump boy"][quote="jnathletics"]I'm always for giving people a second chance. So, I think the british rule is unfair. But lifetime bans should be in place for the 2nd offense. As one and done rule doesn't leave any exceptions for mistakes or accidents. As there are accidents in doping offenses, as how many of you out there pay attention to every single label for everything you digest?

If it's a systematic approach like the BALCO schandal then fine 4 years and no next Olympics & WC's, but accidents should be 2 years on first offenses.[/quote]

I don't have to pay attention to everything i digest, i'm not a professional sportsperson !!

I agree with the premise of our point that there should be 4 year drug bans and inadvertant offenses should be treated more leniently. There is no way of proving if something is inadvertant so the idea of longer bans for aggravated offenses is very welcome to me.[/quote]

If you compete at any level you must be aware and comply with the banned list.If you are a support staff in any regards you have an obligation to ensure those you are under you are compliant and note food stuffs etc.

You are correct in saying there is no way to check for inadvertant use.However there is har5dly any way to ensure that there was advertant use.Eventually this will be the demise of WADA.[/quote]

It's not WADA's job to ensure that there was no inadvertant use, it's the athletes, as you well know

[readtherules]

[quote="mump boy"][quote="readtherules"][quote="mump boy"][quote="jnathletics"]I'm always for giving people a second chance. So, I think the british rule is unfair. But lifetime bans should be in place for the 2nd offense. As one and done rule doesn't leave any exceptions for mistakes or accidents. As there are accidents in doping offenses, as how many of you out there pay attention to every single label for everything you digest?

If it's a systematic approach like the BALCO schandal then fine 4 years and no next Olympics & WC's, but accidents should be 2 years on first offenses.[/quote]

I don't have to pay attention to everything i digest, i'm not a professional sportsperson !!

I agree with the premise of our point that there should be 4 year drug bans and inadvertant offenses should be treated more leniently. There is no way of proving if something is inadvertant so the idea of longer bans for aggravated offenses is very welcome to me.[/quote]

If you compete at any level you must be aware and comply with the banned list.If you are a support staff in any regards you have an obligation to ensure those you are under you are compliant and note food stuffs etc.

You are correct in saying there is no way to check for inadvertant use.However there is har5dly any way to ensure that there was advertant use.Eventually this will be the demise of WADA.[/quote]

It's not WADA's job to ensure that there was no inadvertant use, it's the athletes, as you well know[/quote]

Never suggested anything of the sort.
And note WADA has thrown strict liability out with the mexican food contamination problem so it is no longer always the athletes responsibilty.

[Dutch]

[QUOTE="readtherules"]And note WADA has thrown strict liability out with the mexican food contamination problem so it is no longer always the athletes responsibilty.[/QUOTE]

In case anyone else completely misunderstands the position following that case, it is that strict liability still applies (of course - I doubt even RTR really believes otherwise) and that the [i]Exceptional Circumstances[/i] condition was applied quite properly.

For those who genuinely would like to read the rules in this case, you can refer to articles 2.1.1 and 10.5 from the 2009 code.

Really very simply, nothing ambiguous, no change based upon the Mexican case. Just WADA applying the correct articles as you would expect if you've had any dealings in this sort of thing. The only way you could possibly misrepresent this would be if you lack the background to understand it, or you have a reason to misrepresent it on purpose. Neither of those conditions applies to most on these boards which is presumably why very few are getting it wrong.

[readtherules]

You have a valid and interesting post.
However it does become an oxymoron to have strict liability with exceptional circumstances.
With the Mexican case driving a coach thru strict liability it should now be clear that strict liabilty is not what it may mean or has always meant esp as the footballers could not point to exactly how it got there .We all know that WADA /IOC with Koln lab found out about contaminated supplements but such was never ever an excuse.
Strict liability as strictly understood is now watered down to the point that a good legal team esp via football will have each case dealt with on an individual basis to see if the athlete has really cheated and or gained benefit.

Makes it difficult to convict ,but then thats the way in real life.

Most law gets defined by case law.Case law has now been reset.

[kingmaker]

Simple answer to the question is Yes. End of Discussion

[Curley55]

First, there's nothing wrong with my T levels. Just had them checked 2 wks ago. Extremely high range for someone that's over 70. PCP has told me that most of his male patients would kill for levels that high. My nutritionist now wants me to start taking PrimaForce or some other form of D-aspartic acid. Have read reviews here which are of little help. Anyone with experience?