Athletics Weekly

Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

This forum has been closed and continues at http://www.athleticsweekly.com/forums/f ... ti-doping/
Forum rules
Note - this is not a place to make idle speculations. Anyone doing so will face a warning and/or a ban.

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby readtherules » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:09 pm

Geoff.

There ae 16 majors (and grand slams)for each Olympic cycle.Thus a ban as you suggest would be unfair.

Also if the original ban was prior to an Olympics would the next Olympics (or whatever) be also included ,thus making it a two Olympic ban (or two World cup ban) ?
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby gruffalo » Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:32 pm

I am sometimes amazed that even athletes don't know what goes on in their own sport.

The BOA byelaw never sat well with me as BOA don't run the Olympics. That is down to the IOC and the BOA shouldn't be attempting to impose their own rules.

Prior to the new whereabouts Laws being put in place a few years ago the rules from WADA/IAAF were "guidelines". Each NGB then took those "guidelines" and set up their own criteria around them, the USTAF rules probably being the most relaxed (an athlete could go missing for nearly 24hrs) and the UKs the most draconian, described by WADA indirectly as "unfair on the Athlete".

When the guidelines were changed to laws a few years ago EVERYBODY had to follow the same rules. The UK couldn't amend the regulations with their own "byelaws"

Likewise with OG eligibility (wrt to drug convictions) EVERYBODY should play by the same rules layed down by the IOC not make up their own.

I no way condone the use of drugs in sport and if the IOC said lifetime ban, 4 years, 2 OG whatever then so be it.

The BOA in trying to impose their own byelaws are IMO not playing by the rules and see themselves as a higher authority than the IOC - we can't have that in sport.
gruffalo
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby readtherules » Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:16 pm

Gruffalo

Read the IAAF rules and they still say guidelines and thus there is still not uniformity as its sits outside WADA.

Still such a damn aweful mess.Bit like the Euro,await the contradictions and legal examination of the detail to bring WADA down.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby Geoff » Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:33 pm

readtherules wrote:Geoff.

There ae 16 majors (and grand slams)for each Olympic cycle.Thus a ban as you suggest would be unfair.

Also if the original ban was prior to an Olympics would the next Olympics (or whatever) be also included ,thus making it a two Olympic ban (or two World cup ban) ?


Yes, I'm aware of the problems but it just proves in order to have equality across all sports it is difficult to single out Olympic sports for extra sanctions. Of course, golf is included in the Rio Games but what about cricket, American Football, rugby league, snooker etc. I'm not sure WADA will endorse an Olympic ban unless they also agree event bans of some descrption for all other sports.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby readtherules » Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:20 am

Geoff wrote:
readtherules wrote:Geoff.

There ae 16 majors (and grand slams)for each Olympic cycle.Thus a ban as you suggest would be unfair.

Also if the original ban was prior to an Olympics would the next Olympics (or whatever) be also included ,thus making it a two Olympic ban (or two World cup ban) ?


Yes, I'm aware of the problems but it just proves in order to have equality across all sports it is difficult to single out Olympic sports for extra sanctions. Of course, golf is included in the Rio Games but what about cricket, American Football, rugby league, snooker etc. I'm not sure WADA will endorse an Olympic ban unless they also agree event bans of some descrption for all other sports.



I expect that you would see the problem but MJ's brain power has not been extended to grasp it.But the perhaps it has but is overidden by the need to get on the join the PR bull sxxx wagon.By the way how many samples from previous games are they still holding ? In no way is this suggesting that MJ could have a problem but it may catch one or two holier than thous out.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby Geoff » Sat Nov 05, 2011 6:43 pm

Dwain Chambers's manager wants athlete's Olympic ban overturned

Dwain Chambers's manager wants the British Olympic Association (BOA) to lift the athlete's ban from the Games.

The sprinter is considering appealing against a BOA by-law that bars him from competing at the Olympics because he failed a drugs test in 2003.

The World Anti-Doping Authority (Wada) wrote to the BOA in October urging them to review their life-ban policy.

"There is an increasing lack of support for life-ban sanctions," Chambers's manager Siza Agha said.

"It is of great significance that Wada is spearheading the invitation to the BOA for reform of the by-law."

The United States Anti-Doping Agency has also told the BOA to scrap its policy.

Wada's move came after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) judged that the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) rule barring doping offenders was unenforceable.

"Putting aside the plainest legal soundings from Cas, I find it difficult to understand how the BOA by-law leaves no room for redemption," Agha added.

"It would be very curious if the BOA was unwilling to take advice from the organisations who have the expertise and are charged with the primary responsibility in this field.

"Such a course, if maintained, would be misconceived and very unfortunate."

The IOC's rule barred any athlete who has received a doping suspension of more than six months from competing in the next Olympic Games.

The Cas ruling cleared American LaShawn Merritt to defend his Olympic 400m title after it upheld his appeal against an IOC ban.

Merritt, 25, successfully argued that the ruling went beyond the Wada Code, which came into force in 2004 and harmonised rules around the globe. It brought in a maximum ban of two years for athletes who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs.

America's former Olympic champion Michael Johnson has voiced his concern that the BOA by-law, which was introduced in 1992, is unfair.

However, Colin Jackson, the double world 110m hurdles champion and Olympic silver medallist, wants Britain's national Olympic committee to "stick to its guns".

LOST MEDALS
All of Dwain Chambers's performances from January 2002 until August 2003 were anulled following revelations he took drugs. That meant Christian Malcolm, Darren Campbell and Marlon Devonish all lost their 2003 World Championship 4x100m relay medals

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/15605668.stm
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby Geoff » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:53 am

Danish doping decision puts pressure on BOA to lift life ban

November 13 - The Danish Sports Confederation (DIF) has abrogated rules forbidding former doping offenders from representing Denmark in the Olympic Games, in a move likely to increase pressure on the British Olympic Association (BOA) to take similar steps.

DIF said the decision was a reaction to last month's landmark ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) that an International Olympic Committee (IOC) ban on convicted drug cheats was "invalid and unenforceable".

Niels Nygaard, DIF chairman, said the body was taking the "natural consequence" of the CAS ruling.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/ ... t-life-ban
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby Geoff » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:09 am

London 2012 Olympics: BOA's Lord Moynihan wants tougher sanctions in fight against drug cheats
Lord Moynihan, the chairman of the British Olympic Association, has delivered an impassioned defence of the BOA’s lifetime Olympic ban for drug cheats just 24 hours before the organisation’s executive board is set to decide whether to continue with its zero tolerance rule.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... heats.html

Will the BOA vote to drop their lifetime ban? I suspect not and this will either go to CAS or no one challenges before London.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby readtherules » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:54 am

An extended version of BOA is here.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/index.php ... ubid=13611

Of interest is that Moynihan makes some of the points that I have made.
WADa spends millions and gets nowhere.
Banned list makes no sense.
Clerical errors and not cheating gets banned.

I would add that the money WADA spend is a fraction of the money it causes to be spent.UKAD has a £6m+ budget and ,for instance,UKA employ 3 staff.Muliply this inthe UK and in themajor sporting nations.


My view is that a global system cant work ,much too complicated,much too expensive esp if meant to be zero tolerance.

So water it down and make it health based controls . Remember that is the basis of our concerns about drugs in the first place.It only became cheating when we codified our concerns.Chicken and egg.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby Geoff » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:25 am

Quite a broadside by Moynihan on WADA and I tend to agree with some of his points. However, and as I have already suggested in previous postings, it may be an acknowledgement that legally the BOA cannot sustain their by-law. It may be they will throw it out or test the rule through CAS but go down fighting their cause and perhaps push for stronger punishments.

I didn't expect all the rhetoric including:

Even more controversially, Moynihan claimed that WADA's role should be reviewed.

"Regrettably, despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the 10 years since its creation, WADA has been unable to achieve its own, well-intentioned, objectives," said Moynihan, who won an Olympic silver medal in the coxed fours at Moscow in 1980.

"The inflexible penalty system and a failure to recognise a clear distinction between cheating, and clerical errors or mistakes has alienated many athletes who feel they have been stigmatised by the system as 'guilty before proven innocent'."

Moynihan urged WADA to broaden his scope beyond just trying to catch athletes who are doping and instead also chase after their support team and also try to make sure that every country that competes in the Olympics should come under the same kind of scrutiny.

"It must go after the doctors, the coaches, and the entourage who aid and abet the cheats," he said.

"The reliance on the formulation of a list which appears to be less than adequately based on science or logic has dented its reputation and most telling of all, with only 59 of 204 Olympic nations 'programme compliant' with the Code, it is understandable that many in sport have concluded that it has underachieved in the 10 years it has been operational.


Moynihan's comments potentially takes into a whole new area and will no doubt lead to closer scrutiny of WADA. Could we see wholesale reform before Rio?

In the short term this can be viewed, rather cynically, as a PR broadside at WADA before losing the by-law. Longer term it possibly may have more profound consequences for anti-doping?
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby readtherules » Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:54 am

Geoff.

I wondered if it was a last go before removing the ban or a pre statement saying that BOA ,alone,will stand the fight as the rest of the world is useless.
We await Thurs with great interest.

Intersting the fig of 59 compliant nations.

I think WADa in its current form is doomed.On one hand lets make it more zero tolerance but then we have probs with clerical errors and a banned list that has no logic.We have human rights issues in Europe awating WADA.

The next big push will be for support staff.How is this going to be done.More rights issues etc.
The suppliers to the athletes will remove themselves one step from the support staff.Gyms and internet sites are full of suppliers and seem untouched and untouchable.But lets have a new moral panic and go for support staff,that will keep the drug control industry spending tax payers money for a few years until they finally work out that they have got nowhere.

I have posted before on what limits there should be on controls.I did not get an answer.The good Lord M,he of sitting in a boat of shouting fame,has whist moaning about toothless WADA has at the same time pointed out the problems when WADA does get some teeth.Contradiction upon contradictions. Bit like the Euro ; doomed from birth.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby LiamRiley » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:47 pm

Moynihan has expressed his point poorly, particularly in reference to a rather nebulous idea of victim's "redemption" - if someone burgles my house, I don't get redemption, just the apprehension of the perpetrator (if I'm lucky). Redemption is the worst word choice here for it ascribes a measure of guilt to the innocent party. For someone with a masters in Politics, he has a poor grasp of development of law.

His comments on the BBC article actually present a stronger case for a respective counter-argument than they do his own. After reading that, I can only conclude that he is a unremarkable thinker. There are reasonable arguments on both parts, but his is not either of them. In terms of the doping argument, I think we can disregard these comments from yet another unwelcome British idiot/baron.
LiamRiley
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby Geoff » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:15 pm

BBC....
1703 OLYMPICS: The World Anti-Doping Agency is to challenge the British Olympic Association's lifetime ban for drug cheats at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, BOA chairman Colin Moynihan has confirmed.

So it will be tested in CAS in a case brought by WADA. No need for athletes to challenge - who would have thought this even a few months ago? Certainly the best course of action for all concerned.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby Geoff » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:28 pm

British lifetime Olympic ban rule to be tested at CAS

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/ ... ted-at-cas

Apparently, according to Moynihan, the WADA challenge came out of the blue. Many of us thought it might happen though. It explains his criticism of WADA yesterday and, of course, WADA will counter that very forecefully. Moynihan seems have fallen out with all sorts - LOCOG, WADA and most governing bodies as well as leading the BOA through financial problems. His leadership skills are from a bygone era and he is bound to be challenged in the next year or so.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby readtherules » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:53 pm

Geoff.
Out of the blue my axxe.
BOA are in breach,that they said WADA had agreed with them is clearly a lie for which lord M must apologise for or stand down.
Wonder what UKAD has been doing as the prime responsibility lies with them.
Clearly the Danes were warned and hence their climb down.

What will the BOA pay from funds raised by the public to fight what appears to be a personal rear guard action by the cox Lord M.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby Laps » Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:31 am

The Danes learned from Canute, but Lord M seems incapable of learning and still demands the tide go into reverse. Hopefully he'll get washed away and everyone can settle down to the long and unenviable task of making consistent rules work for everyone. We need as many as poss pulling in the same direction.
Laps
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:01 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby Geoff » Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:16 pm

David Owen: BOA is adopting right approach but WADA faces bigger questions

It is not a phrase, I must admit, that has often tripped off my tongue, but I think Colin Moynihan has judged this one just about right.

It is hard to see the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) doing anything other than backing the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA's) position when it passes judgement on the British Olympic Association (BOA) bylaw preventing drug cheats from representing Britain at the Olympic Games, probably early next year.

But, if he plays his cards right, win or lose, the BOA chairman should emerge from the episode as a champion of the populist cause of taking a hard line on doping offenders.

WADA, by contrast, if it is not very careful may have a tricky time explaining why a body with the words "anti-doping" in its very title, appears to be pressing for a 20-year-old sanction to be diluted.

That is where the PR battle is likely to be waged.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/blogs/14905

The article goes on to say how careful we must be to ensure both the science and the procedures are right especially if harsher sanctions are imposed. As I have already said I agree with the tone of Moynihan's comments but the disappointing thing is he's said it at a time when he's possibly lost this case and not before. It appears to be as much about protecting his image/reputation as trying to change WADA rules. The way he has handled this issue reminds me of when de Vos was battling Chamber's return to the sport - arrogant, dictatorial, personal and unsure of the rules/procedures.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby LiamRiley » Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:45 pm

So, an entirely pointless court battle will be waged for a doping law that has no chance of being upheld. As a result, a hereditary peer gets to make a point that he is a good cowboy while the British Olympic Association (still suffering a multi-million pound budget deficit) is saddled with the costs. Nice.
The future of the BOA does not look rosy...
LiamRiley
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby readtherules » Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:07 pm

Must not forget that the various CommGames chaps have the same ban as BOA.Bound to fall if BOA fail.Or when BOA fail.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby Geoff » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:04 pm

Exclusive: Moynihan accused of making "misinformed allegations" by angry WADA chief

November 17 - Colin Moynihan has come under attack from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) after the British Olympic Association (BOA) referred its controversial doping bylaw to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), fiercely disputing his version of events which led to the decision.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/ ... wada-chief

I think pistols at dawn may sort this out!
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby readtherules » Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:50 am

See blow the link to Beloff's opinion.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/files/Opi ... 1%2011.pdf

You get a bit of a feeling of why these chaps can charge £600 an hour.

Of interest 7.5 points out that under the present format of the byelaw Miss O could not have applied to compete.In other words had the present form been in place prior to 08 then no gold.

Prior to rule 45 being removed WADA supported the IOC,which is not too surpising given the format and funding of WADA,however immeadiatly after 45 died they actively changed stance.Hence BOA under huge pressure.

My very simplistic summary of Beloff is that "eligibility is a sanction".No rocket science there then.Beloff argues that in Chambers case against BOA the Judge was minded by rule 45 ,which no longer exists.In addition BOA is acting ultra varies in relation to its articles which is a company law problem and becomes actionable in a non sporting court.

So, Lord M,the great Beloff has spoken.Lets see what Adam Lewis QC turns up for the BOA.His opinion will make facinating reading if BOA have the guts to publish it.

Riviting stuff .
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby marsh rat » Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:07 pm

Seeing as its looking more and more like someone clearly cheating by ingesting drugs on a planned program will soon be allowed to runin an Olympics within just two years of blatantly cheating, to save the sport I suggest ;

Every athlete who has been found to knowingly cheat be made to wear a competition number white on black rather than black on white for the rest of their career. That way everyone watching will know they have in the past been caught cheating and can make up their own mind on whether they want to cheer and applaud them. I have no interest in watching events where people who have blatantly cheated in the past are allowed to carry on like nothing has happened and unbeknown to most of the crowd.
marsh rat
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:17 pm
Location: ESSEX

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby srb » Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:09 pm

And the victims, those who have lost a medal because of a cheat, those who are deprived of competing because of a cheat, get nothing.

BUT

the cheat must be allowed redemption.
Because that is fair.
Stuff the victims of cheating; they don't count.


The words of the Sermon on the Mount sound very hollow to me at the moment.
srb
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:27 pm
Location: Northants

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby LiamRiley » Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:48 pm

srb - It is a slippery slope when you define law for the benefit of the victim rather than for the rehabilitation of the perpetrator and safeguarding of society. If one is not cool-headed about law, then it can revert to emotional mob-rule (which was precisely the reason why law was developed in the first place).

Victims are among the worst people you could choose to formally judge their offender, mainly because the opinions are emotionally driven by vengeance and without regard for the well-being or future of the offender.
LiamRiley
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby trickstat » Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:07 pm

I'm sorry Liam, but where in his post does srb imply that the victims should actually judge the offender?

By the way, I do agree that such a system is never a good idea.
trickstat
 
Posts: 1148
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:09 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby sidelined » Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:26 pm

Beloff was a bit of a Machiavellian choice of silk for WADA to make, since he represented Chambers. He wasn't likely to come up with the opinion that the bye-law is sound, was he? Moynihan is a publicity-seeking fool, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that the BOA should be able to select whomever they like to represent GB, and that we're living in a mad world when the anti-doping authority goes to such lengths to make it possible for dopers to compete. I blame the Americans for making the challenge to CAS in the first place.
sidelined
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:19 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby readtherules » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:10 am

marsh rat wrote:Seeing as its looking more and more like someone clearly cheating by ingesting drugs on a planned program will soon be allowed to runin an Olympics within just two years of blatantly cheating, to save the sport I suggest ;

Every athlete who has been found to knowingly cheat be made to wear a competition number white on black rather than black on white for the rest of their career. That way everyone watching will know they have in the past been caught cheating and can make up their own mind on whether they want to cheer and applaud them. I have no interest in watching events where people who have blatantly cheated in the past are allowed to carry on like nothing has happened and unbeknown to most of the crowd.


The problem is that the system does not really seperate the cheats from those who did not read the label properly or did not contact the manufacters etc.
An other problem ,for the niave,is that they have been cheering cheats who have been clever enough not to get cought.
Every one who has a conviction for a crime should wear a bright set of prison bars so people can decide to employ them (etc)
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby Kermit » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:16 am

The writing was on the wall from the moment the judge passed his decision in the Chambers case. At that time the BOA should of been lobbying the country representatives of the IOC vigorously to follow it's lead, instead it puffed up it's chest to say we are unbeatable.

Now the ball is firmly in the BOA's court, or should I say the members of the BOA's court. Not long ago there was a meeting where I believe the member associations of the BOA told Lord M that the last thing they wanted was to be seen in court again. It is my belief that the BOA will call an extra-ordinary meeting where there will be a single motion for the removal of Lord M as it's leader.

Once that is achieved they will then back down from the WADA challenge in court, but will lobby for all member associations of the IOC to sign up to WADA and then get the countries who have organisations within the IOC to sign an agreement enforceable with all courts for the lifetime ban (Olympic cycle) of all future athletes who fail drugs tests of a certain level. If those countries refuse to sign up then they should be excluded from the IOC and all it's sanctioned events.
Kermit
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby readtherules » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:22 am

sidelined wrote:Beloff was a bit of a Machiavellian choice of silk for WADA to make, since he represented Chambers. He wasn't likely to come up with the opinion that the bye-law is sound, was he? Moynihan is a publicity-seeking fool, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that the BOA should be able to select whomever they like to represent GB, and that we're living in a mad world when the anti-doping authority goes to such lengths to make it possible for dopers to compete. I blame the Americans for making the challenge to CAS in the first place.


I suggest you read ,examine and comment on Beloff's opinion before repeating the BOA position.Perhaps then you could explain why you support BOA.Remember it is not being said that the rules should not reflect the BOA postion but rather that as the rules stand BOA is in breach.AND in breach of Company Law.
The core of WADA is harmonisation which then gives wada more strength.Otherwise sports like football will go their own way.(sorry they have done that anyway)
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Dwain's Sermon of Hope!

Postby readtherules » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:36 am

Kermit wrote:The writing was on the wall from the moment the judge passed his decision in the Chambers case. At that time the BOA should of been lobbying the country representatives of the IOC vigorously to follow it's lead, instead it puffed up it's chest to say we are unbeatable.

Now the ball is firmly in the BOA's court, or should I say the members of the BOA's court. Not long ago there was a meeting where I believe the member associations of the BOA told Lord M that the last thing they wanted was to be seen in court again. It is my belief that the BOA will call an extra-ordinary meeting where there will be a single motion for the removal of Lord M as it's leader.

Once that is achieved they will then back down from the WADA challenge in court, but will lobby for all member associations of the IOC to sign up to WADA and then get the countries who have organisations within the IOC to sign an agreement enforceable with all courts for the lifetime ban (Olympic cycle) of all future athletes who fail drugs tests of a certain level. If those countries refuse to sign up then they should be excluded from the IOC and all it's sanctioned events.


Who are the member associations of BOA ?

All member associations of IOC are already signed to WADA;most have not got the many millions to implement WADA.Understandably they have better things to spend their money on.

If all Olympic associations sign an agreement in oppostion to WADA then they are all in breach.It is important that the implications of signing to WADA are grasped by those who enter the debate.Reading Beloff will help this understanding.

What are the IOC sanctioned events other than the Olympics ?
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Anti-Doping (Legacy Only)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest

cron

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London