Athletics Weekly

BOA v WADA

News, reports and results from the UK and the rest of the world

BOA v WADA

Postby Geoff » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:51 pm

I think this deserves a thread in current events as, no doubt, it will attract a great deal of media attention next week. The CAS hearing is due for next Monday in London.

Most lawyers being interviewd on the subject expect the BOA to lose. Yesterday's Radio 4 programme on Sport and the Law gave a very good account of the legal side of this, which is what basically counts, and can't see how the BOA can win. Another article today:

Dwain Chambers and David Millar will be free to compete for Great Britain at the London Olympics, according to a leading sports lawyer.

London 2012: Banned Chambers and Millar 'could compete'

The pair are currently banned because of a British Olympic Association (BOA) by-law which prevents drug cheats from competing at the Games.

However, lawyer Howard Jacobs predicts that the by-law will be ruled invalid following a special hearing on Monday.

If that happened, sprinter Chambers and cyclist Millar would be eligible to wear a Team GB vest this summer.

The BOA goes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) to challenge a ruling from the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) that its by-law is not compliant with the Wada code and is therefore unenforceable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/17280765

The CAS ruling will not be known for a few weeks but could Dwain Chambers, 9 years after he was banned for 2 years, actually represent GB at the London Olympics? If so, will he be included in the relay squad?

This subject stirs up a lot of emotion and polarised views. The legal argument is seperate to a desire to have stronger sanctions. This has become a very public slanging match between WADA and the BOA plus, of course, Daley Thompson.

I suspect the BOA will lose but state they fought this case on a point of principle. WADA will defend their position but ultimately I believe it will lead to changes and both will save face.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby readtherules » Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:59 pm

Will this topic get dumped into doping in the hope that the fatal contradictions within doping and doping control get ignored.

For those who are interested I have provided the link to Beloff's opinion for WADA.Far far better than anything else about.I think it is within the "dawain sermon of hope" topic.Also on WADA site.

I also remind that WADA has a 4 yr ban for agravated offences already.ie for the cheats.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby Geoff » Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:11 pm

Those taking the BOA side will argue this is an eligibility issue and not a doping matter so, on that basis, it shouldn't be in the doping section!

I would like to keep this thread closer to the legal issues and the possible implications for Chambers, Myerscough etc. rather than getting too embroiled in the specifics and technicalities (and emotion) of doping issues.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby readtherules » Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:35 pm

Geoff.

I see your point about an eligibity matter.
Lets hope that people will get round to reading Beloff or even the decision by Campbell in the Merrit case that started it all off.There is also the CAS case on Rule 45.
All of these I have posted and commented on.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby Geoff » Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:51 pm

Dwain Chambers defends indoor title with London 2012 destiny uncertainD-day on Dwain Chambers's eligibility for London 2012 is imminent and some team-mates say his BOA ban should stand"

Redemption," says Siza Agha, "is recognised in every walk of life: the family, religion, law and politics. It is an integral foundation at the heart of the makeup of any democratic society. It is not recognised in dictatorships, Greek mythology and the British Olympic Association bylaw."

Agha, a lawyer who doubles up as Dwain Chambers's agent, is a man who knows how to turn a phrase, and these days he does a lot of his client's talking for him. Chambers had his fill of it all in 2008, when his appeal against the lifetime ban imposed on him by the BOA was upheld in the high court. Now he prefers to do his talking on the track.

On Saturday Chambers will do that in Istanbul as he defends his 60m title at the World Indoor Championships. A gambling man would not bet on him pulling it off, unless he had a soft spot for long odds. Chambers's fastest time this season is the 6.58sec he ran in the UK trials in Sheffield, which puts him joint 15th in the world rankings.

The day after the championships, when Chambers is due to fly home with the rest of the team, the court of arbitration for sport will hold a hearing looking at the dispute between the World Anti-Doping Agency and the BOA over the bylaw, which stipulates a life ban for athletes who knowingly doped. The Cas decision will determine whether or not Chambers will be eligible to compete at the 2012 Olympics, whether he will get the shot at redemption that his agent believes he is entitled to.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ma ... ondon-2012

An interesting article although mainly from his agent's point of view. The thing that struck me, though, was once again we have a major championship with where Chambers is running that will have a major focus on his BOA ban. He travels back on the day of the hearing so expect news crews at Heathrow on his arrival.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby BigGut » Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:38 pm

I'm sure this gentleman believes everything he says and would gladly have Venables and Thompson as babysitters and entrust his investments to Nick Leeson. Afterall they have all served their sentences. redemption doesn't meathat you have to be given back all of the privileges you once had. Chambers can run and earn money from the sport, he is not banned from anything. The BOA just don't want him to REPRESENT THEM, it's not about redemption it's about cheats continuing to sully the Olympics. I bet Agha wouldn't trust Venables and Thompson to look after children so why should the BOA trust Chambers not to blacken their name.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby readtherules » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:55 pm

BigGut wrote:I'm sure this gentleman believes everything he says and would gladly have Venables and Thompson as babysitters and entrust his investments to Nick Leeson. Afterall they have all served their sentences. redemption doesn't meathat you have to be given back all of the privileges you once had. Chambers can run and earn money from the sport, he is not banned from anything. The BOA just don't want him to REPRESENT THEM, it's not about redemption it's about cheats continuing to sully the Olympics. I bet Agha wouldn't trust Venables and Thompson to look after children so why should the BOA trust Chambers not to blacken their name.


Once again you fail to understand what is going on.You may wish a rule that bans DC etc and you are free to argue this but the matter at hand is whether the BOA ban is an additional sanction.BOA are bound by WADA.Beloff argues that the byelaw is inself a breach of BOA articles.You have been told this many times but you just ignore it.If CAS say it is an additional sanction then you may feel that WADA has to change.It may well do,but at present you are stuck with WADA.
If BOA is allowed to raise drug matters as eligibility then every organisation inc UKA could do the same.
For Venables and Thompson I would guess the rules/law has decided what they can do just as WADA has set out its rules,rules that BOA have accepted.BOA have to trust the outcome of WADA procedures.They have agreed to do so.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby fangio » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:48 pm

Venables and Thompson were the murderers of Jamie Bulger. The point being raised that you would not employ them as babysitters regardless of whether they had served their sentance, so why should the BOA be forced to have someone who broke the drug rules represent them. Chambers being free to compete in athletics being one thing, but the BOA having a choice about who represents them being another. Is not employing Vnebales and Thompson as your babysitter an additional sanction against them regardless of whther they have served their time?
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby Geoff » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:48 pm

fangio wrote:Venables and Thompson were the murderers of Jamie Bulger. The point being raised that you would not employ them as babysitters regardless of whether they had served their sentance, so why should the BOA be forced to have someone who broke the drug rules represent them. Chambers being free to compete in athletics being one thing, but the BOA having a choice about who represents them being another. Is not employing Vnebales and Thompson as your babysitter an additional sanction against them regardless of whther they have served their time?


What a ludicrous analogy! Comparing child killers with Chambers is just ridiculous. I did say there are separate issues here, legal and the rather more emotive one of doping specifics. I think both you and BigGut have fallen into the latter.

Monday's hearing will not deal with emotions or even how long sanctions should be. It will determine whether the BOA can prevent athletes with a serious doping conviction from representing our country in the Olympics (and deem this an eligibility issue) or whether by doing so it is an additional sanction on top of the agreed WADA code. As someone said recently if it looks like a sanction, tastes like a sanction and smells like a sanction then it is a sanction! CAS will determine if this is the case.

Apart from these emotive issues which, as I said polarise views, there are many other implications. What if the BOA win? How would this fit with the CAS decision preventing the IOC from imposing a similar ban? If WADA wins will UK Sport have to fund all returning drug cheats who meet the funding criteria? Would Chambers be accepted into the relay team?
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby readtherules » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:50 pm

fangio wrote:Venables and Thompson were the murderers of Jamie Bulger. The point being raised that you would not employ them as babysitters regardless of whether they had served their sentance, so why should the BOA be forced to have someone who broke the drug rules represent them. Chambers being free to compete in athletics being one thing, but the BOA having a choice about who represents them being another. Is not employing Vnebales and Thompson as your babysitter an additional sanction against them regardless of whther they have served their time?


Whether or not the Venables et al situation is an additional sanction or a reasonable addtional sanction has no relevance Mr Tweedle Dee.There are WADA rules that say there can be no additional sanction.Have you not grasped this simple point.The question at hand is not should there be additional sanctions but is the WADA byelaw an additional sanction.
You and the other Tweedle have been persistantly asked to deal with the points raised by Beloff.You refuse to do so.By raising matters that relate to the rehabilitaion of offenders and the sex offenders register for life the pair of you ,yet again,take a serious and well referenced topic into the land of looking glasses.

Please pay attention.This is a matter of whether the byelaw is an additional sanction;if it is the BOA will have lost.It is not a matter of should there be additional or more servere sanctions.This is a different point for WADA to look at next year.Have you pair grasped it yet.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby fangio » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:41 am

Geoff, I was merely clarifying what BigGut meant, as readtherules seemingly did not udnerstand (why refer to WADA in relation to Venables and Thompson?).

RTR, I see you still have not grown up and continue to call people childish names.

The question is not only is it an additional sanction, but whether it is a sanction that breaks the WADA code. I really could nto care less whether Beloff or other QC's who make their money working for the drug cheats give an opinion that their clients are right, that is only to be expected, Mr Beloff for example has been paid by Dwain Chambers to formulate an argument that the BOA are wrong. The question is not whether he can formulate an argument and make his case public to try to gain a PR victory, it is whether the BOA have the right to set eligibility rules which extend to banning those who have disgraced the sport with serious drug offences from representing the BOA.

Whilst he Thompson and Venables point is somewhat emotive, it does make the case, as does the case of Mr Leeson never being employed in a senior role at a bank, that additional sanctions do naturally occur, and no one thinks them wrong in those cases. Whether CAS decide that the BOA are free to choose who gets to represent them (an eligibility issue) including choosing not to be represented by drugs cheats, or whether they decide that WADA bascially get to choose who is eligible to be selected and must be considered by each Olympic Association is up to CAS after hearing the arguments.

Another interesting analogy to me is the throwing out of people from a club after being caught cheating. Sunderland Harrier Rob Sloan was kicked out of his club after taking a bus in a marathon. He can continue to compete in athletics but may never again compete for Sunderland Harriers. So should he take them to CAS as one body he was able to represent before now does not allow him to compete for them, which is an additional sanction? Or do we accept that Sunderland Harriers have the right to say that he will never again represent them as he has done something that is worth a longer ban than that he received from the authorities?
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby Geoff » Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:59 am

Fangio, I accept your point.

Just to pick up on a couple of points. There are many examples of professionals (doctors etc) being sanctioned but not receiving life bans. Often it is a warning, suspension, retraining etc. Most do not receive life bans but of course it depends on the nature of the offence. Some may say athletes taking performance enhancing drugs is very serious, and I agree, but is a 2-4 year ban for a first offence followed by a life ban for a second offence appropriate? That is the issue facing WADA plus whether this should apply worldwide.

Regarding the Sunderland analogy. Sunderland Harriers are a members club but I don't regard the BOA as such a club. It is an association representing the Olympic sports who all are signaturies of the WADA code. Indeed, I believe, the BOA have the code enshrined in their constitution.

Out of interest does anyone know whether the BOA would object to a murderer being selected for the Olympic Games? It may sound a little like the previous, left of field, anologies but I know there was one person trying to qualify for London. Obviously, it is very difficult to compare offences which is why the bylaw will be judged solely on specific legalities.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby BigGut » Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:19 am

Geoff. I am not comparing Chambers with child killers. I am merely trying to make the point that the agents comment about redemption is completely untrue. There are many examples in law where you will never return to having all of the same rights after you commit an offence.

If teacher sleeps with an underage pupil they will serve a prison sentence but they will also not be able to argue that they should be allowed to work either children ever again. The agent is a barrister but seems to wilfully ignore very obvious examples in English law where redemption is only partial exactly like his clients situation. If he wants to argue the principle of redemption he should hire child killers as babysitter and entrust his money to a fraudster. If he wouldn't then he does not believe in the principle and should not have made this statement.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby boysen » Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:44 pm

On a tangent to the subject matter...an American web site shows comments on a GB hurdlers assertion that a certain athlete "is a cheat". Whilst not being a witness to this alleged utterance I can suggest that a media person, thrusting untold questions at athlete A, includes "do you think convicted athlete B cheated?" Athlete A nods in agreement...headline Athlete A states athlete B was/is a cheat!!" Its so easy and having witnessed a couple of these so-called interviews can vouch how words etc can be misinterpreted...for gain!
boysen
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:17 am

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby readtherules » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:20 pm

BigGut wrote:Geoff. I am not comparing Chambers with child killers. I am merely trying to make the point that the agents comment about redemption is completely untrue. There are many examples in law where you will never return to having all of the same rights after you commit an offence.

If teacher sleeps with an underage pupil they will serve a prison sentence but they will also not be able to argue that they should be allowed to work either children ever again. The agent is a barrister but seems to wilfully ignore very obvious examples in English law where redemption is only partial exactly like his clients situation. If he wants to argue the principle of redemption he should hire child killers as babysitter and entrust his money to a fraudster. If he wouldn't then he does not believe in the principle and should not have made this statement.


For teachers the sanction would include being barred from teaching as that it set out in the rules of teaching.The rules of sport for drugs are WADA and the sanctions are set out in WADA.
Please grasp that this is an issue of additional sanction v eligibility.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby readtherules » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:33 pm

fangio wrote:Geoff, I was merely clarifying what BigGut meant, as readtherules seemingly did not udnerstand (why refer to WADA in relation to Venables and Thompson?).

RTR, I see you still have not grown up and continue to call people childish names.

The question is not only is it an additional sanction, but whether it is a sanction that breaks the WADA code. I really could nto care less whether Beloff or other QC's who make their money working for the drug cheats give an opinion that their clients are right, that is only to be expected, Mr Beloff for example has been paid by Dwain Chambers to formulate an argument that the BOA are wrong. The question is not whether he can formulate an argument and make his case public to try to gain a PR victory, it is whether the BOA have the right to set eligibility rules which extend to banning those who have disgraced the sport with serious drug offences from representing the BOA.

Whilst he Thompson and Venables point is somewhat emotive, it does make the case, as does the case of Mr Leeson never being employed in a senior role at a bank, that additional sanctions do naturally occur, and no one thinks them wrong in those cases. Whether CAS decide that the BOA are free to choose who gets to represent them (an eligibility issue) including choosing not to be represented by drugs cheats, or whether they decide that WADA bascially get to choose who is eligible to be selected and must be considered by each Olympic Association is up to CAS after hearing the arguments.

Another interesting analogy to me is the throwing out of people from a club after being caught cheating. Sunderland Harrier Rob Sloan was kicked out of his club after taking a bus in a marathon. He can continue to compete in athletics but may never again compete for Sunderland Harriers. So should he take them to CAS as one body he was able to represent before now does not allow him to compete for them, which is an additional sanction? Or do we accept that Sunderland Harriers have the right to say that he will never again represent them as he has done something that is worth a longer ban than that he received from the authorities?



I ask again that you read Beloff.You fail to grasp the taxi principle in representation.Beloff was asked by WADA not Chambers.Why do you refuse to accept this even though you have been told and provided with the references.If you bother to read Beloff's book and read his judgements in other cases you will realise the gross stupidity of suggesting that Beloff is biased.

To say that it would be WADA who decide who gets selected it also stupid.BOA have to select within the olympic framework,race,gender etc etc. They also have to select with due recognition of the doping rules they have accepted.
BOA have themselves accepted that they cannot have extra sanctions that is why they argue eligibilty.
So yet again I say to you and your chum, Big gut, the question of extra sanctions has to wait for another day.So why go on about extra sanctions being OK.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby fangio » Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:55 pm

RTR, what do you not understand? Beloff is currently instructed by WADA, having made money previously repreenting drug cheats like Chambers. Are you saying he did not represent Chambers? He did, and he has formulated an opinion for WADA which mirrors what his other clients eg Chambers would like to see. Do you really find it a surprising idea that a barrister who represented Chambers was picked to give an opinion because Wada a particular slant on that opinion, who naive.

As to the implication that WADA would be choosing, well if they are the ones who get to say whether the BOA have to choose to be represented by drugs cheats then yes they are choosing, the BOA would not be allowed to have their own eligibility criteria. As it stands the byelaw surely meets Rule 31 of the Olympic Charter which expressly states that when selecting athletes for inclusion in “Team GB”, the BOA must ensure that “such selection shall be based not only on the sports performance of an athlete but also on his ability to serve as an example to the sporting youth of his country”. If the byelaw is in place to meet this selelction criteria as laid down by the Olympic Charter then surely the Olympic CHarter is in contravention of the WADA regualtions, as the WADA regulations could not care less whether eligibility criteria are made to ensure that Olympic Representation comes with any sort of moral obligation.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby readtherules » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:36 pm

fangio wrote:RTR, what do you not understand? Beloff is currently instructed by WADA, having made money previously repreenting drug cheats like Chambers. Are you saying he did not represent Chambers? He did, and he has formulated an opinion for WADA which mirrors what his other clients eg Chambers would like to see. Do you really find it a surprising idea that a barrister who represented Chambers was picked to give an opinion because Wada a particular slant on that opinion, who naive.

As to the implication that WADA would be choosing, well if they are the ones who get to say whether the BOA have to choose to be represented by drugs cheats then yes they are choosing, the BOA would not be allowed to have their own eligibility criteria. As it stands the byelaw surely meets Rule 31 of the Olympic Charter which expressly states that when selecting athletes for inclusion in “Team GB”, the BOA must ensure that “such selection shall be based not only on the sports performance of an athlete but also on his ability to serve as an example to the sporting youth of his country”. If the byelaw is in place to meet this selelction criteria as laid down by the Olympic Charter then surely the Olympic CHarter is in contravention of the WADA regualtions, as the WADA regulations could not care less whether eligibility criteria are made to ensure that Olympic Representation comes with any sort of moral obligation.


Clearly I know that DC was represented by Beloff but so what.Taxi rank principle.
It is beyond belief that you think Beloff is biased.as it happens he has been a stouch supporter of drug control.read his decisions.Have you bothered to read anything ?

You say "As to the implication that WADA would be choosing, well if they are the ones who get to say whether the BOA have to choose to be represented by drugs cheats then yes they are choosing," This is the most substantial inversion of the meaning of our language that you have ever come up with.Also you never said anything about the "implication..."

The tactics employed by you and your chum ,big gut,only serve to frustrate any debate.That is why I charactorise the pair of you as the Tweedles but even Carrol would have not come up with such a whopper as rule 31.

This is rule 31 of olympic charter.

31 Flag, Emblem and Anthem of an NOC
The flag, the emblem and the anthem adopted by an NOC for use in relation to its activities,
including the Olympic Games, shall be subject to the approval of the IOC Executive Board.

DO I HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby fangio » Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:26 pm

I took the rule number form a post elsewhere, but it is the IOC who have stipulated the responsibility (not a right a responsibility) to select on grounds of example too. Quick search shows this on page 3 para 1http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/Roles_and_responsabilities.pdf

Not a whopper by me at all, but somethign that you seem keen to overlook. The IOC says NOC's HAVE TO select on the basis of the example not just performance.

In the current version of the charter it is section 4 on NOC's Subsection 2, article 2.1 that's page 60 of the July 2011 Charter linked to below.

http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf

Full Text says
"2. NOCs’ tasks:
The NOCs perform the following tasks:
2.1 They constitute, organise and lead their respective delegations at the Olympic
Games and at the regional, continental or world multi-sports competitions
patronised by the IOC. They decide upon the entry of athletes proposed by
their respective national federations. Such selection shall be based not only on
the sports performance of an athlete but also on his ability to serve as an example
to the sporting youth of his country. The NOCs must ensure that the entries
proposed by the national federations comply in all respects with the provisions of
the Olympic Charter."

Got it? So if the BOA decide that having a drug ban means you are not a good example and choose not to make such people eligibel for selelction they are acting in line with their RESPONSIBILITY to the Olympic Charter.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby Geoff » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:01 pm

"The NOCs must ensure that the entries proposed by the national federations comply in all respects with the provisions of
the Olympic Charter."

Such wooly phrases are frowned upon when it comes to deciding an issue based on rules. It could actually support Chambers as an athlete who erred, apologised, trained and competed clean for several years, overcame the odds and now stands as an example to our youth that doping and cheating doesn't pay!

I have said before that the BOA have very little power to barr an athlete from competing in the Olympics. They do not select the team. BOA rules and governing body rules have to be in harmony which is part of the issue.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby BigGut » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:12 pm

Redemption," says Siza Agha, "is recognised in every walk of life: the family, religion, law and politics. It is an integral foundation at the heart of the makeup of any democratic society. It is not recognised in dictatorships, Greek mythology and the British Olympic Association bylaw."

That isnthenquote I am arguing against. His idea of redemption is Chambers getting to do every single last thing he was allowed to before he decid to cheat and defraud other people. The thing is that in English law and even as you yourself recognised inn your earlier post about teachers being banned there are many examples where once you do something bad you NEVER get to do certain things EVER again. In this respect there is the same amount of redemption for Chambers as exists in many other areas of English law, his argument is complete and utter garbage.
BigGut
 
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:16 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby Geoff » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:16 pm

BigGut wrote:Redemption," says Siza Agha, "is recognised in every walk of life: the family, religion, law and politics. It is an integral foundation at the heart of the makeup of any democratic society. It is not recognised in dictatorships, Greek mythology and the British Olympic Association bylaw."

That isnthenquote I am arguing against. His idea of redemption is Chambers getting to do every single last thing he was allowed to before he decid to cheat and defraud other people. The thing is that in English law and even as you yourself recognised inn your earlier post about teachers being banned there are many examples where once you do something bad you NEVER get to do certain things EVER again. In this respect there is the same amount of redemption for Chambers as exists in many other areas of English law, his argument is complete and utter garbage.


Agree that total redemption is not always possible but this has little to do with how the final verdict will be decided.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby readtherules » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:48 am

fangio wrote:I took the rule number form a post elsewhere, but it is the IOC who have stipulated the responsibility (not a right a responsibility) to select on grounds of example too. Quick search shows this on page 3 para 1http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Reference_documents_Factsheets/Roles_and_responsabilities.pdf

Not a whopper by me at all, but somethign that you seem keen to overlook. The IOC says NOC's HAVE TO select on the basis of the example not just performance.

In the current version of the charter it is section 4 on NOC's Subsection 2, article 2.1 that's page 60 of the July 2011 Charter linked to below.

http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf

Full Text says
"2. NOCs’ tasks:
The NOCs perform the following tasks:
2.1 They constitute, organise and lead their respective delegations at the Olympic
Games and at the regional, continental or world multi-sports competitions
patronised by the IOC. They decide upon the entry of athletes proposed by
their respective national federations. Such selection shall be based not only on
the sports performance of an athlete but also on his ability to serve as an example
to the sporting youth of his country. The NOCs must ensure that the entries
proposed by the national federations comply in all respects with the provisions of
the Olympic Charter."

Got it? So if the BOA decide that having a drug ban means you are not a good example and choose not to make such people eligibel for selelction they are acting in line with their RESPONSIBILITY to the Olympic Charter.


Your reliabilty is in tatters by not checking your references.Can you advise were you got the mis info on rule 31 as I have seen no ref by anyone else.

I see the point about ability to serve as an example and I can see how an offence many years ago can influence how this ability is perceived.This is a very strong point and I thank you for bringing it forth.I would counter by suggesting that if it is only drug offences that warrant application of this then it highly selective to the point of being a further sanction.I am not aware of one case of criminal or antisocial or immoral behavior having caused non selection.I think we have a very serious offender in boxing.

I append the eligibility Code for reference.

40 Eligibility Code*
To be eligible for participation in the Olympic Games, a competitor, coach, trainer or other
team official must comply with the Olympic Charter, including the conditions of eligibility
established by the IOC, as well as with the rules of the IF concerned as approved by the
IOC, and the competitor, coach, trainer or other team official must be entered by his NOC.
The above-noted persons must:
– respect the spirit of fair play and non violence, and behave accordingly; and
– respect and comply in all aspects with the World Anti-Doping Code.
Bye-law to Rule 40
1. Each IF establishes its sport’s own eligibility criteria in accordance with the Olympic
Charter. Such criteria must be submitted to the IOC Executive Board for approval.
2. The application of the eligibility criteria lies with the IFs, their affiliated national federations
and the NOCs in the fields of their respective responsibilities.
3. Except as permitted by the IOC Executive Board, no competitor, coach, trainer or
official who participates in the Olympic Games may allow his person, name, picture or
sports performances to be used for advertising purposes during the Olympic Games.
4. The entry or participation of a competitor in the Olympic Games shall not be conditional
on any financial consideration.

It is still noted that you refuse to deal with Beloff and also not retract your allegation of his bias due to the influence of money.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby readtherules » Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:28 am

fangio.

In addition; from Beloff.
I commend 5.1.2,thus by barring due to past undesirable actions it is a sanction.

5. THE USOC vs IOC decision :ANALYSIS
5.1 The key steps on the Panel’s reasoning in the USOC vs IOC decision appear to me to
be these. The references are to paragraphs:
(1) The IOC as a signatory to the Code was bound contractually to implement
the Code without substantive change. 6.12-6.13, 8.22
(2) Eligibility rules “define certain attributes to be required of athletes desiring to be
eligible to compete and certain formalities that must be met in order to compete'' 8.9
in contrast ''are the rules that bar an athlete from participating and taking part in a
competition due to prior undesirable behaviour on the part of the athlete''.....whose
objective is to sanction the athlete's prior behaviour by barring participation in
the event because of that behaviour and which therefore impose sanctions.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby fangio » Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:26 pm

So Beloff says somethig is an additional sanction using the phrase "whose objective is to sanction the athlete's prior behaviour by barring participation". Well the Charter is not sanctioning the behaviour it has the specific objective of ensuring that participants are suitable role models. The objective is not to punish, it is to protect the Olympics.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby readtherules » Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:53 pm

fangio wrote:So Beloff says somethig is an additional sanction using the phrase "whose objective is to sanction the athlete's prior behaviour by barring participation". Well the Charter is not sanctioning the behaviour it has the specific objective of ensuring that participants are suitable role models. The objective is not to punish, it is to protect the Olympics.


Beloff deals with the point you raised from the charter and tests it against the WADA code and states that it is an additional sanction.He examines this in the context of the BOA byelaw and concludes it is a sanction.
Whether or not the object is to protect the Olympics is not relevant.It is an additional sanction.Not only do you take a view on this that is contrary to Beloff but contrary to the three very senior judges that determined the Rule 45 case .(USOC v IOC).Rather than providing fresh argument you mis interpret Beloff to the extent that you try and say he said the opposite of all his conclusions.If Beloff had said what you claim then the whole of his opinion on the BOA byelaw would have been the opposite.
Your grasp of this logic is appalling and to the point of being deceitful.

Are you still holding to your position that Beloff is biased because he has acted in the past for such as Chambers and got money for it ?
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby fangio » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:32 am

Rubbish, i am not misrepresenting Beloff at all , I have not said that Beloff said that it is not an additional sanction I have merely analysed what he said the reason was which was that the objective was to sanctiont he past behaviour. That is clearly NOT the objective of the BOA rule. The OBJECTIVE of the BOA rule is not punishment it is to ensure that the OLYMPIC CHARTER commitment is met. So if Beloff, as you highlighted, says it is an additional sanction because the objective is punishment of past behaviour he is wrong if it is shown, and I thinkt he charter demonstrates this, that the objective is not one of punishment. to me the legal arguemtn is there to be made, and clearly there is more to it than pretending that just because Beloff has given an expected opinion that he was paid to produce for WADA, and based upon the opinion he produced for his paid client Mr Chambers it does nto make tht opinion correct. I am not saying Beloff is biased, but that he is paid to produce opinions in a certain direction, I am sure he could equally produce an opinion that works for the BOA if he were paid to do so, it's what Barristers do.

What I really do not understand is why you think analysing what Beloff said and pointing out that his words could equally be used to demonstrate that the rule is not an additional sanction (because he bases it on the objective being punishment where others would argue that is not the objective and poitn to the charter) is misrepresenting Beloff, it's clearly analysing what he said. I also do not understand why you do not understand that Barristers are capable of arguing both sides, so the publishing of an opinion does not make it the personal opinion of the barrister or some sort of cast iron case. If others paid Beloff I bet he could produce an opinion that argues for the BOA rule, so I actually do look at the rules themselves rather than just the paid for opinion. How about you? Were you aware of the Charter, or do you just look at Beloff in isolation because it supports your own side fo the argument?
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby readtherules » Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:23 pm

fangio wrote:Rubbish, i am not misrepresenting Beloff at all , I have not said that Beloff said that it is not an additional sanction I have merely analysed what he said the reason was which was that the objective was to sanctiont he past behaviour. That is clearly NOT the objective of the BOA rule. The OBJECTIVE of the BOA rule is not punishment it is to ensure that the OLYMPIC CHARTER commitment is met. So if Beloff, as you highlighted, says it is an additional sanction because the objective is punishment of past behaviour he is wrong if it is shown, and I thinkt he charter demonstrates this, that the objective is not one of punishment. to me the legal arguemtn is there to be made, and clearly there is more to it than pretending that just because Beloff has given an expected opinion that he was paid to produce for WADA, and based upon the opinion he produced for his paid client Mr Chambers it does nto make tht opinion correct. I am not saying Beloff is biased, but that he is paid to produce opinions in a certain direction, I am sure he could equally produce an opinion that works for the BOA if he were paid to do so, it's what Barristers do.

What I really do not understand is why you think analysing what Beloff said and pointing out that his words could equally be used to demonstrate that the rule is not an additional sanction (because he bases it on the objective being punishment where others would argue that is not the objective and poitn to the charter) is misrepresenting Beloff, it's clearly analysing what he said. I also do not understand why you do not understand that Barristers are capable of arguing both sides, so the publishing of an opinion does not make it the personal opinion of the barrister or some sort of cast iron case. If others paid Beloff I bet he could produce an opinion that argues for the BOA rule, so I actually do look at the rules themselves rather than just the paid for opinion. How about you? Were you aware of the Charter, or do you just look at Beloff in isolation because it supports your own side fo the argument?


When an opinion is provided it is meant to provide a realistic un biased view.It is NOT a brief to be argued to a judge.I am sure Beloff could produce such for either side but that is not the function of the brief to WADA.
How on earth do you know it was based in his DC aruments.It is based on the way CAS has ruled against the IAC with rule 45.This was years after the DC case.

I am aware of the charter and unlike you do not make up sections of it.
Beloff is not looked at in isolation,read the Merrit decision and the CAS USOC/IOC decision.All of these have been provided but not one has been dealt withn by you.Better for you to doing the reading rather than make up sections that you falsely claim are from the Charter.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby fangio » Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:38 pm

I have not made up any sections of the charter, everything I said was in it was in it, I merely got the section number wrong in quoting someone else. To say I made up things from the charter is a complete lie. What bit of hte charter wording did I make up. If all you are sying i made up was the number that's pathetic, as everythign I said that was relevant tot he discussion is in the charter. Why try to make out that I made up the contents?
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: BOA v WADA

Postby Kermit » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:38 pm

Yo Cats! Go back to your bowls, drink some milk and chill :D

It doesn't matter about the charter, the most important aspect of the case lies around the fact that all NOCs signed up to the WADA code and the BOA's by-law goes against what they agreed and signed up to.

Earlier Biggut said that DC was able to earn his money, sorry that doesn't seem to be true as he is still being sidelined by the Euro meets organisers.
Kermit
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Next

Return to Current events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests

cron

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London