Athletes banned starting with July 1 can't compete in the next Olympics for their sport after their suspension ends. Think Jessica Hardy will stick around for 2016?
The IOC Executive Board has taken this decision in furtherance of the fight against doping.
The IOC Executive Board, in accordance with Rules 19.3.10 OC and pursuant to Rule 45 OC,
hereby issues the following rules regarding participation in the Olympic Games:
1. Any person who has been sanctioned with a suspension of more than six months by any
anti-doping organization for any violation of any anti-doping regulations may not
participate, in any capacity, in the next edition of the Games of the Olympiad and of the
Olympic Winter Games following the date of expiry of such suspension.
2. These Regulations apply to violations of any anti-doping regulations that are committed as
of 1 July 2008. They are notified to all International Federations, to all National Olympic
Committees and to all Organising Committees for the Olympic Games.
Parents
Former Member
Question for our legal types (Fort, et al): How does this potentially stand if taken to a US court? By that I mean let's propose a hypothetical example:
Suppose that I competed on July 2 and subsequentally tested positive for a PED. It is my first offense and I admit guilt and agree to the standard 2 year ban - no appeals or hearings. The agreement happens BEFORE the IOC announcement. Some time later the IOC makes the announcement of the ruling above. Do I, in effect, have a case of saying something like "Hey, sentence was already passed and the punishment was the standard at the time. Now I am being retroactively punished and in doing so stand to potentially lose income based on that"?
I realize that the IOC is not always bound by US laws, but what points of US law either support or not support this type of approach?
-LBJ
The government cannot make ex post facto laws, just as the government cannot restrict free speech. But private organizations can restrict free speech and can probably make ex post facto rules if they like.
In general, the Bill of Rights talks about what the government can't do, not private organizations.
Question for our legal types (Fort, et al): How does this potentially stand if taken to a US court? By that I mean let's propose a hypothetical example:
Suppose that I competed on July 2 and subsequentally tested positive for a PED. It is my first offense and I admit guilt and agree to the standard 2 year ban - no appeals or hearings. The agreement happens BEFORE the IOC announcement. Some time later the IOC makes the announcement of the ruling above. Do I, in effect, have a case of saying something like "Hey, sentence was already passed and the punishment was the standard at the time. Now I am being retroactively punished and in doing so stand to potentially lose income based on that"?
I realize that the IOC is not always bound by US laws, but what points of US law either support or not support this type of approach?
-LBJ
The government cannot make ex post facto laws, just as the government cannot restrict free speech. But private organizations can restrict free speech and can probably make ex post facto rules if they like.
In general, the Bill of Rights talks about what the government can't do, not private organizations.
