New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

Former Member — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:25:11 GMT

Was Hardy actually banned? I thought she withdrew before everything went through and didn't get banned. Maybe I just missed something, but I think her not competing was because she chose not to and not because she was banned. I don't think withdrawing keeps you from getting banned. You test positive, you get banned. Maybe it's not official yet, but she's definitely getting banned.

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

Former Member — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:19:10 GMT

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

Former Member — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:51:22 GMT

What is exactly on the list of banned substances for the IOC? I got a feeling most of us would fail the screening if tested. Looks to me that way too may OTC products appear on these list and I don`t understand why they are banned. Many of the OTC products are masking agents that make the tests for, say, steroids ineffective. Thus, the assumption is that if you're using the masking agent you're using it to mask a PED. I heard a Science Friday report on NPR where they talking about drug testing for athletes. Their tests haven't ever been tested to find out what the false positive and false negative rates are! That's really a big deal. Supppose the test is, say, 98% accurate (meaning that if you're using PEDs there's a 98% change the test says you're using and if you aren't there's a 98% chance the test says you aren't). That sounds pretty good, right? But suppose there are 10,000 athletes at the Olympics and only 5% are using PEDs. That's 500 using PEDs and 9,500 who aren't. If you test them all, you get: 500*0.98 = 490 true positive tests, which is great! But you also get: 9,500*0.02 = 190 false positive tests! Thus, almost 30% of the people labeled "cheaters," stripped of medals, and sent home in shame are actually innocent! And that's if the test is 98% accurate. But we don't know the accuracy of the tests, because the tests haven't been tested (they aren't regulated by, say, the FDA). But it gets worse: if you test people for 200 different PEDs and masking agents, this applies for each of the tests. If even if you have a small chance of a false positive on one test, your chances of having a false positive on any one of 200 tests is much higher. The WADA people say, "Well, we can't give out any info about our testing because that would just help the cheaters." But there's something inherently unsettling about people who have so much power hiding behind a veil of secrecy.

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

Former Member — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:51:17 GMT

:dunno:Has anyone heard anything about Hardy lately?:dunno:

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

Former Member — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:02:24 GMT

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.

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

Former Member — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:30:46 GMT

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

Former Member — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:22:12 GMT

Leonard - I think this is what that senator dude who was busted in a men's room in the Minneapolis Airport attempted to do. Here in Pennsylvania that is considered neither a performance enhancing drug nor a performance enhancing proceedure. Nor is it an Olympic sport. Yet. -LBJ

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

Former Member — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:33:45 GMT

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

aquageek — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:17:17 GMT

She's been laying low since she admitted she is a doping cheater. My best bet is she is compiling the most likely list of excuses, beginning with drinking tainted infant formula from china that contained that melamine stuff. Fort thinks she will go with the deceased twin theory.

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

aquageek — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:03:01 GMT

Leonard - I think this is what that senator dude who was busted in a men's room in the Minneapolis Airport attempted to do.

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

tjrpatt — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:17:23 GMT

Is the guy from Tunisia(who trains at USC with Jessica Hardy) who won the 1500 going to finish his two suspension. He got suspension reduced so he could compete in Beijing. You know that the Australians are ticked off about that. The Tunisia guy tested positive for addirual(don't know the correct spelling but it is similar to speed). From what I heard, USC has some dirty swimmers and I don't mean that they don't shower.

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

Former Member — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:51:46 GMT

Fair enough. However, could it not be argued that the conditions/rules at the time of the violation (and punishment) constituted an implicit contract between the athlete and the private organization? -LBJ Possibly, but I'd bet the IOC has lots of language in its charter stating "We can do whatever the hell we want."

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

Former Member — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:45:10 GMT

Rather interesting that they picked July 1, 2008. I hope you're not accusing Canada of having had a(n) (under)hand in this. 01 July is Canada's National day.:canada:

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

Former Member — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 05:31:01 GMT

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. Fair enough. However, could it not be argued that the conditions/rules at the time of the violation (and punishment) constituted an implicit contract between the athlete and the private organization? -LBJ

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

The Fortress — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:50:54 GMT

Possibly, but I'd bet the IOC has lots of language in its charter stating "We can do whatever the hell we want." Yeah, probably right. When was the announcement made? People falling in the period between July 1 and the date of the announcement could certainly be surprised and feel a certain lack of due process, as LBJ notes. But then, Geek thinks cheaters aren't entitled to DP anyway ... What do people think of the super ban? When someone is banned for 2 years, are they drug tested during that time? If not, the super ban makes some sense. Why allow a cheater to drug up for 2 years unhindered, then return to competition?

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

ViveBene — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:51:47 GMT

Did Jessica Hardy receive a specific ban, and has this ban been upheld? Has she been through all the appeals processes? The IOC may have felt the sting of Katerina Thanou, Marion Jones, et al. episodes and in effect structured a super-ban.

RE: New IOC Rule - No Hardy in London

elise526 — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:35:58 GMT

Rather interesting that they picked July 1, 2008.