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.
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.
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?
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
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:
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."
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.
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.
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
