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.
Former Member
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
