CAS v IOC v BOA

[Ulster's Best]

Anyone else shocked at the CAS decision re IOC not being able to stop filthy cheating trash competing in the next Olympics? The worry now is that the BOA's life ban could also prove unenforceable. Given how powerful the IOC is what would happen if they simply ignored the CAS ruling? Could CAS really stop the Olympics happening? I doubt it.

[Darce]

Who in the what now?

[Broken Wing]

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) will support the British Olympic Association's (BOA) right to impose a life ban on drug cheats but accepts it could not intervene if a legal challenge from an athlete follows this week's court of arbitration for sport (CAS) ruling.

The IOC and the London 2012 organising committee chairman, Lord Coe, backed the BOA over the ban after the Cas ruling opened the door to LaShawn Merritt and other athletes (e.g. cyclist David Millar or sprinter Dwain Chambers) who would have been banned to compete.

The IOC has said that it's up to each NOC (National Olympic Committee) to determine the eligibilty of their own athletes which in one way leaves the responsibility with the BOA.

It's an interesting ruling. The IOC's rule 45 (the Osaka rule) says that any athelte banned for more than 6 months cannot compete at the games. While it may be intended as a deterrant it does seem slightly unfair that an athelete like David Millar, who was banned for two years (up to 2006) and has spent his time since then campaigning against drugs in sport is not allowed compete. Especially when you consider the rule was only brought in two years after his ban was finished. The Osaka rule means any ban over 6 months is a lifetme Olympics ban which is imposing a double sentence and that's not really fair.

[ribs]

The Osaka rule means any ban over 6 months is a lifetme Olympics ban which is imposing a double sentence and that's not really fair.

Yes, it is fair. A ban over 6 months means you did something seriously wrong. It's not a double sentence, it's the same punishment (a ban from competing) for the same offense, just in a different competition. I understand the "unfair"ness arguement about it being retroactive, but don't think the arguement stands up: if the Olympic ban was in place earlier, it would not have changed the actions of the individual cyclist. Also, the number of retroactive cases will be a very small number - too small to justify overturning a deterent to the millions of athletes around the world.

[Broken Wing]

It's not the same sentence at all. It's a 2 year ban from some things and a lifetime ban from others. If they want a lifetime ban, which I have no problem with, then give a lifetime ban instead of mucking around. Especially given the mucking around has been ruled out of order by the CAS.

[ronk]

The deterrence factor of a lifetime ban doesn't have much effect when they introduce it retrospectively. That said, the option of lifetime bans was there beforehand, it's just that 2 years was the standard.

[Ulster's Best]

It's not the same sentence at all. It's a 2 year ban from some things and a lifetime ban from others. If they want a lifetime ban, which I have no problem with, then give a lifetime ban instead of mucking around. Especially given the mucking around has been ruled out of order by the CAS.

Who cares about being fair to these cheating scumbags - they're the last people who deserve fairness. They don't know the meaning of the fecking word. Has it escaped you that they're banned because they didn't act fairly themselves?

[Broken Wing]

Don't get the impression that I'm trying to defend drug cheats. I certainly don't care about the drug cheats. I have a touch of sympathy for the ones that served their sentence only to have another sentence added on top of it by the IOC. Just a small touch though. But who couldn't have sympathy for someone like Olympic 400m champion LaShawn Merritt who foolishly took an over the counter sex enhancer which resulted in testing positive for steroids. The American arbitration panel said there was no intent by Merritt to gain a competitive advantage or improve his sports performance so he was banned for 21 months instead of 24. Definitely stupid & naive but a cheat? He served his 21 months for stupidity but the IOC's Osaka rule means he can't defend his Olympic title.

If the world was black and white then by all means, lifetime bans all round but of course the world isn't black and white. Take the wrong cold medicine and be banned for life? Merritt is not the only example of stupid mistakes and I remember recently reading about a guy who is adamant he was framed by a member of the medical team who had a grudge with the coach (I'll try and root it out). The seriousness of the offence is supposed to be reflected in the length of the sentence.

[Ulster's Best]

Don't get the impression that I'm trying to defend drug cheats. I certainly don't care about the drug cheats. I have a touch of sympathy for the ones that served their sentence only to have another sentence added on top of it by the IOC. Just a small touch though. But who couldn't have sympathy for someone like Olympic 400m champion LaShawn Merritt who foolishly took an over the counter sex enhancer which resulted in testing positive for steroids. The American arbitration panel said there was no intent by Merritt to gain a competitive advantage or improve his sports performance so he was banned for 21 months instead of 24. Definitely stupid & naive but a cheat? He served his 21 months for stupidity but the IOC's Osaka rule means he can't defend his Olympic title.

If the world was black and white then by all means, lifetime bans all round but of course the world isn't black and white. Take the wrong cold medicine and be banned for life? Merritt is not the only example of stupid mistakes and I remember recently reading about a guy who is adamant he was framed by a member of the medical team who had a grudge with the coach (I'll try and root it out). The seriousness of the offence is supposed to be reflected in the length of the sentence.

No no I'm not saying you're defending them. Just feel that you're being too generous. It's the IOC's club so they should be able to decide the rules. No-one has a God-given right to compete at the Olympics. Deterrence is everything. If Merritt knew a life ban was a possibility he might have thought even harder if you excuse the pun about growing a bigger dik or whatever he was trying to do. What WAS he trying to do anyway??

[Broken Wing]

It seems that despite being the best 400m runner in the world, Merritt felt he was coming up short against his rivals in one particular department in the unforgiving, and lycra clad, world of modern athletics and had decided to do something about it.
The 23-year-old failed three out-of-competition tests between October and January because he was taking an over-the-counter medicine called ExtenZe, which contains the banned substance DHEA, a steroid.Adverts for ExtenZe claim it is made of "good quality herbs" that will increase the size of one's manhood and aid sexual performance.
After the tests came to light, a chastened Merritt was honest enough to admit: "Any penalty I may receive for my action will not overshadow the embarrassment and humiliation I feel.
"I hope my sponsors, family, friends and the sport itself will forgive me for making such a foolish, immature and egotistical mistake," he added.

[Ulster's Best]

It seems that despite being the best 400m runner in the world, Merritt felt he was coming up short against his rivals in one particular department in the unforgiving, and lycra clad, world of modern athletics and had decided to do something about it.
The 23-year-old failed three out-of-competition tests between October and January because he was taking an over-the-counter medicine called ExtenZe, which contains the banned substance DHEA, a steroid.Adverts for ExtenZe claim it is made of "good quality herbs" that will increase the size of one's manhood and aid sexual performance.
After the tests came to light, a chastened Merritt was honest enough to admit: "Any penalty I may receive for my action will not overshadow the embarrassment and humiliation I feel.
"I hope my sponsors, family, friends and the sport itself will forgive me for making such a foolish, immature and egotistical mistake," he added.

He's drawn bigger attention to his small dik now innit?!

Thanks for background by the way.

Still no sympathy whatsoever - could you imagine eg Derval O'Rourke or Katie Taylor going off to have breast augmentation just because they're on TV a bit in relatively skimpy clothes? Me neither. The guy was never a serious sportsman.

[ribs]

Interestingly Katie wouldn't be allowed compete then anyway - them implants are not designed for that sort of impact.

I probably should have mentioned that each sporting organisation has their own ban lengths (just like foul play in rugby). I thought that the IOC idea was a good one as it standardised the ban for all serious failures (i.e. greater than 6 month ban) across all the sports in the one competition. For the not so serious incidents or mistakes, they should be less than 6 months anyway (unlikely that there would be many bans less than 6 months though as the ban has to be long enough to remove the benefit gained from the drug).

[Broken Wing]

Interestingly Katie wouldn't be allowed compete then anyway - them implants are not designed for that sort of impact.

In fact in 2009 an English girl was denied an amateur licence because her implants were deemed unsafe.

[Ulster's Best]

Interestingly Katie wouldn't be allowed compete then anyway - them implants are not designed for that sort of impact.

In fact in 2009 an English girl was denied an amateur licence because her implants were deemed unsafe.

Good. Serious sportspeople make lifestyle choices accordingly. The rest dont deserve to make it, and don't.

[jezzer]

In my opinion, the organisers should be able to after proven, banned cheats and demand prize money back. It's fraud and nothing less. If that means a lifetime ban from the Olympics then so be it. I have zero sympathy for anyone banned for systematic doping.