Know your WADA: Documents defining Block's ineligibility

Those snippets are from Page 30 of Blocks Arbitration

http://www.usada.org/uploads/ArbitrationAwardBlock.pdf

Thanks for posting the documents. I appreciate the sources.

I do not think spectating at the olympic trials constitutes a violation but I agree it was shady.

Does WADA have the authority to penalize an athlete that works with Block?

Good stuff! My initial reaction was "So? He is watching a track meet, big deal". Like Pete Rose at a baseball game, I didn't really see it as a problem unless he was competing or involved with competition or awards. Then I just kind of assumed it was a violation based on all the hoopla.

It does seem like something is rotten in the state of Denmark, however still not sure if I am buying.

..participate in any capacity..

so he was breaking the ban by attending the meet

but usada has no authority to enforce it

lol

Would spectating the meet on TV or online be participating? What about standing outside the gates and watching the big screen in the stadium? Is spectating in the stands participating?

Not disagreeing with you, but especially with the Lance USADA thing, results will come from a translation from legal-eze. That being said, I still think he may violate his own arbitration's term about USOC facilities,

Bigger than breaking the ban, to me, is that he was in Nike's VIP box. Someone specifically invited a disgraced drug cheat to sit with Nike big shots.

Azaleas wrote:

Bigger than breaking the ban, to me, is that he was in Nike's VIP box. Someone specifically invited a disgraced drug cheat to sit with Nike big shots.

+1 . Probably not a violation, but what was Nike thinking? Who invited him? I would love to see that chain of command. From the other thread, I suspect either Jeter or Richardson did the inviting.

Pizzaguy wrote:

Good stuff! My initial reaction was "So? He is watching a track meet, big deal". Like Pete Rose at a baseball game, I didn't really see it as a problem unless he was competing or involved with competition or awards. Then I just kind of assumed it was a violation based on all the hoopla.

It does seem like something is rotten in the state of Denmark, however still not sure if I am buying.

What if Pete Rose was attending a baseball game and sitting in a sky box leased by an online gambling site? That is a reverse situation kinda but it would be 'guilt by association' just as it is for Nike. Whether is was in violation or not, it was NOT a good PR move for Nike. A major sponsor hosting a drug cheat is just plain stupid.

very sloppy by Nike

and only one month away from the Olympics.

I'm not sure if its illegal for him to attend events as an individual, but as a guest of the meet's sponsor. That's iffy.

More problematic than this one incident is a pattern of attending major competitions and meeting with athletes. That has the appearance of an end run around the ban on coaching and representing athletes.

Nice job to Clerk for digging those up. From reading the documents he posted, it's hard to see how Block is violating his ban.

As Clerk points out, the arbitrators imposed two different sets of sanctions on Block. In Section 10.2.1, they said he was ineligible to work as an "athlete support personnel" for ten years. In Section 10.2.2, they said he was not to participate in, or have access to, any training facilities or other programs or activities of the USOC.

The WADC defines "Athlete Support Personnel" broadly to include: "any coach, trainer, manager, agent, team staff, official, medical, paramedical personnel, parent or any other Person working with, treating or assisting an Athlete participating in or preparing for sports Competition."

So far, there is no direct evidence that he is supporting athletes.

To quote a famous jogger, whether he's guilty of violating 10.2.2 "depends on what the meaning of the words 'participate' and 'having access to' is."

The WADC does not define "participate" or "access." In 8.5, the arbitrator agreed that for such words, it would "look to the ordinary meaning..."

It is hard to see that the sitting in the stands, even the Nike VIP stands, would be considered "participating" under the "ordinary meaning" of the word.

So it all comes down to whether sitting in the Nike VIP secition is considered "having access" to the "programs and other activities" of the USOC. The arbitrators do say the programs he can't have access to include, "but [are] not limited to, grants, awards, or employment..." It's hard to see that "sitting in the stands" is the same sort of activity as getting a grant, award, or employment from the USOC.

So, as everyone said, having him around is sketchy, but not a violation of the arbitrators' decision.

(Or, for those of us who think the drugging is rampant, having him around is just confirmation that it's business as usual.)

Imagine Victor Conte himself sitting in the Nike box. Come to think of it, if Block had said he was there as an "anti doping expert" everyone would have bought it.

In his defense, that was a pretty pathetic VIP box by Nike's standards. Open air?

Considering the quality of Nike shoes...