Gabby Thomas - formerly of Harvard - is cleared for 3 whereabouts failures after "new evidence" is provided

thank yous wrote:

you dont have a right to be an athlete.

You have opportunities.

To do this you join a 'club' which has a set of rules for all the 'club' members to follow in the interests of fair competition.

You agree to follow those rules if you join the 'club'. If you dont like the rules, you leave the 'club'. Noone is forcing you.

Your human rights do not come into this at any point.

You cannot sign away your basic human rights. You cannot sign yourself into slavery. this confusin between voluntary and actual is tedious and mendacious.

No you are wrong.

Clubs have to abide by the law.

By joining a club you can’t agree to such as discrimination on the basis of race , sex etc etc .A private club can’t have rules that are in conflict with public law.

You can’t , for instance , have a golf club that won’t have Jews and then just say it is a club don’t bother applying.

Nor can you sign your rights away to Health and Safety law.

Quite simple ; you can’t sign your rights away.

rekrunner wrote:

Her statement following the provisional suspension announcement referred to phone tracking data and multiple witnesses that would conclusively show that she was exactly where she was supposed to be.

The specificity of this evidence then, and the rapidity with which her charge was withdrawn, leads me to think she already had the evidence prepared, but was not given the opportunity to present it before the provisional announcement.

That seems more likely than a conclusion of withholding evidence that she felt was conclusive enough to invalidate at least one of the missed tests.

But we actually have the dates: here too it took over eight months from the third missed test in September 2019 to the provisional ban, then two more months until she submitted the new evidence, then yes, only one week until the withdrawal of the provisional ban.

Over eight months is ridiculously slow in my books, i.e. the opposite of "the rapid announcement" that you supposed. Read the Kipsang decision for an example what was all going on during that time frame.

rule reader wrote:

The athlete does not chose privacy or not to have privacy.

It is their right unless the law says otherwise.

You can’t sign your rights away.

Have you ever made an appointment with the doctor? Or for a haircut? Or car maintenance? Or a restaurant? How do kids go to school, or adults go to work?

How would any of these things even be possible without consenting to be in a specific place at a specific time? Are these special events specifically carved outs allowed by law?

I think you have to do a little more homework to make the case that making yourself available 1 hour per day -- at a time and place of your own chosing -- could be legally construed as giving up your right to privacy.

you are absolutely correct, clubs have to obey the law. But you are incorrectly conflating illegal activity such as discrimination with simply agreeing appointments at your leisure. what law does that break? See Rekrunner post above.

There is no argument that eight months seems like a rather long time for due process.

(This is one of my objections to criminalizing doping for the athletes, as the time to prosecute will only get longer).

What I saw in the Kipsang case was that the AIU took 97 days to notify Kipsang, when the standard prescribes 14 days. Apparently there is no consequence to the AIU for such a delay, but it certainly puts the athlete at a disadvantage, if he needs to go back and collect evidence. Kipsang exercised his right to an Administrative Review, taking more time. And the AIU missed the charging deadline by two weeks. Seems like that whole process can be shortened to three months.

What is inarguable is that the AIU published the provisional suspension without the evidence that convinced them to withdraw.

rule reader wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Sorry Rule, but your understanding is overly simplistic.

No, I won’t elaborate. You can, however continue to further develop your understanding. I encourage you to do so, you are on a good path.

You are a condescending trumponium .

Try going from Kant to Rawls and then return to this thread.

No need for reflexive anger, I was being supportive. Yes I have read Kant bit not Rawls. You are on a good path, but don’t stop—keep going. Law is about much more than simple so-called “natural rights”.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

rule reader wrote:

You are a condescending trumponium .

Try going from Kant to Rawls and then return to this thread.

No need for reflexive anger, I was being supportive. Yes I have read Kant bit not Rawls. You are on a good path, but don’t stop—keep going. Law is about much more than simple so-called “natural rights”.

You were being and continue to be sarcastic.

Unfortunately, you won’t get far with that attitude.

rekrunner wrote:

rule reader wrote:

The athlete does not chose privacy or not to have privacy.

It is their right unless the law says otherwise.

You can’t sign your rights away.

Have you ever made an appointment with the doctor? Or for a haircut? Or car maintenance? Or a restaurant? How do kids go to school, or adults go to work?

How would any of these things even be possible without consenting to be in a specific place at a specific time? Are these special events specifically carved outs allowed by law?

I think you have to do a little more homework to make the case that making yourself available 1 hour per day -- at a time and place of your own chosing -- could be legally construed as giving up your right to privacy.

You have to provide your whereabouts (and that includes the one hour rule); thus giving up your privacy .

You make a free decision to make a hair cut appointment and are not sanctioned if you do not wish to do so nor if you don’t turn up and nor do you have to explain where you were if you don’t turn up.

If I attend a medical appointment that requires a urine sample I am not required to agree that I should have someone watch the urine leave my body nor am I required to give permission to have such done to my child.

Kids attending school is a legal requirement, at least in the Uk.

You can’t sign your rights away.

rule reader wrote:

You have to provide your whereabouts (and that includes the one hour rule); thus giving up your privacy .

You make a free decision to make a hair cut appointment and are not sanctioned if you do not wish to do so nor if you don’t turn up and nor do you have to explain where you were if you don’t turn up.

If I attend a medical appointment that requires a urine sample I am not required to agree that I should have someone watch the urine leave my body nor am I required to give permission to have such done to my child.

Kids attending school is a legal requirement, at least in the Uk.

You can’t sign your rights away.

This still looks like questionable legal basis, as to whether providing your whereabouts 1 hour a day gives up your right to privacy. The athlete choses the time and place.

You give up your right to privacy every time you step out of your house.

I can chose to get a haircut, but athletes don't chose to compete?

Every contract in existence exchanges some rights for some benefit, by mutual agreement.

Whether or not the athlete chooses the hour the requirement is still a breach of privacy.

In addition , and I repeat, the whereabouts system requires you to state where you live, where you will stay the night, where you train, and where you work.Now! how are those for breaches of a right to privacy and family life?

If the tester decides to come to your house outside the hour specified the test still has to take place.This could be as early as 5.00 in the morning until 11.00 at night.

Further you do no have to be on the whereabouts system to be subject of such demand of entry.

The right to privacy and family life is set out in law in the UK.

In no concept of the requirements of law is their a requirement that your urination or that of your child has to be directly viewed.This requirement is agreed to by millions of sportspeople in each country in the world.

The rule of law determines your rights. Doping Control is not a matter of law but claims more rights than the Law has.

I agree that contracts exchange rights but such are constrained by the laws of your country.For instance, there is the concept of unfair terms which negates a contract.

You can’t sign your rights away.

UK is still subject to European courts. I wonder what the European Court of Human Rights thinks?

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-01/wada-welcomes-echr-decision-to-back-whereabouts-rules

rekrunner wrote:

UK is still subject to European courts. I wonder what the European Court of Human Rights thinks?

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-01/wada-welcomes-echr-decision-to-back-whereabouts-rules

And the Court ruled that Human Rights did apply to sport and that Whereabouts rules were a breach.

Wait what?

"the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (rejected) a legal challenge"

"The ECHR’s important ruling that the rules do not violate Article 8 (right to respect for one’s private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights"

"It receives universal support, including from the United Nations (via UNESCO’s International Convention against Doping in Sport) and the Council of Europe (via its Anti-Doping Convention)."

"To comply with European law, WADA oversaw the drafting of the latest World Anti-Doping Code, which came into force in 2015, by the French judge Jean-Paul Costa, former President of the ECHR."

"Whereabouts rules are endorsed by athletes’ associations, National Anti-Doping Organizations, governments, International Federations and Major Event Organizations."

rekrunner wrote:

Wait what?

"the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (rejected) a legal challenge"

"The ECHR’s important ruling that the rules do not violate Article 8 (right to respect for one’s private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights"

"It receives universal support, including from the United Nations (via UNESCO’s International Convention against Doping in Sport) and the Council of Europe (via its Anti-Doping Convention)."

"To comply with European law, WADA oversaw the drafting of the latest World Anti-Doping Code, which came into force in 2015, by the French judge Jean-Paul Costa, former President of the ECHR."

"Whereabouts rules are endorsed by athletes’ associations, National Anti-Doping Organizations, governments, International Federations and Major Event Organizations."

Why the what what

The Euro Court accepted that sport and whereabouts was subject to human rights law and that whereabouts was in breach.

That is exactly what I have been saying !

Do pay attention and read the decision.

Remember I am the “ rule reader” !

Bro, you're a simp

Thomas might have found an out here, but she'll be back on the juice and missing another test in the calendar year

YouDumb wrote:

rule reader wrote:

Why the what what

The Euro Court accepted that sport and whereabouts was subject to human rights law and that whereabouts was in breach.

That is exactly what I have been saying !

Do pay attention and read the decision.

Remember I am the “ rule reader” !

Bro, you're a simp

Thomas might have found an out here, but she'll be back on the juice and missing another test in the calendar year

What has your post got to do with mine?

You may or may not be correct but nowt to do with what I am writing about.

And, for clarity, I do not think we are related.

What are the chances that a big chunk of Kenyan whereabouts violations deserve a second look?

El Keniano wrote:

What are the chances that a big chunk of Kenyan whereabouts violations deserve a second look?

0