rekrunner wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
I like your perspective that Wada does not protect clean athletes and that the Wada Code makes that inevitable.
The costs of treating each case on its own merits as to cheating will prove prohibitive.
Until !! Some very very rich sportsperson takes the whole system through the highest and most expensive courts in the land.
And then drug testing will disintegrate.
Slow down. I did not say "inevitable", but said "risk'. It's not just my perspective, but echoes many of USADA Chief Tygart's criticisms regarding WADA's reversal of shift of burden of proving (non) intention from the ADO to the athlete, introduced in rule changes in 2015, in order to qualify for a "no-fault" ruling.
As I have explained in other posts, the cases of Simon Getzmann and Jarrod Lawson illustrates several justice and equity issues with the WADA process, biased in favor of ADAs and ADOs and against the athlete, and how changes in 2015 increased the risk of anti-doping falling short of WADA's objectives of protecting clean athletes, and universal harmonization of anti-doping.
Removing these risks and ensuring more fairness to clean athletes will increase both time and money required to prosecute.
WADA and ADAs and ADOs have to perform a balancing act with both time and money:
- ADAs and ADOs are under criticism if the time of prosecution is too lengthy. Changes that can shorten the time to prosecution, by eliminating many of the athlete's defenses, or make them more difficult, also create a higher risk of unfairness to the clean athletes.
- Ideally, if WADA achieves its ultimate goal, both doping prevalence and the number of positive tests should drop towards zero. Yet many countries will view the value of the anti-doping investment by number of busts, which show that anti-doping is "working", thereby creating a perverse incentive to inflate the doping problem with lower quality violations, (including technical rule violations like whereabouts failures), in order to demonstrate an increased need and justification for increased funding.
I am not going to fall out with you over risk/inevitable.
The Code is evolving and more and more it will have to resemble the sort of jurisprudence that we would expect in the real world.
The Code has already changed to recognise Data Protection and Proportionality even though it still says they are sports rules.