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

El Keniano wrote:

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

About as high as the chances that Coleman and Thomas are clean.

YouDumb wrote:

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

Probably, but that won't be a problem for her for now, because she only has one missed test in the last twelve months on record (August 21, 2019). The one from April 2019 has expired, and the one from September 2019 erased.

She could miss one now, and one on August 22, and still be in the clear. That's how ridiculously forgiving this system is. And thanks to the anti-transparency policies of the corrupt IAAF/WA, we wouldn't even hear about her (hypothetical) missed tests in July and August 2020.

rekrunner 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” !

Because what you are saying and have been saying all along contradicts the decision finding no breach.

"In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Fédération Nationale des Syndicats Sportifs (FNASS) and Others v. France (application no. 48151/11 and 77769/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights."

There are several limbs within this debate of drug testing human rights and the lady in question .

The Court heard the case and thus drug testing is covered by the ECHR.It is not like a hair cut or leaving your house.

Art 8 gives you rights to privacy etc; but these rights are not allowed all the time. If there is a public good reason of merit the. a breach is allowed.

The Court found that there was a breach but that the public good test made such a breach allowable.Legal commentary was astonished that the public good tests applied would never have been allowed or applied in other cases.But then the Court did have a big problem as if they had found in favour of the athletes it would have been the end of drug testing.

My point in this case is that the system is so in favour of the testers that human rights are breached albeit them deemed to be ok and that such is highly indicative of the uphill battle she will face. Back to the question in the very first post and asked by the editors.

The Court has not ruled on the athletes who are tested at home but are not on any whereabouts system as not being good enough. This in itself runs contrary to the judgement.

The Court has not been asked to rule on viewed urination by adults nor children.

I assume that if you are a visitor to a country you are subject to both rights and obligations under the law.

What if a country did have unambiguous laws that said that large elements of sports doping was against their laws.( Whereabouts through to viewed urination ). What would happen if athletes went to live or study or work their or even lived there anyway?

rule reader wrote:

I assume that if you are a visitor to a country you are subject to both rights and obligations under the law.

What if a country did have unambiguous laws that said that large elements of sports doping was against their laws.( Whereabouts through to viewed urination ). What would happen if athletes went to live or study or work their or even lived there anyway?

Does a country like this exist already?

They said "no violation of Article 8". They did not say there was a breach but it is OK.

In any case, it is a distinction that doesn't matter.

Either way you lose -- the Courts have interpreted the law.

rule reader wrote:

rule reader wrote:

I assume that if you are a visitor to a country you are subject to both rights and obligations under the law.

What if a country did have unambiguous laws that said that large elements of sports doping was against their laws.( Whereabouts through to viewed urination ). What would happen if athletes went to live or study or work their or even lived there anyway?

Does a country like this exist already?

WADA works with the various governments who become WADA signatories.

If they are not signatories, or they do not comply with the obligations, they become non-compliant and ineligible to compete.

No laws broken. It's a win-win situation for everyone.

I never said that Wada whereabouts were not legal.

Though note; that only tested in Euro courts.

Pay attention , only that they are severe.

And that they are subject to human rights laws ; which they clearly are and I note other posters said they were not.

Courts not ruled on home tests for those not on whereabouts nor viewed urination.

rekrunner wrote:

rule reader wrote:

Does a country like this exist already?

WADA works with the various governments who become WADA signatories.

If they are not signatories, or they do not comply with the obligations, they become non-compliant and ineligible to compete.

No laws broken. It's a win-win situation for everyone.

You make a good point.

All puts into the context of sports rules seemingly being superior to the law.

This will come to a big conflict at some point.

I think there are plenty of countries that will still not allow drug testers free access; but no Wada ban.

Interesting that antidoping rules are indeed subject to Human Rights laws in Europe.

rule reader wrote:

Interesting that antidoping rules are indeed subject to Human Rights laws in Europe.

I keep making this point as most in the USA believe that sport exists outside of the law.

rule reader wrote:

rule reader wrote:

Interesting that antidoping rules are indeed subject to Human Rights laws in Europe.

I keep making this point as most in the USA believe that sport exists outside of the law.

Of course no one believes that -- that is why you are responding to yourself now.

As I said above, WADA works with the various governments.

As we have seen, the European court found it was within the law, not superior, or outside, but compliant.

rekrunner wrote:

rule reader wrote:

I keep making this point as most in the USA believe that sport exists outside of the law.

Of course no one believes that -- that is why you are responding to yourself now.

As I said above, WADA works with the various governments.

As we have seen, the European court found it was within the law, not superior, or outside, but compliant.

Read the posts and note that all say that human rights in sport are of no concern to the law.

ECHR had it in their powers to overrule Wada .

Wada can’t overrule law.The assumption that Wada works with governments does not mean for one second that it is superior.

Thus Euro law is superior to sports law.

In the case of the limited decision on doping rules the had to find justification for breach of privacy, which they did.

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

If Thomas is doping perhaps she needs better dope because she has not improved much in 2 years.

rule reader wrote:

Read the posts and note that all say that human rights in sport are of no concern to the law.

ECHR had it in their powers to overrule Wada .

Wada can’t overrule law.The assumption that Wada works with governments does not mean for one second that it is superior.

Thus Euro law is superior to sports law.

In the case of the limited decision on doping rules the had to find justification for breach of privacy, which they did.

I re-read the posts -- none of them said human rights are of no concern to the law.

On the contrary, you repeatedly say "human rights laws", suggesting it is highly concerned.

You also told us you are not saying that whereabouts are not legal.

Of course ECHR can overrule WADA, but that it is not applicable here as they ruled against the legal challenge of Whereabouts, finding it did not violate the Human Rights Article on the right to privacy.

It is not an assumption that WADA works with governments, but a fact.

No one said WADA is superior. WADA is not superior, but works within and are subject to each countries laws. That's why a finding of legality is meaningful.

The ECHR did not say a breach of privacy occurred.

In your posts, it appears you are trying to fabricate a brewing "big conflict" that doesn't appear to exist.

Most posts say that you join a club and sign your rights away.Thus it needed stating that law is above Wada.

What does work with actually mean?Such implies too much.

You and and do not have big differences but most on this site do on the issue of the legal independence of sport.

My core point is that Wada is draconian and athletes have their rights restricted compared with every other element of life and hence Thomas has a huge reputational problem. Back to first post!

TrackCoach wrote:

If Thomas is doping perhaps she needs better dope because she has not improved much in 2 years.

Non sequitur. Doping doesn't guarantee that you keep improving a lot from year to year.

This is true with most every contract -- you commit to obligations, and agree to limit some of your freedoms in exchange for some benefits.

Of course such contracts are subject to, and must not violate, applicable local, state, or national laws, and any international conventions.

But that seems to not be the case here, as the legality was tested in the ECHR, and passed.

Generally, when disputes with athletes arrive in the courts, they are dismissed as the parties agreed to settle disputes in arbitration -- an acceptable form of justice recognized by the courts, for club disputes.

WADA works with governments several ways: through National Olympic committees, and National Anti-doping Organizations, and also by regional representation in WADA's board, and any number of committees and working groups.

Here for example is a footnote regarding how WADA worked with Europe, with athletes, with NADOs, with governments and with International Federations to update the Whereabouts rule:

I'm sure I quoted this statement from WADA before:

You keep citing the necessity to state that WADA is not acting above the law, but it's not clear that anyone else ever believed that, and it's clear that WADA is continuously working within the applicable laws and working with athletes on the best compromise to respect the athletes while making anti-doping as effective as they can.

I think Thomas does not have a huge reputational problem, except from the more extreme core zero-tolerance mentality "fans" of the sport.

VroomVroom wrote:

Exactly her name is shiat now. But honestly she's not on the elite level anyway. Just a step below the studs. Hopefully the same thing happens with Coleman.

I don't agree with your Coleman statement.

We need Coleman to break the WR in the 100 so the USA can have the WR in it again.

I think Coleman can do it. He just needs to lift slightly heavier to get it.