Why didn't the race let her run and then test her (along with all the other top runners) if they are SO concerned about drug cheats?
While they think their stand was very noble, if they didn't test themselves, they could have had many drug cheats run their race.
There was testing.
Well, it separates out when you have one who is KNOWN to be prone to cheating by doping by SELF-ADMISSION.
it reportedly costs ~2k$ for one test. testing the top 10men and women would be counterproductive
Bull What? Reality Bites huh! wrote:
Please read IAAF rule 30, which applies to all sanctioned events under IAAF, hence USATF sanctioned race like Philladephia Half Marathon.
Please quote the section for rule 30 which says anything about REQUIRING a sactioned race to allow any athlete in.
Also, I would refer you to IAAF rule 40.10, 40.11, and 40.12 regarding reinstatement testing and full spectrum testing, which Asmae likely did not do being she is Moroccan (does not maintain proper doping controls on the athletes).
Please quote the section in rule 40 which says anything about REQUIRING a sanctioned race to allow any athlete in
Don't waste your time really. There's nothing there. Those rules talk about when an athlete becomes INeligible but even when they are eligible, they in no way obligate any sanctioned race to allow the athlete in.
Please try to actually READ these things before posting.
Hello Sir,
"they in no way obligate any sanctioned race to allow the athlete in. Please try to actually READ these things before posting." - What then does eligible mean, if you are eligible to compete, does it say at the discretion of the race organize, if there is an open entry process, well it says this nowhere, Sir. Open entry process online and being state as eligible means no admittance is "discrimination" and the ACLU should be all over this one! By your reasoning, if Athlete A is ineligible and a sanctioned race wants them to compete, it is up to the race. This again is incorrect to say the least. Please read the real research and interpretations from those who speak to USADA and WADA on a daily basis, Sir.
I have read the testing and sanctioning bylaws under USATF and if an athlete is ruled ineligible by means of a positive drug test and not allowed to compete, why does it not make common sense that an athlete can compete in any sanctioned event after serving the banned period? If the course is USATF certified, then it is a sanctioned event and must comply with the rules regarding such sanctioning, all USATF and IAAF Rules for competition. If Elite Racing told her she was not to race and she tried to race anyways, shame again on her in my book as there are plenty of race in the world for her.
Recently, I have been working with athletes trying to gaining reinstatement in cycling. The cycling federation has been sued by athletes for not being allowed to compete after the reinstatement process and two Belgian cyclist and one Dutch or German triathlete have won this type of case against the federation for not allowing them to join a team after finishing the doping ban or have settle out of court! If you are so smart, how can the sanctioning of the event by USATF,which is confirmed, not warrant any athlete who has served the penalty from competing? If you don't like the doping rules, then change them at the appropriate level, not on race day, when 99% competing are clean anyways. Without out of competition testing for foreign athlete training in the US, we will never know!
What if Tyler Hamilton is telling the truth and we all lost the chance to see him race Lance in Lance's last tour because of testing approved by the federations doping arm that do not work well, to be honest. Assuming USADA is 100% correct all the time is total CRAP!!
I have recently spoken to Travis Tygert (look him up if your ignorance is a miss on that name I just dropped!) and others within USADA. The fact being, however much they may applaud Elite Racing, USADA knows that by the international rules, she should have been allowed to compete. I am not stating what the rules under the IAAF say exactly this, merely that I have heard USADA's and WADA's interpretations and Asmae has a case against the race. Not a fictional case, REALITY!!
You show me evidence that Elite Racing was right outside of your own opinions, which I agree with since she tested positive at the World Cross and admitted to use. By the way, drug testing from USADA cost exactly $500 per test, nothing more and nothing less!
Asmae and her agent are dirty, no doubt, so in the country (USA) who protects civil right in the Muslim world lets not allow her to race because of an opinion that says so, no rule, just an opinion! I agree with the result, but the means to it was unjust by the RULES! As I stated it is too easy to ask her if she is being tested, went through reinstatement and did what is required by the rules. She would lose by these rules.
Everyone has the right if eligible to race. If you read carefully the opinion of the Big 5 Marathons, it states that they will not invite an athlete to compete who has ever tested positive. "Invite" not "Ban". There is a huge difference in the wording. The big marathons are run by intelligent people who understand the implimentation of the rules. Russian women have won NYC and Chicago and have absolutely no OOC testing. Is that fare to those who are regularly tested like American? The pressure should be on the Russian atheltes (loosest medical system in the world and the best 45-48 year old women in the world) to fix their own system.
Lastly, Mohammad Mourit ran in the European Championships, the man who embarrassed the Kenyans the last time the World Cross was in Belgium (something like 22 seconds on the leaders on the last 2k loop). He is not invited to many European road races, but he still shows up and is able to compete. Making my point that you cannot punish someone by the rules of the sport and then put futher bans on them if you are operating under the same principles and rules that govern the sport. If Asmae tested positive by another doping agency outside the IOC spectrum, then potentially not allowing her to compete would be justified.
If Philly Half is above the USATF and IAAF then Abdi's time will not be on the US all time list, and any Elite Racing marathon will not count for trials or Olympic Qualifing as these have to be sanctioned to count. Read the rules again and show me how and why Elite Racing (by the rules) did the right thing, please, Sir? By the way, I know Howard Jacobs personally (for 5 years now) and we have discussed this issue and he states (expert lawyer on the front page of letsrun.com) exactly what I am saying to be true!
- Ask Howard!
sure...for running reasons I see the above points, HOWEVER, I also believe as a private event so to speak, they, like any other business have the right to say no to any "customer"
I think if nothing else, Elite and the Big 5 have the ability to say no to giving out prize money (even if she were to win) buy saying their Elite Competitions are invitation only events, and thus if not invited, then you can't take home the dough.
Nonetheless, Mr Makke probably knows better than to push this issue....does not want to sacrifice his delicate relations with Elite Athlete Coordinators, especially when told that Asmae was not welcome to run the race.
"Eligible" does not mean "sufficient." Lezgoui serving out her suspension is "necessary" for her to compete. Yet it is not "sufficient" to be allowed into a private event.
Analogy: I am eligible to be the starting quarterback of the New York Giants. But the team doesn't want me even though I want to make my living as a football player and legally nothing's preventing me. It's their team and they can do what they want.
this discussion is intriguing. is the philly event really a private event? it has open registration to the public so it's not a "private" event on the level of a golden league meet, which is obviously invite only.
if i had to guess, usatf/iaaf would frown upon attempts to expel eligible athletes - of any level - from an "open" event such as this. however, i'm not sure the rules are clear enough for it to be a complete prohibition on such practices.
i don't think the giants analogy is really helpful. there's no open entry to the public for being quarterback.
More than read them wrote:
What then does eligible mean, if you are eligible to compete, does it say at the discretion of the race organize, if there is an open entry process, well it says this nowhere, Sir.
Nor does it say they may not be kept out for reasons other than eligibility.
Open entry process online and being state as eligible means no admittance is "discrimination"
Yes it does. They are discriminating between clean athletes and dirty athletes.
and the ACLU should be all over this one!
The ACLU is not "all over this one" because they have no leg to stand on. There is nothing in Federal law to prevent them from keeping out a proven dirty athlete, whether they have served a suspension or not. They are not being discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, age, or disability. They are being discriminated against on the basis of their OWN PAST ACTIONS.
For much the same reason, a convicted pedophile, now released from prison, may legally be prevented from working with children. Also for the same reason, the ACLU isn't going to rush to take up his case.
By your reasoning, if Athlete A is ineligible and a sanctioned race wants them to compete, it is up to the race.
Actually no my reasoning does not extend into that conclusion since the IAAF rules clearly state that they must NOT allow ineligible athletes to compete. The issue here is that the IAAF rules do not force them to allow "eligible" athletes to compete
Recently, I have been working with athletes trying to gaining reinstatement in cycling.
Ahhh! Now I see. You get paid for getting proven dirty cheating athletes back into the game again. You have just identified yourself as a complete scumbag. Thanks.
If you are so smart, how can the sanctioning of the event by USATF,which is confirmed, not warrant any athlete who has served the penalty from competing? If you don't like the doping rules, then change them at the appropriate level, not on race day, when 99% competing are clean anyways.
As soon as the doping rules say that a sanctioned event MUST allow any eligible athlete to compete, you'll have a point.
What if Tyler Hamilton is telling the truth and we all lost the chance to see him race Lance in Lance's last tour because of testing approved by the federations doping arm that do not work well, to be honest. Assuming USADA is 100% correct all the time is total CRAP!!
I don't assume they are correct "all the time". I do, however, assume that lab tests in which both A and B come up positive are correct.
The fact being, however much they may applaud Elite Racing, USADA knows that by the international rules, she should have been allowed to compete. I am not stating what the rules under the IAAF say exactly this, merely that I have heard USADA's and WADA's interpretations and Asmae has a case against the race. Not a fictional case, REALITY!!
Good for Asmae. I hope she takes her case to court. It will be a damn shame if that worthless cheating scum wins her case (like the cheaters you represent) but that may happen.
You show me evidence that Elite Racing was right outside of your own opinions,
You show me the evidence that they are wrong... Oh wait -- the rules don't say that so you don't have any "evidence". Too bad.
Everyone has the right if eligible to race.
Says you.
Russian women have won NYC and Chicago and have absolutely no OOC testing. Is that fare to those who are regularly tested like American?
No but I fail to see what that has to do with deciding whether or not the rules permit Elite racing to deny Asmae a bib number.
Lastly, Mohammad Mourit ran in the European Championships, the man who embarrassed the Kenyans the last time the World Cross was in Belgium (something like 22 seconds on the leaders on the last 2k loop). He is not invited to many European road races, but he still shows up and is able to compete. Making my point that you cannot punish someone by the rules of the sport and then put futher bans on them if you are operating under the same principles and rules that govern the sport.
No, it just means that the races have not TRIED to keep him out.
If Asmae tested positive by another doping agency outside the IOC spectrum, then potentially not allowing her to compete would be justified.
It's justified just fine by her existing failed drug tests. No further justification needed.
Read the rules again and show me how and why Elite Racing (by the rules) did the right thing, please, Sir?
Show me how they did the wrong thing. No matter how many times you repeat this crap, there is no rule which states that they MUST allow an eligible athlete to compete. You can't get around that.
By the way, I know Howard Jacobs personally (for 5 years now) and we have discussed this issue and he states (expert lawyer on the front page of letsrun.com) exactly what I am saying to be true!
http://www.athletelawyer.com- Ask Howard!
Perhaps the "expert" lawyer ought to get the IAAF to put his opinion into their rules. Until then, he's just another hack trying to get dirty athletes into races.
More than read them wrote:
By the way, I know Howard Jacobs personally (for 5 years now) and we have discussed this issue and he states (expert lawyer on the front page of letsrun.com) exactly what I am saying to be true!
http://www.athletelawyer.com- Ask Howard!
By the way, I couldn't care less if you "know Howard Jacobs personally" but I just tried your link.
http://athletelawyer.comis a domain name up for sale. Looks like Howard's business isn't doing so well. How long has it been since you've been in touch with your old buddy?
"I don't assume they are correct "all the time". I do, however, assume that lab tests in which both A and B come up positive are correct." -Bull
"Ahhh! Now I see. You get paid for getting proven dirty cheating athletes back into the game again. You have just identified yourself as a complete scumbag." Read below:
Your knowledge on drug testing is lacking! If 7 athletes now have proven the EPO test to be false positives in European court systems and WADA has been overturned on this test 4 times to my knowledge. How does an A and B confirmed mean anything in terms of consistency? This test is bad (EPO) and there are 3 others not currently in use that are better. The EPO test and the blood transfusion test are admittedly, by Dr. Catlin or Dr. Hans Heid to be anywhere from 60-90% accurate with latest numbers of 1 in 20 chance of a false positive with protienurea! Would you like your life determined on those odds? I would not. So is defending athletes who test positive to EPO and can prove proteinurea a bad job, no it is justice for those wrongly accused. If Lagat was positive truly to EPO and tested by USADA or WADA statistics over 12 times in the past 30 months, why are all the rest of the tests completely negative? Do you vote for Bush too, as he is the biggest Anti Doping advocate, yet 99% of the Texas Ranger where doping while he owned the team and he paid for it. There is no black and white as you like to make it with this type of issue. If I have gun in my hand and my wife is dead, did I do it or did I find the gun on her after the murder occurred. Wrongful prosecution and innocent people get charge; it is a fact of life. Asmae was never innocent, but these are those who are and deserve representation.
"By the way, I couldn't care less if you "know Howard Jacobs personally" but I just tried your link.
is a domain name up for sale. Looks like Howard's business isn't doing so well. How long has it been since you've been in touch with your old buddy?"
My bad
. I spoke to Howard yesterday and emailed him 3 times today, so I have regular contact. I forgot to type an s for athletes not athlete.
McVeigh stated:
"Eligible" does not mean "sufficient." Lezgoui serving out her suspension is "necessary" for her to compete. Yet it is not "sufficient" to be allowed into a private event.
Analogy: I am eligible to be the starting quarterback of the New York Giants. But the team doesn't want me even though I want to make my living as a football player and legally nothing's preventing me. It's their team and they can do what they want.
Is there an open try out and registration on active.com for the job of starting quarterback for the NY Giants. I think there was just a move about Marky Mark Wahlberg getting an open tryout and making the Eagles roster. This is private and not a sanctioned event for all "eligible" athletes under international guidelines. I agree with your perspective McVeigh, but she is allowed to compete as long as rules were complied with prior to the competition. If the race has an open entry policy it is DISCRIMINATION period if she was eligible and entered through this process, no other definition applies, Sir.
Back to Bull:
"Nor does it say they may not be kept out for reasons other than eligibility"
- you just defined discrimination, regardless of the form, to be kept out for reasons other than eligibility is DISCRIMINATION, PERIOD!
"Yes it does. They are discriminating between clean athletes and dirty athletes."
Again ACLU approachable and outright discrimination, use the rules against her as she is likely 99% chance not in compliance. We (the USA) are the supposed world leader in stopping discrimination, not allowing it to discriminate between once on drugs always on drugs, etc.
"The ACLU is not "all over this one" because they have no leg to stand on. There is nothing in Federal law to prevent them from keeping out a proven dirty athlete, whether they have served a suspension or not. They are not being discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, age, or disability. They are being discriminated against on the basis of their OWN PAST ACTIONS."
Discrimination on any issue is discrimination and unless there are legal rules established stating that "own past actions" are reason to omit someone who is otherwise eligible to compete, Elite Racing loses the argument. There is no such law and this is clearly discrimination as to not be it would have to be stated like the pedophile (sp check) and felony conviction laws that prevent someone from voting, period. Are you 15 or 18 years of age, Sir?
"For much the same reason, a convicted pedophile, now released from prison, may legally be prevented from working with children. Also for the same reason, the ACLU isn't going to rush to take up his case."
Your own argument says, "May legally be prevented". Rules or laws are in place, but no so in regards to athlete participation once eligible to compete!
"Actually no my reasoning does not extend into that conclusion since the IAAF rules clearly state that they must NOT allow ineligible athletes to compete. The issue here is that the IAAF rules do not force them to allow "eligible" athletes to compete"
So eligible is based on personal opinion, not the word itself, huh? Elite racing does not, I repeat, DOES NOT, make the rules regarding eligibility and does not have the right to disallow this athlete. These are the rules, are you really so unintelligent that you believe eligibility has a sub clause stating "based on the preference of the event?" Not if they are sanctioned by the IAAF through USATF and have an open entry process. This has been discussed by USADA and USATF and Elite Racing is wrong, whatever you say makes no difference. The facts are on my side of this argument and I don't agree with them in this particular athlete’s case, but I know the application of the rules.
Finally, life lesson:
"As soon as the doping rules say that a sanctioned event MUST allow any eligible athlete to compete, you'll have a point."
There are no such rules. The rules existing are up for interpretation. Your interpretation is clouded by bullshit opinions and a hate for those who have been found guilty of doping. I am on your side of this issue and agree with your opinion, which still does not change the fact that she had the right to compete in Philly and Elite Racing did not have the right to take her out of the race. Elite Racing will get away with this here, but the interpretation of the laws (what judges do after legislator make the laws) simply says, she can compete in this type of race and elite racing was wrong. No other answer will you get form USADA, WADA, IAAF, USATF, USOC, or the IOC. I know because I have discussed such issue in this realm and I ask you to contact Jacobs or Tygert if you want a more in-depth answer than I can give you. I really don't want to argue with you because I applaud Elite Racing and Mike Long, but it does not change that it was the wrong decision.
You seem to have a common misunderstanding of the word "discrimination", my intellectually-challenged friend. To discriminate is to discern, to make a distinction. People discriminate every day based on a million things and it is not bad.
There is no law against "discrimination" by itself. There are, however laws againt RACIAL discrimination. And discrimination based on AGE, GENDER, disabilities, and sometimes, sexual preference.
The ACLU takes up cases based on these criteria. When someone's CIVIL RIGHTs have been violated. That's why they're called the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union.
The ACLU does not exist to enforce the IAAF Competition rules. They do not give a damn about IAAF Rules. They give a damn about American law and the civil liberties it provides. The ACLU would not take up a case to enforce an IAAF rule even if there WAS one that said the race had to let all "eligible" athletes in.
And of course there is no such rule so the point is moot.
Nobody has a "civil right" to compete in a private road race. A road race, in turn, has a right to set whatever entrance criteria it wants, provided they don't conflict with US law. Banning drug cheats does not conflict with US law. Case closed.
Bull What? Reality Bites huh! wrote:
Your interpretation is clouded by bullshit opinions and a hate for those who have been found guilty of doping.
Your interpretation is clouded by the bullshit money you (or at least your friend Howard) are making off dirty athletes trying to get them reinstated.
what you guys don't realize is that it's eddy hellybuyck writing this $#it....you can see his writing style a mile away....besides, who else would be chatting with howie jacobs so much, eh? haha, good to see you back here eddy.