Preach!
The only other reasons I can see - they are bigoted trolls or they are not Americans.
Sha'Carri on the differences between her and Russian skater: "The only difference I see is I’m a black young lady."
Sprinting Discussion
Sprints
-
03
-
It's not just the Guardian. Cas really seems to see a special case here because of the age. See for example
Essentially, CAS ruled that because Valieva’s age makes her a ‘protected person’ under the World Anti-Doping Code, she may be eligible for a lesser sanction – including one that does not involve a suspension – once her case is heard in full at a later date.
...
CAS director general Matthieu Reeb said: “While these rules have specific provisions for evidence of a different standard of evidence and for lower sanctions in case of protected persons, the panel was therefore concerned that if a permanent suspension would be imposed on the athlete and later – at the end of the day, after the completion of all procedures – she would not be sanctioned or would have a very low sanction, the provisional suspensions would have caused serious damage.”and
In a statement, CAS said it had decided Valieva should be allowed to compete due to "exceptional circumstances," including specific provisions linked to her status as a "protected person" under the WADA code, because she is a minor.
In any case, don't get me wrong, I do think she shouldn't be allowed to start. I just don't think Cas decided that because of her skin color, as strongly implied by Richardson.
00 -
casual obsever wrote:
It's not just the Guardian. Cas really seems to see a special case here because of the age. See for example
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/cas-rules-russian-figure-skater-072505493.html
Essentially, CAS ruled that because Valieva’s age makes her a ‘protected person’ under the World Anti-Doping Code, she may be eligible for a lesser sanction – including one that does not involve a suspension – once her case is heard in full at a later date.
...
CAS director general Matthieu Reeb said: “While these rules have specific provisions for evidence of a different standard of evidence and for lower sanctions in case of protected persons, the panel was therefore concerned that if a permanent suspension would be imposed on the athlete and later – at the end of the day, after the completion of all procedures – she would not be sanctioned or would have a very low sanction, the provisional suspensions would have caused serious damage.”and
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/sport/usada-kamila-valieva-hijacked-beijing-2022-spt-intl/index.html
In a statement, CAS said it had decided Valieva should be allowed to compete due to "exceptional circumstances," including specific provisions linked to her status as a "protected person" under the WADA code, because she is a minor.
In any case, don't get me wrong, I do think she shouldn't be allowed to start. I just don't think Cas decided that because of her skin color, as strongly implied by Richardson.
I understand where you are coming from. Seems to me this is an incredibly slippery slope. What is to stop any coach doping their underage athletes? Should we not allow underage athletes to compete then? There should be no exception for age, because the result is the same at the end of the day and it negatively impacts clean athletes.
I saw or read somewhere that the claim is that she sipped from her grand father's cup. Well according to the level of the drug found, a lot more than sipping had to have taken place - unless she sipped all day and all night.
10 -
NYDCRunner1 wrote:
There is nothing in the code that says you get an exception for being a minor.
WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE 2021
10.3.1:
For violations of Article 2.3 or 2.5, the period of Ineligibility shall be four years except: (i) in the case of failing to submit to Sample collection, if the Athlete can establish that the commission of the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional, the period of Ineligibility shall be two years; (ii) in all other cases, if the Athlete or other Person can establish exceptional circumstances that justify a reduction of the period of Ineligibility, the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range from two years to four years depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault; or (iii) in a case involving a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete, the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range between a maximum of two years and, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete’s degree of Fault.
...
Appendix 1 Definitions
Protected Person: An Athlete or other natural Person who at the time of the anti-doping rule violation: (i) has not reached the age of sixteen years; (ii) has not reached the age of eighteen years and is not included in any Registered Testing Pool and has never competed in any International Event in an open category; or (iii) for reasons other than age has been determined to lack legal capacity under applicable national legislation.12710 -
Don't shoot the messenger. I am against allowing her to compete, but Cas sees a huge difference in her age, at least somewhat in line with the Wada Code.
10 -
NYDCRunner1 wrote:
There should be no exception for age, because the result is the same at the end of the day and it negatively impacts clean athletes.
To be clear, I agree with that 100%.
10 -
Richardson's argument just doesn't make sense even if it were the same body making both decisions. The main reason they allowed the skater to compete was because she disputed the test and the appeal is pending. It would make no sense to allow someone to compete if they already admitted the violation. "We are allowing Sha'Carri to compete and will suspend the medal ceremony until a final determination is made. Wait what? She already admitted it? Oh, never mind then"
20 -
Understand. I'm not shooting you.
00 -
casual obsever wrote:
NYDCRunner1 wrote:
There is nothing in the code that says you get an exception for being a minor.
WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE 2021
10.3.1:
For violations of Article 2.3 or 2.5, the period of Ineligibility shall be four years except: (i) in the case of failing to submit to Sample collection, if the Athlete can establish that the commission of the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional, the period of Ineligibility shall be two years; (ii) in all other cases, if the Athlete or other Person can establish exceptional circumstances that justify a reduction of the period of Ineligibility, the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range from two years to four years depending on the Athlete or other Person’s degree of Fault; or (iii) in a case involving a Protected Person or Recreational Athlete, the period of Ineligibility shall be in a range between a maximum of two years and, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, depending on the Protected Person or Recreational Athlete’s degree of Fault.
...
Appendix 1 Definitions
Protected Person: An Athlete or other natural Person who at the time of the anti-doping rule violation: (i) has not reached the age of sixteen years; (ii) has not reached the age of eighteen years and is not included in any Registered Testing Pool and has never competed in any International Event in an open category; or (iii) for reasons other than age has been determined to lack legal capacity under applicable national legislation.127Thank you for providing this. Much appreciated.
00 -
Blessing Okagbare was removed from the Tokyo games and not allowed to compete in the semi of the 100M. Her result was still in dispute I seem to recall, yet she was not given any quarter.
12 -
Richardson doesn't strike me as a legal scholar.
30 -
NYDCRunner1 wrote:
Blessing Okagbare was removed from the Tokyo games and not allowed to compete in the semi of the 100M. Her result was still in dispute I seem to recall, yet she was not given any quarter.
She's serving a 4 year ban and actually tested positive at the Olympics...
The Russian skater should be banned but Richardson is an idiot
All she has to do it not smoke weed for one day the limits are that high. She knows she's going to get tested yet couldn't accomplish that.
She's basically putting people on the Russian skaters side by being an idiot.
50 -
Not now wrote:
Americans think that the world is against blacks. They should visit the middle East and Asia to see that some people don't like anyone who is different than them.
Military friends say similar from their time in the Middle east. As for the sprinter vs. skater, I fail to see how Marijuana is a PED.
00 -
labenthaub wrote:
Dear Sha'Carri,
Hate to burst your bubble as much as you want this to be this is not at all about race
1- You broke the rules and should have served a suspension which you did
2- When caught you admitted what you did and choose to accept any penalty with pretty much no fight
3- You were banned by USADA not WADA
4 - USATF did not support you to fight
5 - Your advisors failed you in not fighting
6- You could have asked for a hearing which maybe you would have won and could have then taken part in the Olympics you decided not to
The Russian skater
1- If she broke the rules she should be banned
2- Her Federation went to bat for her
3- She (or the Federation) decided to ask for a hearing
4- As a result of her appeal she has been able to compete
5- Even if she wins a medal there is a chance (if she loses her appeal) she will have the medal taken away
BLAH BLAH BLAH THE ONLY DIFFERENCE I SEE IS THAT IM BLACK AND SHES NOT. ALL OTHER FACTS ARE IRRELEVANT
00 -
me! wrote:
Not now wrote:
Americans think that the world is against blacks. They should visit the middle East and Asia to see that some people don't like anyone who is different than them.
Military friends say similar from their time in the Middle east. As for the sprinter vs. skater, I fail to see how Marijuana is a PED.
Don't shoot me for being the messenger, because I completely disagree that marajuana should be on the list. But here is the reasoning:
"For a substance to be considered for inclusion on the List of Prohibited Substances and Methods, it needs to meet any two of the following three criteria:
Be performance enhancing;
Potentially a health risk;
Against the spirit of sport.
Cannabis is considered to be in violation of all three main disqualifying criteria. It violates the first (performance enhancement) because of its ability to decrease anxiety and fear, and potentially to improve some types of oxygenation and concentration. It violates the second (health risk) because it can result in, among other things, “decreased cognitive performance” and “pulmonary toxicity.” It violates the third (spirit of sport) because of the drug’s widespread illegality and conflicts with the “role model of athletes in modern society,” along with “negative reactions by the public, sponsors, and the media.”01
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.