LetsRun.com Editorial Calling For Convicted Drug Cheat Steve Mullings To Be Pulled From 2005 NCAA Meet

wejo wrote:

I don't see how the trackshark thing makes some of you wonder where my brains are. The Jamaican Federation took these concerns into account and has banned mullings for two years. He can appeal to CAS but is suspended.

He is actually not suspended until he runs out of appeals. If CAS rules against him then he will be banned for 2 years. Until then he is free to compete.

Best example is Tim Montgomery. He has been given a lifetime ban but his final appeal to CAS will be heard on June 7 in San Francisco. Tomorrow he is scheduled to compete at the Prefontaine Classic in the men's 100. Maybe you need to petition Nike and the Pre Classic to get them to remove Montgomery from the meet too.....

To be fair the article says the lawyer will not come to the hearing.

bringer of news wrote:

Well, that email completely nullifies the Miss. St. defense of Mullings. The email states that the university had documents that would clear Mullings. So the trackshark crew did not receive the documents directly from the JAAA or the testers. That id number scribbled on the first document could have been written by anyone, and the fact that it was in the hands of the MSU coaching staff removes any credibility it had in the first case (which wasn't much - everything else on the document is printed).

This article below says the number thing was a legitimate concern, so I don't believe the Miss st coaches wrote it on the document. That is way too much a conspiracy for me.

shows the jamaicans examined the # issue.

(link fixed)

shows Mullings had a lawyer based in the UK which hurts the claim he dind't have a laywer. Maybe someone was representing him pro bono.

I don't see how the trackshark thing makes some of you wonder where my brains are. The Jamaican Federation took these concerns into account and has banned mullings for two years. He can appeal to CAS but is suspended.

This issue is pretty convoluted but it is my reading of the documents that an athlete can be suspended provisionally after an "A" sample, but for sure is supposed to be suspended for sure after an "A" sample and a "B" sample and their first hearing.

That is my reading of the WADA code here and from past experience:

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/WADA_Athlete-Guide_ENG.pdf

Tim Montgomery has not had a hearing yet and is being tried under the non-analytical positive issue so I think that is the issue there. I'm not 100% positive on this one.

I do know, each country can have slightly different rules as well.

Here's an article about the situation at the Olympic Trials last year:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37714-2004Jul8.html

Having said that at letsrun.com our general policy is that an "A" sample, "B" sample along with a hearing or a publicly announced suspension means a conviction. Steve Mullings has been convicted of an offense by the Jamaican federation. There is no doubt about tat.h He may appeal to CAS and try and prove his innocence but has been convicted and ruled ineligble to compete according to the JAAA.

NCAA rules do not prevent him from competing. At the very least Miss St if not preventing him from competing should agree to strip his results from the books if his appeal is denied. And his 2 year ban should start from the last date he competes in the NCAA as he is defying his ban.

I have seen how Jamaica test their athletes after the National Trials and it is a mess. I am a former athlete and went through numerous tests over my years. It is supposed to be a sanitized environment where individual athletes are taken apart from the rest to submit a urine sample and directly after the labels are placed, you are to hand it to the responsible Official. This is NOT what happens at the Jamiaca Trials. Athletes may wait an hour or more before handing their urine samples in. 10 or more athletes all crammed up in the testing room. What is that?? The testing room in Jamaica is Chaotic and unorganized. Anything could happen. I'm not siding with Mullings. I just know that if this test could determine whether an athlete may continue to run or not, then a high standard must be present at the Jamaica Nationals for Testing procedures.

Get off your moralistic high horse and realize that even if this dude is guilty of testing positive by the JAA and WADA, he is not banned from running at the NCAA championships. Until the rules are changed, there is nothing wrong with him kicking the shit out of all his fellow collegiate competitors. You should try to petition the NCAA to change their rules immediately instead of trying to convince Mississippi State and Steve Mullings not to run.

What was this said "Louie Luchini crap"?

Smithy does Banks wrote:

A cynic would say, "there goes rojo and wejo at it again. Two upper-crust, silver spoon boys trying to deny others the right to college education and athletics. This is just like the Louie Luchini crap."

However, not I. Great job, Robert and Weldon. SOMEBODY has to speak up some time. Just because you can get away with something (Miss. St. under NCAA's idiotic policy) doesn't mean it is right or the best option. Hopefully, this will shame them into doing the right thing as public relations is a bitch. Any other Miss. St. athletes want to speak up?

Use your power and voice for good, not evil.

wejo wrote:

Having said that at letsrun.com our general policy is that an "A" sample, "B" sample along with a hearing or a publicly announced suspension means a conviction.

Thanks for clarifying this.

Ah, Tom Borish... yet another fine intellectual product of Kent State University. Seriously though, after all this talk of typos and misspellings and so-forth, I think it's fitting and funny that Mullings' sole defense (and possible acquittal) is riding on what appears to be a single miswritten digit.

wejo wrote:

I do know, each country can have slightly different rules as well.

Having said that at letsrun.com our general policy is that an "A" sample, "B" sample along with a hearing or a publicly announced suspension means a conviction. Steve Mullings has been convicted of an offense by the Jamaican federation. There is no doubt about tat.h He may appeal to CAS and try and prove his innocence but has been convicted and ruled ineligble to compete according to the JAAA.

NCAA rules do not prevent him from competing. At the very least Miss St if not preventing him from competing should agree to strip his results from the books if his appeal is denied. And his 2 year ban should start from the last date he competes in the NCAA as he is defying his ban.

Just remember under USADA rules, rulings are not made public until AFTER the final appeal so Mullings' case would still be not known to the public, unless it was leaked as in the case of the BALCO folks.....

"Get off your moralistic high horse and realize that even if this dude is guilty of testing positive by the JAA and WADA, he is not banned from running at the NCAA championships. Until the rules are changed, there is nothing wrong with him kicking the shit out of all his fellow collegiate competitors. You should try to petition the NCAA to change their rules immediately instead of trying to convince Mississippi State and Steve Mullings not to run."

The NCAA does not have the right to change their rules mid season. The reason we are trying to convince Mississippi State is becase we actually have morals. You seem to be suggesting that morals do not matter, only the NCAA rules. By "nothing wrong" you mean there's nothing illegal about him competing in the NCAAs. I think everyone since page one has understood that. But for anyone that cares about the moral integrity of sport, there is definately something wrong.

Sorry: "for anyone WHO cares..."

What is moral about preventing someone from competing, without the opportunity of due process.

It sounds to me that certain "moral convictions", are standing in the way of morality.

um, what? hasn't he already had due process in jamaica? just because he hasn't exhausted his appeals does not mean he hasn't had due process.

The due process that you are talking about applies only to the NCAA. A university has the right to prevent an athlete competing for any reason and being suspended for the use of performance enhancing substances is a very good reason to do so.

lagsun wrote:

Just remember under USADA rules, rulings are not made public until AFTER the final appeal so Mullings' case would still be not known to the public, unless it was leaked as in the case of the BALCO folks.....

I'm pretty sure this isn't true. Correct me if i'm wrong. Mullings has one appeal left to the CAS. If an athlete is found guilty in the US, and given a hearing and a ban (like Mullings), the info is then made public and the athlete is banned. Then the athlete like Mullings can appeal to CAS while suspended.

Regina Jacobs had not had her hearing last year before the trials but the info was public. The hearing was supposed to be a day afer. However, if she had had her US hearing then she would have been banned from competing. Mullings has had his JAAA hearing.

Mullings has not just had an "A" and a "B" result. He's had a jamaican board look at the results, his lawyers testimony, and confirm the positive.

The USADA process use to be a bit clearer. Here is the section I pulled from the protocal linked below. Due to Balco there was a lot of leaking of information. Once all appeals are exhausted then the information is made public.

USADA shall not publicly disclose or comment on any athlete's positive

test result or any information related to any alleged doping violation

(including violations not involving adverse analytical finding) until after

the athlete or other person 1) has been found to have committed an

anti-doping rule violation in a hearing conducted under either article

10(b) above, or 2) has failed to request a hearing within the time set

forth in 10(a), or 3) has agreed in writing to the sanction sought by

USADA. However, USADA may provide notification to the USOC,

NGB, IF and WADA (or other sporting body ordering the test) as

provided for in this Protocol. USADA does not control how information

provided by USADA to the USOC, NGBs, IFs and WADA is

disseminated but will include statements to each organization requesting that

any organization receiving such information keep it confidential until disclosed

by USADA. USADA may comment publicly on any aspect of the results

management/adjudication process or the applicable rules without making

specific reference to any athlete or other person alleged to have committed an

anti-doping rule violation. USADA may also release aggregate statistics of

testing and adjudication results. USADA shall publicly report the disposition of anti-doping matters no

later than five (5) business days after: 1) it has been determined in a

hearing in accordance with the Protocol that an anti-doping rule

violation has occurred, 2) such hearing has been waived, 3) the

assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not been timely

challenged, or 4) the athlete or other person has agreed in writing to the

sanction sought by USADA. In all cases, the disposition shall be

reported to the USOC, NGB, IF, WADA and, if applicable, the other

sporting body referring the matter to USADA.[quote]not true wrote:

No, USADA makes the information public after the first hearing, prior to the CAS appeal.

It is my assumption this is the equivalent stage Mullings is in now although each country has its own rules.

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/what/timelinechart081304.pdf

wejo wrote:

No, USADA makes the information public after the first hearing, prior to the CAS appeal.

It is my assumption this is the equivalent stage Mullings is in now although each country has its own rules.

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/what/timelinechart081304.pdf

Thanks for the timeline. In the US, there are 3 stages if both the A and B are postive:

1) USADA Review Panel recommends sanction

2) American Arbitration Association ("AAA") hearing if athlete does not accept sanction

3) Court of Arbitration for Sport ("CAS") hearing if athlete wants a final appeal to overturn AAA rulling

Since Jamaica didn't have the equivalent of the USADA when Mullings tested postive, I've been having trouble finding who actually conducted the tests. My guess is the JAAA since it was at their national championships.

Given all countries have different guidleines when dealing with doping offenses, it's hard to determine if Mullings is at stage 2 or stage 3 as outlined above. Anyone have more details?