What the U.S. Rodchenkov Act means for Kenya

How about the US clean their house first?

Tin foil wrote:

How about the US clean their house first?

Why would the US need to clean their own house first? Who are the corrupt coaches?

signal my virtue wrote:

Tin foil wrote:

How about the US clean their house first?

Why would the US need to clean their own house first? Who are the corrupt coaches?

Everyone successful

signal my virtue wrote:

Tin foil wrote:

How about the US clean their house first?

Why would the US need to clean their own house first? Who are the corrupt coaches?

Relay coaches would be a good place to start

Coevett wrote:

A lengthy discussion on Kenyan news. Hopefully the US will go after the Kenyan coaches and corrupt members of AK - the only way the doping problem there will finally be fixed.

I have mixed feelings about this Act.

At first it seems like a worthy and noble end to go after and punish the sources of doping.

Most countries that criminalize doping do not target the athletes, but criminalize those in the supply and distribution chain.

But most countries feel responsible for creating laws for events that happen within their own national borders.

The Rodchenkov Act is unique in its means of extra-territorial over-reach, lacking any international treaty or convention that would permit international reach or cooperation.

I just wonder what happens when other countries decide to reciprocate.

How do Americans feel about sprint coaches ending up in Jamaican or Trinidad and Tobago or Canada jails?

How do Britains feel about that, after Brexiteers argued about sovereignty and making their own rules, and not being bound by the rules of large outside powers like Europe and not being subject to external courts?

This over-reach seems particularly outrageous when the Act excludes domestic doping in US Colleges and in Professional Sports.

You are unusually focused on Kenya to a fault -- who would be the target in Kenya of the Rodchenkov Act? The husbands of some of the women? The local Kenyan doctors? It's popular to think large managers like the Rosas might end up on trial -- this already happened in Kenya, and when it came time to prosecute, the judge instantly dismissed the case, because the prosecutor's dossier was an empty folder. Turns out this was more about theater than prosecuting anti-doping.

It seems particularly naive to think that only the US criminal justice system can solve the Kenyan doping problem. A large part of the Kenyan problem can be solved by education: educating the athletes on the consequences of accidental and intentional doping, and educating the local doctors who treat the athletes, and educating the athletes on non-doping obligations like whereabouts.

Note that in the US -- a country with athletes with a heightened sense of awareness of anti-doping obligations -- US Ombudsman John Ruger said that 40-60% of doping in the US is inadvertent. And a recent WADA report noted that athletes and doctors in Kenya lack awareness of treatment that can cause inadvertent doping, suggesting the rate of inadvertant doping in Kenya may be even higher than in the US.

The final step would be for Kenya to adopt and enforce criminal laws on the suppliers. Since the main beneficiaries are all the remaining countries, perhaps they should be the ones to fund it -- maybe through a WADA fund created for that purpose.

I'm also curious how enforcing the Act would work in a real situation.

Presumably the US should have to do some investigative work to find the managers and coaches who doped the athletes -- something that has remained a mystery to date. Kisorio was cooperative in the hopes of reducing his sentence, talking to AK and to famous doping reporters like Seppelt, and we never learned who doped Kisorio.

Then the US would have to conduct due process and find concrete evidence of that, up to a relatively high standard to match the criminal penalties. The US doesn't have any special capacity to conduct investigations or compel evidence outside of the US. They would have to depend on cooperation from the target countries, or depend on a global organization like WADA to do most of the investigative work. WADA may not feel particularly cooperative or obligated to act as an unpaid pawn of the US justice system.

If the US tries and convicts without investigations to high standards, then nothing would prevent countries like Russia from enacting a similar law -- maybe call it the Armstrong Aкт -- and start detaining American coaches in Russian prisons in retaliation.

The Rodchenkov Act is a response to the Russian state-sponsored doping revealed by IAAF and WADA investigations and whistleblowers like Rodchenkov, the Stepanovas and the Shobukhovas. Even then, how would the Rodchenkov Act in practice? Will they try Balakhnichev in abstentia? Putin himself? Balaknichev has been punished for his acts and is already serving a lifetime ban.

I find the Act troubling in the sense that the ends appears to be justifying the means, and the potential for punishing the same offense twice -- something that CAS has already ruled violates the WADA code when the BOA tried to exclude former dopers (Dwain Chambers) from any Olympics.

Discus.

Generally agree. The act reads like: We must do something ... This is something ... Let's do this. The fact that US colleges and major US sports leagues are exempt just reinforces the belief that nations really don't want to catch their own cheats.

Tough on crime, just not mine.

The real question is what the US will do if they find evidence of a doping conspiracy and go after someone. Do they really think any country would extradite their citizens to the US over doping offences, which might not be illegal in those countries? I understand it is of great importance in extradition that the crime is considered serious enough in both countries. Or does the US just convict them in absentia and then nothing will happen? Many countries also will not extradite their own citizens under any circumstances.

What a fine essay.

May I add something that I have already posted was not picked up on.

What is the standard of proof under the Act?

If beyond reasonable doubt then would all doping cases have to be re heard under the Act as under WADA comfortable satisfaction is the standard.

Would the Act allow for different other standards of evidence and not WADA ones ie normal criminal standards.

You could have cases that are Wada guilty been thrown out by the Act.

I realise that the Act is not for the Athletes but if a coach is in court for an athlete doping then the athlete doping has to be assessed against reasonable doubt.

No wonder wada don’t want the Act.

rule readerr wrote:

What a fine essay.

May I add something that I have already posted was not picked up on.

What is the standard of proof under the Act?

If beyond reasonable doubt then would all doping cases have to be re heard under the Act as under WADA comfortable satisfaction is the standard.

Would the Act allow for different other standards of evidence and not WADA ones ie normal criminal standards.

You could have cases that are Wada guilty been thrown out by the Act.

I realise that the Act is not for the Athletes but if a coach is in court for an athlete doping then the athlete doping has to be assessed against reasonable doubt.

No wonder wada don’t want the Act.

I didn't see anything in the act that mentions the standard of proof for the doped athlete, or the accused doping facilitator.

WADA mentioned three concerns with the Act:

i) extra-territorial reach could lead to overlapping laws, creating double jeopardy, and disrupting the harmonization of the same rules for everybody

ii) despite recognizing the valuable role of whistleblowers, and the possible need for witness protection, it may have the reverse consequence:

whistleblowers may not come forward to WADA, if they fear prosecution by the US, or WADA may not be able to offer any reduced sentence to a whistle blower in exchange for aid in investigation, if there is the threat of use criminal penalties

iii) if other nations follow suit, they may copycat this legislation, causing triple, quadruple, etc. jeopardy, and which could be wielded for other purposes, such as political purposes, or discrimination purposes.

There has to be a standard of proof and it will be criminal standard.

You have to think outside the obvious and not just use the wada comments.

If there are criminal standards of proof and evidence that used by wada will look weak and you will find cases won’t stick and athletes found wada guilty will be found non proven under a criminal system.

The chain custody of evidence would be thrown out and the science would be challenged as wada science and their ISTs would have little meaning.

Wada ‘s cheap judicial system will end up being hyper expensive as they realise they can’t hide behind them being just sports rules.

rule readerr wrote:

There has to be a standard of proof and it will be criminal standard.

You have to think outside the obvious and not just use the wada comments.

If there are criminal standards of proof and evidence that used by wada will look weak and you will find cases won’t stick and athletes found wada guilty will be found non proven under a criminal system.

The chain custody of evidence would be thrown out and the science would be challenged as wada science and their ISTs would have little meaning.

Wada ‘s cheap judicial system will end up being hyper expensive as they realise they can’t hide behind them being just sports rules.

I am not a lawyer, so take these comments for what they are worth.

Given the criminal nature, there will be a higher burden in a criminal trial than in any WADA-based sanction.

The criminal standard will only be required when prosecuting under the Rodchenkov Act. This will not change or impact the standard required for WADA to sanction athletes, or the legality of the sanctions themselves, which do not require a criminal standard.

The criminal standard only applies to the criminal charge. For reference:

"It shall be unlawful for any person, other than an athlete, to knowingly carry into effect, attempt to carry into effect, or conspire with any other person to carry into effect a scheme in commerce to influence by use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method any major international sports competition."

"SCHEME IN COMMERCE.—The term “scheme in commerce” means any scheme effectuated in whole or in part through the use in interstate or foreign commerce of any facility for transportation or communication."

They would not require or have to prove that athletes were guilty of doping, but that persons attempted to influence a "Major International Competition" with banned substances or methods.

Note again that the Rodchenkov Act does not target athletes, so saying "athletes found wada guilty will be found non proven under a criminal system" makes little sense.

I don't know why you have this notion that WADA's legal foundation is somehow on shaky grounds. Unlike the US, WADA has done the work to seek support and agreement with 190 nations, and large multi-national organizations like the Council of Europe, to develop a robust legal framework within the laws of the signatory nations who wish to compete in Olympic sports. If there is some legal challenge, the nations can work to revise the Code to address the legal issue.

If the "chain custody of evidence would be thrown out", this is not a problem for the WADA sanctions, which do not require a criminal standard, but for the criminal prosecution of "persons, not athletes".

Another major challenge of prosecuting under the Act will be whether the Federal Courts agree that the US has jurisdiction over non-US citizens for events occurring in non-US countries, by virtue of sponsorship of the event, or obtaining broadcast rights.

There seem to be factual inconsistencies in the Bill -- maybe they will be corrected in a final version. They say that the ratified the "Convention" on August 25, 2003, but later say that the Convention was created in 2005, and ratified by the US in 2008. I guess they ratified the "Code" in 2003, and the "Convention" in 2008.

They also say the Code was "most recently adopted by WADA on March 5, 2003". The most recent code is from 2015, with amendments up to 2019, and a 2021 version is in progress.

If the Act seeks to be subject to the WADA Code from 2003, this may be another legal loophole.

Why do you attempt to separate athlete from person?

Please pay attention.

I have already explained that if Coach A is done for helping Athlete B with doping and this offence by B is to comfortable satisfaction Coach A would say the he is innocent to beyond reasonable doubt because offence by B was not to the same standard.

Further A would ask for all the evidence available and not just what the lab hand out under the IST.

Further that evidence would be examined against normal evidential standards and not Wada.

All the above is a repeat so don’t ignore next time.

rule readerr wrote:

Why do you attempt to separate athlete from person?

Please pay attention.

I have already explained that if Coach A is done for helping Athlete B with doping and this offence by B is to comfortable satisfaction Coach A would say the he is innocent to beyond reasonable doubt because offence by B was not to the same standard.

Further A would ask for all the evidence available and not just what the lab hand out under the IST.

Further that evidence would be examined against normal evidential standards and not Wada.

All the above is a repeat so don’t ignore next time.

I didn't ignore it. I fully addressed it in its entirety when I said it "makes little sense".

They would only have to prove Coach A tried to "knowingly carry into effect, attempt to carry into effect, or conspire with any other person to carry into effect a scheme ..." to the criminal standard -- the presence of a guilty athlete is not necessary.

But the “ scheme “ would have to be proven and under wada that is only to comfortable satisfaction.

Thus the scheme would have to be tried again in order to establish if there was anything to conspire to.

Now,I accept that if there is conspiracy that did not actual involve an athlete because , for instance, it was caught out prior to an athlete getting banned then you position would stand.

We would also have great fun with what is a related compound and the limited evidential wada package and chain of custody.

You struggle between being keen but limited; please think out of the obvious.

rule readerr wrote:

But the “ scheme “ would have to be proven and under wada that is only to comfortable satisfaction.

Thus the scheme would have to be tried again in order to establish if there was anything to conspire to.

Now,I accept that if there is conspiracy that did not actual involve an athlete because , for instance, it was caught out prior to an athlete getting banned then you position would stand.

We would also have great fun with what is a related compound and the limited evidential wada package and chain of custody.

You struggle between being keen but limited; please think out of the obvious.

It still seems like a low probability scenario.

The criminal case against the coach would likely include a lot more evidence than anti-doping proceedings and a guilty sanction.

The point of making it criminal is to give USADA access to Federal agencies to obtain information with more authority than USADA has, going far beyond sanctions for WADA rule violations.

Think of the USADA investigation where 30 witnesses gave testimony, and USADA had access to thousands of documents -- no athlete was sanctioned.

Think of the Russian scandal, where many whistleblowers stepped forward: Rodchenkov, the Stepanovas, the Shobukhovas, and Darya Pishchalnikova. Many athletes escaped sanction as a result of a scheme to swap samples, and more, to tamper with the anti-doping process that would lead to a sanction. Eventually WADA was able to get full access to the Moscow lab's data.

If the only evidence was one doped athlete, and a coach was able to cast reasonable doubt, you might have a point. This doesn't seem like the case that would be tried under the Rodchenkov Act. Try not to limit your thinking and look at the bigger picture.

Which Usada investigation ?

Your second para undermines you.Exactly so and wada would have to release more hidden evidence and or the coach may get cleared due to criminal standard and wada’s crude system would be exposed.

rule readerr wrote:

Which Usada investigation ?

Your second para undermines you.Exactly so and wada would have to release more hidden evidence and or the coach may get cleared due to criminal standard and wada’s crude system would be exposed.

The USADA investigations into Salazar and Dr. Brown. USADA collected evidence unavailable from and unavailable to WADA, directly from witnesses, through conventional investigative means and through demands to Salazar, and to Nike, e.g. for emails. As no athlete was sanctioned, USADA was able to obtain sanctions against Salazar and Dr. Brown, without any evidence from WADA at all.

Not sure which paragraph is the second paragraph in a reply that was one block of text.

I think it would be low probability that a coach is accused and tried under the Rodchenkov Act solely on WADA evidence that got one of his athletes sanctioned. This would be insufficient to show the involvement of the coach effecting a scheme.

There would need to be more evidence outside the sanction, that links the coach to the athlete's doping, and evidence of an attempt or conspiring with someone else, to carry into effect a scheme. It is this evidence that will convict the coach, beyond reasonable doubt, or not, regardless of the athlete's status.

I think it would also be low probability that a coach could show that for a sanction that met comfortable satisfaction, it would fail to meet the higher criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The sanction would be presented as undisputed fact, unless the coach disputes it, and then argues and shows a reasonable doubt.

I think you are fundamentally mistaken though, by suggesting that all the evidence must meet a criminal standard -- it is the conclusion from the collection of all evidence, physical, factual and circumstantial, that must meet the criminal standard.

I think you are mistaken that WADA would need to provide any evidence in a US federal case. The information sharing foreseen by the act is between USADA and the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Food and Drug Administration.

Thanks for clarity on the USADA case.

Still not got it have you.

The doping offence by the athlete would need establishing to criminal standards in order for further action to be taken against the coach.

The first line of defence would be “my athlete never doped; prove to criminal standard first and then prove that I helped him dope”

And no; each part of the evidence has to make criminal standard. So take a doping sample ; if the sample was kept overnight in the DCO’s car then how would that match with criminal standard of evidence..

If left open in a toilet used by others or a public toilet that was unclean etc etc .

To avoid doubt when I say Wada I refer to all the doping control bodies and not just USADA etc.

rule readerr wrote:

Thanks for clarity on the USADA case.

Still not got it have you.

The doping offence by the athlete would need establishing to criminal standards in order for further action to be taken against the coach.

The first line of defence would be “my athlete never doped; prove to criminal standard first and then prove that I helped him dope”

And no; each part of the evidence has to make criminal standard. So take a doping sample ; if the sample was kept overnight in the DCO’s car then how would that match with criminal standard of evidence..

If left open in a toilet used by others or a public toilet that was unclean etc etc .

To avoid doubt when I say Wada I refer to all the doping control bodies and not just USADA etc.

I got it just fine.

You seem to think that a doped athlete would be necessary to convict a coach under the Rodchenkov Act, and this must be found to a criminal standard.

I think you are wrong on both counts.

Furthermore, if the sample was kept overnight in the DCO's car, or left open in a toilet used by others, etc. etc., this wouldn't even meet "comfortable satisfaction", and the athlete would be cleared by WADA.