Age limits violate US antidiscrimination laws. Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Section 6102. Prohibition of discrimination Pursuant to regulations prescribed under section 6103 of this title, and except as provided by section 6103(b) of this title and section 6103(c) of this title, no person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation, in be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
That would be an interesting question for the courts. In the past, though, it looks like the court has ruled in favor of the NCAA.
On what issue? I'm not aware of the NCAA ever having or wanting to have any kind of age limit. Athletes in their 30s have definitely competed in the NCAA. Usually anyone older than that isn't elite enough to be a factor or desiring to pursue a degree. With professionalism of the NCAA, that might change though.
Dude I just agreed with you, and added more examples about what banned dopers are allowed to do.
There is no difference in that respect between a provisional suspension, a 4-year suspension after the first instance but under appeal, and a 4-year suspension after the appeal(s).
No need to keep mentioning that this suspension is currently provisional whereas Shelburrito went through multiple appeals to no avail. Just be happy that the former can still compete at the NCAA and the latter now again basically everywhere. Good for the dopers!
That would be an interesting question for the courts. In the past, though, it looks like the court has ruled in favor of the NCAA.
On what issue? I'm not aware of the NCAA ever having or wanting to have any kind of age limit. Athletes in their 30s have definitely competed in the NCAA. Usually anyone older than that isn't elite enough to be a factor or desiring to pursue a degree. With professionalism of the NCAA, that might change though.
It was NCAA v Smith.
The Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision ruling that the NCAA cannot be sued under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and remanded the case for further proceedings complying with this decision. The Supreme Court held that allegations did not exist that state that the NCAA uses the funds from its institutions that are federally funded, to provide any students with any form of financial aid. They stressed that only institutions that are federally funded directly can be subject to coverage by Title IX.[1]
It sounds like the court doesn't believe that the NCAA is not federally funded directly. So that might be an opportunity for age limits in the NCAA.
Will we ever get to the point of the age limits going to court? Probably not. So we'll just have to accept that foreign students are allowed in the NCAA and eligible for scholarships, and I'm okay with that.
On what issue? I'm not aware of the NCAA ever having or wanting to have any kind of age limit. Athletes in their 30s have definitely competed in the NCAA. Usually anyone older than that isn't elite enough to be a factor or desiring to pursue a degree. With professionalism of the NCAA, that might change though.
It was NCAA v Smith.
The Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision ruling that the NCAA cannot be sued under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and remanded the case for further proceedings complying with this decision. The Supreme Court held that allegations did not exist that state that the NCAA uses the funds from its institutions that are federally funded, to provide any students with any form of financial aid. They stressed that only institutions that are federally funded directly can be subject to coverage by Title IX.[1]
It sounds like the court doesn't believe that the NCAA is not federally funded directly. So that might be an opportunity for age limits in the NCAA.
Will we ever get to the point of the age limits going to court? Probably not. So we'll just have to accept that foreign students are allowed in the NCAA and eligible for scholarships, and I'm okay with that.
Oops. Typo. I meant to say that it sounds like the court doesn't believe the NCAA is directly federally funded.
Dude I just agreed with you, and added more examples about what banned dopers are allowed to do.
There is no difference in that respect between a provisional suspension, a 4-year suspension after the first instance but under appeal, and a 4-year suspension after the appeal(s).
No need to keep mentioning that this suspension is currently provisional whereas Shelburrito went through multiple appeals to no avail. Just be happy that the former can still compete at the NCAA and the latter now again basically everywhere. Good for the dopers!
But I never said they were allowed to do any of that, so you didn't agree with me.
I'm not sure what they are allowed to do under NCAA rules, as the NCAA is not a WADA signatory and they implement their own anti-doping rules.
Hence the question: What do the NCAA's policies say about that?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Actions speak louder than words. Have a look what the various banned dopers were openly able to do in the NCAA (Mullings, Asinga). If there are policies that say otherwise, they are nonbinding, i.e. policies, not rules, and hence irrelevant.
Actions speak louder than words. Have a look what the various banned dopers were openly able to do in the NCAA (Mullings, Asinga). If there are policies that say otherwise, they are nonbinding, i.e. policies, not rules, and hence irrelevant.
The question was initially about the article in which it is written "she shouldn’t have even been competing in the meet". Maybe it was answered elsewhere, and a single response would have been straightforward to provide.
What did Mullings and Asinga do in the NCAA as banned dopers? I found an article that said Mulings voluntarily withdrew from the NCAA Championship, despite "Mississippi State athletic director Larry Templeton" saying he "was eligible under NCAA, conference and school regulations." Maybe actions do speak louder than words. That looks like it answers my question, at least for 2005.
Asinga (allegedly) ate contaminated Gatorade gummies he received as an award from Gatorade for Gatorade Florida Boys Track & Field Player of the Year in 2023, some of which tested positive for GW1516. I found a letsrun thread that also provides some of the answers I was looking for. According to Track and Field "(Asinga) says he lost his scholarship. Though the NCAA is not a signatory to WADA, (Randolph) Ross has been told it does not allow a student-athlete to compete if they are under a drug suspension from a national or international governing body."
According to wejo: "Back then (Mullings 2005) the NCAA didn't honor WADA drug bans (or whatever WADA was called back then). Now (Asinga 2023) they do." Although I found another anonymous poster saying "Allegedly, Asinga has come to an agreement whereby he retains his NCAA eligibility until there is a final decision on AIU's case, meaning he is free to train and compete."
I also found the case of Damar Robinson, in 2015, where the CAS ruled that Robinson, according to Jamaican Anti-Doping (JADCO), was not permitted to participate in any capacity for any national level organizations during his provisional suspension. WADA has similar language (10.14).
But even then, it looks like these were violations of JADCO and WADA rules. Is it also a violation of NCAA policies? Does the NCAA have an obligation to look for provisional suspensions that haven't been published by the respective NADO? I suppose at a minimum, it makes sense for the NCAA to ask the athlete to confirm in writing that they are not currently subject to any provisional suspensions, and oblige them to timely inform the NCAA of their status.
I can't find an electronic copy of the NCAA regulations online.
I did find in a "Summary of NCAA regulations", that say "If you test positive for banned substances by a non-NCAA athletics organization, you must notify your director of athletics regarding the positive drug test." This summary doesn't say anything about that positive test from the non-NCAA organization leading to any NCAA ineligibility per se, but simply requires the athlete to be tested by the NCAA with ineligibility linked to the results of NCAA testing.
This clause would apply to Mullings, Asinga, and Robinson, but doesn't seem to apply to the case of Caroline Jeptanui of a provisional suspension for evasion, and obscuring her identity to testers.
I also found some general language about ineligibility due to unethical conduct about not providing information when requested, or showing dishonesty in evading or violating NCAA regulations.