being serious for a moment(notwithstanding this is letsrun)
i mean they had to do this
there was a bunch of people coming back from bans and getting busted again
it was ridiculous
being serious for a moment(notwithstanding this is letsrun)
i mean they had to do this
there was a bunch of people coming back from bans and getting busted again
it was ridiculous
Yeah didn't they get the message?
Even though they were clean, WADA didn't want them to complete. Probably Radcliffe sent them one of her emails.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
http://www.insidethegames.biz/1014191-wada-confirm-details-of-revision-to-world-anti-doping-codeOn front page, this is good news
It's great news, even better would be 5 year bans...better still... lifetime bans for first time positives.
I mean, why are they screwing about with smaller than lifetime bans anyway?
One and done, would be best, and spread the message furthest.
5 year bans would be interesting. so if you get busted in an olympic year, you miss two olympics. i like it
nothing in EU employment law has changed in terms of restraint of trade
if WADA was forced to reduce bans to 2y in the past, they are asking for legal action if they try 4y again
i can't see the euro courts ruling for them ( they are notoriously strong for free trade/right to work/etc )
quite simply, WADA will lose any legal case for 4y & either they will be
1) forced to go back to 2y
2) waive this new increased ban for any athlete from an EU country - i e this ban will only apply to non-EU athletes, but EU athletes banned for doping will still only have 2y ban - a 2 tier system
3) keep it at 2y worldwide, but pay the banned european athlete ( EU national ) for 2y of missed earnings + compensation + costs, etc
if they refuse to pay, they will simply have any assets they possess in europe seized & not allowed to conduct any business in EU
in scenario 3) i can see an athlete who earns maybe $50 - 100k being awarded $100s
WADA will be bankrupt within a year
ventolin^3 wrote:
nothing in EU employment law has changed in terms of restraint of trade
if WADA was forced to reduce bans to 2y in the past, they are asking for legal action if they try 4y again
i can't see the euro courts ruling for them ( they are notoriously strong for free trade/right to work/etc )
quite simply, WADA will lose any legal case for 4y & either they will be
1) forced to go back to 2y
2) waive this new increased ban for any athlete from an EU country - i e this ban will only apply to non-EU athletes, but EU athletes banned for doping will still only have 2y ban - a 2 tier system
3) keep it at 2y worldwide, but pay the banned european athlete ( EU national ) for 2y of missed earnings + compensation + costs, etc
if they refuse to pay, they will simply have any assets they possess in europe seized & not allowed to conduct any business in EU
in scenario 3) i can see an athlete who earns maybe $50 - 100k being awarded $100s
WADA will be bankrupt within a year
I don't understand. Does the EU not have a problem with fraud and performance enhancing drugs? Would they also force you to keep paying employees that you fired?
no
it's a restraint of trade issue
EU don't generally believe fraud is a 4y sentence
your employee argument is spurious
if you are fired & fail in an employment appeal you don't get paid - if an EU judge issued a 4y prison sentence, it woud likely be 1/2'ved on appeal
ventolin^3 wrote:
no
it's a restraint of trade issue
EU don't generally believe fraud is a 4y sentence
your employee argument is spurious
if you are fired & fail in an employment appeal you don't get paid - if an EU judge issued a 4y prison sentence, it woud likely be 1/2'ved on appeal
A restraint of trade issue? So it's impossible to punish offenders in the EU?
Where in Euro law does it say 2 years?
'if you are fired & fail in an employment appeal you don't get paid - if an EU judge issued a 4y prison sentence, it woud likely be 1/2'ved on appeal'
They not subject to the criminal law process so this would not apply.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Where in Euro law does it say 2 years?
Precedent. Last time IAAF tried 4 year bans the EU courts threw them out and they will likely do it again due to the reasons stated by ventolin above.
For once he is right wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:Where in Euro law does it say 2 years?
Precedent. Last time IAAF tried 4 year bans the EU courts threw them out and they will likely do it again due to the reasons stated by ventolin above.
Courts change rules, laws, penalties all the time depending on political climate or the beliefs of those who come to power.
Let's hope common sense prevails and the doping penalties stiffen.
For once he is right wrote:
Precedent. Last time IAAF tried 4 year bans the EU courts threw them out.
Please post a link to a source for this claim.
All I know is that a state court in Munich once awarded Katrin Krabbe damages, because it deemed her one-plus-two year ban harsh and in violation of her right to earn a living - but this refers to article 12 of the German constitution, not to some EU directive. Also, this was a particular case, because Krabbe was effectively punished twice for the same offence.
While there have been EU decisions affecting sporting regulations (e.g. the "Bosman ruling", which impacted the right of clubs to bind players by contract), I am not aware of anything that would allow two year bans but prevent four year bans.
I am not sure four year bans change anything fundamental, but it will keep at least some dopers who were convicted in the past from winning championships. More significantly could be an increased statute of limitations, combined with a willingness to re-test old samples.
For once he is right wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:Where in Euro law does it say 2 years?
Precedent. Last time IAAF tried 4 year bans the EU courts threw them out and they will likely do it again due to the reasons stated by ventolin above.
As far as I know that's because IAAF did not cover all sports not because there is a 2 year restriction. eg Doctor can be struck off for life. WADA coverS all sports
mdmd wrote:
Does the EU not have a problem with fraud and performance enhancing drugs? Would they also force you to keep paying employees that you fired?
As far as I know, WADA has never been held accountable for their fraud and promotion of PEDs.
vvvb wrote:
The Dipper wrote:I think it is good news. People sometimes get bent out of shape about the prospect of false positives getting punished for years, but to me it seems recent years have shown that possibility to be less than a non-issue. It seems so common that athletes have their ban reduced, retroactively applied, or even eliminated by technicalities or other special circumstances that I think the risk of cheaters getting off easy far outweighs the risk of false positives.
Therefore I am in favor of the four year ban, but I also wonder if this will make officials feel even more pressure to entertain ridiculous excuses.
Ultimately, harsher punishments won't make much difference if no one tests positive. Even better testing and the blood passport are only a small step in the right direction. The biggest barrier to progress is the attitudes of doping officials, governing bodies, the athletes, and especially the fans. Until the fans stop thinking going after obvious dopers is a witch hunt, there won't be many changes.
What makes someone an obvious doper?
How about failed tests? Or an admission by the athlete? There are cases of obvious dopers who have suffered little or no consequences largely due to the attitude of fans, teams, and governing bodies. Fortunately these extreme cases aren't common in athletics, but it is a sign to me that sports fans in general are not really that interested in eliminating doping from sports.
J.R. wrote:
As far as I know, WADA has never been held accountable for their fraud and promotion of PEDs.
Dementia is a serious loss of global cognitive ability in a previously unimpaired person, beyond what might be expected from normal aging.
Subjects may be disoriented in time (not knowing the day, week, or even year), in place (not knowing where they are), and in person (not knowing who they, or others around them, are). Dementia, though often treatable to some degree, is usually due to causes that are progressive and incurable.
Querfeldein wrote:
Please post a link to a source for this claim.
not a link supporting the claim, but german NADA also sees problems with the four year ban:
http://www.ka-news.de/sport/sportpolitik/news/art448,1125243Querfeldein wrote:
Please post a link to a source for this claim.
here's another article from a German paper
http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/wada-verwirrt-mit-geplantem-dopingbann-a-868038.htmlThey are directly referencing the Krabbe case you cited above and say the claims made then are still valid - four year bans are unconstitutional in Germany and many other European countries.
This thread has shown me that european laws are ridiculous.
A 4 year doping ban illegal because it prevents them from earning income?
How about - get a real job and don't cheat!
Track is not a job it is a sport. The only guaranteed income comes from shoe contracts. Even then you are not an employee you are treated as an independent contractor.
The athlete is not an employee of the meet promoter. There is nothing stopping them from running non-wada/iaaf certified races that offer prize money.
These laws are beyond stupid.
There should be lifetime bans anyways.