We've updated our article on the potential punishments Salazar could be facing as we failed to consider that Rupp was in HS more than 10 years ago.
We've updated our article on the potential punishments Salazar could be facing as we failed to consider that Rupp was in HS more than 10 years ago.
Hmmmm .... is it a marble statue?
Will Rupp get off scot-free if it's proven he doped in HS?
LetsRun.com wrote:
We've updated our article on the potential punishments Salazar could be facing as we failed to consider that Rupp was in HS more than 10 years ago.
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/06/wada-rules-update-alberto-salazar-potentially-faces-lifetime-ban-from-sport-if-allegations-in-bbc-propublica-investigation-are-found-to-be-true/
That photograph and Salazar's reply that "testosterone medication" refers to Testoboost offer good grounds for launching an active investigation into NOP, but I don't think they constitute a basis by themselves for punishing anyone regardless of any statute of limitations in the WADA code.
Epstein paraphrases Salazar's reply to questions about the photo as including a reference to Rupp disclosing his use of Testoboost to USADA "whenever applicable." I read that to mean that Rupp's use of the "Testosterone medication" in question has been ongoing. I hope USADA has been making active efforts to investigate the matter, but I fear they have not.
No. Paula Radcliffe will go to his races and hold up a sign that says: "Testosterone Cheats Out"
What I don't understand is what exactly is the data on the chart referring to? What is being measured in the vertical column?
I suggest you go ask Lance about that 10 year statute of limitations. He may have a different opinion.
Where is the statute?? Does the clock only start tolling after WADA knows or reasonably should have known of the violation?
Neutral Observertard wrote:
Where is the statute?? Does the clock only start tolling after WADA knows or reasonably should have known of the violation?
If Magness gave WADA the photo in 2012 that'd be within 10 years.
what the NOP is doing now vs 15 years ago is what will get them banned
When concealment of hiding wrongdoing in the past the tolling start does not apply. Eddy Hellebuyck and Lance Armstrong learned the hard way that statute of limitations goes out the door if you cheat and lie about the cheating.
"In 2010 and 2011 Hellebuyck admitted to using EPO in 2001. Best case scenario the violations occurred 9 years before USADA sent Hellebuyck a letter notifying him that they were pursing new charges. To complicate matters further, Hellebuyck’s admissions were governed by the 2000-2003 rules, which provided for a 6 year (rather than the current 8 year) statute of limitations. So under the 2000-2003 rules it would appear that USADA could only go back to 2004 (and not 2001).
"Here's where things get interesting. USADA argued that the statute of limitations was tolled (to delay, suspend or hold off the effect of a statute) by Hellebuyck's fraudulent concealment of his prior use of EPO. The arbitration panel acknowledged that 'there have been no AAA or CAS panels that have addressed fraudulent concealment or equitable tolling as a result of a prior perjury allegation with respect to the statute of limitations under the WADA Code or the admissions limitation period under the IAAF Rules.' However, the panel determined that Hellebuyck’s false testimony in 2004 fraudulently concealed his prior violations and that 'any limitations period in this case was tolled until actual discovery of the wrongdoing. in other words until Hellebuyck notified USADA in October of 2010, and USADA brought its claims herein well within any limitations period ofter that publication.'
In essence the AAA panel determined that in cases in which 'fraudulent concealment' exists, the USADA can toll the statute of limitations. So, how does this pertain to Lance Armstrong? It appears that USADA will argue that Mr. Armstrong engaged in 'fraudulent concealment' that prevented USADA from discovering his alleged violation until 2012."
LetsRun.com wrote:
We've updated our article on the potential punishments Salazar could be facing as we failed to consider that Rupp was in HS more than 10 years ago.
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/06/wada-rules-update-alberto-salazar-potentially-faces-lifetime-ban-from-sport-if-allegations-in-bbc-propublica-investigation-are-found-to-be-true/
What is a Statue of Limitations? Like a Clay Statue? If Salazar didn't do anything, he won't get off scott free. That's like saying,"I accused you of stealing", then we find out you didn't steal anything. Then I tell all my freind you got off Scott Free.
Neutral Observertard wrote:
Where is the statute?? Does the clock only start tolling after WADA knows or reasonably should have known of the violation?
WADA CODE; I. DOPING CONTROL; ARTICLE 17 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
No anti-doping rule violation proceeding may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person unless he or she has been notified of the anti-doping rule violation as provided in Article 7, or notification has been reasonably attempted, within ten years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.
What WADA code says wrote:
Neutral Observertard wrote:Where is the statute?? Does the clock only start tolling after WADA knows or reasonably should have known of the violation?
WADA CODE; I. DOPING CONTROL; ARTICLE 17 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
No anti-doping rule violation proceeding may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person unless he or she has been notified of the anti-doping rule violation as provided in Article 7, or notification has been reasonably attempted, within ten years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.
Not in the case where intentional cheating has occurred and false information was given to cover it up. Salazar told Magness that testosterone was testoboost, and Magness took that info to the USADA several years ago. If Salazar claimed it was testoboost to the USADA and it was not, then the tolling clock starts when Salazar made his claim. That sequence is less than 10-years old.
Not always wrote:
What WADA code says wrote:WADA CODE; I. DOPING CONTROL; ARTICLE 17 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
No anti-doping rule violation proceeding may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person unless he or she has been notified of the anti-doping rule violation as provided in Article 7, or notification has been reasonably attempted, within ten years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.
Not in the case where intentional cheating has occurred and false information was given to cover it up. Salazar told Magness that testosterone was testoboost, and Magness took that info to the USADA several years ago. If Salazar claimed it was testoboost to the USADA and it was not, then the tolling clock starts when Salazar made his claim. That sequence is less than 10-years old.
This is my understanding. Does USADA have enough information to pursue a case independently? Clearly the IAAF and USATF will protect Nike and Salazar as Verbruggen and USA Cycling protected Armstrong. There's too much money involved.
Diack at the IAAF will fight just as hard as Verbruggen did to prevent a case from opening. Diack was very public in his condemnation of Armstrong's case, comically so. Reedie at WADA will probably try to shut it down.
Let's hope USADA has enough money and information to deliver some bans.
For those who don't know, here's some legal terminology:
A statute of limitations imposes a time limit on how long after a crime one can be charged. There are many reasons for such statutes. They give prosecutors an incentive to act quickly, and make it easier for defendants to mount an effective defense. Imagine. Without a statute of limitations, prosecutors could investigate, collect evidence and wait until the witnesses were dead to file charges. In this case, Salazar has claimed that the chart was prepared by Loren Myhre, who died in 2012.
Tolling means suspending the statute of limitations. In law, there are a number of conditions under which a statute of limitations can be tolled. In real life, the most important are cases involving childhood sexual abuse, especially by parents.
As several posters have pointed out, USADA has invoked the doctrine of tolling the statutes of limitation in several high profile cases. Whether they would do so here is an open question.
Basic legal terminology wrote:
As several posters have pointed out, USADA has invoked the doctrine of tolling the statutes of limitation in several high profile cases. Whether they would do so here is an open question.
NOP would be high profile much as Armstrong was. The USADA would go after NOP because it would scare other groups, and individuals, who thought they could get away with same highly questionable methods to defeat the testing. That's what one of Travis Tygart's primary objectives in crushing Lance, and letting the other cheaters who told on Lance off lightly.
As I've stated in several post, short of a criminal investigation or an NOP coach or athlete coming forward and providing evidence that AlSal in anyway participated in providing an athlete with a banned substance, there is no winnable case. Perhaps there will be an investigation simply because USADA/WADA/IAAF needs to satisfy the public, but in the end they can't win. For the most part, USADA/WADA relies on tests, analytics and physical evidence; they don't have the toolkit of resources prove anything. Btw, I have known for a long time that AlSal will get as close to the fire as he can with out getting burnt, but I can imagine him giving one his athletes a banned substance. Doping is extremely risky and he has too much to lose and to those say the anti-doping programs don't work, take a look at the long list of banned athletes.
TrackCoach wrote:
As I've stated in several post, short of a criminal investigation or an NOP coach or athlete coming forward and providing evidence that AlSal in anyway participated in providing an athlete with a banned substance, there is no winnable case....
Eddy Hallenbeck's and Lance Armstrong's prove you are wrong.
There are a lot of good posts so far explaining how the USADA could avoid the ten year statute of limitations. Let me see if I've understood everything, or missed anything:
Under the Hellebuyck precedent, if USADA could prove Salazar was giving testosterone to Rupp in 2002, they could go back and toll (suspend) the statute of limitations starting when Salazar lied to them. The statute of limitations would start running again once they had proof of the original crime.
(Note: This is different from charging Salazar with covering up his earlier doping. If they pursue that, the statute of limitations starts running when he lied to them.)
I can see one major obstacle to using the "Hellebuyck" approach. For that to work, Salazar has to have lied to USADSA before the statute of limitations had run its course. Once the statute of limitations ran its course, then even if Salazar confessed to doping in 2002, he could not be charged. That is the point of a statute of limitations.
From what we know of the timing, there couldn't have been a lot of time left on the statute of limitations when the USADA talked to Salazar. It depends on two dates. First, when in 2002 Salazar gave Rupp testosterone. Second, when Salazar lied to the USADA. The photo from Magness says he was getting "testosterone medication" until December 4, 2002. If USADA could prove that the medication was testosterone, the statute of limitations would run its course on December 4, 2012. Epstein says Magness went to the USADA two months after the 2012 Olympics. That means they had to move fairly quickly to talk to Salazar.
As many people have pointed out, the document itself probably is not enough to proved that Rupp was getting testosterone. The standard of proof under WADA is "to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel." This standard is "greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Given the ambiguity of the wording, it seems unlikely the document alone passes this test. So, as runDirtyrun points out above, to make this approach work, USADA needs independent proof that Salazar was giving Rupp testosterone in 2002.
If I was a betting man, I'd go with O'doyl rules, O'doyl rules:
what the NOP is doing now vs 15 years ago is what will get them banned