Post a Reply

Diabalo wrote:

Coe became President about 2 days before the Beijing World Champs started. Any decision on numbers tested there would have been made by his predecessor, Diack, who seems to be ignored from any criticism on these pages. The idea Coe decided on his 2nd day in office to cut the number of athletes being tested is absurd.

You're right, but that is not relevent to my post, which was part of this conversation:

Nothing? wrote:

Clerk wrote:

Nothing is being done. Certainly not by the IAAF. Only after the French criminal investigation were the IAAF forced to do anything. IAAF is taking no action on the bribery for championships.

Seriously, what have the IAAF done, out of their own initiative, to clean up the sport since accepting the ABP?

You're talking out your A$$ fool! people are getting busted left and right now. ...

But let's be clear, that was the second day for coe in the President's office. He spent years as vice president before hand. What does he have to show for it?

Diabalo wrote:They have tried to withhold money from dopers, but the IAAF were taken to the European courts by those who they tried to ban for 4 years, and they lost the case on the grounds that it is against an athlete's human rights to make a living from their job by banning them for more than 2 years and preventing them from receiving future prize money. It's not Coe's fault. You should be petitioning the European Court of Human Rights.

You are confusing several different things together.

There are two cases worth discussing here. The "Osaka Rule", and the Katrin Krabbe German Court of Appeals case.

The Osaka rule was the proposed rule denying previously sanctioned athletes from the olympics: LaShawn Merrit, Dwain Chaimbers, etc. This rule was decided to be illegal because it was an extra punishment for offense which already had its own punishments; an extra punishment cannot be added for the same offense.

The Katrin Krabbe case was an appeal to a lower court decision which allowed the IAAF to impose its own sanction in addition to the German federation's. The German federation decided, in accordance with theirs and the IAAFs rules, on a 12-month suspension. The IAAF tried to impose a 3-year 9-month sanction. The Court of Appeals ruled that because the German federation's decision was fully compliant with the rules set out by the IAAF, the legal justification for the IAAF's sanction did not hold. First, the IAAF justified its sanction according to a rule that only takes effect if a national organization improperly sanctions an athlete, which was not the case with the DLV. Second, The IAAF's justified their sanction that it was punishing "unsporting behavior", a lesser offense than doping. That the IAAF tried to impose a longer sanction for a lesser offense was ruled illegal. Krabbe's claim to damages of lost sponsorship were unfounded because she damaged her own image by doping. Her claim to damages because of the extra punishment were founded, and awarded £378,850; her positive came in 1992, and her appeal was only granted in 2002.

None of that has to do with living wages, or a human's right to compete as an athlete. It is a violation of human rights to be punished twice for one offense, which is why there is no "Osaka rule", and WADA now has a single sanction of 4 years for the first offense,