Not necessarily directly related to events on the ground in Sochi, but an interesting story nonetheless. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (yes, it is exists; no, you can't visit) was entrusted by the IOC to decide the fate of athletes serving doping bans between Olympic Games.
The issue: A relatively new IOC rule (just prior to the 2008 Bejing Games) that bars athletes who serve a doping ban for more than 6 months from competing in the next Olympic Games.
The IOC says this rule is pivotal in its fight against doping, acting as a strong deterrent. The IOC's medical commission and the IOC cited the propensity of National Olympic Committees shortening athletes' drug suspensions so they could compete in upcoming Olympic Games. Critics, however, say that, whatever the benefits to the IOC and its public relations machine, the restriction effectively punishes athletes twice for the same offense. After all, what's the point of training and competing in every other event leading up to the Games if you're not invited to the prom?
Take the case of Olympic swimming hopeful Jessica Hardy: Essentially, Hardy failed a drug test in the weeks prior to the 2008 Games for taking clenbuterol, a banned weight-loss drug, and was suspended for two years as a result (and, obviously, removed from the US swimming team). Hardy was able to convince the IOC that she inadvertently ingested the drug in an over-the-counter supplement and her ban was subsequently reduced to one year. This was obviously a blow to Hardy but, if nothing else, wouldn't necessarily derail her training for the 2012 Games in London.
Except, if you've been paying attention dear reader, this new IOC rule means that, despite her suspension ending a full three years before the summer of 2012, Hardy would be ineligible because her ban was more than six months long. Now Hardy got herself a partner in LaShawn Merritt, an American and the men's 400m champion in Bejing, who was suspended for 21 months in 2009 for doping (though, in fairness, his suspension was for a banned steroid found in ExtenZe. And by 'in fairness,' I meant that this is totally hilarious.
So Hardy, Merritt and Merritt's dong got themselves a lawyer and have been wailing, gnashing their teeth and pounding their heads against the wall that is the IOC appeals process. See, you probably thought that you or us or the world or the athletes laid claim to the Olympics or that it somehow belonged to the world community and the IOC were mere caretakers. Wrong. The IOC owns the Olympics and don't you forget it. And so Hardy and Merritt pleaded with the IOC for some time and the IOC ultimately ruled that it wouldn't hear the appeals until the athletes actually made the US Olympic team which, owing to the proximity of the trials to the actual Games, would likely be an impossibility. For its part, the IOC says that the fact that the US selects in Olympic team the way it does is not a problem for the IOC and that these US athletes, like all other athletes in the world, are welcome to appeal the Court of Arbitration for Sport or pursue whatever legal avenue they like once they make the team.
Hardy and Merritt's attorney took their case to a US arbiter, which ruled that the IOC rule violated the World Anti-Doping Code (I'm thinking specifically Article 13.2.2, but that's just me), to which the IOC is a party and could result in mounting legal costs, etc to the USOC. Also, it could create some kind of nightmare legal logjam involving a number of potential late appeals, US law, Swiss law (where the IOC headquarters is located) and so on.
Which brings us to today and the revelation that the Court of Abitration for Sport will likely hear the case in the next few months, providing hope to these athletes that their status for 2012 will be sorted out well before the London Games start.
Finally, part of the reason that the IOC is so loathe to change the way drug suspension are handled (as I alluded to earlier) is the perceived effectiveness of this new rule in discouraging potential drug cheats at the actual Olympics themselves. To wit, there were zero, yes ZERO, positive drug tests reported by the IOC in Vancouver. That's over 2,500 athletes and not a single reported positive test. Which means one of two things: Either every athlete was on the up and up in Vancouver OR overtly harsh rules give the IOC more cover and plausibility in covering up positive tests at the Olympics. The number of positives certainly seems, and has long-seemed, improbably low and the IOC has long had a vested interest in protecting the Games from positives (see the allegations against Carl Lewis in 1988, as well as tons of speculation and assertions from longtime Olympic coaches that drug use has long been rampant). If you make the rules tough enough on paper, does that make the public, media and sponsors less likely to question the absence of any positive tests at the Games?
No comments:
Post a Comment