12/22/24
April 25, 2007
Possession gets you life: : on Wednesday, 4/25, the IOC announced a lifetime ban of six members of the Austrian cross-country and biathlon teams, making them permanently ineligible to participate in the Olympics in any capacity. The ban marks a double first: the first ever lifetime Olympic ban, and the first ever ban resulting not from any missed or failed tests, but for possession of blood doping equipment.
posted by lil_brown_bat to other at 09:32 AM - 8 comments
Fry them all. If they had the stuff to do it, that was prob their intent dont you think. I can see no defense for this team. to top it off they had the stuff with them in their room. Ask weedy. you always keep your stash hidden ya know
posted by Debo270 at 01:41 PM on April 25, 2007
Well, it is my understanding that this has been common knowledge in the sport for some time. All the athletes seem to suggest that the Austrians are dopers, there just really isn't a way to test it throught the usual channels. This is the fallout from that dramatic raid on their private quarters in Turin. I'm all for due process and unflinching incontrovertable evidence (meaning that owning the equipment does not directly equate to being a cheater - it just points in that direction), but I'm also all for getting cheaters, and most countries are interested in protecting their cheaters, not catching them. So, while this is guilt and banishment without failed tests, it also smacks of a real and genuine justice.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:25 PM on April 25, 2007
"...required a severe sanction because behaving in such a way shows a kind of mentality which the commission did not deem to be acceptable...This means they cannot participate in any capacity -- as athletes, or coaches, anything." Whoa. That is serious punishment. Good on the IOC, even if the "code" and the olympic ideal are a bunch of bull.
posted by garfield at 03:54 PM on April 25, 2007
The IOC web site seems to be down at the moment. Can I plug my previous musings on this? I do not have a problem, in principle, with a ban that arises without a positive test. It is difficult to tell from a press release whether the case met an acceptable burden of proof. I also do not recall where in the WADA Code it allows for a lifetime ban for a first offense. I am not that familiar with the most recent revisions, though. Good on the IOC, even if the "code" and the olympic ideal are a bunch of bull. I strongly disagree. Neither the WADA Code nor the olympic ideal are a bunch of bull.
posted by Amateur at 08:31 PM on April 26, 2007
I went and read the current version of the Code and here's what it says. For "Possession of Prohibited substances and methods," the first-offense ban is for 2 years and the second-offense ban is for life (WADA Code article 10.2). However, there are other possible charges. See article 10.4: 10.4 Ineligibility for Other Anti-Doping Rule Violations: ... 10.4.2 For violations of Articles 2.7 (Trafficking) or 2.8 (administration of a prohibited substance or prohibited method), the period of ineligibility imposed shall be a minimum of four (4) years up to lifetime ineligibility. ... Article 2.7 just says "Trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method," which seems fairly straightforward. Article 2.8 describes "Administration or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or prohibited method to any athlete, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or attempted violation." From the tone of the quotes in the Eurosport article it sounds like they are basing the ban on a violation of article 2.8. So technically lbb's clever headline is inaccurate. I'll be curious to see whether the lifetime ban holds up at the CAS.
posted by Amateur at 08:55 PM on April 26, 2007
Amateur, we'll have to disagree on the merits of the Olympic ideal. I used to believe in the purity of the games, but a thread from a while ago opened my eyes on the subject. Maybe if every nation has a funding limit or something to level the playing field I'd change my stance. As for "the code", I read the quote as in reference to some unspoken moral imperative not to cheat, not a defined set of rules. It most definitely violates those rules, which are not a bunch of bull. Thanks for digging out the specific article wording.
posted by garfield at 11:06 AM on April 27, 2007
Yes, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I still don't think the Olympic ideal has anything to do with a parade, but i guess I said enough on that subject at the time. And as for "the code" as you defined it, still not bull -- the vast majority of Olympic athletes are not cheating and do believe in that moral imperative. (And no, I can't prove it -- but is that where the burden of proof is supposed to lie?)
posted by Amateur at 09:07 PM on April 27, 2007
It is interesting that there seems to be no reliable test to determine whether or not an athlete has practiced blood doping. Being caught with the required apparatus would seem to be damning enough evidence to enforce a lifetime ban. Could the Austrians have avoided detection by hiding the equipment at some location other than their quarters?