Am I just operating within the mental framework of
somebody raised from the day they were born in the
fundamentals of American legal system thinking or
what-
What in the heck is the name so important for?
Let's say the athlete in question tested positive
for something, at least sample A, just before the
Olympics. They appeal. In order to protect their
rights, he or she is allowed to compete while their
case is proceeding, with the caveat that if they
win any medals, the medals will be "held" pending
closure of the case.
After the Olympics, the case winds its way through,
and the athlete wins- he's found "innocent".
Let's say the lab admits
they screwed up the test procedure, accidently
mixing the athletes sample with a control sample
which was totally steroid or something.
Okay, it would make sense to turn over the full
record of the case to the IAAF, but with the name
of the athlete blacked out with india ink, right?
That way, if "cheap-shotter" leaks any of it
from Monte Carlo or Lausanne or wherever, no
damage is done to an innocent persons reputation.
Does that commonly happen today?
I don't know.
Maybe the USATF and the IOC is so untrusting of the
IAAF and the IOC, that they refuse to send any
records AT ALL about such cases. That then leads
to suspicion (the "they must be hiding something"
angle).
Or, maybe they have been doing exactly as I suggest,
but Lundqvist is not satisfed without knowing the
name of the athlete. If that is so, WHY WHY WHY?
What purpose is served by revealing that athlete "X"
is really Joe Meepsy from Poughkeepsie ?
I say send them the records with the names expunged,
then if the powers that be look at the facts of the
case and think the wrong conclusions have been arrived
at (all facts should be made available to arrive at
that kind of assessment), then and ONLY then can they
say that they've overturned the ruling of the U.S.
authorities and are suspending Athlete X. They can
then demand the identity of Athlete X so that the
suspension can be imposed.
USATF and/or IOC can then appeal if they so desire.
The identity need not play a part except as a very
last step, or if the athlete wishes to involve his/her
own attorney in any further appeal procedure.
What's wrong, is this too logical or something?
RT
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:12:59 -0700, you wrote:
>The Irish Times
>Saturday, August 04, 2001
>
>
>
> IOC president Jacques Rogge is to quiz the United States Olympic Olympic
>Committee (USOC) over the mystery American athlete who competed at the
>Sydney Olympics despite failing a pre-Games doping test.
>
>Rogge, in Edmonton for the opening of the World Athletics Championships said
>he would talk to the USOC when he arrives in the States on Monday.
>
>But he added that he was unsure just how much the USOC knew about the
>affair. Despite repeated appeals from the IAAF the American athletics
>authorities are still refusing to give the name of the athlete.
>
>Professor Arne Ljungqvist, head of the IAAF's doping commission, said
>earlier this week that he hoped the dispute over the athlete's identity
>would be resolved in the next few days.
>
>"They did not give us the right information at the Olympics and they did not
>disclose the identity of this athlete to us," he said.
>
>"However, the Sydney investigation has been useful because it has brought to
>light this case and I expect that in the next few days we will finally have
>the athlete's name," he added.
>
>But a senior IAAF official said that he did not expect the name of the
>athlete to come out before the end of the Championships here.
>
>"We do not want the Sydney affair to taint the championships. I believe all
>will be sorted out shortly after the end of the championships," he said.
>
>Eamonn Condon
>www.RunnersGoal.com
