To hope Gatlin falls on his face

[clemetteattlee]

... After false starting.

I believe in rehabilitation, I really do, but not for drug cheats in the Olympics.

CrispyCod just because someone is confident/arrogent (whatever you want to call it) doesn't mean they don't deserve to win. He is the fastest man on earth - I'd be pretty pleased with myself if I could say that (well woman not man obvs )

so when it turns out that usain bolt is actually a robot..............

If you think doping could be good sport you need to read David Millar book to see what it does to sport and sports people.

I have to say having been watching the Tour de France I have been surprised at the way testing has been done.

FredFredGeorge

Blake is not a convicted drug cheat. He did test positive for a substance which is similar to a banned substance. However, the substance he tested positive for was not a banned substance.

I'm currently reading "The Dirtiest Race in History" all about the Carl Lewis/Ben Johnson thing in 1988. It's v. interesting - and I didn't know that the motivation for taking drugs is to enhance training and promote recovery time rather than to make them zoom along the track during the race like they're on speed IYSWIM.

Once you've cheated I think you should be banned for life.

Can I just chime in with the 'Ryan Bailey is hot' chorus.

Yes he is!

And I don't think Bolt is cocky, he love his sport, he celebrates with joy. That's all. I find him charming.

Usain Bolt has a certain amount of arrogance, but it is always expressed with a genuine smile. He is very human, in a way that some elite athletes don't express.
During the last Olympics, wasn't he drug-tested six times or something like that? Michael Phelps was the same.

Blake is a convicted drug cheat - There is no exhaustive list of "banned drugs", such a thing would be pointless as it's easy to change a drugs exact chemical composition and still it have the same effect. He was convicted and banned.

" Blake was cleared of any wrongdoing but Jamaica's anti-doping commission insisted he serve a three-month ban regardless. That positive test will always provide evidence for the sceptics, but the circumstances were far from black and white. Several athletes around the world tested positive for methylxanthine at the time, including the South African rugby players Bjorn Basson and Chiliboy Ralepelle. It was a common ingredient in both nutritional supplements and nasal sprays, though it was often listed under a different name."
Not convicted.

FredFredGeorge

This is the list of "banned drugs"
www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Antidoping/Rules&Regulations/05/52/78/20110510024509_httppostedfile_WADA_Prohibited_List_2011_EN_24435.pdf

As Clemette says the drug he tested positive for is found in decongestant nasal sprays and was not on the WADA Prohibited List. You have to have a list otherwise athletes won't be able to take any over the counter medications etc because they won't know if they contain a substance which will be subsequently deemed to be doping.

Otherwise its a bit like living in a country with no published road traffic legislation where officials can decide after the event that your driving broke the rules.

This line is against all the types of drugs in the WADA prohibited list:
"and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect"
Doping is nothing like having no published road traffic legislation, what it means as an athlete is that you make sure every drug that you ingest is LEGAL, rather than doing the opposite and only - if you want to test the Global DRO is a great resource although only strictly applicable to US/UK/Canada.

Several people tested positive around the same time - because it wasn't being tested for before - and it was being widely abused because athletes did not believe they could be caught for it, but a test was introduced without warning. It doesn't preclude a mistake by an athlete, but no high level athlete should be making such a mistake. I may save a few quid by using supplements untested for contaminants, I would be mad as an olympic athlete doing the same.

That line is such a broad catch all that I don't think it would be enforceable. You would have to prove that the athlete knew it had a similar chemical structure or biological effect. How do you determine a similar biological effect, how similar does it have to be? Again with chemical structure, a small variation in chemical structure can cause a meaningful variation in effect.

As far as the athletes knew that drug was LEGAL because it wasn't on the banned list. It wasn't a drug that had been manufactured with the express intent of subverting the rules by tweaking a banned substance (which is what I suspect the catch all wording is intended to cover) but a pre existing substance which has a medical use.

Bluntly, you can't convict someone of something that wasn't clearly an offence at the time it was committed.

That line has been repeatedly found to be fully enforceable - the CAS has been visited many times. Athletes have complete responsibility for everything they ingest. There's no get out, you make a mistake you're a convicted drugs cheat, if you don't want to be caught don't take untested supplements. Remember my complaint is about the double standards in caling one a cheat and not the other. There's so little chance of being caught doping, that glossing over those who do get caught is not a good approach.

Celebrating Ohuragu or Blakes medal when decrying Gatlin's is just wrong. If you believe the testing now is good enough, then celebrate them all, or if you belive getting caught is wrong, decry them all. Just be consistent.

FredFred I have had a look at the CAS jurisprudence (only briefly) and couldn't easily find a case where this has been enforced. I would be interested to read a judgement or two on its enforcement (I am a lawyer and I am curious how such a catch all would be used). Could you point me to a couple of relevant cases. Thanks.

Upheld by CAS - a specified substance (ie one not explicitly listed, the same as Blake was caught with) full 2years, although the actual ruling was mainly about another situation, if it was so easy to challenge the not explicitly listed then it would've been challenged I'm sure, and it does cover general support of the idea of specified as opposed to prohibited substances.
www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4596/5048/0/Award20223020internet.pdf

Robert Kendrick was found with the same drug as Blake went to CAS, his ban upheld although I can't see their full judgement on their site, just press releases about it.

FredFred thanks for this, I'll read it with interest (sad I know!). Sorry for not responding sooner.

I understand where you are coming from re reactions to Gatlin. For me there is a bit of a grey area with Blake and Ohuragu as neither were found to have used banned substances although they may not have complied with the spirit of the regime.

I objected to the selection of Chambers because he has tested postive for a banned substance and would have hated to see him win a medal. As for Gatlin to test positive twice for banned substances is inexcusable.