 Poster: A snowHead
|
| SimonN wrote: |
| With regard to Schoenfelder, it seems he was fortunate in that even if he had been banned for 2 years, he would not have missed an Olympics. If a 2 year ban had coincided with the Olympics, and even though he had not received a 2 year ban, my understanding is that under IOC rules, he would not have been elligable to compete. |
I think it's irrelevant whether he gets to compete in the Olympics or not. As it is, he failed a drugs test under exactly the same circumstances as Baxter failed his test. Result: Baxter loses his Bronze medal; Schoenfelder keeps his Crystal Globe as World Cup slalom champion. Of course there are inconsistencies in the drugs regime! The CAS judged Baxter innocent, but declined to overrule the IOC's judgement; the IOC felt trapped in their rules about Muehlegg and Danilova, so the CAS step in and find against the IOC; Schoenfelder fails a drugs test, but only gets a slap on the wrist. In my opinion this represents a bit of a shambles.
As for whether the CAS is a "totally independent organisation" the follwoing editorial was first published on ifyouski.com:
| Quote: |
The idea for a Court of Arbitration for Sport was hatched by President Samaranch of the IOC in 1981. The CAS's founding Statutes (1984) allowed for 60 arbitrators, 15 each chosen by the IOC, National Olympic Committees, the IOC President and only 15 chosen by International Federations affiliated with the IOC. The IOC met almost all the costs of the CAS, and its Statutes could only be modified by an IOC session at the proposal of the IOC board.
In 1993 a horse rider named Elmar Gundel took an appeal against a finding of the CAS to a Swiss Federal Tribunal, winning a partial victory. In its findings, the Tribunal "drew attention to the numerous links which existed between the CAS and the IOC",and noted that "such links would have been sufficient seriously to call into question the independence of the CAS in the event of the IOC's being a party to proceedings before it". As a result of the Gundel judgement, in 1994 the CAS structure was modified. The CAS now reports to the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS). "The ICAS is composed of 20 members who must be high-level jurists well-acquainted with the issues of arbitration and sports law. Upon their appointment, the ICAS members must sign a declaration undertaking to exercise their function in a personal capacity, with total objectivity and independence".
Has this made the CAS independent? Of the 20 members of the ICAS, four are selected by the IOC, four by NOCs and four by International Federations affiliated with either the Summer or Winter Olympic Games. These 12 then select four more members, and all 16 select the final four. It's a recipe for domination by Olympic Movement, with no other outside constituency represented. At present, 11 of 19 named members of ICAS hold roles in the Olympic Movement: three are members of the IOC; three are members of the IOC 's Sport and Law Commission, and five are members of the National Olympic Committees of various nations. Its President is long-standing IOC member Keba Mbaye of Senegal.
The ICAS then appoints the arbitrators who make up the CAS "at the proposal of the IOC, the International Federations (who you will remember are affiliated with the IOC) and the National Olympic Committees." So the arbitrators who have ruled on Alain Baxter's appeal against the IOC are selected by core members of the Olympic Movement. They report to a board, the majority of whose members and whose President hold formal roles in the Olympic Movement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
rob@rar.org.uk, We will probably not agree on this, but I have every faith in the CAS. You actually point to a number of cases where they have ruled against the IOC which suggests that it isn't the IOC's lap dog.
What you cannot seem to take on board is that it is not a problem with the drugs rules that causes inconsistancies, but the fact that a very large number of different bodies have the power to judge offenders under those rules. For instance, Baxter was judged by the IOC and then the CAS. Schoenfelder was judged by his ski federation who didn't apply the rules properly. The problem is, that nobody else had the right to judge him so the ruling stood.
Its just like the Ferdinand case. Ferdinand should have been banned for 2 years. FIFA wanted it and WADA wanted it but the FA had jurisdiction and went for 8 months. FIFA took advice as to whether they or anybody else could review the case or put pressure on the FA but it was found they couldn't.
I agree with you that it is a joke that the rules aren't enforced consistantly but that's not the fault of the rules and you will never improve it by rewriting the rules. It is only when the bodies who hear the cases get their act together that there is any chance. And that will never happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| SimonN wrote: |
| It is only when the bodies who hear the cases get their act together that there is any chance. And that will never happen. |
And therefore we will continue to get inconsistent judgements which profoundly affect innocent athletes. As a casual observer of sport I find that unacceptable. If I were an athlete I would find it utterly sickening.
Simon, we've been back and fore on this for a good few posts now so I guess it's time to accept our differences of opinion. Thanks for the interesting debate!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Never mind about skiers and drugs etc. What about the poor jockeys? If they don't hit the horse they get fined and banned for not trying. If they do hit the horse they get fined and banned for hitting it too many times, and if the horse refuses to race and they give it a bit of a hiding (Tony Mccoy last year) they get fined and banned for that too. I wonder if he'd have had trouble for not trying hard enough to get the horse to race. It should be noted that most horses are approx 10x as big and strong as most people. In addition to this the jockeys are forbidden from using their mobile phones while at the racecourse - being treated like children doesn't come into it. At least the skiers are treated like adults - of course if they behave like children ......... but that's reserved for footballers isn't it?????????? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Alain Baxter did not have a banned substance in his body - that is a fact. He was found with an inert molecular relative to one ( speed) and the IOC test was out of date and inadequate and did not reveal this. That the chemists are wrong is not a athletes fault and his life should not be destroyed for that.
Please note that this is a Class A drug
This is why there was a complete injustive with Alain's case. And as his tribunal said he did not cheat - so then if he did not cheat he should have kept his medal. You should only take a medal away from a cheat not an honest sportsman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
headcase, You are, sadly, mistaken. Baxter was found to have methamphetamine in his blood stream. There are 2 isomers of methamphetamine but the rules at force at the time did not distinquish between them and as such, both weere banned. The CAS did suggest that it might be appropriate for the rules to distinguish between the 2 but as the rules didn't at that time do so, Baxter was guilty of haveing a banned substance in his blood stream.
To say that the lev isomer is inert is also incorrect as it is an active ingredient which does give medical benefits. However, it was accepted that it gives no performance advantage.
rob@rar.org.uk, Thanks for keeping the debate "clean" and interesting. It did make me reread a lot fo the drugs rules and I also had a long discussion with the manager of the GB sailing team and various team members about this. It will certainly make them very careful in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ