Eligibility to Compete at the Olympics Following ... - World Sport News

Introduction

London 2012 was a remarkable occasion for Team GB athletes who surpassed all expectations. There were clearly pressures placed on Team GB to succeed, but for some it was the taking part that counted. Niger rower Hammadou Djibo Issako, despite finishing nearly 2 minutes behind the winner in the mens? single sculls event, claimed he would encourage new talent into the sport In addition, Sarah Attar, the first female track athlete to compete for Saudi Arabia received a standing ovation. However, given the status of the Games, the ?taking part? has become more than symbolic in recent years. As well as the honour of representing your country, for many, it has become an opportunity to enhance their ?commodity? value. For example, Jessica Ennis? gold medal gave her a strong bargaining position to re-negotiate sports merchandising contracts; selection for National Olympic Teams therefore has been given elevated importance. It is not surprising that numerous challenges have been made to selection decisions and selection criteria in the Courts.

The Facts ? Dwain Chambers

One of these challenges came from Dwain Chambers, a UK 100m sprinter who, in August 2003 tested positive for a banned substance Tetrahydrogestrinone (THG). In February 2004, UK Athletics found him guilty after a contested hearing of doping, and he received a mandatory two-year ban with effect from October 2003. Although he contested the charge, he later admitted using THG for 18 months prior to its detection. He also used a cocktail of six other banned drugs which included: testosterone/epitestosterone cream; erythropoietin; insulin; human growth hormone; modafinil; andiothyronine. Since his ban however, he has remained drug free and has spoken publicly against drug taking in sport- the consequences of which were for him severe. He was stripped of all medals won during the period when he was taking drugs, including the 2002 European Championship gold medal and the 4 x 100m relay gold. He also agreed with the IAAF and UK Athletics to pay back just over $100,000 in prize money won during this period.

Chambers v British Olympic Association

When his ban ended, he returned to athletics in 2006 and won gold at the European Championships with the 4 x 100m relay team. He also won the 100m trial for the Beijing Olympics in 2008 which, in principle, entitled him to Team GB selection. However, between him and his goal of competing in the 2008 Games stood a problem in the form of the ?eligibility criteria? or bye-law 25 set by the British Olympic Association (BOA) for Team GB selection.Bye-law 25 reads in its relevant parts as follows:

(3) The BOA, in compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), recognises adjudication of competent authorities under the WADC by not selecting athletes or other individuals for accreditation to Team GB whilst they are subject to a ban from competition under such adjudications.

(4) The BOA does not regard it as appropriate to select athletes or other individuals for accreditation to team GB who have at any point committed a serious doping offence involving fault or negligence and without any mitigating factors.

(5) The BOA regards it as appropriate to take as a starting point that any athlete or individual guilty of a doping offence at any point should be ineligible for selection for Team GB, but to provide that an athlete or individual who can establish before an Appeals Panel that, on the balance of probabilities, his or her offence was minor or committed without fault or negligence or that there were mitigating circumstances for it, may be declared eligible for selection.

Chambers couldn?t satisfy the mitigation criteria and was therefore ineligible to compete at the Beijing Games. He challenged the byelaw at the High Court arguing that the rule was a ?restraint of trade?, and sought an injunction preventing the BOA from applying the rule. To establish this, he had to prove that it prevented him from earning a living as a professional athlete. The Court held it would be difficult to establish that his ability to work had been restrained; arguing that he?d only been prevented from competing in one championship, the Olympics, where no prize money was awarded. In addition, the timing of the challenge may also have been detrimental to his case; by challenging when he did, there wasn?t the time for a proper trial of the issues. The Court was less than impressed with the timing of his challenge, and so he continued to be ineligible to compete at any Olympic Games.

BOA v WADA

A successful challenge to an International Olympic Committee (IOC) eligibility rule by the

United States Olympic Committee (USOC) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) gave fresh hope that Chambers may be able to compete in London. Following the CAS ruling, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Foundation Board argued that bye-law 25 was not compliant with the WADC; the BOA appealed to the CAS. The same CAS panel that decided the USOC case heard the BOA case, and given the similar nature of the disputes, the BOA looked to distinguish the two cases. In essence they took the position that the bye-law was an overall team selection policy aimed at choosing the most appropriate athletes to represent Team GB, neither constituting a rule of ?ineligibility? nor a ?sanction? and therefore didn?t fall within the scope of the WADC. They also placed particular emphasis on the fact that the Olympic Games was a celebration of sporting values and was designed to set an example for youth. The CAS ruled that in reality, whether an athlete could be ?selected? or whether an athlete was ?ineligible? was a ?distinction without a difference?.

Decision

On the 30th of April 2012, the CAS panel found that bye-law 25 rendered an athlete ineligible to compete and was therefore a ?sanction?, the same as those provided for under the WADC. Once the CAS had rejected the BOA appeal and confirmed the view of the WADA Foundation it paved the way for Chambers and other UK athletes to compete at the London 2012 Games. Although at the time many Team GB athletes protested, the decision only reflected the fact that the international anti-doping movement has recognised the importance of a worldwide and consistent fight against doping in sport. The BOA are free, as are others, to persuade other stakeholders that an additional sanction of ?inability to participate? in the Olympics maybe a proportionate and appropriate sanction, which in future may form part of a revised WADC.

Although at the time many Team GB athletes protested, the decision reflected the fact that the international anti-doping movement has recognised the importance of a worldwide and consistent fight against doping in sport. The BOA are free, as are others, to persuade other stakeholders that an additional sanction of ?inability to participate? in the Olympics maybe a proportionate and appropriate sanction, which in future may form part of a revised WADC.

By Phil Watkins

Source: http://www.thirtyfiveseconds.com/eligibility-to-compete-at-the-olympics-following-a-doping-offence-the-legal-position-explained.html

cmas tcu dr. oz heart attack grill las vegas the heart attack grill joe kennedy iii joseph kennedy iii