Four year bans have we forgotten

[Jnathletics]

I know everyone wants harsher penalties but they might want to do some historical research first.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/ ... e_la5.html

""After German sprinter Katrin Krabbe was suspended for four years for taking the banned drug clenbuterol in 1992, she sued the International Amateur Athletics Federation in a Munich civil court. The court eventually found her penalty unlawful, effectively restricting the German athletics federation to two-year bans for drug use. Krabbe's move, and other successful legal challenges in other countries, forced the IAAF to wind back its policy on four-year bans for the sake of consistency, and to avoid potentially huge legal bills.""

Since courts have already shot this down are we just going to relive court cases of old?

[Andrea_T]

>I know everyone wants harsher penalties but they might want to do some
>historical research
>first.

The reason why the court over turned the 4 yr ban was because Krabbe was initially given a 2 yr ban, but the IAAF subsequently extended it to 4 yrs...illegally, thus it was over turned. It wasnt about a 4 yr ban per se being illegal, it was the extension of it that was ruled outside the rules

[gh]

No, there were court cases in multiple nations which caused the overturning of the 4-year; nothig to do w/ the Krabbe case.

[gh]

I'll see if I can't dig up documentation.

[gh]

This from "Last Lap" in the March '96 edition of T&FN

<<4 Year Bans Too Long?

Swimming has joined track & field in assessing a 4-year ban for a first-time steroid positive, but even though the Olympic movement's two largest federations are presenting a common front, the IOC still thinks that the penalty period is too long.

"We must give penalties, but they must not be so severe for an athlete to be virtually banned from taking part in future events," said IOC board member Richard Pound in reaction to the swimming decision.

The IOC is pushing for a uniform 2-year ban in all Olympic sports. "This is a question of somebody becoming more Catholic than the Pope," said Pound. "The 4-year suspension runs the risk of having a crushing effect on a career."

At last August's IAAF Congress, a motion to cut track's
penalty back to 2 years was a convincing loser, 127-49, despite the nominal backing of the IAAF Council and pro-change votes from major powers Germany and the United States.

IOC director-general François Carrard concluded, "We have not seen the end of this. The doping question has always evolved. One could expect a further evolution."....>>

Dick Pound as a softie!! Whodda thunk?! Did swimming end up dropping its 4-year as well?

[Vern]

Was there any question about Krabbe's guilt? I seem to remember that her urine sample wasn't actually hers? Or was that another test/GDR athlete?

[gh]

And then in May of '97 we published this:

<<Steroid Bans To Be Halved?

Forces within the IAAF are ready for another attempt to reduce steroid bans from 4 years to 2, following the news that Germany's Susen Tiedtke-Greene will be allowed back into competition after serving just half of her penalty.

The German government said that the country no longer will ban athletes for more than 2 years, as a longer suspension is not enforceable under German civil law.

A representative of Germany's federation, said, "We're going to ban for 2 years from now on. We're getting the impression from the IAAF that they're going to accept [this]."

At the '95 IAAF Congress, member nations voted against reducing the 4-year ban, despite the strong backing of some of the sport's major powers and atleast tacit support from IAAF bigwigs.

IAAF medical chief Arne Ljungqvist, in analyzing the latest decision, said, "We have to have rules that are enforceable by law," noting that Germany isn't the only nation where the law calls a 4-year ban too harsh.

The thrust of the court rulings, which have also cropped up in Bulgaria, France, Russia, Romania and Spain, among other nations, is generally that the long bans impinge on the rights of an individual to earn a living.

Giorgio Reineri, the IAAF's PR chief, said, "Now we have some athletes who have 4-year bans and others who have only 2 years. That is absolutely unfair.">>

[eldrick]

someone care to clarify the current ban penalties ?

i gave up at


ganga +ve:


leading to immediate

1) slap on the back

2) blind-date with the WHOLE east european lady jumping team

[Andrea_T]

>No, there were court cases in multiple nations which caused the overturning of
>the 4-year; nothig to do w/ the Krabbe case.

Just to clarify, that's what I meant, I didnt word it very well.
I was trying to say the reason why KRABBE's 4 yr ban was overturned was because of the extension of it from 2 to 4, I didnt mean it to sound the reason why ALL 4 yr bans were stopped

[gh]

From June of ’97

<<IAAF Accepts 2-Year Bans

Some athletes will now have to serve 4-year bans for steroid offenses, others just 2 for the same violation. "It is unfair, and we recognize the division, but there is little we can do about it until the situation is reexamined by the IAAF Congress," said IAAF rep Anna Legnani after the March meeting of the IAAF Council.

The problem, as noted in this space last month, is that an increasing number of countries-Germany, Russia and Spain among them-have civil laws which say that the 4year penalties are simply too harsh, and thus prohibit the national federation from imposing anything but a sitdown half that long.

Athletes from nations whose courts make such decisions will thus be reinstated by the Council under the "exceptional circumstances" rule. The same rule will not apply to athletes from nations which don't have such laws. ****[Now I need to keep going and find where this rule changed---assuming it did]***

With the backing of the IAAF's doping commission, a move to reduce the IAAF ban to 2 years will be introduced at the Congress in Athens this summer. A similar move was defeated in Sweden in '95.>>

[gh]

From November of '97, and i think this is where the matter has lain since:

<<IAAF CONGRESS
Penalties Modified

BACKED INTO A CORNER by civil-court rulings in multiple nations, the IAAF has reduced the term of suspensions for the use of steroids and other anabolic agents from 4 years to 2. After an impassioned debate, a similar proposal was defeated when it came up in Goteborg in '95.

Acting just before the World Championships in Athens, the biennial IAAF Congress also did away with 3-month first-offense suspensions for less serious "Part II" drugs and replaced that sanction with a "public warning." Additionally, the results of any competition in which an athlete tests positive for Part II substances-including stimulants found in many cold medications-will be stricken.

The amended doping bans passed by a 11256 vote, driven by the fact that civil courts in many nations—including Bulgaria, France, Germany, Romania, Russia and Spain-have declared 4-year suspensions to be an unfair restraint of trade for professional track athletes. The U.S. voted for the measure.

Individual member federations have the option to continue levying 4-year bans if they so choose, leading to the possibility that the same offense will carry different penalties, depending on where you claim citizenship.

Despite the relatively lopsided vote, some Congress members spoke out strongly against the reductions. "I had to leave the room after the vote because I wanted to vomit," IAAF Council member Amadeo Francis of Puerto Rico told Reuters.

"This is going to make it cheaper to cheat.

Four years was a really significant punishment. Some athletes can be injured for two years. It is a slap on the wrist."

There are those who hope that the reduced penalty will help stem the tide of damagingly expensive court cases that the IAAF and national federations have had to fight. In theory, at least, there are athletes who will be willing to roll over and accept a 2-year ban where they wouldn't a 4.

The rules have not changed regarding second offenses. For the more serious drugs- such as steroids, growth hormone and testosterone, which produce mid- to long-term performance improvements, as well as "strong" stimulants like amphetamines and cocaine -the punishment remains a life ban.

Although the IAAF announced that second-time offenders caught positive for Part II drugs will still receive 2-year suspensions, putter Aleksandr Bagach, who failed a drug test in '89, tested positive for ephedrine, a Part II drug, in Athens (see p. 53) and received only a public warning and loss of his gold medal and prize money.

Since Bagach's prior ban was for testosterone, it is presumed that Part II positives, many of which occur inadvertently through use of cold medications, are being treated as an entirely distinct and separate class of offense.

The new rules were made retroactive. The elimination of the 3-month penalty for the Part II positives meant that Jamaican long jumper James Beckford, who tested positive in Paris in June, was immediately eligible to compete in Athens.

The French took particular umbrage at this decision, and before the long jump filed a protest to have him barred from the competition. The complaint was turned down.

Commenting on the revised Part II sanctions, IAAF President Primo Nebiolo said he wanted to focus on what athletes did on the track or field, rather than on what "turned up in their pee-pee.">>

[sp1r1ted]

>Was there any question about Krabbe's guilt? I seem to remember that her urine
>sample wasn't actually hers? Or was that another test/GDR athlete?

I don't recall Krabbe denying ownership! Her biggest bone of contention was that Clenbuterol wasn't specifically named on the DVL's list of prohibited substances.

[Thor]

>I know everyone wants harsher penalties

Not really.

[gh]

Anybody know what happened to swimming and 4-year bans?

[Kevin]

With the removal of baseball and softball from the Olympic, I am rather looking forward to this "lady jumping" event mentioned by eldrick. Maybe this will make it to the Masters ranks, as well.

I may not be as good as I once was, but I'm as good once as I ever was. - (Aristotle?)

[Thor]

Sounds more like Groucho Marx.