Updated, Corrected: the Marion Jones Teammates issue(s)

In January of 2008, WADAwatch published a column, "WADA used Gold Medals?" which discussed a then-future, now-realized decision, taken by the Executive Board (EB) of the IOC.

That decision concerns the relay-team teammates of Marion Jones, and focused on a news item from the HamptonRoads website, which featured local resident and soon-to-be-stripped Olympic Gold Medal relayer LaTasha Colander-Clark, of Portsmouth.


News updates require an update to the above Ww article. On the IOC website, at their Press Releases page, the following item has these as the last paragraphs of a 2pg document discussing recent IOC Executive Board actions:

In another doping related decision taken today, the Executive Board disqualified the team mates of Marion Jones (previously disqualified from the Sydney 2000 Games) in the United States Women Relay team from the 4x100 meters race where the team placed third and the 4x400 meters race where the team placed first.

The USOC has been asked to return to the IOC all medals and diplomas awarded to the athletes involved.

The issue of reallocating the medals and diplomas – including those of Marion Jones’ – will be addressed by the Executive Board in due course pending further information in the BALCO affair.

WADAwatch had gone on record, in January, noting that between the IOC, and WADA, there appeared to be no published 'rule' on which the legal basis to overturn that Decision.

That may have been an improper presumption on our part. The rules surely do exist, yet apparently the IOC doesn't have the Sydney rules still on line. WADAwatch has found the following rules, which may or may not be applicable: we cannot determine if the IOC rules were similar to those in effect for the Sydney Games, and the IAAF rules do not seem to have any 'in effect' date, within the document or on the site.


A relay team, as were Jones and her now devestated running partners, is not considered a Team event (itself an interesting WADA definition) by WADA:

Team sport: A sport in which the substitution of players is permitted during a Competition.

Thus relay team members are not participating in a Team Sport. Under what regulatory basis are they competing?


The Olympic rules are a very difficult document to track down (Note to IOC: Let's put the Anti-Doping Olympic rules on the website, please?) This page lists "all documents published on this website"; they have a link down halfway to "Medical". There is a link there to the PDF for the 2006 Turin Olympics Rules. There is no link to 'permanent' or 'Beijing' rules that we could find.


Is it safe to determine that, if they'd made a great change from Sydney, via Turin, we'd find it online by now? Maybe, maybe not. So we analyse from a step away, perhaps, from the rules invoked in the IOC Executive Board determinations. The nature of these rules ('what is a Team', 'what is a relay team?') do not suggest having any radical updates.


Interesting Rules, nevertheless: the IOC Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the XX Olympic Winter Games in Turin, 2006, Article 5 governs Doping Controls. Sub-Article 5.6 is titled Selection of Athletes to be Tested, and if we jump next to 5.6.1.2.1, there we see the IOC stating:

[.....]
For Pursuit, Relay and Team Sprint competitions: one randomly selected Athlete in all top five teams plus one randomly selected athlete in the two randomly selected teams.

Seems to be an interesting concept, these arbitrary, random 'selections' for Testing purposes. However there is another Article to note closely. Article 10: Consequences to Teams controls that which Ww is seeking:

[.....]
In sports which are not Team Sports but where awards are given to teams disqualification or other disciplinary action against the team when one or more team members have committed an anti-doping rule violation shall be as provided in the applicable rules of the relevant International Federation.

Thus if we can presume a functioning legal basis out of the IOC Turin Olympic rules, we are safe to presume we should look to the IAAF Rules, as the applicable IF. Again, we are taking some risks in presuming the Rules that apply are very similar to those published, if not the same, from the Sydney Olympics (and again, the nature of a definition of a relay squad could reasonably suggest carrying a stable definition for decades).


If that presumption holds, then Article 39.2 is our baby (on PDF file page 30, doc.pg "57"):

[39]
2. Where the athlete who commits an anti-doping rule violation under Rule 39.1 is a member of a relay team, the relay team shall be automatically disqualified from the event in question, with all resulting consequences for the relay team, including the forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money. If the athlete who has committed an anti-doping rule violation competes for a relay team in a subsequent event in the competition, the relay team shall be disqualified from the subsequent event, with all the same resulting consequences for the relay team, including the forfeiture of all titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

Sadly, WADAwatch must remind its audience that the 'Jones teammates' case is probably going to pass through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (currently awaiting the final documents admissions for the Floyd Landis case). If the Arbitrators have to work the magic wand of 'Judicial Interpretation', still there appears to be ample justification for the rendered decision.


WADAwatch reminds these three Organizations (WADA, IOC, CAS), that they must strive to create a harmonious legal system, that their rules must be clear, and, as we see in the case of this Relay squad, that it is neither found to be a 'Team Sport', nor can it possibly remain as a 'non-individual, non-team' sport, at least in the WADA CODE.

This may be a clear-case, in the eyes of the Organizations; it cannot be clear to a woman in tears, why the medal over her fireplace, or wherever, has to disappear, and to wear the crown of thorns here and after...


The limbo dance... when Teams are not Teams, and when individuals that have not fallen afoul of any rule, are losing medals; that is the time to clearly move forward, under WADA president John Fahey, and tackle an issue head on, so that future Medallists don't have nightmares attacking them out of the blue sky.

Last thought. There is no one else to blame but Jones... and there are now four former medalists from the 4X100, and a separate four from the 4X400 (as there were evidently substitutions made, from the preliminary to final heats: all participants shared their glory, temporarily)


Not afraid to clarify the record...

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are
strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere
to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil
the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the
highest possible level of objective, neutral
science in sport-doping control.

.....................@............WADAwatch

2008 all copyrights reserved

WADA used Gold Medals?

Many world–shaking events from 2007 are currently fermenting like good Swiss wine, slowly turning into the garish headlines of 2008; the world of anti–doping and sport is certainly one of these.

Since the Marion Jones confessions, one of the most salient problems has become what to do with the tarnished gold medals that are held by teammates of doping athletes. Self–righteously, some say, egotistically to others. Does an Athlete who's honest efforts in a team sport, forfeit her or his glory for the depredations of another?


How are the legal scales of justice balancing the issues of fairness?


No question but that what Marion chose to pursue was wrong from Day–D (for Doped) onward, from 'whenever' until her 2007 confessions.


But in the hyper–mediatronized world that exposes the work efforts of WADA and the IOC, it appears safe to say that the negligent regard for forward–planning efforts (during the reign of Richard Pound) is now coming full circle.


Witness the case surrounding Jones' teammates for the 1,600 meter relay, including Oregon native LaTasha Colander–Clark.


WADAwatch seeks the rule promulgated by the IOC and in force prior to the Sydney Olympics, that informs medal–winning athletes of the lifetime nature and legal relationship to Gold, Silver or Bronze medal–winning status.

Here is the decision of the IOC Disciplinary Panel:

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MARION JONES

We live now in an age where many of us will pay good money for products, often ignoring that we've only acquired a 'license' for media or computer items: software, movies or music, rather than purchasing them (read the 'I accept' screen next time you're installing a new program).

It appears comparable to the trend by certain bodies such as the IOC, WADA or the US Olympic Committee, who believe that clear solutions are at hand, by osmosis, to extricate their 'august Institutions' from the tawdry reputations of doping athletes.

Ms Colander–Clark and her teammates of the 1,600 meter race, as well as Jones' 400 m relay partners, are facing pressure by the IOC and USOC to 'voluntarily return' their medals. Look at the three eternally happy faces below...

(From left: Jearl Miles-Clark, Monique Hennagan, LaTasha Colander-Clark and Marion Jones)

What would you choose? What's the applicable rule for this situation?

Four women crying today, for distinctly different (Ww hopes!) reasons?

Crying: because nobody can show them on paper the (IOC or USOC) RULE that allows their medals to be erased and redistributed?

WADA didn't have a CODE in place until 2003; it had been birthed (or divorced?) from the IOC in 1999, and in its first year was in the process of determining what to do and how best to achieve this.

Now, after eight years of existence, many headlines and little to show for standardization of its laboratory network, it comes to light that the power of confession has turned upside down the staid world of the Olympic Movement, not to mention other commercial sporting events such as the US professional sports leagues, the cycling Tour de France, and others.

We learn that the IOC had 'recommended' (says the HamptonRoads.com site) that all of Jones' Sydney relay teammates be disqualified and those gold medals be returned. Although the nature of the legal situation is unclear, the IOC has given the USOC until the end of January 'to submit a defense'.

Peter Ueberroth, normally an admired and respected catalyst in the US Olympic world, and President of the USOC, 'has already publicly asked Jones' relay teammates to voluntarily return their medals.

At WADAwatch, there is only one word of advice to offer to LaTasha and her other obliquely–tarnished teammates:

DON'T.

WADA entered the global fight against sport–doping, as the 'bastard' child of the IOC (perfectly personified by Dick Pound...), and had ample time, resources and support to choose its battles and position itself strategically.

It appears that none of the major players: the IOC, WADA, UNESCO or powerhouse Federations (such as the IAAF, for athleticism, or the IOC athletes' commission) have begun to codify a responsible and accepted, standardized response to certain cases. That is what the world expects of WADA, in such cases where confession or other acceptable means produce an acknowledgement of past wrongs.


LaTasha! You and teammates are being forced to accept a choice that removes the necessary burden of the IOC, or WADA to take a lead for global development of standard practices in the cases that are to come.


The Hampton Roads website quotes Ms Colander–Clark: “Sometimes you have to fight for your destiny and remember not to let anyone walk over you”.


WADAwatch agrees; we at Ww would have preferred that your case be well–defended by the USOC, which realistically has no case against you if no law existed, in force during the Sydney Olympics, that expressly told medal–winners what to expect if ever their teammates were found out as doping Athletes.

The USOC, rather than 'submitting a defense', could and should have led the way in knowing that the system needs a regulation, and forged a global agreement that satisfied legal needs. Instead, it appears that USOC followed a 'lead' one could have predicted for Dick Pound: it only issued a publicized demand for the medals to be returned, and then did nothing, didn't contact the athletes themselves, until the IOC told them to do so.

LaTasha! Are you, and those team mates of yours collective victims of 'retroactively enforced, non–enforceable non–regulations'?


Can't anyone write a rule?

This could be (we won't know until the results from these closed proceedings are publicly announced, sometime after the end of January 2008) a case tainted by nationalism, and as the USOC mounts the anticipated defense, its attorneys and legal drafters ought to consider the role, as a comment to the above–cited article stated, had the US won only the Silver medals in the 1,600m race.

WADAwatch wants systemic stability in this new growth industry of sport–doping investigation and punishment.


Stability in the system could be found, if a NON–retroactive rule was applied, starting with the 2008 Summer Olympics.

To create a fair and objective rule for the confession of past acts, requires a lot of footwork and balanced input from stakeholders: governments, athletes' commissions and the IOC.

Creating bad precedent, as another comment offered, is the key to be avoided. The world of sports has become accustomed to the placement of ** asterisks near records or championships whose performance was later revealed to have 'imperfections of title': I'm sure that LaTasha would rather live WITH an *asterisk, rather than WITHOUT her medal.

WADAwatch will monitor the coming developments in this case, that will have great effect on the lives of many clean Athletes. With WADAwatch watching, hopes increase that a rule governing this situation, transitionally based (where a express rule for the future has a temporary 'what to do' provision covering this decade of change...) or permanent, will be drafted prior to Beijing 2008.

The opinions expressed by WADAwatch are strictly formed with the purpose of inciting WADA to adhere to its Fundamental Rationale, achieve its goals and fulfil the aspirations of its Signatories, in achieving the highest possible level of objective, neutral science in sport-doping control.

.......@.............WADAwatch

© 2008 ZENmud productions

Confessions of Marion

"... Marion Jones will be remembered as one of the biggest frauds in sporting history."

Is this phrase, by IAAF president Lamine Diack, one that we should be getting used to?

Is that formulation going to become as bland a superlative as what one hears in the Denver, Colorado media, at the annual occasion of a first heavy blizzard in the Rockies? "I can assure you that there has never been a snowstorm of this intensity in the last [.....] years!"

Thus spaketh Marion (from the New York Times):
“It is with a great amount of shame that I stand before you and tell you that I have betrayed your trust.... You have the right to be angry with me. ... I have let my country down and I have let myself down.”


And the International Association of Athletic Federations, from the Associated Press (via GoogleNews):

IAAF president Lamine Diack said Saturday he was "deeply disappointed" with the news that Jones had admitted to taking banned drugs when she won three Olympic golds and two bronze medals in 2000.

"If she had trusted to her own natural gifts and allied them to self sacrifice and hard work I sincerely believe that she could have been an honest champion at the Sydney Games," Diack said in a statement. "Now, instead, Marion Jones will be remembered as one of the biggest frauds in sporting history.

"A lot of people believed in the achievements of Marion Jones and this confession leaves a bitter taste, and tarnishes the image of a sport in which a majority of athletes are honest and clean..."

And the President of WADA, Mr Dick Pound, stated what he anticipated the IOC would do, when he chimed in:

WADA chairman Dick Pound said the hardest part of taking away Jones's medals will be turning over her 100 metre gold from the 2000 Sydney Olympics to runner-up Katerina Thanou of Greece, who recently completed a two-year doping ban.

"The IOC opened up a file on Jones after Sydney and we now have full admission, so I don't think it will take much time to respond," Pound told Reuters in a telephone interview. "There is an IOC executive board meeting in December and I'm sure the disciplinary board will make a recommendation and move quickly."

[.....]

Pound, a former IOC vice president, said proceedings would likely begin with the USADA making its ruling.

WADA would only get involved if the IOC failed to act accordingly, he added.

+ + + + + +

After all is said and done, a confession will have proven two things: that the testing was not able to procure the truth in this case, and that confession did.

There is a growing weight on the conscience, and the consciousness of Athletes, as they see the shame, the expense and the self-afflicted wounds that derive both from doping, and when hidden truths are denied for years and years.

As was stated by Mr. Pound, the irony would be in awarding the Gold Medal to Greece's Katerina Thanou, whose two-year ban has already ended.

Enter the PARADOX again: how would anyone know if Thanou was or was not clean in 2000? Maybe as a clean runner-up, she realized (or was convinced, alone or through outside influence?) that her only choice was to 'join the club', and enter the downward spiral that ended with her banishment after the Athens Olympics (for missing a control-appointment).

At crystelZENmud, this author wrote about the case of Bjarne Riis, whose confession about his EPO doping during the 1996 Tour de France had created this year's pre-Tour scandal. I applauded him for his honesty, while siding with most who felt that he should be punished in the most obvious way possible: returning his Yellow Jersey.

Two vastly different Athletes, from vastly different sports cultures, have now confessed to their fellow citizens, to the world, and to the authorities that control their sports, of their false acts.

But remember!

To dismiss them out-of-hand, to deny the cathartic relevance of healing through confession, and to dismiss them as the 'greatest sports frauds in history' (Is Pete Rose, the banished-for-Life American Baseball player, sleeping easier?), reveals a short-sightedness that is typical in the Sporting world, and especially with those who now control the anti-doping world.

Confession proves more than testing: support it. Chastise firmly, do what must be done, but USE THEM! Bring them to see teenagers, make them wallow a bit in their suffering, as they habituate themselves to their new non-status, tis they who could be the beacons of reinforcement, to the minds of the young and the wavering, and their Parents, and Coaches.

+ + + + + +

One word of caution though, from WADAwatch: Dick Pound had stated (see article reference above):

"WADA would only get involved if the IOC failed to act accordingly...."

Can not one action in the Sporting world go by, without Mr Pound's incessant reminders of WADA's power and menacing insinuations? If only he'd completed his thought, so we could write with a bit more effervescence!

WATCH? WADA,

..........@..........WADAwatch