ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT





IOC, USOC Request Finding on Rule 45 from Court of Arbitration for Sport -- April 27, 2011

LAUSANNE, Switzerland, April 27. JESSICA Hardy may learn her Olympic fate much earlier than was previously thought likely. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) have agreed to ask the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a definitive ruling on IOC Rule 45.

Rule 45, specifically entitled "Regulations Regarding Participation in the Olympic Games – Rule 45 of the Olympic Charter," states that any athlete receiving a doping sanction of greater than six months is barred from competing in the next Olympic Games following the expiration of the doping sanction.

"In the interest of ensuring that all eligible athletes are able to compete in their respective Olympic qualification process, and to establish a degree of certainty as we head toward the Olympic Games in London, the USOC and the IOC have agreed to place the question of the regulation before the CAS for a definitive ruling," said USOC CEO Scott Blackmun. "I'd like to thank the IOC for their willingness to proceed in this manner and for the quality and the tone of the discussions that we have had regarding this matter."


The rule was passed on June 23, 2008, putting Hardy in its jurisdiction as her positive drug test for clenbuterol occurred in July 2008 at the U.S. Olympic Trials. Last year, CAS supported a reduction of Hardy's mandatory two-year suspension to one year due to a tainted supplement. This reduction still left her in harm's way when it came to Rule 45, since her suspension was more than six months.

The previous consensus on the likely outcome for Hardy relied upon Hardy making the 2012 U.S. Olympic Roster during the 2012 U.S. Olympic Trials. Rule 45 then would have been applied, and Hardy would have been removed from the roster. This would have given her an actual damage to sue against to be rectified. This same situation would have potentially occurred with a variety of athletes, with all of these proceedings being heard by CAS. With an early ruling, Olympic athletes will have a more definitive expectation of how Rule 45 will apply.

While USOC is the petitioner in the process, the arbitration procedure will be conducted in a manner so that the CAS ruling will be widely accepted.



Reaction Time Comments
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.

Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.

April 27, 2011 i hope everything works out for Hardy.
Submitted by: philipmj24
April 28, 2011 I don't. I'm sick of every positive test by an athlete being blamed on someone other than the athlete. Contaminated substance, meat, drink, this or that. Always "not my fault".. oh no no no, I didn't do anything wrong. Gimme a break. It's just that it hits too close to home when it's an American. If it was a Chinese swimmer, we'd rightfully be ready to hang them by their toenails.
Submitted by: fl_coach
April 28, 2011 I still don't understand this rule. She was disqualified from the 2008 Olympics and the next, its ridiculous. It essentially becomes a 6 year ban, unless she has no problem with working just for WC medals, World Cup/GP $ and not training for the Olympics in her prime..

One would hope that the CAS would look at this tainted supplement as truly accidental and rule in her favor.

In my humble opinion, there needs to be an amendment to the rule. How about The Hardy Amendment: A positive result that the IOC deems to be accidental will result in a ban of 6 months, effecting only those competitions within that 6 month window, surrendering any prize money and awards at any meets in which the athlete was ineligible.

Everybody wins, right??
Submitted by: HC_HLA
April 28, 2011 And for the record, I don't care what country they are from. Accidents happen, inhalers get mislabeled, the wrong prescription dosing goes into the wrong vial. Humans still fill prescriptions and quite possibly, there was human error. Regardless of probability, 1 in a million is still a chance. Just ask Lloyd Christmas...We must all be careful, that is the truth, but don't tell me that accidents don't happen and things don't happen by chance.

It also hits close to home because these are American journalists reporting on an American who has been in limbo since this happened in July 2008, J.C., its April/May 2011!! Three years to get a definitive ruling? GIMME A BREAK!
Submitted by: HC_HLA
April 28, 2011 HC_HLA, I agree with you on the time period to get a ruling, seems like things move at a glacial pace in the world of swimming sometimes.

As far as your "1 in a million".. how many times are the athletes going to be given the "1 in a million" benefit of the doubt? It's become such a joke. And wasn't her test a contaminated dietary supplement? Which athletes are clearly told they are responsible for? So whether it was unknowing or not - she's responsible.

It's easy for an athlete to bold-facedly say they didn't do anything and put the burden of proof on the supplement manufacturer to show otherwise. But how many bold-faced lies have we been told by athletes? It can't possibly be the case that every positive test is a mistake. Athletes, coaches, and doctors are cheating and getting away with it, and it's utter garbage. Do they take us for idiots?
Submitted by: fl_coach
April 28, 2011 Was she better off not taking supplements, absolutely. The body produces enough for the normal human being and she could have left it at that, assuming everything was normal. If she wanted more L-Arginine she should have considered a dietary change first. Maybe she did and the amount of consumption and cost of such would be outweighed by using a supplement, one that she was informed was clean.

She approached the manufacturer and was told the supplement was okay (although I have not seen the document, the AAA decision I reference from a SW.com article 5/21/2010 would lead me to believe this is truly a case of not entirely the athletes fault).

I guess I must be an idiot to be treating an athlete who has never tested for anything before that provided documentation of reassurance by the manufacturer that a supplement is clean to be telling some form of the truth. I guess I must be an idiot to wait for the innocent to be proven guilty. She was found guilty of relying on a company to be provided truthful information. She has been punished for it, I feel the punishment is beyond the crime, effecting two Olympic opportunities for what the AAA court deemed an accidental positive test..
Submitted by: HC_HLA
April 28, 2011 Nobody called you an idiot, so you can do away with the self-deprecating sarcasm - it's childish and shows you didn't really read what I wrote.

I asked if the athletes take US for idiots? I'm not alone in feeling my intelligence has been insulted when an athlete pulls this charade time after time. And I don't give 2 cents whether or not she ever tested positive in the past - all athletes who have been shown to be dopers had a "first time" right? And that "document of reassurance" isn't worth the toilet paper it was printed on. In fact, it just lends more suspicion to how the supplement got contaminated if the manufacturer is willing to certify their products as contimant-free.

Everyone needs to take off the rose-colored goggles and see international athletics for what it has become - money, money, and more money. There are teams of people out there trying to figure out an edge - legal, semi-legal, and full-blown illegal. Clenbuterol is the new designer drug in track, swimming, and cycling. But of course, it only got into my system from eating contaminated meat! Haha. Get real.
Submitted by: fl_coach
April 28, 2011 Okay, you are right about the idiot comment..

Regardless of my childhood nature, I did read your post but still give people the benefit of the doubt. Call me naive, call me an optimist, call me a fool, I am never going to change to give people the benefit of the doubt.

All those who try to use the contaminated medicine/supplement/food excuse/reason, there is a possibility that a person CAN have an accurate claim amongst all those liars. if the court system in place found that to be the case with Miss Hardy, then we must take that to be the truth.

fl_coach, its very apparent we aren't going to agree on anything at this point. Wish you the best and hopefully the situation we speak of never befalls yourself or one of your athletes. Because, honestly, that would be terrible, terrible irony..

Sincerely,

HC_HLA
Submitted by: HC_HLA
April 28, 2011 I admire your optimism... I'm just too jaded at this point. And if one of my athletes tested positive for anything they'd be shopping for a new team. Good luck to you HC, enjoy the spirited debate.
Submitted by: fl_coach
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.

Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
Purchase a 30 Day Premium Membership for only $4.95


Reaction Time Login
Submit Your Comments to This Story (Free)
Don't have a Reaction Time Account?
Click here
and setup your free account now!


Screen Name:
Password:

Forgot Screen Name or Password?
Click here
and we will email it to you.


Comments: (All comments will be reviewed by our Editors)
Jessica Hardy wins the 100 freestyle at the 2010 USA Swimming short course nationals.
Courtesy of: Peter H. Bick

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT1



Special Offer!