Switzerland’s Court for Arbitration of Sport (CAS) has set a date of August 17th for the arbitration between the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to test the IOC’s “Rule 45”.
This rule has been in the news many times lately, specifically with relation to Jessica Hardy’s suspension for a positive test of the banned substance clenbuterol at the 2008 Olympic Trials.
Hardy subsequently withdrew from the 2008 Olympic Team, and there was some question as to whether a memorandum sent out by the IOC just days before would apply to her case. That memorandum stated, though not in the official WADA World Anti-Doping Code, that any athlete who receives any doping-related ban of greater than 6-months.
Any person who has been sanctioned with a suspension of more than six months by any anti-doping organization for any violation of any anti-doping regulations may not participate, in any capacity, in the next edition of the Games of the Olympiad and of the Winter Olympic Games following the date of expiry of such suspension.
In an apparent attempt to derail a legal challenge to the rule, the IOC ruled that the mandatory Olympic-punishment didn’t apply to Hardy because the rule was made so shortly before her positive test, and thus there was not sufficient notice to the athletes.
But that doesn’t mean the USOC is ready to let the discussion pass. They have a great interest in seeing the rule overturned for the benefit of sprinter LaShawn Merritt, who is the defending bronze and silver medalist in the 400m, who had three failed tests for Dehydroepiandrosterone, which he claims to have ingested through use of a “male enhancement” drug. He received a two-year ban, which according to Rule 45 would keep him from defending his crown at the 2012 London Olympics.
But this rule will have wide-reaching effects within the sport of swimming as well, specifically in the heart-breaking case of Venezuelan butterflier Albert Subirats. As we outlined following his suspension for three failure-to-file-whereabouts warnings, this rule as it stands would apply to Subirats and keep him out of the 2012 Olympics. Though FINA recognized that it was clearly an administrative error (Subirats sent his filings to his federation, who failed to properly file them), they still were required to stick him with a minimum 1-year sentence.
You can read the full breakdown of the challenge in the Subirats article, but the cliffs notes is that many challenges believe that this rule amounts to a double-punishment for athletes, and violates the WADA Anti-Doping Code that FINA and all of its member nations agreed to. This will be a landmark case, and most experts observing the issue feel as though the USOC will have a strong case for getting the rule overturned.
Side effect of steroids include impotence, so athletes take the “male enhancement” pills to counter.
I admit that the “more than 6 months, then you’re out of the next olympics” is a bit harsh.
One year should be the limit instead because most steroid cases are given more than one year anyway.
If there’s no olympic ban rule, athletes wouldn’t think twice in risking getting caught in between olympics cycle. For some scrupulous athletes, it would be worth it as long as they can still compete in the olympics.
And is it really true that La Shawn Merrrit claimed he got roids through “male enhancement drug”?
LOL.
Yes, yes it is. Sort of reminds me of Fred Bousquet and his hemorrhoids…people will admit to some pretty embarrassing things to try and get themselves out of a doping ban.