The British Olympic Association is taking WADA back to court to again arbitrate whether or not the BOA is non-compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code.
This is a veiled counter-attack at the infamous “Rule 45” that the CAS struck down earlier this year by ruling in favor of the United States Olympic Committee against the International Olympic Committee. Rule 45 was one enacted unilaterally by the IOC that declared that any athlete who received a doping suspension of greater than 6 months would be ineligible for the next Olympic Games. The CAS said that this rule violated the World Anti-Doping Code that the USOC, IOC, and BOA all agreed to because it subjected athletes to double jeopardy, and also was not a punishment in line with those allowed by the code.
The Brits, however, have insisted that they intend to employ their own version of Rule 45, despite what the CAS ruled. This forced WADA to declare them as “Non-Compliant” with the World Anti-Doping Code.
The BOA put out a press-release, that you can read in its entirety here, with their stated goals below:
• Fulfilling a commitment to the overwhelming majority of British Olympic athletes, present and past, who continue to express their unwavering support for the selection policy and have encouraged the BOA to vigorously defend it.
• Obtaining clarity on the status of its selection policy well in advance of the London 2012 Olympic Games, which will be of benefit to athletes and National Governing Bodies.
• Resolving the matter through an arbitration process that involves another sport organisation (WADA) rather than an individual athlete or group of athletes.
While on the surface these are noble goals, they ignore some key details about WADA declaring them ineligible, that we discussed at length in our previous writing about the dispute. The main reason why the BOA is going to lose this case before the CAS is that WADA is not a governing body. Everything they do, including the creation of this “compliance” list, is mandated by the authority of the signing members, including the USOC, BOA, and IOC. By seeking arbitration between themselves and WADA, at some convoluted level they are seeking arbitration between themselves and…themselves.
Further, WADA and the World Anti-Doping Code give no specific punishment for being non-compliant. It is instead the IOC that declares that an Olympic Committee must be on the WADA compliance list to send its athletes to the Olympic Games. WADA can’t change it’s rules. WADA aren’t the ones not allowing this measure to be pushed through. It is the BOA, and their cohorts, who must change the rules, and the BOA who are not allowing this measure to be pushed through by way of their signing of the World Anti-Doping Code. WADA exists only to enforce the rules that the BOA, and others, have agreed to.
On the basis of the previous CAS ruling (unless they decide to overturn their own ruling), anybody who watches the CAS can see that they will have no choice but to rule in favor of WADA. When the BOA fails, they will probably then turn to arbitration with the IOC, and so-on, but will ultimately relent.
The nuanced aspect of the BOA’s appeal is that they claim that their rule is not a sanction for a doping offense. Instead, they say that the BOA should be allowed to select it’s own qualifying criteria, and that one of their criteria is that the athlete not have committed a doping offense that earned a suspension of over 6 months. That’s an interesting attempt at a loophole that could come down to the definition of a “sanction” leaning to the negative and the defenition of a “qualifying criteria” leading to the positive selection of a certain group.
By this matter, the BOA hopes to circumvent the previous CAS ruling by declaring that this “selection criteria” has no connection to the “sanction” that the tribunal previously struck-down.
What this all points to, as usual, is that the World Anti-Doping Code needs to be revisited, and these countries need to be afforded the opportunity to revote on what they thing appropriate punishments are for dopers. This will force them to “put their money where their mouths are,” so to speak, and rather than expecting the CAS to break the code for individual cases, have rules in place that will more deftly satisfy the signatories.
The BOA, and others, have made very good points with regard to recent high-profile doping cases. The problem is that their good points don’t match up to a legally-binding document that they signed.
For what it’s worth, the BOA could have suspended all of its dopers for the next Olympics. The Code allows them to hand out a 4-year suspension, which would have eliminated them by default from the next Olympic Games.
WADA had a very simple response in their press release:
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has noted the announcement of the British Olympic Association (BOA) to lodge an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the decision taken by the WADA Foundation Board last month that declared the BOA non-compliant to the World Anti-Doping Code.
Like all signatories to the Code, the BOA has the right to appeal the decision of the WADA Foundation Board under article 13.5 of the Code.
WADA has received formal notification and the statement of appeal in this matter. As with all cases, and adhering to the proper and normal respect for the integrity of the legal process, WADA will refrain from commenting further until the appeal has been completed and a decision rendered by CAS.
As a British person who cant wait for 2012 I am extremely proud of the stance British sport and society as a whole has taken on drug cheats. WE want clean sports….Keep it up British sport.
So let me get this straight:
– British athletes don’t want drugs cheats on the team.
– British coaches don’t want drugs cheats on the team.
– British sports officials don’t want drugs cheats on the team.
– The British people don’t want drugs cheats on the team.
But the World Anti-Doping Agency says we must let them on?
How completely and utterly bonkers is that!
WADA needs to change its rules urgently as they’re making a complete mockery of the fight against doping.