Jump to content

U.S. Winter Bid for 2022 or 2026


Soaring

Recommended Posts

Always thought you were just trolling, but I'm starting to thing you really don't know the first thing about about sports, do you?

Anyway, It isn't a legal issue, but a competitive issue. It's legal to leave the starting line before the gun goes off in Colorado. That doesn't mean the IOC has to allow it, does it?

What r u talking about? What doesn't the IOC have to allow? they are a guest of the host city and state-- for the most part, the administrative rules and finer points of competition will prevail but if an athlete is disaqualifed due to pot....then that can be challenged in court because s/he did NOt commit a crime under state law. So therefore, if they don't want to deal with such issues, the IOC better start looking at other juridictions. A pooulist issue like that will not take a side seat to what many will consider the IOC's old grey-heads pick-a-ninny listings. U will probably see the IOC asking the Denver Committee to award double gold / silve/ bronze medals rather than fight it out in court --- you'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What r u talking about? What doesn't the IOC have to allow? they are a guest of the host city and state-- for the most part, the administrative rules and finer points of competition will prevail but if an athlete is disaqualifed due to pot....then that can be challenged in court because s/he did NOt commit a crime under state law.

Did you even read my post about our skier losing a bronze medal at the 2002 Olympics because he used a Vicks inhaler?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even read my post about our skier losing a bronze medal at the 2002 Olympics because he used a Vicks inhaler?

no. But this is a new twist because finding marijuana in an athletes' urine cannot be used for disqualification in any competition event held in the territory of Colorado because it is NOW legal -- anyone, student, housewife, athletes, policeofficers can use it. (How and why they would use it entirely their presonal discretion.) So the IOC will have to alter its list of banned-allowed substances in this instance to be harmonious with the existing law of the land which does not consider pot a banned substance. So will the IOC accept that or seek other shores??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe U're missing the point. I am looking at a future incident where there is one point of conflct between what's on Colorado's books and what's on hte IOC's. How can u miss that completely?

Colorado's books cover what is against state law. The IOC's cover what is allowed during Olympic competition.

Do you really not understand those are two different things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colorado's books cover what is against state law. The IOC's cover what is allowed during Olympic competition.

Do you really not understand those are two different things?

U guys don't get it. OK, if I win a race in a fictional Denver Olympics...and pot shows in my urine. And then they take away my say. 2nd place, win because of that. Well, I can challenge that because it is LEGAL in the jurisdiction where the competition took place. It is Colorado's jurisdiction -- not the IOC's. The IOC has this 'fake list of banned substances' which if it does not contravene any things in the local law books, can therefore stand. But if pot show in results and a medal is taken away from me, I will pursue litigation and likely win because the long-standing laws on the books take precedence over a temporary 2-week reign of a visiting 'administrative unit. I know this because I have taken law classes. Unless they drop it from their banned substances, is the IOC and the federations willing to put up with huge litigation issues? There are hundreds of lawyers out there chomping at the bit to challenge them.

Just as Australia would not bend their equestrian quarantine laws in 1956 and the IOC had to find a home in Stockholm, maybe the IOC should explore other horizons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no. But this is a new twist because finding marijuana in an athletes' urine cannot be used for disqualification in any competition event held in the territory of Colorado because it is NOW legal -- anyone, student, pilot, housewife, athletes, policeofficers can use it. (How and why they would use it entirely their presonal discretion.) So the IOC will have to alter its list of banned-allowed substances in this instance to be harmonious with the existing law of the land which does not consider pot a banned substance. So will the IOC accept that or seek other shores??

A pilot? Seriously? Think about that one for a sec. Is it legal for a pilot to smoke marijuana in Colorado? Yes it is. Is it allowable for him to fly a plane while stoned though? I don't know if there's a law against it, but I would guess (and I certainly hope) any and every airline says you can't do it and if you do, they're allow to suspend you or fire you. And I don't think that pilot can then turn to his airline and say "but it's legal, you can't stop me from doing it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pilot? Seriously? Think about that one for a sec. Is it legal for a pilot to smoke marijuana in Colorado? Yes it is. Is it allowable for him to fly a plane while stoned though? I don't know if there's a law against it, but I would guess (and I certainly hope) any and every airline says you can't do it and if you do, they're allow to suspend you or fire you. And I don't think that pilot can then turn to his airline and say "but it's legal, you can't stop me from doing it."

Don't argue with Baron. He's taken law classes. He obviously knows what he's taking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh so I slipped one in there that shouldn't. My fault. BUt still goes to show how petty most of you are yet none have addressed the potential litigational, jurisdictional issues that will be part and parcel of a bid.

And don't make fun of me just because I see this potential trap which none of you can obviously foresee.

Let's see Denver wiggle its way out of that one.

I know, but I've watched a ton of episodes of Law & Order. Doesn't that make me equally as qualified?

No; not really; did you have to turn in reports to a QUALIFIED LAW professor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, but I've watched a ton of episodes of Law & Order. Doesn't that make me equally as qualified?

If you've watched them while staying at a Holiday Inn Express, it makes you *more* qualifed.

Sorry Baron... you are back on the losing side. The IOC can ban things that are legal under state law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Baron... you are back on the losing side. The IOC can ban things that are legal under state law.

Not really. The IOC is a quasi-self-appointed body founded to organize and supervise sports events. Jurisdictionally, they cannot override existing laws, not unless the jursidiction allows it. U want take this to a legal expert or professor? I'm willing to make a solid bet with you or anyone.

Don't forget Andrea Raducan being disqualified from gymnastics in Sydney for taking an over-the-counter cough medicine.

Right because this substance was banned on the IOC's list and it was the duty of her medical team to vet all the medications & substances taken by the athletes. But apparently no one on the Romanian team wanted to mount a challenge to the IOC. With pot specifically no longer a banned substance in Colorado, the IOC cannot use their existing list to ban that and their stance CAN and should be challenged by anyone wanting to make a case of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caffeine was also on their list of banned substances - Oz has had a fencer (Alex Watson) disqualified for drinking too many coffees before his comp in Seoul. He appealed (where is caffeine NOT legal?), but the appeal was dismissed.

I'm not sure exactly the formula, but I'd assume the athletes agree to abide by IOC and WADA rules over local laws (as well as factors like use of social media and things like promoting non-games sponsors) when they sign their acceptance papers from their NOCs to compete at the games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there is a fine distinction between being disqualification and winning a medal and then post-awards results revealing otherwise. During the SLC investigations, part of the reason the case against Welch & the guy, disintegrated was that IOC's legal counsel did not want to have Samaranch testify, x-examined, etc,; and those were for special Congressional hearings, not even a court appearance. And when that happens, you know that party has a weak case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. The IOC is a quasi-self-appointed body founded to organize and supervise sports events. Jurisdictionally, they cannot override existing laws, not unless the jursidiction allows it. U want take this to a legal expert or professor? I'm willing to make a solid bet with you or anyone.

I'll take that bet. You keep treating this as a legal/criminal matter, but it's not. There's a big difference between "banned" and "illegal." The IOC and WADA and the individual sport federations cannot stop an athlete from using a legal substance. What they can do is create rules and regulations that govern their competitions and what the penalties and punishments are if you violate 1 of their rules. If 1 of those rules says you're not allowed to have THC in your system (and it's pretty clear from USADA and WADA that it does), they don't need to make an exception for competitions held in Colorado or Washington, whether it's the Olympics or anything else they oversee. I would absolutely love for you to try and find a legal expert or professor who will claim otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The internet is a wonderful thing. Came across the following on the USADA website and it doesn't get much more black-and-white than this..

Athlete Guide to the 2013 Prohibited List

Although recreational marijuana use was recently legalized by Colorado and Washington voters in constitutional amendments, marijuana use remains prohibited in sport in accordance with the 2013 WADA Prohibited List.

Your move, baron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The internet is a wonderful thing. Came across the following on the USADA website and it doesn't get much more black-and-white than this..

Athlete Guide to the 2013 Prohibited List

Although recreational marijuana use was recently legalized by Colorado and Washington voters in constitutional amendments, marijuana use remains prohibited in sport in accordance with the 2013 WADA Prohibited List.

And the kicker is, the IOC insists that NOCs abide by the WADA regulations in order to get approved to host or compete.

...

April 7 - Spain has pledged that it is fully behind the fight against drugs in an attempt to end doubts that the country is soft on the issue, a perception that undermined Madrid's bid to host the 2016 Olympics and Paralympics.

Leaders of the Madrid 2020 bid have now decided to tackle the problem head-on to try to ensure that it does become a festering sore during this campaign, where they are facing rivals Baku, Doha, Istanbul and Tokyo.

Alejandro Blanco, the President of the Spanish Olympic Committee (COE) and of Madrid 2020, and Miguel Cardenal, Spain's Sports Minister, have held talks with with David Howman, the director general of the World Anti-Doping, to express their support for the battle.

The commitment was has also been backed by Marisol Casado, the Spanish President of the International Triathlon Union and an increasingly influential member of the International Olympic Committee, who also attended the meeting.

After the meeting, Cardenal claimedthat the Spanish Government "has always been committed to the fight against doping".

But three years ago in the final few months of the campaign for 2016 Howman warned Spain that a new law on doping were less restrictive than WADA guidelines and that they needed to be changed if Spain wanted to host the Olympics.

For example, athletes would no longer have needed to be permanently available for testing, with tests banned between 11pm and 8am.

The Spanish move incorporated the complaints of sportsmen like world number tennis player Rafael Nadal, who had claimed the WADA system as "an intolerable persecution".

Since then there have been several high-profile incidents in Spain involving banned performance-enhancing drugs, including a row over Alberto Contador, who earlier this year was stripped of his 2010 Tour de France title following a long battle in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after he had initially been cleared by Spanish authorities.

...

insidethegames

and

After previously resisting certain aspects of the WADA Code, Spain has finally passed legislation bringing it on board with global anti-doping rules.

One of the changes is that the country will align itself with the requirement by WADA that athletes be available for out of competition testing between 6 am and 11 pm; Spain had previously limited this to 8am to 11 pm.

One possible reason for WADA’s increased scope is that micro-dosing of EPO can only be detected for a few hours.

The new was passed by Spain's council of ministers. According to the government spokesman, adopting the code will help the global perception of the country in sport. “[it will] protect our athletes while at the same time strengthening the image of our sports throughout the world,” he said, according to AP.

Spain has been faulted at times in recent years, with the country being accused by some of being soft on doping. It rejected the suggestions, but limiting the time its athletes could be tested left it open to criticism.

Spanish capital Madrid is one of those pushing to host the 2020 Olympics. Bid cities must comply with the WADA code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The internet is a wonderful thing. Came across the following on the USADA website and it doesn't get much more black-and-white than this..

Athlete Guide to the 2013 Prohibited List

Although recreational marijuana use was recently legalized by Colorado and Washington voters in constitutional amendments, marijuana use remains prohibited in sport in accordance with the 2013 WADA Prohibited List.

Your move, baron.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. I have not denied that. Now, is it in the language of the Colorado passage that their new legislation abides with that sport prohibition? I don't know the language and do not care to research it. So where does not using marijuana before or after hitting the slopes, how many minute before or after sweating, constitute a violation of the WADA stricture? Do the Colorado voters even recognize that they fall under the WADA rules? Only official sports abide by that WADA thing. Therefore, the new Colorado law may NOT adhere to the WADA rules and is open to challenge. This may open a whole can of worms insofar as the popular will of Colorado's electorate and the "rules" of a non-jurisdictional entity like WADA or the IOC. There is a major difference between "law" and "rules" (as only those created by an organization, like WADA).

In essence, Colorado and Washington have allowed something that regardless of what WADA says or prohibits, they deem legal in their territory. Colorado and Washington courts may rule that their laws trump regardless of what is in the WADA list--which really only covers professional sport but has never been challenged in a case like this...and because they would happen in Colorado and Washington territory. I would think the 2 states have legitimate reason for not necessarily going along with WADA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take that bet. You keep treating this as a legal/criminal matter, but it's not. There's a big difference between "banned" and "illegal." The IOC and WADA and the individual sport federations cannot stop an athlete from using a legal substance. What they can do is create rules and regulations that govern their competitions and what the penalties and punishments are if you violate 1 of their rules. If 1 of those rules says you're not allowed to have THC in your system (and it's pretty clear from USADA and WADA that it does), they don't need to make an exception for competitions held in Colorado or Washington, whether it's the Olympics or anything else they oversee. I would absolutely love for you to try and find a legal expert or professor who will claim otherwise.

I just saw this. NO, I am not treating it as a criminal matter...but it becomes legalistic and jurisdictional.

I think the order here is to see the language of the law in Colorado. Then if an athlete is stripped of an award, not even in a fictional Denver Olympics, but in any of the official Skiing races here in CO that adhere to the same/similar doping laws of WADA/IOC, and now challenges the ruling, will the artificially-imposed WADA rules trump officially-legislated Colorado law? That is the question. And Colorado courts may be ornery and decide in favor of their laws thereby voiding any "jursidiction" WADA may artificially impose. As I say above, does the new law spell out where and when it is only legal...or is it a blanket allowance regardless of time, date, place and event? Perhaps a challenge and a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court may define such a situation better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...