Thursday, November 09, 2006

Thursday Roundup

I'm beat, so Part 5 is gonna wait for me to recover. I'm going to try the Floyd after S16 approach, maybe without the IV.

Quote of the Day

I'm finding that Floyd doesn't have a lot of fair weather friends. They seem willing to go to the mat for him.


No news so far today. Really.

Dugard thinks Basso is wise to avoid giving a DNA sample, what with the sleazy ADA setup, and looking into the future and seeing a possibly Pink Floyd.

Anonymous Fortune Teller (AFT) returns to TBV comments with answers to some complaints and criticism about his prognostications. The building sense of the comments is that he's a a good fake with bad science.

Jason Sager
shares his tale of woe about the USADA.

Steve's Peeves brings Rumsfeld and Landis together again, trying to explain the difficulty of proving a negative.

Correspondent AJ wonders if another reason USADA got itchy was because of the requirement to run the arbitration under the California rules, and offered these links as being interesting:

Arbitration in Entertainment
Review of recent law affecting arbitration
California Statutes

and passes on the statute language that says the neutral arbitrator has power to issue subpoenas for discovery and deposition:

1282.6. (a) A subpoena requiring the attendance of witnesses, and a subpoena duces tecum for the production of books, records, documents and other evidence, at an arbitration proceeding or a deposition under Section 1283, and if Section 1283.05 is applicable, for the purposes of discovery, shall be issued as provided in this section. In addition, the neutral arbitrator upon his own determination may issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and subpoenas duces tecum for the production of books, records, documents and other evidence. (b) Subpoenas shall be issued, as of course, signed but otherwise in blank, to the party requesting them, by a neutral association, organization, governmental agency, or office if the arbitration agreement provides for administration of the arbitration proceedings by, or under the rules of, a neutral association, organization, governmental agency or office or by the neutral arbitrator. (c) The party serving the subpoena shall fill it in before service. Subpeonas shall be served and enforced in accordance with Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1985) of Title 3 of Part 4 of this code.

1283.05. To the extent provided in Section 1283.1 depositions may be taken and discovery obtained in arbitration proceedings as follows: (a) After the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators, the parties to the arbitration shall have the right to take depositions and to obtain discovery regarding the subject matter of the arbitration, and, to that end, to use and exercise all of the same rights, remedies, and procedures, and be subject to all of the same duties, liabilities, and obligations in the arbitration with respect to the subject matter thereof, as provided in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1985) of Title 3 of Part 4, and in Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4, as if the subject matter of the arbitration were pending before a superior court of this state in a civil action other than a limited civil case, subject to the limitations as to depositions set forth in subdivision (e) of this section.

This gets sort of shot down at DPF by JR, who writes,

Some law out there that the state arbitration code will apply to intrastate commerce questions only and the federal arbitration act will apply to interstate commerce questions. CA also has a unique neutral arbitrator ethical disclosure rule that has recently been decided not to be pre-empted by the FAA (but is pre-empted by the special rules in a securities arbitration under a different act). And the parties can have choice of law and procedural rules in their agreement. My best guess and that's all it is, just choosing CA as the site does not change the procedural rules adopted by USADA, ie, the AAA modified rules. Those rules address exchange of information, so I would think it would pre-empt the state rules, plus this is definitely at least interstate commerce, so we would be looking at the FAA and federal rules applying. The Gaines case linked earlier was heard in SanFrancisco and discovery issues were briefed on the basis of federal rules. But maybe someone with experience with USADA will show up and give a better answer.


At DPF, an ultimately unresolved discussion of false positive rates with masking vs. the tested population, which does include a nice picture of the doping process, by Tom Fine:

Waaaay back in August, NYVeloCity did some evaluation of the Praying Landis TT position. They don't seem to have ever gotten to Part II. Did something happen?



James said...

Funny LA article on the Onion

Sometimes a little (sick) humor is a good thing...

Anonymous said...


You see this?

Sources: Graham receives allegation letter from USADA

Track coach Trevor Graham received notice from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency that he is accused of violating doping rules, sources familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
USA TODAY has not been able to independently confirm this report.

Graham, whose star athletes included Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery and Justin Gatlin, was indicted by a grand jury last week on three counts of making false statements to federal agents. Now, he has 10 days to respond to USADA's allegation letter. The case then will be presented to a review panel that recommends whether sanctions should be levied.

The sources, who spoke to AP on condition they not be identified because the charges have not been announced, said the letter informed Graham that he is being accused on a "non-analytical" basis, meaning the doping violation isn't predicated on positive drug tests, but rather on other evidence.

Also receiving an allegation letter, sources said, was track coach Remi Korchemny, who pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of doling out the sleep-disorder drug modafinil in the BALCO steroids scandal.

USADA general counsel Travis Tygart said he could not comment on ongoing cases.

The accusations mark the first time a coach has been targeted for punishment by USADA.

Athletes guilty of first-time doping offenses often are given two-year suspensions. Any penalty recommended by the review panel would be subject to arbitration.

Evidence in USADA's case against Graham includes testimony from athletes, as well as information that became public last week when federal authorities released details of his indictment, the sources said. USADA long has been pursuing Graham, and the timing of the letter came after the indictments, so as not to hinder the federal investigation.

Graham always has denied providing banned substances to his athletes. His Raleigh, N.C.-based attorney Joseph Zeszotarski did not return phone calls or an e-mail.

The Jamaican-born Graham operates Raleigh-based Sprint Capitol USA, a team of about 10 athletes that includes Gatlin, the 100-meter co-world record holder who tested positive for testosterone and other steroids in April. He was the latest of a handful of athletes coached by Graham who have tested positive for banned substances.

Graham also coached Jones at the Sydney Games in 2000, when she became the first woman to win five medals in a single Olympics.

Gatlin's positive test led the U.S. Olympic Committee to ban Graham from its training sites, and Nike terminated its contract with the coach.

In the federal indictment, prosecutors said Graham lied to investigators in 2004 about his ties to the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative at the center of the steroids scandal.

He is scheduled for arraignment Nov. 16 in U.S. District Court and faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and a $750,000 fine if convicted.

Three years ago, Graham mailed a syringe containing "the clear," a previously undetectable steroid, to USADA. At the 2004 Athens Olympics, Graham acknowledged mailing the drug, saying: "I was just a coach doing the right thing at the time." He did not say why he turned in the syringe or how he got the material.

Korchemny, who did not return phone calls Tuesday, coached sprinters Kelli White and Dwain Chambers, both of whom tested positive for banned substances and subsequently were suspended. White, who has retired from the sport, cooperated with investigators and has become an outspoken anti-doping advocate.


Doesn't this run counter to USADA rules of "strict liability"? In other words an athlete is responsible for what goes into his body. No matter what.

For example when the swimmer Kicker Vencill showed that the supplement he was taking was tainted through a manufacturing error, USADA agreed he was not a doper. However, under the strict liability rules they still banned him (but for less than 2 years)!! If its in your system, you're guilty no matter how innocent the reasons are.

If you operate under this kind of code, then why are you going after Graham? I'd be interested in what rules give them the authority to do this.

I know many int he track community hate Graham, and I'm no fan either. But that does not give USADA the right to make up rules.

Can anyone give more color on what rules Graham, a non-athlete, has broken?

DBrower said...

There are provisions in the WADA code and the USADA protocol for these things, so it doesn't seem grossly out of line to me. I haven't looked it up, though. Go to the reference page and look for those two documents. The WADA code is maybe 50 pages, and the USADA protocol maybe 40.