Monday, June 23, 2008

Gatlin TRO Documents

We've got some copies of documents in Gatlin's Florida case, and placed them in the Archive.

From the TRO, being the first judicial review of the CAS decision:

[W]ithout a finding of fault on this first violation, Plaintiff would not be subject to an enhanced penalty under the current rules. However, because at the time of Plaintiff’s first violation the rules did not require a formal determination of whether an athlete was at fault, no such determination was ever made.2 Defendants, in considering the second violation, nonetheless maintain that they cannot revisit the first violation and formally determine that Plaintiff was not at fault. In what can only be characterized as a procedural mire, Defendants suggest that Plaintiff may try yet another round of administrative appeals to the discretion of the various Defendant agencies in an attempt to gain a beneficial ruling in this regard.

In the midst of this intractable situation, it is abundantly clear that, if anyone were to actually deal with the facts of this case head-on, they would readily conclude, formally, that Plaintiff was not at fault for the first violation, and would as a consequence end his suspension immediately. The only obstacle to this result appears to be a “musical chairs” situation in which nobody appears willing to take that step.

Today we learn the IOC and USOC have told this court they think this case should be in Switzerland, not the US, and the music should keep playing until Gatlin's time is gone.


Unknown said...

"I am troubled when the argument is ... that we will impose the process regardless of the fairness just because it is our system," Collier told lawyers opposing Gatlin's case. "You ought to be embarrassed by what you have done in this case up to this point."

While the jurisdiction issue remains to be solved, it is interesting what this judge has to say about the system.

Is this a hole that will allow others to challenge the blind application of the system in the US?