Justin Gatlin returns...

myflipflops

Justin Gatlin, the 2004 Olympic 100 metre champion, wll return to athletics in July of this year after serving his 4 year ban. He is also a former World champ and jointly held the world record (expunged) at once.

It will be interesting to see if the major meets refrain from inviting him to compete. Dwain Chambers was ostracised from the circuit on his return so in theory, Gatlin will be too. Gatlin is a much higher profile athlete though so maybe it will be situation where the publicity and possible money will rule the day. Meet directors may want the 2004 Olympic champ to meet the 2008 Olympic champ and the interest all that brings with it.

So what do you think of the scenario? Should and will he be invited to meetings everywhere if he comes back running super quick again?

notsofast

Cheating Justin Gatlin is the last thing athletics need right now. Bolt has dragged the sport back towards the spotlight and someone like Gatlin is just a reminder of the bad old days. Hopefully he will be shunned like Chambers and leave athletics to the good guys.

Pherekydes

It would be interesting to see if he's kept in shape. 4 years is a long time without competition. And the world has moved on. But he's still only going on 28, so he's young enough.

Remember, this is a guy that ran 19.86 just past his 20th birthday, and has a 44.1 relay leg to his credit. He also has a lot of potential over the hurdles. So while he may find the 100m too hot to handle, he could be competitive in the 2 or even the 4.

shels4ever

When you plan to return to the sport after a ban to you need to be tested while banned for a period of time prior to your return?

MrCreosote

Pherekydes wrote: »

Remember, this is a guy that ran 19.86 just past his 20th birthday, and has a 44.1 relay leg to his credit. He also has a lot of potential over the hurdles. So while he may find the 100m too hot to handle, he could be competitive in the 2 or even the 4.

Good times alright, but he was a dope fiend! Who knows what his times would have been if he wasn't? Four years- too small a ban if you ask me. Still it's better than the poxy two years that cyclists seem to get.

thirtyfoot

I'd say he'll find it hard to get up to the two boys (Bolt and Gay) but may push Powell. I'd also say that he may get a more sympathetic response from meet directors than Chambers.

Pherekydes

MrCreosote wrote: »

Good times alright, but he was a dope fiend!

He ran 19.86 windy as a junior in 2001 and 19.86 legal in 2002, four years before he tested positive. He has bags of talent.

TheRoomWrecker

He's training in Atlanta with one of the best sprint/power events coaches in the world so I can see him running sub 20, and sub 9.90 again.

I heard from someone in the training group he did a 20second time trial and covered 197metres

This was a few months ago and he was 20pounds off his race weight so just shows the talent he has.

thirtyfoot

TheRoomWrecker wrote: »

He's training in Atlanta with one of the best sprint/power events coaches in the world so I can see him running sub 20, and sub 9.90 again.

I heard from someone in the training group he did a 20second time trial and covered 197metres

This was a few months ago and he was 20pounds off his race weight so just shows the talent he has.

http://new.wkzo.com/news/articles/2010/jan/25/gatlin-learns-how-to-sprint-again/

Here is article on him and his new coach.

PS: I know that blue track he is pictured on, trained on it for a few weeks one time. A high school mondo track (with lines!).

Reaganomical

What an ass. The USATF must be hard pressed for role models that they are rolling out Gatlin to talk to kids about the perils of doping. He doesn't exactly sound remorseful, does he?

myflipflops

Personally, i think it will create bad headlines for track and field. The drug cheat Olympic champ versus the current one.

I presume he won't get near Bolt either (who will??!!) so it will lend lazy evidence to the people doubting Bolt.

Mainly what interest me in all this is whether he gets invites though. I was 100% in favour of the decision to freeze Dwain Chambers out of most meets. It should be a fair thing that;s done to all drug cheats though so Gatlin should find it impossible to get into any races in Europe. Like Tingle, I doubt that will happen unfortunately.

TheRoomWrecker

Tingle wrote: »

PS: I know that blue track he is pictured on, trained on it for a few weeks one time. A high school mondo track (with lines!).

Aah yes Marietta High, great little stadium.

MrCreosote

Pherekydes wrote: »

He ran 19.86 windy as a junior in 2001 and 19.86 legal in 2002, four years before he tested positive. He has bags of talent.

Why would his positive test be the only time he ever took banned substances? Most of the time, once they start telling the truth, there's a history of doping right through the career. Testing positive once casts doubt on any previous times run.

Pherekydes

MrCreosote wrote: »

Why would his positive test be the only time he ever took banned substances? Most of the time, once they start telling the truth, there's a history of doping right through the career. Testing positive once casts doubt on any previous times run.

A positive test only implies that the substance was found in the athlete's system. It doesn't imply the athlete took it, intentionally or otherwise. Therefore it can't imply cheating. Cheating is knowingly breaking the rules, e.g. taking banned substances. Gatlin hasn't admitted knowingly taking banned substances. You can ban him for having the stuff in his system (which is what they've done) but you can't say for certain he cheated. Remember, lots of athletes have got away with 2 year bans. Gatlin got 4 years, because the testosterone positive was a so-called second offence. He should never have gotten a ban for the first 'offence'.

Pherekydes

shels4ever wrote: »

When you plan to return to the sport after a ban to you need to be tested while banned for a period of time prior to your return?

Yes. He's never removed his name from the testing pool. He has been tested in the intervening time, but I don't know how often.

MrCreosote

Pherekydes wrote: »

A positive test only implies that the substance was found in the athlete's system. It doesn't imply the athlete took it, intentionally or otherwise. Therefore it can't imply cheating. Cheating is knowingly breaking the rules, e.g. taking banned substances. Gatlin hasn't admitted knowingly taking banned substances. You can ban him for having the stuff in his system (which is what they've done) but you can't say for certain he cheated. Remember, lots of athletes have got away with 2 year bans. Gatlin got 4 years, because the testosterone positive was a so-called second offence. He should never have gotten a ban for the first 'offence'.

Cheating just means the banned substance is in his body. Whether intentional or not doesn't matter. And as for the defence that "I didn't know what I was taking"- tough. Ignorance of the law is no defence, and a professional athlete should know exactly what they're putting into their body.

I just think Gatlin's return is a throw back to the bad old days of the early 2000s. It's because of people like him that the first thing that comes into our mind after seeing a WR broken is "Probably doping"...

TheRoadRunner

Pherekydes wrote: »

A positive test only implies that the substance was found in the athlete's system. It doesn't imply the athlete took it, intentionally or otherwise. Therefore it can't imply cheating. Cheating is knowingly breaking the rules, e.g. taking banned substances.

not according to iaaf rules obviously. If you are a full time runner you are responsible for what's in your body. Simple as.

Pherekydes wrote: »

He should never have gotten a ban for the first 'offence'.

As far as I know he didn't actually get a ban for the first offence. He got a warning as the offending drug was in medication he was taking for attention deficient disorder. As above he is responsible for reporting what medications he was taking at the time and must have failed to do so. Hmmm a bit of a trend. I personally have no time for him but the rules say he is allowed to compete again so end of

Pherekydes

MrCreosote wrote: »

Cheating just means the banned substance is in his body.

Aaron2010 wrote: »

not according to iaaf rules obviously.

Here's an excerpt from the WADA anti-doping code:

2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its
Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample
2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that
no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body.
Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited
Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found
to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is
not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or
knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be
demonstrated in order to establish an antidoping
violation under Article 2.1.

It's crystal clear that the World Anti-Doping Agency views a doping offence as not necessarily implying cheating. If you want to read it as otherwise, go right ahead. But this is the World governing body.

Aaron2010 wrote: »

As far as I know he didn't actually get a ban for the first offence.

He most certainly did get a ban. It was two years, reduced to one year on appeal. His second ban was originally for life. It was first reduced to 8 years, then to 4. If he was so guilty why didn't they stand by their life ban? Maybe they were just wrong?

MrCreosote

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but WADA are saying they don't have to prove any intent to take. Simply the presence of the substance is enough to be an antidoping violation- i.e. cheating.

Whether it's intentional cheating or not doesn't matter.

Pherekydes

MrCreosote wrote: »

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but WADA are saying they don't have to prove any intent to take. Simply the presence of the substance is enough to be an antidoping violation- i.e. cheating.

Whether it's intentional cheating or not doesn't matter.

An anti-doping violation is not necessarily cheating.

Cheating requires intent.

Intentional cheating? There is no other type.

In fact, WADA explicitly states there does not have to be intent.

MrCreosote

Pherekydes wrote: »

In fact, WADA explicitly states there does not have to be intent.

Presumably to remove the defence that Gatlin tried to use. Pleading ignorance isn't a defence- he's still guilty of the crime.

Take another example of drafting in a triathlon (my own pet peeve!). People often will defend drafting by saying they didn't know about the exact draft rules for an event. Doesn't matter- if you draft you're cheating, whether you knew about the rule or not. It's up to the competitor to make themselves aware of the exact rules.

robinph

Didn't Ohuraghu(?) get a doping ban. Various lifetime bans from different bodies, but then came back and bagged an Olympic gold.

I seem to remember something about the missing of one of those tests being due to one track being closed on a particular day, going to another track to train, the doping guys turn up at the original one and then she doesn't make it back across London before their time limit expires and they bugger off. Does that count as intentional cheating, she got a ban after all?

MrCreosote

She missed 3 out of competition tests and that's an "anti-doping rule violation" by WADA definition. Fair enough too because most of the doping is out of competition. It was how they caught the cyclist Rasmussen in the 2007 Tour de France- he said he was in Mexico to avoid doping control, but someone had footage of him training in Italy at the time.

So avoiding out of competition tests is cheating as well. Making a mistake once or twice is forgivable but three times in 18 months? You'd be pretty careful if you'd already missed two I reckon.

Pisco Sour

MrCreosote wrote: »

Cheating just means the banned substance is in his body. Whether intentional or not doesn't matter. And as for the defence that "I didn't know what I was taking"- tough. Ignorance of the law is no defence, and a professional athlete should know exactly what they're putting into their body.

I just think Gatlin's return is a throw back to the bad old days of the early 2000s. It's because of people like him that the first thing that comes into our mind after seeing a WR broken is "Probably doping"...

To be honest the "bad old days" were not the early 2000's, but in fact the 1970's and 1980's with all the communist state sponsored doping going on. Athletics in the 2000's has been cleaner than it has been for 50 years in my opinion. Its only because there is better testing now that more people are getting caught which leads the clowns in media and the general public to think that doping is more of a problem now than it was before.

myflipflops

Pherekydes wrote: »

A positive test only implies that the substance was found in the athlete's system. It doesn't imply the athlete took it, intentionally or otherwise. Therefore it can't imply cheating. Cheating is knowingly breaking the rules, e.g. taking banned substances. Gatlin hasn't admitted knowingly taking banned substances. You can ban him for having the stuff in his system (which is what they've done) but you can't say for certain he cheated. Remember, lots of athletes have got away with 2 year bans. Gatlin got 4 years, because the testosterone positive was a so-called second offence. He should never have gotten a ban for the first 'offence'.

I disagree completely with the idea of your argument about how cheating is not a given with a drugs ban but you make a very relevant and well put together argument.

Gatlin wasn't found guilty of an offence of the magnitude of Chambers (steroids/EPO) and he has continually denied his guilt.

His denial of the offence has to have some influence. Just like doubt exists over competitive athletes with black marks against their names, doubt has to exist with banned athletes who argue innocence.

MrCreosote

The problem is they always deny it. Any reasonable doubt is removed once the test is positive...

robinph

Well I'd be denying cheating, however I would also fail a drugs test they might decide to do on me after the end of the Raheny 5 tomorrow.

TheRoadRunner

Pherekydes wrote: »

If he was so guilty why didn't they stand by their life ban? Maybe they were just wrong?

True they may have been wrong and he has always protested his innocence (a bit like Floyd Landis maybe ). However two failed tests and association with Trevor Gragham leaves me with little sympathy.

Pherekydes

MrCreosote wrote: »

The problem is they always deny it. Any reasonable doubt is removed once the test is positive...

The WADA code also explicitly states that the burden of proof falls short of 'reasonable doubt'.

Pherekydes

myflipflops wrote: »

I disagree completely with the idea of your argument about how cheating is not a given with a drugs ban...

It's not my argument; it's the argument of the World Anti-Doping Agency and it's laid out in (I hesitate to say plain) English in the section I quoted above and outlined in bold.

Pisco Sour

This is stupid! So when IS somebody a cheat then? Only when somebody fails a drug test AND admits to taking drugs is somebody a cheat? In that case there aint many drug cheats in sport!

They all protest their innocence. Remember Kelli White claiming innocence, then when she knew she had lost her case she then admitted to cheating!

myflipflops

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not my argument; it's the argument of the World Anti-Doping Agency and it's laid out in (I hesitate to say plain) English in the section I quoted above and outlined in bold.

I suggest it's a clause inserted to remove the opportunity for athletes to argue a case that they were spiked or ingested something un-knowingly. I wonder if that point has always been part of the WDA document or was added later when you had cases like Dieter Baumann who claimed his toothpaste was spiked or Janine Whitlock who said her drink was spiked.

I could be completely wrong of course. If it's there to point out that cheating is not implicit with a drugs ban then I'd liked to see it removed.

MrCreosote

Pherekydes wrote: »

The WADA code also explicitly states that the burden of proof falls short of 'reasonable doubt'.

True. Poor choice of words from me.

Just for the record, does anyone know somebody who confessed immediately once they got a positive test?

myflipflops

MrCreosote wrote: »

True. Poor choice of words from me.

Just for the record, does anyone know somebody who confessed immediately once they got a positive test?

I was going to say Lombard but maybe he denied it for a little while? Anynoe correct me on that?

There was a female 800 meter runner who burst onto the scene a few years ago (a Brazilian i think) and ran some times that were massive improvements. She tested guilty pretty quickly and i think admitted her guilt and took the ban.

I'm trying to think of her name. A google search is in order.


Edit - Fabiane dos Santos. She came from nowhere to be running 1.57's back in 2001. Pretty obscure though!!

MrCreosote

I think Lombard came clean straight away, but he was caught importing epo rather than a positive test.

Rineanna

Normarily I'd be for second chances, but I think the sport has fallen too far for second chances. Personally, I believe if there's any chance of repairing the catastrophic damage done to the sport's reputation, the governing body must employ zero tolerance, and life ban all convicted drug cheats. Or, at least, life ban from ALL championships (indoors and outdoors, worlds, Euros, Olympics). Now, that's just my opinion, and I'll admit I know very little about the ins-and-outs of this side of the sport, as I tend to deliberately shy away from it.

But Gatlin's back. And so is Chambers. And so are Stambolova and Veneva. And it's tough to determine how they should be treated. Technically, they've done their time. But there's a bigger picture here, and that's the long term viability of the sport.

I don't think it's in the sport's best interest to bring them anywhere near IAAF permitted races, irregardless of the buzz it generates. In this situatiuon, I believe the flaws in the phrase 'All publicity is good publicity' are exposed. If their national bodies permit them to race at local/regional/national levels, then splendid. However, leave the accredited meets to those athletes who've worked hard on their own to get there.

This topic tends to polarise opinion, but that's just my take.