Except thatâs not how it works with Ironman. Ryan and several others have already shown that IM has the right to publish provisional suspension, and they have a right not too. What they havenât shown is what criteria IM goes with that decision. Iâd actually argue @rrheisler that doping controls and legitimacy work on it being black and white Thatâs the whole point of so much procedurals for every single aspect of the process. For the publication process to be left at âmayâ get published for a provisional males almost no sense.
So none of what you replied with really applies here.
2 Likes
Do you really think Ironman or the ITA would make a statement on their own? Hasnât been my experience with anti-doping agencies. They donât like to say anything until the athleteâs hearing has been conducted and a ruling issued.
What I donât get is people in here saying that the ITA made it public once Simmons made it public; otherwise, they wouldnât have. And yet, in Tomasâ case, the ITA made it public that he was provisionally suspended before Tomas had made anything public.
Whatâs the difference between the two? Why was the ITA keeping it private in one case and making it public in another?
The assumption behind that statement suggests the determination of innocence or guilt is done with perfectly consistent arbiters. Where a public hearing/trial helps is dealing with irregularities and unequal treatment.
No athlete can know if they are being treated in a consistent and fair way to their peers if the answer is âtrust us, this is secret for your goodâ.
The thing is, this isnât a trial. Not even a civil one. It is an âarbitrationâ for lack of a better term. The panel are generally trained lawyers with experience in sport and they apply the WADA code on the balance of probabilities.
Think of it more like a contract proceeding where instead of being sued youâre compelled to arbitration and itâs never public.
Ya, my point is that the more public the process is, the more it helps the next person accused. So the private nature, being alleged to protect the innocentâs rights misses this key concept. If every future accused athlete could look at the previous record and see the process, theyâd know how to defend themselves (and naturally how to work the system) better.
The point Iâm more making is that itâs not what you, I or anyone think they will or wonât do. Itâs the fact that the regulations/rules allow them to publicly disclose or not disclose this information based on nothing other than giving them the authority to make that decision. Thatâs all kinds of ass backwards in a process that every detail of the process is âlawyered upâ with every single word of every single rule at this point. So to then just shoulder shrug, and give them the power that they âmayâ disclose it, or they may not, seems really wrong/odd.
(And Iâm not for or against, I think by default going public with a provisional suspension would probaly benefit your sport more than notâŚit imo keeps more transparency and âabove reproachâ imo)
Organizations only have flexibility on the provisional suspension. Per the WADA code once the suspension is finalized it MUST be reported. I guarantee a lawyer was able to make an excellent use case for allowing flexibility on a provisional suspension. Here is the WADA language adopted for World Triathlon (identical to Ironman)
Blockquote
No later than twenty (20) days after it has been determined in an appellate decision under Article 13.2.1 or 13.2.2, or such appeal has been waived, or a hearing in accordance with Article 8 has been waived, or the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not otherwise been timely challenged, or the matter has been resolved under Article 10.8, or a new period of Ineligibility, or reprimand, has been imposed under Article 10.14.3, World Triathlon must Publicly Disclose the disposition of the anti-doping matter, including the sport, the anti-doping rule violated, the name of the Athlete or other Person committing the violation, the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method involved (if any) and the Consequences imposed.
Blockquote
The ITA kept TRHâs Provisional Suspension âprivateâ for 10 weeks after âBâ sample +ve. I expect that this timeline might have been replicated for Simmonds (implying a public statement in mid-April as opposed to 26th February).
It is up to the Results Management Authority (IM or their delegate: ITA; assume colab) when and whether to make public (@rrheisler and I have both pointed out (again) the âmayâ) I make the assumption that after he DNSâd Boulder and then DNSâd Roth that âforcedâ the announcement otherwise the ânews vacuumâ would have been filled with (even more) speculation.
To help you here, and give insight to possible Simmonds timelines
| Date | Event | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 27 Apr | IM Texas | In-competition test |
| unknown | TRH told of AAF | |
| Early Jun | B sample confirms | +ve Clomifene |
| 6 Jun | Provisional suspension by ITA | (not disclosed) We now know this from the sanction notice |
| 14 Jun | 70.3 Boulder | DNS in week before |
| early July | DNS from Roth | |
| 6 Aug | ITA assert ADRV - public disclosure | Given âathlete also challenged the imposition of the Provisional Suspensionâ assume hearing in August, or after consideration, waived right to hearing (no valid defence) |
| 13 Sep | ITA announce sanction |
â. . . Athlete accepted the ADRV and agreed with the Consequences determined by the ITA as per the IRONMAN ADR, namely a two-year period of Ineligibility as from 6 June 2024 until 5 June 2026 and disqualification of all his competitive results as from 27 April 2024.â
Simmonds
| Date | Event | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 8 Dec | Test | |
| ?27 Jan | ICS told of AAF | |
| <6 Feb | âBâ sample confirms +ve | |
| 6 Feb | ICS accepts provisional suspension and requests hearing | No races planned till 31 May, perhaps |
| 26 Feb am | Decides to go public | After chasing by newshound |
| 26 Feb pm | ITA asserts ADRV - public disclosure | Also of provisional suspension |
Allow me to reflect it was 41 years ago that I got tested at the end of a World Championships in Italy (not triathlon): took me nearly two hours to produce.
Love the bio on the website: Collin is âalways living life on the edge and optimizing human performance.â
1 Like
Still âopen/ongoingâ, more than 3 months after her provisional suspension. T100 Vancouver start list due out on Tuesday.
A bit wild to me at this point that she hasnât pressed for a hearing. But that generally only happens if youâve got a good legal support system around you and costs of that can be pretty high. These attorneys are are pretty specialized and not cheap, especially if you want to go fast (see Shelby Houlihan).
At this point we could see this not be actioned on until August.
Idk but I hazard a guess that the ITA hearing panel has âsatâ, the decision made and they have (aiui) 20 days to announce their decision.
"8.1.2.1 When IRONMAN sends a notice to an Athlete or other Person notifying them of a potential [ADRV], and the Athlete or other Person does not waive a hearing in accordance with Article 8.3.1 or Article 8.3.2, then the case shall be referred to the International Hearing Panel for hearing and adjudication . . .
8.2 Notice of Decisions
8.2.1 At the end of the hearing, or promptly thereafter, the International Hearing panel shall issue a written decision . . ."
It shall be interesting.
Good for him. Yeah, he got caught usingâŚthe method⌠Heâs allowed to have a life outside of triathlon.
Hey, totally unrelated, what ever happened to Mikal Iden? Donât seem to hear about him much these days.
2 Likes
Heâs still coaching the Norwegian national team, including Solveig Lovseth who recently won Valencia 70.3 and will line up in Hamburg next month.
Is he still coaching Rudy?
1 Like
Yes, Rudy is still coached by Mikal.
1 Like