The only way to run into him, is with a bulldozer.
The Quebec Government has passed a bill granting WADA immunity from civil jurisdiction in respect of WADA decisions.
Even if the decisions impact on the rights of athletes under Quebec law, or if the decisions have been wrongful under WADA’s own statutes?
Could be a form of corruption, given that there have been moves to shift WADA headquarters from Montreal.
That is bizarre - they are selling out their own citizen’s rights to an international, undemocratic body and giving their citizens no right of appeal.
Complete disgrace and I wonder if it is even constitutional under Canadian law.
Kristen Worley’s case must have WADA really ■■■■■■ off. There has to be something in it for the Canadian govt.
Like Australia, the Canadian Constitution provides for federal laws to prevail over Province laws in the event of conflict ( where the respective laws are within the constitional competence of both governments).
The immunity would appear to be limited to Quebec law .
As WADA is incorporated under Swiss law, it would not affect rights under Swiss law, or, for that matter, anywhere outside Quebec.
The technical issues may be where to prosecute depending where the decisions were taken and the Quebec constitutional powers.
However, as noted by BWAS, there is a wider policy issue of according a private company immunity which may not be available to other companies in a jurisdiction. Effectively, it is according WADA the status of an intergovernmental agency such as the UN, absent intergovernmental influence in decisions by an IOC-dominated body.
Anti-Doping is a funny industry when you consider the USA House of Representatives is sponsoring a bill to criminalise doping - It’s called the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act - This is the same person who was the mastermind behind the Sochi Winter Games tampering of samples on behalf of Russia - I am unsure whether this says more about the Anti-Doping movement or about America - It’s bizarre in the extreme.
To be honest, that is a better way to go than having a quasi judicial farce of a process under WADA/CAS.
If anti-doping is criminalised then it at least gets dealt with under a proper legal process with rights of appeal and the need to produce actual evidence.
The US Bill is a farce, It would only apply to foreigners found to have doped in competition against US athletes who might otherwise have won a medal. And it is named after a mastermind of Russian doping.
That’s completely bizarre as it means one type of doper is a criminal facing sanctions/jail and another doper - on precisely the same charge - is not . Should be on all athletes that compete on US soil regardless of race or citizenship.
Or do the rights of WADA and their code over-ride all else? We’ve discovered in Australia it does.
that doesn’t seem like a good idea - no one should be above the laws of the land
the Fourteenth Amendment. Added to the Constitution in 1868, this amendment contains a clause stating that “no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The French Court cases involving IAAF corruption - linked to the Pound WADA Report on Russian doping and money laundering- must have cost WADA a pretty penny in legal costs and fines ( for infringing the presumption of innocence of an IAAF official) .
I assume France claimed jurisdiction linked to a French investigation of some of the corruption occurring in French territory ( or involving French citizens/residents) . The respective headquarters of the organisations ( IAAF is based in Monaco) do not appear to have been at issue. Nor did the headquarters issue of the UCI appear to have been relevant in the Worley case.
What’s going on with on JB and JT? Is the court of term break or is the judge on holidays?
No. We won some games so people are happy and not contributing to this thread
The CAS transcripts: highlights from Day 4
DR HANDELSMAN [for WADA]: I did the same as Professor Hibbert in fitting the data to all 54 players.
PROF HIBBERT [expert witness for players]: Could I just say that Professor Handelsman is completely wrong, he is absolutely and utterly wrong in this… I have shared all of my data with Professor Handelsman, I have asked him for his code, he has not given me anything. I am willing to sit down with him and go through step-by-step all of the calculations, because it’s obvious, it’s just - it’s -sorry, I am speechless.
DR MADIGAN [expert witness for players]: …I’m very uncomfortable with Professor Handelsman removing the high values from the 54, the AFL sample, and then saying that what’s left is not consistent with the high values in the - that’s completely circular reasoning. That’s saying, if you take out high values in one dataset, that the one value of the Essendon set looks high. Of course it does, because you took the high values out of the 54. That argument just doesn’t have any logic or force.
Hold tight on JT.
Bruce Francis AAT hearing is next.
This will be interesting.
JT has the AFL against the ropes
Now perhaps some punches for ASADA, courtesy of an old man with a bee in his bonnet! Onya Bruce!
Whats with the article in the herald sun… i dont have a subscription could some please post!!!