Statute of Limitations

[Needstochange]

As a long time lurker of this messageboard and been forced to agree with some of the stories I hadn't really wanted to believe were true - but have I have a suggestion or two that may help cycling and other sports.

Apologies if posted anywhere else, I have visited this site and read quite a bit and not only about cycling but haven't read this anywhere else on here, but I believe that the statute of limitation has become a defence shield that anyone who is desperate to cheat could exploit to maximum effect. Reading about recent Russian athletes being caught out for doping offences and some of them apparently almost outside of the (statute of limitations) SOL really disappointed me, if sport in general has got to the point where scientists can create an eight year window to help athletes cheat then clearly the SOL is not long enough, or not needed at all. (Why let someone cheat 20 years ago if someone now can prove they cheated at the time?)

In my opinion sport as a whole should try to either increase or lose the statute of limitations, as any sports star with enough money ( after Armstrong case has proved) could take a lot longer than 8 years for for their doping to be uncovered and therefore leave results of sport in that era to be very unpure.

If statute of limitations was removed then maybe people would think twice if they could always be challenged on their records rather than only from previous 8 years. I believe the SOL has become an extra safety net for anyone wanting to cheat and if they were desperate enough or determined enough they could keep medals etc from that era which to me seems wrong.

As Ive said this is my first post, but its an opinion Ive had for a while and I think I think would increase accountability on peoples actions if it was increased from 8 years or abolished totally.

Thanks for reading.

 

[ShrubberyBlue]

It should be a generation, so ~25 years.

25 years of my lifetime of watching cycling thus far has been a fallacy of which I only have myself to blame for thinking things might get better.

In fact anyone who is winning today is still doping.

A whole generation of fans have been affected. Therefore a whole generation of time should always be looked at to weed out the cheats.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As a long time lurker of this messageboard and been forced to agree with some of the stories I hadn't really wanted to believe were true - but have I have a suggestion or two that may help cycling and other sports.

Apologies if posted anywhere else, I have visited this site and read quite a bit and not only about cycling but haven't read this anywhere else on here, but I believe that the statute of limitation has become a defence shield that anyone who is desperate to cheat could exploit to maximum effect. Reading about recent Russian athletes being caught out for doping offences and some of them apparently almost outside of the (statute of limitations) SOL really disappointed me, if sport in general has got to the point where scientists can create an eight year window to help athletes cheat then clearly the SOL is not long enough, or not needed at all. (Why let someone cheat 20 years ago if someone now can prove they cheated at the time?)

In my opinion sport as a whole should try to either increase or lose the statute of limitations, as any sports star with enough money ( after Armstrong case has proved) could take a lot longer than 8 years for for their doping to be uncovered and therefore leave results of sport in that era to be very unpure.

If statute of limitations was removed then maybe people would think twice if they could always be challenged on their records rather than only from previous 8 years. I believe the SOL has become an extra safety net for anyone wanting to cheat and if they were desperate enough or determined enough they could keep medals etc from that era which to me seems wrong.

As Ive said this is my first post, but its an opinion Ive had for a while and I think I think would increase accountability on peoples actions if it was increased from 8 years or abolished totally.

Thanks for reading.

SoL is actually one of the things being
reviewed by WADA for the 2015 code.

I don't really see SOL as a major factor as a major deterent in doping.
While I do agree people should be accountable, there is also a need to draw a limit somewhere.

The reason SoL is in place in common law is to protect people from being accused of something years after the fact when it may be hard to corroborate it. But we also know that SoL can be toiled, even in sports.

Not sure about other sports but in cycling there has been one rider done for retro active testing, which to me is more of an issue.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Interesting topic! There are really two systems of SOL that need to be examined, because there is a lot of confusion on these pages about SOL.

Firstly, there is the system in place through national federations and the UCI. Since doping infractions generally have been removed from criminal statutes and are handled by the UCI, national federations, WADA and national ADAs through an administrative law process, all of these organizations SOL rules need to be examined and unified.

Secondly, there are the various systems of SOL under national criminal law statutes or state criminal law systems. In the USA for example Armstrong is able to avoid prosecution for perjury in the SCA case due to the SOL having elapsed. It must be remembered for example that the USA has 50+ legal systems. One for each state and one federal, plus all of the US territories. Often the SOL varies from state to state.

I propose a hybrid system as there is in Canadian criminal law. Criminal law in Canada is national. Although we have 10 provinces and 3 territories, the criminal law applies across the whole country.

There is NO SOL for serious crime and this includes fraud, false pretences and theft (over $5,000), all crimes for which LA could be prosecuted were he a Canadian citizen in spite of the effluxion of time. There is no SOL in Canada for perjury.

There are SOLs for lesser crimes e.g. common assault. These are called "summary" offences in Canada.

However in Canada there is a hybrid position where some crimes can be prosecuted as "summary" offences where the SOL may apply or at the option of the prosecution can be prosecuted as "indictable" crimes where there is no SOL.

So for example in cycling, depending on the seriousness of the offence, a "whereabouts offence" could be handled in a summary way if the circumstances justify it or in a "substantive way" where the circumstances justify it. In serious doping infractions i.e. "substantive infractions" there would be no SOL. For some offences there would be a hybrid option. Others would be strictly summary offences with a SOL. The range of penalties for "summary" versus "substantive" offences would of course reflect the seriousness of the doping offence.

The real problem is the UCI is run by boneheads who would not recognize a progressive idea if they saw one, because all they do is protect their turf!

 

[Clausfarre]

Having certain substances or specific doping methods be free from any SoL seems like a good idea. Lesser offenses could have one, sure, but some things should be forever punishable.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I'm not sure extending the SOL for doping would really change much on its own. Granted, extending it for Lance enabled him to be busted back to the Stone Age, which makes a lot of folk happy, but so far, the UCI hasn't changed and ooc testing remains sketchy from what folk post elsewhere. These two factors need to be addressed before much progress can be made, irrespective of the length of the SOL.

 

[Ferminal]

No point extending it without proper retrospective testing either.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

No point extending it without proper retrospective testing either.

Well if extending was considered a "good thing", then restrospective testing wouldn't necessarily be needed, since multiple reliable eyewitnesses are sufficient even if there's no positive test. (Assuming the Lance precedent would stand up in court if an accused took it there.)

 

[Ferminal]

Yeh but you can't nail everyone with non-analytical positives. There aren't enough resources, ADAs and federations aren't motivated to pursue athletes (often the opposite) and then you have to build a case (which took two years and a dozen testimonies for LA).

A retrospective testing protocol which cannot be interfered with would be more consistent and reliable.

 

[mikehammer67]

the iaaf and ioc didn't have much luck with the athens and gothenburg retests after the 8yrs
elapsed anyhow

just a handful for steroids(?) from the 1000's of samples taken

retrospective analytical testing sounds great in theory
but not much to show in t&f anyhow?

 

[peterst6906]

the iaaf and ioc didn't have much luck with the athens and gothenburg retests after the 8yrs
elapsed anyhow

just a handful for steroids(?) from the 1000's of samples taken

retrospective analytical testing sounds great in theory
but not much to show in t&f anyhow?

The value of the threat of retesting after several years is in the deterrent effect it should provide.

With a risk that samples will be retested with more advanced methods and greater sensitivity, it's hoped that athletes will think twice about doping and then not dope for fear of being caught down the track.

That results so far have been at the low end shouldn't be a huge concern. This is a relatively new addition to antidoping, so I would expect experience and practice to improve and grow over coming years. Long term sample storage and custody practices will improve as this becomes routine and better and more validated long-term storage techniques will be developed.

 

[mikehammer67]

yes
but disappointing that they didn't get a single '1' from track

2004/2005 was crammed full of dopers

how much of a deterrent is that?

 

[86TDFWinner]

The reason SoL is in place in common law is to protect people from being accused of something years after the fact when it may be hard to corroborate it. But we also know that SoL can be toiled, even in sports.

(Serious question here): But in the case of Miggy/Merckx and Coppi(and other admitted dopers/drug users), shouldn't they be held accountable too?

I mean, with all that's come out from Merckx and Miggy themselves, they should(at the very least) have an asterisk next to any and all records/wins, and not be afforded a way to hide behind the SOL.

Just my opinion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

(Serious question here): But in the case of Miggy/Merckx and Coppi(and other admitted dopers/drug users), shouldn't they be held accountable too?

I mean, with all that's come out from Merckx and Miggy themselves, they should(at the very least) have an asterisk next to any and all records/wins, and not be afforded a way to hide behind the SOL.

Just my opinion.

Fair question.

First Mig has not admitted - and again all the others that you mention were sanctioned at the time they were caught. Did they get a slap on the wrist, sure - but that was the attitude and punishment at the time.

To the highlighted - while I agree that all are dopers, on a legal level you cannot punish people for all results just because of one (or even more) positives.