> >US court restrictions? This is new to me. What would they be?
>
>
> Release a name unnecessarily (before the appeals process
> is complete), and you get hauled into court to answer to
> defamation charges. The individual and the organization (USATF)
> could both be subject to huge penalties.
> There are lawyers on the list. They can probably explain
> it better than I.
> It has to do with due process.
I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't really have to do with due process in the
strict sense. Releasing the name of someone who tests positive does not
violate due process. It does, however, raise the possibility of a civil
suit if someone can prove that the test was not accurate for whatever
reason. If the test is determined not to indicate a doping violation
(either because it was conducted incorrectly or due to the
beer/sex/toothpaste exceptions), the the initial release of names MIGHT be
construed as defamation. I don't know what the case law is on this.
This is one reason I believe the rules should say that not only is taking a
drug a violation, but so is failing a properly conducted test. That way, it
doesn't matter whether the nandrolene got there by divine intervention -
it's a violation. Attacking the validity of a test would be like attacking
a rule, leaving a lot less to judicial interpretation.
This isn't a perfect solution, but it certainly has some possibilities.
- ed Parrot
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
