IOC to start talks on increasing doping bans
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) will start talks with its member federations on a proposal by the world governing athletics body to double the ban for first time offenders using steroids. International Association of Athletics Federations...
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) will start talks with its member federations on a proposal by the world governing athletics body to double the ban for first time offenders using steroids.
International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) senior vice-president Arne Ljungqvist said last week the IAAF would urge the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to double the ban from two to four years for serious doping offences.
At a news conference in Helsinki, IOC president Jacques Rogge said his executive board had discussed the proposal with the IAAF council.
"The first thing the IOC will do is to consult with the other 27 summer federations and seven winter and see what their advice and position is," he said.
"The IOC will take a common position with all the other international federations. If there is a common view then there will come a second point in which the sports will have to consult with the governments."
The IAAF proposal followed a motion tabled on the first day of its biennial congress by the United States calling for a life ban for first time steroid offenders.
USA Track & Field president Bill Roe withdrew the motion after Ljungqvist assured delegates the IAAF would seek a return to its original ban of four years. The ban was cut in half at the 1997 congress because of challenges in the civil courts by athletes arguing they were an unacceptable restraint of trade.
Rogge said he was personally opposed to life bans, although he stressed that the issue of penalties was one for individual federations to decide.
"Lifetime bans will not be accepted by the courts," he said.
"Four years is another issue."
IAAF president Lamine Diack said the US proposal had been un-realistic.
"Even in the United States they won't accept lifetime bans," he said.
"If there had been a vote in the congress it certainly would have been a 90 per cent or 99 per cent no."