When we published the news article regarding Gert Thys
Gert Thys Doping Case Ruling
in December 2008, we reacted on a direct news article put out to the media and made it available to the public as Time-to-Run would normally do.
At the time the USA media circles were quite slow in response to the news of the Thys doping ruling and some across the pond were a little apprehensive about the news.
Only a few days later did the rest of the media circles catch up to the news put forward and everything was subsequently confirmed by the rest of the media wagons.
[More:]
But now there seems to be a twist of the tail or tale taking place and Time-to-Run has decided to go forward with the publishing of the news as it becomes available to us.
It has been mentioned that
"ASA Failed to submit representative name for hearing in April."
and then there is subsequent information regarding the testing and the violation of ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2 where the same laboratory technician conducted the entirety of all of the laboratory testing.
Because of the manner in which Thys' case has been dealt his lawyers have filed a case with ASA in the Court of Arbitration for Sport - CAS 2009/A/1767
In the case with CAS the following is stated
'This matter arises from an alleged positive drug test for 19-norandrosterone (a metabolite of nandroline), at the 2006 Seoul Marathon on 12th March 2006. Despite the fact that Mr. Thys has always denied that he used any prohibited substances, he was provisionally suspended by Athletics South Africa (ASA) on 25 April 2006. When Mr Thys refused to admit to a doping offense, Respondent (ASA) proceeded to delay arbitration hearing for 2 year, 7 and 1/2 months. After the initial ASA Tribunal (which had heard all of the evidence) disbanded itself, a new ASA Tribunal held a hearing in which Mr Thys did not participate, and (conveniently) suspended Gert Thys for 2 years, 7 and 1/2 months, despite the fact that the standard sanction for such an offense is 2 years.
 Not only did Respondent (ASA) ignore the applicable procedural rules and the applicable sanction rules, they also ignored the undisputed evidence that the same laboratory technician performed the testing of the A sample screen, the A sample confirmation, and the B sample, in direct contravention of ISL 5.2.4.3.2.2'
There is a great deal more in the 17 page case put before CAS and it is sad that we need to go down this road however there are rules put in place in our sport to both protect the athlete and the sport.
more to follow
TheEd
