USA Swimming’s women’s relays will be at full-strength for Beijing, which is something that they sorely need with the hard-charging Dutch and Chinese relays on their tails, thanks to a decision by the IOC today. This breaking news, reported by ESPN among other news outlets, will allow Hardy, who has become one of the best (if not THE best) American sprint freestylers, to swim in London in 2012.
Yesterday, the IOC and USOC both announced in press-releases that they would seek arbitration from Switzerland’s Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as to whether the “Osaka Rule” that bars any athlete with a 6-month plus doping ban from the following Olympics. Hardy was not specifically named in the release, though it was widely assumed that her case was the instigator of the dispute. Both acknowledged that they would accept the CAS’ decision as “definitive,” for the time being at least.
Many have argued that banning athletes from an Olympics after they serve their suspension is akin to double punishment. In Hardy’s case specifically, because she withdrew from the Beijing Olympics prior to a formal suspension, some have argued that she served her one-Olympic-Games suspension.
The wording of the ruling was very important. While the CAS is not expected to rule for another 2-3 months, the IOC’s announcement took away all doubt.
The announcement did not indicate that the CAS had ruled against the 6-month “Osaka rule”. While it’s hopeful that the CAS still rules on it, for the larger purpose of deciding clarity, the IOC decided that regardless of the CAS’ decision, it did not apply to Hardy.
Presumably, the USOC convinced the IOC outside of arbitration and the courts that Hardy should be cleared to compete, though this further muddles the rule and its appropriate application.
The USOC is still awaiting the ruling for their track star LaShawn Merritt, the defending 400-meter Olympic champion, though that situation is a little different. He was banned for 21-months in 2009 after 3 positive tests between October, 2009 and January, 2010. The USOC is seeking swift clarity, because they want to avoid the worst-case scenario where an athlete qualifies for the Olympics and then is subsequently prohibited from competing in the Olympics.
Instead of fighting in favor of their athlete, the British Olympic Committee is trying to establish legal precedent for upholding their much stricter law that mandates a lifetime ban. A ruling against the IOC’s Osaka Rule would give more footing for protest of their rule that calls for a lifetime ban after a positive test (though many feel that the law would be easily challenged anyways).
