The 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro may not include Russia, after a World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) commission has determined that Russian athletes used illegal substances. The release of the commission’s report has led to speculation that the Russian Federation will be banned from the next Olympic games in 2016.

An independent commission convened by the WADA concluded that Russia undertook a program of state-sponsored doping for its athletes at the 2012 summer Olympics in London, as well as other international athletic events, like the Chicago Marathon. The inquiry took 10 months, and was created after a German radio station aired a piece that accused Russia of state-sponsored doping. The radio piece featured admissions from athletes, coaches, and others, and claimed that the government had helped to cover up test results that would have excluded Russian athletes from various events.

The report claims that coaches, athletes, trainers, doctors, and the lab in Moscow that is responsible for testing Russian athletes’ samples were all involved. The report mostly focused on track-and-field athletes–a group responsible for a large number of the inquiries. According to a New York Times description of the report:

It detailed payments to conceal doping tests and arrangements by which athletes were made aware of when they would be tested, in violation of code which dictates they be spontaneous, and also the destruction of samples.

The report also said that members of Russian law enforcement agencies were present in the Moscow lab and involved in the efforts to interfere with the integrity of the samples, creating ‘an atmostphere of intimidation’ on lab processes and staff members.

The findings also criticized Russia for a “deeply rooted culture of cheating at all levels” and said that the Russian athletes who competed despite doping essentially sabotaged the 2012 Summer Olympic games because they shouldn’t have been allowed to compete in the first place. Russian athletes won 24 gold medals in those games.

Richard W. Pound, who was a co-author of the report and a member of the commission, stated that the commission’s recommendation is that the Russian Federation is suspended from bringing athletes to the 2016 Summer Games in Rio. The report also recommends that five of the athletes and coaches implicated be banned from their sports for life.

However, whether or not we’ll be seeing Russia at the 2016 games will be left up to the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). In light of the allegations from the WADA report, the president of the IAAF, Seb Coe, said:

We need time to properly digest and understand the detailed findings included in the report. However, I have urged the Council to start the process of considering sanctions against All-Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF).

This step has not been taken lightly. Our athletes, partners and fans have my total assurance that where there are failures in our governance or our anti-doping programmes we will fix them.

We will do whatever it takes to protect the clean athletes and rebuild trust in our sport. The IAAF will continue to offer the police authorities our full cooperation into their ongoing investigation.

While Russia’s absence from the 2016 Olympic Games would surely be missed, and could affect viewership and ratings, if a suspension is what it takes for the country to crack down on doping, that may be the path the IAAF chooses.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Russia be Excluded from the 2016 Olympic Games? appeared first on Law Street.

As Romeo said, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” True, Shakespeare, true. However, I am going to pose an argument to you some 400-plus years too late. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but it might not smell as realistic, plausible, or common. Like when I wrote last week about how Nutella is not a legit name in France unless you are actually a jar of the chocolaty spread. But the same is also true in cases when you try to change your name–say, for example, to have a bunch of fake prescriptions filled–where you might actually want to think twice when picking your new nomenclature. Because I can tell you what might be in a name: a charge for defrauding the government.

Now, I would like to say up front that most of this story is not very funny or amusing because it did lead to a lot of deaths. The tainted steroids discussed in this story allegedly led to the Meningitis outbreak a couple of years ago, where many people died or were sickened; however, this post is focusing on the alleged idiots who got caught, thank goodness, in part by being idiots. (Also, this paragraph is the last time I am going to use the word alleged, so please just insert it throughout the rest of this alleged story.)

A Framingham, Massachusetts pharmacy was linked with giving out bulk fake prescriptions under false names. The cofounder had a good plan on how not to get caught, and wrote it up in an email for the employees. In it, he said, “All names must resemble ‘real’ names… no obviously false names!” Good advice, I say.

So, here are just some of the names that the employees decided were real and not at all false:

• Jennifer Lopez;
• Filet O’Fish;
• Baby Jesus;
• Harry Potter;
• Coco Puff;
• Alec Baldwin;
• Bud Weiser; and
• Samuel Adams.

Courtesy of Giphy.

All of these are clearly real names, as I have heard of every single one of them. (Even Samuel Adams, who is not just a beer but actually a real person and not just in this story. And also, this is not the first time I have had to take the time to explain this as American History classes are apparently not doing their jobs!) So, it is quite shocking that our government caught them when they use such good pseudonyms, right?

Despite how well disguised these fake prescription recipients’ names were, last December, 14 employees were arrested under the charge of defrauding the government, and apparently their names had a part in leading to their arrests.

Courtesy of GIFSoup.

So, kids, the message here is that names are more important than Shakespeare claims. That which we call Chester Cheeto by any other name might make it less obvious that what we are doing is illegal.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Coco Puff and Sam Adams Charged With Defrauding the Government appeared first on Law Street.

Arbitrator Fredric Horowitz and his panel issued an arbitration decision on January 11 resulting in Alex Rodriguez’s suspension for the entire 2014 Major League Baseball season.  A-Rod vowed to appeal the decision in Federal Court, but what some may not know is that the beleaguered slugger already has a pending case against MLB regarding his steroid feud.

Rodriguez vs. MLB, Allan Huber “Bud” Selig was filed on November 26, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York following its removal from State Court by MLB. The Complaint alleges that Commissioner Bud Selig and other MLB officials have engaged in a systematic campaign of tortious interference in A-Rod’s existing business contracts and prospective business relationships. Specifically, A-Rod is alleging that MLB:

• Obtained evidence against A-Rod by filing a sham lawsuit to commandeer subpoena power.
• Leaked false stories to the press concerning A-Rod’s performance-enhancing drug (PED) use.
• Bribed witnesses with more than $200,000 to cooperate with their case.
• Impersonated security officers and threatened former ballplayers to receive testimony.

The case may not be a slam dunk for A-Rod, but it surely has a better chance of succeeding than his appeal of Horowitz’s arbitration decision. After all, A-Rod’s attorneys at Reed Smith LLP haven’t been the only detractors of MLB’s media blitz against A-Rod. But if the evidence against A-Rod was procured illegally and the conduct of MLB was malicious, why did the arbitration panel roundly rule in their favor? It’s possible that the panel was not concerned with the issue. On pages 27 and 28 of the arbitration decision, Horowitz noted that the panel would not rule on the alleged breaches of confidentiality and they did not have any power to enjoin third parties from breaching provisions of MLB’s Joint Drug Agreement (the arbitration decision, along with A-Rod’s appeal, can be found here). Considering Tony Bosch, MLB’s main witness, testified in the arbitration hearings, Horowitz may not have needed to consider the implications concerning other bribed witnesses.

Regardless of the outcome, the pending litigation should be interesting. The arbitration process had its fair share of fireworks, and if it goes to trial, his tortious interference case could be the grand finale.

Click here to read A-Rod’s Complaint.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post What About A-Rod’s Other Lawsuit? appeared first on Law Street.

The MLB’s recent 65-game suspension of Ryan Braun has several important legal repercussions for both the league and the players involved in the Biogenesis scandal.  Although Braun will most likely avoid any criminal charges regarding the purchase of performance-enhancing drugs, it is important to note that the distribution, sale and use of illegal performance-enhancing substances is against federal drug trafficking and distribution laws.  In order to prevent such charges Braun will most likely refuse to answer questions about his statement of admission until after the statute of limitations passes.

Braun also faces the possibility of a defamation lawsuit from Dino Laurenzi Jr., the collector of his positive drug test in 2012, whom he publicly attacked after the test.  Braun stated that the testing process “broke down,” and that after the fact he “learned a lot of things” about his collector.  Despite Braun’s claims, evidence suggest that Laurenzi was following proper protocol throughout the test.  While Laurenzi may have some ground for a lawsuit, filing one would likely fail, as Braun never directly mentioned Laurenzi by name nor did he specify the “things” that he claimed to have learned about him.

Another important question concerns the Brewers’ ability to void Braun’s contract in light of his recent suspension and potentially contract-breaching actions.  According to his contract, Braun is entitled to $133 million over the next eight years as dictated by his 2011 extension.  Although he has been one of the best players in the league, the question of how much he benefited from performance-enhancing drugs remains.  The Uniform Player contract permits termination in the event a player “fails, refuses or neglects to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship,” which could easily be proven by his admission.  The primary obstacle that the Brewers face is the historic difficulty that teams have had trying to void contracts, sometimes with even more serious offenses.  As a result, they may decide to simply buy Braun out of his contract to save money rather than to void it altogether.

Lastly, Braun’s actions may have important implications for other players connected with the Biogenesis scandal, notably Alex Rodriguez.  Biogenesis director Tony Bosch has recently started cooperating with the MLB’s attorneys; however, his credibility may be harmed due to the league’s portrayal of him as a drug dealer in their lawsuit against the company.  Additionally, many argue that although Braun accepted his suspension without challenge, doing so does not create a precedent for the other players involved.

Although it has not stopped speculation, much remains to be interpreted by independent arbiters before penalties can be determined for related cases.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) is editor of Crime in America. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University senior was a founding member of Law Street. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Paluch via Wikimedia Commons]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Legal Consequences of Ryan Braun’s Suspension appeared first on Law Street.