Can this get more complicated: Pensacola judge reverses himself on Justin Gatlin restraining order

Last Friday a Pensacola Fl judge issued a restraining order allowing former world record holder and drug-cheat Justin Gatlin to ostensibly run the upcoming Olympic Trials in Oregon (just who was to be restrained we wanted to know?). 

As well documented, Gatlin tested positive for testosterone in 2006, which first led to an 8 year ban, reduced to 4 year ban, upheld by the highest sports court in the known universe -- The Court of Arbitration for Sports.  However the judge felt that the four year ban discriminated against Gatlin's ADA rights, based on an earlier 'conviction' of amphetamines, which were prescribed for ADHD.  Now it appears the judge backed away from the starting line, essentially saying he had no standing in international drug/PED court.  To the Washington Post:

The federal judge in Pensacola, Fla., who last Friday granted a temporary restraining order that opened the door for Gatlin to compete at the trials reversed course yesterday, denying Gatlin's motion for a preliminary injunction and vacating the original order.

Gatlin's attorney, Joe Zarzaur, said last night that Gatlin planned to appeal and would ask the judge to restore the original order pending the appeal.

Now the background:

Gatlin, who is serving a four-year ban for two doping violations, had argued that barring him from the trials in Eugene, Ore., which begin Friday, violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gatlin's first positive test in 2001 was for a stimulant in the attention-deficit disorder medication he had been taking since childhood.

Gatlin also tested positive for a steroid in 2006. The standard penalty for a positive test for steroids is two years.

The U.S. Olympic Committee, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and IAAF, the international track federation, argued during a hearing Monday in Pensacola that Gatlin's case had already been adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport and the decision was binding. The USOC further argued that to allow Gatlin to run at the trials would be unfair to other athletes since the International Olympic Committee had already said it would not allow Gatlin to compete at the Olympics.

And the money line:

U.S. District Judge Lacey A. Collier wrote in yesterday's seven-page opinion that his court did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the anti-doping protocols but rebuked the sports' bodies, calling their actions "arbitrary and capricious." The decision rendered moot an appeal earlier yesterday by the USOC of Friday's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.

Comments

[bill hue]

The Federal Court case law is pretty clear that the judge has no jurisdiction over IOC competition matters. However, the US track federation and USADA are not permitted under US federal law to discriminate against Americans With Disabilitities or any individual on the basis of race, sex or origin.

An interesting question in that regard is to slightly change the facts for a better understanding of what this judge is saying; Can the US track federation or USADA discriminate, say against a black person, because the "immune" international body (the US Courts have no jurisdiction over them) only allows white people to compete?

Back to the facts of this case; The Federal Judge believes Gaitlin was discriminated against because of his disability. The IOC will not allow a person with disability to be medicated in order to allow that person to have an equal opportunity to compete, deeming the alteration to give an unfair competative advantage. Temporary Restraining Orders only are granted when irrepairable rights are at issue and not when money or other relief can remedy the "wrong". The Judge initially felt the inability to compete was the irrepairable injury but if the Order isn't binding on the people who run the competition, then the judge has no ability to "remedy" it in a practical sense.

So, if the goal was to get a US judge to "order" a party not subject to the Courts jurisdiction to do something, it was doomed to failure.

Whether monetary damages will now cover the violation is an interesting byproduct.

Bill Hue

[Bill Hue]

The Judge also cites the Stevens Act, which divested Courts of authority or jurisdiction to act in matters concerning Olympic participation as the Act confers that power soley and exclusively upon the US OLympic committee. The Judge seemed very frustrated to have his hands tied in the matter, seeing a clear violation of a "disabled" person's rights but having no authoerity to remedy it. In matters concerning the Olympics, the athletes only recourse under the Rules adopted by the International Olympic Committe is to address issues to arbitration and ultimately to the CAS in Switzerland and perhaps the Swiss Courts, which would, under the circumstances here, probably lack personal jurisdiction.

So, USADA and the US Olympic Committe and Track Federation are free to violate US law, as long as the violations do do violate the WADA code. The WADA Code is not concerned with fairness or due process. It simply is concerned with anti-doping, seeming oblivious to concepts of discrimination or fairness. The Judge found that to be quite incredible.