Nice try, but not a good analogy. Arabs can't exactly help being Arabic, i.e. they don't get up one day and say "I think I'll be Arabic today".
Marion Jones gets up every morning and decides "I will compete under the IAAF rules today".
She is not obliged to do so, anytime she wants to she can drop into the local Piggly Wiggly and get a job bagging groceries.
On the other hand, every day she gets up and decides to be an athlete is a day she accepts the rules and regulations of the IAAF, including the fact that she might be suspended on an accusation which may or may not be proven at a later date.
Like it or not, those are the rules she chooses (note that word) to play by.

I certainly did think you were soft on drug cheats, in fact I bet you'd be tougher than I am (I honestly don't feel terribly strongly about it) but don't confuse the rules you choose with the rules you don't.

quote:<HR>You're right of course, it's not in the rule book, it's simply my opinion that morally if not literally, if we're going to destroy someone's reputation and livelihood, we ought to be able to prove they've done something wrong.<HR>

To go back to what I said earlier, Marion Jones doesn't have to compete under IAAF rules, she can get a job doing something else. As far as the IAAF is concerned, once the A test is in, the doping violation is proven (the athlete can waive the right to have the B tested).
Having chosen to accept the IAAF rules she is surely fully aware of Rule 38, which provides for an immediate, provisional, suspension if a violation is proven. The rule also states that once the athlete is provisionally suspended, the reason for the suspension can be published to the media. Although how you suspend somebody without announcing to the world that they have failed a drug test is beyond me (perhaps "double secret probation"?).
You either protect someone who is, in the eyes of the governing body, already proven guilty, or you protect the innocent athletes. I know which way I'd go.

http://This message has been edited by hopper3011 (edited Sep-14-2006).

No, it's all to do with the standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. If the A is positive, then the doping violation is proved in the eyes of the IAAF. If the athlete waives the test of the B sample, then the violation is uncontested.
If the B sample is negative, then on the balance of probabilities the athlete is found not guilty because there are more scenarios in which the athlete is innocent than in which he/she is guilty.

The rules are quite clear: "Following notification of an adverse analytical finding or other antidoping rule violation under these Anti-Doping Rules, the matter shall be subject to the results management process set out below." That is the start of Rule 37, as far as the IAAF are concerned the A sample proves it, and the burden of proof shifts to the athlete (which is why the B sample exists).