|
LONDON -- The IOC formally opened an investigation Thursday that could result in Lance Armstrong being stripped of his Olympic bronze medal. Doug Baldwin Jersey . The IOC is looking into the Olympic involvement of Armstrong, other riders and officials implicated in the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency report detailing "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen." Cyclings governing body, the UCI, last week formally stripped Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles from 1999-2005. Armstrong could now also lose the bronze medal he won in the road time trial at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. "The IOC will now immediately start the process concerning the involvement of Lance Armstrong, other riders and particularly their entourages with respect to the Olympic Games and their future involvement with the games," the International Olympic Committee said in a statement. Levi Leipheimer, a former Armstrong teammate who won the time-trial bronze at the 2008 Beijing Games, could also have his medal revoked. One of the key witnesses in the USADAs case against Armstrong, the American confessed to doping. The medals could come up for review at the IOCs executive board meeting next month in Lausanne, Switzerland. Meantime, the IOC is also monitoring the UCIs plans for an independent investigation to examine allegations about the federations own conduct and relations with Armstrong raised by the USADA report. "The IOC has taken note of the UCIs decision and welcomes all measures that will shed light on the full extent of this episode and allow the sport to reform and to move forward," the IOC said. "We await the findings of the independent commission which will look into the UCIs role, and the recommendations they will make to ensure a healthy future for cycling." In the case of Armstrongs medal, the IOC will have to study whether the eight-year statute for revising Olympic results applies or not. IOC vice-president Thomas Bach recently told The Associated Press that the USADA report took an "intriguing approach" that leaves the eight-year period open to discussion. "What we would have to check is whether this would also work under Swiss law or whether we find a way to apply U.S. law," Bach said. Armstrong finished behind winner and U.S. Postal Service teammate Vyacheslav Ekimov of Russia and Jan Ullrich of Germany. Fourth place went to Abraham Olano Manzano of Spain, who stands to move up to bronze if Armstrong is stripped of the medal. Finishing fourth behind Leipheimer in 2008 was Alberto Contador, the Spaniard who was stripped of the 2010 Tour de France title after testing positive for clenbuterol. Leipheimer is currently serving a reduced, six-month suspension after co-operating with the USADA probe. He was fired by the Belgium-based Quick Step team last week "in light of the disclosures." In August, the IOC stripped Tyler Hamilton -- a former Armstrong teammate -- of his gold medal from the 2004 Athens Olympics after he admitted to doping. Ekimov was upgraded to the gold. Russell Wilson Jersey . PETERSBURG, Fla. K.J. Wright Jersey . Stairs, who holds the major-league record with 23 pinch-hit home runs, was a disappointment for the Nationals. The 43-year-old batted just .154 with two RBIs in 56 games. He was 6 for 39 as a pinch hitter.An interesting question was posed to me on Twitter the other day: Should parents be allowed to coach their own children in soccer? From a practical standpoint, I see nothing wrong with it. As a nation, we have such a dearth of coaches in soccer that our recreational system is entirely dependent on volunteer parent coaches. If not for these willing volunteers, many of our children simply wouldnt be able to play organized soccer. Those volunteer coaches undoubtedly need more training and support, but their selflessness is essential to the growth of the game in Canada and they should be embraced, not shunned. The question wasnt posed in reference to recreational coaches, though. Most people concede that parents are more than capable of coaching their own children in recreational soccer, where the emphasis is on fun, friendship and fair playing time. The question was posed in reference to high-performance programs, where coaches are paid a salary by their club or academy to coach players. The general sentiment from many people (some of whom are directly involved in such programs) is that paid staff coaches should never be allowed to coach their own children. Their main argument is that there is an inherent conflict of interest for any parent coach. How does the coach allocate playing time? Is it done fairly - based on merit - or is there bias shown towards the coachs child? That conflict of interest is further emphasized in a high-performance environment, where playing time is seen not just as a development opportunity, but also as a showcasing tool. Critics argue that no matter how hard the coach tries, he or she will always be accused of favouring his or her own child over the other players. While there is some legitimacy to this argument - there are plenty of parent coaches out there who think they are "managing" their childs "career" - I think that the criticism is entirely unfair. How do teachers allocate their time in a classroom when it happens to contain their child as one of the students? Do those teachers hover over their childs desk, lavishing them with attention and instruction, while the other children in the class are left to fend for themselves? Of course not. They allocate their time and instruction according to the development needs of eeach student. White Steve Largent Elite Youth Jersey. . Their goal as a teacher is to equip each child with the skills needed to progress to the next level of the educational system. They dont direct all of their efforts into teaching their own child at the expense of the other students - which is the implication being made about the motives of parent coaches in high performance soccer programs. For me, the issue should not be about "parent coaches vs. non-parent coaches". The issue should be about "good coaches vs. bad coaches". Good coaches are able to separate their role as a parent from their role as a coach. They put as much time and effort into developing the soccer skills of each player under their care as they do into developing the skills of their own child. Good coaches allocate playing time based on performance - not based on parentage. They do not allow personal relationships with other parents to affect their judgment on players, and they consistently put the needs of the players ahead of all else. Good coaches dont play favourites - they demand the same level of commitment and effort from all of their players. In return, the players know that their coach will treat them all fairly, and that their playing time - what all players crave most - will be allocated as such. Critics will argue that there are very few good parent coaches out there - but that has nothing to do with them being parents, and everything to do with them being poor coaches. Banning all parents from coaching in high-performance programs - because there are definitely some misguided parent coaches out there - will only serve to lower an already shallow talent pool of coaches in our country. We cant afford to do that. We need to embrace our coaches; identify them, train them and support them. Some parent coaches simply do not have the time in their schedules to coach a team other than the one that their child plays for. Should we abandon some of these talented coaches, simply because their children happen to be talented players as well? Absolutely not. Instead, the technical leaders of the clubs and academies, the Technical Directors and Club Head Coaches, must do a better job of identifying the good coaches from the bad ones - whether those coaches have kids playing or not. ' ' ' |
