Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 646885,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/646885/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 154,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "receive gifts from Nike, Puma, Adidas or a manufacturer of drugs? We need to qualify that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to Clause 17, I have already said that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) should not be a member of the board. Clause 17 defines what the CEO should be. So, when you go back to where the board is described, you delete the CEO so that it becomes an employee and the worker of the board. Clause 17(5) says the CEO shall hold office for a term of three years and is eligible for re-appointment. Why should we limit the term of the CEO of the board to three years? We shall have a huge turn over. This is not good for the board. I would suggest that the CEO is given a five year term renewable once so that they can serve for 10 years and then they leave. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 22 is very dangerous. It says that the board can delegate its power to either the chairman or one member. If you have a board that is inept and lazy, they are likely to delegate the authority of the board to one member and sit away only to come, log in, earn allowances and go away. I would rather an agency as important as this must be subjected to the rules of ordinary board meetings where they have rules of quorum and when there is no quorum, they do not transact any business. You cannot delegate one member to do the work of the board. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is when we get abuses and lazy members to just sign. Like there was a school in my county where members of the board went and signed the cheque book and left it with the headmaster and told him that they trust him. They told him he could withdraw money when he needs it. By the time they realized, the school was bankrupt. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to Clause 23, I support the therapeutic committee and the members who have been appointed if they will be acceptable. If you look at Clause 23 (2) (c), an international athlete who has since retired even if it is an athlete who did not have the opportunity to go to school, can sit on this and the main board as well. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the keeping of the register in Clause 25. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Clause 42 creates a series of offences most of which have to do with when a person fails to do something that the agency wants. Not enough offences have been provided for agents who lure athletes into this dirty game. Clause 42(6) which provide for such agents states that:- “An athlete or athlete’s support personnel who commits any of the prohibited activities under Clause 26 commits an anti-doping rule violation and shall be handled in the manner set out under this Act”. In the general penalty, the provision is a fine of Kshs1 million or a prison term of one year. This is totally inadequate for the likes of John Velzian and others who have been leading our athletes into temptation and failing to deliver them from evil. These people need a penalty of not less than Kshs5 million to Kshs10 million, banned from coming into Kenya or interacting with any Kenyan athlete and kept away completely. This is because none of our young athletes will go out of their way to look for drugs or enhancement substances. It is these agents who see athletes as a tool of trade and means of income. When they are found, we should declare them persona non grata in our The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate"
}