Thanou


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Postby Jacksf » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:08 pm

texas_speed wrote:
Jacksf wrote:I'm just pointing out what I feel is a strong US bias in these doping conversations.
You guys are always given the benefit of the doubt or citing some excuse, exception for the US athletes; while non-US athletes are seemingly always guilty.
Play fair guys.
\

I think quite the opposite. Conte just came out in an article saying he thinks Caribbean runners are doping but no one is ranting and raving about it...it's just written off as him trying to bring the whole sport down after being caught.

Typically, in my experience, US athletes are guilty until proven innocent since Marion, Tim, Gatlin, etc. (and to some degree I understand the sentiment). I don't think its a bias about US athletes...at least not to the degree your claiming. If anything, I think the U.S. athletes face more scrutiny because many of their top stars of yesteryear have been found guilty and thus, anyone who does something mind boggling is looked at with a cautious eye from the world.

As for Torri, that is pretty cut and dry. It was a case of negligent use, she served her time without denial and the rule was later changed. What's tough about that one?

I think non-U.S. athletes get the benefit of the doubt more than a U.S. athlete in most cases.


Certainly the US and European athletes go through more scrutiny than the Caribbean athletes - that is not my point (and we can't rant and rave about drug use by athletes that haven't been caught on this board -that's against the rules).
But there is (in my opinion) a double standard against non-US athletes on this board when it comes to doping discussions.
For example it was never mentioned on this forum once when Damu Cherry qualified for the Olympic team that she is a convicted drug cheat. Nobody mentioned a concern that she is getting a chance to compete at the Olympics. But plenty of comments about Nesterenko and Thanou and Chambers and other Europeans returning to the Olympics.
When we starting talking about the 80s, everyone jumps on the Eastern Europeans, but FloJo and her teammates are generally excluded from that kind of discussion.
If a non-American comes out of nowhere or back from the dead with a great time - it's suspicious. If it's an American - it's awesome.
You mention Americans are considered guilty until proven innocent, but I have not heard a suspicious word about Tyson Gay ever. Can't say the same about Asafa Powell.
As far as Gatlin and Jones and concerned, guys were defending those two vehemently right up until they said they were guilty. I know because I remember arguing with them right here on this board.

I am not saying that Thanou or others aren't guilty, I am just saying let's not be so naive as to think US athletes don't have their fair share of guilty athletes too.
Of course I am not talking about everyone on this board, but definitely a lot of people have this attitude.
Jacksf
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Thanou

Postby Daisy » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:17 pm

maroon wrote:
Daisy wrote:
maroon wrote:add the christine ohurogu situation (same offense as ms. thanou).


You have to stretch the comparison a lot to call it the same.


really?


Tell me how training in Chicago, when you should be in a completely different country, is different to being at a different track due to your normal one being in use by an unanticipated event?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Thanou

Postby maroon » Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:27 pm

Daisy wrote:
maroon wrote:
Daisy wrote:
maroon wrote:add the christine ohurogu situation (same offense as ms. thanou).


You have to stretch the comparison a lot to call it the same.


really?


Tell me how training in Chicago, when you should be in a completely different country, is different to being at a different track due to your normal one being in use by an unanticipated event?


that is the point -- the rules do not recognize a difference. and there is a reason the rules provide for a suspension after 3 (not one or two) missed tests no matter the excuse.
maroon
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Thanou

Postby Daisy » Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:44 pm

maroon wrote:
Daisy wrote:
maroon wrote:
Daisy wrote:
maroon wrote:add the christine ohurogu situation (same offense as ms. thanou).


You have to stretch the comparison a lot to call it the same.


really?


Tell me how training in Chicago, when you should be in a completely different country, is different to being at a different track due to your normal one being in use by an unanticipated event?


that is the point -- the rules do not recognize a difference. and there is a reason the rules provide for a suspension after 3 (not one or two) missed tests no matter the excuse.


So you don't see the difference AND the rules don't see a difference?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby maroon » Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:55 pm

they were suspended for the same offense -- 3 missed tests. the only difference is that there is extraneous evidence suggesting that ms. thanou evaded the tests in order to escape an otherwsie inevitable positive test and no such evidence has come to light in ms. ohurougu's case. i choose not to believe ms. ohuroughu's explanation, however.

it just seems odd that mr. chambers is villified for attempting to overturn his olympic ban while ms. ohurougu is cheered for having succesfully overturned hers.
maroon
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:21 pm

maroon wrote:they were suspended for the same offense -- 3 missed tests. the only difference is that there is extraneous evidence suggesting that ms. thanou evaded the tests in order to escape an otherwsie inevitable positive test and no such evidence has come to light in ms. ohurougu's case. i choose not to believe ms. ohuroughu's explanation, however .


You don't see any difference in the manner that the evasion took place? The whole point here is you seem to think everyone should be viewed the same on their return. Why would any logical person do that given that one athlete was hop-scotching around the world trying to avoid testers and the other was not? That you choose to think they are similar is your choice but don't sound so surprised when others disagree.

maroon wrote:it just seems odd that mr. chambers is villified for attempting to overturn his olympic ban while ms. ohurougu is cheered for having succesfully overturned hers.


Not by me, i said i think he should run.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:29 pm

Jacksf wrote:For example it was never mentioned on this forum once when Damu Cherry qualified for the Olympic team that she is a convicted drug cheat. Nobody mentioned a concern that she is getting a chance to compete at the Olympics.


A number of people have commented on this over the last two years; relief that she did not get in last year, disappointment that she did this year (see my post, for instance, where I respond to Torri and Damu as very different cases).

As for the British purist on doping who post often on that topic, I do not want to hear it unless you apply it to O, otherwise it is just ...
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby peach » Tue Jul 22, 2008 12:40 am

I honestly fail to understand how people can't see the difference between the Ohuruogo case and that of the recent American positives, Chambers and Thanou...

I fully supported Christine's ban- she deserved it entirely- but to say it's in the same league really is ludicrous. It just doesn't fit the facts and anyone saying otherwise really is talking utter rubbish

And that's not from a "British purist" point of view, I'd quite happily have the same view if the same facts had been revealed about an American athlete, hell, even a Greek. Purposeful test evasion is NOT the same thing as the admittedly stupid situation the Big O found herself in...
peach
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:10 am

Postby Jon » Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:32 am

maroon wrote:they were suspended for the same offense -- 3 missed tests. the only difference is that there is extraneous evidence suggesting that ms. thanou evaded the tests in order to escape an otherwsie inevitable positive test and no such evidence has come to light in ms. ohurougu's case. i choose not to believe ms. ohuroughu's explanation, however.
You fail to acknowledge a key difference. Thanou missed three of IAAF/WADA's tests. Ohuruogu missed three of UK Sport's tests. National governing bodies test far more frequently than IAAF/WADA (or at least they do in the UK - unfortunately it's not the same in every country), so it is easier to miss three tests within an 18-month period. Relatively speaking, the IAAF/WADA tests don't come up as often, so it is quite difficult to actually miss three tests within a short period of time. By some freak incident (I heard a motorcycle was involved), Thanou and KK managed to do exactly that. There is plenty of other evidence showing that they were going out of their way to avoid being tested - hence why they received a ban.

Ohuruogu, on the other hand, was tested many times during that 18-month period. When you get tested so often, it is almost inevitable that you will miss a test at some point (dozens of British athletes have - that's the downside of being tested so often). There was no evidence whatsoever that Ohuruogu was purposely evading tests - if there was, then she would have been banned for two years.

When the testers came knocking for KK/Thanou, they were in a different country. When the testers came knocking for Ohuruogu, she was 20 minutes around the corner (but the flaws in the testing system did not allow the tester to contact and/or meet with Ohuruogu, which would have prevented the missed tests).

I still can't believe some people (especially 26mi235) cannot differentiate between the two cases. There is about as much similarity between Thanou and Ohuruogu as there is between a kettle and a rabbit.
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:35 am

Does anyone know if KK and Thanou were tested at all during the time frame that they missed the tests? Or were the three missed tests the only time that the IAAF tried to test them during that time?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:47 am

Mike67 wrote:I'm hoping Thanou can pull off a second behind Nesterenko!! How about you Mennisco?


Sounds good to me, Nesterenko 9.82, Thanou 9.83 - that'd yank a second from her PR. Then we could have something like the Wacky Olympics in Middle School, where the best girl races the best boy. Oh, and I'd love to see Torrie Ewards become the modern equivalent of Chi Cheng, becoming the first real woman to run a 100 in "even time" - 3rd in 10.00. But that'd be a bit too dark for my liking, et toi? eh twat?
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:09 am

Jon wrote:I still can't believe some people (especially 26mi235) cannot differentiate between the two cases. There is about as much similarity between Thanou and Ohuruogu as there is between a kettle and a rabbit.


I very much DO differentiate, I was taking a bit of a shot at someone that seems not to, unless the party involved is one of his favs (i.e., attacking Torrie for a minor violation that would have advantaged her not at all in the sport vs 'O', who maybe also just made mistakes but did indeed commit what is still considered a major violation, and then throw in Gatlin's extreme sin of having had a 'no-advantage' minor violation that then kills his career even though he cooperated like all of the super-anti-cheating people would like).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16317
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby maroon » Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:58 am

Jon wrote:You fail to acknowledge a key difference. Thanou missed three of IAAF/WADA's tests. Ohuruogu missed three of UK Sport's tests. National governing bodies test far more frequently than IAAF/WADA (or at least they do in the UK - unfortunately it's not the same in every country), so it is easier to miss three tests within an 18-month period. Relatively speaking, the IAAF/WADA tests don't come up as often, so it is quite difficult to actually miss three tests within a short period of time. By some freak incident (I heard a motorcycle was involved), Thanou and KK managed to do exactly that. There is plenty of other evidence showing that they were going out of their way to avoid being tested - hence why they received a ban.

Ohuruogu, on the other hand, was tested many times during that 18-month period. When you get tested so often, it is almost inevitable that you will miss a test at some point (dozens of British athletes have - that's the downside of being tested so often). There was no evidence whatsoever that Ohuruogu was purposely evading tests - if there was, then she would have been banned for two years.

When the testers came knocking for KK/Thanou, they were in a different country. When the testers came knocking for Ohuruogu, she was 20 minutes around the corner (but the flaws in the testing system did not allow the tester to contact and/or meet with Ohuruogu, which would have prevented the missed tests).

I still can't believe some people (especially 26mi235) cannot differentiate between the two cases. There is about as much similarity between Thanou and Ohuruogu as there is between a kettle and a rabbit.


i understand all of that -- but no need to overstate your case. the bottom line is that they both got suspensions for missing 3 tests . a better comparison would be between a pot and a kettle. furthermore the pot/kettle comparison only works if you believe ms. ohurougu's testimony that she was not trying to evade the tests. all of this in the context of an athlete who after coming back from her ban proceeds to run almost a full second less than her previous seasonal best in the wc final. (please, save the explanations -- i am aware of them)

let me state it again. i don't believe her.

moreover, none of the differences you have identified above should dictate that one is allowed to compete in the olympics but not the other. a fortiori, mr. chambers, who was before the same august body as ms. ohurougu.
maroon
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:29 am

New disciplinary hearing if she makes it to Beijing:
http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/200 ... THANOU.php
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:51 am

Jon wrote:
When you get tested so often, it is almost inevitable that you will miss a test at some point (dozens of British athletes have - that's the downside of being tested so often)


This weakens your argument, contrary to what your reasoning skills have led you to believe. "Hey, it happens all the time! "Everyone" is doing it! What's the big deal?" If it is "almost" inevitable, then it is not inevitable, and this is not an excuse. The fact that so many Brits have missed tests may just as easily mean they are adept at evading them.

Certainly I have no way of knowing with absolute certainty whether Ms. O was evading tests, or was just incomprehensibly careless - but if British athletes are being tested "frequently" then it behooves them to be intelligently responsible and sufficiently frequently prepared, so as to avoid, at the least, the appearance of deliberate evasion.

Finally, are you saying that Britain tests more than any other nation? Is there another nation that tests as frequently? If so, do the athletes of that country miss tests as frequently as British athletes? How does the British record of missed tests : total tests compare with that of other countries? These are important questions, too.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Flumpy » Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:39 am

Can't be bothers to go into this in too much detail because it's been done to death but.............

Mennisco wrote:This weakens your argument, contrary to what your reasoning skills have led you to believe. "Hey, it happens all the time! "Everyone" is doing it! What's the big deal?" If it is "almost" inevitable, then it is not inevitable, and this is not an excuse. The fact that so many Brits have missed tests may just as easily mean they are adept at evading them..


The UK system is/was stupid and it was inevitable that many missed tests would ensue. I'm proud that Britain takes drug testing so seriously but as it is at the moment the testers make no attempt at all to contact an athlete who is not at the right location instead they wait around for an hour, leave and mark it down as a missed test. The vast majority of these missed tests would never have occurred if any effort had been made to inform the athlete. The system as it is makes no attempt to make sure if a test is done when that should be the single most important thing. Trapping people in to missing tests doesn't catch drug cheats and simply makes UK Athletics look as if has a possibly drug problem. I don't that Christine would have got a ban in any other country for missed tests because the test would have been done and we would know if she passed or not.


Mennisco wrote:Certainly I have no way of knowing with absolute certainty whether Ms. O was evading tests, or was just incomprehensibly careless. .


And that's exactly why the testing procedure should do everything in its power to make sure that the test is taken. Remember TBO couldn't have been evading these tests because she didn't know they were going to happen. It’s not like the Thanou case where she was told to be somewhere at a particular time and then didn’t show Christine had no idea anyone was coming to do the test and simply wasn't at her given place when the testers turned up. If you were going to try and evade testers by not being where you have said you will the you would have to do that every single day which clearly wasn't the case as she was tested numerous times during this period at the correct location.

Mennisco wrote:but if British athletes are being tested "frequently" then it behoves them to be intelligently responsible and sufficiently frequently prepared, so as to avoid, at the least, the appearance of deliberate evasion. .


Which is happening now. The cases of missed tests plummeted after Christine's case. Whilst obviously some blame must be laid on the athletes the most blame in my opinion should go to UKA who said up a complicated unwieldy, inflexible system and then compounded the mistake by not doing anything like enough to make sure that all athletes understood it. Now everyone does hut it's completely typical of UKA to let something turn into a complete disaster before doing what should have been done at the very beginning,



Mennisco wrote:Finally, are you saying that Britain tests more than any other nation? Is there another nation that tests as frequently? If so, do the athletes of that country miss tests as frequently as British athletes? How does the British record of missed tests : total tests compare with that of other countries? These are important questions, too.


I don’t know where but I saw a chart once that said the per capita the UK tested the most other than Sweden (I think). I doubt very much that any other nation had as many missed tests because there system is unlikely to be as stupid as our one. A phone call or a text would in most cases mean that the missed test didn't happen. I don't instead of pointlessly waiting one hour somewhere the testers in other countries would do all they could to make sure their job is fulfilled something which didn't and I'm pretty certain still doesn't happen in the UK.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:02 pm

Flumpy wrote:the testers in other countries would do all they could to make sure their job is fulfilled something which didn't and I'm pretty certain still doesn't happen in the UK.


Have they changed the protocol now so that testers are more proactive in finding the athlete?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Mennisco » Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:15 pm

Flumpy, thanks very much for taking the time to write a thorough explanation - I'm sure you feel it is like flogging a tired issue, and your contribution helped me understand the uniqueness of the British dilemma. Frankly, I cannot understand how the BAF could possibly win in court against anyone given the circumstances you describe - if I understand you correctly, they made no effort to ensure that the athlete had a reasonable opportunity to be present for the testing - or perhaps they defined "reasonable" unreasonably - seems it ought not to hold up in court.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Flumpy » Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:38 pm

Daisy wrote:
Flumpy wrote:the testers in other countries would do all they could to make sure their job is fulfilled something which didn't and I'm pretty certain still doesn't happen in the UK.


Have they changed the protocol now so that testers are more proactive in finding the athlete?


No, I don't think so.

Obviously they wouldn't want admit to making any mistake so the onus has been put completly on the athlete to make sure they are where they should be.

This is fine, in that all athletes should have to take responsibility for ntheir own actions but what really annoys me is that the system should ensure that virtually all tests are taken and any athlete not available should have the chance to become so or else face a punishment. That way you could be pretty sure that either you would have conclusive result of the test or alternatively you could be pretty sure that the athlete was trying to avoid taking it.

What also really makes me mad is just how hopeless UKA are at public relations. For the last yea rthe only thing that has been written about in regard to British athletics is drug and yet in both Dwain and Christine's cases the whole situations have been componded by UKA's involvement and complete lack of damage control.

I genuinely think that we are one of the cleaner nation in athletics. I have very few suspicions of any British athletes at the moment (Well one to be precise) and yet from the amount of publicity doping scandals get you would think that British athletics was riddled with cheats.
Last edited by Flumpy on Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:12 pm

Mennisco wrote:Flumpy, thanks very much for taking the time to write a thorough explanation - I'm sure you feel it is like flogging a tired issue, and your contribution helped me understand the uniqueness of the British dilemma. Frankly, I cannot understand how the BAF could possibly win in court against anyone given the circumstances you describe - if I understand you correctly, they made no effort to ensure that the athlete had a reasonable opportunity to be present for the testing - or perhaps they defined "reasonable" unreasonably - seems it ought not to hold up in court.


They have an hours window each day to be in the place that is given as their testing base. Most athletes now have it as their home very early in the morning (6am - 7am for example) as they are almost cwertain to be there whatever the circumstances. To begin with a lot of people just gave a time during that day that they would usually be at training. This of course easily goes wrong if there is any change to training plans for whatever reason. If plans did change the athlete is supposed to call or txt to let this be known. To begin with obviously athletes did not take this part of the proceedure seriously enough hence the numerous missed tests.

To compound this problems, when a testers turn up and find the athlete not as there given base no attempt is made to contact the athlete, they simply wait and then leave after 1 hour. Any sensible system would have the testers immediately informing the athlete that they were waiting for them at which point the athlete would hurry to get there and understandably raise suspicion if they failed to do so on 3 occasions.

As i understand it on 2 occasions if she had been contacted TBO would ha ve had no problem getting to the place in time sand the test would have been completed. On the other time she was contacted by someone at her traing ground (Not the testers just someone nice enough to call her with the info) but by that time she was too far away to get there within the hour. The most annoying thing of course is that if she was on drugs at the time we'll never know because as faar as i'm concerned the testing procedure did not do it's job properly (I don't think she was but can't know for sure)

I have absolutely no problem with Christine's ban. She deserved it for being careless and will forever now have to deal with the stigma that goes with it, but it really annoys me when ill informed people make accusation towards her that are completely unfounded simply because the UK's system is extremely stringent. It would almost be better for us to have a policy where we just turn a blind eye and then no one would seemingly be suspected of anything. Her cases is only superficially like Thanou's and yet the 2 are often compared. I don't know of another country in the world where she would have even been punished for her mistake nevermind branded a cheat as viciosuly as she was by an ignorant media/public.

There is a really good article in The Guardian today about all of this. A rare positive story in the British press............

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/ju ... .athletics
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:24 pm

So is Thanou in the team???
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby cacique » Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:28 am

from the front page:

http://africa.reuters.com/sport/news/usnBAN849832.html

a showdown over thanou? i wonder if kapachinskaya and a few others are included in the deal... o h never mind...
cacique
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:49 am
Location: Via Lactea

Postby Flumpy » Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:11 am

Kapa, Sadova, Cherry, Maggi, bloody Fazekas :shock:

there's loads of em. :x
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:04 am

EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:49 pm

Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby cacique » Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:21 pm

darn, flumpy, you are really ... er... handsome in that pic!!!!
cacique
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:49 am
Location: Via Lactea

Postby Flumpy » Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:59 am

Thanx cacique.

I wasn't sure the pic did me justice but thought it would get the message across :D
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests