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 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

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest