McQuaid wants 4yrs. Are the UCI slowly turning the corner

DavMartinR

I'm with him with this. I know a lot of people on this forum want it to be life,but with a life ban you'd have the courts full of claims of human rights infringements and the right to work.

4 years is a good chunk out of a pro's career to make them think twice before going down the doping road.

Plus the Bio passports data starting to build up, so retrospective data will grow which will also play on a potential dopers minds wether its worth it.

So are the UCI turning things around or will it all fall on its ar$e again?

JC.152

4 years is a good time for doping offences and for the riders to think about what they've done and the future. I think that the UCI should add what Britain already do for all countries and make it so caught doped riders can't compete at the olympics

DavMartinR

JC.152 wrote:

4 years is a good time for doping offences and for the riders to think about what they've done and the future. I think that the UCI should add what Britain already do for all countries and make it so caught doped riders can't compete at the olympics

Are they not banned from both? When they get a ban from UCI isn't it also an IOC ban?

If it isn't your right it should be.

JC.152

i think it is but in Britain then riders can't represent britain in the olympics if they have had any drugs convictions.

afx237vi

JC.152 wrote:

i think it is but in Britain then riders can't represent britain in the olympics if they have had any drugs convictions.

Unless you have a chance of a gold medal and are just a bit "forgetful". Then you're good to go.

Patrick1.0

afx237vi wrote:

JC.152 wrote:

i think it is but in Britain then riders can't represent britain in the olympics if they have had any drugs convictions.

Unless you have a chance of a gold medal and are just a bit "forgetful". Then you're good to go.

If you actually understood that story a bit better, your opinion would be slightly different. Christine did not miss three tests deliberately. Nobody would do that knowing that they would be banned. If she was taking something, better to run the risk of being caught for it than know 100% that you will be banned when skipping the three tests. I mean, it would be absurd for anybody to think that plan up. She's being tested in the same way now.

Noodley

afx237vi wrote:

JC.152 wrote:

i think it is but in Britain then riders can't represent britain in the olympics if they have had any drugs convictions.

Unless you have a chance of a gold medal and are just a bit "forgetful". Then you're good to go.

Oooooooh, get you

Fair point.

timoid.

Patrick1.0 wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

JC.152 wrote:

i think it is but in Britain then riders can't represent britain in the olympics if they have had any drugs convictions.

Unless you have a chance of a gold medal and are just a bit "forgetful". Then you're good to go.

If you actually understood that story a bit better, your opinion would be slightly different. Christine did not miss three tests deliberately. Nobody would do that knowing that they would be banned. If she was taking something, better to run the risk of being caught for it than know 100% that you will be banned when skipping the three tests. I mean, it would be absurd for anybody to think that plan up. She's being tested in the same way now.

2 yr ban and lifetime Olympic ban vs. 1 year ban?

I know which I'd prefer.

1 missed test is forgetful. Three is as good as admitting guilt.

Patrick1.0

Timoid. wrote:

Patrick1.0 wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

JC.152 wrote:

i think it is but in Britain then riders can't represent britain in the olympics if they have had any drugs convictions.

Unless you have a chance of a gold medal and are just a bit "forgetful". Then you're good to go.

If you actually understood that story a bit better, your opinion would be slightly different. Christine did not miss three tests deliberately. Nobody would do that knowing that they would be banned. If she was taking something, better to run the risk of being caught for it than know 100% that you will be banned when skipping the three tests. I mean, it would be absurd for anybody to think that plan up. She's being tested in the same way now.

2 yr ban and lifetime Olympic ban vs. 1 year ban?

I know which I'd prefer.

1 missed test is forgetful. Three is as good as admitting guilt.

She didn't "forget" to go somewhere and take a test, these guys turn up randomly. What happened is quite easy to understand. She couldn't train where she was going to originally so she went somewhere else. Testers, on that specific day, turned up where she'd originally said she was going to be and she wasn't there.

Do you really think her doping tactic was to skip the tests and get banned anyway? If she was doping, she'd be pretty confident that she could return negatives.

babyjebus

Several athletes have been near to bans for missing tests. Nicola Sanders, Ohurougu's rival, was teetering on two missed samples for a long time. These people are not big time charlies like Rio 'Would have been slung out of any other sport' Ferdinand, who blithely walked out of Man Yoo's multi-million pound training centre while the boys with the bottles were waiting in reception. Ohurougu missed a test when she turned up to train at Mile End stadium, possibly sport's least glamorous venue and once the site of a Blur concert, and found a school sports day going on, ffs. Her times are not especially astonishing, she just copes with championship pressure and running heats better than her opponents.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Awwwwww, come on now chaps. If she was an Italian cyclist and had just won at the Olympics.......in fact if she was a Russian 400m runner what would people be saying or implying? It's a fallacy to assume that she's a bit ditzy, it's not an excuse that would work for others. Can you imagine Nicole Cooke coming up with that? I can't.

Patrick1.0

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Awwwwww, come on now chaps. If she was an Italian cyclist and had just won at the Olympics.......in fact if she was a Russian 400m runner what would people be saying or implying? It's a fallacy to assume that she's a bit ditzy, it's not an excuse that would work for others. Can you imagine Nicole Cooke coming up with that? I can't.

It doesn't matter what people would be saying. Do you disagree with what babyjebus and I have said? She didn't willingly miss a scheduled test. She went somewhere else to train and didn't inform the right people about the late change in plans. It really isn't like she set the whole thing up knowing that the testers were coming on that day.

Whether Nicole Cook would have fallen prey to the same circumstances or not just has nothing to do with it.

She's not on the juice, if she was, she'd be miles ahead with her ability.

The British get on my tits for this very reason; we slag off our own winners on some stupid technicality that amounts to nothing when looked at in the correct context.

The rest of the world wasn't even randomly testing their athletes all year round like this at the time. I don't even know if they're doing so now or not.

DaveyL

5 words: Victor. Conte. Duck. And. Dodge.

Kléber

What about the other two missed tests? Yes she missed one apparently because her session couldn't take place because of the sports day. But she missed two more.

Above all, the point isn't that she was "ducking and diving" but that the officials bend the rules to suit them. She broke the rules, the officials chose not to apply them.

biondino

I read an article ages ago which explained why she missed each of the three tests. each time she had a reason - not a perfect excuse, how could she, but a reason nonetheless - and it seemed entirely convincing even to a cynic like me that there was no attempt to avoid testers.

Regarding the third test, do you think she *intentionally* decided to train at Mile End, informing the testers, when actually she knew there'd be a sports day happening, giving her a foolproof excuse for not being there when the testers showed up - not that she knew she'd be tested that day anyway? It's too ridiculous to contemplate.

Patrick1.0

biondino wrote:

I read an article ages ago which explained why she missed each of the three tests. each time she had a reason - not a perfect excuse, how could she, but a reason nonetheless - and it seemed entirely convincing even to a cynic like me that there was no attempt to avoid testers.

Regarding the third test, do you think she *intentionally* decided to train at Mile End, informing the testers, when actually she knew there'd be a sports day happening, giving her a foolproof excuse for not being there when the testers showed up - not that she knew she'd be tested that day anyway? It's too ridiculous to contemplate.

Exactly.


A triathlete (I believe) missed three tests as well and was allowed to compete at the Olympics, also a large number of athletes were on two missed tests when Christine missed her third. I only have to put myself in the shoes of these athletes; they train twice a day, most of them, they have family and friends living in different parts of the country and they can only fit in going to see them at certain times and that's not to mention the fact that you may have a cold or something and not turn up to train. It's difficult for them to say: "I am definitely going to be here on Tuesday of week fifteen." And I think there are plenty of opportunities in the life of a busy professional athlete to forget to inform the testers that you've had a change of plan for the day and instead of going shopping, you're going to see mum and dad, etc.

There are many, many dodgy circumstances surrounding athletes in many, many sports but I don't think that this was one of them. At the time, I couldn't believe she'd been banned at all for something so minor. They could have organised to have her tested immediately the next day or something.

DaveyL

Missing three tests is now "something so minor" is it?

Patrick1.0

DaveyL wrote:

Missing three tests is now "something so minor" is it?

They're random. Once again, she did not "forget" to go and have a scheduled drugs test. What planet do you live on?

The same mistake has been made by many other British athletes, they just missed two tests instead of three and were ultra careful not to miss a third. Christine was just silly and forgot to inform the testers of the late change of plan for that one day out of 365 in the year. In your every day life, do you always turn up on time to business meetings and always keep all of your appointments? IInterestingly, how many times was she successfully tested by the same system and how many times has she been successfully tested afterwards?

Perhaps all these athletes who have missed a couple of the random tests are all up to naughties and it's some massive conspiracy.

andyp

Literally hundreds of athletes do manage to ensure they are where they say they are and the UK sporting authorities have worked very, very hard to ensure that the system allows athletes to change their location.

Missing one test is careless but when you've already missed two and you're still so 'forgetful' that you manage to miss a third it is highly suspicious.

bigdawg

this is why no one believes her - Victor Conte (Dwain Chambers 'Dr') :

Many drug-tested athletes use what I call the "duck and dodge" technique. Several journalists in the UK have recently referred to it as the "duck and dive" technique. This is basically how it works.

First, the athlete repeatedly calls their own cell phone until the message capacity is full. This way the athlete can claim to the testers that they didn't get a message when they finally decide to make themselves available. Secondly, they provide incorrect information on their whereabouts form. They say they are going to one place and then go to another. Thereafter, they start using testosterone, growth hormone and other drugs for a short cycle of two to three weeks.
After the athlete discontinues using the drugs for a few days and they know that they will test clean, they become available and resume training at their regular facility.

Most athletes are tested approximately two times each year on a random out-of -competition basis. If a tester shows up and the athlete is not where they are supposed to be, then the athlete will receive a "missed test". This is the equivalent to receiving "strike one" when up to bat in a baseball game. The current anti-doping rules allow an athlete to have two missed tests in any given eighteen-month period without a penalty or consequence. So, the disadvantage for an athlete having a missed test is that they have one strike against them. The advantage of that missed test is the athlete has now received the benefit of a cycle of steroids. Long story short, an athlete can continue to duck and dive until they have two missed tests, which basically means that they can continue to use drugs until that time.

In summary, it's my opinion that more than fifty percent of the drug tests performed each year should be during the off season or the fourth quarter. This is when the track athletes are duckin' and divin' and using anabolic steroids and other drugs. Let me provide some rather startling information for your consideration. If you check the testing statistics on the USADA website, you will find that the number of out-of-competition drug tests performed during each quarter of 2007 are as follows: in the first quarter there were 1208, second quarter 1295, third quarter 1141 and in the fourth quarter there were only 642.

Whole article is here:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/05 ... drugs.html

At the end of the day she broke the rules and was aloud to run.

Patrick1.0

andyp wrote:

Literally hundreds of athletes do manage to ensure they are where they say they are and the UK sporting authorities have worked very, very hard to ensure that the system allows athletes to change their location.

Missing one test is careless but when you've already missed two and you're still so 'forgetful' that you manage to miss a third it is highly suspicious.

Ye but it's like kids leaving their homework at home. It happened to me more than three times in a year, and genuinely. I even managed to forget to take my coursework in on the deadline day at college, a couple of years ago, and had to arrange for a lift back home to collect it. Some times I'd pretend I'd left it at home too, but you get my point .

She should have informed them of where she was going, but these things happen. So long as there is some kind of punishement for the mistakes - which there was in her case - then it's not too soft to give somebody a chance to prove that they were purely "forgetful" by putting them back into the same system again. She's had no problems since because she's learned her lessons from before. Is this really such a big deal?

Patrick1.0

bigdawg wrote:

this is why no one believes her - Victor Conte (Dwain Chambers 'Dr') :

Many drug-tested athletes use what I call the "duck and dodge" technique. Several journalists in the UK have recently referred to it as the "duck and dive" technique. This is basically how it works.

First, the athlete repeatedly calls their own cell phone until the message capacity is full. This way the athlete can claim to the testers that they didn't get a message when they finally decide to make themselves available. Secondly, they provide incorrect information on their whereabouts form. They say they are going to one place and then go to another. Thereafter, they start using testosterone, growth hormone and other drugs for a short cycle of two to three weeks.
After the athlete discontinues using the drugs for a few days and they know that they will test clean, they become available and resume training at their regular facility.

Most athletes are tested approximately two times each year on a random out-of -competition basis. If a tester shows up and the athlete is not where they are supposed to be, then the athlete will receive a "missed test". This is the equivalent to receiving "strike one" when up to bat in a baseball game. The current anti-doping rules allow an athlete to have two missed tests in any given eighteen-month period without a penalty or consequence. So, the disadvantage for an athlete having a missed test is that they have one strike against them. The advantage of that missed test is the athlete has now received the benefit of a cycle of steroids. Long story short, an athlete can continue to duck and dive until they have two missed tests, which basically means that they can continue to use drugs until that time.

In summary, it's my opinion that more than fifty percent of the drug tests performed each year should be during the off season or the fourth quarter. This is when the track athletes are duckin' and divin' and using anabolic steroids and other drugs. Let me provide some rather startling information for your consideration. If you check the testing statistics on the USADA website, you will find that the number of out-of-competition drug tests performed during each quarter of 2007 are as follows: in the first quarter there were 1208, second quarter 1295, third quarter 1141 and in the fourth quarter there were only 642.

Whole article is here:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/05 ... drugs.html

At the end of the day she broke the rules and was aloud to run.

I was waiting for somebody to bring out the conspiracy guns. Quite funny really, considering all the other explanations you can choose to put forward, you choose to put forward a rather obscure one that suggests everybody who misses a random test is "duckin' and divin'." Ridiculous to suggest that when you consider the number of athletes who missed more than one random test.

afx237vi

Patrick1.0 wrote:

Christine was just silly and forgot to inform the testers of the late change of plan for that one day out of 365 in the year. In your every day life, do you always turn up on time to business meetings and always keep all of your appointments? IInterestingly, how many times was she successfully tested by the same system and how many times has she been successfully tested afterwards?

I'd ask that question in a slightly different way. How many times per year do the random OOC testers turn up to carry out a test? Victor Conte would suggest it happens on average around twice a year.

Yet Christine Ohoruogu managed to miss three tests in the space of two years?! How does that happen? How many other times when the testers didn't turn up was she somewhere other than where she was supposed to be?

And FWIW, I disagree with the Olympic ban for dopers. You should either be banned from a sport, or free to compete in all events.

Patrick1.0

I believe she produced a sample the next day. One day's going to make a difference in this scenario? Maybe if it was a scheduled test and she'd tapered her dose and had got the calculations slightly wrong. Tha's a lot of maybes but this was a random job. There's no way you can plan it out like that. Now you're going to tell me she hid a pot of urine behind the toilet seat for the test the next day, right?

DaveyL

She could have been employing the "duck and dodge" technique in either or both of the first two missed tests, and the third could indeed have been innocent, but became a serious matter due to the preceding two missed tests.

Since you got to ask me what planet I'm on, can I ask an equally inane question? Are you Christine's Mum?

DaveyL

Oh, and

afx237vi wrote:

I'd ask that question in a slightly different way. How many times per year do the random OOC testers turn up to carry out a test? Victor Conte would suggest it happens on average around twice a year.

Yet Christine Ohoruogu managed to miss three tests in the space of two years?! How does that happen? How many other times when the testers didn't turn up was she somewhere other than where she was supposed to be?
.

+1

Patrick1.0

DaveyL wrote:

She could have been employing the "duck and dodge" technique in either or both of the first two missed tests, and the third could indeed have been innocent, but became a serious matter due to the preceding two missed tests.

Since you got to ask me what planet I'm on, can I ask an equally inane question? Are you Christine's Mum?

Sure you can.


You can throw out there whatever speculation you like. If I apply Occam's razor I end up with a much more simple and understandable explanation for events.

DaveyL

Given Victor Conte, Michael Ashenden et al's views on Olympic medal-winning track athletes and TdF winners (to paraphrase - no-one would sersiously suggest they are not doping), I would suggest you have got the wrong end of Occam's razor...

bigdawg

Patrick1.0 wrote:

bigdawg wrote:

this is why no one believes her - Victor Conte (Dwain Chambers 'Dr') :

Many drug-tested athletes use what I call the "duck and dodge" technique. Several journalists in the UK have recently referred to it as the "duck and dive" technique. This is basically how it works.

First, the athlete repeatedly calls their own cell phone until the message capacity is full. This way the athlete can claim to the testers that they didn't get a message when they finally decide to make themselves available. Secondly, they provide incorrect information on their whereabouts form. They say they are going to one place and then go to another. Thereafter, they start using testosterone, growth hormone and other drugs for a short cycle of two to three weeks.
After the athlete discontinues using the drugs for a few days and they know that they will test clean, they become available and resume training at their regular facility.

Most athletes are tested approximately two times each year on a random out-of -competition basis. If a tester shows up and the athlete is not where they are supposed to be, then the athlete will receive a "missed test". This is the equivalent to receiving "strike one" when up to bat in a baseball game. The current anti-doping rules allow an athlete to have two missed tests in any given eighteen-month period without a penalty or consequence. So, the disadvantage for an athlete having a missed test is that they have one strike against them. The advantage of that missed test is the athlete has now received the benefit of a cycle of steroids. Long story short, an athlete can continue to duck and dive until they have two missed tests, which basically means that they can continue to use drugs until that time.

In summary, it's my opinion that more than fifty percent of the drug tests performed each year should be during the off season or the fourth quarter. This is when the track athletes are duckin' and divin' and using anabolic steroids and other drugs. Let me provide some rather startling information for your consideration. If you check the testing statistics on the USADA website, you will find that the number of out-of-competition drug tests performed during each quarter of 2007 are as follows: in the first quarter there were 1208, second quarter 1295, third quarter 1141 and in the fourth quarter there were only 642.

Whole article is here:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/05 ... drugs.html

At the end of the day she broke the rules and was aloud to run.

I was waiting for somebody to bring out the conspiracy guns. Quite funny really, considering all the other explanations you can choose to put forward, you choose to put forward a rather obscure one that suggests everybody who misses a random test is "duckin' and divin'." Ridiculous to suggest that when you consider the number of athletes who missed more than one random test.

what conspiracy - I was just showing why it looks more than a bit suspicious.

Personally if my career depended on me either being in a certain place at a certain time, or telling someone I wasnt going to be in a certain place at a certain time, I'd do it, especially knowing this was my last chance.

I dont know why she missed them, or even care why she missed t hem, but the rules is the rules. Didnt rasmussen get chucked off the tour for something very similar??

Patrick1.0

DaveyL wrote:

Given Victor Conte, Michael Ashenden et al's views on Olympic medal-winning track athletes and TdF winners (to paraphrase - no-one would sersiously suggest they are not doping), I would suggest you have got the wrong end of Occam's razor...

Let me just ask you something quite simple. Besides the point they are both black and both sprinters from the same country, what connection do the two have as far as athletics, coaches and doctors are concerned? None at all. (Sorry, in reference to Christine and Dwain Chambers.) I should also add, this first paragraph is in response to bigdawg. Made a mess with my quotes, as it 'appens.

You obviously don't really grasp the idea of Occam's razor. Your assumptions and blind inclinations that she is somehow connected to all these people because she's a runner and that she should be compared to TDF winners of the past, is simply not what Occam's razor is about. Not at all.

DaveyL

What they have in common is that they are world class track athletes, and to be the best at any distance in the last 15-20 years, you are probably going to have to have been on a fairly serious doping programme - as people like Victor Conte and Michael Ashenden have said (and there is the analogy with the TdF as it is also an endurance sport).

I know perfectly well what Occam's razor is and my conclusion follows from the above by applying it.