McQuaid wants 4yrs. Are the UCI slowly turning the corner
Comments
-
Any minute now, someone is going to mention innocent until proven guilty....0
-
I love how Victor Conte, the sine qua non of doping, is suddenly being used as an infallible, accurate witness in order to provide "evidence" against a probably-clean athlete.
The other thing about Christine, and Tim Don, and possibly others I can't remember - out of the hundreds of athletes worldwide who have missed two tests for whatever reason, it's a statistical certainty that one or two will make the mistake a third time. Indeed, if they are forgetful or stupid people, then they may be more likely to forget a third time. Holding this up as proof they doped is, from a statistical point, entirely false.
Which isn't to say people haven't missed three tests as a preferable outcome to being busted for doping, I'm sure they have. The point is that entirely predictable that a small number of innocents will miss three tests accidentally.0 -
Patrick1.0 wrote: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.
She's managed and had her appeal covered by a proven drug cheat, Linford Christie. In fact it's likely that given he gets a nice wedge of cash from UKA for his Street Athletics stuff, UKA in effect paid money that ended up fighting their own ban. Incidentally how many appeals against lifetime bans have been granted by the BOC?
She didn't haphazardly miss 3 tests in an 18 month window, she missed 3 in around 9 months, including 2 in around a month. It was her choice not to do like every other sensible athlete and choose to allot their testing time of availability to her home first thing in the morning.
It's an absolute insult to other athletes, as others have said, to pretend that what she did was minor. It's part of her job and a fairly simple part to get right which most athletes do. And the "well she was clean on the next day" is a complete canard. Landis was as well.0 -
"the sine qua non of doping"? Does that mean that without Victor, there would be/have been no doping?
"Infallible, accurate witness"? Either you think the statement is true, that to be the best in the world in track events in recent years, you are probably going to have to have been on a programme, or you don't.
It pretty much comes down to the same thing as the LA debate in cycling. Every Tour winner since 1991-2007 has either been busted or implicated in doping, therefore Occam's razor, to use Patrick's favourite implement, suggests LA was at it too.
If you take the view that elite track athletes are similarly indulging, and combine it with the three missed tests and Conte's description of how athletes duck and dodge, for me the simplest conclusion is that something dodgy was going on.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I remember an interview last year with Mo Farah the distance runner (3000m ?) anyway he told the interviewer he has given his home address as the place they can come test him, (i beleive they only have to available at the given place for an hour), if the drug testers come calling he gets up does the test no problem, if they dont come he gets an extra hour in bed.
Its perfectly possible not to miss drug tests - if you dont want to miss them.0 -
DaveyL wrote: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.
From the general to the specific and back, I think we call that.
In any case, Victo Conte and Michael Ashenden are wrong. Plain wrong in this particular instance.0 -
:roll:
I've always wanted to use that one.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
deal wrote:I remember an interview last year with Mo Farah the distance runner (3000m ?) anyway he told the interviewer he has given his home address as the place they can come test him, (i beleive they only have to available at the given place for an hour), if the drug testers come calling he gets up does the test no problem, if they dont come he gets an extra hour in bed.
Its perfectly possible not to miss drug tests - if you dont want to miss them.
I believe Christine has said that she avoided that because she was living with her folks and didn't want to burden them with testers knocking on the door at silly hours.
There's not alot to be said about her case anymore. You either believe her or you don't. Unfortunately for the believers in her, like myself, there are decent reasons to suggest she was cheating so it comes down to faith.
Something that has just struck me is that, if there are new tests being divised, and plenty of frozen stores of blood and urine in labs, surely if someone has taken something this season that they have been told is untraceable, they're going to get nobbled in the future. There may well be alot of people with dark clouds hanging over them.0 -
the main problem with retro testing whoever it is, is that it could be 15 years down the line, and theyd be no chance of recovering any monies won or earnt as a result of doping.
If it was found out Pedro Delgado was found guily of doping would anyone care other than the guy that came 2nd that year??dont knock on death\'s door.....
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....0 -
What were the circumstances of the other two of Ohurugu's two other missed tests ?
I'm just interested.
People on here have explained about the last test, how she was supposed to be training at a particular track, but there was a school sports day on it so she went to another track instead, the testers turned-up at the first place.
Yes, sounds perfectly plausible.
But what were the circumstances of the other two ?
I'm of the opinion that if I were a professional athlete, if it were my profession - no, it's more than a profession, a job, it's a full-time all-consuming thing if you're going to be the best in the world - then I'd make damn sure I was there for dope testing.
But then I'm also of the opinion that most top-line sports stars - athletes, cyclists, whatever : and don't even mention footballers - aren't all that bright.
Yes there's your Coes and Jonathan Edwards's, and a lot of Oxbridge rowers, but Chambers for instance is about as dim as a 20w bulb...0 -
andy_wrx wrote:What were the circumstances of the other two of Ohurugu's two other missed tests ?
I'm just interested.
People on here have explained about the last test, how she was supposed to be training at a particular track, but there was a school sports day on it so she went to another track instead, the testers turned-up at the first place.
Yes, sounds perfectly plausible.
But what were the circumstances of the other two ?
I'm of the opinion that if I were a professional athlete, if it were my profession - no, it's more than a profession, a job, it's a full-time all-consuming thing if you're going to be the best in the world - then I'd make damn sure I was there for dope testing.
But then I'm also of the opinion that most top-line sports stars - athletes, cyclists, whatever : and don't even mention footballers - aren't all that bright.
Yes there's your Coes and Jonathan Edwards's, and a lot of Oxbridge rowers, but Chambers for instance is about as dim as a 20w bulb...
She's got a degree from UCL in linguistics.0 -
Yea I think the UCI is turning thinks around.
Who gives a monkeys if some harmony hairspray girl ( is she or isn't she) from athletics is dodging the testers?? :roll:
I thought this was a cycling forum. :?:
I posted this thread to guage peoples opinion of the UCI post ASO fall out where people at the time seemed to be anti UCI. Has that changed.0 -
DaveyL wrote:"the sine qua non of doping"? Does that mean that without Victor, there would be/have been no doping?
"Infallible, accurate witness"? Either you think the statement is true, that to be the best in the world in track events in recent years, you are probably going to have to have been on a programme, or you don't.
It pretty much comes down to the same thing as the LA debate in cycling. Every Tour winner since 1991-2007 has either been busted or implicated in doping, therefore Occam's razor, to use Patrick's favourite implement, suggests LA was at it too.
If you take the view that elite track athletes are similarly indulging, and combine it with the three missed tests and Conte's description of how athletes duck and dodge, for me the simplest conclusion is that something dodgy was going on.
No, you claiming that Occam's razor somehow supports your view is strange, to say the least. She missed three random tests, to suggest something funny was going on, through association and bizarre analogies to past winners of the Tour De France, is not right at all. For a start, and this is where you fall down, you actually need to understand all the different stipulations. With that in mind, you then have to take each individual incident. In this case there are three of them. And then, with this knowledge you can either take the view that her reasons don't hold water and that the test the day after the third and final missed test is irrelevant or you can see the whole thing in a similar way to myself. Those are pretty much the two different stances. At the moment, all you are doing is saying: "well it's dodgy because other pro athletes have used a duck and dodge method in the past. This is another one of those cases." I have come back at you with: "well, many other professional, British athletes missed more than one random test by way of mistake, too."
Put your evidence for your claims forwards, please. The fact that she missed the three random tests is not evidence enough to suggest that she was doping. All it is - without any further evidence - evidence of is the simple fact that she missed three random drugs tests.
Also, Rasmussen was kicked out of the Tour for being in a different country to the one he said he was going to be in over an extended period of time. That's completely different to this case.0 -
No it's not, the bare facts are that both missed random tests.Patrick1.0 wrote:Also, Rasmussen was kicked out of the Tour for being in a different country to the one he said he was going to be in over an extended period of time. That's completely different to this case.
Are you sure you are qualified to wield Occam's razor?0 -
andyp wrote:
No it's not, the bare facts are that both missed random tests.Patrick1.0 wrote:Also, Rasmussen was kicked out of the Tour for being in a different country to the one he said he was going to be in over an extended period of time. That's completely different to this case.
Are you sure you are qualified to wield Occam's razor?
Oh, OK, you said the bare facts are... so that makes you the winner. Again, why you are linking somebody from one sport with somebody from another is just beyond me. I will repeat it for you: I can't understand what link the two have. One said he'd be in Mexico and was actually in Italy training under the supervision of a "drug doctor" and one turned up at her local to find that a sports day was in progress so went to a different track to train. I mean, I can't see any difference there at all. As you said, they both missed random drug tests and therefore, the circumstances and motivation to do so must also be the same in both cases. Got it.
I can see you're excellent with the Occam's razor, too.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.
The problem with this is it's mostly entirely irrelevant to her case. Take his first claim:
"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. "
At the time (it may still be the case) Athletes in the UK weren't contacted to let them know a test was coming up (sort of defeats the point of a random test). They also weren't contacted if they were not at the designated location. The testers only duty was to wait one hour in the specified location. If you're not there you get a strike.
His second point was also wrong as the top Athletes in the UK were tested far more regularly than twice a year - and in the case of a missed test have to make themselves available immediately for testing so can't "detox" as described here:
"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."
The third missed test was when her whole training group swapped stadiums because of the scheduling clash. The previous test was as follows:
After missing a test in October 2005, the second was in June 2006. She was at the family home in Stratford when she received a call from her conditioning coach at the gym she used to train at Northwick Park, in Harrow on the other side of north London. A drug tester was there, because that was where she had scheduled to be. But Christine had forgotten.
Instead, she was sitting in front of her computer trying to write an article for The Nub, a charity that describes itself as an 'Education and Self-Development Centre for African and Caribbean People'. The article was overdue, so she had decided to finish it before going to train at nearby Mile End.
Under UK Sport regulations, the official was required to wait at the specified location for an hour. 'I told her I couldn't make it and asked if she could come to Mile End. She said she wasn't allowed to do that, which is fair enough. She said, "You've got just under an hour to make it here to Northwick Park." But I live an hour and a half away so I was never going to make it, was I? She said, "Then it's going to have to be a missed test." And I said, "Well, I've got no other option. You're not going to come here and I can't get there in time."
She was tested the next day as per the regulations and received her second strike.
Some of the strikes received are bizarre - one of Tim Don's was when he changed his competition schedule at the behest of the national body and was mid-air to an event to compete for GB when the testers turned up to the (if I remember correctly) the national training camp he'd just left.
After the problems - as others have intimated there were loads of missed tests at the time in all sports in the UK - the system was changed to make it much easier for late changes in plans to be passed on to the testers with a subsequent reduction in missed tests.0 -
It doesn't make me the winner. I don't see what relevance there is to you arguing that they are different sports. In the eyes of the rules missing three doping tests is equivalent to a failed test. This applies for both sports (and many others).Patrick1.0 wrote:Oh, OK, you said the bare facts are... so that makes you the winner. Again, why you are linking somebody from one sport with somebody from another is just beyond me. I will repeat it for you: I can't understand what link the two have. One said he'd be in Mexico and was actually in Italy training under the supervision of a "drug doctor" and one turned up at her local to find that a sports day was in progress so went to a different track to train. I mean, I can't see any difference there at all. As you said, they both missed random drug tests and therefore, the circumstances and motivation to do so must also be the same in both cases. Got it.
I can see you're excellent with the Occam's razor, too.
I didn't comment on their motivations.0 -
Patrick1.0 wrote:No, you claiming that Occam's razor somehow supports your view is strange, to say the least. She missed three random tests, to suggest something funny was going on, through association and bizarre analogies to past winners of the Tour De France, is not right at all. For a start, and this is where you fall down, you actually need to understand all the different stipulations. With that in mind, you then have to take each individual incident. In this case there are three of them. And then, with this knowledge you can either take the view that her reasons don't hold water and that the test the day after the third and final missed test is irrelevant or you can see the whole thing in a similar way to myself. Those are pretty much the two different stances. At the moment, all you are doing is saying: "well it's dodgy because other pro athletes have used a duck and dodge method in the past. This is another one of those cases." I have come back at you with: "well, many other professional, British athletes missed more than one random test by way of mistake, too."
Put your evidence for your claims forwards, please. The fact that she missed the three random tests is not evidence enough to suggest that she was doping. All it is - without any further evidence - evidence of is the simple fact that she missed three random drugs tests.
Also, Rasmussen was kicked out of the Tour for being in a different country to the one he said he was going to be in over an extended period of time. That's completely different to this case.
A bizarre analogy? I've already made clear what I think this 400 m runner has in common with both a sprinter and TdF winners - they are in elite sports where athletes can get a huge advantage from using illegal blood boosting methods and steroids. In all likeliehood the people who are at the top of the pile in these discplines have got there with the aid of doping (I am happy to state this is an assumption but not a particularly far fetched one given the number of people who have been busted across these events). *Combined* with missing *three* tests (which is not a common occurence) leads me to think that it is more than likely dodgy. I have no evidence stronger than that nor have I ever made out that I have. It is, if you will, a belief.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Patrick1.0 wrote:Also, Rasmussen was kicked out of the Tour for being in a different country to the one he said he was going to be in over an extended period of time. That's completely different to this case.
He wasn't "kicked out of the Tour"
His team removed him for lying to them.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Look at that! Go away for a few hours and all hell breaks loose.
I couldn't care less if she was doping or not doping, a super brainy linguist or otherwise what I do care about is the message sent out by UK athletics that you can miss three tests and it's okay. That is the bottom line. That is what I'm bothered about. I couldn't care who it was or why it was.
I read in the Guardian today that she's all in favour of the Cera retesting. Good. It's nice to hear something like that from her.0
