posted Sep 3, 2007

lets get it straight. she has never failed a drugs test. the drug testing system needs to be looked at;
-she did not fail 3 tests in a row
-she passed all tests in between the 3 missed tests
-if these rules are not changed, we will lose many more top athletes. there are already a few top gb athlets with 2 missed tests who now cannot miss another test up to 2009 or they will be suspended.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2007

i'll say it again, the point is know one will ever know if she would of failed any of those drug test!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2007

We need to change athletes mentalities to ensure they see having drug tests as neccesary as getting out of bed in the morning.

This can only be done by not bending the rules for instances of athletes missing these tests.

Its not a question of whether she is a drug user or not - its a matter of making sure we dont risk the national reputation of this country, which is more important than any single competitor.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2007

"comment by mightymoyes (part-timer of TBBCOE)
posted 26 Minutes Ago

i'll say it again, the point is know one will ever know if she would of failed any of those drug test!!!"
--------------------
In response to the above posting: she passed tests within a week either side of the missed tests - it has been said by many in the know that any illegal substances would have shown up in these successful tests.

Another misconception is that she knowingly avoided the tests - they are random and unannounced- there is no way she would have known about it at the time. Our system is tougher than the US system - at least they have the courtesy to phone you when they get there in case you have just nipped out to the shops etc.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 4, 2007

thats rubbish, they just dont turn up out of the blue on the off chance and hope the athlete is lounging around the house.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 4, 2007

Yes, you could argue the system is rubbish.
The athlete has to provide a schedule of where they will be at certain times/dates 3 MONTHS in advance I believe. So if the athlete has stated they will be at their home at a certain time (or a certain training venue as in Christine's case) then that is where the testers will go, and if you are not there it counts as a missed test, regardless of whether you were actually 5mins away at another track

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 4, 2007

mightymoyes

you are correct they don't just turn up at any time. However the system requires that athletes notify officials of their whereabouts for at least one hour a day up to 3 months in advance. The testers can then turn up at random on any of these specified occasions and if you aren't there you missed it. Miss 3 in an 18 month period and you can expect a ban. This is what happened to Christine due her apparent lack of organisation and failure to notify officials when her plans changed. When informed that she missed tests she voluntarily gave samples to demonstrate that she was not doping. She was tested in competition during this period and has never failed a test. She should have been aware of the rules, and certainly taken more care to make herself available. However she has served her ban, during which she was tested many more times (all negative) and is free to compete and rightly so.

The British Olympic Association have a policy of banning athletes with doping offences from competing at the Olympics. This rule pre-dates the current testing regime and is not designed to stop careles athletes competing, only those who cheat. Banning Christine from future Olympics would be equivalent to banning Rio Ferdinand from all future World Cups, although Rio was actually told by testers after training to submit a sample and subsequently left Carrington and went shopping without doing so!!

I'm confident Christine will be reinstated, as other athletes with similar circumstances already have.

I'm sure all of this has already been explained in the previous 800 comments as well as numerous TV interviews and articles but many people don't seem to get the message.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 4, 2007

aye rios even more lacking in brains.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 5, 2007

The fact is there's a 3 strikes and you're out policy in place. Drug tests either side means nothing. WADA recently did tests on an athlete (negative) when back the next day unannounced (positive).

Yes, she's served her sentence, but is barred at present from the Olympics. If the judgement is overturned, there's little point of having tests in the first place. What kind of message does this send out. And for the lunatics spreading the race card, I also think allowing Tim Don back in is also a retrograde step.

The way this has been reported in the press by many is hypocritical in the extreme after the bad press the Tour de France has just received. Waht would be the judgement on here if it was a cyclist who missed 3 tests?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 14, 2007

What exactly is the problem that Christine Ohuruogu has. The rules were clear and the punishements well known - so whats her problem with the ban. The only defense I could see is if she claims to be a complete idiot. Hearing her interviews this is clearly not the case, so no wonder there remains deep suspicion over her actions missing 3!! tests

add comment | complain about this comment