posted Aug 6, 2008

Gunnerbear, I don't mean to sound patronising, but the fact that you admit yourself to not being an athletics fan does seem to be making you miss (no pun intended) the point here

Dwain and Christine's cases are completely different. One failed a test, having gone over to the USA to get pumped full of a variety of banned substances, knowing that in doing so, if he got caught he would not be able to compete at another Olympics, as that it the BOA's stance on drug violations.

Christine (along with Tri-athlete Tim Don) was banned for MISSING 3 tests in the space of about 18 months. Originally, both she and Don were also banned from competing at the Olympics by the BOA (though would not have been by any other country except Sweden). However, the BOA's appeals panel - and the powers that be - acknowledge a difference between failing a test and missing one. As I pointed out above, 'missing' a test is not the same offence as either 'failing' one or 'failing to take' one, as the athlete does not know the testers are coming. You might be interested to know that one of the warning signs to the IAAF in the recent Russian athletes case was that ALL those athletes suspended were ALWAYS available for 'random' testing - which is very unusual. It's just that in the UK, we don't contact athletes if they are not where the testers expect them to be - they are simply classed as missed.

Your point that athletes should know the rules of the sport is spot on - and the number of missed tests has dropped dramatically since Christine's ban, as athletes are now much more regularly updating their whereabouts.

You also mentioned that Christine had said she would consider running for Nigeria if she failed to overturn her ban. In fairness to her, if, at 22 and the World Champion you were told you could not compete in major championships, you may well look elsewhere. In essence, if your boss said there was never a chance of you being promoted - even though you were the best in your company - because you were always late, you'd probably look for somewhere else to work.

And the reason Nicola et al have no problem with Christine - in contrast to how Craig Pickering and Darren Campbell for example - feel about Dwain is because athletes generally KNOW the other athletes personally. Christine made a silly mistake, and got the punishment. Dwain CHOSE to cheat - and deprive others of medals, income etc - think that says it all really

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 6, 2008

thought Thanou had accrediatation for Beijing, so why would handing it in for Athens affect that?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 6, 2008

JJimbo,

I don't doubt that Christine O hasn't taken drugs, but there are two particular aspects about her case that are "troubling".

Firstly, during the BALCO court hearings, one of the major players (Trevor Graham, if memory serves) outlined a strategy of how athletes can take drugs and then go AWOL (in a variety of apparently innocent ways) to avoid being tested whilst the drugs are in the system (maybe only for a few days). As he was involved in systematic doping, it's reasonable to assume that he knows something about how to avoid failing tests (best bet = don't get tested). Thus, a missed test MIGHT be a lot more sinister than simple forgetfulness.

Secondly, the BOA and UK Athletics claim to take a hard line on drugs offenders, but they are both quite happy for the rules to be re-written / ignored in Christine O's case. This gives the impression that some drugs offenders are OK and other aren't.

In essence, you're either hard on drugs or you're not. By letting Christine O back into the Olympics, the credibility of the UKA's and the BOA's hard line approach becomes questionable.

That said, Chambers deserves his BOA ban, as that was the rule when he offended.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 6, 2008

Either these athletes are cheats......or they need to invest in some PR reps who can advise them how not to go about behaving EXACTLY LIKE cheats!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 6, 2008

Lord Seb - your first line suggests you think Christine DID take drugs - double negative!! Not sure that's what you meant!?!?!?

Your first point is true - only highlighting why testers should contact athletes, who then would be taking the test. I guess at this stage, we have to trust athletes. In Christine's case, I would say that she was unlucky, in that we know there was a school using the track, and that is why she had gone to a different one - have often found tracks suddenly booked out by schools - as this brings in more revenue than a small group paying as individuals. This gives the missing of her test credence, as opposed to Trevor Graham's idea that you simply go off radar

In regards to your second point - whilst I fully endorse a tough anti-drugs policy, I think the fact that the BOA allowed Christine (and Tim Don, for the same offence) back in, is because the original idea was to stop drug CHEATS, ie people who have been found to have taken drugs, not those we don't know - in this case, because they've not had a test taken. In my eyes, two very different offences...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 7, 2008

JJimbo,

Too many negatives in my post. I don't think CO took drugs expresses it more clearly.

I agree with your comment about the purpose of the BOA ban. As I understand it, the way it was written meant that any violation of the drugs rules incurred a ban. The various appeals have helped to clarify that the intention is only to ban proven drugs users.

The way it's been handled, coinciding with some PR own-goals from UK Athletics with trying to stop Dwayne Chambers running in the indoor trials, has not been good.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 7, 2008

Agreed UKA had a PR disaster with Dwain - my feeling at the time was right idea, bad promotion of it. As I saw it, the intention was to not allow drug cheats to compete for the UK unless 12 months of tests has been passed. Fair enough, in light of the doping stories that were coming out around the world. Dwain got caught in the middle of it all because of his moving from one sport to another and back again, which had led to the testing criteria not being fulfilled.

I hope - for the sake of the sport - they keep that crietria from now on, but sort their admin out - at that level, a signed declaration of retirement - stipulating that no tests will be carried out / no competing within 12 months - would make life so much easier, and ensure we don't have people suddenly coming out of the woodworks and setting crazy times etc

Tim - your post seems to have disappeared! I do love your worldly-weary take on things (and I mean that in the politest way - you clearly have a lot of experience, and often write from a first-hand experience). You're right, one can only say someone has passed a test, not that they aren't on drugs, but personally, I prefer to go with the innocent until proven guilty. A little naive, yes, and I have my doubts about some 'clean' athletes, but I think I'd go crazy if I constantly wondered if I could EVER trust a result, as the alternative is to assume everyone is gulity, and then when they get a positive result, know for sure!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 7, 2008

JJimbo,

I accept that I may well be mis-informed but to my mind you have still failed to address the fundamental issue: why wouuld a professional athlete 'miss' three drug tests?

Not one but three! I and many of my frieds work in an industry, under rules that mean if you miss one drugs or alochol test you are gone. The powers that be in my work place take (perhaps given human nature being what it is) the view that what other possible reason could you give for not taking a test?

As personnel involved in the Balco scandal have said (and it's been noted by other posters) the best way of avoiding being found out is simply not to take the test!

I not saying that CO did take any banned substances but surely you can understand the resonable level of cynicism that is generated when her supporters say 'oh she just forgot' or 'don't be silly it's the fault of the system...'.

Put it like this, if CO had not been a British gold medal prospect would some of our commentators have been quite so supoortive?

My original post was pulled by the moderators but I thought this was an issue that came under the heading fair comment rather like the Joey Barton issue of punishment and re-habiliation.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 7, 2008

Gunnerbear - I do see that the case ccan be seen as biased re CO's welcome back to the sport compared to Dwain, but still feel it's because she has never failed a test, and passed large numbers in between the missed ones. I can't speak for the commentators, and sadly we don't have anyone to compare her case to - in that Tim Don is/was also a World Champion and Olympic prospect

You're right - CO shouldn't have missed 3 tests, but the system is not exactly fool-proof. I believe that previously, CO may have said she would be - for example - at Lee Valley Athletics track every day at 12am. If it's raining, she may have gone inside, or if it's being used by someone else (as in the case of her 3rd missed test) she would go somewhere else to train. Now, I believe she has it set so that the testers will turn up at her house at the crack ofdawn, as she would just be getting up - it's unlikely she'll be anywhere else, so she's unlikely to not be there.

In contrast to your work tests, remember these are 'Out of Competition Random Testing' - if you fail to turn up for a test, you consciously make the decision not to take it, whereas missing a test (CO's offence) is because you did not know a tester was present and wanted a sample - you were not there. If a situation arose like the one above, ie change of training location for whatever reason - that's more likely to happen. I'm not naive enough to think people wouldn't have used this as a method to avoid testing, but don't you think after the 2nd missed test, a cheat would think they need to be present for all their tests - otherwise they'd be juicing for nothing, if they simply get banned for missed tests, a la CO

I completely take on board the idea of the fact that means someone could deliberatly have not been around, as raised in the Balco case, but still think it's not on the same level as Thanou, Kenteris - hey, even Rio Ferdinand - trying to avoid a test when fully aware testers are present.

add comment | complain about this comment