Chambers, Ohuruogu and how to aviod drug testers

[Jessiedog]

I know why she was banned.

Has she missed any out of season tests since? No.
Has she been tested a lot since? Yes.

If she had taken anything three years ago would it still be helping her now, winning a gold? No.
Was it in fact her hard work, tactics and race nous that won the gold and doesn't Michael Johnson and everyone else agree with that? Yes.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good witch hunt on the internets by the speculoons.

Bored now tbh.

If she was "duck and diving" to avoid detection, hence the ban, there's no reason that she wouldn't continue her doping regime. She'd just make sure that she didn't miss more than two tests in any 18 month period and be really careful with the doping regime.


Everybody's doin' it, doin' it, doin it'.


Woof

 

[Flashman]

Even those who have simply retired because of injury or age etc?

Oh, didn't you know? Every athlete ever was on some miracle drug that was undetectable. It had differing effects on athletes, it made some go really slowly and not even qualify for finals.

 

[Jessiedog]

Even those who have simply retired because of injury or age etc?

Given the prevalence of doping over the last 30 years...........





Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

Because of all that evidence you keep showing us.

Just my opinion.



Woof

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just my opinion.

With no evidence to back it up, your opinion is worthless.

 

[kabbes]

Darren Campbell told a story on the radio this morning about a time that they were all on the team bus to go to an event in Stockholm and were queried about whether they had informed the testers of this. Apparently even if you are in an official IAAF tournament representing your country, your whereabouts are "unknown" unless you have informed them in advance.

I find it instructive that not one person thinks that Christine took anything except for the woefully uninformed. Not her fellow athletes, not the ex-athletes, not the doping authorities, not the British athletics authorities, not the International athletics authorities. Only idiots on message boards.

 

[London_Calling]

I find it instructive that not one person thinks that Christine took anything except for the woefully uninformed. Not her fellow athletes, not the ex-athletes, not the doping authorities, not the British athletics authorities, not the International athletics authorities. Only idiots on message boards.

Legal fact: You can't libel or slander someone without exposing yourself to legal action

Athletics Fact: She went missing on three separate occasions when required to provide samples

 

[Flashman]

Athletics Fact: She went missing on three separate occasions when required to provide samples

And has been punished for it.

How many times do you need telling this?

The rest is speculation.

Not exactly Lester Freeman are you.

 

[Jessiedog]

With no evidence to back it up, your opinion is worthless.

As is yours.



Woof

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As is yours.



Woof

I haven't expressed a definite opinion, except the one that, if put in her place, I could imagine missing tests through scattiness.

 

[Jessiedog]

I haven't expressed a definite opinion, except the one that, if put in her place, I could imagine missing tests through scattiness.

As you wish.

If put in her place, I certainly wouldn't miss a test..........

Unless I was "duck and diving", of course.





Woof

 

[London_Calling]

And has been punished for it.

How many times do you need telling this?

How many times do you need telling? Charmed, I'm sure.

Fwiw, (a) I'm adressing someone else in another context, and (b) she's been punished for an offence she committed, not for a substantive offence she may have avoided in committing the lesser offence - prob a bad analogy: it's like being banned for drink driving when she may have driven off from running someone down on a crossing. Fact: she had booze in her system, fact: no one quite got her registraion number.

 

[kabbes]

Legal fact: You can't libel or slander someone without exposing yourself to legal action

Athletics Fact: She went missing on three separate occasions when required to provide samples

Legal fact: if you say nothing at all then it isn't slander. If you make a point of coming out in support of someone, that's a statement where you're putting your reputation on the line.

Athletics fact: she was tested three days after missing the last test and numerous times beforehand. Yes, once every six months she wasn't exactly where she thought she would have been, because circumstances changed on the day. Wow.

 

[London_Calling]

I don't grasp you point so let me repeat. This is your point:

I find it instructive that not one person thinks that Christine took anything except for the woefully uninformed. Not her fellow athletes, not the ex-athletes, not the doping authorities, not the British athletics authorities, not the International athletics authorities. Only idiots on message boards.

It's not instructive at all. She is legally protected.

 

[kabbes]

I don't grasp you point so let me repeat. This is your point:

I find it instructive that not one person thinks that Christine took anything except for the woefully uninformed. Not her fellow athletes, not the ex-athletes, not the doping authorities, not the British athletics authorities, not the International athletics authorities. Only idiots on message boards.

It's not instructive at all. She is legally protected.

Nonsense. Those groups of people actually bothered to make the point of coming out to say that they believe she has taken nothing. In fact, they have been very vocal about it. They could easily have remained silent on the issue.

 

[Athos]

I think that the drug problem in some sports has become so endemic that radical steps need to be taken; perhaps even a paradigm shift towards a rebuttable presumption of guilt i.e. we will presume you are guilty unless you are able to attend tests and prove that you are not. That way, if you miss the tests, you miss your chance to prove you're clean, you're presumed to be a drug cheat and treated accordingly. I know it sounds very harsh, but I'm sure if everyone knew the consequences of missing tests, they'd be far fewer missed. And it'd protect the integrity of the regime; there'd be no scope for the sort of speculation that surrounds her now. Under the current system, any half-savvy drugs cheat could avoid detection, and merely accept the lesser punishment for missing the tests - blaming absent mindedness, or whatever. That results in champions who are tained with stigma of possible drug use - that wouldn't occur under the regime I propose.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

She's either:

1. A foolish young athlete who didn't take informing of her whereabouts seriously enough, and who was badly advised – what advice did her coach give, and how much support did the authorities give (it is my understanding that British athletics authorities were very bad at providing advice)?

2. A foolish young drugs cheat, who played the 'duck and cheat' system very badly.

None of us knows which of these she is. The reason I veer towards 1. is that she is obviously a very talented athlete, and has achieved a huge amount in the past 2 years, when she has been clean. It's the same reason I am disinclined to believe Usain Bolt is a cheat. Generally, it is the average athletes who have the incentive to take drugs, but really talented youngsters? Only a foolish coach would advise it.

 

[Flashman]

How many times do you need telling? Charmed, I'm sure.

Fwiw, (a) I'm adressing someone else in another context, and (b) she's been punished for an offence she committed, not for a substantive offence she may have avoided in committing the lesser offence - prob a bad analogy: it's like being banned for drink driving when she may have driven off from running someone down on a crossing. Fact: she had booze in her system, fact: no one quite got her registraion number.

Well, you and a few others are being deliberately obtuse and it's becoming tiresome reading the same fact-free conjecture and speculation.

There is a thread about people who've actually been caught cheating, maybe you should vent there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't grasp you point so let me repeat. This is your point:

It's not instructive at all. She is legally protected.

She is not legally protected from silence though, is she. People have been coming out in positive support of her. Your point doesn't stand up.

 

[London_Calling]

Nonsense. Those groups of people actually bothered to make the point of coming out to say that they believe she has taken nothing. In fact, they have been very vocal about it. They could easily have remained silent on the issue.

Everyone I've seen who supported her position had, in one way or another, a vested interest in her competing - except the American who she beat (who said "she seems clean" after the race - and which is not an endorsment of the position at the relevant time 18 months ago).

There is a thread about people who've actually been caught cheating, maybe you should vent there.

As opposed to in a thread I started to discuss how cheats aviod drug testing?

You seem quite fond of telling people what they should do.

 

[Jessiedog]

The reason I veer towards 1. is that she is obviously a very talented athlete, and has achieved a huge amount in the past 2 years, when she has been clean. It's the same reason I am disinclined to believe Usain Bolt is a cheat. Generally, it is the average athletes who have the incentive to take drugs, but really talented youngsters? Only a foolish coach would advise it.

And I think this is nothing more than wishful thinking.

I recognisise that you - oh so want them to be clean - and I agree it would be nice to imagine so.

I just don't think they are.


Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

She is not legally protected from silence though, is she. People have been coming out in positive support of her. Your point doesn't stand up.

*sigh*

But nobody is saying that she is a drug cheat, are they?


That would be actionable.



Woof

 

[Flashman]

As opposed to in a thread I started to discuss how cheats aviod drug testing?

You seem quite fond of telling people what they should do.

It was just a suggestion, I'm not telling you to do anything.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about drugs cheats (good on you) it might be therapeutic for you to vent at or about actual cheats rather than speculating about what may or may not have happened to an athlete three years ago.

But it is indeed your thread and you have the right to post more nonsense in it

 

[kabbes]

*sigh*

But nobody is saying that she is a drug cheat, are they?


That would be actionable.



Woof

Right enough. Nobody has so much as hinted that she is a drug cheat. Maybe that's because... she didn't actually take anything? What a thought.

So on the one hand we have the entire sport of track and field, from athletes through to international boards and testers, making the point of actually putting their reputations on the line to speak positively in support of her...

... and on the other hand we have some uninformed naysayers on internet message boards.

Hmm, who should I believe, who should I believe...? It's a conundrum alright.


Bark.

 

[Athos]

Right enough. Nobody has so much as hinted that she is a drug cheat.

She will always be the subject of speculation that she is a drugs cheat, because she failed to attend drugs tests. Not once, not twice, but three times. She must have been fully aware of the potential consequences of this, and has only her self to blame. I don't know whether she ever took performance enhancing drugs or not (nobody can know that). Either way, she has damaged the reputatuion of the sport. Had it been up to me, she'd have been banned for life for missing the tests; that way, we'd be more confident that the winner of that race was not a drugs cheat.

 

[Treacle Toes]

She will always be the subject of speculation that she is a drugs cheat, because she failed to attend drugs tests. Not once, not twice, but three times. She must have been fully aware of the potential consequences of this, and has only her self to blame. I don't know whether she ever took performance enhancing drugs or not (nobody can know that). Either way, she has damaged the reputatuion of the sport. Had it been up to me, she'd have been banned for life for missing the tests; that way, we'd be more confident that the winner of that race was not a drugs cheat.

Steady on...she hasn't singlehanded done anything. Attack those/the rules that allowed her to win the appeal if you feel that strongly. She is one person without the power you are affording her.

 

[Athos]

Steady on...she hasn't singlehanded done anything. Attack those/the rules that allowed her to win the appeal if you feel that strongly. She is one person without the power you are affording her.

No. She missed the tests (three times!), and she chose to appeal the ban. So she is to blame; had she not done those things then we wouldn't be in a position where people are wondering whether the Olympic champion is a drugs cheat (which is enormously damaging to the sport's reputation). Simple as that.

 

[Flashman]

And she has been punished.

It's all over.

 

[Athos]

And she has been punished.

It's all over.

Clearly not. The very fact there is this debate shows that there will always be some doubt surrounding her.

The punishment was insufficent: it neither protected the reputation and integrity of the sport, nor acted as a deterrent to drugs cheats (who might now prefer to "duck and dive" safe in the knowledge that they can get away with taking drugs, by facing the far less serious punishment for missing drugs tests).

 

[Treacle Toes]

No. She missed the tests (three times!), and she chose to appeal the ban. So she is to blame; had she not done those things then we wouldn't be in a position where people are wondering whether the Olympic champion is a drugs cheat (which is enormously damaging to the sport's reputation). Simple as that.

Well it's not as simple as that though is it.

Yes she missed the tests, yes she appealed the ban, no she has never tested positive.

She broke the rules regarding tests but has never been shown to have broken the rules regarding the use of illegal substances.

The appeal system is there for a reason obviously. She didn't make the rules.

Imagine she isn't guilty of doping, the appeal system would be the way to go surely.

She broke some rules and was punished for it. She has never tested positive though...there is a difference.