The testing requirements are so strict that it's not surprising if athletes miss a test occasionally. It can easily be done if your car breaks down or you have a family emergency.
I hope that Farrah is clean. If he isn't then it's possibly going to be biggest scandal in the history of British sport.
The drug testers knocked on his door. He did not answer. He was in an upstairs bedroom. They waited and knocked on the front door for over an hour.
I've heard 2 other British athletes this weekend come out and say they've missed 2 drugs tests and of course there was the Ohuruogu saga so clearly it is an issue generally.
I've heard 2 other British athletes this weekend come out and say they've missed 2 drugs tests and of course there was the Ohuruogu saga so clearly it is an issue generally.
In 2011 there were 9 athletes at some point during that year who were on 2 missed tests. So it is probably fair to say at any one time there are a handful on 2 tests and considerably more on 1 missed test.
There is also no reason to believe that it is not the same situation in all the other sports who operate the whereabouts system, basically any sport that appears at the Olympics.
When you get to the elite levels of things which most people play socially then it gets very serious and professional. Never mind high-profile sports like football, tennis and athletics, I've seen people who play minority games who are very much 'win at all costs' - board games and stuff with 20 people max watching championships.
Bottom line is that especially in high-profile sports there is a large enough audience who enjoy these things and will pay to view it and that creates a massive market and everything that can follow.
I've no idea on Farah. I'm pretty cynical about drugs in sport but it's still innocent until guilty when it comes to individuals.
Watching tennis earlier and Troicki also served a ban for what sounded like missing a test (possibly multiple - not sure).
Troicki refused to take a blood test citing he was scared of needles which is slightly different.
Mo would have had another drugs test very shortly after the second missed test, and would certainly have been tested after his 2 gold medal performances. He clearly made a mistake and is allowed 2 missed tests to take this into account as with all other athletes. If everyone was banned after missing 1 or 2 tests there would be very few athletes still competing!
Mo would have had another drugs test very shortly after the second missed test, and would certainly have been tested after his 2 gold medal performances. He clearly made a mistake and is allowed 2 missed tests to take this into account as with all other athletes. If everyone was banned after missing 1 or 2 tests there would be very few athletes still competing!
Indeed, but not just athletes. I wonder how many footballers would be kicking their heals because they hadn't got home in time for the testers after a boozy night out on the town or at the local school disco.
In 2011 there were 9 athletes at some point during that year who were on 2 missed tests. So it is probably fair to say at any one time there are a handful on 2 tests and considerably more on 1 missed test.
There is also no reason to believe that it is not the same situation in all the other sports who operate the whereabouts system, basically any sport that appears at the Olympics.
The point is that missing tests does not automatically mean you are doping.
What I'm about to say applies to any athlete, whether it be track and field, cycling, whatever.
If one assumes that , whatever the sport, there will be at least some athletes who are doping at the highest level, (and anyone who doubts whether it is possible to dope without testing positive need look no further than the recent edition of Panorama which broke the news about Salazar, in which the presenter, an amateur triathlete, achieved a 7% performance gain almost immediately after microdosing with EPO, with none of the medical support of a top athlete, and still passed all the doping tests, including the biological passport) then the chances are the likes of Mo Farah have beaten dopers in order to win a race. If you then consider the huge performance gains to be achieved by doping (as much as 54% in some aspects) http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/
then it simply isn't feasible that a clean athlete could beat a doper simply by superior natural ability, training regime, diet etc.
What I'm about to say applies to any athlete, whether it be track and field, cycling, whatever.
If one assumes that , whatever the sport, there will be at least some athletes who are doping at the highest level, (and anyone who doubts whether it is possible to dope without testing positive need look no further than the recent edition of Panorama which broke the news about Salazar, in which the presenter, an amateur triathlete, achieved a 7% performance gain almost immediately after microdosing with EPO, with none of the medical support of a top athlete, and still passed all the doping tests, including the biological passport) then the chances are the likes of Mo Farah have beaten dopers in order to win a race. If you then consider the huge performance gains to be achieved by doping (as much as 54% in some aspects) http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/
then it simply isn't feasible that a clean athlete could beat a doper simply by superior natural ability, training regime, diet etc.
OK, lets go through this.
1) There are dopers out there, some at the highest level of sport - Yes, I think we can all agree with that.
2) You believe the advantage that doping gives is so great that a clean athlete can't possibly beat a doper.
3) Therefore anybody who wins an event is automatically suspect because there is a possibility that they were up against a doper and only a doper could beat another doper.
A bit of a depressing take on things, I'm surprised you take any interest or watch any sport.
What I'm about to say applies to any athlete, whether it be track and field, cycling, whatever.
If one assumes that , whatever the sport, there will be at least some athletes who are doping at the highest level, (and anyone who doubts whether it is possible to dope without testing positive need look no further than the recent edition of Panorama which broke the news about Salazar, in which the presenter, an amateur triathlete, achieved a 7% performance gain almost immediately after microdosing with EPO, with none of the medical support of a top athlete, and still passed all the doping tests, including the biological passport) then the chances are the likes of Mo Farah have beaten dopers in order to win a race. If you then consider the huge performance gains to be achieved by doping (as much as 54% in some aspects) http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/
then it simply isn't feasible that a clean athlete could beat a doper simply by superior natural ability, training regime, diet etc.
So, are you claiming that every winner is a drug cheat?
So, are you claiming that every winner is a drug cheat?
Its a very depressing thought, but the fact that it is possible to micro dope and evade detection by the latest tests at the lowest level of competition.
Then think how far that could be taken with the best doctors,trainers and nutritionists at the top level.
The trouble nowadays is its just impossible to know 100% for sure if someone is or isn't doping.
The fact someone can and has never failed a drugs test is meaningless.
What I'm about to say applies to any athlete, whether it be track and field, cycling, whatever.
If one assumes that , whatever the sport, there will be at least some athletes who are doping at the highest level, (and anyone who doubts whether it is possible to dope without testing positive need look no further than the recent edition of Panorama which broke the news about Salazar, in which the presenter, an amateur triathlete, achieved a 7% performance gain almost immediately after microdosing with EPO, with none of the medical support of a top athlete, and still passed all the doping tests, including the biological passport) then the chances are the likes of Mo Farah have beaten dopers in order to win a race. If you then consider the huge performance gains to be achieved by doping (as much as 54% in some aspects) http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/
then it simply isn't feasible that a clean athlete could beat a doper simply by superior natural ability, training regime, diet etc.
so what sort of gain might an already elite athlete achieve. That's the key isn't it?
I've heard 2 other British athletes this weekend come out and say they've missed 2 drugs tests and of course there was the Ohuruogu saga so clearly it is an issue generally.
The way I see it, we have to judge attitudes towards drugs testing into pre-Lance and post-Lance.
A few years ago, the typical clean athlete, who is too focused on the sport to care about rumours, could be forgiven for treating anti-doping procedures as annoying hoops to jump through, a clerical chore and an intrusion of privacy. They'll presume the dirty athletes will get caught, and everyone else is clean.
Since the Armstrong story hit the news, there's no real excuse for thinking that way any more, and even the most optimistic athletes must realise that doping and anti-doping must be taken seriously, that it's not just about injecting steroids, and that the occasional urine test isn't enough to prove an athlete is clean, and why missing tests will look bad.
The whereabouts rules are pretty tough, and pretending otherwise is daft, but if you are a serious athlete, you have to take them seriously, as Ohuruogu discovered. It's also essential that athletes can't pick and choose when to give samples, because we all know by now that a lot of PEDs can leave the system in a relatively short space of time.
If a doping athlete knows they can miss a couple of tests without penalty, they can dope away from competition, safe in the knowledge that they can just hide behind the sofa when the testers come calling. It's only after two missed tests that those athletes would have to stop or change their doping practices to something less detectable. On the other hand, there are bound to be times when a disorganised athlete will forget to update their whereabouts form when they change their plans, or something unexpected happens.
Of course, athletes can be requested to give samples randomly, but only if the testers ask them, and in those circumstance, they can't be penalised for not being at home (or hiding behind the sofa). More likely, the testers will go to a training ground, or I know sometimes the tennis testers turn up to hotels they know the players stay in. There are also the in competition tests which are absolutely mandatory.
I don't know the situation for Rio, but the Troicki one was that he refused to give a blood test after a match. This was just as the blood passports were being introduced to tennis as a result of what had been learned from cycling. He did give a urine test, but he was instructed to give blood, and he refused. He claimed he wasn't feeling well and was scared of needles, and came back the next day to give a sample (which was clean), but you just can't allow that. There are several PEDs that might have shown positive one day, and negative the next, especially if you know you are going to give a sample, so have time to phone your doping doctor for advice and to take action to speed anything out of your system. Troicki maintains innocence, and that he thought he was allowed to come back the next day, but he's either stupid, or swinging the lead. Either way, he couldn't be allowed to get away with it.
IMO, it is important to distinguish between missed tests, and refusals to give a sample, but lines are blurred. There's the time when Serena Williams locked herself in a panic room when the drugs testers came to her house. She argued (successfully) that she didn't know they were the drug testers, and thought they were intruders. Some people think that's a joke of an excuse, but as her sister was murdered, and she's not universally loved back home, I prefer to think she was just being paranoid. There's also a rumour that Agassi legged it from one tournament before the testers could demand a sample, but that could be apocryphal and I don't think you are able to do that these days. If they want a sample, they tell you as soon as you finish your match, and you aren't allowed to leave until you do so.
IMO, there are legit reasons why athletes might miss a test, but if they do, then they should expect there to be double the usual number of tests for several months afterwards.
Didn't take long for the Daily Heil et.al. to gleefully start disparaging the black Muslim Somalian drugs cheater.....er... sorry.... defending the gallant inspirational British hero.... (delete as applicable whichever day of the week it is)
the usual nonsense from people who havent bothered to check up on the facts, there is absolutely zero evidence that mo is a drugs cheat
1. farah and 9 other biritish athletes missing 2 tests - fairly common occurance , didnt break any rules , which is why there is a three missed tests rule
2. he ran with a convicted drugs cheat while training - along with about 20 others - is he expected to vet all training partners before running with them
3. his times suddenly improved massively with salazar - nope
his 5k time has improved by 4 seconds
his 10k time has improved by 30 seconds (he had only run the event three times in meets before joining salazar)
his 1500 has improved by 5 seconds in an event he wasn't running for a couple of years pre salazar
his upswing actually began in 2009 -10 (9 secs off his previous 5k best, 16 secs off his previous 10k best, 3 euro gold medals indoor and outdoor) , a couple of years before he joined salazar, his winning time in the 2011 world champs was 4 seconds slower than his time in 2009 when he finished 7th,
added to that british athletics set up salazar as his trainer and suggested salazar to him
4. salazar and rupp maybe being dodgy - very possible, although there is no killer evidence at the moment regarding this, is he even being investigated? - however none of this is linked to farah in any way
What I'm about to say applies to any athlete, whether it be track and field, cycling, whatever.
If one assumes that , whatever the sport, there will be at least some athletes who are doping at the highest level, (and anyone who doubts whether it is possible to dope without testing positive need look no further than the recent edition of Panorama which broke the news about Salazar, in which the presenter, an amateur triathlete, achieved a 7% performance gain almost immediately after microdosing with EPO, with none of the medical support of a top athlete, and still passed all the doping tests, including the biological passport) then the chances are the likes of Mo Farah have beaten dopers in order to win a race. If you then consider the huge performance gains to be achieved by doping (as much as 54% in some aspects) http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/
then it simply isn't feasible that a clean athlete could beat a doper simply by superior natural ability, training regime, diet etc.
Indeed, which raises big question marks about the marquee names in athletics, including the most famous athlete in the world - we already know for a fact he has beaten people who were drugged to the max and subsequently banned and yet nobody in the media appears to be asking the obvious question.
In relation to Mo Farah, he is allegedly missed 2 drugs tests was still able to compete in the London 2012 Olympic Games in which he famously won 2 Gold medals for 5000 and 10,000 metres. This is the very sport that Coe competed in himself but so far has not produced and opinions on Farah himself and athletics with it's own very system of drug testing.
I feel that Athletics as a sport needs to implement a more efficient system to drug testing in order to eradicate the cheats. I also feel that football gets a negative press and in some cases, rightly so. But in the case of Rio Ferdinand, although it was now some time ago, I feel he was harshly treated but even more so if you compare his case to that of the Salazar accusations.
I'm confused, what does missing a drugs test have to do with the "Salazar accusations"?
When you miss a test the drug testing authorities consider the circumstances in which the test was missed and will either conclude that there were reasonable grounds to miss the test (you get 2 of these situations in 12 or so months) or if the sports person missed the test due to their own actions. And I'm sure you can see why they have to punish the second option.
It's never been a black & white situation of "you missed a test, you're banned".
In the case of Rio, my understanding is Rio knew the drug testers were at the training ground, knew he was required to take part in a test and he left the training ground without being tested. He suggested his mind was on other things and he forgot. That may be so. But that's effectively a sports person knowingly driving away from a drugs test he was aware had to be done. That has to be punished. Otherwise a genuine drugs cheat could simply get in his/her car and drive off when the testers arrive.
In the case of Mo, his defence is he didn't even know the drug testers were at his door and so he missed the test. They compiled a video to illustrate that he couldn't hear the door bell whilst in his bedroom. That defence was accepted. It would be similar to Rio not being aware the drug testers were on site.
Comments
In 2011 there were 9 athletes at some point during that year who were on 2 missed tests. So it is probably fair to say at any one time there are a handful on 2 tests and considerably more on 1 missed test.
There is also no reason to believe that it is not the same situation in all the other sports who operate the whereabouts system, basically any sport that appears at the Olympics.
Indeed, but not just athletes. I wonder how many footballers would be kicking their heals because they hadn't got home in time for the testers after a boozy night out on the town or at the local school disco.
The point is that missing tests does not automatically mean you are doping.
At the same time though , 'passing' drug tests doesn't mean you are clean .
Only thing I've ever questioned was his Great North Run win last year. I think the leader pulled back.
If one assumes that , whatever the sport, there will be at least some athletes who are doping at the highest level, (and anyone who doubts whether it is possible to dope without testing positive need look no further than the recent edition of Panorama which broke the news about Salazar, in which the presenter, an amateur triathlete, achieved a 7% performance gain almost immediately after microdosing with EPO, with none of the medical support of a top athlete, and still passed all the doping tests, including the biological passport) then the chances are the likes of Mo Farah have beaten dopers in order to win a race. If you then consider the huge performance gains to be achieved by doping (as much as 54% in some aspects)
http://sportsscientists.com/2007/11/the-effect-of-epo-on-performance/
then it simply isn't feasible that a clean athlete could beat a doper simply by superior natural ability, training regime, diet etc.
OK, lets go through this.
1) There are dopers out there, some at the highest level of sport - Yes, I think we can all agree with that.
2) You believe the advantage that doping gives is so great that a clean athlete can't possibly beat a doper.
3) Therefore anybody who wins an event is automatically suspect because there is a possibility that they were up against a doper and only a doper could beat another doper.
A bit of a depressing take on things, I'm surprised you take any interest or watch any sport.
So, are you claiming that every winner is a drug cheat?
Its a very depressing thought, but the fact that it is possible to micro dope and evade detection by the latest tests at the lowest level of competition.
Then think how far that could be taken with the best doctors,trainers and nutritionists at the top level.
The trouble nowadays is its just impossible to know 100% for sure if someone is or isn't doping.
The fact someone can and has never failed a drugs test is meaningless.
so what sort of gain might an already elite athlete achieve. That's the key isn't it?
The way I see it, we have to judge attitudes towards drugs testing into pre-Lance and post-Lance.
A few years ago, the typical clean athlete, who is too focused on the sport to care about rumours, could be forgiven for treating anti-doping procedures as annoying hoops to jump through, a clerical chore and an intrusion of privacy. They'll presume the dirty athletes will get caught, and everyone else is clean.
Since the Armstrong story hit the news, there's no real excuse for thinking that way any more, and even the most optimistic athletes must realise that doping and anti-doping must be taken seriously, that it's not just about injecting steroids, and that the occasional urine test isn't enough to prove an athlete is clean, and why missing tests will look bad.
The whereabouts rules are pretty tough, and pretending otherwise is daft, but if you are a serious athlete, you have to take them seriously, as Ohuruogu discovered. It's also essential that athletes can't pick and choose when to give samples, because we all know by now that a lot of PEDs can leave the system in a relatively short space of time.
If a doping athlete knows they can miss a couple of tests without penalty, they can dope away from competition, safe in the knowledge that they can just hide behind the sofa when the testers come calling. It's only after two missed tests that those athletes would have to stop or change their doping practices to something less detectable. On the other hand, there are bound to be times when a disorganised athlete will forget to update their whereabouts form when they change their plans, or something unexpected happens.
Of course, athletes can be requested to give samples randomly, but only if the testers ask them, and in those circumstance, they can't be penalised for not being at home (or hiding behind the sofa). More likely, the testers will go to a training ground, or I know sometimes the tennis testers turn up to hotels they know the players stay in. There are also the in competition tests which are absolutely mandatory.
I don't know the situation for Rio, but the Troicki one was that he refused to give a blood test after a match. This was just as the blood passports were being introduced to tennis as a result of what had been learned from cycling. He did give a urine test, but he was instructed to give blood, and he refused. He claimed he wasn't feeling well and was scared of needles, and came back the next day to give a sample (which was clean), but you just can't allow that. There are several PEDs that might have shown positive one day, and negative the next, especially if you know you are going to give a sample, so have time to phone your doping doctor for advice and to take action to speed anything out of your system. Troicki maintains innocence, and that he thought he was allowed to come back the next day, but he's either stupid, or swinging the lead. Either way, he couldn't be allowed to get away with it.
IMO, it is important to distinguish between missed tests, and refusals to give a sample, but lines are blurred. There's the time when Serena Williams locked herself in a panic room when the drugs testers came to her house. She argued (successfully) that she didn't know they were the drug testers, and thought they were intruders. Some people think that's a joke of an excuse, but as her sister was murdered, and she's not universally loved back home, I prefer to think she was just being paranoid. There's also a rumour that Agassi legged it from one tournament before the testers could demand a sample, but that could be apocryphal and I don't think you are able to do that these days. If they want a sample, they tell you as soon as you finish your match, and you aren't allowed to leave until you do so.
IMO, there are legit reasons why athletes might miss a test, but if they do, then they should expect there to be double the usual number of tests for several months afterwards.
I would need drugs to eat Quorn
I watch a lot of Quorn.
I rather like it.
1. farah and 9 other biritish athletes missing 2 tests - fairly common occurance , didnt break any rules , which is why there is a three missed tests rule
2. he ran with a convicted drugs cheat while training - along with about 20 others - is he expected to vet all training partners before running with them
3. his times suddenly improved massively with salazar - nope
his 5k time has improved by 4 seconds
his 10k time has improved by 30 seconds (he had only run the event three times in meets before joining salazar)
his 1500 has improved by 5 seconds in an event he wasn't running for a couple of years pre salazar
his upswing actually began in 2009 -10 (9 secs off his previous 5k best, 16 secs off his previous 10k best, 3 euro gold medals indoor and outdoor) , a couple of years before he joined salazar, his winning time in the 2011 world champs was 4 seconds slower than his time in 2009 when he finished 7th,
added to that british athletics set up salazar as his trainer and suggested salazar to him
4. salazar and rupp maybe being dodgy - very possible, although there is no killer evidence at the moment regarding this, is he even being investigated? - however none of this is linked to farah in any way
Part 1 - http://nikeoregonproject.com/blogs/news/35522561-alberto-open-letter-part-1
Part 2 - http://nikeoregonproject.com/blogs/news/35523713-alberto-open-letter-part-2
and that puts to bed number four in my post above yours
Indeed, which raises big question marks about the marquee names in athletics, including the most famous athlete in the world - we already know for a fact he has beaten people who were drugged to the max and subsequently banned and yet nobody in the media appears to be asking the obvious question.
I'm confused, what does missing a drugs test have to do with the "Salazar accusations"?
When you miss a test the drug testing authorities consider the circumstances in which the test was missed and will either conclude that there were reasonable grounds to miss the test (you get 2 of these situations in 12 or so months) or if the sports person missed the test due to their own actions. And I'm sure you can see why they have to punish the second option.
It's never been a black & white situation of "you missed a test, you're banned".
In the case of Rio, my understanding is Rio knew the drug testers were at the training ground, knew he was required to take part in a test and he left the training ground without being tested. He suggested his mind was on other things and he forgot. That may be so. But that's effectively a sports person knowingly driving away from a drugs test he was aware had to be done. That has to be punished. Otherwise a genuine drugs cheat could simply get in his/her car and drive off when the testers arrive.
In the case of Mo, his defence is he didn't even know the drug testers were at his door and so he missed the test. They compiled a video to illustrate that he couldn't hear the door bell whilst in his bedroom. That defence was accepted. It would be similar to Rio not being aware the drug testers were on site.
In the recent case of Chris Froome (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/24/chris-froome-missed-drug-test-tour-de-france) the hotel staff failed to allow the drug testers to go up to his hotel room and so he missed a test due to that. Again.. they accepted that defence.
So there are different factors to be considered each time.