Olympics 2008

[Lord Kangana]

She missed three out of 13 over nine months and passed all the others, so she's not a cheat

If testing is compulsory, then she is.

The system would fall apart if there was no stigma attached to missing a drugs test, the same as testing positive. Otherwise you could just opt out of the system. "nah, I don't fancy a test this month, if its all the same to you".

[jmjhb]

I believe UK Athletics were re-organising then and many athletes missed 2 tests in a row due to poor organisation, she may have just been unlucky.

[ratbert]

I understand the one test centre she turned up at was closed and being used as a polling station. What can you do in the face of that kind of incompetance?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I understand the one test centre she turned up at was closed and being used as a polling station. What can you do in the face of that kind of incompetance?

Vote Conservative.

[communistworkethic]

isn't that ohoorororororororug woman a druggie?

Well she missed 3 successive drug tests in 2006, so maybe

no she didn't. as ever, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Try assessing her 'guilt' when in light of the actual facts.

http://www.the-wanderer.co.uk/boards/vi ... 975#372975

[Lord Kangana]

isn't that ohoorororororororug woman a druggie?

Well she missed 3 successive drug tests in 2006, so maybe

no she didn't. as ever, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Try assessing her 'guilt' when in light of the actual facts.

http://www.the-wanderer.co.uk/boards/vi ... 975#372975

She wasn't available to be tested when she said she would be in advance. Its pushing the bounds of credibility to suggest her saying 'ooh hang on, I'll just be there a bit late' is an acceptable defence.

Professional athlete, knew the rules, broke the rules.

[communistworkethic]

aye, yeah riiiite. can you remember every appoint you made months ago? Is it reasonable to refuse to test someone an hour later than scheduled when it makes no physiological difference? She was punished for her lax time keeping, she was tested within days of missed tests, nobody in athletics anywhere in the world thinks she took drugs including the head of WADA. She suffered for her stupidity, she was used as an example to all. It's done, she's clean, she's won.

[Soldier_Of_The_White_Army]

aye, yeah riiiite. can you remember every appoint you made months ago? Is it reasonable to refuse to test someone an hour later than scheduled when it makes no physiological difference? She was punished for her lax time keeping, she was tested within days of missed tests, nobody in athletics anywhere in the world thinks she took drugs including the head of WADA. She suffered for her stupidity, she was used as an example to all. It's done, she's clean, she's won.

Got to agree with Commie here. She was stupid and naive, and was punished more then she deserved to be because of it.

[Montreal Wanderer]

aye, yeah riiiite. can you remember every appoint you made months ago? Is it reasonable to refuse to test someone an hour later than scheduled when it makes no physiological difference? She was punished for her lax time keeping, she was tested within days of missed tests, nobody in athletics anywhere in the world thinks she took drugs including the head of WADA. She suffered for her stupidity, she was used as an example to all. It's done, she's clean, she's won.

Got to agree with Commie here. She was stupid and naive, and was punished more then she deserved to be because of it.

It wasn't so much forgetting an appointment, IIRC, (since one is not given advance warning of a test) but having the obligation to let the authorities know where she was at various times. If her schedule changes it should be a simple and automatic process to inform the authorities when this occurs. This failure to inform them apparently happened several times. She was clearly negligent in this area and such negligence is punished (presumably by the existing rules). This doesn't seem more punishment than she deserved. On the other hand one cannot simply conclude that she was a drug cheat and deliberately failed to inform the authorities of her schedule changes. Nor can one conclude she is pure as the driven snow. IMHO.

[jmjhb]

isn't that ohoorororororororug woman a druggie?

Well she missed 3 successive drug tests in 2006, so maybe

no she didn't. as ever, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Try assessing her 'guilt' when in light of the actual facts.

http://www.the-wanderer.co.uk/boards/vi ... 975#372975

To be fair, I did read up on it after I originally posted it because I wasn't sure of the full facts. Anyway, now we've proved that she probably isn't (but we'll never know for sure), congratulations to her!

[communistworkethic]

aye, yeah riiiite. can you remember every appoint you made months ago? Is it reasonable to refuse to test someone an hour later than scheduled when it makes no physiological difference? She was punished for her lax time keeping, she was tested within days of missed tests, nobody in athletics anywhere in the world thinks she took drugs including the head of WADA. She suffered for her stupidity, she was used as an example to all. It's done, she's clean, she's won.

Got to agree with Commie here. She was stupid and naive, and was punished more then she deserved to be because of it.

It wasn't so much forgetting an appointment, IIRC, (since one is not given advance warning of a test) but having the obligation to let the authorities know where she was at various times. If her schedule changes it should be a simple and automatic process to inform the authorities when this occurs. This failure to inform them apparently happened several times. She was clearly negligent in this area and such negligence is punished (presumably by the existing rules). This doesn't seem more punishment than she deserved. On the other hand one cannot simply conclude that she was a drug cheat and deliberately failed to inform the authorities of her schedule changes. Nor can one conclude she is pure as the driven snow. IMHO.

well 14 passed tests in 12 months leaves lots of room for doubt I suppose.....

[Montreal Wanderer]

aye, yeah riiiite. can you remember every appoint you made months ago? Is it reasonable to refuse to test someone an hour later than scheduled when it makes no physiological difference? She was punished for her lax time keeping, she was tested within days of missed tests, nobody in athletics anywhere in the world thinks she took drugs including the head of WADA. She suffered for her stupidity, she was used as an example to all. It's done, she's clean, she's won.

Got to agree with Commie here. She was stupid and naive, and was punished more then she deserved to be because of it.

It wasn't so much forgetting an appointment, IIRC, (since one is not given advance warning of a test) but having the obligation to let the authorities know where she was at various times. If her schedule changes it should be a simple and automatic process to inform the authorities when this occurs. This failure to inform them apparently happened several times. She was clearly negligent in this area and such negligence is punished (presumably by the existing rules). This doesn't seem more punishment than she deserved. On the other hand one cannot simply conclude that she was a drug cheat and deliberately failed to inform the authorities of her schedule changes. Nor can one conclude she is pure as the driven snow. IMHO.

well 14 passed tests in 12 months leaves lots of room for doubt I suppose.....

I just noted, Rollyeyes, that from the events one cannot positively conclude anything. Ben Johnson passed many tests in his career, but didn't follow his doctor's orders before Seoul - he might have been home free if he hadn't taken something a few weeks before the games contrary to those orders. I merely said she was negligent - to forget to report a schedule change once is one thing - three times is negligence. One could say the weight of evidence is that she is not a cheat, but isn't the brightest candle on the tree. I merely referred to the absence of an absolutely positive conclusion based on the available facts.

[communistworkethic]

innocent until proven guilty is a tenet we hold dear to justice, so until such time as she tests positive, she is innocent .

[Montreal Wanderer]

innocent until proven guilty is a tenet we hold dear to justice, so until such time as she tests positive, she is innocent .

In criminal law where there is a certain standard of proof required perhaps, but not in athletics or other sports with governing bodies that are allowed to establish their own rules presumably to ensure integrity in the sport. You want to play, you play by their rules which you should know. I should also note that because of that tenet (dear to American hearts as well) most people would agree that guilty individuals do get off because guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. So where does that leave us?

[communistworkethic]

kind of answered yourself there in your rush to contradict me. The rules of sport have to abide by the laws of the land. She has not and cannot be punished as a drug user, as there is not one jot of evidence of guilt. She is innocent and above suspicion until such time as any evidence of her using drugs appears on which to base that decision. This isn't a question of reasonable doubt, to suggest it is is just being silly.

[Montreal Wanderer]

kind of answered yourself there in your rush to contradict me. The rules of sport have to abide by the laws of the land. She has not and cannot be punished as a drug user, as there is not one jot of evidence of guilt. She is innocent and above suspicion until such time as any evidence of her using drugs appears on which to base that decision. This isn't a question of reasonable doubt, to suggest it is is just being silly.

I wasn't contradicting you, hurriedly or otherwise. I think I said governing bodies of sports can impose sanctions on people who infringe the rules, and this is not a question of law. It was my understanding she had been banned for such infringement, which is a punishment I would have thought. I also noted that this does not provide conclusive evidence one way or other on the question "did she or didn't she?". I never said she had been punished as a drug user either by the law of the land or the governing body. I merely said she was negligent about the rules that she should have been aware of especially since it happened three times. What is so hard in this? I am not saying she is or isn't a drug cheat. I will agree that she has never been proven to be one to this point in time.

[communistworkethic]

she has never been tested positive, had 14 clear tests, she is innocent and there is no suggestion to the contrary. That's about as conclusive as you can get. You've made out that suspicion should hang over her and your "I am not saying she is or isn't a drug cheat" enforces that.

Would you be happy with me suggesting that you take heroin? Because there's equal evidence for that and much less evidence to support you being innocent. Have you ever had a clear random drug test? If you can't answer "yes" then on that basis I think I'm suspicious that you are in fact a smackhead. Obviously that's not to say you are but nothing to suggest you're not. You've come out with little more than "no smoke without fire".

[Lord Kangana]

I'm sorry, but "there is no suggestion to the cotrary"???

She missed drug tests. That breaks the rules. Its a screaming irrelevance as to her innocence or guilt for taking drugs, when the rules state to effectively miss a drugs test is an equal offence to taking them.

Therefore there is a stigma. And rightly so, otherwise the whole competiton may aswell be a no holds barred free for all.

[CAPSLOCK]

I'd argue the Johnson situatioon has no bearing on 2008

Its a whole lifetime ago - testing has moved on to a whole new plane

Oh aye, well done girlie

Fcuk em that just love the chance to knock our own

[Montreal Wanderer]

she has never been tested positive, had 14 clear tests, she is innocent and there is no suggestion to the contrary. That's about as conclusive as you can get. You've made out that suspicion should hang over her and your "I am not saying she is or isn't a drug cheat" enforces that.

Would you be happy with me suggesting that you take heroin? Because there's equal evidence for that and much less evidence to support you being innocent. Have you ever had a clear random drug test? If you can't answer "yes" then on that basis I think I'm suspicious that you are in fact a smackhead. Obviously that's not to say you are but nothing to suggest you're not. You've come out with little more than "no smoke without fire".

Commie, you said that "innocent until proven guilty" is a basic tenet of the law, and now you say she is innocent. Actually a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is a significant difference between presumed innocent and innocent - I would have thought that was fairly obvious. If you to say she should be presumed innocent of taking drugs, I would have no disagreement, although I would still say she was guilty of negligence. Years ago American athletes competed at the Olympics, passed every drug test, won their medals and went home. By your standard they were innocent. Years later they confessed to taking performance enhancing drugs so they were in fact guilty all this time. Even Michael Johnson had to return his (relay) medal this year because another athlete in the team confessed. Why did they confess years later? A sudden attack of conscience? A burning desire to save the sanctity of the sport? I would suggest rather that when American Congressional committees and grand juries investigate things it is inadvisable to lie to them (ask Roger Clements). Better to confess and endure the loss of medals and public humiliation, than to do seven years in durance vile for perjury. All I have said is there is no conclusive proof one way or another - though missing three tests may raise official concern. I have never said she was a drug cheat - I do not know that any more than you know about my heroine habits. You should not call me a smackhead, but you are free to say there is no evidence I am not. There is a difference. Why is this so hard to see?