Mo Thread

[vedrafjord]

Re:

I'm still non nonplussed as to why the BBC kick started all this. Farah was one of their favourites. Does anyone remember how excited they got when he ran half of the London Marathon? He was bringing in viewing figures etc. He's either really really upset someone or there is much more to this story and they've decided to get in there first as it were.

There's no one monolithic dictatorship called "The BBC". It has over 20,000 employees. Panorama is a current affairs/investigative journalism programme and so has nothing to do with the sports department of Team GB fame.

It would be interesting to know how many athletes have missed two tests. It wouldn't surprise me if most of them have done so, it's basically a doping freebie, just pretend you didn't hear the doorbell and nobody can touch you.

I can think of one...

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Farah

good to hear that UKAD dont 'swallow' **** and bull stories about not hearing the doorbell !!

They even recreated the event for the appeal with them filming in his bedroom whilst someone pressed the doorbell. Not sure what to make of that.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Telegraph too now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11682588/Mo-Farah-missed-two-drugs-tests.html

More questions to ask of UK Athletics and UKAD as to why this was kept under wraps.

Because he's not actually broken any rules? Refusing a test is the same as submitting a positive, but athletes are "allowed" to miss two tests in an 18 month period (time-limit may have changed now, think they extended it but not sure).


It's dodgy as hell with the doorbell excuse, but he's not actually broken any rules so I don't see why it would be reported. It would be interesting to know how many tests he did submit to in that time period and when they were though.

The Beeb are saying its been cut to 12 months now. I think that actually makes it easier for the athlete doesn't it? You could miss in Jan 2014, Feb 2015 and April 2015 and you would be banned. Now only 2 of those would be in the same 12 month period - no ban!?! Not sure if that is UKAD or WADA rule (WADA I guess).

Certainly does make it easier, I'm also pretty certain that it's WADA that changed it as the UKAD couldn't change it themselves and still be compliant.

 

[The Carrot]

Re: Re:

I'm still non nonplussed as to why the BBC kick started all this. Farah was one of their favourites. Does anyone remember how excited they got when he ran half of the London Marathon? He was bringing in viewing figures etc. He's either really really upset someone or there is much more to this story and they've decided to get in there first as it were.

There's no one monolithic dictatorship called "The BBC". It has over 20,000 employees. Panorama is a current affairs/investigative journalism programme and so has nothing to do with the sports department of Team GB fame.

It would be interesting to know how many athletes have missed two tests. It wouldn't surprise me if most of them have done so, it's basically a doping freebie, just pretend you didn't hear the doorbell and nobody can touch you.

I can think of one...

"There's no one monolithic dictatorship called "The BBC". It has over 20,000 employees. Panorama is a current affairs/investigative journalism programme and so has nothing to do with the sports department of Team GB fame."

The BBC has agendas one of them is the promotion of sport. You think Panorama can investigate and broadcast what it likes without permission from the hierarchy? I mean those 20,000 employees are all part of a management structure where those at the top dictate how they want things to work.

 

[neineinei]

Re: Re:

The Beeb are saying its been cut to 12 months now. I think that actually makes it easier for the athlete doesn't it? You could miss in Jan 2014, Feb 2015 and April 2015 and you would be banned. Now only 2 of those would be in the same 12 month period - no ban!?! Not sure if that is UKAD or WADA rule (WADA I guess).

It was changed in the 2015 World anti-doping CODE, so it is worldwide. UK Anti-doping sent out information about the changes in the CODE last year, seems to remember they wrote that if there were suspicious whereabouts behaviour (like repeatedly changing your location in the last minute etc.) the old rule would still apply. Haven't read that anywhere else, and can't find it now, so it's probably me not remembering right. Here is something I did find;

Whereabouts Failures
From 1 January 2015, if you receive 3 missed tests and/or filing failures within a 12-month period you will receive a 2-year ban. It was previously 18 months. Any current Whereabouts strikes remain valid when the 2015 Code comes into effect.
Important:
Athletes charged with a Whereabouts violation will not be eligible for a reduction in their ban if they have a pattern of last minute Whereabouts updates. http://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/Files/2014/2015_code_athletes.pdf

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

The BBC has agendas one of them is the promotion of sport. You think Panorama can investigate and broadcast what it likes without permission from the hierarchy? I mean those 20,000 employees are all part of a management structure where those at the top dictate how they want things to work.

The Beeb are pretty good at calling themselves and others out, just look at what has happened over Jimmy Saville. If the facts are there, someone will report it and the BBC tend not to want to miss out...

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

"There's no one monolithic dictatorship called "The BBC". It has over 20,000 employees. Panorama is a current affairs/investigative journalism programme and so has nothing to do with the sports department of Team GB fame."

The BBC has agendas one of them is the promotion of sport. You think Panorama can investigate and broadcast what it likes without permission from the hierarchy? I mean those 20,000 employees are all part of a management structure where those at the top dictate how they want things to work.

Hopefully the BBC will be taken to task by the new culture secretary - their charter is up for renewal next year ...

Panorama (and Newsnight) has a fairly good reputation actually, and from what I have seen is quite happy to publish and be damned (well - more so than a lot of the BBC). I'm not saying they aren't kept on a leash though.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

The BBC has agendas one of them is the promotion of sport. You think Panorama can investigate and broadcast what it likes without permission from the hierarchy? I mean those 20,000 employees are all part of a management structure where those at the top dictate how they want things to work.

The Beeb are pretty good at calling themselves and others out, just look at what has happened over Jimmy Saville. If the facts are there, someone will report it and the BBC tend not to want to miss out...

You beat me to it

 

[Nellyspania]

Re:

It would be interesting to know how many athletes have missed two tests. It wouldn't surprise me if most of them have done so, it's basically a doping freebie, just pretend you didn't hear the doorbell and nobody can touch you.

9 UK athletes missed two test that same year according to the article...

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

Telegraph too now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11682588/Mo-Farah-missed-two-drugs-tests.html

More questions to ask of UK Athletics and UKAD as to why this was kept under wraps.

Is it usual to publish these? Dont know of other sports where that happens.

Not at all.

Filing failures, and missing a test when you are in your hour window both count as a strike. Three in 18 months (now a year I think) is a ADRV.

Cavendish was livid when his failure was publicized. IIRC he was with the BBC taking pictures/video of training on Etna at the time the 'failure' happened.

 

[The Carrot]

Re: Re:

The BBC has agendas one of them is the promotion of sport. You think Panorama can investigate and broadcast what it likes without permission from the hierarchy? I mean those 20,000 employees are all part of a management structure where those at the top dictate how they want things to work.

The Beeb are pretty good at calling themselves and others out, just look at what has happened over Jimmy Saville. If the facts are there, someone will report it and the BBC tend not to want to miss out...

You beat me to it

My reply was in response to Vedrafjord implying that the Panorama team can work unilaterally within the BBC, I don't think so. With regards to the BBC calling themselves out over Sir Jimmy, read this: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/22/jeremy-paxman-newsnight-jimmy-savile

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

Telegraph too now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11682588/Mo-Farah-missed-two-drugs-tests.html

More questions to ask of UK Athletics and UKAD as to why this was kept under wraps.

Is it usual to publish these? Dont know of other sports where that happens.

Information on missed tests should be routinely published, not left for papers to find out years after the event.

This lack of procedural integrity in anti-doping is down to all the fifth columnists and high level doping enablers like Verbruggen and Blatter, along with many others who have polluted the corridors of WADA and the IOC for years with their pernicious influence and corrupt practices.

UKAD does routinely publish it, albeit in summary form and anonymized. They are far ahead of the typical in this.

Example:
http://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/Files/2014-15_Q4_Report_v3.pdf

Bottom of page 4. Lists 12 whereabouts failures, which is a combination figure of a filing failures and a no-show in your set-hour.

Go to any of their quarterly reports and the figure is there.
The last 4 reports show 12, 11, 6 and 10 in their respective quarters.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

It would be interesting to know how many athletes have missed two tests. It wouldn't surprise me if most of them have done so, it's basically a doping freebie, just pretend you didn't hear the doorbell and nobody can touch you.

9 UK athletes missed two test that same year according to the article...

58 total whereabouts failures Jan-Dec 2011, plus 6 "not confirmed at time of press" which I can't work out if they got folded into the next quarter or are accounted in anyway.

9 on 2
leaves 40 with 1

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

The BBC has agendas one of them is the promotion of sport. You think Panorama can investigate and broadcast what it likes without permission from the hierarchy? I mean those 20,000 employees are all part of a management structure where those at the top dictate how they want things to work.

The Beeb are pretty good at calling themselves and others out, just look at what has happened over Jimmy Saville. If the facts are there, someone will report it and the BBC tend not to want to miss out...

You beat me to it

My reply was in response to Vedrafjord implying that the Panorama team can work unilaterally within the BBC, I don't think so. With regards to the BBC calling themselves out over Sir Jimmy, read this: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/22/jeremy-paxman-newsnight-jimmy-savile

John Lydon talked about Jimmy Saville to Vivienne Goldman in a BBC interview he gave in 1978. It was edited out of the TV broadcast. The BBC are not impartial.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Probably in response the various articles today:

UKAD Tweets

UK Anti-Doping ‏@ukantidoping
Data protection rules do not allow us to disclose personal data relating to an individual’s test history #cleansport

https://twitter.com/ukantidoping/status/611527146947915776

 

[bobbins]

Re:

Probably in response the various articles today:

UKAD Tweets

UK Anti-Doping ‏@ukantidoping
Data protection rules do not allow us to disclose personal data relating to an individual’s test history #cleansport

https://twitter.com/ukantidoping/status/611527146947915776

3 in 12 months is better than 3 in 18 if you're a bit dodgy.

Surely UKAD would have target tested people that have missed a few OOC tests.

Missing them isn't a problem, it's only when 3 are missed that it's a problem but apparently 3 misses can be explained away to UKAD too.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

For some comparison, USADA does publish test history:

http://www.usada.org/testing/results/athlete-test-history/

His training partner Rupp was tested by USADA 21 times in 2014. 13 times in 2011, and 17 in 2012, only including USADA-conducted tests. I imagine (hope?) similar for Farah.

IAAF publishes a limited list of tested athletes: http://www.iaaf.org/download/download?filename=c0682af3-ae78-42c4-9751-f7dd0985f0ff.pdf&urlslug=The%20IAAF%20Doping%20Control%20Programme%2C%202011%20-%20List%20of%20Tested%20Athletes%20

Farah was tested by IAAF 1 to 3 times OOC in 2011

(More years available at the bottom here: http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/documents/anti-doping)

 

[Zebadeedee]

The Telegraph reports on a spike in the number of British athletes dodging tests in the year leading up to the 2012 Olympics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11684134/Revealed-There-have-been-224-cases-of-British-athletes-missing-drugs-tests-in-last-five-years.html

Mo's excuse is as plausible as the tale told by Serena Williams.

 

[del1962]

From Telegraph article

The credibility of that suggestion was compromised by information from UK Anti-Doping, which said officials would have been instructed to ring the bell of his home again or knock on the door around once every 15 minutes during the hour in which Farah was required to be available to provide an out-of-competition sample.

 

[del1962]

You have an hour each day when testers can arrive - it does not take much effort to be aware your door bell will ring during that hour.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

The plastic Brit is expendable.

 

[SirLes]

The most disturbing aspect of the article is that they write " couldn't here the testers".

 

[SlickMongoose]

If there's one thing the British press loves more than building up sporting stars, it's tearing them down again.

 

[del1962]

Re:

The plastic Brit is expendable.

Mo does not really fit in what is typically termed a "plastic Brit" though.

 

[Happy dude]

'Missed Tests doesn't mean doping' Maybe in Bassons case, but Mo.... Hmmm

Can someone also clarify this for me. In the past, Ukad said that 3 missed tests in 18 months resulted in a ban. Now however, its 3 missed tests in 12 months... Surely, this is more lenient?