UKAD Emails Support Dopers and Doping

[DirtyWorks]

Now we know for sure, when IAAF/BA advised against athletes publishing scores, it was because they wanted to make the IAAF's doping stories go away.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1606790.ece

EDIT: Two different statements from UKAD
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/mo-farah/11792654/Mo-Farah-agrees-to-allow-blood-data-be-published.html

Quote from someone at UKAD as a personal choice. IAAF/BA definitely advised against it. No surprise.

UKAD is not a one-person shop, so, it's only fair to back off on my initial claim.

 

[wendybnt]

Now we know for sure, when UKAD advised against athletes publishing scores, it was because they wanted to make the IAAF's doping stories go away.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1606790.ece

Its behind a paywall, and I'm not paying Murdoch a penny.

All I could see was this:

"SHOCKING emails reveal how the head of the UK’s anti-doping watchdog wanted to bury bad news about cheating in athletics in the run-up to the next Olympics.

Nicole Sapstead, the UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) chief executive, sent the emails to the head of the British Olympic Association after an investigation six weeks ago by The Sunday Times and the German broadcaster ARD/WDR revealed widespread blood doping in athletics.

“We’ll do everything we can to ensure the focus is on the positive news,” she wrote. “The last thing we want is a story like this detracting from the Rio countdown.”

The revelations also sparked a frank email from Justin Turner QC, a UKAD board member, who expressed concern that the agency did not even “know how effective” it was at tackling drugs cheats. "

...which suggest that at least some board members are totally switched on, even if the Chief Exec is more concerned with bad publicity than she is with doing her actual job

 

[Benotti69]

Bet UKAD were shocked when McQuaid dropped JTL in it.

Bet Sky breathed a huge sigh or relief it was only JTL...............

“The last thing any huge tournament like this (Rugby WC) wants is a doping scandal,” Nicole Sapstead, UKAD chief executive

That quote screams anti doping

 

[the sceptic]

Now we know for sure, when UKAD advised against athletes publishing scores, it was because they wanted to make the IAAF's doping stories go away.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1606790.ece

UKAD leading the fight against anti-doping. Remember they barely do any testing as well.

Russian athletes are a lot more credible than british ones.

 

[fmk_RoI]

UKAD advised against athletes publishing scores

Source?

TIA

 

[Irondan]

Now we know for sure, when UKAD advised against athletes publishing scores, it was because they wanted to make the IAAF's doping stories go away.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1606790.ece

Can someone please post the rest of the text to this article?

 

[DirtyWorks]

UKAD advised against athletes publishing scores

Source?

TIA

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33846035

Using the Brailsford "We don't want anonymous Internet hacks mischaracterizing data."

"What I can say is that the public should have confidence that there is an organisation within the UK that is targeting and properly focusing on the athletes that they think might be doping and also giving the public reassurance that all the athletes that it does test are by and large clean."

I've edited the original post. I think that's fair. Obviously multiple agendas depending on the audience and individuals contacted.

 

[the sceptic]

that really says it all doesn't it? The public needs to dream big so here we are to provide everyone with the right opinions about doping.

 

[fmk_RoI]

UKAD advised against athletes publishing scores

Source?

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33846035
Seems legit.

Seems, but isn't. UKAD actually said:

"It is up to the athlete if they want to publish their own data. That's personal choice, but it's a logical conclusion to suspect athletes if they don't produce their own data and others do."

Link: http://www.espn.co.uk/athletics/story/_/id/13408344/uk-anti-doping-chief-executive-nicole-sapstead-says-passports-key-athletics-war-drug-use-sport

Which is pretty much what WADA says (contrary to Radcliffe + allies claiming WADA advise against releasing data).

 

[DirtyWorks]

More misdirection here:
"UKA itself does not have access to anti-doping test results, as the implementation of both tests and sanctions is the responsibility of the independent doping agency, UK Anti Doping.

It's actually the IAAF. UKA has no authority for tests they didn't request, so they can't see them.

"Our reason for counselling caution to athletes responding to the blood profile data obtained by The Sunday Times, is because UKA do not know what that data is, and because we believe that full transparency requires release of all of an athletes testing history rather than incomplete data that has the possibility of being open to misinterpretation.

Technically, it's a valid point. I would argue they are walking a very thin line supporting UKA and sounding like they have some authority to sanction anyone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/mo-farah/11792654/Mo-Farah-agrees-to-allow-blood-data-be-published.html

 

[thehog]

Now we know for sure, when IAAF/BA advised against athletes publishing scores, it was because they wanted to make the IAAF's doping stories go away.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1606790.ece

EDIT: Two different statements from UKAD
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/mo-farah/11792654/Mo-Farah-agrees-to-allow-blood-data-be-published.html

Quote from someone at UKAD as a personal choice. IAAF/BA definitely advised against it. No surprise.

UKAD is not a one-person shop, so, it's only fair to back off on my initial claim.

Wow. It's what was always suspected but now revealed as fact. No doubt UKAD read JVs book on how to turn anti-doping into a brand.

You have to shake your head at the whole thing. Hilarious.

 

[fmk_RoI]

IAAF/BA definitely advised against it.

Source for IAAF advising against? I know they asked the Sunday Times not to, but actually advising athletes against...

For UKA, Ed Warner used the guilty by omission line to advise against releasing data but have since seemed to row back a bit on that.

UK Sport advised athletes to think twice.

Getting this right matters, because Radcliffe and her allies are claiming that WADA have advised against releasing data.

 

[DirtyWorks]

IAAF/BA definitely advised against it.

Source for IAAF advising against? I know they asked the Sunday Times not to, but actually advising athletes against...

For UKA, Ed Warner used the guilty by omission line to advise against releasing data but have since seemed to row back a bit on that.

UK Sport advised athletes to think twice.

Getting this right matters, because Radcliffe and her allies are claiming that WADA have advised against releasing data.

I agree my first post was too strong and edited accordingly. Per my above post, IMO, they (collective) appear to be walking a thin line between supporting UKA and selling the idea that someone is doing something about doping.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I agree my first post was too strong and edited accordingly. Per my above post, IMO, they (collective) appear to be walking a thin line between supporting UKA and selling the idea that someone is doing something about doping.

But you have no actual quote where the IAAF advised athletes against releasing data, do you? So actually saying that the IAAF definitely advised athletes against releasing data, that would be...too strong is too weak a way of saying it, the correct way would be totally wrong, just like it was totally wrong to say it of UKAD, no?

It's bad enough that Radcliffe is claiming the autorities have advised athletes against releasing data, but when her critics are saying it too, really, what is the *** point?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

More misdirection here:
"UKA itself does not have access to anti-doping test results, as the implementation of both tests and sanctions is the responsibility of the independent doping agency, UK Anti Doping.

It's actually the IAAF. UKA has no authority for tests they didn't request, so they can't see them.

I'm not sure I see the misidrection. Two parts to this.

First, it is correct to say that UK Athletics (UKA) does not not implement the tests or deal with the sanctions, that is the IAAF and the various NADOs (UKAD in the UK). Misdirection by minor omission? Hardly, or you'd be guilty of the same crime.

Second, while UKAD has access to ADAMS and thus can see the results of tests carried out by others, I think UKA are right to say they don't see the results, not having access to ADAMS, isn't that true?

Maybe you could clarify on where you feel the misdirection actually is? What am I not seeing here?

 

[Beech Mtn]

Now we know for sure, when UKAD advised against athletes publishing scores, it was because they wanted to make the IAAF's doping stories go away.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1606790.ece

Can someone please post the rest of the text to this article?

Under forum rules, we aren't allowed to post the full text of an article. That's been a rule since the beginning of the forum. Hog used to get in all kinds of trouble with Susan over that. It's been a real pain in the ass with these paywalled Murdoch articles.

ETA: this is not said to throw mud at Hoggy, whose posts I generally enjoy. Just to say that the rule has been around forever.

 

[Irondan]

Now we know for sure, when UKAD advised against athletes publishing scores, it was because they wanted to make the IAAF's doping stories go away.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1606790.ece

Can someone please post the rest of the text to this article?

Under forum rules, we aren't allowed to post the full text of an article. That's been a rule since the beginning of the forum. Hog used to get in all kinds of trouble with Susan over that. It's been a real pain in the ass with these paywalled Murdoch articles.

ETA: this is not said to throw mud at Hoggy, whose posts I generally enjoy. Just to say that the rule has been around forever.

Thanks for clarifying. I've never heard of this rule.

I will follow up with Susan to get the history and reasoning behind this rule.

I guess I learned something new today.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Now we know for sure, when UKAD advised against athletes publishing scores, it was because they wanted to make the IAAF's doping stories go away.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1606790.ece

Can someone please post the rest of the text to this article?

Under forum rules, we aren't allowed to post the full text of an article. That's been a rule since the beginning of the forum. Hog used to get in all kinds of trouble with Susan over that. It's been a real pain in the ass with these paywalled Murdoch articles.

ETA: this is not said to throw mud at Hoggy, whose posts I generally enjoy. Just to say that the rule has been around forever.

Thanks for clarifying. I've never heard of this rule.

I will follow up with Susan to get the history and reasoning behind this rule.

I guess I learned something new today.

Basically it's illegal and contravenes the agreement you click [Agree] to when signing up as a subscriber.

 

[Irondan]

Now we know for sure, when UKAD advised against athletes publishing scores, it was because they wanted to make the IAAF's doping stories go away.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1606790.ece

Can someone please post the rest of the text to this article?

Under forum rules, we aren't allowed to post the full text of an article. That's been a rule since the beginning of the forum. Hog used to get in all kinds of trouble with Susan over that. It's been a real pain in the ass with these paywalled Murdoch articles.

ETA: this is not said to throw mud at Hoggy, whose posts I generally enjoy. Just to say that the rule has been around forever.

Thanks for clarifying. I've never heard of this rule.

I will follow up with Susan to get the history and reasoning behind this rule.

I guess I learned something new today.

Basically it's illegal and contravenes the agreement you click [Agree] to when signing up as a subscriber.

If that's the case does not the entire clinic contravene section 16b of the same agreement?

Cheers!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

No idea, I don't read agreements, nor do I agree with them.

I am decidedly disagreeable.

 

[del1962]

Probably something to do with copyright and fair use, you can quote part of but not the full article.

 

[thehog]

Now we know for sure, when UKAD advised against athletes publishing scores, it was because they wanted to make the IAAF's doping stories go away.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/thedopingscandal/article1606790.ece

Can someone please post the rest of the text to this article?

Under forum rules, we aren't allowed to post the full text of an article. That's been a rule since the beginning of the forum. Hog used to get in all kinds of trouble with Susan over that. It's been a real pain in the ass with these paywalled Murdoch articles.

ETA: this is not said to throw mud at Hoggy, whose posts I generally enjoy. Just to say that the rule has been around forever.

Truth be told, I liked it when Susan got angry with me

I believe the limit is 10% of the work can be reproduced without copyright infringement. The idea is you post a portion of the article then the link so the original article can be viewed.

 

[Catwhoorg]

When linking a statement I normally post the opening paragraph (or occasionally a key paragraph later in the article) along with the link and my commentary on it.

Pasting the whole article does fall foul of fair use.

 

[Happy dude]

Banned a nobody footballer today, proves they're doing something

 

[thehog]

UKAD becoming a joke in sport, the whistleblower has to spend £60,000 of this own money to make them listen. They still didn't. Clearly UKAD is not in the business of clean sport