Shot Putters Targeted

[MarkC]

I really fail to see how you can use the handling so far of whatever may have happened in Loughborough as a stick to beat UKA with - it just smacks of blindly trying to fit everything possible to an anti-UKA agenda.

The problem with going on like that is that it undermines any legitimate grievance you may actually have with UKA that others may have sympathy with.

[Kermit]

On this point Mark I fully agree with you. UKA do not have a role to play until UKAD bring them in on it. Athleteics Weekly cannot write about this situation because they have nothing to go on. The last thing I would want to see is AW acting like the newspapers by printing either lies or speculations as if they were the truth.

[Geoff]

The Sunday Mail names the coach involved and say England Athletics have axed him. I suspect he has been suspended pending further investigation but he was only appointed at Christmas!

We all know who it is but I will refrain from naming him. For those knocking UKA I do believe they had suspicians and possibly even knew about the targeted test in advance. This story for me is less about the athletes but more about the coach, why England appointed him and the in-fighting among the throws coaching community. As I said earlier this could get very messy as it is about a coach employed by one of our governing bodies in a branch of the sport where several have skeletons in the cupboard.

If as is alleged he told them not to take the test then he must leave the sport and suffer a very tarnished reputation. I can think of only one reason that can be given to justify not taking a test. I assume the athletes are on the national register (as international athletes) even though they are not lottery funded. If not I don't think they can be tested out of competition but no one has suggested this as a reason so everyone assumes they have something to hide.

This is more than just two shot putters refusing a dope test.

[plyometric]

Yesterdays Times ran a story on this naming Geoff Capes and stating that he coached the two athletes and had been sacked.

[Anthony Treacher]

Does the Times have more right to publish this than we do?

[Oleg]

If not I don't think they can be tested out of competition but no one has suggested this as a reason so everyone assumes they have something to hide.

I'm not on a register of any kind but if I was asked to take a test by official testers I would - only way to prove you're clean. If that was the real reason then surely the easiest thing to do would have been take the test and complain after, same if the toilets were dirty etc.

[Kermit]

Plyo & Anthony if you remember rightly the newspapers had to go to court to crush a super injunction, the following morning our papers and tv was filled with the name John Terry. Hope this helps to answer your question!

[BigGut]

Does the Times have more right to publish this than we do?

Anthony, they don't have any more right to publish than anyone else. However if you are referring to the fact you ouldn't post it on here then that is completely different. AW would be seen as publishing your post and as such they would also be held liable for any damages that iued from the post. As such it has to be their perogative to decide what they are prepared to be allowed on the site as they would possibly face a court action.

In the case of the Times they would be defending their own behaviour and not somebody elses.

As such if you want to excercise the same rights as the Times then please get your own webspace where you and you alone are responsible in law for it's content and publish what the hell you like.

Hope that clears it up for you.

[Geoff]

Oleg, I agree with you entirely. There will be a few twists and turns with this case especially as for the first time it is the coach at the centre of these allegations, it was a targeted test and the first in athletics by the newly created UK Anti Doping agency. It is also a non-analytical case so down to rules and procedures.

This case could go one of several ways from all being absolutely innocent, to some being innocent, to all being guilty. I would not discount the possibility of technical and procedural issues. But it is the wider and more general issues of this case that are of more significance such as the role of intelligence, the role of support personnel and the effect on developing UK throwing events.

A tricky one to discuss at the moment but the ramifications could be far reaching and will no doubt be discussed at length for some considerable time.

[Anthony Treacher]

BigGut,

My first point somewhat obliquely was: if people say the allegations about our Shot Put Gang of Three were hearsay when coming from this forum and citing the Sunday Mail, then those people should logically argue that the same allegations are hearsay when they come from The Times. Right? But strangely enough nobody here criticises The Times for publishing the same facts/hearsay/allegations. Or do AW Forum people regard The Times as an official source? Or interestingly - do we regard The Times as more official that the Sunday Mail?

(My second point equally obliquely and now off topic was: I would prefer to believe we are free to write what we like - 'hearsay' or whatever - on AW Forum provided we obey the forum rules and that the responsibility for what we write is ours, not the responsibility of AW Forum website. If BigGut you do write something objectionable on AW Forum, then you can be identified with your IP-address and the person eventually objecting may contact AW Forum, obtain your IP-address and personal identity and proceed against you. There is in fact an interesting case for defamation and misuse of private information (Data Protection Act) arising from the Facebook website. Here the claimant Matthew Firscht sued Grant Raphael. He did not sue the website Facebook. That is the way it should go and the way it will go. A website, or website provider, cannot be held responsible for all views published. You as the writer are responsible.)

Back on topic: The coach and his two shot putters form a collective. A sports collective is stronger socially than its component parts. My guess is that those involved will be punished less stringently for the same offence than an individual out on his own.

[roseben]

Geoff Capes ?? Now there's a surprise... thought he was clean as a whistle.

[BigGut]

Anthony,

Facebook is somewhat diferent as the pages are entirely under the control of the user of that system. Forums are more like letters pages in newspapers whereby the eidtor has responsibility to ensure that what is publisehed does not contain libellous information. Defamation law within the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales provides that anyone who contributes to the journey of a libel from the initial source to the ultimate recipient is a publisher of that material and, accordingly, is liable for the publication of that libel. As such AW can be held liable for any libellous content that it does not endeavour to remove in an efficient manner.

[Anthony Treacher]

BigGut.

Facebook website - Athletics Weekly Forum website. Same difference.

Hypothetically now, Coach GC sues 'interested observer,' 'Oleg' (and/or AW Forum) for revealing his initials or his name, details, on AW Forum website as we have witnessed.

In an English court a claimant for libel - hypothetically GC - does not have to prove that a defendant has libelled him. Uniquely in law, the onus is on the defendant - the alleged libellers ('interested observer' 'Oleg' (and/or AW Forum) more or less - to prove that what they wrote (or allowed) is true, i.e.:

1. GC is a coach.
2. GC was at Loughborough University with two shot putters.
3. GC advised the shot putters not to take a drugs test
4. GC gave as a reason that the toilets were too dirty.
5. The shot putters refused to take the test.
6. GC is Geoff Capes

With hindsight, as things are going, the above may well be true. I think any of our potential 'libellers' would have every chance of proving in court that what was written on AW Forum was true - especially if they called in witnesses, including the UKAD testers. GC would probably not win his claim for libel. He probably would never have contemplated suing for libel under the circumstances anyway. So maybe, with the exception of the mistaken naming of one individual (and that was immediately rescinded), the forum has erred on the side of caution. Maybe we are self-censoring ourselves and stifling justified debate on the topic while waiting for that eventual official opinion. We are scared and authoritarian in other words.

(And BigGut, back to my off topic point. I insist on the same right as a Sunday Mail or Times journalist to say or write anything - at my own risk. And I should not be required to own the Sunday Mail, The Times or AW Forum, or my own website, in order to exercise my democratic right to self-expression.)

[BigGut]

Anthony you are absolutely wrong there are many cases where the claimant has elected to sue only the forum provider and not the poster. English law DOES day that AW are the publisher of your comments and as such THEY miaght have to defend YOUR comments. If you want freedom publish your own comments.

[fangio]

I believe it was the Godfrey vs Demon case of 2000 that established the legal precedent that "The landmark decision established that forum providers can be liable for defamatory statements they host." That case was reckoned to have cost Demon in excess of £500,000, for hosting defamatory comments placed on their news group forum.

[Kermit]

Ok so here is my take on all this legal supposition in plain English. Everything that I have glossed over in the past few posts got superseded last week when the law lords quashed John Terry's right to a super injunction.

If the person named in the newspaper (A broadsheet with a long friendship to our sport, not noted for trash talk) had responded to these allegations in defence then it would be fair to say that a law suit would duly follow. But I have seen no such response to date.

The press are extremely careful in what they print. They will only print things that are either true or know they can get away with. But I also agree with the stance that AW and all its subsidiaries have taken in not naming names until they have something official.

However if more than one newspaper was to run with the same story I would hope that AW would report that these newspaper have mentioned it. And then do their utmost to speak to UKADA (if they haven't done already) so that they could tell us more than any other publication in print could without "sexing it up".

[Anthony Treacher]

Big Gut and fangio.

It's all so simple. Facebook and AW Forum are both websites and they would be treated equally in law. Of course AW Forum is liable - I provided for that in my "Hypothetically now, Coach GC sues 'interested observer,' 'Oleg' (and/or AW Forum) (my italics)….." But the trend is moving towards making the individual poster liable, more than the website.

My main point was of course that Coach GC (and his shot putters) would not have had a leg to stand on if a libel case had gone to court. So we are censoring ourselves unnecessarily.

Kermit, many thanks for the John Terry gagging order tip. I was not really aware that an English judge could issue an injunction curbing free speech in that way. It is terrible. What have we come to?

In my Sunday Times page 2 commenting the John Terry matter, 'one of Britain's most senior serving judges speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "Any interference with freedom of speech has to be looked at with great care and suspicion, because in principle you should be able to talk about anything." (my italics) "Terry was trying to stop people from talking about something that was already in the public domain."' Good try Judge, but pity you spoiled it at the end. Obviously, we should be able to talk about anything - and even before it comes into the public domain."

Now I do not know whether or not GC and his shot-putters, or any athletics organisation, actually applied for a similar court injunction or otherwise tried to gag this story. But as far as this AW Forum is concerned, it would have been unnecessary. Because many of us are disgustingly eager to curb the other's freedom of speech anyway.

[fatmanrunning]

Big Gut and fangio.

Kermit, many thanks for the John Terry gagging order tip. I was not really aware that an English judge could issue an injunction curbing free speech in that way. It is terrible. What have we come to?

The original order was based on John Terry's right to privacy (or - I may be wrong here, I think it was classed as the other involved parties' right to privacy). That's why the gagging order was lifted, as it was no longer private anyway. I actually think the John Terry stuff is between him, his wife, Wayne Bridge and the other parties involved and is none of our business - I tend to agree with gagging orders when it's a case of it being something that the public are interested in rather than "in the public interest".

[Javelin Sam]

Big Gut and fangio.

Kermit, many thanks for the John Terry gagging order tip. I was not really aware that an English judge could issue an injunction curbing free speech in that way. It is terrible. What have we come to?

The original order was based on John Terry's right to privacy (or - I may be wrong here, I think it was classed as the other involved parties' right to privacy). That's why the gagging order was lifted, as it was no longer private anyway. I actually think the John Terry stuff is between him, his wife, Wayne Bridge and the other parties involved and is none of our business - I tend to agree with gagging orders when it's a case of it being something that the public are interested in rather than "in the public interest".

without wanting to stray WAAAY off topic...

you are incorrect regarding John Terry... this is a public matter. He is the captain for the country. he is an idol for many young men aspiring to be as good as him. They need to know that his character is good.

[Anthony Treacher]

(fatmanrunning. I agree wholeheartedly. The John Terry gossip is none of our business. I would normally not have mentioned it but for the gagging order aspect.

BMAF Chairman Winston Thomas imposed a gagging order on discussion of my suspension and nobody really cared. So it is the phenomenon of British gagging orders - and the willingness of the British to passively acquiesce in them - that fascinates me. Are we a nation of bankers?

Javelin Sam. The performance of our sportsmen is the point. Their private lives are none of our business).

Back on topic: Geoff Capes has been "sacked?" Who sacked him and why?

[Oleg]

on discussion of my suspension and nobody really cared

[fatmanrunning]

Think we'll have to sit on polar opposites of that argument Sam. Don't think we'll be able to find any common ground

[Anthony Treacher]

Oleg, why not cite me in full?

BMAF Chairman Winston Thomas imposed a gagging order on discussion of my suspension and nobody really cared. So it is the phenomenon of British gagging orders - and the willingness of the British to passively acquiesce in them - that fascinates me. Are we a nation of bankers?

[big chucker]

Why don't we all just wait until there is a announcement as everyone is speculating and rumours are flying which are out of order for both the athletes and the coach. I am sure UKa or England will release a press statement in due course. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. Let's just wait...
Peace

[Anthony Treacher]

big chucker. You have answered my question.

[Oleg]

nobody really cared

[Anthony Treacher]

Oleg. You too.

[BigGut]

Since it seems people want threads hijacked by side issues here goes:

BigGut.

Facebook website - Athletics Weekly Forum website. Same difference.

Hypothetically now, Coach GC sues 'interested observer,' 'Oleg' (and/or AW Forum) for revealing his initials or his name, details, on AW Forum website as we have witnessed.

In an English court a claimant for libel - hypothetically GC - does not have to prove that a defendant has libelled him. Uniquely in law, the onus is on the defendant - the alleged libellers ('interested observer' 'Oleg' (and/or AW Forum) more or less - to prove that what they wrote (or allowed) is true, i.e.:

1. GC is a coach.
2. GC was at Loughborough University with two shot putters.
3. GC advised the shot putters not to take a drugs test
4. GC gave as a reason that the toilets were too dirty.
5. The shot putters refused to take the test.
6. GC is Geoff Capes

With hindsight, as things are going, the above may well be true. I think any of our potential 'libellers' would have every chance of proving in court that what was written on AW Forum was true - especially if they called in witnesses, including the UKAD testers. GC would probably not win his claim for libel. He probably would never have contemplated suing for libel under the circumstances anyway. So maybe, with the exception of the mistaken naming of one individual (and that was immediately rescinded), the forum has erred on the side of caution. Maybe we are self-censoring ourselves and stifling justified debate on the topic while waiting for that eventual official opinion. We are scared and authoritarian in other words.

Here is the real truth of this hypothetical:

A libelled person doesn't may decide that the private individuals are not going to have enough net worth to give him sufficient damages.

Instead he sues AW which gives him the value of all of the assets of the company and it's owner to aim at for damages.

The libel that some random individual posted now costs AW £500k.

AW goes out of business.

The sport in the UK loses one of it's most valuable asets.

Your right to free speech does not extend to the right to put other people at risk. If they do not consider your coments to be something they would like to have to defed in court they are completely at liberty to remove them from their website.

I am completely FOR free speech, but people need to speak for themselves and not jeopardize other people with their actions.

[Borris]

Has UKA and Its drug testing enforcing agency met the requirement of the international drug testing standards (WADA International Code) for procedure and data protection by conducting a test in a public toilet??

When working in LOD (limits of detection) in the nanogram / ml range - that is 0.000,000,002 ng/ml for nandrolone - pretty small numbers - is it acceptable to say there is is no risk of contamination.

[Borris]

slight error - should have been 0.000,000,002 g/ml - still very small though