interested observer wrote:potential drug abuse , a coach with dubious background and you now expect honesty , think you are being a bit optimistic Geoff .
probably the coach in question isnt the sort to be honest but might be more inclined to more flights of fantasy usually with him in the role of hero rather than villain
I think you'll find that is simply a PR issue. Save the story for the winter when not much is going on athletically to keep the sport in the news. Also although this story has a positive swing ("we won gold") it also has a negative slant ("people were cheating") - so would you release something like this in the run up to a World Championships?Jeremy wrote:Apparently UKA have had the Gold medals for our UK 4x400m boys since last May, and maybe it's the embarassment of this "anti-doping/drigs cheat" cropping up again that has meant postponing giving their medals because the drugs story is bigger than the "Gold" story.
TheRealSub10 wrote:Seems to be a lot of misinformation in this thread...
TheRealSub10 wrote:Since the athletes mentioned only refused a test and did not have a positive finding you cannot say they have done anything wrong other than being paranoid - they might get banned for 2 years but this still does not mean you are guilty of a doping offence...
TheRealSub10 wrote:Of course you can shout no smoke without fire but legally that is not an argument that will stand up in court.
jonny1 wrote:Apologies if I have missed something but has there been a press release issued either by UKA or the UK Anti-doping Agency confirming anything? If not, nothing is confirmed, it is still conjecture and thin ice continues to be walked upon legally.
We cannot confirm anything from on here or elsewhere, all you have is conjecture, and to leap to a conclusion that the atheltes have something to hide, which is your conclusion, just because no explanation at all has yet been given publicly leaves you open to a law suit.
Your naming of the wrong person earlier means that anyone who only saw that post could now be telling their friends that the athlete you named is invovled, good luchk with any legal action, you haven't got a leg to stand on if they chose to pursue it. I would have thought that you would have learned your lesson about repeating gossip which has not been confirmed and not named any names until something concrete turned up, but nope.
BTW, the only person I see naming a coach on this thread is you.
Caroline wrote:Personally, i agree with the whistle-blowing concept as if you are clean you have nothing to hide.
lsabre wrote:I'm not sure I agree on whistle-blowing as it entails far too many dangers and could help set up upleasant situations within the sport. Not everybody could be well-meant in doing this and some few could use it to their own advantage.
TheRealSub10 wrote:Seems to be a lot of misinformation in this thread as well as some truth. Unless someone is proven to have cheated in a court of law then suggesting they have is never a good idea. Since the athletes mentioned only refused a test and did not have a positive finding you cannot say they have done anything wrong other than being paranoid - they might get banned for 2 years but this still does not mean you are guilty of a doping offence or that the coach had any knowledge of it. Of course you can shout no smoke without fire but legally that is not an argument that will stand up in court.