Athletics Weekly

Shot Putters Targeted

News, reports and results from the UK and the rest of the world

Postby Geoff » Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:27 pm

Yes I've seen this Sam but it doesn't name names. They probably will do so soon!
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Postby Caroline » Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:55 pm

No. It doesnt mention either names or the coach. And as most of us are aware who it is, there will be a far bigger splash than that once names are released for publication...
Caroline
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:06 pm

Postby interested observer » Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:18 pm

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
interested observer
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:10 pm
Location: midlands

Postby sidelined » Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:15 pm

I can't see why anyone thinks whistleblowing is bad thing. If athletes take a test and it's negative that's the end of it, no one would know they'd been under suspicion and there would be no 'smear'. It is - obvously - the refusal to take a test that has sparked this incident, not the targeting of athletes after a tip-off.

Mike Winch said: "I would hate to think that innocent (or though seemingly not in this case) people can be smeared and investigated on some nobody's say so."

If an athlete is taking PEDs, does it really matter if the person who tells the authorities what's going on is a 'nobody' or not?
Last edited by sidelined on Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sidelined
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:19 pm

Postby Multisman » Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:07 pm

Blimey, alot of heated discussion on this subject!

Can we write initials? ** **

or even say that ****** has no shot putters now!

edited by admin
Multisman
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:11 pm

Postby Geoff » Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:45 pm

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


IntOb You are probably right but there is a chance the athletes will be open and truthful.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Postby Multisman » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:05 am

what the hell is benchmonster? If you are referring to y prowess on this lift then thankyou!
Multisman
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:11 pm

Postby Sportsman29 » Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:18 am

Yes but Oleg from what i have seen and read one of the names that you wrote earlier in the thread was wrong. Perhaps 3rd and 5th ranked.....
Sportsman29
 
Posts: 1401
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:56 pm

Postby TheRealSub10 » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:18 am

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.
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?
TheRealSub10
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:00 am

Postby TheRealSub10 » Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:31 am

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.
TheRealSub10
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:00 am

Postby Dutch » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:21 am

TheRealSub10 wrote:Seems to be a lot of misinformation in this thread...

Let's take a quick look.
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...

Refusing a test is a doping offence. It is certainly possible to say that the athletes involved have done something wrong - it's just not possible to say that the thing they've done wrong involves actually doping.
TheRealSub10 wrote:Of course you can shout no smoke without fire but legally that is not an argument that will stand up in court.

Legally the argument that they have committed a breach of the doping regulations will succeed, provided there is sound evidence that they avoided their tests.

Having said all of that, I agree that the distinction between avoiding a test and actively doping has not been clear within this thread; but within the doping regulations there's no need to prove the latter in order to invoke the sanctions for the former. Pragmatically, that appears to me to be the only model that can work.
Dutch
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:22 am

Postby jonny1 » Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:12 am

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.
jonny1
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:09 pm

Postby fangio » Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:34 am

Oleg

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.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Postby Dutch » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:03 pm

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.

I think this is a good point: in my earlier post, if it was not clear, I was definitely saying that "...if tests have been refused, then..."

I was not implying that:

* tests had been refused; or
* anyone refusing a test was doing so because they were taking PEDs; or
* anyone named or implied in other posts was actually implicated.

I hope it's acceptable to discuss things in this manner - i.e. in principle - without casting aspersions on which individuals may have been involved, and what they may have done. I think it's important to have this sort of debate, although it does sometimes stray into dangerous territory when assumptions are made.

The facts of this matter, as we know them - or even supposed facts, as we suppose them - can be discussed without needing to libel individuals.
Dutch
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:22 am

Postby Oleg » Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:31 pm

fangio wrote:Oleg

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.



Geoff previously mentioned ***** ***** to state that it was not him and interested observer also refers to him too.

Thanks for your wish of luck with legal action - I'm not sure if you realised or not but this is an athletics forum and people are talking about athletics and I just added to the discussion what I had heard. I'm not accusing anyone and I'm not "leaping to conclusions" - I am merely stating what I hear. If nobody was interested in who is involved then this thread would never have started.

It now seems pretty clear who the people are that are involved and UKA are hardly going to start making press releases straight away especially since the coach in question is/was heavily involved in national governing bodies. At no point have I stated I know the facts but like everyone else I am interested to know and interested to see the outcome. If you know more then I'd be pleased to hear it, if you just want to whine at me for saying what I've heard I definitely don't want to hear it.

edited by admin
Oleg
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Anthony Treacher » Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:55 pm

What joy, fangio! Hinting at libel proceedings for revealing the names of people suspected of misdemeanours. What utter bliss!

But to the point here fangio. Accepted that it is very, very unfortunate that a wrong suspect is named:

1. Is it your view that this matter should not be discussed in public?
2. Is it your view that the names of suspects should not be revealed?

If your answer to 1 and 2 is No - then there is no case for media freedom and all that.
Anthony Treacher
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby fangio » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:11 pm

Anthony

1. No
2. Yes

Does anyone think that the reports so far 1. do not contain the names because the reporters don't have them or 2. do not mention the names as they have not been confirmed and even if they reported them as "we have been told" it would still send their libel department into a panic?

BTW the very fact that the "facts" can be incorrectly reported (eg wrong person can be named) is the most important reason for this. It's fine discussing the hypotheticals, but branding people on very limited information (and yes saying "What is not confirmed and I assume never will be is really why they missed the tests but from the info on here and elsewhere it seems as though the athletes and coach have been under suspicion for some time suggesting the real reason that they missed the test is that they had something to hide" is jumping to a conclusion that they did nto refuse purely becasue the toilets were dirty and therefore is jumping to an adverse conclusion) is wrong.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Postby Oleg » Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:26 pm

No facts were incorrectly reported - something I heard was correctly reported but it was the wrong information later realised and corrected. They were never facts but hearsay - as I stated.

At the moment we are led to believe that the tests were not taken because the toilets were dirty - if I had the choice of taking a test in a dirty toilet or receiving a two year ban then I know which choice I would take. I don't know if there are other circumstances involved - I'd like to know though.

Does anyone know anything more about the whistle blowers telephone number mentioned in the mail article? I've never heard about it before.
Oleg
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Anthony Treacher » Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:35 pm

Thanks fangio. I do sympathise with your answer to 2 - no names. However, in the absence of free debate naming the suspects, then gossip among a select but misguided few may still unjustly convict them or even the innocent. To dispel uncertainty, maybe these shot-putters and their coach would like to name themselves on this forum, or in a press release via UK Athletics? If they are innocent they have nothing to lose and much to gain from presenting their side of the story.
Anthony Treacher
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Caroline » Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:31 pm

I'm probably saying what everyone is thinking, but here goes. Anything like this will have to be subject to a very thorough investigation. Until all of this has happened nobody involved is going to say anything. I reckon the papers have all been given a gagging order too.

Personally, i agree with the whistle-blowing concept as if you are clean you have nothing to hide.
Caroline
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:06 pm

Postby Oleg » Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:40 pm

Caroline wrote:Personally, i agree with the whistle-blowing concept as if you are clean you have nothing to hide.


Strongly agree there - if someone fails a test then its a cheat out of the sport, if the person is clean then they will not be worried about being tested.
Oleg
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby lsabre » Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:46 pm

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.
lsabre
 
Posts: 5886
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:26 pm

Postby Anthony Treacher » Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:02 pm

Gagging order? Excellent. Go after the whistleblower instead. He is the real problem - "bringing the sport into disrepute."
Last edited by Anthony Treacher on Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Anthony Treacher
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Caroline » Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:11 pm

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.


I don't see how any situation could be unpleasant. All investigations and testing would be done in confidence as would the whistle-blowers identity. Yes you might find some spiteful individuals who would report others with no evidence for pure nastiness, but as Oleg says, those who are clean have nothing to fear. Test done, result clear, end of.

Anthony - please do stop talking rubbish...
Caroline
 
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:06 pm

Postby interested observer » Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:13 pm

whistle blowing is perhaps uncomfortable BUT far better than pretending everything in the garden is growing nicely .
whistle blowing in the nhs has caused nurses to be suspended and then eventually reinstated and matters previously ignored put right.
the more people believe they will be caught the better and the better for all those who folow the rules .
honest whistle blowing is doing the sport a favour ; turning a blind eye just asssists those bending the rules .
interested observer
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:10 pm
Location: midlands

Postby Multisman » Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:16 pm

I hardly think someone who has or hasnt blown his whistle is bringing the sport into disrepute (not dispute)!

Look at the end of the day two tests were not taken - FACT

To refuse a test is a fail - FACT

All thisgetting at each other about who said what where is the exact reason that all these forums get a lot of stick. Cant we just be positive for one second without turning on others!!

I used to come on here to find out results and have a bit of a post about current events but recently over the last 6 mths or so all i see is people taking any oppurtunity to put someone down or belittle them! I wonder how many high ranking athletes actually come on and post apart from me!!?? Not too many i would say and probably for that exact reason.

I not having a go, i'd just like to see more positive posting and less of the other stuff. We are all part of the same team essentially whether you be a fan,coach or athlete.
Multisman
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:11 pm

Postby Anthony Treacher » Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:30 pm

Sorry Multisman. Spelling error. Silly me. "Bringing the sport into disrepute" of course. I should know.

Irony is lost on Caroline and you. But persevere. It's a marvellous topic. We are part of something great.
Anthony Treacher
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Multisman » Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:36 pm

LOL im not sure what your referring to there tbh!
Irony isnt lost on me tbh i didnt read the rest of your post lol
Multisman
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:11 pm

Postby Kermit » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:17 pm

Yes it is an interesting subject and it is good that we do our best to uphold the rules of this forum by not naming any names until they are officially in the public domain.

Personally though, if I was one of the 2 I would of taken the test and then complained about the conditions of where I had to take the test. It is important that we all support the actions of UKADA until such times that it is proven that they are either not effective or too millitant. Before UKADA we had a regimen where someone could be given a missed test even though they were at the designated place at the designated time.

Confused with what I just said? I remember Steve Cram saying during a live broadcast that a person was given a missed test because they were sitting an A level exam. The tester stayed outside the exam room and didn't wait until the exam was finished even though they knew that person was in the exam room.

Many moons ago I posted the launch of UKADA and the powers that it has, I think the post also explained why the launch was delayed (sports were not signing up to the charter). I think the reason why there has not been a response from UKA is because they know nothing more than we do. They probably won't know until UKADA inform them of their findings a couple of hours before UKADA's official statement thus allowing UKA time to prepare a statement that would be released afterwards. Until then I guess we will all have to sit tight and keep our ears to the ground or the 2 people in question say something in the press.

I have to in part agree with Multisman there has been a lot of bitching and crabbing in 09, especially the latter half which has probably put some people off, but I will go out on a limb & say that in the main this forum has done it's best to keep up to speed with all that is good (and bad) in track and field.

I have enjoyed posting news, clips and links to live events and am glad that the powers that be has only kicked my butt a couple of times. And long may that continue - just don't kick so hard!
Kermit
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Postby Jeremy » Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:39 am

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.


Hello,

Just wanted to say that I have followed a few "anti-doping" cases from "beginning to end". This process has included an innocent athlete being banned without the right of appeal, to at least three different outcomes on three apparantly similar cases.

As you are worried, or as you have stated that there are some truths and some untruths; there are definitely some that are misinformed.

Let's take this to PM or email or phone. I think a chat would help clarify your views. The anti-doping system does not work for all athletes in the UK. Period.

Just want to keep a positive vibe on this forum.

Jeremy
Jeremy
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 10:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London