Will officials and coaches now have home drug test visits ?

[readtherules]

This could be a direct consequance of the Edwards decision.ie club membership means subject to drug rules .
Will UKA /UKAD be so stupid to test these people ??

[fangio]

Oh dear, still trying to distract form the fact that Edwards was caught with 2 banned substances in his test, and tried to mount a ridiculous defence.

If clubs have mandatory competition registration with their membership, and officials and coaches become members, then that is possible.

Sensible clubs, such as my own, do not have mandatory registration, and do not require coaches and officials to join the club to be able to coach of officiate. They require their licenses and CRB's etc, but they do nto require UKA competition registration. So I guess they won't be tested.

In short, not as a result of the Edwards judgement in any way, we already have the possibility of testing for ANY registered athlete.

Does nto detract form the fact that Edwards was an athlete registered to comepte with UKA, and his club, he took banned substances and his ridiculous "I was retired" defence was shown for what it was an excuse. Did he take the drugs that morning or before his "retirement"? Are you really expecting us to believe he took the drugs for the first time ever during the period between him supposedly telling UKA he retired adn the testers turning up? Come off it, like the judgement said, not credible. He knew the system, he had retired before nad not ocme of th drug testing register, and all that baloney about tampering with the sample is the desperate measures of a man who knew he got caught.

[trevorp]

The only consequence of the Edwards decision is that a cheat has been detected, exposed and disciplined: in other words, the system worked as it should. Any suggestion that this case represents some sort of paradigm shift or egregious heavy-handedness on the part of the authorities is fatuous and a transparent (and, I hope, futile) attempt to continue this self-indulgent nit-picking gabfest long after almost everyone else's patience has been exhausted.

[Kermit]

Can I borrow your dictionary and thesaurus please Trevorp

[readtherules]

The only consequence of the Edwards decision is that a cheat has been detected, exposed and disciplined: in other words, the system worked as it should. Any suggestion that this case represents some sort of paradigm shift or egregious heavy-handedness on the part of the authorities is fatuous and a transparent (and, I hope, futile) attempt to continue this self-indulgent nit-picking gabfest long after almost everyone else's patience has been exhausted.

And if they now come and tests coaches and official at home ?

[readtherules]

Oh dear, still trying to distract form the fact that Edwards was caught with 2 banned substances in his test, and tried to mount a ridiculous defence.

If clubs have mandatory competition registration with their membership, and officials and coaches become members, then that is possible.

Sensible clubs, such as my own, do not have mandatory registration, and do not require coaches and officials to join the club to be able to coach of officiate. They require their licenses and CRB's etc, but they do nto require UKA competition registration. So I guess they won't be tested.

In short, not as a result of the Edwards judgement in any way, we already have the possibility of testing for ANY registered athlete.

Does nto detract form the fact that Edwards was an athlete registered to comepte with UKA, and his club, he took banned substances and his ridiculous "I was retired" defence was shown for what it was an excuse. Did he take the drugs that morning or before his "retirement"? Are you really expecting us to believe he took the drugs for the first time ever during the period between him supposedly telling UKA he retired adn the testers turning up? Come off it, like the judgement said, not credible. He knew the system, he had retired before nad not ocme of th drug testing register, and all that baloney about tampering with the sample is the desperate measures of a man who knew he got caught.

Your club may have coaches and officials who are not club members but the vast majority will not.Competion registration was not the issue it is club membership and what if the test coaches and officials who do not have the extra registration that their club makes with EAA.

[sidelined]

Let's just ignore him, shall we?

[mump boy]

Could someone just ban him please

[readtherules]

Could someone just ban him please

But what if they are testing non athletes ??

[LiamRiley]

If that happens then I presume all clubs will modify their membership forms so that there is a clear distinction between a competing member and a non-competing member. I don't think that is brain surgery. Personally, I find it quite amusing that such a distinction is not already made.

I've no idea how anyone could fail to see through Edwards defence. Hilarious. Imagine gross misconduct at work and when your boss called a meeting to discuss the problem you went "sorry, see you later, don't work here any more. Didn't you get my I Quit memo?"

[Exile]

When the officials at our club are throwing 20m+ in obscure open meetings then throwing no further than 18m in more higher profile comps, and when they're widely suspected to be taking banned substances, I imagine that they too will be target tested. They'll probably try to come out with every excuse going, too. And I would have no sympathy for them.

[Geoff]

Will officials and coaches have home drug test visits? What a crackpot and ridiculous suggestion

[BigGut]

Please don't try to pretend Edwards was not an athlete.

He was an athlete, he was competing. He knew he was going to be tested so he tried to say he was retired, on day later he was tested and fouind spoitive for 2 non naturally occurring substances. Anybopdy who would actual;ly believe that he ceased being an athlete and the very same day started taking illegal substances is a complete idiot.

Readthe ruiles, do yourself a favour and go read the rules. He competed, he was therefor there to be tested. If he genuinely believed this not to be the case he should have just refused the test.

Now go back to your world of persecution conspiracy and leave the real world of people who care about this sport to discuss the sport they love and you clearly care nothing about.

[2dodgy]

Big Gut, one small technical point that I feel the need to correct. According to the published findings, the Panel did not accept Edwards' version of events therefore it is incorrect to say that he retired the day before the test. The finding makes it clear that, the day after the test had taken place, Edwards attempted to retire on a retroactive basis!

[readtherules]

Will officials and coaches have home drug test visits? What a crackpot and ridiculous suggestion

Well really.I suggest you all watch this space as we are crackpot world .

[Geoff]

Will officials and coaches have home drug test visits? What a crackpot and ridiculous suggestion

Well really.I suggest you all watch this space as we are crackpot world .

I'm sorry but if you are suggesting that the ordinary official and coach in a club is going to hear a knock at the door and be told they have to give a sample then you are in cloud cuckoo land! It will depend on whether they are competing athletes of a high enough standard and drawing suspicion. There may be a need to clarify retirement procedures but in your case you have attracted suspicion and now been caught out.

One thing everyone should be aware of now is that ANY athlete attracting suspicion can be tested out of competition if UKAD so determine. The simple solution to avoid any problems is not to take anything on the banned list.

[flashcoach]

Hear hear geoff!

[javman]

Readtherules - you have failed to ask a fundamental question of why would UKAD wish to test these individuals - a full drugs test costs at least a coule of thousand £ each - so why would they wish their time!

[readtherules]

Readtherules - you have failed to ask a fundamental question of why would UKAD wish to test these individuals - a full drugs test costs at least a coule of thousand £ each - so why would they wish their time!

I fail to grasp a sensible reason but feel that it is tied in with UKa/UKAD postion prior to the Edwards decision and argued during the case "that they can test all club members".Remember UKA and UKAD felt that Edwards had retired at the time of the test.NADP said ,at the decision,that UKAD were wrong in this regard.As UKAD had accepted that he had retired Edwards did not bring any of his witnesess to substante this.
However prior the decision UKAD thought that the case or appeal would hinge on who they could test.Thus a test authorised prior to the decision to test a non athlete.

The retirement thing is a loophole argument but to close the loophole UKA/UKAd have made up a cross for themselves.

[readtherules]

Will officials and coaches have home drug test visits? What a crackpot and ridiculous suggestion

Well really.I suggest you all watch this space as we are crackpot world .

I'm sorry but if you are suggesting that the ordinary official and coach in a club is going to hear a knock at the door and be told they have to give a sample then you are in cloud cuckoo land! It will depend on whether they are competing athletes of a high enough standard and drawing suspicion. There may be a need to clarify retirement procedures but in your case you have attracted suspicion and now been caught out.

One thing everyone should be aware of now is that ANY athlete attracting suspicion can be tested out of competition if UKAD so determine. The simple solution to avoid any problems is not to take anything on the banned list.

Such a test visit/attempt on a non athlete has been made.It is not me who is in cuckoo land.
Your last para is fully understood as being obvious,but not for non competing members of a club.

[Geoff]

I assume a coach under suspicion may have been paid a visit in an attempt to determine whether they have any doping materials or equipment. There may well be one or two coaches in this country who are on UKAD's radar.

Do not try to confuse this with ordinary members being tested.

[readtherules]

Geoff.

Your assumption is wrong.It was a normal visit .Anyway I know of no powers for a DCO to check for what you suggest.Do you ??.If you do then please explain on what you depend upon. I do not doubt that there are some coaches who are on some radar and this would cover more than the obvious events but UKAD have no powers to make a visit to a coach on the basis you suggest.They could get the police involved as following a possible supply offence but not UKAD on their own.

However I repeat that this was a normal non competing athlete.

[BigGut]

Do you mean Mark Edwards was tested? If so please stop pretending that he wasn't an athlete. He was and any withdrawal from the Commonwealth Games does not change this.

[Exile]

Everyone,

Can we just ignore Readtherules? He is a troll of the worst kind and is talking out of his backside. He knows it, we know it, and everyone who responds is wasting their time. Cheats argue on technicalities all the time. He may find one, he may not, but as BigGut (I appear to agree with him!) says, Mark Edwards was not a "non-athlete". Any non-athlete does not have to and should not bother taking drugs tests. If he'd retired, he should have just refused and used his retirement as a basis for that refusal. Non-athlete or not, it has been suggested that he took the test because he still wanted to work with Paralympic athletes etc. and a refusal would have been a problem. If he was that concerned about that, then taking performance enhancing drugs for whatever reason, was a stupid thing to do and he deserves all that he has got.

And there I go, responding yet again to a troll

[readtherules]

Everyone,

Can we just ignore Readtherules? He is a troll of the worst kind and is talking out of his backside. He knows it, we know it, and everyone who responds is wasting their time. Cheats argue on technicalities all the time. He may find one, he may not, but as BigGut (I appear to agree with him!) says, Mark Edwards was not a "non-athlete". Any non-athlete does not have to and should not bother taking drugs tests. If he'd retired, he should have just refused and used his retirement as a basis for that refusal. Non-athlete or not, it has been suggested that he took the test because he still wanted to work with Paralympic athletes etc. and a refusal would have been a problem. If he was that concerned about that, then taking performance enhancing drugs for whatever reason, was a stupid thing to do and he deserves all that he has got.

And there I go, responding yet again to a troll

This is not a posting regarding Edwards guilt or otherwise.
It is post about UKAD making home visits to non athletes.

[readtherules]

Do you mean Mark Edwards was tested? If so please stop pretending that he wasn't an athlete. He was and any withdrawal from the Commonwealth Games does not change this.

I am making no such suggestion in this post.This is about UKAD testing non athletes.

[BigGut]

OK who was tested and do you know why?

Personally I don't go for conspiracy theory. They aren't going to test qwithout good reason.

I do however think you are probably playing silly buggers yet again as you use the term non competing athlete. they are either an athlete or they aren't.

Your posts are characterised by misinformaiton and twisting of words. They are also characterised by wanting to find ways of getting people off with taking PEDs. To me you are an enemy of the sport.

[readtherules]

OK who was tested and do you know why?

Personally I don't go for conspiracy theory. They aren't going to test qwithout good reason.

I do however think you are probably playing silly buggers yet again as you use the term non competing athlete. they are either an athlete or they aren't.

Your posts are characterised by misinformaiton and twisting of words. They are also characterised by wanting to find ways of getting people off with taking PEDs. To me you are an enemy of the sport.

How can pointing out that UKAD are testing non athletes is being an enemy of the sport.(this comment excludes any debate about ME)
I would assume that they cant test non athletes so whether or not they have reason is not relevant.And by going for a test on a non athlete with some ,assumed to ,justification does this then impinge on the charactor of the person and as such is this a basis of legal action ?

[BigGut]

It's not just that is it. Your comments on other threads as well show what you are about.

Now, tell us all about this non athlete, and I don't mean non competing athlete I mean non athlete, who has been tested.

[readtherules]

It's not just that is it. Your comments on other threads as well show what you are about.

Now, tell us all about this non athlete, and I don't mean non competing athlete I mean non athlete, who has been tested.

How do you differentiate between a non athlete and non competing athlete.

To name the person would be unreasonable as as UKAD target there thus becomes an assumption that that person could well be potentially guilty.
Imagine the household /inc children when a DCO arrives and demands a drug test.