Athletics Weekly

Bernice Wilson positive

Drug-related news and topics. Note - this is not a place to make idle speculations.
Forum rules
Note - this is not a place to make idle speculations. Anyone doing so will face a warning and/or a ban.

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby mump boy » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:29 am

2dodgy wrote:
readtherules wrote:
Geoff wrote:
readtherules wrote:Trickstat.

I have never been to Greece.And if you look to my posts you will see I am a little older than the "coach" and I think my English is likely to be OK and I have no budget deficit etc etc etc.

Good thinking but wrong.


Readtherules I for one have never thought you were Greek. However, your postings appear to be all Greek to many of us on this board :(

Perhaps you would like to write in plain English, without over-stepping the legal mark, about what on earth you are rambling on about.


Like your humour !

The legal point may be playing a part but I want to see what imagination posters have.I have spoken to a few friends about it all and they all got there in seconds.


These friends that you have spoken to, can anyone else see them, or are they only visible to you?


These are his best friends

http://www.jonmulkeen.com/?p=175

they hang out all the time coming up with even more outlandish excuses for blatent cheating

let's not forget his other bessie Olympic Cycling Champion Tyler Hamilton

the New Englander's defence is one of the strangest ever made in an anti-doping case. It centres on the theory that Hamilton is one of twins, but that his twin died in utero, and before he or she did so, Hamilton received a small number of 'foreign' stem cells, producing subtly different red blood cells. These, say scientists who are defending the American, could explain the discovery of two types of blood in his system.

The 'vanishing twin' is one cause of a condition where a person has two types of blood, which is known as chimerism. It was brought to Hamilton's attention by Dr David Housman, a professor of molecular biology at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, who read about the case in the sports pages and offered to testify on Hamilton's behalf.

'I read it and said "Wait a second. I don't think the explanation they give for the blood test is the only possible explanation",' Housman, who was quoted by Hamilton's defence at a US Arbitration panel hearing, told the New York Times.
mump boy
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 am

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby Flumpy » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:48 am

This is great news mump, we can take as many drugs as we like!!! :P
Flumpy
 
Posts: 1400
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:11 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby bevone » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:59 am

Guilty until proven innocent '

My understanding is that this isn the case. Very few people fail tests and when it occurs you have to explain whythe substances or substances are there. My thought was that when you were caught you were guilty and as in law you have a right of appeal. So my understanding was that a positive tests means you are guilty.

Again - and not too many have picked up on this -this intelligence led is an excuse for some unscrupulous people to harrass others. I cannot think why it was necessary to drug test a 52m javelin thrower at BUCS along with several others last year. The year before they tested another coach and my shot putters between the qualifying and the final. We then had the rediculous spectacle of 5 people standing in the rain in the car park waiting to give their sample in a mobile home cubilce. I insisted that the rest wait in the changing room in some comfort but you have to question the intelligence and wisedom of such poeple when the fact that testing athletes in the 2-3 hours before the final was actually inconvenient especially as you could have tested them after the final.
bevone
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:57 pm
Location: UK

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:25 am

bevone wrote:Guilty until proven innocent '

My understanding is that this isn the case. Very few people fail tests and when it occurs you have to explain whythe substances or substances are there. My thought was that when you were caught you were guilty and as in law you have a right of appeal. So my understanding was that a positive tests means you are guilty.

Again - and not too many have picked up on this -this intelligence led is an excuse for some unscrupulous people to harrass others. I cannot think why it was necessary to drug test a 52m javelin thrower at BUCS along with several others last year. The year before they tested another coach and my shot putters between the qualifying and the final. We then had the rediculous spectacle of 5 people standing in the rain in the car park waiting to give their sample in a mobile home cubilce. I insisted that the rest wait in the changing room in some comfort but you have to question the intelligence and wisedom of such poeple when the fact that testing athletes in the 2-3 hours before the final was actually inconvenient especially as you could have tested them after the final.


Bevone.

Be careful in what you say as the hint of having a problem with testing will make you an aplogists for drug taking.As you may well be aware I have asked on dozens of accasions as to what limits testing should have.The silence has been very indicative.I see in all this how easy it was for societies to slip into dictorships as one reason after another is given for the withdrawal of the rule of law and human rights.
In a war (on drugs)the first casualty is truth; the second is rights.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby jjimbojames » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:31 am

bevone,

I agree with your first para - they've been found 'guilty', the appeal is to overturn that, not a trial

Re your second para - there is of course scope for some dodgy antics, and it's a shame the testers couldn't wait until after the final, as it definitely will affect an athlete. That said, I guess the concern is if you turn up and tell them you'll wait for after the final, what might occur in the open window. Rio Ferdinand and his missed drugs test being an example of this, as he left the gound as they waited for training to finish and he 'forgot' to stay behind, IIRC

Not sure what the perfect answer is tbh
jjimbojames
 
Posts: 2197
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:03 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:40 am

jjimbojames wrote:bevone,

I agree with your first para - they've been found 'guilty', the appeal is to overturn that, not a trial

Re your second para - there is of course scope for some dodgy antics, and it's a shame the testers couldn't wait until after the final, as it definitely will affect an athlete. That said, I guess the concern is if you turn up and tell them you'll wait for after the final, what might occur in the open window. Rio Ferdinand and his missed drugs test being an example of this, as he left the gound as they waited for training to finish and he 'forgot' to stay behind, IIRC

Not sure what the perfect answer is tbh


You turn up after the final !!!
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby Anthony Treacher » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:45 am

This is what makes readttherules' postings worthwhile:
readtherules wrote:....
Bevone.
.....The silence has been very indicative.I see in all this how easy it was for societies to slip into dictorships as one reason after another is given for the withdrawal of the rule of law and human rights.
In a war (on drugs)the first casualty is truth; the second is rights.
and I would humbly paraphrase the latter to:

In a war (involving an athletics body), the first casualty is truth, the other is rights.
Anthony Treacher
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby jjimbojames » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:07 pm

readtherules wrote:
jjimbojames wrote:bevone,

I agree with your first para - they've been found 'guilty', the appeal is to overturn that, not a trial

Re your second para - there is of course scope for some dodgy antics, and it's a shame the testers couldn't wait until after the final, as it definitely will affect an athlete. That said, I guess the concern is if you turn up and tell them you'll wait for after the final, what might occur in the open window. Rio Ferdinand and his missed drugs test being an example of this, as he left the gound as they waited for training to finish and he 'forgot' to stay behind, IIRC

Not sure what the perfect answer is tbh


You turn up after the final !!!

And potentially miss them! Sounds a simple solution, but you can't guarantee that they'll make the final, or stay for it if they do - case in point, Nicola Sanders decided not to compete in the recent England champs final because of the conditions - and then you've lost your athlete
jjimbojames
 
Posts: 2197
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:03 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby benn » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:12 pm

jjimbojames wrote:
readtherules wrote:
jjimbojames wrote:bevone,

I agree with your first para - they've been found 'guilty', the appeal is to overturn that, not a trial

Re your second para - there is of course scope for some dodgy antics, and it's a shame the testers couldn't wait until after the final, as it definitely will affect an athlete. That said, I guess the concern is if you turn up and tell them you'll wait for after the final, what might occur in the open window. Rio Ferdinand and his missed drugs test being an example of this, as he left the gound as they waited for training to finish and he 'forgot' to stay behind, IIRC

Not sure what the perfect answer is tbh


You turn up after the final !!!

And potentially miss them! Sounds a simple solution, but you can't guarantee that they'll make the final, or stay for it if they do - case in point, Nicola Sanders decided not to compete in the recent England champs final because of the conditions - and then you've lost your athlete


Once an athlete is identified by the tester's they are constantly chaperoned by them where ever they go .If they take the Ferdinand route they would be charged as he was with avoiding (refusing)testing .
benn
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:26 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby jjimbojames » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:15 pm

Anthony Treacher wrote:This is what makes readttherules' postings worthwhile:
readtherules wrote:....
Bevone.
.....The silence has been very indicative.I see in all this how easy it was for societies to slip into dictorships as one reason after another is given for the withdrawal of the rule of law and human rights.
In a war (on drugs)the first casualty is truth; the second is rights.
and I would humbly paraphrase the latter to:

In a war (involving an athletics body), the first casualty is truth, the other is rights.

Do you ever think maybe, just maybe, it's time to let it go?

And RTR - in a war on drugs, the first casualty is the other athletes who lose their chance for success because someone not good enough found a way to beat them. All those athletes that didn't get selected for the team, didn't make the final, didn't get their chance to shine on the podium, didn't get entry to a meet because of drug induced athletes, THEY are the first casualty, and the lasting one - they will never get that moment back. People that don't read the rules and then abide them give up their rights to compete. The difference between that and a dictatorship is that those who break the rules KNEW the consequences
jjimbojames
 
Posts: 2197
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:03 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby jjimbojames » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:19 pm

benn wrote:
jjimbojames wrote:
readtherules wrote:
jjimbojames wrote:bevone,

I agree with your first para - they've been found 'guilty', the appeal is to overturn that, not a trial

Re your second para - there is of course scope for some dodgy antics, and it's a shame the testers couldn't wait until after the final, as it definitely will affect an athlete. That said, I guess the concern is if you turn up and tell them you'll wait for after the final, what might occur in the open window. Rio Ferdinand and his missed drugs test being an example of this, as he left the gound as they waited for training to finish and he 'forgot' to stay behind, IIRC

Not sure what the perfect answer is tbh


You turn up after the final !!!

And potentially miss them! Sounds a simple solution, but you can't guarantee that they'll make the final, or stay for it if they do - case in point, Nicola Sanders decided not to compete in the recent England champs final because of the conditions - and then you've lost your athlete


Once an athlete is identified by the tester's they are constantly chaperoned by them where ever they go .If they take the Ferdinand route they would be charged as he was with avoiding (refusing)testing .

I'm not sure if your point is against mine, benn? Can testers follow them through all the routines of the athlete? And I know Rio got charged, but the point is it was able to happen - so clearly he wasn't constantly chaperoned! Easy for a doped athlete to take the hit of one missed test rather than fail one, and then they know people are on to them, and can ease off the substances
jjimbojames
 
Posts: 2197
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:03 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby benn » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:33 pm

Yes as soon as they announce themselves to the athlete they are virtually joined at the hip until the test has been carried out .The point about Ferdinand was that they could do a runner they would still be charged as was he so no getting away with it especially as our sport are more stringent in length of bans than Football seems to be.
benn
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:26 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:33 pm

Benn.

What happens when they call at work ?
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby 2dodgy » Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:51 pm

Why would they call at work? Unless you are a full time athlete, then I could understand it.
2dodgy
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:55 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby benn » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:17 pm

readtherules wrote:Benn.

What happens when they call at work ?


Just replying to the scenario of an in comp test.As to your reference at work I have no personal experience of that so I wouldn't like to speculate on that 8)
benn
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:26 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby kingmaker » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:41 pm

What happens out of season is that you ;let them know where you will be for one hour of each day as I understand it. Not difficult really is it?

Dont know the two principles in this case too well but have met them both a couple of times and have been involved in teams and events with them in the past and if im any judge of character the coach should be definately more scrutinised than the athlete in this case but it wont happen that way.

The athlete will take the brunt of the fallout for this and the coach will "a la capes" continue to coach when or if the B sample comes back they should both go, but then so should others mentioned in this piece.............
kingmaker
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:40 am
Location: North East, England

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby Geoff » Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:19 pm

2dodgy wrote:Why would they call at work? Unless you are a full time athlete, then I could understand it.


I'm not taking RTR's side but as I understand it UKAD can test ANY athlete at ANY time irrespective of whether they are a contracted elite athlete or on the ADAMS register. This is one of his issues and as I see it he is correct. It is also possible, but ambiguous, for UKAD to demand cooperation from coaches and others associated with an athlete but it is unclear whether they can test a coach (why?) and there are legal issues regarding searching premises/possessions. They can, though, certainly ask questions and demand answers. I'm afraid this is how it is since UKAD was formed but it should only concern those who are involved in doping.

I think what Bevone and RTR are saying is that some can, in theory, maliciously create rumour and gossip forcing UKAD into testing innocent athletes and coaches. This could, in theory, extend to organisations doing likewise. If your face doesn't fit or you complain too much then a visit from UKAD could be arranged!!!

I know UKAD now have a policy to get information from coaches, among others, and possibly to target a few. Intelligence, though, has to be handled carefully as we are dealing with people's livelihoods and reputations, some of which are bigger than others!

I wish RTR would just write in plain English and give specific cases/issues without necessarily naming names.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:31 pm

Geoff wrote:
2dodgy wrote:Why would they call at work? Unless you are a full time athlete, then I could understand it.


I'm not taking RTR's side but as I understand it UKAD can test ANY athlete at ANY time irrespective of whether they are a contracted elite athlete or on the ADAMS register. This is one of his issues and as I see it he is correct. It is also possible, but ambiguous, for UKAD to demand cooperation from coaches and others associated with an athlete but it is unclear whether they can test a coach (why?) and there are legal issues regarding searching premises/possessions. They can, though, certainly ask questions and demand answers. I'm afraid this is how it is since UKAD was formed but it should only concern those who are involved in doping.

I think what Bevone and RTR are saying is that some can, in theory, maliciously create rumour and gossip forcing UKAD into testing innocent athletes and coaches. This could, in theory, extend to organisations doing likewise. If your face doesn't fit or you complain too much then a visit from UKAD could be arranged!!!

I know UKAD now have a policy to get information from coaches, among others, and possibly to target a few. Intelligence, though, has to be handled carefully as we are dealing with people's livelihoods and reputations, some of which are bigger than others!

I wish RTR would just write in plain English and give specific cases/issues without necessarily naming names.


You are right in the assumption set out in the first sentance.
As for my cryptic clues;sorry but can really say what is on my mind but think not in terms of an individual coach.

When it comes to a system that has all the signs and words of being a legal system but actually is not then all sorts of abuses can occur.As the words "war" enter into it then the tendancy for abuse becomes greater esp when justified on the basis of the high moral god of drugs in sport.Then you realise that many of those now high up in the drug war were biggest offenders of some years ago.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby kingmaker » Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:39 pm

RTR wrote
"When it comes to a system that has all the signs and words of being a legal system but actually is not then all sorts of abuses can occur.As the words "war" enter into it then the tendancy for abuse becomes greater esp when justified on the basis of the high moral god of drugs in sport.Then you realise that many of those now high up in the drug war were biggest offenders of some years ago."

While I'm not disagreeing with you on this one RTR, they never got caught. Lucky them but its the present we are dealing with now
kingmaker
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:40 am
Location: North East, England

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby mump boy » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:04 pm

What happened to athleted giving an hour a day for testers ? Why on earth would they 'turn up at work' ? can you name one instance of this happening ? :?
mump boy
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 am

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby 2dodgy » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:17 pm

Geoff wrote:
2dodgy wrote:Why would they call at work? Unless you are a full time athlete, then I could understand it.


I'm not taking RTR's side but as I understand it UKAD can test ANY athlete at ANY time irrespective of whether they are a contracted elite athlete or on the ADAMS register. This is one of his issues and as I see it he is correct. It is also possible, but ambiguous, for UKAD to demand cooperation from coaches and others associated with an athlete but it is unclear whether they can test a coach (why?) and there are legal issues regarding searching premises/possessions. They can, though, certainly ask questions and demand answers. I'm afraid this is how it is since UKAD was formed but it should only concern those who are involved in doping.

I think what Bevone and RTR are saying is that some can, in theory, maliciously create rumour and gossip forcing UKAD into testing innocent athletes and coaches. This could, in theory, extend to organisations doing likewise. If your face doesn't fit or you complain too much then a visit from UKAD could be arranged!!!

I know UKAD now have a policy to get information from coaches, among others, and possibly to target a few. Intelligence, though, has to be handled carefully as we are dealing with people's livelihoods and reputations, some of which are bigger than others!

I wish RTR would just write in plain English and give specific cases/issues without necessarily naming names.


Geoff, you are, as I understand the system, correct in your assumption that any athlete can e tested at any tim, in ro out of competition.

However, I believe that UKAD would want to ensure that if they were expending resources on testing someone, then they would want to ensure that sample collection could take place. There are a number of workplaces where this could not happen. If on the other hand they visited the athlete at their home, then the likelihood of a succesful sample collection would be higher.

I firmly believe that RTR is, at best, a misguided apologist for those who have used prohibited substances, and at worst, a practitioner in the art of smoke and mirrors who, despite believing that the individual concerned has read, understood and chosen to ignire the rules, will look for every excuse available to "get them off".

I also believe that RTR has had a personal involvement in at least one, and possibly several, of the cases discussed on this forum over the past year. RTR will no doubt point to the "anonymity being vital" argument, which is fine up to a point, but when you reveal information that is not in the public arena whilst doing so is, in my opinion ethically questionable.

I will reiterate what I have said in previous posts, an athlete has been tested, the analysis of the sample has come back positive for TWO substances, the athlete now has the opportunity to explain how those substances came to be found in the sample. A panel will decide on the guilt or not of the athlete and the resulting decision will be published. I look forward to reading that decision as it will present a balanced overview of the arguments presented by both sides and not just the myopic rhetoric that is all too common in certain posts on this site.
2dodgy
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:55 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby mump boy » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:09 pm

Can someone please name an occasion when testers have turned up at someone's work ?
mump boy
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 am

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby Geoff » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:27 pm

mump boy wrote:Can someone please name an occasion when testers have turned up at someone's work ?


It used to happen and there was a well reported incident about a female athlete (can't think of her name at the moment) being tested at work. eventually the one hour a day whereabouts rule was introduced for those on the ADAMS register.

The problem now is that if UKAD have suspicions about other athletes they can test at any time and any place. Obviously, they have not designated a specific time as they are not on the out of competition register. You would assume that UKAD would try to choose their house or training area but I suppose they can still turn up at work. The two shot putters who refused to give a sample were not on the register and were not competing when they were tested.
Geoff
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:33 am

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby Kermit » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:35 pm

Before reading 2dodgy's post I was going to write something similar, but I won't now. Instead I would just like to clear up a few points, one of which is inaccurate.

Mump, back in the early days of testing Tessa Sanderson was drug tested just before she was about to go on stage in a pantomime (place of work), I would also say that an athletics track - be it for training or competing purposes - can be considered as a place of work. As was the case a few years back when an athlete missed a drugs test because the tester couldn't gain access to the exam room that she was sitting in!

With regards to the various quotes made about Rio Ferdinand's missed/evasion of a drugs test, chaperone's were not in existence at that time. The tester turned up just before training and said that at the end of training he would like to test two footballers one of them being Rio and then left the squad to continue their training. Scientific research shows that sportsmen lose their short term memory after prolonged bouts of training/competition for a significant period of time.

I would also like to add that all people who have deliberately cheated know the rules better (if not inside out) than those who don't cheat, they also know how to lie!
Kermit
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby readtherules » Wed Jul 27, 2011 11:24 pm

2dodgy wrote:
Geoff wrote:
2dodgy wrote:Why would they call at work? Unless you are a full time athlete, then I could understand it.


I'm not taking RTR's side but as I understand it UKAD can test ANY athlete at ANY time irrespective of whether they are a contracted elite athlete or on the ADAMS register. This is one of his issues and as I see it he is correct. It is also possible, but ambiguous, for UKAD to demand cooperation from coaches and others associated with an athlete but it is unclear whether they can test a coach (why?) and there are legal issues regarding searching premises/possessions. They can, though, certainly ask questions and demand answers. I'm afraid this is how it is since UKAD was formed but it should only concern those who are involved in doping.

I think what Bevone and RTR are saying is that some can, in theory, maliciously create rumour and gossip forcing UKAD into testing innocent athletes and coaches. This could, in theory, extend to organisations doing likewise. If your face doesn't fit or you complain too much then a visit from UKAD could be arranged!!!

I know UKAD now have a policy to get information from coaches, among others, and possibly to target a few. Intelligence, though, has to be handled carefully as we are dealing with people's livelihoods and reputations, some of which are bigger than others!

I wish RTR would just write in plain English and give specific cases/issues without necessarily naming names.


Geoff, you are, as I understand the system, correct in your assumption that any athlete can e tested at any tim, in ro out of competition.

However, I believe that UKAD would want to ensure that if they were expending resources on testing someone, then they would want to ensure that sample collection could take place. There are a number of workplaces where this could not happen. If on the other hand they visited the athlete at their home, then the likelihood of a succesful sample collection would be higher.

I firmly believe that RTR is, at best, a misguided apologist for those who have used prohibited substances, and at worst, a practitioner in the art of smoke and mirrors who, despite believing that the individual concerned has read, understood and chosen to ignire the rules, will look for every excuse available to "get them off".

I also believe that RTR has had a personal involvement in at least one, and possibly several, of the cases discussed on this forum over the past year. RTR will no doubt point to the "anonymity being vital" argument, which is fine up to a point, but when you reveal information that is not in the public arena whilst doing so is, in my opinion ethically questionable.

I will reiterate what I have said in previous posts, an athlete has been tested, the analysis of the sample has come back positive for TWO substances, the athlete now has the opportunity to explain how those substances came to be found in the sample. A panel will decide on the guilt or not of the athlete and the resulting decision will be published. I look forward to reading that decision as it will present a balanced overview of the arguments presented by both sides and not just the myopic rhetoric that is all too common in certain posts on this site.


A few points of clarity.

There is not a "positive" it is "adverse analytical finding(AAF)".Minor point I know but what it means is that it can be challenged on the basis that either the ISL or the IST has been breached.The prosecution then has the burden of proving the breaches did not cause the AAF.All this is fully set out in the Code.A problem is that the rules forbid the provision of the SOP's and without knowing how the results were obtained it is not possible to make a proper investigation of the results.

As for a balanced view coming from decisions then sometimes this is not quite so.In some cases unlimited resources are provided to bring many witnesses for the prosecution and they are well prepared by the prosecution.The decision can only reflect that put in front of the panel.In CAS cases the panel can appoint an expert to help them.This person always is the head of another WADA lab.

I think posters ,many times a day, put info that is not in the public domain.It would be a poor board if they did not.

The work case I think people have in mind as a female hurdler working in a lake district cafe.There are cases of people being tested at gyms they work at and you have to put your working times and all locations on Adams,I am told that in Europe they do vist working locations more than they do in the UK.You correctly state that there are work places that you cant test in but the rules do not recognise this.There is also a question about testing in a friends house.If they turned up in their testing caravan then this would overcome this problem.

As for athletes reading the rules etc.I dont think there is one who has ever done so let alone understood them.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby mump boy » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:05 am

I'm not taliking about back in the day i'm talking about now. It doesn't happen anymore as there is totally diffent system. Even discussing it is bogus, as it is a total red herring thrown in to muddy the water and make excuses for why there shouldn't be random testing.
mump boy
 
Posts: 2856
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 am

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby Kermit » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:09 am

Mump as is people discussing Rio in the same context of today's system.
Kermit
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby SteveK26 » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:18 am

Kermit
Just on the subject of Ferdinand for a second, I take it your comment about athletes having short-term memories after training hard was tongue in cheek, (or a joke)?
I know you are a Man Utd fan, but seriously that wouldn't include excusing his disappearing act in your eyes, would it?
SteveK26
 
Posts: 2921
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:04 pm

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby Kermit » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:36 am

Yes I am a Man Utd fan and YES People do have a short term memory problem after prolonged bouts of exercise.
Kermit
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Bernice Wilson positive

Postby SteveK26 » Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:51 am

Kermit
Clever response. You didn't actually answer my question. However, I dont wish to hi-jack this debate with the Ferdinand debacle.
Suffice it to say that I'm sure that everyone on the training ground that day with Ferdinand...including coaches and administrators.... didn't also suffer the same memory affliction as Ferdinand, presumeably with the testers sitting somewhere patiently waiting to test him. I'm sure someone on the training ground that day would have reminded Mr. Ferdinand that he had guests waiting......
SteveK26
 
Posts: 2921
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Anti-Doping

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London