Millar and BOA/Morse and drug ban coach

[readtherules]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... -code.html

More contradictions and hypocracy.

[fangio]

Of course it's hypocrisy for the BOA to keep Miller banned and for UKA not to interfere with Morse being coached by a previously convicted drug cheat. No.....wait a second.......BOA.....UKA....two different organsiations. Wait another second.....being a drug cheat.....coahed bya drug cheat.....not the same situation.

No real hypocrisy here, can't see how two different organisations reacting to 2 different situations can be hypocrisy.

[readtherules]

Of course it's hypocrisy for the BOA to keep Miller banned and for UKA not to interfere with Morse being coached by a previously convicted drug cheat. No.....wait a second.......BOA.....UKA....two different organsiations. Wait another second.....being a drug cheat.....coahed bya drug cheat.....not the same situation.

No real hypocrisy here, can't see how two different organisations reacting to 2 different situations can be hypocrisy.

I was not comparing BOA with UKA;what on earth took your brain in that direction ?
Though zero tolerance from BOA and then one of its members less than zero tolerance may be a direction I could wish to comment on.
UKA have been paying the coach to run stuff in the UK.

[fangio]

Don't be so bloody silly. You said there was hypocrisy. There were two situations, one with BOA one with UKA.

Of course you were comparing BOA and UKA, it's BOA who takign a tough stance on their bylaw and UKA bringing the coach over. Taht was what you were compaing. So in what way were you not comapring UKA and BOA.

There is no hypocrisy they are two different organisations reacting to two different circumstanes. Your post was, yet again an attempt to misrepresent the situation.

For the record BOA do not accredit coaches who are previously convicted drug cheats, so as far as this coach is concerned there will be no hypocrisy from the BOA. UKA allow athletes to compete in a GB vest once they have served their ban, so no hypocrisy there. The two separate orgnaisations have different rules they enforce, that is not hypocrisy, and it is laughable that you feel that it is.

[readtherules]

Fangio.

I was not comparing BOA and UKA.
Why continue mis representing and insults.

Why no comment on the link.

[fangio]

So what were you calling hypocritical then?

I see you are playign the same game you always do. Post a link say very little and when you are called on the obvious inaccuracy of what you said, saying "I didn't mena that". It'sridiculous, say what you acatually mean then rather then posting up links with absolutely no clear poitn at all behind them. You appear to be just tryign to muddy the waterds when you sdo that, and your posts are quiter literally pointless.

For clarity, there are 2 positions mentioned only in the link, that of teh BOA and that of UKA. As these are teh only 2 positions mentioned they are the only two positions that could be compared for anyone to try to cite hypocrisy.

So please tell us all, what exactly were you calling hypocritical. Or was it an allegation without any reference at all to the link you posted?

[readtherules]

So what were you calling hypocritical then?

I see you are playign the same game you always do. Post a link say very little and when you are called on the obvious inaccuracy of what you said, saying "I didn't mena that". It'sridiculous, say what you acatually mean then rather then posting up links with absolutely no clear poitn at all behind them. You appear to be just tryign to muddy the waterds when you sdo that, and your posts are quiter literally pointless.

For clarity, there are 2 positions mentioned only in the link, that of teh BOA and that of UKA. As these are teh only 2 positions mentioned they are the only two positions that could be compared for anyone to try to cite hypocrisy.

So please tell us all, what exactly were you calling hypocritical. Or was it an allegation without any reference at all to the link you posted?

Hyprocracy of UKA employing a coach with a previous drug ban when supporting zero tolerance and being a member of bOA with zero tolerance.
Contradiction of BOA being in conflict with WADa and making a strong universal front against doping more difficult.

I hear rumours that K Tyler from coaching has a bit of a doping question as referenced by Dublin.

[fangio]

So, you are comparing UKA's position and BOA's position then. So why the "I was not comparing BOA with UKA;what on earth took your brain in that direction ?"

It is not hypocritical to have your own policies that are not exactly in line with another organisation's. It is not hypocritical to have your own rules, my club has it's own rules on behaviour, which can differ from those of UKA, or the IAAF, it's not hypocriticla to have your own set of rules when you can control the rules, but adopting the rules of others when you are on their turf and you can't set the rules. Where is the hypocrisy? Do you only follow rules that an employer lays down where they are set in the law of the country?

There simply is no hypocrisy.

The two situations, coaching and competing are not the same situation, so how is that hypocritical?

You hear about K Tyler, great so you are going to go on rumour and gossip not actual facts then. The enquiry which decided that Tyler had absolutely no case to naswer was the largest drugs in sport investigation in Canadian history and at the time the largest in the world. He had no case to answer, but you want to say you know better to besmirch someone. I would like you to withdraw your libelous allegation that Mr Tyler has a doping question as it has already been answered by a very thorough investigation, and this site is not here for you to libel others, no matter how big a chip you have on your shoulder.

[Geoff]

Perhaps the only hypocrisy lies with Brett for condemning drug cheats, saying he agrees with the BOA bylaw but not mentioning he is coached by a guy who tested positive during an Olympic Games. Brett is an outstanding discus thrower and could possibly make the top 8 in London but he does sometimes put his foot in it!

[readtherules]

So, you are comparing UKA's position and BOA's position then. So why the "I was not comparing BOA with UKA;what on earth took your brain in that direction ?"

It is not hypocritical to have your own policies that are not exactly in line with another organisation's. It is not hypocritical to have your own rules, my club has it's own rules on behaviour, which can differ from those of UKA, or the IAAF, it's not hypocriticla to have your own set of rules when you can control the rules, but adopting the rules of others when you are on their turf and you can't set the rules. Where is the hypocrisy? Do you only follow rules that an employer lays down where they are set in the law of the country?

There simply is no hypocrisy.

The two situations, coaching and competing are not the same situation, so how is that hypocritical?

You hear about K Tyler, great so you are going to go on rumour and gossip not actual facts then. The enquiry which decided that Tyler had absolutely no case to naswer was the largest drugs in sport investigation in Canadian history and at the time the largest in the world. He had no case to answer, but you want to say you know better to besmirch someone. I would like you to withdraw your libelous allegation that Mr Tyler has a doping question as it has already been answered by a very thorough investigation, and this site is not here for you to libel others, no matter how big a chip you have on your shoulder.

What on earth does your second para say or mean?
I would say that having your own rules is not hyprocracy but when you give public lip service to one set of zero tolerance morals but then act in a contrary way then it is hyprocracy.Simple enough.

Tyler had a doping question as Francis said under oath that Tyler was a drug taker.That is not a rumour.Was there a charge against him that was the declared "no case to answer" ;please advise.
So he did have a doping question.

[fangio]

RTR

You are talking complete rubbish. Your comment was on the content of the link, and there is no lip service paid, and I do nto see UKA givign lip service anywhere, I do dee indiviudals from UKA givingtheir opinions, but not in your link. Again personal opinion and the policy of an organisation are very differnt things.

Please withdraw the libellous allegation against Mr Tyler, he HAD a question to answer, the enquiry into Franci' group was the largest of it's king int eh world at the time. To sat he HAS a question to answer, implying that he had not ben investigated as part of the Dublin inquiry, rather than the question had been investigated already is libelous. Can you please confirm that you are aware that Francis; group was investigated ina very expensive and large scale investigation, but no charges were made against Tyler, even though a large number of the rest of the group were charged. Do you always assume that people are guilty even after they are investigated and not charged?

Saying has not had is libellous, not pointing out that he was not charged despite the massive invetigation is purely to make him look guilty. Frankly you are malicious.

[readtherules]

Fangio.


Did Dublin have powers to take any action against KT ?

I repeat the Q to you.
Was there a charge made against KT from which the outcome was "no case to answer" ?

Good to see continued insults.

[fangio]

RTR

Simple, he was not charged, those they managed to find enough evidence to charge were charged.

You seem to think that you have the right to make idle speculation of a libellous nature, when there was not even a charge despite the investigation. Seemingly the fact that they could not find evidence of him having cheated even enough to merit charging him alongside the other members of the group to you means he has a question to answer. That really is libellous. He was investigated, he was nto charged, there was no question that needed answering in court.

On the basis of your post it is ok to question the integrity of every single person that the CPS choose not to prosecute, after the police investigate. The law exists to stop you doing that sort of thing, you cannot continually label somene as rape suspect for example or a paedophile suspect just because someone made the allegation. Either you have proof that they should have charged him, or you are making idle speculation for malicious purposes.

As to the insults, the only thing was saying you are talking complete rubbish, which you are. It was an accurate comment on your post.

[readtherules]

Fangio.

I ask again.

Did Dublin have powers to take any action against KT ?

I repeat the Q to you.
Was there a charge made against KT from which the outcome was "no case to answer" ?


In addition;can you make clear who was charged and by what organistion and the outcome of the process that dealt with the charge.

Regarding your police comparison.Police have powers in relation to possible offences.This would include the power to put a case to answer.If they they did not put a case to answer it would be reasonable to conclude that the person was innocent.(leaving asside not having enough evidence).
However if Dublin did not have powers to initiate any action then the fact that no action was taken can not imply whether there was or was not a case to answer.
We would be left with Francis,on oath,saying KT took drugs and then we would look for some statement from KT denying this ,and possibly such being on oath.Is there such a statement from KT ?

[trickstat]

RTR

You post something as a rumour and then try to put somebody else on the spot when they challenge what you have said!

You are nothing more than a troll who should be left to stew in your own bitter juices.

[readtherules]

RTR

You post something as a rumour and then try to put somebody else on the spot when they challenge what you have said!

You are nothing more than a troll who should be left to stew in your own bitter juices.

I said there was a question.And there clearly was a question.Please give me your opinion if there was a question.
The statement about KT was under oath was publically reported and thus it was not a rumour.The KT matter has angered many,for my part I think the appointment is fine,however consistancy in moral high ground matters is important.Live by the sword die by the sword UKA.

fangio put himself on the spot by saying there was no case to answer.

[trickstat]

I hear rumours that K Tyler from coaching has a bit of a doping question as referenced by Dublin.

[readtherules]

Back to the link at top of this topic.



"Over the past two years, UK Athletics has invited Hafsteinsson to lead several “discus master-class workshops” though it has always insisted that he was not being used in a coaching capacity." Hart

Does anyone think running a masterclass on how to throw the discus to an audience of coaches and athletes and having one to one sessions with athletes and coaches at the circle and with the master coach being paid for out of UKA coaching budget is not coaching ?

[readtherules]

I hear rumours that K Tyler from coaching has a bit of a doping question as referenced by Dublin.

I see your point,should have not said rumour as it clearly was a point of fact.Twas an error.

But was KT and doping left moot ?

I wait Fangio's answer.

[fangio]

It is a fact that Francis once in his life named Tyler in a list of people, without reference to notes. It is also a fact established by teh Dubin inquiry that Francis did not actually do the doping, and was not present for the doping of McKoy, Desai or Taylor from his group, as he referred them to the Dr. It is also a fact that whils the Dr referred in his lengthy testimony to his interaction with McKoy, Desai, Taylor, Sharp and of course Johnson he did not reference Tyler at all. It is also a fact that Tyler was with the training group for a very short time.

I guess the fact that Francis did ever repeat any allegation against Tyler, including in his book "Speed Trap", and Dr Astaphan providing not one bit of corroborating evidence, nor any piece of corroborating evidence existign make sit more likley that Francis accidentally placed Tyler on that list. Despite hors fo testimony from Francis, Astaphan and the guilty members fo the group nothing appeared apart from Francis mentioning him ONCE.

As someone who claimed not to have been present during any dopign for some of his athetles I cal that heresay evidence, i.e. far from fact and just an allegation.

If you wnat to go aroudn repeating Francis' one off mention as prrof there is a question to answer, whent eh Dr invovled who was fairly candid to the inquiry DID NOT name Tyler as one fo the athletes involved youa re making idle specualtion.

He had no case to answer when investigated, as the only thing was one single mention of Tyler in a list of athletes by Francis who apparently did nto even withness some of his atheltes being doped. You want to call him a reliable witness?

[readtherules]

Fangio.

I ask YET again.

Did Dublin have powers to take any action against KT ?

I repeat the Q to you.
Was there a charge made against KT from which the outcome was "no case to answer" ?

[readtherules]

Fangio.

Did Francis say that KT doped ?
If this was the case then the was a question raised about KT.
As there was a question raised by the on oath statement by Francis then there cant be idle speculation.
At no point have I said KT doped,in an idle manner or otherwise.

[fangio]

I do nto see the relevance of your questions.

TO put this all in context you are saying one name in one list despite hours of questioning and a book, despite Francis not actually witnessing the drug taking of his athletes once they were referred to Aataphan is enough to have a question hanging over Tyler.

One mention of a name under oath without notes, when he did nto witness drug takign, and never mentioning Tyler again over the course of the Durbin inqury or in his book is enough for you to say there is a question.

You are truly mailicious, a very nasty peice of work. If I can get one person to say one thing about you without any corrobrating evidence that's enough to quesiton you. How about I get womeone to say you are a (insert horrible criminal activity here) I can then go around saying there is a question as to whether you are a (insert criminal activity here), adn that's fine by you.

Personally I think that a disgusting attitude to take, and one which shoudl land you in court for libel.
Have you even examined the evidence of Francis, Astaphan and the atheltes int eh group? Guess not, you just want to post up harmful allegations for your own sick reasons.

[readtherules]

I do nto see the relevance of your questions.

TO put this all in context you are saying one name in one list despite hours of questioning and a book, despite Francis not actually witnessing the drug taking of his athletes once they were referred to Aataphan is enough to have a question hanging over Tyler.

One mention of a name under oath without notes, when he did nto witness drug takign, and never mentioning Tyler again over the course of the Durbin inqury or in his book is enough for you to say there is a question.

You are truly mailicious, a very nasty peice of work. If I can get one person to say one thing about you without any corrobrating evidence that's enough to quesiton you. How about I get womeone to say you are a (insert horrible criminal activity here) I can then go around saying there is a question as to whether you are a (insert criminal activity here), adn that's fine by you.

Personally I think that a disgusting attitude to take, and one which shoudl land you in court for libel.
Have you even examined the evidence of Francis, Astaphan and the atheltes int eh group? Guess not, you just want to post up harmful allegations for your own sick reasons.

I was responding to your statement that he had "no case to answer"
This means a case was put.
Was a case put ?
You have gone to some length to put your case and seem familiar with the matters in Canada but you will not answer whether a case was put.
It may be that no case was put and the whole matter is moot.

That Francis said what he said did put a questaion.Tell me in what way a question was not raised.

Did KT move into bob ?

[readtherules]

Well Fangio ; was a case put ???

[BigGut]

readtherules, just explain to me, if there is no case to answer how can you put a case?

The enquiry collected masses of evidence and where evidence was found then people were charged. Despite all their enquiries they didn't find enough to warrant Kevin Tyler being charged.

You seem to be saying that somebody who had never failed a test should eb charged even though the person who actually did the doping, ie not Francis, named a whole load of people but not him.

How hypocritical can you be? One minute you are saying that people should not be tested in their holidays, should not have to subject themselves to tests in public toilets etc, the next you are asking that somebody be barred from employment in athletics without any evidence of wrongdoing. Outrageous hypocrisy.

[readtherules]

Big G.

more insults.

A statement that there is no case to answer means that a prelimary case was presented and a declaration then made that there was no case to answer.

If Fangio just meant there was nothing happened then this is an OK statement but Fangio said after an investigation there was no case to answer.

When on earth did I say ;
that somebody be barred from employment in athletics without any evidence of wrongdoing. .

please provide an answer.

Why do you both insult and say things that are not true

[BigGut]

What insult? Again you start saying I have insulted you without there actually being an insult.

I realise I have jumped the gun. When you said "I hear rumours that K Tyler has a bit of a doping question as referenced by Dubin" in direct connection with UKA employing coaches with a drug ban I thought you were actually making a point. But it seems no you were as usual just trying to post via suggestion and association.

Directlyon the point of Tyler you said:

I would say that having your own rules is not hyprocracy but when you give public lip service to one set of zero tolerance morals but then act in a contrary way then it is hyprocracy.Simple enough.

How is employing a man who WAS NOT deemed by an enquiry to have been a drug cheat acting contrary to their stance on drugs? You appear to be saying that they should not have employed him because he was maligned by Francis. If that is not what you are saying then what point are you trying to make, assuming that you are actually trying to make a point rtather than just misdirecting people.

[readtherules]

What insult? Again you start saying I have insulted you without there actually being an insult.

I realise I have jumped the gun. When you said "I hear rumours that K Tyler has a bit of a doping question as referenced by Dubin" in direct connection with UKA employing coaches with a drug ban I thought you were actually making a point. But it seems no you were as usual just trying to post via suggestion and association.

Directlyon the point of Tyler you said:

I would say that having your own rules is not hyprocracy but when you give public lip service to one set of zero tolerance morals but then act in a contrary way then it is hyprocracy.Simple enough.

How is employing a man who WAS NOT deemed by an enquiry to have been a drug cheat acting contrary to their stance on drugs? You appear to be saying that they should not have employed him because he was maligned by Francis. If that is not what you are saying then what point are you trying to make, assuming that you are actually trying to make a point rtather than just misdirecting people.

My point was to ask if Dublin was empowered to to take action.Fangio has not replied.So we do not know if Dublin said that KT was cleared or left moot.There is a difference.

I still note that you have not withdrawn or substantiated your allegation that I said UKA should not have employed him.Actually I think they should.

You quote me as saying;

readtherules"]I would say that having your own rules is not hyprocracy but when you give public lip service to one set of zero tolerance morals but then act in a contrary way then it is hyprocracy.Simple enough.[/quote]

Was this not in relation to the Discus situation ? Again mis-representing me.

[BigGut]

Your comment was not made clear to be about the discuss situation asnwas directly beneath a comment regarding K Tyler. I realise you like ambiguity but perhaps you need to start posting actual points with specific information if you want to be understood. You made the comment directly in response to a post that did not mention the discus situation but did mention K Tyler. You quioted the whole of that post before putting your response beneath it. Clearly if it was about the discus situation you should have said it was about the discus situation.