That's intersting I though UKA had to sign up to the UK Anti-Doping Agency, and it was the UK Anti-Doping Agency NOT UKA who both conducted the tests and had the confidential hot line.
I thought that UKA had to sign up to the newly created UKADA or they would not be able to compete in international competition as this was the indepednet agency for this country.
As such I beleived that "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. " would correctly be applied to UKADA NOT UKA, and it woudl have had severe reprecussionson the sport had UKA not signed up to UKADA.
Oh well turns out iwas wrong adn the whole whistleblower policy is donw to UKA and they do the investigating and testing........ noi hang on a second I was right and it's just another example of UKA being blamed for something they had to do.
On the point of "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. " I would hate to think that athletes knew something was going on and did not report it, I woudl hate to think that there was no confidential investigation capability that did nto smear people.
However the nature of human beings is that someone talks, in this instance the memerbship of AD includes the only perosn so far to mention (and possibly smear) the athetles by name, and was certianly the first site to mention (and possibly smear) the coach. The problem is not the investigations or whislte blowing, the problem is the willingness of people to smear, however from what has been said on various forums peopel have been talkign in a particular way about the coach concerned for years, it is most certainly not the system of investigation that has lead to accusations. The press and the governing bodies have not smeared anyone, I have yet to see anyone (other than the AD membership) mentioning names of athletes. Teh question then emerges, what happens if the athetles were innocent, do UKA or UKADA now have to release their names as beign innocent because some silly sod decided that prior to any investigation they would put thier names on a website and cause suspicion?
The only question is whether the benefits of people being able to report things are outweighed by the stupidity of those who name names prior to the release of a negative the outcome of any investigations. Perosnally I think far too many athletes say they had their suspicions, adn far too many peopel are smeared already, adn having an offical route they can go down to put up or shut up may help with that, and more importantly may catch some cheats.
AD is Athletics Daily, and it is full of smears, unproven or in many case unevidenced allegations and a very one sided arguments, where you can be banned and abused if you disagree with the opinions of the forum owner/his cronies. I can evidence those points if you would like bu this is hardly the place for it, pm me if you would like to have the titles of threads that prove my points.