Excellent Sue Mott article from front page-transparency in testing

One thing about Sue Mott's comment ....

It's not human rights we're protecting here, it is sport. Athletes sign up to the rules of their sport, including drug tests, just as airline travellers succumb to searches. The idea is to try to run a clean sport and avoid your plane blowing up over the Atlantic. The inconvenience is outweighed by the benefits.

----

She is only correct to a point. The laws of many countries consider the ability to earn a living at a chosen profession a right. This is why non-compete clauses are so hard to enforce, you can only deny someone a right to earn wages to a point.

And using her example, yes we screen airline passengers but courts have ruled we cannot profile. So you can only screen to a point. You cannot do whatever you want.

See Donilo Hondo, the german cyclist. Earlier this year a Swiss court cut short his two-year doping ban to one year becuase they ruled the WADA ban was too harsh and denied him the ability to earn wages. Europe's law are much more favorable for the employee (in this case the cyclist) than the U.S. Hondo's case is under appeal and could set yet another precedent that will water down WADA effectiveness.

But he signed on and knows the rules! Yes, but we also know that restuarants cannot pass rules denying blacks service, or landlords cannot deny housing to gays, companies cannot have women sign on to rules that prevent them advancement. Some are arguing that athletes and drug tests fall under this same category. So far, a court in Switerland agrees.

What I'm saying is these kinds of laws come VERY CLOSE to discrimination. It's not as simple as "you signed on and WADA says what goes." They do not have Carte Blanche. The reason they don't have carte balanche is these guys earn a living as cyclists and the right to work is taken very seriously by courts, especially in Europe.

"Discrimination" against convicted dopers is a tangent that is not addressed in teh article. The point is that loopholes need to be closed that allow athletes to get off with lighter (or no) sanctions, or on teh other hand may actually sanction innocent athletes (those who miss tests, but are extensively tested in between those missed tests).

Let's stay on point here, please.

I think I'm most defintely on point. When your done closing all the loopholes, you will have a restraint of trade and/or discrimintion lawsuit.

What I said above is you can go so far, otherwise the courts will step in and stop it.

Have you ever been subjected to a drug test, IRS audit, govenment investigation? In other words, has a very powerful authority (like WADA) ever investigated you and for the purpose of accusing you of something that would destroy your life? If you have, you'd understand how powerless you are and hope distrusting you'd be. That what the courts understand which is why we have a myriad of laws to protect employees. Athletes are employees.

So while most will automatically opt for the most extreme punishment (life-time band for dopers) the fact is your talking about employers punishing employees and we have a lot of laws that regulate this kind oc activity.

one mile at a time wrote:

Does The USADA have any similar policy at all on missed tests, or is England the only country addressing the issue at all (however clumsily)?

Yes USADA treats missed tests as a violation. I think it's the international policy. I'm on the out of competition list and get tested at random, most quarters. Three misses in 18 months is a doping violation, evn if you have other clean tests in and out of comp. I don't know what the first time penalty is, but it's not lifetime.

Taking drugs to beat clean athletes should not be compared to blowing up innocent passengers in an airplane.

jungleroy59 wrote:

Yes USADA treats missed tests as a violation. I think it's the international policy. I'm on the out of competition list and get tested at random, most quarters. Three misses in 18 months is a doping violation, evn if you have other clean tests in and out of comp. I don't know what the first time penalty is, but it's not lifetime.

Has anyone been busted under this rule?

Innocent may suffer says tribunal chief

By Simon Hart

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2006/10/15/sodrug15.xml

UK Sport, the government agency in charge of the national anti-doping programme, are coming under pressure to rethink their strict, out-of-competition drug-testing rules after world triathlon champion Tim Don became the fourth British athlete this year to be banned for missing three random tests.

Peter Crystal, the solicitor who chaired Don's disciplinary tribunal, is to meet officials from UK Sport and the British Triathlon Association to raise his concerns that the system could be punishing innocent athletes.

The tribunal, who had no choice but to ban Don, 28, for the minimum three months permitted under triathlon's rules, took the unprecedented step on Friday of publicly criticising UK Sport's regulations, saying: "There were inconsistencies and inadequacies in the existing system, giving rise to confusion which is not in the interests of athletes, the BTA or UK Sport."

The tribunal members also made it plain that they did not believe Don had intended to take a banned substance or to circumvent the rules. Don, who announced yesterday that he would be appealing against the ban, is also aiming to represent Britain at the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

Under British Olympic Association regulations, following his anti-doping violation Don is now automatically barred from representing his country at future Games. However, the BOA's policy is not set in stone, and if there are mitigating circumstances reinstatement can be authorised after a hearing.

Don said yesterday: "It's relieving to know that others in the past have appealed and been allowed to compete again for their country. The BTA have been very supportive."

Crystal, meanwhile, intends to make recommendations to improve the way athletes are informed about the system and how they can get in touch with the authorities to change their whereabouts information. Crucially, however, he will also voice criticism about the inflexibility of the zero-tolerance rules.

The system, which is unique to Britain, requires athletes to nominate one hour a day, five a days a week when they are available for random drug-testing. Failure to show up during the allotted hour constitutes a missed test, and three misses in an 18-month period is considered a doping violation.

Under the strict liability rules, athletes with three misses recorded against them face a ban unless there are "exceptional circumstances" to explain why they failed to report for a test.

Don's experience illustrates just how exceptional those circumstances need to be. The first of his missed tests came when he was representing Britain at the World Triathlon Championships in Japan. Because he was competing for his country, he did not realise he still needed to tell the authorities that he was not at home in Loughborough.

The second came when he was also on official business, travelling with the British squad from South Africa to Australia for a training camp. Again, he had neglected to say he was away from home.

The third, in June, happened when an athletics meeting over-ran and he was late arriving home, missing the drug-tester by just 10 minutes.

Tim Don's case highlights Mott's point- that three truly random misses are not the same as three consecutive misses. Hence her call to make public the cirumstances of the missed tests, and making allowamces in sanctioning accordingly.

The Tim Don case shows the rigidity of government bureaucracy at its worst. Apparently Don will not be allowed to compete in future Olympics representing Britain. One innocent person put to death is one too many. No wonder no one (other than the Brojo Bros with their blind and sometimes misguided faith) completely trusts USADA or WADA in catching and correctly handling alleged violations.

WADA, in particular, needs to unload Dick Pound and find someone who is completely impartial and keeps quiet and stays in the background. His intemperate outbursts on whom he believes is guilty simply denigrates the program rather than enhances it.

The drug testing program needs more funding for research and needs to show more transparency on BOTH sides.

Surely these were not WADA tests, but those carried out by a UK anti-doping organisation ?

I am also concerned that the British Triathlon Assoc (or whatever the governing body is) must have known about this situation before Tim won the World Champs. UK Athletics, in an identical situation, left Christine Ohorugu off their team for the European Champs.

British athletes are not happy at the rigidity of these tests, nor that other athletes in other countries are not subject to the same policy. In at least one other european country (that is also anti doping by nature) the testers phone the athlete if they are not at the appointed spot and give them one hour to turn up. In the UK this is not allowed, but would have saved more than half the missed tests and Tim Don and Christine Ohorugu would not now be banned.

I would be happier with the situation if the tests were catching cheats, but they are not. All they are doing is exposing athletes who are not careful, or stupid, or even unlucky.

No reliability whatsoever, but I've been told these are the reasons for Tim Don missing 3 tests and given his attitude to the sport and the timing (plus fact he did compete at world champs) it seems logical.

1. He was at world triathlon championships and they still went to his house to test him when they clearly knew he was competing for GB, this happened twice. Plus since he probably medalled in these comps he probably got drug tested anyways.

2. He was at a triathlon competition and the officials messed up and the competition ran late and he missed them by 10mins and phoned them right away, but they said NO

Not certain, but these seem quite feasible reasons.

DEFINITELY think that the "searching" principle and giving them a call is a much better idea than the current system.

Now realising I'd missed a few posts since last time I read the thread and another article has already appeared...

Ah well!