Did UKAD let Mo Farah off lightly with his doorbell issues?

Of course. They should have banned him for evading a test, but preferred to "believe" that he couldn't hear his doorbell and phone for a full hour.

On the other hand, which NADO would ban their star if they don't have to (we just discussed Linford in another thread...)?

Mo was not at home when the bell rang. They should have staked his home out. No way he could miss the doorbell for four hours, eight hours, or even longer. What would be the excuse?

Who?

Your mommy.

trackfan. wrote:

In light of what we now know about UKADs inept handling of UK doping matters and UKA defending of Mo Farah it seems a likely scenario

Of course. But you don't slay your golden goose.

Mo stays protected as long as he:

a) doesn't do something really stupid and obvious (shoot up with EPO during the middle of a live interview)

b) doesn't piss too many people off, giving them strong incentive to take him down (a la Lance)

Do you even have to ask the question? Of course they did! Imagine the reaction in the British media if news of this story had leaked and the athlete in question had been any nationality other than British!

As it is, Farah wins double gold in Rio (would be very surprised if anyone beats him), UK Athletics hits its medal target, everyone keeps their well remunerated jobs and everything in the garden is nice and rosy. And only foreigners cheat!

The rules say he can miss two tests, so he wasn't let off in any way. He was still within the rules. He could have waved his backside to the testers out of the bedroom window and still been within the rules.

Should the rules be changed to favour the testers? Probably.

It's not a well known fact but, in the calendar year prior to the UK's record haul of medals at London 2012, 66 tests were missed.

On average, around 45 tests are missed a year.

On average, UKAD sanction 1 T&F athlete a year.

Not a good ratio.

There is a difference between missing a test (eg not being where you say on the whereabouts form), and evading a test (when the tester finds you, and you refuse to take the test, possibly by flight). Missing 3 tests is "OK", but you can't evade a test without incurring penalties.

A recent CAS decision was the Croatia water polo player Niksa Dobud.

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_4163__FINAL__internet.pdf

He tried to claim that the tester(s) met his brother-in-law at the door and misidentified between him.

Mission evasion wrote:

There is a difference between missing a test (eg not being where you say on the whereabouts form), and evading a test (when the tester finds you, and you refuse to take the test, possibly by flight). Missing 3 tests is "OK", but you can't evade a test without incurring penalties.

A recent CAS decision was the Croatia water polo player Niksa Dobud.

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_4163__FINAL__internet.pdf

He tried to claim that the tester(s) met his brother-in-law at the door and misidentified between him.

You are right, there is a difference between not being where you say you are, and evading a test. The swimmer was caught under a violation of FINA rules, but I believe they are broadly that same as UKAD rules.

The rule, however, is a little ridiculous. It effectively says that it is much more acceptable to not be where you said you would be, rather than to pretend you are not there. Serena Williams retreated to her panic room when the testers visited her in 2011. That's ok too, apparently.

The rules of UKAD, FINA, etc, which need to be WADA compliant anyway, say that if there is "evidence" of evasion, then the organization can apply an auto 4-year ban on the spot. They, of course, opted for the easier demerit of "negligence" (as the Croatians/FINA attempted) for Farah, and no one (or no WADA) pushed them on in.

UKAD director of Legal, Graham Arthur, said: ‘We have got a pretty detailed protocol for doping control officers to follow when they conduct an in-hours test. It includes ringing the doorbell every 10-15 minutes or so, knocking and staying there for the full hour.

'We often ask them to stay a little bit past the hour as well. But a missed test doesn’t mean that somebody has deliberately not opened the door, or has hidden in the bathroom for an hour. If we thought that had happened, we’d take action against them for evasion, and ban them for trying to hide from testers.

'Action would be taken against them for evading doping control and that carries a four-year ban if we prove our case.’

Didn't Jon Ngugi get a ban for refusing to take a drug test when IAAF drug testers turned up at his home back in the 1990s? Probably better to not answer your door if you are at home and don't want to be tested.

Ngugi said the testing dudes failed to identify themselves.http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1989/03/28/603060002/

Ngugi said he had never taken drugs and did not know how serious the refusal was until he was barred from the weekend team selection meeting.

He got 26 months before the suspension was lifted.

Incredibly wooley words from the 'director of Legal'. How are UKAD going to prove that an athlete deliberately did not answer the door?

I would rather Graham Arthur had simply said: "it's very hard to prove that someone has evaded a test".

UKAD have a very poor sanctioning rate on T&F athletes, they are lucky that this has not undergone serious scrutiny.

Have not read through this whole thread yet, but reminds me of the Lance Armstrong docu-drama where they were in the RV and doping was knocking on the door and they kept saying, "Hold on, he is in the shower..." while they were exchanging the doped blood for clean blood.

UKAD went home DEVASTATED

Mo went home happy.