Breaking: IAAF/British have BARRED Isaac Makwala from competing in 400 final because he's sick

ridiculous^2 wrote:

public health runner wrote:

Let me share some basics with you (and the IAAF).

If Makwala was indeed symptomatic, we was isolated, not quarantined.

There is a difference between quarantine (asymptomatic individual, potentially exposed but not yet ill) and isolation (symptomatic individual). This is a pretty important distinctionn - at least if the IAAF, LR posters or anyone else is trying to speak intelligently on the issue.

So? doesn't change anything about my point, that they had ample time to get a lab test.

I wasn't addressing you; every word anyone types isn't always about you.

I was simply noting that the IAAF (and most of the Letsrun armchair health officials on the case) aren't even using correct terminology.

This is a crazy situation that I have never seen before.

I think it may be as simple as he got really sick and threw up a bunch of times and was kept away from exposing the sickness to the other competitors.

Then lied about only throwing up once so he could run.

Or - there was a translation issue or understanding issue.

Maybe he was asked leading questions about throwing up all night and said "yes" meaning he understood the question not that he was doing that.

Or some communication issue.

Regardless of any tests, he was kept out because he allegedly said he was throwing up for hours.

What is the real story?

Apparently Makwala will run in a separate 200m heat today. If he runs fast enough he will move into the 200m semi.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GlobalSportsCom/status/895295311186362369

Agreed. On the BBC last night, his doctor was there and everything the Botswanan team medic said was the complete opposite of what the IAAF medic said.

Makwala's medic clearly said at 10pm he was having a massage, not throwing up as the IAAF claimed. Makwala's medic has photographic evidence, and his doctors did tests that were documented. The IAAF have no evidence of their own at all, and did not tests of their own. I'm inclined to believe the Botswanan medic, because they have evidence to back themselves up.

If this supposed virus was an issue, why were the sick athletes not removed from the hotel completely? Surely if this virus was a threat to to other athletes, then the threats need to be removed from the source?

Makwala probably just had motion sickness, because he only had one bout of minor vomiting for a short period of time, with no other symptoms.

The IAAF medic that got grilled on the BBC said she did not make the decision, the IAAF did, so why did the people who made the decision not show their face, or at the very least give Makwala some formal documentation in writing?

The planning of the 200m & 400m was poor, they are not usually so close together, and neither is the 100m & 200m usually so close together, if this had been planned more carefully Makwala probably could have at least ran in one of the events.

The Botswanan team are self funded, Makwala invested his own money in getting to London, and if I was him I'd sue the IAAF for compensation.

The IAAF said 30 athletes had the virus, were they all based on assumption, or were all 30 tested officially? Who are these 30 athletes? Why have they not all been named? We certainly did not see 30 athletes missing from events, so the IAAF need to be more transparent an provide a very detailed report.

Personally I'm not buying what the IAAF have said, they have zero evidence to back up their claims. I hope Makwala takes them to the cleaners...

I have heard nothing or read nothing that leads me to conclude that the IAAF has not acted reasonably .

Hindsight may say not perfectly but we are yet to know .

The roll of the athletes federation does not seem satisfactory.

Imagine if the virus had taken in dozens more with some dire effects and it had been known that they had been given advice from the public health authorities to act ?

Hahahahaaa wrote:

longjack wrote:

we are not talking about people who know about medicine. we are talking about fakers, people who practice medicine without knowing their head from their arssse.

public health runners wrote:

At least some of us are MDs.

Yes, but as you well know you can't act in isolation of the legal system. Doctors can and often do get it wrong and sometimes make mistakes that following correct protocol should have avoided.

In this case, the athlete in question is 30 and represents the hopes of his entire country. He is relatively unlikely to get the same chance in a championship again and has likely lost a substantial part of his future livelihood from this decision.

Legally speaking, the decision is flawed and open to challenge. Unfortunately, it does represent a tendency we see in the UK in recent years of a very piecemeal approach to law enforcement. Unfortunately for UK Athletics and the IAAF, they have not really followed the rule of law here. The evidence is muddled, the decision making process is even more so and the whole thing is a pr disaster. I suspect in 30 years time, when we look back on this championships, we will be reading about biased and unusual decision making and the years when women were not protected by the governing bodies in the form of closed competition.

The Public Health Guidelines referred to are guidelines, they do and were not designed to be legally enforceable. Often in the UK, they are not enforced at all. Norovirus is not Ebola or the Black Death, and in reality, people with it mingle in the general population. The athlete has not been removed from the games or even the hotel, and no other precautions have been taken. None of this makes sense - either there is a public health risk severe enough to warrant barring the athlete from competing which logically also means he should be excluded from contact with all other athletes competing and any other persons and members of the public who may contract the illness, or it doesn't.

Likewise, other athletes may have norovirus. There are rumours that the entire German team does, and this affected Klosterhalften in the 1500m. However, there is no news on this and they remain free to compete.

This type of piecemeal, randomly harsh enforcement of advisory guidelines upon one individual only clearly leads to accusations of bias. Now, I think in this case there is no bias, but such bodies have in recent years been plagued by corruption and biased decision making. You could argue that all of the strange decisions somehow favour South African athletes (I believe this is simply coincidence but the it is somehow there). You could argue that the IAAF simply didn't like the athlete in question withdrawing from the 200m once entered and made up this excuse to teach him and others a lesson.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the athlete even has the illness which he has been barred for. I am always surprised at the willingness of self proclaimed doctors and medics to diagnose online without any access to physical examination, blood tests or other tools of diagnosis, while at the same time criticising others for lacking medical knowledge. That type of superiority complex is the attitude that leads to mistakes and negligence and legal cases.

FWIW if the athlete felt able to compete, I doubt he had a severe cases of norovirus (as opposed to food poisoning or an upset stomach).

We do not want a precedent set in our sport of athletes being barred for mild cases of food poisoning just in case there is a risk. Where does it end? Do we bar anyone they may have come into contact with too?

Finally, I would say the championships organisers and IAAF only have themselves to blame in this debacle by not having clear and robust protocols to follow, and better reporting procedures. Simply write down the policy for such situations in advance, state what you will do in order to verify the truth quickly and what you will do if it cannot be verified quickly enough. List the conditions which will result in barring and on what grounds, and list symptoms which will also lead to barring for undiagnosed conditions.

I hope the athlete and his Federation sue for lost income, etc..

ridiculous^2 wrote:

So there is only one lab in London that can test for Noro? - British health care system seems to be far worse than I thought

That's the closest one, and it's not in London it's Cambridge.

And to revise my previous statement the public health representative said it takes 36 hours on average to send off and receive results.

Not that they even need them. An athlete from the same hotel as 30+ cases of previously confirmed extremely contagious norovirus starts vomiting and exclaims that he is not well; good enough for a quarantine.

Makwala has been given a chance to run a 200m time trial to qualify for the 200 semis tonight according to bbc sport.

"imagine" ??

You're just speculating, with no evidence that Makwala had the virus. Just like the IAAF, making decisions based on zero substance.

wow bolt..... wrote:

Also, does the IAAF even have the right to deny Makwala entry to the stadium? The stadium is owned by London itself, and the IAAF is a private international orginazation, by any means not a law enforment agency. They took him and escorted him to their office like a crimial or a school kid. I know nothing about british law.

The contract between the IAAF and the stadium authority is likely going to lay out terms for credentials that allow access to restricted (ie. athlete) areas with the IAAF/organizing committee able to exclude or revoke credentials according to those terms.

Think the discussions of doping coaches and doctors showing up at meetings with the explanation that no, their bans say that they cannot be credentialed but they can still buy a general admission ticket and hang out at the Nike VIP tent.

But an athlete is going to inherently have to have a valid credential to make it onto the track.

novation wrote:

"imagine" ??

You're just speculating, with no evidence that Makwala had the virus. Just like the IAAF, making decisions based on zero substance.

Vomiting for no other reason plus staying in the same hotel as the other confirmed cases of norovirus is good enough for any doctor.

Actually, you're the one who seems confused. The IAAF may be a private organization, but their authority is still constrained by law, including its charter and its many contracts. Just one example: They didn't want to let Caster Semenya compete without being treated, but the CAS said that was unlawful. The question everyone is asking is what was the source of authority that authorized them to make this particular decision because they can't hide behind British law. I don't practice sports law other than antitrust, so I don't know the answer, but it's a serious question.

ridiculous wrote:

ridiculous^2 wrote:

So there is only one lab in London that can test for Noro? - British health care system seems to be far worse than I thought

That's the closest one, and it's not in London it's Cambridge.

And to revise my previous statement the public health representative said it takes 36 hours on average to send off and receive results.

Come on. Real-time PCR is a routine process in clinical microbiology. No way only a special laboratory in Cambridge can do that. Are there no hospitals in London?

Not that they even need them. An athlete from the same hotel as 30+ cases of previously confirmed extremely contagious norovirus starts vomiting and exclaims that he is not well; good enough for a quarantine.

I'm ok with the initial quarantine/isolation. I just think it was unfair to not even try to find out whether the diagnosis could have been wrong and deny Makwala the chance to run.

the IAAF wag their mouth to blame the athlete and coach...

meanwhile the fuc**ked up the guys biggest day of his athletic life.

the IAAF continue to quote that they are bound by the 48 hour "rule' which does not exist. that is a bold face lie, which no amount of jaw flapping can fix.

the IAAF need to be investigated on their protocols especially in the handling of communicable diseases. the athletes are cooped up together in the hotel, that is where the contact is.....

the IAAF need to conduct an actual test, and follow the rules which do not lule an athlete inelligible for 48 hours after throwing up, or what have you.

the IAAF is saving fact, probably Coe stepped in, because he knows full well that this event has tainted his portfolio.

i say sue the god dan**n lot. go after these guys ... no holds barred.

In the Uk it is very very risky for any organisation to knowingly override guidelines .No win lawyers would be rubbing their hands .

I say again ; what would be the reaction if the virus really took hold and advice / guidelines had been wilfully ignored ?

absolutely ludicrous to suggest, that someone running 20,20 in a time trial was down with noro two days ago.

Birmingham wrote:

In the Uk it is very very risky for any organisation to knowingly override guidelines .No win lawyers would be rubbing their hands .

I say again ; what would be the reaction if the virus really took hold and advice / guidelines had been wilfully ignored ?

Impossible to prove the source on the balance of probabilities and if the various contracts of the various organisations involved do not include watertight exclusion clauses and their procedures exclude negligence, then more fool them.

I repeat again, its a vomiting bug, its not Ebola. Its not even Measles. Its prevalence in general population at any given time is probably fairly static. There is no general edict in the UK to barr people from public places in the event of symptoms vaguely similar to what has come to be called Norovirus.

This is why law-making is left up to Parliament, and to a lesser extent, the courts.

Guidelines have quasi legal effect or such have been made so by no win lawyers .

Thus rather prudent to follow them .

Not his native language wrote:

Deanouk wrote:

Re point 1), well he clearly did. I've just seen him say it to camera. They saw him vomit, they asked if he was alright and he said, "NO, I'M NOT OK!"

This is why the rules are there, to have representatives and translators present.

Obviously what you heard was not what he said, but what you thought that he meant, which was wrong.

LOL. No, I heard him say that clearly in the interview and it was also shown on the subtitles. I have kept it on my Tivo box. He definitely said, "No, I'm not ok"