We hear about the athletes who are cited for whereabouts violations. We also see it reported if there is a successful appeal. It is extremely rare.
But you avoid my question. 3 missed tests in the prescribed period, that cannot be shown to have a justifiable excuse, leads to a conclusion an athlete is a doper. Or an idiot. So which is Katir?
We won't hear about the dopers and the clean athletes with 1 or 2 misses, who succeed to appeal one of them before the 3rd one. Both clean athletes and doped athletes could miss three tests per year, for 20 years in a row, and if they managed to have an evidentiary alibi 1 time each year, we would never know about it. We simply cannot answer "How often do clean athletes miss three tests that they cannot show at least one had justifiable cause?" nor its parallel unasked "How often do doped athletes miss three tests that they cannot show at least one had justifiable cause?".
You avoided my questions too.
When you use the term "doper" are you using WADA's expanded definition that includes whereabouts violations? If so, the whereabouts violation would make him a doper, regardless of the use of any banned substance or method.
Furthermore your false dichotomy either/or question excludes other alternatives. Without any details, we don't yet know if all the missed tests are reasonably Katir's fault, rather than partly the tester's or even a software issue with ADAMs. I've seen other cases where the tester knocked on the wrong door, or waited outside while the athlete was inside the whole time. So we have to wait and see before jumping to baseless conclusions. It could be that he is both a doper and an idiot, or it could be he is not a doper, and a victim of a process for unannounced testing that is prone to errors at several levels, or any combination in between.
Mate, whereabouts violations mean Katir either didn't provide accurate location information or wasn't available during his designated time slot. He, not the testers, must prove otherwise.
Katir claims he WAS available for some missed tests. If so, he would've received notice of those violations and had every opportunity to appeal. We know of no successful appeals. Meaning? He likely couldn't provide convincing evidence of his availability.
Suggesting errors caused all three violations undermines the system. His appeals would have won if he had solid proof. This implies the problem stems from Katir's actions, not a flawed process.
While mistakes happen, athletes are primarily responsible for their whereabouts. Missing three tests without successful appeals casts serious doubt on Katir being wrongly targeted.
No, I’m not one of those -I don’t say Shelby is innocent (I frankly don’t know). But I am frustrated over the lack of argumentation from CAS when it comes to why Houlihan would ingest nandrolone in her situation at the time (frequently being tested / very little evidence of ingested nandrolone having any performance benefits at all, and so on).
IMO the “zero” chance of un castrated boar fed on high soya diet in the American food chain was the main reason for Shelby’s conviction. If this is correct or not I don’t know -I’m to old to believe in a World without exceptions… (A better argumentation from CAS would maybe have taken away my doubts here).
CAS never ever would argue why a doper would dope with whatever whenever. That's not their job at all.
And it's not just uncastrated (undisputedly "far less than 1 in 10000") and high soya diet (which would be a waste of the farmer's money): there were 5 scenarios that all needed to happen simultaneously, not just those 2. It was Shelburrito's task to provide evidence, but she only succeeded somewhat in 1 of those 5 (namely that she may have received the wrong order), meaning f.ex. she couldn't find a single farmer who used such a high soya diet.
All CAS panelists voted unanimously that each of the latter 4 was either improbable (like uncastrated boar) or even highly improbable; a 2:1 vote in any one of those would have been enough to ban her.
I don't buy the idea that Nordas is a cheater. Its the game of the weak people.
Until there is something substantial is found everyone has just to shut it.
Just think at the common sense:
Is Katir is that clever he has micro-dosed all this time and in the same time enough stupid to let three AIU tests not filed?
Well there is only two explanations: an administrative neglect or as someone said before a setup against him.
Suspicion is not belief. We know the tests can be beaten, and micro-dosing has been widely theorized as a way to do it. We also know athletes (eg Okagbare) have intentionally missed tests when they were paranoid about being caught. In general, it is dumb to miss a third test unless you are absolutely sure you are busted. But if you are looking at a ban of 2 (with chance to appeal) vs 4 it is preferable. And Katir not contesting these missed tests aggressively at the time seems a blunder OR sign of guilt on his side. Also in other cases we’ve seen the AIU aggressively try to catch someone with suspicious values in their eyes (Norah Jeruto). With the alleged exorbitant number of tests, were they doing the same here?
Apropos aggressive positions...
Katir's response to queries on athletes doping in his sport are conflicting:
"I hope they make a law whereby if they catch you doping, they'll kick you out forever. That way, people who dope would think twice before doing it. I think it is the only possible solution, because we are seeing many cases emerge in Kenya, for example, and they are not doing anything. I see it as unfair, the truth."
So, he's aggressive against athletes who violate the anti-doping code, but didn't aggressively pursue allegations that he'd violated the whereabouts rule, something he'd apparently do three times?
but THOUGHTSLEADER there is a war against the African athletics, especially the Kenyan and the Moroccan. They want to spread anything negative about countries like that.
Even Ethiopia they set them in the black list while their data is not obvious.
Seing themselves thrown down for decades in the middle and long distances they seek a revival. A revival of Europe/America is not possible without weakening the African Athletics.
Ingrid Kristiansen on Katir case:
Kristiansen: - No, it won't work
Former world champion at 10,000 metres, Ingrid Kristiansen, reacts to the fact that there have been three possible breaches of the obligation to report.
- If it has happened three times, no, it won't work. So people are not brain dead, she says to Net News. The running icon emphasizes that she neither wants to accuse nor raise suspicions against Katir at this time, but is unable to hide that the news makes her skeptical, simply because she knows how widespread cheating is in today's athletics. - I'm not saying he's done anything wrong, but you have to show up. Show up where you said you would be. It is not more difficult.
- I am too old to understand everything that is happening today, but it seems strange. He must know that this will have consequences. If it happens once, that's fine, maybe you won't get to where you need to be in time, but three times, then it's a bit more, says Kristiansen.
Mate, whereabouts violations mean Katir either didn't provide accurate location information or wasn't available during his designated time slot. He, not the testers, must prove otherwise.
Katir claims he WAS available for some missed tests. If so, he would've received notice of those violations and had every opportunity to appeal. We know of no successful appeals. Meaning? He likely couldn't provide convincing evidence of his availability.
Suggesting errors caused all three violations undermines the system. His appeals would have won if he had solid proof. This implies the problem stems from Katir's actions, not a flawed process.
While mistakes happen, athletes are primarily responsible for their whereabouts. Missing three tests without successful appeals casts serious doubt on Katir being wrongly targeted.
Sure, Katir is responsible for keeping his whereabouts up to date, and being where he is supposed to be when he is supposed to be there, and for launching any appeals challenging the whereabouts strikes against him. I have seen it takes a while for authorities to notify athletes of whereabouts, so it will be interesting to see the timeline. If he fails, and gets a 2-year ban, that is bad luck for him, but those are the rules, and I don't really have any strong feelings about that.
My real point is not any of that, but whether we can reasonably infer doping with a banned substance or method, from three whereabouts failures.
For example, I was told one difference is that clean athletes appeal wrongly recorded missed tests. Yet I cannot imagine that such remedies are exclusively available to clean athletes. How would that be enforced? Dopers and non-dopers alike can appeal whereabouts violations if they have evidence of an alibi. If everyone imagines all dopers are like Lance Armstrong and US Postal, I can easily imagine an opposite scenario where most dopers actively game the system, and closely monitor their whereabouts and always create alibis with evidence whenever they are glowing during their chosen hour, and that most athletes who miss three tests are in fact the unorganized non-dopers who don't game the system. But I don't have this data. You don't. Armstronglivs doesn't. No one at letsrun does. That would be baseless speculation no different than the rest of the baseless presumptions.
Without more complete and representative information, there is really no way to reliably infer doping with a banned substance or method from the failure of testers to find and test athletes three times in a year.
but THOUGHTSLEADER there is a war against the African athletics, especially the Kenyan and the Moroccan. They want to spread anything negative about countries like that.
Even Ethiopia they set them in the black list while their data is not obvious.
Seing themselves thrown down for decades in the middle and long distances they seek a revival. A revival of Europe/America is not possible without weakening the African Athletics.
Ingrid Kristiansen on Katir case:
Kristiansen: - No, it won't work
Former world champion at 10,000 metres, Ingrid Kristiansen, reacts to the fact that there have been three possible breaches of the obligation to report.
- If it has happened three times, no, it won't work. So people are not brain dead, she says to Net News. The running icon emphasizes that she neither wants to accuse nor raise suspicions against Katir at this time, but is unable to hide that the news makes her skeptical, simply because she knows how widespread cheating is in today's athletics. - I'm not saying he's done anything wrong, but you have to show up. Show up where you said you would be. It is not more difficult.
- I am too old to understand everything that is happening today, but it seems strange. He must know that this will have consequences. If it happens once, that's fine, maybe you won't get to where you need to be in time, but three times, then it's a bit more, says Kristiansen.
I disagree with this to be clear. You feel bad for a Kenyan who is unable to compete due to insufficient testing, but this is a pretty rare occurrence nowadays.
Sure, Katir is responsible for keeping his whereabouts up to date, and being where he is supposed to be when he is supposed to be there, and for launching any appeals challenging the whereabouts strikes against him. I have seen it takes a while for authorities to notify athletes of whereabouts, so it will be interesting to see the timeline. If he fails, and gets a 2-year ban, that is bad luck for him, but those are the rules, and I don't really have any strong feelings about that.
My real point is not any of that, but whether we can reasonably infer doping with a banned substance or method, from three whereabouts failures.
For example, I was told one difference is that clean athletes appeal wrongly recorded missed tests. Yet I cannot imagine that such remedies are exclusively available to clean athletes. How would that be enforced? Dopers and non-dopers alike can appeal whereabouts violations if they have evidence of an alibi. If everyone imagines all dopers are like Lance Armstrong and US Postal, I can easily imagine an opposite scenario where most dopers actively game the system, and closely monitor their whereabouts and always create alibis with evidence whenever they are glowing during their chosen hour, and that most athletes who miss three tests are in fact the unorganized non-dopers who don't game the system. But I don't have this data. You don't. Armstronglivs doesn't. No one at letsrun does. That would be baseless speculation no different than the rest of the baseless presumptions.
Without more complete and representative information, there is really no way to reliably infer doping with a banned substance or method from the failure of testers to find and test athletes three times in a year.
Absolutely! While we can't directly equate missed tests with microdosing, the correlation is strong enough to warrant targeted investigations. It's improbable that a clean athlete would consistently disregard anti-doping rules. Katir has been accused of doing this. His actions signal a broader intent to circumvent such measures, and frankly, I'm comfortable calling him a doper.
Furthermore, yes, proving malicious intent based solely on missed tests is challenging. However, repeated unexplained failures fit the behavioral profile of athletes seeking an unfair, and likely banned, advantage. This pattern has me comfortable considering him a doper, a violator of the Anti-doping rules.
CAS never ever would argue why a doper would dope with whatever whenever. That's not their job at all.
And it's not just uncastrated (undisputedly "far less than 1 in 10000") and high soya diet (which would be a waste of the farmer's money): there were 5 scenarios that all needed to happen simultaneously, not just those 2. It was Shelburrito's task to provide evidence, but she only succeeded somewhat in 1 of those 5 (namely that she may have received the wrong order), meaning f.ex. she couldn't find a single farmer who used such a high soya diet.
All CAS panelists voted unanimously that each of the latter 4 was either improbable (like uncastrated boar) or even highly improbable; a 2:1 vote in any one of those would have been enough to ban her.
I agree in everything you are saying here. But that underlines exactly my point of why the procedures of Wada and CAS should follow the rules in civil and criminal cases used in the courts. -We would then have had the arguments and reasoning I miss (from attorneys about Shelby’s alleged motives for use of ingested nandrolone -establishing a convincing motive is an important thing in every real courts. An attempt to try to understand what has been going on, and why). And this idea isn’t even of my making -CAS itself has through their own appointed expert evaluations in writings pointed out that the above mentioned would be an necessary improvement…
It was upon Shelby to prove her innocence, and not upon Wada / CAS to prove her guilt. But this is contrary to how it is done in all democratic societies in other cases, and judicial experts strongly recommends this to be changed.
I’m not sure a changing of the procedures would have changed the outcome of the Houlihan case. But we would at least have gotten a reasoning and arguments for her motives, and why she was found to do what she was convicted to do…
We won't hear about the dopers and the clean athletes with 1 or 2 misses, who succeed to appeal one of them before the 3rd one. Both clean athletes and doped athletes could miss three tests per year, for 20 years in a row, and if they managed to have an evidentiary alibi 1 time each year, we would never know about it. We simply cannot answer "How often do clean athletes miss three tests that they cannot show at least one had justifiable cause?" nor its parallel unasked "How often do doped athletes miss three tests that they cannot show at least one had justifiable cause?".
You avoided my questions too.
When you use the term "doper" are you using WADA's expanded definition that includes whereabouts violations? If so, the whereabouts violation would make him a doper, regardless of the use of any banned substance or method.
Furthermore your false dichotomy either/or question excludes other alternatives. Without any details, we don't yet know if all the missed tests are reasonably Katir's fault, rather than partly the tester's or even a software issue with ADAMs. I've seen other cases where the tester knocked on the wrong door, or waited outside while the athlete was inside the whole time. So we have to wait and see before jumping to baseless conclusions. It could be that he is both a doper and an idiot, or it could be he is not a doper, and a victim of a process for unannounced testing that is prone to errors at several levels, or any combination in between.
Mate, whereabouts violations mean Katir either didn't provide accurate location information or wasn't available during his designated time slot. He, not the testers, must prove otherwise.
Katir claims he WAS available for some missed tests. If so, he would've received notice of those violations and had every opportunity to appeal. We know of no successful appeals. Meaning? He likely couldn't provide convincing evidence of his availability.
Suggesting errors caused all three violations undermines the system. His appeals would have won if he had solid proof. This implies the problem stems from Katir's actions, not a flawed process.
While mistakes happen, athletes are primarily responsible for their whereabouts. Missing three tests without successful appeals casts serious doubt on Katir being wrongly targeted.
It is not always that simple as you stated above.
An athlete may offer hotel, hotel address, room number.
A. Testers sometime have difficulty getting by hotel staff and up to room. Tester may assume athlete told hotel staff to behave accordingly but hotel staff may make said decision to block outsider.
B. Cell phones do not always work well in hotels.
C. Tester may choose to knock on hotel room door without calling but may not be able to get to room.
All this talk is pointless. Katir is done. Even if he somehow wins an appeal, the running world will never buy that he’s clean again. You don’t have 3 whereabouts failures in an Olympic year if you aren’t hiding something, simple as that. And he’s only appealing one of the three. Right right right…
All this talk is pointless. Katir is done. Even if he somehow wins an appeal, the running world will never buy that he’s clean again. You don’t have 3 whereabouts failures in an Olympic year if you aren’t hiding something, simple as that. And he’s only appealing one of the three. Right right right…
Did the world buy he was clean before? Coevett said 90% of LRC didn't. Before whereabouts, he was already the most obvious doper with three strikes against him: Spanish, Morrocan, and 3:28 out of nowhere.
Absolutely! While we can't directly equate missed tests with microdosing, the correlation is strong enough to warrant targeted investigations. It's improbable that a clean athlete would consistently disregard anti-doping rules. Katir has been accused of doing this. His actions signal a broader intent to circumvent such measures, and frankly, I'm comfortable calling him a doper.
Furthermore, yes, proving malicious intent based solely on missed tests is challenging. However, repeated unexplained failures fit the behavioral profile of athletes seeking an unfair, and likely banned, advantage. This pattern has me comfortable considering him a doper, a violator of the Anti-doping rules.
I'm sure you are comfortable with that, along with many other vocal posters here.
But you speak of strong correlations and probabilities, and unexplained failures fitting behavorial profiles and patterns. Where is that coming from? From where I'm sitting, this is just the collective intuitions and prejudices from a group of people with no real inside or advanced information. Generally this kind of data is hidden from the public.
Sure, there can be patterns, like many last minute updates of whereabouts, that indicate an athlete attempting to foil testers on purpose. This example is explicit in WADA's testing guidelines and is considered as input to strategic testing. But do you know Katir's testing history, and how his patterns compared to clean versus dirty athletes? Where did you get that inside knowledge?
The reason the limit is three missed tests, and not two or one, is because life happens. This is a compromise between not undermining testing and giving the athlete some chance of living a normal life, especially in the off-season. And if life happens once or twice a year, it can also happen three or more time per year. While most athletes will be diligent, and with 20-20 hindsight, it is easy for LRC fans to say they all should be, I'm sure there are some athletes, because they are also normal people, who may have submitted their daily schedules months earlier, may simply forget to update their whereabouts in the excitement.
I honestly don't know what patterns that testing authorities routinely see and how that is distributed between clean and dirty athletes (or how anyone would even determine that), and I'm pretty certain no one else here knows either.
So three missed tests is evidence of three missed tests. This is worth a 2-year ban. Anything more is unknowledgeable speculation.
I agree in everything you are saying here. But that underlines exactly my point of why the procedures of Wada and CAS should follow the rules in civil and criminal cases used in the courts. -We would then have had the arguments and reasoning I miss (from attorneys about Shelby’s alleged motives for use of ingested nandrolone -establishing a convincing motive is an important thing in every real courts. An attempt to try to understand what has been going on, and why). And this idea isn’t even of my making -CAS itself has through their own appointed expert evaluations in writings pointed out that the above mentioned would be an necessary improvement…
It was upon Shelby to prove her innocence, and not upon Wada / CAS to prove her guilt. But this is contrary to how it is done in all democratic societies in other cases, and judicial experts strongly recommends this to be changed.
I’m not sure a changing of the procedures would have changed the outcome of the Houlihan case. But we would at least have gotten a reasoning and arguments for her motives, and why she was found to do what she was convicted to do…
Part of what was pointed out was it looks like you are mixing up parties. It is not up to WADA or CAS to make such arguments or prove guilt, but World Athletics (WA) through the AIU and their experts.
Without discussing the merits, or relitigating, here is some context:
Before 2015, such burdens of demonstrating aggravating circumstances (e.g "intent") fell on the anti-doping authorities, and if they succeeded, a 2-year ban could be extended to 4 years.
After 2015 changes to the WADA Code, that burden shifted to the athlete, to establish "no intent", in order to reduce a 4-year ban to a 2-year ban. This leads to a process where the athlete must argue possibilities to a "more likely than not" standard, that can be surgically picked apart by anti-doping bodies and their experts, while the anti-doping experts can suggest possibilities to a much lower bar of "consistent with", regardless of likelihood.
The most important argument for Houlihan was whether she met her burden to overcome the presumption that the WADA Labs followed their rules. A minority of the CAS Panel agreed with Houlihan that she met that burden. If the majority had ruled that way, there would be no AAF and no ADRV -- just an ATF and a need for further testing.
Since the majority of the CAS Panel ruled against Houlihan on that point, the only argument left was whether Houlihan could meet her burden of overcoming the presumption of intent, in order to determine the length of her sanction for the now irreversible ADRV finding. This is an uphill battle, given the recent shift in burdens. The WADA Code explicitly says this should be extremely difficult without first identifying the source. Generally speaking, from what we have seen in other cases, identifying the source, for any athlete who does not know it, is not always straightforward.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
