say it again. wrote:
She's banned and a cheat,no need to test a cheat.
You have no concept what the rules are about.
Read before contaminating this thread with error upon error.
say it again. wrote:
She's banned and a cheat,no need to test a cheat.
You have no concept what the rules are about.
Read before contaminating this thread with error upon error.
Well USADA alone tested her 11 times in 2021. But on the other hand, they could never catch that doper before, AIU had to come over to finally nab her.
In that context, what would be interesting imho:
- Why did USADA test her even more in 2020 (likewise Centro + Jager)?
- How often did they warn her ahead of a test?
- How often did they give her a courtesy call during a test attempt?
- How often did she "miss" a test?
- How often did she have a suspicious test result?
But unfortunately, there is no transparency here, not even after she got caught doping.
casual obsever wrote:
Well USADA alone tested her 11 times in 2021. But on the other hand, they could never catch that doper before, AIU had to come over to finally nab her. In that context, what would be interesting imho: - Why did USADA test her even more in 2020 (likewise Centro + Jager)? - How often did they warn her ahead of a test? - How often did they give her a courtesy call during a test attempt? - How often did she "miss" a test? - How often did she have a suspicious test result? But unfortunately, there is no transparency here, not even after she got caught doping.
No evidence she was taking drugs prior to the test in question. Why do you invent stuff.
However I do find it interesting your point about advance notice USADA tests. Something we have heard little of. I wonder why Wada did not make them non compliant.
Problem with transparency is that it may well conflict with privacy rights that Wada support.
CAS has openly reprimanded USADA for their illegitimate calls in the Coleman decision. We haven't heard of Wada's reaction, if any.
USADA actually used two kinds of calls:
1) Prior to the test. The classic warning call that used to be standard in Kenya too.
2) During the test, if the athlete was not home (or wherever they said they'd be). The classic courtesy call, to allow the athlete to come back to get tested (or for the athlete to decide to better stay away), instead of counting it as a missed test.
Ironically, Coleman benefited at least twice from the courtesy calls. First, when USADA called him to get tested, instead of giving him another missed test, and second, when CAS ruled that his ban was to be shortened because AIU did not give him the (illegitimate!) courtesy call that he was apparently used to.
We learned from Simpson that those courtesy calls used to be standard USADA practice. In her case, they even followed her to a neighboring city, instead of following the rules and flagged that as a missed test.
Who knows how many other athletes benefited from that?
casual obsever wrote:
CAS has openly reprimanded USADA for their illegitimate calls in the Coleman decision. We haven't heard of Wada's reaction, if any. USADA actually used two kinds of calls: 1) Prior to the test. The classic warning call that used to be standard in Kenya too. 2) During the test, if the athlete was not home (or wherever they said they'd be). The classic courtesy call, to allow the athlete to come back to get tested (or for the athlete to decide to better stay away), instead of counting it as a missed test. Ironically, Coleman benefited at least twice from the courtesy calls. First, when USADA called him to get tested, instead of giving him another missed test, and second, when CAS ruled that his ban was to be shortened because AIU did not give him the (illegitimate!) courtesy call that he was apparently used to. We learned from Simpson that those courtesy calls used to be standard USADA practice. In her case, they even followed her to a neighboring city, instead of following the rules and flagged that as a missed test. Who knows how many other athletes benefited from that?
Still very surprised that USADA got away with such fundamental and material breaches of the WADA Code.
Collin wrote:
Serious question: now that she's already banned for doping, is she no longer in the testing pool?
Why does this question keep coming up? Does anyone think they found a loophole that WADA couldn't predict?
Athletes serving a ban are still subject to testing.
casual obsever wrote:
Well USADA alone tested her 11 times in 2021. But on the other hand, they could never catch that doper before, AIU had to come over to finally nab her.
In that context, what would be interesting imho:
- Why did USADA test her even more in 2020 (likewise Centro + Jager)?
- How often did they warn her ahead of a test?
- How often did they give her a courtesy call during a test attempt?
- How often did she "miss" a test?
- How often did she have a suspicious test result?
But unfortunately, there is no transparency here, not even after she got caught doping.
It could be interesting. Maybe we would learn:
- USADA didn't catch her because she wasn't doping, and Dec. 2020 was just a one time incident
- USADA is just doing their job, when they test their top athletes like Houlihan, Centro, and Jager, etc., frequently
- USADA doesn't instruct DCOs to give "courtesy calls"
- She didn't have any missed tests or suspicious test results
Some secrecy is necessary to protect the reputation of innocent athletes from excessive speculation.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Well USADA alone tested her 11 times in 2021. But on the other hand, they could never catch that doper before, AIU had to come over to finally nab her.
In that context, what would be interesting imho:
- Why did USADA test her even more in 2020 (likewise Centro + Jager)?
- How often did they warn her ahead of a test?
- How often did they give her a courtesy call during a test attempt?
- How often did she "miss" a test?
- How often did she have a suspicious test result?
But unfortunately, there is no transparency here, not even after she got caught doping.
It could be interesting. Maybe we would learn:
- USADA didn't catch her because she wasn't doping, and Dec. 2020 was just a one time incident
- USADA is just doing their job, when they test their top athletes like Houlihan, Centro, and Jager, etc., frequently
- USADA doesn't instruct DCOs to give "courtesy calls"
- She didn't have any missed tests or suspicious test results
Some secrecy is necessary to protect the reputation of innocent athletes from excessive speculation.
Given tests are not random I have wondered how the publication of who has been selected for testing is in some way actionable.
original liar soorer wrote:
However I do find it interesting your point about advance notice USADA tests. Something we have heard little of. I wonder why Wada did not make them non compliant.
...
Still very surprised that USADA got away with such fundamental and material breaches of the WADA Code.
Material breach of the WADA Code?
Before you fall into that trap, perhaps we need more information.
Which breach? Which part of the Code? Who breached?
Do we have any evidence that it was USADA giving courtesy calls to athletes?
Or was it DCOs exercising their own common sense and reasonable judgement?
Does the WADA Code strictly forbid it? Maybe you mean ISTI. It looks like the WADA restrictions on federations, ADAs and ADOs, in this respect is not that strict, as long as they conform to the ISTI, and that DCOs in the field are given WADA Guidelines (not mandatory) and wide discretion to exercise their own judgement and common sense and make reasonable efforts to find the athlete, on a case by case basis. Different federations/organizations may have different policies explaining why USADA and AIU behave differently, or they may decide through strategic planning to be more strict with certain athletes only when they suspect these athletes are avoiding testing, e.g. making frequent last minute updates to their whereabouts, or other suspicious behaviour or previous results.
rekrunner wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
However I do find it interesting your point about advance notice USADA tests. Something we have heard little of. I wonder why Wada did not make them non compliant.
...
Still very surprised that USADA got away with such fundamental and material breaches of the WADA Code.
Material breach of the WADA Code?
Before you fall into that trap, perhaps we need more information.
Which breach? Which part of the Code? Who breached?
Do we have any evidence that it was USADA giving courtesy calls to athletes?
Or was it DCOs exercising their own common sense and reasonable judgement?
Does the WADA Code strictly forbid it? Maybe you mean ISTI. It looks like the WADA restrictions on federations, ADAs and ADOs, in this respect is not that strict, as long as they conform to the ISTI, and that DCOs in the field are given WADA Guidelines (not mandatory) and wide discretion to exercise their own judgement and common sense and make reasonable efforts to find the athlete, on a case by case basis. Different federations/organizations may have different policies explaining why USADA and AIU behave differently, or they may decide through strategic planning to be more strict with certain athletes only when they suspect these athletes are avoiding testing, e.g. making frequent last minute updates to their whereabouts, or other suspicious behaviour or previous results.
When I say Wada in this context I would inc their IST.
Central to the test is that it is no notice and the athlete is to be kept under observation from the moment that they are advised of the test.
Many of the whereabouts failures in USA contained a reference to the DCO ringing the athlete when they could not find them.Coleman was a particular case noted by CAS.
I recall that before the whereabouts became serious offences that USADA did ring the athlete to avoid a very expensive journey by the DCO.
I think or feel that the AIU have had a more determined attitude in quick return visits and examining excuses with more rigour.
We saw this in the UK with the Dry case where they did not take the excuse for absence so blindly.
Haha, yes, it wasn't exactly a one time thing that a USADA tester let an athlete off the hook with such a call.
They really should know better, see
https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/education/three-things-to-expect-from-usada-dcos/
As for tests not being random, USADA has published general criteria as to why they test which athletes more often than others, including previously suspicious test results, suspicious team members, suspicious performance jumps etc.
Many years ago, K. Goucher publicly explained this too.
You can find in the USADA database that some athletes like Rupp are regularly high on their list, whereas others fluctuate from often tested to normally tested. You can also look up when Houlihan started to be in their focus. Interestingly, the highly tested athletes included and continue to include quite a few of BTC's top (5 star Jager anyone?), but not all of them, e.g. Frerichs (despite her performance jumps).
So the public gets to see who is suspicious, but not why.
casual obsever wrote:
Haha, yes, it wasn't exactly a one time thing that a USADA tester let an athlete off the hook with such a call.
They really should know better, see
https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/education/three-things-to-expect-from-usada-dcos/As for tests not being random, USADA has published general criteria as to why they test which athletes more often than others, including previously suspicious test results, suspicious team members, suspicious performance jumps etc.
Many years ago, K. Goucher publicly explained this too.
You can find in the USADA database that some athletes like Rupp are regularly high on their list, whereas others fluctuate from often tested to normally tested. You can also look up when Houlihan started to be in their focus. Interestingly, the highly tested athletes included and continue to include quite a few of BTC's top (5 star Jager anyone?), but not all of them, e.g. Frerichs (despite her performance jumps).
So the public gets to see who is suspicious, but not why.
Privacy, libel.
“We test on the basis of intelligent testing and thus test those we believe are the more likely if taking drugs; and here is the list of those we think are suspicious “
Will the Police ever produce a list of those innocent of any offences but think they might not be?
original liar soorer wrote:
When I say Wada in this context I would inc their IST.
Central to the test is that it is no notice and the athlete is to be kept under observation from the moment that they are advised of the test.
Many of the whereabouts failures in USA contained a reference to the DCO ringing the athlete when they could not find them.Coleman was a particular case noted by CAS.
I recall that before the whereabouts became serious offences that USADA did ring the athlete to avoid a very expensive journey by the DCO.
I think or feel that the AIU have had a more determined attitude in quick return visits and examining excuses with more rigour.
We saw this in the UK with the Dry case where they did not take the excuse for absence so blindly.
I'm not seeing what surprised you nor what you think USADA got away with.
Are these rules or non-mandatory guidelines?
DCOs can ring the athlete, and this is not a fundamental or material breach of the Code.
But you did relate your view of my intelligence to my race.[/quote]
You're both a liar and irremediably stupid. You have proven both yet again. You can't attribute your lamentable defects to your race.
Armstronglivs wrote:
But you did relate your view of my intelligence to my race.
You're both a liar and irremediably stupid. You have proven both yet again. You can't attribute your lamentable defects to your race.[/quote]
I know you can’t; I don’t believe in eugenics like you do with your monkey taunts and racial terms that even you admitted should not have been used.
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Intelligence is not a word I would use in relation to you.
Since you know of substances that enhance performance while damaging health that aren't banned perhaps you could give an example. What is the substance, who uses it, how does it harm health and why doesn't anti-doping know of its existence but you do?
Cox 2 inhibitors , aspirin, anti coagulants , volterol .
All counter indications and research is easily available.
Wada will know but it will make drug control and TUE’s impossible to work for the billions who are subjected to Wada controls.
But you did relate your view of my intelligence to my race.
Aspirin? You are ridiculous. I have it prescribed daily. For my health. You know nothing about medicines. You just make garbage up.
original liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
But you did relate your view of my intelligence to my race.
You're both a liar and irremediably stupid. You have proven both yet again. You can't attribute your lamentable defects to your race.
I know you can’t; I don’t believe in eugenics like you do with your monkey taunts and racial terms that even you admitted should not have been used.[/quote]
Your lying never stops. But what it usefully proves here is that you are a mere void, with nothing of value to contribute to anything. So keep it up - you reinforce the validity of every argument you oppose.
rekrunner wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
When I say Wada in this context I would inc their IST.
Central to the test is that it is no notice and the athlete is to be kept under observation from the moment that they are advised of the test.
Many of the whereabouts failures in USA contained a reference to the DCO ringing the athlete when they could not find them.Coleman was a particular case noted by CAS.
I recall that before the whereabouts became serious offences that USADA did ring the athlete to avoid a very expensive journey by the DCO.
I think or feel that the AIU have had a more determined attitude in quick return visits and examining excuses with more rigour.
We saw this in the UK with the Dry case where they did not take the excuse for absence so blindly.
I'm not seeing what surprised you nor what you think USADA got away with.
Are these rules or non-mandatory guidelines?
DCOs can ring the athlete, and this is not a fundamental or material breach of the Code.
I have just re read the IST Testing and can’t see how such are guidelines.
Can you explain why you think they do not have to be followed.
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
Cox 2 inhibitors , aspirin, anti coagulants , volterol .
All counter indications and research is easily available.
Wada will know but it will make drug control and TUE’s impossible to work for the billions who are subjected to Wada controls.
But you did relate your view of my intelligence to my race.
Aspirin? You are ridiculous. I have it prescribed daily. For my health. You know nothing about medicines. You just make garbage up.
It is a blood thinner and increases circulation and is a painkiller and aspirin can damage the stomach etc.
And what about the other drugs I have mentioned?
To busy with reading eugenics to think about these I assume.
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
You're both a liar and irremediably stupid. You have proven both yet again. You can't attribute your lamentable defects to your race.
I know you can’t; I don’t believe in eugenics like you do with your monkey taunts and racial terms that even you admitted should not have been used.
Your lying never stops. But what it usefully proves here is that you are a mere void, with nothing of value to contribute to anything. So keep it up - you reinforce the validity of every argument you oppose.[/quote]
You other thread posts were full of them inc you providing a wiki link that proved you use phrases that should not longer be used