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.
What a load of piffle - as usual.
An athlete who is doping will avoid testing - if they can. That is why there is a whereabouts rule. So if an athlete fails to meet those testing requirements the reasonable inference is that they are doping and don't want to test positive. They can duck the testers once or twice but three times and the game is up. They get slapped with an antidoping violation.
Sure, testing doesn't catch all doped athletes but it will catch some which is why athletes will duck testing. Some won't have to because they live in countries that rarely test their athletes or warn them when the testers are coming - for a payoff.
If an athlete gets slapped with a whereabouts violation they have the option of trying to show missing a test or tests was legitimate. But they will have known after they have missed one and then two tests they are effectively on notice. It isn't carelessness that leads them to miss three tests, as they are informed they are obliged to be available at their designated times - there is only one reason; they are doping and know there is a risk they will test positive. Any other conclusion presumes professional athletes don't understand their obligations and are even complete simpletons - but those aren't professional athletes. A few may indeed be careless - tough, that is the price for failing to take their obligations seriously. But none that we know of have argued either carelessness or mental incompetence - neither is an excuse - but only that they had legitimate reason to miss a test (or even three).
It doesn't matter that the whereabouts rule doesn't prove an athlete has doped; it exists as a net to catch those who may be. Those who are innocent have the option of showing they had legitimate reason not to be available for testing - but it is their responsibility to show that and not for antidoping to prove they were doping. If they can't show such cause then in all likelihood they were doping and it isn't necessary for WADA or anyone to prove that. It isn't as definitive as a confirmed failed test, which is why the penalties are different but the conclusion is essentially the same. These are not merely technical infringements; they are rules designed to catch cheats. And they do. One has just been added to the list.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
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…
I understand he has been provisionally suspended. My question to this board remains. When will there be word if he is going to be exonerated or if he has to serve a suspension?
Any individual suspected of something should be able to go through a fair process to determine if they are guilty or not. Being provisionally suspended shouldn't be a presumption of guilt. Let's see what comes out of the process that looks into the reasons for the provisional suspension. Information may come to light that exonerates him.
Poor Katir ... if did know the number of LRC failure runners that hate him he would never let this silly administrative error go.
And for NelsonMandela, Azzedine Habs beat yesterday Nordas at Lievin setting a new record for France.
Add to that Abdelatif El Guess (from Marrakesh) set a new world indoor lead at Belgium.
And cherry in the pie, El Bakkali will probably double Olympic champion and triple world champion.
Then prepare yourself for a hatred suicide.
Dude, you sound like the babies here in the USA who dramatically allege that those disagreeing with them harbor "hatred" rather than plausible reasons for their opposing views. In the USA, if you disagree that people can somehow change their sex, someone likely will label you a transphobe. In the USA, if you are opposed to illegal immigration, someone likely will label you a xenophobe. In the USA, if you think policies should be race-blind and sex-blind regarding school admissions, contractor selection, and employment, someone likely will label you a racist and a sexist.
Any individual suspected of something should be able to go through a fair process to determine if they are guilty or not. Being provisionally suspended shouldn't be a presumption of guilt.
It will be a few months until the first DT decision. Then another 6 - 12 months if one party appeals.
At this point, we know that he had three whereabouts failures and that the AIU dismissed his explanation(s). The DT of course may come to a different conclusion.
Poor Katir ... if did know the number of LRC failure runners that hate him he would never let this silly administrative error go.
And for NelsonMandela, Azzedine Habs beat yesterday Nordas at Lievin setting a new record for France.
Add to that Abdelatif El Guess (from Marrakesh) set a new world indoor lead at Belgium.
And cherry in the pie, El Bakkali will probably double Olympic champion and triple world champion.
Then prepare yourself for a hatred suicide.
Until they get busted as well. It's a never ending cycle. Excuse the pun.
You were unable to medal in middle/long distances for 30 years without an exceptional runner with Somali descendance.
You and the American are the bad students of the School. At least Morocco was able to double World titles in Cross Country 90-91 (later Mourith did the same for Belgium by 2001/2002).
El Bakkali is already a history. He will be lacking a single title to reach the same fame as Ezekiel Kemboi.
Azzedine Habz naturalized French only in 2018 and look at what he is doing.
We don't throw runners like Myers in superior categories without preparation. Our future Jawad Khchina (same age as Myers) is climbing his way step by step starting with the worldwide cross country.
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…
I'm not sure what you are looking for. That's all common knowledge.
The motive for an elite runner to dope? To get better/faster/stronger/more injury resistant, then gain more fame + money + medals + records.
Why an elite runner would dope during base training? That's actually quite common, see f.ex. Kiprop, and note all the testing by the AIU and USADA in November/December/January. Why? Doping your round is the most efficient, and safest way, because then you may use smaller dosages and your blood and urine values don't change too much. Plus being faster and more injury resistant helps during base training too.
Why an elite runner would dope with anabolic steroids like nandrolone? That's also quite common, see Balco, see Armstrong (ok, elite cyclist, but same arguments), see all the busts for steroids including nandrolone on the AIU site. Plus, up to to 2 ng/dl are "allowed" (Shelby just got too greedy, or slipped up in weighing/measuring). Why roids? To get stronger, more injury resistant, heal faster after a minor injury, and be able to close faster in the race.
Why an elite runner would rather ingest the steroids than inject? Yes, less efficient, likely a lot less efficient, but most importantly, a lot safer because of the short glowing time of 6 - 48 hours, depending on the dosage (and a lot easier to do, just take the pill, no reason to hassle around with needles).
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.
Your first sentence here is not correct -in both CAS cases vs the xc skiers Sundby and Johaug CAS explicitly argued why what they did was doping. In this they confronted the athletes’ explanations, and even gave an evaluation of what the athletes had done and if it was likely their motivation had been intentional doping or not. In the Houlihan case I miss this type of reasoning / evaluation. I also miss an evaluation of an obvious argument that was raised in the case: The likelihood of Shelby intentionally ingesting a prohibited drug when / if almost no expected performance effect, and in a situation she was frequently tested… -This likelihood evaluated up against the likelihood of contamination from food…
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.
My point was that a normal judicial procedure would have been an improvement. When it comes to who collects the evidence and so forth this is of course Wada and AIU, never meant any thing else. But the evaluation and verdict in the appeal case is done by CAS -it is here I miss an explicit judgement of all of Shelby’s defences. F.ex like in the Sundby and Johaug (xc skiers) case, where CAS gives the reasoning and arguments I miss in the Houlihan case.
An athlete who is doping will avoid testing - if they can. That is why there is a whereabouts rule. So if an athlete fails to meet those testing requirements the reasonable inference is that they are doping and don't want to test positive. They can duck the testers once or twice but three times and the game is up. They get slapped with an antidoping violation.
Sure, testing doesn't catch all doped athletes but it will catch some which is why athletes will duck testing. Some won't have to because they live in countries that rarely test their athletes or warn them when the testers are coming - for a payoff.
If an athlete gets slapped with a whereabouts violation they have the option of trying to show missing a test or tests was legitimate. But they will have known after they have missed one and then two tests they are effectively on notice. It isn't carelessness that leads them to miss three tests, as they are informed they are obliged to be available at their designated times - there is only one reason; they are doping and know there is a risk they will test positive. Any other conclusion presumes professional athletes don't understand their obligations and are even complete simpletons - but those aren't professional athletes. A few may indeed be careless - tough, that is the price for failing to take their obligations seriously. But none that we know of have argued either carelessness or mental incompetence - neither is an excuse - but only that they had legitimate reason to miss a test (or even three).
It doesn't matter that the whereabouts rule doesn't prove an athlete has doped; it exists as a net to catch those who may be. Those who are innocent have the option of showing they had legitimate reason not to be available for testing - but it is their responsibility to show that and not for antidoping to prove they were doping. If they can't show such cause then in all likelihood they were doping and it isn't necessary for WADA or anyone to prove that. It isn't as definitive as a confirmed failed test, which is why the penalties are different but the conclusion is essentially the same. These are not merely technical infringements; they are rules designed to catch cheats. And they do. One has just been added to the list.
Your reasoning in this post seems to be good -of course masking being on dope is the serious side of whereabouts we all should be concerned about…
But the problem is this: Let me throw in a random number -let’s say f.ex 80% (it could be more, it could be less) of the whereabouts are masking illegal drug use. Okey -tempting to give them all a four years ban and a reputation of being a drug cheater. But what about the 20% (or more, or less) innocent?
3 whereabouts is IMO so serious that one has to be punished, f.ex by a two years ban and a ruined reputation. But should it really be treated exactly the same way as with proven dope cheaters?!
And furthermore: You have said you think every athlete sub 3.30 in the 1500m are drug cheaters -if you could decide would you disqualify all these only based on their pb’s? And lastly: How would you pick the many slower than 3.30 (but still drugged) for disqualification?
Umm.... I said "why a doper would dope", not "why what they did was doping." Be that as it may: do you have a quote?
Man, the point here isn’t the wording. The point is that CAS thoroughly examined and argued around their motivations, and in both cases concluded with no intent, but nevertheless responsible for misconduct (reduced bans -not 4 years, but 2 months for Sundby and 18 months for Johaug).
An athlete who is doping will avoid testing - if they can. That is why there is a whereabouts rule. So if an athlete fails to meet those testing requirements the reasonable inference is that they are doping and don't want to test positive. They can duck the testers once or twice but three times and the game is up. They get slapped with an antidoping violation.
Sure, testing doesn't catch all doped athletes but it will catch some which is why athletes will duck testing. Some won't have to because they live in countries that rarely test their athletes or warn them when the testers are coming - for a payoff.
If an athlete gets slapped with a whereabouts violation they have the option of trying to show missing a test or tests was legitimate. But they will have known after they have missed one and then two tests they are effectively on notice. It isn't carelessness that leads them to miss three tests, as they are informed they are obliged to be available at their designated times - there is only one reason; they are doping and know there is a risk they will test positive. Any other conclusion presumes professional athletes don't understand their obligations and are even complete simpletons - but those aren't professional athletes. A few may indeed be careless - tough, that is the price for failing to take their obligations seriously. But none that we know of have argued either carelessness or mental incompetence - neither is an excuse - but only that they had legitimate reason to miss a test (or even three).
It doesn't matter that the whereabouts rule doesn't prove an athlete has doped; it exists as a net to catch those who may be. Those who are innocent have the option of showing they had legitimate reason not to be available for testing - but it is their responsibility to show that and not for antidoping to prove they were doping. If they can't show such cause then in all likelihood they were doping and it isn't necessary for WADA or anyone to prove that. It isn't as definitive as a confirmed failed test, which is why the penalties are different but the conclusion is essentially the same. These are not merely technical infringements; they are rules designed to catch cheats. And they do. One has just been added to the list.
You are kind of all over the map here. Not really sure what I said you trying to object to.
Sure there are some athletes who will fit your profile of doped athletes ducking tests one too many times. We all remember anecdotes of US Postal athletes hiding under the furniture whisper shouting at their wives not to answer the door. But this is only one of many possibilities. Some clean and some dirty athletes will be smart enough to take corrective measures after being put on notice for 2 whereabouts failures. And some clean and some dirty athletes will be dumb enough to miss a third test.
Without knowing how many fall in each category, there is no reasonable inference possible based on likelihood, from three whereabouts failures, whether the athlete was dumb and clean, or dumb and dirty -- only that he was dumb enough to commit three failures after being put on 2nd notice. There is no reason to think only doped athletes are simpletons and only clean athletes are smart.
So your "reasonable inference" is in fact a presumption looking for confirmation.
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…
I understand he has been provisionally suspended. My question to this board remains. When will there be word if he is going to be exonerated or if he has to serve a suspension?
Any individual suspected of something should be able to go through a fair process to determine if they are guilty or not. Being provisionally suspended shouldn't be a presumption of guilt. Let's see what comes out of the process that looks into the reasons for the provisional suspension. Information may come to light that exonerates him.
It is a presumption of guilt. The onus falls entirely on the athlete to try to prove their innocence.
An athlete who is doping will avoid testing - if they can. That is why there is a whereabouts rule. So if an athlete fails to meet those testing requirements the reasonable inference is that they are doping and don't want to test positive. They can duck the testers once or twice but three times and the game is up. They get slapped with an antidoping violation.
Sure, testing doesn't catch all doped athletes but it will catch some which is why athletes will duck testing. Some won't have to because they live in countries that rarely test their athletes or warn them when the testers are coming - for a payoff.
If an athlete gets slapped with a whereabouts violation they have the option of trying to show missing a test or tests was legitimate. But they will have known after they have missed one and then two tests they are effectively on notice. It isn't carelessness that leads them to miss three tests, as they are informed they are obliged to be available at their designated times - there is only one reason; they are doping and know there is a risk they will test positive. Any other conclusion presumes professional athletes don't understand their obligations and are even complete simpletons - but those aren't professional athletes. A few may indeed be careless - tough, that is the price for failing to take their obligations seriously. But none that we know of have argued either carelessness or mental incompetence - neither is an excuse - but only that they had legitimate reason to miss a test (or even three).
It doesn't matter that the whereabouts rule doesn't prove an athlete has doped; it exists as a net to catch those who may be. Those who are innocent have the option of showing they had legitimate reason not to be available for testing - but it is their responsibility to show that and not for antidoping to prove they were doping. If they can't show such cause then in all likelihood they were doping and it isn't necessary for WADA or anyone to prove that. It isn't as definitive as a confirmed failed test, which is why the penalties are different but the conclusion is essentially the same. These are not merely technical infringements; they are rules designed to catch cheats. And they do. One has just been added to the list.
Your reasoning in this post seems to be good -of course masking being on dope is the serious side of whereabouts we all should be concerned about…
But the problem is this: Let me throw in a random number -let’s say f.ex 80% (it could be more, it could be less) of the whereabouts are masking illegal drug use. Okey -tempting to give them all a four years ban and a reputation of being a drug cheater. But what about the 20% (or more, or less) innocent?
3 whereabouts is IMO so serious that one has to be punished, f.ex by a two years ban and a ruined reputation. But should it really be treated exactly the same way as with proven dope cheaters?!
And furthermore: You have said you think every athlete sub 3.30 in the 1500m are drug cheaters -if you could decide would you disqualify all these only based on their pb’s? And lastly: How would you pick the many slower than 3.30 (but still drugged) for disqualification?
Whereabouts failures and failed tests aren't treated exactly the same because the evidence for doping isn't the same. However, in a general sense, to be convicted of any antidoping violation raises a reasonable likelihood of doping - it is almost certainly the case they doped with a confirmed failed test. In either instance, whether it is a failed test or a whereabouts violation, they have lost their reputation for being "clean". It is ultimately irrelevant to ask how dirty are they when they have a violation; the line has been crossed.
On your last question about 3.30 runners, I don't recall saying anyone faster than that must be doping but I estimate it is around the limit for a clean athlete. Some might possibly run 3.29 but I doubt anything faster could be clean. I'm am speculating on this as it can't be proven either way.
An athlete who is doping will avoid testing - if they can. That is why there is a whereabouts rule. So if an athlete fails to meet those testing requirements the reasonable inference is that they are doping and don't want to test positive. They can duck the testers once or twice but three times and the game is up. They get slapped with an antidoping violation.
Sure, testing doesn't catch all doped athletes but it will catch some which is why athletes will duck testing. Some won't have to because they live in countries that rarely test their athletes or warn them when the testers are coming - for a payoff.
If an athlete gets slapped with a whereabouts violation they have the option of trying to show missing a test or tests was legitimate. But they will have known after they have missed one and then two tests they are effectively on notice. It isn't carelessness that leads them to miss three tests, as they are informed they are obliged to be available at their designated times - there is only one reason; they are doping and know there is a risk they will test positive. Any other conclusion presumes professional athletes don't understand their obligations and are even complete simpletons - but those aren't professional athletes. A few may indeed be careless - tough, that is the price for failing to take their obligations seriously. But none that we know of have argued either carelessness or mental incompetence - neither is an excuse - but only that they had legitimate reason to miss a test (or even three).
It doesn't matter that the whereabouts rule doesn't prove an athlete has doped; it exists as a net to catch those who may be. Those who are innocent have the option of showing they had legitimate reason not to be available for testing - but it is their responsibility to show that and not for antidoping to prove they were doping. If they can't show such cause then in all likelihood they were doping and it isn't necessary for WADA or anyone to prove that. It isn't as definitive as a confirmed failed test, which is why the penalties are different but the conclusion is essentially the same. These are not merely technical infringements; they are rules designed to catch cheats. And they do. One has just been added to the list.
You are kind of all over the map here. Not really sure what I said you trying to object to.
Sure there are some athletes who will fit your profile of doped athletes ducking tests one too many times. We all remember anecdotes of US Postal athletes hiding under the furniture whisper shouting at their wives not to answer the door. But this is only one of many possibilities. Some clean and some dirty athletes will be smart enough to take corrective measures after being put on notice for 2 whereabouts failures. And some clean and some dirty athletes will be dumb enough to miss a third test.
Without knowing how many fall in each category, there is no reasonable inference possible based on likelihood, from three whereabouts failures, whether the athlete was dumb and clean, or dumb and dirty -- only that he was dumb enough to commit three failures after being put on 2nd notice. There is no reason to think only doped athletes are simpletons and only clean athletes are smart.
So your "reasonable inference" is in fact a presumption looking for confirmation.
No, it isn't. How many athletes are convicted of a whereabouts failure because they were simply careless or too stupid to understand their obligations? None argue that - they always try to look for a legitimate excuse. Most fail.
You are kind of all over the map here. Not really sure what I said you trying to object to.
...
So your "reasonable inference" is in fact a presumption looking for confirmation.
No, it isn't. How many athletes are convicted of a whereabouts failure because they were simply careless or too stupid to understand their obligations? None argue that - they always try to look for a legitimate excuse. Most fail.
Yeah, it is. You just don't realize it or want to admit it.
You ask the right question -- how many? Maybe all of them. Maybe none of them. Maybe some split. Impossible to even guess. When you can give me that answer, only then you can start all this talk about likelihoods and reasonable inferences. Until then, you are arguing from your own baseless and uninformed intuition and prejudgement.
Many do argue thing like they were there the whole time, and the tester failed to find them, or that flights were delayed and they neglected to update their whereabouts (or to think of it), or a last minute decision to sleep at a friend's house instead of going home, again neglecting to update their whereabouts, or that they were in the airport on a way to a parade in their hometown in their honor for winning an Oympic medal, etc.
Once again, there is an allowance of three missed tests, because life happens, even for professionals -- especially in the off-season.
Of course none argue careless or stupid, because careless or stupid as a defense is DOA -- it is stripped as a defense by the WADA Code assigning responsibility to the athlete. Even if they did, as a written explanation, it is no excuse. They simply accept it without contest. For example, apparently Katir only disputes #2, and accepts #1 and #3 without contest. These could both be ducked tests while glowing, or they could be unexcusable negligence and carelessness on his part. No way to tell really from where you are sitting.
Part of the problem is that your beliefs are only possible with the false dichotomies you create, artificially limiting choices to things like "either doping or stupidity", in order to confirm the outcome you want to believe. These choices are not mutually exclusive, nor exhaustive.
Just compare the first page of this thread to this one. That celebration and "I told you so" relief that the most obvious doper ever had been suspended has turned into the usual Rekbot walls of text. Successfully baiting others into a pointless and ridiculous discussion about whether whereabout cheats are dopers, and even if they are suspicious. And now it seems he has a growing army of Rekbot clones to assist him.
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.
