Brianna Rollins-McNeal - one of America's 4 track Olympic gold medalists in 2016 - is banned (again) for tampering

Raddison wrote:

rule readerr wrote:

If an employer could get rid of staff each time they game an evasive answer to why they were late or absent then there would be an outcry.

If an employee was absent three times in one year and gave evasive answers then, Yes, they would be fired. And, No, there would be no outcry.

You have no experience of uk employment law and HR.

This would be compounded if they claimed or it could be thought they are in a protected catagory.

If they had been employed for over two years then an employer would be stuffed.

The most perfectly run HR dept and having a ready pool of high quality replacements would be a starting point.

I add that it would be one evasive answer,and that could be of many years, to match wada.

Coach: Lawrence Johnson

Agent: John Regis

Athletes are rarely doping without someone else knowing or assisting.

https://www.usatf.org/athlete-bios/brianna-mcneal

rule readerr wrote:

Raddison wrote:

If an employee was absent three times in one year and gave evasive answers then, Yes, they would be fired. And, No, there would be no outcry.

You have no experience of uk employment law and HR.

It sounds more like you have no experience of living in the real world.

Raddison wrote:

rule readerr wrote:

You have no experience of uk employment law and HR.

It sounds more like you have no experience of living in the real world.

On the contrary.

If they said they had depression etc you are stuffed as an employer because they would claim protected catagory.Unlimited damages etc in these protected catagories .

The minimum would be to check if they had personal problems.

It would be highly unlikely it would be a gross misconduct offence and there would be a series of warning and they would be time expiring.

It is inconceivable that any company would have a policy of one evasive answer and sacked.

Now clever chap come back to me on the above details.Any employment law website would add to my points.

Additionally; employers would have no rights to contact them 24/7 inc hols nor watch them urinate.

Not Brionna's year. First she gets shot up by the cops and now banned from competition.

TrackCoach wrote:

Looking at her career as far back as the NCAA, she does not fit the profile of what you expect to see for a doper. McNeal previously had whereabouts violations. As I have posted about several times, the whereabouts system is fair, but I don't think violations 'necessarily' says someone is a doper. However, when you are a 2 time offender, you lose the benefit of doubt.

Not necessarily a doper? Why else would she be tampering with the evidence?

Raddison wrote:

If an employee was absent three times in one year and gave evasive answers then, Yes, they would be fired. And, No, there would be no outcry.

It's even a lot worse than that. They checked on her only eleven times in 2016, and she wasn't available three times. Who would get away with missing, unannounced and unexcused, 27% of the time?

casual obsever wrote:

Raddison wrote:

If an employee was absent three times in one year and gave evasive answers then, Yes, they would be fired. And, No, there would be no outcry.

It's even a lot worse than that. They checked on her only eleven times in 2016, and she wasn't available three times. Who would get away with missing, unannounced and unexcused, 27% of the time?

Any reasonable employer would have noted that she was at the White House and not sack her.

And out of the direct case of this lady can you deal with employment law in the UK about a single evasive answer and then go on to deal with what happens if the employee pulls the disability card.

Well my employer would insist that I ask for permission to fly to the White House (and most likely grant it, but insist that I arrange for someone to take over my duties).

The athlete didn't have to ask, just text where she will be. A privileged situation for her for sure.

Again, note that she pulled such a stunt three times in just five months.

As for your last statement: irrelevant. She is neither in the UK nor has she pulled the disability card.

casual obsever wrote:

Well my employer would insist that I ask for permission to fly to the White House (and most likely grant it, but insist that I arrange for someone to take over my duties).

The athlete didn't have to ask, just text where she will be. A privileged situation for her for sure.

Again, note that she pulled such a stunt three times in just five months.

As for your last statement: irrelevant. She is neither in the UK nor has she pulled the disability card.

Please follow stuff correctly.

I am giving examples of how employees do not need to be exceptional to fail employee admin rules and this is in the context that the average brain power athlete is likely to fail.

So deal with the reality of employment and sanctions especially in the context of one evasive answer.

Wada rules have to apply to the world and UK is still part of it : as is Europe that has the same sort of employment law.

So basically, you're saying that athletes like Briana should be allowed to skate by saying "I'm too stupid and incompetent to be expected to follow the rules"?

Tamper van Beethoven wrote:

So basically, you're saying that athletes like Briana should be allowed to skate by saying "I'm too stupid and incompetent to be expected to follow the rules"?

No!

If you are able to compete successful in international track and field, it is because the athlete is doping. Period.

TrackCoach wrote:

rojo wrote:

Not exactly.

In 2017, she was suspended for 1 year after she missed 3 drug tests in 2016. The arbitrators were lenient on her then as two of the missed tests came on unique days - one when it was Brianna Rollins Day in her hometown and one when she was at the White House.

If this suspension is upheld, I'm going to be looking back at 2016 much more differently myself. Here are some details on what she faces now.

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2021/01/olympic-champ-brianna-rollins-mcneal-is-provisionally-suspended-for-an-anti-doping-violation-for-second-time/

Thanks for the pertantant information.

WTF does 'pertanant' mean?

rule readerr wrote:

So deal with the reality of employment and sanctions especially in the context of one evasive answer.

No. She did not get banned because of "one evasive answer".

Reality:

In 2017, she got banned for three whereabouts failures in 2016 (three misses out of eleven attempts). Regularly employed people might face similar if not worse consequences, depending on the context, for example if they miss unannounced three workdays within a period of eleven workdays, even if one of them includes a visit to the White House.

Now she got banned for "tampering within the results management process" . The details are still not public knowledge, but surely won't just be "one evasive answer". Once the details are out, feel free to compare them to UK employment laws.

Dry and Kipsang specifically, recent examples banned for 2.5, got banned for providing false evidence in writing about their whereabouts failure. For comparison, if say a construction worker wouldn't show up for work, and then when caught, would provide false evidence in writing, he might get fired on the spot.

Gee wiz !

Pay attention!

I am not talking about this particular incident.

In the UK a worker giving one bit of false evidence would be most unlikely to be fired unless it was a fundamental breach of trust. The height of the bar for that is very high and under no circumstances whatsoever could be sacked on the spot.

He could argue he was mistaken, did not understand, was not given help in formulating a response or just say he was suffering from stress as such is covered by the 2010 Equalities Act.

You still have not grasped my point.

The rules are that severe that many in the sport will fail the rules as a matter of course.

If you are employing people on the basis of intellectual capacity then you can justifiably impose somewhat harsh and demanding rules.But in sport you are not, you are engaging in contract with brains of an entirely different capacity and you need rules accordingly.

This is what happens in many industries; otherwise they would be doing nothing less than running hearing and having no staff and fighting in the employment tribunals against ex staff using no win no fee lawyers.

rule readerr wrote:

You still have not grasped my point.

The rules are that severe that many in the sport will fail the rules as a matter of course.

Well, I have seen your point, but it has no validity. Each time someone points this out to you, you come up with another strange straw man, while downplaying the offenses of Dry and Kipsang etc, like "an evasive answer" or " one bit of false evidence".

Referring to the possibility of "suffering from stress" also remains irrelevant until a drug cheat goes down that route.

casual obsever wrote:

rule readerr wrote:

You still have not grasped my point.

The rules are that severe that many in the sport will fail the rules as a matter of course.

Well, I have seen your point, but it has no validity. Each time someone points this out to you, you come up with another strange straw man, while downplaying the offenses of Dry and Kipsang etc, like "an evasive answer" or " one bit of false evidence".

Referring to the possibility of "suffering from stress" also remains irrelevant until a drug cheat goes down that route.

My points do not directly relate to any case.

Only to argue that the rules will catch non cheaters and are of a nature that are unprecedented in jurisprudence.

You have not grasped my point about stress.

There is no evidence in whereabouts charges that the athletes are drug cheats.