rojo wrote:
That being said, Coleman was idiotic. He's the world's fastest man. He nearly got banned a few months ago but got off on a technicality and he decided to go to Chipotle during his window. The fact that his management team allowed that is the definition of amateur hour. They should have paid someone $100 an hour to watch him during that one hour every day.
Tell me you don't actually believe that.
Your analogy would better hold if you were driving 73 in a 65 zone every day for a year. Twice over the course of the year you were pulled over and ticketed, and you were told that if it happened a third time, you would go to jail. I would make damn sure to drive 65 from then on.
Even with imperfect application, the rules are not difficult to comply with. 99.9% of athletes are able to manage it. The ones who don't are either deliberately dodging the tests due to doping or are breathtakingly irresponsible.
There isn't a champion level sprinter who is not doping. Sorry.
jonathon. wrote:
worlds fastest man? Lol. Doped up cheaters dont count. Nothing he did matters. He is a nothing.
Agree.
that is because coleman hasnt done drugs but the kenyans do.
this isnt difficult.
You're a total sucker if you believe that BS. You don't miss 3 in a row unless you're hiding something, or you're absurdly stupid and careless. I've been in the testing pool. I couldn't fathom missing three tests in a row. Two should get you banned.
Anyone else think this will not be the last time CC will be missing tests
rojo wrote:
That being said, Coleman was idiotic. He's the world's fastest man. He nearly got banned a few months ago but got off on a technicality and he decided to go to Chipotle during his window. The fact that his management team allowed that is the definition of amateur hour. They should have paid someone $100 an hour to watch him during that one hour every day.
It's happened to him so many times he's either too stupid to comply with antidoping regulations or he's glowing and afraid he'll get caught. Either way he needs to get kicked the F out.
We all have a choice to make, we can just dump our love for sprinting or accept the fact all these guys are cheaters. There are no other options available to us, that is it.
Having been knee deep into this stuff since the late 50;s and having boned up on pre 1900 to the late 1950;s and being able to talk every single sprinter of merit there has been, I want to stick to following the action. Not going to ,,,,,ON MY GOD HE CHEATED.....hell we were cheating im high school football, one of the players dad was a truck driver so he'd steal his whites/speed, Handed them to us just not the QB. i have cops in the family, the stories they tell, I worked for an insurance company, talk about cheating, whoa!!! What big business doesn;t cheat?
So......I will accept what the sport is a bunch of cheaters and have my fun with it.
casual obsever wrote:
AJ2000 wrote:
A very good point, there is no accusation or proof of actual wrong doing apart form the negligence of the rules and the following actions in defending himself.
Yes, but on the other hand, Kipsang for example got his banned doubled for lying about his whereabouts = tampering, like Coleman did, but Coleman got a reduction because his tester did not call him like the USADA used to do. He got off easy, again.
Why didn't Coleman get a longer ban for his tampering?
Because the rule is tampering, not lying.
The facts of each case are different.
Coevett wrote:
It's an anti-doping offence and it's an anti-doping offence for a reason. WADA and World Athletics judge that it's extremely unlikely that an athlete can miss three tests in a given time period unintentionally - they were deliberately avoiding being tested when they were hot.
There is a reason, but not the one you would like to believe. A finding of a “whereabouts failure” is not a finding of “use” or “possession”, and carries a lighter sentence.
and another coach wrote:
If we are going to continue to pretend that being clean is important, taking a zero tolerance approach is the only approach that will work. You miss 3 tests, you should be banned for life. You get caught cheating ONCE you get banned for life.
And, please. CC isn't on drugs? ha ha ha ha.
“At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger said that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional.“
“Zero tolerance” means “Zero Intelligence”.
Lifetime bans requires higher standards from testers and tests.
Jeremy Moore wrote:
that is because coleman hasnt done drugs but the kenyans do.
this isnt difficult.
You're a total sucker if you believe that BS. You don't miss 3 in a row unless you're hiding something, or you're absurdly stupid and careless. I've been in the testing pool. I couldn't fathom missing three tests in a row. Two should get you banned.
quite disapointed how long this took.
probably most people just agreed and didnt notice the blatant sarcasm - so blatant i even had to further clarify it in an extra sentence.
rojo wrote:
Despite his fathers rant against me, I was hoping he'd be cleared for the Olympics.
What I want in the anti-doping process is consistency. I'm all for lifetime bans for proven PED usage but if we are going to do stuff like that then the testers and authorities have to be held to incredibly high standards.
Much like the police, the anti-dopers have a huge responsibility and need to be held to very high standards and need to also be filming all interactions.
But if they call one time, they need to call all the time. I don't like how they purposely didn't call Coleman this time to basically try to catch him in a missed test. If you call once, call all the time.
Today's ruling actually pisses me off (Full disclosure, I haven't had time to read it as my son is home sick). So they are saying, "Hey we made some sort of mistake so we are reducing his ban." Are you kidding me? Nope. Not if it causes a guy to miss the Olympics. Do they realize how big of a deal the Olympics are? They should either be keeping it for the full period or lifting it entirely. If we are expecting athletes to be perfect and never eat the wrong thing at a restaurant, then we must expect the same of the anti-doping authorities.
That being said, Coleman was idiotic. He's the world's fastest man. He nearly got banned a few months ago but got off on a technicality and he decided to go to Chipotle during his window. The fact that his management team allowed that is the definition of amateur hour. They should have paid someone $100 an hour to watch him during that one hour every day.
I texted with a guy today who tried to contend that this was all bogus because Coleman hadn't failed a test. He also said Lyles has a crew of people making sure he's waking up at the right time etc and at home during the window and maybe Coleman doesn't have that level of support.
My response was quite simple - no Coleman didn't fail a test and he isn't banned for failing a drugs test. He's banned because one of the very few things you need to do administratively as a professional track and field athlete is be available for 1 hour per day in case the want to test you. And he wasn't. Three times within a year. And the penalty for that is well know, it's consistently applied and there is no bias to it. Yes the physical components of the sport are tough - but the lifestyle is pretty simple and privileged due to it's simplicity.
I don't know exactly how much money Coleman makes now from Nike or what he could have made if he became the Olympic Champion, but if this isn't enough incentive to wake your a$$ up at 8.00am every day and be at home playing video games for an hour in case WADA comes then I don't know what is. Either way, the fact that he clearly fabricates a story about his whereabouts that is comically easy for even a sporting tribunal/council to debunk simply doesn't give a lot of confidence that there isn't something else up.
And I agree with you fully on the reduction of sentence - there is zero logic to it, except when you factor in that the new sentence, whilst banning him from Tokyo, allows him to compete in the World Champs conveniently here in the US in 22 in a facility built by his primary sponsor.
Hey I'm satisfied that a suspension even remains and was not completely squashed because it looked like it was going to be. If he was avoiding being tested for a reason then I am ecstatic about it. If he wasn't and was just arrogant and careless then I feel bad for him but life is full of accountability and there are times when you have to grow up and accept some. That would be the situation for Coleman right now.
this is it wrote:
rojo wrote:
That being said, Coleman was idiotic. He's the world's fastest man. He nearly got banned a few months ago but got off on a technicality and he decided to go to Chipotle during his window. The fact that his management team allowed that is the definition of amateur hour. They should have paid someone $100 an hour to watch him during that one hour every day.
Tell me you don't actually believe that.
I didn't understand the Chipotle thing too. What was it about or why is it even relevant?
NativeSon wrote:
this is it wrote:
Tell me you don't actually believe that.
I didn't understand the Chipotle thing too. What was it about or why is it even relevant?
So Coleman only needed to prove that one of his missed tests was a "mistake" from a tester for it to basically not count and therefore he would only have missed 2 (minus the one mistake) and would be essentially free to compete.
The exact details are on a thread here somewhere and Rojo/Wejo can find it, but it was something to do with a story about Christmas shopping, coming home to watch Monday Night Football, leaving to go get Chipotle - some mess of details like this.
However the story is a fabrication because the timing simply doesn't add up. Under his story he would have had to drive to Chipotle (which was like 2 miles away), get his food and return in something like 4 minutes (that's where the Monday Night Football kickoff comes into play) and even then, the USADA tester said he was at his house the entire time and never saw him come or go as he claimed. It's one of those times where someone hopes they can throw enough misdirection at you that you just get confused and believe them. However this is usually how it works in the world of stupid people and not lawyers etc who debunk horse$hit for a living. Hence it didn't work but that's where good old Chipotle comes into play (and I would love if someone found the thread with the exact details of his story).
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
(and I would love if someone found the thread with the exact details of his story).
The details can be found at the AIU website:
"The Athlete’s Whereabouts information stated that he would be available at his Lexington residence in Kentucky, United States between 7:15pm and 8:15pm on that day."
"The Athlete’s evidence was that he was out (Christmas) shopping. Though, he stated that he arrived home shortly before the end of the one-hour period, because he recalled watching the kick-off of the Monday night football game, which started at 8:15pm."
"Shopping receipts show that the Athlete was shopping at least from 7:13pm, also purchased a chipotle at 7:53pm and finally purchased 16 items from a Walmart Supercenter at 8:22pm. The Athlete’s evidence was that he returned home briefly sometime between 8:00pm and 8:10 pm, ate his chipotle while watching the kick-off, then went out again."
https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/downloads/pdfs/disciplinary-process/en/22.10.2020-World-Athletics-v-Christian-Coleman-Decision.pdfcasual obsever wrote:
... Coleman got a reduction because his tester did not call him like the USADA used to do. He got off easy, again.
The CAS ruling looks inconsistent with the rules and obligations of the athlete. More quotes from the initial decision:
44. The Athlete’s submission misunderstands the purpose of the permitted phone call within the last five minutes of 60 minute the testing window. We repeat I.4.3:
"Because the making of a telephone call is discretionary rather than mandatory, and is left entirely to the absolute discretion of the Sample Collection Authority, proof that a telephone call was made is not a requisite element of a Missed Test, and the lack of a telephone call does not give the Athlete a defence to the assertion of a Missed Test."
45. Moreover, the rule makes clear that the purpose is to prevent the possibility that the athlete is present at the premises but for some reason has not heard the DCO:
"[Comment to I.4.3(c): [...] Where an Athlete has not been located despite the DCO’s reasonable efforts, and there are only five minutes left within the 60-minute time slot, then as a last resort the DCO may (but does not have to) telephone the Athlete (assuming he/she has provided his/her telephone number in his/her Whereabouts Filing to see if he/she is at the specified location."
46. What we would emphasise is that the purpose of the telephone call is not, and can never be, to invite the athlete to come for testing. It is important that this is made clear to athletes.
47. This is also completely consistent with the athlete’s obligation under Article I.4. ISTI to be present and available for testing at the specified location for the entire 60-minute window, without the DCO requiring any other means such as telephone calls, to contact the athlete.