"I believe that these two greek dimwits have something up their sleeves and thus decided to miss the drugs test. I doubt that they are unwell, or that they even had a motor cycle accident."
I agree something is still badly amiss.But this does ans the Q of what a missed test means.
We still dont have an answer.
This will crop up more and more.I think we need to have a universal understanding.
WADA/IAAF/IOC/USADA/UKS/UKA all have different understandings.
thinittru wrote:
[quote]luv2run wrote:
All athletes who are subject to doping control are supposed to complete an Athlete Location Form (ALF) detailing where they are throughout each day. If there is a change, the information needs to be faxed to the proper agency (USADA for US athletes).
If a doping control officer (DCO) looks the form and the athlete is supposed to be in Chicago on August 1 training at Northwestern University from 1 to 3 pm. The DCO goes there. If the athlete is not there, the DCO follows a long protocol which includes waiting at the location until the athlete does or does not show up, checking with USADA to see if there has been a recent change and just did not make it to the DCO (this can easily happen), call the athlete's contact (usually a cell phone, coach or parent, spouse, etc.) If after all this, the athlete cannot be found, it can be a missed test.
Thanks for this clarity.
If you see my previous post you will see that this is NOT the case in the UK.
Thus what is a missed test in the USA is not in UK.
If you decide not to train do you have to say that you are going shopping or whatever and say where you are going instead.Also if your mates call to take you out do you have to fax them where you are going?
What if your coach decides to change plans very late ,how late can this info be sent to the authorities.
In the UK they say they dont expect these changes to be notified.
You say in the lasat sentance I have quoted above that "it can be a missed test",Can you clarify this point please
When I was training very hard I had 7 training places and the choice depended upon my work patten ,weather,and level of fatigue and availability of training mates.Before anyone says that I was dodging tests, this was prior to the present regime.
All seems a nightmare.
Are there any other cicumstances in the world where there have been these levels of control place on people???
It is a logistical nightmare for USADA. I have no idea how many athletes (US) are in the doping control "pool" but with 46 Olympic and Pan Am sports, it has to be over 5000.
I will answer the above as best as I can. I do not work for USADA so I am only going on what I know from DCOs and the protocols that I am familiar with in my current connection to sport.
The protocols in countries should now all be the same actually since WADA protocols are the standard. As you note, things change with time.
As for my comment about the situation can be a missed test, I was writing in broad terms.
If you decide not to train, that is where the contact information for yourself or the coach becomes important. With the cell phone being so ubiquitous, there is little excuse for an athlete to be unavailable.
If the coach changes plans, a notification should be sent in. I know that the USADA fax machine is on 24/7 and that they have gotten faxes in the middle of the night that someone had to leave on an emergency. In that regard, it might be counted as a missed test if the DCO shows up since the DCO might not get that information until USADA personnel get into the office. The athlete made the effort to notify.
You would list all your training locations and then do the best to list where you would be on a specific day. Updating the information as needed.
Imagine the plight of the DCO trying to find a cyclist out training! A cyclist going out for a 100 mile ride covers a lot of territory. One DCO does not even try to find a cyclist during the time he/she lists as training. The form might say they are at 1313 Mockingbird Lane, but the training would be the surrounding area. This is one reason so many athletes are awaken. Good chance to catch them in bed at 0700.
Swimmers are pretty easy by contrast as are most other sports since they train in one location usually. Volleyball players are not often training in a variety of locations (court and gym is about it).
You should also check out the FAQ at
www.usantidoping.orgThe WADA code also gives each national doping control board some leeway in what a missed test is (you can link to the WADA code from USADA).
The link above tells what steps a DCO is to go through in locating an athlete.
Thanks for your last 2 posts.
For other readers I state again the UKSport and UKA make 3 visits prior to declaring a missed test and even then you can explain away your absence.
UKA do not require you to notify a change of training venue for a day ,though they do see it as desirable.
I wonder in the Greek cases what has been the assumption of a missed test and the obligations on both parties.I bet they are somewhat vague.
Has anyone taken legal action on issues of privacy on USADA's interpretation of policy.In the UK such intrusion may be viewed as illegal.
This form of control is the most extreme I am aware of in peacetime in the western world.No government would ever think of applying it to any class of non criminal and indeed few criminals.
When it becomes clear what is involved in European countries the courts will stop it.Remember this sytem is not just for young athletes but mature people who hold high professional postions in society.They will not accept it.
FIFA have already rejected this form of testing!!!!
Lilly, Marilyn, Eddie, Grandpa and I are sleeping at 7:00a! No DCO's allowed!
If you do sport USADA claim the right to test you whether or not you are on the register,even at 5 in the morning.
Be afraid ,very afraid.
When was the last time an authority with ZERO legal backing claimed this right.When can the police claim this right,they dont have it ,it has to be granted by a higher legal authority.
Be afraid,very afraid.Totalitarianism is not yet dead,it lives in the hearts of evil controlling forces and lies just under the surface of all societies.
What would the founding fathers make of USADA?
thinittru wrote:
If you do sport USADA claim the right to test you whether or not you are on the register,even at 5 in the morning.
Be afraid ,very afraid.
When was the last time an authority with ZERO legal backing claimed this right.When can the police claim this right,they dont have it ,it has to be granted by a higher legal authority.
Be afraid,very afraid.Totalitarianism is not yet dead,it lives in the hearts of evil controlling forces and lies just under the surface of all societies.
What would the founding fathers make of USADA?
The USADA does not have the right to come to my house at 5:00a, nor does the governing body in the UK have the right to visit your house.
Well, I guess they do if you sign up for their club. Funny, the governing bodies tell you straight up that you are subject to random, indiscriminant tests. If you don't like it, take your track shoes and go somewhere else.
The rants about unfair and unethical dope testing procedures is quite old. Not a single US athlete is forced to take illegal substances, nor are they forced to participate. To argue that the founding fathers might have a negative thing to say about the USADA is downright stupid. The USADA is not a police state, negatively impacting the general population; rather, it is the enforcement arm of an organization that people choose to be in.
There are far too many athletes willing to subject themselves to this scrutiny to argue anything different than:
If the athlete knows the rules, and the athlete fails to follow the rules, then the athlete is subject to the consequences as they have been stated.
It's a numbers game, dude. The athletes dope up and then hope to beat the odds of getting tested. Testing is working. All the cheaters might not get caught, but some of them will, and that's good enough for me.
They do claim the right to come to your house and they ask those in the house where you are and they write down the answers that they are given and they also add their own comments as to whether they believe that person.
Seems like that we use the words a "police state" to me.
If an employer had rules that you work machines without guards and does not employ females then no matter whether you agree to work then the employer is in the wrong.
I realise that WADA say there rules are a special case but the Q will become "are they?"
As UKS is an agency of the Goverenment they must abide by the EHRA(human rights).They cant apply rules that are in contradiction to this Act,no matter what agreement seems to have been made.As the whereabouts forms and perpetual updating by the hour tightens up there will be further objections to out of comp tests.
There are many that bitterly object to coming home and finding testers in their house and also object to having to give samples and explain to their children what on earth is going on.
If any form of employment contract exists between an athlete and the Governing Body,and I am sure it does in some countries,then the testing will be seen as illegal.
Excluding the employement part;did you note that the case against the England football coach stopped on the issue of the EHRA.
In short by joining something you dont give up your rights.
The Casey Martin golf issues is a further illustration.
You said your wife was reading the rules how is she getting on with them.
thinittru wrote:
You said your wife was reading the rules how is she getting on with them.
She stopped reading the rules and moved on to politics. She's going to write in Lance Armstrong for President in the next election!
Your arguments above don't make sense. I will use American examples, and you can draw the UK equivalent.
The police in the US are not allowed to come to my house and subject me to random search and seizuer. Probable cause is required prior to a search. The USADA also does not have the authority, since I do not belong to an organization that would fall under their jurisdiction.
Your second example cites a workplace situation. American athletes do not work for USATF. They particiapte in events sanctioned by the USATF and are rewarded based upon performance. They do not receive wages; thus they are not employees. It is possible they might be considered subcontractors, but employees? No.
Follow the case of an English football coach? Heck, I'm an American and we call it soccer. If the ball is white and black, Americans usually ignore it. But I am interested if you care to enlighten me.
Casey Martin is not a good example. His is a case where the rules were determined to be in contradiction to Federal law (Americans with Disabilities Act). It is against local and Federal laws to dispense, use, obtain, or possess prescription or designer drugs without a proper perscription.
US courts will be hard-pressed to make illegal the random testing of athletes for the use of illegally prescribed drugs, as long as the rules stating that such tests will be conducted as a condition of USATF membership. These same rules are applied in many workplaces in the US. The USADA (or your employer) gets to take urine or blood and look for a specific list of banned substances. They are not allowed to go on a fishing expedition to find whatever seems interesting. They aren't allowed to disclose the findings of legal substances that might make inference to certain medical conditions. Refer to the last positive that was dismissed due to legitimate medical reasons (as rumored, improper T/E ratios due to a "morning after" pill). If the USADA were to begin testing for diseases, however, those tests would violate privacy laws and would be illegal.
whats the status of this?
I will respond by ref to varioiu points.
"The USADA also does not have the authority, since I do not belong to an organization that would fall under their jurisdiction."
Yes they dont have authority but if you dont let them in then and there you loose your livelyhood.Seems quite powerful to me.
"Your second example cites a workplace situation."
I hope I said that as they move to or may have become employees then other laws kick in.In some countries they are under contract and it would be interesting to see if this is as employees rather than contractors.Varioius revenue depts see such in different light as they try to bring more and more in as employees rather than self employed.But the point was more by analogy.I now add a futher point to make this clearer.I run a fairground;you come on my fairground and I must ensure I comply with various laws.I cant say you agreed to come on regardless.AND..health and safety rules apply to track.
"But I am interested if you care to enlighten me"(soccer)
The coach ,who many wanted to sack anyway,was cought shagging a fellow employee.He was asked if it was true,he gave an ambiguos reply.The big issue was going to be did he lie to his employees,however when someone pointed out that under the European Human rights act he had rights of privacy it was realised that they had no right to ask the Q.Thus case dropped.All agree that that involved in out of comp tests is an invasion of privacy.Start waiting for the first cases.Prof McClaren of CAS told me that there were still many untested rights matters.(ditto watching kids pee)
"Casey Martin is not a good example. His is a case where the rules were determined to be in contradiction to Federal law (Americans with Disabilities Act). It is against local and Federal laws to dispense, use, obtain, or possess prescription or designer drugs without a proper perscription."
Martin is the exact case ;real law against sport rules.
You must realise that many banned drugs do not need prescripions,or you may get them by prescription anyway.DHEA is fully available over the counter.
US courts will be hard-pressed to make illegal the random testing of athletes for the use of illegally prescribed drugs, as long as the rules stating that such tests will be conducted as a condition of USATF membership. These same rules are applied in many workplaces in the US. The USADA (or your employer) gets to take urine or blood and look for a specific list of banned substances. They are not allowed to go on a fishing expedition to find whatever seems interesting. They aren't allowed to disclose the findings of legal substances that might make inference to certain medical conditions. Refer to the last positive that was dismissed due to legitimate medical reasons (as rumored, improper T/E ratios due to a "morning after" pill). If the USADA were to begin testing for diseases, however, those tests would violate privacy laws and would be illegal.
The drugs dont need to be illegal.
The testing is not random,that is the core and main point that will be the undoing in Europe.
They do tests for pregnancy.
They test for non specified related compounds,I would like the police or employers try that one out.
I am told that blood test are illegal out of hospial purposes in some Euro countries.
Summary,we are discussing matters that WADA are fully aware of but dont want to discuss.Just wait for a lawyer/pilot/surgeon that does hang gliding or climbing or whatever leisure activity to be faced with whereabouts forms to see if they are prepared to fax/email the testing authority if their daily programme changes.Or to have to leave notes with their wives as to where they are.
Reality will bite at some point!
"whats the status of this?"
Can you explain your point and I will try to explain in return.
Sometimes posting as Herman Munster...
You're missing my point about the USADA. For those that make a livelihood at sports competition, the rules are plain as day: make yourself available for random drug tests. If you do not comply, forfeit your right to compete, and choose a new way to make a living. I choose to compete in local road races, yet I don't have a USATF card. If I wanted to compete in meets sanctioned by the USATF, then I would get the card and be forced to follow the rules. If I don't get a card, nor follow the rules, I don't get to compete in sanctioned events.
Casey Martin is truly comparing apples to oranges. The tour was deemed a "public accomodation" and thus had to comply with the ADA by allowing Martin to use a cart based upon his disability. The rule was changed so that someone with a disability could use a cart, provided they make the cut. They did not allow him to use non-conforming clubs; to "cheat".
EPO, HGH, THG, et al, are prescription only drugs, and to obtain, use, or possess without a prescription is not only a violation of USADA rules, it isa lso against the law. OTC drugs such as DHEA are on the list of banned, yet "legal", substances. You or I can take them to our hearts content.
Take a simple thing like driving a motor vehicle to use as a corallary; I can also drink all the alcohol that I want, but when I apply for a drivers license, I agree that I will not drive while under the influence. Be aware, that in the US we have two definitions of "under the influence"; the legal definition where you blood alcohol contenet (BAC) exceeds .08%. Greater than .08 is "legally" intoxicated. One can also be convicted of driving under the influence when the BAC is below .08%. If I start swerving all over the road, a police officer can pull me over and require me to submit to a field sobriety test, breath analyzer, or blood test. Failure to comply results in imediate forfeiture of your drivers license. Do you see the relationship between driving and track and field, yet?
**I can drive, but I can not be under the influence. If I want to be under the influence, I can not drive. If I am asked to perform a test to see if I am under the influence, I must comply, or I lose my priviledge to drive.
**If I want to compete in athletics, I can not consume banned substances. If I want to consume banned substances, I can not compete. If I am asked to perform a test to see if I have consumed banned substance, I must comply, or I lose my priviledge to compete.
**If I want to work at this place, I can not consume banned substances. If I want to consume banned substances, I can not work at this place. If I am asked to perform a test to see if I have consumed banned substance, I must comply, or I lose my priviledge to work at this place.
In the states, local police departments are allowed to set up check points to do random tests of drivers, to see if they are under the influence; I am sure the random drug testing of athletes would fall under similar statutes. As a matter of point, the police need only see a driver swerving to have probably cause. Just think if the USADA had similar freedom, where a great perfromance, not just 1st, 2nd, 3rd were tested?
The lack of freedom or privacy is not given up randomly or haphazardly. These athlets have chosen, on their own free will, to compete and comply by the stated rules. They might not like them, but no one is forcing them to paly.
Holland Nass wrote:
Sometimes posting as Herman Munster...
You're missing my point about the USADA. For those that make a livelihood at sports competition, the rules are plain as day: make yourself available for random drug tests. If you do not comply, forfeit your right to compete, and choose a new way to make a living. I choose to compete in local road races, yet I don't have a USATF card. If I wanted to compete in meets sanctioned by the USATF, then I would get the card and be forced to follow the rules. If I don't get a card, nor follow the rules, I don't get to compete in sanctioned events.
Casey Martin is truly comparing apples to oranges. The tour was deemed a "public accomodation" and thus had to comply with the ADA by allowing Martin to use a cart based upon his disability. The rule was changed so that someone with a disability could use a cart, provided they make the cut. They did not allow him to use non-conforming clubs; to "cheat".
EPO, HGH, THG, et al, are prescription only drugs, and to obtain, use, or possess without a prescription is not only a violation of USADA rules, it isa lso against the law. OTC drugs such as DHEA are on the list of banned, yet "legal", substances. You or I can take them to our hearts content.
Take a simple thing like driving a motor vehicle to use as a corallary; I can also drink all the alcohol that I want, but when I apply for a drivers license, I agree that I will not drive while under the influence. Be aware, that in the US we have two definitions of "under the influence"; the legal definition where you blood alcohol contenet (BAC) exceeds .08%. Greater than .08 is "legally" intoxicated. One can also be convicted of driving under the influence when the BAC is below .08%. If I start swerving all over the road, a police officer can pull me over and require me to submit to a field sobriety test, breath analyzer, or blood test. Failure to comply results in imediate forfeiture of your drivers license. Do you see the relationship between driving and track and field, yet?
**I can drive, but I can not be under the influence. If I want to be under the influence, I can not drive. If I am asked to perform a test to see if I am under the influence, I must comply, or I lose my priviledge to drive.
**If I want to compete in athletics, I can not consume banned substances. If I want to consume banned substances, I can not compete. If I am asked to perform a test to see if I have consumed banned substance, I must comply, or I lose my priviledge to compete.
**If I want to work at this place, I can not consume banned substances. If I want to consume banned substances, I can not work at this place. If I am asked to perform a test to see if I have consumed banned substance, I must comply, or I lose my priviledge to work at this place.
In the states, local police departments are allowed to set up check points to do random tests of drivers, to see if they are under the influence; I am sure the random drug testing of athletes would fall under similar statutes. As a matter of point, the police need only see a driver swerving to have probably cause. Just think if the USADA had similar freedom, where a great perfromance, not just 1st, 2nd, 3rd were tested?
The lack of freedom or privacy is not given up randomly or haphazardly. These athlets have chosen, on their own free will, to compete and comply by the stated rules. They might not like them, but no one is forcing them to paly.
The drug tests are not random they are targeted.
In the UK you cant to random drink tests on drivers.
A basic principle of English law is that you cant sign your rights away.You have rights under EHRA of privacy.
The tests at work have to be entirely random or based upon realistic suspicion,they cant be targeted.AND work does not demand to know whre you are out of work time AND the test is NOT watched.
If the tests in sport were the same as at work then my point may fail,but they are not.
FIFA have refused at home tests on this basis.
As I said in an above post ;just wait for some lawyer in a "recreational sport" to be faced with a whereabouts form.Then we will see some fun!
"Sometimes posting as Herman Munster..."
I just spotted your comment.This is NOT me .
I posted to argue with some of his posts.
I assume that you feel it common practice to post with other names!!
luv2run wrote:
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/athletes/dcoinstructions1203.pdfYou should also check out the FAQ at
http://www.usantidoping.orgThe WADA code also gives each national doping control board some leeway in what a missed test is (you can link to the WADA code from USADA).
The link above tells what steps a DCO is to go through in locating an athlete.
Some extra info that shows yet again that it is not as simple as you think.
Nick Davies IAAF said,
"A missed test demands an extensive investigation"
He added that as it is a no notice test they could be at such as a sick relative etc etc.
I would add that at 10 pm they could be at a pub.
"we have to be 100% sure that the excuse is not justified"said Davies.
You dont have to be a brain box to realise what sort of problems are involved with this sort of investigation which in many ways will resemble a police enquiry."Produce you dead mother now"
This is without any concideration of human rights which again I state that you can't sign away.
Lets think of some circumstances we are all aware of 1st or 2nd hand.
X is shagging Y on the sly.Y said that unless Y turns up for whatever reason it is all over (or whatever).X drives off like a lunatic to see Y.The testers want X and ring X's wife.To excape a ban X has to go to a hearing and have both X and Y cross examined as to the reason for the test missed.
Or X has to go to a STD clinic etc etc.
If 10 years ago someone would have suggested an out of comp regime that we now have proposed they would be laughed out of the room.But by stealth we now have it.
All sports are to have the same rules as track in every country.Can there possibly be the sorts of investigations proposed by the IAAF in ever case.And will they get away with asking some smart lawyer who is a climber why he was not up some mountain as he said he would be.
Am I alone in seeing what a complete mess this will end up in.
At least in the US, USADA is not a government agency and participation in sport is a privilege, not a right. Basically I see it as a contract issue. In order to compete in an event, I agree to be a subject to the rules. The IOC sets the rules to play in its sandbox as does the IAAF and other IFs. If you do not want to play, you do not have to.
FIFA is welcome to object and not agree. In that case, the IOC may say "It has been great having these mediocre footballers in the Games, but they do not want to abide by the same code for drug as the other sports so we say farewell and wish you well." This gives FIFA the out I believe it has long wanted--out of the Olympics. Since soccer does not send its best athletes anyway, what is the loss?
Has anyone taken this to court in the EU? In the US, the courts have consistently upheld the protocols of USADA. The courts refused to hear the Regina Jacobs appeal saying it did not have jurisdiction and that the athlete had not exhausted all appeals along the way.
Does your boss impose restrictions on you? For instance during the work day does your employer demand to know where you are? If you do not like that, you are free to find a more conducive environment.
thinittru wrote:
If you do sport USADA claim the right to test you whether or not you are on the register,even at 5 in the morning.
Be afraid ,very afraid.
When was the last time an authority with ZERO legal backing claimed this right.When can the police claim this right,they dont have it ,it has to be granted by a higher legal authority.
Be afraid,very afraid.Totalitarianism is not yet dead,it lives in the hearts of evil controlling forces and lies just under the surface of all societies.
What would the founding fathers make of USADA?
well, USADA is a non-governmental agency. Some of them would say this is between individuals and a private organization and the government should stay the hell out of it.
The athletes agree to be a part of the program in order to compete. Also, you do realize that USADA (cannot speak to WADA) has an athlete advisory group that contributes to developing the protocols.
Please slow down a bit and type coherent sentences. I got lost in the above.
The athlete gives the DCO permission when the athlete agrees to participate in the sport. The athlete is not employed by the NGB/IF so that is a non-starter. Athletes may receive a stipend or performance bonuses or grants from an NGB/NOC, but at least in the US that would not rise to the level of employment as I understand it. (It should be noted that at least in the US in cycling, several athletes are paid a salary by USA Cycling so there might be cases where this is happening).
If the EU wants to reduce the power of WADA to fit doping in sports, it better be ready for a serious backlash. In general people do not want drugs in sports (unless it is drinking a beer while watching).
What is the case with the English football coach? Sorry, but I do not follow soccer.
So allowing Casey Martin to use a cart is akin to letting athletes avoid doping control? The court merely found that the restriction against using a cart was not fundamental to the game of golf. Now, I think this is another situation where the courts overreached but US courts have been doing this since Earl Warren was named to the court. Personally, I did not see a big deal in having golfers use a cart.
The fact that sport is run by government certainly adds a shade of gray; yet another reason sport should not be run by government agencies.
thinittru wrote:
The drug tests are not random they are targeted.
In the UK you cant to random drink tests on drivers.
A basic principle of English law is that you cant sign your rights away.You have rights under EHRA of privacy.
The tests at work have to be entirely random or based upon realistic suspicion,they cant be targeted.AND work does not demand to know whre you are out of work time AND the test is NOT watched.
If the tests in sport were the same as at work then my point may fail,but they are not.
FIFA have refused at home tests on this basis.
As I said in an above post ;just wait for some lawyer in a "recreational sport" to be faced with a whereabouts form.Then we will see some fun!
1) OOC testing is random within the pool. Just like some companies randomly test employees, but not all employees in an industry.
2) What right is being violated? If this were really a privacy issue, don't you think one of these athletes that has tested positive would have fought it? How many athletes living in EU countries have been suspended and how many cases are there in the EU courts?
3) FIFA is well within its rights not to agree to the WADA rules and the IOC would be well within its rights to oust FIFA from the IOC.
Here is a question: Do you want athletes to be able to use performance enhancing drugs? If not, how do you propose enforcing the rules against their use?