How can he be expected to hear the doorbell when he's got perfectly legal albuterol coming out of his ears?
How can he be expected to hear the doorbell when he's got perfectly legal albuterol coming out of his ears?
Mr I wrote:
Its also HIGHLY unlikely the testers went up to the home, pressed the doorbell once. Waited 10 seconds then went 'OK, noone is answering we are off.'
Think about the reality for a second. Do you not think they would have rung several times? Do you not think they would have banged on the door? Do you not think they might have even attempted to go around the side or back and tap on some windows?
The testers would know how important it was for an athlete to NOT miss a test. Do you really think they wouldn't have tried everything to ensure that the athlete wasn't actually at home before leaving?
Anyone who thinks Mo just 'didnt hear the doorbell' and that the testers made no effort whatsover in trying to get his attention probably believes that doctors give out vials of anti-allergy treatment with the words 'Allergy 1' on them.
And they would have all ed him and texted/emailed him. They would not simply ring the door and go home.
This is a crock! They will knock/ring your doorbell FOR AN HOUR. How the hell did he not hear it?? I believe they'll also call your phone.
Communications wrote:
hayward102 wrote:When he misses one shortly after joining Salazar, when he is in England no less and not even with Salazar, why is that damning for Salazar?
Do think modern communications, rather than face to face, may have something to do with it?, a bit like me posting this from the other side of world right now.
This kind of modern communication? (there are others):
"Farah’s coach Alberto Salazar, who is currently facing allegations of numerous doping offences, reportedly sent an email to the athlete after the second missed test warning “they will hang you” if Farah reached the limit of three missed tests."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11682588/Mo-Farah-missed-two-drugs-tests.htmlIsn't this what Victor Conte is saying on Twitter? Duck and dodge? Take your EPO, Andrgel, ect and then miss 2 tests but not 3.
It is well-known that EPO causes temporary hearing loss.
WADA needs to start getting warrants to break down the door if we are to have any chance of getting the real cheaters.
This all would be very comedic if it weren't so damaging to the sport.
Mr I wrote:
Its also HIGHLY unlikely the testers went up to the home, pressed the doorbell once. Waited 10 seconds then went 'OK, noone is answering we are off.'
Could Noone have told them where to find Farah?
Radcliffe missed two tests but no story about her. She must have good lawyers
This is making a mountain out of not-very-much. If this is the best they've got on Mo so far, then they're not doing very well.
When the Ohoruogu kerfuffle erupted a few years ago, it became clear that *lots* of UK athletes were at 1 or 2 tests missed, because of the UK's draconian rules about availability for testing. At that time UKA made it quite clear that they did not believe that all of the athletes who had missed a test were dopers. In fact, the authorities subsequently made it quite clear that they had no reason to believe that Ohuruogu had been doping.
Again, set against the UK context, this is not a big deal.
I thought lots of runners missed tests. Of course, many countries dot have out of competition tests at all.
colinphillips wrote:
This is making a mountain out of not-very-much. If this is the best they've got on Mo so far, then they're not doing very well.
When the Ohoruogu kerfuffle erupted a few years ago, it became clear that *lots* of UK athletes were at 1 or 2 tests missed, because of the UK's draconian rules about availability for testing. At that time UKA made it quite clear that they did not believe that all of the athletes who had missed a test were dopers. In fact, the authorities subsequently made it quite clear that they had no reason to believe that Ohuruogu had been doping.
Again, set against the UK context, this is not a big deal.
colinphillips wrote:
This is making a mountain out of not-very-much. If this is the best they've got on Mo so far, then they're not doing very well.
When the Ohoruogu kerfuffle erupted a few years ago, it became clear that *lots* of UK athletes were at 1 or 2 tests missed, because of the UK's draconian rules about availability for testing. At that time UKA made it quite clear that they did not believe that all of the athletes who had missed a test were dopers. In fact, the authorities subsequently made it quite clear that they had no reason to believe that Ohuruogu had been doping.
Again, set against the UK context, this is not a big deal.
This is not the best they got.
Something better is that his coach is shown to abuse the use of prescriptions to administer drugs. Something better is that his coach has lied about his connection to his own doped athletes. Something better is witness testimony about the medicated culture of the NOP.
Something better is the Farah trained with banned dopers. Something better is that Farah lies about his knowledge of the emerging scandal, choosing to act shocked and awed by allegations when he was informed weeks ago.
You can choose to look at each piece of evidence independently and ask "but where's the proof?". Or, you can realize that everything is adding up to something.
Absolutely agree that everything needs to be seen in a context. There's no point in trying to dismiss each allegation against NOP/Salazar/Farah without taking stock of the fact that so many allegations exist, coming from multiple sources.
This isn't going away, it's still building and I believe hasn't got anywhere its peak yet. A lot more will come out yet. UK athletics will be urging Farah to drop Salazar and eventually he will. And once they are divided, all hell will break loose.
It's unfortunate for Farah that he's a Somalian immigrant and black, because that makes the Daily Mail hate him with a passion and they simply won't let this go. It's just a shame they aren't as willing to go after other British athletes (ie some white ones, maybe a popular female marathon runner, for example).
Daily Mail - tabloid shit
The Sun - tabloid shit
The Mirror - tabloid shit
The Telegraph - in between to reliable
The Times - reliable
The Guardian - reliable
BBC - reliable
Rougly in order of reliability
Dailymail? Sensationalist tabloid (but with some pretensions to be broadsheet)
The Times? Broadsheet
The Telegraph? Broadsheet
The Guardian? Broadsheet
The Sun? Tabloid
The Mirror? Tabloid
BBC? Mainstream/equivalent of broadsheet
This isn't listed in order of "reliability" of reported facts and the standards the media sources hold themselves to. It's listed biased towards left-leaning political stances.
Tabloid (from right to left): Mail, Sun, Mirror
"Reliable" (from right to left): Telegraph, Times, Guardian, BBC
The Telegraph does not hold itself to a lower standard of factual reporting than the BBC or Guardian - it is simply more right-wing.
I said roughly. I'd definitely put The Telegraph below the other three 'reliables' though, it's really been slowly turning to crap over the past 7 years or so and I really would say straddles the tabloid/broadsheet boundary now in terms of reporting standards. The Times used to be the gold standard back in the day, but that's definitely slipped too, whereas The Guardian has improved over the same period of time that The Telegraph has slipped.
someone help out a bro wrote:
Help me out. Which British news sources have which reputations as being reliable or tabloid or something in between? In the US, there's a big difference between the NY Times and the NY Post or the Daily Show and CNN.
Dailymail?
The Times?
The Telegraph?
The Guardian?
The Sun?
The Mirror?
BBC?
others?
It's not as simple as rubbishing tabloids and believing the broadsheets. The worst story ever was The Sunday TImes story about Hitler's Diaries.
Also both the Daily Mail (tabloid) and Telegraph (broadsheet) despise black Muslims and/or immigrants and there is nothing they would like more than to bring down Farah. I'd be more worried about what the left-leaning Guardian is saying.
KMB wrote:
No one can accuse this sad story of not accelerating rapidly by the day.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3128695/Mo-Farah-missed-two-drug-tests-London-Olympics-putting-2012-double-gold-risk.html
I would guess nearly half of all pro athletes have broken the wearabouts rule once, that's why they give you 3 strikes. The list of athletes who have failed wearabouts includes many highly respected athletes. When a USADA/WADA tester shows up, they go to where you inducted you would be; they don't look for you. They are kind of like the UPS guy delivering a package that requires a signature.
Although, I am surprised Mo failed it twice because usually after failing it once, you become very careful not to fail it again.
TrackCoach wrote:
Although, I am surprised Mo failed it twice because usually after failing it once, you become very careful not to fail it again.
Yes, it's almost like he had a reason to avoid the test.
113 wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:Although, I am surprised Mo failed it twice because usually after failing it once, you become very careful not to fail it again.
Yes, it's almost like he had a reason to avoid the test.
Farah was new to the NOP and was afraid what that testers would catch him taking the 'supplements' Salazar was giving him. Salazar had to reassure Farah that he would get caught because Farah's blood-charts Salazar was looking at indicted: Under the Radar!