When you say "it's not a necessary standard here anyway", this is mistaken. It is already the standard in the WADA Code for all anti-doping organizations to show that an accused person has committed a rule violation, to a fairly high standard of "comfortable satisfaction". Mere association with multiple athletes may be enough to raise suspicion and start investigations, but it fails to meet the existing standard necessary for sanctions.
Quite sure the "here" refers to "here on letsrun", considering the context of HRE's paragraph, where he used "here" three times: his first sentence makes that quite clear that "here" cannot mean WADA:
I doubt that anyone has really gotten persuaded here and really nothing said here makes any difference. But if you insist on applying innocent until proven guilty you'll block any significant anti doping action and it's not a necessary standard here anyway.
But you have a different reading comprehension than most...
"Mere association with multiple athletes"... what? More accurately: Being the agent of 20 banned athletes.
It looks like I quoted the wrong part of his sentence, but HRE still misstates the standard used by anti-doping.
In the very same sentence, to my genuine surprise, he argues against the first world principle of justice of "innocent until proven guilty", saying that "applying innocent until proven guilty (will) block any significant anti doping action". But the standard for anti-doping action in the WADA Code applies the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" for rule violations, and has done so since WADA has existed, not to mention since anti-doping existed in the IAAF.
In the very next sentence, he says he is "talking about athletes who at least can be caught through failed tests", which is an application of the same principle which frequently leads to "signficant anti doping action".
My post responds to these two points, and the third point that catching agents with evidence would be hard.
You are also correct that Rosa is the agent of these banned athletes, and many more athletes. Being an agent is WADA legal.
Quite sure the "here" refers to "here on letsrun", considering the context of HRE's paragraph, where he used "here" three times: his first sentence makes that quite clear that "here" cannot mean WADA:
But you have a different reading comprehension than most...
"Mere association with multiple athletes"... what? More accurately: Being the agent of 20 banned athletes.
It looks like I quoted the wrong part of his sentence, but HRE still misstates the standard used by anti-doping.
In the very same sentence, to my genuine surprise, he argues against the first world principle of justice of "innocent until proven guilty", saying that "applying innocent until proven guilty (will) block any significant anti doping action". But the standard for anti-doping action in the WADA Code applies the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" for rule violations, and has done so since WADA has existed, not to mention since anti-doping existed in the IAAF.
In the very next sentence, he says he is "talking about athletes who at least can be caught through failed tests", which is an application of the same principle which frequently leads to "signficant anti doping action".
My post responds to these two points, and the third point that catching agents with evidence would be hard.
You are also correct that Rosa is the agent of these banned athletes, and many more athletes. Being an agent is WADA legal.
Being the agent of 20 banned athletes makes him more like Michael Corleone than an agent.
I can understand your skepticism and desire to reject the opinions of letsrun's paid expert consultant, and dismiss his opinion as biased for differing with yours. But Ross Tucker, and Andy Brown, make many points in their detailed articles that still stand.
You are showing again your poor reading comprehension. I did not "dismiss his opinion as biased for differing with" mine. What is wrong with you?
"letsrun's paid expert consultant"? That was years later, and on a different topic, where he actually summarized, analyzed and explained the facts and evidence. Completely irrelevant here. Nice distraction though.
A recurring theme throughout both of Ross's posts is that, speaking as a scientist, the results of the current anti-doping science are often unreliable, and creating longer sanctions will just create bigger injustices when the science is wrong.
He assumes that the right thing to do in the case of increasing sanctions would be to increase the burden of proof to increase the reliability. He even goes so far as to point out that "strict liability is an extreme policy that many deem unreasonable on athletes".
The changes in the WADA Code in 2015 did nothing to mitigate the risk of increased injustice. But the fact that WADA updated the code with "an extreme policy that many deem unreasonable" does not disprove any of the concerns raised by Ross. On the contrary, it should raise these concerns even higher.
We can see in the three posts I linked, many reasons that this should cause concern among those who want to treat anti-doping seriously. We can also see this concern expressed in many statements from USADA's CEO Travis Tygart criticizing the WADA Code 2015 changes.
The changes in the WADA Code in 2015 did nothing to mitigate the risk of increased injustice. But the fact that WADA updated the code with "an extreme policy that many deem unreasonable" does not disprove any of the concerns raised by Ross. On the contrary, it should raise these concerns even higher.
That is not a fact at all. First of all, the "extreme policy..." is just one opinion, and second, that opinion referred to strict liability ("strict liability is an extreme policy that many deem unreasonable on athletes"), not to the 4 year ban, and the strict liability has been there since the very beginning of WADA, even predating it. So no, WADA did not update the code with "an extreme policy that many deem unreasonable". But yes, WADA did not increase the burden of proof, as Tucker falsely predicted.
Here are more real facts: we are in the year 2026 now, and all WADA Code updates did nothing to change the strict liability principle, and nothing to change the standard 4 year ban for (the 1st) doping of an athlete. Standard, meaning it can go lower and higher depending on the degree of fault and deception. See Hodge and Cherono for example. So stop whining about 2015.
That is not a fact at all. First of all, the "extreme policy..." is just one opinion, and second, that opinion referred to strict liability ("strict liability is an extreme policy that many deem unreasonable on athletes"), not to the 4 year ban, and the strict liability has been there since the very beginning of WADA, even predating it. So no, WADA did not update the code with "an extreme policy that many deem unreasonable". But yes, WADA did not increase the burden of proof, as Tucker falsely predicted.
Here are more real facts: we are in the year 2026 now, and all WADA Code updates did nothing to change the strict liability principle, and nothing to change the standard 4 year ban for (the 1st) doping of an athlete. Standard, meaning it can go lower and higher depending on the degree of fault and deception. See Hodge and Cherono for example. So stop whining about 2015.
Much about these discussions are about opinions rather than facts. We can say that WADA updated the Code which already had "an extreme policy that many deem unreasonable" making it more extreme. In 2015, WADA increased the athlete's liability.
The fact that WADA made decisions in 2015 that they have not yet agreed to reverse 11 years later doesn't mean that these were the best decisions for clean athletes, nor that we should stop "whining" about injustice to athletes wrongly sanctioned.
Recall WADA and the IOC and the CAS are powerful, interconnected, organizations, making most important decisions with relatively little input from Athlete Representatives, despite athletes being the primary persons with real skin in the game.
Much of the rationale for WADA rule changes trades off convenience and costs for anti-doping organizations against fairness for the athletes. There is a widely held sentiment that WADA needs to tip things even further against the athletes, without any real analysis of potential collateral damage to clean athletes. Look above at calls for banning the whole nation of Kenya and in some cases, for good measure, all of East Africa, or HRE arguing that it would be too hard to prove Rosa's involvement in athlete doping, so to unblock this anti-doping action, we should just presume he is guilty without doing the investigative work.
Also using your viewpoint, I see Kelsall first started whining about Rosa in 2015, (and letsrun as long ago as 2004) and no one in power has done anything about it in all this time, and here we are in 2026, and he is still whining.
I disagree. We cannot say that. "strict liability" is not "an extreme policy". "absolute liability", maybe, and even that one is used for several scenarios in many countries.
I also do not recall that "WADA and the IOC and the CAS are powerful, interconnected, organizations, making most important decisions with relatively little input from Athlete Representatives".
WADA needs to really try to clean up the sport instead of just making it look like it's doing so. Athletes badly need a union for many reasons having significant input in the doping business being one. You do loads more whining than Kelsall does but when he does it it's not really annoying.
I disagree. We cannot say that. "strict liability" is not "an extreme policy". "absolute liability", maybe, and even that one is used for several scenarios in many countries.
I also do not recall that "WADA and the IOC and the CAS are powerful, interconnected, organizations, making most important decisions with relatively little input from Athlete Representatives".
You are welcome to disagree. Everyone can have their own opinion.
Note that "we" in this case is Ross and I, as Ross already said as much, regardless of whether you agree or disagree. Note that strict liability also punishes the athlete in extreme cases such as unknowing sabotage by coaches, spouses, and other persons within the athlete's circle, as well as unlabeled contamination of medication, or even sabotage by a competitor, if the athlete is not able to prove their own lack of fault, negligence, or intent.
If you don't recall, you should at least take note that both WADA and the CAS were created by the IOC.
WADA needs to really try to clean up the sport instead of just making it look like it's doing so. Athletes badly need a union for many reasons having significant input in the doping business being one. You do loads more whining than Kelsall does but when he does it it's not really annoying.
WADA's scope covers all Olympic sports, plus some non-Olympic sports who chose to be subject to WADA. They are not concerned solely with Athletics.
Whether someone is annoying is yet another matter of opinion. I'm not all that concerned if anyone is annoyed by my asking for supporting facts and evidence, e.g. Rosa involvement in doping.
I know what the WADA code is and did not misstate it. I think it should and could be changed. Taking away someone's agent's license is not the same as convicting him of a crime. It's similar to disbarring a lawyer or suspending a medical license, neither of which require the sort of proof a criminal conviction does. And yes, where there's a will there's a way but there just doesn't seem like there's much will on the part of high level administrators and race directors.
Then I am confused, because you did say "if you insist on applying innocent until proven guilty you'll block any significant anti doping action".
The WADA Code does apply that principle and always has, requiring ADOs to "prove" that rule violations occurred before starting any talks about any possible sanctions as a consequence of the "proved" rule violation. (Note that this is different from the presumption of intent, where athletes with positive tests -- "proof" of a rule violation -- are presumed guilty of intent without proof.)
This is not a criminal conviction, so the standard of proof is lower, but everything is analogous.
Why are you talking about taking away an agent's license? This is a possible sanction lacking the necessary prerequisite -- that the agent was found to have committed a rule violation.
It doesn't seem like a solution for high level administrators and race directors to levy their own sanctions on agents who have done nothing wrong, and by extension, their athletes who have done nothing wrong.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
That's why an athlete testing positive should be banned for life first time they are caught. Their coaches/dealers too.
As far as the "those athletes didn't know what they were taking" excuse goes --- Bull _ _ _ _!
When someone talks about lifetime bans for first time use, I think of the case of Simon Getzmann. He tested positive and was able to prove that medication that he took was contaminated with a small amount of a banned substance, but within the tolerance permitted by German laws.
When we learn about the circumstances of his case, it is easy to see that he was lucky to be the rare athlete able to find the source and "prove" no fault or negligence on his part.
Most athletes, even in rich countries, are poor, and would not be able to afford a 5-figure defense. And even if they could, there is still a low probability of success. Most athletes will not be lucky enough to identify the potential source of contamination, and still have original samples left to prove it.
However, despite his luck, he was still materially harmed by the process itself, for doing nothing wrong:
- He had to borrow more than 10,000 Euros from his father to pay lawyers, investigators, testers, for his defense. Many athletes simply do not have access to that kind of money, and the arbitrators typically do not award that money back to the athlete.
- He was immediately provisionally suspended, cutting off his primary source of earning (see above) as well as excluding him from competing in his sport. This suspension lasted more than 1 year -- effectively a 1 year ban for having done nothing wrong.
- Even though he proved no fault or negligence, this still counts as an ADRV and a first strike against. The next ADRV, which again could be unknowing and inadvertent, will count as a second strike, facing a longer ban of 8 years, resulting in another round of expensive defense with a low probability of success.
In cases like Simon Getzmann, if he hadn't had some remaining contaminated medication to test, do we really want a lifetime ban for him, and bans for his coach, and/or agent, when the fault lies in contamination during the manufacturing process of the medication below nationally permitted thresholds?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I know what the WADA code is and did not misstate it. I think it should and could be changed. Taking away someone's agent's license is not the same as convicting him of a crime. It's similar to disbarring a lawyer or suspending a medical license, neither of which require the sort of proof a criminal conviction does. And yes, where there's a will there's a way but there just doesn't seem like there's much will on the part of high level administrators and race directors.
Then I am confused, because you did say "if you insist on applying innocent until proven guilty you'll block any significant anti doping action".
The WADA Code does apply that principle and always has, requiring ADOs to "prove" that rule violations occurred before starting any talks about any possible sanctions as a consequence of the "proved" rule violation. (Note that this is different from the presumption of intent, where athletes with positive tests -- "proof" of a rule violation -- are presumed guilty of intent without proof.)
This is not a criminal conviction, so the standard of proof is lower, but everything is analogous.
Why are you talking about taking away an agent's license? This is a possible sanction lacking the necessary prerequisite -- that the agent was found to have committed a rule violation.
It doesn't seem like a solution for high level administrators and race directors to levy their own sanctions on agents who have done nothing wrong, and by extension, their athletes who have done nothing wrong.
The "necessary prerequisite" is whatever the people in charge make it and in my opinion consistently having athletes an agent represents caught doping is a very necessary prerequisite. You disagree and evidently the powers that be do as well.
The "necessary prerequisite" is whatever the people in charge make it and in my opinion consistently having athletes an agent represents caught doping is a very necessary prerequisite. You disagree and evidently the powers that be do as well.
Who said it was "consistent"? Rosa currently represents hundreds of athletes (I counted 144 at World Athletics), and over the decades, has represented thousands.
WADA clearly disagrees. They do not permit finding guilt just by association, or even 20 associations. They require first demonstrating a rule violation actually occurred, and was committed by the person to be sanctioned. This is not a radical concept. Anything else would be subjective and arbitrary and whimsical, and would ultimately erode confidence in anti-doping actions.
The "necessary prerequisite" is whatever the people in charge make it and in my opinion consistently having athletes an agent represents caught doping is a very necessary prerequisite. You disagree and evidently the powers that be do as well.
Who said it was "consistent"? Rosa currently represents hundreds of athletes (I counted 144 at World Athletics), and over the decades, has represented thousands.
WADA clearly disagrees. They do not permit finding guilt just by association, or even 20 associations. They require first demonstrating a rule violation actually occurred, and was committed by the person to be sanctioned. This is not a radical concept. Anything else would be subjective and arbitrary and whimsical, and would ultimately erode confidence in anti-doping actions.
You really believe there is confidence in anti doping actions?
Who said it was "consistent"? Rosa currently represents hundreds of athletes (I counted 144 at World Athletics), and over the decades, has represented thousands.
WADA clearly disagrees. They do not permit finding guilt just by association, or even 20 associations. They require first demonstrating a rule violation actually occurred, and was committed by the person to be sanctioned. This is not a radical concept. Anything else would be subjective and arbitrary and whimsical, and would ultimately erode confidence in anti-doping actions.
You really believe there is confidence in anti doping actions?
Like everything, it could be better, and it could be worse.
I have confidence when the doping action has first been established, and the anti-doping action is commensurate with the action.
I would have negative confidence when actions are taken without first establishing that such actions were justified.
An agent having 20 of his athletes banned is just not probative that the agent is involved.
You really believe there is confidence in anti doping actions?
Like everything, it could be better, and it could be worse.
I have confidence when the doping action has first been established, and the anti-doping action is commensurate with the action.
I would have negative confidence when actions are taken without first establishing that such actions were justified.
An agent having 20 of his athletes banned is just not probative that the agent is involved.
I wouldn't worry if I were you about innocent athletes being penalized. According to the former head of WADA most athletes are getting away with their doping. They arent catching many outside Kenya and the occasional burrito consumer.
I wouldn't worry if I were you about innocent athletes being penalized. According to the former head of WADA most athletes are getting away with their doping. They arent catching many outside Kenya and the occasional burrito consumer.
I would hope everyone worries about innocent athletes being penalized, whether they were me or not.
It's not clear to me how much this former head of WADA really knows about who is doping, and how many they are not catching, or for that matter, how many innocent athletes they penalize.
This post was edited 40 seconds after it was posted.
I wouldn't worry if I were you about innocent athletes being penalized. According to the former head of WADA most athletes are getting away with their doping. They arent catching many outside Kenya and the occasional burrito consumer.
I would hope everyone worries about innocent athletes being penalized, whether they were me or not.
It's not clear to me how much this former head of WADA really knows about who is doping, and how many they are not catching, or for that matter, how many innocent athletes they penalize.
Do you worry as much about innocent athletes losing money and placings to dopers who don't get caught or about innocent athletes being penalized? If your answer is "both" how would you want to protect the former within the constraints of our available technology and economics? The second question is whether you believe the high level administrators in the sport genuinely want to clean up the sport enough that they'd be willing to catch and ban the highest profiled atheltes in the sport, think Kipchoge, Ingebregsen, Bolt (not to insinuate that any of them are or were dopers but to illustrate the level of athlete I mean.) A third question is if you can think of any really top level athletes in any sport who are caught doping and given significant suspensions? Sinner was caught and banned from tennis for a few hours between Grand Slam tournaments but that's as close as I can come.