rekrunner wrote:
The Pharmaceutical Games wrote:
Posters such as rekrunner like to remind us that a ban for a whereabouts violation doesn't imply that an athlete was doping (I guess we're supposed give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume athletes are clueless on where they say they're supposed be at for testing...Lol).
So anything big on Coleman would be a positive doping test - that might be the only circumstances that wouldn't be second guessed by his loyal fanbase and posters like rekrunner.
'Whereabouts Failures" is a defined term by WADA.
I wouldn't second guess a ban based on Whereabouts Failures.
I understand you wouldn't "second guess" a ban on a whereabouts failure, as defined specifically in the language set forth by WADA.
However, my point is some people will have the opinion and conclude that missing 3 tests was the result of the athlete doping and therefore didn't want to risk testing positive. The thought there is the athlete deliberately missed the tests to avoid testing positive and take the 2 yr hit as opposed to the 4 yr hit for a doping positive (plus annulments of titles, medals, etc., having to pay back earnings, termination of sponsorship, hatred from fanbase, etc).
In whereabouts failure ban, the athlete obviously always maintains that the missed tests were not an attempt to avoid the tests but that the testers screwed up and went to the wrong addresses, had the testing window mixed up, didn't even show up and so forth. The athlete is quick to say that they're not a doper and would be willing to take a test at anytime as so requested. Many people, particularly the athlete's fanbase, will fully believe this and support the athlete through the ban. OTOH, a ban for a doping positive for a specific substance(s), the athlete can rant & rave all they want that they're clean but most people don't take them serious anymore (e.g., Kiprop).
So, where do you stand on whereabouts failure bans in the context of why the athlete missed the tests? The feeling that the athlete was intentionally missing tests to avoid testing positive or believing the athlete when they maintain that they didn't intentionally miss any tests and it's all the fault of anti-doping in not following protocol?