rekrunner wrote:
One might be more likely to conclude Kipsang doped, when it is called a "doping violation". Nothing about the facts in the case of Kipsang makes that possibility more likely.
Well I wouldn't go that far. The whole idea of OOC tests is of course to minimize/inhibit doping; missing too many of these tests (currently three within 12 months) is treated as an anti-doping rule violation to force the athletes to undergo testing.
Of course no athlete will ever admit to dodging a test because of glowing, rather it's always a story as in I didn't hear the doorbell, there was an accident, I was shopping, I was visiting xyz, I was fishing, etc. etc. Kipsang's changing stories (there was a landslide, there was an accident, I lost cell phone coverage, I was partying) are no different, and don't exactly help eliminating the elephant in the room here.
Unfortunately the idea of dodging a test while glowing continues to pay off*:
1) you can afford three missed tests spread out over 13 months but no positive tests;
2) you can fight the missed tests with various tricks and excuses including blaming the tester (see Armitstead, see Thomas);
3) the punishment for three missed tests is only half of that of testing positive;
4) your reputation suffers a lot less, including among your fans and sponsors (see Kipsang, Rollins etc etc).
* That's what I would change. E.g. count missing by choice, like fishing and shopping and partying, officially as test evasion and ban the offender right on the spot; allow only three missed tests in 24 months (the old rule actually was 18, but now with the cell pones and web apps it's so much easier for the athlete); allow only six in a in five years, ten in a career; punish violations exactly like a positive test.
And as always, full transparency! Publish each missed test along with the excuse of the athlete.