Soccer players in the UK delegate their whereabouts.
But I think there is an agreement with their Union not to test at home nor on holidays.
Can’t see any reason why they should be named.
Soccer players in the UK delegate their whereabouts.
But I think there is an agreement with their Union not to test at home nor on holidays.
Can’t see any reason why they should be named.
Telling a lie that he was in a jam is tampering.
Mark Dry Scottish Hammer thrower got 4 years for a lie with no missed tests .
Search lets run.
Burnsy wrote:
I’m surprised no one is raising any flags on this point: delegating your whereabouts management to someone else? And not naming them? That seems a bit absurd (not that I don’t believe he did, but what are the reasons an an athlete would do that?), and a huge red flag.
It is common for athletes to delegate this to their management.
It is not a red flag.
It is also not an excuse -- athletes maintain full responsibility and liability that it remains accurate at all times, and that they are where and when their whereabouts say they will be there and then.
rule reader wrote:
Telling a lie that he was in a jam is tampering.
Mark Dry Scottish Hammer thrower got 4 years for a lie with no missed tests .
Search lets run.
I honestly don't care to. The WADA rules allow the ban to be extended to 4 years, or reduced to 1-year, depending on the circumstances of each case, on a case by case basis.
The rationale for the choice of length of ban will always be in the decision.
If one panel found traffic jam to be a lie, that doesn't mean all panels find all traffic jam excuses to be a lie. They must determine that on a case by case basis. That wasn't the case here.
Judged on the facts against the law
He lied ; it was tampering.
Dry got 4 years for a lie.
rule reader wrote:
Judged on the facts against the law
He lied ; it was tampering.
Dry got 4 years for a lie.
Different case. Different facts. Different violations. Different bans.
Manangoi did not lie; it was not tampering.
He got 2 years for 3 whereabouts failures.
What is your question exactly?
rekrunner wrote:
rule reader wrote:
Judged on the facts against the law
He lied ; it was tampering.
Dry got 4 years for a lie.
Different case. Different facts. Different violations. Different bans.
Manangoi did not lie; it was not tampering.
He got 2 years for 3 whereabouts failures.
What is your question exactly?
They could have easily gone for tampering but the prosecution failed to do so.
Same with Coleman.
Interesting if you tell a lie in normal courts you do not get your time doubled.
It always depends on the case and the prosecution.
1. Dry got four years instead of 0 for his lie to UKAD.
2. Kipsang got four years instead of 2 for his lie to AIU.
3. Coleman got no additional punishment for his lie to AIU.
4. Farah got no punishment for his lie to USADA.
5. AIU said they believe Manangoi, so, formally, no lie.
Imho, 1 was too harsh, 2 right on, 3 and 4 outrageous, a brutal slap into the face of honest athletes and Dry, and 5 ok-ish. I am sure roadrunner will disagree of course.
As for normal courts: recall that Marion Jones got sent to prison for lying about her doping.
rule reader wrote:
They could have easily gone for tampering but the prosecution failed to do so.
Same with Coleman.
Interesting if you tell a lie in normal courts you do not get your time doubled.
They didn't go for tampering because they didn't consider it tampering because they didn't consider that the traffic jam explanation was a lie.
This would have made going for tampering very hard.
They counted it as a whereabouts failure because they considered the missed test was caused in part by his own negligence.
All of this is explained in the verdict -- can't you become a "verdict reader"?
Honestly, you should just stop saying anything that resembles legal interpretations.
Dry lied and the ban was not double, but infinitely greater -- had he simply told the truth, it would have been one count against him, with no ban until he accumulated two more counts.
Similarly, if you lie in a court, and it is material to the case, you commit perjury -- which, depending on the court, is a criminal felony that can result in 5 years in prison (US) up to a lifetime (Queensland) in prison. In California, it can be considered a capital offense (i.e. death penalty) if the material lie resulted in a wrongful execution.
Again, the punishment for lying in a court is not double, but infinitely greater than not committing perjury.
casual obsever wrote:
It always depends on the case and the prosecution.
1. Dry got four years instead of 0 for his lie to UKAD.
2. Kipsang got four years instead of 2 for his lie to AIU.
3. Coleman got no additional punishment for his lie to AIU.
4. Farah got no punishment for his lie to USADA.
5. AIU said they believe Manangoi, so, formally, no lie.
Imho, 1 was too harsh, 2 right on, 3 and 4 outrageous, a brutal slap into the face of honest athletes and Dry, and 5 ok-ish. I am sure roadrunner will disagree of course.
As for normal courts: recall that Marion Jones got sent to prison for lying about her doping.
I guess "roadrunner" is supposed to be me? I agree in part.
There is no WADA rule that punishes lying, per se, to the anti-doping organization.
It has to be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering intent and effect on the process, whether the lie can be considered tampering or attempted tampering with the anti-doping control process.
The case of Dry is "cut and dry" (sorry). Kipsang too. They went to elaborate effort to fabricate evidence and getting third parties to provide written evidence.
I didn't read Coleman's verdict, and don't care to, so I don't know what Coleman's lie was, or even if he lied. His first three offenses were prosecuted by USADA (then withdrawn), so I assume it is the 4th offense with the AIU. I recall he said he was shopping, and provided receipts. Apparently the AIU didn't consider that Coleman's response rose to the level of tampering or attempted tampering.
Farah was asked questions about something that was not doping, so arguably not a material part of an anti-doping process. In any case, he corrected his wrongful statements in that same interview, which arguably cured any potential charge of attempted tampering.
Manangoi's decision also looks unfortunate for him, and for Kenya, but correct.
It is down to the prosecutor to lay the charges for tampering and a lie fits in with tampering.
This concept of a lie being tampering is a dramatic extension of Wada powers.
In the UK when there is a potential offence two UKAD staff turn up and interview. You have no council , no read rights, but what you say is held against you.
How long can this sub normal justice system continue ?
Coleman lied about where he was, like Kipsang, but didn't fake the evidence.
Nice try, but no.
Farah was asked about his injections by USADA, to investigate whether or not he used a forbidden method. Sounds like part of an anti-doping process.
Farah then lied, repeatedly, left, and got lucky that he met Fudge right after the interview (not during). After Fudge told Farah that USADA knew about his injections, Farah went back and corrected his false statements.
For evidence see
Roadrunner, sorry, yes must have been autocorrect on my phone.
The Farah business is interesting.
At what point does a lie cause a tampering offence?
Was Farah been interviewed to see if he had broke the rules or was it to get others or does the distinction not matter ?
In normal justice would it matter; I think so.
In normal justice would he have interviewed under caution and have the right to remain silent.
Back to Wada having their own rules that run contrary to core judicial principles that are excused because it is sport.
Await the drug control meltdown.
Both. Originally, USADA was convinced that Magness wasn't the only one who received a too large and thus forbidden injection under Salazar. So they tried to find more evidence (such as the receipt from the pharmacy that larger amounts were received, and the hand-written volume correction on Rupp's sheet).
There is a rather large document here that leaked from USADA. In this context, the part where Erdmann lied about her injections, and then admitted to her lie later, may be of particular interest. She also got away without punishment (at least officially).
See for example
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2017/05/usada-appears-highly-likely-6-nop-athletes-including-galen-rupp-dathan-ritzenhein-violated-anti-doping-rules/rule reader wrote:
It is down to the prosecutor to lay the charges for tampering and a lie fits in with tampering.
This concept of a lie being tampering is a dramatic extension of Wada powers.
In the UK when there is a potential offence two UKAD staff turn up and interview. You have no council , no read rights, but what you say is held against you.
How long can this sub normal justice system continue ?
The point is moot since there was no lie.
Tampering with the anti-doping process is not different in principle to obstruction of justice.
Since WADA "powers" already forbade tampering, or attempted tampering with the anti-doping process -- nothing has changed. There is no dramatic extension, as it was already in the Code.
The UK and UKAD Is not WADA.
The WADA code is grounded in contract law, and long accepted practice of arbitration, and often when challenged in courts, the courts have bounced it back to be tried in arbitration, or upheld the process of arbitration for dispute resolution -- it can last a long time in normal civil societies.
This is a reply to all of your defending posts:
Why couldn’t the guy just be where he’s supposed to be? A lot of athletes get tested... all the time. Occasionally, a test is missed due to miscommunication, heck... even traffic. Whatever.
If I were a clean athlete that just missed a test, I’d go to the nearest facility, hospital, etc and give them everything I have..... blood, urine, hair. Take it all. Lol
Miss one test... ok. Miss multiple tests, that’s a problem..... obviously.
Unfair contract would apply and you can’t sign your rights away.
Prior to Dry getting four years for a lie the idea of a lie being a four year ban was preposterous but as the interpretation changes so does the functionality of the law.
The “manager” should be banned as well.
Don’t be very silly billy( on what grounds ?)
rule reader wrote:
Unfair contract would apply and you can’t sign your rights away.
Prior to Dry getting four years for a lie the idea of a lie being a four year ban was preposterous but as the interpretation changes so does the functionality of the law.
It only applies if the contract is unfair, or the athlete signs their rights away.
Submitting your calendar, and making yourself available for testing is fair, and gives away no rights.
The idea of obstruction of justice was never preposterous, and the interpretation has not changed.
In the case of Dry, he wrote to UKAD that he was fishing, plus got his partner to write to UKAD that he was fishing, while a neighbor had already told inspectors he was in Scotland.
You can question whether UKAD should have appealed, or should have let it go after the first panel cleared him -- and four years does seem harsh, since he was only 1/3 on his way to a 2-year ban.
But if the guy put the lie in writing, plus got his partner to put the same lie in writing -- this goes beyond just a simple "lie" in a moment of panic.
Is that a behavior UKAD should tolerate from athletes?