Elijah Manangoi banned; says he missed one test due to traffic jam, another because a 3rd party failed to update it

While the update and accuracy requirements are strict, WADA gives several ways to keep your whereabouts up to date.

Some info about ADAMS at WADA's website:

Whereabouts can be updated online, with a mobile app, and even by SMS.

So a phone with a network and a battery is sufficient for any last minute changes.

ADAMS is available in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Dutch, Finnish, German, Italian, Japanese, and Russian.

These choice of languages seems to discriminate against Africans, and the Chinese.

"You can choose to have your agent or other representative submit your whereabouts for you, but keep in mind you are still responsible for that information."

"YOU CAN’T BLAME your representative or agent for inaccurately filing or forgetting to update your whereabouts."

Dr Yuengling wrote:

I don’t really care about doping but I get a kick out of people who say “I don’t think so-and-so is doping because he just was silly and missed 3 tests.” Literally the entire world goes to work for 8 hours a day; how hard is it for an athlete to be in one location for a single hour every day? There is zero reason anyone should miss 3 tests unless they are doping. Maybe the athletes are stupid but the managers/agents handling them are not.

The fact that I know several U.S. athletes whose careers are above suspicion have missed one and even a couple who have missed two whereabouts lets me know that missing whereabouts don't necessarily make you a doper. Perhaps some are dopers, but not all. A little known secret is that most athletes have had at least one missed whereabouts. Unfortunately, a lot of professional athletes don't think for themselves. Most professional athletes have been good since they were young and the better they are, the more people starts doing things for them that they don't absolutely have to do themselves. Sometimes the only things they take serious is training & competing and feel that as longs as they are doing those things well, everything else will take care of itself. They are cuddled! It starts with the parents and teammates, then coaches and extends to agents and so forth. With that said, I agree with issuing bans for whereabouts failures; 3 failures in a 12-mouth period is stupid and at the very least the appearance of impropriety. However, I contend that not all of these athletes are actually doping. I think the whereabouts system is as it should be. Albeit, I don't like the fact that it is administered more stringently in the U.S. than most other places and feel if they there is a legitimate and provable explanation for a missed whereabouts, it should not be counted.

rekrunner wrote:

Whereabouts can be updated online, with a mobile app, and even by SMS.

So a phone with a network and a battery is sufficient for any last minute changes.

Yes. One of the reasons why so many people conclude that these athletes dodge the tests on purpose (because they are glowing at that time) is that it is so trivial to update, as confirmed by several athletes and the NADOs.

As in, hey, had you texted us while shopping, you would not have been banned at all.

A second reason is the high prevalence of dopers, and the small amount of caught dopers.

A third reason is that the standard ban for three missed tests within 12 months is only half as long as for a positive test (and of course 0 for 1 - 2 missed tests within 12 months).

A fourth reason is the PR. A ban for missing tests still looks better than a ban for doping.

Wait for unprovable explanations be deemed lies and loads get 4 yr bans as a lie for only one whereabouts failure would result in 4 yrs.

This is all looking stasi like with these contortions of normal jurisprudence.

TrackCoach wrote:

The fact that I know several U.S. athletes whose careers are above suspicion

Don't bet on it.

TrackCoach wrote:

Albeit, I don't like the fact that it is administered more stringently in the U.S. than most other places and feel if they there is a legitimate and provable explanation for a missed whereabouts, it should not be counted.

"more stringently in the U.S. than most other places"?

I hope you are wrong, and most NADOs - unlike USADA - don't call the athlete ahead of time to give them time to prepare such as taking masking agents. I am quite sure that neither happens in the UK nor in Germany.

As for "it should not be counted": that is already the case. A missed test only counts if the athlete (or their representative) was negligent, e.g. getting stuck because of a traffic accident without calling.

If it's not the athlete's fault, e.g. becoming unconscious in a traffic accident, it doesn't count.

You sign away your right to privacy.

With Dry a single lie that would not have stopped a ban should not lead to a four year ban.

If so all that is not believed by a panel must bring 4 years .

rule reader wrote:

You sign away your right to privacy.

With Dry a single lie that would not have stopped a ban should not lead to a four year ban.

If so all that is not believed by a panel must bring 4 years .

Every contract exchanges obligations for benefits.

This has already been tested in ECHR and WADA won.

Dry wasn't busted for lying, but for tampering with the anti-doping process.

rekrunner wrote:

rule reader wrote:

You sign away your right to privacy.

With Dry a single lie that would not have stopped a ban should not lead to a four year ban.

If so all that is not believed by a panel must bring 4 years .

Every contract exchanges obligations for benefits.

This has already been tested in ECHR and WADA won.

Dry wasn't busted for lying, but for tampering with the anti-doping process.

Yes wada won at ECHR but they heard the limited case and by doing so made Sport subject to human rights laws.

Dry lied and that was the tampering;

rule reader wrote:

Yes wada won at ECHR but they heard the limited case and by doing so made Sport subject to human rights laws.

Dry lied and that was the tampering;

When it comes to rights and legal interpretation, you are completely confused.

WADA has always been subject to human rights laws, and all nations laws. WADA works within the laws of all nations, through their national Olympic committees and national anti-doping organizations.

ECHR upheld the principle of WADA's whereabouts approach versus the human rights of athletes, rejecting the legal challenge. This is now a precedent for all future legal challenges.

This should be a huge red flag to you -- WADA's win in a large court like the ECHR should be a strong indication how the rule will be viewed in all courts.

In the case of Dry, you are wrongly focusing on the lie, thinking that that is the critical element for future bans. Lying is not a rule violation. He could have lied about his age or gender preference, and this would not result in a rule violation because it is not part of the anti-doping process. However, explaining why you missed a test is a part of the anti-doping process, and tampering with any part is against the rules.

Salazar sent an email to his athletes and because he sent that email, he was banned (in part) for attempted tampering with the anti-doping process. This does not mean that any coach sending emails now will risk a 4-year ban by WADA, or that somehow WADA's powers have expanded. WADA's powers always included the right to ban athletes, who have agreed to be subject to WADA's code, based on any rule violation, including tampering. This will only include lying (and sending emails) in the narrow case such behavior can be considered tampering.

YMMV wrote:

Jackoo wrote:

Of course you know your racism has a home here so you express it freely.

Take off your Soytard Liberal Latte Brainwashed Goggles and see the reality:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTwkefop9OYrshFNmWmokHO2wWr3P7oTSG_rQ&usqp=CAU

When I was young we used to sing a nursery rhyme "Rollover". Guess who's the next to fallout?

The original wada code was explicit that Wada rules sat outside normal law and normal civil requirements because they were for sport.

They may have had to remove this now.

Clearly lying in a Doping case is only material if that lie applies to that case and is intended to influence the case.

Thus saying that you were in a jam at 5..00 in the morning should have been tested as being a tampering offence.

Ditto Coleman , who they stated they did not believe.

Should wada go the full hog and interview under caution and the interviewee be advised of rights inc to remain silent ?

If a lie is a four year ban then they have to.

rule reader wrote:

The original wada code was explicit that Wada rules sat outside normal law and normal civil requirements because they were for sport.

They may have had to remove this now.

Clearly lying in a Doping case is only material if that lie applies to that case and is intended to influence the case.

Thus saying that you were in a jam at 5..00 in the morning should have been tested as being a tampering offence.

Ditto Coleman , who they stated they did not believe.

Should wada go the full hog and interview under caution and the interviewee be advised of rights inc to remain silent ?

If a lie is a four year ban then they have to.

This is pure nonsense. In this respect, nothing has changed since the very first WADA code.

The original WADA code was never, and can never be, outside normal law and normal civil requirements.

We can speak of dispute resolutions being handled outside the courts, by established means of arbitration, by contractual agreement of both parties.

But the code was developed in concert with representatives from countries in every region around the world.

We can also realize that doping is generally not illegal (so within the law), so it would be inappropriate to clog the courts with what are effectively enforcement of "club rules".

But the WADA code was always within, and compliant with, all applicable laws and conventions. It can never be otherwise.

Ultimately, as we have seen with Caster Semenya, appeals to final CAS decisions can eventually come into the court system.

Why do you ask if "WADA should go the full hog"? WADA generally does not deal with the cases of individual athletes. For Coleman it was USADA and the AIU. For Manangoi it was the AIU.

What is this nonsense about being advised of "rights to remain silent"? There is no barrier for athletes to have legal representation at any and every moment, if they wish.

For someone who calls himself a "rule reader", you seem to be confused at almost every level what the rules are and what they mean.

Original code said outside all law inc civil.

You then reinforce this by ref to “ club rules”.

Wada sets the precedent and does set such by appealing or virtually instructing other baddies to prosecute .

The ECHR case was based on the whereabouts rules which were a government order and thus French law..The judgement also sad that there was an extra check on being reasonable in being selected for the RTP you could apply to French Court .

There is no such possibility in the UK; thus the decision could well only be seen for France.

Wada sports rules and procedures will eventually have to match real law and will thus be possible ?

Just read 2021 Code and still says it is sports rules that sit outside nations legal and civil system.

Yet Wada had to depend on the ECHR case being based on French law.

House of cards with huge contradictions .

rule reader wrote:

Just read 2021 Code and still says it is sports rules that sit outside nations legal and civil system.

Yet Wada had to depend on the ECHR case being based on French law.

House of cards with huge contradictions .

There is only contradiction in your confused mind.

There is a difference between an athlete violating a rule, and a rule violating a law.

The WADA code is not national or civil law -- the code is a bunch of rules.

These rules are enforced outside any legal system, because they are not laws.

The athletes are subject to the rules.

The rules are subject to local, state, national, and international laws.

Every rule can be subjected to legal challenge, and potentially struck down for violating the law.

But an athlete who breaks a rule, has not (necessarily) broken the law.

rekrunner wrote:

rule reader wrote:

Just read 2021 Code and still says it is sports rules that sit outside nations legal and civil system.

Yet Wada had to depend on the ECHR case being based on French law.

House of cards with huge contradictions .

There is only contradiction in your confused mind.

There is a difference between an athlete violating a rule, and a rule violating a law.

The WADA code is not national or civil law -- the code is a bunch of rules.

These rules are enforced outside any legal system, because they are not laws.

The athletes are subject to the rules.

The rules are subject to local, state, national, and international laws.

Every rule can be subjected to legal challenge, and potentially struck down for violating the law.

But an athlete who breaks a rule, has not (necessarily) broken the law.

What a jumbled up low grade essay

You have been told that the whereabouts rules are law in France .

In a good few countries anti doping rules are law and will be in USA within a day.

But you are in agreement with me that Wada rules are subject to the law something the wada code seeks to deny.

The art of a good essay is to read around the subject esp when you been given precise instructions as what to read.

I would give you a C+, mainly for getting your work in ahead of deadline.My advice is not to take this subject at the next level.

Subway Surfers wrote:

YMMV wrote:

Take off your Soytard Liberal Latte Brainwashed Goggles and see the reality:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTwkefop9OYrshFNmWmokHO2wWr3P7oTSG_rQ&usqp=CAU

When I was young we used to sing a nursery rhyme "Rollover". Guess who's the next to fallout?

I was going to post the photo of Manangoi and Rudisha sitting on the bed together, but that would be a bit cruel at this stage.

rule reader wrote:

What a jumbled up low grade essay

You have been told that the whereabouts rules are law in France .

In a good few countries anti doping rules are law and will be in USA within a day.

But you are in agreement with me that Wada rules are subject to the law something the wada code seeks to deny.

The art of a good essay is to read around the subject esp when you been given precise instructions as what to read.

I would give you a C+, mainly for getting your work in ahead of deadline.My advice is not to take this subject at the next level.

I have been told a lot of nonsense.

The WADA code rules are still not law. The whereabouts rule is still just a rule in France.

You will not go to any court for a whereabouts violation as you have broken no law..

What the courts found is that the whereabouts rule is consistent with the law: one rule, which is still not a law, also does not violate the law.

The USA Rodchenkov Act will not target athlete's doping, and will not target whereabouts.

Other countries take a similar approach, targeting the suppliers and enablers and not the athletes.

Wada rules are the basis of many laws in many countries.

Such was a basis for the French ECHR decision.

Yes, the Rod Act is after is not to prosecute athletes but the others will be done against the wada code thus the code become law.

What on earth is you comment, “one rule, which is still not a law ; also does not violate the law” mean.

My point is that there is an inevitable moving away from the original intent of the code to be “ just sports rules “ and with that will come intense examination of the justice of the system as norm justice procedures will apply.

You slipped to C~ with you last essay. Advise read around the subject.