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

'and in Manangoi's case, he also worked for the police.'

The only work he does for the police is running

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'and in Manangoi's case, he also worked for the police.'

The only work he does for the police is running

The Met police should start employing Kenyan runners. Would come in handy when they are running away from BLM protesters, Notting Hill bloc party mobs and the like.

I ask you to get out of the stupid corner and get an adult to read to you my penultimate paragraph.

OK -- I get it. Two's a crowd.

I'll get out and leave you alone to wallow in the corner by yourself.

rekrunner wrote:

OK -- I get it. Two's a crowd.

I'll get out and leave you alone to wallow in the corner by yourself.

Read the penultimate para. This means the second to last or for simpletons , the one before the last.

Or have you and now realised you have been of the misunderstanding things type all this time.

rule reader wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

OK -- I get it. Two's a crowd.

I'll get out and leave you alone to wallow in the corner by yourself.

Read the penultimate para. This means the second to last or for simpletons , the one before the last.

Or have you and now realised you have been of the misunderstanding things type all this time.

You make so many English mistakes, that I wonder if English is your first language, and if I'm being to harsh on you. This would explain the frequent inability to comprehend plain English, and your misuse of prepositions, etc.

I read and re-read your penultimate paragraph, and it is nonsense each and every time. I stand by my original statement:

"There is no movement from the original intent -- it is the same as it ever was."

There will be no intense examination, because the framework for the WADA code, and its participation and its enforcement are all within existing laws. Yet its rules, although lawful, are not laws. This compliance within existing laws has only been confirmed by court cases.

ECHR was an important win and will effectively shut that door forever.

I repeat that the EHRC was set within French law as whereabouts had the effect of being law as it was an “ Order”. Also the Court said that it was possible under the “ order” to to appeal against inclusion in the RTP.

This only applies to France, thus the issue is not fully resolved.

Now read the decision!

rule reader wrote:

I repeat that the EHRC was set within French law as whereabouts had the effect of being law as it was an “ Order”. Also the Court said that it was possible under the “ order” to to appeal against inclusion in the RTP.

This only applies to France, thus the issue is not fully resolved.

Now read the decision!

You can repeat all you want.

The ECHR decision says "no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on. Human Rights."

This decision does not create a new law, but interprets a WADA rule against an existing European Convention.

It is up to the French Parliament to make French laws, not WADA or the ECHR.

rekrunner wrote:

rule reader wrote:

I repeat that the EHRC was set within French law as whereabouts had the effect of being law as it was an “ Order”. Also the Court said that it was possible under the “ order” to to appeal against inclusion in the RTP.

This only applies to France, thus the issue is not fully resolved.

Now read the decision!

You can repeat all you want.

The ECHR decision says "no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on. Human Rights."

This decision does not create a new law, but interprets a WADA rule against an existing European Convention.

It is up to the French Parliament to make French laws, not WADA or the ECHR.

Read and understand the decision . There was a breach but it was acceptable on various grounds one of which was they could appeal the decision to go on RTP according to the “order “ as set out under French law.You can’t appeal in other countries thus the decision is limited to France.

Do read the decision; have you bothered?

I read "no violation", not "acceptable breach".

"The decision to go on RTP" was not made by WADA and is not a WADA rule.

rekrunner wrote:

I read "no violation", not "acceptable breach".

"The decision to go on RTP" was not made by WADA and is not a WADA rule.

Read the decision and then you will grasp how Art 8 works and explain your last sentence please.

Have you grasped that the case only applies to France but I agree does have great implications for other Euro countries.

rule reader wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I read "no violation", not "acceptable breach".

"The decision to go on RTP" was not made by WADA and is not a WADA rule.

Read the decision and then you will grasp how Art 8 works and explain your last sentence please.

Have you grasped that the case only applies to France but I agree does have great implications for other Euro countries.

I understand how Article 8 works, and I understand how whereabouts works, and how both work together and I understand how the ECHR, and their judgements, works with its 47 member states.

The ECHR upheld the principle of whereabouts, as one that doesn't violate Article 8 (nor Article 2 btw), and upheld the implementation by the French state under its own laws.

WADA is currently drafting a 2021 version of the code, seeking legal advice from a former ECHR judge, and have done so similarly since the whereabouts have existed. This would be the opportunity to incorporate any changes deemed unfair to the athletes. It was likely a session like this which drove the change from 18 months, relaxing it to 12 months, in favor of fairness to the athletes.

For some reason, you keep faulting WADA rules, or WADA itself, for details that either do not violation European Conventions, or are not under WADA control.

Regarding the last sentence, WADA does not decide which athletes go into the RTP, nor how to implement the whereabouts rule and associated testing. In the case before the ECHR, the AFLD (the antidoping body of the UCI) made that decision.

AFLD is a government body which is not what the original code had in mind as it wanted sports rules separated from legal and civil procedures and controls.