Omar Craddock provisionally suspended for whereabouts violations

The reason Soccer got away with no home testing was the insurance issues of work taking place at home.

Also having testers wandering around a multi million house with bio hazards was not accepted by insurers.

Makes me think what a hotel would think of their toilets being used for someone work activities with blood about.

What if you put a hotel down and the hotel said no.

Or at a mates house when testers turn up?

Raddison wrote:

One thing I have noticed is that most of these busts have been carried out by the AIU rather than the national anti-doping bodies. For a long time I have held the belief that the national bodies really don't want to catch their own athletes and give the athletes all sorts of breaks such as courtesy phone calls or turning up minutes after the one hour window has closed.

I can understand athletes feeling resentful when they feel the "unofficial" rules have changed. A bit like the local cops turning a blind eye to people going 10 KPH over the limit on the highway and then national police step in and start handing out tickets.

+1

Nice comparison! This self-policing has had its problems right from the start.

No rules have changed, but sooner or later even USADA will have to do their jobs properly, e.g. no more warning calls or letting athletes get off with the sex or beef excuses.

As for your comments regarding transit: recall that you can quickly send a text message about your delay (or change of plans), and all is well. It speaks volumes that these athletes rather risked a 2-year ban over sending a text.

You fail to realise that Wada recognise that contamination via the food chain is a possibility.

For post Brexit there are big debates about the UK not accepting steroid treated US beef.

All far more complicated than when WADA first assumed.

So I think we now have “ cure worse than curse”.

rule readud wrote:

My points have been that as employment law and other laws start impinging then whereabouts looks unsustainable. Let alone we will have few athletes left.

I am not too familiar with employment law. The closest I came to it was health and safety issues when I was in charge of a research group at an off-site location. One of the main things that I remember from those days is the question of "Is it reasonable". The bête-noir back then was safety glasses and is it reasonable to dictate that employees must wear them. Of course, this is now standard practice but there was a lot of arguments about it at the time.

Are the whereabouts requirements reasonable? I would say yes. But I realize people may feel otherwise.

Raddison wrote:

rule readud wrote:

Try getting an average worker to fill paperwork in.

In my experience workers who consistently fail to do their job properly get fired.

This.

Major job responsibility: Be available to urinate for a stranger with a cup.

Can’t be available? Goodbye - You’re done.......

Lying stick figure.....

rule readud wrote:

Raddison wrote:

In my experience workers who consistently fail to do their job properly get fired.

Good point but an athlete is athlete and has not applied for an admin job a job they may not be intellectually able to do on a regular basis.

And if a job there would be training, advice, retraining,

and a whole raft of other procedures before you lost that job and indeed the right to work for anyone in that field for two years.

I speak from a European employment law perspective .

They don’t have to write, fake attorney.

They have to urinate in a cup.

Yusef Scummm wrote:

rule readud wrote:

Good point but an athlete is athlete and has not applied for an admin job a job they may not be intellectually able to do on a regular basis.

And if a job there would be training, advice, retraining,

and a whole raft of other procedures before you lost that job and indeed the right to work for anyone in that field for two years.

I speak from a European employment law perspective .

They don’t have to write, fake attorney.

They have to urinate in a cup.

No employer could make viewed urination part of an employment contract.

rule readerr wrote:

No employer could make viewed urination part of an employment contract.

no, but you could make it part of a voluntary club membership

pupil3142 wrote:

rule readerr wrote:

No employer could make viewed urination part of an employment contract.

no, but you could make it part of a voluntary club membership

You can’t sign your rights away nor be subject to unfair contract.

How many more whereabouts busts before next season starts.

I think that there are loads sat there ready to prosecute as the penny won’t have dropped that AIU are taking a hard stance.

Await the TV Tokyo audience to evaporate.