Is UK anti-doping more interested in protecting reputations than investigating doping.

But this would have to involve a lot of people.

Much of this was fodder for tabloids, rather than actionable evidence.

A lot of it was investigated, by parties outside of UKAD, and there really was nothing to see.

I would say the answer to the question in your thread title is "Yes," not only for UKA but for most of the governing bodies in the sport. High profile athletes attract spectators and revenue and that's the main concern of governing bodies.

HRE wrote:

I would say the answer to the question in your thread title is "Yes," not only for UKA but for most of the governing bodies in the sport. High profile athletes attract spectators and revenue and that's the main concern of governing bodies.

*This. Let's not forget that USADA gives warning calls before OOC tests, and even letsrun does not care. And doesn't impose a ban despite positive tests when someone ate beef or kissed someone or whatnot.

Also we have seen that both US and UK were about average in blood doping (18% or thereabouts) at worlds 2011 and 2013, yet none of those dopers were ever caught - though three were among the likely dopers of the IAAF list in 2016.

We need to stop with the self-policing. The Rodchenkov Act is a good start, but now the other nations need to follow suit and check on each other.

I think your comment about being investigated by parties outside UKAD rather than being thoroughly investigated by UKAD says it all. I suspect UKAD is, to use the phrase that's often bandied around in UK sports governance, conspicuously incurious to look too deeply in case they find something that doesn't involve small fry. I think it was Lord Coe that said a high profile doper would down the end of public confidence in athletics. Hence a culture of don't look, don't find.

*sound the end

Doping is rife in UK sport,and has been for decades.One look at their over muscled sprinters,rowers and cyclists should tell you all you need to know.Theyre also very good at complaining about dopers from other countries,to deflect from their own drug use.

The public message was that the British Cycling team/team sky/team inoes were world beating due to exploiting marginal gains and been great at sports science. Most people into running/cycling know the situation and dislike Mo Farah, but the general public love him as they only see him every 4 years and wins for their team.

They went for football and got £13 damages awarded against them ; they went for boxing and got costs of £.75m.

They don’t test football at home or hols.

They have special rules for urine collection that gives the players good notice to get out of the way.

But they would love to get them as they would with Farah but the lawyers say “ hold on”.

Perhaps they should put a levy on the sport to cover legal costs where they lose, that way sport governing bodies would be less likely to turn a blind eye as they have done in the past, providing medals were won.

HRE wrote:

I would say the answer to the question in your thread title is "Yes," not only for UKA but for most of the governing bodies in the sport. High profile athletes attract spectators and revenue and that's the main concern of governing bodies.

His question was about UKAD, the anti-doping agency, and not UKA (aka British Athletics).

rekrunner wrote:

HRE wrote:

I would say the answer to the question in your thread title is "Yes," not only for UKA but for most of the governing bodies in the sport. High profile athletes attract spectators and revenue and that's the main concern of governing bodies.

His question was about UKAD, the anti-doping agency, and not UKA (aka British Athletics).

Okay, thanks. Doesn't change my opinion that there is no official body anywhere in the sport that isn't more interested in looking like it's battling doping than actually doing it.

Gibstar wrote:

I think your comment about being investigated by parties outside UKAD rather than being thoroughly investigated by UKAD says it all. I suspect UKAD is, to use the phrase that's often bandied around in UK sports governance, conspicuously incurious to look too deeply in case they find something that doesn't involve small fry. I think it was Lord Coe that said a high profile doper would down the end of public confidence in athletics. Hence a culture of don't look, don't find.

I think Mark Dry would disagree that UKAD is protecting reputations.

If other organizations are investigating and finding nothing, I don't imagine a UKAD review would find something more.

Seb Coe is not UKAD and not representing UKA, but World Athletics.

UKAD is anti-doping for all Olympic sports, and is supposed to be largely independent of the various the sports federations. It doesn't hurt UKAD to destroy athletes' reputations.

Wirh all due respect Mark Dry is one of the small fish that get caught to give the impression the system is robust.

Farah did his doping in Kenya where he could dodge the superior UK testing system.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Farah did his doping in Kenya where he could dodge the superior UK testing system.

In Kenya? Really?

Gibstar wrote:

Wirh all due respect Mark Dry is one of the small fish that get caught to give the impression the system is robust.

The bigger fish would probably be tested and caught by international federations like the AIU or the UCI. (And keen readers will note that Dry was not banned for any banned substance or method. Dry missed a test, because he was not at home, creating a whereabouts failure, but then lied about where he was, saying he went fishing, in writing, and got his partner to lie too, in writing. UKAD appealed and succeeded in sanctioning Dry for tampering with the process. So technically this doesn't count as "investigating doping", but does count as not "protecting reputations".)

Going back to your original post, it's hard to see what role UKAD could or should play in some of your examples.

- Seb Coe received an email regarding Russian athletes (and forwarded it to an on-going investigation). UKAD doesn't concern itself with the doping of Russian athletes.

- With respect to Mo Farah and the Fancy Bears leak, we see the experts requested further data, and the last data point cleared Mo Farah. This was not UKAD protecting Mo's reputation, but rather the IAAF's Medical and Anti-doping department, or maybe WADA's ABP software algorithm that flags suspicion.

- In the case of Paula, UKAD looked at Paula Radcliffe's blood values and said "no case to answer".

- With respect to thyroid hormones, UKAD lobbied WADA on at least 3 separate occasions, to add thyroid hormone to the banned list. WADA said no.

- With respect to Farah's relationship with Salazar, UKAD rebuked UKA earlier this year for not sharing a 2015 report on the relationship, which also contained sensitve medical information. (UKA for its part also expressed dissappointment that USADA did not keep them informed of the status of the investigation and that charges were formally brought in 2017 -- which would have led them to terminate Farah's relation with Salazar; and USADA told UKA it would be irresponsible to act against Salazar based on the leaked report on Salazar and Brown; and UKA informed us that both USADA and UKAD warned UKA not to investigate any question of doping when evaluating whether the coaching/consultancy relationship with UKA, or with Farah, was appropriate).

When there are multiple actors and ADOs with overlapping responsibilities, it would be inefficient use of scarce funding for several ADOs to conduct the same investigation in parallel, or de novo. Their investigation may be limited to asking for the details and evidence, and deciding if it was conducted appropriately or if any further action is required.

UK athletics in a political sense is run by an old boys network, Seb Coe is party of this network. Let's not forget Seb Coe was Head of Ethics at FIFA, perhaps the most corrupt sporting organisation out there, but apparently saw or heard nothing of the rampant corruption there. He was deputy at World Athletics when his spiritual leader was plundering the organisation, but again saw or heard nothing. He was in the pocket of Nike for years and curiously aligned world athletics shoe regulations to match Nike products, ignoring fairness in sport. So, I disagree that it's nothing to do with Coe, he has major influence in UK sporting environment, including doping, as influenced by the failure to provide additional evidence to a British parliamentary committee looking at doping.

Radcliffe and Farah were exonerated, bit rusty depends on two things, how curious were the doping agency to look behind the "good chaps don't cheat" mood music. In the absence of identifying the three specialists who reviewed the concerns, how do we know they were not Nike influence shills or UK fanboys, after all only one out of three has to disagree, so the majority of experts could say doping but a single place man says no and the case finds everything of above board.

Let's not forget UKAD refused to re-allow new testing on Farah samples when requested following the Salazar investigation.

Radcliffe always said she would publish her bills details, but when push comes to shove, never has.

123 5 wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Farah did his doping in Kenya where he could dodge the superior UK testing system.

In Kenya? Really?

You are right he skipped off to Ethiopia when it got a bit hot.