Small point but as a Brit I note his first ban was not because he cheated .
This put him in the same catagory as dozens of those who are competing .
Small point but as a Brit I note his first ban was not because he cheated .
This put him in the same catagory as dozens of those who are competing .
TrackCoach wrote:
2. Perhaps Gatlin should have been banned for life, but he wasn't. (Get over it!) Gatlin didn't make the rules, the IAAF did, in which case, it would have been more appropriate to boo Coe.
Do you not follow the sport?
The IAAF wanted to ban Gatlin (and all 2nd time dopers) for life but when they tried to introduce this punishment they were told they could not do so by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (who also overuled the IAAF on forcing Semenya to take medication to check testosterone levels), as it contravened an individual's human right to make a living! Thus not the IAAF's fault.
So, they (the IAAF) gave him an 8 year ban instead, as in line with the IAAF's rules at the time (4 years for first offence). Gatlin appealed, took the IAAF to court, and the courts forced the IAAF to lower it to 4 years. Again, not the IAAF's fault.
Once a precedent is set, and knowing the constant lawsuits from those banned for 4 years would quickly bankrupt the IAAF and the sport, the IAAF had no choice but to halve the ban for first time offenders from 4 to 2 years.
So don't make out the IAAF is at fault and should have had different rules in place. Blame Gatlin for being a greedy cheat, society for selfish ideas of entitlement, and primarily the law courts and greedy lawyers for preventing the IAAF from carrying out what they consider to be fair justice.
It is Gatlin and his agent that are the hypocrites. Gatlin said he was innocent in 2006 for his 2nd offence, came up with some lame (which they all seem to) excuse, continued to maintain he was a victim, showing no remorse, until 2010, and then decided to try a different tact by writing to the IAAF and saying how sorry he was! Not only is he a cheat, but he's also a liar. How many chances do you want to give such an individual?
How I used "tabloid":"they (individual athlete doping allegations) were tabloid accusations that largely lacked merit or substance""All (casual obsever's) arguments are a long list of tabloid headlines ...""Did her 2003 Hct skyrocket 30%? We cannot say with any degree of certainty above what is required for the tabloid journalism that printed it."I did not say anything about the Guardian and Independent. But since you asked:The quoted Guardian article looks OK to me, inline with the IAAF Ethics Commission investigation report.The quoted Independent headline looks slightly misleading compared to the article, which adds that Coe had "no further information" that he could provide, and in light of the letters by Coe and Damien Collins published on the UK Select Committee's website.Gary -- ROFL
Drug cheats out please wrote:
Incorrigible. Are the Guardian and Independent really tabloid for you, Gary?
no gatlins longevity is due to the speed peptide............................
look what done and still doing for kim collins
he must of spent years in jail
british doping of recent has alot to do with the speed peptide
regardless of other peds with froome or andy murray etc
but again iaaf/wada wont mention nor test for it .
still playing there little games and not remotely clean
Deanouk wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:2. Perhaps Gatlin should have been banned for life, but he wasn't. (Get over it!) Gatlin didn't make the rules, the IAAF did, in which case, it would have been more appropriate to boo Coe.
Do you not follow the sport?
The IAAF wanted to ban Gatlin (and all 2nd time dopers) for life but when they tried to introduce this punishment they were told they could not do so by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (who also overuled the IAAF on forcing Semenya to take medication to check testosterone levels), as it contravened an individual's human right to make a living! Thus not the IAAF's fault.
So, they (the IAAF) gave him an 8 year ban instead, as in line with the IAAF's rules at the time (4 years for first offence). Gatlin appealed, took the IAAF to court, and the courts forced the IAAF to lower it to 4 years. Again, not the IAAF's fault.
Once a precedent is set, and knowing the constant lawsuits from those banned for 4 years would quickly bankrupt the IAAF and the sport, the IAAF had no choice but to halve the ban for first time offenders from 4 to 2 years.
So don't make out the IAAF is at fault and should have had different rules in place. Blame Gatlin for being a greedy cheat, society for selfish ideas of entitlement, and primarily the law courts and greedy lawyers for preventing the IAAF from carrying out what they consider to be fair justice.
It is Gatlin and his agent that are the hypocrites. Gatlin said he was innocent in 2006 for his 2nd offence, came up with some lame (which they all seem to) excuse, continued to maintain he was a victim, showing no remorse, until 2010, and then decided to try a different tact by writing to the IAAF and saying how sorry he was! Not only is he a cheat, but he's also a liar. How many chances do you want to give such an individual?
"Deanouk" (what a foolish handle) still hasn't taken his remedial reading classes. Gatlin's first "doping" offense was for a prescription ADHD drug he had been taking since high school which is not banned out-of-competition. He made the mistake of taking it too close to a race.
Keep trying, fool. You're not good enough to get a raise from your online PR firm - looks like you're going to be stuck at $8.50/hour for a long time.
rekrunner wrote:
How I used "tabloid":
"they (individual athlete doping allegations) were tabloid accusations that largely lacked merit or substance"
"All (casual obsever's) arguments are a long list of tabloid headlines ..."
Keep telling yourself that.
But the truth is, that I am the one quoting BBC, Guardian, Ulrich, Ashenden, Tucker, etc., whereas you have to resort to name calling and believing the words of the accused and the corrupt IAAF. And no, Ashenden did not contradict his own publications - nice try...
btt, examples regarding Coe/IAAF:
The Independent:
Sebastian Coe has flatly refused a request by MPs to give more evidence to their inquiry into doping in his sport, after it emerged that he did not respond to a telephone call, email and text messages about an extortion racket involving officials at the IAAF, the organisation he now leads.
Wait, didn't he claim that there was only one email, which of course he only opened but didn't read? Lol.
BBC:
"Athletics' governing body suppressed a study which showed as many as a third of the world's top athletes admitted violating anti-doping rules, according to the Sunday Times.
Wait, don't you usually say that almost no athletes dope, and those who do, get caught the first time? Lol.
And why would the IAAF try to block the truth? Coincidence, right? If it weren't so sad, I'd laugh about your trolling.
sportsintegrityinitiative:
The authors of a 2011 study into the prevalence of doping have accused the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) of giving ‘contradictory’ and ‘untrue’ statements in evidence given to the Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Select Committee of the UK Parliament on 2 December 2015.
...
The detailed letter, dated 11 January 2016, accuses IAAF President Sebastian Coe and IAAF Anti-Doping Manager Thomas Capdevielle of giving ‘contradictory’ and ‘untrue’ statements to the CMS Committee, damaging the reputation of the ten scientists involved."
Oh, so Coe didn't just stonewall, he also gave "‘untrue’ statements", according to the letter from ten scientists, not according to my "tabloid headlines". Same old, same old.
How will deflect from the above now, rekrunner? Another emotional outburst with lots of ad hominem attacks, or will you make up new stuff again?
I usually respond by showing how what you quote doesn't support what you say, or showing you quotes from authoritative sources, that reframe your sensational way of interpreting what you quote in a more proper context.
It's interesting when I accuse you of imagining things, because half of your arguments are quotes of allegations from sensational British newspapers, and the other half are you imagining evidence exists that we just don't know yet, because the data is incomplete, from that point on, you accuse me of "making stuff up" in each of your posts. Similarly, it looks like you read "ad hominem" once somewhere, and decided it sounded smart to use it here. I think I did that last in third grade, with "I'm rubber, you're glue ..."
I'm confused why you write "And no, Ashenden did not contradict his own publications - nice try... ", here and now. I did not "try" to bring up Ashenden and his non-peer reviewed conclusions versus his previous peer-reviewed conclusions. I will note that the WADA IC was equally confused by "the scientists' various and changing positions on such matters" but felt it was "not for the IC to attempt to reconcile". These are quotes you can find in the WADA IC report #2. I was not the only one to notice that the same data cannot be both considered reliable, and not reliable, for the same purpose.
But if you are inclined to tell me that Ashenden does not contradict himself, then I will look no further than all of his peer-reviewed publications explaining the many reasons why figures like 30% should not be considered real, with extremely low values likely being artifically low, and extremely high values likely being artificially high.
As I have shown you, many times, all of my expressed opinions about the blood data can be formed, not by "believing the words of the accused and the corrupt IAAF", but by reading the studies conducted by the ARD/Sunday Times experts Ashenden and Parisotto alone. No one has since improved the reliability of the measurements known to be unreliable for ABP type comparisons that would lead us to values like 30%.
Oh I see now, maybe you were trolling me to respond about Ashenden, and I fell for it, replying in three paragraphs to a comment you just pulled completely out of context (your own kind of deflection?), and put it in here. Oh boy we are having fun now.
Regarding Coe's "refusal" to give more evidence, this was reported by your own source as an inability to give more than he already has, not standing with its headline. Is this stonewalling, or trying to squeeze blood from a stone? We also see from a letter to the British MPs, that, contrary to newspaper reports, he did not flatly refuse to appear, or otherwise cooperate with the Select Committee.
"Wait, didn't he claim that there was only one email, which of course he only opened but didn't read? Lol."
He claimed he forwarded the email to an on-going investigation -- this is a reasonable action. If an investigation is on-going, it is reasonable to not pursue the matter further personally. He probably did not respond to texts, phone calls, and emails from Bedford -- this could be considered rude.
Regarding Coe's "blocking" of the Tubingen study, we have seen that in 2015, as late as July, the IAAF was still evaluating it, after having raised concerns about the study to its authors. We have also seen accusations that the IAAF were "blocking" it, that look to me like speculation on the part of the 10 scientists searching for an explanation of the long delay they felt was unreasonably long. Coe told us in Dec. 2015, that it had been rejected by three publications. Maybe this is untrue -- maybe it was only rejected by one, as the letter from the 10 scientists explained. Also Capdeveille reported, in Dec. 2015, despite being rejected, that it was published eight times. Maybe eight is also untrue -- who knows -- but we know the UK Select Committee made it public in Sep. 2015. So it might seem like contradictory and untrue testimony, three months after the Select Committee made it public, that it was both rejected and published, but nevertheless, it was both rejected, at least once, and published, at least once. I won't dwell on whether three or eight make the statements untrue, or contradictory.
More information about Coe's "refusal", and the "blocked" Tubingen study, can be found by reading the material posted at the UK Select Committee's website.
"Wait, don't you usually say that almost no athletes dope, and those who do, get caught the first time?"
No. Lol. It's more like me to say that we lack evidence of doping prior to being caught, and that fast times are not evidence of doping.