Mo Farah - very good article from Irish Independent

I'm going to guess he didn't mean you -- it seems directed to the confident interpretations of non-authoritative posters like "casual obsever", who is not shy about implying that his interpretation is more correct than the combined UKAD, IAAF, WADA, and CAS interpretation, and subsequently implying these organizations are corrupt, or displaying favoritism by not applying the rules correctly or consistently. Regarding the Clause 2.3, it is not about "a failure to submit a sample" but it is about "a failure to submit TO sample collection AFTER notification of the obligation to submit to sample collection". These words in the Clause are not subject to just any outsider layman interpretations -- there are extensive guidelines, explanations, and clarifications, that help properly interpret these, and other Clauses. For example "A Guide to the World Anti-Doping Code" by Paul David is a book you can buy from Amazon. There, you can find a detailed interpretation (6 pages) of Clause 2.3, which includes phrases like "failing to submit to sample collection can only be alleged once there has been notification of the athlete's obligation to submit to sample collection as required by the relevant rules in the ISTI." Arguably, if Farah did not answer the door, such notification did not take place, and any discussion of refusal to submit to, or failure to submit to, which requires this notification, does not apply. Without such notification, only evasion would apply, and this requires "proof of intentional conduct in that the athlete is shown to have deliberately avoided sample collection. This will require that the athlete is aware of the sample collection ... and sets out to avoid it ...." I guess there is a good reason why all of the relevant anti-doping authorities considered this a "missed test" rather than "evasion, refusal or failure to submit".

Rekrunner? Sabadell? Mo Farah was on the list of athletes named by the Spanish police as part of Aden's group with accreditation for the track Were Aden and his associates caught with drugs or not?

As far as I'm aware that is an ongoing enquiry... not a dead end

NOP, is Salazar still under investigation and were there not numerous witness accounts?... not a dead end

The only leap of faith is to believe there is no association.

My information on the phone calls comes from the Armistead case. It is my clear and unambiguous understanding that UKAD *does not* in any circumstances call the athlete by phone to try to locate them, irrespective of what happened in some USADA scenarios.

Honestly, I can't find any evidence for this beyond the rebuttal by Armistead after her whereabouts failures were publicised, but this is her statement. I respectfully suggest that if you think I'm wrong on this point you point to a UK example which contradicts Armisteads position here:-

"Calling an athletes mobile phone is not a method approved by UKAD to try and locate an athlete, as such it is not an argument against me that I slept with my phone on silent in order not to disturb a room mate."

Whether I believe there is an association is hardly relevant. Recall again that Ewan MacKenna framed his article as a non-biased one based on facts and logic. Fact: attemping to imply guilt by association is not "logical", but a logical fallacy. A track athlete being on a list with access to a track is not all that suspicious, and certainly not any indication of an ADRV. Farah's "associate" Aden was not caught with WADA banned drugs, and has yet to be sanctioned or suspended by an ADO. Honestly I don't know if Salazar is still under investigation. How will I know if or when it stops? One year ago, USADA was still trying to determine if any ADRV took place, after an investigation kicked off in December 2012, and after interviewing 19 witnesses. Once these investigation are open, they are never really closed, so this will be some kind of perpetual state if Salazar cannot be proven guilty. In any case, if one day in the future, these investigations result in a sanction (first leap of faith), a guilty Aden and a guilty Salazar still does not "logically" close the gap between Farah and an ADRV (second leap of faith). As far as I know, Farah is not currently under investigation by anyone, so it's curious to see Ewan MacKenna close his article, "suggesting it's time that Sir Mo arose and opened up that second letter", as if it were timely to do so now.

ho ho ho wrote:

Rekrunner? Sabadell? Mo Farah was on the list of athletes named by the Spanish police as part of Aden's group with accreditation for the track Were Aden and his associates caught with drugs or not?

As far as I'm aware that is an ongoing enquiry... not a dead end

NOP, is Salazar still under investigation and were there not numerous witness accounts?... not a dead end

The only leap of faith is to believe there is no association.

I feel he's guilty as sin, and you feel quite the contrary. Why are we arguing? I'm not going to convince you to change your mind, with the converse also being true. Bad waste of time for the both of us. At least that weird "epo doesn't work" guy hasn't shown up in the thread, so that's a positive.

larkimm wrote:

My information on the phone calls comes from the Armistead case. It is my clear and unambiguous understanding that UKAD *does not* in any circumstances call the athlete by phone to try to locate them, irrespective of what happened in some USADA scenarios.

According to the accused, yes. But:

"The UKAD official reportedly arrived at the hotel and requested Armitstead’s room number, without explaining the purpose of the visit, and hotel staff declined to give out the information.

One attempt was made to contact the rider via her mobile phone, but it was set to silent while she slept."

Now, the lady was arguing that the UKAD tester wasn't allowed to call her? There was no comment from CAS or from UKAD that the tester wasn't allowed to do so.

According to the Guardian, her argument was (originally?) different:

"She said the August violation occurred after she had her phone on silent at her team hotel during the UCI Women’s Road World Cup in Sweden, but that testers should easily have been able to find her when they arrived at the location and simply did not look for her properly."

rekrunner wrote:

Every one of these logical paths, based on facts, requires a leap of bad faith to jump from facts and logic to a premature, prejudged, and biased conclusion.

I'd argue the opposite: a lot of faith is required to believe all these lame excuses like the dog ate my homework, I just coincidentally had a huge Hct spike, I really can't hear my doorbell, I didn't know Driouch is a drug cheat, Aden only held the stopwatch once, and my doctor really lost the info about my injection.

If it's just association through happy coincidence Rekrunner can you explain to me how Mo ended up in the back of the car with Driouch, Aden, Abdi (who he is still training with!) and co.? Then pictured again having coffee and again at the track and again and again. Anyone would think they were on a training camp! Your convenient ability to overlook the obvious is fabulous.

Everything is a coincidence with rekrunner. From violating the ABP repeatedly (Ratcliffe) to ending up in a car with a drug cheat and his coach. Oh, and if athletes lie, then they just misspeak or something - nothing to see here.

I can accept that Mo ended up in the back of the car with Driouch, Aden, Abdi and co., that Mo had coffee and Mo ran at the track.

Are you UKA in disguise? wrote:

If it's just association through happy coincidence Rekrunner can you explain to me how Mo ended up in the back of the car with Driouch, Aden, Abdi (who he is still training with!) and co.? Then pictured again having coffee and again at the track and again and again. Anyone would think they were on a training camp! Your convenient ability to overlook the obvious is fabulous.

You can try. Ewan MacKenna suggests we can build the case against Mo from facts and logic. He failed to do it. Removing my faith cannot cure the fact that he needs faith to complete his arguments.

faith-based wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Every one of these logical paths, based on facts, requires a leap of bad faith to jump from facts and logic to a premature, prejudged, and biased conclusion.

I'd argue the opposite: a lot of faith is required to believe all these lame excuses like the dog ate my homework, I just coincidentally had a huge Hct spike, I really can't hear my doorbell, I didn't know Driouch is a drug cheat, Aden only held the stopwatch once, and my doctor really lost the info about my injection.

coincidences wrote:

Everything is a coincidence with rekrunner. From violating the ABP repeatedly (Ratcliffe) to ending up in a car with a drug cheat and his coach. Oh, and if athletes lie, then they just misspeak or something - nothing to see here.

I'm not sure Rek even admits in coincidences. So you have a sh*t load of epo and steriods in one motel room (in Sabadell) and in another you have the world record holder for 1500m. Nah, that's not a coincidence.

A guilty Salazar does not mean a guilty Mo. A guilty Aden does not mean a guilty Mo. Training in Sabadell, even with dopers, is legal. Training in Ethiopia, is legal. L-Carnitine in any amount is legal. Too large infusion is not yet a fact. I don't bring up fast times -- others do and it's a dead-end. Many known reasons for one sample to be flagged as "likely doping". Two missed tests is legal. Mo is not Tyler Hamilton.

rekrunner wrote:

Two missed tests is legal.

[quote]

After which he became virtually invincible.

Ridiculing with "coincidence" is used as a distraction to hide a failure to establish a link between two otherwise disjoint events, as is "nothing to see here". Some "facts" simply never happened -- like "violating the ABP repeatedly (Ratcliffe) (sic)". Other "facts" are simply legal.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

coincidences wrote:

Everything is a coincidence with rekrunner. From violating the ABP repeatedly (Ratcliffe) to ending up in a car with a drug cheat and his coach. Oh, and if athletes lie, then they just misspeak or something - nothing to see here.

I'm not sure Rek even admits in coincidences. So you have a sh*t load of epo and steriods in one motel room (in Sabadell) and in another you have the world record holder for 1500m. Nah, that's not a coincidence.

So he never missed another test during the period of his invincibility?

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Two missed tests is legal.

[quote]

After which he became virtually invincible.

Yet I've not seen a direct rebuttal of her statement about UKAD and mobile phones. I freely admit that I've not seen a UKAD policy on not using them either, but it would stand to reason that calling the athlete does leave a potential for an undocumented bladder emptying, so it does make sense to me that calling isn't part of their protocol, especially when they are not in the sort of hotel scenario where the hotel staff won't give out the room number (and where the athlete has failed to give out the room number).

Anyway, in relation to Mo, UKAD's statement on the doorbell incident doesn't refer to trying him on the phone I don't think:-

'If there's no response UKAD has detailed protocol that involves the doping control officer waiting for a period of 15 minutes, trying the bell or the knocker again, doing the same thing again after half an hour, then 45 minutes and then when the hour is up, the doping control officer completes his or her paperwork and then leaves the address.

'The athlete is advised by UKAD of the apparent missed test a few days later.'

I'm seeing nothing in the reporting that says anything other than they tried the doorbell, he didn't answer, they tried a few times, he still didn't answer, and ultimately they accepted his explanation that he was there but didn't hear the doorbell. You can describe that as stupid, and I wouldn't disagree that if I was on whereabouts I'd make sure I could hear the doorbell. But equally, you're on whereabouts 365 days a year and I don't find it implausible that this sort of situation might arise - my best analogy is that I've been waiting in my house for a package to arrive on a specific day, and I've missed the doorbell at home. Maybe that makes me dumb, but it has happened, so I can see it happening to Mo. And (the most important point here) UKAD also saw it like that and moved on.

Rekrunner. What is your opinion on Coe and his position with the IAAF and whilst at FIFA (head of ethics at FIFA, ha ha ha!). Do you believe that he has no involvement with any of the corruption that engulfed these two organisations?

The relevance of this is that if this kind of mass corruption was common place how can we believe that any of the testing, protocol is genuine?

I would argue that Coe's personal and business relationships with current and former athletes (Radcliffe and Farah for a start not to mention Nike ) are too close for him to be objective in his judgement.

I don't believe for a second that the whole story has come out as far as IAAF is concerned. Whether it will is another story but given the corruption involved why would you ever believe that the testing around the sport's biggest stars and moneyspinners was whiter than white?

It's the equivalent of finding wholesale corruption involving every level of a business yet believing there is no need to investigate their tax returns because 'that was all being done correctly'....

You are the Letsrun equivalent of the Emperors New Clothes.