Mo Farah sues Ben Bloom

What happened at the German airport? (link?). I don't live in Germany so I never heard anything about this.

this has happened before wrote:

There is nothing wrong with saying "likely doping" as that is what the biological passport said.

That's appalling. Whoever's behind that should be sued, big time and lose.

Mo better not get caught like Lance did because this could boomerang back and put Mo in jail.

Paula has doing the same kind of stuff for almost a decade now and brojos keep covering up for her.

Inquiring minds want to know wrote:

What happened at the German airport? (link?). I don't live in Germany so I never heard anything about this.

Not to bring the thread off topic, but

Farah is of Somalian origin, not Eritrean.

Farah is not the only athlete to progress in late twenties, early thirties, look at Radcliffe, for example. Fatah, became a lot stronger, under Salazar, with tons of weight lifting and cross training, which he had not done with Alan Storey.

Farah is usually chill and low key, but it was uncharacteristic of him to go nuts in the German airport. I think he perceived the officials were targetting him on racial grounds, when in fact those officials were just doing their jobs.

It is unfortunate that this isolated incident was made public, because anyone who has met Farah knows that incident was out of character. Very unfortunate.

Brit.Doper.Cheater.Liar.Frauds.Monte.Carlo.Paula wrote:

http://i4.irishmirror.ie/incoming/article6915888.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/PaulaMain.jpg

I find this cover (the picture, especially) hilarious. I laugh every time I see it. You have to hand it to British tabs, they have no equal at this.

It wasn't out of character at all. The guy has changed beyond recognition. Check out how many of his 'close friends' and former club mates he is still in contact with. He would more readily blank them than even offer a hello. The 'media' Mo is very different to real life.

Ghost1 wrote:

It is unfortunate that this isolated incident was made public, because anyone who has met Farah knows that incident was out of character. Very unfortunate.

He made it public in social media. I think it's because of football. British people are kind of jealous because they tend to always lose in big tournaments and Germany keeps winning. It's like Gary Lineker once said: "Football is a simple game. Twenty-two men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans always win."

My initial thoughts: 1) Does Ben Bloom commit libel? I'm not a lawyer in any country, but the tweet does not look like libel to me, even under UK's stricter laws. The statement I found most inappropriate is the use of the word "cowardly" to describe Mo's decision to not grant the UK press access. But maybe some UK lawyer would argue that hiding behind the IAAF's words in a preliminary non-public non-conclusive document crosses the line, was a too thinly veiled attempt to publicly accuse Mo Farah of "likely doping", and was meant to intentionally mislead the public. 2) In the tweet Ben Bloom gives us several reasons why Farah did not make himself available to the press -- as I read his tweet, I wondered if these reasons really came from Mo Farah, or Freuds, as an explicit explanation for the refusal to meet the press, or if this was a sensational straw man fabricated by Ben Bloom, based on the article he wrote one month earlier, after the Fancy Bears leak, and earlier articles. 3) Ben Bloom wonders out loud "why can the IAAF call him a 'likely doper', while the British press cannot" -- the reasons are obvious and two-fold: a) the IAAF did not publish these files, and they were never meant to be made public, and b) the IAAF are not subject to UK's laws. 4) I don't really have any sympathy for sports reporters from the British press, and their recent history of adopting a sensational approach to repeatedly try "making something out of nothing". The way they treat UK athletes, it is the British press consistently "doing UK Athletics, and print media, a disservice".

wejo wrote:

Figured this story deserves its own thread. There's another thread on Farah but not just on this.

...

My initial thoughts are 1) I like the libel laws of the US better. I don't consider what Ben said to be libelous. Farah may not like the questions poised but where does Ben cross the line? But even in the US someone could file a lawsuit alleging libel and you'd have to pay to get it dismissed so the difference in laws may not make much difference.

2) I think Freuds is giving Farah bad advice. They are the one's who got trashed by Ben Bloom. If they encouraged him to sue, (partly because they are pissed), I think it brings more negative publicity. Plus journalists tend to stand up for one another so it's not going to win Mo any favors in Britain.

Oh dear wrote:

this has happened before wrote:

There is nothing wrong with saying "likely doping" as that is what the biological passport said. In fact, after this "likely doping'' revelation absolutely zero proof has been given that no doping was taking place. Ideally, under these circumstances, they should be automatically fined several billion dollars for just trying to sue.

You are an actual moron.

No, I am right on this one. "Likely doping" is what the biological passport said. People trying to block journalists from publishing this should be fined very heavily.

this has happened before wrote:

Oh dear wrote:

You are an actual moron.

No, I am right on this one. "Likely doping" is what the biological passport said. People trying to block journalists from publishing this should be fined very heavily.

'Likely doping' was an internal term to denote the status/level of a blood score.

The usage of that phrase in everyday language and in the public eye is defamatory, and the journalist knew he was taking an angle which made it seem as if Farah was doping and it was being covered up.

Reporting that hacked documents revealed the IAAF had put a 'likely doping' status on one of Farah's blood scores is very different to what this particular journalist did. Read his rant.

Many papers released the fancy bears story, they weren't all sued.

Bloom didn't say "likely doping" though. He said "the IAAF highlight[ed] him as a 'likely doper'". And then he said "that's what they called him - a 'likely doper'"

Those two statements are patently not true, but if read by the man in the street would definitely damage Farah's reputation.

The IAAF flagged his data as "likely doping" and there's a world of difference between having one result flagged as such and the IAAF actually calling you a likely doper.

And that's why Farah sued, if I'm reading things correctly.

Oh dear wrote:

this has happened before wrote:

There is nothing wrong with saying "likely doping" as that is what the biological passport said. In fact, after this "likely doping'' revelation absolutely zero proof has been given that no doping was taking place. Ideally, under these circumstances, they should be automatically fined several billion dollars for just trying to sue.

You are an actual moron.

Its MORAN, you moran !!!

I feel bad for Mo. But Daniel Komen, he would be the perfect example of a scammer. He tried to steal cars off money last year, for in scandal. I'm not sure if much amounted from that. He hasn't been in the news since then. Anyway, Mo will have plenty more to earn from marathons.

larkimm wrote:

Bloom didn't say "likely doping" though. He said "the IAAF highlight[ed] him as a 'likely doper'". And then he said "that's what they called him - a 'likely doper'"

Those two statements are patently not true, but if read by the man in the street would definitely damage Farah's reputation.

The IAAF flagged his data as "likely doping" and there's a world of difference between having one result flagged as such and the IAAF actually calling you a likely doper.

And that's why Farah sued, if I'm reading things correctly.

You bring up some good points about Ben's quote not being accurate and not giving full context of the quote.

At the same time, I'm not sure the public is going to care much if Ben had tweeted instead,

"And how ware we ask about the IAAF document highlighting him as a “likely doping”.

Remember that: No newspaper has ever (or will ever) call Farah a “likely doping” because there is no way it would be allowed for legal reasons. But the sport’s own governing body can call him whatever they want. And (while it was only one document) that is what was listed next to his name in one internal IAAF document—“Likely doping; Passport suspicious: further data is required."

Would that really change things that much? I guess it depends on what side you're looking at it from or whether you want to give Ben the benefit of the doubt.

Ben could write articles about Farah and mention the "likely doping" doc if he wanted and had done so. He even had written one and used the inaccurate "likely doper" before and it passed muster with his editor's:

Here's the first line: "An exasperated Mo Farah launched a tirade against the media for “making something out of nothing” on Sunday after it emerged that the sport’s own governing body had labelled him a “likely doper”. It goes on and gives more context than the tweet.

Farah was on a document, he didn't like talking about it, and journalists really like to have access . Ben was either careless on the quote and frustrated he didn't have access or malicious depending on how you look at.

Thing I don't get is why go through the trouble to sue if you're going to settle and keep it quiet?

But now Farah's name gets another round of articles and the "likely doping" list even if tons of other people are on that list: Galen Rupp, Evan Jager, Meseret Defar, etc.

Looking at the doc with the passage of time it's interesting. If I had to speculate I'd say it's documenting separate test results. Some athletes only have "Likely doping" in the Hematological Expert report opinion -ie Galen Rupp and Meseret Defar. Others like Farah have "likely doping" then a ";" and then something else "Passport suspicious: further data is required" in Farah's case, but some have what I think is 3 entries "Likely doping; Normal; Passport suspicious: further data is required" - Silas Kiplagat.

Doc here:

Ghost1 wrote:

Farah is of Somalian origin, not Eritrean.

Farah is not the only athlete to progress in late twenties, early thirties, look at Radcliffe, for example. Fatah, became a lot stronger, under Salazar, with tons of weight lifting and cross training, which he had not done with Alan Storey.

Farah is usually chill and low key, but it was uncharacteristic of him to go nuts in the German airport. I think he perceived the officials were targetting him on racial grounds, when in fact those officials were just doing their jobs.

It is unfortunate that this isolated incident was made public, because anyone who has met Farah knows that incident was out of character. Very unfortunate.

Uh-huh. Apparently he just lets his wife typically do it.

I don't like Mo Farah but you're just a racist jerk tbh.

stoptheracism wrote:

I don't like Mo Farah but you're just a racist jerk tbh.

Dito. I don't like Farah either, but judging by some people on letsrun.com, he has to put up with a lot of racist vitriol, so I can understand at least some of his reactions to it.