There must be some rule in where whereby if you lie to an official about drug use and it's found out you can be suspended.
There must be some rule in where whereby if you lie to an official about drug use and it's found out you can be suspended.
There are rules about interfering with any part of the anti-doping process.
They probably do not apply for lying about a non-banned substance to USADA, especially if it was corrected at the same interview (albeit under a bizarre chain of events).
rekrunner wrote:
There are rules about interfering with any part of the anti-doping process.
They probably do not apply for lying about a non-banned substance to USADA, especially if it was corrected at the same interview (albeit under a bizarre chain of events).
How would you know whether 'they probably wouldn't apply'?
It's obvious Mo deliberately lied, and it's part of a pattern of lying that interferes with the anti-doping process, such as claiming he didn't hear the doorbell, or that he didn't know Aden.
If the USADA were interviewing him because of an investigation into possible doping violations by his coach, and he lied to cover himself and Al Sal, that is surely interfering with the anti-doping process.
Well to be precise, it was "After leaving the room and learning that Barry Fudge testified Farah did received an L-Carnitine injection". Mo got lucky, and fans of a clean sport unlucky, that he was so promptly informed that USADA knew about his lies right there.
As for "lying about a non-banned substance to USADA", remember that Salazar's email instructing his athletes to deny this was judged to be an anti-doping rule violation (minimal ban: two years).
Coevett wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
There are rules about interfering with any part of the anti-doping process.
They probably do not apply for lying about a non-banned substance to USADA, especially if it was corrected at the same interview (albeit under a bizarre chain of events).
How would you know whether 'they probably wouldn't apply'?
It's obvious Mo deliberately lied, and it's part of a pattern of lying that interferes with the anti-doping process, such as claiming he didn't hear the doorbell, or that he didn't know Aden.
If the USADA were interviewing him because of an investigation into possible doping violations by his coach, and he lied to cover himself and Al Sal, that is surely interfering with the anti-doping process.
I didn't say I would know. If he lied to USADA investigators about aspirin, or protein powder, or Jolt cola ("All the sugar, twice the caffeine!"), does this question make any less sense? What would make L-Carnitine different?
Later it says he didn't include L-Carnitine on a doping control form which asks about supplements -- filing an incorrect doping control form looks like better grounds for any anti-doping sanction. But even then, this is probably more for the athlete to be able to defend himself, in case of contamination.
Coevett wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
There are rules about interfering with any part of the anti-doping process.
They probably do not apply for lying about a non-banned substance to USADA, especially if it was corrected at the same interview (albeit under a bizarre chain of events).
How would you know whether 'they probably wouldn't apply'?
It's obvious Mo deliberately lied, and it's part of a pattern of lying that interferes with the anti-doping process, such as claiming he didn't hear the doorbell, or that he didn't know Aden.
If the USADA were interviewing him because of an investigation into possible doping violations by his coach, and he lied to cover himself and Al Sal, that is surely interfering with the anti-doping process.
It’s shocking to see how much Farah lies. Does he even tell the truth- ever? I’m curious to know the impetus of Farah’s falling out with Barry Fudge. If only there was a website owned by “journalists” to get to the bottom of it all..,
Ther is no requirement to lust supplement usage, or non-banned drugs on the doping control form. The penalty for not listing them is that it makes it harder to argue contamination or inadvertent use if something does trip the test
casual obsever wrote:
Well to be precise, it was "After leaving the room and learning that Barry Fudge testified Farah did received an L-Carnitine injection". Mo got lucky, and fans of a clean sport unlucky, that he was so promptly informed that USADA knew about his lies right there.
As for "lying about a non-banned substance to USADA", remember that Salazar's email instructing his athletes to deny this was judged to be an anti-doping rule violation (minimal ban: two years).
Mo's behavior was odd to say the least -- I wonder if he got bad advice. I wouldn't call L-Carnitine the boundary between clean and dirty sport. After all it is in red meat.
The issue with Salazar's email wasn't about the non-banned substance per se, but about not revealing information as required on a DCF, or to a DCO, regarding a method that would be the subject of a ban if it exceeded the allowed thresholds.
So for comparison, if Farah lied about the quantity of the infusion/injection, this could lead to an ADRV.
rekrunner wrote:
The issue with Salazar's email wasn't about the non-banned substance per se, but about not revealing information as required on a DCF, or to a DCO, regarding a method that would be the subject of a ban if it exceeded the allowed thresholds.
So for comparison, if Farah lied about the quantity of the infusion/injection, this could lead to an ADRV.
Isn't that exactly what he did? He lied that the quantity was 0, both when questioned by USADA and on his form of the London marathon:
letsrun wrote:
Additionally, Farah was drug tested six days after his L-Carnitine injection but conveniently left that off the list of all supplements he had taken in the previous 7 days.
LOCK HIM UP!
LOCK HIM UP!
L-Carnitine? Who cares?
yawn wrote:
L-Carnitine? Who cares?
It’s not that he took L-Carnitine, it’s how he took it. It’s against the rules to have more than a 100ml injection or infusion within any 12 hour period. For example, Steve M. is said to have had a continuous drip infusion from Dr. Brown which was over 1000ml. That’s the problem and the rule they were breaking and why people “care”.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Well to be precise, it was "After leaving the room and learning that Barry Fudge testified Farah did received an L-Carnitine injection". Mo got lucky, and fans of a clean sport unlucky, that he was so promptly informed that USADA knew about his lies right there.
As for "lying about a non-banned substance to USADA", remember that Salazar's email instructing his athletes to deny this was judged to be an anti-doping rule violation (minimal ban: two years).
Mo's behavior was odd to say the least -- I wonder if he got bad advice. I wouldn't call L-Carnitine the boundary between clean and dirty sport. After all it is in red meat.
The issue with Salazar's email wasn't about the non-banned substance per se, but about not revealing information as required on a DCF, or to a DCO, regarding a method that would be the subject of a ban if it exceeded the allowed thresholds.
So for comparison, if Farah lied about the quantity of the infusion/injection, this could lead to an ADRV.
As a self admitting Mo fanboy, I immediately drew the link between AlSal's sanctioned behaviour for advising athletes not to draw attention to the nature of the infusions / injections. Whilst AlSal was correct in that the infusions / injections that his squad had had were lawful (and that therefore it was arguably not worth the hassle of disclosing in case the wrong terms were used and something blew up accidentally), perhaps Farah was influenced in terms of how he spoke to the interviewer about the L-Car injections.
Having said all that, lying (or failing to immediately disclose) about something which wasn't unlawful isn't exactly a smoking hot gun is it? It does paint a picture of either a) stupidity on Mo's part (for me, the most likely one) or b) a culture of some form of deception.
So even if USADA had found that he had lied, and he hadn't been able to "come clean" without the investigators prompting him, there would be no sanction surely? He's not giving evidence under oath, there's not been a shred of evidence to suggest that he didn't disclosure the injection because it was masking proper doping.
But it isn't ideal either.
because you’re an idiot wrote:
yawn wrote:
L-Carnitine? Who cares?
It’s not that he took L-Carnitine, it’s how he took it. It’s against the rules to have more than a 100ml injection or infusion within any 12 hour period. For example, Steve M. is said to have had a continuous drip infusion from Dr. Brown which was over 1000ml. That’s the problem and the rule they were breaking and why people “care”.
Oh please, spare me the virtue signalling. Anything to do with Dr. Brown is shady. Anything to do with looking for a chemical edge is ridiculous if you don't know how the huma body works. Read what Nicky Keay has to say and show me how much you "care" by acknowledging the fact that most people here are endorsing pseudoscience and making the problem worse.
Honestly- I wouldn't lie about a non-banned substance under any circumstances.
Dumb move by Mo.
You are making an assumption that what he said first of all was a knowing lie.
His explanation that he had forgotten may not be false.
What are the odds that he legitimately didn't know what the injection was?
naeco wrote:
What are the odds that he legitimately didn't know what the injection was?
Very high. I doubt Mo Farah spends much time researching these things.
larkimm wrote:
Whilst AlSal was correct in that the infusions / injections that his squad had had were lawful (and that therefore it was arguably not worth the hassle of disclosing in case the wrong terms were used and something blew up accidentally), perhaps Farah was influenced in terms of how he spoke to the interviewer about the L-Car injections.
Who says the injections were lawful? According to USADA, it is highly likely that they were not.
That would explain all the lying.