UK Athletics FINALLY hand over full review of Sir Mo Farah's relationship with disgraced coach Alberto Salazar to UK Anti-Doping

IPlayTrackFoundation wrote:

UK Anti-Doping have finally received the full internal review into Sir Mo Farah's relationship with Alberto Salazar

Now it's guaranteed that any doping will be covered up. Its the same with USADA shielding USATF dopers.

I told y'all the Brits were dirty. Should have let Napoleon have his way with them in 1914.

Gee, Galen is looking good since he took up Tai-Chi. Al Sal reckons he could go under 2:03 in Tokyo.

Do you think Donovan will be the first man to break 1:40? He would certainly be the American GOAT if that happens.

The IAAF has understood for decades that the sport is a dud for ratings because it is dominated by East African villagers.

Nobody cares about them.

So what to do?

Well you find a non-African and boost him.

Mo Farah was unique because even though he is also from East Africa (Somalia), he grew up in Great Britain so the IAAF looked at him as a potential marketing tool.

He could be promoted as a British athlete or even a European athlete. This would result in much better ratings and interest around the world . . . and it did.

This 'protected status' was given to him in 2010 and the very next year he was world champion in the 5000m. Then one year later Olympic Champion in the 5000m and 10000m in his home country of Great Britain.

The IAAF succeeded.

But he was juiced to the max courtesy of his now banned coach Alberto Salazar.

American Fake Tan wrote:

I told y'all the Brits were dirty. Should have let Napoleon have his way with them in 1914.

But that didn't happen because the British defeated the French at the battle of Trafalgar in 1066 which prevented a French invasion of Britain....

So under your theory that the IAAF was looking to protect Western distance stars, can you tell me why they’d pop Salazar and hound Rupp for years?

I hope You were just trolling as if not it’s amazing how stupid people are and how they’ll come up with a conspiracy for anything.

Talking about the actual article at had. What I don’t get is why people were making a big deal of the whole report not being turned over. There could be something to it but I’d like to know why everyone was so concerned about it. What’s the theory, Brits?

Promoted as a British athlete?

So you believe that the IAAF found a young child called Mohammed Farah in Somalia, brought him to the UK and designed his fate to become a great distance athlete?

That is some planning

American Fake Tan wrote:

I told y'all the Brits were dirty. Should have let Napoleon have his way with them in 1914.

Gee, Galen is looking good since he took up Tai-Chi. Al Sal reckons he could go under 2:03 in Tokyo.

Do you think Donovan will be the first man to break 1:40? He would certainly be the American GOAT if that happens.

I like your style

Rupp has been on PEDs since age 16. Just ask fellow NOP teammate Kara Goucher.

Everyone that Salazar coached was on the juice. Including Canadian Cam Levins.

Yes, Rupp also has protected status from the IAAF. Meaning if he tests positive it is covered up with TUEs (Therapeutic Use Exemptions).

The sports needs white or American/Canada/European runners to increase ratings, attendance, ticket sales and make money.

East African villagers equals empty stadiums. Just watch the 2008 Olympic 10000m.

rojo wrote:

I hope You were just trolling as if not it’s amazing how stupid people are and how they’ll come up with a conspiracy for anything.

This from the massive genius who thinks rush limbaugh is God. Learn how to spell "cat" and then get back to us.

Another faux-scandal brought to you by the British tabloids attacking British athletes and institutions.

What we already learned a couple months back:

- UKAD never asked for the report until February. Since then the lawyers were actively working together to make that happen, while respecting confidentiality obligations. It was really just a matter of time to get agreements in place.

- The report is probably of little value to UKAD anyway, as the UKA investigation was limited in scope under firm instructions from both UKAD and USADA to avoid investigating any doping allegations.

Seems rather cheeky to tie the hands of UKA, and then (falsely) accuse them of withholding the full report. Maybe UKAD should have conducted its own investigation, or liaised with USADA.

Summary:

After reviewing all evidence, Farah is CLEAN. Rupp is CLEAN.

tin can man wrote:

Summary:

After reviewing all evidence, Farah is CLEAN. Rupp is CLEAN.

Both are quite likely very dirty but no evidence to prove it. The UK journalists enjoy trying to put successful or famous people down for some reason, guess the public like to hear the story.

Never read the articles as the media here pose a question and then go out to attempt to prove it and report it as news...

Asami from 'Audition' wrote:

Rupp has been on PEDs since age 16. Just ask fellow NOP teammate Kara Goucher.

Everyone that Salazar coached was on the juice. Including Canadian Cam Levins.

Yes, Rupp also has protected status from the IAAF. Meaning if he tests positive it is covered up with TUEs (Therapeutic Use Exemptions).

The sports needs white or American/Canada/European runners to increase ratings, attendance, ticket sales and make money.

East African villagers equals empty stadiums. Just watch the 2008 Olympic 10000m.

I think you are on IDDs - intelligence destroying drugs.

LOL. No. You are in full obfuscation mode again.

Here are other British papers reporting this real scandal:

Guardian:

Independent:

Telegraph:

BBC:

All lying in your PR land? All tabloids?

This list of newspapers, and others, disagree with you:

casual obsever wrote:

All lying in your PR land? All tabloids?

Faux-scandal. There was no refusal to hand over the full report.

Apparently just a misunderstanding from Nicole Sapstead, seemingly unaware of what was going on.

We learned all of this in many of the same news reports around 20th of March:

"a request had only been made for the review in February"

"UKA and Ukad have been addressing this cooperatively, to enable access to relevant documents":

UKA "letter dated 3 March 2020", followed by UKAD's response: "correspondence from UKAD’s in-house legal team setting out a framework and reassurances of confidentiality" less than 24 hours before UKAD statement

"No reason was received from UKAD as to why there had been a change from 1430 yesterday to less than 24 hours later, or what that was."

"Any implication by anyone that UKA is being obstructive in this matter or in any way failing in its duties is wholly wrong and inaccurate."

UKad will sweep it under the rug for UKa like USada does for USAtf. Doping is more popular than ever.

You are either extremely naive or your karyotype shows a trisomy.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

All lying in your PR land? All tabloids?

Faux-scandal. There was no refusal to hand over the full report.

Apparently just a misunderstanding from Nicole Sapstead, seemingly unaware of what was going on.

We learned all of this in many of the same news reports around 20th of March:

"a request had only been made for the review in February"

"We learned"? Rather, we heard from UKA...

You can cite UKA all you want, but that doesn't prove that their statements are correct, and UKAD's wrong. Obviously someone here is lying; contrast for example your

"a request had only been made for the review in February" (UKA)

with

"We have repeatedly requested that UK Athletics share this POC review with us in its entirety, as there could be information included that is of interest to us." (UKAD)

Of course you are supporting the accused here. At least you are not doubling down on your false tabloid claim.