Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New WADA rule on athlete availability

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Should we expect a spate of outings of cheats thanks to these new rules? Will some clean athletes be so pissed that they'll take it out by ratting on competitors? Why shouldn't they if they're in the know?

    What sort of psychological warfare might WADA play with the top suspects? Have they ever been suspected of this, I mean something other than more frequent testing?

    About the accusations on this thread that some countries don't let WADA in - biggest and most heavyweight offenders, somebody please and thank you. How can the IAAF justify allowing WADA to be pushed around like this? It sure stinketh.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Smoke
      I refuse to believe you guys think for an instant that once an athlete submits their whereabouts they are locked into being there.

      And for the record Eldy, tennis and golf know when and where they will be long in advance and can do 3 months in advance with ease. They know they will be in London, or Pebble Beach. They also know what hotel they will be in. Track athletes will find out they are in a meet the day(s) before. With no information other than their flight time.
      Being ousted out of a tourney early is easy business, you go online, change the whereabouts for the next day and keep it pushing. Or you go in and note that you lost and left early. As I said they read it.

      This is not a static process and the people in charge know it. I know because I talk to them frequently. I make it my business to run every thing I have a question about through them, and they give me an answer. When we disagree I make sure they know there is a piece missing.

      I really cannot believe some of you think the athletes are prisoners of their whereabouts. It is amazing to think it. Geesh.
      The elite golfers (and likely tennis players) may know 3 months in advance but the bulk of the PGA Tour (or tennis tours) does not know that. And they definitely do not know hotels 3 months in advance, unless things have changed a lot.

      Comment


      • #48
        I find it a bit unsettling to find fiction being passed off as fact by medical doctors.

        eldrick repeatedly cites a rule that says that athletes must give at least five days' advance notice when they update their quarterly whereabouts filings. I just spent a bit of time on the websites of WADA and the IAAF and I find no such requirement. I don't think it exists. From everything I can tell, you can update your whereabouts as often as your plans change, and you needn't give five days' notice.

        bambam urges that the authorities

        allow the athletes to be judged innocent until proven guilty rather than the current system in which they are all assumed to be guilty and really have no chance to prove their innocence, the way the system is stacked against them. Allow the legal system to actually operate the way it is supposed to.
        But it is plainly stated in both the World Anti-Doping Code and the IAAF Rules that the burden of proof in doping cases is on the authorities seeking to take disciplinary action against the athlete. The athlete is not at all presumed guilty.

        I hope you guys read patients' charts and medical literature more carefully than you seem to have read the rules that you are complaining about here.

        Comment


        • #49
          As someone who works in anti-doping I thought I would add my 2 cents. Certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me - that is life hey.

          Eldrick - an athlete (under the WADA rules) can update their whereabouts information anytime they like up until the very start of the hour. If there is a form that says otherwise then that organisation has not updated it properly or you are looking at an old form. That is completely fair for the athletes - but does create trouble for the testers. It is not uncommon to see athletes "regularly" changing thier information right before the one hour slot...why would they do this...becuase it makes it damm near impossible for the testers to have time to react and find them. Of course - it also becomes obvious which athletes are playing with the system and they become targets for testing.

          I hate to quote one of the worlds biggest losers - but Victor conte said in one of his interviews (sorry can't find the quote) that the missed tests should be reduced to only two...because he knew all the athletes were playing with the system. I don't agree with him to reduce it to two - but it shows you what some people are doing.

          To the question of whether whereabouts is "fair" - not really one I can answer, I think it is bloody tough. But the reality is at the moment that it is the only way we can catch some cheats. Clearance times are so short for drugs that without the ability to test anyday needed - the system doesn't work (and it is still hard as it is). The solution to this is not to have athletes report in twice a week for tests...you really think they would get caught like that? The solution is probably not the current system either. The solution is better tests which can actually detect drug use weeks ago - then the need for all this is gone....but until this time it is the only way to catch more cheats.

          the biological passports (blood and urine) being adopted in some sports would be a big help - but not eliminate the need to still find people for testing.

          Now that doesn't mean you have to agree. In fact people might say that you don't catch enough cheats anyway....so why bother? That would probably be a fair comment.

          Really for the athletes right at this moment the question is - do you want to do wherabouts and some cheats are caught - or do you not want to do it and let them all get away with it. I know the answer to that question may vary - but it is the truth of the matter. Either it doesn't bother you enough about the cheats, or it does.

          And finally - I agree with Smoke - find the easiest way to fill out the stupid forms. Put 6-7am in the morning and if you get woken up once a month then too bad. If you are a tennis player and earn 3 million a year, then pay some kid a couple of grand to make sure you forms are correct...get a better management company.

          so summary to my long post - the current whereabouts system (which hasn't really changed much, just that now the millionaire tennis players are being asked to do it) is absolutely needed to make the current system work. Those advocating for it to be scrapped are basically giving a green light to the cheats until such time as better tests are developed. I am not syaing they are wrong (everyone can have their own opinion) - but that is the case...there is currently no better option in my opinion.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by tandfman
            eldrick repeatedly cites a rule that says that athletes must give at least five days' advance notice when they update their quarterly whereabouts filings. I just spent a bit of time on the websites of WADA and the IAAF and I find no such requirement. I don't think it exists
            then i suggest you spend more time looking

            http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2? ... ory.id=363

            download "instructions for athlete location form" & look at the bottom in bold

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by eldrick
              Originally posted by tandfman
              eldrick repeatedly cites a rule that says that athletes must give at least five days' advance notice when they update their quarterly whereabouts filings. I just spent a bit of time on the websites of WADA and the IAAF and I find no such requirement. I don't think it exists
              then i suggest you spend more time looking

              http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2? ... ory.id=363

              download "athlete location form" & look at the bottom in bold

              Eldrick - you have found some old forms (2003?) that WADA still seem to have on their site (their fault). If you note - those forms don't even have a place to record your 1 hour window each day.

              11.4.2 of the international standards for testing is the latest rules which say you can make it anytime before the 60 minute slot

              http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2? ... ory.id=371

              cheers

              Comment


              • #52
                http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslate..._for_wada.html

                This BBC blog raises some interesting matters arising from the recent WADA changes. Moving the testing times from 5am to 6am sounds trivial, but in reality for sports such as swimming where early morning training is common place and for countries like Australia (Where the best time to train during summer months is first thing in the morning before it becomes too hot) this hour lost makes a huge difference, especially now as the onus is on the tested to be in the designated place for the entire hour rather than the tester.

                As has been mentioned, the easiest time to be in the same place each morning is when you are at home in bed, but for a large number of sportsman across the world 6am is training time, so just putting down 7-8 am every day and forgetting about it is not really an option.

                Once you are forced into putting time slots that are based around daily activities, there are many forces that may lead to a Christine Ohuruogu situation, where circumstances beyond your control or simple forgetfulness may lead to missed tests.

                I can envisage a situation in years to come when the court cases / tribunals of yesteryear of I didn't take substance x will be replaced with long, drawn out cases of why athlete x couldn't notify their whereabouts because of this, that and the other.

                Moreover, it may be fairly straightforward to notify testers at short notice in developed countries, but what about countries like Kenya and Ethiopia? Problem is if you give these countries dispensation, where is the level playing field WADA are trying to achieve?

                This system in a straightforward world would probably be the best way to weed out the cheats, but I fear they are likely to be the best prepared to avoid detection. I imagine those most likely to be caught out for missing tests are the 'part-time professionals' (Becky Lynne comes to mind, who is a teacher and I believe missed two tests at the time Christine O missed three), who are not in a position to think 'whereabouts' 24/7, 365 days a year.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by milkandwater
                  Was a pretty good and sensible article on the subject. I don't see why they couldn't move the hour back to 5am or 4am even !

                  The time limit for the one hour testing slot is not for the convienience of the testing officials - more to to avoid abuse of the system. If you could put anytime in the 24hrs an athlete could put their two consecutive one hour slots at 23:00 - 24:00 one day and then 24:00 - 01:00 the next and have the next 2 days free from testing ! Lots of things you can do in two days.

                  anyway - can't see why 5am would be a problem - but then that isn't really what everyone is complaining about so wouldn't be a solution to the problem.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by eldrick
                    download "instructions for athlete location form" & look at the bottom in bold
                    eldrick, that is might be referring to permanent changes only (or is out of date as suggested above). I think the above is discussing unavoidable one off changes. My guess is that has a different set of rules.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Lolo Jones says a tracking device would be preferable to her... see front page.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by gh
                        Lolo Jones says a tracking device would be preferable to her... see front page.
                        Here are some of her quotes:
                        World indoor hurdles champion Lolo Jones joined the growing group of athletes upset with WADA’s new anti-doping testing rules.

                        “Maybe in the future they will find a tag they can put on us like dogs have. I’d rather wear a necklace that’s a homing device,” said Jones.

                        “Or I would like it if they used the new thing on Google where they can track you through your phone. They can just track me like the police and get rid of all the paperwork. As long as I have my phone on me, they know where I am at all times.”

                        Jones also said that notifying authorities of her whereabouts is harder than she thought.
                        “When we travel a lot of our flights are given to us at the last minute via our agents,” Jones said. “A lot of the time we take earlier flights, which means we are not going to be at our house at the time.”

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Am I the only one finding it ironic that EUropeans are claiming a right to privacy now? I recall in the early 90s when USATF told the world we had privacy issues about releasing information, Europeans cried foul. And that was about the actual release of a persons information, now we are battling over simple whereabouts. LOL

                          Hey, what's the difference between reporting 2 hours five days a week and reporting one hour seven days a week? The right to privacy! LOL This is a joke only brought about because the other sports are required to adhere now. Which begs the question, who's the fool? Is it the new athletes or the track athletes? It is an interesting question to ponder

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Figaro
                            Originally posted by gh
                            Lolo Jones says a tracking device would be preferable to her... see front page.
                            Here are some of her quotes:
                            World indoor hurdles champion Lolo Jones joined the growing group of athletes upset with WADA’s new anti-doping testing rules.

                            “Maybe in the future they will find a tag they can put on us like dogs have. I’d rather wear a necklace that’s a homing device,” said Jones.

                            “Or I would like it if they used the new thing on Google where they can track you through your phone. They can just track me like the police and get rid of all the paperwork. As long as I have my phone on me, they know where I am at all times.”

                            Jones also said that notifying authorities of her whereabouts is harder than she thought.
                            “When we travel a lot of our flights are given to us at the last minute via our agents,” Jones said. “A lot of the time we take earlier flights, which means we are not going to be at our house at the time.”
                            don't these people have agents managers etc

                            when their agent changes their flights they can email wada at the same time. i have nver heard so much whining in my life :roll:
                            i deserve extra credit

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              exactly mump. But heres the kicker the agents are not trying to be liable so they stay out of it. But they do not need agents they can text and email. and keep their flight info and rectify the missed test if it comes to be.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I don't know, I just think its quite unfair to track athletes to have these stringent and rigid measures, while more popular sports where doping can really impact athletes' prowess are allowed to run wild. I don't hear of nadal or ronaldo having to endure this scrutiny. What's up with that?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X