Lagat off on a technicality? So ...

[Guest]

If Lagat was let off on a technicality - and his agent, the shady Mr. Templeton may face suspension, just what does anyone feel is the real situation? And what do you really think is going on with all the "characters" (Rosa, Hermens, Kestre, etc.) involved with the top distance runners?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics ... test_x.htm

[bhall]

Re: Lagat off on a technicality? So ...

Please take a look at the guidelines and specifically #3:

"The definition of "objectionable post" rests solely with T&FN. Be advised up front that sexist/racist material is out of bounds. As are unfounded accusations/suggestions that athlete X is using drugs."

Your subject line and post both assume guilt on the part of Lagat and Templeton. By including the USAToday link and framing your statement in the way you have you suggest that Dick Patrick of USA Today has also assumed their guilt. However, anyone who reads the article will find that the situation is far from clear and certainly far from resolved-

'If the IAAF gets the results it wants from the review, it has hinted it will announce that Lagat was exonerated on a technicality and will revoke Templeton's agent accreditation.

"I don't know how the IAAF is going to be able to back that up unless their representative blatantly lies," Templeton said by phone from Australia. "Their guy left the 'B' test 100% in agreement there was no trace of EPO in the sample."'

Stick to the facts and avoid the spin and accusations.

[Guest]

Re: Lagat off on a technicality? So ...

I'm hardly trying to mislead anyone on the substance of the article, and I don't buy some of what you claim. The IAAF "... has hinted it will announce that Lagat was exonerated on a technicality and will revoke Templeton's agent accreditation."
The expert exonorating Lagat (Hans Heid) was hired by ... Templeton. It appears the IAAF is taking the stand that Lagat was let off on just what was stated above, a technicality. Just how often does this go on, and how does it affect the view people have of distance running at the highest levels, and the rumors that have been circulating for years. Yeah, they're just rumors, just like all the "rumors" about Regina, Lewis, etc. It's time for TAFNews to take off the gloves and so some investigating. For the good of the sport.

[Guest]

Re: Lagat off on a technicality? So ...

I wish Track and Field News would do some sort of Sports Illustrated expose on drug usage in track, but they do have budgetary concerns and they have to post fact not innuendo otherwise they will get sued and that's the ugly reality of the situation.

[bhall]

Re: Lagat off on a technicality? So ...

No rumors of doping. End of discussion. Don't like it? Go someplace else.

[Guest]

Re: Lagat off on a technicality? So ...

"The expert exonorating Lagat (Hans Heid) was hired by ... Templeton. It appears the IAAF is taking the stand that Lagat was let off on just what was stated above, a technicality."

First, whether or not Lagat was let off on a technicality is not established as fact. And the experts working for IAAF were hired by... the IAAF. Like the IAAF, Lagat and Templeton are taking a stand that is costing them large amounts of money and could cost Templeton his career. There are two sides to the coin.

[Guest]

Re: Lagat off on a technicality? So ...

"No rumors of doping. End of discussion. Don't like it? Go someplace else."

That's funny; according to Garry Hill, rumors of doping are okay as long as "reasonable journalists who have done their homework have something to say about it."

That may not be the case here; however, there is a contradiction between your "not unless it holds up in court" stance and Garry's looser criteria.

[Guest]

Re: Lagat off on a technicality? So ...

I must be missing something here. Firstly, why would the IAAF hint that he'd got off on a technicality when their B test came up negative; secondly, why should his agent lose his liscense? Just for demanding an apology? Makes no sense to me. If I was Lagat I'd be pretty upset too.

[Guest]

Re: Lagat off on a technicality? So ...

>I must be missing something here. Firstly, why would the IAAF hint that he'd
>got off on a technicality when their B test came up negative; secondly, why
>should his agent lose his liscense? Just for demanding an apology? Makes no
>sense to me. If I was Lagat I'd be pretty upset too.

Maybe the technicality allowed the "B" sample to be construed as negative. It's like the endocrine profiles of the 100 meter finalists in '88 - doctors said they weren't normal - they said it was normal to find individuals with profiles that are slightly askew, but in that case it was most of the field. Not that that means drug use, but it is one heck of a coincidence. The Lagat story is probably deeper than one test showing positive, the next test showing the sample to be negative. Wasn't it claimed previously that the test were designed in such a fashion that there couldn't be a "false" positive?