Christie's defence??

Sugar_Ray

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4777055.stm

Why am I not surprised his guy would be defending her!!!!

Sugar_Ray

"I didn't get to be world, Olympic and European champion by worrying about what people think about me."

We know mate, it was the drugs that got you there!!!!!

ecksor

Not quite sure what the point of this thread is unless you're just trying to start a row ...

Sugar_Ray

I would have thought it pretty obvious. Does anyone agree or disagree with Linford's view. I do not and believe the Girl got off very lightly, like a lot of the UK athletes who have tested positive over the years. When it's one of their own, the UK and US authorities always seem to me anyway to cover up and play it down, in all sports. Cause a Row???, Don't you mean begin a civilised discussion???

ecksor

Be careful with your wording. She didn't test positive, she missed 3 tests and got banned (correctly in my view, although the demands around "lifestyle" is the point under debate in the article it seems).

Common Sense

I agree with Sugar Ray on this. 3 missed appointments is the equivalent of a failed drug test. If you're stopped by a Garda tonight and you know you have a pint or two too many, it won't get you very far if you refuse to give the Garda a sample. Miss Ohurugou in my view should be banned for 2 years - that is if we want to see our sport cleaned up. I have read interviews with her and seen her interviewed. The lady isn't stupid, she knew what she was doing. Her offence is exactly the same as those of Kenteris and the Greek lady (whose name I momentarily forget). Did anyone, particularly in the British athletic scene think they should have been excused? Their ambivalent attitute to drugs has been demonstrated by their attitude to Christie himself (official mentor to British sprinters) and to the selection of Dwain Chambers for recent competitions. Even the attitude of someone like Pauline Radcliffe was somewhat different in her stance against Yegorova (remember the EPO CHEATS poster?) and her attitude to Dwain Chambers ("give him another chance").

Squirrel

The Greek sprinter was Katharina Thanou I think. Well, Rio Ferdinand only got 8 months

Common Sense

Thanks for that, Squirrel. Try as I might, her name just wouldn't come to me.

Pherekydes

Common Sense wrote:

3 missed appointments is the equivalent of a failed drug test. If you're stopped by a Garda tonight and you know you have a pint or two too many, it won't get you very far if you refuse to give the Garda a sample.

One missed appointment is a drugs' offence. See Ferdinand's case.
What Ohourougu did was to miss the testers, i.e. she was out when they called, at random. This is not a refusal, which is a drugs' offence.

Pherekydes

Squirrel wrote:

Well, Rio Ferdinand only got 8 months

...and his team didn't lose any points, though he played for them while awaiting his hearing!

Common Sense

To be honest, Slow Coach, I have no great interest in Soccer. I do coach athletics and I passionately care about our sport and that its free from drug abuse. I am on record several times as saying I will never condemn an athlete who has not been convicted of breaking the rules. To me Ohorogou, Thanou and Kenteris broke the rules of our sport and should be dealt with under our rules. In my view, there has been a total moral breakdown in soccer which, again in my view, is devoid of all ethics. I don't want to see my sport fall into the same mire and I support and applaud those who are trying to keep it clean and honest.

Pherekydes

Common Sense wrote:

To be honest, Slow Coach, I have no great interest in Soccer. I do coach athletics and I passionately care about our sport and that its free from drug abuse.

Neither do I. Just bemused by the hypocritical attitude of the media. Rio has served his time, and his Drug ban will never ever be mentioned again, but can anyone in the media mention Marion Jones (for example) without mentioning BALCO or Victor Conte?

Common Sense wrote:

In my view, there has been a total moral breakdown in soccer which, again in my view, is devoid of all ethics.

Agree absolutely. Down to greed (money) IMHO. But I feel it is also corrupting Athletics, maybe not to the same extent, but it is there nonetheless.

robinph

Under the rules, athletes have to inform the drug-testing authorities where they will be for one hour, five days out of seven each week. Three missed tests constitutes a suspension.

So how far in advance do they have to give these details then? Do they submit where they are going to be for each of those hours at the beggining of every month or something and how many visits do they get a year?

For those of us working in the same office five days a week it wouldn't be too hard to give them advanced notice of where you'll be at one hour for five days in each week, but I could see it becoming very easy to forget an hour that you specified you'd be at home in a submission a month previously and then poping down the shops instead.

ecksor

Common Sense wrote:

I agree with Sugar Ray on this. 3 missed appointments is the equivalent of a failed drug test.

I have no problem with this being regarded and referred to as a doping offence since that's not in question. I also have no problem with expressing the opinion that they should be treated as equivilent offences. However, that is not the same as failing a test. She did not fail a test that I'm aware of from reading the press reports. I think athletes, no matter what their offences or who they are, have the right to expect that people will stick to the established facts in matters relating to doping.

There's an attitude amongst the public that if the cynical sports journalists can consistantly write innuendo and speculation about such matters that it's OK for everyone else to jump to conclusions and make assumptions but I don't think it's appropriate here and the posting guidelines have reflected that since the start.

Sugar_Ray

I think we all agree she didn't fail a test, but to miss 3 consecutive tests is a blatant ofece in my opinion, as the rules do say that an athlete must at all times inform th testers. And Christie saying it was down to naievity is an absolute joke. She knew exactly what she was doing and only a drugs cheat like him could say something so ridiculous. I sem to remember both the Americans and British being hell bent on convicting Michelle Smith before she ever got in trouble. Right after her first Gold in 96 they were out to get her no matter what. And she did not test positive either.

UK athletics needs to get tough on their cheats before they expect the World to get tough. Clean your own house before slating othe nations

thirtyfoot

robinph wrote:

So how far in advance do they have to give these details then? Do they submit where they are going to be for each of those hours at the beggining of every month or something and how many visits do they get a year?

For those of us working in the same office five days a week it wouldn't be too hard to give them advanced notice of where you'll be at one hour for five days in each week, but I could see it becoming very easy to forget an hour that you specified you'd be at home in a submission a month previously and then poping down the shops instead.

They can notify the testers at short notice by phone, text, email that they have changed plans. Athletes are creatures of habit and for a pro it should be very easy to be where you are supposed to be. Also, she would have been warned she had missed 2 tests and was on the edge, so in that instance to have missed a 3rd test is pure stupidity.

Sugar_Ray

I think this is where I differ. Stupidity???, NO WAY.....Calculated and deliberate is the only way I can see a pro athlete missing not one, but three tests. And Christie was putting it down to her bein Naieve. The girl knew exactly what she was doing, didn't she do it Three times!!!!!

robinph

Sugar_Ray wrote:

I think this is where I differ. Stupidity???, NO WAY.....Calculated and deliberate is the only way I can see a pro athlete missing not one, but three tests. And Christie was putting it down to her bein Naieve. The girl knew exactly what she was doing, didn't she do it Three times!!!!!

Missing one I can understand. But as long as you've then been notified that you've missed that one test you should surely be making a point of being where you said you would be from that point forward.

ecksor

Sugar_Ray wrote:

I think this is where I differ. Stupidity???, NO WAY.....Calculated and deliberate is the only way I can see a pro athlete missing not one, but three tests. And Christie was putting it down to her bein Naieve. The girl knew exactly what she was doing, didn't she do it Three times!!!!!

You think the best way for a calculating cheat to avoid a ban is to ... do something that makes sure they get a ban? Doesn't sound very calculating to me.

Sugar_Ray

ecksor wrote:

You think the best way for a calculating cheat to avoid a ban is to ... do something that makes sure they get a ban? Doesn't sound very calculating to me.

It's a lot more plausible than she just hapened to forget to tell the Testers. These cheats know exactly what to do and how the system works as well as the fact that people like Christie and the UK chiefs will allow her to use such a flimsy excuse to escape with a ridiculous 1 year ban. Are you Telling me that you may believe that she really did forget three times to make her whereabouts known to the testers. Ferdinand pulled the same stunt and used the whole 'I was shopping' excuse and I didn't know. Crap if you ask me, and until we do not accept these crazy excuses, we will constantly have the sport tarnished. Look also at the Greek ahletes in the 04 Olympics, they had doctors lying in order to keep them from being caught.

ecksor

Sugar_Ray wrote:

Are you Telling me that you may believe that she really did forget three times to make her whereabouts known to the testers.

No, I'm avoiding speculation! I merely commented upon your theory.

Since you're determined to speculate and insinuate rather than discuss the established facts I'm going to close this thread. I am encouraged that you've fixed the problem that was making your '!' and '?' keys stick though.

There's a good discussion to be had around the public perception of the sport, testing procedures, handling of doping offences etc, but it seems that every time the topic comes up that people WILL INSIST upon speculation about individual athletes. That's unacceptable.