A very simple question

rekrunner wrote:

On the contrary, I call a whereabouts failure exactly as defined by WADA, often quoting WADA's definition.

It can be a "filing failure" or a "missed test". These are not just my words, but virtually every ADA's and ADO's words.

I right-play the offense as one that can be committed by dopers and non-dopers alike.

Some of WADA's "doping cases" do not necessarily involving an athlete doping.

If you can think WADA is wrong about doorbells and running away, then I also think it is wrong to call these potential anti-doping rule violations "doping cases", but rather "anti-doping cases".

After all, WADA is an anti-doping association, not a doping association.

Clean athletes don't commit three consecutive filing failures. All the athletes know what the rules are for. That's why a whereabouts suspension is an anti-doping violation.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

On the contrary, I call a whereabouts failure exactly as defined by WADA, often quoting WADA's definition.

It can be a "filing failure" or a "missed test". These are not just my words, but virtually every ADA's and ADO's words.

That's better. Your incorrect words were "that a whereabouts failure is a filing failure", which ignores that a whereabouts failure could also have been a quiet doorbell or a jump out of a window, for example (unless the athletes didn't hear the doorbell during their special one hour window).

rekrunner wrote:

I right-play the offense as one that can be committed by dopers and non-dopers alike.

Hypothetically, that is correct. But it is far from a 50 : 50 chance.

Do you honestly not see the full quote: "that a whereabouts failure is a filing failure, or a missed test."

Hard to say what the chances are without any data. It's easy to say from your imagination.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Clean athletes don't commit three consecutive filing failures. All the athletes know what the rules are for. That's why a whereabouts suspension is an anti-doping violation.

Pure brown-tinged conjecture.

rekrunner wrote:

On the contrary, I call a whereabouts failure exactly as defined by WADA, often quoting WADA's definition.

It can be a "filing failure" or a "missed test". These are not just my words, but virtually every ADA's and ADO's words.

I right-play the offense as one that can be committed by dopers and non-dopers alike.

Some of WADA's "doping cases" do not necessarily involving an athlete doping.

If you can think WADA is wrong about doorbells and running away, then I also think it is wrong to call these potential anti-doping rule violations "doping cases", but rather "anti-doping cases".

After all, WADA is an anti-doping association, not a doping association.

It may technically be an anti-doping violation but I think it infers doping if the athlete is found guilty. Something I didn't realize is that from the 3rd missed test up through to the time period of the provisional-suspension (could be several months) the AIU can disqualify all competitive results obtained by the athlete "including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points prizes and appearance money." This changes everything - and is along the lines of the "unfair advantage" clause in ABP cases where competitive results are annulled from the time of the first anomalies up to point of the provisional-suspension.

Case in point with Alex Korio, who was banned last year for whereabouts failures. According to the DT report, he missed 3 tests last year; Jan, Apr & July. The AIU sent an e-mail to Kirio each time asking for an explanation. There was no response. In Oct, another e-mail was sent informing that he had the right to request an administrative hearing before any action is taken. Again no response.

In Aug of last year (about 2 weeks after the 3rd missed test) Kirio wins the Beach to Beacon 10k and pockets 10 Grand! - huge by Kenyan standards. In Oct, he runs a PB in the 10k at Doha. One week later he's on the "Dream Team" as a pacesetter for the Ineos 1:59 challenge. The DT report concludes that in addition to a 2 yr ban, "disqualification of all competitive results obtained by the athlete between 19 July 2019 and 17 March 2020 with all resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points prizes and appearance money."

So, he loses that big payday from Beach to Beacon, loses his 11th place & PB at Doha and whatever appearance money he pocketed at Ineos - devastating!

If the AIU wasn't suspecting doping from the 3 missed tests they wouldn't have wiped him of his results & earnings - that suggests an "unfair advantage." Otherwise, he could have been just recieved a "slapped on the wrist" with the 2-yr ban and not stripped of any earnings subsequent to the 3rd & final test.

Other than the time period of the ban, the consequences are the same as an ABP violation ban.

Kirio's case is on page #1 under "outcome:"

rekrunner wrote:

On the contrary, I call a whereabouts failure exactly as defined by WADA, often quoting WADA's definition.

It can be a "filing failure" or a "missed test". These are not just my words, but virtually every ADA's and ADO's words.

I right-play the offense as one that can be committed by dopers and non-dopers alike.

Some of WADA's "doping cases" do not necessarily involving an athlete doping.

If you can think WADA is wrong about doorbells and running away, then I also think it is wrong to call these potential anti-doping rule violations "doping cases", but rather "anti-doping cases".

After all, WADA is an anti-doping association, not a doping association.

You have taken calculated obtuseness to new heights of absurdity. You are its master practitioner.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Clean athletes don't commit three consecutive filing failures. All the athletes know what the rules are for. That's why a whereabouts suspension is an anti-doping violation.

Pure brown-tinged conjecture.

The truth is that you do understand that a whereabouts suspension is simply a doping offence by another name. That is why you strive like a circus contortionist to separate it from a doping infringement by insisting disingenuously that is only a "filing failure", as though it is little more than an accountancy failure, like a failure to file a tax return. No one is fooled by it.

Doped to the Max wrote:

So, he loses that big payday from Beach to Beacon, loses his 11th place & PB at Doha and whatever appearance money he pocketed at Ineos - devastating!

Yes. Wait until Naser loses her AR and Gold, for her third missed test was before Doha. The writing is on the wall.

rekrunner wrote:

Do you honestly not see the full quote: "that a whereabouts failure is a filing failure, or a missed test."

I did see that. It sounds like you simply do not understand. Strange, considering your alleged knowledge of WADA rules.

Do you honestly not remember the difference between a whereabouts failure and a missed test?

Hint: see my "unless..." in my text you just quoted.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Do you honestly not see the full quote: "that a whereabouts failure is a filing failure, or a missed test."

I did see that. It sounds like you simply do not understand. Strange, considering your alleged knowledge of WADA rules.

Do you honestly not remember the difference between a whereabouts failure and a missed test?

Hint: see my "unless..." in my text you just quoted.

I understand WADA defines a whereabout failure as a filing failure or a missed test.

I understand I said exactly the same thing.

Nothing you said can change these immutable facts.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The truth is that you do understand that a whereabouts suspension is simply a doping offence by another name. That is why you strive like a circus contortionist to separate it from a doping infringement by insisting disingenuously that is only a "filing failure", as though it is little more than an accountancy failure, like a failure to file a tax return. No one is fooled by it.

I understand that it is a violation that does not necessarily involve doping.

I do not suggest it is *only* a filing failure, but by definition a violation is three whereabouts failures, further defined as a filing failure or a missed test.

The contortion is suggesting we must infer something more than what is clearly defined.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

I did see that. It sounds like you simply do not understand. Strange, considering your alleged knowledge of WADA rules.

Do you honestly not remember the difference between a whereabouts failure and a missed test?

Hint: see my "unless..." in my text you just quoted.

I understand WADA defines a whereabout failure as a filing failure or a missed test.

I understand I said exactly the same thing.

Nothing you said can change these immutable facts.

It doesn't matter what it is called - it is about doping, or it wouldn't involve WADA.

Doped to the Max wrote:

It may technically be an anti-doping violation but I think it infers doping if ...

To be frank, it does not change the clear definitions if you think it infers doping.

If Kirio, or Korio, or anyone, received three whereabout violations within one year, and they all stand, the ban, and the forfeiture, are automatic, as he was ineligible to compete. There is no necessary inference that the AIU suspected doping.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It doesn't matter what it is called - it is about doping, or it wouldn't involve WADA.

Correction, it is about anti-doping, or it wouldn't involve the World Anti-Doping Association.

But I agree, it doesn't matter what it is called -- that's why I don't see the relevance of things like "proof" that WADA calls it a "doping case".

This appears to be a false strawman argument that, as you say, completely doesn't matter, nor negate my point.

By definition, non-dopers can commit whereabouts failures, without any finite limit.

This directly involves anti-doping rules defined by WADA.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The truth is that you do understand that a whereabouts suspension is simply a doping offence by another name. That is why you strive like a circus contortionist to separate it from a doping infringement by insisting disingenuously that is only a "filing failure", as though it is little more than an accountancy failure, like a failure to file a tax return. No one is fooled by it.

I understand that it is a violation that does not necessarily involve doping.

I do not suggest it is *only* a filing failure, but by definition a violation is three whereabouts failures, further defined as a filing failure or a missed test.

The contortion is suggesting we must infer something more than what is clearly defined.

But it does involve doping - or WADA wouldn't be concerned about it or penalise it. The rules don't require a positive test for an athlete to be sanctioned; a repeated failure to meet testing requirements will produce the same outcome - a ban. An athlete doesn't miss a series of tests by accident. If they know how to enter a race they know how to meet testing requirements. Clean athletes will make sure they are available - because they know what will happen if they aren't.

Only one specification : yo write

" An athlete doesn't miss a series of tests by accident. If they know how to enter a race they know how to meet testing requirements "

I want to inform you that no top athletes know how to enter a race, because without manager nobody can enter any race, in international competitions.

Managers are the one entering athletes in every race, also when there is no negotiation about appearances. Athletes able to be accepted in some race, without manager (we speak about competitions of international level, for athletes of international level), simply don't exist.

And it's clear to understand why : if in a meeting there is a competition of 800m, and in that competition only 12 athletes can be accepted, the athlete number 15 in the world needs to be invited because organisers pay flight ticket and accommodation, and have to chose participants among a list very much more long of requestes, without specific interest in the technical value (when there are already 3-5 athletes under 1'44", to fill the race with athletes running 1'45" or 1'46" is absolutely the same for the organisers).

So, one of the problem of missed tests for African athletes is that they delegate all those tasks to their management : entering in competitions, but also filling the forms of whereabouts according to their coomunications to the management.

I don't know one Kenyan athlete directly and personally following the procedure of filling and sending to WADA or AIU or ADAK his whereabout.

This means, again, that several times this is a problem of not enough education (some of the top athletes never went school after the Primary, in many cases never terminated).

This is not an excuse, but an explanation regarding the reasons, sometimes provoking the facts we are speaking about.

Personally, with my athletes, I never fear some ban for doping, because are all clean ; but I'm frequently worry about some mistake related with whereabouts, because sometimes something happens at home in sudden way, and when there is a similar situation their priority doesn't involve whereabouts, but the hypothetical siolution of the problem.

Of course, I agree that, if this happens 3 times, or the athlete has a very low IQ, or tries to avoid the test.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It doesn't matter what it is called - it is about doping, or it wouldn't involve WADA.

Correction, it is about anti-doping, or it wouldn't involve the World Anti-Doping Association.

But I agree, it doesn't matter what it is called -- that's why I don't see the relevance of things like "proof" that WADA calls it a "doping case".

This appears to be a false strawman argument that, as you say, completely doesn't matter, nor negate my point.

By definition, non-dopers can commit whereabouts failures, without any finite limit.

This directly involves anti-doping rules defined by WADA.

Doping is what WADA is trying to prevent, therefore that is what its regulations apply to, including the testing rules. No one understands that WADA is promoting doping, so your insistent objection to the term "doping" in this context is mindless pedantry of an extreme it appears only you are capable of. WADA's testing rules are intended to circumvent the practice of doping and because dopers will attempt to evade being caught by avoiding being tested WADA has drawn a line that prevents them from doing so. So, the whereabouts rules are part of the process of circumventing doping - which to you means "anti-doping". But the lobe of your brain that doesn't apparently function fails to see that anti-doping, by definition, requires the existence of doping - and therefore WADA would not exist or have any purpose if it were not so. Doping is its concern. WADA is not engaged in word games - as you are - but is dealing with a practice that is very real and is worldwide.

But as I have said previously, your absurd attempts to paint whereabouts violations as innocent "technical" mistakes and therefore having nothing to do with doping is because you know - you fear - they are, in truth, utterly connected to doping - and your intention is always to minimise the practice. Certain realities are simply too unpalatable for you to accept. Consequently, your arguments have less to do with science than the efforts of a mediavel theologian trying to prove through dogma what reason is unable to perform.

Armstronglivs wrote:

But it does involve doping - or WADA wouldn't be concerned about it or penalise it. The rules don't require a positive test for an athlete to be sanctioned; a repeated failure to meet testing requirements will produce the same outcome - a ban. An athlete doesn't miss a series of tests by accident. If they know how to enter a race they know how to meet testing requirements. Clean athletes will make sure they are available - because they know what will happen if they aren't.

Au contraire. WADA, being an anti-doping organization is concerned with anti-doping rules, and penalizing violations of these anti-doping rules. Tellingly, these are called anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs).

Only one rule requires a positive test, which WADA calls an analytical ADRV.

The rest are called non-analytical ADRVs.

Regardless of your statements, clean athletes can, and often do, fail to file, or miss a test.

Since you are a self-proclaimed master of probabilities, it remains probable that clean athletes can incur three in one year, despite your seeming inability to accept what is clearly defined with no ambiguity by WADA.

You are vastly over-thinking what is clearly defined in the WADA code.

It is you and others who say it is correct to infer events beyond the scope of these clear definitions.

There are no words games, just clear definitions.

WADA is not "concerned" with rules; it has rules because its concern is doping. The argument is not whether an athlete who misses a single test is doping; no one is claiming that. That even applies to two missed tests. But 3 missed tests puts an athlete in the same position as an athlete who returns a positive test and therefore similarly earns a ban. The inference is that clean athletes won't miss three consecutive tests, otherwise the rule would be seen as unjustifiable. There is nothing to suggest that it is "probable" that a clean athlete will miss 3 tests in a year - conceivable, yes, but highly unlikely. And that is why a violation of the rule carries a serious penalty.