Athletics - the game is up

JohnH

I think there are important differences between the Ferdinand and the Ohuruogu incidents. As I recall, inspectors turned up at Man U's training ground and told Ferdinand to stay after training to be tested. He still managed to forget this request an hour later. In Ohuruogu's case she (like all top class athletes) has to say where she will be several months in advance, so that inspectors can turn up unannounced. I'm not sure where I will be tomorrow, let alone next month. Both of them missed tests and both were banned according to the rules, one for 8 months, the other for 12. Having "served their time", and there being no evidence that either of them have taken banned performance-enhancing substances, shouldn't they be allowed to get on with the rest of their lives?

Karyn

"In my book someone who knowingly breaks the rules is a cheat, whether it's a footballer who dives in the area or an athlete who misses three drugs tests." You make me laugh! Does this mean that we are going to see an article up here for every time a player who has clearly dived in a previous football game plays on the World Cup team? I don't think there would be enough hours in the day for you to write about that.

HJ

Utter guff from Pollard.

He says: "In my book someone who knowingly breaks the rules is a cheat, whether it's a footballer who dives in the area or an athlete who misses three drugs tests."

First, then why is he calling for permanent ban on Ohuruogu and not on footballers who have cheated by diving? This is rank hypocrisy.

Second, it is quite clear that she did not knowingly break the rules and so by Pollard's own definition is not a cheat. Here's what UK athletics said about the case when it banned her:

Christine Ohuruogu
Following a disciplinary hearing held on 11 September 2006, the Independent Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Charles Flint QC, has decided unanimously that Christine Ohuruogu has committed a doping violation under Rule 32.2 (d) of the IAAF Rules which stipulates that the violation is 'the evaluation of three missed out-of-competition tests (as defined in Rule 35.17)'

The Independent Disciplinary Committee imposed the sanction prescribed under Rule 40.1(c) of the IAAF Rules that Christine Ohuruogu is ineligible to take part in athletics events for 1 year. This period of ineligibility runs from 6 August 2006, the date Christine Ohuruogu was suspended.

In the Decision the Independent Disciplinary Committee made clear its view as to the limited degree of fault to be attributed to Christine Ohuruogu. The Committee stated that this was a minor unintentional infraction of the regime due only to forgetfulness. It made clear that there is no suggestion, nor any grounds for suspicion, that the offence may have been deliberate in order to prevent testing.

The Independent Disciplinary Committee also made clear its view that “this is undoubtedly a very harsh sanction for the minor degree of fault attributed to a talented young athlete who had no intention of infringing the anti-doping rules”

On hearing the decision David Moorcroft, Chief Executive of UK Athletics said: “For any anti-doping rule violation UK Athletics appoints an Independent Disciplinary Committee to consider the facts of the case in the context of the rules of our sport. We operate within a very stringent regime and accept the decision the Independent Disciplinary Committee has made”.
15 September 2006

http://www.ukathletics.net/press-centre/news-archive/september/article-18/

Note the use of the words "unintentional infraction" and "limited degree of fault" (the latter being a tacit admission of problems in the testing system). How does Pollard equate "unintentional' with "knowingly breaking the rules"?

I'd suggest a poor knowledge of English on his part.

In case that isn't enough for him, let's look at what the independent international Court of Arbitration in Sport said: " "there is no suggestion that she is guilty of taking drugs... and, indeed, this case can be viewed in all the circumstances as a busy young athlete being forgetful".

Let's run that past again "in all the circumstances...... forgetful", i.e. not intentional and not knowingly.

HJ

Pollard, via Martin Samuel, also seeks to imply that because she has produced her best times after a year out of the sport, that this somehow implies that this is suspicious.

The facts are that during this year she was subject to exactly the same testing regime as any other UK athlete, a fact conveniently not mentioned. She was tested 20 times, at random, and did not miss a single test (not missing a test was helped by small changes in the testing system and changes to her living and training arrangements).

A dodgy article by Martin Samuel is the best evidence Pollard can produce to support his flimsy case. Pathetic.

Is The Spectator paying him for this rubbish?

HJ

Would that someone from The Spectator tell Pollard that "The Game Is Up" and get rid of him.

The Spectator used to be a good read for people interested in intelligent, well constructed, articles.

HJ

On the issue of the negative proof that Pollard demands - why does he not demand this of any other athlete or sportsman who just happened not to be randomly tested on the same day?

Logic is not Pollard's strong point

Bob Doney

Hole. Stop.