Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 20 of 25 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 246
  1. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Mitten
    Posts
    950
    Wow wow wow, extremely well-researched and written article by AA ... and, unfortunately, very damning to USADA. Hope Coleman does well in Doha.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    61,595
    my head is going in circles on this thing at this point, so I'm still not 100% clear on this "rounding" process, but couldn't it cut both ways?

    i.e., somebody could have 2 misses and then get a third that in a pure calendar sense is outside the window, but if the third is rounded back to the start of the quarter it's inside a year?
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogery- chwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, Wales
    Posts
    11,958
    Seems convenient that the 6/6/18 "attempt" officially started at 8:01 AM(one minute after Coleman's testing window closed), even though the tester was there at 7:55
    There are no strings on me
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by moreover View Post
    Just the opposite, not guilty in actuality. To be guilty, you actually have to be in violation with the rules as written. It's not a "cleared by technicality" if the rules say failure to file correctly is treated as occurring on the first day of the quarter, so quarters a year later are off the clock. It's he didn't have three violations in a year.
    Now the enforcers that don't know the rules and brought the charges, they are guilty of damaging his reputation and should be found so.
    Within a 365 day period he missed 3 tests, right? Because they have an unusual way of defining what a year is for record keeping purposes, he gets off. To me he actually missed 3 tests in a year (as it is correctly defined). He's guilty of violating the intent of the rule (not missing 3 tests in a 1 year period) but is let off on a technicality because of how they account for filings.

    You can decide that it's okay because it is within the rules they set out, or you can accept that there is no way to design rules that will perfectly cover every possible occurrence, that CC was able to find that loophole, and got off on what would commonly be called a technicality.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    23,368
    The "Year" that you have in your head is not what the rule is, so do not charge him as having violated the rule that is in your head. In answer to gh, I think that it can work to the athletes disadvantage as well but probably more likely to the advantage. Also note that the "Year" of the rule is more stringent than a fixed year, but for good reason (if the year was fixed you could miss two in, say December knowing that the calendar rolls anew in January. Aside from this date-assignment quirk, the "year" is every single 365 (plus Feb 29) period possible.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by gh View Post
    my head is going in circles on this thing at this point, so I'm still not 100% clear on this "rounding" process, but couldn't it cut both ways?

    i.e., somebody could have 2 misses and then get a third that in a pure calendar sense is outside the window, but if the third is rounded back to the start of the quarter it's inside a year?
    I think you are correct. At the moment, Coleman is still on the hook for

    January 16, 2019, missed test
    April 26, 2019 filing failure

    Hypothetically, if he has a filing failure on March 31, 2020, the effective date of that failure would be January 1, 2020 and constitute three failures in a year, just your scenario.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Goldsmith
    Posts
    134
    He better not have anymore filing failures, such thin ice. He should have 2 people at least watching his back on this.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    23,368
    Having read AA's commentary I strongly recommend you do so; if you are commenting now without having read it you basically should not have a seat at the table because you are not in the possession of all the facts and the facts are not what many were assuming.

    I think that the April 26 'failure' is not actually a failure (they showed up at the wrong place almost 8 hours early and Coleman had updated his wearabouts). [a part of the USADA's problem is here but there is much more]
    Coleman’s one-hour window that day was 7:30-830 p.m. at his new residence. He also let it be known that he would be reachable at a training facility from 2-5:30 p.m. at a facility, which is listed in another state. There’s no explaining how he might be in the two places. At any rate, the USADA tester showed up at the residence — but at 12:09 p.m.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by 26mi235 View Post
    The "Year" that you have in your head is not what the rule is, so do not charge him as having violated the rule that is in your head.......Aside from this date-assignment quirk, the "year" is every single 365 (plus Feb 29) period possible.
    The "Year" in my head is "every single 365 (plus Feb 29) period possible. Is that not the intent of the rule. I get that the rules for filing failures and missed tests are different. From the article posted, if we take it as fact, it sounds like USADA did mess up, but so did Coleman himself. Not even being in the same state as you said you would be is a huge error on his part. It seems that happened twice and both were his fault. There seems to have been some confusion as to his residence. I didn't read anything that said CC properly updated USADA on his new residence or his being in the wrong state.

    As for USADA, the tester showed up at the wrong time window once, on a day that CC gave them two different times at locations in 2 different states.

    It may all be innocent mistakes, or it could be a method of deliberately not being available. To me, he got off easy by USADA.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by 26mi235 View Post
    I think that the April 26 'failure' is not actually a failure.
    I agree. But our opinions are irrelevant. Remember that the source for the details is the defense team. Also, USADA's press release did not excuse the most recent failures.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •