• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Click here to download the  free ebook of Alberto Juantorena’s  detailed training workouts leading up to the 1976 Montreal Olympics

SpeedEndurance.com

Success in Track & Field ... and Life

  • Home
    • About
    • Contact
  • Track & Field
    • 400 meters
    • 800m & Mile
    • 1/2 & Full Marathons
    • Long & Triple Jump
    • Hurdles
  • Training
    • Weight Training
    • Abs & Core
    • Injury Prevention
    • Shoes & Spikes
    • Masters
  • Coaching
    • Freelap Friday Five
    • Interviews
    • Sports Nutrition
    • Sport Psychology
  • Archives
  • Shop
    • My account
    • Checkout
    • Basket

Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

You are here: Home / Coaching / Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
3
SHARES
FacebookTwitter

September 17, 2015 by Lee Ness Leave a Comment

By Lee Ness

For those people who have read my previous articles about Justin Gatlin, you will know my views on cheats convicted of PEDs.

I’ll also say that I’m quite lenient on stimulants, but to summarise: Athletes receiving bans for PEDs like steroids or testosterone, for example, should be banned for a minimum of four years. And that is only for those who cooperate, and they should never be trusted again (more on this later).

Athletes banned for stimulants, some of which are legal out of competition, should receive shorter suspensions. I think the semantics are very important as people get confused when they hear statistics like “7 of the nine athletes in the 100m finals are convicted dopers”. It is misleading.

However, I’ve also been accused of being anti-Gatlin because he’s an American. What about English athletes, people ask? I’m not the BBC, who are far too partisan, I feel. I would go after a current British drug cheat just as hard as an American one.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

Photo Credits: Getty Images

So, what about the Paula Radcliffe situation?

I think people get too hung up on whether people are innocent until proven guilty or vice versa when it comes to drugs in sport. My friend Craig Pickering has strong views about this and is definitely on the side of innocent until proven guilty. He has more experience than me of being an athlete, of course, but I always apply the same test (and Craig has challenged me on this exact point): What if it was my son?

See also  400 meter Hurdle Training: Identifying Potential Athletes (Part 1)

Well, here it is.

The world of doping has changed, and we have to accept it for, what it is. Trying to pretend it is otherwise is fruitless. The simple fact is; Lance Armstrong (and Marion Jones) changed the world.

When there is suspicion in this day and age, post-Lance, then it is incumbent on the athlete to either prove their innocence or accept the media scrutiny and innuendo. From a legal and official perspective, they are clearly innocent until proven guilty and would be perfectly entitled to say nothing and continue regardless while there is no evidence against them.

Paula Radcliffe was perfectly entitled to do nothing at all. There are no failed tests; there is no official sanction. She can ignore it if she wishes, no-one can force her to do otherwise.

However, if there is suspicion raised, whatever the source, it is incumbent on the athlete to do what is necessary to silence that suspicion effectively in the media. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this statement and claims of injustice or privacy, it is the nature of ‘the world we live in”.

Cycling is no different. Some sports, such as soccer or American football, get away with murder in drugs terms. So what? We aren’t in those sports; we are in athletics. Pointing out test figures for other sports, doping rates, banned athletes and so on is of no interest to a fan who is interested in their sport.

Paula Radcliffe’s issue is even stronger because she is a public/media figure. In my humble opinion, here advisers have got it wrong. We’ve been here before with Lance. When this thing broke (and it was Paula Radcliffe who introduced her name into the public domain), it would have been easier to put to bed. The longer it goes on, the more news coverage there is, and more and more people start to frown.

See also  Talent Identification: Bolt, Powell, and Yoshihide Kiryu

“I can’t publish data because you won’t understand it,” doesn’t cut it.

More and more people start to ask “Did she?”.

The same would go for Mo Farah, Greg Rutherford or anyone else who posted suspicious data (for the record, whoever advised Farah to stay with Salazar may regret that decision). It has to be nipped in the bud by trusting in the public to understand. Calling us idiots and treating us like fools, a la Armstrong will make things worse.

So, for me, in official terms, people are innocent until proven guilty.

No-one should be banned for a suspicion. In terms of testing, though, anyone with suspicion should be pursued by the authority as though they were guilty until the suspicion goes away. If that offends them, tough. If a few people being offended is the price of a cleaner sport, then take a man-up pill and get on with it. For the public, though, if you want a public persona, then you have to manage it.

The media can work on suspicion (and as David Walsh has proven, sometimes it should pursue that suspicion beyond reasonable realms) and will continue to do so. And it is down to the athlete, or their management, to eradicate that suspicion. Doing it by libel threats, evasion and attack will not hold any water. We’ve been there before.

Believe it or not, I am an optimist. I believe Usain Bolt, Mo Farah and Paula Radcliffe are all clean. But it is that very optimism that fuels my stance. If I’m let down and betrayed (along with countless other fans), then the punishment should be severe. Additionally, that athlete should never be trusted again. They don’t get to play the “I’ve served my time, can we all leave this behind” card.

See also  Darvis "Doc" Patton, Monte Stratton Sprints & Relays DVD

If they serve their ban, then they are allowed to compete again. That’s the deal. But trusted to compete clean?

Never.

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.“

Category iconCoaching

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Recommended

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xbs-aWxyLk

Shop Our Store

  • Bud Winter (9)
  • Championship Productions (6)
  • Clyde Hart (2)
  • Derek Hansen (1)
  • Electrical Muscle Stimulation (2)
  • Jim Hiserman (6)
  • Jimson Lee (4)
  • Uncategorised (0)

Articles by Category

Products

  • Jim Hiserman - Developing 800m Runners: Identifying, Categorizing and Developing 400m-800m Type Athletes $42.99 $39.99
  • Private Coaching - Monthly Plan $600.00 $525.00
  • Jim Hiserman-Developing-Distance-Runnersv2 Jim Hiserman - Developing Distance Runners Volume 2: A Systematic Approach to Developing Individual Success within a Dynamic Team Culture $34.95 $29.95
  • Feed-the-Cats-Clinic-3-Pack-701 'Feed the Cats' Clinic 3-Pack $64.99
  • Tony Holler's Feed the Cats": A Complete Sprint Training Program Tony Holler's "Feed the Cats" Complete Sprint Training Program $49.99
  • Bud Winter and Speed City presents Arthur Lydiard 509x716 Bud Winter & Arthur Lydiard MP3 [Download only] $9.99

RECENT POSTS

  • Oregon22 Coaches Club now Online
  • IFAC 2022: The Return of In-Person Conferences (with Virtual option)
  • Here is our 400m Discussion Recording… over 2 Hours Long
  • The Best Free Coaching Book – post Beijing 2022 Olympics
  • The Ultimate 400m Track Webinar for Coaches & Athletes
  • NACAC Athletics Coaching Science Series 2022
  • Top Six 400m Predictor Workouts (Number 4 is my Favourite)
  • Best 6 Podcasts for 2021 (and Beyond)
  • Why Karsten Warholm’s 45.94 400mH WR is my Highlight of 2021
  • Sprinting: 10 Research Articles for Effective Sprint Training [Part 23]

Copyright © 2023. SpeedEndurance.com is owned and operated by Aryta Ltd. Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}