Mo Farah's reputation

[Hibbyradge]

He was guilty by association last week.

This week it's a bit more serious. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33178292)

[Future17]

He was guilty by association last week.

This week it's a bit more serious. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33178292)

Is it? Sounds like we've just moved from guilty by association to guilty by insinuation.

It's unfortunate he's missed two tests, but he's not broken any rules as such. Given that a third missed test could have led to a ban, I assume he's been tested at least once since the second missed test and found to be "clean".

I'm all for stamping out cheating in sport and I can only imagine how distressing it must be for clean athletes to learn retrospectively that they have lost out on medals/glory/the trappings of success due to athletes doping.

However (and it's a massive however), we have to be 100% certain that someone has cheated before throwing muck at them, as the stigma of even being accused must be soul-destroying for someone who has dedicated so much of their life to what they do.

[Hibbyradge]

Is it? Sounds like we've just moved from guilty by association to guilty by insinuation.

It's unfortunate he's missed two tests, but he's not broken any rules as such. Given that a third missed test could have led to a ban, I assume he's been tested at least once since the second missed test and found to be "clean".

I'm all for stamping out cheating in sport and I can only imagine how distressing it must be for clean athletes to learn retrospectively that they have lost out on medals/glory/the trappings of success due to athletes doping.

However (and it's a massive however), we have to be 100% certain that someone has cheated before throwing muck at them, as the stigma of even being accused must be soul-destroying for someone who has dedicated so much of their life to what they do.

Yes, I agree, it's insinuation and he may be entirely innocent.

Rio Ferdinand was banned for 8 months for missing a single drugs test.

[Stranraer]

Missing two drug tests allegedly. I can't stand the guy anyway, he's a cocky **** in my view.

[liamh2202]

Missing two drug tests allegedly. I can't stand the guy anyway, he's a cocky **** in my view.

Yeh I agree . if I missed one in my job I would be instantly discharged ,

[Future17]

Yes, I agree, it's insinuation and he may be entirely innocent.

Rio Ferdinand was banned for 8 months for missing a single drugs test.

That was a shambles as well, albeit we all have to abide by the rules of our chosen profession.

[Geo_1875]

Is it? Sounds like we've just moved from guilty by association to guilty by insinuation.

It's unfortunate he's missed two tests, but he's not broken any rules as such. Given that a third missed test could have led to a ban, I assume he's been tested at least once since the second missed test and found to be "clean".
I'm all for stamping out cheating in sport and I can only imagine how distressing it must be for clean athletes to learn retrospectively that they have lost out on medals/glory/the trappings of success due to athletes doping.

However (and it's a massive however), we have to be 100% certain that someone has cheated before throwing muck at them, as the stigma of even being accused must be soul-destroying for someone who has dedicated so much of their life to what they do.


He probably will have tested "clean". However, it seems coincidence that he doesn't run as often or as fast as he previously did even allowing for being older..

[Future17]

He probably will have tested "clean". However, it seems coincidence that he doesn't run as often or as fast as he previously did even allowing for being older..

The missed tests were apparently pre-Olympics 2012. Since those Olympics he's broken 2 European and 1 World record - two of those have occurred this year.

Your post is a good example of what can happen when mud is thrown and people are all-to-keen to try to make it stick for some reason. :rolleyes:

[lyonhibs]

"According to the Daily Mail".......

Think I'll keep my powder dry before something more credible than that rag comes out with some evidence of actual wrong-doing.

[Hibbyradge]

"According to the Daily Mail".......

Think I'll keep my powder dry before something more credible than that rag comes out with some evidence of actual wrong-doing.

I've bookmarked that post for the next time you jump to conclusions about someone. :greengrin

:na na:

[snooky]

Trouble is, if you fly wi' the craws you generally get shot wi' the craws.
Guilty or not.

[liamh2202]

Trouble is, if you fly wi' the craws you generally get shot wi' the craws.
Guilty or not.

This takes me back to my youth

[Future17]

Trouble is, if you fly wi' the craws you generally get shot wi' the craws.
Guilty or not.

But what if you didn't know they were craws? What if they looked like starlings? :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

But what if you didn't know they were craws? What if they looked like starlings? :greengrin

You get shot.

[Bristolhibby]

Sounds like athletes have to tell the anti dopers where they are for a one hour window 24/7. They can come to that place any time any day within that window and you must be there.

Christ, I barely know what meetings I'll be in from one day to the next.

This is nothing like a coked up footballer doing a runner in his Bentley because he had a heavy weekend and the testers were at training.

J

[Future17]

You get shot.

But it wouldn't be your fault.

[Hibbyradge]

If you thought the crows were starlings, you'd clearly be on something so, yes, it would be your fault.

[Andy Bee]

If you thought the crows were starlings, you'd clearly be on something so, yes, it would be your fault.

TBH when passing Carlisle as I do frequently I witnessed starlings flocking, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EggpfpFhoSM I thought they were racing pigeons. :rolleyes:

[Future17]

If you thought the crows were starlings, you'd clearly be on something so, yes, it would be your fault.

Ha ha! More drug references! :wink:

OK, to cut to the chase, the "fly with the craws" phrase is about being careful who you associate with. The allegations against Salazar are a long way from being proven but, even if they were, Farah can't be blamed for associating with him unless he was aware of what was going on.

[Pretty Boy]

This is like all the Daily Mails wet dreams in one go.

Popular, successful African, Muslim immigrant might turn out to be a bit dodgy just like the 'rest of them'.

[Hibbyradge]

This is like all the Daily Mails wet dreams in one go.

Popular, successful African, Muslim immigrant might turn out to be a bit dodgy just like the 'rest of them'.

:agree:

[Danderhall Hibs]

This is like all the Daily Mails wet dreams in one go.

Popular, successful African, Muslim immigrant might turn out to be a bit dodgy just like the 'rest of them'.

Just like the rest of the top athletes?

[hibsbollah]

i love Mo, which probably makes me unobjective, but there's no substance or proof that I've seen that he's done anything wrong at all.:confused:

[Danderhall Hibs]

i love Mo, which probably makes me unobjective, but there's no substance or proof that I've seen that he's done anything wrong at all.:confused:

Nothing concrete yet.

Missed drugs test (x2) plus going from no mark to unbeatable.

Missed drugs test was enough for Rio to get a 9 month ban, it's more acceptable to "not hear" your door bell in athletics.m

[lord bunberry]

Nothing concrete yet.

Missed drugs test (x2) plus going from no mark to unbeatable.

Missed drugs test was enough for Rio to get a 9 month ban, it's more acceptable to "not hear" your door bell in athletics.m
I've not been following this story, but I know he missed 2 drugs tests. How many drugs test has he had in this period that he's passed?

[Danderhall Hibs]

I've not been following this story, but I know he missed 2 drugs tests. How many drugs test has he had in this period that he's passed?

I've not seen that being reported.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

TBH when passing Carlisle as I do frequently I witnessed starlings flocking, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EggpfpFhoSM I thought they were racing pigeons. :rolleyes:

I've witnessed that a few times down at Carlisle, I'm always amazed that the streets/buildings are not strewn with bird crap!

[Onceinawhile]

Let's face it. Anyone hawking quorn deserves all they get.

Disgusting behavior.

[hibsbollah]

going from no mark to unbeatable

thats not really true now is it?

[Danderhall Hibs]

thats not really true now is it?

Not sure so I checked wiki and pre 2011 I think he won a couple of European races. Nothing much else. Won loads since he misse those tests.

[Stranraer]

The BBC decided it was more important to hear how "devastated" Mo Farah is. FFS, 9 dead African Americans isn't enough to come before this non-story. The whole media's obsession with the London Olympics is wearing thin.

[Future17]

Not sure so I checked wiki and pre 2011 I think he won a couple of European races. Nothing much else. Won loads since he misse those tests.

This is getting ridiculous. IIRC, Usain Bolt hadn't won much until 2008. Definitely on the steroids since. :rolleyes:

[Danderhall Hibs]

This is getting ridiculous. IIRC, Usain Bolt hadn't won much until 2008. Definitely on the steroids since. :rolleyes:

It wouldn't surprise me, however your comparing a 22 year old having won nothing prior to 2008 to a 27/28 year old becoming unbeatable overnight.

Not to say your claim's not true though.

[hibsbollah]

Not sure so I checked wiki and pre 2011 I think he won a couple of European races. Nothing much else. Won loads since he misse those tests.

He's a successful athlete. Hence his performances are, by nature, going to show a incremental increase as he improves:confused:

its so unfair, he's being asked to disprove a negative, which is almost impossible to do in a case like this, all the while getting insinuations from the Daily Mail without any proof of guilt.

[Sergey]

He's a successful athlete. Hence his performances are, by nature, going to show a incremental increase as he improves:confused:

its so unfair, he's being asked to disprove a negative, which is almost impossible to do in a case like this, all the while getting insinuations from the Daily Mail without any proof of guilt.

It would be interesting if Farah would be forthcoming if asked............."are you willing to name all products used (incl, TUE's)/techniques employed while training/competing to improve your performance?"

The Nike Project/Salazar/Farah have had over 3 years to get their story in order - but there's a number of quotes pre-missing-drug-tests that could come back to haunt them. One from 2012 -

http://www.nutraingredients.com/Markets-and-Trends/Mo-better-supplements-Farah-coach-backs-vitamins-and-amino-acids


We don't take that much stuff and everything that Mo takes is from UK Athletics. None of our athletes are on any sports-specific supplement other than beta alanine, which is an amino acid. Other than that, it's iron, vitamin D, and that's it. You don't really need anything else.


He hardly did any stuff and he was still fast, so it is surprising that when we do this stuff, he is where he is? I've seen him do workouts when he'll be pushing himself so hard that he literally has to crawl off the track.

Hmm - that isn't quite right...

Farah admitted to using L-Carnitine which he alleged stopped in 2012. There was a tube of Androgel found at the Nike Project which Salazar said was his (despite Salazar suffering from a heart condition) and there was the supplement Testoboost which seemingly was used exclusively by Rupp and not Farah.

I think Mo has quite a bit of explaining to do and better choose his words very carefully.

Also, the number of tests he claims should not be a diversion from the fact that he does not seem to have the ability to answer his front door when someone calls.

[hibsbollah]

It would be interesting if Farah would be forthcoming if asked............."are you willing to name all products used (incl, TUE's)/techniques employed while training/competing to improve your performance?"

The Nike Project/Salazar/Farah have had over 3 years to get their story in order - but there's a number of quotes pre-missing-drug-tests that could come back to haunt them. One from 2012 -

http://www.nutraingredients.com/Markets-and-Trends/Mo-better-supplements-Farah-coach-backs-vitamins-and-amino-acids



Hmm - that isn't quite right...

Farah admitted to using L-Carnitine which he alleged stopped in 2012. There was a tube of Androgel found at the Nike Project which Salazar said was his (despite Salazar suffering from a heart condition) and there was the supplement Testoboost which seemingly was used exclusively by Rupp and not Farah.

I think Mo has quite a bit of explaining to do and better choose his words very carefully.

Also, the number of tests he claims should not be a diversion from the fact that he does not seem to have the ability to answer his front door when someone calls.

It might be 'interesting' to you if Farah provides a full breakdown of every product he ever used, but why the hell should he when he's never failed a single test despite undergoing literally hundreds? It's irrelevant what Farah does or says now anyway, his reputation has been blackened by insinuation. If I was him I'd keep my head down for a few months instead of engaging with the journalist community.

[Danderhall Hibs]

You can't fail a test if you don't turn up for it / answer the door.

If athletes are clever enough the stuff will be out if their system when it matters.

[Pretty Boy]

You can't fail a test if you don't turn up for it / answer the door.

If athletes are clever enough the stuff will be out if their system when it matters.

Could it be he just genuinely didn't hear the door?

I've missed an important parcel I was waiting on once because that happened even though I was expecting it.

[easty]

Could it be he just genuinely didn't hear the door?

I've missed an important parcel I was waiting on once because that happened even though I was expecting it.

nah, thats different PB.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWB1u4Ej2wc

[Danderhall Hibs]

Could it be he just genuinely didn't hear the door?

I've missed an important parcel I was waiting on once because that happened even though I was expecting it.

It could be. Were you more alert when they came back with it?

Of course he might not have been behind the door at all though.

[Sergey]

It might be 'interesting' to you if Farah provides a full breakdown of every product he ever used, but why the hell should he when he's never failed a single test despite undergoing literally hundreds? It's irrelevant what Farah does or says now anyway, his reputation has been blackened by insinuation. If I was him I'd keep my head down for a few months instead of engaging with the journalist community.

So just because he's never failed a drug test means that he's clean and not taking PEDs and/or blood doping?

Lance Armstrong, Florence Griffith Joyner, and half the world of athletics/cycling/weightlifting could cite that in their defence - but it ain't really a categoric defence that would stand up in a court of law, is it? More-so when the aforementioned doped throughout their careers without getting caught.

[hibsbollah]

So just because he's never failed a drug test means that he's clean and not taking PEDs and/or blood doping?

Lance Armstrong, Florence Griffith Joyner, and half the world of athletics/cycling/weightlifting could cite that in their defence - but it ain't really a categoric defence that would stand up in a court of law, is it? More-so when the aforementioned doped throughout their careers without getting caught.

Don't be daft. It's not possible to ever, conclusively, say you know an athlete is clean. The point is, do you have any evidence to prove otherwise. If you don't have evidence, don't smear his reputation. It's that simple.

[Sergey]

Don't be daft. It's not possible to ever, conclusively, say you know an athlete is clean. The point is, do you have any evidence to prove otherwise. If you don't have evidence, don't smear his reputation. It's that simple.

The evidence seems to suggest that Salazar and the Nike Oregon Project have been involved in systematic doping. 17 of their athletes are willing to give testimony to this effect and the evidence of illegal practices is now irrefutable. You're not denying that, surely?

Salazar was also going to issue proof of his innocence, <cough> over 3 weeks ago since the BBC broke the story (he was also advised 4 weeks prior to the airing of the Panorama show) - so far...not a squeak. I wonder why?

Farah also seems to be singing the same songs from the Lance Armstrong hymn sheet. It might have been in his best interests to have read all the way to the end first.

Honestly - Farah didn't hear the doorbell must be one of the lamest excuses in the history of drug denial. Me thinks he was :sofa: knowing full well that he would test positive if he gave a sample that day. That's how cheats and sporting fraudsters work. They know full well when they will give a positive sample.

I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash, especially if and when USADA get involved and/or when the BBC release further evidence of skulduggery.

[Hibbyradge]

Does anyone think the drugs tester, knowing that he/she was expected, would just give the doorbell a single, short ring and then leave?

[Sergey]

Does anyone think the drugs tester, knowing that he/she was expected, would just give the doorbell a single, short ring and then leave?

Well, I for one don't - but some :ostrich: on this thread seem to give Mo the benefit of doubt.

Interesting article from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11684134/Revealed-There-have-been-224-cases-of-British-athletes-missing-drugs-tests-in-last-five-years.html


Farah was also being questioned on Thursday over claims that he missed the tests because he couldn't here testers knocking on the door of his Teddington home.

The credibility of that suggestion was compromised by information from UK Anti-Doping, which said officials would have been instructed to ring the bell of his home again or knock on the door around once every 15 minutes during the hour in which Farah was required to be available to provide an out-of-competition sample.

I contribute on a 'drugs in sport' forum and have done for 15 years. Mark my words, Farah/Salazar/NOP are pretty much bang to rights. The journalists involved can smell blood and there's little hope that Farah will escape unscathed.

BTW - I wasn't responsible for the typo in the Telegraph article :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Well, I for one don't - but some :ostrich: on this thread seem to give Mo the benefit of doubt.

Interesting article from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11684134/Revealed-There-have-been-224-cases-of-British-athletes-missing-drugs-tests-in-last-five-years.html



I contribute on a 'drugs in sport' forum and have done for 15 years. Mark my words, Farah/Salazar/NOP are pretty much bang to rights. The journalists involved can smell blood and there's little hope that Farah will escape unscathed.

BTW - I wasn't responsible for the typo in the Telegraph article :greengrin

Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty is a well established principle in law and elsewhere. I don't know why you find that position so hard to understand.

Why is your contribution to 'a drugs in sport forum' relevant? I can see this go off in the same direction as your epic 'Hearts are definitely going bust, honestly, I have contacts in Lithuania who know the score' threads. I think it's best you know the limitations of what you actually know.

[Haymaker]

As much as I would like for Mo to be clean and all above board, I just cant 100% believe there isn't something going on with all athletes: Runners, sprinters, footballers, rugby players...

[hibsbollah]

As much as I would like for Mo to be clean and all above board, I just cant 100% believe there isn't something going on with all athletes: Runners, sprinters, footballers, rugby players...


Theres probably a wider discussion to be had about where the line is drawn between what's legal and what isn't in certain sports. When you think about the pressures on athletes to succeed in high impact physical sports like say, track and field, cycling, rugby and the big four US sports, and the blurring of the boundaries between legal supplements, creatine et al on one extreme and human growth hormone on the other, is it sustainable to keep the current system in place? When you think about it, almost everything that really world class athletes put into their bodies (including food) is 'performance enhancing', and some of these substances are bad for the athletes long term health. How do you decide what is morally acceptable and what isn't? If I found out Russell Wilson was taking performance enhancing drugs tonight I wouldn't think of him as a worse person, morally. Although I'd be embarrassed about the bad publicity the team would be getting. I bet you'd be the same about Brady.

[Sergey]

Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty is a well established principle in law and elsewhere. I don't know why you find that position so hard to understand.

Why is your contribution to 'a drugs in sport forum' relevant? I can see this go off in the same direction as your epic 'Hearts are definitely going bust, honestly, I have contacts in Lithuania who know the score' threads. I think it's best you know the limitations of what you actually know.


:yawn:

You're clearly posting on a subject you know little/nothing about. Do yourself a favour and don't make a :clown: of yourself defending the indefensible (BTW - I've never really conversed with you before so don't take it personally - please). FWIW, I think that Farah would most likely have tested positive for a masking agent and not a PED. Most likely Furosemide which was the masking agent of choice in 2011/12.

Re the text in red - unless I dreamt it - didn't Hearts go bust?

Got to go - someone at the door!

[Hibbyradge]

Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty is a well established principle in law and elsewhere. I don't know why you find that position so hard to understand.


Of course you're right. In law he is innocent.

This, however, is a discussion forum where people are encouraged to discuss issues, usually polarising ones at that, and people are entitled to form views from whatever little information they get.

I've been cynical about athletics for many years. I had heard the allegations about Alan Wells in the mid 80's and I now view every winner with suspicion.

Mo Farah's "didn't hear the doorbell" story always struck me as weak and the information from UK Anti-Doping would suggest that Mo didn't hear the doorbell on at least 4 occasions during the hour that he was expecting a visit from them. What extraordinary bad luck!

I guess there are possible explanations. Maybe he was listening to a long podcast with his headphones on. Maybe he was on the nest.

However, if you told me you were coming round this evening between, say, 8 and 9 pm, I'd be looking out for you.

When you consider that situation, combined with the fact that his trainer is Salazar, and taking into account our knowledge about all the other drug cheats, it's easy to understand why folk will doubt his honesty.

I have almost no interest in athletics anymore because of the cheating. It stinks.

[liamh2202]

Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty is a well established principle in law and elsewhere. I don't know why you find that position so hard to understand.

Why is your contribution to 'a drugs in sport forum' relevant? I can see this go off in the same direction as your epic 'Hearts are definitely going bust, honestly, I have contacts in Lithuania who know the score' threads. I think it's best you know the limitations of what you actually know.

Unfortunately innocent until proven guilty is widely ignored nowadays . just look at the new legislation regarding car v cyclists or rape allegations

[hibsbollah]

:yawn:

You're clearly posting on a subject you know little/nothing about. Do yourself a favour and don't make a :clown: of yourself defending the indefensible (BTW - I've never really conversed with you before so don't take it personally - please). FWIW, I think that Farah would most likely have tested positive for a masking agent and not a PED. Most likely Furosemide which was the masking agent of choice in 2011/12.

Re the text in red - unless I dreamt it - didn't Hearts go bust?

Got to go - someone at the door!


If you dont realize the fool of yourself you've made with some of your 'inside knowledge' posts in the past I'm clearly conversing with the deluded.

[Hibbyradge]

Unfortunately innocent until proven guilty is widely ignored nowadays . just look at the new legislation regarding car v cyclists or rape allegations

I don't understand.

[Sergey]

If you dont realize the fool of yourself you've made with some of your 'inside knowledge' posts in the past I'm clearly conversing with the deluded.

I suggest the following:

Click on Forum Actions/General Settings/Ignore List

Add me to the list and no more deluded posts.

:bye:

[Haymaker]

Theres probably a wider discussion to be had about where the line is drawn between what's legal and what isn't in certain sports. When you think about the pressures on athletes to succeed in high impact physical sports like say, track and field, cycling, rugby and the big four US sports, and the blurring of the boundaries between legal supplements, creatine et al on one extreme and human growth hormone on the other, is it sustainable to keep the current system in place? When you think about it, almost everything that really world class athletes put into their bodies (including food) is 'performance enhancing', and some of these substances are bad for the athletes long term health. How do you decide what is morally acceptable and what isn't? If I found out Russell Wilson was taking performance enhancing drugs tonight I wouldn't think of him as a worse person, morally. Although I'd be embarrassed about the bad publicity the team would be getting. I bet you'd be the same about Brady.

Good post.

I am quite torn on the subject. On one hand I would like to see a fully clean, all your own work, talent and hard work etc etc sports, on the other hand I want to be entertained, so I want super fast sprinters, huge hits, high jumps, and if they are brought on by drugs, doping or anything deemed "illegal" would I be all that bothered?

As for the Brady comment, you are 100% correct. The recent scandal hasn't lowered my opinion of him, he is still the greatest, however the constant criticism is getting boring and embarrassing - not just towards the Patriots but the media pitbull-esque drive that isn't spread equally amongst other organisations. But that argument is for the NFL thread! :greengrin

[liamh2202]

I don't understand.

You don't think that people have been accused and faced trial by media before getting anywhere near a courtroom ?

[Hibbyradge]

You don't think that people have been accused and faced trial by media before getting anywhere near a courtroom ?

None come to mind. Certainly not rapists or cyclists/car drivers.

I do remember the guy getting accused of murdering a woman and being slaughtered by the press. In Brighton, I think.

However, you mentioned new legislation. I know of no new legislation.

[Sergey]

You don't think that people have been accused and faced trial by media before getting anywhere near a courtroom ?


None come to mind. Certainly not rapists or cyclists/car drivers.

I do remember the guy getting accused of murdering a woman and being slaughtered by the press. In Brighton, I think.

However, you mentioned new legislation. I know of no new legislation.

Lance Armstrong hasn't been anywhere near a courtroom yet - so is he still innocent :confused:

Trial by Media - I'm all for it. Let the accused 'prove' their innocence (Jimmy Saville and the other crocked innocents are excused)

[Purple & Green]

One of the difficulties is often journalists know more than they can publish or people just don't read what they write - especially true of what Paul Kimmage and David Walsh wrote about generally and lance Armstrong in particular. I never took to Lance, from the first time I seen him on a hill in Brighton and I remember his first live exchange with Kimmage. Shameful and disgusting character.

A couple of things, has anyone been decided clean after allegations?

It cracks me up when organisations point to testing as the safeguard when we know it's always been ineffective in catching the cheats.

Oh yeah - what are Walsh and Kimmage saying about farah?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Purple & Green]

Lance Armstrong hasn't been anywhere near a courtroom yet - so is he still innocent :confused:

No, because he confessed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sergey]

No, because he confessed.

I know - but what he is guilty of is only what he has admitted to. He's clearly guilty of far more sporting fraud than what is currently in the public domain. USADA will have their day in court.

Good to see you reference Kimmage and Walsh in your earlier communique. Both are cycling journalists but will have a lever into the Farah story. I still think the BBC are the folks with the evidence. We'll see.

I didn't get the Sunday Times today (and don't subscribe online) so I'm not too sure what is being said - but I very much doubt that the ST will be in the NOP/Farah camp.

I'm loving it...

[Beefster]

I contribute on a 'drugs in sport' forum and have done for 15 years

Very brave of you, Sergey. I don't feel quite so shameful about my internet habits any more.

[Pretty Boy]

Out of interest has any athlete ever been convicted for using a banned substance? Anabolic steroids are a controlled substance so surely the Police have a duty to interview someone caught using them? Has any trainer, chemist etc ever been convicted for supplying them to an athlete? And finally would there be grounds for a charge along the lines of fraud by false representation? Is using a masking agent to cheat a drugs test and entering sporting competition having used banned substances fraudulent behaviour?

[Purple & Green]

Willy Voets and Eric Rijkaert were convicted on the back of the festina affair in 1998 - soigneur and team doctor. I can't remember what happened to Ferrari or Conconi or the riders. No really dramatic sentences though.

[liamh2202]

None come to mind. Certainly not rapists or cyclists/car drivers.

I do remember the guy getting accused of murdering a woman and being slaughtered by the press. In Brighton, I think.

However, you mentioned new legislation. I know of no new legislation.

It was in the news a while back that they were planning on passing legislation that if a car and a cyclist were in a collision then the car had to prove it wasn't their fault rather than be proved it was.
On the other subject look at the amount of footballers that have been put through the ringer and their lives ruined because of some lassies claims without it ever going to court

[CropleyWasGod]

It was in the news a while back that they were planning on passing legislation that if a car and a cyclist were in a collision then the car had to prove it wasn't their fault rather than be proved it was.
On the other subject look at the amount of footballers that have been put through the ringer and their lives ruined because of some lassies claims without it ever going to court
The cycling "strict liability law" is not being planned yet. It's being campaigned for by cycling organisations, but it's nowhere near legislation.

As for the phrase "some lassies".....[emoji48]

[liamh2202]

The cycling "strict liability law" is not being planned yet. It's being campaigned for by cycling organisations, but it's nowhere near legislation.

As for the phrase "some lassies".....[emoji48]

Or indeed some lads claims but I haven't heard of any cases of that nature ? Cheers for clearing up the cycling thing I wasn't sure of the ins and outs just know it was a load of bull

[CropleyWasGod]

Or indeed some lads claims but I haven't heard of any cases of that nature ? Cheers for clearing up the cycling thing I wasn't sure of the ins and outs just know it was a load of bull

Whether it's a load of bull has still to be discussed. The UK is one of only 5 countries in Europe (the EU maybe), that doesn't have such a law.

As for your claims about "some lassies" ruining footballer's lives, I'm struggling to think of any.

Christopher Jeffries, on the other hand...... :cb.... and one (not necessarily me) might argue that his life has been enhanced, not ruined, by false accusations.

[liamh2202]

Whether it's a load of bull has still to be discussed. The UK is one of only 5 countries in Europe (the EU maybe), that doesn't have such a law.

As for your claims about "some lassies" ruining footballer's lives, I'm struggling to think of any.

Christopher Jeffries, on the other hand...... :cb.... and one (not necessarily me) might argue that his life has been enhanced, not ruined, by false accusations.

You have never read any stories where players have been publicaly vilified without going to trial ?

And yes it is bs that one party in an accident should be treated guilty before being proven that way.

[CropleyWasGod]

You have never read any stories where players have been publicaly vilified without going to trial ?

As I said, I am struggling to think of any. So I googled the words "wrongful rape accusation footballer". All I got was a US NFL player for the first 3 pages of the search. .... and one mention of Ched Evans.

Who else is there?

If you're talking about anonymity of the accused in rape and similar cases being preserved until the trial is over, I'm all for that. However, that's not just about footballers.

[liamh2202]

Keith Gillespie is the big one I remember as he won damages against a newspaper. Did Paul dickov not go through the ringer as well ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Keith Gillespie is the big one I remember as he won damages against a newspaper. Did Paul dickov not go through the ringer as well ?

This one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/3740807.stm

They went through the judicial process, and were cleared. However, "lives ruined"? Not sure about that one. In Gillespie's case, think there were other reasons for his life being "ruined".

[Hibbyradge]

It was in the news a while back that they were planning on passing legislation that if a car and a cyclist were in a collision then the car had to prove it wasn't their fault rather than be proved it was.

On the other subject look at the amount of footballers that have been put through the ringer and their lives ruined because of some lassies claims without it ever going to court

So there is no new legislation. It's unlikely there ever will be.

Which footballers are you referring to? :dunno:

Be very careful when you discuss rape. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html)

In any case, your point was that "Unfortunately innocent until proven guilty is widely ignored nowadays". It's not.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle which can be traced back to Roman Law, possibly even the book of Deuteronomy. As far as I know, there is no talk of Mo Farah being taken to court so his innocence will not be tested legally.

We are perfectly entitled to look at the evidence we have and come to any conclusion we like.

Your point seems to be that we should ignore all the evidence until the person is found guilty or admits the offence. That's ridiculous. The police would never be able to put someone into custody, if you followed that line to its logical conclusion.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty. Or what about Casey Anthony? Look her up (http://www.biography.com/people/casey-anthony-20660183#caylees-disappearance). Are you really telling me that I shouldn't think these people are murderers because they haven't been proven guilty? And those two are LEGALLY innocent!

I have no power over Mo Farah. I can't punish him and I can't reward him. What I think about him is inconsequential, but I'm allowed an opinion. I'm even allowed to wildly speculate without any circumstantial evidence at all.

In this case, however, there is is evidence and there are precedents.

[Hibbyradge]

I know this is off topic, but it's understandable that cycling campaigners would want drivers to have to prove that they were not responsible for an accident.

Scottish cyclists are far more likely to be killed on the road than their counterparts in countries like Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands - where drivers are already held liable for collisions.

People in those countries aren't better drivers because of geography. They just take more care because the law compels them to.

If the law in this country does change, and that's highly unlikely, I'll be investing in a dashboard cam.

I might get one anyway.

[Hibbyradge]

Seeing Ched Evans' name mentioned raises another point.

If "Innocent until proven guilty" is so sacrosanct, why are people allowed to say that he's innocent. :confused:

[McD]

I know this is off topic, but it's understandable that cycling campaigners would want drivers to have to prove that they were not responsible for an accident.

Scottish cyclists are far more likely to be killed on the road than their counterparts in countries like Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands - where drivers are already held liable for collisions.

People in those countries aren't better drivers because of geography. They just take more care because the law compels them to.

If the law in this country does change, and that's highly unlikely, I'll be investing in a dashboard cam.

I might get one anyway.



As someone who both cycles and drives on the road, I'd agree about the dashboard camera, some cyclists are horrendous road users(that's not all cyclists and there are many awful drivers also). A frequently observed example being cyclists who ignore red lights, often causing near misses with vehicles.

I do think there are some oddities in the highway code around cycling , such as:

- A driver could be prosecuted for not wearing a seatbelt, under the auspices of safety, but a cyclist isn't compelled to wear a helmet by law.

- A driver is required to have insurance (covering damage and medical treatment) in the event of an accident, but a cyclist is not.

I'm not sure it sits well that one would have to prove one's innocence simply because a cyclist points the finger or because they happen to have been on a bike rather than in a car.



PS Apologies for continuing off topic :)

[CropleyWasGod]

As someone who both cycles and drives on the road, I'd agree about the dashboard camera, some cyclists are horrendous road users(that's not all cyclists and there are many awful drivers also). A frequently observed example being cyclists who ignore red lights, often causing near misses with vehicles.

I do think there are some oddities in the highway code around cycling , such as:

- A driver could be prosecuted for not wearing a seatbelt, under the auspices of safety, but a cyclist isn't compelled to wear a helmet by law.

- A driver is required to have insurance (covering damage and medical treatment) in the event of an accident, but a cyclist is not.

I'm not sure it sits well that one would have to prove one's innocence simply because a cyclist points the finger or because they happen to have been on a bike rather than in a car.

As a fellow traveller, I share your misgivings.

However, perhaps (as Radge suggests), it's less about blame and more about protecting cyclists.

This is worth a thread of its own, of course..... :agree:

[McD]

As a fellow traveller, I share your misgivings.

However, perhaps (as Radge suggests), it's less about blame and more about protecting cyclists.

This is worth a thread of its own, of course..... :agree:


Agree CWG :)

[liamh2202]

So there is no new legislation. It's unlikely there ever will be.

Which footballers are you referring to? :dunno:

Be very careful when you discuss rape. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html)

In any case, your point was that "Unfortunately innocent until proven guilty is widely ignored nowadays". It's not.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle which can be traced back to Roman Law, possibly even the book of Deuteronomy. As far as I know, there is no talk of Mo Farah being taken to court so his innocence will not be tested legally.

We are perfectly entitled to look at the evidence we have and come to any conclusion we like.

YOUR POINT SEEMS TO BE THAT WE SHOULD IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCE UNTIL THE PERSON IS FOUND GUILTY OR ADMITS THE OFFENCE. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. THE POLICE WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO PUT SOMEONE INTO CUSTODY, IF YOU FOLLOWED THAT LINE TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty. Or what about Casey Anthony? Look her up (http://www.biography.com/people/casey-anthony-20660183#caylees-disappearance). Are you really telling me that I shouldn't think these people are murderers because they haven't been proven guilty? And those two are LEGALLY innocent!

I have no power over Mo Farah. I can't punish him and I can't reward him. What I think about him is inconsequential, but I'm allowed an opinion. I'm even allowed to wildly speculate without any circumstantial evidence at all.

In this case, however, there is is evidence and there are precedents.

At no point have I said I agreed with it mate. Was just an observation.

[Hibbyradge]

At no point have I said I agreed with it mate. Was just an observation.

Neither you did. :greengrin

[haagsehibby]

I know this is off topic, but it's understandable that cycling campaigners would want drivers to have to prove that they were not responsible for an accident.

Scottish cyclists are far more likely to be killed on the road than their counterparts in countries like Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands - where drivers are already held liable for collisions.

People in those countries aren't better drivers because of geography. They just take more care because the law compels them to.

If the law in this country does change, and that's highly unlikely, I'll be investing in a dashboard cam.

I might get one anyway.

As a resident of the Netherlands I would say the major reason there are fewer fatalities on Dutch roads is that the infrastructure for cycling is far better. Dedicated cycle lanes, traffic lights etc. and yes I drive while being aware of cyclists, it becomes second nature because cyclists are a major part of the transport system. However some cyclists (a healthy minority) here also are inclined to take the proverbial. i.e. not stopping at their dedicated lights or blithely pulling out in front of you because of the perception that they are never at fault.

[Future17]

Some of the contributions to this thread highlight that different people exercise different burdens of proof when forming their own opinions, as they are perfectly entitled to do. Some state that a person is innocent until proven guilty, others are happy to rely on where they consider the balance of probabilities falls.

In a situation like this (Salazar/Farah etc.), neither approach is without its limitations. It seems unlikely at present that Salazar will ever face criminal proceedings so that test will not be applied by a state or federal judiciary. However, to properly apply a “balance of probabilities” type test we would need a lot more information than is currently available in the public domain.

As Hibbyradge has said, this is a discussion forum and people will use it to put forward their opinions. What concerns me is that the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” exists, in part, to avoid rumours, innuendo, half-truths and blatant lies from blackening someone’s name. I can only imagine what it must be like to be on the other side of a smear campaign when you are innocent, but that imagination leads me to believe it must be a hundred times worse when it relates to achievements that you have worked incredibly hard for.

I can’t be sure that Farah is innocent, just as nobody on here can be sure he is guilty. It does worry me that some people seem all-too-ready to believe he is guilty based on, what appears to me, to be very little evidence. I hope, for those people’s sakes, they are never on the receiving end of harmful allegations which they may struggle to disprove.


So just because he's never failed a drug test means that he's clean and not taking PEDs and/or blood doping?
Lance Armstrong, Florence Griffith Joyner, and half the world of athletics/cycling/weightlifting could cite that in their defence - but it ain't really a categoric defence that would stand up in a court of law, is it? More-so when the aforementioned doped throughout their careers without getting caught.

So what is a “categoric defence that would stand up in a court of law?



I contribute on a 'drugs in sport' forum and have done for 15 years. Mark my words, Farah/Salazar/NOP are pretty much bang to rights. The journalists involved can smell blood and there's little hope that Farah will escape unscathed.

I’m not sure of the relevance of this to the discussion? Or do you mean you have access to information on the Salazar case (with regards to Farah) that the rest of us do not?


FWIW, I think that Farah would most likely have tested positive for a masking agent and not a PED. Most likely Furosemide which was the masking agent of choice in 2011/12.

What makes you think that?

[Andy Bee]

I know this is off topic, but it's understandable that cycling campaigners would want drivers to have to prove that they were not responsible for an accident.

Scottish cyclists are far more likely to be killed on the road than their counterparts in countries like Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands - where drivers are already held liable for collisions.

People in those countries aren't better drivers because of geography. They just take more care because the law compels them to.

If the law in this country does change, and that's highly unlikely, I'll be investing in a dashboard cam.

I might get one anyway.

As if not killing a cyclist has less motivation than getting done or not :confused: It's the British roads not being geared for cyclists that's the problem.

[lord bunberry]

I know this is off topic, but it's understandable that cycling campaigners would want drivers to have to prove that they were not responsible for an accident.

Scottish cyclists are far more likely to be killed on the road than their counterparts in countries like Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands - where drivers are already held liable for collisions.

People in those countries aren't better drivers because of geography. They just take more care because the law compels them to.

If the law in this country does change, and that's highly unlikely, I'll be investing in a dashboard cam.

I might get one anyway.
You should get a dashboard cam, in fact everyone should. After an incident with a lorry a couple of months ago I decided to get one. They only cost around £20 and they couldn't be easier to use.

[Bristolhibby]

As I said, I am struggling to think of any. So I googled the words "wrongful rape accusation footballer". All I got was a US NFL player for the first 3 pages of the search. .... and one mention of Ched Evans.

Who else is there?

If you're talking about anonymity of the accused in rape and similar cases being preserved until the trial is over, I'm all for that. However, that's not just about footballers.

Not sport, but Craig Charles (Lister from Red Dwarf) spent time in the big house on remand over false rape allegations.

[Sergey]

Ho ho ho - Poor wee PR has been fingered as a blood doper :aok:

The biggest drug cheat since LA.

[Hibrandenburg]

Ho ho ho - Poor wee PR has been fingered as a blood doper :aok:

The biggest drug cheat since LA.

Think she's tested positive for laxatives.

[Alex Trager]

Think she's tested positive for laxatives.

Anyone any idea what the situation is behind PR?

She has said a few times in an interview this morning that she urges those investigating to consider the context.

By context what does she mean?

Sergey on what do you base your claim that she is the biggest drug cheat since LA

[Future17]

Anyone any idea what the situation is behind PR?

She has said a few times in an interview this morning that she urges those investigating to consider the context.

By context what does she mean?

Sergey on what do you base your claim that she is the biggest drug cheat since LA

You're not actually expecting Sergey to back up the hyperbole he produces on this thread are you? :greengrin

[Sergey]

You're not actually expecting Sergey to back up the hyperbole he produces on this thread are you? :greengrin

I happen to have a PDF of her blood values. Only 3 tests and every one off the scale.

15450

[CapitalGreen]

I happen to have a PDF of her blood values. Only 3 tests and every one off the scale.

15450

Looks legit

[Beefster]

I happen to have a PDF of her blood values. Only 3 tests and every one off the scale.

15450

Someone's quickly made an Excel chart of Radcliffe's widely available readings and converted them to PDF before posting it on Twitter. I could have knocked it up in 5 minutes flat so it's hardly Deepthroat.

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-radcliffe-says-clear-her-name

I've no idea if she's a cheat or not but the Sky story seems to suggest that those 3 readings might not be out of the ordinary when the context is taken into account.

[bigwheel]

Someone's quickly made an Excel chart of Radcliffe's widely available readings and converted them to PDF before posting it on Twitter. I could have knocked it up in 5 minutes flat so it's hardly Deepthroat.

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-radcliffe-says-clear-her-name

I've no idea if she's a cheat or not but the Sky story seems to suggest that those 3 readings might not be out of the ordinary when the context is taken into account.

Could be a great example of facts and information putting a set of data in to context - on this thread this data was positioned as if it was "special info " - your reply made me chuckle

[Sergey]

Someone's quickly made an Excel chart of Radcliffe's widely available readings and converted them to PDF before posting it on Twitter. I could have knocked it up in 5 minutes flat so it's hardly Deepthroat.

http://news.sky.com/story/1550226/blood-tests-that-radcliffe-says-clear-her-name

I've no idea if she's a cheat or not but the Sky story seems to suggest that those 3 readings might not be out of the ordinary when the context is taken into account.

Here's an interesting article from a 'proper' scientific viewpoint that sheds some light on the matter and looks at PR's elevated off-score readings.

http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

It seems to me that PR wants to win over the majority who don't know what to believe. I personally think that she has no option than to release all her blood values for scrutiny.

The only course a clean athlete would have taken was to be completely open and transparent. Radcliffe did not do this. Threatening her lawyers on the media is now a sign (to me) that points to doping.

[JimBHibees]

Here's an interesting article from a 'proper' scientific viewpoint that sheds some light on the matter and looks at PR's elevated off-score readings.

http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

It seems to me that PR wants to win over the majority who don't know what to believe. I personally think that she has no option than to release all her blood values for scrutiny.

The only course a clean athlete would have taken was to be completely open and transparent. Radcliffe did not do this. Threatening her lawyers on the media is now a sign (to me) that points to doping.

Interesting as you say, the Portugal race having previously been stated as running in 30 degrees when the maximum temp was 24 with more common 21 throughout the day and the apparent fact that she had 90 mins after the race before being tested rather than immediately are IMO highly suspicious.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think athletics is in the same boat as cycling: if you are good enough to be among the elite then you are almost certainly on something. Probably tennis as well. I'd be amazed if there weren't a significant number of top footballers EPO'd up too.

[Alex Trager]

I think athletics is in the same boat as cycling: if you are good enough to be among the elite then you are almost certainly on something. Probably tennis as well. I'd be amazed if there weren't a significant number of top footballers EPO'd up too.

EPO'd?

Interesting you say that it's likely they're all on it if they are at the top level

[JeMeSouviens]

EPO'd?

Interesting you say that it's likely they're all on it if they are at the top level

EPO is a hormone that controls the amount of red blood cells you produce. More red blood cells = more oxygen carried round the body = you can train harder and for longer. Practically the entire professional cycling field was on it through the 90s and 00s. It's extremely hard to detect, David Millar was only caught because police found used syringes in his house, Armstrong was only caught after the fact and then by whistleblowers.

[JimBHibees]

Excellent article on the BBC site about doping in Rugby union. IMO not a huge surprise especially when you see the enormous change in body shape. Didn't realise Craig Chalmers son had been done with a doping offence. Quite simply two years isn't IMO a large enough punishment to discourage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34314851

[Sergey]

Excellent article on the BBC site about doping in Rugby union. IMO not a huge surprise especially when you see the enormous change in body shape. Didn't realise Craig Chalmers son had been done with a doping offence. Quite simply two years isn't IMO a large enough punishment to discourage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34314851

Here's an interesting read from Neil Francis that was published 12 months ago. You can't really say that the BBC are breaking a story here.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/neil-francis-ambivalence-towards-ped-abuse-in-sport-is-truly-galling-30602799.html

[JimBHibees]

Here's an interesting read from Neil Francis that was published 12 months ago. You can't really say that the BBC are breaking a story here.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/neil-francis-ambivalence-towards-ped-abuse-in-sport-is-truly-galling-30602799.html

Interesting read, yep incredible how sport appears to have turned a blind eye to this. I would reckon some sports stars who initially played clean probably reach a stage when they seriously consider doing what others do just to compete on some sort of level field.
Pretty depressing.

[Haymaker]

Interesting read, yep incredible how sport appears to have turned a blind eye to this. I would reckon some sports stars who initially played clean probably reach a stage when they seriously consider doing what others do just to compete on some sort of level field.
Pretty depressing.

:agree:

[Sergey]

There's rumours emanating from a Russian source that Mo Farah failed 4 doping controls that the IAAF covered-up.

I'll see if I can get a link that works, but the publication do seem to have a decent record of breaking stories.

[Future17]

There's rumours emanating from a Russian source that Mo Farah failed 4 doping controls that the IAAF covered-up.

I'll see if I can get a link that works, but the publication do seem to have a decent record of breaking stories.

If anyone would know it would be the Russians. :greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

maybe leave the woman alone now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34948287



Paula Radcliffe says she is relieved to have been vindicated after the IAAF and the UK Anti-Doping agency (UKAD) found her innocent of blood doping.

On Friday, the IAAF said the allegations were "a gross misinterpretation of raw data".

i wonder if she will sue anyone for the false allegations

[Allant1981]

Here's an interesting article from a 'proper' scientific viewpoint that sheds some light on the matter and looks at PR's elevated off-score readings.

http://sportsscientists.com/2015/09/paula-radcliffe-off-scores-and-transparency/

It seems to me that PR wants to win over the majority who don't know what to believe. I personally think that she has no option than to release all her blood values for scrutiny.

The only course a clean athlete would have taken was to be completely open and transparent. Radcliffe did not do this. Threatening her lawyers on the media is now a sign (to me) that points to doping.

So you will be wrong about this then seeing as she has now been cleared

[chinaman]

maybe leave the woman alone now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34948287



Paula Radcliffe says she is relieved to have been vindicated after the IAAF and the UK Anti-Doping agency (UKAD) found her innocent of blood doping.

On Friday, the IAAF said the allegations were "a gross misinterpretation of raw data".

i wonder if she will sue anyone for the false allegations
Get her on the Jeremy vyle show and do a lie detector test😠😆

[JeMeSouviens]

So you will be wrong about this then seeing as she has now been cleared

Cleared by an organisation whose vice-president (Seb Coe) called the allegations "a declaration of war on my sport" and said they should "come out fighting". Nothing like pre-judging the issue. Personally I think they should come out investigating until they know wtf's been going on. He has a few questions to answer does the noble lord ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34789003

btw, I have no idea if Paula Radcliffe blood doped or not, but I wouldn't take the word of the IAAF as compelling evidence either way.

[Sergey]

She also give this blood-curdling interview to the Daily Mail today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3337959/Horror-Paris-meant-clear-drugs-Paula-Radcliffe-tells-feared-dying-tarnished-reputation-interview-cleared-doping.html#comments

Using the events in Paris to justify her talking out her arse about her dodgy blood values. WTF? Very weird blood results that were attributed to altitude and now she says it wasn't altitude when scientists cross-referenced and found out she wasn't at altitude. What colour is the sky in these peoples world, FFS?

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck. It normally is a duck.

The lady doth protest too much.

[Hibrandenburg]

She also give this blood-curdling interview to the Daily Mail today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3337959/Horror-Paris-meant-clear-drugs-Paula-Radcliffe-tells-feared-dying-tarnished-reputation-interview-cleared-doping.html#comments

Using the events in Paris to justify her talking out her arse about her dodgy blood values. WTF? Very weird blood results that were attributed to altitude and now she says it wasn't altitude when scientists cross-referenced and found out she wasn't at altitude. What colour is the sky in these peoples world, FFS?

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck. It normally is a duck.

The lady doth protest too much.

It's the Daily Mail mate, they always have a strange slant to any story and are no strangers to the notion of putting words in people's mouths or twisting the truth.