UKC

When, if ever, is it okay to discuss potential drugs cheats on public forums?

I think a certain fairly high profile sports person is quite likely a drugs cheat. They hired a coach previously involved with a drugs cheat, saw dramatic physical improvement, and became particularly angry. Some people think without proof this shouldn't be discussed publicly for fear of tarring an innocent party. I'm not so sure but interested in people's views.

(Ignoring legal concerns)

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Ok so first question - what's your personal interest or relationship to this particular person or situation? How far removed from it are you?

If you are close in and know things then the response ought to be that you need to escalate your concerns through the relevant governing bodies.

If you are not close in then you risk being a gossip, (at best) or libellous, (at worst).

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


That's what I think.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Their coach and that person's history is a matter of public record, as is their improvement. The "became particularly angry" bit could be a bit tricky.

Now I would say that that you wouldn't be at risk of libel if you said "Has anyone noticed the improvement in X since they started working with Y ?", but the Sally Bercow case makes me wonder

In reply to sebastian dangerfield: i know someone who is often accused of being a drugs cheat. My starting point would be , how well do you know the person? Is this a personal , first hand observation or just guessy guessy from whats on TV? The latter is likely not a very reliable starting point.

In reply to Rampikino:

I don't know the person at all! This is all public information. I expect in a sport like cycling it would be being discussed but this sport, at the top level, doesn't really have a history of doping. It's a sport where it would clearly help too, which makes you wonder how robust their testing is.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

I hate Drugs cheats! Bought some coke last week and it turned out to be talcum powder. I was livid!

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

How would this differ from discussing a couple about whom it is often implied were involved in the disappearance of a younger relative?

If there was sufficient evidence, there would be a conviction.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Ps they all dunnit. Totally guilty. The lot of 'em.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Haha!

In reply to SiGregory:

Er... well it's a much, much less serious thing..

The point with this is obviously there's not sufficient evidence unless he fails a test. Should the public discuss suspicions?

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Drug cheats? Yeah, I hate it when my smack is cut with Ajax.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

When did you last beat your wife?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I'm not sure you understand how a loaded question works.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

name that sport..

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

youtube.com/watch?v=KGPI7vu3z8w&

In reply to malk:

Tennis faces its day of reckoning at some point in the future.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
Some 20 years ago I was friends with someone on a prominent gb team, who 'claimed' they were clean, but x and y (household names) were using stuff and employing chemist to then develop other masking drugs.

Did I then go public, of course not. Whilst it's as likely as unlikely to be true. I had zero evidence and it could be rivalry, personality clash or jealously that started the rumour spreading etc.. if my friend really believed it, then it was up to them to take it through the proper channels.

If you know something to be true, then speak out.

In reply to malk:

rugby

In reply to summo:

I don't know anything other than the stuff in the op, which is public information. Just asking if people think these things should be discussed.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Ian Hislop always said that using the word 'allegedly' was a good start to avoid libel laws

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Its already been covered

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/ali-williams-oconnor-in-paris-cocaine-arres...

In reply to sebastian dangerfield: certainly a sport with a problem. You can ask the RFU for testing stats to see if that ressurs you - it probably won't.

I still think public discussion thats pure fishing is rather poor though. Simply choose not to watch

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Head to The Clinic forum on cycling news.... Where libel laws seem to not apply. Unfortunately the posters that lurk there seem to be proved correct on an alarmingly regular basis. But the hatred and unsubstantiated accusations on there need to be seen to be believed.

In reply to wbo:

I don't think it would be pure fishing.

In reply to thermal_t:


I'll check it out.

I think this is the point though - often (normally?) things that look dodgy, are. If they were discussed more openly, people would be less likely to do them in the first place.

In reply to SiGregory:


Sufficient evidence might exist, but just not been uncovered.

In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):


Fixed that for you

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

someone hasnt been on ped until its proven or they admit it

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


That's nothing. . .. I bought some Coke and it turned out to be Pepsi!

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


There should be a bloody law against this...

In reply to mark s:

except when they have!