In defence of Mo Farah

Judging from the commotion, you’d have thought Mo Farah had been convicted of first-degree murder.

The double Olympic champion’s image was plastered across the internet, the words ‘missed two drugs tests’ an unwelcome caption. The Daily Mail had uncovered accounts of Farah’s missed tests – one from early 2010 and another in 2011 – that threatened his participation at London 2012. Answers were being demanded.

Only, he hadn’t broken any rules. 

The leak followed claims on a BBC Panorama documentary ‘Catch Me If You Can’ that Alberto Salazar, Farah’s coach, had used illicit methods. Among the allegations, it was suggested Galen Rupp – silver medallist behind training partner Farah over 10,000m at the London Games – was put on testosterone medication aged 16. Both Salazar and Rupp deny the allegations.

Farah’s name was shoehorned into every headline, opening paragraph and interview as the alleged scandal unfolded – despite none of the claims being directed at him. The latest revelation only heightens that suspicion, sparking a 'guilt debate' even when there is no evidence of doping.

Of course he should face scrutiny – he’s Salazar’s leading star and, as such, will inevitably be dragged into the furore. However, for accusations to follow two missed drugs tests, when he didn’t fall foul of the rules, sets a dangerous precedent.

Rightly or wrongly, two missed tests are allowed in a year (or 18 months prior to 2013). There has to be a line when human error is judged to be something more severe and, currently, that line is three.

Farah’s ‘doorbell’ excuse for the second test is flimsy, but he shouldn’t have to face an outcry unless his peers are subjected to the same treatment. New data released by UK anti-doping and published by The Telegraph showed 43 cases of missed tests in 2010 and 66 cases in 2011 – the two years Farah finds himself under examination for.

He’s high profile and has made a healthy living from his career, but that doesn’t mean he should be subjected to a campaign without hard evidence.

That is not to admonish him of responsibility – coming within one test of getting a drugs ban is at best careless – and yet this announcement seems intent only on knocking him, rather than raising awareness of the daily risk sportspeople face. 

Athletes stepped out on social media to voice support for the beleaguered athlete, many admitting that a drugs test had too slipped their mind. The counter-argument – that it’s their job and should be their primary concern – has some weight, but again: Farah had technically done nothing wrong.

This is the sort of story that should be revealed alongside evidence – not one acting as evidence. Three strikes and you’re out; fewer than three and you’re free to continue. Like it or not, those are the rules.

If Farah’s legacy is going to be dismantled by an athletics world all-too keen to avoid being fooled again following a spate of drugs scandals, then there must be a system in place that reveals everyone who has missed a drugs test – allowing questions to be bombarded at all of them, and not just a select individual.

The Panorama documentary alerted people to the fact that drug tests were easy to cheat. Suspicion is at an all-time high, with trust in athletics already on the verge of extinction. But you can’t hold a trial without evidence – evidence which is wholly absent in the case of Farah.

Focus must instead return to the testing procedures. That is the only way to restore faith in the sport. Currently, they’re clearly not working – perhaps why so many people are jumping to their own conclusions. Muddying the debate with a story that infers guilt, and does not prove it, will not fix the sport.