UK ATHLETICS has found no evidence of wrongdoing by Mo Farah in the initial findings of its investigation into allegations of doping against his coach Alberto Salazar.
The governing body also said its investigation had not given it "any reason to question the appropriateness of the input" given by the Nike Oregon Project to the double Olympic champion's training regime.
UKA launched a review following allegations broadcast in a BBC Panorama programme in June that Salazar, the head coach at the Nike Oregon Project in Portland, where Farah trains, had violated several anti-doping rules.
Salazar, who is an 'unpaid consultant' for UKA, has strenuously denied all the accusations against him and Farah, who was not accused of any wrongdoing in the BBC documentary, has vowed to stick by his coach unless any allegations are proven.
UKA launched a review into the American's relationship with the governing body and Farah, which was undertaken by its three-person Performance Oversight Group, comprising former athletes Jason Gardener, Dr Sarah Rowell and Anne Wafula-Strike.
A statement from UKA said: "With reference to the first and most vital objective of the review, the Board can confirm that none of the extensive information supplied to the POG contained any evidence of impropriety on the part of Mo Farah, nor gave UK Athletics any reason to question the appropriateness of the input given by the Oregon Project to Mo Farah's training regime."
Farah was questioned by the United States Anti-Doping Agency in a routine meeting at a central London hotel on Saturday, a day after he received a warm reception on a winning return to the Olympic Stadium for the Sainsbury's Anniversary Games.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel