Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Doping is everywhere [ether] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
regarding the allegations in the press did you hear how angry seb coe was?He clearly thinks the press are so full of it. Theres alot of ignorance in the press and media in general I would take all of it with a pinch of salt. I think the real truth is that drug taking is a bit more widespread than we have seen in the past but not as bad as the press are making out now.

To show you how misguided the press is about most things I was watching the swimming at the world champs and the bbc was raving about a world record being broken several times in the same meet. saying there must be something in the water in Russia implying drugs (i think) however the ignorant who wrote the article knew nothing about drugs and swimming in general as that event is hardly ever run so an incredibly soft record.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
I don't think is about pulling people down, envy or anything other than to acknowledge that some people that are drafting their way to corner we're all happy to sit here and state they're shit for doing it, but the thought that others are doping seems inconceivable - thats a cognitive dissonance

you may be clean, many others may be clean but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to consider as ONE possibility that if the pack of people passing you on lap one at 28 mph separated by 5m don't appear to have an issue with drafting, its not a huge leap to think that they might choose other means of gaining an advantage

It is not a huge leap that some people may cheat. But it is not the epidemic the slow people would like to think it is.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [snackchair] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
snackchair wrote:
I didn't even think you needed a TUE for common asthma meds like albuterol inhalers below a reasonable threshold?

You don't. The threshold is pretty high (20 puffs of albuterol, I believe). Above that level the TUE comes into play, with different rules for elites and non-elites
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [aravilare] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
aravilare wrote:
...

What does it matter that they dope? At the end of the day, only the athletes' health will suffer and they reaped the benefits.

To this common refrain, I always have a couple questions for starters:

1) Do you have kids?
2) How young should they start juicing to be 'competitive'?
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [nslckevin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How I basically view the vast majority of TUEs:

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

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OneGoodLeg wrote:
aravilare wrote:

...

What does it matter that they dope? At the end of the day, only the athletes' health will suffer and they reaped the benefits.


To this common refrain, I always have a couple questions for starters:

1) Do you have kids?
2) How young should they start juicing to be 'competitive'?

No, but they'll be taking caffeine when they start studying for the SAT in sixth grade.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [aravilare] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
No, but they'll be taking caffeine when they start studying for the SAT in sixth grade.
And when they get older, some will look for adderall.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [bootcamp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bootcamp wrote:
Quote:
No, but they'll be taking caffeine when they start studying for the SAT in sixth grade.

And when they get older, some will look for adderall.

Just make sure to get an ADHD diagnosis first.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [Rocketman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
as someone that moves backwards on the bike and forwards on the run I have the pleasure of seeing it in action usually, so out of water on to bike and then swathes of packs passed me at both Zurich and Nice, part of the problem in Nice, and I spoke to someone who was busted with a penalty is that riding out of town along the coast, when the mean swim time is, lets say, 1.10, you have 1000-1500 people getting out between an hour and 1.20 and he was caught and done for drafting but given there is no space that you'd have thought would have been discretionary perhaps, but 120+ k later on the out and back it was just a long procession of packs optimising their position

I'd also say, its not slow people saying this, Rappstar pointed out that its happening repeatedly at the pointy end
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [Andrewmc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Andrewmc wrote:
as someone that moves backwards on the bike and forwards on the run I have the pleasure of seeing it in action usually, so out of water on to bike and then swathes of packs passed me at both Zurich and Nice, part of the problem in Nice, and I spoke to someone who was busted with a penalty is that riding out of town along the coast, when the mean swim time is, lets say, 1.10, you have 1000-1500 people getting out between an hour and 1.20 and he was caught and done for drafting but given there is no space that you'd have thought would have been discretionary perhaps, but 120+ k later on the out and back it was just a long procession of packs optimising their position

I'd also say, its not slow people saying this, Rappstar pointed out that its happening repeatedly at the pointy end


You do realise this is about doping don't you? None of what you typed has anything to do with doping. I do acknowledge your attempt to refer to a higher authority, but if Mr Rappstar does have evidence of doping he should refer it to the authorities. My response to your previous was in regards to your implying that if people are drafting they are also probably doping....that is drawing a looooooong bow. It is possible some of those people are, but no more possible than people that are not drafting. Instead of focussing externally people should look inside as to why they are not reaching their goals or why someone is faster than they are rather than making sweeping claims of cheating without evidence.
Last edited by: Rocketman: Aug 6, 15 15:04
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [ether] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Apologize if this is posted elsewhere in the thread (I did not see it) but this is an excellent read on the reality of doping in athletics. Victor Conte might be bad guy (BALCO) but he knows what he's talking about regarding how easy it is to pass tests and how the governing bodies really don't try very hard to bust people. Also talks about new drugs not being tested for yet.


This is a 4-part piece in Japan Times. First part here and links the rest of series at the bottom of the article:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2015/08/04/more-sports/conte-expects-salazar-banned/#.Vc46W_lViy0
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [cantswim24] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
People should remember it was The Sunday Times who were one of the first to expose Armstrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...t/0/cycling/23830777


Please read this open letter from Ashenden to Coe.



Dear Lord Coe,

I trace my passion for antidoping back to one morning in the athlete’s dining hall at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS). I sat alone with an athlete who was jetlagged from his 24 hour flight back from world championships. Working then as an exercise physiologist, I too had been up all night performing hourly checks on athletes sleeping in our simulated altitude facility as part of their preparation for international competition. These odd hours meant that we were alone in the cavernous dining hall, and our fatigue was a window for introspection.

The young man was dejected in the manner unique to athletes when they experience losing. But it ran deeper than that. He was certain in his mind that he had been beaten by dope cheats, even though they had all been subject to urine testing in the lead up to the championships. He also knew I was involved with nascent research into a blood test for EPO. What stung me deeply at the time, but eventually became my touchstone, was his challenge to me: ‘You anti-doping guys don’t care as much about catching cheats as I do about winning.’

So I would pose the same question to you. Does the IAAF pursue its anti-doping mandate with the same single-minded, all-consuming dedication that athletes adopt in their pursuit of winning? Based on what I saw in the leaked database, my view is ‘No’.

Let’s look at the figures. In its 2011 publication (and reiterated in its press release on 4th August), the IAAF estimated that 14% of your elite endurance athletes had blood doped during the 2001-09 era. That’s 700 blood dopers. Since 2011, just 63 Passport cases have been pursued by the IAAF. Publicly available documents list 72 positive cases for EPO (including CERA, admissions) in athletics between 2001 and now. To be ultra-conservative, let’s add around 50% to those totals, and assume 200 sanctions for blood doping have or will be issued against athletes who raced through 2009. Based on the IAAF’s own publication, there are likely to be 500 athletes who cheated, competed, and got away.

It is clear from results in the database that serious problems emerged in Russia around 2005. Yet the IAAF chose not to join other sports, such as cycling, cross country skiing, biathlon and speed skating, who had adopted ‘no start’ rules in an attempt to stem the tide. It is true even those rules can be circumvented, but it is undeniable that they place something of a ceiling on competitor’s blood values. I recognise that hindsight is 20/20, but in my view the IAAF could have done more when the spectre of widespread Russian doping first appeared.

For the record, I applaud the innovative use of DNA techniques that eventually led to sanctions for some competitors in the women’s 1500 metres in Helsinki 10 years ago. There is no question that it reflects determined and vigorous pursuit of those athletes on the part of your anti-doping department.

What I believe it also illustrates is that the IAAF suspected sophisticated, planned cheating by Russian athletes. According to comments attributed by the BBC to honorary life vice-president of IAAF Professor Arne Ljungqvist in August 2008, he thought that the urine tampering episode seemed to be “an example of systematic planned doping.”

How then will history view the performance of the IAAF anti-doping department, if it was aware in August 2008 that systematic doping might have penetrated Russian athletics?

The following year, having painstakingly collected blood samples since 2001 to refine its risk profile of suspect athletes, the IAAF finally had resort to impose sanctions via its freshly- minted, WADA-endorsed Passport. During the first year of operation in 2009, the database reveals that the third-highest OFF score amongst all 785 female samples came from Russian Liliya Shobukhova. And it came two days before she won the 2009 Chicago marathon.

I would like to think that the third highest OFF score for the entire year, collected from an athlete who won a major marathon, and who came from a country which the IAAF suspected had some level of systematic doping, triggered the IAAF’s suspicion.

Indeed, the IAAF could see from its historical data that Shobukhova first presented an abnormal OFF score in June 2005. Her historical results show that her blood values were substantially lower out of season, and had been dramatically lower just a few weeks before the Chicago victory.

I assume that Shobukhova had been the subject of targeted urine testing since 2005, but evidently this strategy had failed to detect a prohibited substance. In the face of what I assume were repeated attempts and failures, the opportunity that presented itself in 2009 to pursue Shobukhova via the Passport must have seemed a godsend. In fact, I cannot conceive of a scenario more ideally suited to the pursuit of a passport-based sanction.

Yet the database indicates Shobukhova was not blood tested again until July 2010. In the months that followed, almost inexplicably, it seems she was not even blood tested when she won her second Chicago marathon in October of that year.

Setting to one side the apparent gap in blood tests, what the database does show are enormous fluctuations in her profile between July 2009 and July 2010. All these samples were collected under WADA guidelines, which dictate clearly how the IAAF’s expert must classify the profile. Unless it is ‘normal’ or a ‘pathology’ (which can both be excluded given that her eventual infraction stretched back to October 2009) then the initial expert must either request target testing or else trigger a full review of the profile by all three expert panelists.

Yet there is no evidence of blood tests in the database until April 2011 when Shobukhova placed second at the London marathon (again with highly abnormal blood values).

Thereafter, a follow up test was collected in July 2011, and in fact this provided yet more assurance that her high OFF scores during major marathons were not normal. The last database result alongside her name was collected a couple of months later in October when Shobukhova won the Chicago marathon a third time with her highest ever OFF score...

In a nutshell, two years after Shobukhova first won the Chicago marathon with highly abnormal blood results, she won a third Chicago marathon with even more extreme blood values. The Sunday Times published an extensive expose on Shobukhova, who they reported was the top female marathon runner in the world during this period. My question to you is simple: Do you think the IAAF could have done better?

On a related note, I agree with London marathon chief executive Nick Bitel that the IAAF needs to do more to stop people with abnormal blood values from competing.

One option is to revisit a ‘no start’ rule, at least for world championships and major marathons. WADA have advised unequivocally that so-called ‘no start’ rules fall outside their strict anti- doping remit, and consequently it hands complete responsibility over to the federations to implement their own ‘no start’ rules.

May I suggest one avenue that the IAAF might explore? WADA’s ABP software automatically generates a so-called ‘sequence probability’ for individual athletes that seems ideally suited for ‘no start’ rules. Such an approach would require no additional sample collection or financial outlay, as the IAAF are already collecting blood samples from all competitors at the world championships, and evidently many major marathons.

Many objections to these ‘no start’ rules centre around the possibility that innocent athletes might be ruled ineligible. However, I note the comments attributed to you in The Guardian last December, where you spoke of the possibility to suspend the Russian federation if it was concluded they were not “in good standing”. Even if it was assumed that 80% of Russians were blood doping, that would still mean that the 20% of innocent athletes would be precluded from competition if the IAAF invoked that clause. I can assure you that a ‘no start’ rule would never wrongly exclude 20% of athletes.

All that remains is for the IAAF to legislate a ceiling of normality beyond which athletes will be unable to compete. Now that would truly be an example of the IAAF pioneering the way.

But there is also much more that the IAAF could do.

Shifting responsibility for antidoping to an independent entity funded but not controlled by the IAAF is a no-brainer. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I am confident that a dedicated organisation like Transparency International would have an existing template, or at least clear guidelines, on how to set up such an entity. I anticipate that would receive universal approval.

Additional reforms could also be introduced. In 2009 Major League Baseball created an independent Department of Investigations tasked with broad authority to take action to protect the integrity of its sport. One need look no further than the outcome of USADA’s investigation into Lance Armstrong to recognise the potential benefit. As the Mitchell Report noted, the ability to investigate vigorously allegations of doping is an essential part of any meaningful drug prevention programme, yet to the best of my knowledge the IAAF does not have this capacity.

Which brings me to another point. I am surprised to read statements which suggest that the IAAF’s position is that pre-2009 blood values in your database have no legal standing whatsoever. The IAAF is aware from the precedents evident in USADA vs. Tim Montgomery CAS 2004/O/645, that doping offences can be proved by a variety of means. In that particular case, USADA submitted alleged abnormal blood test results collected on five occasions between November 2000 and July 2001. It is correct that convictions are more difficult via this route, however, as the CAS panel declared when ruling on Mr Montgomery, that difficulty “must not prevent the sports authorities from prosecuting such offenses...with the utmost earnestness and eagerness, using any available method of investigation.”

Again, it comes back to how single-minded the IAAF chooses to be with respect to the pursuit of drug cheats. Is it reasonable for athletes to ask the IAAF to cut back on glamorous gala presentations and dedicate those savings toward establishment of an investigations department?

Similarly, should the IAAF be so brave as to pursue uncertain legal cases, perhaps against high profile athletes, if the consequences of a loss might threaten its very existence? USADA’s pursuit of Lance Armstrong, in the face of very real threats that the entire organisation might be obliterated by legal and political retribution, demonstrated to the rest of the world where USADA’s priorities lie. So my question to you is: Do you maintain that the IAAF matches USADA’s zeal?

Finally, it would be remiss not to respond to the IAAF’s second press release criticising my role in the Sunday Times story.

After we had responded to each and every one of the IAAF’s initial ‘serious reservations’ concerning the analyses we undertook, the single remaining strand of criticism centred on the assertion that we “had no knowledge whatsoever of the actions taken by the IAAF in following these suspicious profiles”. For the sake of completeness, I will address that assertion too.

First, although the Sunday Times cross matched athletes with competition results and any history of sanctions, they shared this information with us after we had submitted our opinions but before we were interviewed for the publications. Consequently, we did know which athletes had been sanctioned by the IAAF. Moreover, relying on the information provided in advance by the IAAF to Sunday Times, we were also familiar with the number of ABP cases (final, under appeal, and pending).

Second, the WADA ABP Operating Guidelines indicate how targeted blood tests on suspicious athletes should be scheduled. Indeed, I participated in the development of those strategies. Consequently, by interrogating the frequency of blood tests following a suspicious blood result, I was able to form an opinion on the robustness of the IAAF’s follow up programme.

So in closing, although you deplore my participation in the revelations by the Sunday Times and ARD/WDR, I maintain that had I walked away from an opportunity to agitate for change then I would have betrayed every voiceless athlete who has been cheated out of podium glory since 2001. And I would have betrayed the litmus test I adopted soon after my breakfast in the AIS dining hall – I would not have been doing my utmost to prevent doping in sport.

Yours faithfully, Michael Ashenden, PhD ENDS
Last edited by: Trev: Aug 15, 15 4:06
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [TxDude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TxDude wrote:
Apologize if this is posted elsewhere in the thread (I did not see it) but this is an excellent read on the reality of doping in athletics. Victor Conte might be bad guy (BALCO) but he knows what he's talking about regarding how easy it is to pass tests and how the governing bodies really don't try very hard to bust people. Also talks about new drugs not being tested for yet.

This is a 4-part piece in Japan Times. First part here and links the rest of series at the bottom of the article:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2015/08/04/more-sports/conte-expects-salazar-banned/#.Vc46W_lViy0


Wow, the testing system is more of a joke than we can imagine, and Conte backs it up with details.
Great link, great article, thanks.

The IOC released the following numbers after the 2012 London Olympics: 5,051 drug tests were conducted during the Olympiad, with 9 positive cases reported.The startlingly low number of failed doping tests is hardly surprising to Conte. Why? “Well,” he said, “that’s because the testing is so inept it’s ridiculous."
...
“Is there a genuine interest in catching these athletes?” Conte said. “I don’t think there is. That’s what is the problem.”

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook

--
Last edited by: DarkSpeedWorks: Aug 15, 15 5:54
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [Trev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Seems like a very well written, non emotional, challenge.

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [Craig P] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Craig P wrote:
Kind of like IM's CEO challenge. How the hell do you think you get to be a CEO of a corporation...what traits bring you to that point? Kind, fair, generous, empathic. The sport attracts people with traits that put then in "likely doping" category. Competitive + Ego + means to acquire= likelihood of cheating.

You can have all these things and be clean, although they are all risk factors. The "magic ingredient" is between the ears, though: sufficient narcissism to cheat and justify it, or psychopathy enough not to care what you take from others.

Dirtymangos is right; in addition to stealing it from legit athletes, cheaters turn an actual accomplishment into a big steamy turd by stealing it.

--------------
Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [Rocketman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rocketman wrote:
, but if Mr Rappstar does have evidence of doping he should refer it to the authorities


That's just the thing. The best evidence is a rest result. And to get that evidence you have to actually test. Which is why the suggestions to do at least some testing in the AG ranks.

As Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Rocketman wrote:
, but if Mr Rappstar does have evidence of doping he should refer it to the authorities


That's just the thing. The best evidence is a rest result. And to get that evidence you have to actually test. Which is why the suggestions to do at least some testing in the AG ranks.

As Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."

The best evidence is the evidence which gets a conviction or exposes the cheats.
Armstrong was not banned as a result of failed tests. He was convicted by testimony, despite his cowardly pathetic efforts to frighten witnesses.

Yes test, but there are other ways to catch the biggest cheats, who are invariably one or two steps ahead of the testers.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [DarkSpeedWorks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
More today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...0/athletics/33948924

A third admit to cheating.
Quote Reply
Re: Doping is everywhere [Trev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trev wrote:
More today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...0/athletics/33948924

A third admit to cheating.

Follow the money. They really really do not care at the end of the day. Can you say behind the curtain.

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Quote Reply

Prev Next