Log in:  

Register

Doping in XC skiing

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: peloton, Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Tonton, Pricey_sky

Re: Doping in XC skiing

08 Mar 2017 10:37

olhell wrote:
Discgear wrote:FIS Doping Panel was behind today’s decision. Who they are is hidden in the shadows except the chair, who is Canadian Patrick Smith. I don’t think that FIS Medical Committee with 34 members is the same as FIS Doping Panel. From Kowalczyk verdict we know they were four altogether. They made a fool of themselves in her case and last year when they acquitted Johnsrud Sundby. Maybe they have changed their members now? Or maybe they didn’t want to lose face again. My guess it was the FIS Medical Committee who protested against the Doping Panel when they failed to see any wrong doings in Johnsrud Sundby case. It would be so very interesting to have information of who is seated in the panel now and before.


Andreas Selliaas, a norwegian independent journalist, contacted FIS Communications Manager Jenny Wenneke yesterday(?) asking this exact question. Did not help him much.
Write-up (in norwegian) here: http://www.andreasselliaas.no/2017/03/07/johaug-saken-dreier-seg-kun-om-politikk/

good information, thanx.

if andreas selliaas is an independent journo, i wonder WHY he did not inquire about the names of the secret fis panel DURING the sundby doping trial. the fis doping panel was secret then(when it went the norwegian way) and it is secret now, when it went against the norwegian darling...

i could be wrong, but discgear will correct me, the question of who sat on the fis sundby panel that acquitted him was first raised by me in this thread. not that i am seeking some fame or something, but to me it was a natural, logical question to ask. needless to mention i read the major norwegian media daily. i searched and searched and not once had i seen the natural question raised by ANY norwegian journo. discgear came to the same conclusion too. independently. i can assure everyone we do not pm or email each other.

suddenly, we have some 'independent' norwegian concerned with the fis secrecy as if it was just instituted to screw up lil therese.

moreover, that piece by andreas is remarkable in another way. besides alluding to the idiotic gender theory that it could have been the 17 old white men (of the total 19 fis council members) that colluded...it also builds a possible conspiracy by the fis swedish, finnish and russian members.

independent my **** that journo is :rolleyes:
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,240
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: Doping in XC skiing

08 Mar 2017 17:03

There's been plenty more paranoia and conspiracy theories in the comments sections in the Norwegian media, Python. :rolleyes:

The skiforbundet is deciding whether to continue covering Johaug's legal costs. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/-Skiledelsen-i-hastemote-for-a-avgjore-Johaug-stotte-231872b.html Sundby cost 3.3. million NOK, Johaug 600 000 so far. To be consistent, they should.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 133
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

Re: Doping in XC skiing

09 Mar 2017 13:14

Blaaswix wrote:There's been plenty more paranoia and conspiracy theories in the comments sections in the Norwegian media, Python. :rolleyes:

The skiforbundet is deciding whether to continue covering Johaug's legal costs. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/-Skiledelsen-i-hastemote-for-a-avgjore-Johaug-stotte-231872b.html Sundby cost 3.3. million NOK, Johaug 600 000 so far. To be consistent, they should.

The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Doping in XC skiing

09 Mar 2017 14:32

Discgear wrote:
Blaaswix wrote:There's been plenty more paranoia and conspiracy theories in the comments sections in the Norwegian media, Python. :rolleyes:

The skiforbundet is deciding whether to continue covering Johaug's legal costs. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/-Skiledelsen-i-hastemote-for-a-avgjore-Johaug-stotte-231872b.html Sundby cost 3.3. million NOK, Johaug 600 000 so far. To be consistent, they should.

The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?

Their choice was illusory.

IIRC the law of employment, would deem them responsible either way. The same way for Sundby. Their employee(doctor) made a mistake, leading to their other employee/contractee(Sundby, Johaug) testing positive and loosing income or potential income. Sundby could have sued the Ski Federation and they would pay exactly what they did(case cost for CAS and the money he lost from winnings) in addition to case costs in the Norwegian court. Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.

Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,536
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Doping in XC skiing

09 Mar 2017 17:07

Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.

That is the crux of the matter. The Sundby case is gone, but what if CAS come to a very different conclusion to the Norwegian authorities? The skiforbundet had very little choice, looking at the way they have backed her so far, they couldn't fund Sundby's case and not Johaug's.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 133
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

Re: Doping in XC skiing

09 Mar 2017 17:20

ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:
Blaaswix wrote:There's been plenty more paranoia and conspiracy theories in the comments sections in the Norwegian media, Python. :rolleyes:

The skiforbundet is deciding whether to continue covering Johaug's legal costs. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/-Skiledelsen-i-hastemote-for-a-avgjore-Johaug-stotte-231872b.html Sundby cost 3.3. million NOK, Johaug 600 000 so far. To be consistent, they should.

The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?

Their choice was illusory.

IIRC the law of employment, would deem them responsible either way. The same way for Sundby. Their employee(doctor) made a mistake, leading to their other employee/contractee(Sundby, Johaug) testing positive and loosing income or potential income. Sundby could have sued the Ski Federation and they would pay exactly what they did(case cost for CAS and the money he lost from winnings) in addition to case costs in the Norwegian court. Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.

Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.

Well, providing you're reasoning's are correct, then look to the first bolded part: Why haven't the Norwegian Ski Federation sued the team doctors?
Now on to the second bolded part. Could you give a legal source to that claim? In my opinion it sounds pretty home cooked and with no bearing to the WADA-code.
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Doping in XC skiing

09 Mar 2017 17:47

Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.



She's lost sponsorship and she can't win any prize money, for starters.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 133
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

Re: Doping in XC skiing

09 Mar 2017 18:52

Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:
Blaaswix wrote:There's been plenty more paranoia and conspiracy theories in the comments sections in the Norwegian media, Python. :rolleyes:

The skiforbundet is deciding whether to continue covering Johaug's legal costs. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/-Skiledelsen-i-hastemote-for-a-avgjore-Johaug-stotte-231872b.html Sundby cost 3.3. million NOK, Johaug 600 000 so far. To be consistent, they should.

The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?

Their choice was illusory.

IIRC the law of employment, would deem them responsible either way. The same way for Sundby. Their employee(doctor) made a mistake, leading to their other employee/contractee(Sundby, Johaug) testing positive and loosing income or potential income. Sundby could have sued the Ski Federation and they would pay exactly what they did(case cost for CAS and the money he lost from winnings) in addition to case costs in the Norwegian court. Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.

Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.

Well, providing you're reasoning's are correct, then look to the first bolded part: Why haven't the Norwegian Ski Federation sued the team doctors?
Now on to the second bolded part. Could you give a legal source to that claim? In my opinion it sounds pretty home cooked and with no bearing to the WADA-code.


I'm going off among other things law I had in High School(20+years ago) as an optional class.

They could sue the employee if his guilt reached above a certain level. Establishing guilt level/or responsibility level is part of the issue.

Lets say you are a mechanic. If you were moving a car from inside the shop to outside on the parking lot and you crashed the car. In this scenario, this falls under employer responsibility to cover the damages.

Compare that to you taking the car you just fixed out for a joyride with your friends and then crashing.
In this scenario you clearly went outside of your duties and the responsibility to cover the dammages falls on you.

Now lets say you fixed something and have to make sure it's okay. So you drive out on the highway to test the car and you crash.
This scenario is between the two extremes. Here it becomes more difficult to establish if this falls under employee or employer responsibility. I think it would fall under employer responsibility, but I'm not sure. This is were lawyers and judges come in. They have to assess the degree of guilt.

So if we relate that to Sundby and Johaug cases, it's a simple mistake they make carrying out their duties. In Sundbys case the doctor assumed he understood the rules correctly. And in Johaugs case, a lack of attention/vigilance caused him to give her a forbidden substance.

Relating to Sundby and Johaug, using drugs to enhance performance would be going outside your duties. Like if you stole the car you just fixed and went street racing and crashing. This would fall under the criminal code(theft) as well as responsibility to cover the damage to the car.

This law is about the employer not being allowed to put the employee in a situation where the employee fails, causes dammage and can wash his hands of responsibility later. The court could argue that the garrage in the first example should have had a routine where someone was stopping other traffic when moving the vehicle out of the garage.

This is not related to the WADA code, it's related to the employee/employer relationships. IIRC the law in question is Arbeidsmiljø loven(workers environment law) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-06-17-62
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,536
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Doping in XC skiing

09 Mar 2017 18:57

Blaaswix wrote:
Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.



She's lost sponsorship and she can't win any prize money, for starters.


And this is future earnings. Here it's a bit more complicated. I think in the US you could sue and get a lot of money, but in Norwegian law it's not so simple AFAIK anyway.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,536
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Doping in XC skiing

09 Mar 2017 19:10

Blaaswix wrote:
Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.

That is the crux of the matter. The Sundby case is gone, but what if CAS come to a very different conclusion to the Norwegian authorities? The skiforbundet had very little choice, looking at the way they have backed her so far, they couldn't fund Sundby's case and not Johaug's.



You can't mix your terms here or you will end up with wrong conclusions.

The Sundby case came as a result of Fis testing. If I understood the results management process correctly, that means that ADN/sports federation weren't' involved like in the Johaug case were the testing was carried out by ADN.

The question here is who do you mean by the Norwegian authorities? If you mean the AD panel, it has nothing to do with the authorities. If you mean the work environment law, that is not something that CAS can do anything about.

As both Judgements stand now, it's the federations responsibility. The Sundby case is final. If CAS came to the conclusion that this was Johaug doping. Then the federation could let her handle the bill, and even demand repayment of the money they had already spent. Unless they were in on it and she was following orders.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,536
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Doping in XC skiing

09 Mar 2017 21:03

ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:
Blaaswix wrote:There's been plenty more paranoia and conspiracy theories in the comments sections in the Norwegian media, Python. :rolleyes:

The skiforbundet is deciding whether to continue covering Johaug's legal costs. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/-Skiledelsen-i-hastemote-for-a-avgjore-Johaug-stotte-231872b.html Sundby cost 3.3. million NOK, Johaug 600 000 so far. To be consistent, they should.

The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?

Their choice was illusory.

IIRC the law of employment, would deem them responsible either way. The same way for Sundby. Their employee(doctor) made a mistake, leading to their other employee/contractee(Sundby, Johaug) testing positive and loosing income or potential income. Sundby could have sued the Ski Federation and they would pay exactly what they did(case cost for CAS and the money he lost from winnings) in addition to case costs in the Norwegian court. Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.

Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.

Well, providing you're reasoning's are correct, then look to the first bolded part: Why haven't the Norwegian Ski Federation sued the team doctors?
Now on to the second bolded part. Could you give a legal source to that claim? In my opinion it sounds pretty home cooked and with no bearing to the WADA-code.


I'm going off among other things law I had in High School(20+years ago) as an optional class.

They could sue the employee if his guilt reached above a certain level. Establishing guilt level/or responsibility level is part of the issue.

Lets say you are a mechanic. If you were moving a car from inside the shop to outside on the parking lot and you crashed the car. In this scenario, this falls under employer responsibility to cover the damages.

Compare that to you taking the car you just fixed out for a joyride with your friends and then crashing.
In this scenario you clearly went outside of your duties and the responsibility to cover the dammages falls on you.

Now lets say you fixed something and have to make sure it's okay. So you drive out on the highway to test the car and you crash.
This scenario is between the two extremes. Here it becomes more difficult to establish if this falls under employee or employer responsibility. I think it would fall under employer responsibility, but I'm not sure. This is were lawyers and judges come in. They have to assess the degree of guilt.

So if we relate that to Sundby and Johaug cases, it's a simple mistake they make carrying out their duties. In Sundbys case the doctor assumed he understood the rules correctly. And in Johaugs case, a lack of attention/vigilance caused him to give her a forbidden substance.

Relating to Sundby and Johaug, using drugs to enhance performance would be going outside your duties. Like if you stole the car you just fixed and went street racing and crashing. This would fall under the criminal code(theft) as well as responsibility to cover the damage to the car.

This law is about the employer not being allowed to put the employee in a situation where the employee fails, causes dammage and can wash his hands of responsibility later. The court could argue that the garrage in the first example should have had a routine where someone was stopping other traffic when moving the vehicle out of the garage.

This is not related to the WADA code, it's related to the employee/employer relationships. IIRC the law in question is Arbeidsmiljø loven(workers environment law) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-06-17-62

In Sweden and most of the civilized world, all medical doctors in the private sector by law must have an insurance for malpractice. Maybe not in the land of exceptions? Both Johnsrud Sundby and Johaug’s case, according to the official version, are splendid examples of malpractice. Considering the strange paragraph were NSF have written that the athletes must follow the doctor’s advice – in conflict with the WADA code – you would expect that MJS or TJ have a perfect case to sue the NSF. Instead NSF pay for all their legal costs which make it impossible for the athletes to sue them.

But here we have des Pudels Kern. The only logical extension is that NSF sues the team doctors who both – with a reservation for the land of exceptions – have an insurance against malpractice.
I don’t have to explain the logical conclusion you would draw from the fact they are not suing the doctors.
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 339
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Doping in XC skiing

10 Mar 2017 01:00

Michael Rasmussen has a dig at the Norwegians handling of the Johaug case:

http://www.tv2.no/sport/8981902/

But look at the title of the article: "Dansk doper ler av Norges Johaug-behandling" Reminding us all that Rasmussen is a former doper and that we should keep that in mind....

And here is Rasmussen's tweet: https://twitter.com/MRasmussen1974/status/839840654721171456

And this is the article he shared via Twitter: http://www.adressa.no/100Sport/vintersport/langrenn/Skiforbundet-fortsetter-a-stotte-Johaug-okonomisk-231929b.html?cx_Deling=AddThis
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,322
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

Re: Doping in XC skiing

10 Mar 2017 09:57

Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:The decision is hear. The Norwegian Ski Federation will continue to pay for all the legal costs.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/langrenn/skiforbundet-vil-fortsatt-ta-johaug-regningen/a/23945052/

The Norwegian minister of culture (including sports) Linda Hofstad Helleland is newly elected vice president of WADA. I wonder what her view on this is, and also if its really compatible that a partly public funded (under her supervision) organization is handing out money to free the very same athletes that are suspended by the organization she is vice president of. Media, were are you questions?

Their choice was illusory.

IIRC the law of employment, would deem them responsible either way. The same way for Sundby. Their employee(doctor) made a mistake, leading to their other employee/contractee(Sundby, Johaug) testing positive and loosing income or potential income. Sundby could have sued the Ski Federation and they would pay exactly what they did(case cost for CAS and the money he lost from winnings) in addition to case costs in the Norwegian court. Johaug is not loosing money per say, so they can get away with case costs only.

Now if Sundby and Johaug, were proven to be using this to cheat, then AFAIK the Ski federation wouldn't need to pay any money at all.

Well, providing you're reasoning's are correct, then look to the first bolded part: Why haven't the Norwegian Ski Federation sued the team doctors?
Now on to the second bolded part. Could you give a legal source to that claim? In my opinion it sounds pretty home cooked and with no bearing to the WADA-code.


I'm going off among other things law I had in High School(20+years ago) as an optional class.

They could sue the employee if his guilt reached above a certain level. Establishing guilt level/or responsibility level is part of the issue.

Lets say you are a mechanic. If you were moving a car from inside the shop to outside on the parking lot and you crashed the car. In this scenario, this falls under employer responsibility to cover the damages.

Compare that to you taking the car you just fixed out for a joyride with your friends and then crashing.
In this scenario you clearly went outside of your duties and the responsibility to cover the dammages falls on you.

Now lets say you fixed something and have to make sure it's okay. So you drive out on the highway to test the car and you crash.
This scenario is between the two extremes. Here it becomes more difficult to establish if this falls under employee or employer responsibility. I think it would fall under employer responsibility, but I'm not sure. This is were lawyers and judges come in. They have to assess the degree of guilt.

So if we relate that to Sundby and Johaug cases, it's a simple mistake they make carrying out their duties. In Sundbys case the doctor assumed he understood the rules correctly. And in Johaugs case, a lack of attention/vigilance caused him to give her a forbidden substance.

Relating to Sundby and Johaug, using drugs to enhance performance would be going outside your duties. Like if you stole the car you just fixed and went street racing and crashing. This would fall under the criminal code(theft) as well as responsibility to cover the damage to the car.

This law is about the employer not being allowed to put the employee in a situation where the employee fails, causes dammage and can wash his hands of responsibility later. The court could argue that the garrage in the first example should have had a routine where someone was stopping other traffic when moving the vehicle out of the garage.

This is not related to the WADA code, it's related to the employee/employer relationships. IIRC the law in question is Arbeidsmiljø loven(workers environment law) https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-06-17-62

In Sweden and most of the civilized world, all medical doctors in the private sector by law must have an insurance for malpractice. Maybe not in the land of exceptions? Both Johnsrud Sundby and Johaug’s case, according to the official version, are splendid examples of malpractice. Considering the strange paragraph were NSF have written that the athletes must follow the doctor’s advice – in conflict with the WADA code – you would expect that MJS or TJ have a perfect case to sue the NSF. Instead NSF pay for all their legal costs which make it impossible for the athletes to sue them.

But here we have des Pudels Kern. The only logical extension is that NSF sues the team doctors who both – with a reservation for the land of exceptions – have an insurance against malpractice.
I don’t have to explain the logical conclusion you would draw from the fact they are not suing the doctors.


I don't know much/about what kind of insurance doctors have to have. The thing is malpractice by doctors are handled by Norsk Pasientskade Erstatning. https://www.npe.no/

It's a central authority responsible for paying out damages. It's to avoid a US problem with rising insurance cost due to an expanded view of damages in the US justice system.

And this entity is more about damage to the health. Whether that might include giving medication that results in a doping positive is questionable. It would probably be the first case of it's kind to handle that, and would probably be appealed to eternity. Meaning the cost would likely outstrip any potential benefit for Johaug/Sundby.

But in this case I would say it's pretty clear that the mistake is so small that it would be the employer being responsible.(see above)
In the Sundby case, If the doctor had a rutine to call ADN and ask about nebulizer use, this likely wouldn't have happened. This seems quite simple for the employer to have in order. Hence it goes under employer responsibility.

In the Johaug case, if there was a routine where medicines were bought abroad, the doctor would call home for a double check, this wouldn't have happened. Thats a pretty simple precaution that the employer should have had in place. Hence this also falls under employer responsibility.

So the simple reason nobody is suing is that Norges Ski Forbund would loose under the employment law. The athletes could try and sue NPE, but they would likely have to appeal to eternity to get anything. And if they loose they will be stuck with a massive case bill.

The Athletes could sue Norges Ski Forbund, but the suit would only give them what they have already gotten.

This is the logical conclusion I draw from them not suing the doctors.

Our justice system does not award a gazillion dollars if you get burned by a hot cup of cofee at Mcdonalds.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,536
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Doping in XC skiing

10 Mar 2017 17:21

Sweden's olympic committee wants the rules on asthma medicine use tightened https://www.nrk.no/sport/svensk-idrettstopp-vil-ha-strengere-regler-for-astmamedisin_-_-utviklingen-er-uforsvarlig-1.13416436
They want to talk to the IOC and FIS and get a rule change before the 2018 olympics.
"We want a limit set for the grey zone. We want the FIS and the IOC to turn every stone and take a step in that direction", said the leader of Sweden's olympic committee, Peter Reinebo.

Hope it gets some results.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 133
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

12 Mar 2017 22:26

Expecting the worst (or so I thought), I skimmed through the Holmenkollen 30km footage. Glad I did, as it was way worse. 2.05 minutes...

On the 50km, it ws interesting to see that former champions and specialists of this event were minutes off the pace. The depth of the Russian team, having to do without a good number of their star skiers, is much better than the Astma train. Yet, Sundby is just way way stronger than any of them. A convincted doper, compared to most of the Russians merely alleged and assumed.
Why did the old champions (not beingtoo old to fall off a performance cliff) lose minutes to Sundby? Is there a new normal with few having gotten the memo, or full clearance?
Cloxxki
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,201
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 14:25

Re:

13 Mar 2017 02:10

Cloxxki wrote:Expecting the worst (or so I thought), I skimmed through the Holmenkollen 30km footage. Glad I did, as it was way worse. 2.05 minutes...

On the 50km, it ws interesting to see that former champions and specialists of this event were minutes off the pace. The depth of the Russian team, having to do without a good number of their star skiers, is much better than the Astma train. Yet, Sundby is just way way stronger than any of them. A convincted doper, compared to most of the Russians merely alleged and assumed.
Why did the old champions (not beingtoo old to fall off a performance cliff) lose minutes to Sundby? Is there a new normal with few having gotten the memo, or full clearance?


I looked at the results, didn't watch the race, thought about watching it, but not sure I will. There was no doubt in my mind she would win big. I thought she would win by more to be honest, but whatever.
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,322
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

Re:

13 Mar 2017 15:41

Cloxxki wrote:The depth of the Russian team, having to do without a good number of their star skiers, is much better than the Astma train
Look at 50km Lahti - 5 Norwegians in top 11, only one Russian. And look at other race at Lahti, too. And Peyongchang, Oteppä, Ulricehamn, Tour de Ski, La Clusaz and most noticeably Lillehammer... Basically it's at least questionable whether Russians don't have greater depth at distance races; more the other way round. And than there are sprints, where Norwegian undoubtedly have greater depth.
Only stars who are missing are Vylegzhanin and Legkov, that's two, not "good number". Last year in Oslo Legkov was worse than Tyryshev and Larkov, who on the other hand were worse than Sundby, Dyrhaug, Toenseth and Northug on more for Larkov. And so on.

Why did the old champions (not beingtoo old to fall off a performance cliff) lose minutes to Sundby?

Good question. This year's Northug isn't normal. Norwegians say that's because of bad high altitude preparation before season - that sounds really unlikely.

Edit: of course whether Russians DO have greater depth in distance races.
Last edited by Kokoso on 14 Mar 2017 09:25, edited 1 time in total.
Kokoso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,237
Joined: 22 Apr 2012 06:45

13 Mar 2017 16:14

Fair comments Kokoso.
Russia did have 7 men in the top 15, which means their worst was 15th. Norway 5 in the top 16 despite having a larger army at home.
And apart from Northug, the recent superSwedes especially over such distance, are now rubbish also.

In Biathlon, the Austrian men seem to have their monthly cycles aligned again. They're always overtrained and in top shape on the same moment.
Fourcade got even more invincible when he moved to Oslo. Is he perhaps silently condoning their BS as long as he can join in? Would fit nicely with his painful antics towards Russian skiers.
Cloxxki
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,201
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 14:25

Re:

14 Mar 2017 09:36

Cloxxki wrote:Fair comments Kokoso.
Russia did have 7 men in the top 15, which means their worst was 15th. Norway 5 in the top 16 despite having a larger army at home.
And apart from Northug, the recent superSwedes especially over such distance, are now rubbish also.

Little bit unfair comment, Cloxxki, because you are making conlusions based on just one race. Look at other races, too. For example Lillehammer - nine Norwegians in top 14, no Russian there. That is of course other side of the spectrum, but using your logic one would state that depth of Norwegian team is far superior to that of Russian. You can see it can be deceptive to make conlusions based just on one race (actually Lillehamer was not only one race).

In Biathlon, the Austrian men seem to have their monthly cycles aligned again. They're always overtrained and in top shape on the same moment.
Certainly at least Eberhard says you are wrong, but maybe he is an exception, I don't know.

Fourcade got even more invincible when he moved to Oslo. Is he perhaps silently condoning their BS as long as he can join in? Would fit nicely with his painful antics towards Russian skiers.
What painful antics towards Russians do you mean? When Fourcade moved to Oslo?
Kokoso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,237
Joined: 22 Apr 2012 06:45

14 Mar 2017 15:47

I meant Fourcade's birthday bashing.
Cloxxki
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,201
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 14:25

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Back to top