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: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Tonton, Pricey_sky, King Boonen

Re:

31 Mar 2017 06:30

python wrote:the norge state agency exoneration of the doping doc whose earnings are almost exclusively norge state-derived should surprise NO ONE.

if you you were surprised, you don't understand how a state sponsored system of 'health care' is essentially the same animal as the very mafia concept - designed, conceived and actually practicing - legally - mind you, the same 'family' values.

you naive folks should get it, the doc was part of the family. the big norge family - from the clown northug to lofshus to olympiatoppe etc...all earning their living by exploiting the national obsession with the sport. the 'grey areas' were always a part of the the 'family business'.

don't count on learning much unless 'the family' gets busted.

Still have a hard time to believe there is a full blown state sponsored system in place in Norway.

Yes I believe EPO was introduced and used on a broad basis among the Norse in the build up before Lillehammer. I believe it was used many years after. When the truth slowly came out about high blood values and testing started, some athletes simply finished their career prematurely. There is still rotten tomatoes in the basket from the Lillehammer era: among leaders, officials, trainers, medics and so on. Even partners. Bjoergen is married to one of the prime suspects.

But because of the official attitude concerning doping in Norge, I can't believe that the young ones joining the team are instantly entering a full blown state sponsored doping program. Yes, I think they are introduced in grey areas that gradually are numbing their conscious. Yes, I believe some of the athletes are, with the support of rotten tomatoes, crossing the Rubicon.
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re:

31 Mar 2017 07:29

meat puppet wrote:Niskanen hiring vähäsöyrinki is ridiculous, but it is even more ridiculous that no journalist asks her about it...

Kerttu Niskanen has now commented on her decision to cooperate with Pekka Vähäsöyrinki:

http://www.is.fi/maastohiihto/art-2000005150164.html?ref=rss

Finnish is barely readable through Google Translator, so I'll provide here the highlights from the interview:

- "The discussion is totally ridiculous. If we keep coming to this subject time and time again, it is better not to do interviews at all. I am familiar with his history: what took place over twenty years ago should not influence anything. I am living now and so is Pekka and we are looking into the future."
- "There was discussion about making some changes throughout the season. I made the first move towards Pekka, he didn't contact me."
-"Through these years Pekka has asked about my exercises and about the races I participated. He is very sharp-eyed and systematical and still to wants learn new things."
- "Everyone who knows about modern cross country skiing understands that it is possible to triumph clean. If someone doesn't get it, there is nothing I can do about it."
User avatar Aragon
Junior Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 17:44
Location: Finland

Re: Re:

31 Mar 2017 09:44

Discgear wrote:
python wrote:the norge state agency exoneration of the doping doc whose earnings are almost exclusively norge state-derived should surprise NO ONE.

if you you were surprised, you don't understand how a state sponsored system of 'health care' is essentially the same animal as the very mafia concept - designed, conceived and actually practicing - legally - mind you, the same 'family' values.

you naive folks should get it, the doc was part of the family. the big norge family - from the clown northug to lofshus to olympiatoppe etc...all earning their living by exploiting the national obsession with the sport. the 'grey areas' were always a part of the the 'family business'.

don't count on learning much unless 'the family' gets busted.

Still have a hard time to believe there is a full blown state sponsored system in place in Norway.

i don't believe it either. definitely not in the sense of the german communist model or even the alleged modern russ model.

that post was inspired by the thoughts i had following the recent re-run of the 'god father' film...recall, even the main hero's family had a code of honour. for instance, he looked down on street drugs and tried to convince the other families to follow...

still it was a criminal family offering a life-long protection and care for being loyal and tight-lipped.

keep in mind, the extreme effort we have seen the norges skiforbund was ready to go thrr to obfuscate the blood values from the 90s etc. we've discussed it at length here, haven't we ? to me, it's the same omerta as the reflex of protecting the big family in the movie.

the absolute support or sympathy for the convicted dopers by virtually all state agency - from paying their expenses to white washing their hurt image - stands in stark contrast with the anti-doping practice of most countries. particularly the nordic neighbors. exonerating the doc was just the predictable and logical extension of the 'big family' principle.

fortunately, most norwegians are genuinely anti-doping. but i am not so sure about their xc ski clique.

at least this mindless unwavering support for the obvious rule breakers isn't helping.
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: 6,330
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: Re:

31 Mar 2017 12:57

python wrote:
Discgear wrote:
python wrote:the norge state agency exoneration of the doping doc whose earnings are almost exclusively norge state-derived should surprise NO ONE.

if you you were surprised, you don't understand how a state sponsored system of 'health care' is essentially the same animal as the very mafia concept - designed, conceived and actually practicing - legally - mind you, the same 'family' values.

you naive folks should get it, the doc was part of the family. the big norge family - from the clown northug to lofshus to olympiatoppe etc...all earning their living by exploiting the national obsession with the sport. the 'grey areas' were always a part of the the 'family business'.

don't count on learning much unless 'the family' gets busted.

Still have a hard time to believe there is a full blown state sponsored system in place in Norway.

i don't believe it either. definitely not in the sense of the german communist model or even the alleged modern russ model.

that post was inspired by the thoughts i had following the recent re-run of the 'god father' film...recall, even the main hero's family had a code of honour. for instance, he looked down on street drugs and tried to convince the other families to follow...

still it was a criminal family offering a life-long protection and care for being loyal and tight-lipped.

keep in mind, the extreme effort we have seen the norges skiforbund was ready to go thrr to obfuscate the blood values from the 90s etc. we've discussed it at length here, haven't we ? to me, it's the same omerta as the reflex of protecting the big family in the movie.

the absolute support or sympathy for the convicted dopers by virtually all state agency - from paying their expenses to white washing their hurt image - stands in stark contrast with the anti-doping practice of most countries. particularly the nordic neighbors. exonerating the doc was just the predictable and logical extension of the 'big family' principle.

fortunately, most norwegians are genuinely anti-doping. but i am not so sure about their xc ski clique.

at least this mindless unwavering support for the obvious rule breakers isn't helping.


Couldn't agree more. :)
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Doping in XC skiing

01 Apr 2017 10:43

Mechanical doping on the way in XC?

Rottefella have got a binding with a motor that can move it backwards and forwards via a remote control switch mounted in the ski pole, whilst skiing, i.e move it forwards for uphill sections and backwards for downhill glides. http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/skirevolusjon-vekker-oppsikt-kan-tillate-motorisert-skiutstyr-i-verdenscupen/67448103
An application has been made to FIS to use it in competition. Of course nobody would have used it in competition yet, because it's not been approved. Obviously.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 138
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

01 Apr 2017 18:26

Saw Bendiksen not being prosecuted. Read the rage and indignation here. :lol: How this illustrates that something is rotten in Norway etc.

Bendiksen was freed because WADAs rules don't allow for punishing doctors unless they do something intentional. The rules are stupid, but they are the rules.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,566
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re:

01 Apr 2017 19:31

ToreBear wrote:Saw Bendiksen not being prosecuted. Read the rage and indignation here. :lol: How this illustrates that something is rotten in Norway etc.

Bendiksen was freed because WADAs rules don't allow for punishing doctors unless they do something intentional. The rules are stupid, but they are the rules.

So now you're upset that WADA doesn't allow ADN to punish the doctor. But so far, you've joined the Norse chorus with upset voices over WADA punishing someone using lip balm.

But that put aside, please provide a direct link to the paragraph in the WADA code that prohibits NIF, NSF or ADN to punish the team doctor for assuring an athlete it's okay to use medication with anabolic steroids.
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Re:

02 Apr 2017 12:34

Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:Saw Bendiksen not being prosecuted. Read the rage and indignation here. :lol: How this illustrates that something is rotten in Norway etc.

Bendiksen was freed because WADAs rules don't allow for punishing doctors unless they do something intentional. The rules are stupid, but they are the rules.

So now you're upset that WADA doesn't allow ADN to punish the doctor. But so far, you've joined the Norse chorus with upset voices over WADA punishing someone using lip balm.

But that put aside, please provide a direct link to the paragraph in the WADA code that prohibits NIF, NSF or ADN to punish the team doctor for assuring an athlete it's okay to use medication with anabolic steroids.


Sorry don't have time for strawman arguments. I think the rules are stupid, but it does not upset me. I can not see any chorus, and AFAIK Trifoderm is not a lip balm.

I'm no lawyer or wada expert. However ADN had a dialogue with wada about this case, and the lack of intent is enough for him to be let off.

If I'm wrong, and WADA disagrees and ADN lied about their agreement, they should be expected to appeal.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,566
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Doping in XC skiing

02 Apr 2017 15:30

Most people are happy to discuss and considered the high expectation of Russian track&field athletes and skiers to make to the national team, in order to make a living.
How's that in Norway then? Is the sport SO BIG that like amateur soccer in The Netherlands (3rd league or lower), you can actually make a living doing just the sport, no teaching or waxing etc?
Surely a Norwegian looking to make it to the national team is going to get a lot of pressure. One does not just ski into the national team on pure talent. Especially not of the ones present are high on anti-asthma inhalers overdosed dozens of times, and having years of world cup level experience and training volume.

What is the difference between Russia ("can't make the team without doping, obviously") concerning multiple sports, and skiing/biathlon in Norway presenting a much larger share of sporting culture there, lacking internationally renowned soccer/swimming/cycling/track/etc?
Cloxxki
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,203
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 14:25

Re: Re:

02 Apr 2017 16:37

ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:Saw Bendiksen not being prosecuted. Read the rage and indignation here. :lol: How this illustrates that something is rotten in Norway etc.

Bendiksen was freed because WADAs rules don't allow for punishing doctors unless they do something intentional. The rules are stupid, but they are the rules.

So now you're upset that WADA doesn't allow ADN to punish the doctor. But so far, you've joined the Norse chorus with upset voices over WADA punishing someone using lip balm.

But that put aside, please provide a direct link to the paragraph in the WADA code that prohibits NIF, NSF or ADN to punish the team doctor for assuring an athlete it's okay to use medication with anabolic steroids.


Sorry don't have time for strawman arguments. I think the rules are stupid, but it does not upset me. I can not see any chorus, and AFAIK Trifoderm is not a lip balm.

I'm no lawyer or wada expert. However ADN had a dialogue with wada about this case, and the lack of intent is enough for him to be let off.

If I'm wrong, and WADA disagrees and ADN lied about their agreement, they should be expected to appeal.


Translation: "I am going to completely ignore you ('don't have time' despite ~1500 posts) and I think the rules are stupid and wrong. Yet despite this, if something truly nefarious happened it would have been called out."

I think you just stated your MO in your most articulate form yet!
V3R1T4S
Junior Member
 
Posts: 91
Joined: 28 Jul 2011 22:14

Re: Re:

02 Apr 2017 17:51

ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:Saw Bendiksen not being prosecuted. Read the rage and indignation here. :lol: How this illustrates that something is rotten in Norway etc.

Bendiksen was freed because WADAs rules don't allow for punishing doctors unless they do something intentional. The rules are stupid, but they are the rules.

So now you're upset that WADA doesn't allow ADN to punish the doctor. But so far, you've joined the Norse chorus with upset voices over WADA punishing someone using lip balm.

But that put aside, please provide a direct link to the paragraph in the WADA code that prohibits NIF, NSF or ADN to punish the team doctor for assuring an athlete it's okay to use medication with anabolic steroids.


Sorry don't have time for strawman arguments. I think the rules are stupid, but it does not upset me. I can not see any chorus, and AFAIK Trifoderm is not a lip balm.

I'm no lawyer or wada expert. However ADN had a dialogue with wada about this case, and the lack of intent is enough for him to be let off.

If I'm wrong, and WADA disagrees and ADN lied about their agreement, they should be expected to appeal.

You said: Bendiksen was freed because WADAs rules don't allow for punishing doctors unless they do something intentional. The rules are stupid, but they are the rules.

I do ask you once more: please provide a direct link to the paragraph in the WADA code that prohibits NIF, NSF or ADN to punish the team doctor for assuring an athlete it's okay to use medication with anabolic steroids.
BTW, what is Trifoderm?
V3R1T4S wrote:
Translation: "I am going to completely ignore you ('don't have time' despite ~1500 posts) and I think the rules are stupid and wrong. Yet despite this, if something truly nefarious happened it would have been called out."
I think you just stated your MO in your most articulate form yet!

:lol:
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Re:

03 Apr 2017 01:48

Discgear wrote: Bjoergen is married to one of the prime suspects.

Image
Pazuzu
Member
 
Posts: 338
Joined: 04 Feb 2012 00:52

Re: Re:

04 Apr 2017 12:59

Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:Saw Bendiksen not being prosecuted. Read the rage and indignation here. :lol: How this illustrates that something is rotten in Norway etc.

Bendiksen was freed because WADAs rules don't allow for punishing doctors unless they do something intentional. The rules are stupid, but they are the rules.

So now you're upset that WADA doesn't allow ADN to punish the doctor. But so far, you've joined the Norse chorus with upset voices over WADA punishing someone using lip balm.

But that put aside, please provide a direct link to the paragraph in the WADA code that prohibits NIF, NSF or ADN to punish the team doctor for assuring an athlete it's okay to use medication with anabolic steroids.


Sorry don't have time for strawman arguments. I think the rules are stupid, but it does not upset me. I can not see any chorus, and AFAIK Trifoderm is not a lip balm.

I'm no lawyer or wada expert. However ADN had a dialogue with wada about this case, and the lack of intent is enough for him to be let off.

If I'm wrong, and WADA disagrees and ADN lied about their agreement, they should be expected to appeal.

You said: Bendiksen was freed because WADAs rules don't allow for punishing doctors unless they do something intentional. The rules are stupid, but they are the rules.

I do ask you once more: please provide a direct link to the paragraph in the WADA code that prohibits NIF, NSF or ADN to punish the team doctor for assuring an athlete it's okay to use medication with anabolic steroids.
BTW, what is Trifoderm?
V3R1T4S wrote:
Translation: "I am going to completely ignore you ('don't have time' despite ~1500 posts) and I think the rules are stupid and wrong. Yet despite this, if something truly nefarious happened it would have been called out."
I think you just stated your MO in your most articulate form yet!

:lol:

If the rules were that detailed, I would think ADN could see for themselves instead of talking to WADA. Laws are made so you don't have to spell out a million possible events. It's the job of Lawyers and Judges to interpret if X law fit's Y situation.

I imagine there is something with article 2.8 giving them problems since that is relevant to support personell.

I meant trofodermin. My mistake.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,566
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Re:

04 Apr 2017 13:01

V3R1T4S wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:Saw Bendiksen not being prosecuted. Read the rage and indignation here. :lol: How this illustrates that something is rotten in Norway etc.

Bendiksen was freed because WADAs rules don't allow for punishing doctors unless they do something intentional. The rules are stupid, but they are the rules.

So now you're upset that WADA doesn't allow ADN to punish the doctor. But so far, you've joined the Norse chorus with upset voices over WADA punishing someone using lip balm.

But that put aside, please provide a direct link to the paragraph in the WADA code that prohibits NIF, NSF or ADN to punish the team doctor for assuring an athlete it's okay to use medication with anabolic steroids.


Sorry don't have time for strawman arguments. I think the rules are stupid, but it does not upset me. I can not see any chorus, and AFAIK Trifoderm is not a lip balm.

I'm no lawyer or wada expert. However ADN had a dialogue with wada about this case, and the lack of intent is enough for him to be let off.

If I'm wrong, and WADA disagrees and ADN lied about their agreement, they should be expected to appeal.


Translation: "I am going to completely ignore you ('don't have time' despite ~1500 posts) and I think the rules are stupid and wrong. Yet despite this, if something truly nefarious happened it would have been called out."

I think you just stated your MO in your most articulate form yet!


:confused: How do you think I got to 1500ish posts? By not wasting time on silliness.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,566
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Re:

04 Apr 2017 14:58

ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
Discgear wrote:
ToreBear wrote:Saw Bendiksen not being prosecuted. Read the rage and indignation here. :lol: How this illustrates that something is rotten in Norway etc.

Bendiksen was freed because WADAs rules don't allow for punishing doctors unless they do something intentional. The rules are stupid, but they are the rules.

So now you're upset that WADA doesn't allow ADN to punish the doctor. But so far, you've joined the Norse chorus with upset voices over WADA punishing someone using lip balm.

But that put aside, please provide a direct link to the paragraph in the WADA code that prohibits NIF, NSF or ADN to punish the team doctor for assuring an athlete it's okay to use medication with anabolic steroids.


Sorry don't have time for strawman arguments. I think the rules are stupid, but it does not upset me. I can not see any chorus, and AFAIK Trifoderm is not a lip balm.

I'm no lawyer or wada expert. However ADN had a dialogue with wada about this case, and the lack of intent is enough for him to be let off.

If I'm wrong, and WADA disagrees and ADN lied about their agreement, they should be expected to appeal.

You said: Bendiksen was freed because WADAs rules don't allow for punishing doctors unless they do something intentional. The rules are stupid, but they are the rules.

I do ask you once more: please provide a direct link to the paragraph in the WADA code that prohibits NIF, NSF or ADN to punish the team doctor for assuring an athlete it's okay to use medication with anabolic steroids.
BTW, what is Trifoderm?
V3R1T4S wrote:
Translation: "I am going to completely ignore you ('don't have time' despite ~1500 posts) and I think the rules are stupid and wrong. Yet despite this, if something truly nefarious happened it would have been called out."
I think you just stated your MO in your most articulate form yet!

:lol:

If the rules were that detailed, I would think ADN could see for themselves instead of talking to WADA. Laws are made so you don't have to spell out a million possible events. It's the job of Lawyers and Judges to interpret if X law fit's Y situation.

I imagine there is something with article 2.8 giving them problems since that is relevant to support personell.

I meant trofodermin. My mistake.


The following constitute anti-doping rule violations:
Article 2.8:
Administration or Attempted Administration to any Athlete In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method, or Administration or Attempted Administration to any Athlete Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited

Why would that part of the WADA in any way be an obstacle for ADN or the NSF to punish the team doctor? :confused:
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 340
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

04 Apr 2017 19:27

NADO's are very inconsistent when it comes to charging athlete support staff for providing/administering prohibited substances to athletes - Sometimes they use the provision of trafficking prohibited substances to non-athletes - Have always felt that support staff aren't punished enough by Anti-Doping Authorities.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,360
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

05 Apr 2017 13:24

Discgear wrote:
Why would that part of the WADA in any way be an obstacle for ADN or the NSF to punish the team doctor? :confused:


Seems ADN have explained it in their press release much better than I ever could:
http://www.antidoping.no/om-antidoping-norge/nyheter/patalenemnden-henlegger-sak-mot-fredrik-bendiksen/
Påtalenemnden i Antidoping Norge har besluttet å henlegge saken mot tidligere landslagslege i langrenn, Fredrik Bendiksen.

- Saken knyttet til Fredrik Bendiksens mulige overtredelse av dopingreglene er henlagt. Årsaken til henleggelsen er at han etter påtalenemndens vurdering ikke har utvist forsett, og at skyldkravet derfor ikke er oppfylt, sier prosessfullmektig Niels R. Kiær.

I henhold til NIFs lov og World Anti-Doping Code er det å forskrive eller gi et forbudt stoff eller metode et regelbrudd. Hvilket krav som stilles til skyldgrad, fremkommer imidlertid ikke av regelverket.

Etter en grundig gjennomgang av saken og tilbakemeldinger fra WADA har påtalenemnden besluttet at saken mot Bendiksen henlegges.

- Bendiksen mente å behandle sårskaden som Therese Johaug pådro seg på høydesamling i Italia. Påtalenemnden har ikke funnet det bevist at Bendiksen forskrev klostebol i den hensikt å tilføre Johaug et dopingmiddel, eller at han så det som en mulighet, sier Kiær.

I påtalenemndens arbeid med saken har det vært vesentlig å klargjøre hvilken skyldgrad som kreves for å kunne hevde at det er et regelbrudd når det er snakk om å forskrive eller gi et forbudt stoff eller metode.

- Fredrik Bendiksen har gjort en feil, men dopingbestemmelsene og World Anti-Doping Code rammer ikke uaktsom overtredelse av reglene når det gjelder støttepersonell. Dette er presisert av WADA overfor Antidoping Norge, sier Niels R. Kiær.


The first part that is blacked referes to 2.8 that you quoted above. Their problem is that there is there is no description of degrees of guilt needed to cross the threshold to rule violation in the rules.

Hence the underlined bit were WADA was involved in whether there were grounds for prosecution.

The last black bit points out that the prosecution board has not found it proven that the doc prescribed klostebol with the intent of giving Johaug a doping substance, or that he saw that as a possibility.

PS. For anyone not familiar with Norwegian/Swedish/Danish the link is available to your favorite translator. If there are problems I will assist as far as I'm able. (Legalese is not easy to translate between languages).
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,566
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

06 Apr 2017 23:31

Has anyone noticed how much more masculine Johaug's facial features have become?

Back when in her early 20s with her plump cheeks and round features:
Image

During her CAS hearing sporting a bad case of Dolph Lundgren Jaw:
Image

Every time I see her in the Norwegian news lately I'm blown away by how much she looks like a dude, and she used to be really pretty. Even when she was getting her *** handed to her by Bjørgen and Kowalczyk in pretty much every race she was by far the most popular skier in Norway just because of her looks. Am I completely out in the woods on this or am I actually on to something?
User avatar Saint Unix
Member
 
Posts: 522
Joined: 14 Feb 2014 11:00
Location: Norway

07 Apr 2017 10:16

Am I completely out in the woods on this or am I actually on to something?

if you are looking for a dude-like dudette in the norwegian team look no furthe than the post above by pazuzu :)

the pictures may indeed meet the forum standard, but there are plenty of very strange never explained facts that apparently now will never be heard by any doping panel...such as, how an experienced sports doctor committed a blunder he did which just happened to be an anabolic steroid, or whether he coordinated his story with the one proposed by johaug and her lawyers, or what were her steroid profiles some weeks prior to her positive...

when you have the rarely observed state support for the convicted violators of the anti-doping rules, your chance of unearthing those critical details is rather slim ;)
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: 6,330
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re:

07 Apr 2017 18:23

Saint Unix wrote:Has anyone noticed how much more masculine Johaug's facial features have become?

Back when in her early 20s with her plump cheeks and round features:
Image

During her CAS hearing sporting a bad case of Dolph Lundgren Jaw:
Image

Every time I see her in the Norwegian news lately I'm blown away by how much she looks like a dude, and she used to be really pretty. Even when she was getting her *** handed to her by Bjørgen and Kowalczyk in pretty much every race she was by far the most popular skier in Norway just because of her looks. Am I completely out in the woods on this or am I actually on to something?



I have largely stayed away from making any sort of comments on changing physiques (including the face, cheeks, drying up, etc), but you are right, you are on to something. Johaug may not have gained weight, but we can see the muscle mass gain. It's fairly clear with her arms and legs, particularly her arms. Definitely not Bjoergen levels, but increase in hormones is likely.
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,639
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests

Back to top