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, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re: Re:

23 Aug 2017 17:31

Aragon wrote:The case might not be necessarily totally over, as according to the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, Johaug's lawyers are at least considering the possibility of appealing to the Swiss Supreme Court, a few have tried and - as far as I know - without success.

https://www.dagbladet.no/sport/gir-ikke-opp-ol-johaug-vurderer-a-anke-dommen-slik-kan-det-utrolige-likevel-skje/68614687

A Finnish sports law specialist Olli Rauste commented that the CAS-decision will not be overruled unless there is clearly something to the magnitude of bribery or biased composition of the CAS-panel or something similar.

http://www.is.fi/maastohiihto/art-2000005337041.html


This will get nowhere - There was a case of the EFC 34 ( Australian rules footy ) who were guilty in the most tenous of circumstances - They appealed unsuccessfully to the Swiss Supreme Court who in their judgement seem affronted the EFC 34 even appealed.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,950
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re:

23 Aug 2017 17:38

python wrote:..read the 35-page pdf award and decided to post the following immediate impressions:

1. the FIS asked for an expedited, 1-arbiter procedure but Johaug insisted on a full,3-person hearing. thus the process taking so long was entirely due to Johaug.
2. i found a total 3 references, starting with para.195, to the 'majority of this panel'...so, yes, as bambino posted, the ruling was NOT unanimous
3. the gist of the Johaug insistence on 'no fault' was that she delegated her antidoping obligations to her doctor. since it was a 'delegation', she argued she was blameless. no amount of explanation that a doctor consultation does NOT equal a delegation seemed to penetrate. the ridiculousness of the argument (supported by a score of her lawyers) is that nowhere in wada or cas documents there could be found even a trace of factual support for such an obviously false concept.
4. When everything failed, she and her lawyers obviously took the Panel and the fis lawerfor idiots and tried to move the start of her ban to the date of her test. BTW, the fis was represented by a single lawyer (Dr Netzle) and the little cutes was defended by the 4 high powered attorneys and a lawyer from a norge olympic committee...As we all remember she explicitly rejected the opportunity to start her suspension earlier. this attempt to backdoor an obviously illegal advantage points to her teams dirty tactics, legally speaking.
5. i found it amusing that dr bendiksen explained his blunder by ...the stress due to sundby and his wife's eye operation. not to be outdone, the lil' therese also pointed to her stress as a cause of her lack of diligence. it probably sounded so ridiculous, that the panel chose to specifically mention it in the writing.
6. I found not a single mention of the wada in the award. which is surprising considering their authorship of the wada code.. either they chose to act quietly, or there was a tactical disagreement btwn the fis and wada. this still mystifies me...

the bottom line, johaug - just as it seem the entire norwegian nation still fail to recognize even the slightest degree of the compatriot responsibility for missing a clearly visible doping warning. :rolleyes:


It was worth the effort seeing they employed Jacobs and Morgan as their lawyers - These two have a good record of convincing panels to give their athletes reduced penalties and often ridiculously short penalties - Morgan and Jacobs worked their magic and Johaug is at the Olympics.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,950
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

23 Aug 2017 17:57

yaco wrote:
python wrote:..read the 35-page pdf award and decided to post the following immediate impressions:

1. the FIS asked for an expedited, 1-arbiter procedure but Johaug insisted on a full,3-person hearing. thus the process taking so long was entirely due to Johaug.
2. i found a total 3 references, starting with para.195, to the 'majority of this panel'...so, yes, as bambino posted, the ruling was NOT unanimous
3. the gist of the Johaug insistence on 'no fault' was that she delegated her antidoping obligations to her doctor. since it was a 'delegation', she argued she was blameless. no amount of explanation that a doctor consultation does NOT equal a delegation seemed to penetrate. the ridiculousness of the argument (supported by a score of her lawyers) is that nowhere in wada or cas documents there could be found even a trace of factual support for such an obviously false concept.
4. When everything failed, she and her lawyers obviously took the Panel and the fis lawerfor idiots and tried to move the start of her ban to the date of her test. BTW, the fis was represented by a single lawyer (Dr Netzle) and the little cutes was defended by the 4 high powered attorneys and a lawyer from a norge olympic committee...As we all remember she explicitly rejected the opportunity to start her suspension earlier. this attempt to backdoor an obviously illegal advantage points to her teams dirty tactics, legally speaking.
5. i found it amusing that dr bendiksen explained his blunder by ...the stress due to sundby and his wife's eye operation. not to be outdone, the lil' therese also pointed to her stress as a cause of her lack of diligence. it probably sounded so ridiculous, that the panel chose to specifically mention it in the writing.
6. I found not a single mention of the wada in the award. which is surprising considering their authorship of the wada code.. either they chose to act quietly, or there was a tactical disagreement btwn the fis and wada. this still mystifies me...

the bottom line, johaug - just as it seem the entire norwegian nation still fail to recognize even the slightest degree of the compatriot responsibility for missing a clearly visible doping warning. :rolleyes:


It was worth the effort seeing they employed Jacobs and Morgan as their lawyers - These two have a good record of convincing panels to give their athletes reduced penalties and often ridiculously short penalties - Morgan and Jacobs worked their magic and Johaug is at the Olympics.


You mean 2022 Olympics?
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

Re: Re:

23 Aug 2017 19:02

Discgear wrote:
meat puppet wrote:"The CAS 2014/A/3591 case is also factually distinct from Ms Johaug’s situation. It pertained to the delegation of responsibility in the context of equine sport where a rider was likely to rely on third parties to a significant degree, a situation that is different from human athletic endeavor."

You don't say.

:) I say it reveals quite a lot about the legal teams view on Ms Johaug's intellectual capabilities. To equate her with a horse.

Again like I said before, some of the arguments that have been made to absolve her of responsibility credit her with so little intelligence you'd think she'd rather just be labelled a cheat and spare herself the embarrassment.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,919
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

Re: Re:

23 Aug 2017 19:59

Libertine Seguros wrote:
Discgear wrote:
meat puppet wrote:"The CAS 2014/A/3591 case is also factually distinct from Ms Johaug’s situation. It pertained to the delegation of responsibility in the context of equine sport where a rider was likely to rely on third parties to a significant degree, a situation that is different from human athletic endeavor."

You don't say.

:) I say it reveals quite a lot about the legal teams view on Ms Johaug's intellectual capabilities. To equate her with a horse.

Again like I said before, some of the arguments that have been made to absolve her of responsibility credit her with so little intelligence you'd think she'd rather just be labelled a cheat and spare herself the embarrassment.


Equaite her ability to take care her medical matters to a horse sounds to me like insult rather than defence. But it is pretty hilarious. :D
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

23 Aug 2017 20:46

Seems like a lot of people are tired of the constant apologizing of Johaug. Which is good. The big media outlets are still quite apologetic though.
MrRoboto
Member
 
Posts: 370
Joined: 19 May 2011 19:29

Re: Doping in XC skiing

24 Aug 2017 02:53

As was discussed earlier in this thread, the lip cream defense was most likely just a cover story. There were too many inconsistencies for it to be believable - the red DOPING sign on the packaging was just one.

Yet the lip cream theory was accepted by FIS in its appeal, and by CAS in its decision. Curiously, CAS even agreed that the low amount of doping substance in the test sample was "evidence" of non-intentional use - whereas it could have easily been the remnants of intentional doping that was stopped some time earlier.

Moral of the story? If you're doping, make sure you have a "innocent" cover story. Declare the "innocent" medication in your pre-test form. That will reduce the sanction from an automatic 4 years to 2 years. If you can further come up with attenuating circumstances, such as a collusion with an experienced Dr (who can't read), you can drop the penalty to a range from 1 to 2 years.

Johaug got off easy. CAS could have chosen to not believe the cover story altogether. But thanks to the stiffened penalty range of the new WADA code, a sanction that earlier could have been just few months (like the non-sanction for Sundby), now ended up being an effective 2 years since xc-skiing is a winter-only sport.
User avatar Tubeless
Member
 
Posts: 413
Joined: 23 May 2010 16:35

24 Aug 2017 06:51

Many have wondered why Johaug isn’t suing Bendiksen or the Norwegian Ski Federation.
Norwegian lawyer Helge Husebye Haug to The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (my translation):
Lawyer Helge Husebye Haug expresses that Therese Johaug is on solid ground to make economical claims against the Norwegian Ski Federation in a lawsuit

Both the manager and the lawyer of Johaug denies any plans of suing Bendiksen or the Ski Federation.
(my translation) Those claims upsets Haug:
-it’s of course voluntary to make a lawsuit, but I find it weird if they don’t pursuit.


https://www.nrk.no/sport/mener-johau...det-1.13652871

A lawsuit in my opinion is the only logical continuation on the official and strange chain of events. But on the other hand, if the official story is a cover up which I do firmly believe, it of course fully makes sense in not suing either Bendiksen or NSF
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

24 Aug 2017 08:46

tom pettersson hits the nail on the head again and again...must read !!


http://www.expressen.se/sport/kronikorer/tomas-pettersson/ar-hapnadsvackande-rannsaka-er-norge/
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: 6,434
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re:

24 Aug 2017 13:12

Discgear wrote:A lawsuit in my opinion is the only logical continuation on the official and strange chain of events. But on the other hand, if the official story is a cover up which I do firmly believe, it of course fully makes sense in not suing either Bendiksen or NSF

And with the NSF keeping her on the payroll through her ban, it even makes perfect sense.
kosmonaut
Junior Member
 
Posts: 72
Joined: 15 Feb 2015 09:51

Re:

24 Aug 2017 15:16

python wrote:tom pettersson hits the nail on the head again and again...must read !!


http://www.expressen.se/sport/kronikorer/tomas-pettersson/ar-hapnadsvackande-rannsaka-er-norge/


The article says Prime Minister Erna Solberg posted on social media that she 'hopes the Norwegian people will support her an help her return'. Erna is in fact hoping the Norwegian people will help Erna back to the prime ministership after the elections next month. :p

What shall culture minister and WADA VP Hellestad say? Join in the popular Norwegian criticism of WADA? Or defend WADAs authority to a critical Norwegian public?

Sundby thinks it's all very unfair https://www.nrk.no/sport/sundby-mener-johaug-straffen-ma-fore-til-endringer-1.13654413 and the rules should be changed.
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

Re: Re:

24 Aug 2017 17:15

Libertine Seguros wrote:
Discgear wrote:
meat puppet wrote:"The CAS 2014/A/3591 case is also factually distinct from Ms Johaug’s situation. It pertained to the delegation of responsibility in the context of equine sport where a rider was likely to rely on third parties to a significant degree, a situation that is different from human athletic endeavor."

You don't say.

:) I say it reveals quite a lot about the legal teams view on Ms Johaug's intellectual capabilities. To equate her with a horse.

Again like I said before, some of the arguments that have been made to absolve her of responsibility credit her with so little intelligence you'd think she'd rather just be labelled a cheat and spare herself the embarrassment.


This is how Jacobs and Morgan roll - Many athletes have successfully used their services with success It's the result that matters.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,950
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

24 Aug 2017 18:50

But where is ToreBear?

Edit: ah sorry, NFL pre-season is on.
bambino
Member
 
Posts: 398
Joined: 24 May 2013 10:37

Re:

25 Aug 2017 08:37

bambino wrote:But where is ToreBear?

Edit: ah sorry, NFL pre-season is on.

:D :D But I bet the hyper nationalistic fanboy will be back when the skiing season starts, ranting as if nothing has happened.
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

25 Aug 2017 10:32

Perhaps someone could code a virtual Johaug so that she can still attend.

Nothing fancy, really. In hilly distance races, she beats the actual winner by 20-90sec 85-90% percent of the time and comes second otherwise. In less hilly distance races, the time margins are a bit harder to predict, but she finishes 1st with a 40% probability, 2nd 25% and 3rd 20%, and 15% worse than that.
User avatar meat puppet
Member
 
Posts: 1,836
Joined: 29 May 2011 06:57

Re:

25 Aug 2017 12:07

bambino wrote:But where is ToreBear?

Edit: ah sorry, NFL pre-season is on.

ToreBear suffered severe defeat.
Kokoso
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,387
Joined: 22 Apr 2012 06:45

Re:

25 Aug 2017 14:15

Libertine Seguros wrote:"No amount of factual information seems to penetrate and be internalized" - perfect description of the Betonkopf, no?

Anyway, how are you getting on with your list of nations who are using the "common practice" of using asthma treatment for non-asthmatics in the same fashion as Norway? Since last time your assertion that this was common practice in several nations was questioned, you could only name Maurice Manificat as an example. As you've gone back to the assertion that it is done by several nations and trump up your scientific mindset, I can only presume that you have unearthed further evidence that backs up your assertion, as restating an unsatisfactory conclusion would surely be a no-no?

bla bla bla....

I cant adress all your points, due to time constraints/lack of patience/lazyness etc. But I can give you some possible asnvers to the asthma drama:

I'll try to explain how this ashtma drugs to healthy athletes started:
Ernst A. Lersveen, a reporter for TV2 asked Norwegian athletes if they had used Asthma medications. They confirmed they had, and they also comfirmed they did not have the diagnosis Asthma.

Headline: "Ski federation gives asthma medication through nebulizers to healthy athletes"

The problem here is that there are legitimate uses for asthma medications for conditions other than Asthma. For example the Swedes in there guidelines used a term Bronchial hyperactivity in addition to Asthma. In any case the athletes in the headline had other issues which were legitimately treated with asthma medications. They were not healthy and they did not have asthma. So the main problem with the headline is that the term healthy is misleading. So this starts a media scrum, with especially Swedish media riling up their readers.

In the end, the argument came down to the use of nebulizers, with the swedes having the moral high ground, which turned out to be very lonely as pointed out in the previous links. This asthma thing was silly from the start, and says more about the media environment for XC skiing than the use/misuse of asthma medications.

From your response you indicated you had not watched the video since you kept going on about failing to notice the marker. If you can miss a guy in a freaking gorilla suit you can miss a red marker. It's just how we humans function.

I'm not going to give you anymore evidence since that would be to much work for me. If the German government has any guidelines for the usage of medications, you can look there and see that asthma drugs are used for other things than asthma.
Last edited by ToreBear on 25 Aug 2017 14:50, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,623
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Re:

25 Aug 2017 14:36

Aragon wrote:
Saint Unix wrote:I live in Norway. Naïvety as displayed by ToreBear is dime a dozen here, so his posts don't surprise me one bit.

A dysfunctional anti-doping agency that couldn't even catch a cold and a borderline maniacal sense of patriotism will do that to people. Some Norwegians genuinely believe the lack of Norwegian positives is because our athletes don't dope, and that they're just naturally 10-15% better than everyone else. It's sad.

Our athletes aren't better, but our anti-doping agency is definitely sh*t.

This is a few years old take on the issue, but one proponent of the idea that the Norwegians have naturally anti-doping mindset is none other than the doping historian Erkki Vettenniemi who wrote the following essay some three years ago:

http://idrottsforum.org/forumbloggen/what-science-says-about-doping-in-norway/

I am not quite certain if this is a satirical take on how unreliable polls are or is this guy serious because:

1) He is a heavy proponent of the theory that Norwegian Gjermund Eggen was one of the first blood dopers in the 1966 FIS Nordic World Ski Championships when he started being 16th at 30km but won three golds later in the games (not then a banned method but portrays their ethical stance in a weird light).
http://idrottsforum.org/forumbloggen/triple-victory-for-norwegian-sport-medicine/

2) In his other books, he ridicules the notion that polls could tell the real opinion of athletes because they have vested interest to lie and downplay the prevalence of doping use/availability etc.
3) He himself isn't reluctant at all in accepting practically every doping-related rumour as fact.


1) I don't see a reason why he might not be right regarding Eggen. I have no idea either way. Before 1989 IIRC Norwegian sport was much more fragmented, so it's not unreasonable that some groups could be anti doping while other groups felt otherwise. Also the line between doping/not doping and whether it was cheating was not as clear as it is today. With the establishment of the Olympiatoppen, standards were set regarding anti doping. I think I read somewhere that they did discuss the use of doping, but that the argument that not using a doping shortcut would be more beneficial in the long run, as well as doping being ethically questionable/wrong, won out. Likely pressure from above also helped sway the argument.

2) I would agree one should be carefull with polls though there are ways to avoid the issue of answer expectations. IIRC there was a major Norwegian study which were issued in a way that avoided/reduced the risk of this problem. I think they had a lot of questions not related to doping and not only athletes were given the questions etc. I think it might be one of the studies he quoted.

3) That puts into question how seriously one should take his work.
Last edited by ToreBear on 25 Aug 2017 14:48, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,623
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

25 Aug 2017 14:43

As for the Johaug case, I guess CAS didn't agree with me. I haven't read the judgement yet. Maybe I will, maybe I won't.

The clinic has dropped a lot on my priority list this time of the year now, so don't be shocked If I'm not here to argue against the clinic narrative.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,623
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Re:

25 Aug 2017 17:46

After going quickly through some of the writings of Erkki Vettenniemi, I must first point out that he is always very non-specific about his PED-related allegations about others than Finns, even when he generally believes that every country uses every available method banned or not. He sees this as a fact-of-life and nothing to moralise about, a quite realistic position in light of what we do know about the world.

But here are a few instances where he specifically mentions Norwegians in a slightly questionable light:

- He repeats favourably the speculation that the reason why Norwegian Olympic Committee decided in 1976 to send letter to the IOC warning them about blood doping wasn't sports ethics or medical hazards but only because other countries were little-by-little catching up their advantage on the subject.
- Here is a longish quote about the 1997 FIS World Championships from his newish book:
When men had three starts behind them, the Finn Jari Isometsä had been blood tested three times. Björn Dählie, who had won three golds and one silver had avoided blood testing completely... In addition, Dählie had arrived to traditional urine test twice too late, which should've led to a disqualification... Norwegians took full advantage of the priveleges of the host nation, of which the Finnish team had enjoyed also when the competition was in Finland. The chief supervisor of doping testing of Trondheim was Inggard Lereim, who was known as the trusted man of Norwegian skiers.

What is "full advantage of the privileges"? He tells a few page earlier that the Finns did a lot of things when they were hosts during the 1989 World Championships like giving rEPO-hormone to their skiers and withholding information about what could be detected in the blood doping tests.
- He has an entire book detailing his theory that there was a plot against the Finnish cross-country skiers busted in 2001 of which one key player was aforementioned Inggard Lereim. The theory goes that Finns had convinced foreigners that transfusions and rEPO could be tested at the 1989 Lahti World Championships so other countries (presumably also Norwegians) seized to dope while Finns took full advantage of the medical aids. Lereim had to wait for twelve years for his revenge when the Finns were misinformed that HES couldn't be tested.

Vettenniemi seems to think that all athletes are afraid to rise against the antidoping-machine in order to keep competing and that is why they are seemingly so anti-doping and welcome every anti-doping measure with cheers. In his 2009 book he quotes figures of a 2002 Finnish poll where 90 % of respondents believed that doping improves performance but 0 athletes out of 446 admitted having ever used doping products. 93 percent stated that they would not use any banned product even if it would be legalised in the future. But there might be more sophisticated polling methods where the results are more accurate.

Just a word on the context of my third point, lost by most of the readers who didn't follow the link. It was that in the link he is very critical of the book Den store dopingbløffen which "not only thrives on speculation" but also "bluntly ignores recent academic discoveries concerning the role of doping in Norwegian sport" and still he more-or-less accepts every third hand hearsay as fact whenever it suits his case.

In one of his recent essays he refers neutrally to the same book he criticises in the link writing that "[o]n the eve of the 2014 Winter Olympics, a former Norwegian Anti-Doping official stated in his book that a number of Norwegian athletes had resorted to blood doping since 2001". I quess that because his thesis in that essay is that Finns aren't blood doping pioneers nor more dirty than others, so in that context the book that "thrives on speculation" is an OK source.

He is an interesting fellow and this was just a take why his defence of Norwegians seemed weird, without taking any position one way or another about his allegations or about Norwegians (I just have to mention that I don't believe his Eggen-theory after having gone through his primary sources).
User avatar Aragon
Junior Member
 
Posts: 160
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 17:44
Location: Finland

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 70kmph, Avoriaz and 18 guests

Back to top