Don't worry folks we're tough on dopers! Look we're handing out bans to a bunch of retired nobodies! The current product is clean!
-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re:
One has to admire the sheer bloodymindedness of the IAAF, not content with shooting themselves in one foot, with the absence of reaction to the first part of the ARD documentary, & then proceeding to shot themselves in the other foot with their lack of reaction to the Portland disclosures, they now pull out a bazooka to take care of what remains of both feet in their reaction to the 2nd part of the documentary & the analysis of the results they've had sitting in their safes for the last decade ...
Seriously, Who T.. F..k, does the IAAF PR, Groucho Marx ??
fenns said:
One has to admire the sheer bloodymindedness of the IAAF, not content with shooting themselves in one foot, with the absence of reaction to the first part of the ARD documentary, & then proceeding to shot themselves in the other foot with their lack of reaction to the Portland disclosures, they now pull out a bazooka to take care of what remains of both feet in their reaction to the 2nd part of the documentary & the analysis of the results they've had sitting in their safes for the last decade ...
Seriously, Who T.. F..k, does the IAAF PR, Groucho Marx ??
Re: Re:
The IAAF periodically retest samples. They have a solid retesting proceducre, unlike, say, the UCI, who talks the talk but refuses to walk the walk where retesting is concerned (save for Dekker, the dumb schmuck). Sometimes the IAAF's retesting is ahead of the Olympics. Sometimes before the samples are due to be flushed. IIRC this round of retesting commenced in April - you don't test that many samples in the week and a bit since the latest round of ST/ARD disclosures. They were scheduled to have results ahead of the Worlds/IAAF Congress, not as a response to ST/ARD. With a 10 year SOL, of course you are going to be busting retired athletes. But then, LA was retired when he was busted.
The IAAF periodically retest samples. They have a solid retesting proceducre, unlike, say, the UCI, who talks the talk but refuses to walk the walk where retesting is concerned (save for Dekker, the dumb schmuck). Sometimes the IAAF's retesting is ahead of the Olympics. Sometimes before the samples are due to be flushed. IIRC this round of retesting commenced in April - you don't test that many samples in the week and a bit since the latest round of ST/ARD disclosures. They were scheduled to have results ahead of the Worlds/IAAF Congress, not as a response to ST/ARD. With a 10 year SOL, of course you are going to be busting retired athletes. But then, LA was retired when he was busted.
Why retest from those tournaments? Isn't that merely a doping IQ test then?
New substances that can be tested for?
Do IAAF not have access to samples taken outside big tournaments?
New substances that can be tested for?
Do IAAF not have access to samples taken outside big tournaments?
Re:
21 of the 28 are retired and according to various sources there's no surprise that the majority are Russians. Others are from Ukraine, Belarus and Turkey.
Pete
luckyboy said:
21 of the 28 are retired and according to various sources there's no surprise that the majority are Russians. Others are from Ukraine, Belarus and Turkey.
Pete
To catch athletes during a major event of those year , I can only suppose that is for CERA... or an IQ test failed.
Re:
Or a method that has only just become testable / detectable ...
2005 is sometime ago you wonder if it is worth bothering with, however why not start there and roll forward (quickly). I guess the testing got better ...
poupou said:
Or a method that has only just become testable / detectable ...
2005 is sometime ago you wonder if it is worth bothering with, however why not start there and roll forward (quickly). I guess the testing got better ...
Re: Re:
This is a good post.
Yep - start from the longest ago and retest. If the testing method is at all questionable (and i am not saying it is) then get that out of the way on the retired ones. Then roll forward with more and more recent ones - a 10 year SOL still gives quite a lot of flexibility.
fmk_RoI said:
This is a good post.
Yep - start from the longest ago and retest. If the testing method is at all questionable (and i am not saying it is) then get that out of the way on the retired ones. Then roll forward with more and more recent ones - a 10 year SOL still gives quite a lot of flexibility.
2005 is the limit of the new Statue of limitiations.
Its as good a place to start as any, and if you are going to do it, may as well push back as far as you can
Its as good a place to start as any, and if you are going to do it, may as well push back as far as you can
In case of a new test available, because there is many diferents samples that are stored for each athletes, why not do retesting on a part of them, and keep others for later.
When the positive test after 10 years have less impact than to ban an active athlete.
When the positive test after 10 years have less impact than to ban an active athlete.
Have they told us exactly what tests they are talking about? It would be very interesting to know when they were approved in relation to these sanctions...
While retesting for new products does happen – there was THG in 2003, CERA in 2008, a refined steroid test in 2013 – most times it is just scheduled retesting before the samples are flushed. It's about samples that were ringing bells first time round – but not positive – and taking a second shot at them at the end of their life, taking advantage of general improvements in the testing game, rather than a specific, recently discovered new test.
On the issue of retro testing, this from ex-IAAF and current UCI lab rat Francesca Rossi is worth recalling
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-new-chapter-in-the-fight-against-doping/
On the issue of retro testing, this from ex-IAAF and current UCI lab rat Francesca Rossi is worth recalling
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-new-chapter-in-the-fight-against-doping/
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/german-anti-doping-lab-finds-161801242--spt.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw
sporting federations are operating in a manner akin to organised crime.
sporting federations are operating in a manner akin to organised crime.
Re:
That's a link to a story about the 2013 steroid retesting. What's the acrobatic leap of logic that takes us from retesting to organized crime?
Benotti69 said:
That's a link to a story about the 2013 steroid retesting. What's the acrobatic leap of logic that takes us from retesting to organized crime?
Nice that IAAF looked again at old samples (likely targeting Russians and Africans), but why not also incoporate corresponding ones at ADA's from the preparation of these tournaments? 32 positives (is that the correct languages, or are they just trying to get borderline cases?) is impressive, but those are just the ones who thought they were using something that could not be traced. What about those showing up to the tournaments without a trace of glow?
I just wanted to say that Sebastian Coe is trash, or perhaps....Lord Coe is garbage. I also want to thank him for being the Patrick McQuaid of Track & Field. It's people like him that keep the sport interesting--like a train wreck.
That is all.
That is all.
Re:
East German Style, baby. If you have drug testing facilities superior to your athletic federation's facilities, you will be a champion!
Cloxxki said:
East German Style, baby. If you have drug testing facilities superior to your athletic federation's facilities, you will be a champion!
Looks like Elvan Abeylegesse might be one of those caught:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-medalist-abeylegesse-withdraws-from-competitions-after-doping-claims-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=86951&NewsCatID=371
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-medalist-abeylegesse-withdraws-from-competitions-after-doping-claims-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=86951&NewsCatID=371
gooner said:
Interesting statistic, 29 - 34%. I wonder if this extrapolates to cycling. The CIRC report had estimates between 30 and 90%. I wonder where the reality lies (no pun intended). 34% translates to 74 riders (rounded down) were actively doping in the TDF.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 24K
-
Tour Down Under 2025 - Men's (Jan. 21-26)- Started by Tricycle Rider
- Replies: 453
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram