• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Doping In Athletics

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re:

fenns said:
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!

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.
 
Re:

luckyboy said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33867962

28 mostly retired athletes suspended after their 2005 and 2007 samples were re-tested...

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
 
Re:

poupou said:
To catch athletes during a major event of those year , I can only suppose that is for CERA... or an IQ test failed.

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:

fmk_RoI said:
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.

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.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Visit site
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.
 
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

“I think the test for hGH is done via blood, and we don't have so many blood samples. It is a little difficult to make a retrospective analysis in these situations. It is not a case that you can work with stored urine, which you can test for years - blood is a little bit different and more delicate.

“I think that for this part, we don't have so many retrospective possibilities. But we have so many athletes for the future [that can be tested]...

“Retrospective analyses in general are really tricky. You cannot apply this for every sample in every time. So it is really a complicated matter for me, in general.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-new-chapter-in-the-fight-against-doping/
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
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.

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.
 
Re:

Cloxxki said:
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?

Because that's how you would actually catch people...
 
Re:

Cloxxki said:
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?

East German Style, baby. If you have drug testing facilities superior to your athletic federation's facilities, you will be a champion!
 
gooner said:
More tomorrow. Scroll down and read.

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.