Doping In Athletics

[PremierAndrew]

Most people have their suspicions about the state of athletics, but strikingly, according to some leaked files from the IAAF, the extent of this in endurance events is shocking, with upto a third of medals won at the World Championships and Olympics between 2001-2012 by athletes with 'suspicious tests', yet none of whom have been stripped of their winnings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33749208

Suspicion isn't the right term. That would suggest there is some degree of uncertainty.

With me and many who are interested in doping, there is no uncertainty. Athletics isn't "suspicious". It is simply a fact that its doped to the gills.

Well that's hardly a surprise when governing body turns a blind eye to it - you'd be stupid not to dope

 

[The Hitch]

The times may have displayed some of the info, but from what I saw, on 2 occasions they said that the fact that bolt and farahs values were not among the ones questioned by Ashenden, proved they are clean.

That is a straight up lie. Times again abusing it's power to push a agenda.

I have an old school view on doping. You don't win it by taking down the Simeonis while celebrating the cleanliness of the Armstrongs. To say that a negative tests proves the 2 most dominant and marketable people in the sport are clean is to push the old lie that doping doesn't really work. Only a bunch of foreigners you never heard of did it. They may have won medals but you never saw them anyway cos we were too busy showing usain bolt goof around to the camera (yes this did actually happen on the bbc, they would show bolt.clips instead of athletics finals).

That they say this about bolt when Jamaican anti doping has proven to be a sham and farah when his own coach is salzar, makes one sick.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re:

The times may have displayed some of the info, but from what I saw, on 2 occasions they said that the fact that bolt and farahs values were not among the ones questioned by Ashenden, proved they are clean.

That is a straight up lie. Times again abusing it's power to push a agenda.

I have an old school view on doping. You don't win it by taking down the Simeonis while celebrating the cleanliness of the Armstrongs. To say that a negative tests proves the 2 most dominant and marketable people in the sport are clean is to push the old lie that doping doesn't really work. Only a bunch of foreigners you never heard of did it. They may have won medals but you never saw them anyway cos we were too busy showing usain bolt goof around to the camera (yes this did actually happen on the bbc, they would show bolt.clips instead of athletics finals).

That they say this about bolt when Jamaican anti doping has proven to be a sham and farah when his own coach is salzar, makes one sick.

But..but... Farah is 'British' - how can he possibly be a doper???

 

[Festina Lente]

Re: covered

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/03/dirtiest-race-in-history-richard-moore-review

a worthwhile read describing many cover ups................

Mark L

The second comment following that article, written in 2012 helps confirms why so many of us remain sceptical: "...there is and never has been any proof that Lance Armstrong proved positive for use of a banned substance."

 

[Swifty's Cakes]

Re:

The times may have displayed some of the info, but from what I saw, on 2 occasions they said that the fact that bolt and farahs values were not among the ones questioned by Ashenden, proved they are clean.

That is a straight up lie. Times again abusing it's power to push a agenda.

I have an old school view on doping. You don't win it by taking down the Simeonis while celebrating the cleanliness of the Armstrongs. To say that a negative tests proves the 2 most dominant and marketable people in the sport are clean is to push the old lie that doping doesn't really work. Only a bunch of foreigners you never heard of did it. They may have won medals but you never saw them anyway cos we were too busy showing usain bolt goof around to the camera (yes this did actually happen on the bbc, they would show bolt.clips instead of athletics finals).

That they say this about bolt when Jamaican anti doping has proven to be a sham and farah when his own coach is salzar, makes one sick.

I took it that mentioning farah and ennis had no suspicious values but a top britsh athlete being suspicious is a coded way of saying its paula radcliffe. Her name is noticably abscent from the print edition

 

[Zebadeedee]

One implication of the cover-up is that, as IAAF vice presidents, neither Coe nor Bubka deserve to retain any shred of credibility regarding their candidacies for the IAAF presidency. This latest alone ought to exclude them, no matter any suspicions surrounding their own world records.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Single shred of evidence ?

The Olympics 100M has a long history of subsequently proven dopers winning.

The sprints always have been as dirty as dirty can be.

Endurance events respond to things like transfusions and EPO just as well as cycling, but there is a much bigger pool of fish to hide in, and an authority who is not interested in scandal,

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

The times may have displayed some of the info, but from what I saw, on 2 occasions they said that the fact that bolt and farahs values were not among the ones questioned by Ashenden, proved they are clean.

That is a straight up lie. Times again abusing it's power to push a agenda.

I have an old school view on doping. You don't win it by taking down the Simeonis while celebrating the cleanliness of the Armstrongs. To say that a negative tests proves the 2 most dominant and marketable people in the sport are clean is to push the old lie that doping doesn't really work. Only a bunch of foreigners you never heard of did it. They may have won medals but you never saw them anyway cos we were too busy showing usain bolt goof around to the camera (yes this did actually happen on the bbc, they would show bolt.clips instead of athletics finals).

That they say this about bolt when Jamaican anti doping has proven to be a sham and farah when his own coach is salzar, makes one sick.

I took it that mentioning farah and ennis had no suspicious values but a top britsh athlete being suspicious is a coded way of saying its paula radcliffe. Her name is noticably abscent from the print edition

Yeah, they said they had no suspicious values. Take no notice of the above, it's just an obvious agenda against The Times.

This investigation journalism is the real and brave work and not like some of the noise we seen recently around the Tour. That achieved little or nothing.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

The times may have displayed some of the info, but from what I saw, on 2 occasions they said that the fact that bolt and farahs values were not among the ones questioned by Ashenden, proved they are clean.

That is a straight up lie. Times again abusing it's power to push a agenda.

I have an old school view on doping. You don't win it by taking down the Simeonis while celebrating the cleanliness of the Armstrongs. To say that a negative tests proves the 2 most dominant and marketable people in the sport are clean is to push the old lie that doping doesn't really work. Only a bunch of foreigners you never heard of did it. They may have won medals but you never saw them anyway cos we were too busy showing usain bolt goof around to the camera (yes this did actually happen on the bbc, they would show bolt.clips instead of athletics finals).

That they say this about bolt when Jamaican anti doping has proven to be a sham and farah when his own coach is salzar, makes one sick.

I agree.

First of all, well done to WDR/ADR for another fantastic investigation. The Sunday Times have ruined a great oppurtunity, the investigating was poor. They had a good enough track record to be leaked these, yet, frankly, despite a few good moments, they butcher it. They investigate the Russian performance of 2005 in great detail and very well, but do not mention any of the 12 British names that has abnormal haemoglobin values. Remember, this investigation basically focuses on that, haemoglobin. Why would a sprinter try to increase their haemoglobin? There are far better doping methods to become a better sprinter.

Steve Cram, the British former would later write of Ramzi's triumphs in Helsinki: "He almost embarrassed his competitors with his ease of victory. Newfound ability in your mid-twentieshas the odour of a North Shields fish quay on a warm day

Remind you of anyone mind you this is in the same newspaper that defends Sky and Froome blindly and insults anyone who does.

To make it worse they let Steve Walsh loose again.

Something else that annoyed me was the fact they had a page just on how British athletes were robbed, and countless interviews - while naming all of them, yet they only had half a page on how British athletes doped and one interview and no name. This is a doping enquiry, not a Help for poor British Athletes campaign. No mention of other countries' athletes losing out, though.

 

[gooner]

The whistleblower who released the data requested the paper not to publish the names.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Just heard a live interview with the Sunday Times journalist on 5 live.

More revelations to come out separate to these.

They showed their story to the IAAF and they responded with a threat on Friday that they would get an injunction to stop them publishing this Sunday but it did not materialise. ( IAAF have obviously not taken on Hein as a consultant he would have had that injunction in place in time no problem !)

 

[del1962]

Anything on the Kenyan and Ethiopian superstars of distance running?

 

[fenns]

Response from the IAAF.

The IAAF is aware of serious allegations made against the integrity and competence of its anti-doping programme.

The relevant allegations were broadcast on WDR (ARD) in Germany yesterday and have been repeated in an article in the Sunday Times newspaper today. They are largely based on analysis of an IAAF Data Base of private and confidential medical data which has been obtained without consent. The IAAF is now preparing a detailed response to both media outlets and will reserve the right to take any follow up action necessary to protect the rights of the IAAF and its athletes.

No rebuttal of the allegations.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Anything on the Kenyan and Ethiopian superstars of distance running?

Kenyan = 11% of all athletes doped
Ethiopian = 8% of all athletes doped

 

[ebandit]

bollox

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/03/dirtiest-race-in-history-richard-moore-review

a worthwhile read describing many cover ups................

Mark L

The second comment following that article, written in 2012 helps confirms why so many of us remain sceptical: "...there is and never has been any proof that Lance Armstrong proved positive for use of a banned substance."

the book as this thread is about athletics...........who gives a **** about comment added

to the article by joeypoey..........

Mark L

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re:

The times may have displayed some of the info, but from what I saw, on 2 occasions they said that the fact that bolt and farahs values were not among the ones questioned by Ashenden, proved they are clean.

That is a straight up lie. Times again abusing it's power to push a agenda.

I have an old school view on doping. You don't win it by taking down the Simeonis while celebrating the cleanliness of the Armstrongs. To say that a negative tests proves the 2 most dominant and marketable people in the sport are clean is to push the old lie that doping doesn't really work. Only a bunch of foreigners you never heard of did it. They may have won medals but you never saw them anyway cos we were too busy showing usain bolt goof around to the camera (yes this did actually happen on the bbc, they would show bolt.clips instead of athletics finals).

That they say this about bolt when Jamaican anti doping has proven to be a sham and farah when his own coach is salzar, makes one sick.

I am going to cut them some slack. The wording is very precise. "Jessica Ennis Hill, Mo Farah and Usain Bolt have had no suspicious blood tests" And in the live interview the journalist said that the as a consequence of the blood tests of those athletes targeted, who had enormous off scale values, many passed the subsequent sanctionable, urine test and suggested one way around this was micro-dosing. So I don't think they are giving Mo a clean bill of health just saying that in the current crop of revelations he did not have off record scores that would have triggered targeting, or later as in for Mo in 2012, banning, which indicates either clean (not likely) or execution of a very accomplished doping program - knowing exactly how to defeat the tests.

 

[Festina Lente]

Re: bollox

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/03/dirtiest-race-in-history-richard-moore-review

a worthwhile read describing many cover ups................

Mark L

The second comment following that article, written in 2012 helps confirms why so many of us remain sceptical: "...there is and never has been any proof that Lance Armstrong proved positive for use of a banned substance."

the book as this thread is about athletics...........who gives a **** about comment added

to the article by joeypoey..........

Mark L

I drew attention to the comment because it is a reminder of how people have been, and continue to be, duped by cheats, regardless of their chosen sport. I'm actually in agreement with you that the book is "a worthwhile read describing many cover ups."

 

[The Carrot]

I notice that the Grauniad is not allowing anyone to comment on their article on doping in athletics, or on the one on blood doping. I notice this happens a lot, perhaps they don't want any right thinking person to tell it like it is and spoil the paper's narrative on how amazing (British) sport is.

 

[2008885]

Re:

I notice that the Grauniad is not allowing anyone to comment on their article on doping in athletics, or on the one on blood doping. I notice this happens a lot, perhaps they don't want any right thinking person to tell it like it is and spoil the paper's narrative on how amazing (British) sport is.

Or perhaps they're worried about expensive lawsuits heading their way.....

 

[hulkgogan]

Re:

I notice that the Grauniad is not allowing anyone to comment on their article on doping in athletics, or on the one on blood doping. I notice this happens a lot, perhaps they don't want any right thinking person to tell it like it is and spoil the paper's narrative on how amazing (British) sport is.

The Guardian is absolutely awful, as hypocritical as they come. Among many other things, they once published this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/100-tours-100-tales/2015/jan/14/french-cartoons-charlie-hebdo-satirised-lance-armstrong-puerile-perfect

lionizing this French cartoonist for lampooning and outing Lance. When I mentioned that right up to the Reasoned Decision, the Guardian deleted all comments implying Armstrong was a doper, my comment was deleted. When I asked why it was deleted, that comment was also deleted. Then I was banned. I emailed the comments editor who surprisingly actually responded, saying my comments were off topic.

Erm, no, Guardian dude, they were actually absolutely pertinent on an article praising journalistic integrity and bravery when your paper displayed none.

That's the modern media for you, the facile face of fascism.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

I notice that the Grauniad is not allowing anyone to comment on their article on doping in athletics, or on the one on blood doping. I notice this happens a lot, perhaps they don't want any right thinking person to tell it like it is and spoil the paper's narrative on how amazing (British) sport is.

The Guardian is absolutely awful, as hypocritical as they come. Among many other things, they once published this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/100-tours-100-tales/2015/jan/14/french-cartoons-charlie-hebdo-satirised-lance-armstrong-puerile-perfect

lionizing this French cartoonist for lampooning and outing Lance. When I mentioned that right up to the Reasoned Decision, the Guardian deleted all comments implying Armstrong was a doper, my comment was deleted. When I asked why it was deleted, that comment was also deleted. Then I was banned. I emailed the comments editor who surprisingly actually responded, saying my comments were off topic.

Erm, no, Guardian dude, they were actually absolutely pertinent on an article praising journalistic integrity and bravery when your paper displayed none.

That's the modern media for you, the facile face of fascism.

A before / after screen shot of your comments being deleted would be very useful here.

Perhaps some comments on some Froome articles could use a similar technique?

 

[Zebadeedee]

Re:

The times may have displayed some of the info, but from what I saw, on 2 occasions they said that the fact that bolt and farahs values were not among the ones questioned by Ashenden, proved they are clean.

That is a straight up lie. Times again abusing it's power to push a agenda.

I have an old school view on doping. You don't win it by taking down the Simeonis while celebrating the cleanliness of the Armstrongs. To say that a negative tests proves the 2 most dominant and marketable people in the sport are clean is to push the old lie that doping doesn't really work. Only a bunch of foreigners you never heard of did it. They may have won medals but you never saw them anyway cos we were too busy showing usain bolt goof around to the camera (yes this did actually happen on the bbc, they would show bolt.clips instead of athletics finals).

That they say this about bolt when Jamaican anti doping has proven to be a sham and farah when his own coach is salzar, makes one sick.

Kimmage makes much the same point at one stage during his podcast commentary today on the ST article.

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Off_The_Ball_Highlights/99836/

He also touches on Coe's candidacy, bluntly doubting his credibility as the right person to take over the IAAF.

 

[The Carrot]

Re: Re:

I notice that the Grauniad is not allowing anyone to comment on their article on doping in athletics, or on the one on blood doping. I notice this happens a lot, perhaps they don't want any right thinking person to tell it like it is and spoil the paper's narrative on how amazing (British) sport is.

The Guardian is absolutely awful, as hypocritical as they come. Among many other things, they once published this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/100-tours-100-tales/2015/jan/14/french-cartoons-charlie-hebdo-satirised-lance-armstrong-puerile-perfect

lionizing this French cartoonist for lampooning and outing Lance. When I mentioned that right up to the Reasoned Decision, the Guardian deleted all comments implying Armstrong was a doper, my comment was deleted. When I asked why it was deleted, that comment was also deleted. Then I was banned. I emailed the comments editor who surprisingly actually responded, saying my comments were off topic.

Erm, no, Guardian dude, they were actually absolutely pertinent on an article praising journalistic integrity and bravery when your paper displayed none.

That's the modern media for you, the facile face of fascism.

Frothingham writes for the Guardian, nuff said.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

The times may have displayed some of the info, but from what I saw, on 2 occasions they said that the fact that bolt and farahs values were not among the ones questioned by Ashenden, proved they are clean.

That is a straight up lie. Times again abusing it's power to push a agenda.

I have an old school view on doping. You don't win it by taking down the Simeonis while celebrating the cleanliness of the Armstrongs. To say that a negative tests proves the 2 most dominant and marketable people in the sport are clean is to push the old lie that doping doesn't really work. Only a bunch of foreigners you never heard of did it. They may have won medals but you never saw them anyway cos we were too busy showing usain bolt goof around to the camera (yes this did actually happen on the bbc, they would show bolt.clips instead of athletics finals).

That they say this about bolt when Jamaican anti doping has proven to be a sham and farah when his own coach is salzar, makes one sick.

Kimmage makes much the same point at one stage during his podcast commentary today on the ST article.

http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Off_The_Ball_Highlights/99836/

He also touches on Coe's candidacy, bluntly doubting his credibility as the right person to take over the IAAF.

I listened to it this morning.

Kimmage is speculating that the experts didn't see Farah's and Bolt's profiles. Adrian rightly queries that view as it's done by Kimmage more on a perception than any proven point of view. If the journalists are using experts to analyse a blood profile to flag up a top British athlete, I find it hard to believe they didn't do so with Bolt and Farah. As Adrian said, they would have been two of the most obvious athletes that they would have been interested in. Ennis too comes into this bracket.

Kimmage acknowledged that this was a brilliant piece of journalism and would have liked to have his own paper and name put to this story.

As for Coe, I agree with Kimmage. I watched a HardTalk interview recently on the BBC with him and I came off it having huge reservations about him. His campaign hasn't impressed me at all.

 

[Zebadeedee]

Lord Muck above it all, the dirty dodger.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/02/lord-coe-response-iaaf-mass-doping-claims-blood-counts-olympic-athletics

Bit of a dodgy one for this particular IAAF vice-president, all this blood doping. Must bring back all those memories. No wonder he feigns ignorance.