Doping In Athletics

[Nederick]

IAAF lost its way a loooong time ago. When it bought in with the sponsors that the paying audiences saw the premium product as world record producing races and events.

 

[bewildered]

interesting to see how Sky fans view Seb and the state of Athletics in general

 

[WillemS]

Re:

IAAF lost its way a loooong time ago.

I don't think it had much of a way to lose anyway, nor did most of the national athletic federations.

 

[gooner]

Ashenden and Parisotto release a statement.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn73ks

They bring up the same point about d'Onofrio's analysis of Juve's doping.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Lord Coe's comments are pretty pathetic.

Athletics lost the war on doping a long time ago through inactivity.


The only thing that can redeem it is massive wholesale bans for doping, including "signature names". No protection for anyone and push the system to make sure positives are found.


Not going to happen on the current watch or judging from his comments, the next watch.

 

[Nellyspania]

Re:

IAAF lost its way a loooong time ago. When it bought in with the sponsors that the paying audiences saw the premium product as world record producing races and events.

IAAF has zero credibility regards to doping - have a look at their hall of fame...

http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/hall-of-fame

I assume Coe has no problem with his organisation lumping him in with leading lights such as Marita Koch...

 

[Tonton]

Re:

Lord Coe's comments are pretty pathetic.

Athletics lost the war on doping a long time ago through inactivity.


The only thing that can redeem it is massive wholesale bans for doping, including "signature names". No protection for anyone and push the system to make sure positives are found.


Not going to happen on the current watch or judging from his comments, the next watch.

+1. Coe and the rest will defend the institution at all cost. It's easier to ignore the issue than address it, and in the process of addressing it, it brings bad PR for the sport (see Cycling). So they'd rather bury their head in the sand: doping? What doping? I like the rhetoric, though: an ounce of Sky (pseudo scientists), a teaspoon of Hinault (they are declaring war on the sport), some chopped Cookson (our anti-doping works). The whole story including names may come out, but as the dust settles afterwards, Coe and Co will declare that doping in T&F ended in 2012. Puke...

 

[coinneach]

Re:

interesting to see how Sky fans view Seb and the state of Athletics in general

I'm not a Sky fan, but I am British.
I don't believe that Sky have a team wide doping programme.
I am slightly more suspicious of athletics than procycling.
National and team pressure to get results, individual gain, leadership under pressure and resorting to siege mentality; all familiar from cycling.

I was never sure about Seb himself doping as an athlete, then and now. I am pretty sure some the Brits he beat were dirty.
I think some of his actions against doping have been helpful, but he's not always managed to deliver (like life bans).
I am not impressed by the way he is handling this.
I don't like his politics, but do I have more confidence in him than the other leaders in IAAF?
Probably

Hope you find these comment helpful!

 

[del1962]

Scientists at heart of doping storm defend findings

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/08/05/uk-athletics-doping-scientists-idUKKCN0QA1DN20150805

http://www.news.co.uk/2015/08/blood-experts-respond-to-serious-reservations-expressed-by-iaaf/

Statement: Blood experts, Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto, respond to serious reservations expressed by IAAF in relation to The Sunday Times investigation into blood doping in athletics.

Overview

We note the concerns raised by the IAAF with regard to the analyses we undertook of the data. We have rebutted each and every one of their so-called ‘serious reservations’. The pre-2009 data is reliable, in fact by their own admission the IAAF has relied on those data to extend sanctions against athletes. We followed the same procedure as IAAF expert panelists when reviewing ABP profiles, classifying results as ‘likely doping’ when we were able to confidently exclude all other potential causes or instead ‘suspicious’ when there was genuine evidence of blood manipulation however further investigation such as target testing would have been required. And for the avoidance of doubt, we based our judgments on the entire blood test profile for the athlete not just on individual scores. We stand by the evaluations we submitted to Sunday Times and ARD/WDR.

General response to the IAAF media release

A detailed response is included as an addendum, but we make the following general observations.

‘It is unscientific to compare data collected prior to 2009’

Last December, the IAAF stated that: “When they are available, the IAAF has used the blood values prior to 2009 as “secondary evidence” in support of an increased sanction in addition to the post-2009 profile to establish the athlete’s long history of doping”.
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2014/12/iaaf-spokesman-nick-davies-writes-letsrun-com-reports-iaaf-not-follow-retesting-150-suspicious-samples-2006-2008/
In our opinion, if the pre-2009 data are considered sufficiently reliable to extend a sanction, then they are also sufficiently reliable to undertake our analyses.
‘The scientists had no authority to comment because of their lack of knowledge of the IAAF programme…it was pure guesswork’

Since 2011 Robin Parisotto has been retained by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) to review blood profiles of their elite track and field athletes. Consequently, he is currently providing expert opinion to multiple disciplinary proceedings involving IAAF athletes.
Michael Ashenden was a member of the WADA Passport Committee that devised targeting strategies for international federations such as the IAAF to adopt.
Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto were both founding members of the UCI’s Expert Panel, they have each provided expert testimony to disciplinary cases before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and have both advised anti-doping organisations on how to undertake target testing of athletes suspected of blood doping.


Professor Giuseppe d’Onofrio’s statement: ‘In particular, one should refrain from making any authoritative conclusion on individual cases on the basis of a one-off value, let alone when this value has been collected before the formal introduction of the ABP in 2009’

Many years before the standardisations he referred to were implemented, Prof d’Onofrio interpreted ‘raw data’ (in particular, medical documents seized during raids on the Juventus club offices in 1998) and felt sufficiently comfortable interpreting those ‘raw data’ to reach a conclusion that he was “practically certain” they had taken EPO.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-drug-scandal-that-blackens-the-name-of-juves-team-of-the-nineties-6156776.html
When an abnormal result was present, the entire profile for the athlete was extracted from the data base and evaluated in its entirety;
We consider that the comparatively conservative conclusion we reached of ‘likely doping’ was warranted, given that the data we interpreted had been collected under the stringent IAAF Blood Testing Protocol.
Concluding remarks

We note that when the IAAF analysed the same raw data reported on by Sunday Times and ARD/WDR, they felt the data were sufficiently reliable for them to publish their conclusion that increased blood values “most probably implicated a doping behaviour” (see Clinical Chemistry Vol 57 no. 5 p765). We draw no distinction between the terminology used by IAAF and ourselves.

Finally, we note the IAAF’s confirmation that the database is “not a secret or hidden document in any way” and that the IAAF welcomes the opportunity to present to the Independent Commission. We therefore call on the IAAF to give a public undertaking that it will immediately share the entire database with *** Pound’s independent review.

Addendum

A detailed response to each of the serious reservations expressed by the IAAF is included below.

The two scientists should never have accepted to review blood data.
We acknowledge that the views on how much assistance should be provided to whistleblowers are contentious. We each sought a concrete undertaking from Sunday Times and ARD/WDR that our opinions on individual athletes would never be disclosed. In other words, we insisted on the same protections for individual athletes as the IAAF afforded to athletes when they published their own prevalence findings in 2011.
They sought to draw conclusions on the prevalence of blood doping in athletics today based on suspicious blood values that were collected up to 14 years ago.
We agree. Similarly, the IAAF sought to draw conclusions on the prevalence of blood doping in 2001, which was ten years after they published their findings. We do not see the distinction between those two scenarios.
The data reviewed by the scientists is now outdated.
That is arguable because some athletes are still competing. Nevertheless, that does not prevent the interpretation of blood data from 2001-2012, which is what we performed.
They sought to raise suspicions of blood doping on the basis of an analysis of the raw data only (including data collected prior to the introduction of the ABP) and in the absence of all the related information that is necessary for a rigorous interpretation of the results.
The IAAF analysed the exact same ‘raw data’ in their 2011 publication, when they felt comfortable drawing the conclusion “most probably implicated a doping behaviour” from elevated blood values in those raw data. The terminology we applied was “likely doping” which in every material way is entirely consistent with the IAAF’s terminology.
It is unscientific in the context of the current ABP system to seek to compare data that has been collected prior to 2009 (from samples that were not collected or analysed in a standardised manner) and data collected after 2009 that is derived from samples collected and analysed in accordance with the strict criteria of the WADA ABP Operating Guidelines.
In fact, all samples in the data base were collected and analysed in a standardised manner. This is confirmed by the IAAF in the Supplemental Data which accompanied the online publication of their 2011 article. Specifically, “Blood samples in the database were collected, transported and analysed following the IAAF Blood Testing Protocol” (see p1).
http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/5/762/suppl/DC1
As the IAAF attests in their media release, they specifically set out to ensure their blood tests were reliable. As the IAAF media release states: “The IAAF Blood Testing Protocol indeed eventually formed the outline basis for the WADA Guidelines which were adopted in 2009.” (see p6).
It is our opinion that the results were collected under a sufficiently standardised procedure to permit a valid scientific analysis of the data.
There is no clear indication of the number of suspicious profiles reviewed by the scientists that actually resulted in the IAAF concluding Adverse Analytical or Adverse Passport Findings.
We each assessed the data independently and forwarded our conclusions to the Sunday Times who collated our data. The Sunday Times then cross matched athletes with their competition results and any history of sanctions.
The scientists had no authority to comment on whether or not the IAAF had followed up on suspicious samples because of a lack of knowledge of the IAAF programme and a lack of experience in the field of Athletics generally. It was pure guesswork on their part.
Since 2011 Robin Parisotto has been retained by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) to review blood profiles of their elite track and field athletes. Consequently, he is currently providing expert opinion to multiple disciplinary proceedings involving IAAF athletes.
Michael Ashenden was a member of the WADA Passport Committee that devised targeting strategies for international federations such as the IAAF to adopt.
Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto were both founding members of the UCI’s Expert Panel, they have each provided expert testimony to disciplinary cases before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and have both advised anti-doping organisations on how to undertake target testing of athletes suspected of blood doping.
Professor Giuseppe d’Onofrio’s comments as to the dangers of comparing pre and post-2009 data.
The IAAF compares pre and post-2009 data when they use blood values prior to 2009 as “secondary evidence” in support of an increased sanction in addition to the post-2009 profile to establish the athlete’s long history of doping;
In our opinion, if the data are sufficiently valid to increase a sanction, then they are also sufficiently valid to draw a conclusion about ‘likely’ blood doping.
Overview of how blood profiles were evaluated

The data base comprised key blood results such as haemoglobin and reticulocyte levels, from which the OFF score was calculated;
Sorting the data according to these key variables quickly flagged those results that exceeded published thresholds utilised by anti-doping authorities to designate results as abnormal. Such results indicate the possible use of blood doping;
When an abnormal result was present, the entire profile for the athlete was extracted from the data base and evaluated in its entirety;
When potential medical and physiological factors that can affect the key blood profiles could confidently be excluded, the athlete was flagged as ‘likely blood doping’;
Results that were flagged as ‘suspicious’ represented genuine evidence of potential doping, but other factors such as medical or physiological conditions could not be confidently ruled out. Such profiles required further investigation, such as targeted testing, to determine whether blood doping had indeed taken place.
These two categories (‘likely blood doping’ and ‘suspicious’) are equivalent to the designations that IAAF expert panelists are asked to submit when ‘raw data’ in ABP profiles containing abnormal results are sent for expert review.
In summary, the analyses undertaken on behalf of Sunday Times and ADR/WDR followed the same underpinning principle which the IAAF Anti-Doping Commission members adopted for the publication of their prevalence findings in 2011. Namely, that large fluctuations within an athlete’s profile may provide strong evidence of blood manipulation.

Specifically, every athlete was assessed in terms of their entire blood profile. Appropriate weighting was afforded to results in light of the standard of blood collection at the time the sample was collected. Further, as attested to by the IAAF’s published article, it was possible to make an allowance for altitude where necessary because the altitude of the testing location depicted in the database followed a distribution similar to that of the altitude of the training location.

Michael Ashenden

Robin Parisotto

 

[WillemS]

Re:

Scientists at heart of doping storm defend findings

(...)

Yes, thank you for the links, it's good to see media reports of their statement (the link to that is a few posts above yours). I hope the media's attention will remain on athletics for a while, although I doubt that.

Indeed they should defend their findings and, while they do mention something alone these lines, I think it would be wise for them not to focus on individual cases, but on the improbability of finding so many abnormal blood profiles if all of them are of "natural" origin. As I've posted earlier, I don't think you can establish positive cases using their method, as even in the doping proceedings they mention that do use these blood profiles, the profiles were used as additional evidence, not as the sole evidence, for the case. I think the best they can do is to establish that it is very likely that doping is a widespread problem in athletics and that the current anti-doping program is little better than worthless.

I know it's more sensational and emotionally rewarding to to talk about individual "scandals", that most of us here are craving for "justice" and prosecutions, but, in the end, what might be more rewarding in the long run is acknowledgement of the problems and starting the difficult process of reformation, instead of focussing to much on whether or not we can prove certain individuals were doping or certain specific countries were facilitating it. The former will help establish a better future, the latter is probably unattainable and will suck away most of the resources needed to facilitate the reformation of the federations and the sport.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

[quote="coinneach

I'm not a Sky fan
[/quote]lol

I don't believe that Sky have a team wide doping programme

Very few people claim they do. They say froome is doping and Wiggins before him and Thomas and Porte.

That goes hand in hand with what ashenden - same expert as now in athletics, said in 2012 about cycling teams doping a handful of riders.

 

[Lyon]

Ashenden knows nothing about the kind of talewinds riders are facing in cycling nowadays. As talewinds have decreased in Athletics over the years, they have in fact increased in cycling. Fact!

Ashenden needs to read up on the latest literature. Brailsford et al.

 

[bewildered]

i think Coe is proving himself to be an excellent candidate for the IAAF here and that's why he's doing this. Perfect candidate for the status quo. The IAAF will love him for this. More politics from Coe

 

[bewildered]

Re: Re:

interesting to see how Sky fans view Seb and the state of Athletics in general

I'm not a Sky fan, but I am British.
I don't believe that Sky have a team wide doping programme.
I am slightly more suspicious of athletics than procycling.
National and team pressure to get results, individual gain, leadership under pressure and resorting to siege mentality; all familiar from cycling.

I was never sure about Seb himself doping as an athlete, then and now. I am pretty sure some the Brits he beat were dirty.
I think some of his actions against doping have been helpful, but he's not always managed to deliver (like life bans).
I am not impressed by the way he is handling this.
I don't like his politics, but do I have more confidence in him than the other leaders in IAAF?
Probably

Hope you find these comment helpful!

Thanks. I was looking for someone who thinks Sky are clean to give an opinion on whether they think top athletics people are clean and if not, why. I think athletics is as dirty as cycling both amongst competitors and the governing bodies.

 

[The Hitch]

So does Coe's pro Omerta bully behaviour put to bed the question of whether or not Coe doped in the 1980's?

 

[the delgados]

Re:

So does Coe's pro Omerta bully behaviour put to bed the question of whether or not Coe doped in the 1980's?

Ask Oprah.

 

[mrhender]

Re:

So does Coe's pro Omerta bully behaviour put to bed the question of whether or not Coe doped in the 1980's?

I don't think so... And personally I don't think it matters much..

I mean, even if he didn't dope, it wouldn't change anything for me...

Defending Salazar, and lambasting respected scientists is all I need to know to pass judgement on his "effeciancy" as IAAF top dog in spe...

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

So does Coe's pro Omerta bully behaviour put to bed the question of whether or not Coe doped in the 1980's?

I don't think so... And personally I don't think it matters much..

I mean, even if he didn't dope, it wouldn't change anything for me...

Defending Salazar, and lambasting respected scientists is all I need to know to pass judgement on his "effeciancy" as IAAF top dog in spe...

In many respects, this debacle puts cycling in a rather good light. After all, Coe's response is starkly reminiscent of the denial and aggressive fightback from the UCI and in particular McQuaid when the CERA positives emerged in 2008.

It isn't often I take too much comfort in the world of cycling with regards to doping, but this athletics debacle makes it look at least a decade behind cycling.

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

In many respects, this debacle puts cycling in a rather good light. After all, Coe's response is starkly reminiscent of the denial and aggressive fightback from the UCI and in particular McQuaid when the CERA positives emerged in 2008.

It isn't often I take too much comfort in the world of cycling with regards to doping, but this athletics debacle makes it look at least a decade behind cycling.

Well, I certainly think the way the IAAF handles anti-doping and public relations looks a lot like how things went down in cycling 10-15 years. The true question is: Did cycling truly make progress or did the omerta and the doping use just evolve?

I've seen signs that the UCI and cycling made some steps over the years, but we can ask ourselves if for two steps they made, they made one step backwards (as there are also negative developments) or did they take two steps backwards for every step forward they made, advancing in the direction of more elaborate image protection instead of a more elaborate anti-doping and truth program.

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

In many respects, this debacle puts cycling in a rather good light. After all, Coe's response is starkly reminiscent of the denial and aggressive fightback from the UCI and in particular McQuaid when the CERA positives emerged in 2008.

It isn't often I take too much comfort in the world of cycling with regards to doping, but this athletics debacle makes it look at least a decade behind cycling.

Well, I certainly think the way the IAAF handles anti-doping and public relations looks a lot like how things went down in cycling 10-15 years. The true question is: Did cycling truly make progress or did the omerta and the doping use just evolve?

I've seen signs that the UCI and cycling made some steps over the years, but we can ask ourselves if for two steps they made, they made one step backwards (as there are also negative developments) or did they take two steps backwards for every step forward they made, advancing in the direction of more elaborate image protection instead of a more elaborate anti-doping and truth program.

My post was saying that this story is really athletics "2008 CERA" moment, and the point being that it should have happenned years ago.

As for cycling, who knows? I have some sympathy for Cookson when he says things along the lines of "we have the best testing of any sport", rather than "drugs cheats will be caught" because he knows that there is no way he can deliver on that statement.....even if he wanted to.

I think things are better. To claim that what we see now is the same as the rampant EPO years would be nonsense, but equally we still have some very very doubtful performances coming from unlikely contenders like Horner and Froome.

 

[mrhender]

Re: Re:

In many respects, this debacle puts cycling in a rather good light. After all, Coe's response is starkly reminiscent of the denial and aggressive fightback from the UCI and in particular McQuaid when the CERA positives emerged in 2008.

It isn't often I take too much comfort in the world of cycling with regards to doping, but this athletics debacle makes it look at least a decade behind cycling.

Well, I certainly think the way the IAAF handles anti-doping and public relations looks a lot like how things went down in cycling 10-15 years. The true question is: Did cycling truly make progress or did the omerta and the doping use just evolve?

I've seen signs that the UCI and cycling made some steps over the years, but we can ask ourselves if for two steps they made, they made one step backwards (as there are also negative developments) or did they take two steps backwards for every step forward they made, advancing in the direction of more elaborate image protection instead of a more elaborate anti-doping and truth program.

In danger of going off topic I will say this, which has been a point I have often repeated..

Doping is a dynamic size... Always evolving and finding new ways.

It it not something that pops up only then to dissapear just because of a 50% rule, or the ABP...

These instruments contribute not to clean cycling/sports..

But to doping evolution...

It may be that the manuering space is getting smaller, but that is something that usually benefits those with access to significant financial means, or power (which is often the same)..

The only thing, that would make me believe in change, is a cultural revolution.
Far out scaling the JV narrative...

But tell me, who is going to sacrifize their here and now, just to benefit future clean athletes?

And even if somoeone did, how on earth would he be able to convince others to perform this unselfish act...?

Humans....

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

I have some sympathy for Cookson when he says things along the lines of "we have the best testing of any sport"

What testing does cycling have that no other sport has?

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

I have some sympathy for Cookson when he says things along the lines of "we have the best testing of any sport"

What testing does cycling have that no other sport has?

Ask Cookson. They are his words, not mine.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: Re:

Ask Cookson. They are his words, not mine.

But you have sympathy for him when he says these things. As opposed to the scorn they deserve, given cycling has the same armoury as other WADA-compliant sports.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

Ask Cookson. They are his words, not mine.

But you have sympathy for him when he says these things. As opposed to the scorn they deserve, given cycling has the same armoury as other WADA-compliant sports.

So it's the same when Gordon Taylor says their is a robust system with increased testing in English football. That's when it only gone up to an average of 3 a season.

You're right to say sports have the same armoury, but do they use that to the best of their means. That's a different matter.