• 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 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
wendybnt said:
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.

You quoted half my sentence, which completely changed its meaning. The sentence is about Cookson not being able to claim that the sport is clean.
 
Re: Re:

WillemS said:
wendybnt said:
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.

Depends on how you define progress.

(tl;dr: cycling is ahead of athletics because of its organizational structure. Or more specifically, that it has an organizational structure.)
The centralization of cycling has brought everyone to the same standard. For better or for worse, clearly defined levels by the UCI bring everyone under the same umbrella. Even if that umbrella has holes, it is one umbrella for all international competition. Athletics though, is not structured outside of the Diamond League, WCs, and nominally at gold and silver label events. Even so, the only structure is in the competition structure. As opposed to monitored and identified cycling teams, each at different levels with levels of accountability for financing, racing and rosters, there is none whatsoever in athletics. It doesn't take anything besides a polite email to enter as an elite athlete, and anyone can go through the mass-registration process to get into a race. Race directors can't keep up with the changing fields, and very few are familiar with every athlete they let in. The entry process is not tied to a team, or coach, and is usually an agent or the athlete listing their top performances. As another example, you may race a guy 4 times, and he writes his name down 4 different ways. Not anything malicious, just inattentive race directors, or the entry form's format for first, middle and last names screws up guys who may be Edwin Kiplagat Mwangi. Ed Kiplagat, Edwin Mwangi, and Kiplagat Mwangi will feature in three separate races. I've been beat by a guy who was banned under one name, and then raced during his ban under another. There's a funny video of a guy who didn't even bother to change his name get tackled by a police officer during a race. Another example, the fact that age-doping is a thing, speaks to the disorganization of the sport. Athletes who either don't know, or lie about their age to get their shot at World Junior titles, Master's titles, and respective world records.

All told, there is no structure for most participants. Athletes are (or can be) totally independent of the system in a way that cyclists cannot.

Cycling is ahead of Athletics in minimizing the high octane doping: Cyclists feel a little more policed, so will micro dose. Part of the German documentary showed the relative decline in number suspicious blood samples in cycling, since the early 2000's, while Track's suspicious samples have actually increased.

To compensate though, are powerful weightloss programs in cycling. I hope I never see a picture of a runner on AICAR; we are all already skeletal. I don't think cortisone use is high (as it is used in cycling), but that is a distance runner's perspective.

Emphasis on weightloss could be totally different for jumpers, and Kerrisons lose-weight/gain-power program would be very effective for field events/multi-events.

Just another note regarding weight loss, eating disorders are very common among distance runners, especially girls (as opposed to women; very few elite girls, 20 and younger, can overcome eating disorders to become elite women later.) Eating disorders are something I haven't seen in cycling, but that may be the fact that I only pay attention to elite cycling, where an athlete could not reach that level with an eating disorder to begin with...

(This started as a short post. Sorry that the first paragraph got so long)
 
Re: Re:

gooner said:
fmk_RoI said:
wendybnt said:
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.

Have you got a link for that stat about 3 times a season? PFA website claims they have 4000 members and in the last 7 years the number of tests ranges from a low of 1278 in season 2001-12 to a high of 1605 in 2007-08.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/more/anti-doping/testing-programme
That makes it more like 1 test every 3 seasons so I'm interested to see what numbers Gordon Taylor is quoting.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Swifty's Cakes said:
gooner said:
fmk_RoI said:
wendybnt said:
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.

Have you got a link for that stat about 3 times a season? PFA website claims they have 4000 members and in the last 7 years the number of tests ranges from a low of 1278 in season 2001-12 to a high of 1605 in 2007-08.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/more/anti-doping/testing-programme
That makes it more like 1 test every 3 seasons so I'm interested to see what numbers Gordon Taylor is quoting.

There were four positive tests last season from 1,604 carried out, but Taylor said drug testing had become more rigorous this year, with players now tested on average three times a season.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32771526

This could be bluster on his part which makes the point all the more relevant that having the same means available to other sports, doesn't mean they actually they use it.
 
Aug 6, 2011
738
0
0
Visit site
You can probably carry out 20 tests per player per season and still rarely catch anyone if the only time you perform tests is in-competition or in-training. As far as I know, there's still no whereabouts system in association football. So, cycling indeed has a broader arsenal than some of the biggest sports out there.

But let's get back to athletics.

@MrHenders:

Changing a culture is not something that will come lightly or spontaneously, whether we talk about athletics or cycling does not really matter. However, athletics is in a far worse state to do that than cycling is, as can be inferred from More Strides Than Rides's insightful post. If we use game theory or, more specifically, a complex version of the prisoner's dilemma, I think we can conclude that it will be very difficult to change the current culture. Let me explain.

In one of the classic versions of the prisoner's dilemma you have two who are suspected of committing a crime together, held in solitary confinement with no way of communication with each other. The prosecution has just enough evidence to probably convict them of a lesser crime than the principal charge, but obviously wants to convict them for the principal charge too, so they trying to make a deal with at least one of the suspects. As the suspects have no way of communication with each to decide on a strategy, they have to make their decisions independently of each other. Now, things get interesting.

If both suspects remain silent, then they both get sentenced, say, 6 months for the lesser crime. If one of them talks ("defects"), betraying the other, while the other remains silent, the defector walks (goes free), while the other gets a harsh sentence for non-cooperation for the principal charge of, say, 2 years in prison. If both talk, then no one walks and both get convicted for the principal charge, but they receive a reduced sentence for cooperation of say 1.5 years. Just like with doping, the gain is the greatest if you defect (i.e., dope) if the other does not (i.e., not dope). If you play around with the outcomes, the optimal strategy for the individual players will change.

However, the situation for doping is far more complex, not only do you have multiple players quite possible grouped in some way (e.g., teams), who are able to communicate (including lies and deceptions), but the outcomes are non-symmetrical for the players. Let's assume player A is a hyper-responder to doping, while player Q. is a more naturally gifted athlete. If we assume no anti-doping efforts, both athletes will be inclined to defect/dope, as if they don't, but the other does, they are going to lose. However, cooperation (both not defecting) is strongly in the advantage of the "naturally gifted" athlete, as the hyper-responder would probably have had no chance without doping, while the "naturally gifted" would face a decimated field without the inclusion of hyper-responders. (Sure, the situation is even more complex than that, but it's an abstraction.) This decreases the likelihood of a stable state in which no one uses doping, as the hyper-responders have no interest in supporting such a state, while the "naturally gifted" are not gifted enough to go without doping to beat the defecting hyper-responders.

So, how do we deal with this? The answer lies in diminishing the advantages of defecting/doping by making it harder/impossible to use "high octane fuel". While I don't think we can ever fully banish doping from professional sports, we can try to lessen the advantage, hoping to give more and more athletes the possibility of cooperating (i.e., not using doping). I think the best way to look for culture change in cycling is not the players (the athletes or teams), but more or less "external" forces that influence the incentives, the outcomes, such as WADA and governing bodies. However, the latter is burdened by all kinds of financial motives as well (image protection for sponsorships, mainly), so is very limited in the actions it can take, stretching out the process over a period of many years or even decades. (Think about it, what would happen to cycling or athletics if all the top athletes were suddenly caught and almost every race revealed to be decided by doping? This would end the commercial life of the sport, especially if other sports don't cooperate. Yay, another prisoner's dilemma. The only solution is slowly changing the sport and the anti-doping regiment, warning the athletes on forehand, never catching anyone but slowly changing diminishing the reward of doping. Does that sound familiar?)

This shows why cycling is in a better state as, say, athletics. While doping is probably still rampant in cycling, the power numbers do seem to go down slightly, decreasing the gap between the outcomes of "clean" (i.e., cooperating) versus "doping" (i.e., defecting). This does not mean the stable state has shifted into the direction of "not doping", but that we're slowly moving in the direction of an outcome balance in which it would be possible to do so. Athletics, viewed in this way, is way behind cycling, as athletes are still almost free in using the "high octane stuff".
 
Re: Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
Depends on how you define progress.

(tl;dr: cycling is ahead of athletics because of its organizational structure. Or more specifically, that it has an organizational structure.)
The centralization of cycling has brought everyone to the same standard. For better or for worse, clearly defined levels by the UCI bring everyone under the same umbrella. Even if that umbrella has holes, it is one umbrella for all international competition. Athletics though, is not structured outside of the Diamond League, WCs, and nominally at gold and silver label events. Even so, the only structure is in the competition structure. As opposed to monitored and identified cycling teams, each at different levels with levels of accountability for financing, racing and rosters, there is none whatsoever in athletics. It doesn't take anything besides a polite email to enter as an elite athlete, and anyone can go through the mass-registration process to get into a race. Race directors can't keep up with the changing fields, and very few are familiar with every athlete they let in. The entry process is not tied to a team, or coach, and is usually an agent or the athlete listing their top performances. As another example, you may race a guy 4 times, and he writes his name down 4 different ways. Not anything malicious, just inattentive race directors, or the entry form's format for first, middle and last names screws up guys who may be Edwin Kiplagat Mwangi. Ed Kiplagat, Edwin Mwangi, and Kiplagat Mwangi will feature in three separate races. I've been beat by a guy who was banned under one name, and then raced during his ban under another. There's a funny video of a guy who didn't even bother to change his name get tackled by a police officer during a race. Another example, the fact that age-doping is a thing, speaks to the disorganization of the sport. Athletes who either don't know, or lie about their age to get their shot at World Junior titles, Master's titles, and respective world records.

All told, there is no structure for most participants. Athletes are (or can be) totally independent of the system in a way that cyclists cannot.

Cycling is ahead of Athletics in minimizing the high octane doping: Cyclists feel a little more policed, so will micro dose. Part of the German documentary showed the relative decline in number suspicious blood samples in cycling, since the early 2000's, while Track's suspicious samples have actually increased.

To compensate though, are powerful weightloss programs in cycling. I hope I never see a picture of a runner on AICAR; we are all already skeletal. I don't think cortisone use is high (as it is used in cycling), but that is a distance runner's perspective.

Emphasis on weightloss could be totally different for jumpers, and Kerrisons lose-weight/gain-power program would be very effective for field events/multi-events.

Just another note regarding weight loss, eating disorders are very common among distance runners, especially girls (as opposed to women; very few elite girls, 20 and younger, can overcome eating disorders to become elite women later.) Eating disorders are something I haven't seen in cycling, but that may be the fact that I only pay attention to elite cycling, where an athlete could not reach that level with an eating disorder to begin with...

(This started as a short post. Sorry that the first paragraph got so long)


Interesting point s about racing and athletics

I guess as entry systems go we have to distinguish between track and road racing and then take into account prize money.

About road racing this is pretty much open to all however there are different levels with different prize money

Say the Great North Run at the pointy end will have some very elite athletes going down to people who will probably walk the race. The elite athletes will likely be getting appearance fees so you would hope there would be a requirement to be part of a passport testing pool to qualify for appearance fees and prizes in these big races.

That leaves though the local 10k road race where the prize may be decent but the entry level will probably not contain members of any testing pool and probably does not have any drug testing, (a bit wild west like some low level cycling)

On top of track and road you have cross country and fellrunning

Anyway on to cortisone use/abuse it may be worse in running than cycling. I remember in the 80s it was common for athletes to get cortisone injections to allow them to race (see Peter Elliot can't remember whether it was Olympics or WC in the late eighties)
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
It appears Paula Radcliffe has taken out a 'Super Injunction' in the UK.

As discussed in this thread http://www.letsrun.com/forum/f...ad=6669431 it seems that Paula Radcliffe has taken out a super injunction ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law ) on the British press to stop them from reporting her highly suspicious blood values that were in the IAAF database leaked to the Sunday Times/German televison.

This seems to extend to Google searches linking her to the injunction, for example the content of the above mentioned thread is not indexed by google (wheras the title is).

Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6673464#ixzz3i4W2HG8Z


Ya think Radcliffe and Millar should get it together??????
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
It appears Paula Radcliffe has taken out a 'Super Injunction' in the UK.

As discussed in this thread http://www.letsrun.com/forum/f...ad=6669431 it seems that Paula Radcliffe has taken out a super injunction ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law ) on the British press to stop them from reporting her highly suspicious blood values that were in the IAAF database leaked to the Sunday Times/German televison.

This seems to extend to Google searches linking her to the injunction, for example the content of the above mentioned thread is not indexed by google (wheras the title is).

Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6673464#ixzz3i4W2HG8


Ya think Radcliffe and Millar should get it together??????

Oh no does that mean the end of the story !
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Visit site
So we are now a week after Christie tweeted the word 'super injunction' that appears to have led to all sorts of wild and unevidenced speculation.

After the Giggs SI, the internet was absolutely full of talk of it almost instantly. Anybody got any evidence that Paula Radcliffe has taken out an injunction? Anything?

Or shall we just put this down to foolish speculation and thoughtless assumption making...
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
fmk_RoI said:
wendybnt said:
So we are now a week after Christie tweeted the word 'super injunction' that appears to have led to all sorts of wild and unevidenced speculation.

A Tweet which, as coincidence would have it, came out around the same time as the news of the Joe Hart anonymised injunction was leaking out...
British law?

Excuse me, I didnt follow the Paula stuff, just a question.
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
British law?

Well yes, of course, it being a super injunction no one's allowed even acknowedge its existence, therefore the abscence of evidence becomes evidence in itself, the silence from those who could speak of such things proves the theories of those who want to believe in such things.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
fmk_RoI said:
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
British law?

Well yes, of course, it being a super injunction no one's allowed even acknowedge its existence, therefore the abscence of evidence becomes evidence in itself, the silence from those who could speak of such things proves the theories of those who want to believe in such things.
Thanks Feargal, we Dutch call that 'a doofpot'.

Interesting stuff, are non-British bound to that too? Speaking of international law here. Race Radio got in troubles with lawyers too I read - they send a post pigeon to him because no one knows who he is - , changed his tone from 'knowing' to 'I think'. That is really bad stuff, 'free press' and so....

Wonder what Walsh thinks about these kinda thingies ;)
 
Jul 17, 2015
771
0
0
Visit site
British law is terrible* when it comes to free speech

*"terrible" within the context of still being one of the freeest places to be on earth
 
Foreign media for the most part don't give a toss about superinjunctions issued in the UK and publish what they want to if they consider it of interest. That would exclude nonentities like Joe Hart and Katie Price. I would imagine Paula Radcliffe's name would have emerged by now if she was the subject of one.
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
are non-British bound to that too? Speaking of international law here.

That would depend on the nature of the injunction + the reciprocal agreements other countries have with the UK. In general, the answer is no. Occasionally you'll find Irish papers naming the subjects of British injunctions, if there's enough interest in the story over here. (On a point of pedantry, it's not the UK/Britain as I lazily said earlier, it's its constituent parts and it has been known for English injunctions to be ignored in Scotland.)

Edit: even in the relevant jurisdiction you'll find novel ways to get around an injunction. Eg UK gossip site PopBitch this week made a mockery of the Joe Hart anonymised injunction by linking to a story about his affair with Jordan. Generally, you'll find that the subject of the injuction becomes subject to more news stories as the media tries to offer you clues. Or, in extreme cases, some crusading/publicity hungry MP will make use of parliamentary privilege to name names.
 
Predictably the superinjunction will vanish as quickly as it arrived. Senior judges tend to dislike the law made to look like an ass, particularly when it's brought into disrepute by one of their own kind.
 
The three 'legal' ways you find out about a super injunction

1) it lapses, is revoked by a judge
2) The subject confirms its existance
3) an MP raises it in parliament.

I doubt #2 is going to happen, and I don't think #3 will occur is this particular case.

That leaves #1

You can quosh the 'super' part, such that you cannot publish the data, but can confirm that there is an injunction.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
fmk_RoI said:
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
are non-British bound to that too? Speaking of international law here.

That would depend on the nature of the injunction + the reciprocal agreements other countries have with the UK. In general, the answer is no. Occasionally you'll find Irish papers naming the subjects of British injunctions, if there's enough interest in the story over here. (On a point of pedantry, it's not the UK/Britain as I lazily said earlier, it's its constituent parts and it has been known for English injunctions to be ignored in Scotland.)

Edit: even in the relevant jurisdiction you'll find novel ways to get around an injunction. Eg UK gossip site PopBitch this week made a mockery of the Joe Hart anonymised injunction by linking to a story about his affair with Jordan. Generally, you'll find that the subject of the injuction becomes subject to more news stories as the media tries to offer you clues. Or, in extreme cases, some crusading/publicity hungry MP will make use of parliamentary privilege to name names.
Top. Thanks man.

UK law seems to be rock solid, no spilling of beans soon.
 

TRENDING THREADS