• 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 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Visit site
Re:

roundabout said:
I am going to guess that Farrah was still tested after 2012. At least I would hope so.
Perhaps IAAF just gave up on him as it wasnt in his blood ;)

But, if he, and all of the others, were just tested a few times a year, what are the odds they will catch anyone in athletics? 0,00000000006%?

That would be insane in a sport were O2vector doping would have the same impact as to cycling.
 
Re: Re:

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Do we know if these are all the tests that have been done on these athletes?

Yes we do. No they're not. These are from the 2001-2012 period, a specific subset of tests carried out by the IAAF. The ST/ARD claim to have results of 12k blood tests in that timeframe. IAAF claims to have conducted 19k blood tests since 2001, with 8k of them pre ABP (2009) and 11k post. That suggests 7k blood tests have been carried out by IAAF since 2012.

What you do not want to do - least ways not without a packet of Neurofen to hand - is try and compare these numbers with those reported by the IAAF (eg 6k blood tests carried out between 2009 and 2012 inclusive) or WADA (eg 66 blood tests carried out by IAAF in 2013).
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
If you want to see the range of values that Mo's off-score range allow, see the table attached.

One possible combination is
65 = 39% Hct/1.2% ret to
96 = 51% Hct/1.5% ret

Clearly the off-score graph is useless without seeing the input values

CL-hfc7WgAADiGs.png:large
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
Athletes release your data all of it because we all know that you only need a small window to dope and in reality they are useless. Bio passport is a sham and the fact the London marathon Chief exec Nick Bitel said that the IAAF have agreed to increase testing and we feel that's the best way to ensure our sport is clean IMO are words to keep the media happy. The BBC news just reported athletes who are showing the bio data will prove they are clean yet only a month ago they produce a programme that proved the bio passport is useless :D
 
Aug 5, 2015
91
0
0
Visit site
ray j willings said:
Athletes release your data all of it because we all know that you only need a small window to dope and in reality they are useless. Bio passport is a sham and the fact the London marathon Chief exec Nick Bitel said that the IAAF have agreed to increase testing and we feel that's the best way to ensure our sport is clean IMO are words to keep the media happy. The BBC news just reported athletes who are showing the bio data will prove they are clean yet only a month ago they produce a programme that proved the bio passport is useless :D
To be fair to Aunty Beeb it was the Sunday Times that said that - "The Sunday Times reports that eight British athletes - including Mo Farah and Jo Pavey - have published their blood test data "to show they are clean" with results falling within the normal expected range. " so not necessarily in conflict with their own documentary
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Visit site
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/sebastian-coes-pathetic-statement-on-iaaf-revelations-is-worrying-31437497.html

Sebastian Coe's pathetic statement on IAAF revelations is worrying

We were back again with Pat McQuaid excoriating Lance Armstrong's accusers and Sepp Blatter pooh-poohing allegations of FIFA corruption. The man from the organisation at the centre of the controversy lashed out at the whistleblowers and the media and decided to get all bullish about the good name of his people. "It's a declaration of war on my sport," said the former Tory MP for Falmouth and Camborne.
As always in these cases the impression was of someone more concerned with protecting his own fiefdom than reaching out to neutrals concerned by the evidence of apparent wrongdoing. Witness his description of Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto, the two specialists in this field, who analysed the test results for The Sunday Times and their colleagues in breaking the story German broadcaster ARD, as, "These so-called experts - give me a break. I know who I would believe."
Well, the IAAF judged Ashenden to be sufficiently expert to have employed him as recently as 2012 while more recently he's been an expert witness in a court case concerning the doping practices of Armstrong.
And despite the IAAF's claim that last week's report was "sensationalist and confusing," both Ashenden and Parisotto are sticking to their guns, commenting: "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'. We followed the same procedure as IAAF expert panellists when reviewing Athletic Biological Passport 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."
Ashenden and Parisotto were called in after The Sunday Times and ARD came into possession of a database showing blood test results for around 5,000 athletes. And what they found was that around 800 of these athletes returned results which suggested either likely doping or a suspicion of doping between 2001 and 2012. The athletes in question have won 146 Olympic and World medals, including 55 golds. Over a third of medal winners in the endurance events are implicated.
Apologists for the IAAF have suggested that a dubious blood test does not automatically mean an athlete is doping and that other factors can come into play. Maybe so but when the numbers are this high only the most gullible could believe in an innocent explanation, especially in a sport with such a long history of drug cheating.
Coe reckons it's unfair to accuse the IAAF of not taking any action. They have taken action, he said, and six of the 800 athletes have subsequently been banned. Six out of 800? What's that you say? "My sport's record of fighting drug cheats is a proud one."
I'm afraid that last statement brings Coe into Henry Kissinger-wins-the-Nobel Peace Prize-death-of-satire territory. Proud record? In three weeks the World Athletics Championships take place in Beijing and the favourite to take the blue riband event, the 100m, is Justin Gatlin, a man who has already served two doping bans and been allowed back into the sport.
There's also a good chance that Gatlin will win the 200m and that another returned doper, LaShawn Merritt, will win the 400m. Which makes me wonder when Coe says the IAAF's drug testing policy has "chased some of the highest profile athletes out of the sport." Even when it does take action against its drug cheats, athletics doesn't chase them out of the sport, it hands them a brief suspension and welcomes them back. We can judge Coe's outrage at Gatlin's behaviour by the fact that he is an International Adviser with Nike, a company which continues to sponsor the American sprinter.
Coe is currently standing for the post of IAAF president against former Olympic pole vault champion Sergey Bubka. In contests like this there always seems to be a presumption that the candidate from this neck of the woods is on the side of the angels. But Coe's behaviour last week is uncannily reminiscent of the way his old House of Commons colleague Tony Blair used to carry on. There's the same arrogance, the same expectation that he should be believed even if the evidence suggests otherwise, the same apparent desire to be judged by his words rather than his deeds.
But perhaps that will make him a worthy successor to current president Lamine Diack, whose response to last week's allegations was to descend into the realms of paranoia and accuse the newspaper of "playing with the idea of a redistribution of medals," while suggesting there was some sinister agenda behind the fact that the revelations had been made "just three weeks before the World Championships."
Again, we're in familiar territory. UCI and FIFA always affected to believe that those who insisted they had a case to answer were enemies of the sport, driven by jealousy rather than simple outrage at cheating and corruption. That this also seems to be the IAAF's line of defence is deeply depressing.
It's not a view shared by everyone in athletics. The great triple jumper Jonathan Edwards said: "The key thing for me is not who the athletes were or who missed out on a medal. It's what on earth were the authorities doing? It's got haunting echoes of the UCI. It's the guardians of the sport who really let cycling down because they could have stopped it but they didn't." And former World silver racewalking medallist Olive Loughnane said: "The IAAF were potentially turning a blind eye to this, that's just disgusting. That was the bit of the whole controversy that hit me the hardest."
The fate of cycling should serve as a warning to athletics. British media cheerleading notwithstanding, the sad fact is that the reaction of many sports fans to Chris Froome's Tour de France wins is not, 'What a superb athlete', but, 'Can we believe him?' This suspicion may well be unfair and have less to do with Froome himself than with the bad taste left by Lance Armstrong and sundry other doped-up champions. But it is there all the same and there is a certain irony in the fact that the minions of the Rupert Murdoch media empire have been just as eager to impugn the motives of those who declare themselves less than 100 per cent convinced by Froome as the IAAF have been to impugn those of The Sunday Times. After all, one of the leading experts on doping in sport has called for greater scrutiny of Froome's Team Sky. His name? Michael Ashenden.
Maybe the damage has already been done to athletics. There is a dread of what a Gatlin victory in Beijing will do to the sport and, personally speaking, I've never looked forward less to a World Championships. And, in a bumper week for irony fans, despite Coe's claims that athletics is second to none in trying to track down dopers, the IAAF actually lags a long way behind the UCI.
Last year the UCI took 9,483 blood and urine samples, the IAAF took 3,881. The UCI tested 3,252 competitors for EPO to the IAAF's 1,563. And the Biological Passport tests Coe boasted about last week? Cycling carried out 8,053 of them to 3,317 in athletics. Which is pretty unimpressive for athletics given that it has a much larger number of international competitors than cycling.
In other words, why wouldn't you dope if you're an athlete? For starters they might not test you at all. If your test is dodgy they might not do anything about it. And if you are caught, you'll be back on the track in no time. It's a win-win. Just like Justin Gatlin's forthcoming sprint double in Beijing. The man recently ran a personal best for 200m at the age of 33. Fair play to him, he must be training really hard. He can tell Sebastian Coe exactly how hard at the Nike dinner dance.
We have seen this story before. It doesn't end well.
 
Aug 5, 2015
91
0
0
Visit site
Good article mrhender, thanks for linking. It does seem odd that Athletics, which I assume has more money to throw at testing, is only testing at a 1/3 of the rate of cycling. As for Coe's comments - he is really defending the status quo when it would have been far easier to demand a full investigation. I would have thought that as this is his sport (to use his words) and he is a future candidate for leadership he would go for the clean sweep or ask for something similar to the CIRC investigation. Sergey seems to be oddly silent on the matter as the other candidate
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Texeng said:
Good article mrhender, thanks for linking. It does seem odd that Athletics, which I assume has more money to throw at testing, is only testing at a 1/3 of the rate of cycling. As for Coe's comments - he is really defending the status quo when it would have been far easier to demand a full investigation. I would have thought that as this is his sport (to use his words) and he is a future candidate for leadership he would go for the clean sweep or ask for something similar to the CIRC investigation. Sergey seems to be oddly silent on the matter as the other candidate

I take it part of the reason is because athletics and the general aduience are still in denial mode...

Playing hard-ball could be part of the strategy to scare the critiques away..

At the same time this strategy also tells sponsors that they should not fear any upcoming investigations..

And atheltics is like the sun and cycling like our moon when comparing size..

Cycling is just a niche with wannabe superstars..

Athletics can spare ten superstars and might even then carry on as usual.
Not that I think it will ever come to that..
 
Ever the slimy politician, Coe's arse-licking up to the federations. He's already promised them a windfall handout, now he's spinning BS on drugs so these do-nothing athletic federations feel they've got some support at the top.
 
Aug 9, 2015
15
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
That chart of Liliya Shobukhova is so funny :)
Does anyone know who's busting the Russian with passport cases? The national AD, the national athletics federation, IAAF? Are Russian being made patsies, or are the Russians themselves relatively active in benching some overly obviously sloppy dopers?

I am trying to understand where these IAAF blood test results go. Who gets them and who doesn't. Do athletes get a copy, or just normal/not normal? Are national athletics federations expected to make a case, or let IAAF make the first call?

Do national federations and ADA's get results of ALL doping tests, urine and blood? Or is IAAF trusted with the analysis and archiving?

On Kenya, where bribes are reported...are they just being a bit more bold than the rest of the world? If other national athletics federations or ADA's get data, but can ignore it, any official with access to the data can approach an athlete saying that this is about to go public and there is one way to make it go away... Could this not already have happened in, say, Britain?
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
Texeng said:
ray j willings said:
Athletes release your data all of it because we all know that you only need a small window to dope and in reality they are useless. Bio passport is a sham and the fact the London marathon Chief exec Nick Bitel said that the IAAF have agreed to increase testing and we feel that's the best way to ensure our sport is clean IMO are words to keep the media happy. The BBC news just reported athletes who are showing the bio data will prove they are clean yet only a month ago they produce a programme that proved the bio passport is useless :D
To be fair to Aunty Beeb it was the Sunday Times that said that - "The Sunday Times reports that eight British athletes - including Mo Farah and Jo Pavey - have published their blood test data "to show they are clean" with results falling within the normal expected range. " so not necessarily in conflict with their own documentary

Ok, but the point is the beeb are happy to go along with it when they no different. There have been a few so journalists etc interviewed on news 24 etc and not once as any beeb interviewer mentioned that the passport does not hold up.
 
Jul 17, 2015
774
0
0
Visit site
.....although there was a BBC programme a month or so back demonstrating how the passport could be beaten and then exposing Mo Farah's trainer.

This might be a bit of British stiff upper lip whilst the dung hits the fan
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
Re:

wendybnt said:
.....although there was a BBC programme a month or so back demonstrating how the passport could be beaten and then exposing Mo Farah's trainer.

This might be a bit of British stiff upper lip whilst the dung hits the fan


I have lost count of the times they have "stressed" Mo is not implicated in the doping allegations of his coach :D

Why has no one asked Mo about the fact Salazar has not proved his innocence like he said he would?

Why has no one put to Mo the other allegations against Salazar with witness testimony that cannot be denied?

Why doesn't somone ask Mo , how is it he has beaten known doped athletes

and WTF has no one asked Mo " have you doped"?
 
Aug 5, 2015
91
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

ray j willings said:
wendybnt said:
.....although there was a BBC programme a month or so back demonstrating how the passport could be beaten and then exposing Mo Farah's trainer.

This might be a bit of British stiff upper lip whilst the dung hits the fan


I have lost count of the times they have "stressed" Mo is not implicated in the doping allegations of his coach :D

Why has no one asked Mo about the fact Salazar has not proved his innocence like he said he would?

Why has no one put to Mo the other allegations against Salazar with witness testimony that cannot be denied?

Why doesn't somone ask Mo , how is it he has beaten known doped athletes

and WTF has no one asked Mo " have you doped"?

Aren't the USADA, WADA and every other ADA still talking to both Salazar and Mo about said allegations? Not sure but I would think any half way decent Journo would have asked all of those questions to both as well
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
ray j willings said:
and WTF has no one asked Mo " have you doped"?
That is the worst question possible to ask. its what on the take journos like Walsh or Fotheringham would ask in order for the athlete to be able to give the soundbite "I have never doped, I hate dopers" so they can all aplaud.

Mo has not been very good in the PR stakes over this issue ,he looked truly flustered with his fake anger when he was asked about Salazar.
I want to see his reaction. I think he will struggle to stay clam and will go into a rant etc etc.
He ain't Armstrong
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Texeng said:
ray j willings said:
wendybnt said:
.....although there was a BBC programme a month or so back demonstrating how the passport could be beaten and then exposing Mo Farah's trainer.

This might be a bit of British stiff upper lip whilst the dung hits the fan


I have lost count of the times they have "stressed" Mo is not implicated in the doping allegations of his coach :D

Why has no one asked Mo about the fact Salazar has not proved his innocence like he said he would?

Why has no one put to Mo the other allegations against Salazar with witness testimony that cannot be denied?

Why doesn't somone ask Mo , how is it he has beaten known doped athletes

and WTF has no one asked Mo " have you doped"?

Aren't the USADA, WADA and every other ADA still talking to both Salazar and Mo about said allegations? Not sure but I would think any half way decent Journo would have asked all of those questions to both as well

The media seemed to have backed off.
Mo has let his running do the talking :D