Doping In Athletics

[gooner]

Seppelt was on Off The Ball last night.

He received three legal warnings from the IAAF, one as recent as December 21.

http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.305.363/62570/blog_list/

"Off the ball" have been strong about anti-doping, IMO.

They have.

Though as they are a football programme, I do wonder if they would be quite so eager to give the voiceless a voice if their own heroes were being accused of doping.

That said, I am thankful that they do let people like Tucker and Kimmage be heard.

IIRC correctly they did discuss doping in Football a la Cascarino and Richie Sadler when he played for Millwall.

Yes OfftheBall have done well on cycling, IAAF (but ignored Sonia and Robert Heffernan's achievements so far), swimming, but not Rugby even though they talked to Benezech and Kimmage, as they dont ask O'Driscoll a presenter now on offtheball any hard questions.

Yeah I think they gave a bit of airtime to Wenger's hintings as well. All in all they're fairly clued in to clinic issues I'd say.
I don't think they'd see their role as investigating doping as much as highlighting those that do investigate it. The coincidence of Pat McQ, Emma O'Reilly, Kimmage and Walsh being Irish probably introduced a lot of their listenership to wider doping issues for the first time.
To be fair to OTB O'Sullivan and O'Driscoll are very very sacred cows in Ireland. As the man said, you come at the king, you'd best not miss!
I don't think Heffernan has done anything to merit being singled out (apart from competing in a riddled sport). He's fairly vocal on dopers I believe.

I felt Sonia could have spoken out a bit more at the height of her success. She probably got an easy time off the Irish media in that respect. Only as the years went on, did she start really talking about the Chinese dominance. You see it a bit now in her Irish Times column.

Heffernan was particularly vocal about the Ferrari client who costed him a bronze in the European Championships. Other than that, the media can't do much more in questioning him. The same for Derval O'Rourke who has been very outspoken at times. You have McKiernan and Fionnuala Britton in cross country. No media outlet is going to say just because you beat other doped runners, that means you must be too.

 

[keeponrollin]

If the report coming out on Jan. 14 is again Russia oriented, you'll know it's a joke. Not that the Russians aren't at fault, but that corruption remains heavily entrenched. Until they seriously start cleaning the house, meaning busting obvious dopers and the federations behind the doping (I think we all know who they are), then I can't take the report seriously. Haajo Seppelt can bark all he wants, and he can ignore everyone but the Russians all he wants, but we all know (we should, anyway) that this is much, much bigger than the Russians, or the idea of singling out certain federations to pretend like 'they care' about fighting doping and corruption.

For what it's worth; I think we'll get the gory details of the payments to IAAF Officials, but without names, as there should be legal action forthcoming.

However, I also think the Kenya will get the same treatment as Russia, & the whole rotten story will be told, & that will:
(a) Force the IAAF to exclude Kenya from Rio
(b) Start a whole lot of questions to be asked about which elite Non-Kenyan runners were training in Kenya !

 

[The Hitch]

Seppelt was on Off The Ball last night.

He received three legal warnings from the IAAF, one as recent as December 21.

http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.305.363/62570/blog_list/

"Off the ball" have been strong about anti-doping, IMO.

They have.

Though as they are a football programme, I do wonder if they would be quite so eager to give the voiceless a voice if their own heroes were being accused of doping.

That said, I am thankful that they do let people like Tucker and Kimmage be heard.

IIRC correctly they did discuss doping in Football a la Cascarino and Richie Sadler when he played for Millwall.

Yeah, I'm talking about real doping in real football, not the mickey mouse level. The Manchester Uniteds and Chelseas of this world that dominate the premier league which is the competition off the ball spends 99% of its time discussing. The Barcelonas and Juves and Bayerns of this world. And of course the international level.

 

[gooner]

[quote="goonerSeppelt was on Off The Ball last night.

He received three legal warnings from the IAAF, one as recent as December 21.

http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.305.363/62570/blog_list/

"Off the ball" have been strong about anti-doping, IMO.

They have.

Though as they are a football programme, I do wonder if they would be quite so eager to give the voiceless a voice if their own heroes were being accused of doping.

That said, I am thankful that they do let people like Tucker and Kimmage be heard.

IIRC correctly they did discuss doping in Football a la Cascarino and Richie Sadler when he played for Millwall.

Yeah, I'm talking about real doping in real football, not the mickey mouse level. The Manchester Uniteds and Chelseas of this world that dominate the premier league which is the competition off the ball spends 99% of its time discussing. The Barcelonas and Juves and Bayerns of this world. And of course the international level.

They were one of the only few to discuss Juve's doping after the Dutch documentary a couple of years ago. They had Philippe Auclair on discussing Wenger's recent comments.

Not the thread( maybe answer it elsewhere if you wish) but what could they exactly do on United and Chelsea? Even if they are doped to the gills, there has to be an angle for them to go on.

 

[blackcat]

Seppelt was on Off The Ball last night.

He received three legal warnings from the IAAF, one as recent as December 21.

http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.305.363/62570/blog_list/

"Off the ball" have been strong about anti-doping, IMO.

They have.

Though as they are a football programme, I do wonder if they would be quite so eager to give the voiceless a voice if their own heroes were being accused of doping.

That said, I am thankful that they do let people like Tucker and Kimmage be heard.

IIRC correctly they did discuss doping in Football a la Cascarino and Richie Sadler when he played for Millwall.

Yeah, I'm talking about real doping in real football, not the mickey mouse level. The Manchester Uniteds and Chelseas of this world that dominate the premier league which is the competition off the ball spends 99% of its time discussing. The Barcelonas and Juves and Bayerns of this world. And of course the international level.

It is freekin Die Mannschaft

 

[blackcat]

[quote="goonerSeppelt was on Off The Ball last night.

He received three legal warnings from the IAAF, one as recent as December 21.

http://www.newstalk.com/reader/47.305.363/62570/blog_list/

"Off the ball" have been strong about anti-doping, IMO.

They have.

Though as they are a football programme, I do wonder if they would be quite so eager to give the voiceless a voice if their own heroes were being accused of doping.

That said, I am thankful that they do let people like Tucker and Kimmage be heard.

IIRC correctly they did discuss doping in Football a la Cascarino and Richie Sadler when he played for Millwall.

Yeah, I'm talking about real doping in real football, not the mickey mouse level. The Manchester Uniteds and Chelseas of this world that dominate the premier league which is the competition off the ball spends 99% of its time discussing. The Barcelonas and Juves and Bayerns of this world. And of course the international level.

They were one of the only few to discuss Juve's doping after the Dutch documentary a couple of years ago. They had Philippe Auclair on discussing Wenger's recent comments.

Not the thread( maybe answer it elsewhere if you wish) but what could they exactly do on United and Chelsea? Even if they are doped to the gills, there has to be an angle for them to go on.

it is cos they popped the dutch and only the dutch at Juve

Jap Staam or Jaap Stam and Edgar Davids, or, as I call him, David Edgar erythropoietin Allan Poe, or David Eggers heartbreaking staggering genius in cleats

 

[gooner]

UK Athletics want the IAAF to reset world records and to introduce 8 year bans.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/athletics-doping-crisis-uk-athletics-calls-for-iaaf-to-reset-world-records-for-clean-athletes-era-in-a6805406.html

 

[glassmoon]

clean era

 

[King Boonen]

UK Athletics want the IAAF to reset world records and to introduce 8 year bans.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/athletics-doping-crisis-uk-athletics-calls-for-iaaf-to-reset-world-records-for-clean-athletes-era-in-a6805406.html

Sounds like a brilliant way to start a new arms race...

 

[iejeecee]

Where would we be without the british and their tireless fight for clean sports?

 

[poupou]

UK Athletics want the IAAF to reset world records and to introduce 8 year bans.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/athletics-doping-crisis-uk-athletics-calls-for-iaaf-to-reset-world-records-for-clean-athletes-era-in-a6805406.html

Sounds like a brilliant way to start a new arms race...

So we could begin that new clean era with WR of Bolt, Mo Farah,....

First, clean the field, and when performances have slightly decreased, then we could have the WR of the 3rd millenium

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Where would we be without the british and their tireless fight for clean sports?

indeed the head of UKAD on Today *(BBC R4) this morning...first the presenter states 'clean proven athletes' like PR and then the UKAD boy states (in relation to publicising all testing) that if mo is tested and its made public we can 'see he is clean'...its as though Armstrong never even happened

the emporer's new clothes indeed....

 

[sniper]

tried to delete

 

[armchairclimber]

Actually, one or two of the proposals would be a step forward. I don't think UKA's move should be dismissed out of hand. The implication of "re-setting" the world records table is that all records prior are tainted .... presumably including PR's.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Actually, one or two of the proposals would be a step forward. I don't think UKA's move should be dismissed out of hand. The implication of "re-setting" the world records table is that all records prior are tainted .... presumably including PR's.

On the surface it sounds like a good idea. The only problem is you then end up with every man and his dog wanting to get in a race and set a time to get their name in the books for a few days between meets. It'd cause mayhem. The only possible way to do it would be to say something like no records can be set for a year and at the end of the year they're decided, but even then you'll get people going doping crazy to get in the books.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

Actually, one or two of the proposals would be a step forward. I don't think UKA's move should be dismissed out of hand. The implication of "re-setting" the world records table is that all records prior are tainted .... presumably including PR's.

well, despite them (in radio interview) majoring on flo jo's records which still stand...no mention was made of PR's marathon and Coe's 800 which were/are outliers by a long way...

wood/trees for the poor hapless BBC ....

 

[armchairclimber]

Was that UKA or UKAD?

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

Actually, one or two of the proposals would be a step forward. I don't think UKA's move should be dismissed out of hand. The implication of "re-setting" the world records table is that all records prior are tainted .... presumably including PR's.

On the surface it sounds like a good idea. The only problem is you then end up with every man and his dog wanting to get in a race and set a time to get their name in the books for a few days between meets. It'd cause mayhem. The only possible way to do it would be to say something like no records can be set for a year and at the end of the year they're decided, but even then you'll get people going doping crazy to get in the books.

I thought that the proposal to make any athlete that gets funding from UKA sign a binding contract governing their ethical behaviour (inc doping) was a good one. Also, extending the 18 month allowance for 3 missed test. All uk athletes in receipt of UKA funding who wish to train abroad/with non-UK coaches to have due diligence done on the coach/set up (astonishing that this isn't already in place). ANyway, these seem to be sensible and positive steps.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Was that UKA or UKAD?

it was UKA's Ed Warner.

 

[Brian Butterfield]

Paula Radcliffe has hit out at UK Athletics’ suggestion that all world records should be expunged from the books because it will mean that innocent athletes like herself will unfairly suffer.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/11/paula-radcliffe-uk-athletics-world-records-rejects

"Bleurrrch."

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re:

Paula Radcliffe has hit out at UK Athletics’ suggestion that all world records should be expunged from the books because it will mean that innocent athletes like herself will unfairly suffer.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/11/paula-radcliffe-uk-athletics-world-records-rejects

"Bleurrrch."

Does Paula realise that virtually all the people who "thoroughly investigated her 3 blood passport anomalies" are currently expelled, arrested or in voluntary exile from the IAAF ? Do we have third party confirmation to that claim that Saugay at Lausanne wrote the expert witness statement getting her off ?

I think some members of the press cannot get the rope over to her fast enough and she keeps pulling it in.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Actually, one or two of the proposals would be a step forward. I don't think UKA's move should be dismissed out of hand. The implication of "re-setting" the world records table is that all records prior are tainted .... presumably including PR's.

I'm not sure any of them are anything more than PR fluff. Life-time bans or 8-year bans for "serious doping" and more testing of more athletes - the current "crisis" is not about a failure of testing or a failure of deterrence, it is about a failure of governance. You can have life-time bans and more athletes tested more often, but if the boys at the top are still going to let them off for a fee what's the point? Let's address the current problem before allowing ourselves to be distracted with other things, eh?

Do we really want a panopticon society in which the where and the when of every test is made public? Do we want athletes to surrender all civil liberties? For what? Seriously, what's to be gained by putting the where and the when of every single test in the public domain?

Renaming anti-doping as Clean Sport - this is what Cookson has done. Re-branding is the standard British solution to everything. It worked wonders at Windscale/Sellafield.

Pressing the reset button on all world records: so sport is reduced to being a video game and the authorities get a do over after running out of lives? Worse, it doesn't work. Let's look to our own sport and the Hour record: did Verbruggen pressing the reset button mean we wiped from our memory Moser, Obree, Boardman, Indurain and Rominger? This isn't Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, this isn't Men In Black, no one gets their brain wiped, those old records stay remembered, stay as the mark against which everyone is measured until the day they are bettered.

Why press the reset button now, because we're in a Clean Era? If that were true then why do we need more athletes tested more often, why do we need to encroach further on their civil liberties and have them tell us where they were when they were tested? Why do we need an even more draconian anti-doping - sorry, Clean Sport - system if we're really in a Clean Era?

What in the UKA suggestions actually addresses the crucial question of confidence in governance? Handing over power to WADA? Having all anti-doping - sorry Clean Sport - funded by governments, put at the whim of governments who can threaten to pull their funding if too many of their heroes gets busted? Does that give you confidence?

 

[The Carrot]

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2015/11/7-quick-thoughts-on-iaaf-corruption-and.html?showComment=1452467978995&m=1#c3185498444874123882

Apologies if this is on here somewhere but a lot has been posted. I thought this was quite good.

This line in the last paragraph has a glaring omission though:

'There's a reason the laughable records of the Chinese, East German, and so forth are still on the books.'

 

[gooner]

PARIS (AP) — Six years before the IAAF banned Russia, track and field's governing body knew of doping so out of control it feared Russian athletes could die from abuse of blood-boosting drugs and transfusions, and officials considered collaborating with Russians to hide the full extent of the cheating before the 2012 London Olympics, according to internal documents obtained by The Associated Press.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/13bd556dbddd4a64888ba278bca74c38/apnewsbreak-iaaf-officials-explored-hush-russia-bans

 

[mrhender]

PARIS (AP) — Six years before the IAAF banned Russia, track and field's governing body knew of doping so out of control it feared Russian athletes could die from abuse of blood-boosting drugs and transfusions, and officials considered collaborating with Russians to hide the full extent of the cheating before the 2012 London Olympics, according to internal documents obtained by The Associated Press.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/13bd556dbddd4a64888ba278bca74c38/apnewsbreak-iaaf-officials-explored-hush-russia-bans

You beat me to it

It's a good read..