Doping in XC skiing

Page 179 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 15, 2015
180
0
0
Re:

Kokoso said:
Related to this I have a question (which was certainly answered here many times so I apologize for asking again): how are TUE's granted and how are granted athletes with for example asthma granted use of medication such a salbutamol up to 1600 ug/24 hour dose. Does the later grant WADA? Or is that in competency of national team doctors and antidoping agencies?
You need a TUE if you want to take more than 1600 ug of Salbutamol in a day. Less than 1600 ug/day does not require a TUE.
 
Re: Re:

John de Savage said:
Kokoso said:
Related to this I have a question (which was certainly answered here many times so I apologize for asking again): how are TUE's granted and how are granted athletes with for example asthma granted use of medication such a salbutamol up to 1600 ug/24 hour dose. Does the later grant WADA? Or is that in competency of national team doctors and antidoping agencies?
You need a TUE if you want to take more than 1600 ug of Salbutamol in a day. Less than 1600 ug/day does not require a TUE.
But with all the margins left, how much would you actually need to take to be declared positive? Let alone if you do the smart thing and drink more water or whatever works for Salbutamol?
 
Apr 22, 2012
3,570
0
0
Re: Re:

John de Savage said:
Kokoso said:
Related to this I have a question (which was certainly answered here many times so I apologize for asking again): how are TUE's granted and how are granted athletes with for example asthma granted use of medication such a salbutamol up to 1600 ug/24 hour dose. Does the later grant WADA? Or is that in competency of national team doctors and antidoping agencies?
You need a TUE if you want to take more than 1600 ug of Salbutamol in a day. Less than 1600 ug/day does not require a TUE.
Thanks, yes, I know that. I am sorry but that wasn't what I was asking about, maybe I've formulated wrong because of my bad english.

I will try to reformulate it somehow. My question wasn't specifically about salbutamol, that was just an exmaple. I was asking about what doctor/doctors examination and permition is needed to get TUE vs. what's needed to have permition to use medicaments which doesn't require TUE - as is, for example, salbutamol up to 1600 ug per day.
 
Back to case Johaug. The court hearing has started in Norway at 9am CET. At least one question has been answered already, the amount of Clostebol in the sample was 13 nanograms/ml. I let the people more familiar of the to judge that amount... apparently in the doping case of cyclist Stefano Agostini, the level was 7 ng/ml, so Johaug almost double. Agostini got 15 months ban.

The starting point of Johaug's defense seemed to be that 12 months ban is sufficient. They also said Johaug has not attended the doping training session arranged due to "busy schedule". They anyway confirmed that Johaug has proper knowledge in doping matters.

As far as I can follow ADNO judged that Johaug is guilty as she should've checked the medicine herself and not only trust the doctor. However they claim it is not intentional and significant ignorance and that the ban should be between 1 and 2 years.

ADNO has brough the tube Johaug has claimed to use to the court. Each package has "doping" sign on it. ADNO has also travelled to Livigno and the pharmacy during their investigation.

The judges asks the ADNO rep (Birgit Haukeland) why she didn't bring the cream to Norway from Livigno (I guess for investigation/testing purposes), the response: "because anabolic steroids are forbidden in Norway". I find the answer strange in case of scientific purpose like this.

ADNO had received "a hint" that there would also be Trofodermin tubes in the market without doping sign, but could not find one. All the tubes in the pharmacy in Livigno contained the signs.

The judge questions why it took a week after positive test result to arrange the hearing of Johaug and the others. The response from ADNO: "we had connection established, but the call (to Johaug) took place on 11th October". Not the most convincing answer to my taste...

After the court break, it is Johaug's layer's time to speak. He started that Johaug never thought she would end to this situation. She just wanted the cream to give effect (to the lips) as soon as possible. She was happy Bendiksen was there and could help her as she was in pain. The last time she used the cream was 15th September and next morning she was tested. Then a shock (blaa blaa) that she was tested positive and she could not understand. Quite soon they realized it was Trofodermin, Bendiksen had gave her "wrong" cream".

Johaug is greatly relieved that in the (ADNO) investigations it has been proven that she has told the truth. Now, according to Johaug's layer (Christian Hjort), the biggest question now is how on earth such experienced doctor as Bendiksen could not validate that using the cream was OK, and how Bendiksen and Johaug did not notice the doping signs in the tube. He also does not understand the conspiracy theories around the whole topic (personal note: would be surprised if he would admit to understand).

Johaug's layer crucified Bendiksen (not surprisingly) by saying: "Regardless how this all happened, Bendiksen has committed a professional suicide". NOTE: Bendiksen is going to be questions tomorrow.

Hjort talks about rules, responsibilities and who is guilty or not. According to him, everyone probably would trust the doctor, he is the expert. The layer sees that it doesn't really matter what is written in the tube/container...

According to the ADNO test report Johaug was "happy and nice" when she was tested on 16th Sep. I guess this is argument to prove that she had no idea of using banned substance day before.

Not surprisingly, the layer points out that thinks it is important to notice, that the doping signs are on the backside of the tube/package. He also claims that this is "Italian" way of marking the package and not the international way, which could've led to the mistake of Bendiksen not noticing it. He also tells that Bendiksen went to the Pharmacy with full Norwegian ski team outfit which makes it really odd that the sales person in the Pharmacy did not warn and show him the doping sign. Huge focus from the defense in general to the fact that the sign was in the backside of the package and the fact that Bandiksen did not see it and also the sign could be understood another way around. i.e. that it does not contain doping.

The judge asks how the fact that Bendiksen might've not seen it is in the relation that Johaug did not notice it either. The layer responded that it can be deemed that Johaug could trust Bendiksen 100% (as he is the expert) thus she should be revealed from the responsibility of not checking it hersefl (!!!). Judge further asks that why didn't Johaug draw any conclusions from the name of the primary substance that ends with -bol, closte-bol? The layer response with explanation how great confidence the members of the ski team had for Bendiksen.

The layer claims hard that Johaug actually did investigate the cream (and asked about it from ex-doctor of the national team - not named) although ADNO says she did not investigate it.

The court breaks for lunch now, after the lunch it is Johaug's time to give her version, unfortunately I can't follow that live anymore.

So in summary it seems the defense's arguments for the fact that Johaug hasn't conducted significant ignorance for doping in sport are:

- If the trusted doctor assures that the medicine does not contain doping, that releifs (at least partially) the athlete from the responsibility to check it again
- Regardless Johaug did investigate the cream and did not get any signs of doping
- Bendiksen nor Johaug did not see the sign because it was in the backside of the package
- The Pahrmacy did not warn Bendiksen about the banned substance
- The sign in the package was both mis-leading and not according to the international rules (not sure why this is relevant when they said they did not see it)
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
bambino beat me to the news.

indeed her clostebol concentration was revealed for the 1st time.

to state that 13 nanogramm per milliliter is not performance enhancing, as the ADN insisted is - as i stressed here many times - is nonsensical, b/c it neglects the time frame and wholly accepts the johaugs version.

as far as i understood the nrk article linked below, the agostini sample contained .7 nanogram (not 7 per the bambino source). this is almost 20 times less than the johaug sample

perhaps that's why sports lawyer gunnar martin called it surprisingly high.

https://www.nrk.no/sport/sa-mye-clostebol-ble-funnet-i-kroppen-til-johaug-1.13340476
 
Re:

python said:
bambino beat me to the news.

indeed her clostebol concentration was revealed for the 1st time.

to state that 13 nanogramm per milliliter is not performance enhancing, as the ADN insisted is - as i stressed here many times - is nonsensical, b/c it neglects the time frame and wholly accepts the johaugs version.

as far as i understood the nrk article linked below, the agostini sample contained .7 nanogram (not 7 per the bambino source). this is almost 20 times less than the johaug sample

perhaps that's why sports lawyer gunnar martin called it surprisingly high.

https://www.nrk.no/sport/sa-mye-clostebol-ble-funnet-i-kroppen-til-johaug-1.13340476
Could well be. I'm living with online translated follow-up which obviously might have mistakes.

Btw. I'm updating my previous post while new stuff comes in from the live news.


EDIT: Actually your linked article says:

"Det har tidligere vært refert til at Agostini hadde 0,7 nanogram i blodet, dette er altså feil. Det korrekte er sju nanogram."

Which in english (in my beginners Norwegian skills) says something like "earlier there was refrences that Agostini's sample contained 0,7 nanogram in blood, but that is wrong. The correct amount was 7 nanograms."
 
Cloxxki said:
http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/de-tre-bokstavene-som-kan-avgjore-therese-johaugs-skjebne/66906468

Expert declares it's impossible to absorb into the bloodstream as much Clostebol as Johaug did through the lips. He's tested it.

Seems they're ready to move away from tears and stories?

I am with the expert on this one. Did she take several sips of that?? That's what it sounds like to me. I don't see how she'll race at world's this year, it starts in four weeks. Perhaps the lawyers are thinking towards next year and if she can't be cleared to go this season, they will hope for her to get the next best scenario (for her), which is a 12-14 month ban, which, if I understood correctly would have started on the 19th of October and either end October 19th 2017 or December 19th 2017. Therefore she won't miss the Olympics.

If ADNO get the 12-14 month suspension for her, will WADA and CAS appeal? If so, well, then this could really drag on for a while.
 
From what I read above, it get the feeling ADNO is dancing a very thin line. If they step off one side, Johaug is likely out for 4 years. Step off the other side, and ADNO itself would become a prime target for an ethics investigation with far-reaching consequences. It's crazy to think, but imagine WADA would call for ADNO to be dismantled, and rebuilt from zero overlooked by independent monitors. Athletes who want to compete can deal with Swedish ADA or WADA directly :) Norway to pay for it all.
 
Two athletes that have come back from their suspensions have had a good season so far. Today was the first race of the European Biathlon Championships in Poland. Alexander Loginov and Irina Starykh have won the opening races, continuing their good seasons. Fourcade was not very welcoming of Loginov. Gross and the Russian coaches have been pensive about putting Loginov on the WC tour, because doing so this early would potentially get a lot of bad publicity, and considering the current climate, that's not a bad decision at all. It'll be interesting to see if both athletes will go to Hochfilzen. On one hand, they served the sentences that they got (and I am a believer in people getting a second chance, no matter who they are, no matter their age, or standing in sport, whatever...) but as far as publicity is concerned, it won't be pretty for the Russians.
 
Jan 3, 2016
300
0
0
Re: Johaug. It seems that the lip-salve hypothesis is being presented as if it's an undisputed fact, from what I get from NRK, the only question is how the degree of carelessness/responsibility is shared between the athlete and the support team/medic. The journalists are all saying that the 13 nanograms 'is consistent with using a cream' but surely the whole point is the amount in the sample is a result of dose over time? Does that mean that someone has done a study of applying Trofodermin to the lips, as Johaug says she did, and then taking a series of samples over time?
 
Well, it seems to me that the Johaug defence focuses on factors that are supposed to mitigate her faults and in so doing might be in contradiction with (or try to brush aside) the principle of strict liability. If this is so, and ADNO suggests a ban of less than two years for a substance that normally would yield 2-4, then surely wada ought to appeal?

Of course, this simplistic view does not take into account the possibility of politicking etc.
 
BullsFan22 said:
Two athletes that have come back from their suspensions have had a good season so far. Today was the first race of the European Biathlon Championships in Poland. Alexander Loginov and Irina Starykh have won the opening races, continuing their good seasons. Fourcade was not very welcoming of Loginov. Gross and the Russian coaches have been pensive about putting Loginov on the WC tour, because doing so this early would potentially get a lot of bad publicity, and considering the current climate, that's not a bad decision at all. It'll be interesting to see if both athletes will go to Hochfilzen. On one hand, they served the sentences that they got (and I am a believer in people getting a second chance, no matter who they are, no matter their age, or standing in sport, whatever...) but as far as publicity is concerned, it won't be pretty for the Russians.
They can't keep Loginov out forever if it's purely on merit (let's face it, we know they're trying to fan the flames, and sticking Loginov straight into the World Cup squad is only going to increase the resentment felt by those who feel the Russians need more punishment for their indiscretions than they are getting at present) but at the same time the Russian men don't have a real problem. They have strong athletes who can contend for the win, and two of them (Shipulin and Babikov) have won races this year. Their position in the standings is safe, with Tsvetkov they've got a consistent source of results, and they've brought through some other younger athletes along with the proven names like Malyshko and Garanichev. With only four starters per nation in Hochfilzen, it's easy to leave Loginov to the minor competitions for the time being.

Starykh is different in some ways really. The Russian women are battling to win back their full complement after losing their sixth starter a couple of years ago. They're currently on pace to do so, but their points lead over Italy and Norway is minimal. The women haven't really been firing on all cylinders, except Akimova, and they've jettisoned some older athletes who hadn't been producing the results in favour of younger ones who need some time to adapt. So she might be called up sooner than Loginov even though his results are objectively better (he was better in the national calendar, and his results since coming back have been stronger too). Counting against Starykh is that she was only the third fastest Russian in Duszniki-Zdrój, and one of those faster than her was Sleptsova, who's already done a stint on the World Cup, with very little in the way of results. The two races she's won - one in the IBU Cup and one here - were both Individuals, and in the races where misses are less heavily penalised she's not been as successful. That may count against her. There's also that she's 29 to Loginov's 24 and the recent memory of Iourieva (who was a training partner of Starykh's before their suspensions) that counts against her, although if Wierer, Eckhoff or Olsbu start performing they may start to make changes to try to defend their position which may mean Starykh gets the nod ahead of less proven or known volatile athletes, especially in the relay.
 
Re:

meat puppet said:
Well, it seems to me that the Johaug defence focuses on factors that are supposed to mitigate her faults and in so doing might be in contradiction with (or try to brush aside) the principle of strict liability. If this is so, and ADNO suggests a ban of less than two years for a substance that normally would yield 2-4, then surely wada ought to appeal?

Of course, this simplistic view does not take into account the possibility of politicking etc.
Absolutely.
And if this is allowed to fly, all bets will be off in doping cases.
All excuses will be viable, all circumstances admissible.
All responsibility elsewhere, making the athlete safe as can be.

ADNO is very much on the side of the athlete. Aren't they supposed to be tough on the athlete when responsibility is not applied and unlikely high concentrations are found, and all excuses seem to line up quite badly?
 
Re: Re:

Cloxxki said:
meat puppet said:
Well, it seems to me that the Johaug defence focuses on factors that are supposed to mitigate her faults and in so doing might be in contradiction with (or try to brush aside) the principle of strict liability. If this is so, and ADNO suggests a ban of less than two years for a substance that normally would yield 2-4, then surely wada ought to appeal?

Of course, this simplistic view does not take into account the possibility of politicking etc.
Absolutely.
And if this is allowed to fly, all bets will be off in doping cases.
All excuses will be viable, all circumstances admissible.
All responsibility elsewhere, making the athlete safe as can be.

ADNO is very much on the side of the athlete. Aren't they supposed to be tough on the athlete when responsibility is not applied and unlikely high concentrations are found, and all excuses seem to line up quite badly?
Couldn't agree more.

One of the more sensational things in today hearings was what Johaug herself revealed.
She said that many team mates had got remarks in not being at the right place compared to what they had reported to Adams System. And apparently Johaug had reported to Adams that she was going to be in Oslo between the 25th and 30th of August when she in reality was in Seiser Alm. Her excuse was that she was exhausted. That slip is quite a coincidence.
 
Re: Re:

Cloxxki said:
meat puppet said:
Well, it seems to me that the Johaug defence focuses on factors that are supposed to mitigate her faults and in so doing might be in contradiction with (or try to brush aside) the principle of strict liability. If this is so, and ADNO suggests a ban of less than two years for a substance that normally would yield 2-4, then surely wada ought to appeal?

Of course, this simplistic view does not take into account the possibility of politicking etc.
Absolutely.
And if this is allowed to fly, all bets will be off in doping cases.
All excuses will be viable, all circumstances admissible.
All responsibility elsewhere, making the athlete safe as can be.

ADNO is very much on the side of the athlete. Aren't they supposed to be tough on the athlete when responsibility is not applied and unlikely high concentrations are found, and all excuses seem to line up quite badly?
Spot on. Johaug's defense is all about lifting out the strickt liability from her shoulders with explanation that trusted doctor said the substance is safe. If I would work in WADA, I would be very concerned as this would give very dangerous example case to be used by dopers around the world in all different sports.
 
Legkov and Belov's temporary suspension is upheld.

http://news.sportbox.ru/Vidy_sporta/cross_country/spbnews_NI711491_Vremennoje_otstranenije_Legkova_i_Belova_ostalos_v_sile


Three-person panel voted. Two in favor, one not in favor. Their defense lawyer, German Christof Wieschemann, advised them to take this to CAS.

Here is the brief reasoning on why they should take it to CAS:

http://news.sportbox.ru/Vidy_sporta/doping/spbnews_NI711495_Doping_proby_Legkova_s_OI_2014_dali_otricatelnyj_rezultat

And the official report, from Wieschemann's law firm.

In German:
http://wieschemann.eu/fis-haelt-vorlaeufige-suspendierung-von-legkov-und-belov-aufrecht

To view in English, simply look at the bottom right of your screen to change the language. It's quite detailed. My guess is that FIS is probably a bit pensive, if not afraid to go against WADA/IOC rulings. Not sure what CAS will rule.
 
BullsFan22 said:
Legkov and Belov's temporary suspension is upheld.

http://news.sportbox.ru/Vidy_sporta/cross_country/spbnews_NI711491_Vremennoje_otstranenije_Legkova_i_Belova_ostalos_v_sile


Three-person panel voted. Two in favor, one not in favor. Their defense lawyer, German Christof Wieschemann, advised them to take this to CAS.

Here is the brief reasoning on why they should take it to CAS:

http://news.sportbox.ru/Vidy_sporta/doping/spbnews_NI711495_Doping_proby_Legkova_s_OI_2014_dali_otricatelnyj_rezultat

And the official report, from Wieschemann's law firm.

In German:
http://wieschemann.eu/fis-haelt-vorlaeufige-suspendierung-von-legkov-und-belov-aufrecht

To view in English, simply look at the bottom right of your screen to change the language. It's quite detailed. My guess is that FIS is probably a bit pensive, if not afraid to go against WADA/IOC rulings. Not sure what CAS will rule.
Any information who the delegates are in the panel, together with chairman Smith?
 
Discgear said:
BullsFan22 said:
Legkov and Belov's temporary suspension is upheld.

http://news.sportbox.ru/Vidy_sporta/cross_country/spbnews_NI711491_Vremennoje_otstranenije_Legkova_i_Belova_ostalos_v_sile


Three-person panel voted. Two in favor, one not in favor. Their defense lawyer, German Christof Wieschemann, advised them to take this to CAS.

Here is the brief reasoning on why they should take it to CAS:

http://news.sportbox.ru/Vidy_sporta/doping/spbnews_NI711495_Doping_proby_Legkova_s_OI_2014_dali_otricatelnyj_rezultat

And the official report, from Wieschemann's law firm.

In German:
http://wieschemann.eu/fis-haelt-vorlaeufige-suspendierung-von-legkov-und-belov-aufrecht

To view in English, simply look at the bottom right of your screen to change the language. It's quite detailed. My guess is that FIS is probably a bit pensive, if not afraid to go against WADA/IOC rulings. Not sure what CAS will rule.
Any information who the delegates are in the panel, together with chairman Smith?

It's a good question. I don't know, is my answer, but I'll be on the look out and I'll post it here. I really want to stay away from conspiracies, but Mr. Smith is Canadian and Mr. McLaren being Canadian...who knows. Both are sports lawyers, and so is Wieschemann, the defense attorney. I looked at Wieschemann's resume on the law firm's page, and it's fairly impressive. I don't know if it was the Federation that hired Wieschemann or whether it was Markus Cramer their coach (also a German) recommended him, or the RUSOC...whoever it was, they have a strong attorney by the looks of it. I say this as someone that knows very little on sports law. Anyway, I am as interested in finding out who the panel is and to look at their reasoning. Of course the defense will be adamant that they had nothing to do with manipulating urine samples, and it's written in the official statement, and the fact that the tests that Legkov had during Sochi were all negative. I don't know. This is such a different doping related case, to say, even Johaug or Sundby, and those two cases were fairly complicated, or at least made out to be, so I have no idea. At first glance one wonders how the athletes are involved in manipulating the tests. I mean, how are they supposed to know if it's manipulated or not? Were their agreements with the staff? "Here, take this this day, that the next, and this last one the morning of the race, then when you go for a urine test, someone will take it and replace it....?" If not, how can they prove it? Apparently the lid was opened, and there were scratch marks...I don't know really what to conclude. I can't believe that nobody there grew suspicious or said anything about it. I am pretty sure that there were quite a few anti-doping officials from outside Russia that were present. If there was tampering with samples, or whatever, people would have noticed. I can't believe that it was only Russian anti-doping organizations/volunteers/experts there. There had to have been others there that weren't under the auspices of Russian authorities (if Russian authorities were the ones that were involved in the first place).

So to conclude, this is in some ways more difficult to gage than the Johaug and Sundby cases, but also somewhat easier. One one hand, the accusations that there was manipulation. But all the accusations have come from a third party, Rodchenkov. Nobody else has come forward, so the allegations are all from one individual. The defense lawyer (in the link above) says that the tests were negative. He also said that Legkov was tested right before the Olympics as well. That means he was tested not only after winning the pre-Olympic race in Toblach a week before Sochi, but also in Sochi prior to the first races, so two tests within a week. Negative results, according to the defense. In Belov's case, he was accused of taking doping in races that he actually didn't even take part in. Not sure how FIS can back Rodchenkov on that, but apparently that's the case.

Another interesting aspect is that the defense says how many times Legkov was tested in recent years. The number(s) are in the statement. It's quite a bit of testing. Of course, this can also refresh our memory of Armstrong's defense of '500 tests, never tested positive...' It brings up quite a bit of 'private' information regarding number of tests, but I think it could be something that all other athletes do: publicly announce the amount of times they've been tested in a week, month, year, period of racing, training, etc. They don't have to disclose where they were or their whereabouts, but when the allegations regarding Legkov first came last spring, he immediately came out and publicly stated how many times he was tested and that virtually all his tests were in western Europe, and FIS acknowledged that not long after. Again, it doesn't mean he is innocent of doping, but there is some light of transparency and general openness there.

Gian-Franco Kasper has been much more aggressive on the Norwegians, and has even suggested that Johaug be given the full punishment, but he's made it clear that not long after the 2nd McLaren report (I haven't read either report, so you can call me ignorant or uninformed), FIS came out and gave out these temporary suspensions until the full investigation takes place and decisions made. He was also not in favor of a blanket ban and full suspension of Russian athletes, which is why (in my opinion) there was the petition going around recently and why there were any Russians competing at all since the report came out.
 
Another press release regarding Legkov and Belov.

http://tass.ru/sport/3972418


So apparently the lawyer asked the IOC to give them, within ten days (this was before today's ruling) the proof or viable proof that there was banned substances in the samples given by Legkov and to prove that the samples had been tampered with. The IOC couldn't do that, according to their attorney. If they couldn't prove that the samples were tampered with, and most of all no substances were found in the two tests Legkov submitted during the games, what's the issue? A couple weeks ago they said that the codes that were given to identify athletes that supposedly took substances and had their samples tampered with, were actually bugged or weren't viable. I don't know. So the codes were murky, then FIS waited an extra week to make a decision (the original decision was supposed to be made early last week) whilst neither they nor the IOC were able to prove that the samples were tampered with. Why are the suspensions upheld? It doesn't prove that they were clean, but it doesn't prove they were doping, if that makes sense. There isn't much time until worlds now, only four weeks left. Like Johaug, time is running out for them. Why does it take so long for these things to be dissected and analyzed?
 
Feb 15, 2015
158
0
2,680
Cloxxki said:
http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/de-tre-bokstavene-som-kan-avgjore-therese-johaugs-skjebne/66906468

Expert declares it's impossible to absorb into the bloodstream as much Clostebol as Johaug did through the lips. He's tested it.

Seems they're ready to move away on from listening to tears and stories?
Let's read that story again. The expert is saying that it is impossible to obtain 10mg (performance enhancing) through the lips. 13ng per mm (what Johaug had) is according to what he thinks is plausible through the lips.

If your translation was correct it would probably be the big story right now :)
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
... i just glanced thrugh the nrk live record of the bendiksen testimony on the 2nd day.

not that i expected anything earth shattering, but still it's curious. if i could summarize it in one sentence his hour-long performance, it would be something like this:

' i am the most educated and qualified idiot doctor that ever walked the green earth...i got possessed by demons when i made that mistake. therese had no reasons, none to doubt my idiotic advice' (of course he, like poor therese yesterday, let out several big wet drops to roll down in the full view of all the cameras)

the strange thing was that the doc resorted to the tried and true tool of many liars when asked substantive questions: 'i dont remember'

and i actually understand him. how can one possessed by demons remember ANYTHING :rolleyes:
 
kosmonaut said:
Cloxxki said:
http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/de-tre-bokstavene-som-kan-avgjore-therese-johaugs-skjebne/66906468

Expert declares it's impossible to absorb into the bloodstream as much Clostebol as Johaug did through the lips. He's tested it.

Seems they're ready to move away on from listening to tears and stories?
Let's read that story again. The expert is saying that it is impossible to obtain 10mg (performance enhancing) through the lips. 13ng per mm (what Johaug had) is according to what he thinks is plausible through the lips.

If your translation was correct it would probably be the big story right now :)
Probably so, but in general whether it is 13ng, 10mg or whatever is irrelevant. The doping rules by WADA does not differentiate with amount, violation is violation regardless.

Olli Rauste (specialist of sports juridiction, frequent member of CAS) and Tapio Kallio (Sports Doctor) were interwieved this morning in Finnish TV. Rauste found the acts of the prosecutor (ADNO in reality) very strange as they have more or less already ruled that Johaug hasn't conducted significant personal ignorance against strict liability by suggesting 14 months. Rauste has been investigating WADA rules and other cases in CAS for same subject and cannot find a way how Johaug could get away with less than 2 years in CAS. Both specialist were agreeing that all Norwegian bodies (Johaug, ADNO, NFS, Court) seem to unanimously target for a ban that is between 12-14 months to avoid Johaug missing Olympics, but at the same time avoid WADA (no-one believes FIS will) appeal to CAS. They also suspected there actually isn't anyone in Norway who dares to make decision to possibly take away Johaug's chances of winnning Olympic gold medal during her whole career. Doesn't this sound like state led avoidance of doping ban campaign to anyone? Do I see lot of difference to what was/is going on in Russia? No I don't.

If Norway pulls this through without CAS appeal, at least I lose any possible faith that I had left for WADA and it's national associations independence.
 
Feb 15, 2015
158
0
2,680
bambino said:
kosmonaut said:
Cloxxki said:
http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/de-tre-bokstavene-som-kan-avgjore-therese-johaugs-skjebne/66906468

Expert declares it's impossible to absorb into the bloodstream as much Clostebol as Johaug did through the lips. He's tested it.

Seems they're ready to move away on from listening to tears and stories?
Let's read that story again. The expert is saying that it is impossible to obtain 10mg (performance enhancing) through the lips. 13ng per mm (what Johaug had) is according to what he thinks is plausible through the lips.

If your translation was correct it would probably be the big story right now :)
Probably so, but in general whether it is 13ng, 10mg or whatever is irrelevant. The doping rules by WADA does not differentiate with amount, violation is violation regardless.
It would be extremely relevant, because it would render her whole story a lie - without doubt.
 
kosmonaut said:
bambino said:
kosmonaut said:
Cloxxki said:
http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/de-tre-bokstavene-som-kan-avgjore-therese-johaugs-skjebne/66906468

Expert declares it's impossible to absorb into the bloodstream as much Clostebol as Johaug did through the lips. He's tested it.

Seems they're ready to move away on from listening to tears and stories?
Let's read that story again. The expert is saying that it is impossible to obtain 10mg (performance enhancing) through the lips. 13ng per mm (what Johaug had) is according to what he thinks is plausible through the lips.

If your translation was correct it would probably be the big story right now :)
Probably so, but in general whether it is 13ng, 10mg or whatever is irrelevant. The doping rules by WADA does not differentiate with amount, violation is violation regardless.
It would be extremely relevant, because it would render her whole story a lie - without doubt.
I that sense yes. I was beyond that point long time ago. No-one will find plausible evidence that her story is a lie. They've had enough time (more than week after they knew the positive test) to make sure it matches. It would've been utterly ridiculous they would invented a story that does not match what-so-ever to the amount of Clostebol in her blood. They anyway knew the amount first hand.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY