Doping in XC skiing

Page 180 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 15, 2015
158
0
2,680
bambino said:
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.
Yes, I agree. But for somebody just reading the thread it would be easy to make up a different conclusion.
 
Agostini, who got suspended 15 months (old WADA rules) in 2013 and fired by his team after treating a rash on his bum with Trofodermin has been mentioned earlier. There’s some really big differences between the aftermaths in his and Johaug’s case.

Agostini: Unfortunately, I can’t do much beyond showing that I behaved in good fait.
Johaug: It’s absurd. I trusted my doctor. I did nothing wrong.

Team Cannondale, about Agostini: Such heinous conduct, which was in multiple violation of the anti-doping rules and the precise instructions of the medical staff in pre-season meetings, has led to the immediate dissolution of his contract
the Norwegian Ski Federation about Johaug: Well, you’ve heard them......
 
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 :)
Dang it. I had to use Google as I'm only master of 500 Norwegian words right now, according to my (quite nice) app.
Thanks for putting me straight. Can I delete my nonsense now?
 
Discgear said:
Agostini, who got suspended 15 months (old WADA rules) in 2013 and fired by his team after treating a rash on his bum with Trofodermin has been mentioned earlier. There’s some really big differences between the aftermaths in his and Johaug’s case.

Agostini: Unfortunately, I can’t do much beyond showing that I behaved in good fait.
Johaug: It’s absurd. I trusted my doctor. I did nothing wrong.

Team Cannondale, about Agostini: Such heinous conduct, which was in multiple violation of the anti-doping rules and the precise instructions of the medical staff in pre-season meetings, has led to the immediate dissolution of his contract
the Norwegian Ski Federation about Johaug: Well, you’ve heard them......
As one of Johaug biggest fans (for the skiing we see), I do hope she doesn't get special treatment for being an actual celeb, blond, tiny, woman, or Norwegian. No-one should get away with this. 4 years would be my verdict. If she's truly innocent, just stupid, it's 4 years worth of stupid for sure.
 
Cloxxki said:
Discgear said:
Agostini, who got suspended 15 months (old WADA rules) in 2013 and fired by his team after treating a rash on his bum with Trofodermin has been mentioned earlier. There’s some really big differences between the aftermaths in his and Johaug’s case.

Agostini: Unfortunately, I can’t do much beyond showing that I behaved in good fait.
Johaug: It’s absurd. I trusted my doctor. I did nothing wrong.

Team Cannondale, about Agostini: Such heinous conduct, which was in multiple violation of the anti-doping rules and the precise instructions of the medical staff in pre-season meetings, has led to the immediate dissolution of his contract
the Norwegian Ski Federation about Johaug: Well, you’ve heard them......
As one of Johaug biggest fans (for the skiing we see), I do hope she doesn't get special treatment for being an actual celeb, blond, tiny, woman, or Norwegian. No-one should get away with this. 4 years would be my verdict. If she's truly innocent, just stupid, it's 4 years worth of stupid for sure.
Although I'm from country whose skiers Norwegians have blamed for wrondoing (silently) since 2001, I still think 4 years is bit too much given there is no tangible evidence that her story is not viable. However, rules should be obeyed no matter who is accused, so 2 years should be absolute minimum.
 
bambino said:
Cloxxki said:
Discgear said:
Agostini, who got suspended 15 months (old WADA rules) in 2013 and fired by his team after treating a rash on his bum with Trofodermin has been mentioned earlier. There’s some really big differences between the aftermaths in his and Johaug’s case.

Agostini: Unfortunately, I can’t do much beyond showing that I behaved in good fait.
Johaug: It’s absurd. I trusted my doctor. I did nothing wrong.

Team Cannondale, about Agostini: Such heinous conduct, which was in multiple violation of the anti-doping rules and the precise instructions of the medical staff in pre-season meetings, has led to the immediate dissolution of his contract
the Norwegian Ski Federation about Johaug: Well, you’ve heard them......
As one of Johaug biggest fans (for the skiing we see), I do hope she doesn't get special treatment for being an actual celeb, blond, tiny, woman, or Norwegian. No-one should get away with this. 4 years would be my verdict. If she's truly innocent, just stupid, it's 4 years worth of stupid for sure.
Although I'm from country whose skiers Norwegians have blamed for wrondoing (silently) since 2001, I still think 4 years is bit too much given there is no tangible evidence that her story is not viable. However, rules should be obeyed no matter who is accused, so 2 years should be absolute minimum.
I see not reason to give a 2 year discount for a top nation presenting themselves as utter amateurs. It's the last card dopers draw, the joker card. Make a sad and slightly embarassing story (saddle sore balm, penis enlargement pill, unborn twin, herpes creme, it's a theme), get away with murder.
No amount of amateurism or stupidity should offer a discount. These proceedings are bad for the reputation of sports, and the way the public views the anti-doping effort. Going after cute girls with lip balm and insecure men taking penis enlargement pills.
I believe it's being communicated clearly that athletes can't outsource responsibility of what they take into their body. Numerous atheletes really stress out, live a very alert life. Johaug the super rich diva just gets to lean on a national team doc and let him fall on his sword. Double standard, not OK.
2 years would send the message of "not really guilty perhaps, but we can't be too soft on pro athletes, bad luck girl!". 4 years would say "don't mess with us, don't walk the narrow line". And, it would put ADNO in a position to rethink its stance, are they with the athletes or with the WADA code?
 
Cloxxki said:
bambino said:
Cloxxki said:
Discgear said:
Agostini, who got suspended 15 months (old WADA rules) in 2013 and fired by his team after treating a rash on his bum with Trofodermin has been mentioned earlier. There’s some really big differences between the aftermaths in his and Johaug’s case.

Agostini: Unfortunately, I can’t do much beyond showing that I behaved in good fait.
Johaug: It’s absurd. I trusted my doctor. I did nothing wrong.

Team Cannondale, about Agostini: Such heinous conduct, which was in multiple violation of the anti-doping rules and the precise instructions of the medical staff in pre-season meetings, has led to the immediate dissolution of his contract
the Norwegian Ski Federation about Johaug: Well, you’ve heard them......
As one of Johaug biggest fans (for the skiing we see), I do hope she doesn't get special treatment for being an actual celeb, blond, tiny, woman, or Norwegian. No-one should get away with this. 4 years would be my verdict. If she's truly innocent, just stupid, it's 4 years worth of stupid for sure.
Although I'm from country whose skiers Norwegians have blamed for wrondoing (silently) since 2001, I still think 4 years is bit too much given there is no tangible evidence that her story is not viable. However, rules should be obeyed no matter who is accused, so 2 years should be absolute minimum.
I see not reason to give a 2 year discount for a top nation presenting themselves as utter amateurs. It's the last card dopers draw, the joker card. Make a sad and slightly embarassing story (saddle sore balm, penis enlargement pill, unborn twin, herpes creme, it's a theme), get away with murder.
No amount of amateurism or stupidity should offer a discount. These proceedings are bad for the reputation of sports, and the way the public views the anti-doping effort. Going after cute girls with lip balm and insecure men taking penis enlargement pills.
I believe it's being communicated clearly that athletes can't outsource responsibility of what they take into their body. Numerous atheletes really stress out, live a very alert life. Johaug the super rich diva just gets to lean on a national team doc and let him fall on his sword. Double standard, not OK.
2 years would send the message of "not really guilty perhaps, but we can't be too soft on pro athletes, bad luck girl!". 4 years would say "don't mess with us, don't walk the narrow line". And, it would put ADNO in a position to rethink its stance, are they with the athletes or with the WADA code?
The Anti-Doping Tribunal must prove the athlete wilfully cheated and showed no remorse to get the full four years - Probably not the case in this scenario.
 
yaco said:
Cloxxki said:
bambino said:
Cloxxki said:
Discgear said:
Agostini, who got suspended 15 months (old WADA rules) in 2013 and fired by his team after treating a rash on his bum with Trofodermin has been mentioned earlier. There’s some really big differences between the aftermaths in his and Johaug’s case.

Agostini: Unfortunately, I can’t do much beyond showing that I behaved in good fait.
Johaug: It’s absurd. I trusted my doctor. I did nothing wrong.

Team Cannondale, about Agostini: Such heinous conduct, which was in multiple violation of the anti-doping rules and the precise instructions of the medical staff in pre-season meetings, has led to the immediate dissolution of his contract
the Norwegian Ski Federation about Johaug: Well, you’ve heard them......
As one of Johaug biggest fans (for the skiing we see), I do hope she doesn't get special treatment for being an actual celeb, blond, tiny, woman, or Norwegian. No-one should get away with this. 4 years would be my verdict. If she's truly innocent, just stupid, it's 4 years worth of stupid for sure.
Although I'm from country whose skiers Norwegians have blamed for wrondoing (silently) since 2001, I still think 4 years is bit too much given there is no tangible evidence that her story is not viable. However, rules should be obeyed no matter who is accused, so 2 years should be absolute minimum.
I see not reason to give a 2 year discount for a top nation presenting themselves as utter amateurs. It's the last card dopers draw, the joker card. Make a sad and slightly embarassing story (saddle sore balm, penis enlargement pill, unborn twin, herpes creme, it's a theme), get away with murder.
No amount of amateurism or stupidity should offer a discount. These proceedings are bad for the reputation of sports, and the way the public views the anti-doping effort. Going after cute girls with lip balm and insecure men taking penis enlargement pills.
I believe it's being communicated clearly that athletes can't outsource responsibility of what they take into their body. Numerous atheletes really stress out, live a very alert life. Johaug the super rich diva just gets to lean on a national team doc and let him fall on his sword. Double standard, not OK.
2 years would send the message of "not really guilty perhaps, but we can't be too soft on pro athletes, bad luck girl!". 4 years would say "don't mess with us, don't walk the narrow line". And, it would put ADNO in a position to rethink its stance, are they with the athletes or with the WADA code?
The Anti-Doping Tribunal must prove the athlete wilfully cheated and showed no remorse to get the full four years - Probably not the case in this scenario.
This. I don't think there is any evindence around that she took it to enhance performance (although of course I think she did), so 4 years would probably not fly even im CAS. However, I don't (any many experts of sports juridiction) see either why the strict liability wouldn't apply for Johaug being ultimately responsible what goes into her body. There is no rule in WADA's code of conduct where the athlete could outsource that liability to anyone else. Thus 2 years would be the minimum.

I'm actually quite astoniched (among others publically) that ADNO's case for the ban is exactly following the strict liability rule, but at the same time they push for ban of 14 months, which is against the rule of minimum ban in the case they drive. I'm equally astonished why the judges of the court did not bring that point forward in the hearing while they for sure know what the rules say.

I can only draw the conclusion that everybody related to the case in Norway thinks it is more important that Johaug can participate the Olympics 2018 than following the written rules.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
yaco said:
The Anti-Doping Tribunal must prove the athlete wilfully cheated and showed no remorse to get the full four years - Probably not the case in this scenario.
as far as i remember 'remorse' is not a part of the wada rules. remorse is an emotion. cooperation or the lack of such IS generally considered in the length of a ban.

here's what is important in my view regarding the 'true story' (and not very surprisingly not a single norwegian or other media media latched on to it) whether dr. bendiksen was telling the truth


i already posted what i consider incredible.

when the judge asked the doc if he had any contact with therese a week before his interview with adno, his answer was:
'i dont remember'....
feeling avoidance, the judge insisted, 'was there any disagreement between you [and therese -py] in terms of the [trofodermin - py] packaging ?
the doc: I dont remember
the judge tried for the 3d time:
'It is important to emphasize that this case is about her degree of any negligence. But I want to ask something that is not quite clear on my part. Before you had an interview with adno - the week that had passed since this came up, was there any discussion between the two of you if the tube was supplied with or without a packaging ?

bendiksen: i can't remember...

for the authenticity of what appears a selective memory (or an outright lie) anyone can review the live transcript by the NRK, day2 btwn 10:39am and 10:40 am.

the doc is hiding something when he can't remember simple things that decide the length of the ban.
 
BullsFan22 said:
I can't remember, did Johaug take this just once, or was it for a number of days in a row, hence the high concentration found in the test?
This good doc forgets more about doping in a day than any of us will learn within our lifetimes :)

How can such bad memory be admissible, not lead to a maximum ban? It's the biggest case of his career. Insanity plea, Johaug goes free?
Making a mockery of anti-doping conduct.
 
python said:
yaco said:
The Anti-Doping Tribunal must prove the athlete wilfully cheated and showed no remorse to get the full four years - Probably not the case in this scenario.
as far as i remember 'remorse' is not a part of the wada rules. remorse is an emotion. cooperation or the lack of such IS generally considered in the length of a ban.

here's what is important in my view regarding the 'true story' (and not very surprisingly not a single norwegian or other media media latched on to it) whether dr. bendiksen was telling the truth


i already posted what i consider incredible.

Probably should have added co-operation/admission of guilt - This is what gets you 2 years give or take a few months either side.
feeling avoidance, the judge insisted, 'was there any disagreement between you [and therese -py] in terms of the [trofodermin - py] packaging ?
the doc: I dont remember
the judge tried for the 3d time:
'It is important to emphasize that this case is about her degree of any negligence. But I want to ask something that is not quite clear on my part. Before you had an interview with adno - the week that had passed since this came up, was there any discussion between the two of you if the tube was supplied with or without a packaging ?

bendiksen: i can't remember...

for the authenticity of what appears a selective memory (or an outright lie) anyone can review the live transcript by the NRK, day2 btwn 10:39am and 10:40 am.

the doc is hiding something when he can't remember simple things that decide the length of the ban.
 
Cloxxki said:
BullsFan22 said:
I can't remember, did Johaug take this just once, or was it for a number of days in a row, hence the high concentration found in the test?
This good doc forgets more about doping in a day than any of us will learn within our lifetimes :)

How can such bad memory be admissible, not lead to a maximum ban? It's the biggest case of his career. Insanity plea, Johaug goes free?
Making a mockery of anti-doping conduct.
My guess is that if she isn't exonerated entirely, she'll get the shortest ban possible: 12 months. Meaning that she'll be able to start next season.
 
BullsFan22 said:
My guess is that if she isn't exonerated entirely, she'll get the shortest ban possible: 12 months. Meaning that she'll be able to start next season.
I wonder whether even Johaug dares hope for that anymore. Seems to be ready to sign for 14 months, coincidentally the longest she can still and do the Olympics.
And 12 months, wouldn't that trigger a nice set of appeals? If not, AD authorities may as well conceed, don't test anymore.
 
Cloxxki said:
BullsFan22 said:
My guess is that if she isn't exonerated entirely, she'll get the shortest ban possible: 12 months. Meaning that she'll be able to start next season.
I wonder whether even Johaug dares hope for that anymore. Seems to be ready to sign for 14 months, coincidentally the longest she can still and do the Olympics.
And 12 months, wouldn't that trigger a nice set of appeals? If not, AD authorities may as well conceed, don't test anymore.

Well I am hoping that if following anti-doping rules is important to anti-doping authorities, she'll get the usual 2 year sentence. If it's the 4 year suspension, that will send shockwaves through the sport of cross country skiing.
 
Don't see four years in the cards. The norwegians will try and get her into the olympics, so they will offer 12-14 months. Two years with some moaning and arm twisting ie after an appeal process is what I hope for. As cloxxki said anything less would be a serious defeat for AD.
 
Re:

Cloxxki said:
http://www.universitetsavisa.no/ytring/2017/01/31/Fors%C3%B8k-p%C3%A5-en-vitenskapelig-tiln%C3%A6rming-i-Johaug-saken-63241.ece
I messed up with interpretation of an article recently, so I'll just offer this for your reading.
That's a good read with a valid argumentation concerning Johaug and Bendiksen.

But I think the author missed the target with the reasoning about Conspiracy theories. After the book Conspiracy Theory in America by prof. Lance deHaven-Smith was released 2013 we know that the term in fact was introduced by CIA and used as a political tool.
 
Does anyone know when the verdict on Johaug is supposed to come? Not long before World's now, so I am assuming pretty soon. Anyone have additional information?

The verdict on the suspended Russians should be coming soon as well. I know the cases are different, but I wonder if FIS will rule one case based on what comes out of the other? Meaning that should the verdict on Johaug come before the Russian verdict, and let's say she's given a 1 or 2 year ban, FIS may hand out similar suspensions to the Russians. If she doesn't get a ban, at all, it might also mean a lenient (or none at all) sentence for the Russians. If the verdict on the Russians comes before Johaug's, and they are exonerated, she might be exonerated as well.
 
Mar 18, 2009
745
0
0
Re:

Cloxxki said:
Could opening with that wording be intentional to prevent lynching by the public?
I read it that way. Or rather, as a "hook", so the author gets the reader to continue. The meat of the article is so well presented that it could likely force more eyes "open". I thought using the example of what a scientist does to try and prove (or disprove) a hypothesis was a very clever way to show the improbability of the offered excuse. The table, and using weighted factors of probability, was also really clever.

In the author's closing argument, I thought this sentence resonated:
"Regner vi sammen disse får vi en sannsynlighet på 0,000000125. Det er omtrent like usannsynlig som å oppnå topp-premie i Lotto."


"If we factor all of these <stages*> together, we get a probability of 0,000000125. That is roughly as improbable as winning the mega-jackpot lottery"

* I added the word stages to the translation for clarification, as the author is referring to the 6 stages in the table, but it does not clearly state that in the un-translated sentence.

Unfortunately, this appears to be on a university website (NTNU I believe) and does not appear to be a main-stream media source; not one I've ever read anys. So I'm not so sure how many people will read it. Although I could be wrong and there a lot of people who read it! Happy to be proven wrong if someone knows more about this website than me :)
 
Jan 3, 2016
300
0
0
BullsFan22 said:
Does anyone know when the verdict on Johaug is supposed to come? Not long before World's now, so I am assuming pretty soon. Anyone have additional information?

The verdict on the suspended Russians should be coming soon as well. I know the cases are different, but I wonder if FIS will rule one case based on what comes out of the other? Meaning that should the verdict on Johaug come before the Russian verdict, and let's say she's given a 1 or 2 year ban, FIS may hand out similar suspensions to the Russians. If she doesn't get a ban, at all, it might also mean a lenient (or none at all) sentence for the Russians. If the verdict on the Russians comes before Johaug's, and they are exonerated, she might be exonerated as well.
Guess who's been out training in the olympic tracks at Pyeongchang http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/johaug-med-melding-til-fansen-i-natt-la-ut-overraskende-bilde/66924310
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY