Doping in XC skiing

Page 181 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 15, 2012
226
1
0
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.
YES! At last someone says this in public.
This has been my personal narrative when discussing this drama with norwegians and swedes. Everyone has then paused and said that it was very compelling, when the chain of events was described in this order.

1 Her lip condition is a fact since always. Countermeasures should be packed with the skis, poles and boots.
2 The treatment of this cronic problem requires some medical/chemical product. This product was not brought along.
3 Acute treatment took place after a medical doctor left Norway partially for this reason.
4 This doctor failed to bring the product.
5 The product could not be aquired locally. Another product was purchased by the doctor in a foreign country. Without checking.
6 TJ was given an unknown (to her) product of foreign origin. Without checking.

Multiply the probability to fail in all these stages and you end up with: "yeah, right..."
 
Martin Fourcade trolling the SBR (verified as genuine by Martin himself)



To be honest, while accurate, this is a bit lame and unnecessary from Martin, the SBR were just doing a generic "happy birthday" message to Loginov, who turned 25 earlier in the week, and as is their custom when doing so, they list the athlete's achievements. Certainly on the face of it the post Fourcade is responding to appears pretty innocuous and it doesn't seem to be intended to be provocative, unless perhaps they've included results that have been taken away from him.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Martin Fourcade trolling the SBR (verified as genuine by Martin himself)

To be honest, while accurate, this is a bit lame and unnecessary from Martin, the SBR were just doing a generic "happy birthday" message to Loginov, who turned 25 earlier in the week, and as is their custom when doing so, they list the athlete's achievements. Certainly on the face of it the post Fourcade is responding to appears pretty innocuous and it doesn't seem to be intended to be provocative, unless perhaps they've included results that have been taken away from him.
After Loginov's dominant display at The European Championships, it's no surprise that he's also now on the start list for Hochfilzen. I can understand the frustration that the Norwegians and Fourcade have over this decision though.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Martin Fourcade trolling the SBR (verified as genuine by Martin himself)



To be honest, while accurate, this is a bit lame and unnecessary from Martin, the SBR were just doing a generic "happy birthday" message to Loginov, who turned 25 earlier in the week, and as is their custom when doing so, they list the athlete's achievements. Certainly on the face of it the post Fourcade is responding to appears pretty innocuous and it doesn't seem to be intended to be provocative, unless perhaps they've included results that have been taken away from him.

It's uncalled for from Fourcade. He needs to let it go. The guy broke the rules by doping, was caught, and was handed the normal 2 year ban. He is back now and he also just made the World's team (along with Starykh, btw). Loginov will have to live with the fact that he was caught, but he did his time and everyone should get a second chance. It's almost as if Fourcade is being super paranoid at this point. Is he afraid of Loginov? Anyway, it was a happy birthday wish. Disrespectful on Fourcade's part. And he was rightfully called out by the 1000k+ comments after that AND at his own Instagram as well.

I wonder what sort of comments Martin would make on Johaug's instagram when she comes back, or what he thought about Sundby, or the fact that Manificat doesn't have asthma and still takes asthma medicine.
 
Re: Re:

flyor64 said:
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 :)
It was also posted here: http://panorama.himolde.no/2017/01/26/konspirasjonsteori/.
The two authors are senior researchers. KAI A. OLSEN is a professor in Informatics and KJETIL K. HAUGEN is a PhD in game theory and applied mathematics.
 
Mar 18, 2009
745
0
0
Re: Re:

It was also posted here: http://panorama.himolde.no/2017/01/26/konspirasjonsteori/.
The two authors are senior researchers. KAI A. OLSEN is a professor in Informatics and KJETIL K. HAUGEN is a PhD in game theory and applied mathematics.
Thanks for the new link. That page has a comment section! The authors got trolled by at least one person, and another one as well, in my opinion. I thought the authors handled it quite well. The two trolling them are smart, one of them is a doctor (or claiming to be). It appears their goal is to discredit the math and the reasoning used by the authors. They're arguing over the last point in the table. The one where the authors give a probability of 1% that TJ would take the medicine without a control check. The authors base their 1% on many factors, not the least of which is TJ herself stating that she "triple checks everything that goes into her body." Anyway, the one troll wants that probability changed to 99% because her doctor control-checked it! The back and forth was quite good. Again, I think the authors owned it :)

Alas, this was also on an education website. I wonder what we could do to get this article up on VG or Dagbladet...
 
Jul 15, 2012
226
1
0
All the apologists make the same mistake: that there is a given "right" to participate in professional sports.

I can't be a pilot if I have a drug problem.
I can't be a police if I shoplift.
I can't be a teacher if I watch child pornography.
I can't be a doctor if I don't apply correct treatment to patients.
I can't be a researcher if I fabricate results.
I can't be a psychologist if I have sex with my patients.
I can't be a professional athlete if I have anabolic steroids in my blood stream.

Any story given as an explanation to why there was anabolic steroids in the blood stream must face the analysis of probability.

You can't turn the burden of proof over. It's a privilige to participate. Earn it.
 
Apr 29, 2011
105
0
0
Re: Re:

flyor64 said:
It was also posted here: http://panorama.himolde.no/2017/01/26/konspirasjonsteori/.
The two authors are senior researchers. KAI A. OLSEN is a professor in Informatics and KJETIL K. HAUGEN is a PhD in game theory and applied mathematics.
Thanks for the new link. That page has a comment section! The authors got trolled by at least one person, and another one as well, in my opinion. I thought the authors handled it quite well. The two trolling them are smart, one of them is a doctor (or claiming to be). It appears their goal is to discredit the math and the reasoning used by the authors. They're arguing over the last point in the table. The one where the authors give a probability of 1% that TJ would take the medicine without a control check. The authors base their 1% on many factors, not the least of which is TJ herself stating that she "triple checks everything that goes into her body." Anyway, the one troll wants that probability changed to 99% because her doctor control-checked it! The back and forth was quite good. Again, I think the authors owned it :)

Alas, this was also on an education website. I wonder what we could do to get this article up on VG or Dagbladet...
Now that one of the professors have admitted to be wrong I think Aftenposten will print it.
Very interesting debate, just as promised in the headline:

Debatt
Konspirasjonsteori?
 
Curious that Johaug accidentally getting a positive from a prescribed (turning out to be doping) cream is less likely than Hitler living happily ever after in South America.

Perhaps the elaborateness and awkwardness of the defense's case is biting them in the butt here. In stead of many ways it could go wrong, it's now many chances to make it go right.
I suppose if she really does get 12 or 14 months, there's a whole year to have fund in proceedings to get her her deserved 2 years and make it more about doping than medical clumsiness?
 
Jan 3, 2016
300
0
0
Leaving aside scepticism regarding petitions, you might be interested to read this article about Sundby and Bjørgen and their reasons for hesitating to sign the anti-doping petition.http://www.tv2.no/sport/8906469/
Bjørgen says she has signed it, but hesitated because she thought Johaug was being punished too harshly. She believes that there should be fair treatment and innocent athletes shouldn't be punished too harshly, but says she wants a cleaner sport.

Sundby says he will sign, but: he wants a part about justice according to the law (rettssikkerhet) to be included. This takes time to write and so he hasn't signed yet. 'In my view I had rough and unfair treatment and it shouldn't be that way in sport, I feel, therefore, with my experience, that I am in a position to share my knowledge, and I hope that it will contribute to better justice according to the law for others'.
 
Re:

Blaaswix said:
Leaving aside scepticism regarding petitions, you might be interested to read this article about Sundby and Bjørgen and their reasons for hesitating to sign the anti-doping petition.http://www.tv2.no/sport/8906469/
Bjørgen says she has signed it, but hesitated because she thought Johaug was being punished too harshly. She believes that there should be fair treatment and innocent athletes shouldn't be punished too harshly, but says she wants a cleaner sport.

Sundby says he will sign, but: he wants a part about justice according to the law (rettssikkerhet) to be included. This takes time to write and so he hasn't signed yet. 'In my view I had rough and unfair treatment and it shouldn't be that way in sport, I feel, therefore, with my experience, that I am in a position to share my knowledge, and I hope that it will contribute to better justice according to the law for others'.

I think my IQ dropped a couple points after reading that article.
 
Soon Lahti 2017 FIS Nordic World Ski Championships will start. Nothing heard so far from the “independent” investigation of medical use within the Norwegian Ski Federation. One wonders why it takes so long, first it was said around or after Christmas.

The key question in my opinion is if the also will look into different TUEs granted. On hearing the arguments the Norwegian Ski Federation and its medical staff did put forward after CAS case against Johnsrud Sundby, there’s some really big questions casting shadows over the sport.

When it was clear that Johnsrud Sundby had used Salbutamol in doses almost 10 times the allowed daily dose over a period of time – the allowed max dose is btw stunningly high – their argument was that if they just had filled in the form for a TUE it would have been granted. They basically claimed that it was just forgotten this time, an administrative mistake.

It makes you wonder how the TUEs looks for Bjoergen or other Norwegian skiers.
 
Feb 6, 2017
2
0
0
Re:

"All the apologists make the same mistake: that there is a given "right" to participate in professional sports.

I can't be a pilot if I have a drug problem.
I can't be a police if I shoplift.
I can't be a teacher if I watch child pornography.
I can't be a doctor if I don't apply correct treatment to patients.
I can't be a researcher if I fabricate results.
I can't be a psychologist if I have sex with my patients.
I can't be a professional athlete if I have anabolic steroids in my blood stream.

Any story given as an explanation to why there was anabolic steroids in the blood stream must face the analysis of probability.

You can't turn the burden of proof over. It's a privilige to participate. Earn it.
Nicko.
Junior Member

Posts: 94
Joined: 15 Jul 2012 13:37"

Very good point, and sadly misunderstood by most. Making the same point from another angle is also instructive: You have a right, as a citizen in a society based on the rule of law, to remain free unless the People, via prosecutors, can prove that you have committed a crime. But denying you a start number in a skiing competition is nowhere near denying you this basic right of security under the law. It only denies you a start number in a skiing competition. If said skiing competition chooses to demand clean blood tests, well whaddya know, maybe you should stop wasting tears and take up curling instead. Nobody has denied you anything - except a start number in a skiing competition.
 
Re: Re:

tarjeien said:
"All the apologists make the same mistake: that there is a given "right" to participate in professional sports.

I can't be a pilot if I have a drug problem.
I can't be a police if I shoplift.
I can't be a teacher if I watch child pornography.
I can't be a doctor if I don't apply correct treatment to patients.
I can't be a researcher if I fabricate results.
I can't be a psychologist if I have sex with my patients.
I can't be a professional athlete if I have anabolic steroids in my blood stream.

Any story given as an explanation to why there was anabolic steroids in the blood stream must face the analysis of probability.

You can't turn the burden of proof over. It's a privilige to participate. Earn it.
Nicko.
Junior Member

Posts: 94
Joined: 15 Jul 2012 13:37"

Very good point, and sadly misunderstood by most. Making the same point from another angle is also instructive: You have a right, as a citizen in a society based on the rule of law, to remain free unless the People, via prosecutors, can prove that you have committed a crime. But denying you a start number in a skiing competition is nowhere near denying you this basic right of security under the law. It only denies you a start number in a skiing competition. If said skiing competition chooses to demand clean blood tests, well whaddya know, maybe you should stop wasting tears and take up curling instead. Nobody has denied you anything - except a start number in a skiing competition.
On the other hand, very often fans relate to athletes in the same manner a child relates to his or her toys. The athletes ought to be able to determine their rules to their sport...not fans, and not promoters.
 
Jul 15, 2012
226
1
0
Re: Re:

MarkvW said:
On the other hand, very often fans relate to athletes in the same manner a child relates to his or her toys. The athletes ought to be able to determine their rules to their sport...not fans, and not promoters.
Agreed on the bolded, not the atheletes though...

Any sport that has a direct connection between kids participating for fun all the way up to olympic champions must be governed by a non-profit actor with integrity.
Like the UCI... just kidding :D

IMO, bodybuilding, ultimate fighting and professional woodchopping can abuse drugs all they want. No sane parent are going to line up their 7yo daughter for those sports.

XC skiing on the other hand must handle said 7yo girl and Therese Johaugh in a consistent, transparent manner. This framework can hardly be decided by the top 1% professional (for profit) athletes.

The shortcomings of FIS are not an argument to turn the power over to some athletes.
 
Jan 3, 2016
300
0
0
Professional sport requires somebody to pay for it or it doesn't happen. If the fans and sponsors don't like the product then it stops being funded. The athletes (and their teams and other support) don't get to decide too much about how their sport is run because they can stand to benefit in unfair and indeed unsporting ways, which would ultimately damage it to the point that it loses sponsorship and audiences. I think this may already be happening in pro XC. Look at the use of asthma meds, which have gone from being a 'necessary' medication allowed under a TUE to a complete free for all. Who pushed for that, and who is continuing to benefit?
 
Vylegzhanin, Petukhov, Ivanova and Shapovalova have been denied the appeal. Will take their cases to CAS. I don't understand FIS at all. They can't provide proof that any of these skiers first took drug, second failed the tests and/or that the athletes manipulated their tests. They are getting punished based on some allegations and can't compete. Sundby fails tests after two separate races (within three weeks of each other) and he wasn't temporarily suspended. He was allowed to compete and only got a two month (summer ban). Sure, they took out those two results out of his resume, which then took out the TDS title and then the overall wc, but still.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Blaaswix said:
Professional sport requires somebody to pay for it or it doesn't happen. If the fans and sponsors don't like the product then it stops being funded. The athletes (and their teams and other support) don't get to decide too much about how their sport is run because they can stand to benefit in unfair and indeed unsporting ways, which would ultimately damage it to the point that it loses sponsorship and audiences. I think this may already be happening in pro XC. Look at the use of asthma meds, which have gone from being a 'necessary' medication allowed under a TUE to a complete free for all. Who pushed for that, and who is continuing to benefit?
a fair point in general...

'a complete free for all' re the asthma meds as is regulated in the latest (2017) wada code is an exaggerated statement. but not all that much, b/c the current limit for salbutamol (1600) that does not require a tue, that is, 'free for all' is high enough to play games with the wada legal limits.

or the gamer - sundby as a case in point - is overtly and directly supported by the govt paid scientists and coaches downright breaching the already generous wada allowances... he can be made look like an attack on the poor martin human rights :cool: add to that the xc skiing sport is rulled by a norge, including inevitably the influence on its anti-doping regulators, and you get to understand why it is fine to dope by exploiting the gray areas by one nation (norway) and absoluely devilish by another (russia).

as to 'who pushed the benefit', technically it is the wada body that deals with the revisions to the banned list. it's the international group dominated by the western scientists. it's them that relaxed the 2009 asthma wada rules to the current joke. it's them who are susceptible to the political motives not dissimilar to the tobacco and alcohol regulations (b/c its wide spread) as opposed to the strictly scientific logic. it's them who have to show care for the 'sick' athletes by staying abreast with the current trend of populist human rights...

how to decide who is sick to fit the Paralympics or who is sick to beat the world as long as they have the therapeutic use exemptions is yet another area for a controversy and consequently for a political abuse. for instance, i mentioned endlessly that sundby by his own admission has several severe health problems and yet perfectly fit to own the xc ski sport.

one thing is clear in this mess.... if you play the game with the badly outdated tools and nonchalantly you'll get forked each and every time. as were the sloppy russians.
 
Re:

kingjr said:
@BullsFan22, do you think the athletes you named have doped?

Well it would be a bit hypocritical of me to say 'absolutely they didn't dope at any time...' considering that I've criticized the Norwegians on this thread for years now, particularly so after the Sundby and Johaug positives, but it's the circumstances that don't make sense. For one, FIS is basing everything off of the McLaren report, and are so far the only winter sport organization that provisionally suspended those named in the report. The skeleton and bobsleigh athletes have been cleared and apart from two (now retired) biathletes, nobody has been suspended. So I don't understand where FIS is coming from. Kasper was suspicious of the report at first, but I think he and FIS were pressured to make a stand, because had all of the international winter sports exonerated the athletes named, it would have made McLaren and others involved look like complete fools. While Legkov, Belov, Vylegzhanin and Petukhov are big names in this sport, xc just isn't as big as biathlon is in Europe right now, and I think, despite the big names, FIS can 'afford' to keep them out for the time being. I also think all the political talk from several individuals within FIS and some of the foreign coaches (which I won't name) has made an impact. FIS doesn't want a boycott on its hands, even though I think the odds of that actually happening are small.

Long story short, as I have contested a number of times before on this topic, I think the suspensions are political. The hasty removal of Tyumen (from FIS and the IBU) was to appease those that were for it for a while and now the suspensions of a number of these athletes is music to their ears.

If Johaug gets off after testing positive for ANABOLIC STEROIDS then these Russians should get off as well. This is the way I look at it.
 
Re: Re:

BullsFan22 said:
kingjr said:
@BullsFan22, do you think the athletes you named have doped?

Well it would be a bit hypocritical of me to say 'absolutely they didn't dope at any time...' considering that I've criticized the Norwegians on this thread for years now, particularly so after the Sundby and Johaug positives, but it's the circumstances that don't make sense. For one, FIS is basing everything off of the McLaren report, and are so far the only winter sport organization that provisionally suspended those named in the report. The skeleton and bobsleigh athletes have been cleared and apart from two (now retired) biathletes, nobody has been suspended. So I don't understand where FIS is coming from. Kasper was suspicious of the report at first, but I think he and FIS were pressured to make a stand, because had all of the international winter sports exonerated the athletes named, it would have made McLaren and others involved look like complete fools. While Legkov, Belov, Vylegzhanin and Petukhov are big names in this sport, xc just isn't as big as biathlon is in Europe right now, and I think, despite the big names, FIS can 'afford' to keep them out for the time being. I also think all the political talk from several individuals within FIS and some of the foreign coaches (which I won't name) has made an impact. FIS doesn't want a boycott on its hands, even though I think the odds of that actually happening are small.

Long story short, as I have contested a number of times before on this topic, I think the suspensions are political. The hasty removal of Tyumen (from FIS and the IBU) was to appease those that were for it for a while and now the suspensions of a number of these athletes is music to their ears.

If Johaug gets off after testing positive for ANABOLIC STEROIDS then these Russians should get off as well. This is the way I look at it.
The only answer to that is: Johaug should not get off after testing positive for ANABOLIC STEROIDS.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
danielovichdk2 The Clinic 3

ASK THE COMMUNITY