Doping in XC skiing

[python]

Re: Re:

"snapped...bambino:

I'm sorry I don't have time to explain how checking your facts works.

you need to learn to read him like i eventually did after engaging what i mistakenly thought was a balanced opinion. it took several years...
those 'cas examples' were nothing but a reference to the english translation of the norwegian verdict he obliged to to post earlier (thanks for that). the norwegian verdict is loaded with the cas 'precedents' which upon a closer wada examination may prove being an effort to hand the lowest possible punishment to the national darling.

that alone should eek wada, but why would they bother (perhaps they cant economically) when the mc larren report offered much easier anti-doping harvest which also likely exhausted their coffers.

the rationale of the wada and fis failing to appeal is simple. gaining several months in making therese ineligible to compete isn't worth the effort.

the evidence to act conversely was for ever unavailable to wada after the matter was hushed up in btwn norway and the fis.

all the potential evidence of the doctor (bendiksen) colluding with/coordinating with the athlete or the finer details of testing can easily made unavailable to wada thus blunting their eventual edge in seeking an appeal.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

"snapped...bambino:

I'm sorry I don't have time to explain how checking your facts works.

you need to learn to read him like i eventually did after engaging what i mistakenly thought was a balanced opinion. it took several years...
those 'cas examples' were nothing but a reference to the english translation of the norwegian verdict he obliged to to post earlier (thanks for that). the norwegian verdict is loaded with the cas 'precedents' which upon a closer wada examination may prove being an effort to hand the lowest possible punishment to the national darling.

that alone should eek wada, but why would they bother (perhaps they cant economically) when the mc larren report offered much easier anti-doping harvest which also likely exhausted their coffers.

the rationale of the wada and fis failing to appeal is simple. gaining several months in making therese ineligible to compete isn't worth the effort.

the evidence to act conversely was for ever unavailable to wada after the matter was hushed up in btwn norway and the fis.

all the potential evidence of the doctor (bendiksen) colluding with/coordinating with the athlete or the finer details of testing can easily made unavailable to wada thus blunting their eventual edge in seeking an appeal.

Yeah - I've figured his way a while ago already, I shouldn't fall into the trap pointing him to be "mis-informed". It does not change anything, I know.

I'm with you on the opinion there won't be appeal, but it makes me somewhat sad seeing the rules of the sport I like so much are not the same for everyone.

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

@python, Bambino
You say politics, I say Cas precedent. Your explanation sounds a a lot more interesting though.

Not sure what you mean? That there is equal precedent from CAS that is exactly similar with Johaug case? Enlight me. And even if there is, what is the problem then to check it with CAS and validate?

Btw. Johaug's layer said that one of core reasons they won't go to CAS is that they fear longer ban. If there is precedent, why would they be worried about that?

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2013/9/20/4752212/stefano-agostini-least-bullshitty-positive-explanation-ever

15 months. He got it from his mother.
13 monts. She got it from her team doctor.
You can't call Cas and validate. That is not how CAS works. You search for similar cases, and you check out wada rules and guidance.

I'm sorry I don't have the time to explain the CAS arbitration system and the legal structures of anti doping.

I thought you'd come with Agostini. His 15 months was UCI verdict, he never appealed to CAS. So CAS precedent does not exist.

http://www.velonews.com/2014/04/news/agostini-gives-cycling-letter-doping-suspension_323757

Other "small" difference is that Agostini took it once in the middle of the night, Therese something like 10-15 days regularly. Strict liability, right?

I'm sorry I don't have time to explain how checking your facts works.

The UCI verdict is still precedent setting. It doesn't have to go to cas in order to set a precedent for another anti doping case.

As for once or 10-15 times. I would think who you got it from would be more important since that goes to the amount of due diligence you used before you put the stuff on your body.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

@python, Bambino
You say politics, I say Cas precedent. Your explanation sounds a a lot more interesting though.

Not sure what you mean? That there is equal precedent from CAS that is exactly similar with Johaug case? Enlight me. And even if there is, what is the problem then to check it with CAS and validate?

Btw. Johaug's layer said that one of core reasons they won't go to CAS is that they fear longer ban. If there is precedent, why would they be worried about that?

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2013/9/20/4752212/stefano-agostini-least-bullshitty-positive-explanation-ever

15 months. He got it from his mother.
13 monts. She got it from her team doctor.
You can't call Cas and validate. That is not how CAS works. You search for similar cases, and you check out wada rules and guidance.

I'm sorry I don't have the time to explain the CAS arbitration system and the legal structures of anti doping.

I thought you'd come with Agostini. His 15 months was UCI verdict, he never appealed to CAS. So CAS precedent does not exist.

http://www.velonews.com/2014/04/news/agostini-gives-cycling-letter-doping-suspension_323757

Other "small" difference is that Agostini took it once in the middle of the night, Therese something like 10-15 days regularly. Strict liability, right?

I'm sorry I don't have time to explain how checking your facts works.

The UCI verdict is still precedent setting. It doesn't have to go to cas in order to set a precedent for another anti doping case.

As for once or 10-15 times. I would think who you got it from would be more important since that goes to the amount of due diligence you used before you put the stuff on your body.

Last reply to you, I'll take python advice to stop it as the one-eyed commenting will never change.

You talked about CAS precendent and there is no CAS precendent as I pointed out. Stop twisting the matter into your own favor by changing your own words. Or keep on doing that, I don't care, as for now you are to me (also) just a troll.

 

[Kokoso]

Re: Re:

@Kokoso
"Also that article states they've used PULMICORT for treatment. That is GLUCOCORTICOID; PROHIBITED IN COMPETITION AT ALL TIMES. So according to the article Norwegians BREACHED THE ANTI-DOPING RULES."

You LIE!

Or are you just misinformed? See how that works?
http://www.felleskatalogen.no/medisin/pulmicort-astrazeneca-563104

Just curious why you say the committee is not independent? Is it because all the members are Norwegian?

Maybe I am, but I don't see it. What am I lying about?

On the other hand you've lied and you've acknowledged that now; that's good. May I ask you why did you lie?

Regarding committee - go back in thread it was elaborated there in detail.

Edit: did you read the link? This is interesting:

"Indikasjoner: Bronkialastma, når tilstanden ikke kan holdes under kontroll av korttidsvirkende bronkolytika brukt ved behov. Til bruk for pasienter som ikke kan bruke Turbuhaler eller inhalasjonsaerosol. Svært alvorlig falsk krupp (pseudokrupp, laryngitis subglottica) når innleggelse på sykehus er nødvendig."

As for the committee. How about a link, since this is a long thread?

Yes I read the link.
I havent lied. If I have written something wrong it is not with intent do deceive, I.E. Lying.

You are Lying about Pulmicort;

"Also that article states they've used PULMICORT for treatment. That is GLUCOCORTICOID; PROHIBITED IN COMPETITION AT ALL TIMES. So according to the article Norwegians BREACHED THE ANTI-DOPING RULES."

Their use of Pulmicort is legal, and doesn't break the antidoping rules.
If you do a little research, you should be able to figure out why that is so.

In your world you are telling a lie. In my world you are misinformed.

You've written something wrong on quite a few things man, it's hard to believe it's just an accident to make Norwegian situation look better, intentionally or not. You've avoided to answer the question why are you doing that so that raises question...why are you doing that? Isn't it intentional after all?

Regarding Pulmicort - so far I've read it's forbidden in competition and they have used it while racing in Rasnov; as a result I see as breaching of doping rules. Do I miss something? You tell me, I am doing the same for you. It looks like empty words from you because you are unable to say what am I lying about.

Moreover it's stated in the document regarding Pulmicort (you've linked) that it's indiciation is to TREAT SEVERE ASTHMA after other medicaments fail.
They used it for people not diagnosed with asthma and they didn't use other medimaments before, so...their method is really arguable.

 

[kosmonaut]

The report on use of medicine in Norwegian XC is out.

Full (Norwegian) report: http://www.skiforbundet.no/Images/Utvalgsrapport%2015.2.2017.pdf

English summary: http://www.skiforbundet.no/Global/Bakgrunn-forside/Investigation%20Committee,%20Norwegian%20Ski%20Federation,%20summary.pdf

One highlight:

"The fact that prescribed pharmaceuticals have been readily available in the team trailer is contrary to good medical practice, and applicable regulations for handling medicine. The procedures have thus been deficient. Because of the lack of control regarding the pharmaceuticals in the bus, there have been opportunities for athletes to inhale drugs via a nebulizer without prior contact with a doctor."

 

[BullsFan22]

LOWELL BAILEY! LMFAOLOLHAHAHA!!!!

 

[kingjr]

Does it hurt so bad

 

[BullsFan22]

Not really. I just find it funny how a 35 year old also-ran/journeyman American was able to peak so well for this championship, and was already having the season of his life with consistent results, something that he wasn't doing in his peak years.

 

[kingjr]

His skiing was normal, nothing special. He's shooting very well though atm.

 

[BullsFan22]

Also find it ironic that the three main 'anti-doping' nations were represented on the podium: Czech Republic, France, US.

 

[roundabout]

23rd fastest ski time, but whatevers.

 

[ToreBear]

@Kokoso
http://www.antidoping.ee/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2013_asthma_inhalers_overview.pdf




** Glucocorticosteroids are prohibited when administered orally, rectally, intravenously and intramuscularly
but via inhalation, nasal routes, local injections and topically are not prohibited. All of the
brands listed in the table are inhalers and therefore are not prohibited.

 

[ToreBear]

Re:

About the Asthma issues. I think it all started with a TV2 article where No Asthma diagnosis= Healthy while actually there were health reasons for using the Astma drug.

The Norwegians to my understand use it to avoid further injuries to the airways if there is a sign of injury that if untreated over time could lead too asthma.

This is standard practice in several other countries as well.(Right monsieur Manificat? :lol: ) I think they have stopped using asthma drugs with the nebulizer due to the commotion. But any Salbutamol use would have been stopped anyway since the Sundby case made it impossible to use Salbutamol in a nebulizer without a TUE.

What I find most concerning in this case is the discovery that they had done research, and published without correct approval from the ethics board. This speaks to Norwegian Sports scientists thinking paperwork is done by their invisible secretary, as well as selective reading of ethics board rulings. The Sundby and Johaug cases IMHO underline this even more.

It will be interesting to read the commissions findings, to see if my understanding is correct.

Saw the press conference and my understanding is more or less correct. Just a question of Healthy being equated with not having Asthma in the Tabloids, and everyone else jumping in for headlines.

Thanks for the links kosmonaut.

 

[Aragon]

Re:

@Aragon
Thanks for setting the record strait! I had thought of him as someone who was making penance for his sins by focusing on anti-doping. But this makes much more sense. I also think it's good that they published the research even though it was deemed a failure.

That's the thing about documentaries I guess. You get some of the picture but not the whole picture.

Actually I do consider him somewhat mysterious character, but I don't want anyone be accused based on wrong evidence. There were a lot of mysterious characters in the Finnish sports medicine circles in 1970s who had more or less noble reasons to participate in many things.

When in the documentary he is asked whether blood doping was discussed in 1970s, he looks having very unpleasant feeling and for a few seconds not knowing exactly how to frame his response before answering with eyes rolling: "I... well... I heard skiers telling me that they used it, to tell the truth".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsh_cQoima0&feature=youtu.be&t=23m31s

Kyrö accuses him of blood doping athletes, but all I know is that when there were rumours about the first blood doping study conducted in Sweden in autumn 1971, he and his colleague Tapio Rytömaa conducted a somewhat similar experience with the Finnish cross country skiers. This was an honest scientific research, but I've never quite seen an explanation why it was published only six years later (1977). Maybe it was just not relevant until blood doping became a real headline issue with Lasse Viren's amazing comeback in 1976.

I think that his attempts in anti-doping work were sincere and it is also almost never mentioned that he and another coach of Finnish cross country skiers lobbied as early as 1979 for the introduction of blood tests at the Olympic games, so he didn't just one day decide to participate into the Lahti 1989 blood doping detection project.

Out of curiosity I ordered the available material on the 1989 Lahti blood doping detection from the archives of the Olympic Committee to be researched just tomorrow. Having gone through up to a several thousand pages of documents, I am skeptical whether is nothing new nor interesting, but who knows...

 

[BullsFan22]

23rd fastest ski time, but whatevers.

15th, but point taken.

 

[roundabout]

23rd fastest ski time, but whatevers.

15th, but point taken.

For me ski time is course time. But perhaps I should have used skiing time to be more correct, so my apologies for any confusion caused.

http://ibu.blob.core.windows.net/docs/1617/BT/SWRL/CH__/SMIN/BT_C77A_1.0.pdf

 

[Kokoso]

Re:

@Kokoso
http://www.antidoping.ee/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2013_asthma_inhalers_overview.pdf




** Glucocorticosteroids are prohibited when administered orally, rectally, intravenously and intramuscularly
but via inhalation, nasal routes, local injections and topically are not prohibited. All of the
brands listed in the table are inhalers and therefore are not prohibited.

Then I'm sorry for that.

Arguable use method remains.

Not answered question (by you) remain.

 

[kingjr]

Course time is skiing time, Ski time is Course Time + Range Time

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

@Aragon
Thanks for setting the record strait! I had thought of him as someone who was making penance for his sins by focusing on anti-doping. But this makes much more sense. I also think it's good that they published the research even though it was deemed a failure.

That's the thing about documentaries I guess. You get some of the picture but not the whole picture.

Actually I do consider him somewhat mysterious character, but I don't want anyone be accused based on wrong evidence. There were a lot of mysterious characters in the Finnish sports medicine circles in 1970s who had more or less noble reasons to participate in many things.

When in the documentary he is asked whether blood doping was discussed in 1970s, he looks having very unpleasant feeling and for a few seconds not knowing exactly how to frame his response before answering with eyes rolling: "I... well... I heard skiers telling me that they used it, to tell the truth".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsh_cQoima0&feature=youtu.be&t=23m31s

Kyrö accuses him of blood doping athletes, but all I know is that when there were rumours about the first blood doping study conducted in Sweden in autumn 1971, he and his colleague Tapio Rytömaa conducted a somewhat similar experience with the Finnish cross country skiers. This was an honest scientific research, but I've never quite seen an explanation why it was published only six years later (1977). Maybe it was just not relevant until blood doping became a real headline issue with Lasse Viren's amazing comeback in 1976.

I think that his attempts in anti-doping work were sincere and it is also almost never mentioned that he and another coach of Finnish cross country skiers lobbied as early as 1979 for the introduction of blood tests at the Olympic games, so he didn't just one day decide to participate into the Lahti 1989 blood doping detection project.

Out of curiosity I ordered the available material on the 1989 Lahti blood doping detection from the archives of the Olympic Committee to be researched just tomorrow. Having gone through up to a several thousand pages of documents, I am skeptical whether is nothing new nor interesting, but who knows...

I think it's important to remember that the ethics of doping, and what is considered doping has changed a lot since the 70s. And it's probably not fun to explain what you did then, that is looked upon as unethical or forbidden now. My guess would be he was doing research and the application and implication of that research led to perhaps assisting some athletes more than he should have. Kyrö seems to accuse everyone though. :lol:

But I seem to remember something about the menns xc team taking bloodbags from a hospital before lahti WC in 1978. But I don't remember Videmann having anything to do with that. Is my memory faulty?

By the 89 blood doping paper, are you thinking about or the Fis project? If it's in english I would love it if you could share. I'm a bit confused about the 1989 Fis project. I remember reading they tested all the athletes, but I also remember reading they only tested the first 4+2 random in each race. I don't have access to that paper, only what I think are abstracts.

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

@Kokoso
http://www.antidoping.ee/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2013_asthma_inhalers_overview.pdf




** Glucocorticosteroids are prohibited when administered orally, rectally, intravenously and intramuscularly
but via inhalation, nasal routes, local injections and topically are not prohibited. All of the
brands listed in the table are inhalers and therefore are not prohibited.

Then I'm sorry for that.

Arguable use method remains.

Not answered question (by you) remain.

Are you thinking this one:

You've written something wrong on quite a few things man, it's hard to believe it's just an accident to make Norwegian situation look better, intentionally or not. You've avoided to answer the question why are you doing that so that raises question...why are you doing that? Isn't it intentional after all?

I haven't answered it because It looks like baiting or trolling to me. The simple answer is that I haven't written something wrong on quite a few things. By removing that premise, the rest of the question is meaningless.

 

[Discgear]

Just a shorty:

The Norwegian Ski Federation is still supporting Johaug financially. In addition they have together with The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports covered all her legal costs.

http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/johaug-tatt-i-doping/dopingdoemte-johaug-beholder-pengestoetten-fra-skiforbundet/a/23927340/

There's a lot to be said about the report from the "independent" asthma commission. But for the time being: :lol: :lol:

 

[python]

Just a shorty:

The Norwegian Ski Federation is still supporting Johaug financially. In addition they have together with The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports covered all her legal costs.

http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/johaug-tatt-i-doping/dopingdoemte-johaug-beholder-pengestoetten-fra-skiforbundet/a/23927340/

There's a lot to be said about the report from the "independent" asthma commission. But for the time being: :lol: :lol:

did you want to say that a proven doping offender openly supported and paid for by the state agencies smells like a state sponsored doping :Question:

if so, you are probably a jealous swede besides, it was the swedes who refused the cooperation with the mostest independentest of any comissions ever-ever assembled. dont believe me ? read the report chapter 7.3 sverige.

http://www.expressen.se/sport/langdskidor/norskt-dopingutspel-en-svensk-skandal/

 

[Discgear]

Just a shorty:

The Norwegian Ski Federation is still supporting Johaug financially. In addition they have together with The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports covered all her legal costs.

http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/johaug-tatt-i-doping/dopingdoemte-johaug-beholder-pengestoetten-fra-skiforbundet/a/23927340/

There's a lot to be said about the report from the "independent" asthma commission. But for the time being: :lol: :lol:

did you want to say that a proven doping offender openly supported and paid for by the state agencies smells like a state sponsored doping :Question:

if so, you are probably a jealous swede besides, it was the swedes who refused the cooperation with the mostest independentest of any comissions ever-ever assembled. dont believe me ? read the report chapter 7.3 sverige.

http://www.expressen.se/sport/langdskidor/norskt-dopingutspel-en-svensk-skandal/

Absolutely, I confess flat out since there's nowadays so much to envy about Norwegian XC-skiing.

Reinebo, head of Swedish Olympic committee: - To claim that we do not want to share is highly deceptive. They have had the opportunity several months to come and take part of our policies. We shouldn’t have to travel to Oslo, when they are the ones with problems. This is so low, so low.

Interesting to see how aggressive several high brass within Norwegian XC-community, like Lereim and Løfshus, have come out the last days against the Swedes. I think this is a mistake. The Swedes, except envious forum posters like us of course, have actually kept a very low profile. Don’t poke the Tiger.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Any idea on Dahlmeier trashing the competition and beeing sick and fainting after the races?