Doping in XC skiing

[lartiste]

The notoriuos SVT-journalist Hasse Svens (Blodracet) came out strong yesterday. In a debate in Norway he said that he has gone through more than 500 blood samples and being kind, has evidence against at least 12 Norwegian top XC-skiers from the 90s being dopers. He claims the material has been confirmed by a handful of world renown scientists. I guess he soon has to come forward with names?

Maybe SVT-lawyers have stopped him?
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/doping/kritiserer-nye-dopinganklager-mot-norge-uetisk/a/23920869/

i dont know how i missed this article thanx !

there are some new significant elements in what svens referred as his evidence. to my memory it hasn't been mentioned before in connection with the norwegian doping.

if he indeed has a possession of the novel evidence he mentioned, the doping probability increases to what a competent sports court would consider a proven blood doping offense

explaining... we usually read about those 'blood values' from the 80'and 90s ONLY in terms of high hemoglobin. and it's understandable, b/c the fis was establishing the various hemoglobin thresholds. only later, to my knowledge starting in the mid 90s, another vital blood parameter was added to the unofficial blood monitoring profiles. it was the reticulocytes - the immature red blood cells. the significance of the parameter was such that it was added along with the hemoglobin to an officially accepted blood-doping indicator called off-score. it was even used for the 1st time during the sydney olympics - along with the very new then epo test - to confirm blood doping.

the beauty - or a norwegian night mare - is that one does not need the services of the late bengt saltin to interpret the off-score. it is the mainstay of ALL modern blood doping profiles of ALL world class athletes in ALL endurance sports. there are literally dozens of highly qualified medical and scientific experts making a living interpreting for the fis, ioc, uci, ibu etc etc

that svens found 4-5 qualified experts is more than plausible. the norwegian xc skiers from those years must be very concerned.

unless of course the lawyers manage to shut svens down...

In the verdict against Johaug today some very interesting information appeared at page 8, which I can't recall has been known before. It has a direct bearing to what Svens is claiming:
Han [Dr. Bendiksen] hadde ledende medisinsk ansvar under OL i Lillehammer i 1994.
https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/globalassets/idrett/antidoping/domsutvalget-sak-29-16-avgjorelse-10.02.17.pdf
So the infamous doctor of Johaug was the leading medical expert during Lillehammer 1994.

Then it is clear, she is completly innocent and clean as were all norwegian XC skiing guys in Lillehammer :lol:

 

[Kokoso]

Re: Re:

I can't hardly imagine Fourcade is clean. If he is, why is no über-doped Russian consistently spanking him? Or a high-on-salbutamol Norwegian? Fourcade could be the Lance of biathlon. Come to think of it, there are parallels.

What high-on salbutamol Norwegian? Sundby is xc and I never heard off another Norwegian men using salbutamol, especially in biathlon.

Why there always have to be this comunication fouls?

 

[Kokoso]

Re: Re:

Johaug: Innocent -->14 months

We have a hypocrite here. Of course Norwegians gave her 13 months ban because she is innocent, don't they? :razz:

Oh, Torebear... You certainly aren't good in sticking to the truth no matter what circumstances are.

 

[bambino]

So what do you guys think FIS board is going to do with the appeal? Finnish rep Martti Uusitalo was quite strong in his comments saying FIS should appeal and check what the CAS experts thinks about this. He indicated that they will probably discuss the matter in next weeks meeting.

FIS board has 18 members. If it goes to voting of whether they will appeal or not, it looks to be fairly interesting setup. The board has only 1 Norwegian, but there are member from USA and Canada, the nations who has shown understanding towards Norway. Also South Korea has member and I'm sure he wants to see Johaug in their Olympics next year. The Japanese rep could be see to follow South Korean interest. You could also think that the Australian guy will co-operate with US, Canada.

Then there are Russian rep who will for sure want to see Therese in CAS. Finnish rep already publically expressed his favour of appeal as well. There are 2 reps from Sweden who I could see voting for appeal as well.

So it all might boil down to what the central/south/eastern European reps thinks about the matter as the rest looks to be in 2 camps. Interesting situation.

 

[kingjr]

I'm not familiar with all the details of this case, could somebody who is briefly explain why she's not getting 2 years? Because the doctor took all the responsiblity?

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

Johaug: Innocent -->14 months

We have a hypocrite here. Of course Norwegians gave her 13 months ban because she is innocent, don't they? :razz:

Oh, Torebear... You certainly aren't good in sticking to the truth no matter what circumstances are.

All I said was I thought she would get between innocent and 14 months.

 

[ToreBear]

Re:

I'm not familiar with all the details of this case, could somebody who is briefly explain why she's not getting 2 years? Because the doctor took all the responsiblity?

It's about guilt level. 2 years requires more negligence on her part. She had the smallest level of negligence. The judgement should be available in English in a few days.
Interestingly the reason ADN did not judge their sample to be part of a bigger dose from longer ago, was that there was no difference in her steroid module. Had she used it to improve performance, there would have been an increase in the steroid levels observable in the module.

 

[python]

i dont know how the fis takes its decision to appeal or not a doping case. i spent reasonable time cruising the fis page. it hasn't approached me a bit. in fact it looks more confusing...

as we know, the fis includes many disciplines. they all appear to be overlooked by a 19-member council. the above quoted finland member is among them (dont know where the 18 was referenced)

here they are:
http://www.fis-ski.com/inside-fis/about/fis-structure/council/index.html

if we use a common sense logic, an appeal of a doping case in the cross-country skiing should be decided/reviewed by a ...right...the executive board of the xc skiing. it's 15-member group with 3 more not listed as direct members. There is no among them the finnish member quoted above.

here they are:
http://www.fis-ski.com/inside-fis/about/fis-structure/committees/index.html

then, more common sense would suggest that the fis doping panel should play a central role in deciding if a doping case should be appealed. right ? perhaps, but i could not find a confirmation if that's the case. even WHO are the members of the doping panel (except its head) is a secret information.

so, go figure

again, logically speaking, it would make sense if a doping panel in consultation with the xc ski executive board proposes a recommendation to the fis council.

then, it's about 40 peoples opinions that would matter. if you asked me, i think it is very messy and lends itself to shenanigans, rather than a transparent, fair and considered decision.

 

[ToreBear]

The poor Italian cyclist got three years. Johaug 13 months. Just in time for the new season. Not gonna miss any world cup races or the TDS, and obviously not the Olympics. How convenient. ADN were hoping for 14 months, she got less than that. Perfect.

I don't think your Granny saying something is safe is the same as a doctor of sports medicine whos specialty was among other things making sure you don't take anything prohibited. (Unless his granny actually was the VP of WADA or a professor in sports medicine, or something)

Also, IIRC he had already had one ban from before. The differences are usually in the details

 

[bambino]

I mentoined 18, because I don't think Sarah Lewis is actual member of FIS counsil being the Secretary General, I could be wrong though.

Mr. Uusitalo was quite sure the matter would be discussed in general council, but who really knows what will happen?

 

[Discgear]

Things to notice in the verdict https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/glo...omsutvalget-sak-29-16-avgjorelse-10.02.17.pdf:

Klaveness forklarte at clostebol er et anabolt steroid utviklet med mål om å oppnå en substans med testosteronliknende egenskaper, hvor den anabole effekt er god, mens den androgene effekt er redusert i forhold til testosteron – altså et anabolt steroid med reduserte androgene egenskaper.

So, the expert states that the anabolic effect in Clostebol is significant, something that totally contradicts the claims of the Norwegian Ski Federation at the initial press-conference. Furthermore the expert states that the androgen effect is reduced compared to Testosteron, thus perfect for female athletes that wants to dope with anabolic steroids. This is left without further comments since they fully accept the story by Johaug and Bendiksen.

Dr. Bendiksen har forklart at han dagen etter, den 3. september 2016 om formiddagen, kjøpte to reseptfrie legemidler på det lokale apoteket.

This is a lie or at least a very careless statement. In the verdict they talk about the pharmacy in singularis, like it was the only option in Livigno. Bendiksen was shopping Trofodermin on a parafarmacia (drugstore) and not on one of the two pharmacies in Livigno. Something which is very damning since they also makes a point in the verdict that Bendiksen followed the recommendations by the pharmacist. Do they even have trained pharmacists in a parafarmacia?

Esken var merket med et rødt "dopingvarsel" på den ene siden. Men Johaug hadde etter Domsutvalgets bedømmelse ingen nevneverdig grunn til å se etter en slik eller en liknende merking/advarsel på produktet. Det er opplyst at slik merking er en "sær italiensk" ordning som frem til da var ukjent for norske utøvere og støtteapparat. Situasjonen er derfor en annen enn dersom slik merking ikke hadde vært helt upåregnelig for Johaug. I så fall kunne det ha vært naturlig å undersøke esken nærmere, i tillegg til å spørre legen.

This is a very strange part in the verdict. They claim, since there’s no doping-warning on drugs in Norway, there was no reason to expect Johaug and Bendiksen would have noted the doping warning on the product. :surprised:
In my opinion, they should have pointed out that if you buy un unknown drug abroad, the bigger the reason to carefully examine the product. This is a central part of the WADA-code and here the verdict doesn’t make sense at all.

Dersom Johaugs sak derimot hadde ligget slik an at riktig utelukkelse i utgangspunktet skulle ha vært på nivå rundt 16 måneder, måtte Domsutvalget ha tatt stilling til om blant annet prinsippet om forholdsmessighet kunne ha gitt lovlig grunnlag for å fastsette utelukkelsen så kort at hun kunne rekke å delta i OL 2018. Dette spørsmålet kan ikke ses avgjort av CAS.

This part maybe makes sense for a Norwegian ski fan but is totally incomprehensible for a foreigner. How on earth has the wish of Johaug to participate in the next Olympics relevance in a doping trial, and why should it be a precedent in CAS concerning this?

Analyserapport 30. september 2016 (A-prøven) og 10. oktober 2016 (B-prøven) fra Norges Laboratorium for dopinganalyse – Aker Universitetssykehus – viste tilstedeværelse av clostebol-metabolitt i hennes urin med en estimert konsentrasjon på 13 ng/mL

This is the given information about how the sample was analyzed. We don’t know what methods – if any – were used to find out if old or new metabolites. As we all know, the concentration 13 ng/ml doesn’t prove anything considering the short half-life of Clostebol.

 

[BullsFan22]

The poor Italian cyclist got three years. Johaug 13 months. Just in time for the new season. Not gonna miss any world cup races or the TDS, and obviously not the Olympics. How convenient. ADN were hoping for 14 months, she got less than that. Perfect.

I don't think your Granny saying something is safe is the same as a doctor of sports medicine whos specialty was among other things making sure you don't take anything prohibited. (Unless his granny actually was the VP of WADA or a professor in sports medicine, or something)

Also, IIRC he had already had one ban from before. The differences are usually in the details

What are you on about? She was caught doping with ANABOLIC STEROIDS (the same drugs that are widely used and have been widely used for a long time in the two biggest sports in the US, football and baseball). Two years or the anti-doping is a joke.

You can paint it as 'failing to file the right documents' or the doctor that has 38 years of experience being lazy or it was for her lips or whatever, but the steroid was found in her system. Unless someone held a gun to her head to take it and magically they have evidence of that, then she needs to be given a two year suspension.

 

[Nicko.]

Dersom Johaugs sak derimot hadde ligget slik an at riktig utelukkelse i utgangspunktet skulle ha vært på nivå rundt 16 måneder, måtte Domsutvalget ha tatt stilling til om blant annet prinsippet om forholdsmessighet kunne ha gitt lovlig grunnlag for å fastsette utelukkelsen så kort at hun kunne rekke å delta i OL 2018. Dette spørsmålet kan ikke ses avgjort av CAS.

This part maybe makes sense for a Norwegian ski fan but is totally incomprehensible for a foreigner. What on earth has the wish of Johaug to participate in the next Olympics relevance in a doping trial, and why should it be a precedent in CAS concerning this?

THIS!

WTF!

F*ucking flag waving, nationalistic, inbred idiots...

The norwegian ANTI doping authority are concerned about the olympic aspect of the calendar of an athlete caught with anabolic steroids in her blood. :twisted:

 

[Blaaswix]

The season opening in Norway is to be held at Beitostølen on the weekend of the 10th of November. This is within Johaug's suspension period so she won't be able to compete. Unless the meet is moved to the weekend after, which is what the organizers are now looking at. Really. http://www.aftenposten.no/100Sport/...---pa-grunn-av-Johaugs-dopingdom-230344b.html

 

[ToreBear]

The poor Italian cyclist got three years. Johaug 13 months. Just in time for the new season. Not gonna miss any world cup races or the TDS, and obviously not the Olympics. How convenient. ADN were hoping for 14 months, she got less than that. Perfect.

I don't think your Granny saying something is safe is the same as a doctor of sports medicine whos specialty was among other things making sure you don't take anything prohibited. (Unless his granny actually was the VP of WADA or a professor in sports medicine, or something)

Also, IIRC he had already had one ban from before. The differences are usually in the details

What are you on about? She was caught doping with ANABOLIC STEROIDS (the same drugs that are widely used and have been widely used for a long time in the two biggest sports in the US, football and baseball). Two years or the anti-doping is a joke.

You can paint it as 'failing to file the right documents' or the doctor that has 38 years of experience being lazy or it was for her lips or whatever, but the steroid was found in her system. Unless someone held a gun to her head to take it and magically they have evidence of that, then she needs to be given a two year suspension.

You compared Johaugs suspension with this poor italian cyclist.
As for caught doping:

" Doping is the use of performance enhancing drugs or methods by athletes to gain a competitive advantage. "
She did not attempt to, or gain any competitive advantage in this case. Something ADN didn't even attempt to contest since there was no change in her steroid model. They also had an investigator in Italy to search for aditional information.

It should be perhaps be clearer when you can read the English version.

 

[BullsFan22]

The poor Italian cyclist got three years. Johaug 13 months. Just in time for the new season. Not gonna miss any world cup races or the TDS, and obviously not the Olympics. How convenient. ADN were hoping for 14 months, she got less than that. Perfect.

I don't think your Granny saying something is safe is the same as a doctor of sports medicine whos specialty was among other things making sure you don't take anything prohibited. (Unless his granny actually was the VP of WADA or a professor in sports medicine, or something)

Also, IIRC he had already had one ban from before. The differences are usually in the details

What are you on about? She was caught doping with ANABOLIC STEROIDS (the same drugs that are widely used and have been widely used for a long time in the two biggest sports in the US, football and baseball). Two years or the anti-doping is a joke.

You can paint it as 'failing to file the right documents' or the doctor that has 38 years of experience being lazy or it was for her lips or whatever, but the steroid was found in her system. Unless someone held a gun to her head to take it and magically they have evidence of that, then she needs to be given a two year suspension.

You compared Johaugs suspension with this poor italian cyclist.
As for caught doping:

" Doping is the use of performance enhancing drugs or methods by athletes to gain a competitive advantage. "
She did not attempt to, or gain any competitive advantage in this case. Something ADN didn't even attempt to contest since there was no change in her steroid model. They also had an investigator in Italy to search for aditional information.

It should be perhaps be clearer when you can read the English version.

Just because she doped out of competition, doesn't mean it should come without consequence. Plenty of athletes from various sports have been caught out of competition. Out of the competition season as well. Anti-doping testing happens outside before November and after March, otherwise what's the point of having AD?

 

[Discgear]

Since there has been some unsourced claims here about steroid models here, let us read the verdict again (p.7):

Etter bevisførselen legger Domsutvalget, som partene, til grunn at det ikke er rimelig å anta at aktuell bruk av Trofodermin vil kunne gi prestasjonsfremmende effekt av clostebol. Dosen av clostebol har langt fra vært tilstrekkelig stor til at den har påvirket utøvers egenproduksjon av steroider som er omfattet av steroidmodulen på det tidspunktet prøven ble tatt.

So, the verdict states there should not have been any performance enhancing effect based on the claimed use of Trofodermin. Based on the same claim, the dose of Clostebol should not have been enough to affect the athletes own production of steroids included in the steroid model at the time of the test. This is a classic circular reasoning without any hard scientific evidence. Zero value.

 

[Nicko.]

You compared Johaugs suspension with this poor italian cyclist.
As for caught doping:

" Doping is the use of performance enhancing drugs or methods by athletes to gain a competitive advantage. "
She did not attempt to, or gain any competitive advantage in this case. Something ADN didn't even attempt to contest since there was no change in her steroid model. They also had an investigator in Italy to search for aditional information.

It should be perhaps be clearer when you can read the English version.

FFS!

ADN is a total joke with their reasoning, not contesting Johaugs 'story'.

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.

 

[python]

there are 2 types of fanboyism...

one is a blind, naive fanboy. he/she would inevitably, but mostly innocently swallow an official version.

the other type is a malicious fanboy intentionally ignoring alternatives or spinning the bits not fiiting with the common knowledge alternatives...

common well documented knowledge: armstrong, his doping teammates and the scores of other later proven dopers had all had long steroid and blood passports that resulted in NOTHING.

they doped hard, while managing to keep (more, they boasted and published) their blood values. why did they manage to beat the biopassports ? right, b/c like therese they worked with medical professionals.

only a perniciously malicious fanboy would ignore such common alternative facts in favor of what they want to spin in the official versions.

again, therese's steroid profile means VERY LITTLE. just like armstrong's profiles were meaningless to the uci.

b/c she wasn't tested all that much or often, b/c the sophisticated administration of microdoses 'keeps it low', b/c the short half-life of her steroid facilitates beating the tests...and her doctor total amnesia perfectly rhymes with the alternative - not the official - version.

but one needs to step off the fanboy bus to consider the alternative facts.

and i am not saying anything more that these are not the proven truths but the alternatives to be properly explored. norway does not seem capable of the alternative view

perhaps the cas will.

 

[ToreBear]

@discgear

To get a Performance enhancing effect you have to have 100s or 1000s of times the amount she had in her body.
However the small amount could also indicate it was a larger dose, a performance enhancing dose taken earlier.

The problem is that a big dose would leave a trace in her steroid profile. There wasn't any change.

 

[ToreBear]

Seeing some of the reactions to this case(or is it to me being here?) reminds me of:
https://youtu.be/Wz2_d6zWDhg


ps. Python I believe the Steroid module came online in 2012....

 

[python]

once again, genius, armstrong had not been caught with his steroid profile, nor his blood profile...

only a malicious and a pernicious fan boy like torebear will continue to ignore the simple fact...

her doping procedure is unknown, unless one blindly accepts the official version, her doping doses are unknown, her testing frequency is known low.

all the reasons, as pointed above, to ignore the adn fluff.

 

[ToreBear]

Re:

once again, genius, armstrong had not been caught with his steroid profile, nor his blood profile...

only a malicious and a pernicious fan boy like torebear will continue to ignore the simple fact...

her doping procedure is unknown, unless one blindly accepts the official version, her doping doses are unknown, her testing frequency is known low.

all the reasons, as pointed above, to ignore the adn fluff.

See above, just edited it. Wait another edit correction.
The steroid module became available in 2014, and ADN adopted it then as well.
When was the last time Armstrong competed?

 

[python]

Re: Re:

once again, genius, armstrong had not been caught with his steroid profile, nor his blood profile...

only a malicious and a pernicious fan boy like torebear will continue to ignore the simple fact...

her doping procedure is unknown, unless one blindly accepts the official version, her doping doses are unknown, her testing frequency is known low.

all the reasons, as pointed above, to ignore the adn fluff.

See above, just edited it.

once again, you intentionally ignore some well known facts.

1st off, the steroid profile monitoring dates back, including by the fis, at least a decade back. the longitudinal t/e (testosterone-to epitestosterone) ratio, which is a CLASSIC form of steroid profiling dates even further back. the date you quote may be related to a particular profiling variables settled on that year. the modules have been and still are continually updated.

2nd, the point made was that ANY profiling model, blood or steroid, can be made useless by the sophisticated doping. as i said numerous times - the armstrong case could not be a better example.

 

[Discgear]

From the hearing:

Leder ved Norges laboratorium for dopinganalyse, Yvette Dehnes, var neste taler. Johaug fulgte meget nøye med. Dehnes sa følgende om konsentrasjonen av clostebol, som var på 13 nanogram per milliliter i Johaugs positive prøve:
- Denne verdien er forenlig med bruk av kremen Trofodermin, men vi kan ikke utelukke annen bruk. Det kan være en liten mengde tatt for kort tid siden, eller det kan være en større mengde for lenger tid siden, sier Dehnes.

The Norwegian laboratory did only analyze how much clostebol it was in the urine and if the concentration did cohere with Johaugs claims of Trofodermin use. "We cant exclude other use. It could have been a small intake a short time ago or a large amount longer ago". The circle reasoning in the verdict is a smoke screen.