General Doping Thread.

[Samu Cuenca]

The Australian women's 4 x 100m freestyle relay team won gold yesterday in the pool with a new world record of 3:29.69. They were 3 seconds ahead of second place with the rest of the field (positions 2-8) separated by only 3 seconds. In short they smashed everyone else.

If a doping nation (eg China, Russia etc) had been in first place in this race, would people be questioning the performance? The result doesn't look normal to me. I can't understand in a mature, highly competitive sport, how one team at the elite level can be so far ahead of everyone else.

To be fair the Australians were the defending champions (they won in London as well) and world/Olympic record holders prior to the final, so it wasn't a surprise. I had expected the Americans to be closer to them though (they were nearly a second slower than in Rio). Emma McKeon's 51.35 was the only really crazy leg in that final.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Reports of the weightlifting at School Sports Day have reached ... well I think you can only call it a new low. Headlines are already claiming that Saturday's silver medallist could yet get gold if the actual winner pops a positive. None of the sources look particularly 'reputable' and they're all more or less running with the same piece of gossip, that Saturday's gold medallist has been told to hang around in Tokyo so they can be tested again. I get the parochial interest in bigging up one of your own (the silver medallist is Indian and most of the reports are coming out of India) but this is ridiculous.

(Also: can you backdate a ban to before the test was taken? I'm sure CAS would have fun with that one.)

 

[Sciatic]

I fully expect we will see some doping development (down the road) from research like this that involves isolating genetic information the regulates muscle growth and fat burning;
“genetic material, known as miR-1, that modulates muscle growth. In normal, untrained muscles, miR-1, one of a group of tiny strands of genetic material known as microRNA, keeps a brake on muscle building.”
NYTimes article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/21/...dex0SLghrNSb5r-A&referringSource=articleShare

 

[Mayomaniac]

Reports of the weightlifting at School Sports Day have reached ... well I think you can only call it a new low. Headlines are already claiming that Saturday's silver medallist could yet get gold if the actual winner pops a positive. None of the sources look particularly 'reputable' and they're all more or less running with the same piece of gossip, that Saturday's gold medallist has been told to hang around in Tokyo so they can be tested again. I get the parochial interest in bigging up one of your own (the silver medallist is Indian and most of the reports are coming out of India) but this is ridiculous.

(Also: can you backdate a ban to before the test was taken? I'm sure CAS would have fun with that one.)

Cobo got only his 2009 Vuelta, 2009 WC ITT and 2011 results voided because of passport irregularities and still a non-backdated 3 year ban.
Also, remember how Menchov only lost his TdF results? Sometimes those things look pretty shady.

 

[Red Rick]

Cobo got only his 2009 Vuelta, 2009 WC ITT and 2011 results voided because of passport irregularities and still a non-backdated 3 year ban.
Also, remember how Menchov only lost his TdF results? Sometimes those things look pretty shady.

What the ***.

 

[Mayomaniac]

What the ***.

Yeah, that kind of stuff just looks shady and sometimes there seems to be no standardized procedure. I think a good lawyer could go to town on them because of this kind of BS. I really have my doubts that stuff like this would holp up if the riders would take it to CAS.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Today's 'Index of Suspicion' covers whole countries:

Twenty unnamed athletes are ineligible to compete in the Tokyo Olympics after failing to meet anti-doping guidelines, the Athletics Integrity Unit announced Wednesday. The test's results listed Nigeria the most, with 10 competitors unable to represent the country out of the 23 it entered for the Games.

Athletes from "Category A" countries — or those considered to be of "the highest doping risk to the sport" — must undergo at least three urine and blood tests without notice to be conducted no less than three weeks apart within the 10 months leading up to a major event to be eligible to compete at the Olympics, according to National Federation Anti-Doping Obligations.

CBS

 

[Sciatic]

Today's 'Index of Suspicion' covers whole countries:CBS

Thanks for sharing that article. I can’t quite make out whether they mean that the 20 athletes banned from the Olympics were all from the countries on the Group A country suspicion list? Or whether some of those athletes might be from other countries? If the latter is true, then Richardson immediately comes to mind: was she on this list and had to be pulled from the team but used the pot as a literal smokescreen to obscure more damning doping charges?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Richardson immediately comes to mind: was she on this list and had to be pulled from the team but used the pot as a literal smokescreen to obscure more damning doping charges

This is what I love about this place. You get a simple and clear story and people still manage to use it to make acrobatic leaps that give me the twisties. Simple question Sciatic: Is the USA on the Category A list of countries?

 

[BullsFan22]

This is what I love about this place. You get a simple and clear story and people still manage to use it to make acrobatic leaps that give me the twisties. Simple question Sciatic: Is the USA on the Category A list of countries?

No, because the US is WADA’s biggest donor coupled with a high number of TUE’s and you basically have your delegation of Olympians.

 

[fmk_RoI]

the US is WADA’s biggest donor

How 'bout you back that claim up with the facts?

For the record, $17m of WADA's 2019 revenue ($38m) came from the IOC. How much do you really imagine the USA gave?

And how does the fact that the USA is currently withholding half of it's 2021 contribution play into this theory of yours?

Oh, yeah, and the one we keep forgetting: WADA and WA are not the same and this is a WA decision, via its AIU.

But, yeah, apart from the facts ...

 

[Sciatic]

This is what I love about this place. You get a simple and clear story and people still manage to use it to make acrobatic leaps that give me the twisties. Simple question Sciatic: Is the USA on the Category A list of countries?

No it’s not: but no where in the article does it make an explicit statement that the 20 athletes are all from the ‘A’ countries. But reading it a second time it’s hard to conclude otherwise, since they switch back and and forth between talking about the banned athletes and then about the testing required of athletes from the A countries. So yeah, reasonable conclusion to make that they are all from the suspicious country list,
As for your twisties, that’s your deal not mine. But I’m still glad you posted the article .

 

[BullsFan22]

How 'bout you back that claim up with the facts?

For the record, $17m of WADA's 2019 revenue ($38m) came from the IOC. How much do you really imagine the USA gave?

And how does the fact that the USA is currently withholding half of it's 2021 contribution play into this theory of yours?

Oh, yeah, and the one we keep forgetting: WADA and WA are not the same and this is a WA decision, via its AIU.

But, yeah, apart from the facts ...

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/us-australia-appear-to-lead-world-in-approved-tues/

 

[fmk_RoI]

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/us-australia-appear-to-lead-world-in-approved-tues/

If you can't beat 'em with brains try to baffle 'em with bullcrap. Chuck in a link without quoting from it and bish bash bosh, that's everyone confused.

However. A quick skim of that link says it's an article about TUEs. Did you read even the opening sentence: "The United States and Australia appear to lead the world in terms of the number of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) granted to their athletes, analysis by The Sports Integrity Initiative has revealed."?

It's not an article that appears to support your claim that the US is WADA's biggest donor.

Also, do you think you could find contemporary evidence, that story appears to be atleast six years old at this stage.

How 'bout you stop wasting people's time and just produce the evidence that the USA pays more to WADA than the IOC does, eh?

 

[BullsFan22]

If you can't beat 'em with brains try to baffle 'em with bullcrap. Chuck in a link without quoting from it and bish bash bosh, that's everyone confused.

However. A quick skim of that link says it's an article about TUEs. Did you read even the opening sentence: "The United States and Australia appear to lead the world in terms of the number of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) granted to their athletes, analysis by The Sports Integrity Initiative has revealed."?

It's not an article that appears to support your claim that the US is WADA's biggest donor.

Also, do you think you could find contemporary evidence, that story appears to be atleast six years old at this stage.

How 'bout you stop wasting people's time and just produce the evidence that the USA pays more to WADA than the IOC does, eh?

Why don’t you take a deep breath? Who do you think is driving WADA? The same authorities that are driving NATO. Who is NATO’s biggest donor and who was complaining that member states weren’t giving enough money? Why don’t you do some research on your own for once, eh? Not everything is going to be handed to you on a plate.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Why don’t you do some research on your own for once, eh? Not everything is going to be handed to you on a plate.

So, having tried answering a question you weren't asked, you now want to bring politics into this and make it be about NATO? To be clear, this is an outright refusal to provide the evidence for your claim that the USA is WADA's biggest donor, yes? Even after I've done the research for you - well, I'd hardly call it research really, it was just referring to WADA's accounts - and told you what WADA's 2019 revenue was ($38m) and how much of that was contributed by the IOC ($17m), leaving you to just make up a number that's bigger than $17m and claim that's the US's contribution? It's almost like you know you're wrong but can't quite bring yourself to acknowledging that fact.

 

[King Boonen]

Why don’t you take a deep breath? Who do you think is driving WADA? The same authorities that are driving NATO. Who is NATO’s biggest donor and who was complaining that member states weren’t giving enough money? Why don’t you do some research on your own for once, eh? Not everything is going to be handed to you on a plate.

Mod hat on:

From the rules:

• Users are required to provide evidence when challenged, as well as engaging with arguments counter to the assertion with substantive facts and references.

Please either provide the evidence to back up your assertion or stop making it.

 

[fmk_RoI]

So it appears that the story below was made up out of nothing by an Indian news agency, ANI, and the whole thing is bollox.

A "made-up" story involving weightlifters from China and India has been so widely reported throughout Asia that it has led to claims of athletes from three nations being involved in medal reallocations.

The story appears to have emanated from Asian News International, which has 100 bureaus and labels itself "Asia’s premier news agency".

Inside the Games's story continues:

The so-called extra test appears to be complete fabrication, based on a comment from "a source in the know of developments".

The World Anti-Doping Agency said it knew nothing about it, and the International Testing Agency (ITA) - which is carrying out anti-doping procedures at Tokyo 2020 for the International Olympic Committee - was mystified too.

The ITA "do not know where it started but we follow, as always, the strategy to transparently state any developments on our website," said an ITA official.

ANI has admitted it got the story wrong. There's a few Clinicians could do with taking a leaf from that book...

Reports of the weightlifting at School Sports Day have reached ... well I think you can only call it a new low. Headlines are already claiming that Saturday's silver medallist could yet get gold if the actual winner pops a positive. None of the sources look particularly 'reputable' and they're all more or less running with the same piece of gossip, that Saturday's gold medallist has been told to hang around in Tokyo so they can be tested again. I get the parochial interest in bigging up one of your own (the silver medallist is Indian and most of the reports are coming out of India) but this is ridiculous.

(Also: can you backdate a ban to before the test was taken? I'm sure CAS would have fun with that one.)

 

[fmk_RoI]

It's nice to see old friends appearing in the news, isn't it? Triamcinolone is back! An Italian ultrarunner, Luca Manfredi, has been sent to the naughty step and is going to have to come up with a Wiggins-worthy excuse if he's to avoid having his provisional suspension made more permanent:

According to the FIDAL press release, published on July 27, 2021, Manfredi tested positive for a triamcinolone acetonide metabolite, following a competitive check conducted by NADO Italia, the country’s anti-doping organization, at the 2021 Lavaredo Ultra Trail, held in Cortina d’Ampezzo on June 26, 2021. After running in the top 10 of Lavaredo for several hours, Manfredi dropped from the race.

 

[Aimar16]

It is interesting to read WADA’s annual financial reports. The 2019 report specifically mentions the Chinese swimmer:

A number of high-profile anti-doping cases also required additional resources. WADA’s successful appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the case of swimmer Sun Yang was a particularly significant one with more than USD600,000 invested.

According to a 2018 report, WADA had a surplus of USD3.1 million. But for some reason, they didn’t spend anything on a high-profile Froome's doping case. They simply let go of the case. The report does not even mention Froome.

 

[fmk_RoI]

But for some reason, they didn’t spend anything on a high-profile Froome's doping case.

You can say that they did not mention spending money on the Froome case in the 2018 report, but I think it's quite a leap of faith to say they spent nothing on it. From memory they were involved in the case and so, clearly, they allocated some resources to it. I'm not sure I would expect them to brag about betting on a losing hand. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Aimar16]

You can say that they did not mention spending money on the Froome case in the 2018 report, but I think it's quite a leap of faith to say they spent nothing on it. From memory they were involved in the case and so, clearly, they allocated some resources to it. I'm not sure I would expect them to brag about betting on a losing hand. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This is a financial report. Not a brag sheet. If they have spent a significant amount of money on something, they have to account for it.

It was pretty clear even in 2018 that WADA easily let go of Froome’s doping case.

 

[fmk_RoI]

This is a financial report. Not a brag sheet.

Actually, it's an Annual Report (read the cover), that contains the Financial Statements (read the Table of Contents). An Annual Report is just a marketing document, to your members/shareholders, a way of telling them that their money is being spent wisely and they should just keep on giving. It's a feel good document.

The Financial Statements are as transparent as the law requires them to be. The law does not require that they be itemised to the level you think they should be.

 

[King Boonen]

Here's the full paragraph that was quoted partially, with my emphasis:

A number of high-profile anti-doping cases also required additional resources. WADA’s successful appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the case of swimmer Sun Yang was a particularly significant one with more than USD600,000 invested. In addition, scientific research grants were higher than 2018 by USD541,400, mainly due to the timing of the distribution of the grants from projects committed.

This kind of disproves the idea that they have to report every case here doesn't it? On top of the fact that they don't actually need to do that of course.

 

[Aimar16]

Actually, it's an Annual Report (read the cover), that contains the Financial Statements (read the Table of Contents). An Annual Report is just a marketing document, to your members/shareholders, a way of telling them that their money is being spent wisely and they should just keep on giving. It's a feel good document.

The Financial Statements are as transparent as the law requires them to be. The law does not require that they be itemised to the level you think they should be.

Here's the full paragraph that was quoted partially, with my emphasis:

This kind of disproves the idea that they have to report every case here doesn't it? On top of the fact that they don't actually need to do that of course.

I did not say that WADA listed all the cases in these reports. Btw, this is completely irrelevant in this case. The UCI was solely and exclusively in charge from start to finish in the doping case of Froome.

This was the process: Froome: WADA's test is not reliable -> UCI: Nice, so you're clean -> WADA: UCI said he was clean. So let's move on, nothing to see here & WADA issued a statement not to appeal the UCI's decision on the same day the UCI closed the Froome doping case.

vs WADA has spent $600k to appeal the Chinese swimmer doping case in the CAS. Interesting contrast.