General Doping Thread.

Page 42 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 4, 2017
87
39
2,730
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Jul 4, 2017
87
39
2,730
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.
 
Jul 4, 2017
87
39
2,730
??

WADA did not spend money investigating Froome’s doping case, so there is no mention of this in their annual report.

If they had investigated the doping case and spent a lot of money on lawyers and research, that would have been included in the anual report because Froome is a high profile. But WADA easily let go of its case for some reason.
 
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.
So why are you complaining that WADA have not disclosed the amount they spent on the matter?
WADA has spent $600k to appeal the Chinese swimmer doping case in the CAS. Interesting contrast.
I don't know if you noticed but there is a significant difference between the two cases: one never made it to being a doping violation, the other went all the way to CAS. I know which one I'd think cost the more money by requiring the use of external legal counsel.
 
Jul 4, 2017
87
39
2,730
Again, they mention that there were several high profile cases in the quote you provided but only detail of one where they were successful. Why didn't they give details of the others?
I’m sure the other cases didn’t cost as much $$$ as Chinese swimmer's case. They have mentioned this case as it has cost $600k and most of the resources have been requested for this case.
 
Jul 4, 2017
87
39
2,730
So why are you complaining that WADA have not disclosed the amount they spent on the matter?I don't know if you noticed but there is a significant difference between the two cases: one never made it to being a doping violation, the other went all the way to CAS. I know which one I'd think cost the more money by requiring the use of external legal counsel.
I didn't complain about that. My point was that WADA is spending $600k on the Chinese swimmer's case vs Froome's $0

Froome failed the WADA doping test. Fact
 
My point was that WADA is spending $600k on the Chinese swimmer's case vs Froome's $0
One more time: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know that WADA was involved in the case, so we know that they invested some of their resources in the matter. Your attempt to say they spent nothing is, to borrow from Mr Spock, illogical.

As well as not being supported by any evidence, the curse of this forum.
 
Last edited:
Jul 4, 2017
87
39
2,730
One more time: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know that WADA was involved in the case, so we know that they invested some of their resources in the matter. Your attempt to say they spent nothing is, to borrow from Mr Spock, illogical.

As well as not being supported by any evidence, the curse of this forum.
From start to finish, the UCI was solely and exclusively in charge of the procedure and dealt with all procedural aspects of the [Froome's doping] case. The UCI Tribunal even denied WADA's request to be part of it. Fact
 
From start to finish, the UCI was solely and exclusively in charge of the procedure and dealt with all procedural aspects of the [Froome's doping] case. The UCI Tribunal even denied WADA's request to be part of it. Fact
I wonder if you are even capable of telling fact from fantasy:
From start to finish, the UCI was solely and exclusively in charge of the procedure and dealt with all procedural aspects of the case. Despite not being party to proceedings, WADA was responsive throughout the UCI’s results management process and provided support where appropriate.
They go on to say:
On 31 January, Mr. Froome sent a letter to WADA requesting specific information regarding the scientific bases for the salbutamol threshold and decision limit. On 5 March, WADA provided the parties to the case with background information to, and the rationale for, the decision limit for salbutamol.
And the kicker:
When WADA received Mr. Froome's substantial explanations and evidence on 4 June, the Agency promptly reviewed them together with both in-house and external experts and liaised with the UCI before communicating its position statement on 28 June. Then, on 2 July, UCI announced its decision to close the case.
Please note the use of external experts there - are you going to tell us those people provided their services pro bono?
 
Jul 4, 2017
87
39
2,730
I wonder if you are even capable of telling fact from fantasy:They go on to say:And the kicker:please note the use of external experts there - are you going to tell us those people provided their services pro bono?
Do you work for the GCHQ or what? Because my quotes are exactly the same as yours but you pretend they are fantasy :rolleyes:

Asking an 'external expert' who suggests dismissing Froome's doping case and accepting the UCI’s decision isn’t the same as spending hundred thousands of dollars in court and fight to prove the anti-doping tests you take are not just a joke.

The funny thing is that WADA is trying to explain that the salbutamol threshold and test will not change but they are not going to fight against Froome since the UCI said he is clean. Both are corrupt organizations.
 
Asking an 'external expert' who suggests dismissing Froome's doping case and accepting the UCI’s decision isn’t the same as spending hundred thousands of dollars in court and fight to prove the anti-doping tests you take are not just a joke.
Who's talking about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars? You're insisting $0 was spent. All I have to do is show that that zero is wrong. And I think that has successfully been done.

Will you now accept that your zero is wrong or do you intend to continue digging your heels in and refusing to accept reality?
 
As well as blocking 10 Nigerian athletes from the Games because they did not undergo enough OOC tests, WA's AIU has sent an eleventh Nigerian athlete home from Tokyo ... after failing an OOC test.

I'm always somewhat impressed by the way WA handles doping ... and then I remember how WA handled doping and I get confused.

Meanwhile, Kenya loses an athlete to a failed test conducted by the ITA, having previously been allowed to replace two athletes bumped by the AIU.

Looks like the real athletics competition will be between the ITA and the AIU to see which can bump the most athletes.
 
Jul 9, 2012
9
7
8,545
Swimming and doping:

Of course no one is blamed directly. People winning are not just talented but also great technique... Even with someone stating this quite explicitly media coverage and 'official' replies show why doping will never be tackled properly. It's just inconvenient so it's here to stay. Unfortunately as that means a lot of future athletes will be pushed into it and have to carry the shame when caught. None of the enablers (I think media is a huge culprit) will ever carry the burden. It's despicable.
 
Jul 4, 2017
87
39
2,730
Who's talking about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars? You're insisting $0 was spent. All I have to do is show that that zero is wrong. And I think that has successfully been done.

Will you now accept that your zero is wrong or do you intend to continue digging your heels in and refusing to accept reality?
But what is your evidence that they spent money on this investigation.
 
WaPo on 100m Winne Lamont Jacobsr:
Before 2021, Jacobs had never run the 100 in less than 10.03 seconds, a time that would not have qualified him for the final at June’s U.S. Olympic trials. By the end of Sunday night, only 10 men had run 100 meters faster than him.

“I worked really hard to arrive here in better condition,” Jacobs said. “I demonstrated I was in better condition, and I win. It’s amazing.”

It is not Jacobs’s fault that the history of track and field casts suspicion on sudden and immense improvement. The annals of the sport are littered with pop-up champions later revealed to be drug cheats. It would be unfair to accuse Jacobs. It would be incomplete not to acknowledge the context of his accomplishment. Jacobs deserves the benefit of the doubt, but his sport does not.
We've seen reporting like this in the past and the reality is that as soon as the 'right' hero comes along the sport will once again be given the the benefit of the doubt.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY