General Doping Thread.

[King Boonen]

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.

...

 

[Aimar16]

...

??

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.

 

[King Boonen]

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?

 

[fmk_RoI]

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.

 

[Aimar16]

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.

 

[Aimar16]

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

 

[fmk_RoI]

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.

 

[Aimar16]

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

 

[fmk_RoI]

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?

 

[Aimar16]

I wonder if you are even capable of telling fact from fantasy:They go on to say:And the kickerlease 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

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.

 

[fmk_RoI]

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?

 

[fmk_RoI]

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.

 

[Shakes]

Swimming and doping:

American swimmer complains about doping after losing to Russians

American backstroke star Ryan Murphy said Friday that doping remains a huge problem in the sport.

www.nbcnews.com

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.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Kino tape - who knew?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1422137505223225344

View: https://twitter.com/Chris_Boardman/status/1422137505223225344

 

[fmk_RoI]

Another one bites the dust

https://twitter.com/x/status/1422400946835845126

View: https://twitter.com/IntTestAgency/status/1422400946835845126

 

[Aimar16]

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.

 

[fmk_RoI]

But what is your evidence that they spent money on this investigation.

Oh FFS, would you ever learn to read. Or think. Or both.

 

[Aimar16]

Oh FFS, would you ever learn to read. Or think. Or both.

Go to a couple of anger management courses, it will improve your mood.

ll I have to do is show that that zero is wrong. And I think that has successfully been done.

You are clearly claiming something for which you have no evidence.

 

[fmk_RoI]

You are clearly claiming something for which you have no evidence.

The evidence has been shown. You want to ignore it.

 

[nayr497]

Is there a abbreviated version of what you two are arguing about? I'm really lost here.

 

[fmk_RoI]

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.

 

[King Boonen]

Jacobs dropped the long jump in 2019 to focus on sprinting, started lowering his PB and then 2020 happened. I’m willing to give him as much benefit of the doubt as I do any other Olympic 100m champion. I agree with your point and I think this article wouldn’t appear had an American with a similar career path won gold.

 

[Aimar16]

Is there a abbreviated version of what you two are arguing about? I'm really lost here.

I found it strange that WADA spent $600k to prove something against a Chinese swimmer in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. While in the previous year they easily let go of the Froome's salbutamol doping case.

But the other poster said WADA did the most it could because they asked an unnamed expert and sent an email to Froome’s lawyer about salbutamol. So that's it. Case closed.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I agree with your point and I think this article wouldn’t appear had an American with a similar career path won gold.

Funny thing is they play up that he's half-American, which is usually good enough for other countries. Not good enough for the Washington Post, though.

 

[fmk_RoI]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1423787363143147521

View: https://twitter.com/Lawton_Times/status/1423787363143147521


Italian police probes...