Re:
i like the point about state- vs. market-oriented economy.
bang on the money.
lottery-funded programs are in principle no different from state-funded programs.
additionally, western delegates predominate in the government bodies of global topsports.
good post.AlbineVespuzzio said:
i like the point about state- vs. market-oriented economy.
bang on the money.
lottery-funded programs are in principle no different from state-funded programs.
additionally, western delegates predominate in the government bodies of global topsports.
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Re: Re:
Which is a good point; why would Coe, Reedie etc. allow Russian doping to continue without intervention? Especially when knowing athletes from western countries could lose out on medals? Because they also know that most if not all western athletes are doping as well, UK, US included.
sniper said:
Which is a good point; why would Coe, Reedie etc. allow Russian doping to continue without intervention? Especially when knowing athletes from western countries could lose out on medals? Because they also know that most if not all western athletes are doping as well, UK, US included.
Re:
Have you even read Rutherford's comments in the article you linked ?
Why are his views 'disgraceful' ? Because you think he dopes himself ?
Unless you can provide some proof of that, it it you that is the shameful bigot.
AlbineVespuzzio said:
Have you even read Rutherford's comments in the article you linked ?
Why are his views 'disgraceful' ? Because you think he dopes himself ?
Unless you can provide some proof of that, it it you that is the shameful bigot.
Re: Re:
He calls the decision "spineless", as in "not brave". He says:
Regarding not banning all russian participants instead of just the athletes:
Then:
Disgracefulness stems from the hypocrisy. What don't you get?
He then goes on with the speech that he would almost had prefered them not to do anything (notice the almost), instead of a half-baked attempt. He's clearly advocating for a full ban, ganging up on the russians.
The only difference between institutions in Russia and in the West is that the russians are supported by the state and the institutions in the west are market-driven. Both are equally corrupt. Why doesn't the great thinker Rutherford approaches that issue?
http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/partners
Later, the "great" Paula Radcliffe joins in calling it a bad day for clean sport.
Hypocrisy.
adamfo said:
He calls the decision "spineless", as in "not brave". He says:
Regarding not banning all russian participants instead of just the athletes:
Then:
Disgracefulness stems from the hypocrisy. What don't you get?
He then goes on with the speech that he would almost had prefered them not to do anything (notice the almost), instead of a half-baked attempt. He's clearly advocating for a full ban, ganging up on the russians.
The only difference between institutions in Russia and in the West is that the russians are supported by the state and the institutions in the west are market-driven. Both are equally corrupt. Why doesn't the great thinker Rutherford approaches that issue?
http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/partners
Later, the "great" Paula Radcliffe joins in calling it a bad day for clean sport.
Hypocrisy.
Many countries, not just Russia, use tax payers money to fund less commercial sports, particularly Olympic ones. Squash loses out a bit by not being included.
Russia does have a market economy. Much of the state owned industries were privatized
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia
There is no evidence that lottery funding in the UK has lead to accredited labs switching urine samples, with or without, the help of the state security services like MI5, as has happened in Russia with the FSB.
Nor is there any evidence that Rutherford's views on arm twisting at the IOC are invalid because he himself dopes.
Russia does have a market economy. Much of the state owned industries were privatized
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia
There is no evidence that lottery funding in the UK has lead to accredited labs switching urine samples, with or without, the help of the state security services like MI5, as has happened in Russia with the FSB.
Nor is there any evidence that Rutherford's views on arm twisting at the IOC are invalid because he himself dopes.
Re:
It's state-oriented, which means what's deemed to be of strategic importance to the state is not managed by market forces.
Pay attention.
One would expect state intervenence in such an important area, like sporting success abroad. And it shouldn't be a reason to bypass the principle of not punishing athletes regardless of being dopers or not.
adamfo said:
It's state-oriented, which means what's deemed to be of strategic importance to the state is not managed by market forces.
Pay attention.
One would expect state intervenence in such an important area, like sporting success abroad. And it shouldn't be a reason to bypass the principle of not punishing athletes regardless of being dopers or not.
adamfo said:
Oh, so I have to provide proof that specific athlete is doping so I can call him hypocrite, but at the same time it is ok to ban all the athletes of an entire nation without any kind of proof of specific doping?
Yeah, that's the spirit allright.
But what would a country actually have to do to get banned by the IOC? Have the athletes shooting up on live TV in the house of parliament during a sitting?
So very pleased to see that convicted cheat Zakarin is not going to Rio. I have no idea why these cheats are allowed to compete at all.
What do you mean "accusations"? I said it was a disgraceful attitude because of the hypocrisy.adamfo said:
Re:
Certainly not whatever Russia did. You fail to understand the olympic values, which are not about judging a group by what individuals do. If athletes shoot up on live TV they will likely get banned, not their country, or their same-nationality colleagues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
I'm sorry you think that way, but fortunately the IOC still mantains some of their internationalist values. Maybe when dear Sebastien muscle his way into the IOC you'll get your way, but not yet.
winkybiker said:
Certainly not whatever Russia did. You fail to understand the olympic values, which are not about judging a group by what individuals do. If athletes shoot up on live TV they will likely get banned, not their country, or their same-nationality colleagues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
I'm sorry you think that way, but fortunately the IOC still mantains some of their internationalist values. Maybe when dear Sebastien muscle his way into the IOC you'll get your way, but not yet.
Re: Re:
I've got a degree in Economics for my sins, I don't need lectures thanks !
There is no need to quote parts of something I linked and obviously read.
"Market reforms in the 1990s privatized much of Russian industry and agriculture, with notable exceptions to this privatization occurring in the energy and defense-related sectors."
Where do you think all these Russian billionaires came from....
In the McLaren report there were 117 positive tests in the weight lifting team alone. ( not including the more than 600 tests destroyed from all sports.)
See page 47
https://www.scribd.com/document/318560660/McLaren-WADA-Report-of-Sochi-Olympics
Clearly, in athletics and weight lifting it's pretty endemic, and also in some of the other sports which have much smaller squads.
AlbineVespuzzio said:
I've got a degree in Economics for my sins, I don't need lectures thanks !
There is no need to quote parts of something I linked and obviously read.
"Market reforms in the 1990s privatized much of Russian industry and agriculture, with notable exceptions to this privatization occurring in the energy and defense-related sectors."
Where do you think all these Russian billionaires came from....
In the McLaren report there were 117 positive tests in the weight lifting team alone. ( not including the more than 600 tests destroyed from all sports.)
See page 47
https://www.scribd.com/document/318560660/McLaren-WADA-Report-of-Sochi-Olympics
Clearly, in athletics and weight lifting it's pretty endemic, and also in some of the other sports which have much smaller squads.
Re: Re:
You do need lectures. You fail to understand the fundamental difference between Russian economic system and the west's. Why are you trying to point to a failed experience in westernizing Russia's economy?adamfo said:
What's your point? Are you trying to argue weight lifting positives are exclusive to Russian athletes?
Re: Re:
Ohh, I get it now. You took that degree in the 90's.. Ok, that's understandable.
You still need to update yourself if you want to engage in conversation, though.
adamfo said:
Ohh, I get it now. You took that degree in the 90's.. Ok, that's understandable.
You still need to update yourself if you want to engage in conversation, though.
Re: Re:
"olympic values". Now I'm laughing out loud. The IOC has no values that mean anything. It remains remarkable that the athletes can rise above the cesspool of corruption that extends from one end of this sorry mess to the other.
AlbineVespuzzio said:
"olympic values". Now I'm laughing out loud. The IOC has no values that mean anything. It remains remarkable that the athletes can rise above the cesspool of corruption that extends from one end of this sorry mess to the other.
Re: Re:
I don't disagree that the IOC has lost its way, whatever that was. But that was lost a while ago. The argument that some of us are making here is that banning an entire country is an overreaction to a problem that doesn't start with Russia and ends with Russia. If those allegations of mass doping and cover ups are true, then they are a problem, but not a problem that only happened or happens in Russia. I've posted the links that have Wade Exum, former anti-doping chief of the USOC of the 90's saying that the US authorities within the USOC and USATF were covering up hundreds of positive doping tests and let the athletes compete. At least half of those went on to achieve medals. Exum said this from 1988-2000. I don't need to go into detail, I've posted these links several times in a few of these clinic threads, but if we compare the cases of US and Russia and the accusations made on the authorities of their Olympic committees, then it would have been hypocritical to ban one and not the other. I don't know how many people are or were aware of the coverups in the US, but I started to search for these articles after I heard that Carl Lewis had failed several drug tests prior to the 1988 Olympics. The same Olympics that Ben Johnson famously got busted at, just days after his 100m win. Johnson rightfully said that the Americans were essentially angry that one of their runners didn't win. Lewis also threw some hissy fits and to this day, hasn't acknowledged that he failed numerous drug tests throughout his career and says that Johnson is just mad that he got busted so he has to resort to 'I wasn't the only one...' Johnson didn't deny anything, though he did say that they didn't bust him for what he took prior to that race. He just wants Lewis to finally admit that he too, was a doper.
Long story short, that's a perfect comparison/example of what's going on with Russia. Why should Russia be punished for having athletes that dope, when the US has athletes that dope as well? And if the Russians that had previously been caught doping (good that they have been), aren't allowed (also not the worst thing in the world) to compete, after coming back from those suspensions, but people like Gay, Gatlin, Merritt, etc can? Gatlin and Merritt failed half a dozen tests just between the two of them! Gatlin was suspended a couple times, and Merritt served a suspension that was actually reduced to 21 months. Alright, they served their suspensions, but why let them compete as well? Is it solely because people like to assume that there is 'state-sponsored' doping rather than 'individual/coaching/sponsor/ sponsored' doping? Even if that was the case, why differentiate? If I rob a bank, I should be punished for it and looked at the same way, whether I did it on my own terms or I was part of a larger group.
winkybiker said:
I don't disagree that the IOC has lost its way, whatever that was. But that was lost a while ago. The argument that some of us are making here is that banning an entire country is an overreaction to a problem that doesn't start with Russia and ends with Russia. If those allegations of mass doping and cover ups are true, then they are a problem, but not a problem that only happened or happens in Russia. I've posted the links that have Wade Exum, former anti-doping chief of the USOC of the 90's saying that the US authorities within the USOC and USATF were covering up hundreds of positive doping tests and let the athletes compete. At least half of those went on to achieve medals. Exum said this from 1988-2000. I don't need to go into detail, I've posted these links several times in a few of these clinic threads, but if we compare the cases of US and Russia and the accusations made on the authorities of their Olympic committees, then it would have been hypocritical to ban one and not the other. I don't know how many people are or were aware of the coverups in the US, but I started to search for these articles after I heard that Carl Lewis had failed several drug tests prior to the 1988 Olympics. The same Olympics that Ben Johnson famously got busted at, just days after his 100m win. Johnson rightfully said that the Americans were essentially angry that one of their runners didn't win. Lewis also threw some hissy fits and to this day, hasn't acknowledged that he failed numerous drug tests throughout his career and says that Johnson is just mad that he got busted so he has to resort to 'I wasn't the only one...' Johnson didn't deny anything, though he did say that they didn't bust him for what he took prior to that race. He just wants Lewis to finally admit that he too, was a doper.
Long story short, that's a perfect comparison/example of what's going on with Russia. Why should Russia be punished for having athletes that dope, when the US has athletes that dope as well? And if the Russians that had previously been caught doping (good that they have been), aren't allowed (also not the worst thing in the world) to compete, after coming back from those suspensions, but people like Gay, Gatlin, Merritt, etc can? Gatlin and Merritt failed half a dozen tests just between the two of them! Gatlin was suspended a couple times, and Merritt served a suspension that was actually reduced to 21 months. Alright, they served their suspensions, but why let them compete as well? Is it solely because people like to assume that there is 'state-sponsored' doping rather than 'individual/coaching/sponsor/ sponsored' doping? Even if that was the case, why differentiate? If I rob a bank, I should be punished for it and looked at the same way, whether I did it on my own terms or I was part of a larger group.
Re: Re:
IOC President Bach and his pal Putoid value brown envelopes not lofty ideals...
winkybiker said:
IOC President Bach and his pal Putoid value brown envelopes not lofty ideals...
Re: Re:
I don't disagree that the IOC has lost its way, whatever that was. But that was lost a while ago. The argument that some of us are making here is that banning an entire country is an overreaction to a problem that doesn't start with Russia and ends with Russia. If those allegations of mass doping and cover ups are true, then they are a problem, but not a problem that only happened or happens in Russia. I've posted the links that have Wade Exum, former anti-doping chief of the USOC of the 90's saying that the US authorities within the USOC and USATF were covering up hundreds of positive doping tests and let the athletes compete. At least half of those went on to achieve medals. Exum said this from 1988-2000. I don't need to go into detail, I've posted these links several times in a few of these clinic threads, but if we compare the cases of US and Russia and the accusations made on the authorities of their Olympic committees, then it would have been hypocritical to ban one and not the other. I don't know how many people are or were aware of the coverups in the US, but I started to search for these articles after I heard that Carl Lewis had failed several drug tests prior to the 1988 Olympics. The same Olympics that Ben Johnson famously got busted at, just days after his 100m win. Johnson rightfully said that the Americans were essentially angry that one of their runners didn't win. Lewis also threw some hissy fits and to this day, hasn't acknowledged that he failed numerous drug tests throughout his career and says that Johnson is just mad that he got busted so he has to resort to 'I wasn't the only one...' Johnson didn't deny anything, though he did say that they didn't bust him for what he took prior to that race. He just wants Lewis to finally admit that he too, was a doper.
Long story short, that's a perfect comparison/example of what's going on with Russia. Why should Russia be punished for having athletes that dope, when the US has athletes that dope as well? And if the Russians that had previously been caught doping (good that they have been), aren't allowed (also not the worst thing in the world) to compete, after coming back from those suspensions, but people like Gay, Gatlin, Merritt, etc can? Gatlin and Merritt failed half a dozen tests just between the two of them! Gatlin was suspended a couple times, and Merritt served a suspension that was actually reduced to 21 months. Alright, they served their suspensions, but why let them compete as well? Is it solely because people like to assume that there is 'state-sponsored' doping rather than 'individual/coaching/sponsor/ sponsored' doping? Even if that was the case, why differentiate? If I rob a bank, I should be punished for it and looked at the same way, whether I did it on my own terms or I was part of a larger group.
winkybiker said:
I don't disagree that the IOC has lost its way, whatever that was. But that was lost a while ago. The argument that some of us are making here is that banning an entire country is an overreaction to a problem that doesn't start with Russia and ends with Russia. If those allegations of mass doping and cover ups are true, then they are a problem, but not a problem that only happened or happens in Russia. I've posted the links that have Wade Exum, former anti-doping chief of the USOC of the 90's saying that the US authorities within the USOC and USATF were covering up hundreds of positive doping tests and let the athletes compete. At least half of those went on to achieve medals. Exum said this from 1988-2000. I don't need to go into detail, I've posted these links several times in a few of these clinic threads, but if we compare the cases of US and Russia and the accusations made on the authorities of their Olympic committees, then it would have been hypocritical to ban one and not the other. I don't know how many people are or were aware of the coverups in the US, but I started to search for these articles after I heard that Carl Lewis had failed several drug tests prior to the 1988 Olympics. The same Olympics that Ben Johnson famously got busted at, just days after his 100m win. Johnson rightfully said that the Americans were essentially angry that one of their runners didn't win. Lewis also threw some hissy fits and to this day, hasn't acknowledged that he failed numerous drug tests throughout his career and says that Johnson is just mad that he got busted so he has to resort to 'I wasn't the only one...' Johnson didn't deny anything, though he did say that they didn't bust him for what he took prior to that race. He just wants Lewis to finally admit that he too, was a doper.
Long story short, that's a perfect comparison/example of what's going on with Russia. Why should Russia be punished for having athletes that dope, when the US has athletes that dope as well? And if the Russians that had previously been caught doping (good that they have been), aren't allowed (also not the worst thing in the world) to compete, after coming back from those suspensions, but people like Gay, Gatlin, Merritt, etc can? Gatlin and Merritt failed half a dozen tests just between the two of them! Gatlin was suspended a couple times, and Merritt served a suspension that was actually reduced to 21 months. Alright, they served their suspensions, but why let them compete as well? Is it solely because people like to assume that there is 'state-sponsored' doping rather than 'individual/coaching/sponsor/ sponsored' doping? Even if that was the case, why differentiate? If I rob a bank, I should be punished for it and looked at the same way, whether I did it on my own terms or I was part of a larger group.
- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,599
- 6,854
- 28,180
To everyone (including the mods), I apologize for the double post. It didn't seem like the reply I made went through the first time, due to the slowing of my internet, so I submitted again. My bad.
Re: Re:
Years of state organized doping with Russia, and before that, state sponsored doping by USSR
BullsFan22 said:
Years of state organized doping with Russia, and before that, state sponsored doping by USSR
Re: Re:
And there it is. Why do I have a feeling that what I wrote went way over your head?
This Charming Man said:
And there it is. Why do I have a feeling that what I wrote went way over your head?
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram