• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Russian Insider Says State-Run Doping Fueled Olympic Gold

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 18, 2016
318
4
3,285
Re: Russian Insider Says State-Run Doping Fueled Olympic Gol

BullsFan22 said:
deviant said:
Got to love the clinic, this is where nobody from Team Sky has tested positive (yet) but according to common wisdom in here the whole 'dirty' team should be banned for the good of the sport....but good old mother Russia has a long and rich history of doping, corruption, sample tampering etc and there's a load of butt hurt posters claiming that Russia's treatment is unfair....lol.

Does this go back to the whole good dopers and bad dopers thing which i don't seem to share with others in here and probably need explaining to me again for comedy effect....please explain why Indurain, Pantani, Ullrich and Riis...dominant in the EPO/rocket fuel era are ok and still have their TdF titles but Armstrong is the boogeyman?...could it be that he took a European sport and a European method of cheating and ended up doing it better than the euro riders in the end!?

Russia has been up to this for decades, old state files show it, old testimonies from damaged practically transgendered athletes who unwittingly took whatever they were ordered to take etc, the Soichi lab, the Rodchenkov documentary etc etc...frankly they should be grateful not to have had the Armstrong treatment and been banned from all sport under the WADA code for life.

The clinic likes to say that a doping culture never goes away, that TdF riders will always dope...if that's true what does that say about Russia and the former East Germany?...they physically ruined kids looking for the next gold medal, when they found one with potential they fed them PEDS like cattle and didn't give a **** when they started changing sex in front of the international communities eyes...Armstrong gets the same EPO and transfusions half the peleton were using and ended a some careers (Landis, Bassons etc) by acting like a *** and he's suddenly the worst thing to have ever happened in doping!.....people have short memories, and Germany and Russia are complicit in more crimes against sport than Armstrong would've ever been able to achieve.

Got to love this as well:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exum-claims-large-scale-cover-up-of-doping-positives/

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/17/sports/olympics-anti-doping-official-says-us-covered-up.html

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

http://www.playthegame.org/news/news-articles/2003/q-a-with-dr-wade-exum/

https://www.thenational.ae/sport/rio-2016-russia-by-no-means-the-only-doping-offenders-at-the-olympics-past-or-present-1.163052

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/2400198/Athletics-Now-drink-tarnishes-Lewis-legend.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100883

https://www.espn.com/page2/tvlistings/show17transcript.html


So how come no sanctions or bans were leveled against the USOC after those news came out? Why did Carl Lewis, after failing 3(!!!) doping tests in the summer of 1988 alone, get to compete and steal medals? You can spool about the Russians all you want, and I am sure you can call this 'whataboutism' but I call it double standards and hypocrisy from the IOC. Even Richard Pound acknowledged that the Americans were doping in an interview prior to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, but did nothing to investigate and give out suspensions and sanctions. Meanwhile one Russian moves to the US, tells the authorities all they want to hear and the IOC bans Russia.
Right on the money. Well said.
 
Aug 18, 2016
318
4
3,285
Re: Re:

veganrob said:
Craigee said:
said it before but the Russians must have had a poor cheating regime if they were not the top medal nation while having this supposed great doping programme. It's the same argument as everyone who said that Lance Armstrong must be doping if the 2nd 3rd and 4th placed tour riders all got caught doping. They were proven correct in the end. I suspect the USA and Great Britain of having a doping programme. The Yanks are the Kings of doping and the Brits have improved out of sight lately.

and lets be honest, it's pay back for the computer hacking and it's a lovely bonus for all other nations knowing they will win more medals with Russia not there. It's all politics as usual.

Those here saying it's a good job well done banning Russia are hypocrites. Great Britain is clearly up to no good for starters with their massive improvements in so short a time.
Can you please back up what you state in your first sentence about Sky.
Pardon?
 
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
yaco said:
Think Bulls Fan argument is how selective Anti-Doping Agencies are when it comes to investigating doping, and how it's challenging to have faith in these organisations - There is more than enough evidence to suggest Sochi 2014 may not have occurred if the IOC/WADA had investigated allegations from journalist Nick Harris in July 2013.
I would agree with that part of it. However, I disagree with the implicit minimizing of the severity of what Russia actually did to reach this point.
I am in no way minimising Russia's institutionalised doping - The second part of my paragraph is important because it shows the IOC/WADA had evidence of Russia's doping in July 2013. but yet did nothing.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Barring states who have engaged in such broad-spectrum doping policies is an understandable step, although it is fraught with certain issues (for example, nation-switching athletes mean there are Russians who may have been involved in what happened at Sochi who will compete in Pyeongchang while Russians who had nothing to do with it will have to jump through hoops). And because of the scale of what went on, there needed to be some action taken that penalized those responsible, because individual athletes have paid the price for years on end, and while some will have doped of their own volition to be more competitive, to make selections, or whatever, in many of these cases, no matter how complicit they may be in the doping program the athletes themselves are not the ones that initiated it; in the Clinic much is made of how the enablers, the doping doctors and the authority figures involved are never the ones that pay, and this is an important move in that direction, in sanctioning the Russian team as a whole rather than the individuals found to have doped (some of whom have retired, or have been kept from competition for long enough that a ban would be of limited value).

However, at the same time I am not cheerleading the decision. Much of that is for the same reason as CONI didn't reduce Riccardo Riccò's ban by as much as Emanuele Sella's back in the day. CONI felt at the time that while Sella had been open and honest about his supply chain, Riccò had basically given them some names they already knew about in the name of appearing co-operative. The general world out there knows that Russia has problems with doping and has done for years. When there's the news of new doping stories and the only names that come out are Russian or other ex-Soviet state small fry, the response is usually more to roll one's eyes than to congratulate the IOC, WADA or the relevant sporting authority on their strong anti-doping work. "Oh, the Russians still stuck in the old ways," or "oh, the Russians still haven't learned how to hide it." It isn't a potentially unpopular decision across much of the world or potentially dangerous for profitability of the sport like going after, say, Jamaican athletics, and calling out the Russians for doping is pretty low-hanging fruit and some recent moves in anti-doping such as the meldonium fiasco seemed to have been directed at the Russians, and that entire affair obviously only served to further reinforce the stereotype. It's the same reason only the cyclists got named publicly out of Operación Puerto. "There's no danger in the public knowing about the cyclists because everybody already believes cycling is full of dopers." So while the Russian team has engaged in wide-scale sporting fraud, across several sports and their relevant authorities, covering a great many athletes, at the same time I'm not going to go around celebrating like this is a great victory for anti-doping and clean sport.

But at the same time, you shouldn't get to complain about a witch hunt if you are actually a witch.
Well said Libertine as always.

People here are arguing 2 different things. IOC/WADA's clear obsession to target Russians over other countries/institutes is obvious, but in return that should not take away the fact Russians are clearly to be blamed.
 
Re:

King Boonen said:
Simon Jenkins pretty much hits the nail on the head in this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/06/russian-sport-corrupt-olympics

I was unsure if this belongs here or in the political thread, both really. Apologises if it's been posted before.
Jenkins is one of those British hacks who just gets on my wick. He's more than happy to be a cheerleader but every now and then comes out and says what everyone else has been saying about what a mess everything is.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
King Boonen said:
Simon Jenkins pretty much hits the nail on the head in this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/06/russian-sport-corrupt-olympics

I was unsure if this belongs here or in the political thread, both really. Apologises if it's been posted before.
Jenkins is one of those British hacks who just gets on my wick. He's more than happy to be a cheerleader but every now and then comes out and says what everyone else has been saying about what a mess everything is.
Can't disagree with that.
 
Setting aside the inherent silliness of the IOC pointing the corruption finger at anyone, Russia needed to get the boot from these games for Sochi, if only for the fact that Putin probably had Sinev and Kamayev assassinated to hide the bodies, and for having publicly threatened to shoot Rodchenkov.

Sport is one thing, but targeted political killings are an entirely different game.
 
Jul 5, 2009
1,733
2
0
Re:

Bolder said:
Setting aside the inherent silliness of the IOC pointing the corruption finger at anyone, Russia needed to get the boot from these games for Sochi, if only for the fact that Putin probably had Sinev and Kamayev assassinated to hide the bodies, and for having publicly threatened to shoot Rodchenkov.

Sport is one thing, but targeted political killings are an entirely different game.
That's a pretty wild mis-characterization of the events! Sinev's cause of death wasn't released, but Kamayev had a massive heart attack after going x-country skiing. Tayagachev, head of Russia's Olympic Committee said that "Rodchenkov should be shot for lying". An emotional response along the lines of all the politicians calling for Snowden to be hanged.

Frankly, it would be great to have some kind of "reasoned decision", so that we can all look at the evidence that was provided so that we can decide for ourselves if the ban is an appropriate response, or just a political attack by the west.

John Swanson
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Bolder said:
Setting aside the inherent silliness of the IOC pointing the corruption finger at anyone, Russia needed to get the boot from these games for Sochi, if only for the fact that Putin probably had Sinev and Kamayev assassinated to hide the bodies, and for having publicly threatened to shoot Rodchenkov.

Sport is one thing, but targeted political killings are an entirely different game.
That's a pretty wild mis-characterization of the events! Sinev's cause of death wasn't released, but Kamayev had a massive heart attack after going x-country skiing. Tayagachev, head of Russia's Olympic Committee said that "Rodchenkov should be shot for lying". An emotional response along the lines of all the politicians calling for Snowden to be hanged.

Frankly, it would be great to have some kind of "reasoned decision", so that we can all look at the evidence that was provided so that we can decide for ourselves if the ban is an appropriate response, or just a political attack by the west.

John Swanson
I think it is both, enough evidence for the west to make bold political move.
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Bolder said:
Setting aside the inherent silliness of the IOC pointing the corruption finger at anyone, Russia needed to get the boot from these games for Sochi, if only for the fact that Putin probably had Sinev and Kamayev assassinated to hide the bodies, and for having publicly threatened to shoot Rodchenkov.

Sport is one thing, but targeted political killings are an entirely different game.
That's a pretty wild mis-characterization of the events! Sinev's cause of death wasn't released, but Kamayev had a massive heart attack after going x-country skiing. Tayagachev, head of Russia's Olympic Committee said that "Rodchenkov should be shot for lying". An emotional response along the lines of all the politicians calling for Snowden to be hanged.

Frankly, it would be great to have some kind of "reasoned decision", so that we can all look at the evidence that was provided so that we can decide for ourselves if the ban is an appropriate response, or just a political attack by the west.

John Swanson

Exactamente. Wasn't it Hillary Clinto who called for Assange to be 'droned,' last year??? And what happened to Seth Rich? Anyway, I don't want to steer too far away from this topic.
 
Jul 23, 2012
676
0
0
Re: Russian Insider Says State-Run Doping Fueled Olympic Gol

noddy69 said:
https://www.independent.ie/sport/ewan-mackenna-we-aim-our-rage-at-russia-when-the-real-enemy-is-staring-back-at-us-in-the-mirror-36412183.html

Finally a little realism in the press
The BBC SPOTY in combination with the lottery (which the BBC also hosts) is state sponsored doping UK style. The inability to see the double standard is beyond reason.
 
http://www.bbc.com/sport/42487917
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has been accused of "cowardice" for failing to help a former Russian anti-doping official turned whistleblower.

Grigory Rodchenkov, whose revelations of state-sponsored cheating led to the country's ban from the 2018 Winter Olympics, fled to the US two years ago and remains in hiding.

But his lawyer - Jim Walden - has now accused Russia of "stepping up its retaliation" by secretly lobbying for his extradition.

"If they succeeded, Dr Rodchenkov would face death and torture at their hands," he warned.

Walden said the IOC had "refused to lift a finger to help him", and suggested threats to his client's safety may force him to stop providing evidence to the authorities.

Russia's investigative committee has said it will ask the US to extradite Rodchenkov, the former head of Moscow's anti-doping laboratory. President Vladimir Putin has also suggested the whistleblower may have been drugged by the FBI to coax a confession, something Walden described as "comical".
...
"The IOC must act. I asked to meet with its officials... I made suggestions on how the IOC could end this campaign against Dr Rodchenkov, by requiring that Russia cease its retaliation... I was told - point blank - that the IOC would take no action against Russia for retaliating against Dr Rodchenkov."

"One thing is certain - if the IOC's inaction is what whistleblowers can expect, no whistleblower should ever again come forward with information about fraud in the Olympics. Had I known of the IOC's cowardice, I might have urged a different path."
 
Re:

Rider said:
As one could see from the thread's first post Western media was quick to spread Rodchenkov's crap. But the same media are not so quick to publish CAS award to the Legkov's case (no ADRV established). It's really interesting, some overview https://www.rt.com/sport/425020-rodchenkov-evidence-is-hearsay-limited-probative-value/

The next logical step would be for all the athletes that were named/banned/had their results initially scrapped due to the McLaren report to sue the heck out of McLaren and Rodchenkov, and even Bryan Fogel (Lance's good buddy).
 
CAS
In reaching these conclusions, the Panel wishes to underscore what it has not decided in this appeal. The Panel has not made a ruling on whether and to what extent the alleged doping scheme during the Sochi Games existed and how it operated even though it recognizes that there is significant evidence that it was in place and worked. Moreover, the Panel did not consider it possible to conclude that the existence of a general doping and cover-up scheme, even if established, would inexorably lead to a conclusion the Athlete committed the ADRVs alleged by the IOC.
and
What the Panel, in the appeal of an individual athlete against the finding of various ADRVs, did decide is simply this: for all of the reasons outlined in this award, the evidence presented before the Panel does not justify the conclusion to the comfortable satisfaction of the Panel that the Athlete, through acts or omissions, individually committed any of the alleged ADRVs.
 
Aug 14, 2010
96
0
0
Yes, but there's also this:

Although Dr. Rodchenkov alleges that the Athlete was a “protected athlete” and was therefore authorised to take the Duchess Cocktail, he also confirmed that he never personally witnessed **any athletes** consuming that “cocktail”. Accordingly, Dr. Rodchenkov’s testimony is mere hearsay, which should be disregarded.
and

Dr. Rodchenkov’s testimony in relation to this particular issue is very vague, which reflects the fact that Dr. Rodchenkov **never personally observed any athlete transmitting information about their samples to anyone**. Dr. Rodchenkov’s testimony is mere hearsay and should be disregarded by the Panel.
or

Third, the Sochi Appellants submit that a number of allegations asserted by Dr. Rodchenkov against the Sochi Appellants are based on diary entries that are of no probative value. In particular, they contend that the authenticity of the diary has not been independently verified. They also note that the diary was only mentioned in passing in the McLaren Reports, suggesting that Prof. McLaren either did not see the diary or accorded it no probative value.
And so on. There's a lot of it, bs I mean. Basically, if challenged in the court of law, most of his testimony would be thrown out. In this particular case, this is exactly what happened.
 
Howman expressed frustration that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) cannot accept circumstantial evidence that an [athlete] was doping. “What do you have to do, with this particular CAS [Panel], to build a case on circumstantial evidence?” he asked. In the Legkov and Zubkov decisions, published by the CAS last month, the Panel required that it should be ‘comfortably satisfied’ that the two athletes had doped at the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. As the salt content of Zubkov’s urine sample was physiologically impossible but Legkov’s was not, the CAS held that it was ‘comfortably satisfied’ that Zubkov had doped, but the same was not true for Legkov.
link
 
Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Howman expressed frustration that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) cannot accept circumstantial evidence that an [athlete] was doping. “What do you have to do, with this particular CAS [Panel], to build a case on circumstantial evidence?” he asked. In the Legkov and Zubkov decisions, published by the CAS last month, the Panel required that it should be ‘comfortably satisfied’ that the two athletes had doped at the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics. As the salt content of Zubkov’s urine sample was physiologically impossible but Legkov’s was not, the CAS held that it was ‘comfortably satisfied’ that Zubkov had doped, but the same was not true for Legkov.
link
Ah - The irony of the Howson comments - Couldn't have got a more circumstantial case than the EFC 34 case of 2016.
 
Aug 14, 2010
96
0
0
Howman expressed frustration that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) cannot accept circumstantial evidence that an [athlete] was doping.
Why is he frustrated though? Doesn't he know the CAS's rules of evidence?

It's common knowledge, among lawyers at least, CAS does not operate under the common law rules of evidence nor the civil law rules. According to CAS:

bloth the initial arbitration panel (as with the initial decision maker) and the appeal arbitration panel are not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform themselves in such manner as the arbitrators think fit (see D'Arcy v Australian Olympic Committee CAS 2008/A/1 574)
He can't complain. I mean he can if he doesn't know how CAS operates.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS