WADA Publishes New Anti-Doping Rule Violations Report

[Dear Wiggo]

*wonders how much exoneration costs*
or "no case to answer"

There must be some juicy documentation that would make great reading around the UCI headquarters somewhere. Dayam.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Re:

The report gives some insight into the use of TUE's.

A total of 207,513 samples were received and analyzed in 2013 by WADA-accredited laboratories. 2,540 samples were reported as AAFs. Of these:
- 1,687 (66%) samples were confirmed as ADRVs (sanctions);
- 223 (9%) samples were dismissed because of a valid TUE held by the athlete;

UCI: 9,430 samples collected (urine and blood samples for regular doping tests, blood samples for the bio passport not included)
91 samples were reported as AAF's. Of these:
- 47 (52%) samples were reported as ADRV's (sanctions);
- 14 (15%) samples were dismissed because of a valid TUE held by the athlete;

According to the CDC in the USA the incidence of Asthma in the adult population for 2012 was 8%. Do we know what percent of the TUEs at WADA and the UCI were Asthma? The incidence of asthma in athletes seems to burgeon during cycling and athletics season. Salazar would surely know.

 

[neineinei]

None of the cases of the International Weightlifting Federation went away because of a TUE. Also they didn't find it in their heart to exonerate anyone and only one case was dropped as “no case to answer” (page 14 in the report).

IWF charges some whopping fines from national federations for anti-doping rule violations. They bring in more on those fines than they pay for the testing. That might have something to do with the lack of cases dropped due to TUE's or other "valid reasons". Another very plausible reason: the adverse analytical findings in weightlifiting are probably almost all for steroids, and getting a TUE for Stanozolol isn't easy....

http://www.iwf.net/anti-doping/sanctions/

 

[TheSpud]

Hincapie is a classic example. He cheated his whole career. He sat like a bump on the log at the press conference for the Tour of California when Armstrong chastized Kimmage. La was lying through his teeth. Hincapie sat there, knowing all along LA was lying AND SAID NOTHING, while LA was intimidating and defaming Kimmage. What kind of a person (a$$h0!e) does that?

He was still riding at the time - unlikely he'd just flip in the press conference, stand up and say "to hell with this, you're lying".

I'm in two minds on how past dopers should be treated. For instance having a complete zero tolerance approach may encourage more lying & omerta, which cant be good. But seeing people like Vino and Riis running teams does kind of stick in the throat a bit (a lot). And would we like to see Armstrong running a team?

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

According to the CDC in the USA the incidence of Asthma in the adult population for 2012 was 8%. Do we know what percent of the TUEs at WADA and the UCI were Asthma? The incidence of asthma in athletes seems to burgeon during cycling and athletics season. Salazar would surely know.

It does seem surprising how many asthmatics there are in sport. However, doing a simple % comparison with the population may not be fully valid. For instance we hear a lot about exercise induced asthma - it wouldn't surprise me if the % of sportsmen & women who suffered from that as a type of asthma was higher than the overall % for the whole population for all types. That's the problem with stats - too easily used / misused.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Hincapie is a classic example. He cheated his whole career. He sat like a bump on the log at the press conference for the Tour of California when Armstrong chastized Kimmage. La was lying through his teeth. Hincapie sat there, knowing all along LA was lying AND SAID NOTHING, while LA was intimidating and defaming Kimmage. What kind of a person (a$$h0!e) does that?

He was still riding at the time - unlikely he'd just flip in the press conference, stand up and say "to hell with this, you're lying".

I'm in two minds on how past dopers should be treated. For instance having a complete zero tolerance approach may encourage more lying & omerta, which cant be good. But seeing people like Vino and Riis running teams does kind of stick in the throat a bit (a lot). And would we like to see Armstrong running a team?

Yeah I don't understand this mentality that a rider would do something so irrational as to admit to a press conference that yes, he was/is in fact doping. What kind of person gets upset about a rider not doing that? Boggles the mind.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Re:

According to the CDC in the USA the incidence of Asthma in the adult population for 2012 was 8%. Do we know what percent of the TUEs at WADA and the UCI were Asthma? The incidence of asthma in athletes seems to burgeon during cycling and athletics season. Salazar would surely know.

It does seem surprising how many asthmatics there are in sport. However, doing a simple % comparison with the population may not be fully valid. For instance we hear a lot about exercise induced asthma - it wouldn't surprise me if the % of sportsmen & women who suffered from that as a type of asthma was higher than the overall % for the whole population for all types. That's the problem with stats - too easily used / misused.

I'm not a doctor, but the solution is a better definition of exercise induced asthma. In the same way that the threshold for hypothyroidism has been in flux, with normal being previously defined as .5-5.0 and not being treated until 10.0, to now anywhere from 0.3-3.0, 0.5-2.5, 1.0-1.5, .6-3.3 depending on who you ask (The lower upper-limit making it easier to be found hypothyroid).

Phil Gaimon's book tells his story about a doctor asking if he coughs or wheezes after exercise, and after walking up the stairs. He says yes, because, well, we've all been there. He gets a prescription for asthma from the doc (team set up the appointment), and he only wisened up after talking with his roommate who clued him in.

Cam Levins, Farah's training partner said last week that he was diagnosed with adult-onset asthma after joining Nike Oregon Project. He probably had his appointment the afternoon after a track session, and the doc saw some irritated lungs and wrote the prescription. He probably thinks he has asthma, and the doctor doesn't care whether he really needs the medicine because NOP is probably his or her most frequent client.

Misuse is an issue. Mis-diagnosis is closer to the problem. Naive doctors, team doctors, or pre$$ured doctors are at a seal-able part of the pipeline.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Hincapie is a classic example. He cheated his whole career. He sat like a bump on the log at the press conference for the Tour of California when Armstrong chastized Kimmage. La was lying through his teeth. Hincapie sat there, knowing all along LA was lying AND SAID NOTHING, while LA was intimidating and defaming Kimmage. What kind of a person (a$$h0!e) does that?

He was still riding at the time - unlikely he'd just flip in the press conference, stand up and say "to hell with this, you're lying".

I'm in two minds on how past dopers should be treated. For instance having a complete zero tolerance approach may encourage more lying & omerta, which cant be good. But seeing people like Vino and Riis running teams does kind of stick in the throat a bit (a lot). And would we like to see Armstrong running a team?

Yeah I don't understand this mentality that a rider would do something so irrational as to admit to a press conference that yes, he was/is in fact doping. What kind of person gets upset about a rider not doing that? Boggles the mind.

I get upset about a rider like Hincapie sitting silent while LA castigated Kimmage, attempted to totally discredit him and demean him at a press conference that was televised. Hincapie could have leaned over to LA and said - lay off or Hincapie could have walked out. But Hincapie did not have the morals to do that.

Anyone who cannot see the logic behind my thinking is effectively condoning Hincapie's silence or failure to act. THAT is more than mind-boggling. It shows how empty headed, vacuous and illogically you think. It shows you have no concept of morally correct behaviour and are really no better than Hincapie. With fans like you, cycling will never get clean. Why don't you start calling riders out and quit shooting the messenger. Pathetic.

 

[TheSpud]

I get upset about a rider like Hincapie sitting silent while LA castigated Kimmage, attempted to totally discredit him and demean him at a press conference that was televised. Hincapie could have leaned over to LA and said - lay off or Hincapie could have walked out. But Hincapie did not have the morals to do that.

Anyone who cannot see the logic behind my thinking is effectively condoning Hincapie's silence or failure to act. THAT is more than mind-boggling. It shows how empty headed, vacuous and illogically you think. It shows you have no concept of morally correct behaviour and are really no better than Hincapie. With fans like you, cycling will never get clean. Why don't you start calling riders out and quit shooting the messenger. Pathetic.

I can see your logic and fully understand it and i'm not condoning Hincapie at all, i'm just saying i'm not at all surprised by his actions. He was on Lance's side against Kimmage after all, and omerta ruled. Unless he wanted to end his career there and then he wasnt going to do anything other than remain silent.

Thats not me being immoral or shooting the messenger - its me understanding why certain actions happen.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I can see your logic and fully understand it and i'm not condoning Hincapie at all, i'm just saying i'm not at all surprised by his actions. He was on Lance's side against Kimmage after all, and omerta ruled. Unless he wanted to end his career there and then he wasnt going to do anything other than remain silent.

Thats not me being immoral or shooting the messenger - its me understanding why certain actions happen.

Exactly. There's no been proof, Lance has already won court cases against accusers, but some people think George should be outing Lance or tapping "the boss" on the shoulder. Yeah right.

Then if you disagree, that poster gets all personal.

It's like a scene out of Grumpy Old Men.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I get upset about a rider like Hincapie sitting silent while LA castigated Kimmage, attempted to totally discredit him and demean him at a press conference that was televised. Hincapie could have leaned over to LA and said - lay off or Hincapie could have walked out. But Hincapie did not have the morals to do that.

Anyone who cannot see the logic behind my thinking is effectively condoning Hincapie's silence or failure to act. THAT is more than mind-boggling. It shows how empty headed, vacuous and illogically you think. It shows you have no concept of morally correct behaviour and are really no better than Hincapie. With fans like you, cycling will never get clean. Why don't you start calling riders out and quit shooting the messenger. Pathetic.

I can see your logic and fully understand it and i'm not condoning Hincapie at all, i'm just saying i'm not at all surprised by his actions. He was on Lance's side against Kimmage after all, and omerta ruled. Unless he wanted to end his career there and then he wasnt going to do anything other than remain silent.

Thats not me being immoral or shooting the messenger - its me understanding why certain actions happen.

Choosing not to act, when someone should morally act, explains why the culture of doping persists in cycling. Hincapie is just as complicit as was Verbruggen in his abject failure to act on doping. Attacking me for questioning a cowardly and gutless Hincapie, is a pretty pathetic and bizarre way of going about rationalizing Hincapie's moral failings.

You say you can understand why Hincapie didn't say or do anything. I say I cannot understand how anyone with a claim to intellectual honesty or basic human decency could sit there and allow LA to publicly humiliate Kimmage, all the while knowing LA was full of $h1t.

If you are genuinely interested in clean cycling it would seem more constructive to examine Hincapie's logic as opposed to mine.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I can see your logic and fully understand it and i'm not condoning Hincapie at all, i'm just saying i'm not at all surprised by his actions. He was on Lance's side against Kimmage after all, and omerta ruled. Unless he wanted to end his career there and then he wasnt going to do anything other than remain silent.

Thats not me being immoral or shooting the messenger - its me understanding why certain actions happen.

Exactly. There's no been proof, Lance has already won court cases against accusers, but some people think George should be outing Lance or tapping "the boss" on the shoulder. Yeah right.

Then if you disagree, that poster gets all persona

It's like a scene out of Grumpy Old Men.

The greatest deception from which you suffer is your own opinions.

 

[TheSpud]

Choosing not to act, when someone should morally act, explains why the culture of doping persists in cycling. Hincapie is just as complicit as was Verbruggen in his abject failure to act on doping. Attacking me for questioning a cowardly and gutless Hincapie, is a pretty pathetic and bizarre way of going about rationalizing Hincapie's moral failings.

You say you can understand why Hincapie didn't say or do anything. I say I cannot understand how anyone with a claim to intellectual honesty or basic human decency could sit there and allow LA to publicly humiliate Kimmage, all the while knowing LA was full of $h1t.

If you are genuinely interested in clean cycling it would seem more constructive to examine Hincapie's logic as opposed to mine.

I wasn't attacking you at all.

My logic behind Hincapie's actions is that he was just as much up to his neck in it as LA and had as much to lose, arguably more so as he was a smaller fish and couldn't afford expensive lawyers to protect him. Unfortunately that was the way it was - they were all on the gravy train an omerta ruled. Did it churn him up underneath it all? Who knows?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Choosing not to act, when someone should morally act, explains why the culture of doping persists in cycling. Hincapie is just as complicit as was Verbruggen in his abject failure to act on doping. Attacking me for questioning a cowardly and gutless Hincapie, is a pretty pathetic and bizarre way of going about rationalizing Hincapie's moral failings.

You say you can understand why Hincapie didn't say or do anything. I say I cannot understand how anyone with a claim to intellectual honesty or basic human decency could sit there and allow LA to publicly humiliate Kimmage, all the while knowing LA was full of $h1t.

If you are genuinely interested in clean cycling it would seem more constructive to examine Hincapie's logic as opposed to mine.

I wasn't attacking you at all.

My logic behind Hincapie's actions is that he was just as much up to his neck in it as LA and had as much to lose, arguably more so as he was a smaller fish and couldn't afford expensive lawyers to protect him. Unfortunately that was the way it was - they were all on the gravy train an omerta ruled. Did it churn him up underneath it all? Who knows?

Do we have a single example, anywhere of someone doing what is being proposed? Interrupt a press conference to come clean or to tell your boss to stop lying?

Anywhere?

Talk about delusional.

Back in the real world, as despicable as some may make it out to be, Hincapie's lack of action is entirely understandable.

By real people in the real world I mean.

 

[TheSpud]

Do we have a single example, anywhere of someone doing what is being proposed? Interrupt a press conference to come clean or to tell your boss to stop lying?

Anywhere?

Talk about delusional.

Back in the real world, as despicable as some may make it out to be, Hincapie's lack of action is entirely understandable.

By real people in the real world I mean.

Unfortunately i dont think we do, which is a real shame because that would make for great viewing!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Choosing not to act, when someone should morally act, explains why the culture of doping persists in cycling. Hincapie is just as complicit as was Verbruggen in his abject failure to act on doping. Attacking me for questioning a cowardly and gutless Hincapie, is a pretty pathetic and bizarre way of going about rationalizing Hincapie's moral failings.

You say you can understand why Hincapie didn't say or do anything. I say I cannot understand how anyone with a claim to intellectual honesty or basic human decency could sit there and allow LA to publicly humiliate Kimmage, all the while knowing LA was full of $h1t.

If you are genuinely interested in clean cycling it would seem more constructive to examine Hincapie's logic as opposed to mine.

I wasn't attacking you at all.

My logic behind Hincapie's actions is that he was just as much up to his neck in it as LA and had as much to lose, arguably more so as he was a smaller fish and couldn't afford expensive lawyers to protect him. Unfortunately that was the way it was - they were all on the gravy train an omerta ruled. Did it churn him up underneath it all? Who knows?

Do we have a single example, anywhere of someone doing what is being proposed? Interrupt a press conference to come clean or to tell your boss to stop lying?

Anywhere?

Talk about delusional.

Back in the real world, as despicable as some may make it out to be, Hincapie's lack of action is entirely understandable.

By real people in the real world I mean.

Here is your problem. You don't call out bad behaviour by cyclists when they don't act when they should act. Instead you illogically and stupidly attack me to the effect that it is mind boggling that I would call out Hincapie for not having the moral courage to do something morally and intellectually honestly while Kimmage was taking a drubbing, all the while knowing the truth. You are the one who started this nonsensical personal invective toward me rather than calling out the athlete. This tells me you just don't get it. It is not me who is doping and silently sanctioning Armtrong's behaviour. it was Hincapie and all the other Armstrong lackeys.

In his book Inside Dope, Dic! Pound says this,

" This is a call to action - serious and concerted - by those who believe in sport. No matter who and where you are, speak out against cheating, against those who assist the cheaters and those responsible for sport who do not do everything in their power to fulfill their responsibilities. Make an example of them ..."

So I speak out against Hincapie and what do you do - you attack me for being "mind boggling" This demonstrates your priorities are all fuc!ed up. You attack the messenger and not the message. You and Spud just don't get it and you waste your absurd verbiage attacking me?

As I have said before, you are one of these posters who simply likes to read their own words in print from your anonymous cave some where south of the equator. Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. The epithet fits you.

 

[D-Queued]

Choosing not to act, when someone should morally act, explains why the culture of doping persists in cycling. Hincapie is just as complicit as was Verbruggen in his abject failure to act on doping. Attacking me for questioning a cowardly and gutless Hincapie, is a pretty pathetic and bizarre way of going about rationalizing Hincapie's moral failings.

You say you can understand why Hincapie didn't say or do anything. I say I cannot understand how anyone with a claim to intellectual honesty or basic human decency could sit there and allow LA to publicly humiliate Kimmage, all the while knowing LA was full of $h1t.

If you are genuinely interested in clean cycling it would seem more constructive to examine Hincapie's logic as opposed to mine.

I wasn't attacking you at all.

My logic behind Hincapie's actions is that he was just as much up to his neck in it as LA and had as much to lose, arguably more so as he was a smaller fish and couldn't afford expensive lawyers to protect him. Unfortunately that was the way it was - they were all on the gravy train an omerta ruled. Did it churn him up underneath it all? Who knows?

Do we have a single example, anywhere of someone doing what is being proposed? Interrupt a press conference to come clean or to tell your boss to stop lying?

Anywhere?

Talk about delusional.

Back in the real world, as despicable as some may make it out to be, Hincapie's lack of action is entirely understandable.

By real people in the real world I mean.

Good question. Had to think real hard on it. And, well, maybe we actually do. Like just up and vomiting all over your host, or going and shooting someone in the face.

You may recall that right when Japan was kicking serious US automaker butt, George HW decided to throw up on the Japanese Prime Minister.* That was pretty darn public.

Then there was 'You're no friend of mine' Cheney shooting a Texas attorney in the face. Details are scant, but the incident presumably happened after what may have been some bad advice on finding WMDs which invoked that old yarn about ducks in a barrel.* Ok, not as public when it happened, but hard to hide it under the carpet.

Just saying.

Dave.

*NB: Neither of these represents any sort of political statement as the incidents themselves are non-fictional.

 

[neineinei]

Re:

The report gives some insight into the use of TUE's.

A total of 207,513 samples were received and analyzed in 2013 by WADA-accredited laboratories. 2,540 samples were reported as AAFs. Of these:
- 1,687 (66%) samples were confirmed as ADRVs (sanctions);
- 223 (9%) samples were dismissed because of a valid TUE held by the athlete;
- 347 (14%) were categorized as “no case to answer” (i.e. case closed for a valid reason other than a TUE);
- 106 (4%) samples resulted in “no sanction” because the athlete was exonerated; and
- 177 (7%) samples were still pending.

UCI:
9,430 samples collected (urine and blood samples for regular doping tests, blood samples for the bio passport not included)
91 samples were reported as AAF's. Of these:
- 47 (52%) samples were reported as ADRV's (sanctions);
- 14 (15%) samples were dismissed because of a valid TUE held by the athlete;
- 19 (21%) samples were categorized as “no case to answer” (i.e. case closed for a valid reason other than a TUE);
- 4 (4%) samples resulted in “no sanction” because the athlete was exonerated; and
- 7 (8%) samples were still pending.

The results for all cycling. UCI's tests/ADRV's etc, are included, with tests done by national anti-doping agencies etc. (p. 7)

22,252 samples
278 AAF's
153 ADRV's (55%)
27 TUE's (10%)
52 "No case to answer" (19%)
15 "No sanction" (5%)
31 Pending (11%)