Leaked IAAf report on doping

Notwork Error

menoscemo wrote: »

There's a poster on LR at the moment saying he was there on the day of the 2003 HM championships and that neither Paula nor any other athletes were tested for at least 90 minutes after finishing.
While still inside the 2hr window that would mean she certainly wasn't tested immediately after finishing as she claims.

Now I wouldn't normally quote some randomer; but from his email address (linked to his screen name Antonio Cabral), he would seem to be a legit elite Portuguese distance running coach.

Troll handle. Cabral has a Sig always under his name.

You can type any e-mail address into letsrun, it doesn't need to be real.

menoscemo

Notwork Error wrote: »

Troll handle. Cabral has a Sig always under his name.

You can type any e-mail address into letsrun, it doesn't need to be real.

Cheers for the info....In that case I have deleted my message!!

robinph

ThisRegard wrote: »

He writes for the Indo so your insinuations are way off. The tweet you linked to is innocuous enough I think, dripping in sarcasm is the worse that can be said.

Wasn't sure which paper he wrote for now, knew he had something to do with the Times though. Certain there was a tweet from him previously effectively saying that the mysterious super injuction was by Radcliffe. Google failed me and gave me a different tweet on my search but I didn't spot it.

Oops.

Notwork Error

menoscemo wrote: »

Cheers for the info....In that case I have deleted my message!!

Actually sorry, I take that back. Doesn't seem to have that Sig since 2013. Still don't know if it's actually him though. Find it strange that he'd come out and say what he did.

menoscemo

Notwork Error wrote: »

Actually sorry, I take that back. Doesn't seem to have that Sig since 2013. Still don't know if it's actually him though. Find it strange that he'd come out and say what he did.

You can keep it for posterity in your quote so!!
It seems to be getting a bit of traction on the twitter machine anyway.

I guess if it is him, he is saying it because he is offering himself as a witness and doesn't know where else to go? Either that or he has some beef...

NIMAN

Kimmage for the Late Late Show tomorrow night anyone?

average_runner

menoscemo wrote: »

You can keep it for posterity in your quote so!!
It seems to be getting a bit of traction on the twitter machine anyway.

I guess if it is him, he is saying it because he is offering himself as a witness and doesn't know where else to go? Either that or he has some beef...

What page on Twitter?

menoscemo

average_runner wrote: »

What page on Twitter?

@digger_forum (pretty sure it's not our digger :P)

CramCycle

pconn062 wrote: »

You can replace the word athletics in your first line there with any sport or maybe just "sport". Sport has a doping issue and not even just sports that are full of money, look at that GAA lad that was banned for doping earlier this year, he's hardly a once off is he??

Indeed, when I was in college I remember a lecturer talking about premiership teams using blood doping for treatments, and no one ever questioning it because they don't care, there claim was something along the lines of increasing white blood cell count to aid healing, basically an excuse to cover blood doping. I have seen a runner in Ireland years ago who improved hugely in a month (although subsequently caught, so the system works for some sports), there are cyclists here at club level who I find it hard to believe do what they do, I could be wrong but outclimbing some of the strongest youth riders on a tough race when they are neither built for it, nor could do it not a long time before is surprising.

I would love to see more targetted tests as well as an increase in tests in general but some sports just don't care. Athletics and Cycling seem to care among their fans and all they get in return is a bad reputation.

robinph wrote: »

They are going to need to have more than just quoting "leading anti-doping scientists" credentials/ opinions back and forth which is really all there has been so far between the Sunday Times and the IAAF.

If they have more data then we obviously want to see that now. I don't get the impression that there is anything more out there other than arguing over "my scientist is better than your scientist" type carry on.

Agreed, if they are that "leading" and they are confident in their analysis, put pen to paper and have their name beside it or just don't say it at all.

NIMAN wrote: »

I have no doubt there is doping in all sport at the top-level. My own favoured sport, soccer, is probably rife with it, the testing is awful.

There are plenty of stories aroind European soccer over the years that certainly point to doping at the top of the game.

There have even been cover ups by world cup teams, but yet all large scale investigations only seem to release the names of runners and cyclists (with a few others but they cover the majority).

Chivito550 wrote: »

Oh absolutely. Just saying that threatening to sue is not evidence of guilt.

Not at all, and it is quite likely that she got legal advice and they said, this is what to do.

Stheno wrote: »

Sky news is reporting they have obtained the data

I wonder will they make it like an episode of CSI and have Rupert directing people to look at the evidence with some fancy camera work.

robinph wrote: »

Wasn't sure which paper he wrote for now, knew he had something to do with the Times though. Certain there was a tweet from him previously effectively saying that the mysterious super injuction was by Radcliffe. Google failed me and gave me a different tweet on my search but I didn't spot it.

Oops.

I thought he was mainly doing spots for the Indo, random spots for smaller media outlets etc.

walshb

The threatening to sue is bloody well right. I hope she does get vindicated and compensated heavily.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

The threatening to sue is bloody well right. I hope she does get vindicated and compensated heavily.

Compensated for what exactly? The ST published details of a report saying a prominent British athlete had 3 abnormal blood values. Radcliffe has since admitted this herself.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Compensated for what exactly? The ST published details of a report saying a prominent British athlete had 3 abnormal blood values. Radcliffe has since admitted this herself.

She should use whatever legal avenues are open to her to protect her name and reputation, which has already been damaged by these "revelations." If that means that she could possibly sue, then go for it. The law is far from black and white. If there's an opening for her to hit back and "clear" her name then I would back her. I am not a legal expert, so I don't know what is there for Paula. But I'd be confident that she and her team are exploring all avenues. She's an innocent person who's having her name dragged through the mud.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

She should use whatever legal avenues are open to her to protect her name and reputation, which has already been damaged by these "revelations." If that means that she could possibly sue, then go for it. The law is far from black and white. If there's an opening for her to hit back and "clear" her name then I would back her. I am not a legal expert, so I don't know what is there for Paula. But I'd be confident that she and her team are exploring all avenues. She's an innocent person who's having her name dragged through the mud.

For your sake I hope she doesn't end up disappointing you...

youngrun

Hard to believe the ST could publish an article on blood values/suspected doping without including subsequent test results or issues followed up by WADA IAAF UKA USADA etc if any? Smacks of sensationalist and insinuating journalism, and half assed reporting. Why only put half the story out there.I guess it sells papers.

robinph

youngrun wrote: »

Hard to believe the ST could publish an article on blood values/suspected doping without including subsequent test results or issues followed up by WADA IAAF UKA USADA etc if any? Smacks of sensationalist and insinuating journalism, and half assed reporting. Why only put half the story out there.I guess it sells papers.

I believe the initial story was just along the lines of "IAAF doesn't follow up on test results". But the story then morphed into "British marathon winner has dodgy test results" and that gave the story more legs.

Unless the Sunday Times is still sitting on something really remarkable about a specific runner I'd expect this weekends story to just be rebuttals of scientists comparing the sizes of their qualifications on blood doping. I'm sure there would have been more hints of damning evidence against specific athletes if the Sunday Times had any, or they would just have printed it in the first place.

The story about the governing body not doing enough just changed along the way. If the story could change back to what it started as then it might result in anti doping bodies getting more funding to be able to their work. It has probably gone too far down the route of allegations against Radcliffe now though for any good to come of the initial story.

Halloween Jack

robinph wrote: »

I believe the initial story was just along the lines of "IAAF doesn't follow up on test results". But the story then morphed into "British marathon winner has dodgy test results" and that gave the story more legs.

Unless the Sunday Times is still sitting on something really remarkable about a specific runner I'd expect this weekends story to just be rebuttals of scientists comparing the sizes of their qualifications on blood doping. I'm sure there would have been more hints of damning evidence against specific athletes if the Sunday Times had any, or they would just have printed it in the first place.

The story about the governing body not doing enough just changed along the way. If the story could change back to what it started as then it might result in anti doping bodies getting more funding to be able to their work. It has probably gone too far down the route of allegations against Radcliffe now though for any good to come of the initial story.

Speaking of the IAAF not doing enough, here's an excerpt of the WADA report they blocked:

robinph

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Speaking of the IAAF not doing enough, here's an excerpt of the WADA report they blocked:

The big story should be the one about IAAF etc not doing enough, and/ or not having the funds to do enough testing and follow ups.

Not seen anyone claim that they didn't do any follow up testing on Radcliffe though, or that they were not looking at al of her results very closely.

menoscemo

robinph wrote: »

Not seen anyone claim that they didn't do any follow up testing on Radcliffe though, or that they were not looking at al of her results very closely.

I doubt anyone is going to say they didn't. According to PR they followed up by testing her Urine for EPO, but that is hardly an effective test in the circumstances.

Paula's explanation of her highest blood markers involves racing 30c+ heat and having her blood removed immediately after the race.
It has now been shown that the temperature in Vilamoura that day maxed out at 24c and witnesses have come forward to say she wasn't tested until at least 90 minutes after the finish.

While the first exaggeration is probably understandable (we always remember our races to be a little warmer than they were), they should have checked their facts before making an official statement.
On the second point, if it is proven that she didn't in fact get tested until long after the finish of the race (having had time to shower, rehydrate etc) then I do think it is significant that she has exaggerated the story.

youngrun

robinph wrote: »

The big story should be the one about IAAF etc not doing enough, and/ or not having the funds to do enough testing and follow ups.

Not seen anyone claim that they didn't do any follow up testing on Radcliffe though, or that they were not looking at al of her results very closely.

IAAF Not doing enough ? Theres a lot here . What do they have to do in todays guilty until proven innocent climate ?

http://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/statement-response-ard-sunday-times-anti-dopi

wrstan

robinph wrote: »

The big story should be the one about IAAF etc not doing enough, and/ or not having the funds to do enough testing and follow ups.

In my opinion the IAAF are the ones who are most guilty of ruining this sport. I have no idea whether PR is clean or not. I dearly hope she is, and on balance I believe she is, I think! Truth is I am not at all sure what I believe anymore. For sure there are no winners in this situation. If PR was a dirty athlete, then she has lied and deceived us all in the most despicable way. If she is clean, then her reputation has been unfairly and irreparably damaged! Either outcome is tragic, and upsets me greatly. :mad:

But I believe that due to their ambivalence in relation to proven drugs cheats, and their wholesale failure to establish a testing regime that is robust and reliable, the IAAF have totally failed to protect clean athletes. If the IAAF were ruthless about removing unclean/suspicious athletes, coaches, medics etc. from the sport, then we would have a lot more confidence that those competing were clean, and we would be so much less inclined to question stunning performances.

We now have a farcical situation where we have a sport where its fundamental objective is to run fastest/throw farthest/jump longest, but when
an athlete actually achieves this objective, the suspicion of cheating is never far away.

There has been a wholesale failure by the IAAF (and I've not doubt other codes also Chivito) to give us any confidence in our elite athletes, by letting cheats compete with them on an equal footing. And quite frankly any words I've heard from Mr. Coe over the past few weeks, make me want to puke! It's hard not to despair, :mad:

walshb

youngrun wrote: »

IAAF Not doing enough ? Theres a lot here . What do they have to do in todays guilty until proven innocent climate ?

http://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/statement-response-ard-sunday-times-anti-dopi

That's just it. No matter what the IAAF do or what the athletes do it all goes back to (fopr some people) passing tests means nothing. Sorry, passing tests means everything, despite it not being 100 percent proof. Very little in life is 100 percent. It's the only current way we conduct testing, by testing. If passed and passing then what else can we say?

walshb

wrstan wrote: »

If she is clean, then her reputation has been unfairly and irreparably damaged! Either outcome is tragic, and upsets me greatly. :mad:

But according to many no athlete can prove they're clean. So, by that logic her reputation has been badly damaged, and she cannot ever clean her image to some people. Even without these reports and readings her reputation is damaged because to some passing tests proves little or nothing.

wrstan

walshb wrote: »

But according to many no athlete can prove they're clean. So, by that logic her reputation has been badly damaged, and she cannot ever clean her image to some people. Even without these reports and readings her reputation is damaged because to some passing tests proves little or nothing.

But we have a farcical situation where passing a test does not necessarily prove an athlete is clean, and having a suspicious blood value does not necessarily prove an athlete is taking drugs! - this is a total failure to protect clean athletes.

And in the meantime, convicted drugs cheats are allowed back to compete.

youngrun

wrstan wrote: »

In my opinion the IAAF are the ones who are most guilty of ruining this sport. I have no idea whether PR is clean or not. I dearly hope she is, and on balance I believe she is, I think! Truth is I am not at all sure what I believe anymore. For sure there are no winners in this situation. If PR was a dirty athlete, then she has lied and deceived us all in the most despicable way. If she is clean, then her reputation has been unfairly and irreparably damaged! Either outcome is tragic, and upsets me greatly. :mad:

But I believe that due to their ambivalence in relation to proven drugs cheats, and their wholesale failure to establish a testing regime that is robust and reliable, the IAAF have totally failed to protect clean athletes. If the IAAF were ruthless about removing unclean/suspicious athletes, coaches, medics etc. from the sport, then we would have a lot more confidence that those competing were clean, and we would be so much less inclined to question stunning performances.

We now have a farcical situation where we have a sport where its fundamental objective is to run fastest/throw farthest/jump longest, but when
an athlete actually achieves this objective, the suspicion of cheating is never far away.

There has been a wholesale failure by the IAAF (and I've not doubt other codes also Chivito) to give us any confidence in our elite athletes, by letting cheats compete with them on an equal footing. And quite frankly any words I've heard from Mr. Coe over the past few weeks, make me want to puke! It's hard not to despair, :mad:

Wholesale failure ? How? Ambivalence re who ?

Have you read this?
http://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/statement-response-ard-sunday-times-anti-dopi

Or read these? http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/documents/anti-doping

Irish anti doping - how about this ? http://hp.athleticsireland.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemid=178

What else can they do ? Release everyones data into the public arena for endless undeucated guessing and mud throwing ? Life bans that will be shot down in court ?
' We now have a farcical situation where we have a sport where its fundamental objective is to run fastest/throw farthest/jump longest, but when
an athlete actually achieves this objective, the suspicion of cheating is never far away.'
Re this I blame the Sunday Times sensationalist and half truth reporting not the IAAF.

Sandwell

youngrun wrote: »

IAAF Not doing enough ? Theres a lot here . What do they have to do in todays guilty until proven innocent climate ?

http://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/statement-response-ard-sunday-times-anti-dopi

Umm, lets see.

Be transparent. They could start by handing over anti-doping responsibility to an independent third party.
Test more. The amount of testing done at the WCs was totally unsatisfactory.
Life bans.
Suspend participation in IAAF competition by athletes from countries with shambolic testing regimes.
Stop attacking the messenger.

It's not rocket science.

Halloween Jack

Sandwell wrote: »

Umm, lets see.

Be transparent. They could start by handing over anti-doping responsibility to an independent third party.
Test more. The amount of testing done at the WCs was totally unsatisfactory.
Life bans.
Suspend participation in IAAF competition by athletes from countries with shambolic testing regimes.
Stop attacking the messenger.

It's not rocket science.

The salient point here is to remove governing bodies from anti-doping responsibility.

They have too much to lose in scandals erupting so chose to cover up where possible.

Dick pound has claimed that the science behind catching the cheats is fairly robust these days, it's the political will to tackle doping which is lacking.

walshb

I am no expert but IMO track and field is probably the most competent and serious sport as regards outing the dopers. If what they are doing is shambolic, then the sporting world is truly fcuked.

To throw out such a blanket statement to the world of T&F (and its authorities) as regards how they are tackling the issue of PEDs in their sport, is lazy and wrong, and ridiculously unfounded.

menoscemo

From her own Autobiography,


PR says that she was blood tested Before the 2003 HM championships (no mention of after) and that she was not tested for EPO.
While I am not 100% sure of the significance of this, it totally contradicts the story she has been putting out in the last few days. Also there is no mention of hot temperatures etc...I have to say all the contradictions and half truths are not doing her any favours...

Halloween Jack

menoscemo wrote: »

From her own Autobiography,


PR says that she was blood tested Before the 2003 HM championships (no mention of after) and that she was not tested for EPO.
While I am not 100% sure of the significance of this, it totally contradicts the story she has been putting out in the last few days. Also there is no mention of hot temperatures etc...I have to say all the contradictions and half truths are not doing her any favours...

If you check out @scienceofsport on Twitter he analyses the stuff that's in the public domain. Interesting.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

I am no expert but IMO track and field is probably the most competent and serious sport as regards outing the dopers. If what they are doing is shambolic, then the sporting world is truly fcuked.

To throw out such a blanket statement to the world of T&F (and its authorities) as regards how they are tackling the issue of PEDs in their sport, is lazy and wrong, and ridiculously unfounded.

The WADA report the IAAF blocked says otherwise