Leaked IAAf report on doping

scaryfairy

have you seen this one: Jo Pavey set to be retrospectively awarded world championships bronze

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/13/jo-pavey-retrospectively-awarded-bronze-medal-2007-world-championships

macinalli

Pherekydes wrote:

A 'ceiling of normality' would be a purely arbitrary line drawn in the sand.

This point was raised by David Epstein on Second Captains recently. Apparently there was a case a few years ago of a cross country skier with massive levels of human growth hormone. An arbitrary limit was picked and the skier was banned. Skier took a case to CAS and the ban was overturned as the governing body had no basis for the limit they picked. The same applies to the IAAF; they could set a limit and ban lots of probable doping athletes, but end up losing lots of cases at the CAS.

Clearlier

macinalli wrote: »

This point was raised by David Epstein on Second Captains recently. Apparently there was a case a few years ago of a cross country skier with massive levels of human growth hormone. An arbitrary limit was picked and the skier was banned. Skier took a case to CAS and the ban was overturned as the governing body had no basis for the limit they picked. The same applies to the IAAF; they could set a limit and ban lots of probable doping athletes, but end up losing lots of cases at the CAS.

The cycling limit was justified for health reasons - several cyclists died from doping. I'm not aware of similar instances within athletics though.

Pherekydes

macinalli wrote: »

This point was raised by David Epstein on Second Captains recently. Apparently there was a case a few years ago of a cross country skier with massive levels of human growth hormone. An arbitrary limit was picked and the skier was banned. Skier took a case to CAS and the ban was overturned as the governing body had no basis for the limit they picked. The same applies to the IAAF; they could set a limit and ban lots of probable doping athletes, but end up losing lots of cases at the CAS.

This is the case alluded to: The Andrus Veerpalu case.

Far from having massive levels of hGH, "The hGH concentrations themselves were found to be relatively low...". The WADA case rested on the ratio of recombinant GH to pitiutary GH, the decision level of which was set arbitrarily.

The Rape of Lucretia

demfad wrote: »

I hope so too. Hope he's saying what needs to be said in order to be elected and may take the issue to task once he has the power to do so.

Are the any suspicions in the public arena about Coe's career ?

Very successful white guy in athletics. From a country with several other contemporary successful guys as some of his major competition. Competing against known PED users. In an era when PED use in the communist block was ubiquitous.

torqtorq

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Are the any suspicions in the public arena about Coe's career ?

Very successful white guy in athletics. From a country with several other contemporary successful guys as some of his major competition. Competing against known PED users. In an era when PED use in the communist block was ubiquitous.

Seb Coe is 1 quarter Indian.

Ultrapussy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Are the any suspicions in the public arena about Coe's career ?

Very successful white guy in athletics. From a country with several other contemporary successful guys as some of his major competition. Competing against known PED users. In an era when PED use in the communist block was ubiquitous.

Peter Coe and David Martin espoused the benefits of EPO in the first edition of their book. (All references to the benefits of EPO were removed/omitted from subsequent editions.) Not saying Coe was fuelling up on fizz but I don't think it was a banned substance back in the old days...

Notwork Error

Ultrapussy wrote: »

Peter Coe and David Martin espoused the benefits of EPO in the first edition of their book. (All references to the benefits of EPO were removed/omitted from subsequent editions.) Not saying Coe was fuelling up on fizz but I don't think it was a banned substance back in the old days...

It didn't exist during Coe's career as far as I know. The drug was under development since the early 70's but never found a sponsor until the mid-80's to go into production. The first known use of the drug in athletes was from the Conconi files in the very late 80's as test subjects so I would highly doubt Coe ever used it during his career. Other drugs maybe but definitely not EPO.

Nermal

macinalli wrote: »

Skier took a case to CAS and the ban was overturned as the governing body had no basis for the limit they picked. The same applies to the IAAF; they could set a limit and ban lots of probable doping athletes, but end up losing lots of cases at the CAS.

The same geniuses at the CAS who recently ruled there was no evidence that higher testosterone makes you run faster and let Dutee Chand compete, so you more or less have to be a hermaphrodite now to win female events.

Chivito550

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Are the any suspicions in the public arena about Coe's career ?

Very successful white guy in athletics. From a country with several other contemporary successful guys as some of his major competition. Competing against known PED users. In an era when PED use in the communist block was ubiquitous.

To be fair the Kenyans hadn't really become a big force during Coe's era, particularly not over 800m, like they are now. Also the doping in the Eastern Bloc didn't have near the same effects for men as for their women. Coe's victories alone wouldn't warrant any suspicion to be honest. The 1:41 back in the early 80s is eye opening though. The event has only come on less than 1 second since.

The Rape of Lucretia

Chivito550 wrote: »

To be fair the Kenyans hadn't really become a big force during Coe's era, particularly not over 800m, like they are now. Also the doping in the Eastern Bloc didn't have near the same effects for men as for their women. Coe's victories alone wouldn't warrant any suspicion to be honest. The 1:41 back in the early 80s is eye opening though. The event has only come on less than 1 second since.

Even his 1500m time though is in a range that while the Africans are doing it for fun today, is not being touched by white men since that period 30 years ago. In that light, with no improvement in 30 years, his time really is out there even if not to the extent of his 800m.

Chivito550

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Even his 1500m time though is in a range that while the Africans are doing it for fun today, is not being touched by white men since that period 30 years ago. In that light, with no improvement in 30 years, his time really is out there even if not to the extent of his 800m.

Nick Willis ran 3:29 recently, and he did so last year too.

menoscemo

https://twitter.com/MrDavidNicholls/status/631755739229458432

macinalli

Nermal wrote:

The same geniuses at the CAS who recently ruled there was no evidence that higher testosterone makes you run faster and let Dutee Chand compete, so you more or less have to be a hermaphrodite now to win female events.

CAS is primarily a legal body. They make their decisions based on the evidence presented to them. Am not familiar with the Dutee Chand case but I read that they decided there was insufficient evidence presented to confirm the link between the two. There's a difference between that and simply stating there's no link between the two, but that's what lawyers live on!

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

To be fair the Kenyans hadn't really become a big force during Coe's era, particularly not over 800m, like they are now. Also the doping in the Eastern Bloc didn't have near the same effects for men as for their women. Coe's victories alone wouldn't warrant any suspicion to be honest. The 1:41 back in the early 80s is eye opening though. The event has only come on less than 1 second since.

Why wouldn't his victories/WRs warrant suspicion? That seems to be the crux for a lot of people. Extraordinary achievements are meant with "it has to be drugs." At one point in the early 80s didn't Coe hold 3 or 4 WRs simultaneously? Mo Farrah holds zero WRs, and never did, and he's all over the news....

I hate selectivity!

shels4ever

menoscemo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MrDavidNicholls/status/631755739229458432

Seems like he has just heard the rumors now and doesn't have anything new to add?

average_runner

shels4ever wrote: »

Seems like he has just heard the rumors now and doesn't have anything new to add?

How long does a super injunction last?

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Why wouldn't his WRs warrant suspicion? That seems to be the crux for a lot of people. Extraordinary achievements are meant with "it has to be drugs." At one point in the early 80s didn't Coe hold 3 or 4 WRs simultaneously? Mo Farrah holds zero WRs, and never did, and he's all over the news....

I hate selectivity!

Not sure you read my post right. What I said was his VICTORIES ALONE wouldn't warrant suspicion, as the Kenyans hadn't emerged then, and the Eastern Bloc weren't as strong for men as for women (my argument to points made by a previous poster that Coe should be seen as suspicious as he was a white guy beating drugged up athletes from Communist countries).

I did say however that his 1:41 could be viewed as suspicious, as 34 years on and the event is only less than a second faster, and only a handful of guys have gone quicker.

pconn062

menoscemo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MrDavidNicholls/status/631755739229458432

1. Who is David Nicholls and why should we care about some random tweet he puts up? Apparently he's "Features Director of House & Garden", so where is he getting his sources from?

2. If you know something then just say it, this innuendo crap is very annoying and reeks of attention seeking.

Not having a go at you meno, just seen a few of these "ooh you wait, you won't believe what I've just heard" type tweets.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Not sure you read my post right. What I said was his VICTORIES ALONE wouldn't warrant suspicion, as the Kenyans hadn't emerged then, and the Eastern Bloc weren't as strong for men as for women (my argument to points made by a previous poster that Coe should be seen as suspicious as he was a white guy beating drugged up athletes from Communist countries).

I did say however that his 1:41 could be viewed as suspicious, as 34 years on and the event is only less than a second faster, and only a handful of guys have gone quicker.

I just edited my post before I read your reply. I guess I am adding in his WRs from the early 80s. Some of those victories resulted in WRs. Whether or not Kenyans raced him then is irrelevant. I think Coe was clean, as was Ovett and Cram. But I wouldn't at all be surprised if they had used.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I just edited my post before I read your reply. I guess I am adding in his WRs from the early 80s. Some of those victories resulted in WRs. Whether or not Kenyans raced him then is irrelevant. I think Coe was clean, as was Ovett and Cram. But I wouldn't at all be surprised if they had used.

Yeh I'd be the same. I think Coe was clean, but I have no strong basis for that belief, and wouldn't bother trying to argue a case for why I think so, as my belief is only based on a hunch. I'd be very confident Cram is clean listening to him talk about doping, though that's no guarantee either.

menoscemo

pconn062 wrote: »

1. Who is David Nicholls and why should we care about some random tweet he puts up? Apparently he's "Features Director of House & Garden", so where is he getting his sources from?

2. If you know something then just say it, this innuendo crap is very annoying and reeks of attention seeking.

Yeah, probably right (shels too). I saw it was reported on let's run last night and figured he was someone important, I was wrong.
However, whoever he is he seems to have a big following and I guess it shows the rumours are spreading into the mainstream.

TRR_the_turd

pconn062 wrote: »

1. Who is David Nicholls and why should we care about some random tweet he puts up? Apparently he's "Features Director of House & Garden", so where is he getting his sources from?

2. If you know something then just say it, this innuendo crap is very annoying and reeks of attention seeking.

Not having a go at you meno, just seen a few of these "ooh you wait, you won't believe what I've just heard" type tweets.

Thank you. I was wondering who the hell David Nicholls is! And now I know I couldn't give a hoot what he says. Bloody social media

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh I'd be the same. I think Coe was clean, but I have no strong basis for that belief, and wouldn't bother trying to argue a case for why I think so, as my belief is only based on a hunch. I'd be very confident Cram is clean listening to him talk about doping, though that's no guarantee either.

I'm the exact same. Most times it boils down to hearing the athlete speaking and becoming familiar with them. You gain a sense of trust from them. Bolt to me is that athlete. His whole persona and demeanor and attitude. He espouses honesty and fun and genuineness and sincerity. I also get that vibe from Farrah. Of course, times and progressions are looked at as well.

Krusty_Clown

menoscemo wrote: »

whoever he is he seems to have a big following

Certainly amongst interior decorators and landscape gardeners. Wait... Is that the next wave of the doping scandal? Always had my doubts about that Gok fella. Explains a hell of a lot.

walshb

All we need is Kim Kardashian to get on the bandwagon and this "scandal" is a runner.

menoscemo

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Certainly amongst interior decorators and landscape gardeners. Wait... Is that the next wave of the doping scandal? Always had my doubts about that Gok fella. Explains a hell of a lot.

Yeah fair enough, 'hands up'. I thought it was something important because David Epstein retweeted it but I have just checked again and he has subsequently admitted that he has only just heard last week's rumours.

Carry on...

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

I'm the exact same. Most times it boils down to hearing the athlete speaking and becoming familiar with them. You gain a sense of trust from them. Bolt to me is that athlete. His whole persona and demeanor and attitude. He espouses honesty and fun and genuineness and sincerity. I also get that vibe from Farrah. Of course, times and progressions are looked at as well.

Let's not forget though that the GB athlete who is strongly suspected to be the mystery name at the centre of this scandal was completely anti-doping, so it's no guarantee. Though in her case she wasn't as vocal after 2001.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Let's not forget though that the GB athlete who is strongly suspected to be the mystery name at the centre of this scandal was completely anti-doping, so it's no guarantee. Though in her case she wasn't as vocal after 2001.

Indeed. Hence my future astonishment should it transpire that the athlete was an intentional PED user. Hand on heart I would say the athlete was not a cheat.

Clearlier

Nermal wrote: »

The same geniuses at the CAS who recently ruled there was no evidence that higher testosterone makes you run faster and let Dutee Chand compete, <snip>.

That's just straight up incorrect about testosterone. CAS determined the opposite.

Quoting from section 489 of the decision from CAS.

On a balance of probabilities, the Athlete did not establish that testosterone is not a material fact in determining athletic performance

and further from section 494

The Panel is satisfied that that there is such a difference in average testosterone levels and that this marker can be relied on for the purposes of differentiating male and female populations. That is, the Panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the IAAF is reasonably entitled to rely on testosterone for this purpose.

and then section 499

The Panel is satisfied, to the requisite standard of proof, that there is a scientific basis in the use of testosterone as a marker for the purposes of the Hyperandrogenism Regulations.

In their conclusion CAS explicitly recognise that increased level of testosterone confer a performance benefit - what they say that the IAAF have failed to prove is that it is of sufficient benefit to justify excluding women with raised testosterone levels from competing with other women as the benefit does not explain all of the difference in performance (or even a very large part of it) between men and women.

However rather than throwing out the IAAF regulations they have instead suspended them for two years - basically offering the IAAF the opportunity to gather evidence in support of their claim.

Section 533 - 534

The Panel has accepted that testosterone is a key causative factor in the increased LBM in males. The Panel accepts that increased LCM confers a competitive advantage. The Panel accepts the evidence that male athletes have a competitive advantage over female athletes of the order of 10-12%; that LBM is of key importance in conferring this advantage; and that separation between male and female athletes is therefore justifiable in the interests of fair competition. There is, however, an assumption involved in the Hyperandrogenism Regulation as a proportionate justification for discriminating between females. The assumption is that an endogenous testosterone level within the male range + virilisation (indicating sensitivity to the high level of testosterone) = a degree of competitive advantage over non-hyperandrogenic females of commensurate significance to the competitive advantage that male athletes enjoy over female athletes.

This assumption may well be proved valid but, on the present evidence, the Panel cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this is so. The Panel has accepted that testosterone is the best indicator of performance difference between male and female athletes. However, the evidence does not go so far as to equate, or correlate, the level of testosterone in females with a percentage increase in competitive advantage. The evidence does not, for example, establish an advantage of 12% rather than say 1% or 3%. Once the degree of competitive advantage is established, the IAAF would then need to consider, if the degree of advantage were well below 12%, whether that justified excluding women with that advantage from the female category.

The Rape of Lucretia

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh I'd be the same. I think Coe was clean, but I have no strong basis for that belief, and wouldn't bother trying to argue a case for why I think so, as my belief is only based on a hunch. I'd be very confident Cram is clean listening to him talk about doping, though that's no guarantee either.

Those guys culd have a lot of leeway to be very economical with the truth. If they were ahead of the curve in using PEDs, which three white guys setting the pace and performaces that do stick out as anomolous (one guy possbly, three guys? From the same country ? The wrong race ? Against known dopers ?), then stuff that was not banned at the time, gives them plenty of scope to be anti-banned substances in their statements now. Murky.

Chivito550

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Those guys culd have a lot of leeway to be very economical with the truth. If they were ahead of the curve in using PEDs, which three white guys setting the pace and performaces that do stick out as anomolous (one guy possbly, three guys? From the same country ? The wrong race ? Against known dopers ?), then stuff that was not banned at the time, gives them plenty of scope to be anti-banned substances in their statements now. Murky.

What's your obsession with skin colour? This is the late 70s, early to mid 80s we are talking about. Most distance events were won by white people back then. You are applying today's athletics environment (East Africans dominating) to 30 years ago, which is frankly clueless.

oldrunner

I guess the rules on speculation about individuals doping has been dropped. At least 11 footballers and several athletes all being openly speculated about.

walshb

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Those guys culd have a lot of leeway to be very economical with the truth. If they were ahead of the curve in using PEDs, which three white guys setting the pace and performaces that do stick out as anomolous (one guy possbly, three guys? From the same country ? The wrong race ? Against known dopers ?), then stuff that was not banned at the time, gives them plenty of scope to be anti-banned substances in their statements now. Murky.

As mentioned, or alluded to, back in the 70s and earlier 80s the white men were the ones leading the way in middle distance running.

shels4ever

walshb wrote: »

As mentioned, or alluded to, back in the 70s and earlier 80s the white men were the ones leading the way in doping.

Yep I agree

walshb

shels4ever wrote: »

Yep I agree

Legal blood doping!

shels4ever

walshb wrote: »

Legal blood doping!

Should do what was done in javlin a few years back, scrap all old records and start again.

walshb

shels4ever wrote: »

Should do what was done in javlin a few years back, scrap all old records and start again.

Or simply ban banning PEDs.....It's become a joke.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Or simply ban banning PEDs.....It's become a joke.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Let them at it. Maybe bring in threshold levels for a list of PEDs. Man will always strive to progress. Why hold back the tide? It happens in F1, and other sports too use money and technology to be better than their competitors. May actually see a more level playing field if the authorities simply allow humans to compete in T&F.

Notwork Error

walshb wrote: »

Let them at it. Maybe bring in threshold levels for a list of PEDs. Man will always strive to progress. Why hold back the tide? It happens in F1, and other sports too use money and technology to be better than their competitors. May actually see a more level playing field if the authorities simply allow humans to compete in T&F.

No.

walshb

Notwork Error wrote: »

No.

Banning PEDs or aids or technology or anything else that allows us to possibly improve goes completely against human nature.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Let them at it. Maybe bring in threshold levels for a list of PEDs. Man will always strive to progress. Why hold back the tide? It happens in F1, and other sports too use money and technology to be better than their competitors. May actually see a more level playing field if the authorities simply allow humans to compete in T&F.

0/10

1) This is dangerous for one's health, and basically tells kids that in order to succeed in the sport, you have to dope, and risk your long term health.

2) It would never be a level playing field, and those with the most money, best contacts etc, would get access to the best drugs.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

0/10

1) This is dangerous for one's health, and basically tells kids that in order to succeed in the sport, you have to dope, and risk your long term health.

2) It would never be a level playing field, and those with the most money, best contacts etc, would get access to the best drugs.

It would be a lot more level than it is now with the OTT convoluted drugs bans in place. It's a joke.

Regarding the kids. Nobody is telling them anything. Adults in sport or whatever should be allowed the choice and chance to improve.

Sport, at least some sports at the highest level are a health risk. Adults and elites should be allowed use reason and judgment and choice. That's what makes us human.

Yes, those with the best money would have the best access to the best aids. How is that different to the field today? There are countries with a lot more money and potential and facilities than others. Do we need to ban or reign this in? There are athletes with a lot more facilities and money and access to improvements than others. Are they cheating? I'd say it's no different to an athlete using technology (PEDs/aids) to improve.

Limiting humans in what they can do as mature adults is against the spirit of sport. Judgment and reasoning are two things what makes us humans.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

It would be a lot more level than it is now with the OTT convoluted drugs bans in place. It's a joke.

Regarding the kids. Nobody is telling them anything. Adults in sport or whatever should be allowed the choice and chance to improve.

Sport, at least some sports at the highest level are a health risk. Adults and elites should be allowed use reason and judgment and choice. That's what makes us human.

Yes, those with the best money would have the best access to the best aids. How is that different to the field today? There are countries with a lot more money and potential and facilities than others. There are athletes with a lot more facilities and money and access to improvements than others.

Limiting humans in what they can do as mature adults is against the spirit of sport. Judgment and reasoning are two things what makes us humans.

LOL. You truly are a funny man.

May as well allow shotguns during 800m races too while you're at it. Hang back at the back of the field, and pick one off one by one.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

LOL. You truly are a funny man.

May as well allow shotguns during 800m races too while you're at it. Hang back at the back of the field, and pick one off one by one.

No, that's silly. I am not claiming this.

There is "cheating" going on by virtue of genetic make up as we speak. I don't see it as cheating. Humans should be allowed use whatever is available to them to improve their performance, within reason of course. The event stays the same. Man runs or jumps or throws as he/she is. No mechanical aids or equipment additions etc. Like it or not there is a lot of cheating happening that is legal and allowed. Should we ban it? I am not alone in this view. Maybe here I am firmly in the minority, but I am sure there are many people who would argue for allowing humans to improve and progress without limiting them.

Legal blood doping was allowed until 1986. There was nothing wrong with it, and it led to EPO being its replacement. Just because some federations or countries could not get it or master it doesn't mean that it should have been banned. There are many athletes out there who have an "advantage, or a perceived advantage" over their competitors through whatever means. Look at Ireland in rugby. For years it was a case of us being amateurs meeting professional players in England and Wales. Same with boxers. Carruth was holding down a full time job whilst his Cuban counterparts were semi professional. Is that cheating?

By limiting what humans are allowed to do, within reason, is going against what we are as human!

RayCun

bring in threshold levels for a list of PEDs

The crazy thing about this idea is
At the moment we have a threshold level for PEDs (0). We test athletes to make sure they don't exceed it, and people say "oh, the more corrupt athletes/countries can get around the tests, the tests are useless"

If we set the threshold level at X > 0, we would still have to test athletes to make sure they didn't exceed that level. And the more corrupt athletes/countries could still get around the tests. So nothing has been simplified at all, it's just now everyone is on PEDs.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

No, that's silly. I am not claiming this.

There is "cheating" going on by virtue of genetic make up as we speak. I don't see it as cheating. Humans should be allowed use whatever is available to them to improve their performance, within reason of course. The event stays the same. Man runs or jumps or throws as he/she is. No mechanical aids or equipment additions etc. Like it or not there is a lot of cheating happening that is legal and allowed. Should we ban it? I am not alone in this view. Maybe here I am firmly in the minority, but I am sure there are many people who would argue for allowing humans to improve and progress without limiting them.

Well it does explain why you idolise Carl Lewis. Everything has become so much clearer.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Well it does explain why you idolise Carl Lewis. Everything has become so much clearer.

Silly response, Chivito! You need to let Carl Lewis live in peace!:)

Notwork Error

walshb wrote: »

It would be a lot more level than it is now with the OTT convoluted drugs bans in place. It's a joke.

Regarding the kids. Nobody is telling them anything. Adults in sport or whatever should be allowed the choice and chance to improve.

Sport, at least some sports at the highest level are a health risk. Adults and elites should be allowed use reason and judgment and choice. That's what makes us human.

Yes, those with the best money would have the best access to the best aids. How is that different to the field today? There are countries with a lot more money and potential and facilities than others. Do we need to ban or reign this in? There are athletes with a lot more facilities and money and access to improvements than others. Are they cheating? I'd say it's no different to an athlete using technology (PEDs/aids) to improve.

Limiting humans in what they can do as mature adults is against the spirit of sport. Judgment and reasoning are two things what makes us humans.

Before EPO was banned in sport and in widespread use without limits, at least 19 cyclists died from strokes because it has thickened their blood to such an extent that the heart couldn't pump it anymore. The same could be said about amphetamine before as countless athletes lost their lives.

Even if sport was fairer without bans (which it wouldn't be as you would take away other people's genetic advantages while simultaneously strengthening others weaknesses), I would rather see an unfair sport than see athletes die because they felt they had to take drugs to compete in what is essentially a game. As much as you would like to believe that judgement is part of human nature, the vast majority of athletes have no idea what these drugs do to their health.

Legalising doping would just lead to a race of who can take the most drugs just like the 90's in cycling and lead to countless unnecessary deaths again. Do you really want to repeat history?