Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wilson Kipsang handed suspension

Options
  • 10-01-2020 8:10pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭


    And another one gone, maybe because I want to be naive about the state of athletics but I really liked Kipsang and suprised (I know I know, I shouldn't be but there you go).

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/51069880


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,849 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    And another one gone, maybe because I want to be naive about the state of athletics but I really liked Kipsang and suprised (I know I know, I shouldn't be but there you go).

    https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/51069880

    I think it's an old runner chasing his past


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    I think it's an old runner chasing his past

    You may well be right, but it cast's a dark shadow over his previous results and times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    Surprise surprise....yet another Kenyan.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    skyblue46 wrote: »
    Surprise surprise....yet another Kenyan.

    2020 will see a lot more Kenyan's being caught!.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,849 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Ceepo wrote: »
    You may well be right, but it cast's a dark shadow over his previous results and times.

    Yep that is true


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,849 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Ceepo wrote: »
    2020 will see a lot more Kenyan's being caught!.

    Kenya needs to follow the western world tactics, ie hide the results. As calls for them to be banned is wrong, when u see what goes on else where.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,649 ✭✭✭rovers_runner


    They need to read Sir Mo's memo.
    He now seems to forget comments he made around the time AlSal was first questioned and now maintains that he wasn't even aware of the allegations at the time, despite being on record....
    Expect Sir Mo to be thrown under the bus after the Olympics.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    They need to read Sir Mo's memo.
    He now seems to forget comments he made around the time AlSal was first questioned and now maintains that he wasn't even aware of the allegations at the time, despite being on record....
    Expect Sir Mo to be thrown under the bus after the Olympics.

    And while all this goes on Nike turn a blind eye and make no comment on what their sponsored athletes do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,834 ✭✭✭OOnegative


    skyblue46 wrote: »
    And while all this goes on Nike turn a blind eye and make no comment on what their sponsored athletes do.

    Kipsang was sponsored by adidas.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    OOnegative wrote: »
    Kipsang was sponsored by adidas.

    Yeah I know B. I was replying to the Farah post.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,834 ✭✭✭OOnegative


    Disappointed to read this during the week, not surprised but Kipsang was a beautiful runner to watch. His running style was effortless.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    Kenyan athlete on the run

    https://www.rte.ie/sport/athletics/2020/0116/1107954-kenya-athlete-runs-away-anti-doping/

    "After testers introduced themselves and why they visited the camp, one athlete left as if to answer a call of nature only to jump through the window and over the fence," Korir told Reuters.

    "They won't escape from the tough measures put in place, however fast they run away and however long it takes."

    In the latest doping related case, the AIU said on its website on Tuesday it had issued a charge against Kenyan middle distance athlete Alfred Kipketer for what it said were whereabouts failures.

    The AIU did not give any more details on the case. Kipketer was not immediately reachable for comment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭Lambay island


    Ceepo wrote: »
    Kenyan athlete on the run

    https://www.rte.ie/sport/athletics/2020/0116/1107954-kenya-athlete-runs-away-anti-doping/

    "After testers introduced themselves and why they visited the camp, one athlete left as if to answer a call of nature only to jump through the window and over the fence," Korir told Reuters.

    "They won't escape from the tough measures put in place, however fast they run away and however long it takes."

    In the latest doping related case, the AIU said on its website on Tuesday it had issued a charge against Kenyan middle distance athlete Alfred Kipketer for what it said were whereabouts failures.

    The AIU did not give any more details on the case. Kipketer was not immediately reachable for comment.


    Sure no one could catch him :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,849 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    michelle lee ahye facing a ban also


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2020/01/17/uk-anti-doping-insists-will-not-release-mo-farah-samples-wada/

    UKAD reduced a request to had over those it held for Farah during the United States Anti-Doping Agency’s investigation into Salazar, who has lodged an appeal against the four-year ban he was handed in October for doping offences.

    Britain’s anti-doping agency said at the time that retesting risked degrading samples which are stored for up to 10 years for testing using new detection methods.

    So UKAD didnt want to to risk samples they held
    for retesting being down graded, by allowing them to be retested..


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,849 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Ceepo wrote: »
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2020/01/17/uk-anti-doping-insists-will-not-release-mo-farah-samples-wada/

    UKAD reduced a request to had over those it held for Farah during the United States Anti-Doping Agency’s investigation into Salazar, who has lodged an appeal against the four-year ban he was handed in October for doping offences.

    Britain’s anti-doping agency said at the time that retesting risked degrading samples which are stored for up to 10 years for testing using new detection methods.

    So UKAD didnt want to to risk samples they held
    for retesting being down graded, by allowing them to be retested..

    So when can they be use for retesting?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    So when can they be use for retesting?

    Certainly begs the question.

    Edit. It would seem like when they have creditably evidence

    "The chief executive of Ukad, Nicole Sapstead, said she would block the release of samples stored for future retesting unless there was “credible evidence” to suggest they contained banned substances."

    UKAD are starting to make Kenyan drug testing system look good....
    At least they are catching people...

    Maybe, just maybe it is possible that NO GB athletes use peds....
    This includes cycliest as well...
    Maybe.... :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,849 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Ceepo wrote: »
    Certainly begs the question.

    Edit. It would seem like when they have creditably evidence

    "The chief executive of Ukad, Nicole Sapstead, said she would block the release of samples stored for future retesting unless there was “credible evidence” to suggest they contained banned substances."

    UKAD are starting to make Kenyan drug testing system look good....
    At least they are catching people...

    Maybe, just maybe it is possible that NO GB athletes use peds....
    This includes cycliest as well...
    Maybe.... :)

    And just maybe I will make the olympics this year


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    Tip of the iceberg.

    It's a very dirty world, not just athletics but all elite sport in general.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    So when can they be use for retesting?

    When there is a new test to run on the samples, or if there is something to suggest that the previous testing was not up to scratch I'd assume. If USADA just wanted to run the same tests themselves that had already been done by the UK then makes perfect sense to tell them to get lost, unless they can show some other justification for needing to test for the same things again.

    Unless the samples are about to expire then you don't throw them away for another round of tests just for fun.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,849 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    robinph wrote: »
    When there is a new test to run on the samples, or if there is something to suggest that the previous testing was not up to scratch I'd assume. If USADA just wanted to run the same tests themselves that had already been done by the UK then makes perfect sense to tell them to get lost, unless they can show some other justification for needing to test for the same things again.

    Unless the samples are about to expire then you don't throw them away for another round of tests just for fun.

    So something like his coach was dirty and uk athletics recommended the coach should do it?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    So something like his coach was dirty and uk athletics recommended the coach should do it?

    Yes if you have something new to test for that wasn't done previously, or if you can show that the previous testing wasn't done properly. Otherwise it's just wasted effort and throwing away samples that you may be able to test for something else in the future.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Has anyone been claiming that the UK lab has been doing the testing incorrectly? Were the samples collected incorrectly (note that is not the same as the doorbell not working)? Is there anything new that they want to test against?

    Unless the answer to any of those questions is yes then the samples need to be left alone until that changes or you are destroying the whole point of having the extra samples in the first place. I get that people want to find something, but it's futile to just run the same test again for no reason.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,849 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    robinph wrote: »
    Has anyone been claiming that the UK lab has been doing the testing incorrectly? Were the samples collected incorrectly (note that is not the same as the doorbell not working)? Is there anything new that they want to test against?

    Unless the answer to any of those questions is yes then the samples need to be left alone until that changes or you are destroying the whole point of having the extra samples in the first place. I get that people want to find something, but it's futile to just run the same test again for no reason.




    Considering the have now caught athletes from 2012 cheating, they obviously have new test methods. Mo was with Salazaar in 2012, so they should be retested and not by UK labs.


    Galen Rupp and all of Salazaar should be retested


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Considering the have now caught athletes from 2012 cheating, they obviously have new test methods. Mo was with Salazaar in 2012, so they should be retested and not by UK labs.


    Galen Rupp and all of Salazaar should be retested

    But they made no mention of there being new things they were wanting to test for, and that seemed to be the justification for the refusal.
    “The reason we put samples into storage is to enable us to retest when the science moves along. And so, every time we open a sample up to look at something, we lose the ability to maybe look for something else, which is why, if somebody wants to reanalyse a sample, it needs to be with foundation.”

    That doesn't suggest that they were asking to test for anything new, or that they thought the UK lab was doing the testing incorrectly... and if they UK lab is potentially doing something wrong then you test that theory first before damaging the actual samples that are being held.

    Have there been any new drugs that they have identified from the Salazar camp? I thought it was more to do with the twisting of the regulations past breaking point with the likes of TUE's and unethical practices rather than any new substance they were using.

    If they had high levels of some prescription drug and that was previously justified by the TUE's then what is the point in testing again for those things covered by the TUE that they already know about? The problem there is the existence of the TUE, not the testing of the sample.

    If they think the TUE drug was being used to mask something else then that would be something new, assuming that they also have a new test to now show the hidden thing. If they are just looking for high levels of something they already have shown there is high levels of then it's pointless and the samples should be kept until there is something new to test for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,849 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    robinph wrote: »
    But they made no mention of there being new things they were wanting to test for, and that seemed to be the justification for the refusal.



    That doesn't suggest that they were asking to test for anything new, or that they thought the UK lab was doing the testing incorrectly... and if they UK lab is potentially doing something wrong then you test that theory first before damaging the actual samples that are being held.

    Have there been any new drugs that they have identified from the Salazar camp? I thought it was more to do with the twisting of the regulations past breaking point with the likes of TUE's and unethical practices rather than any new substance they were using.

    If they had high levels of some prescription drug and that was previously justified by the TUE's then what is the point in testing again for those things covered by the TUE that they already know about? The problem there is the existence of the TUE, not the testing of the sample.

    If they think the TUE drug was being used to mask something else then that would be something new, assuming that they also have a new test to now show the hidden thing. If they are just looking for high levels of something they already have shown there is high levels of then it's pointless and the samples should be kept until there is something new to test for.


    Your avoiding the issue and even fellow uk athletes are disagreeing with UK labs.


    Do you not agree that athletes that competed in 2012 olympics was caught recently on retesting of samples ?


    Mo's coach for 2012 was banned on doping charges and thats enough of a reason, so let them retest with the same methods that caught them. UK athletics should be bending over backwards to protect their sport, instead they are leaving questions unanswered.


    There is load of samples available, even Jessica Judd has said their is numerous samples available.


    Are the UK protecting an athlete ?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Your avoiding the issue and even fellow uk athletes are disagreeing with UK labs.
    Not avoiding the issue at all. If there is something new to test for then crack on and do some more testing.
    Do you not agree that athletes that competed in 2012 olympics was caught recently on retesting of samples ?
    I guess you have a specific example you are thinking of? Was this a re-test for the same things they were testing for in 2012 initially, or something new that there was a new test for?
    Mo's coach for 2012 was banned on doping charges and thats enough of a reason, so let them retest with the same methods that caught them. UK athletics should be bending over backwards to protect their sport, instead they are leaving questions unanswered.
    It is a reason to look at the case again, but it's not a reason to retest for something that you've already tested for. If there is a new test then test, if not then it's a waste of time and the sample.
    There is load of samples available, even Jessica Judd has said their is numerous samples available.

    Are the UK protecting an athlete ?

    No idea how many samples they create in storage, do you? It is definitely a limited supply that they have though. How much gets used for each test? Does Jessica Judd know?

    If you run exactly the same tests as you've already run what are you expecting to happen? There may be suggestions that UKA have been behaving dodgily in recommending dodgy coaches, but that has nothing to do with the samples that UKADA are holding.

    If UKADA have been doing things wrong then yes, re run all the tests, but that is not what anyone is suggesting as far as I can tell.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    https://www.sportsradio.com.au/doping-disgrace-60-athletes-from-london-2012-disqualified-for-testing-positive-years-after-the-games/
    Uzbek freestyle wrestler Artur Taymazov is the latest to have his victory overturned.

    A re-test of Taymazov’s sample from the 2012 Games proved to be positive, after being subjected to new testing techniques that were not available during the competition.

    So unsurprisingly a new test for a new drug caught someone. Now if there is the possibility that wrestlers were using the same things as distance runners then clearly there is something new to test for.

    But is there anything new to test for that distance runners have been using? Or do you think they should be checking for every single new drug for every single sport rather than being a bit more directed and testing for things that actually are likely to help that sport?

    Yes, testing everyone for everything might be one way of doing things, but do you really need to test an archer for speed, or a marathon runner for cannabis?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,849 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    robinph wrote: »
    Not avoiding the issue at all. If there is something new to test for then crack on and do some more testing.


    I guess you have a specific example you are thinking of? Was this a re-test for the same things they were testing for in 2012 initially, or something new that there was a new test for?


    It is a reason to look at the case again, but it's not a reason to retest for something that you've already tested for. If there is a new test then test, if not then it's a waste of time and the sample.



    No idea how many samples they create in storage, do you? It is definitely a limited supply that they have though. How much gets used for each test? Does Jessica Judd know?

    If you run exactly the same tests as you've already run what are you expecting to happen? There may be suggestions that UKA have been behaving dodgily in recommending dodgy coaches, but that has nothing to do with the samples that UKADA are holding.

    If UKADA have been doing things wrong then yes, re run all the tests, but that is not what anyone is suggesting as far as I can tell.

    The tests they run now are different or the testing in London 2012 was non existent.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    Elite athletes would expect to be tested about 15 times a year. There is a 10 year statute of limitations. There are quite conceivably 150 of Farah's samples being held. We can assume that at least 10 are from 2012. I can't see any reason why one could not be released for retesting.


Advertisement