Wilson Kipsang handed suspension

Slow_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

average_runner

Slow_Runner wrote: »

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

Ceepo

average_runner wrote: »

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.

skyblue46

Surprise surprise....yet another Kenyan.

Ceepo

skyblue46 wrote: »

Surprise surprise....yet another Kenyan.

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

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

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.

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.

skyblue46

rovers_runner wrote: »

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.

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.

skyblue46

OOnegative wrote: »

Kipsang was sponsored by adidas.

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

OOnegative

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

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.

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

average_runner

michelle lee ahye facing a ban also

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..

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?

Ceepo

average_runner wrote: »

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....

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

Sinbad_NI

Tip of the iceberg.

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

robinph

average_runner wrote: »

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.

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?

robinph

average_runner wrote: »

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.

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.

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

robinph

average_runner wrote: »

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.

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 ?

robinph

average_runner wrote: »

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.

average_runner wrote: »

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?

average_runner wrote: »

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.

average_runner wrote: »

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.

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?

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.

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.

robinph

skyblue46 wrote: »

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.

But none of us know what was actually requested from what set of samples or from what quantity of samples or for what tests to be done. Maybe they requested all samples. How does the retesting get done in terms of selecting what to test in what samples from when?

We don't have enough information to say one way or the other if it was a reasonable request or not, but the UK anti doping said it wasn't reasonable and US anti doping didn't seem to be complaining too much about being denied. Just that they asked and we're told no, presumably they would have said no to the opposite request being made to them so decided to not kick up over it as it's fairly standard procedure between the various authorities.

But we don't know, and that is a problem because we are all just left making guesses and inventing conspiracy theories.

average_runner

robinph wrote: »

But none of us know what was actually requested from what set of samples or from what quantity of samples or for what tests to be done. Maybe they requested all samples. How does the retesting get done in terms of selecting what to test in what samples from when?

We don't have enough information to say one way or the other if it was a reasonable request or not, but the UK anti doping said it wasn't reasonable and US anti doping didn't seem to be complaining too much about being denied. Just that they asked and we're told no, presumably they would have said no to the opposite request being made to them so decided to not kick up over it as it's fairly standard procedure between the various authorities.

But we don't know, and that is a problem because we are all just left making guesses and inventing conspiracy theories.

But the athlete has given permission to test them also

robinph

average_runner wrote: »

But the athlete has given permission to test them also

Which is great, but don't see how that changes anything in relation to the releasing of samples that are potentially limited in number from the dates in question, not that we know what date tests it is that might have been requested/ rejected. The athlete clearly being someone with an interest in the results coming out negative, how does that fit with the theory that UK anti doping are protecting them somehow? Or that US anti doping are going to find something in the tests? Or that UK anti doping not releasing the samples for testing is some proof of something?

Or does the theory then become that the athletes only say to release the tests because they know that they won't be released?

Yes, more testing should be done. Yes, old samples should be tested for new things. No, you don't just re-run the same tests again for no good reason.

average_runner

robinph wrote: »

Which is great, but don't see how that changes anything in relation to the releasing of samples that are potentially limited in number from the dates in question, not that we know what date tests it is that might have been requested/ rejected. The athlete clearly being someone with an interest in the results coming out negative, how does that fit with the theory that UK anti doping are protecting them somehow? Or that US anti doping are going to find something in the tests? Or that UK anti doping not releasing the samples for testing is some proof of something?

Or does the theory then become that the athletes only say to release the tests because they know that they won't be released?

Yes, more testing should be done. Yes, old samples should be tested for new things. No, you don't just re-run the same tests again for no good reason.

But they aren't rerunning the same tests. They are running the latest test that have already caught people 6 years on from 2012 olympics.

robinph

average_runner wrote: »

But they aren't rerunning the same tests. They are running the latest test that have already caught people 6 years on from 2012 olympics.

Who is the "they" in this instance. Is it not UK anti doping running the new testing for the 2012 Olympics?

Why is US anti doping required to run tests? Or is this now a new theory that UK anti doping are not running retesting on UK athletes?

As you said retests are being done and people are being caught so not sure where the problem is.

robinph

Some slightly clearer quotes from a few people in this story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51196920

Sounds like the story is probably:
USADA say give us everything.
UKADA say what for?
USADA go to the press and complain about not being given everything, because they are USADA and everyone should do as they say.
UKADA say we'll give samples for testing if we know what and why and that make sense.
Press re formats that quote as "UKADA won't give samples for testing".
Some athletes, whose opinion in this is irrelevant as once they provide the sample it's absolutely nothing to do with them what happens next, give some quotes about "They should just test everything, I've got nothing to hide".
UKADA get asked why are they still not giving up the samples for testing.
UKADA say, well nobodies asked us yet except for the USADA and they have no authority over us and just wanted everything and wouldn't state why or what. When WADA come calling they can have whatever they like, just like the way it's meant to be.

WADA wake up from a snooze and say, "Huh, us? Were we meant to be doing something?".

average_runner

robinph wrote: »

Some slightly clearer quotes from a few people in this story:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/51196920

Sounds like the story is probably:
USADA say give us everything.
UKADA say what for?
USADA go to the press and complain about not being given everything, because they are USADA and everyone should do as they say.
UKADA say we'll give samples for testing if we know what and why and that make sense.
Press re formats that quote as "UKADA won't give samples for testing".
Some athletes, whose opinion in this is irrelevant as once they provide the sample it's absolutely nothing to do with them what happens next, give some quotes about "They should just test everything, I've got nothing to hide".
UKADA get asked why are they still not giving up the samples for testing.
UKADA say, well nobodies asked us yet except for the USADA and they have no authority over us and just wanted everything and wouldn't state why or what. When WADA come calling they can have whatever they like, just like the way it's meant to be.

WADA wake up from a snooze and say, "Huh, us? Were we meant to be doing something?".

The opinion of other athletes is not irrelevant. It's their sport that is getting a bad reputation and they care for it.

robinph

average_runner wrote: »

The opinion of other athletes is not irrelevant. It's their sport that is getting a bad reputation and they care for it.

Nope, I meant their opinion on if their samples should be retested is irrelevant and they should get no say in that decision. More testing is good and athletes saying that is good. But athletes giving a quote around some potential drug bust story that they don't mind their samples being re-tested is a waste of a quote.

They don't get to decide if their samples get tested again so it's a pointless comment.

rom

Ceepo wrote: »

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

100%

Last mile in New York 2014 which was 4:2*
https://youtu.be/ZxFyROS8420?t=8460

Same race idiot cop nearly runs yuki kawauchi off the road
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxFyROS8420&t=4955s

average_runner

Good video about doping in Kenya and European Athletes there also doping. They basically said 3 brits are doping on EPO when training in Kenya. Didn't release the name. Think video was shared by Ewan McKenna. Probably be on bbc some stage.

robinph

Being suggested to be something new from the posts on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/EwanMacKenna/status/1220335946236907521

But the video is at least three years old:

https://vimeo.com/182051302

Is this actually something new? Presumably the unedited version has been handed over to other authorities and media in the last three years?

average_runner

robinph wrote: »

Being suggested to be something new from the posts on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/EwanMacKenna/status/1220335946236907521

But the video is at least three years old:

https://vimeo.com/182051302

Is this actually something new? Presumably the unedited version has been handed over to other authorities and media in the last three years?

It was handed over to the Kenya authorities but the guys in the video said they were joking etc. Think the pace maker lost out on a lot of races.

robinph

average_runner wrote: »

It was handed over to the Kenya authorities but the guys in the video said they were joking etc. Think the pace maker lost out on a lot of races.

...and the other countries with involved athletes that the film makers have details of?

Just seems odd if they stopped after the Kenyan authorities did nothing when they had names of others from other countries. If it is the name that people are wanting it to be, then why are the film makers being so coy about it and bleeping out the name?

There isn't really even any threat of being sued by the suspected athlete as you just release the unedited version, the athlete says "nothing to do with me", the film makers say "we've handed everything we have over to WADA, speak to them".

Of course maybe they did hand everything over three years ago and they are just releasing teasers as a threat to WADA to pull their finger out and do something before they publish anyway.

average_runner

robinph wrote: »

...and the other countries with involved athletes that the film makers have details of?

Just seems odd if they stopped after the Kenyan authorities did nothing when they had names of others from other countries. If it is the name that people are wanting it to be, then why are the film makers being so coy about it and bleeping out the name?

There isn't really even any threat of being sued by the suspected athlete as you just release the unedited version, the athlete says "nothing to do with me", the film makers say "we've handed everything we have over to WADA, speak to them".

Of course maybe they did hand everything over three years ago and they are just releasing teasers as a threat to WADA to pull their finger out and do something before they publish anyway.

Or maybe its not a high profile athlete and to get viewers they just leave it hanging

skyblue46

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-5050457/amp/Three-British-athletes-caught-Kenya-drug-scandal.html?__twitter_impression=true

robinph

Really wish the journalists would go to papers other than the DM to print their articles. Feel myself dying a little bit inside every time I have to click one of their links.

skyblue46

robinph wrote: »

Really wish the journalists would go to papers other than the DM to print their articles. Feel myself dying a little bit inside every time I have to click one of their links.

When questioned as to whether they had followed up on the video UKAD posted that link as their response. They never approached the journalist to get the name redacted in the clip. He has verified this.

rom

robinph wrote: »

Really wish the journalists would go to papers other than the DM to print their articles. Feel myself dying a little bit inside every time I have to click one of their links.

A piece of paper in Kenya is not substantiated evidence to proof that someone doped. It's Kenya. It could be altered to just support them and make the sell. They know that too. I could make a similar piece of paper that said X athlete doped with X being anyone you wanted in 10 mins.

The same goes for the international bodies. There is little they can do with a page other than testing that athlete more than they are currently. But the current testing is not working also so they are just p1ssing against the wind.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/athletics-kenyas-kipsang-provisionally-suspended-for-anti-doping-violations-2020-01-10


"It is disappointing to hear another Kenyan, and a top one at that, becoming a victim of the doping scourge," Barnaba Korir, Athletics Kenya Executive Committee member and Chairman of the Nairobi Region, told Reuters.

It is not in Athletics Kenya best interest to catch dopers and when you have someone making a statement like that it's very clear.

Current Kenyan law stipulates jail terms of up to three years for support staff found guilty in connection with doping, but not for athletes. This law is just to keep it underground. This law was only created to stop them getting banned before Rio. How many have been convicted by this law?

Ceepo

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/51671615

There's no doubt that the VF and Next% has shaved some time off records and personal best but it might not all be from the runner's

skyblue46

Ceepo wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/51671615

There's no doubt that the VF and Next% has shaved some time off records and personal best but it might not all be from the runner's

But it never has all been from the runners. Doping is about and has been about. The mean times for elites has improved even though many doped before and after the shoes introduction.

Speaking of which...Ruth Jebet. How in the name of God can she keep her Olympic title and status as a former world record holder? Is it even remotely plausible that she won the Olympics and held a world record clean and then decided to start doping?