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
average_runner wrote: » I think it's an old runner chasing his past
skyblue46 wrote: » Surprise surprise....yet another Kenyan.
Ceepo wrote: » You may well be right, but it cast's a dark shadow over his previous results and times.
Ceepo wrote: » 2020 will see a lot more Kenyan's being caught!.
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.
skyblue46 wrote: » And while all this goes on Nike turn a blind eye and make no comment on what their sponsored athletes do.
OOnegative wrote: » Kipsang was sponsored by adidas.
Ceepo wrote: » Kenyan athlete on the runhttps://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.
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..
average_runner wrote: » So when can they be use for retesting?
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....
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.
average_runner wrote: » So something like his coach was dirty and uk athletics recommended the coach should do it?
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.
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
“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.”
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.
average_runner wrote: » Your avoiding the issue and even fellow uk athletes are disagreeing with UK labs.
average_runner wrote: » Do you not agree that athletes that competed in 2012 olympics was caught recently on retesting of samples ?
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
