Leaked IAAf report on doping

Djoucer wrote: »

Where's the evidence that there is an injunction in relation to any of this?


UK media report today that a male sports star has taken one out with regard to his private life and an affair.

Which is what Linford might be referring to.

Nope, that's about a goalkeeper that uses head and shoulders

average_runner wrote: »

Who will ask her, I think she will be well protected and press conferences and interviews will be controlled.

I do think she is clean

Media reported on the other injunction though, is that because it wasn't a super injunction?

Yeh a super injunction means you can't even mention that there is an injunction in the first place.

I have always believed her to be clean, and have defended her against cynics, so I'm feeling very uneasy about it all now. Her silence is not doing her any favours. She's usually so outspoken when there's a scandal.

She may get kept away from press conferences but she's supposed to be made an IAAF ambassador so it won't look good if she avoids the press.

Call me a cynic but surely one of the sports most outspoken anti doping voices saying diddly squat on the biggest doping story in recent times says it all. If it quacks like a duck etc. Not saying she's a doper but the super injunction idea appears on the money based on this.

Notwork Error wrote: »

So yes, he is a dirty cheat and nothing more! Cheat is being nice.

I think he was being ironic. He's suggesting that taking PEDs for the 100m is no longer considered cheating. It's called a level playing field.

IvoryTower wrote: »

With regards other sports and doping, would it not make a lot less difference than it would in cycling and athletics. Like it will make a footballer maybe fitter, but it's not going make him any better at playing football, where as with athletics its a complete game changer. Maybe that's why it's a bigger deal. Like you can still be the best at other sports without it.

These type of comments are ignorant towards the importance of fitness, conditioning and strength in team sports. Not a personal attack on yourself, just a general comment towards the many many people who seem to think this.

It's the 89th minute of the match. You are a defender. It's 0-0. You are absolutely out on your feet. A ball gets passed through and it's you versus the attacker. If he gets to it first he's one on one with the goalkeeper. The other fella is pumped up on EPO, and is as fresh as a daisy. He gets to the ball first, buries it in the bottom corner, and it's curtains. You are eliminated.

Small margins decide games, just like hundredths of seconds decide sprint races.

If doping didn't help them they wouldn't be doing it would they?

Ask yourself this. How was it that a team full of nobodies, with no footballing pedigree, were suddenly able to, out of nowhere, defeat the best teams in Europe, finishing strongly in every match? The same year this country hosted the Olympic Games, and possessed some of the dirtiest sportspeople in their history, with many scandals. It was clear it was systematic. Would the footballers be separated from what was going on in every other sport in that country, at that time? Let's not be naive.

So if a bunch of average players at best, can become kings of Europe, out of nowhere, then disappear back into oblivion soon after, anybody who understands doping will know something is amiss.

IvoryTower wrote: »

Okay, fair enough. Some good info there cheers

On an additional note.. any team that plays high pressing football now is suspect imo. Need ridiculous energy level for it.

There is alot of reading to be found on suspected stystematic doping in football if you want to dig a little deeper. Its against the charter to post here but this stuff isn't hard to find.

WADA issues statement: https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2015-08/wadas-independent-commission-to-urgently-launch-investigation-into-doping-0

Some quotes:

WADA: “This data could not possibly be considered doping, legally or otherwise”

WADA: “Atypical blood data…is not necessarily indicative of doping”

WADA: “To suggest or imply doping...at the very least, irresponsible and potentially libellous”

Giruilla wrote: »

On an additional note.. any team that plays high pressing football now is suspect imo. Need ridiculous energy level for it.

Rubbish. Jack Charlton's Ireland team for the best part of ten years where masters of the "pressing game" ranked 6th in the world at one stage long before epo came out . I'm not saying some players are not doping but I don't think a pressing game means possible epo addicts

rodneyTrotter. wrote: »

Rubbish. Jack Charlton's Ireland team for the best part of ten years where masters of the "pressing game" ranked 6th in the world at one stage long before epo came out . I'm not saying some players are not doping but I don't think a pressing game means possible epo addicts

He said "now". It's a different era now. Pressing football is a lot more common now. Charlton himself claimed that we were pioneers of that style of play.

rodneyTrotter. wrote: »

Rubbish. Jack Charlton's Ireland team for the best part of ten years where masters of the "pressing game" ranked 6th in the world at one stage long before epo came out . I'm not saying some players are not doping but I don't think a pressing game means possible epo addicts

Pfft.. wow if you think what jack charltons style of play compares to anything in the game nowadays.

Specifically I'm talking about high pressing. Playing an advanced back line with such confidence in athletic ability that you'll get to an opposition player receiving a pass before they've even a chance to take a first touch. It's about winning the ball back in the 2nd third of the pitch, rather than your own third like charlton would play.
You need extreme confidence in your teams athleticism to play an advanced line like that.. main reason a certain nation has been almost unstoppable domestically and internationally of recent years.

Giruilla wrote: »

Surely the best thing for athletics is any athlete who wants to can make their data public... you'd think any athlete with false negatives would be happy to explain their case.

I wouldn't imagine any athlete would admit to a false negative.

Chivito550 wrote: »

Link?

It's referenced at the bottom of this BBC article, in relation to the Sunday Times article (needs subscription). Apparently Mo Farah and Jo Pavey are among the 8 athletes who are planning to reveal their blood test data.