nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Leaked IAAf report on doping

TRR_the_turd

doesn't look great!

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33749208

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Chivito550

We'll find out soon enough.

If she's in Beijing, she'll get asked about this. If she declines to comment then that is pretty clear a super injunction exists.

If she isn't in Beijing, well there's your answer.

average_runner

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

Chivito550 wrote: »

We'll find out soon enough.

If she's in Beijing, she'll get asked about this. If she declines to comment then that is pretty clear a super injunction exists.

If she isn't in Beijing, well there's your answer.

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?

Chivito550

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.

transylman

Giruilla wrote: »

Think the female athlete and him have a bit of history hence the schadenfreude..

Indeed they do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/4788157.stm

overpronator

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.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

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.

Didn't she get her samples frozen for future testing or was that a pr thing?

She is my fav athlete but like you I am now wondering

mikedoherty99

shels4ever wrote: »

I really doubt that he was talking about a footballers private life. doesn't mean he isn't full of Sh1t as why would you believe a cheat about cheats.

cheat is a little harsh

how would you expect him to medal at 100m without peds?

Notwork Error

mikedoherty99 wrote: »

cheat is a little harsh

how would you expect him to medal at 100m without peds?

Look, can we put this ****e to bed. People react differently to drugs and even if they didn't, as long as there is one clean athlete out there that didn't qualify for their national final, represent their country or had to face the choice of taking PED's or not because of cheats, it's wrong in my eyes and should be in the eyes of the fans and athletes.

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

Krusty_Clown

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

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.

Chivito550

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

Okay, fair enough. Some good info there cheers

Giruilla

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.

corny

A player on EPO would be able to work very hard in pressuring the opposition to get the ball back. A team on EPO doing this would be hard to beat.

overpronator

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.

Giruilla

corny wrote: »

A player on EPO would be able to work very hard in pressuring the opposition to get the ball back. A team on EPO doing this would be hard to beat.

2 or 3 teams spring to mind very easily.

You regularly see players transferring from certain teams and their fitness levels dropping off quite suddenly..

Pherekydes

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”

shels4ever

Pherekydes wrote: »

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”

Is this only because there were not 3 experts used? So basically if 3 experts say atypical blood data is indicative of doping ?

rodneyTrotter.

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

ThisRegard

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

When do you think EPO doping in sport started?

Anyway, as has been said a few times, there are soccer teams associated with some of the most notorious dope doctors ever.

Chivito550

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.

kennyb3

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11789284/British-athletes-warned-not-to-reveal-blood-data.html

# omertà

# hein vercoen

Giruilla

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

kennyb3 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11789284/British-athletes-warned-not-to-reveal-blood-data.html

# omertà

# hein vercoen

samples like these are regarded by many not to be proof of doping but rather a marker which requires further investigation, including target testing.

That is in a sentence what it all boils down to. In terms of iaaf laws, the results cannot prove doping legally. Pre 2009 they were only there to necessitate target testing and get a definite test failure.

However - for an athlete to have multiple high off scores.. and values changing by 40% within two days - to say that doesnt strongly implicate blood doping is false.

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.

Pherekydes

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.

Darkest Horse

Giruilla wrote: »

That is in a sentence what it all boils down to. In terms of iaaf laws, the results cannot prove doping legally. Pre 2009 they were only there to necessitate target testing and get a definite test failure.

However - for an athlete to have multiple high off scores.. and values changing by 40% within two days - to say that doesnt strongly implicate blood doping is false.

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.

Why would ANY athlete, clean or not, place themselves in the line of fire?

mikedoherty99

Darkest Horse wrote: »

Why would ANY athlete, clean or not, place themselves in the line of fire?

Hmm..8 of them just have ,against the wishes of UK athletics

Chivito550

mikedoherty99 wrote: »

Hmm..8 of them just have ,against the wishes of UK athletics

Here's a link:

http://features.thesundaytimes.co.uk/web/public/2015/the-doping-scandal/index.html#/data-transparency

Krusty_Clown

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.