Leaked IAAf report on doping

Sandwell · 12-08-2015 04:47PM

Another response from Ashenden, worth reading. His general argument is that even if the IAAF did, as they claim, take action where possible they should have been far more proactive. The Shobukhova example he uses is pretty damning.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn8dnp

Personally, I suspect the IAAF took action in the case of lesser names and let it go with a quiet word in the ear where bigger stars and sponsors were involved. The Victor Conte interview this week would suggest as much.

The fact that over 500 of these athletes escaped without sanction is worrying, whichever way you spin it.

Clearlier · 12-08-2015 05:37PM

Sandwell wrote: »

Another response from Ashenden, worth reading. His general argument is that even if the IAAF did, as they claim, take action where possible they should have been far more proactive. The Shobukhova example he uses is pretty damning.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn8dnp

Personally, I suspect the IAAF took action in the case of lesser names and let it go with a quiet word in the ear where bigger stars and sponsors were involved. The Victor Conte interview this week would suggest as much.

The fact that over 500 of these athletes escaped without sanction is worrying, whichever way you spin it.

He suggests incompetence rather than collusion. I'm worried about that this is a Lance moment for the sport. With the benefit of not having any emotional tie to Lance's story I was able to look at the evidence for his having doped and there wasn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind that he had. I worry that I am too close to be able to make any kind of dispassionate analysis of runners and this is a Lance moment that I can't identify.

I was particularly unhappy with the way that Coe chose to address the allegations. He should have been open to the idea of support from any source to help identify doping - instead he shot the messenger which has me seriously worried about the appropriateness of his becoming president of the IAAF.

Myles Splitz · 12-08-2015 05:38PM

Sandwell wrote: »

Another response from Ashenden, worth reading. His general argument is that even if the IAAF did, as they claim, take action where possible they should have been far more proactive. The Shobukhova example he uses is pretty damning.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn8dnp

Personally, I suspect the IAAF took action in the case of lesser names and let it go with a quiet word in the ear where bigger stars and sponsors were involved. The Victor Conte interview this week would suggest as much.

The fact that over 500 of these athletes escaped without sanction is worrying, whichever way you spin it.

Reading that the big issue I would have is that his defence to IAAF criticisms of follow ups on abnormal results is flawed.

Comparing abnormal results with sanctions and competition results does not mean that they were not followed up. Targeted testing could very well have taken place and come back negative. Whether those tests were comprehensive with regards to what substances were being tested for is a different matter but the fact is that the assertion made is made without full knowledge of what actually took place.

The Lance pursuit also is non comparable. Due to the US Postal service being title sponsor this became a Federal issue. Similar to the FIFA corruption convictions this was pursued via legal avenues that transcend the scope of sport.

Murph_D · 13-08-2015 02:04AM

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

pretty good synopsis by JTG

http://jumping-the-gun.com/?p=10136

D'ya think? To me it's a pretty disappointing response. Surprisingly uncritical. It deflects attention away from the real story -- the high incidence of statistically unlikely abnormal blood data -- towards the IAAF response and the celebrity athlete whodunnit.

While we are in this general area
of internet journalism and podcasts, the Marathon Talk guys strike me as knowledgeable and level headed. They were far more willing to acknowledge the validity of this exposé. Not to mention the health dangers involved, which they rightly highlighted - people die from this kind of behaviour.

The MT guys are connected socially to the celebrity whodunnit so this week's show will be intetesting. I suspect they won't be backing off or making "nothing to see here" moves, as JTG seem to be doing.

Krusty_Clown · 13-08-2015 08:23AM

Murph_D wrote: »

D'ya think? To me it's a pretty disappointing response. Surprisingly uncritical. It deflects attention away from the real story -- the high incidence of statistically unlikely abnormal blood data -- towards the IAAF response and the celebrity athlete whodunnit.

While we are in this general area
of internet journalism and podcasts, the Marathon Talk guys strike me as knowledgeable and level headed. They were far more willing to acknowledge the validity of this exposé. Not to mention the health dangers involved, which they rightly highlighted - people die from this kind of behaviour.

The MT guys are connected socially to the celebrity whodunnit so this week's show will be intetesting. I suspect they won't be backing off or making "nothing to see here" moves, as JTG seem to be doing.

JTG seem to be providing a factual interpretation of the entire situation, without passing judgement or being sensationalist. I found that during the Mo/Salazar story, Marathon Talk on the other hand went the other direction and were happy to let their imaginations run wild. I'm sure if they were publishing a written article and had the time to think it through, it would be a little less free form and a little more unbiased. They just don't strike me as being as journalistic as the JTG guys, so are fine for chatter and not so relevant for factual discussion.

adrian522 · 13-08-2015 08:30AM

I don't know KC, I thought this weeks Marathon talk was very good, and yes because they are 2 guys sitting in a room they will not have a chance to read and review everything before they publish it like they would on a website but I thought it was a very good overview of everything that has happened since the original story broke 2 weeks ago.

Obviously their personal opinions will enter into the discussion but I like that aspect of it too.

Murph_D · 13-08-2015 09:40AM

JTG ignore (or at best downplay) one of the most damning elements of the original story: the statement from one of the expert scientists who analysed the data: "Never have I seen such an alarmingly abnormal set of blood values."

Are we to conclude that these guys don't know what they're talking about?

TRR_the_turd · 13-08-2015 09:46AM

Murph_D wrote: »

D'ya think? To me it's a pretty disappointing response. Surprisingly uncritical. It deflects attention away from the real story -- the high incidence of statistically unlikely abnormal blood data -- towards the IAAF response and the celebrity athlete whodunnit.

Yes, as KC says above it deals with the facts as they are. Yes there a high incidence of statistically unlikely blood data scores. It's my belief I'm that a high proportion of these are the result of cheating. The IAAF argue that they used these as a basis for targeted testing. Without traces of synthetic EPO (for example) or a blood profile gathered over a prolonged period of time you can't definitively say if cheating has happened or not. Likely that it has (my belief), but can it be proved? Well, without some novel biomarker or an insider spilling the beans on individuals I don't think so.

pconn062 · 13-08-2015 09:48AM

Murph_D wrote: »

D'ya think? To me it's a pretty disappointing response. Surprisingly uncritical. It deflects attention away from the real story -- the high incidence of statistically unlikely abnormal blood data -- towards the IAAF response and the celebrity athlete whodunnit.

While we are in this general area
of internet journalism and podcasts, the Marathon Talk guys strike me as knowledgeable and level headed. They were far more willing to acknowledge the validity of this exposé. Not to mention the health dangers involved, which they rightly highlighted - people die from this kind of behaviour.

The MT guys are connected socially to the celebrity whodunnit so this week's show will be intetesting. I suspect they won't be backing off or making "nothing to see here" moves, as JTG seem to be doing.

IMO the JTG article is not uncritical, is pointing out the facts of the story in black and white. Unlike The Times, who broke the story, they are not concerned with selling newspapers or advertising hits so they don't need as many flashy, shocking headlines that appear sensationalist to the uninformed. The JTG article simply presents the facts of the case, and you can make up your own mind. The MT guys are just having an informal chat, and thus more prone to sensationalism. Also regarding the health dangers, I don't really see what that has to do with anything? Yes there are dangers associated with doping, but they are well known and not really part of this conversation.

menoscemo · 13-08-2015 09:53AM

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

Yes, as KC says above it deals with the facts as they are. Yes there a high incidence of statistically unlikely blood data scores. It's my belief I'm that a high proportion of these are the result of cheating. The IAAF argue that they used these as a basis for targeted testing. Without traces of synthetic EPO (for example) or a blood profile gathered over a prolonged period of time you can't definitively say if cheating has happened or not. Likely that it has (my belief), but can it be proved? Well, without some novel biomarker or an insider spilling the beans on individuals I don't think so.

I am under the impression that they simply couldn't use blood profiles as any kind of proof pre 2009; and even since the blood passport system has come in; they still can't use it retrospectively. They can only use these suspicious blood markers as a reason to test for traces of drugs in Urine

I think the slew of (as yet unnamed) Athletes who have recently been caught for indiscretions at the 2005 and 2007 World championships had their frozen urine samples retested.

average_runner · 13-08-2015 10:25AM

Murph_D wrote: »

JTG ignore (or at best downplay) one of the most damning elements of the original story: the statement from one of the expert scientists who analysed the data: "Never have I seen such an alarmingly abnormal set of blood values."

Are we to conclude that these guys don't know what they're talking about?

And these scientists worked in cycling when it was bad and said these results beats them!

average_runner · 13-08-2015 10:26AM

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

Yes, as KC says above it deals with the facts as they are. Yes there a high incidence of statistically unlikely blood data scores. It's my belief I'm that a high proportion of these are the result of cheating. The IAAF argue that they used these as a basis for targeted testing. Without traces of synthetic EPO (for example) or a blood profile gathered over a prolonged period of time you can't definitively say if cheating has happened or not. Likely that it has (my belief), but can it be proved? Well, without some novel biomarker or an insider spilling the beans on individuals I don't think so.

So athletes have higher blood results than those that were cheating in cycling and they think these were normal? You don't need a blood passport to know this was cheating!!

demfad · 13-08-2015 10:30AM

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

Yes, as KC says above it deals with the facts as they are. Yes there a high incidence of statistically unlikely blood data scores. It's my belief I'm that a high proportion of these are the result of cheating.

I agree with the bolded section. But that's not what JTG are saying, they are saying that these abnormal blood results in isolation "are in no way indicative of doping".

What they are not saying is that all the valid reasons for the abnormal results would in probability only account for 1% of them, meaning 99% would be accounted for by cheating. (according to one of the Sunday Times experts, and I don't think its been refuted)

This is not proof of doping but is obviously indicative of it and it is certainly not "in no way indicative of doping" as JTG maintain.

average_runner · 13-08-2015 10:32AM

If events like London marathon, new york marathon etc take the IAAF to court, interesting things could come out. More to come from this I think.

petethedrummer · 13-08-2015 10:33AM

demfad wrote: »

The poster "Race Radio" (Kimmage, I believe

I've been following Race Radio on various forums for quite a while. It's definitely not Kimmage. He is an American from somewhere in the cycling industry. From a brief private message exchange I had with him, I don't believe he is a journalist or ex-rider. An unknown who is in the know.

demfad · 13-08-2015 10:38AM

petethedrummer wrote: »

I've been following Race Radio on various forums for quite a while. It's definitely not Kimmage. He is an American from somewhere in the cycling industry. From a brief private message exchange I had with him, I don't believe he is a journalist or ex-rider. An unknown who is in the know.

Thanks. Is he in the know?

menoscemo · 13-08-2015 10:40AM

demfad wrote: »

But that's not what JTG are saying, they are saying that these abnormal blood results in isolation "are in no way indicative of doping".

What they are not saying is that all the valid reasons for the abnormal results would in probability only account for 1% of them, meaning 99% would be accounted for by cheating. (according to one of the Sunday Times experts, and I don't think its been refuted)

This is not proof of doping but is obviously indicative of it and it is certainly not "in no way indicative of doping" as JTG maintain.

Yes the impression I got from the experts in the ARD programme was that under the current blood passport system a lot of these people would be banned without any further proof being required.

From reading between the lines of the Times article about the levels in the 3 separate test of our 'Famous Mystery British Athlete', I get the impression that this athlete would almost certainly have been found guilty by today's rules.

petethedrummer · 13-08-2015 10:49AM

demfad wrote: »

Thanks. Is he in the know?

On this issue? I dunno. This is athletics.

The clinic on cyclingnews forum is where I first started following him. The clinic has become a total joke of late and has descended into pure unadulterated speculation. But his posts always seemed to be grounded in reality and pretty much all of his early leaks and predictions surrounding the Armstrong case came true.

wrstan · 13-08-2015 10:51AM

The JTG article is helpful because it sets out to dispel some assumptions/assertions/speculations that may be gettign some common currency but are in fact inaccurate and ill informed.

However for sure it does not tell the whole story (nor does it set out to). It definitely doesn't finish the discussion!

Likewise the Marathontalk discussions have a role to play because they encourage further discussion and investigation into the whole affair, and that can only be helpful.

I think Coe's response is incredibly unhelpful in addressing the whole issue of drugs in sport, however I guess that he has a totally different objective on his mind right now. The hopeful part of me is saying that if he gets elected, we will see a very different message from him (or maybe I'm just naive).

demfad · 13-08-2015 10:59AM

wrstan wrote: »

I think Coe's response is incredibly unhelpful in addressing the whole issue of drugs in sport, however I guess that he has a totally different objective on his mind right now. The hopeful part of me is saying that if he gets elected, we will see a very different message from him (or maybe I'm just naive).

I hope so too. Hope he's saying what needs to be said in order to be elected and may take the issue to task once he has the power to do so.

TRR_the_turd · 13-08-2015 11:14AM

average_runner wrote: »

So athletes have higher blood results than those that were cheating in cycling and they think these were normal? You don't need a blood passport to know this was cheating!!

I agree with you but because the sampling seems to be so sparse for a number of athletes and they fall outside the start date for the blood passport I don't think anything could have been done.

demfad wrote: »

I agree with the bolded section. But that's not what JTG are saying, they are saying that these abnormal blood results in isolation "are in no way indicative of doping".

Probably a legal thing. If they explicitly say this points to doping they could get into a legal argument. I don't know but overall I thought it was a pretty good synopsis.

shels4ever · 13-08-2015 11:16AM

menoscemo wrote: »

I am under the impression that they simply couldn't use blood profiles as any kind of proof pre 2009; and even since the blood passport system has come in; they still can't use it retrospectively. They can only use these suspicious blood markers as a reason to test for traces of drugs in Urine

I think the slew of (as yet unnamed) Athletes who have recently been caught for indiscretions at the 2005 and 2007 World championships had their frozen urine samples retested.

Funny cycling used these types of values to ban people all be it for a short period of time when shown. pantani had suspicious value in the Giro and was banned in the back of it. This was back in 99 can't believe nobody could comeuppance with a system since then. Head in the sand I expect better to have the bad news months years after then event than during.

wrstan · 13-08-2015 12:09PM

Myles Splitz wrote: »

The Lance pursuit also is non comparable. Due to the US Postal service being title sponsor this became a Federal issue. Similar to the FIFA corruption convictions this was pursued via legal avenues that transcend the scope of sport.

According to the London Marathon statement on Lilya Shubokova:

“We will take action through the English courts to recover the prize and appearance money paid to Shobukhova in 2010 and 2011,” said Nick Bitel, Chief Executive of the London Marathon.

I would love to see this progressed or fast-tracked through the legal system.

Krusty_Clown · 13-08-2015 12:31PM

adrian522 wrote: »

I don't know KC, I thought this weeks Marathon talk was very good, and yes because they are 2 guys sitting in a room they will not have a chance to read and review everything before they publish it like they would on a website but I thought it was a very good overview of everything that has happened since the original story broke 2 weeks ago.

I haven't heard it and will catch up over the coming weeks. What turned me off them a little was a discussion they had some weeks ago in relation to an athlete from the NOP, who confirmed that he was not comfortable with how he was repeatedly asked to test for a problem (can't remember if it was thyroid or sport-induced asthma) until such time as he failed the specific medical examination and was prescribed medication that required a TUE. The athlete in question said that 'it felt like cheating'. Then one of the MT guys went on a bit of a rant, that the individual 'is a cheat'. It's pretty clear (if it's true) that Salazar may be bending the rules in a very dishonest way, but the MT guy immediately was judge and executioner and wouldn't listen to reason from the other MT guy, who was leaning more towards the evidence.

Just to be clear, I really enjoy the show and am glad that they bring these topics to the fore. I'm just not entirely sure they're qualified to determine what is right and wrong, and who is guilty and innocent without staying true to the evidence.

Are there big problems? Yes, absolutely there are. The evidence points to it. Can specific individuals be identified and retrospectively punished based on the evidence? Not at the moment, it seems. Perhaps in the future.

average_runner · 13-08-2015 01:05PM

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I haven't heard it and will catch up over the coming weeks. What turned me off them a little was a discussion they had some weeks ago in relation to an athlete from the NOP, who confirmed that he was not comfortable with how he was repeatedly asked to test for a problem (can't remember if it was thyroid or sport-induced asthma) until such time as he failed the specific medical examination and was prescribed medication that required a TUE. The athlete in question said that 'it felt like cheating'. Then one of the MT guys went on a bit of a rant, that the individual 'is a cheat'. It's pretty clear (if it's true) that Salazar may be bending the rules in a very dishonest way, but the MT guy immediately was judge and executioner and wouldn't listen to reason from the other MT guy, who was leaning more towards the evidence.

Just to be clear, I really enjoy the show and am glad that they bring these topics to the fore. I'm just not entirely sure they're qualified to determine what is right and wrong, and who is guilty and innocent without staying true to the evidence.

Are there big problems? Yes, absolutely there are. The evidence points to it. Can specific individuals be identified and retrospectively punished based on the evidence? Not at the moment, it seems. Perhaps in the future.

The most important thing about all this, is the IAAF learn from this and improve things, so clean athletes get their chance to get what they deserve.

wrstan · 13-08-2015 02:15PM

Sandwell wrote: »

Another response from Ashenden, worth reading. His general argument is that even if the IAAF did, as they claim, take action where possible they should have been far more proactive. The Shobukhova example he uses is pretty damning.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn8dnp

His comments on the "no start" rules seem really interesting. It seems like in terms of eradicating the presence of drugs in athletics, a "no start" initiative could go further in one step than has been travelled by existing anti drug testing activities over the last 4 decades. And it could be introduced almost immediately.

All that remains is for the IAAF to legislate a ceiling of normality beyond which athletes will be unable to compete. Now that would truly be an example of the IAAF pioneering the way.

It seems like a no brainer to me - am I missing something?

Clearlier · 13-08-2015 02:29PM

wrstan wrote: »

His comments on the "no start" rules seem really interesting. It seems like in terms of eradicating the presence of drugs in athletics, a "no start" initiative could go further in one step than has been travelled by existing anti drug testing activities over the last 4 decades. And it could be introduced almost immediately.

It seems like a no brainer to me - am I missing something?

I imagine that some logistics are required to implement this? Hardly pioneering BTW considering that cycling introduced their < 50% haematocrit rule over a decade ago. I don't know the details of what he's proposing but if it's as blunt an instrument as the cycling rule then the primary change will be a reduction in the amount of doping and an increase in the activities of what a doper needs to do to be eligible to race.

It's a good idea but on a cost/benefit basis it may be more worthwhile chasing after something else, N.B. I don't know the answer to this, I'm just speculating about why you might choose not to implement it.

shels4ever · 13-08-2015 02:38PM

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/08/police-report-nike-global-director-of-athletics-john-capriotti-threatened-to-kill-brooks-beasts-head-coach-and-former-nike-employee-danny-mackey-at-2015-usas/

Something really needs to change in the sport,

TRR_the_turd · 13-08-2015 02:56PM

shels4ever wrote: »

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/08/police-report-nike-global-director-of-athletics-john-capriotti-threatened-to-kill-brooks-beasts-head-coach-and-former-nike-employee-danny-mackey-at-2015-usas/

Something really needs to change in the sport,

I've threatened to kill a couple of people at race meets! This is all hand bags.

Pherekydes · 13-08-2015 03:24PM

wrstan wrote: »

It seems like a no brainer to me - am I missing something?

A 'ceiling of normality' would be a purely arbitrary line drawn in the sand.

Leaked IAAf report on doping

Comments