Leaked IAAf report on doping

Pherekydes wrote:

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

macinalli wrote: »

This point was raised by David Epstein on Second Captains recently. Apparently there was a case a few years ago of a cross country skier with massive levels of human growth hormone. An arbitrary limit was picked and the skier was banned. Skier took a case to CAS and the ban was overturned as the governing body had no basis for the limit they picked. The same applies to the IAAF; they could set a limit and ban lots of probable doping athletes, but end up losing lots of cases at the CAS.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Are the any suspicions in the public arena about Coe's career ?

Very successful white guy in athletics. From a country with several other contemporary successful guys as some of his major competition. Competing against known PED users. In an era when PED use in the communist block was ubiquitous.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Even his 1500m time though is in a range that while the Africans are doing it for fun today, is not being touched by white men since that period 30 years ago. In that light, with no improvement in 30 years, his time really is out there even if not to the extent of his 800m.

Nermal wrote:

The same geniuses at the CAS who recently ruled there was no evidence that higher testosterone makes you run faster and let Dutee Chand compete, so you more or less have to be a hermaphrodite now to win female events.

walshb wrote: »

Why wouldn't his WRs warrant suspicion? That seems to be the crux for a lot of people. Extraordinary achievements are meant with "it has to be drugs." At one point in the early 80s didn't Coe hold 3 or 4 WRs simultaneously? Mo Farrah holds zero WRs, and never did, and he's all over the news....

I hate selectivity!

Chivito550 wrote: »

Not sure you read my post right. What I said was his VICTORIES ALONE wouldn't warrant suspicion, as the Kenyans hadn't emerged then, and the Eastern Bloc weren't as strong for men as for women (my argument to points made by a previous poster that Coe should be seen as suspicious as he was a white guy beating drugged up athletes from Communist countries).

I did say however that his 1:41 could be viewed as suspicious, as 34 years on and the event is only less than a second faster, and only a handful of guys have gone quicker.

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh I'd be the same. I think Coe was clean, but I have no strong basis for that belief, and wouldn't bother trying to argue a case for why I think so, as my belief is only based on a hunch. I'd be very confident Cram is clean listening to him talk about doping, though that's no guarantee either.

walshb wrote: »

I'm the exact same. Most times it boils down to hearing the athlete speaking and becoming familiar with them. You gain a sense of trust from them. Bolt to me is that athlete. His whole persona and demeanor and attitude. He espouses honesty and fun and genuineness and sincerity. I also get that vibe from Farrah. Of course, times and progressions are looked at as well.

Nermal wrote: »

The same geniuses at the CAS who recently ruled there was no evidence that higher testosterone makes you run faster and let Dutee Chand compete, <snip>.

On a balance of probabilities, the Athlete did not establish that testosterone is not a material fact in determining athletic performance

The Panel is satisfied that that there is such a difference in average testosterone levels and that this marker can be relied on for the purposes of differentiating male and female populations. That is, the Panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the IAAF is reasonably entitled to rely on testosterone for this purpose.

The Panel is satisfied, to the requisite standard of proof, that there is a scientific basis in the use of testosterone as a marker for the purposes of the Hyperandrogenism Regulations.

The Panel has accepted that testosterone is a key causative factor in the increased LBM in males. The Panel accepts that increased LCM confers a competitive advantage. The Panel accepts the evidence that male athletes have a competitive advantage over female athletes of the order of 10-12%; that LBM is of key importance in conferring this advantage; and that separation between male and female athletes is therefore justifiable in the interests of fair competition. There is, however, an assumption involved in the Hyperandrogenism Regulation as a proportionate justification for discriminating between females. The assumption is that an endogenous testosterone level within the male range + virilisation (indicating sensitivity to the high level of testosterone) = a degree of competitive advantage over non-hyperandrogenic females of commensurate significance to the competitive advantage that male athletes enjoy over female athletes.

This assumption may well be proved valid but, on the present evidence, the Panel cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this is so. The Panel has accepted that testosterone is the best indicator of performance difference between male and female athletes. However, the evidence does not go so far as to equate, or correlate, the level of testosterone in females with a percentage increase in competitive advantage. The evidence does not, for example, establish an advantage of 12% rather than say 1% or 3%. Once the degree of competitive advantage is established, the IAAF would then need to consider, if the degree of advantage were well below 12%, whether that justified excluding women with that advantage from the female category.