Leaked IAAf report on doping

Yeah, I'm movin' on. It's Saturday night, and all this aggro is ruining my episode of Poirot. Over and out, dude. No hard feelings.

It's just getting more depressing...

Independent study blocked by IAAF:
http://m.bbc.com/sport/athletics/33948924

Chivito550 wrote: »

To be fair to walshb, he is talking a load of rot, but he is entitled to his opinion, and he hasn't stepped out of line in delivering his point of view.

I happen to think what he thinks is absolute nonsense of the highest order, and am encouraged that everybody else thinks so too. It's a truely bizarre stance to take. But he hasn't done anything wrong here IMO.

It is not bizarre to say that PEDs should be allowed in sport. It would be bizarre if I was the only person who thinks this. Many people do, and many in sporting circles.

My stance is clear: Allow PEDs, and move the testing towards health and safety, not what substances a person has inside their bodies.

I happen to think I have made some valid points as to why PEDs should be allowed.

This is from the British Journal of Sports Medicine: http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/38/6/666.full. I think that some very good points are raised.

There are other reports and studies in favor of my view. Hardly bizarre.

Clearlier wrote: »

I didn't have to even click through to know that Savulescu would be the author.

He is quite frankly a disgrace to the name of philosophy. His arguments are those of a weak sophist or a modern day politician. No serious attempt is ever made by him to weigh up the arguments and come to a reasoned decision. Instead he takes a position and then seeks supporting evidence for it. He makes at least one category error. He doesn't even elucidate the arguments for his opinion very well. It is of no surprise to me that he publishes this in BJSM. It would have been rejected out of hand by any reputable philosophical journal. It wouldn't in fact get a pass in a first year exam.

The health argument is a nonsense IMO. The argument is that we can't draw the line at no drugs because everyone is cheating. People are still going to cheat if we draw the line at what is healthy or to be more precise what is not unhealthy.

There are other studies and opinions.

Anyway, what is the difference between the athlete gaining help and improvements by availing of the best technology and dietitians and doctors and facilities and equipment (all legal), vs. the athlete who cannot avail of these facilities, and athletes improving their performance by using drugs?

Take away the word drugs, and it's simply an athlete using technology (drugs) to help them.

Would an athlete with only access to drugs, and not access to state of the art facilities and equipment really be gaining an advantage over athletes who do have access to state of the art facilities, but who choose to stay drugs free?

I wouldn't begrudge poorer countries who are using relatively cheap drugs (relevantly cheap compared to state of the art training) vs. athletes from wealthy countries who have the best of everything.

It seems that the primary reason to ban PEDs is that they may be dangerous to the user. That's about it. No other solid reason.

Saying that it gives an advantage would not be an issue if the drugs were banned from being banned. Already we have an uneven field.

Surely someone else agrees, or sees possible reasons to allow PEDs in sport, or at least some sports?

Mens occurrences on top list http://www.alltime-athletics.com/mmaraok.htm per year
Womens occurrences on top list http://www.alltime-athletics.com/wmaraok.htm per year


Year M W
1999 82 81
2000 73 94
2001 67 111
2002 91 111
2003 118 110
2004 79 94
2005 87 107
2006 87 105
2007 98 79
2008 131 138
2009 145 125
2010 185 127
2011 218 194
2012 227 193
2013 215 151
2014 241 180
2015 118* 126* (*62% of the year is gone) estimate 190 and 203

I wrote a thread on this I think about 6-8 months ago. Clearly what we know today it gives a bit more context to this.

The jump from 2007 - 08 was 34% M and 75% women.
This is simply crazy as from 99-07 you have up/down numbers and then this huge jump.

From This

One undercover German journalist from that investigation a couple of years ago maintained that doctors were involved in alleged Kenyan doping.

A banned Kenyan athlete claimed: ""When the prize money comes in the doctors want a piece of your success. There are some doctors who settle down in popular athlete areas where you can find the training camps. These men just open a pharmacy and claim they are just selling legal medication. Then they approach the athletes. It is the same all over the country."


The German guy: "Interviewed a former Danish anti-doping official who claimed to have observed significant changes in the red blood cell counts of a number Kenyans racing in Europe between 2008 and 2010"


The money around road races might have also allowed more foreign agents, managers etc. meaning more Kenyans racing in big money races.

Perhaps these doctors started establishing themselves around 2007-8 when this rising prize money in road races was making a lucrative gap in the market for unscrupulous doctors.

That's a possibility:

---

Prize money goes up for road races

---

more foreign agents give Kenyan athletes access to big prize racing

---

Kenyan doctors establish pharmacies and give EPO to athletes in return for a share of winnings. Obviously the agents (and coaches) would know what was going on.

Another interesting thing from that link was the study done in Kenya with 19 Scottish and 20 Kenyan athletes given EPO every 2nd day for 4 weeks. Both groups showed a 5% increase in a 3k time trial.

That seems to rubbish Canova's dodgy assertion that EPO cant improve an elite Kenyans performance.

demfad wrote: »

Another interesting thing from that link was the study done in Kenya with 19 Scottish and 20 Kenyan athletes given EPO every 2nd day for 4 weeks. Both groups showed a 5% increase in a 3k time trial.

That seems to rubbish Canova's dodgy assertion that EPO cant improve an elite Kenyans performance.

While it is a very dodgy assertion, I am not convinced that the study refutes it fully as it was not done on real elites.
In 19 Caucasian males, performance improved from 11:08 to 10:30.
In 20 Kenyans males, performance went from 9:20 to 8:55.
Remember men's WR is 7:20 and 2015 WL is 7:38; Sonia was regularly running under 8:30.
Canova's point is that elite Kenyans are so highly trained including at altitude that there is no room for improvement and therefore that EPO gives no benefit.
It is impossible to prove or disprove this point without using real elite athletes.
However most of us on here would certainly benefit from it :pac:

dna_leri wrote: »

While it is a very dodgy assertion, I am not convinced that the study refutes it fully as it was not done on real elites.
In 19 Caucasian males, performance improved from 11:08 to 10:30.
In 20 Kenyans males, performance went from 9:20 to 8:55.
Remember men's WR is 7:20 and 2015 WL is 7:38; Sonia was regularly running under 8:30.
Canova's point is that elite Kenyans are so highly trained including at altitude that there is no room for improvement and therefore that EPO gives no benefit.
It is impossible to prove or disprove this point without using real elite athletes.
However most of us on here would certainly benefit from it :pac:

I only have a rudimentary understanding of physiology but it's clear to me that even elite athletes will have quite different physical characteristics. Some will benefit enormously from a drug like EPO - others relatively little. We saw it in cycling where Lance derived a huge benefit but his teammate (Hincapie I think) very little i.e. Lance was relatively strong in other areas that weren't helped by epo (or the other drugs that he took) where Hincapie was relatively weak.

Canova's assertion that elite Kenyan's wouldn't benefit from epo is very likely to be nonsense. I would guess that he would assert that any elite athlete who took it was not actually an elite athlete after all i.e. he'd create an argument that was very difficult to falsify.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Mixed feeling. I still cannot understand why they just dont go for life bans and be done with it.

IAAF does not hand out life bans because WADA does not support it and is backed up by CAS.
The British Olympic Association tried to impose a life ban on athletes such as Dwain Chambers in 2012. WADA challenged this policy and BOA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and won. A similar case was taken by the IOC.

The argument is that it would be difficult to hand out a life-time ban to a first time doper because the burden of proof would be too high. In any of these cases, the potential for errors exists. With the possibility of a life-time ban the pressure would be on the governing body to prove their case beyond doubt and as a result would more than likely see "not guilty" results.

We would all like these cases to be straight forward and clear - the reality is that they are not - science is not as black and white as we like. In the meantime the approach seems to be to slowly increase the ban duration until a 4-8 year ban becomes the norm, leaving life-time bans for extreme cases.

I thought second time offences were lifetime bans though?

8 years is grand anyway in most cases. Can't envisage an athlete bothering to continue with the sport after such a long time out.

walshb wrote: »

It's just a pity they didn't catch her before she destroyed the most prestigious track race on the Olympic calendar.

For some of these athletes I think them getting to the top and winning the Olympic title is all they want, and they will try anything to help them. They are already super athletes, just looking for that extra kick.

Maybe they aren't too concerned about getting caught and heavily banned. The euphoria and adrenaline and high they can get from crossing the line first at the games is worth the risk. No shame.

Edit: This athlete had a ban back in 2004. Obviously she is one that doesn't give a fook!

And she probably made alot of money out of it

Chivito550 wrote: »

To be fair, Turkey is filthy when it comes to doping. I'm pretty certain it is systematic there, and the athletes don't have a choice, if they want to get selected. She's just the unfortunate one who got caught. Her teammate, who now becomes Olympic Champion, after dropping 20 seconds off her PB in 2012, hasn't been caught.

That's Greece and Turkey you have now labeled as being filthy. Whole countries being tarred. Wonder what the charter makes of this?:pac:

Add in the 1.3 billlion Chinese and you're on a serious roll!

Chivito550 wrote: »

Haha, I would hardly consider my comments as slander in any shape or form. More like common sense, or a statement of common knowledge.

Surprised with you to be honest. Makes me wonder how closely you really follow this sport if you haven't heard comments about systematic doping in Turkey, Morocco, Greece, Spain, Russia, China before. I'm hardly the first to say such a thing.

I do follow the sport. I am just a little more subtle than yourself. You probably crack your nuts with a sledgehammer?:D