Leaked IAAf report on doping

wrstan · 19-08-2015 12:18AM

dna_leri wrote: »

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.

But would the implementation of the "no start" rule not immediately be simpler, and wholly within the gift of the federation to create and implement the rule, reducing the ability for athletes to challenge it - essentially it does not judge the athlete to be guilty so there is no actual verdict to challenge. I know it does not come without its own challenges, but none which cannot be overcome by a sports body who is serious about the issue of drugs. It certainly seems that it could be so much more effective than the current testing regime?

I guess the problem is, I find it hard to believe that the IAAF are actually serious about tackling this endemic issue.

rom · 19-08-2015 01:07AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Looks to be part of a general upward trend that began in 2008. What might have triggered it?

Can you explain this a bit more please.

Murph_D · 19-08-2015 02:21AM

I think his point is somewhere around big prizes for big city marathons and other road races. Following the money is never a bad idea when trying to understand human motivation.

ThisRegard · 19-08-2015 07:43AM

So Coe was elected overnight, here's hoping he can continue his good work that he was doing on FIFAs ethics committee all those years....

Notwork Error · 19-08-2015 07:50AM

ThisRegard wrote: »

So Coe was elected overnight, here's hoping he can continue his good work that he was doing on FIFAs ethics committee all those years....

To be fair though, he does seem to have a better stance than Bubka.

ThisRegard · 19-08-2015 07:56AM

Ha. You do have to laugh though, his comments on this issue lately wouldn't give one you much hope for optimism. I know the comparison has been made before, but it makes you think of the UCI and McQuaid back in the day the view there was that there was no serious drug problem in cycling.

walshb · 19-08-2015 09:22AM

Give the guy a chance. Just been elected. I believe Coe's views and wants are in the right place. He's a good guy who wants the best for the sport. He is one man in the IAAF, even if that is president, it doesn't automatically mean that he can make the sport perfect.

groovyg · 19-08-2015 11:04AM

I'd say he'll do his utmost to make the doping problem disappear.
Now that he's elected, I presume his vbff Paula will get a spot on the XC Committee.

walshb · 19-08-2015 11:05AM

groovyg wrote: »

I'd say he'll do his utmost to make the doping problem disappear.

Isn't that what we all want?:)

Clearlier · 19-08-2015 11:10AM

wrstan wrote: »

But would the implementation of the "no start" rule not immediately be simpler, and wholly within the gift of the federation to create and implement the rule, reducing the ability for athletes to challenge it - essentially it does not judge the athlete to be guilty so there is no actual verdict to challenge. I know it does not come without its own challenges, but none which cannot be overcome by a sports body who is serious about the issue of drugs. It certainly seems that it could be so much more effective than the current testing regime?

I guess the problem is, I find it hard to believe that the IAAF are actually serious about tackling this endemic issue.

The no-start rule is a pretty blunt instrument that's useful for health reasons and it can have a minor impact on the volume of doping but what they found in cycling was that rather than a limit the cyclists viewed it as a target. As with all doping some athletes have more to gain as they're further away from the limit than others. I'd support it's introduction but it's just one tool and no panacea for the sport.

shels4ever · 19-08-2015 12:09PM

walshb wrote: »

Isn't that what we all want?:)

Maybe he will go your route and make it all legal.

walshb · 19-08-2015 12:33PM

shels4ever wrote: »

Maybe he will go your route and make it all legal.

Fingers crossed!

The Rape of Lucretia · 19-08-2015 01:48PM

walshb wrote: »

Give the guy a chance. Just been elected. I believe Coe's views and wants are in the right place. He's a good guy who wants the best for the sport. He is one man in the IAAF, even if that is president, it doesn't automatically mean that he can make the sport perfect.

I would agree he does want the best. But is he prepared to rck the sport to its core so that it can rise again some day in the future ?

Probably not. This is where they all go wrong. They do not come fully clean, but try to finesse things in the right direction. They see scandal as a problem t be avoided rather than a necessary side effect of a full cleansing.

Life bans for the bulk of athletes competing today are probably achievable. But they see that as wrecking the sport rather than curing it. Therein lies the mistake that will perpetuate the problem.

menoscemo · 19-08-2015 05:16PM

So Radcliffe has broken her silence to say that Athletes should not release their blood data as the general public just wouldn't understand it anyway....hmmmm..

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33990503

ThisRegard · 19-08-2015 05:19PM

menoscemo wrote: »

So Radcliffe has broken her silence to say that Athletes should not release their blood data as the general public just wouldn't understand it anyway....hmmmm..

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33990503

We're all stupid all of a sudden? What an ill judged statement to come out with, even for the implication that she may have something to hide or hers may look odd compared to others.

menoscemo · 19-08-2015 05:22PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

We're all stupid all of a sudden? What an ill judged statement to come out with, even for the implication that she may have something to hide or hers may look odd compared to others.

Back in januray she was calling for all Blood data to be released. I wonder why the sudden change of heart?
http://running.competitor.com/2015/01/news/paula-radcliffe-wants-suspicious-blood-values-revealed_121501

Edit: Better article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11361591/Paula-Radcliffe-urges-doping-documentary-maker-to-reveal-all-about-suspicious-blood-values.html

walshb · 19-08-2015 05:23PM

And some here and elsewhere would still question her no matter what she says or does.. She's spot on. Athletes cannot prove they are clean to some people. She has nothing to hide, and has aided by the rules. She is being straight up and honest, and I believe she is clean.

walshb · 19-08-2015 05:24PM

menoscemo wrote: »

Back in januray she was calling for all Blood data to be released. I wonder why the sudden change of heart?
http://running.competitor.com/2015/01/news/paula-radcliffe-wants-suspicious-blood-values-revealed_121501

Released to the public? I don't think that's what she was saying.

Sandwell · 19-08-2015 05:25PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

We're all stupid all of a sudden? What an ill judged statement to come out with, even for the implication that she may have something to hide or hers may look odd compared to others.

Utter spin that wll be lapped up by the British media. Hardly a coincidence that she's finally come out of hiding the day her good mate Lord Coe gets elected. I'm sure he'll do his best to sweep all those unpleasant rumours under the carpet.

Athletics is definitely in a much worse place than cycling at the moment and that's saying something.

ThisRegard · 19-08-2015 05:27PM

I'm not saying she has something to hide, but if she doesn't why row back on what she previously called for as demonstrated above?

walshb · 19-08-2015 05:28PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm not saying she has something to hide, but if she doesn't why row back on what she previously called for as demonstrated above?

Did she call for the data to be released to the public?

ThisRegard · 19-08-2015 05:35PM

Fair point.

But after complaints from her about the public being suspicious of her records it's an odd statement to make.

Chivito550 · 19-08-2015 05:45PM

She's smart. Put up a Twitter update saying she has just figured out how to get on Twitter in China. That will convince some gullible people why she has been silent for so long. I was here 24 hours and I'd figured out how to get onto the blocked sites here. No way she has been in China for 3 weeks trying to figure that out.

Also, big coincidence that she has broken her silence the day Seb gets ejected. She should have waited a few days. It only looks worse tweeting again on the very same day.

menoscemo · 19-08-2015 05:50PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

She's smart. Put up a Twitter update saying she has just figured out how to get on Twitter in China. That will convince some gullible people why she has been silent for so long. I was here 24 hours and I'd figured out how to get onto the blocked sites here. No way she has been in China for 3 weeks trying to figure that out.

Also, big coincidence that she has broken her silence the day Seb gets ejected. She should have waited a few days. It only looks worse tweeting again on the very same day.

She hasn't been in China for the past 3 weeks. She has been in Font Romeu; I have seen athletes tweet pictures of her training with them there.

menoscemo · 19-08-2015 06:03PM

The Radcliffe Interview is on BBC news now...

Pherekydes · 19-08-2015 06:06PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Also, big coincidence that she has broken her silence the day Seb gets ejected.

Sergey won? :pac:

shels4ever · 19-08-2015 06:12PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Sergey won? :pac:

With the way things are going maybe he means "injected".

menoscemo · 19-08-2015 06:13PM

menoscemo wrote: »

She hasn't been in China for the past 3 weeks. She has been in Font Romeu; I have seen athletes tweet pictures of her training with them there.

https://twitter.com/alydixon262/status/631169057534906368

This was on 11th August

wrstan · 19-08-2015 08:01PM

Coe clearly refusing to accept that we have a "real problem" more a "perceived problem"

I despair

:mad::(

wrstan · 19-08-2015 08:12PM

menoscemo wrote: »

So Radcliffe has broken her silence to say that Athletes should not release their blood data as the general public just wouldn't understand it anyway....hmmmm..

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33990503

This is all so contrived and managed!

The only reason for this interview clearly is to assist the Beeb get through the damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemma of including her on the coverage team in Beijing amidst all the current suspicions and speculations. I see they confirm that she will be "part of the BBC team" in the report.

I can't help feeling that the rabbit in the headlamps look is a bit overdone. Despite my best efforts, it's so hard not to feel cynical. :-(

Leaked IAAf report on doping

Comments