The doping program joke of the ITF!!!

barrystar wrote:I implicitly acknowledged that I don't believe British athletes are whiter than white.  I entirely accept that the GB Swimming and Cycling teams may have decided to push the TUE rules as part of their marginal gains in the chase for Government funding - I would regard that as unethical and unsportsmanlike, cheating if you like, even if it is within the letter of the law.  I think that Sky has almost completely lost its credibility - and there are plenty of UK journalists who have chased the story about the package hard, and are prepared to express doubts and criticise Sky  (David Walsh and Marina Hyde are just two good examples off the top of my head).  It has also recently been reported that there are serious worries about how athletes are assigned to categories or selected for Team GB in relation to UK Paralympic sport (where the pressure for funding is probably even greater).  So, whilst much of the UK press, and sometimes the BBC, act like cheerleaders who give our 'heroes' a soft ride, there are plenty of decent UK journalists and others who regularly express their doubts, even disdain, whose views get regular coverage in the mainstream press, and who need not fear for their livelihoods let alone their lives as a result.

You see, even in your words you are  not applying the same language as you would apply for the Russians. Never in your long description do you use positive affirmative accusations. You always let the doubt fly over all allegations. But of course for the russians, it is "state sponsored doping" as if you personally knew, though yourself have no more proof of it either.

It's exactly in  line with Froome's  "adverse" case instead of what is used for all the other athletes so far: Positive tests. Can't you see the double standards there either? I can read your reply there again: "Maybe there is but possibly, not 100% certain ...."....NO Maybe, no possibly, No but Barry. The cases are treated differently. End of. Recognise it at least!

The UK position is not satisfactory (I did not say that it is), but it is a world apart from using state security services to tamper with and switch samples of 00's or 000's of athletes to hide planned PED use, or where skeptical scientists, whistleblowers, and journalists who are brave enough to raise this dying in suspicious circumstances or living in hiding fearing for their lives - let alone their livelihoods.

No I do not see any difference. I just see that the brits dopes in a much more systematic  but smarter way. This "state security service" is only related by one German journalist and a couple of deflecting athletes (who knows how much they were paid. Whereas US and GB athletes have WADA/UCI,NIKE and all other great sponsors on their side delivering asthma, TUEs and products when needed. There is always a good "reason" not compare the Nato cheats with the Russians and Chinese.

So I am yet to hear how come the Brits being cleaner than the Russians and Chinese can win more medals than those countries in spite of being a 20th of the population? Even during RDA's glorious years they were not beating the Russians in Olympic medals.

You ask what the Russians and Chinese think - I imagine that the Russians think we are slightly hypocritical, but naive amateurs at cheating.  I have no idea what the Chinese think.  To alter Jesus's analogy in Matthew 7:3 a little, whilst there is a definitely a mote in our eye, we have correctly noticed a huge beam in the Russian state's eye and whilst there is room for improvement in the way we look at ourselves, we are certainly entitled to point out the problems with Russia.  And with Russia, the media are mostly reporting on WADA's own report.

.....Yep. Don't deform Jesus' saying though, the orignal says it very clearly. It is the US/UK pointing at Russia's doping problem...not the other way around. . It's the countries of Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Wiggins, Froome, Farah, Gatlin, pointing at the russians mote,  not the Russians pointing at you, hence the beam is in your eyes.  

GB atheletes being native amateurs at cheating? Barry sorry but the naive, gullible ones are not the athletes but their public!

I'd say that only in a world of baseless hyperbole is it possible not to see the difference.

I would have hoped that unlike Slippy who is too emotionally involved with his heros, you would be able to be a bit more objective here but I think I was wrong .

barrystar wrote:

Daniel wrote:When Athletes who dope start going to jail, we'll get somewhere.  Until then, this is all poppycock.

I totally disagree.  The main reason is that we, the taxpayer, end up funding the failure of professional sports to sort out their own credibility.  Sport is really an offshoot of the entertainment industry, and a lack of integrity should be their cost and concern, not ours - because ultimately the losers are the athletes and the sports who don't get income from a sceptical public.  

If we truly care, the best way we can stop doping is to stop watching, stop buying products the sportsmen and women endorse, and to let advertisers know that they are a turn-off.  Much better that we take responsibility via decisions we make about our commercial and leisure time than taxes and resources of a hard-pressed state.  

Furthermore, some of these issues are technical and difficult, so the trials would be long and expensive, and Juries are far more likely to acquit in a technical trial than a specialist tribunal like CAS, especially if the suggestion can be made that the doping rules are harsh and unfair and difficult to comply with.

I completely agree. It all springs from people paying for it all.

barrystar wrote:

Daniel wrote:When Athletes who dope start going to jail, we'll get somewhere.  Until then, this is all poppycock.

I totally disagree.  The main reason is that we, the taxpayer, end up funding the failure of professional sports to sort out their own credibility.  Sport is really an offshoot of the entertainment industry, and a lack of integrity should be their cost and concern, not ours - because ultimately the losers are the athletes and the sports who don't get income from a sceptical public.  

If we truly care, the best way we can stop doping is to stop watching, stop buying products the sportsmen and women endorse, and to let advertisers know that they are a turn-off.  Much better that we take responsibility via decisions we make about our commercial and leisure time than taxes and resources of a hard-pressed state.  

Furthermore, some of these issues are technical and difficult, so the trials would be long and expensive, and Juries are far more likely to acquit in a technical trial than a specialist tribunal like CAS, especially if the suggestion can be made that the doping rules are harsh and unfair and difficult to comply with.

But people want to believe in heros. I always knew Lance, Froome and any TDF champion is a cheat (not a choice if you wish to win). ...yet something deep down wants us to believe in extra natural ability and skills. Look at Slippy...always keen to believe Murray, Wiggins, Froome's good faith.

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Daniel wrote:When Athletes who dope start going to jail, we'll get somewhere.  Until then, this is all poppycock.

I totally disagree.  The main reason is that we, the taxpayer, end up funding the failure of professional sports to sort out their own credibility.  Sport is really an offshoot of the entertainment industry, and a lack of integrity should be their cost and concern, not ours - because ultimately the losers are the athletes and the sports who don't get income from a sceptical public.  

If we truly care, the best way we can stop doping is to stop watching, stop buying products the sportsmen and women endorse, and to let advertisers know that they are a turn-off.  Much better that we take responsibility via decisions we make about our commercial and leisure time than taxes and resources of a hard-pressed state.  

Furthermore, some of these issues are technical and difficult, so the trials would be long and expensive, and Juries are far more likely to acquit in a technical trial than a specialist tribunal like CAS, especially if the suggestion can be made that the doping rules are harsh and unfair and difficult to comply with.

But people want to believe in heros. I always knew Lance, Froome and any TDF champion is a cheat (not a choice if you wish to win). ...yet something deep down wants us to believe in extra natural ability and skills. Look at Slippy...always keen to believe Murray, Wiggins, Froome's good faith.
 

People do want to believe in heroes - but that's their business, it's not so important that the taxpayer should get involved.

barrystar wrote:
People do want to believe in heroes - but that's their business, it's not so important that the taxpayer should get involved.

I am afraid Barry, taxpayer’s job IS to pay tax and not think much. And especially not have time to think.
It’s an old formula of bread and games, I believe from Roman times.

Haven’t you noticed that the entire showbusiness (and that includes all athlete pros) revolves around building images of heros...role models...

It is not enough for Roger Federer to be a tennis genius?
He has to be a perfectly manicured gentleman, perfect father, perfect humanitarian.
For many he is an altar.

Then there is Ronaldo, another demi-god through who moral agenda is being pushed (various children with surrogate mothers).

For the poor Latino world, Nadal is the perfect “humble, warrior” hero.

Then the Kardashian family of whom I know very little but enough to see another body debasing trend being imposed on “the other eighty percent” - and yes - they are the taxpayers.

The thinking five percent, are not being worried about much atm.
If they pose a threat, the deep state force them to live in Columbian embassy like that Aussie wickileaks founder. Or bump them off like that guy who said he didn’t find weapins ofmmass desteuction in Iraq.

So yes, heros are essential for those who spend  a lot of money carefully building those image.
And protect that image come what may - heros don’t dope.

The hero worshipping masses can’t live without someone to adore. Look at all the footbal fans around the world...all the hype...is that a coincidence?



The air “up there” stinks.

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:I implicitly acknowledged that I don't believe British athletes are whiter than white.  I entirely accept that the GB Swimming and Cycling teams may have decided to push the TUE rules as part of their marginal gains in the chase for Government funding - I would regard that as unethical and unsportsmanlike, cheating if you like, even if it is within the letter of the law.  I think that Sky has almost completely lost its credibility - and there are plenty of UK journalists who have chased the story about the package hard, and are prepared to express doubts and criticise Sky  (David Walsh and Marina Hyde are just two good examples off the top of my head).  It has also recently been reported that there are serious worries about how athletes are assigned to categories or selected for Team GB in relation to UK Paralympic sport (where the pressure for funding is probably even greater).  So, whilst much of the UK press, and sometimes the BBC, act like cheerleaders who give our 'heroes' a soft ride, there are plenty of decent UK journalists and others who regularly express their doubts, even disdain, whose views get regular coverage in the mainstream press, and who need not fear for their livelihoods let alone their lives as a result.

You see, even in your words you are  not applying the same language as you would apply for the Russians. Never in your long description do you use positive affirmative accusations. You always let the doubt fly over all allegations. But of course for the russians, it is "state sponsored doping" as if you personally knew, though yourself have no more proof of it either.

It's exactly in  line with Froome's  "adverse" case instead of what is used for all the other athletes so far: Positive tests. Can't you see the double standards there either? I can read your reply there again: "Maybe there is but possibly, not 100% certain ...."....NO Maybe, no possibly, No but Barry. The cases are treated differently. End of. Recognise it at least!

The UK position is not satisfactory (I did not say that it is), but it is a world apart from using state security services to tamper with and switch samples of 00's or 000's of athletes to hide planned PED use, or where skeptical scientists, whistleblowers, and journalists who are brave enough to raise this dying in suspicious circumstances or living in hiding fearing for their lives - let alone their livelihoods.

No I do not see any difference. I just see that the brits dopes in a much more systematic  but smarter way. This "state security service" is only related by one German journalist and a couple of deflecting athletes (who knows how much they were paid. Whereas US and GB athletes have WADA/UCI,NIKE and all other great sponsors on their side delivering asthma, TUEs and products when needed. There is always a good "reason" not compare the Nato cheats with the Russians and Chinese.

So I am yet to hear how come the Brits being cleaner than the Russians and Chinese can win more medals than those countries in spite of being a 20th of the population? Even during RDA's glorious years they were not beating the Russians in Olympic medals.

You ask what the Russians and Chinese think - I imagine that the Russians think we are slightly hypocritical, but naive amateurs at cheating.  I have no idea what the Chinese think.  To alter Jesus's analogy in Matthew 7:3 a little, whilst there is a definitely a mote in our eye, we have correctly noticed a huge beam in the Russian state's eye and whilst there is room for improvement in the way we look at ourselves, we are certainly entitled to point out the problems with Russia.  And with Russia, the media are mostly reporting on WADA's own report.

.....Yep. Don't deform Jesus' saying though, the orignal says it very clearly. It is the US/UK pointing at Russia's doping problem...not the other way around. . It's the countries of Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Wiggins, Froome, Farah, Gatlin, pointing at the russians mote,  not the Russians pointing at you, hence the beam is in your eyes.  

GB atheletes being native amateurs at cheating? Barry sorry but the naive, gullible ones are not the athletes but their public!

I'd say that only in a world of baseless hyperbole is it possible not to see the difference.

I would have hoped that unlike Slippy who is too emotionally involved with his heros, you would be able to be a bit more objective here but I think I was wrong .

I'll just set out the conclusions of Richard Maclaren's report to WADA https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-07/wada-statement-independent-investigation-confirms-russian-state-manipulation-of

Key Findings
1. The Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a State-dictated failsafe system, described in the report as the Disappearing Positive Methodology.
2. The Sochi Laboratory operated a unique sample swapping methodology to enable doped Russian athletes to compete at the Games.
3. The Ministry of Sport directed, controlled and oversaw the manipulation of athlete’s analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the FSB, CSP, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories. 

FSB is the Russian Federal Security Service.

No such formal findings have been arrived at vs. Sky, Froome (yet - although it may only be a matter of time), Farah or Wiggins - I find none of those individuals or organisations credible and that's good enough for me, but unlike Maclaren in the case of Russia or formal individual guilty verdicts I don't have strong enough evidence to go further and say they are sure-fire rule-breakers and dopers (yet).  My personal view is that gaming of TUE's is tantamount to cheating and that the TUE rules can advantage people who pay for sophisticated medicine, such as rich westerners.  I don't like that aspect of the rules, but a TUE user remains on the right side of the legal line however much I personally disrespect them.  What you don't seem to accept is that a legal line has to be drawn somewhere, and it has to be a line that can be enforced on the basis of evidence in a Court or Arbitration with clear consequences dependent on which side of the line you fall on.  This is one of law's great dilemmas, it has to produce a clear line and clear-cut results when there is often a moral penumbra around such lines about which people can differ; so you can win a legal case like the Candy's did today, but still be described by the Judge as a person who is prepared to lie.  You (Tenez) are perfectly entitled to decide that everyone in the PED penumbra is a doper no better than those who have been formally found to be on the wrong side of the line after a fair procedure, but you have to accept that others can disagree without being starry-eyed or acting in bad faith.  I probably agree with you about who is in the penumbra, but I see it as an area for the judgment of the individual, of suspicion and doubt, rather than one of certainty of guilt about which people of sound mind and good faith cannot disagree.  So I think there is a difference between suspecting, even strongly, someone is a wrong 'un on the very limited evidence I get my hands on, and accepting a properly arrived at formal verdict of guilt.  That is why I use different language for the system that Maclaren considered and 'convicted' dopers to those I strongly suspect - it's nothing to do with nationality.

You say that the UK has an unhealthy amount of medals, but the sports in which Brits win Olympic medals tend to be highly technical and expensive ones, track cycling, yachting, rowing, canoe slalom - where expensive equipment and generations of specialised training can make a huge difference.  The UK Gov't specifically focused on funding those sorts of sports because of the ability to gain an advantage with focused investment as opposed to disciplines where the greater relative importance of talent of the raw materials makes investment less predictable. That doesn't mean there's no doping (funding linked to medals ultimately tends to incentivise cheating), but it does mean that there are other/additional explanations for superiority in such sports.

I'm not emotionally involved in proving that the UK is PED free, but I disagree strongly with what I understand your approach to be for the above reasons - perhaps 'baseless hyperbole' was a bit over done.

noleisthebest wrote:

barrystar wrote:
People do want to believe in heroes - but that's their business, it's not so important that the taxpayer should get involved.

I am afraid Barry, taxpayer’s job IS to pay tax and not think much. And especially not have time to think.
It’s an old formula of bread and games, I believe from Roman times.

Haven’t you noticed that the entire showbusiness (and that includes all athlete pros) revolves around building images of heros...role models...

It is not enough for Roger Federer to be a tennis genius?
He has to be a perfectly manicured gentleman, perfect father, perfect humanitarian.
For many he is an altar.

Then there is Ronaldo, another demi-god through who moral agenda is being pushed (various children with surrogate mothers).

For the poor Latino world, Nadal is the perfect “humble, warrior” hero.

Then the Kardashian family of whom I know very little but enough to see another body debasing trend being imposed on “the other eighty percent” - and yes - they are the taxpayers.

The thinking five percent, are not being worried about much atm.
If they pose a threat, the deep state force them to live in Columbian embassy like that Aussie wickileaks founder. Or bump them off like that guy who said he didn’t find weapins ofmmass desteuction in Iraq.

So yes, heros are essential for those who spend  a lot of money carefully building those image.
And protect that image come what may - heros don’t dope.

The hero worshipping masses can’t live without someone to adore. Look at all the footbal fans around the world...all the hype...is that a coincidence?



The air “up there” stinks.

I agree that 'heroes' and those who like to monetise them protect their images to an absurd degree, but I don't agree with conspiracy theories dressed up as world-weary wisdom.

Julian Assange wasn't prepared to face charges in Sweden so he went to the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid a lawful extradition process.  If you look closely, he is very much given 'hero' status of the sort you rightly decry in others by too many of his supporters; whilst some of what Wikileaks did has undoubtedly contributed to openness in Government and pulled back an important curtain, other revelations are more clearly not only unlawful, but unnecessarily and obviously harmful.  His legacy at Wikileaks and in relation to the other causes he supports is, to put it as charitably as one can, mixed.  He is not a heroic freedom fighter wronged by an evil deep state.  He is a flawed egotistical man who has done some good things for which it is fair to praise him, but who can perfectly legitimately be expected to face charges and trials due to other things he has done. 

I think it's pretty obvious that David Kelly took his own life when he realised the fall-out from his interview with Gilligan (who I think has always gotten off rather lightly for exaggerating what he was told at least in part).  That is not at all the same question as to whether the Government deliberately played up the WMD threat.

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:

Daniel wrote:When Athletes who dope start going to jail, we'll get somewhere.  Until then, this is all poppycock.

I totally disagree.  The main reason is that we, the taxpayer, end up funding the failure of professional sports to sort out their own credibility.  Sport is really an offshoot of the entertainment industry, and a lack of integrity should be their cost and concern, not ours - because ultimately the losers are the athletes and the sports who don't get income from a sceptical public.  

If we truly care, the best way we can stop doping is to stop watching, stop buying products the sportsmen and women endorse, and to let advertisers know that they are a turn-off.  Much better that we take responsibility via decisions we make about our commercial and leisure time than taxes and resources of a hard-pressed state.  

Furthermore, some of these issues are technical and difficult, so the trials would be long and expensive, and Juries are far more likely to acquit in a technical trial than a specialist tribunal like CAS, especially if the suggestion can be made that the doping rules are harsh and unfair and difficult to comply with.

But people want to believe in heros. I always knew Lance, Froome and any TDF champion is a cheat (not a choice if you wish to win). ...yet something deep down wants us to believe in extra natural ability and skills. Look at Slippy...always keen to believe Murray, Wiggins, Froome's good faith.
 

What are you on about Tenez? The difference between us is that I can look objectively without being biased - unfortunately, you take a very blanket approach with no flexibility of thinking. My personal view is that GB sports are probably very much pushing the boundaries in terms of what is legal and there are no doubt cases where they are stepping over the line. However, as Barry says, there are also other reasons why GB has been so successful in recent years - you appear to be unable to look beyond doping.

As for the individuals you mention:

Wiggins - clearly his achievements are tainted by the fact he had dodgy TUEs. 

Froome - whether you like it or not, taking salbutamol is legal, and you have no idea whether he is actually asthmatic. Consequently, the question is why he had twice the permitted amount in the test for one day - in circumstances where he was bound to be tested. Feels an odd way to cheat, which is what I have questioned. I would expect him to be treated the same as any other athlete in that circumstance and suspect he will be banned.

Murray - Other than in your head, there is zero link between Murray and any form of doping. It doesn't even appear he had any TUEs Fancy Bears could release. It's obviously possible he has cheated - as it is with Federer or any other player - but it's equally possible he is clean. The fact he runs around a lot is not evidence of doping.

barrystar wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Slippy wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Slippy wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Slippy wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Froome should still get a ban. Harsh, but he still produced a positive test. Problem is where do you stop if you don't issue bans because of negligence?

The thing is if he was unwell and required increased doses that pushed beyond the permissible levels, don't compete. It's like with an injury. If you are not fit enough to participate, don't.

UCI and WADA would make an even bigger rod for their own backs if they a lenient. Takes accountability away from the athlete.

It’s very unlikely, with the benefit of the Sky medical team, that Froome negligently overdosed. The options are either that he took it in line with the rules (as he says) but returned an adverse finding anyway or he deliberately took well over the usual amount, knowing he would be tested the next day. 

I agree though - it will be very difficult for Froome to prove his case and so he probably will get a ban.

You seem to have a lot of trust in Team Sky! If he was unwell and required increases in doses, any doctor with an ounce of sense would highlight the risk of going above the permissible levels. That is negligent. Froome would also know that it was a risk too.

It smacks of a calculated gamble which hasn't paid off. Regardless if he knew he was being tested. Logic tells you if you know you are being tested, you wouldn't risk increasing the dose of a banned substance!!

But his case is that he didn’t go above the permissible levels! He says that he increased from the usual amount he takes (presumably well below the maximum allowed) but still was within the permissible levels. It’s also not a banned substance - provided you don’t take more than the allowed dosage. If he was able to somehow prove he had done so, then the blood test would be deemed an anomaly and he wouldn’t face any ban.

Eh? He failed a test!! So he clearly did go above the permissible levels.

As i understand it, there is an amount of salbutamol you are allowed to take (presumably a number of puffs per day effectively). If you could somehow prove that was all you took then the test results would be seen as an anomaly. Apologies- that’s just my understanding from various articles - it probably is simplistic. However, effectively Froome’s case is that he only took the permitted amount and that the test result is an anomaly. Basically, I think he’s stuffed and will get a ban but we will see!

There is and I referenced it in my post to BB.

I would imagine if they felt there was an anomaly, they would've asked for the same sample to be tested again. Now I haven't heard either, whether they have or haven't.

The permitted amount is 1600mg. His results are double that amount I believe. If it was by 50-100mg, an anomaly might be most likely, but we are talking double the amount! The only excuse I believe he could come out with to defend that was using the wrong inhaler.

The one thing we can agree on is, he is stuffed

I think Froome is probably stuffed, but the way the rule works is more complex than you say.  The is a limit on the amount of the stuff that can be found in your Urine - 1000ng/ml, and Froome apparently had 2000ng/ml.  In order to stay under the limit, WADA recommend not exceeding an input via inhaler of 1600mcg for every 24hrs.  This blog explains it in a bit more detail https://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/ The blog points out that inhaler input does not translate directly to urine levels in a linear fashion - it will differ for different people in different circumstances, but you would expect that Froome and his Doctor would have a pretty good idea of how it works for him.  Yuu'd expect them to have built up a fairly detailed picture - like a blood passport if you like.

As the blog says, Froome's was a big miss.  The blog also says that someone's 'resting' level of the stuff in the urine might be very important - if it is low, say 200ng/ml, then a reading of x10 resting would be more difficult to explain than if it were higher.  The blog anticipates what Froome's line of defence might be and also points out that if this sort of thing was very difficult to get right we'd have experienced a lot of adverse results, which it seems we have not.  The blog looks at some of the points raised on here of whether the stuff is performance enhancing, or whether the rule is a fair one, but reading between the lines he thinks Froome is up against it and he's surprised that the urine level is so high - the "final thoughts" section is... interesting.

I know it's complex. The blog is talking ml whereas I was talking mg and there are subtle but small differences. You mention resting which is when in my post to BB I referenced topping up. I could go into more detail, but frankly it would take an age and pages galore. As I said in the earlier post there is no way this difference can be explained by an anomaly. Even if the team kept records of times and doses, it would be entirely difficult to prove the intent of the wrong doing. The blog I think in general had the undertone about the input/output element and indeed the true accuracy of them given people can clear substances out of their systems quicker than others due to natural immunities, however there is a consistent baseline/rule of thumb as you would.

I did find the final thoughts section interesting. The Tweets were more interesting in terms of the stats. Quite damning.

I will say I've agreed with you in the other posts.

Indeed quite damning by the professionals!

#neverforgetinyourcalculationthebloodbagleftovers

Ten can I check that issue you have with this Froome case isn't just around the political element, however more the view as you brought the Sharapova case into this in terms of she was labelled a cheat that, in the case of Meldonium (when it was legal) Sharapova didn't need to tread carefully and that there was no intent to cheat and I've always said she was silly when not knowing it was banned and yet with Salbutamol despite it being legal, there are levels which are illegal and hence if the act is not to breach those levels, aren't you by definition cheating anyway? Because the initial reaction is that why would Froome try and cheat.

barrystar wrote:

I'll just set out the conclusions of Richard Maclaren's report to WADA https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-07/wada-statement-independent-investigation-confirms-russian-state-manipulation-of

Key Findings
1. The Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a State-dictated failsafe system, described in the report as the Disappearing Positive Methodology.
2. The Sochi Laboratory operated a unique sample swapping methodology to enable doped Russian athletes to compete at the Games.
3. The Ministry of Sport directed, controlled and oversaw the manipulation of athlete’s analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the FSB, CSP, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories. 

I know about the report. It's not been written by by the Russians, Brazilian, Chinese, South Africans, or the French. It's McLaren (CAN), Craig Reedie(WADA UK) who write and validate those reports. The Russians coudl also write their own about ridiculous TUEs abuse and Asthma drug cheating. In fact they do too but not translated and broadcast here. Your approach is exactly those of the media here...and I have no reason to believe that if you were Russian living in Russia you'd not be believing the press there.

You say that the UK has an unhealthy amount of medals, but the sports in which Brits win Olympic medals tend to be highly technical and expensive ones, track cycling, yachting, rowing, canoe slalom - where expensive equipment and generations of specialised training can make a huge difference.  The UK Gov't specifically focused on funding those sorts of sports because of the ability to gain an advantage with focused investment as opposed to disciplines where the greater relative importance of talent of the raw materials makes investment less predictable. That doesn't mean there's no doping (funding linked to medals ultimately tends to incentivise cheating), but it does mean that there are other/additional explanations for superiority in such sports.

yep..that is the argument put forward but that is again just a smokescreen to make you feel good about it. All countries support financially their athletes. Rowing, track cycling and many more require fitness as much as technology and the Russian and Chinese are not bad at technology either. So that is a false reason I am afraid. . All governments are financing their champs, you still have an abnormal level of "stamina" champions. Murray, Farah, Froome, Radcliffe, Wiggins, etc...

I'm not emotionally involved in proving that the UK is PED free, but I disagree strongly with what I understand your approach to be for the above reasons - perhaps 'baseless hyperbole' was a bit over done.

The approach is clear. Those vasodilators are PEDs, as simple as that. It just happens that the IOC, WADA are managed by countries who benefit most from those drugs. If it was not for the fancy bears we would have probably never known about all those TUEs which have clearly helped those ahletes. It's not a State sponsor doping program....it's much more vicious. The worm is in the apple, it's those controlling institutions who make or destroy a country's reputation and of course they have double standards and it is si clear from a neutral point of view.[/quote]

legendkillar wrote:Ten can I check that issue you have with this Froome case isn't just around the political element, however more the view as you brought the Sharapova case into this in terms of she was labelled a cheat that, in the case of Meldonium (when it was legal) Sharapova didn't need to tread carefully and that there was no intent to cheat and I've always said she was silly when not knowing it was banned and yet with Salbutamol despite it being legal, there are levels which are illegal and hence if the act is not to breach those levels, aren't you by definition cheating anyway? Because the initial reaction is that why would Froome try and cheat.

I am not sure I understand your question to be honest. I first thought Froome was under such a good team of cheat doctors, that they would be no way he would go over the legal limit during competition but I must say this possible explanation by the pros is quite an eye opener.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Ten can I check that issue you have with this Froome case isn't just around the political element, however more the view as you brought the Sharapova case into this in terms of she was labelled a cheat that, in the case of Meldonium (when it was legal) Sharapova didn't need to tread carefully and that there was no intent to cheat and I've always said she was silly when not knowing it was banned and yet with Salbutamol despite it being legal, there are levels which are illegal and hence if the act is not to breach those levels, aren't you by definition cheating anyway? Because the initial reaction is that why would Froome try and cheat.

I am not sure I understand your question to be honest. I first thought Froome was under such a good team of cheat doctors, that they would be no way he would go over the legal limit during competition but I must say this possible explanation by the pros is quite an eye opener.

To paraphrase, Is it the element that Froome is being met with some form of leniency from the media and public whereas Sharapova wasn't afford the same, despite there being 2 differences in the respective cases?

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:

I'll just set out the conclusions of Richard Maclaren's report to WADA https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-07/wada-statement-independent-investigation-confirms-russian-state-manipulation-of

Key Findings
1. The Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a State-dictated failsafe system, described in the report as the Disappearing Positive Methodology.
2. The Sochi Laboratory operated a unique sample swapping methodology to enable doped Russian athletes to compete at the Games.
3. The Ministry of Sport directed, controlled and oversaw the manipulation of athlete’s analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the FSB, CSP, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories. 

I know about the report. It's not been written by by the Russians, Brazilian, Chinese, South Africans, or the French. It's McLaren (CAN), Craig Reedie(WADA UK) who write and validate those reports. The Russians coudl also write their own about ridiculous TUEs abuse and Asthma drug cheating. In fact they do too but not translated and broadcast here. Your approach is exactly those of the media here...and I have no reason to believe that if you were Russian living in Russia you'd not be believing the press there.

You say that the UK has an unhealthy amount of medals, but the sports in which Brits win Olympic medals tend to be highly technical and expensive ones, track cycling, yachting, rowing, canoe slalom - where expensive equipment and generations of specialised training can make a huge difference.  The UK Gov't specifically focused on funding those sorts of sports because of the ability to gain an advantage with focused investment as opposed to disciplines where the greater relative importance of talent of the raw materials makes investment less predictable. That doesn't mean there's no doping (funding linked to medals ultimately tends to incentivise cheating), but it does mean that there are other/additional explanations for superiority in such sports.

yep..that is the argument put forward but that is again just a smokescreen to make you feel good about it. All countries support financially their athletes. Rowing, track cycling and many more require fitness as much as technology and the Russian and Chinese are not bad at technology either. So that is a false reason I am afraid. . All governments are financing their champs, you still have an abnormal level of "stamina" champions. Murray, Farah, Froome, Radcliffe, Wiggins, etc...

I'm not emotionally involved in proving that the UK is PED free, but I disagree strongly with what I understand your approach to be for the above reasons - perhaps 'baseless hyperbole' was a bit over done.

The approach is clear. Those vasodilators are PEDs, as simple as that. It just happens that the IOC, WADA are managed by countries who benefit most from those drugs. If it was not for the fancy bears we would have probably never known about all those TUEs which have clearly helped those ahletes. It's not a State sponsor doping program....it's much more vicious. The worm is in the apple, it's those controlling institutions who make or destroy a country's reputation and of course they have double standards and it is si clear from a neutral point of view.

[/quote]

Tenez - would you be able to provide a link to the number of Russian athletes using TUEs?  I’m assuming you know it is far less than the US/UK athletes? How many Russian cyclists/swimmers have asthma?

This equivalency you are trying to make between using TUEs/asthma inhalers and state sponsored doping is just bizarre. At best, one is playing the system to obtain a very small advantage. The other is out and out cheating designed to obtain major performance benefits.

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote:

I'll just set out the conclusions of Richard Maclaren's report to WADA https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2016-07/wada-statement-independent-investigation-confirms-russian-state-manipulation-of

Key Findings
1. The Moscow Laboratory operated, for the protection of doped Russian athletes, within a State-dictated failsafe system, described in the report as the Disappearing Positive Methodology.
2. The Sochi Laboratory operated a unique sample swapping methodology to enable doped Russian athletes to compete at the Games.
3. The Ministry of Sport directed, controlled and oversaw the manipulation of athlete’s analytical results or sample swapping, with the active participation and assistance of the FSB, CSP, and both Moscow and Sochi Laboratories. 

I know about the report. It's not been written by by the Russians, Brazilian, Chinese, South Africans, or the French. It's McLaren (CAN), Craig Reedie(WADA UK) who write and validate those reports. The Russians coudl also write their own about ridiculous TUEs abuse and Asthma drug cheating. In fact they do too but not translated and broadcast here. Your approach is exactly those of the media here...and I have no reason to believe that if you were Russian living in Russia you'd not be believing the press there.

You say that the UK has an unhealthy amount of medals, but the sports in which Brits win Olympic medals tend to be highly technical and expensive ones, track cycling, yachting, rowing, canoe slalom - where expensive equipment and generations of specialised training can make a huge difference.  The UK Gov't specifically focused on funding those sorts of sports because of the ability to gain an advantage with focused investment as opposed to disciplines where the greater relative importance of talent of the raw materials makes investment less predictable. That doesn't mean there's no doping (funding linked to medals ultimately tends to incentivise cheating), but it does mean that there are other/additional explanations for superiority in such sports.

yep..that is the argument put forward but that is again just a smokescreen to make you feel good about it. All countries support financially their athletes. Rowing, track cycling and many more require fitness as much as technology and the Russian and Chinese are not bad at technology either. So that is a false reason I am afraid. . All governments are financing their champs, you still have an abnormal level of "stamina" champions. Murray, Farah, Froome, Radcliffe, Wiggins, etc...

I'm not emotionally involved in proving that the UK is PED free, but I disagree strongly with what I understand your approach to be for the above reasons - perhaps 'baseless hyperbole' was a bit over done.

The approach is clear. Those vasodilators are PEDs, as simple as that. It just happens that the IOC, WADA are managed by countries who benefit most from those drugs. If it was not for the fancy bears we would have probably never known about all those TUEs which have clearly helped those ahletes. It's not a State sponsor doping program....it's much more vicious. The worm is in the apple, it's those controlling institutions who make or destroy a country's reputation and of course they have double standards and it is si clear from a neutral point of view.

[/quote]


Hmm, I note that you don't respond to this part of my post:

barrystar wrote: 
No such formal findings have been arrived at vs. Sky, Froome (yet - although it may only be a matter of time), Farah or Wiggins - I find none of those individuals or organisations credible and that's good enough for me, but unlike Maclaren in the case of Russia or formal individual guilty verdicts I don't have strong enough evidence to go further and say they are sure-fire rule-breakers and dopers (yet).  My personal view is that gaming of TUE's is tantamount to cheating and that the TUE rules can advantage people who pay for sophisticated medicine, such as rich westerners.  I don't like that aspect of the rules, but a TUE user remains on the right side of the legal line however much I personally disrespect them.  What you don't seem to accept is that a legal line has to be drawn somewhere, and it has to be a line that can be enforced on the basis of evidence in a Court or Arbitration with clear consequences dependent on which side of the line you fall on.  This is one of law's great dilemmas, it has to produce a clear line and clear-cut results when there is often a moral penumbra around such lines about which people can differ; so you can win a legal case like the Candy's did today, but still be described by the Judge as a person who is prepared to lie.  You (Tenez) are perfectly entitled to decide that everyone in the PED penumbra is a doper no better than those who have been formally found to be on the wrong side of the line after a fair procedure, but you have to accept that others can disagree without being starry-eyed or acting in bad faith.  I probably agree with you about who is in the penumbra, but I see it as an area for the judgment of the individual, of suspicion and doubt, rather than one of certainty of guilt about which people of sound mind and good faith cannot disagree.  So I think there is a difference between suspecting, even strongly, someone is a wrong 'un on the very limited evidence I get my hands on, and accepting a properly arrived at formal verdict of guilt.  That is why I use different language for the system that Maclaren considered and 'convicted' dopers to those I strongly suspect - it's nothing to do with nationality.

I have taken pains to try and describe and narrow our areas of disagreement which I hope(d) might promote a more focused discussion.

What makes debating this topic with you very quickly a waste of time is your unwillingness to accept that any aspect of my point of view is tenable or rational on any level, or even held in good faith.  You assert implicitly that Maclaren was a patsy for the WADA and himself acting in bad faith, and you insist that people who hold my views must be deluded or dishonest Anglo-centric fanboys whose gig is lionising UK and Western sportspeople and hammering Russians because we are racists.  I get no credit or nod for the substantial extent to which I indicate my agreement with many aspects of the substance of your concerns about TUE's - I also think that they are abused by some athletes, possibly many (I don't know) and that any such abuse stinks.  It appears that because I don't go the whole hog and firmly declaim that abuse is clearly systemic and it is all some giant Western conspiracy I am dismissed as stupid, naive, dishonest, and racist.

I hate abuse of TUE's, but I think the subject as a whole is not that straightforward. Whatever one's position on what level of therapy that should be permitted, it seems inevitable that there is going to be a line somewhere.  I assume we'd all accept manipulation from a physio, or a bandage, or some form of support, or even glasses to enable a player to see the ball, but where does one draw the line beyond that?  Then, once you are going to draw a line, there is the difficulty of how to police it in practice.  I'd be happy to see the rules changed (including changing status of drugs) to make gaming them more difficult - but not so that any acceptable purpose of the rule is also thrown out.  If there is a reluctance to change drug status or to tighten rules borne out of connivance with abuse, I'd agree that is disgraceful.  You have a clear view that vasodilaters are PED's - it seems that others disagree.  I don't have the evidence to know one way or another, I'd like to known what evidence you point to - it should be pretty strong if your allegation is that WADA/IOC are deliberately helping western athletes cheat by not making them PED's.  If you draw the line to exclude them, what else does it exclude?  Forgive me if you've said this elsewhere, but what is your view on meldonium?

barrystar wrote:
I agree that 'heroes' and those who like to monetise them protect their images to an absurd degree, but I don't agree with conspiracy theories dressed up as world-weary wisdom.
Julian Assange wasn't prepared to face charges in Sweden so he went to the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid a lawful extradition process.  If you look closely, he is very much given 'hero' status of the sort you rightly decry in others by too many of his supporters; whilst some of what Wikileaks did has undoubtedly contributed to openness in Government and pulled back an important curtain, other revelations are more clearly not only unlawful, but unnecessarily and obviously harmful. 

Assange is not my hero.
I didn’t have any even in teenage years.

Now that’s out of the way,  I view Assange’s  arrest warranty etc just an attempt to unofficially bump him off.
He knows too much.
There is no other reason H.Clinton was trying to wipe Assange off the balcony when he announced he was going to expose some of her dodgy dealings during the presidential campaign.

I don’t trust mainstream media. Their bad guys are my good guys.

BBC says don’t vote Brexit - I vote Brexit.  And so on.

barrystar wrote:
His legacy at Wikileaks and in relation to the other causes he supports is, to put it as charitably as one can, mixed.  He is not a heroic freedom fighter wronged by an evil deep state.  He is a flawed egotistical man who has done some good things for which it is fair to praise him, but who can perfectly legitimately be expected to face charges and trials due to other things he has done. 

How do you know he is a flawed egotistical man?
And even if he was, show me a politician who is not?

As far as I can see, he is a truth seeker. And a brave one.

And I don’t know many like him.

barrystar wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that David Kelly took his own life when he realised the fall-out from his interview with Gilligan (who I think has always gotten off rather lightly for exaggerating what he was told at least in part).  That is not at all the same question as to whether the Government deliberately played up the WMD threat.

I think that’s a presumptious claim. The kind BBC would go for.

Why would anyone take his life for that reason.
What did David Kelly do wrong?

For someone to take his life in THIS country just like that  is very unlikely. UK is not Japan. And D. Kelly was not a Russian businesman living in London, either.

He seemed to be a man of integrity.

I appreciate your effort to try and be as objective as you can, but you come across as someone who gives too much credence to mainstream media.

Do you read anything from “the other side”?

Russia, China, N. Korea?

If not why not?

barrystar wrote:Hmm, I note that you don't respond to this part of my post:

Which one? Likewise you ignore the main point about not being able to see that the other side of the planet writes as damning reports about the US/UK athletes. They have the biggest names and biggest dopers.

I have taken pains to try and describe and narrow our areas of disagreement which I hope(d) might promote a more focused discussion.
What makes debating this topic with you very quickly a waste of time is your unwillingness to accept that any aspect of my point of view is tenable or rational on any level, or even held in good faith.  You assert implicitly that Maclaren was a patsy for the WADA and himself acting in bad faith, and you insist that people who hold my views must be deluded or dishonest Anglo-centric fanboys whose gig is lionising UK and Western sportspeople and hammering Russians because we are racists.  I get no credit or nod for the substantial extent to which I indicate my agreement with many aspects of the substance of your concerns about TUE's - I also think that they are abused by some athletes, possibly many (I don't know) and that any such abuse stinks.  It appears that because I don't go the whole hog and firmly declaim that abuse is clearly systemic and it is all some giant Western conspiracy I am dismissed as stupid, naive, dishonest, and racist.

The problem is simpler Barry, it's  the inability, and I agree difficulty, to adopt a purely neutral position. You cannot underestimate the effect the mainstream media and their constant bashing of  Putin and Russians has on people, nor should we underestimate the effect they have in glorifying their star athletes.  It is very difficult for someone who reads the mainstream feeds to adopt a neutral viewpoint. You would need to read the Russian and other angles to really have a global view on the matter. LuvSport is pretty good at trying to get an objective view on the doping matter, but it is an effort not many are willing to make.

I hate abuse of TUE's, but I think the subject as a whole is not that straightforward. Whatever one's position on what level of therapy that should be permitted, it seems inevitable that there is going to be a line somewhere.  I assume we'd all accept manipulation from a physio, or a bandage, or some form of support, or even glasses to enable a player to see the ball, but where does one draw the line beyond that? 

Simple. It shoudl be no drug during competition. That's the line. As many bandage, or massage as one wishes, but the problem I have with those anti-doping authorities is that very subtly they can influence the outcome. One day PRP is forbidden, then suddenly when Nadal needs it, it is taken off the list (sep 2009). Then you need to show you really have asthma and then suddenly you do not need to, or just have a TUEs and you can take as much of the drug as you wish. They want to hurt the Eastern athletes, they just add meldonium in their list with minimum warning.  I do not see them very neutral.  

Then, once you are going to draw a line, there is the difficulty of how to police it in practice.  I'd be happy to see the rules changed (including changing status of drugs) to make gaming them more difficult - but not so that any acceptable purpose of the rule is also thrown out. If there is a reluctance to change drug status or to tighten rules borne out of connivance with abuse, I'd agree that is disgraceful.  You have a clear view that vasodilaters are PED's - it seems that others disagree.  I don't have the evidence to know one way or another, I'd like to known what evidence you point to - it should be pretty strong if your allegation is that WADA/IOC are deliberately helping western athletes cheat by not making them PED's.  If you draw the line to exclude them, what else does it exclude?  Forgive me if you've said this elsewhere, but what is your view on meldonium?

Salbutamol was on the prohibited list till 2010. So scientists then thought it was a PED, isn't it? Now they allow some levels of it yet they recognise it is a PED after a certain level...otherwise it would not be on the list. I find it difficult to accept that a drug is only a PED after a certain level. I am sure there are drugs on the prohibited list that are only PEDs after a certain level...yet there are 0 tolerance for those. The reason they allow some of it is to help asthmatic compete with the others. Djokovic for instance was seen puffing some Salbutamol in his gruelling 2012 AO final v Nadal. Do you think he had an asthma crisis? did he look like he had one? No. but it was certainly helping him keep up with Nadal in that 5th set. I also think, but there I am not sure, that the allowed amount allows much more consumption of it on regular basis, outside competition, allowing traces of it to be found in urines during competition. But there I agree more supposition than fact.

And No I do not see you as stupid, naive or racist, please let's not go down there. But you do not seem very keen to question the intent of those organisations running sports. I do insist, evil is everywhere, especially where there is lots of money and where it is expected least.  Even WWF is corrupt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature

I have been trying to google pictures or clips of Djoko taking puffs under his towel of AO 12....it made some news the following days of the final. Now you can't see picture and clips, nor read about it. All taken out of the web....like Tsiparevic's picture he himself took of his ridiculous large frog legs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-sports/42460435

the mote/beam parabole again in order to help us forget about Farah, Wigging and froome, lance, Gatlin, radcliffe cases.

Another one bites the dust.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/42465404

Time for the British press to measure the beam in its eye before pointing at the Russian mote!

Amazing...so many asthmatics in the UK, must be the humid climate...

Having said that, never in the world have I seen so many disabled parking spaces like here,  it’s ridiculous.

State sponsored doping?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/42668551

Sorry but I can't help to conspire!

Not an eyebrow lifted on this one? What's his explanation?

Why would they? The unwritten opinion amongst the press would be his is giving a mercy offering for what is seen in their eyes as an "innocent mistake"

It's time to dispense with the pansy approach and get tough regardless of the circumstances. Cycling needs a proper facelift on doping bans. Yes this is another black eye for the sport, but this keeps happening time and time and time over again. Cyclists seem willing to bend the rules until they break. Ban them for good. Sends a strong message that trying to flout the system with what ever intentions carries a career ending punishment.

Only then will it ever be taken seriously in all sport.

Here here. It doesn't help when you have Sharapova laughing her tits off. Higgins in snooker running to the bank laughing. I hear even those Pakistani cricket cheats are back playing?

What message does it send out?

Jail time should be an option too, since it's fraud.

He has denied that he is doing this. Froome is a slippery bugger.

Daniel wrote:Here here. It doesn't help when you have Sharapova laughing her tits off. Higgins in snooker running to the bank laughing. I hear even those Pakistani cricket cheats are back playing?

What message does it send out?

Jail time should be an option too, since it's fraud.

I believe Amir is playing, but both Butt and Asif are still banned (I think Asif's ban ends soon or has ended). Butt I think tried even appealing. 

There was sympathy in some quarters for Amir as he was 18 at the time and the story is his family were threatened by the bookies if he didn't comply with Butt. I have to say I am conflicted on his involvement and as to whether his punishment was strong enough. He gave an interview prior to the England tour and he was full of remorse and ever thankful for the second chances. Butt was an out and out cunt. Pardon the French. Absolutely no shred of regret or wrongdoing. 

Oddly enough Butt served time in prison for his role. So I think the punishment was strong. 

Look at Joey Barton. Banned for betting on matches and yet the England national team under Sven had one of the worst gambling rackets ever!

luvsports! wrote:He has denied that he is doing this. Froome is a slippery bugger.

He'd be slippier than Wiggins if he pulls this out the bag!

It's more excuse making. "He was too young to know" "he came from a harsh family"  "he was hard done by".  I'm tired of that.  It;s more weakness. The guy knew what he was doing. And the greedy bastard deserves a life ban.

At least there was jail time.

The case of Amir was his family were threatened with physical harm by the bookies. 

Now being as that's never happened to me, I can sit here from a position of luxury and take the position of your statement.

However, just imagine you are 18, you are offered a bribe, you decline, however the mob/mafia fronting the scheme threaten your family. Ask yourself could you say no off the bat without even thinking of the ramifications?

I have no sympathy for Butt or Asif as it was pure greed on their part.

Amir's family I believe were the only ones out of the 3 that were threatened. So what I am saying is his acceptance of the bribe wasn't just motivated purely by financial gain like the other 2.

Tenez wrote:Not an eyebrow lifted on this one? What's his explanation?

It looked bad from the moment it was revealed - if ls's linked article is right it echoes the one I linked to above earlier in this thread.  Froome would seem to have exhausted all possible 'scientific' explanations and has to look at plea-bargaining tactics.

The question that looms over Sky/GB Cycling is how do super organised 'marginal gains' outfits that think of absolutely everything screw up so badly in the rather obviously important area of medicine and ensuring not only that there is no PED abuse, but that they can prove it?  I remember the coverage of the excruciating detail to which they went to deal with saddle discomfort for women riders - but all this bragging about attention to detail narrows to vanishing point the scope for an innocent explanation for these situations.  It gets worse when one sees that the marginal gains approach seems to extend to TUE's.

This is where I lament the involvement of the taxpayer.  With Sky it's about commercial credibility.  If fans lose trust, as I think they should, then the UGC may stop letting them enter their competitions and/or Sky will start to think that sponsorship is a liability and pull the plug.  If fans don't lose faith then they continue to get what they want/deserve by following a tainted team, which is their decision and their lookout.

With GB Cycling and tax-payer funding we have politicians involved in spending other people's money and concerned about saving face - history tells us that is a bad combination for doing the right, tough, thing.  There'd be endless bleating about how innocent riders only recently described by the PM as 'Olympic heroes' are being unfairly treated.

I suspect that if Froome can't come up with something there'll be a Weinstein-esque feeding frenzy but we'll not take the long hard look that we ought at the bigger picture.  As so often happens in these cases, Froome's relative 'outsider' status as someone borne in Zimbabwe who is relatively uncharismatic (and whose wife slagged off the sainted Wiggo..) will probably make the the usual bout of public hypocrisy easier before we move on to the next nonsense.

barrystar wrote:....how do super organised 'marginal gains' outfits .

Nothing is marginal at this level.

Barry - what proof do you think they could provide in this circumstance? I’m sure if it comes to a hearing they will have plenty of evidence that the amount he took was in line with the requirements. However, how do they prove he didn’t take something which was not recorded?

The converse is that, if you have a highly professional team engaged in doping, how on earth would they get into a situation where their star athlete was certain to fail a test?

Slippy wrote:Barry - what proof do you think they could provide in this circumstance? I’m sure if it comes to a hearing they will have plenty of evidence that the amount he took was in line with the requirements. However, how do they prove he didn’t take something which was not recorded?

The converse is that, if you have a highly professional team engaged in doping, how on earth would they get into a situation where their star athlete was certain to fail a test?

They can't 'prove' how many puffs he took, I agree - all they can do is work back from the urine sample reading, look at his physiology and such records they have as to his standing level and how his body converts puffs into urine readings or how it reacts to exercise &c &c and try to explain it.  I take your point that over-doing it when you should know you will get caught is daft (or desperate, or both).  As far as I understood it, that was always one of the silly things about the case of Floyd Landis.

I linked to an article in one of my posts above in this thread which examined a lot of the possible arguments and explanations available to Froome.  I'm no expert, but it seemed pretty kosher and suggested that things looked bad for him.  I recommend a read, but from memory the fact that the level was so high seemed to be a particular factor making it likely that a lot of possible explanations won't really fly.

Here it is:

https://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol-result/

The most likely explanation is given by the racers themselves. They are likely to know more than anyone else cause they go through the same routines.

It's again down to blood bags when vampire doctors refill blood with fresh one....omitting, it seems in that case, that the blood was already charged with the legal amount....hence the perfect "doubled" allowed ratio.

But I persist, no drug should be allowed at all, asthmatic or not asthmatic.

He's not come out to say that any of his symptoms worsened which could've explained an increased dose, especially if it was not recorded.

Given the silent nature from him and his team, the jig is up.

Tenez wrote:The most likely explanation is given by the racers themselves. They are likely to know more than anyone else cause they go through the same routines.

It's again down to blood bags when vampire doctors refill blood with fresh one....omitting, it seems in that case, that the blood was already charged with the legal amount....hence the perfect "doubled" allowed ratio.

But I persist, no drug should be allowed at all, asthmatic or not asthmatic.  

Is that the bloodbagleftovers hashtag point?

barrystar wrote:

Tenez wrote:The most likely explanation is given by the racers themselves. They are likely to know more than anyone else cause they go through the same routines.

It's again down to blood bags when vampire doctors refill blood with fresh one....omitting, it seems in that case, that the blood was already charged with the legal amount....hence the perfect "doubled" allowed ratio.

But I persist, no drug should be allowed at all, asthmatic or not asthmatic.  

Is that the bloodbagleftovers hashtag point?

yes.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/neverforgetinyourcalculationthebloodbagleftovers?src=hash&lang=en-gb

Hate twitter...I still don;t know how to navigate there. But some nice insightful comments at times.

I am really glad of that one. It shows again that it was a politically motivated case.

I wonder why CAS seems still so neutral. I woudl like to see whether Froome gets the same leniency.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/42901377

You need to see the decision before you make such a sweeping statement.  Eleven appeals failed to overturn the guilty verdict.  It sounds as if CAS accepted that there was doping, but that it looked carefully at the evidence in each case, and the threshold of what they considered was enough required more than circumstantial evidence of an individual benefiting from a wider scam.  We'll need to see the extent to which they accepted that there was a wider scam or not and how critical, or not, they are of the IOC decision.

CAS has always been pretty neutral - the people involved have reputations and are very defensive of them - that's how CAS and the individuals who sit on the panels maintains their positions of respect and authority.

I don't see what this has got to do with Froome.  If you read the Contador decision they approached it properly, and you'd expect them to do so if Froome's case ends up before them.  I don't think it will, but we'll see.

Doesn’t the idea that he used a blood bag that already contained the max level also seem a bit ridiculous though? I mean rule 101 of doping would surely be to make sure you use blood which isn’t already tainted in some way!

That said, as I’ve indicated above, I do agree that whatever has happened here is going to require some element of implausibility. Either he’s somehow, as a one off, generated a reading far beyond the realms of what should have been generated (the innocent explanation) or he’s completely messed up some attempt to cheat (the guilty explanation).

barrystar wrote:You need to see the decision before you make such a sweeping statement.  Eleven appeals failed to overturn the guilty verdict.  It sounds as if CAS accepted that there was doping, but that it looked carefully at the evidence in each case, and the threshold of what they considered was enough required more than circumstantial evidence of an individual benefiting from a wider scam.  We'll need to see the extent to which they accepted that there was a wider scam or not and how critical, or not, they are of the IOC decision.

CAS has always been pretty neutral - the people involved have reputations and are very defensive of them - that's how CAS and the individuals who sit on the panels maintains their positions of respect and authority.

I don't see what this has got to do with Froome.  If you read the Contador decision they approached it properly, and you'd expect them to do so if Froome's case ends up before them.  I don't think it will, but we'll see.

No doubt there are dopers in Russia, maybe 95% of them....but that's most likely the case in all countries. CAS, again did not seem to see any particular evidence to condemn those athletes. And yes they are most likely quite neutral ...for now it seems....unlike the IOC who could make a better effort in chasing teh heard of TUEs abusers and healthy asthmatics.

This summary of the decision is what we have so far http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release__decision_RUS_IOC_.pdf As I understand it, scratches and other 'disfigurations' on sample bottles were thought not to be enough in some cases.  I don't know what was thought to be enough.

Also:

The mandate of the CAS Panels was not to determine generally whether there was an organized scheme allowing the manipulation of doping control samples in the Sochi laboratory but was strictly limited to dealing with 39 individual cases and to assess the evidence applicable to each athlete on an individual basis

That would seem to me to be a little artificial, because if there was a general scheme then that might cause evidence of tampering to be looked at differently.  Anyway, people who know more about these things than me decided to do it in that way, so I'm sure we'll soon understand why.

BTW will anyone be tuning into the Pharma Trade Show kicking off on the other side of the world soon?

Nah. Those events annoy the snot out of me.

Ethical my arse!

barrystar wrote:BTW will anyone be tuning into the Pharma Trade Show kicking off on the other side of the world soon?

What’s that?
Sounds like parma ham...

CAS being kept busy keeping Russians out, not apparently challenging the findings of state-sponsored doping: http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_OG_18-02.pdf  http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_OG_18-03.pdf

It does seem from what I have read that nordic skiing events are amongst the most heavily doped up of any sport.

May the walls come crashing down on Mr. Bach's carnival of fools and mountebanks sooner rather than later, and I cordially wish the same towards FIFA and the risible poundshop Blatter currently in office but not in power.

Bloody Russian doping again with meldonium....at Curling!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/43152299

This is absurd!