Stephen wrote:Mark, I think we can safely say our sport is probably as dirty as it ever was.
The top US sprinters all going down (Gatlin, Montgomery, Jones, Gaines, White etc) these Russian positives, the revelation that Nesterenko failed a test years ago, all the come backs from throwers that have failed tests (Sadova, Fazekas etc)...not to mention random 'juniors' lighting up the tracks from outta nowhere, lack of testing in the caribbean....
Which of those American busts is recent? Gatlin is the only one that was apart of this generation of sprinters. And given his coach...
Stephen wrote:Mark, I think we can safely say our sport is probably as dirty as it ever was.
The top US sprinters all going down (Gatlin, Montgomery, Jones, Gaines, White etc) these Russian positives, the revelation that Nesterenko failed a test years ago, all the come backs from throwers that have failed tests (Sadova, Fazekas etc)...not to mention random 'juniors' lighting up the tracks from outta nowhere, lack of testing in the caribbean....
Which of those American busts is recent? Gatlin is the only one that was apart of this generation of sprinters. And given his coach...
Yeah, no current coach would be dumb enough to send a vial of the latest-and-greatest stuff in to the authorities.
andyjgt wrote:Powell, why has Potepa regressed recently, not over 62 the last 2 years yet she did 66.01 in 2006?
There's also Yarelis Barrios, who is just 25 and has a better chance than the two you mentioned, but still, the top 2 favorites are both 36 years old. Not to mention Yatchenko and Zvereva, who are nearing the statutory retirement age and are still throwing at world-class levels.
This thread is getting way out of hand. The amount of pointing at others or entire nations isn't fair, most nations have a rich history of doping. It's pure speculation based on performances, looks, behavior, developments, improve rates and origin.
peach wrote:I wondered earlier if it meant that it was clear that, say, the samples from Soboleva were all from different people...
So the DNA didn't match between the three urine samples taken at different times...
from the Russian article seems (if i underastand correctly) that the DNA from the first test (april-may 2007) didn't match the third test (last week NC)
it says nothing about the second test (Osaka).. so was all fine there?
it would be interesting to know which test has been faked then..the 1st or the 3rd?
and again how 7 athletes have managed to substitute the urine samples in front of the wada officiers..
croflash wrote:This thread is getting way out of hand. The amount of pointing at others or entire nations isn't fair, most nations have a rich history of doping. It's pure speculation based on performances, looks, behavior, developments, improve rates and origin.
And there are several people who obviously didn't read my earlier stricture regards this thread being about the 7 known positives. Period. Next offender in this regard is gone. Instantly.
Jacksf wrote:You all are looking back at the records of these Russian girls and saying that you always suspected them based on their records and their age. And then you want to hold up Kelly Holmes as an example of someone who doesn't fit this pattern. But she does fit this pattern. But I don't see how you can hold her up as a shining example when her record is similar to some of these Russian women.
The main difference being that she comes from a nation that actually does regular out-of-competition testing and that she was not part of an organised doping regime.
"This IAAF decision dashes our athletes' hopes to perform at Beijing," Valentin Balakhnichev, head of the Russian federation, was cited as saying by Agence France-Presse.
One further observation; did Yegorova even participate in Kazan ? If not, and I don't recall her running, this adds another layer of intrigue to proceedings.
Last edited by mark on Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
<<In the future, races should be run on tracks designed in a double helix,
in honor of the molecular biology techniques used in flushing out the
miscreants in the sport.>>
Soboleva says that this (news of having been accused of broken anti-doping rules) happened suddenly, and only in a few hours after she:s had an opportunity to digest everything, will she have find it within herself to comment on anything (with the Russian Federation first).
Russia:s head trainer just stated on television that the athletes had all passed the same tests in 2005 and 2006. He is disgruntled that the IAAF has sprung this on them at the last minute. None of the athletes are appealing at this very instance. He speaks of the Russians being targeted by the IAAF, with the IAAF having an agenda to take out the Russians [at all costs]. He also wonders how the IAAF didn:t bust the athletes at any point but now.
Okay, still trying to digest all this and the ramifications therein, but one question:
Since the top 3 Russian 1500 gals are now out, will they be allowed to move up their next three alternates for Beijing ... OR are they just out of luck, full stop?
There are those stating that this is a black eye on the sport, and of course to some extent it is. To me it is an encouraging sign. Many of us believe there are many out there who are doping and are getting away with it. Certain countries don't do enough significant testing to combat this.
The encouraging sign in the long run is that the testing is getting better and better and one of these days rampant cheating will go away. Perhaps when a country is embarrased like this, as I am sure the Russians are right now, they will actually spend more time ensuring they are not embarrased in the future.
EPelle wrote:Russia:s head trainer just stated on television that the athletes had all passed the same tests in 2005 and 2006. He is disgruntled that the IAAF has sprung this on them at the last minute.
LOL.
It's a whole new world now when it comes to the Good Guys it would seem. I wouldn't suggest we're ready to catch them all today, but when the cheaters are complaining it ain't fair because the tests are better then perhaps the tables are turning as to who's a step ahead.
mark wrote:The official response pretty much says it all,
"This IAAF decision dashes our athletes' hopes to perform at Beijing," Valentin Balakhnichev, head of the Russian federation, was cited as saying by Agence France-Presse.
To be fair, that could just be a rubbish translation...
EPelle wrote: Russia:s head trainer just stated on television that the athletes had all passed the same tests in 2005 and 2006. He is disgruntled that the IAAF has sprung this on them at the last minute. None of the athletes are appealing at this very instance. He speaks of the Russians being targeted by the IAAF, with the IAAF having an agenda to take out the Russians [at all costs]. He also wonders how the IAAF didn:t bust the athletes at any point but now.
Well WHY are the Russians being targeted ? How the HELL can he moan when 7 athletes have just been discovered to have been tampering with urine tests ?
I can't say I'm happy with the timing either, I think that stinks, but come on.
The reaction from the "officials"in all of this is beginning to make me wonder a WHOLE lot more...
odelltrclan wrote:There are those stating that this is a black eye on the sport, and of course to some extent it is. To me it is an encouraging sign. Many of us believe there are many out there who are doping and are getting away with it. Certain countries don't do enough significant testing to combat this.
The encouraging sign in the long run is that the testing is getting better and better and one of these days rampant cheating will go away. Perhaps when a country is embarrased like this, as I am sure the Russians are right now, they will actually spend more time ensuring they are not embarrased in the future.
I agree, plus it happened before the OG start, when millions would have watched and just had an " I told you so attitude" re drugs in athletics.
EPelle wrote:.... He speaks of the Russians being targeted by the IAAF, with the IAAF having an agenda to take out the Russians [at all costs]. He also wonders how the IAAF didn:t bust the athletes at any point but now.
It is to laff! Given the amount of bucks the Russians kicked in to buy (err, host) the '13 Worlds, if anything I'd expect the IAAF to target them for kid-glove treatment.
mark wrote:The official response pretty much says it all,
"This IAAF decision dashes our athletes' hopes to perform at Beijing," Valentin Balakhnichev, head of the Russian federation, was cited as saying by Agence France-Presse.
To be fair, that could just be a rubbish translation...
I believe he issued a statement to France Agence Presse and I find the French version even stronger than the translation,
Cette décision détruit les espoirs de nos athlètes de participer aux Jeux Olympiques.
Dashes is quite a mild translation of détruit which is more literally destroys and carries an overtone of intention on the part of IAAF.
mark wrote: I believe he issued a statement to France Agence Presse and I find the French version even stronger than the translation,
Cette décision détruit les espoirs de nos athlètes de participer aux Jeux Olympiques.
Dashes is quite a mild translation of détruit which is more literally destroys and carries an overtone of intention on the part of IAAF.
Actually, I'd slightly disagree...I mean, it COULD mean "destroy" but can also mean "put paid to" or "write off"...which are both quite neutral. I would never have used "dashes" as a translation, though.
I don't think we can read too much into that, just from that one sentence.
Russia:s head trainer just stated on television that the athletes had all passed the same tests in 2005 and 2006. He is disgruntled that the IAAF has sprung this on them at the last minute. None of the athletes are appealing at this very instance. He speaks of the Russians being targeted by the IAAF, with the IAAF having an agenda to take out the Russians [at all costs]. He also wonders how the IAAF didn:t bust the athletes at any point but now.
That is a scathing comment if true. The trainer should be much more careful with his words. This would seem to imply knowledge by the heads of the sport of a coerced effort to cheat the system by falsifying urine tests . . . "we got away with it before . . . why can't we now"
What I don't understand here is why wouldn't each athlete use clean urine taken from their own body? Or is it easy to detect that the urine is not fresh and has been stored in a freezer from when the athlete was clean?
mark wrote: I believe he issued a statement to France Agence Presse and I find the French version even stronger than the translation,
Cette décision détruit les espoirs de nos athlètes de participer aux Jeux Olympiques.
Dashes is quite a mild translation of détruit which is more literally destroys and carries an overtone of intention on the part of IAAF.
Actually, I'd slightly disagree...I mean, it COULD mean "destroy" but can also mean "put paid to" or "write off"...which are both quite neutral. I would never have used "dashes" as a translation, though.
I don't think we can read too much into that, just from that one sentence.
I concur there is ambiguity in the citation. However there are so many ways to express the latter interpretation without recourse to ambiguity which is why I sense an implication therein.
The point is less one of semantics of what was said as one of what was not said. I would feel rather more reassured if the Federation came out and stated it was very concerned about the allegations and expressed a zero tolerance stance towards doping and promised a thorough investigation and renewed commitment to drug free sport.
That is what I would hope to hear from a Federation in the circumstances.
mark wrote:I concur there is ambiguity in the citation. However there are so many ways to express the latter interpretation without recourse to ambiguity which is why I sense an implication therein.
Again, I agree, but the problem is that you have so many factors here- did the person make the original statement in French, does he speak good enough French if he did, is it just a ropey translation of the Russian to French and then to English ? I could not say it was an intentional implication at all.
But yeah, it's just semantics...
Ah, I do LOVE a linguistic debate of a Thursday afternoon...
I'm just saying that defense is not really a good defense, i.e., it could be true and yet meaningless.
And don't the Russians have regular out of competition testing anyway?
Russia:s head trainer just stated on television that the athletes had all passed the same tests in 2005 and 2006. He is disgruntled that the IAAF has sprung this on them at the last minute. None of the athletes are appealing at this very instance. He speaks of the Russians being targeted by the IAAF, with the IAAF having an agenda to take out the Russians [at all costs]. He also wonders how the IAAF didn:t bust the athletes at any point but now.
That is a scathing comment if true. The trainer should be much more careful with his words. This would seem to imply knowledge by the heads of the sport of a coerced effort to cheat the system by falsifying urine tests . . . "we got away with it before . . . why can't we now"
They also passed tests in 2007, meaning that the 2008 Russian Championships values differed from any other ones, not that on the surface the 2005 and 2006 seasons were years where they were doping but got away with it.
One would suspect that the Russian women will undergo a more serious physical inspection in Beijing than others, since providing a sample with somebody else's urine requires some kind of delivery system.
Maybe we're headed for a day whereby one has to pee just before the competition as well? This first sample wouldn't need to be tested, just to void the bladder of anything that might previously have been in there, whether it belonged or not.
gh wrote:One would suspect that the Russian women will undergo a more serious physical inspection in Beijing than others, since providing a sample with somebody else's urine requires some kind of delivery system.
Maybe we're headed for a day whereby one has to pee just before the competition as well? This first sample wouldn't need to be tested, just to void the bladder of anything that might previously have been in there, whether it belonged or not.
Or you just bribe the poor local official who's job it is to test you. I guess they get paid pretty bad - and the offer from an athlete or coach to look the other way in exchange for some money might not seem a bad option?
EPelle wrote:.... He speaks of the Russians being targeted by the IAAF, with the IAAF having an agenda to take out the Russians [at all costs]. He also wonders how the IAAF didn:t bust the athletes at any point but now.
It is to laff! Given the amount of bucks the Russians kicked in to buy (err, host) the '13 Worlds, if anything I'd expect the IAAF to target them for kid-glove treatment.
Does the IAAF really work in a monolithic and well-coordinated manner? It would hardly surprise me if there are competing factions there... just like in most every other human organization that I've known.
I think that there has been some friction between the IAAF and the ARAF over the doping issue of late, but they’ve managed to keep it fairly discreet until now. You may recall my posts regarding Lysenko and Khoroshikh (link). They waived testing of their B-samples and instead fingered the federation’s former head coach, Valery Kulichenko. The federation subsequently fired him, but the IAAF wanted a criminal prosecution, before they’d consider reducing the suspensions for the two throwers. It appears, however, that Kulichenko had enough dirt on other folks in high places that the ARAF backed off, leaving Lysenko & Khoroshikh out in the cold. Tatiana had made some very thinly veiled threats toward the federation back in the wintertime, but nothing seemed to come of it. Now I wonder if there might be a connection to today’s events.
