7-sided wrote: Just because these people were not caught as fast as you (and I) would have liked does not mean that the proper authorities were not trying to catch them.
No, it means there is too much bureaucracy and red tape. Also not enough money being invested in catching cheats and far too much politics. The IAAF, WADA and the IOC have to decide what they want to spend money on, and unfortunately they are not doing enough and spending enough to catch cheats, because it's not always in their interest to do so.
Wrong! There is not enough money within WADA or any of the ADA's to test in a way that would satisfy you, so to call it red tape when the mandate is to grow/market/develop a dying sport is off in the margins. WADA and USADA have every reason to catch cheats because it is the only way they can justify their existence. And, the bigger the catch, the more complex the snare, the more relevant the organization. Trust me they have FEASTED off of BALCO and continue to digest the remains of that sorry carcass. IAAF and IOC have much lesser roles in testing these days, but the IAAF is much more conscientious than the IOC in my opinion.
PCSExponent wrote:Two of these tests are VERY rigorous, much more so than many would care to admit. An athlete can change their training regime and observe a (sometimes abrupt) change of both physique and results. They can also be wearing braces for totally innocuous reasons.
Nobody's saying you should ban athletes automatically for wearing braces, just that it's a sign something may be going on. If they are innocent, then the fact they're being tested more frequently shouldn't bother them too much.
Powell wrote:The fact that most of the people you suspected were caught eventually suggests that WADA's informers are as well informed as you
But even if you are sure that an athlete is using drugs, you can't realistically expect that evidence sufficient to banning them will be found within a week. These things take time.
I would expect them to be a whole lot more informed than me for obvious reasons.
I agree that the fact most people we suspect, seem to be caught eventually shows that the job is getting done and I'm not suggesting that these thing would only take a few weeks, but there are some athletes who get away with it for years before being targeted and others retire or stop using before that can happen. The longer it takes to catch someone, the bigger mess medal reallocation is.
7-sided wrote:You have to be an absolute IDIOT to think that the IAAF is not acting on innuendo and rumor; the issue is - and it is correct - that you have to have PROOF to remove them from competition. Just because these people were not caught as fast as you (and I) would have liked does not mean that the proper authorities were not trying to catch them. I would expect these types of comments from the occasional track fan, but it is a shock to read knowledgable posters go on about target testing as if it's that easy. Do you not remember Marion Jones' calendars which had her taking drugs on the same days that she was being tested? Do you not remember that BALCO was about UNDETECTABLE drugs? Do you not remember that without Trevor Graham possibly NONE of these athletes would have been banned? All that everyone is bellyaching about came from ONE investigation. Yes, there's more, but who's gonna be the "Trevor Graham" for that one? Come on, guys, you know better! The cheats were ahead of the police. They may always be, but the gap is narrowing. But, it is foolhardy to think that the IAAF does not have a strong stance AGAINST doping.
One more thing: this idea that you are only knowledgeable about our sport based upon who you can accuse of PED abuse/use has to stop.
Calm down!!!
Clearly the IAAF/WADA have been taking a very proactive stance on these matters in recent years and I think they are doing a pretty good job. It may be the case that they currently have dozens of undercover investigations going on to catch as many cheats as they can, in which case that answers my question.
Originally I was asking whether this had been a long running investigation or if it had all happened recently. If it was the letter I was wondering what took them so long.
