PCSExponent wrote:...At any rate, I have to agree with what you posted some years back (or was it flump? it's easy to distinguish between you 2 while reading your posts, but after data assimilation, all you 2 ever post runs into a single mental file under "muflmp") - we should skip all the "meddling" and award all golds in 100m & 200m from 1997 onwards to DF.
All gold medals? I sense their frustration [and their gift of hyperbole] but that's overkill. It has been mentioned on this thread already and it bears repeating, I SWEAR FOR NO (WO)MAN! However, I do think the biggest losers are American athletes - who because of American sprint depth - have to walk away from the sport because they don't have the $$ to properly develop; couldn't get the lane in Europe or the contract with the shoe company when they don't make a team.
Back to the immediate ramifications of the thread...if this is like last few years, then USADA will announce 2 - 3 more disqualifications before World Champs with the last being within a month of the Daegu Opening Ceremonies.
I think you've missed one. I believe Inger Miller lost a medal at the 1999 World Indoors after she tested positive for caffeine.
I gave Miller the benefit of the doubt, given that she only received a public warning for caffeine and DQ of that one performance. It's not quite on the same level as those who served a ban for PEDs.
Jon wrote:I gave Miller the benefit of the doubt, given that she only received a public warning for caffeine and DQ of that one performance. It's not quite on the same level as those who served a ban for PEDs.
Of course it isn't. But she lost her medal nonetheless.
Surely since the whole BALCO conflama and his name being all over it the IAAF knew exactly what he was?
Why the IAAF did nothing about it I don't know.
Because, fortunately, the IAAF doesn't have a lynch-mob mindset and acts on real evidence, not street chatter.
you might call it a 'lynch mob mindset' i call it an accurate assesment of lying, cheating, thieves in track and field. there has not been one athlete caught in the last 10 years who i couldn't have told you about 5 years before
Surely since the whole BALCO conflama and his name being all over it the IAAF knew exactly what he was?
Why the IAAF did nothing about it I don't know.
Because, fortunately, the IAAF doesn't have a lynch-mob mindset and acts on real evidence, not street chatter.
you might call it a 'lynch mob mindset' i call it an accurate assesment of lying, cheating, thieves in track and field. there has not been one athlete caught in the last 10 years who i couldn't have told you about 5 years before
Perhaps, but you probably would also have told us about more than one athlete who was not, in fact, guilty of anything more than being suspicious to you. The IAAF and the anti-doping authorities can't rely on your suspicions or anyone else's. Every suspension must be based on real evidence, and every accused athlete must have a right to a fair hearing. I, for one, wouldn't want it any other way and I think most clean athletes would agree.
That was exactly my point. I'm not remotely advocating a lynch mob mentality, simply that by the time suspicion has filtered down to the fans surely others in a position to do something about it must have known for a long time.
It just seems odd that so often people that we know are cheats(I would say suspect, but let be honest we know) go about it for years before any progress is made in catching them. Maybe there is loads going on behind the scenes that we don't know about but it usually just looks like a really slow reaction by the authorities.
Sometimes different agencies work together swiftly to catch someone (Dwain) but other times it take forever (Trevor Graham) and then even then it's last minute and messy (Kenderis/Thanou).
I'm not suggesting it's an easy task just that often the reaction seems to be too little too late.
My post was meant as a genuine question rather than an accusation.
The exact opposite is the case. The rumors lead the facts.
As far as speed of prosecution, it's matter of that athletes country. And if said individual is cooperating. Dwain cooperated so everything went fast. Kelli the same. Others denied and fought and were involved in other cases AND were the sources that led to other bust.
gh wrote:Because, fortunately, the IAAF doesn't have a lynch-mob mindset and acts on real evidence, not street chatter.
Does it? What about the target testing of Krabbe and Breuer, based purely on the lynch-mob mindset of ex FRG officials? I bet you weren't complaining then.
I really do hope Zhanna's medals are nullified. The problem is who they go to. I didn't agree with the Sydney no gold medalist approach before, but then I look at some of the names who would be upgraded and I wouldn't be comfortable with them getting the medals.
I wonder through the years how much these doped athletes have affected the motivation and performance of others? When you're a clean 11.0 woman and you have 3 doped women in 10.7-10.8 form steaming ahead, how much of that affects your form and performance? Remove those 3 dopers and you may have beaten your PB and run a better race. Perhaps it dragged some to better times. Who knows, but the whole race changes. If only the races could be re-run!
I really don't think much has changed in terms of number of athlete taking drugs since random testing was brought in. Indeed, doping seems as rife as ever.
Smoke wrote:The exact opposite is the case. The rumors lead the facts.
As far as speed of prosecution, it's matter of that athletes country. And if said individual is cooperating. Dwain cooperated so everything went fast. Kelli the same. Others denied and fought and were involved in other cases AND were the sources that led to other bust.
The Greeks are still fighting theirs.
So it's not as clear cut. Rumors are just that.
That's not what I meant Smoke. I'm not talking about the individual cases dragging out but the methods used to catch them.
If I remember correctly, once Dwain was suspected the UK authorities were informed and he was specifically targeted soon after. It was a quick and smooth operation to catch a cheat. Kenderis/Thanou had been suspected for years but it was only at the last minute before the Olympics that a concerted effort seems to have been made to catch them which ended up with huge amounts of bad publicity just before the games. Was anyone looking into Trevor Graham before BALCO? The whole world knew what he was up to.
Again this isn't necessarily a criticism of the authorities I'm just wondering why it sometimes take so long to target and catch some of the most obvious culprits.
gh wrote:Because, fortunately, the IAAF doesn't have a lynch-mob mindset and acts on real evidence, not street chatter.
Does it? What about the target testing of Krabbe and Breuer, based purely on the lynch-mob mindset of ex FRG officials? I bet you weren't complaining then.
Are you suggesting they shouldn't have been targeted? Were they not drug cheats?
Flumpy wrote:Are you suggesting they shouldn't have been targeted? Were they not drug cheats?
Oh no Flump, I absolutely agree with them being target tested. My comment was to gh who thinks the authorities do not (should not) act on with 'lynch mob' mindset and on 'street chatter', yet they did in Krabbe's case (it was the prejudices of some anti GDR officials that started the campaign to target Krabbe...and it worked!)
I absolutely agree with target testing based on rumours and that is what happens in practice. If you had 'real evidence' you wouldnt bloody be hanging around, you'd ban them! The fact is, law enforcements agencies, intelligence agencies and such like, and the IAAF and WADA, ALL act on 'street chatter' because that's where you get the best information and is what helps triggers an investigation - it's not all about dodgey test results. It's a starting point that in the majority of cases is based on fact.
At our primary school we had a little box in the main hall where pupils were encouraged to post concerns. I liked to call it the Snitch Box. I think we should have one in every GP meeting changing room, at every championships. Then it should be someone's job in the IAAF to read through all the accusations....Flump or Mump is my recommendation, then they can target test as much as they want
Suspicious athletes should definitely be targeted even if the information comes from 'street chatter'. This isn't a lynch mob mentality just common sense.
Gary seems to be confusing an investigation with a conviction. No one is suggesting that anyone should be convicted of cheating because of gossip, simply that it's perfectly valid to investigate because of it. If no evidence is found then the case would go no further.
As mump said above there has seldom been a cheat caught in the last decade that we couldn't have named years before. If the authorities did ask us lot for suggestions I reckon we'd have a 90% succcess rate. Off the top of my head I can only think of 2 top athletes from the last few years that I'm 100% certain were cheats and haven't been caught. Everyone else got rumbled sooner or later.
I love your 'Snitch Box' suggestion and would happily take on that job for free
Flumpy wrote:As mump said above there has seldom been a cheat caught in the last decade that we couldn't have named years before. If the authorities did ask us lot for suggestions I reckon we'd have a 90% succcess rate. Off the top of my head I can only think of 2 top athletes from the last few years that I'm 100% certain were cheats and haven't been caught. Everyone else got rumbled sooner or later.
I love your 'Snitch Box' suggestion and would happily take on that job for free
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.
Kenteris is a very good example, he'd been running round avoiding IAAF and WADA testers for years, everyone knew but it took untill the eve of the OG when the IOC got it together to actually go after him.
Gabriella wrote:I absolutely agree with target testing based on rumours and that is what happens in practice
Exactly. I remember looking at USADA's testing figures in the past, and the athletes who are tested most are/were the ones who (most would agree) were most questionable. For example, after '06 they really stepped up in their testing of Marion Jones. The Russian middle-distance runners were also tested a lot more so than some of their opponents. I think I remember Christine Ohuruogu also saying that she was tested a lot more after she returned from her ban. The doping authorities are led by their own suspicions, and rightly so.
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.
One I found interesting was the EAA's alleged target testing of Nicola Sanders during/after 2007.
Other than my Snitch Box, I would also like to add in the 'Acne Test', the 'Out Of Nowhere Test' (also known as 'Where Did THAT Performance Come From Test') the 'Where Did You Get That New Body? Test' and 'Is That A Moustache On Your Upper Lip? Test'. Though not comprehensive and 100% accurate, these tests, together with the Snitch Box, may help to fight these awful criminals.
Cycling, for all its problems has been trying to adjust to catch guys. They both target testing and have brought in the Biological Passport, which is essentially following an athlete. As I recall, anomalies in blood specifics lead to them targeting Tyler Hamilton who was then tabbed for blood transfusion, although they messed up the test at the OGs and he kept that tainted medal.
I think that the Contador case will be interesting, since political pressure might have played a role in his receiving no penalty and the appeal to CAS might result in a different result. The Spanish Fed seems to really be in disarray at this point.
Gabriella wrote:One I found interesting was the EAA's alleged target testing of Nicola Sanders during/after 2007.
Other than my Snitch Box, I would also like to add in the 'Acne Test', the 'Out Of Nowhere Test' (also known as 'Where Did THAT Performance Come From Test') the 'Where Did You Get That New Body? Test' and 'Is That A Moustache On Your Upper Lip? Test'. Though not comprehensive and 100% accurate, these tests, together with the Snitch Box, may help to fight these awful criminals.
Shame there was no "Why Is That Athlete In His/Her Late 20s/early 30s Suddenly Wearing Braces, Despite Already Having Perfectly Straight Teeth Test" available in the 90s.
Gabriella wrote:One I found interesting was the EAA's alleged target testing of Nicola Sanders during/after 2007.
Other than my Snitch Box, I would also like to add in the 'Acne Test', the 'Out Of Nowhere Test' (also known as 'Where Did THAT Performance Come From Test') the 'Where Did You Get That New Body? Test' and 'Is That A Moustache On Your Upper Lip? Test'. Though not comprehensive and 100% accurate, these tests, together with the Snitch Box, may help to fight these awful criminals.
Your "tests" are just self-serving. The IAAF already targets athletes once they become top-50 performers. WADA/USADA also takes "tips" (obviously, since that is the way BALCO got started, and how the Russian urine swappers got caught). So, their answer to you would be, "Thanks, but no thanks."
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.
I understand politcis, I understand about investment, about encouraging developing nations, about TV broadcasting rights and sponsorship...but I do not understand why someone doesn't make brave decisions. Catch a whole training camp of women with fake passports and body doubles? Ban the bloody federation from the next championships until they clean up their act, do not give them a bloody world championships!
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.
I understand politcis, I understand about investment, about encouraging developing nations, about TV broadcasting rights and sponsorship...but I do not understand why someone doesn't make brave decisions. Catch a whole training camp of women with fake passports and body doubles? Ban the bloody federation from the next championships until they clean up their act, do not give them a bloody world championships!
Gabriella wrote: 'Acne Test' 'Out Of Nowhere Test' 'Where Did You Get That New Body? Test' and 'Is That A Moustache On Your Upper Lip? Test'.
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. But when adult athletes get acne, and in the case of women, a moustache, that wasn't there 6 months ago, I would bet my life on the reason. Athletes over the age of 25 who get acne out of the blue are definitely _____ ________. Same goes for women who all of a sudden resemble Charlie Chaplin. I only wished there were a good close-up of Markus Ruhl to post, but there isn't - search for videos instead.
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.
Then it should be someone's job in the IAAF to read through all the accusations....Flump or Mump is my recommendation, then they can target test as much as they want
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.