Leaked IAAF doping files reveal 'extraordinary extent of cheating'

Can we trust the BBC after the salazar debacle?

The exposé is aimed at showing the number of athletes suspected of doping in the world is higher than had ever been thought.

It is based on a leaked list of more than 12,000 blood tests from around 5,000 athletes in the years 2001 to 2012, including numerous Olympic and World champions, was initially statistically analyzed by the ARD Doping editorial team together with the British newspaper the Sunday Times.

“A total of 800 athletes in disciplines from 800 metres to the Marathon register values which, according to the definition of the Biological Passport of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) are regarded as suspicious or even highly suspicious.

“In the analysis of the blood levels of the medal-winners at World Championships and Olympic Games between 2001 and 2012, in the same disciplines that expert judgment is even more alarming: according to the figures, every third medal was won by athletes, for whom one or even both experts had identified suspicious blood values in the database,” a statement from ARD read in part.

not a bbc investigation... so not relevant

"Suspicious" doesn't mean doping.

It means they have no freaking clue and can't conclude anything.

A third of medals (146, including 55 golds) in endurance events at the Olympics and World Championships between 2001 and 2012 were won by athletes who have recorded suspicious tests.

Mo Farah is NOT in that group.

Leirbag wrote:

"Suspicious" doesn't mean doping.

It means they have no freaking clue and can't conclude anything.

A 99% confidence is not enough to convict (or even publicly accuse) a specific athlete of doping. But, if you have hundreds of profiles, and find that 30% indicate doping at a 99% confidence level, you can make a very good estimate about the prevalence of doping. And that was the whole point.

Leirbag wrote:

It means they have no freaking clue and can't conclude anything.

Don't judge others by yourself.

Leirbag wrote:

"Suspicious" doesn't mean doping.

It means they have no freaking clue and can't conclude anything.

Said the doping denier who hasn't ever bothered to figure out the WADA standards.

If you bothered to read the WADA standards, you'd come to the understanding the system bends over backwards to prevent a false positive. There is nothing wrong with that.

But, now you have a large number of athletes doping to suspicious levels for drugs with a range of responses from non-positive->suspicious->positive.

Doping is widespread at the IAAF and they are perfectly okay with it.

Maybe they need a jury to decide using common sense instead of 100% certainty.

Coach.. wrote:

Can we trust the BBC after the salazar debacle?

What Salazar debacle? The one where he was doping athletes? That one?

Funny stuff from the bbc , ,

"oh but its okay mo and usain are not

amongst any of these athletes."

and

"one of these cheats took a medal from

our saint jessica hill."

j hill who i personally would be highly

suspect of doping with igf-1 lr3 at ver least

who writes this pc rubbish.

bbc is being infected by this pc rubbish

and most of articles have similar agenda.

And how do they know who athletes are...

And what about the children.......

no literally what about the teenage dopers

And

The sprinters ,literally every top one on

certain peptide that not going to effect

biological passport and outside longer distances that maybe discussing more.

rotten to the core ,sorry coe ,seb coe.

how many more documentaries can de do.

aduck2022 wrote:

Funny stuff from the bbc , ,

"oh but its okay mo and usain are not

amongst any of these athletes."

and

"one of these cheats took a medal from

our saint jessica hill."

j hill who i personally would be highly

suspect of doping with igf-1 lr3 at ver least

who writes this pc rubbish.

bbc is being infected by this pc rubbish

and most of articles have similar agenda.

And how do they know who athletes are...

what the hell are you complaining about you illiterate rat?

This can't surprise anyone.

I'm surprised the percentage is that low. There ARE clean (or at least non-sucpicious-testing) athletes.

Coach.. wrote:

Can we trust the BBC after the salazar debacle?

What debacle?

What is the budget of WADA and USADA and all those organizations? Would it be enough that we could pay each top contender $100k to live in a "big brother" house, where losers on letsrun could watch their every movement and make sure they never doped? The "detectives" would work for free.

Look at the effort put into Mike Rossi? He was just some lame ass amateur that no one really gives 2 sh!ts about.

Just put cameras on our top athletes 24/7, give them a huge financial incentive to participate, and it will be obvious who the cheaters are.

Evian Mars wrote:

Mo Farah is NOT in that group.

Farah has all the resources of Nike to help ensure that he never tests positive.

Also, he missed two tests, one of which because he apparently didn't hear his doorbell ring.

ventolin^3, why not post under your regular handle when going sideways with your "the peptide, FG4523-K, blablah rants?