Goodbye Mahkloufi! IAAF to retest London samples...

They may announce a bunch of Meldonium positives that will not result in penalties, presumably, since it was legal.

The IAAF makes a big show of announcing retests. Why don't they make a big show of announcing all the results instead? Is it because they are looking for bribes and negotiations from individual athletes and nations, like they did before? And then they appear to be doing something but we get no results. Where are those 99 Meldonium positives? Where are the 28 positives they caught before Beijing World's?

What ever happened to the Spanish court's decision about Dr. Fuente's blood bags. The court was supposed to announce it by the end of February. Talk about bribes: the court announced they made the decision in early December, but wouldn't announce the decision until the end of February. Interpretation: a two and one half month bribery auction would determine what would be announced at the end of February. The court should have announced the decision as soon as it was made.

let's try to stick to the topic of this thread: that Makhloufi was/is dirty.

What proof do you have? I don't get it, because he ran fast? All the other guys underperformed in London. Doesn't mean Mak was dirty??

let's try to stick to the topic of this thread: that Makhloufi was/is dirty.

What proof do you have? I don't get it, because he ran fast? All the other guys underperformed in London. Doesn't mean Mak was dirty??

opposition wrote:

let's try to stick to the topic of this thread: that Makhloufi was/is dirty.

What proof do you have? I don't get it, because he ran fast? All the other guys underperformed in London. Doesn't mean Mak was dirty??

Thing is, though I hate to admit it, as it was happening it just felt and looked entirely wrong. It was a combination of things that just led to a lot of us getting the gut feeling he was dirty (and I for one hate thinking like this, always try to give benefit of the doubt to the athletes). He pulverised everyone in the heats as well as the final; he has a stomping style and build reminiscent of Ramzi; he made an enormous improvement in 2012 at 24 years old, going from being a 3:34 man to a 3:30 man that looked capable of far faster; he is from Algeria/north Africa which links to well known dopers like Saidi-Sief (although Morocco has had more big busts I believe).

He also has the unfortunate tendency to look comically shifty and villainous.

In 2016 though we're reached a weird limbo where some of us who had that initial gut feeling that he was a cheat are now more inclined to consider the jury to be out; it doesn't look like he's tested positive over the last four years and he's produced some formidable PBs and performances over that time. (Having said that, we also now know that the IAAF was/is farcically corrupt, so who knows?) It also seems that the stories of Kenya's poor preparation for 2012 were legit and that Kiprop's injured hamstring was real.

I still feel uneasy watching a man with his build and running action clocking 3:28 or doing interval sessions that start with a sub 1:45 800m. It's not even close to being proof of guilt, and in fact is proof only of my own unscientific and illogical prejudice, but sub 3:30 runners have generally tended to be somehow smoother and/or more slender.

chips of ice wrote:

[quote]opposition wrote:

He also has the unfortunate tendency to look comically shifty and villainous.

.

^This^

tea partay spokesman wrote:

chips of ice wrote:

[quote]opposition wrote:

He also has the unfortunate tendency to look comically shifty and villainous.

.

^This^

Funny thing is, there is absolutely some truth to this if you are an observant person with sense. If not, I suggest you stay living in a bubble so you don't get raped, raped or murdered when visiting neighborhoods with guys just like dad mak.

Watch the tape broseph, it was a weAK field with lots of guys injured (kiprop) or not on there game all summer.

jjjjj wrote:

They may announce a bunch of Meldonium positives that will not result in penalties, presumably, since it was legal.

It was never legal. They didn't known about it until the last year.

More goodies will be banned before year's end. None of them will be legal at this time.

Wrongly, boy wrote:

jjjjj wrote:

They may announce a bunch of Meldonium positives that will not result in penalties, presumably, since it was legal.

It was never legal. They didn't known about it until the last year.

More goodies will be banned before year's end. None of them will be legal at this time.

It was added to the banned list this year. People found using it in 2012 cannot be retroactively punished for the rules 4 years later.

Mahkloufi - obvious doper.

Is there no chance of them anaylsing the samples and saying - this person was on x regardless of whether it was banned? Would really love to know who is on what to be honest.

So he is .5+ faster than the dopers. Unlikely

The lack of testing in Jamaica a few years ago is the biggest red flag

Testing past championships is as much about the future, as the past. A message is being sent.

trollism wrote:

Fentrekker wrote:

But in this particular case, having watched sprinters for nearly 50 years, I think it's likely that he is in fact naturally this good.

It's probably been 50 years since the last clean top class sprinter, so yay for Bolt.

Wrong.

Donovan Bailey.

I believe Frankie Fredericks was also clean

Metric Miler wrote:

It was added to the banned list this year. People found using it in 2012 cannot be retroactively punished for the rules 4 years later.

I disagree. It don't believe it has never been the case that drugs had to be known before athletes could be banned for taking them. For instance, from section M1 of the WADA code:

PROHIBITED METHODS

M1. MANIPULATION OF BLOOD AND BLOOD COMPONENTS

The following are prohibited:

2. Artificially enhancing the uptake, transport or delivery of oxygen. Including, but not limited to: Perfluorochemicals; efaproxiral (RSR13) and modified haemoglobin products, e.g. haemoglobin-based blood substitutes and microencapsulated haemoglobin products, excluding supplemental oxygen.

This anti-doping and retro testing is 90% spin and window dressing

Wada is only the tail of the iaaf/ioc dog who retain ultimate control

Politics, bribery, public image, sponsors and revenue take priority over any genuine anti-doping fight

The bottom line is that anti - doping is a matter of containment rather than victory

An all-out war on peds would destroy professional athletics as a business

webby wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

It was added to the banned list this year. People found using it in 2012 cannot be retroactively punished for the rules 4 years later.

I disagree. It don't believe it has never been the case that drugs had to be known before athletes could be banned for taking them. For instance, from section M1 of the WADA code:

PROHIBITED METHODS

M1. MANIPULATION OF BLOOD AND BLOOD COMPONENTS

The following are prohibited:

2. Artificially enhancing the uptake, transport or delivery of oxygen. Including, but not limited to: Perfluorochemicals; efaproxiral (RSR13) and modified haemoglobin products, e.g. haemoglobin-based blood substitutes and microencapsulated haemoglobin products, excluding supplemental oxygen.

Agreed. It doesn't have to be banned at the time. Look at Balco. They were using designer steroids and were getting away with it because the testers didn't know what to test for. Once the story came out, those that were involved got retroactive bans.

coroner wrote:

[quote]jjjjj wrote:

It is all a show, and you know this. They want people to shake in their boots and feel compelled to take a preemptive measure to keep bad things from happening to them.

If all we get out of it is a clean 2016 Olympics, I'm okay with it.