How could this possibly be vindication? Even if the chance of sabotage is real you test for it in a medically ethical way utilizing a double blind clinical trial. You don't do experiments on your own staff.
How could this possibly be vindication? Even if the chance of sabotage is real you test for it in a medically ethical way utilizing a double blind clinical trial. You don't do experiments on your own staff.
tradition wrote:
He was banned for
1) unlicensed experiements with T
2) sending thyroid meds unlawfully
3) infusions?
I think he was and is grey area all along. Grey area can do a lot. I do not think he deserved a long ban like he actually directly cheated with classical PEDs.
Sending thyroid meds unlawfully, when you are Alberto Salazar, and you have been proven to also have engaged in the other two, is bigger than you are making it out to be. Signifies how grossly accustomed we are to using medications for everything, not how Salazar didn't deserve his ban.
rojo wrote:
The newest ARD doping film apparently shows it's easily to test positive after someone rubs cream on you.
I haven't had time to watch it. Someone please do (it's got English sub-titles) and let us know what it says.
What it says:
The ARD report showed several real cases, and potential paths that have led, or might have led, or can lead to wrongful convictions:
- ordinary painkillers with traces of a banned substance which are within national guidelines, but not anti-doping guidelines; with luck the athlete had one tablet left, that was analyzed, and led to his acquittal. He was still out about 10-15 thousand Euros.
- sabotage of an athlete by a jilted coach who put cocaine in an eloctrolyte powder
- sabotage of a whole team by another country, to gain entry into the Olympics
- even a re-examination of the Dieter Baumann toothpaste sabotage, and the level of evidence simply ignored by the IAAF
It is bound together by an experiment on 12 males (to avoid harmful side effects from steroids), with low doses of anabolic steroids, mixed with an absorption agent, administered through the skin, testing positive within 1 hour, lasting as long as 14 days.
Does it partly vindicate Salazar? We can certainly say that potential sabotage via cream on the skin contact, is easier than anyone ever realized, even if we assume Trevor Graham made up the excuse on Gatlin’s behalf, and we recall that Salazar’s testosterone cream experiment failed (what he needed was to add an agent to help absorption through the skin). Sabotage can come from many sources: a competitor, a jealous teammate, a jilted coach, a jealous lover, ….
Could it vindicate Dieter Baumann? One of the judges of the case was surprised how their finding was simply ignored.
Personal Opinion:
Recent cases of doping by unknowing ingestion of banned substances over the past few years had already given me doubts about the fairness of “strict liability” and the reversal of burden where an athlete is “guilty until proven innocent”. Put yourself in the Nike carbon fiber shoes of the accused athlete, and ask yourself how you can prove to a panel of arbiters, on the balance of probability, that a meal you ate 4-5 weeks earlier, if you are lucky enough to recall which meal, might have been contaminated, when the meat is long gone, and the restaurant, and its suppliers, are under no obligation to help in an investigation that you have to fund on your own, absorbing legal fees and any lab testing, at the moment that all of your income has been cut. Or similarly, tainted supplements that you may no longer have, because you have used them up in the weeks between the test and the notification of an AAF.
Sabotage is a more clear example that shows how “strict liability” puts the athlete in an awkward, if not impossible, position to investigate, collect evidence, in order to defend himself/herself from a sanction. It is probably worth mentioning that the result is not always acquittal — in cases of a successful defense, the result is still a guilty verdict, but a “no fault” finding just reduces the length, or eliminates the ban. A second offense will be treated as a repeat offense, with a default 8-year ban.
If this documentary doesn’t lead to some form of reform of the WADA code, then it should certainly damage the confidence in anti-doping enforcement, as it is currently defined by the WADA code, and practiced.
I don’t see an obvious solution, but anti-doping has some severe, potentially existential, issues:
- everyone should be reminded that the goal of anti-doping is to catch just the dopers; ideally it should find 100% of the true positives and the true negatives, and 0% of the false positives and the false negatives
- it already costs a lot of money to achieve the current, low “success” rate of AAFs and ADRVs; anti-doping ADOs and ADAs are under pressure to deliver doping positives to demonstrate return on investment
- rule like “strict liability” are almost necessary to keep costs as low as they are; attempting to force anti-doping agencies to prove intent and source of doping is surely cost prohibitive and will lengthen the time of every conviction, and let many dopers compete
This is not the only recent attack on the confidence of anti-doping. In 2019, “sportsscientist.com” Ross Tucker published a guest article from Prof. Erik Boye, who detailed the circumstances around three athletes in the cases of Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, and Benedikt Karus, making a compelling case that they were wrongly accused and convicted of EPO in their urine (the same test that busted Kiprop), because the lab made mistakes during testing, and reported the wrong results. The river of justice is flowing against the athletes once a WADA lab reports the AAF, in part, because the athlete doesn’t have access to the WADA lab tests, and potential anti-doping experts who work at WADA labs, who could be experts for the defense, or could cross check the correct results, are forbidden to criticize other WADA labs.
If an athlete is going to be banned for 4 years, and have his/her reputation permanently stained, one anti-doping objective must be that the false positive rate is ZERO.
This is like anyone who claims self-defense or mental illness after they murder someone. Is it possible? Maybe. But probably only true .01% of the time vs the 99% it is used at trial.
Ummmm yeah ok wrote:
This is like anyone who claims self-defense or mental illness after they murder someone. Is it possible? Maybe. But probably only true .01% of the time vs the 99% it is used at trial.
Mentally ill people do kill a lot of other folks. Maybe Alberto should have pleaded mental illness.
JosePublico wrote:
Ummmm yeah ok wrote:
This is like anyone who claims self-defense or mental illness after they murder someone. Is it possible? Maybe. But probably only true .01% of the time vs the 99% it is used at trial.
Mentally ill people do kill a lot of other folks. Maybe Alberto should have pleaded mental illness.
My bad. I meant the higher standard of insanity. You're right. Mental illness is more prevalent but not necessarily an excuse to be exempt from personal accountability despite what the social media mob wants everyone to believe....
Ummmm yeah ok wrote:
This is like anyone who claims self-defense or mental illness after they murder someone. Is it possible? Maybe. But probably only true .01% of the time vs the 99% it is used at trial.
You throw out percentages as if there was something legitimate behind, rather than an illustration of your thinking.
If it were only 1 in 10,000 athletes (0.01%), that would be tragic for that athlete.
Keep in mind that all-time performance lists dating back to the ‘60s, might have around 1000-2000 athletes combined, so 1 in 10,000 indicates an extremely rare occurrence.
In the documentary, one athlete said that 8 out of 10 cases were legitimate, while 2 out of 10 were not.
A US Ombudsman wrote that 40-60% of ADRVs were unintentional.
The question remains, is 0.01% accurate? 20%? 50%?
Murder trials require the prosecution to prove things like willfulness, deliberation, premeditation to a jury of their peers.
In anti-doping, “intent” has been redefined, and both guilt and intent are presumptions that the defendant has the burden to overturn, to a panel of arbitrators — experts in contract interpretation and law.
The reform necessary is to change what an anti-doping “trial” looks like, by changing who has which burden, if the case even comes to trial at all.
As it is today, simply showing the presence of a substance, the only burden of ADAs and ADOs, does not prove these other factors, like intent, willfullness, premeditation.
Once the A-sample comes back positive, there is a great imbalance between the athlete, starting from nothing, against the combined forces and history of the WADA code, the WADA lab, the WA, the AIU, and the CAS.
The athlete starts with ZERO background in the science of doping and anti-doping. But a fair trial would demand that both the prosecution and defense have the same level of understanding of the science and law, and equal access to the raw data and the expertise used to prosecute the athlete.
Furthermore, the athlete has to completely fund his education and his defense, at a time when his/her income is suspended and major sponsors have dropped them.
There is great time pressure, as the athlete is provisionally suspended, so unable to compete and earn his/her living.
Most athletes compete at poverty levels of income, so justice will only come to the rich, but still at great expense.
Many cases will simply not start due to lack of funds. Many cases that do start will stop prematurely due to exhausted funds.
Giving this some more thought — it is this imbalance between the poor, and poorly informed (about the science and the law), against the coalition of anti-doping expertise, that needs to be addressed. Maybe by creating or fortifying a strong Athletes Union, that is independent of a single sport, or country, and of WADA/ADAs/ADOs and CAS, that can help the athletes legally, scientifically, and with future rule changes to insure better justice for the wrongly accused.
Before the more insecure hop onto the “doping apologist” bandwagon, the goal here is not to reduce or excuse “true positives”, but to help better identify cases of “false positives” and give these athletes a fighting chance to compete again, rather than forcing premature retirements, or forcing athletes to bankruptcy just to clear their name.
davies report wrote:
ex-runner wrote:
I don't think that banning someone from athletics is a human rights violation.
I don't see professional, paid sport as a human right.
When I applied for my job, it was not my human right to be given it. I could have not been hired for any one of thousands of reasons, including something slight as my attitude, the shirt I was wearing or having a cough.
Professional sport does not need to allow everyone. Only athletics thinks that it needs to allow all people the right to compete in the sport.
Nearly all other sports have selective teams who can pick athletes based on whatever criteria they want, as long as it is not racially discriminatory, and everyone else is excluded.
A doping positive, whether it is beyond reasonable doubt or not, should be a reason to exclude an athlete from competing.
You don't have to call that a ban if you like, athletes are free to go and run at their local track; but not in the diamond League. Or the world championships. This sport needs to get a grip and become professional or it will die.
You fool.
The ban is for all level of sport and all sports and even training at a whole range of facilities.
Make the effort to understand the rules.
Yes but it doesn't need to be. That is what I'm saying.
If professional athletics tried to treat itself as a private entity, rather than a broad human right open to all people as it does now, it could have much greater control over the sport and who competes in it at an international level.
You could and should be able to exclude athletes from competing in the World Championships for example because athletes aren't in a drug testing pool, or they associate with a shady coach, or they haven't competed enough times during the year, or are too unknown to the public.
You don't have to reach criminal justice system levels of 'beyond reasonable doubt' to exclude an athlete from competing in a private, professional entity.
The current decentralised model is preventing the sport from progressing. There is no other sport like this, where anyone can just turn up with their spikes, win an Olympic or World Gold medal, and then disappear.
“ex-runner” — I’m not sure I’m following you. Not sure where “human rights” comes into it (that wasn’t in “rojo’s” post or the German documentary), but you may be right that it doesn’t rise to the level of a human rights violation. Legally binding agreements can be made between consenting adults in contracts that would restrict otherwise legal behavior by mutual agreement for mutual benefit.
The Olympics is fundamentally meant for amateur athletes — and anti-doping enforcement by WADA is essentially a subsidiary of the IOC, in cooperation with governments, which generally excludes many professional sports (e.g. American football, basketball, baseball). The fact that athletes are paid, and are professionals doesn’t seem to be a relevant aspect.
Your analogy with getting a job isn’t quite right. You might be turned down for a job from one employer, but still be able to find the same job somewhere else. A ban in the sport means that you will always be turned down for that job, and all other jobs subject to respecting the ban, and be forbidden to work by all potential employers, who will similarly be forbidden to hire you. In the job market, this exists only in rare cases, e.g. convicted sex-offenders working with children or things of similar nature.
rekrunner wrote:
(that wasn’t in “rojo’s” post or the German documentary)
Sorry — I take that back — it was in the German documentary.
that's how justin gatlin got his 2nd ban. his doctor found out he was getting fired and (allegedly) retaliated by rubbing testosterone cream instead of the normal one. first ban was for add meds and was overturned
Could you sabotage rivals at the Olympics with Covid ?
brighteyes wrote:
I have always thought that the suspicion of Salazar is unfounded. As long as I have been reading these boards, way before the testosterone cream story came out, he was being accused of doping his athletes. The testosterone cream experiment made perfect since in the context of Gatlin's claim but hardly anyone could be intellectually honest about it. I think that there always has to be a bad guy and Salazar was the appointed bad guy. The constant slander of him and his athlete's, who have been heavily tested but never failed a test, has done more to hurt track and field in this country than all other factors combined.
It's been interesting to watch the mob try to settle on the next bad guy. There is a bad guy vacuum. Jerry seems to be the leader now which is ironic as he was the good guy in the Salazar narrative.
This may be the best post I have ever read on LRC. Well done!
tradition wrote:
He was banned for
1) unlicensed experiements with T
2) sending thyroid meds unlawfully
3) infusions?
I think he was and is grey area all along. Grey area can do a lot. I do not think he deserved a long ban like he actually directly cheated with classical PEDs.
I love it that “grey area” is a technical term in this sport. Like there’s actually a set of rules that they don’t have written which are able to be enforced when something feels wrong.
I don't keep up with the gossip in this sport but, when Houlihan tested positive, what was the status of her relationship with Centrowitz?
Exhibit A: He was with Salazar for a long time and may have learned a lot about topical application of banned substances.
Exhibit B: Considering how triggered he gets by online schoolboy taunts, were Centrowitz and Houlihan in nasty break up mode and is it possible that he spiked a massage oil or skin care product that she routinely used?
rekrunner wrote:
“ex-runner” — I’m not sure I’m following you. Not sure where “human rights” comes into it (that wasn’t in “rojo’s” post or the German documentary), but you may be right that it doesn’t rise to the level of a human rights violation. Legally binding agreements can be made between consenting adults in contracts that would restrict otherwise legal behavior by mutual agreement for mutual benefit.
The Olympics is fundamentally meant for amateur athletes — and anti-doping enforcement by WADA is essentially a subsidiary of the IOC, in cooperation with governments, which generally excludes many professional sports (e.g. American football, basketball, baseball). The fact that athletes are paid, and are professionals doesn’t seem to be a relevant aspect.
Your analogy with getting a job isn’t quite right. You might be turned down for a job from one employer, but still be able to find the same job somewhere else. A ban in the sport means that you will always be turned down for that job, and all other jobs subject to respecting the ban, and be forbidden to work by all potential employers, who will similarly be forbidden to hire you. In the job market, this exists only in rare cases, e.g. convicted sex-offenders working with children or things of similar nature.
" Sport would have to look for a new system "
Experts consider this principle of sports law to be hardly tenable in view of the results of the experiment. If it is " so extreme " that the administration of a doping agent "is practically imperceptible and possible as an act of sabotage ", then that would mean " that the sanction would constitute a violation of human rights, " said law professor Angelika Nussberger, who was Vice President until 2019 European Court of Human Rights, ARD.
" The consequence would then be that the relevant regulations would have to be changed. This burden of proof situation would have to be adjusted so that athletes have any chance of avoiding an accusation, " said Nussberger: " Sport would then have to look for a new system. "
That snippet from the article is what I have been referring to regarding human rights.
The job analogy works perfectly. Athletics is one chosen form of income. I would like a job in banking. However, even if I applied for all the banks in the world I might not get one. But I might get a job in road sweeping instead.
If a private professional entity such as the fictional "Athletics Super League" decided it didn't want to hire an athlete to compete for some reason (outside of racial discrimination), then it would be free to do so. That individual could go and pursue a career in sports coaching, or as a professional cyclist or table tennis player instead. It is not their "right" to compete in the private professional competition.
Athletics treats itself as a broad human right. And that is why the sport is without direction and struggles to monetize itself.
You are watching a bunch of individuals, running in aimless events for their own benefit alone, some even believe they should be paid for the luxury of training behind closed doors and never racing.
If a sport is 'for the athletes' then it will fail economically. It must realise that it's value is in entertainment, and that means 'for the fans'. Then it must build itself around that.
Do the fans want to see known doping athletes win, even after serving bans? Do the fans want to see unknowns turn up at the World championships and win medals?
Dude
ex-runner wrote:
That snippet from the article is what I have been referring to regarding human rights.
The job analogy works perfectly. Athletics is one chosen form of income. I would like a job in banking. However, even if I applied for all the banks in the world I might not get one. But I might get a job in road sweeping instead.
If a private professional entity such as the fictional "Athletics Super League" decided it didn't want to hire an athlete to compete for some reason (outside of racial discrimination), then it would be free to do so. That individual could go and pursue a career in sports coaching, or as a professional cyclist or table tennis player instead. It is not their "right" to compete in the private professional competition.
Athletics treats itself as a broad human right. And that is why the sport is without direction and struggles to monetize itself.
You are watching a bunch of individuals, running in aimless events for their own benefit alone, some even believe they should be paid for the luxury of training behind closed doors and never racing.
If a sport is 'for the athletes' then it will fail economically. It must realise that it's value is in entertainment, and that means 'for the fans'. Then it must build itself around that.
Do the fans want to see known doping athletes win, even after serving bans? Do the fans want to see unknowns turn up at the World championships and win medals?
I realized after I posted, what human rights was in response to.
I’m still struggling with your job analogy — there is no collective agreement between banks and bankers that would be breached if one of the banks hired you, and there would be no repurcussions for the bank. But in sport, if you are accused of doping, due to bad luck with tainted medication, or a jealous teammate/competitor/coach/girlfriend/etc., their is a collective agreement with all federations and organizations and athletes worldwide, to prevent you from competing, even for no money, or participating in organized training. The sanction can even include retro-actively returning medals and winnings that you had earned — all through no fault of your own or under your control.
If the sport itself struggles to monetize and fails economically, I see that as separate from the goals of the individual athletes who want to compete, in the spirit of amateur competition.
A job analogy is ok. Let’s do that. You want a job and go to an interview. Someone else is also interviewing. They shake your hand and wish you luck. Your interview was great! You are the most qualified candidate and will be offered the job. Just have to take a drug test, nbd.
Little do you know the other person has applied a substance that will show up in the subsequent test and voila, you don’t get the job, they other person does.
In sport, it’s even worse, because you lose your whole career, can’t just go to the next employer and try again.
I’m in no way saying it’s ok to cheat, quite the opposite. The point is that it can be harder to tell WHO is the cheater than the current system allows for.
Umm, dude is still banned, genius.