Sure, as long as it is done for all the pro sports. And the politicians and all those who donate to them
Sure, as long as it is done for all the pro sports. And the politicians and all those who donate to them
Weldon,
If you were once accused (without any foundation) of committing a crime, would you be happy if the police released your private details to the media?
What if the mere association with that particular crime had some serious repercussions for your family, business and reputation. Let's say for example it was a hate crime or a sexual crime.
Would it be sufficient that you could proclaim your innocence, or would the damage already be done?
I want to know these names too, but this is dangerous territory.
Uber alles wrote:
The report names a few names. One of them was Rita Jeptoo who had a flag for a HCT of 39 and a Hgb of 16. It is conceivable that a normal person, especially someone living at altitude, could have values in that range. The biological passport looks at a range of values but these reports only include Hgb, hct and retic count. That's precisely why they should be used as screens only. Unless a test is definitive, I don't think it's right to drag a potentially innocent persons name through the mud.
Tribe wrote:I think one of the values that was reported was a hct of 39. That is high but I once had my hct tested after doing a long run (and presumably quite dehydrated). It was 39 as well and I certainly wasn't taking any PEDs. These tests are meant to raise suspicion but they're not designed to be used in isolation. It would be unethical to do so.
A high hct on its own will not be suspicious (and 39 is not high). The investigators will have looked at a whole range of blood parameters before deciding that the results are suspicious.
Slight tangent, but when is Jiptoo's B-sample going to be tested? 2017?
No to a wholesale release. Multiple posts on this thread provide clear evidence that people will take the list to be solely of confirmed dopers with obvious damage to some number of clean athletes.
That said, it would be useful to have the complete test results released with country by country breakdown of each test, but without athlete names.
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion here.
The names should not be released. This is not a list of felons. This is a suspect list.
Good people will be damaged if the names are released. Innocent persons should not have to be tormented with the burdens of proving their innocents in the public eye. History always looks back on these mob trials with disgust and regret.
Basic human rights far exceed "what is good for the sport" or good for the media's bottom line.
On a side note, I personally know three people with polycythemia (non athletes). I know that's statistically impressive, but it is what it is. Furthermore, I've had some pretty wacky blood tests myself where the doctor had to retest a few weeks later and everything was back to "normal." My point being that abnormalities are not really abnormalities unless you know the greater context.
The identity of British star is out I would think
Can only be one person
The clean East African myth has finally been debunked with this list
I'll wager some of the very top Ethiopian goats are code-red on that list
As a fan who supports cleaning up the sport I want to the see the names released, but it is probably not the right thing to do. It may even backfire and damage the anti-doping movement permanently. Law suits will eat up the testing budget even if WADA/IAAF win the case.
That being said, I realize that the biological passport was not up and running for the 2006-2008 tests. However, many athletes tested then were probably still active once the passport was initiated. Can't they compare these suspicious values to the athlete's baseline values from their passport? While there may be small fluctuations any major deviation from baseline in the samples between 2006-2008 and 2010-preesent (passport era), would strongly indicate doping. In this case, those names should be released because they were clearly using artificial agents. I think that this would be the most fair solution for both advocates of anti-doping and the athletes.
I am probably being thick! Who is the British star as implied in this article?
Interesting. You might be right about the Ethiopians. It's hard to think of a list of 10 Ethiopians competing at top level that doesn't include big names. They don't have nearly the number of athletes competing as Kenya.
just sayin wrote:
The clean East African myth has finally been debunked with this list
I'll wager some of the very top Ethiopian goats are code-red on that list
from the article... ' They include three British athletes – one of whom is a household name and a star of track and field events.. '
waxerizer wrote:
I am probably being thick! Who is the British star as implied in this article?
Someone quoted earlier says it is obvious who it is. It isn't obvious to me.
Farrah would be my bet but he wasn't a star then and it says only three 2012 London winners are on the list, which would seem to exclude him. So who? Ohourougu?
Seriously..
Which British athlete is a 'household name and star of track and field events'
There is only one
Tribe wrote:
I don't think it is right to tarnish someone's name unless there is near conclusive proof. I think one of the values that was reported was a hct of 39. That is high but I once had my hct tested after doing a long run (and presumably quite dehydrated). It was 39 as well and I certainly wasn't taking any PEDs. These tests are meant to raise suspicion but they're not designed to be used in isolation. It would be unethical to do so.
A hematocrit of 39 is NOT high. It is at the low end of the normal range. In fact, endurance training will LOWER hematocrit because of plasma volume expansion. If you are dehydrated, you will have a HIGHER hematocrit.
It would be very wrong to release these names, as it would very well wrongly malign and impugn many entirely clean athletes.
HOWEVER, such information should raise a red flag for increased testing scrutiny for those on the list.
The penalties for positive drug tests have to be greatly increased - the fraud and theft should be prosecuted as a criminal offense. Bans of 4 to 8 years should be commonplace. Prize money should be withheld for two years before being awarded to the athlete - and said athlete should be tested out of season multiple times. Where would that money come from? I suggest 10% of prize money be earmarked for funding testing.
Star of track and field means (to my English eyes) someone who does either athletics or field events. It doesn't mean someone who does both, i.e. Jessica Ennis, who in 2007 and 2008 was not a world class performer. She was only just out of juniors. And she really is a big fish in a very small pond in any case...
just sayin wrote:
Seriously..
Which British athlete is a 'household name and star of track and field events'
There is only one
'Track and field' is the name that is often given to the sport that is more commonly known as 'athletics' in the UK.
Usain Bolt is a track and field star, but he doesn't do field events.
I understand what you're saying, but don't think they were alluding to an athlete who competes in both track and field events when they used the term 'track and field'.
BTW the "athlete" picture in the article with the pixelated face is actually TV presenter Davina McCall running for Sport Relief. http://www.bestdaily.co.uk/showbiz/news/a551213/davina-mccall-on-final-stretch-of-her-sport-relief-challenge.html
'star of track and field events'
that implies a multi-event athlete imo