IOC Finds 23 Positives from 2012 London Olympics

Brit in NY wrote:

In this case a "targeted" athlete is one who is currently still competing and with the likelihood he or she will be at this year's Olympic Games.

Yes that's a good start and a "win win", i.e. getting rid of the cheaters, sending a clear message and not putting out uglier numbers...

Sometingwong wrote:

Apologies if this has already been posted. I saw the 2008 thread, just not one on this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2016/05/27/ioc-23-positives-in-retests-of-samples-from-london-olympics/85024002/

So far 23 positives in 5 sports from 6 countries. Here we go again...

Seb has loved all the accolades, platform for the number one job in track etc.

Truth is he put on the dirtiest Olympics ever. It shows he didn't have infrastructure to keep the games clean, poorly managed ticket sales, as time goes on we will how much the games were just poorly managed.

He will never be held accountable, no one ever is.

Seb's Olympics wrote:

Sometingwong wrote:

Apologies if this has already been posted. I saw the 2008 thread, just not one on this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2016/05/27/ioc-23-positives-in-retests-of-samples-from-london-olympics/85024002/

So far 23 positives in 5 sports from 6 countries. Here we go again...

Seb has loved all the accolades, platform for the number one job in track etc.

Truth is he put on the dirtiest Olympics ever. It shows he didn't have infrastructure to keep the games clean, poorly managed ticket sales, as time goes on we will how much the games were just poorly managed.

He will never be held accountable, no one ever is.

Dirtier than which Olympics?

No chance were they dirtier than anything in 80s and 90s. I doubt any dirtier than anything after that either.

Maybe poorly managed ticket sales, but compared to most other Olympics again, at least they sold the tickets.

Actually, 1972, 1976, and 1980 were likely the dirtiest Olympics, when East Germany and the other Eastern European programs were at full tilt. 1988 was bad also.

Echidna wrote:

Actually, 1972, 1976, and 1980 were likely the dirtiest Olympics, when East Germany and the other Eastern European programs were at full tilt. 1988 was bad also.

Not 1984 then?

You know, the one where the US team was completely pumped up full of steroids?

you really don't know what you're talking about.

1980 Olympics called the "Chemists Games"

No test for testosterone. After one was developed, samples were tested with 20% showing a 6:1 ratio (a higher standard than the current 4:1). KGB destroyed tests.

Echidna wrote:

Actually, 1972, 1976, and 1980 were likely the dirtiest Olympics, when East Germany and the other Eastern European programs were at full tilt. 1988 was bad also.

Because they don't dope in the West. In the UK there is so little doping UKAD does not report anything.

By poorly managed do you mean massively oversubscribed.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I actually did take Stats. But you apparently failed algebra. They did 265 retests. 23 came back positive. Which is 8.65% which I rounded to 9%.

Ricky, you rushed right by some very important details. Let's start at the beginning.

Let's use the IOC's own data instead of estimates.

10568 athletes total.

4005 urine tests

1057 blood tests

Anothe site says 9 cases were opened during the games.

The IOC itself is claiming all top-5 were tested, plus two random from each race. (This should be better than the WADA standard of top-3.)

We're talking about odds of testing positive in the general population (32/10568) of less than 1%. What that should tell you is DO THE PEDs. The chances of getting caught are almost non-existent. There's your first buzzfeed post.

Let's move on...

The odds of testing positive if you podium. 32/3038 tests BARELY 1%. And we have to wait for ARD to publish multiple doping scandal stories. Your second Buzzfeed post: "OMG dope at Rio 'cause no one that matters wants you testing positive."

What does 8.65% tell us? It doesn't tell us testing works because the likelihood 23 positives were found is < 1%.

It DOES tell us that the podiums were very likely, very dirty. That's not the Buzzfeed post. The Buzzfeed post is: "OMG the IOC only chose 5% of samples to retest to limit damage to their brand" If they chose 10% of tests, probabilities suggest the number of positives would be *much* higher.

There is no progress being made because the IOC does not want doping constrained.

trollism wrote:

Echidna wrote:

Actually, 1972, 1976, and 1980 were likely the dirtiest Olympics, when East Germany and the other Eastern European programs were at full tilt. 1988 was bad also.

Not 1984 then?

You know, the one where the US team was completely pumped up full of steroids?

Let's not forget that 1/3 of the US Cycling team, which won 9 medals in 1984, were doing blood transfusions, which were not banned until 1985 by the IOC.

Also there was Alberto Cova (from Italy) who did blood transfusions and won the 10k gold medal in 1984.

Who can know which Olympics had the most weak mind disease?

Certainly no outbreak of weak mind disease could be as dangerous as Zika virus.

Ridiculo.

Coe attacks anyone who thinks anything less than London was clean, despite an ENORMOUS hit rate on a tiny sample set.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1037923/coe-claims-it-would-be-delusional-to-label-london-2012-olympic-games-as-the-dirtiest-in-history

Coe's got credibility problems. Rio will be craaaazzyyyy!