The emperor has no clothes: Jemima Sumgong has tested positive for EPO!!!

trollism wrote:

Do you genuinely believe Kenya wants to catch cheats?

Slow down with this kind of thinking.

Remember that if an athlete gets into the international elite testing pool, it's entirely up to the IAAF.

If the regional anti-doping administration actually tested her, it likely would have been a urine test and she would done the equivalent of failing an IQ test.

Renato Canova wrote:

In Italy we had, during the period 1978-1985, some experience with the auto-transfusions, following what Finnish athletes did at the beginning of the seventieth. However, not all the best Italian accepted to follow the protocol of Conconi.

FYI: this isn't breaking news. The Conconi lab was a major source of doping controversies for years. All of the well-known Italian doping doctors studied under Conconi. Conconi was essentially running Italy's IOC sport doping program with guys like Ferrari as under studies.

Renato Canova wrote: During that period, athletes winning everything, such as Alberto Cova (ECh 1982, WCh 1983, OG 1984, World Cup 1985) NEVER went to altitude, preferring a training in Finland at sea level. During those periods, there were the take-off of blood, which had to be injected again in the circulatory system about two weeks before the race.

The worst thing about this is how Sandro Donati was essentially punished for trying to clean things up in Italy. Shameful, really.

And the same Sandro Donati accepted to become the coach of Alex Schwazer for showing possible to be at the top of the world (and in any case to repeat the same times achieved when doped) when he was totally clean. Sandro built a task force (of course private) with top scientists and collaborators of antidoping, who carried out advanced tests every 3-4 weeks. After one year of training, Schwazer won the World Cup showing he could win Olympics, and magically appeared a new test for controlling another test of several months before, carried out on 1st January, where there were "traces" of a steroid in so small percentage that NEVER could influence any training.

Till now, the IAAF refuses to release the sample that is in Koeln lab, for a test of DNA requested by the Italian Magistrature after Schwazer asked for controlling if the urine was from himself, or fruit of a manipulation.

From all this fact, we can arrive to the following conclusions :

1) Donati wanted to demonstrate that it was possible to achieve in clean way the same results you previously achieved with doping. THIS MEANS THAT, IN SPITE OF WHAT THE SAME DONATI SAID FOR SEVERAL YEARS, HE NOW BELIEVE DOPING IS USELESS WHEN TRAINING IS OF PROPER HIGH LEVEL.

2) IAAF didn't want that a "doped athlete of the past" could become Olympic Champion. All the times around the Schwazer case are suspicious : a test negative at the first control, with a request to re-test again after several months with a more advanced machine, in order to find "traces" of some steroid in so small quantity that clearly could not help any training, and all the sample comes from a OOC control carried out on 1st January, few hours after the "big dinner" of the last day of the previous year.

3) The IAAF at the moment doesn't want a DNA test, that Schwazer's lawyer requested, and that can be a further investigation about the truth. Why ?

4) Looking at the proposal to cancel the 50 km walking from the list of official events for Olympics and WCh, it seems that the fact to have some important athlete positive can give more strength to the proposal itself, so this can be considered a "political case", more than a clear case of doping.

It's clear athletics is facing a bad moment as image, but for who lives in this world from more than 50 years, working on the ground, but knowing also what happens on the top, the reality is not close to the general feeling.

I continue to say that doping is not part of the "professional world" of sport, but is part of the culture of this time. Pharmacological Companies represent the third business in the World, and continue to push for creating in normal people the mentality that we can't survive without taking any type of supplement. If we could do tests according the antidoping rules with all the normal people (including who doesn't do any physical activity), probably we could find a percentage of "doped" higher than 60-70%. So, today people belong to two categories : the one who refuses every idea of pharmacological manipulation (and this people are obsessed by the idea of doping in the sport, but I don't know if are obsessed in the same way by the idea of a "chemical society" involving the most part of normal persons), and the one of people who use themselves every kind of pharma, so of course all the athletes must have the same mentality and are all doped.

The road for fighting doping is not the one we use now. The first step is to change the educational approach, and also to reduce the idea that the impact of some illegal manipulation can produce so much advantage in the performance, otherwise who is against doping automatically becomes the best TESTIMONIAL for doping, when we look at millions people who well know they NEVER can be tested in their life, because are amateurs of medium and low level, or students competing in the school.

It's enough to go at the start of a competition for amateurs (cycling or running), for finding hundred of syringes on the ground and inside the dressing rooms, for understanding that doping is now a social problem, involving normal people more than the top athletes. And in this picture, the responsibility of everybody who overrates the effects of doping on the final performances are very, very high.

Renato Canova wrote:

1) Donati wanted to demonstrate that it was possible to achieve in clean way the same results you previously achieved with doping. THIS MEANS THAT, IN SPITE OF WHAT THE SAME DONATI SAID FOR SEVERAL YEARS, HE NOW BELIEVE DOPING IS USELESS WHEN TRAINING IS OF PROPER HIGH LEVEL.

There may or may not be a conspiracy, I find it strange if they dont allow for DNA testing. But, isn't it strange to put so much faith in an athlete that broke two rules (1 for EPO and 1 for illegal altitude tent) in 2012?

Also, his last personal best came in 2012. Didn't exactly achieve in the same way clean as doped.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

trollism wrote:

Do you genuinely believe Kenya wants to catch cheats?

Slow down with this kind of thinking.

Remember that if an athlete gets into the international elite testing pool, it's entirely up to the IAAF.

If the regional anti-doping administration actually tested her, it likely would have been a urine test and she would done the equivalent of failing an IQ test.

Not true. The IAAF (also limited interest in busting Kenyans) only becomes responsible for testing of athletes from nations without the facility to carry out there own testing or dodgy countries (double whammy here). It's in Kenya's best interests to remain incapable of policing their own.

How many troll handles is Rjm33 using on this thread?

It confuses the sh1t outta me

Impossible to take him seriously since apparently he wasn't actually a doctor as he claimed .

Trollism wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Slow down with this kind of thinking.

Remember that if an athlete gets into the international elite testing pool, it's entirely up to the IAAF.

If the regional anti-doping administration actually tested her, it likely would have been a urine test and she would done the equivalent of failing an IQ test.

Not true. The IAAF (also limited interest in busting Kenyans) only becomes responsible for testing of athletes from nations without the facility to carry out there own testing or dodgy countries (double whammy here). It's in Kenya's best interests to remain incapable of policing their own.

Hmm ya ,pop_pop the self-proclaimed letsrun expert on all anti doping matters doesn't even know the basics.

rekrunner wrote:

The best way to respect athlete privacy, and yet make any doping determination based on fully released data, is to release the full data, collected in a standardized way, anonymously to independent bodies qualified to interpret the data in context, with other independent bodies controlling the integrity of the process.

The public is not qualified to interpret what the data proves, or interpret "excuses". The public is also not unbaised.

Rekrunner, can you provide examples of unbiased, independent bodies who could do this?

On your second point, I think what you are saying is that only people who work for private orgainstions and don't comment in public are qualified to interpret data? Not sure I follow that.

You would need complete data now since the ABP is in place to make a determination.

Not so pretty 2009 when Ashenden and Parissito(2 world renowned experts)

were able to draw reliable conclusions from limited data due to the nature of blood-doping at this time.

Of course certain people weren't happy with these conclusions and tried to muddy the waters by introducing context and other red herrings.

Not everyone was fooled by these tactics.

MD.. wrote:

Of course certain people weren't happy with these conclusions and tried to muddy the waters by introducing context and other red herrings.

Yeah...I wonder who that could be? Maybe a couple of regular posters who get highly obtuse on the EPO/blood doping = marginal improvements with elite athletes.

Explorer. wrote:

How many troll handles is Rjm33 using on this thread?

It confuses the sh1t outta me

Impossible to take him seriously since apparently he wasn't actually a doctor as he claimed .

Really, Rjm33 isn't a doctor? Sorry, I missed it, when did that come out?

cleans wrote:

Rekrunner, can you provide examples of unbiased, independent bodies who could do this?

Wada, IAAF, Saugy, and anyone nominated by trustworthy experts like Lord Coe and Lady Radcliffe.

Renato Canova wrote:

And the same Sandro Donati accepted to become the coach of Alex Schwazer

....

so this can be considered a "political case", more than a clear case of doping.

I absolutely agree in regards to the Donati/Schwarzer opinion. Another situation where the IAAF is picking winners. The bigger problems start at the IAAF's rampant corruption.

We'll never agree that EPO generally does not work on top athletes. But, I still take the time to read and appreciate the time you put into your posts, Mr. Canova.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

But, I still take the time to read and appreciate the time you put into your posts, Mr. Canova.

And boy...are they loooooooong posts! I don’t think I could sit at the computer that long, unless, of course he's just copying & pasting the same ad nuseam material over & over again.

the content is certainly the same, very repetitive.

rekrunner wrote:

The best way to respect athlete privacy, and yet make any doping determination based on fully released data, is to release the full data, collected in a standardized way, anonymously to independent bodies qualified to interpret the data in context, with other independent bodies controlling the integrity of the process.

That would indeed be nice (just like Tucker's suggestions for Paula), but is of course blocked by Coe and Radcliffe and Co.

Virtually any NADO, WADA-approved lab, and many teams of anti-doping researchers should be able to provide unbiased, independent candidates to form a team able to do this (interpret anonymized blood data that Mr. Obvious wants Renato to publish).Not sure why you don't follow. It's not about private versus public organisations, or muzzling public comments, but about the general public simply lacking the ability to give a correct interpretation. You wouldn't ask a colour-blind man to describe the colours in a rainbow, or a caveman to explain the television.

cleans wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The best way to respect athlete privacy, and yet make any doping determination based on fully released data, is to release the full data, collected in a standardized way, anonymously to independent bodies qualified to interpret the data in context, with other independent bodies controlling the integrity of the process.

The public is not qualified to interpret what the data proves, or interpret "excuses". The public is also not unbaised.

Rekrunner, can you provide examples of unbiased, independent bodies who could do this?

On your second point, I think what you are saying is that only people who work for private orgainstions and don't comment in public are qualified to interpret data? Not sure I follow that.

Ashenden and parisotto already did this

They're were able to draw conclusions from the pre-ABP blood data which looks a lot different to the post- ABP blood data

Now of course some people didn't like that and tried to discredit the conclusions and experts behind them.

MD.. wrote:

Ashenden and parisotto already did this

They're were able to draw conclusions from the pre-ABP blood data which looks a lot different to the post- ABP blood data

Now of course some people didn't like that and tried to discredit the conclusions and experts behind them.

Indeed. Which is why rekrunner wants selected NADOs such as UKAD to hand pick "independent" experts, like Paula selected Plan B Dr. Saugy, aka the sample destroyer.