My quotes are in context. And they are uncontested.
You don't select any quotes in any context, so have yet to raise any point.
The quote in context says that athletes were requested to participate in routine anti-doping.
Athletes are obliged by WADA to participate in routine anti-doping -- and the athletes have agreed to be subject to WADA.
This includes their agreement and informed consent that their routine anti-doping samples and results can be used for research purposes if anonymized.
Therefore athletes have agreed and consented to be both subject to anti-doping and have their anti-doping results subject to research.
Now you are here, trying to suggest there is a controversy where there is none, because routine anti-doping was subsequently used for research.
Your quotes can’t be found anywhere in the paper at the head of this thread. You are exposed as a charlatan of the highest order.More so than Armstronglivs as he never ever pretends to have done any reading.
Now; even in your own terms, can you make one reference in the Wada code or any of its international standards were there is a request to attend in 24 hrs.You have been asked this many many times.
And, would you be satisfied as a researcher covered by a University’s research ethics requirements that joining a sports club gives informed consent to an unknown research project ten years down the line? Note “ informed consent”.
I cannot be exposed as a charlatan for providing the direct sources from the authorities that directly contradict your as yet unsupported concerns raised by no one, and impacting no one.
Your quotes still cannot be found anywhere, period. You are still discussing things from the vantage point of your own weird imagination, while I am providing a catalog of references from primary sources.
I didn't provide a link to the first study, but they are all publicly available. To find my quotes, you can click through the link I provided and scroll down to reference 59 "Prevalence estimate of blood doping in elite track and field athletes during two major international events". Some of the quotes I provided came from WADA's archived 2009 version of the Code, and a WADA report published report in 2016, available at their website.
These are not "my terms", but I can give you at least four references in the WADA Code. I have also already answered what you asked many many times -- far more than you deserve for raising fictitious non-issues you cannot support. The WADA Code 2009 defines the responsibilities for Event Testing (see 15.1) for this event, including initiating and directing Testing during the Event Period, as resting solely with the IAAF. Appendix 1 also permits the International Federation and other Anti-Doping organizations to provide its own definition of "In Competition" in its own rules. But "In Competition" or "Out of Competition" is irrelevant. Paragraph 5.1.2 permits exceptions to "No Advance Notice" for "Out of Competition" testing in exceptional circumstances. The logistics required to conduct 5x more testing than usual, particularly in light of establishing data points in new ABP passports, is arguably exceptional. Various CAS rulings have consistently held that "Advance Notice" testing results are still valid for anti-doping purposes. No one suggests they wouldn't also be valid for research purposes. Article 19 describes the role of Research, and the expectations of all signatories to the WADA Code to cooperate, encourage, promote, and take all reasonable measures to support research consistent with WADA's principles.
I have already previously noted "informed consent". As a researcher or not, I am satisfied that "Subjects signed an informed consent that the collected sample and the doping control related data would be used for anti-doping research purposes provided that they could no longer be identified", regardless of the timing.
Not me, but yes -- the Event testing authority is empowered by the WADA Code (2009) to initiate and direct testing during the Event Period, including advanced notice in exceptional circumstances.
How interesting, let’s assume you can provide more and better detail, we are still left with no Anti-Doping forms being issued.
No we are not. This was also debunked. A WADA Independent Committee has explicitly confirmed that Doping Control Forms were entered into ADAMs, available to WADA, including 1880 tests in Daegu 2011. In fact, the large number of atypical ABPs was something of a concern for WADA at that time.
Frankly, we are long past the point where you should put up or shut up. Athletes have given their consent to both anti-doping and research, when they agreed to be subject to WADA. Even if they hadn't, due to some loophole you imagine but cannot support with your own details, the collected data is still valid for both anti-doping purposes, and research purposes.
How interesting, let’s assume you can provide more and better detail, we are still left with no Anti-Doping forms being issued.
No we are not. This was also debunked. A WADA Independent Committee has explicitly confirmed that Doping Control Forms were entered into ADAMs, available to WADA, including 1880 tests in Daegu 2011. In fact, the large number of atypical ABPs was something of a concern for WADA at that time.
Frankly, we are long past the point where you should put up or shut up. Athletes have given their consent to both anti-doping and research, when they agreed to be subject to WADA. Even if they hadn't, due to some loophole you imagine but cannot support with your own details, the collected data is still valid for both anti-doping purposes, and research purposes.
So you quote something that did not exist and you have been exposed and now you want to close it all down.Are you actually Armstronglivs?
You fail to deal with informed consent.
But no anti doping forms were issued and the athletes told it was for research and not for anti doping.
Your quotes can’t be found anywhere in the paper at the head of this thread. You are exposed as a charlatan of the highest order.More so than Armstronglivs as he never ever pretends to have done any reading.
Now; even in your own terms, can you make one reference in the Wada code or any of its international standards were there is a request to attend in 24 hrs.You have been asked this many many times.
And, would you be satisfied as a researcher covered by a University’s research ethics requirements that joining a sports club gives informed consent to an unknown research project ten years down the line? Note “ informed consent”.
I cannot be exposed as a charlatan for providing the direct sources from the authorities that directly contradict your as yet unsupported concerns raised by no one, and impacting no one.
Your quotes still cannot be found anywhere, period. You are still discussing things from the vantage point of your own weird imagination, while I am providing a catalog of references from primary sources.
I didn't provide a link to the first study, but they are all publicly available. To find my quotes, you can click through the link I provided and scroll down to reference 59 "Prevalence estimate of blood doping in elite track and field athletes during two major international events". Some of the quotes I provided came from WADA's archived 2009 version of the Code, and a WADA report published report in 2016, available at their website.
These are not "my terms", but I can give you at least four references in the WADA Code. I have also already answered what you asked many many times -- far more than you deserve for raising fictitious non-issues you cannot support. The WADA Code 2009 defines the responsibilities for Event Testing (see 15.1) for this event, including initiating and directing Testing during the Event Period, as resting solely with the IAAF. Appendix 1 also permits the International Federation and other Anti-Doping organizations to provide its own definition of "In Competition" in its own rules. But "In Competition" or "Out of Competition" is irrelevant. Paragraph 5.1.2 permits exceptions to "No Advance Notice" for "Out of Competition" testing in exceptional circumstances. The logistics required to conduct 5x more testing than usual, particularly in light of establishing data points in new ABP passports, is arguably exceptional. Various CAS rulings have consistently held that "Advance Notice" testing results are still valid for anti-doping purposes. No one suggests they wouldn't also be valid for research purposes. Article 19 describes the role of Research, and the expectations of all signatories to the WADA Code to cooperate, encourage, promote, and take all reasonable measures to support research consistent with WADA's principles.
I have already previously noted "informed consent". As a researcher or not, I am satisfied that "Subjects signed an informed consent that the collected sample and the doping control related data would be used for anti-doping research purposes provided that they could no longer be identified", regardless of the timing.
How can you give informed consent ten years in advance..how.You just can’t give carte blanc permission; that is not what informed consent means.
Advanced warning positives would clearly by ok but the testing is based on non manipulation; all two different things.
No we are not. This was also debunked. A WADA Independent Committee has explicitly confirmed that Doping Control Forms were entered into ADAMs, available to WADA, including 1880 tests in Daegu 2011. In fact, the large number of atypical ABPs was something of a concern for WADA at that time.
Frankly, we are long past the point where you should put up or shut up. Athletes have given their consent to both anti-doping and research, when they agreed to be subject to WADA. Even if they hadn't, due to some loophole you imagine but cannot support with your own details, the collected data is still valid for both anti-doping purposes, and research purposes.
So you quote something that did not exist and you have been exposed and now you want to close it all down.Are you actually Armstronglivs?
You fail to deal with informed consent.
But no anti doping forms were issued and the athletes told it was for research and not for anti doping.
That you think rekrunner is me is the clearest demonstration yet of your lunacy.
No we are not. This was also debunked. A WADA Independent Committee has explicitly confirmed that Doping Control Forms were entered into ADAMs, available to WADA, including 1880 tests in Daegu 2011. In fact, the large number of atypical ABPs was something of a concern for WADA at that time.
Frankly, we are long past the point where you should put up or shut up. Athletes have given their consent to both anti-doping and research, when they agreed to be subject to WADA. Even if they hadn't, due to some loophole you imagine but cannot support with your own details, the collected data is still valid for both anti-doping purposes, and research purposes.
So you quote something that did not exist and you have been exposed and now you want to close it all down.Are you actually Armstronglivs?
You fail to deal with informed consent.
But no anti doping forms were issued and the athletes told it was for research and not for anti doping.
None of this is true.
Everything I quoted exists.
I have not been exposed.
I have dealt with informed consent.
I have dealt with Doping Control Forms.
I don't know what athletes were told, only what you imagine.
The WADA code tells all athletes about anti-doping, and research, and these samples were used accordingly, for anti-doping, and for research.
Meanwhile you are not putting up. It is long past time to put up or shut up.
How can you give informed consent ten years in advance..how.You just can’t give carte blanc permission; that is not what informed consent means.
Advanced warning positives would clearly by ok but the testing is based on non manipulation; all two different things.
Call it what you want, but all WADA subject athletes give carte blanc permission to use their samples for WADA approved research purposes, with no specified time limit or expiration date, only on the condition that they cannot be linked back to the athlete.
Not only is "advance notice" irrelevant for this discussion, it also does not prejudice the athlete in any way, and if anything, actually favors the athlete.
It is still long past time for you to put up something of substance, rather than spurious claims from your imagination.