Discussion on Whether 150+ Athletes Names and Blood Values Should or Should Not be Revealed

You're brain dead. You can fire as many decision makers as you wish. They will just be replaced by other thugs.

The only way to clean up the sport is to cut off the money stream, which you do by exposing the most famous cheating athletes, just like they did in cycling.

Maybe so. I don't see how not attempting to replace these "thugs" achieves though.

So we expose the cheats, cut off the money stream. We're left with cheaters and enablers who carry on but don't earn quite as much.

Pointless.

The whole house needs cleaning out.

The list should be revealed, the whole house cleaned out and a new culture within the IAAF established, perhaps Coe is the man for this.

derek b wrote:

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?

I think your analogy is off. If we changed the mindset and release the blood test results of all athletes what would there to worry about? In the NFL we release the height and weight of players, why not the blood information as well. It's just a part of participating in sport.

I understand the argument we perhaps shouldn't retroactively release the names to prevent an uneducated witch hunt but in what harm is there if ALL blood values of ALL athletes are revealed. I think it would restore confidence that tests aren't covered up.

If the public knows my hematocrit is 48% what harm is in this? If I jumped to 52%, people could see it and wonder why. If I stayed at some crazy number people would make sure the IAAF was testing me a lot. If they weren't questions would be asked. If I was tested people could see I was clean.

Same thing with supplements, why not reveal what supplements people list on their drug test forms. Or at least how many supplements they take. If Usain Bolt is taking 20 supplements and that's what it takes to be the best shouldn't the public know that? People want sport to be about training not supplement makers or illegal drugs.

Sensitive drugs for sensitive medical conditions could be excluded but the public lacks faith in the system. More transparency helps increase that faith.

Thanks for the response. I agree with your sentiments to an extent, but where do we draw the line? To be an elite athlete these days you already have to forego a lot of your civil liberties (with regard to drug testing). Have we now got to the point where you have to publish medical information online just to do sport? Isn't sport meant to be fun? This is all getting out of hand.

"Isn't sport meant to be fun?" Yeah, if you're in grade school

I don't think the list should be revealed. As others have said, it's will draw damaging association to those who are clean, and that's not fair. The system has a current two-step process, and unless that is followed, it seems misguided to frame/slander someone's character because sub-par information (a single test).

I feel like this document and expose are helping the overall fight against PED's. Continuing to raise the pressure (whether or not the 150 know).

Weldon,

The argument was being made that releasing blood test

information was like releasing factual bits of information

and therefore it was 'okay' to release the names on the

list. But releasing the names on the list -- a mixture of

innocent and presumably doping violators -- is simply

promoting a witch hunt in my opinion.

“I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five that

were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the

Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and

shaping the policy of the State Department.”

―Joseph McCarthy

A completely separate question is whether all test values

should be released with names. I think there is a better

way, but that's a separate topic.

It is about individuals, but it is also importantly about the institution of track and field itself. The suspicions that many here have expressed over the years, namely, that the IAAF and/or WADA had an interest in protecting many of the athletes, this despite athletes being banned and the IAAF having an interest in cleaning the sport, restoring its credibility from the Ben Johnson and Eastern European doping scandals, and protecting its own integrity, now turn out to be quite credible. Whether because of massive bribes, embarrassment, incompetence, dishonesty, or other financial interests, the IAAF has clearly been engaged in a massive cover-up of doping in the sport. The Russians (1/4 of the names) were already heavily suspect. But to see a massive # of Kenyans on the list as well as ten Ethiopians truly undermines distance running, and this from two countries that until recently had very few known positive tests.

Don't HIPPA privacy laws protect their blood data from being made public?

Release the names!

derek b wrote:

Have we now got to the point where you have to publish medical information online just to do sport?

Some "medical information", read Wejo's post again. Although it's not "medical information" he's asking to be shown it's information for illegal performance enhancement not medical purposes.

St. Germain street scene wrote:

it seems misguided to frame/slander someone's character because sub-par information (a single test).

"Single test"?, someone else who hasn't read Seppelt's quote:

"Seppelt also insisted the evidence on a leaked list of more than 150 athletes with suspicious blood values, which included three British athletes, was more comprehensive than the International Association of Athletics Federations had suggested. The IAAF is trying to give the impression that all the details we had were individual blood values, he said. That is simply not the case. There are several readings for each athlete."

Yo Momma wrote:

Don't HIPPA privacy laws protect their blood data from being made public?

Who should you sue if they're leaked?

twoggle2 wrote:

Weldon,

The argument was being made that releasing blood test

information was like releasing factual bits of information

and therefore it was 'okay' to release the names on the

list. But releasing the names on the list -- a mixture of

innocent and presumably doping violators -- is simply

promoting a witch hunt in my opinion.

“I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five that

were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the

Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and

shaping the policy of the State Department.”

―Joseph McCarthy

A completely separate question is whether all test values

should be released with names. I think there is a better

way, but that's a separate topic.

This, this right here is the Godwin's Law applied to doping.

You, like many others - possibly sock puppets - have a remarkably shallow understanding of American jurisprudence and history.

This discussion here, and that which would likely result if names were named is not a trial, nor does it carry the force of a congressional investigation. We're gossiping. Which we would do with or without the release of names. The damage done by releasing them would be exremely hard to measure. For example, let's take, oh, say.... Paula. To prove libel or whatever the heck you think the release of names would constitute, you would have to show that releasing her name changed a substantial proportion of opinion about her. I don't think this would be very easy to prove. As comments on these message boards substantiate, lots and lots of people believe Paula Radcliffe took performance enhancing drugs. Did even Lance ever win a lawsuit claiming defamation of character??

There may be innocent names on the list, but, let's face facts. They are not very likely to be top performers or Olympic Medalists. They - or someone the know and love - could be, if only we went hard after the cheaters. I bet lots of those who are falsely accused as a result of this release (and I doubt that there very many..) would be willing to pay that price in order to say that, once, they were very good at a sport everyone has a reason to be proud of.

wejo wrote:

derek b wrote:

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?

If the public knows my hematocrit is 48% what harm is in this? If I jumped to 52%, people could see it and wonder why. If I stayed at some crazy number people would make sure the IAAF was testing me a lot. If they weren't questions would be asked. If I was tested people could see I was clean.

Because what the public doesn't know is that going from 48% to 52% can happen very easily with a loss in blood volume due to dehydration, or even going up to altitude, where the body excretes more plasma/urine to increase the HCT, even though the red cell volume does not actually increase.

Essentially, even elite athletes and long time followers of the sport who run the most popular running board on the net are not properly educated to realize how easy one's HCT can go up 4%. God knows what most of you think about reticulocytes, which generally paints a much better picture anyway than HCT.

The people in charge understand the subtleties of the test, and how easy it can be misinterpreted by the uninformed, and that's why I really doubt the list will be released.

To those making a big deal about the fact there were multiple reading, yeah duh! Without multiple readings you don't have abnormal results that are a red flag, unless someone is "to the gills" and not trying to hide it.

Woah, woah, woah, you're making me lean a little closer to maybe thinking these names should be revealed, and mark a fairly good point w/ just having everyone release their blood levels (I still haven't came to a conclusion on this just yet), but I'm just not sure about the supplements thing... The supplements might explain maybe why the Hct and Hgb test might be a little higher or lower, but that's for experts to determine, I don't think supplements athletes take should be given out...

For example, you mention, if Usain Bolt is taking 20 supplements we should be able to see the list; Usain Bolt is the WR holder at 100m and 200m, and is very influential to kids all around the nation and what not, my fear is that when people start to see these supplements, they make do the exact thing that Usain is doing because "it works for him" or it will "make me faster" and that's not always the case... Taking the same 20 supplements Usain does might not be healthy for Runner A or Runner B... But because he's Usain Bolt people will do, and this is the same w/ any other elite athlete, Mo Farah, Paula Radcliffe, Galen Rupp, Molly Huddle, Ben True, Chris Derrick, etc...

If these stats ever get out people will just religiously follow their idols supplements list cause they want to be like them, and I think overall the trend of taking supplements will increase and start to become a problem...

To those making a big deal about the fact there were multiple reading, yeah duh! Without multiple readings you don't have abnormal results that are a red flag, unless someone is "to the gills" and not trying to hide "

Yes, but they claimed that they were single readings when they weren't. If

they are willing to lie about this, then what else are they lieing about.

Perhaps you are an employee whose job it is to spin this away.