It was a great weekend.
It was a great weekend.
not that encouraged.its just the tip of a very massive iceberg.oh,and jessica ennis-hill took drugs.her muscles,wide strange looking jaw,and amazing performance are all testement to that.She looked like a laboratory experiment,when she won olympic gold.A few months later i saw her on tv being interviewed on a talk show and all her muscles had vanished ! that is not normal,and completely impossible.As someone who builds his body,i know.If athletics was cleaned up,the standard of competition would be vastly lower than it is,now.
The IAAF is going to name a few people, but it's a joke:
It's disappointing that the public has fallen for what looks like sensational journalism, based on a vague notion of what "suspicious" means, and what the expected consequences should be.
The most disappointing is the how the accusation that the IAAF did nothing on the basis of the blood test results was made without basis, and readily accepted by the public.
wejo wrote:
blah blah
No, but it did show them up to be retards.
rekrunner wrote:
It's disappointing that the public has fallen for what looks like sensational journalism, based on a vague notion of what "suspicious" means, and what the expected consequences should be.
The most disappointing is the how the accusation that the IAAF did nothing on the basis of the blood test results was made without basis, and readily accepted by the public.
Not really
Shobukhova was submitting extreme off the charts samples for 9 years before action was taken
rekrunner wrote:
It's disappointing that the public has fallen for what looks like sensational journalism, based on a vague notion of what "suspicious" means, and what the expected consequences should be.
The most disappointing is the how the accusation that the IAAF did nothing on the basis of the blood test results was made without basis, and readily accepted by the public.
Also the iaaf have clearly been spurred into banning athletes next week who should already be serving bans if they were doing they're job properly
Correct me if I'm wrong but pre-2009, there IAAF had no legal basis for banning an athlete, however erratic or suspicious their blood results. Did any sport anywhere?
Now, if it transpires that the IAAF did not subsequently target test those with suspicious values, then that is a scandal but it is not clear to me that is the case.
waxerizer wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but pre-2009, there IAAF had no legal basis for banning an athlete, however erratic or suspicious their blood results. Did any sport anywhere?
Now, if it transpires that the IAAF did not subsequently target test those with suspicious values, then that is a scandal but it is not clear to me that is the case.
Shobukhova.. Case in point
9 years of extreme blood samples according to media
coach.. wrote:
rekrunner wrote:some stuff.
Not really
Shobukhova was submitting extreme off the charts samples for 9 years before action was taken
Agreed this is the usual "sacrificial lamb" approach to make it look as though an organisation is doing something that it should be doing. See UCI with Armstrong, FIFA etc ...
CERA
there was clearly a cover up there
They still have the samples from that period,the statute of limitations is now 10 years
So you think the only possible action is a sanction? That's a prime example of the public behavior that I find so disappointing -- first, that you would still claim it now, after all the information that has been made public, and second, that certainly others believe the same thing, without giving it any thought.If you had been paying any attention at all, action would also include, just to name a few:1) increasing targeted testing;2) developing an advance test (ABP);3) Notify the Russian athletic federation, and RUSADA, that one of their athletes is "abnormal".Are you saying the IAAF did none of these things, and nothing else, for 9 years? On what basis? The IAAF leaked database doesn't contain this information, so any claim of inaction (by the ARD, the Sunday Times, the scientific experts, and "coach..") is unsupported.It is unreasonable to expect a sanction off the blood results, an action not permitted by WADA at the time.
coach.. wrote:
rekrunner wrote:It's disappointing that the public has fallen for what looks like sensational journalism, based on a vague notion of what "suspicious" means, and what the expected consequences should be.
The most disappointing is the how the accusation that the IAAF did nothing on the basis of the blood test results was made without basis, and readily accepted by the public.
Not really
Shobukhova was submitting extreme off the charts samples for 9 years before action was taken
Cover up? Who? What? When? Any details to support the vague allegation?CERA was detectable from the beginning, thanks to close cooperation of the developers, Roche Pharmaceuticals, and WADA researchers. I'm surprised anyone after Ricco in 2008, would have taken CERA.
coach.. wrote:
CERA
there was clearly a cover up there
They still have the samples from that period,the statute of limitations is now 10 years
Only the full retard dopers (and a fraction of clean athletes) have blood values flagged as suspicious by the ABP software.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Shcj-5YDJk
Just look at the space inbetween those confidence intervals. It's almost +-2 g/dl.