BREAKING:Jama Aden's hotel in Spain raided.

One question. Why haven't the results of the tested athletes been posted? Wasn't this a week ago? Jeptoo results were quick earlier this year.

answer.. wrote:

Thanks J.R.

You're quite welcome.

when will they update us? wrote:

One question. Why haven't the results of the tested athletes been posted? Wasn't this a week ago? Jeptoo results were quick earlier this year.

It takes time and planning to drum up false charges.

The athletes will "claim" they didn't know the substances were illegal.

They will turn on the coach as soon as they realize they will lose sponsors/race invitations.

Or, the coach will turn on the athletes and expose them for a lesser sentence.

Performances of his athletes will drop considerably.

Obvious reasons wrote:

when will they update us? wrote:

One question. Why haven't the results of the tested athletes been posted? Wasn't this a week ago? Jeptoo results were quick earlier this year.

It takes time and planning to drum up false charges.

Is that you Lance A? Welcome back LRC.

The EPO is for horses...

Is the you, Lance? wrote:

Is that you Lance A? Welcome back LRC.

Yes it is me! Thank you!

when will they update us? wrote:

One question. Why haven't the results of the tested athletes been posted? Wasn't this a week ago? Jeptoo results were quick earlier this year.

It's called procedure, you can find out more about here:

Spanish news report on what was found (Google translate)--

According the Mossos d'Esquadra, records in six of the rooms at the Hotel Arrahaona 62 syringes that had been used were found, 23 pre - filled EPO and six vials of different type of EPO, as Eprex, Aranesp, Naorecormon and Eporin. they also found 320 bottles and vials not doping but illegal in Spain injectables, as well as documentation, computers and mobile phones. the Mossos detected last May 31 that Aden was leaving the hotel and threw in a nearby container various parts of a syringe used and stained blood and empty of an intravenous drug, although it is not doping, it is illegal in Spain bottle.

Besides hating drugs, and doctors, I hate needles and stay far away from them.

I don't believe all those syringes and drugs were found as reported.

And I greatly doubt that most serious athletes would want to stick themselves with needles, not anytime, containing anything, unless they were addicts.

So I find the entire story to be incredulous.

I know this better than you. At this point, I only said I was curious to see the evidence. I didn't say anything requiring absolute proof.

just sayin wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

There should be no shortage of evidence, and it's not looking great now for Aden's group. I'm curious to see what drugs were found, where, who possessed them, who they were for, what the seized documents, computers, and phones tell us, and the results of the athlete's tests.

There is no absolute proof of anything rekrunner

All of the peds, documents and computer files are possibly contaminated by heat,coffee and viruses

You of all people should be aware of this

Innocent til proven guilty

Hello wannabee.We haven't seen details of any evidence yet, besides a reported list of of many doping and non-doping substances found in some rooms.It was inappropriate for Diack to interfere with the IAAF anti-doping operations.It would be equally inappropriate for Coe to interfere now, beyond fixing organizational or structural faults.The ABP only became a viable sanctioning tool, due to the IAAF 2007 and 2009 rule changes intended to improve blood measurement reliability.This includes PR, without requiring any special exception from, or understanding of, the anti-doping experts.If Genzebe Dibaba's recent results were due to steroids, testosterone, or other male hormones, this wouldn't produce ABP related changes in red blood cell count or reticulytes.

rekrunnr wrote:

The evidence is as clear as obvious. Diack and his inner circle are gone. Now Lord Coe is in charge. Get it? Now we can trust IAAF.

Since 2009 the ABP is reliable (with one exception: PRs special but understandable reaction to altitude), yet no Dibaba tested positive.

Clearly they all are innocent. Nothing to see here!

rekrunner wrote:

The ABP only became a viable sanctioning tool, due to the IAAF 2007 and 2009 rule changes intended to improve blood measurement reliability.

This includes PR, without requiring any special exception from, or understanding of, the anti-doping experts.

Nothing special? Why was she then caught in 2012 with an ABP violation? Why did the first expert** consulted then not believe her altitude excuse?

I can tell you why. Actually I already did five times:

In 2005, she was caught with an off score of 110: HGB = 15.1 g/dl, ret-% = 0.47. This high HGB (compared to her normal 14.2ish) was explained by the IAAF with altitude + dehydration ("the reduction in plasma volume and consequent haemoconcentration following extreme exertion").

What happened in 2012? She was caught with off score of 109: HGB = 16.2 g/dl, ret-% = 0.77. Wait, really? Yes, this time without dehydration her HGB jumped by 2 g/dl due to altitude, and previously only by 0.9 g/dl due to altitude + dehydration*. Lol. But wait, wasn't she 300 m higher? Yes she was, but a) that doesn't explain the doubled HGB increase, and it would have to occur with lower ret-% (ironically as explained in the so-called IAAF response pdf). However, as we can all see, that time when the HGB increase was more than doubled despite of lack of dehydration, the ret-% was 64% (!) higher (!!), instead of - as would be caused by altitude - being much lower than previously.

Here is the 1 million dollar question: how can one simultaneously increase HGB and ret-%? Altitude or EPO?

* Now you can claim that the dehydration effect was negligible. But then, why did the IAAF mention it as a contributing effect? No matter, that would still leave a maximum altitude-caused effect of 0.9 g/dl. More importantly, it would utterly destroy her dehydration excuse in 2003 (a 30% increase in HGB after racing for 67 minutes in the mid 70s due to dehydration, measured at least 60 minutes after the race while hydrating - I am still laughing).

** Yes I know. Then instead of banning her, the IAAF added - as per their own rules - two more experts, and the hung jury - as per IAAF rules - led to her walking away.

Damn it, I again fell for your trolling, J. R.

I've reconsidered "de novo", taking into account your newly iterated expression of the same arguments, and I can only re-conclude, we do not require a unique exception to the ABP to explain "PR's special but understandable reaction to altitude", as expressed by the faux-"rekrunnr". There is nothing special about her reaction to altitude that requires qualifying it with an exception.I'm sure I explained each time many of the reasons why I consider your analysis insignificant (to put it diplomatically) and your conclusions flawed:- First, as a matter of basic correctness, she was not "caught" in 2012 with an "ABP violation". The real answer to "why she was" is that you made this up. I can only speculate as to why you feel the need to exaggerate and misleadingly distort the reality, rather than rely on an accurate portrayal of the facts.- It seems normal that an off-score exceeding the "population" sea-level threshold is flagged by a "first expert" for further review. Note, 109 does not exceed the "population" altitude threshold.- For all the reasons stated elsewhere, it would be foolish to attempt to compare 2012 data to 2005 data. You have been warned before. This is because, for many reasons, it can lead to faulty conclusions.- Your ret % comparison of 0.77% in 2012 to 0.47% in 2005, as impressive as you think a massive 64% increase must be, is not significant. 0.77% is neither high, nor low. 0.47% IS below normal, but, as explained by the IAAF, was not a cause for concern under the circumstances. The ret % should be higher in the less intensive off-season, and lower at the end of a competitive season. Your 64% RET % increase calculation is not significant because this is not something experts look at.- Similarly, your comparison of a difference increase of 0.9 g/dl in 2005, and 2.0 g/dl in 2012, from your own arbitrary baseline of 14.2 is also not significant. Your assumption that 14.2 must be some kind of rigid baseline between Oct. 2005 and Feb. 2012, is invalid. Hgb values can fluctuate within a normal range for many reasons. We do not need to explain "the doubled HGB increase", because this is not something experts look at.- Your million dollar question is overpriced. Her Hgb classically increased due to altitude, in line with predictions, and her ret % is well within normal.Every lay person can see for themselves from publicly available information:- 16.1 g/dl is well within a normal range for a female athlete after 23 days at 2400m- 0.77% is well within normal -- not too low or not too high- 109 is below the altitude threshold of suspicionAny layperson should walk away from this drawing the same conclusions that the committee of experts did -- these are reasonable values for a female athlete post-altitude.

You guys really need to keep this to the proper thread, as this doesn't have anything to do w/ Aden.

casual obsever wrote:

Damn it, I again fell for your trolling, J. R.

It's Rekrunner again. Paula's apologist. We should get the pr doping thread back on page 1 just to keep him busy again. He can't let it go.... Diiiiirty

Latest update

There is 8 national team squad in the hotel , the police did not found any drugs in jama aden room only vitamins but the stuff been found in the Saudi Arabia physio therapy. Untill now there is no positive results from jama squad. Jama aden is one of best coach in athletics and his name will remain as best regardless of accusation and allegation.