Since Aden is innocent, and Salazar hasn't been banned yet, what will Farah do? He distanced himself from both of them. His only trusted coach--with heart condition same as Mo--, and his glorified stop watch holder--always calls out the right time. He has abandoned both. Mo must be so lonely now to throw his two pals under the bus when they were innocent all along. :-(
I can imaging why Mo distance him self from that, stupid websites & news paper trying to destroy people reputation . Mo has important mission to focus with , which is Rio
Mo should run solo. No more coaches because they always seem to get him in trouble.
Mo Country wrote:
Mo should run solo. No more coaches because they always seem to get him in trouble.
He doesn't have a coach. Jama just holds the watch and shouts.
casual obsever wrote:
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.
I'm not going to pretend to completely follow the technical and scientific data in your post. I don't know as much as you on those areas. But what I don't understand is why the IAAF would go out of their way, as you claim, to protect Radcliffe on several occasions?
These high levels in her blood tests occurred before Coe was the President, so I don't see him Protecting her as a viable answer.
Do you think that Diack accepted payments to cover up the results?
wrong. wrote:the IAAF were involved in the raid on jama aden
Seems like doping and widespread corruption are perfectly okay to the IOC and IAAF. This is the same IAAF that is, right now, letting Russians compete at Rio.
FYI, if an Olympic NGO was contacted by law enforcement, then there was no choice but to bring in the IAAF. This is the WADA standard.
Let's take your position for a moment and assume the IAAF is a good actor. Maybe some tests were completed. How many? How long will it take to report sanctions? IAAF seems silent on the topic. Strange.
You'd think an organization with a vested interest in controlling corruption would have something to say/do after Aden's arrest. I guess they are too busy?
Mo Country wrote:
Mo should run solo. No more coaches because they always seem to get him in trouble.
he's going back to john smith
all is well
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Let's take your position for a moment and assume the IAAF is a good actor. Maybe some tests were completed. How many? How long will it take to report sanctions? IAAF seems silent on the topic. Strange.
You'd think an organization with a vested interest in controlling corruption would have something to say/do after Aden's arrest. I guess they are too busy?
You have a lot to say for yourself pop_pop but clearly you know nothing about testing and procedure
Its been 4 days
webby wrote:
Mo Country wrote:Mo should run solo. No more coaches because they always seem to get him in trouble.
He doesn't have a coach. Jama just holds the watch and shouts.
Hey now, British Athletics drummed up some guy that supposedly is "an expert researcher" on kenyan training. They need experts telling Aden to start/stop the watch.
trackfan. wrote:
You have a lot to say for yourself pop_pop but clearly you know nothing about testing and procedure
Its been 4 days
Does everyone in the IAAF work part time? Are they all in seclusion somewhere unaware Aden's been arrested at his doping distribution camp? Is their one fax machine broken?
Please, tell us what we need to know. I'm certain it is all a huuuge misunderstanding.
Justice for ever wrote:
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.
Go away, you skinny muppet. Go spread your filth somewhere else.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
trackfan. wrote:You have a lot to say for yourself pop_pop but clearly you know nothing about testing and procedure
Its been 4 days
Does everyone in the IAAF work part time? Are they all in seclusion somewhere unaware Aden's been arrested at his doping distribution camp? .
I don't know what type of hours they work
We know he has been arrested by the police .It's all over the internet.The IAAF don't need to confirm it
ISBN wrote:
I'm not going to pretend to completely follow the technical and scientific data in your post. I don't know as much as you on those areas. But what I don't understand is why the IAAF would go out of their way, as you claim, to protect Radcliffe on several occasions?
Actually, no, I didn't claim that. From what the IAAF told us, they followed their own (self-given) rules in 2003 and 2005. Until 2008, the ABP tests served three purposes:
1) to establish the baseline of the athlete,
2) to verify the reliability of the method,
3) to find suspicious athletes and then target-test them.
So that's apparently exactly what the IAAF did in 2003 + 2005, after catching Paula with these suspicious values: they performed extra EPO tests on her (detailed in the IAAF response the Ashenden's claims), which turned out to be negative.
See here for example for Ramzi at the same time (same story):
"The Sunday Times noted that blood samples collected from Ramzi on 10 and 14 August 2005 had OFF-scores of 157.8 and 148 respectively. In accordance with the IAAF regulations then in force, in each case those abnormal values triggered the immediate collection by the IAAF of a urine sample from the athlete on the same day, but no rEPO was found in either urine sample. The IAAF also collected two blood samples from Ramzi in Helsinki and had them tested for evidence of blood transfusions, but again with negative results."
Says a lot about the reliability of this procedure, doesn't it.
In 2012, again as far as we know the IAAF followed their own rules. After catching Paula with these values, she was asked to explain them to an expert chosen by the IAAF. Said expert then considered these explanation to be implausible, as discussed. Unfortunately that is - per IAAF rule - not enough for a ban. Two more experts have to join the first one to form a panel, and only if those three agree on a ban, it will happen.
Why did not all of them (allegedly, according to the IAAF) agree on a ban? I don't know; thanks to Paula's and the IAAF's anti-transparency attitude, we'll likely never learn. Would be nice to read the experts' written, detailed conclusions.
Hypothetical possibilities:
1) One expert really believed Paula.
2) One expert was a Paula fan.
3) Saugy was one of the experts.
4) The President Diack - known to accept bribes - chose the right expert.
5) The Vice President Coe - known to be her buddy - chose the right expert.
6) They actually banned her, but to avoid her suing them, they agreed to keep it secret, if Paula would stop competing (which she actually did, but that might be a coincidence).
7) ? ....
Now, personally I believe the Aden story complements the above: the rules (and thresholds) are way too soft. Considering that his group has been investigated by the IAAF (among others) and that EPO was a prominent choice of his, it is saddening that only Driouch was flagged with suspicious ABP values. What happened to Driouch? Well, that case was covered up for 24 months...
Real Update
Aden is out of jail on bail. He has surrendered his passport, and must remain in Spain until the trial. The athletes were drug tested, awaiting results.
This will not be resolved until after the Olympics.
Rubbish . Most of the athletes will start comPete soon .
look at me wrote:
Rubbish . Most of the athletes will start comPete soon .
Who is Pete?
Ok. Post their results when they compete next then please.
We will see.
So who from his group is competing next and it what meet?
I will for sure
Yeah. That's what I thought. No response to the inquiry about what meets Aden's athletes will be competing in.
Half of the athletes in that drug sweep will never compete again. The rest will scatter to other coaches and never come close to the best times ever again.