Lauren Fleshman tests out whistleblowing on dopers

A Duck will defend the NOP to the bitter end.

TUEs provide the group a special advantage over "normal" athletes. It is what it is. The truth will come out, hopefully, sooner than later.

A Duck will defend the NOP after the bitter end. It's Duck's job.

rekrunner wrote:

These are interesting lists, but I didn't see any athletes names.

I was wondering which athlete(s) are taking med(s) that appear on the banned list.

A recent concern seems to be TUE abuse, for a class of medication which is neither banned, nor requires a TUE.

Let's stretch it a bit further. The Rupp thyroid illness issue is about what, 6-7 years old now? It is nothing new.

Rojo and Wejo have admitted that they troll on their own site. Which to me means they are liars.

It is therefore, entirely possible, that this whole attack Rupp via the old thyroid story was cooked up by them.

I would not be surprised if they fed the Nike/Thyroid story suggestion to the WSJ writers. It could also be another track blogger whom I heard was going behind the scenes trying to get journalist to target NOP/Nike.

If WADA would take down Lance, they'd happily take down NIKE. WADA and IAAF have been all over all of this ground most of a decade ago...and they don't consider thyroid a PED.

We've had the most knowledgeable people on the issue state over numerous threads over a period of years, that if you take thyroid meds and don't need them, you are risking damaging your health, and feeling so bad you wouldn't feel like running.

You've also had Rupp's former assistant coach tell you that if a person doesn't also test positive for thyroid disease/gene test, that there would be no benefit, and tons of danger, in taking thyroid meds.

Meanwhile there is a way to look at this website's history, and that is a website where the athletes of Saucony, New Balance, Reebok, Puma, adidas et. al. by and large get a pass.

I understand that it is human nature for a certain subset of human beings to want to attack the biggest companies out there. General Electric has drawn plenty of criticism over the years, as is APPLE now.

What we see time and again on this site...is no systematic, cyclical threads and postings going after any other set of athletes or company. We've seen tiny bits of attacks on Bolt/Jamaica/PUMA athletes.

One has to really contemplate the fact that the owners of this website may indeed have a paranoid bias.

J.R. wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Fear of retaliation can have a chilling effect on athletes coming forward and speaking the truth. Anonymity provides a shield that protects whistleblowers from retaliation. There is a valid need for anonymity.

Anonymity protects dopers, from people telling the truth.

Personally I have designed websites for more than 20 years, from scratch, so it would be extremely easy for me to create a website solely for the purpose of exposing these crooks.

Big woo. All of the major orgs have ways to report anonymously, or not anonymously.

Your making a website would do nothing.

Unless that website was a resource for encouraging fans to support the marjor orgs in leveling harsher penalties.

You are not going to make anonymous reporting options go away.

This doctor knows what's up!

In effect then, in the case of hypothyroidism, the athlete requires the medication because they behave as an athlete - they train hard. They generate the condition, and the drug permits harder training, and that to me does cross the line of fairness. I see no distinction between this and the use of testosterone or other hormones to ensure that recovery is optimized. Similarly, blood doping or other methods to manipulate blood could be justified as means to help the body recover from the arduous training required to compete as an elite athlete. After all, the chronic effects of a three-week stage race like the Vuelta Espana on hormones are known - for instance, testosterone and cortisol decrease significantly - this is the result of the stress of competition. These changes could arguably be treated, with valid and credible physiological benefits, by the administration of drugs. I do not see the difference between this situation and the use of any other medication that directly stimulates hormone production by the body.

http://www.rssgeni.com/recreation-sports/cycling

And more importantly, to put things back on track (no pun) Dick Pound makes some great points about the lack of "will" in the doping fight.

http://metronews.ca/sports/673229/pound-drug-testing-failing-due-to-lack-of-will/

It never ceases to amaze me, that a bunch of clowns on this website have enjoyed smearing a small handful of athletes in the USA...while Kenya has dragged their feet with the IAAF on investigating EPO abuse in Kenya.

To me, even more amazing, is that for the past 25 years Kenya and Ethiopia have been Exempt From Out Of Competition testing.

Where's the outrage?

The IAAF/WADA certainly never publicized the fact that they didn't have / couldn't afford out of competition testing in Kenya and Ethiopia.

Kenya and Ethiopia were just on the "honor" system for 25 years?

That is kind of crazy.

Dick Pound has the right ideas...and I am glad he is staying loud and speaking out.

But, as WADA said the other day, they can't afford to do all that is expected of them and all they need to do.

Maybe they should cut pro team sports and cycling loose and shame them (USA/UK/Australia/world) and dirty and ungovernable...and spend the money cleaning up track and running.

I think the place where we can all agree is no more short term bans, 4 year bans...good, lifetime bans best.

And again, Lauren is right that it takes too long for changes to be made. WADA needs to seize the will to crack down completely.

We got a couple of "report posts" asking that this thread be deleted. We don't like deleting threads but we did try to clean it up.

We removed a bunch of the juvenile "snitching is bad" type posts from over testeroned males who have watch one too many innercity DVDs on netflix. In our mind, people who report stuff to USADA deserve great credit.

We also removed a couple of the nastiest posts about Fleshman as they had nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Let's move on. A thread on page 5-6 always digresses.

Retaliation isn't just limited to winning the case. Bringing up a case at all is relation. What is the nuisance?:- First, if you are treated with a lawsuit, you have to defend yourself. A good defense doesn't come for free, or on credit. You have to find a good lawyer, and come up with some money.- And he/she has to be a good lawyer, because Lance has good lawyers.- Your evidence is no good if it doesn't get used in the trial. Lance's lawyers might be good enough to find a way that your "irrefutable" video and audio evidence doesn't make it into the trial, because it was recorded illegally, in a way that violated Lance's right to privacy, or other rights.- Or they might find a way to refute the evidence anyway, e.g. claiming their is no way to determine what pills (these are just homeopathic herbal supplements) he is taking in the video, or what substance he is injecting (it's just a Vitamin B cocktail), or the timeframe cannot be accurately determined.- If you are slapped with a $1,000,000 suit, there is always the risk that you will lose, in part or in whole. This sum of money, plus legal fees, might be unobtainable for the unemployed bike mechanic, or the working masseuse, or even an athlete who just lost his place on the team.- At best, you might be forced to retract your truthful statements, in a humiliating way that damages your integrity and reputation.- Even if you win, there is an appeals process that has to be exhausted. The whole ordeal may take many years, and drain you of your sanity, motivation, energy, and money.- All the while, Lance uses his PR connections to smear you, as a sore loser, disgruntled employee, vindictive shrew, drunk, or a prostitute.- If you dreamed of an extended athletic career, or selling your bikes through Trek, or just owning your own bike shop, these dreams are shattered along with your reputation.

gjfgfffgj wrote:

Exactly what is Lance's case going to be against someone who has provided a video tape and an audio recording of his doping? What is the nuisance?

I'm so curious who she was trying to report. Was it a US athlete? Was it a foreigner? If it was a US athlete, then USATF may be the correct route of reporting. But if it is a foreigner, then going through the international body would seem appropriate to me.

I don't think she was going to report anyone in particular. She said she wanted to learn how to report to WADA.

There should be a process to accept and investigate anonymous tips (where there is credible evidence) but I think the reality of the situation is that no organization - national or international - is prepared to do so. They can barely get their act together on plain old testing and this would require more staff and resources.

What don't you understand about the word "irrefutable"? You're talking about "refutable" evidence getting contested and turned down. I'm talking about irrefutable evidence that can't be turned down no matter how good the lawyer. For example, illegally obtained recordings are not irrefutable evidence. Get legally obtained recordings.

I'm with you so far on the non-issue of thyroid medication, in that so far "there is no there there" -- all downside with no upside.But I'm afraid I missed the whole history of Rojo and Wejo showing any bias against all things Nike, so I can't really connect with the rest of your comments. Maybe I spent too much time and energy in Lydiard and physiology threads to notice Rupp-bashing and Nike-bashing.PS: Some people are criticizing APPLE now because they turned evil, abusing the court system to avoid licensing necessary patents, while overcharging for unnecessary, or useless, and even potentially invalid patents.

The Stache wrote:

I'm so curious who she was trying to report. Was it a US athlete? Was it a foreigner? If it was a US athlete, then USATF may be the correct route of reporting. But if it is a foreigner, then going through the international body would seem appropriate to me.

She didn't say she was trying to report someone. She was trying to see if there is a way to call and report someone to WADA.

You seem to know something -- can you say specifically which NOP athletes (by name) are using TUEs for which medications (by name), for which malady (by name), that are giving "the group a special advantage" over "normal" athletes?I'm sure you have a basis for your conclusions.I hope the truth comes out sooner than later.

Knot-a Duck wrote:

...

TUEs provide the group a special advantage over "normal" athletes. It is what it is. The truth will come out, hopefully, sooner than later.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

While each website does have a "contact us" page, neither one has a link for "reporting a suspected doper".

You fail this intelligence test.

He basically says he doesn't know, making assumptions based on the WSJ article, and simply remains skeptical, chiming in with most "normal" doctors.He also said "that there is a clear peak point – normal thyroid function". In his opinion, at best it brings an affected athlete back to normal performance, but over-doing it would be detrimental.

notefromdoctor wrote:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-thyroid-replacement-a-performance-enhancing-drug/

This doctor knows what's up!

Re A Dick's comments about Kenya not having out of competition testing, he once again has no idea what he is talking about ... Yes, there are big flaws in the system, but there has been out of comp testing in Kenya for over 20 years ... Remember John Ngugi's 1993 refusal that led to a ban? Given the tenor of his usual comments, Rupp would likely have also won a 5000m medal had things been "fair."

@rekrunner

You seem to know something -- can you say specifically the drugs Lance Armstrong was taking? Which medications (by name), for which malady (by name), that GAVE HIME and "HIS group a special advantage" over "normal" athletes?

0/10 for being foolish.

Please provide a list all the drugs LA's used. Not a recent list, one created 10 years ago.

Exactly what I asked before -- how would "irrefutable" evidence prevent initiating a lawsuit that could take years to win, at great cost.

gjfgfffgj wrote:

What don't you understand about the word "irrefutable"? You're talking about "refutable" evidence getting contested and turned down. I'm talking about irrefutable evidence that can't be turned down no matter how good the lawyer. For example, illegally obtained recordings are not irrefutable evidence. Get legally obtained recordings.