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

fred wrote:

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.

Are the false claims that there were single abnormal results, when in fact there were multiple abnormal results, or only single testing results when in fact there were multiple tests of which one or more were abnormal? It's pretty convoluted, I'll give you that much.

I am a HS coach that used to be a professional athlete. I'm not on the list, my student-athletes aren't on the list, and I don't work for the IAAF or any testing agency. I just realize how much time professional athletes put into their craft, and it's absolutely worth it despite the minimal wages. I also understand how damaging it would be to have my name smeared by associating me with a list of people that may have since tested positive for sure, which would make it look like everyone on the list who hasn't gone positive is somehow getting away with it.

Uber Alles wrote:

A way of repairing some of this damage is to release the names and to then ask the athletes and their coaches and managers to explain the abnormal blood readings.

Dude, you're dumb. How the hell would anyone, guilty or innocent, be able to explain any test result from 6, 7, 8 years ago? To exemplify my point, here's a scenario:

I have a test from June 3rd, 2007 that says that your blood sugar was abnormally high for you. Explain this. Tell me what you ate at all hours of that day so I can decide if you were consuming sugar in atypical ways.

"To those making a big deal about the fact there were multiple reading, yeah duh!" - Duh, so why was the IAAF so keen to make a big deal about them being single?

"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" - But with open transparency wouldn't the public have people like you and others to explain it to them? and, to quote Wejo: "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.".

"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%." - I think they do and disparaging others doesn't strengthen your argument or make you look any smarter.

I don't know why the IAAF is so keen to make a big deal about them being single, but it's possible there is some misinterpretations going on and it's not the science guys speaking out, but some official that thinks they need to put out a fire that may or may not actually exist.

Yes, the public would have people to explain it to them, but that doesn't mean they want anything explained. History shows the public most wants to tear down the heroes and idols they created.

If they understood it, why would Wejo use that as an example? It would make more sense to use an example such as "why did XXXXXX's reticulocytes suddenly plummet 3 days before the World Championships?" Apologies for the disparaging vibe, but I'm not trying to "look smart" or make friends or be nice. I'm just sort of pissed off that former elite athletes like Wejo, and doubtlessly countless others considering the regular visitor here, are willing to try our elite athletes in a public court of opinion, as if they don't know remember how much hard work it took to get there and can't understand how easily all that hard work can be discredited by the public in an instant and forever after.

I would be all for them publishing the results as "John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 1, etc." But tying names to the results for the public to see, that largely has no expertise and is not in position to sanction the athletes anyways, is gossipy BS that is meant for the National Enquirer and sleazy publications like that.

fred wrote:

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

Right, so running around in circles, jumping into a sandpit or kicking a ball around a field are serious events for you?

Ultimately, spectators and consumers sustain elite sport. People just want to be entertained for an hour or two.

Sooner or later, the measures imposed on the participants for the benefit of 'clean sport' become disproportionate and intrusive. Athletics and cycling supposedly 'lead the way' in all this... but try implementing all these measures on the big money sports and it just won't happen. The athletes would draw the line, and rightly too.

DoNotReveal wrote:

Uber Alles wrote:

A way of repairing some of this damage is to release the names and to then ask the athletes and their coaches and managers to explain the abnormal blood readings.

Dude, you're dumb. How the hell would anyone, guilty or innocent, be able to explain any test result from 6, 7, 8 years ago? To exemplify my point, here's a scenario:

I have a test from June 3rd, 2007 that says that your blood sugar was abnormally high for you. Explain this. Tell me what you ate at all hours of that day so I can decide if you were consuming sugar in atypical ways.

Come on, you're more intelligent than that. Read about the investigation, the list is based on several tests based on multiple blood parameters:

From the report:

"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."

These tests will have been compared with those of hundreds of other elite athletes and those with "suspicious" (based on multiple parameters not just one reading for one value) readings will have been singled out and put on the list.

To modify your anology appropriately, it would be like you having several blood tests indicating high glucose, testing positive for sugar in your urine, and your blood insulin looking out of whack relative to the glucose readings. You see a doctor several years later and asks you whether you had an appropriate test for type 1 diabetes.

We need transparency of the results but there must be a lot of care with regards to the context of anything suspicious. It is not fair to tarnish athletes' reputations and sponsorship opportunities with unfounded speculation, but an open discussion is necessary to have any faith in performances.

Clean athletes should welcome full transparency and publication of their dope tests.

Several readings for each athlete flagged could mean several readings with "normal" levels and one reading with a parameter or a couple parameters outside of "normal" levels that should have been flagged and followed up on at the time. You are making an inference that isn't supported by the text.

Furthermore, as the parameters weren't abnormal enough to constitute a doping bust, what would make you think that every athlete would be able to explain why their levels from tests 5+ years ago were somewhere between normal levels and confirmed doping levels?

ambiguity ensues wrote:

Several readings for each athlete flagged could mean several readings with "normal" levels and one reading with a parameter or a couple parameters outside of "normal" levels that should have been flagged and followed up on at the time. You are making an inference that isn't supported by the text.

No, you are the one that is ambiguous, they would never be on the "red" most suspicious list (ie the most "abnormal" readings compared with hundreds of other athletes) because of only one reading of one parameter.

ambiguity ensues wrote:

Furthermore, as the parameters weren't abnormal enough to constitute a doping bust, what would make you think that every athlete would be able to explain why their levels from tests 5+ years ago were somewhere between normal levels and confirmed doping levels?

The biological passport was not allowed to convict athletes at the time (it is today, see for eg Shobukhova) so they could not be busted based on a series of blood readings. However the values were a clear indicator that all of the athletes on the list should have been systmatically tested for PEDs and this was never done. This smacks of protectionism and cover-up and this is why the names should now be given and explanations asked.

Some of you seem to think (or want to make others believe) that the athletes appeared on the list because of some sort of unfortunate one-off random blood reading. This is simply not the case. Look at the breakdown of the list by country with Russia on top. It matches very well with the frequencies of drugs busts that have occurred in different nations over the last decade.

How do you know exactly what it takes to be on this list? Seppelt is a journalist; it's his job to look for juicy stories.

What you are failing to understand here is that with almost 100% certainty there are individuals on this list that are CLEAN and individuals on this list that are DIRTY. By releasing the names together it makes all of those athletes look dirty. It's about protecting the reputation of the clean athletes on the list, however few of them that may be. Even if it's only one athlete, it's completely unfair to destroy that person's public reputation to satisfy a bunch of worms that don't have the authority to impose a sanction anyway.

Release the list of results? Absolutely. With the names attached for the public to see? Hell no.

This is not going to happen wrote:

...

Listen pal you aint the font of all knowledge and everyone else a friggin idiot,

stop using broad brush strokes and give others a bit of credit. you remind me of bully boy Lance.

"If you want the 150 names to be released you really just want to gossip about athletes.

You'll rip people's careers apart and then move on to rip someone else apart next week.

They haven't followed up properly because they don't have the financial resources

by a bunch of gossiping idiots.

Because what the public doesn't know

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

God knows what most of you think about

The people in charge understand the subtleties of the test, and how easy it can be misinterpreted by the uninformed

To those making a big deal about the fact there were multiple reading, yeah duh!

History shows the public most wants to tear down the heroes and idols they created.

If they understood it

I'm just sort of pissed off that former elite athletes like Wejo, and doubtlessly countless others considering the regular visitor here, are willing to try our elite athletes in a public court of opinion, as if they don't know remember how much hard work it took to get there and can't understand how easily all that hard work can be discredited by the public in an instant and forever after.

gossipy BS that is meant for the National Enquirer and sleazy publications like that.

satisfy a bunch of worms"

Read and absorb this

Uber Alles

"they would never be on the "red" most suspicious list (ie the most "abnormal" readings compared with hundreds of other athletes) because of only one reading of one parameter.

The biological passport was not allowed to convict athletes at the time (it is today, see for eg Shobukhova) so they could not be busted based on a series of blood readings. However the values were a clear indicator that all of the athletes on the list should have been systmatically tested for PEDs and this was never done. This smacks of protectionism and cover-up and this is why the names should now be given and explanations asked.

Some of you seem to think (or want to make others believe) that the athletes appeared on the list because of some sort of unfortunate one-off random blood reading. This is simply not the case. Look at the breakdown of the list by country with Russia on top. It matches very well with the frequencies of drugs busts that have occurred in different nations over the last decade."

I've always been curious what hematocrits these athletes have, as in whether they ride the threshold of what is considered passable, whether it bounces around drastically (according to training or other reasons), or what. Did Kimetto and Kipsang have low values when they ran their WRs or were they right around 45? These are questions I'd really like to know academically.

Shoebacca wrote:

I've always been curious what hematocrits these athletes have, as in whether they ride the threshold of what is considered passable, whether it bounces around drastically (according to training or other reasons), or what. Did Kimetto and Kipsang have low values when they ran their WRs or were they right around 45? These are questions I'd really like to know academically.

Kipsang missed a test last month. If Nov and Dec are EPO months, what do

they do in these 2 months for workouts and how do they maintain the advantage through to comp season?

Apologies for not being as nice as I would be in person, but what sort of credit am I to give to people who are spouting absurdities?

Even what you quoted is blatantly wrong. One reading of one parameter could absolutely put someone on the highly suspicious list. Example: reticulocytes at virtually zero is a major MAJOR red flag.

So, reading the description, it's down to 4 athletes:

Mo Farah

Paula Radcliffe

Jessica Ennis

Christine Ohuruogu

Why not Holmes?

The Rules of Engagement. This article shows many trickle down effects of PEDS. http://www.levelrenner.com/2014/12/16/the-rules-of-engagement/

This is not going to happen wrote:

Even what you quoted is blatantly wrong. One reading of one parameter could absolutely put someone on the highly suspicious list. Example: reticulocytes at virtually zero is a major MAJOR red flag.

Assuming that you are taking about reticulocytes being 0% (% is one of the most common ways reticulocyte count is reported in the lab report) then this value is only slightly below the normal range and can happen naturally and alone would not be used place someone on a list for targeted (not random) testing - there would be no point. If you are looking for markers in the blood parameters for something like blood doping or rhEPO use then the reticulocyte reading will be compared with that of hemoglobin concentration in the context of the readings of the repeat tests on the same athlete and in the context of the other series of tests on the other athletes (hence the grading of degrees of possibility of drug use). The list is of athletes who should have been targeted for testing based on highly suspicious blood readings and they never were.

This is not about "gossiping" or being a "worm" - I have stated on other threads that it is not right to start accusing individual athletes without knowing the names on the lists. You are concerned about clean athletes and I would point out that athletes such as Shobukhova, for example, won a lot of money at major marathons while finishing ahead of clean athletes who were also making the training sacrifices, living off low wages etc. This went on for several years while Shobukhova was failing biological passport readings and drugs tests which were all being covered up by the powers that be. And this sort of thing is still going on. The only way to deal with it is to have a large scale enquiry reaching up to the highest levels of the governing authorities and this will only be provoked if all of the athletes on the list are named.

Speaking of trying to smear the reputations of others some of your posts imply that Hajo Seppelt is just some journalist looking for some sort of sensational "National Enquirer" story . Seppelt is a well established journalist who has been doing this sort of investigation for almost 20 years. A guy of his stature will be contacted by nutcases trying to reveal to him some sort of sensational story to him on a regular basis. He will only follow a source through to produce a report when he is convinced that there is sufficient reliable evidence.

I got 99 posts in this thread, but a vitch ain't one.

Release them all on Christmas day or something to bury the news.