Russian sports papers claims IAAF covered up 4 positives for Mo Farah

wejo wrote:

3) Seb Coe needs to stop getting paid by Nike.

That would be purely symbolic. The sport still depends heavily on Nike for financial support, and Coe still has to keep them happy.

I wonder how much Lagat's B-sample cost him.

TrackCoach wrote:

I am not sure if WADA or the IAAF could cover up for Mo if they wanted to. GB's anti-doping program is what WADA and the IAAF relies on and GB's program is perhaps second only to the U.S. in terms sophistication and aggressiveness. Mo is also tested frequently by USADA because he spends most of his time in the U.S.. If there was a cover up it for Mo, it would have to happen in GB and the U.S.

How do we know? UKAD does not report ANY testing stats. NONE. They produce an annual financial report, nothing else.

If you dig into WADA's reports you'll find testing is quite light in-country. A great example was in 2011/12 reporting year WADA's annual report showed zero in-country tests for elite cyclists. Just in time for a London 2012 beat down by British Cycling.

You REALLY REALLY REALLY should read the wada standards. You have no grasp of how the system actually works and are relying on misinformation widely disseminated by the sports federations.

This all very well can be true; Nike with all their $$$$ and their golden boy Mo at his hometown London Games in 2012. The same rumors have existed about Michael Johnson testing positive at the Atlanta Games and Nike, USATF and IAAF all involved in the cover-up.

rojo wrote:

spade or shovel wrote:

The same could be said for western publications.

Except for LetsRun.com baby. The last independent voice.

Since we are trust fund babies (and Bush is now out office), we don't have to slant our coverage for anyone. Daddy said in 2008, "Boys write whatever you want on that website."

That is actually a pretty funny post.

Watching The Detectives wrote:

I wonder how much Lagat's B-sample cost him.

Boom!!! Elvis has left the building!

Watching The Detectives wrote:

I wonder how much Lagat's B-sample cost him.

How much did it cost you to earn your masters records, socal Cush?

JAKIR wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

I am not sure if WADA or the IAAF could cover up for Mo if they wanted to. GB's anti-doping program is what WADA and the IAAF relies on and GB's program is perhaps second only to the U.S. in terms sophistication and aggressiveness. Mo is also tested frequently by USADA because he spends most of his time in the U.S.. If there was a cover up it for Mo, it would have to happen in GB and the U.S.

That's a great point! It's not like Lance Armstrong ever had a positive test covered up for him. He wasn't nearly as big time or as big a target as Farah. I mean, no way.

Ugh, Armstrong defense/cliche.... Every case and motive is different, Son.

By the way, USADA is the one that brought down LA. USADA doesn't give an eff about Mr. Farah. If he is dirty, they would bring it - regardless of IAAF cronies. See Jones, Armstrong, Gay, etc...

Insideout wrote:

By the way, USADA is the one that brought down LA. USADA doesn't give an eff about Mr. Farah. If he is dirty, they would bring it - regardless of IAAF cronies. See Jones, Armstrong, Gay, etc...

And exactly when did the USADA decide to bring down LA? How long after they made a ton of money pimping him as a multi-time champion?

Watching The Detectives wrote:

I wonder how much Lagat's B-sample cost him.

Things that make you go hmm....

It just so happens that I am a person who understands the AD game much better than most. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my statement. Basically, what I am saying is that the IAAF does not do drug testing, they simply receive results and take the next step in determining how it will affect an athlete's participation in IAAF events. Btw, the UKAD and USADA budget is nearly 2/3rds the size WADA and any British or American athlete cover up would have to involve the national federations. With that said, WADA does not have confidence in RUSADA and does not rely on that federation, which is what makes it possible for a Russian cover up, but unlikely for a British or American athlete cover up.

TrackCoach wrote:

It just so happens that I am a person who understands the AD game much better than most. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my statement. Basically, what I am saying is that the IAAF does not do drug testing, they simply receive results and take the next step in determining how it will affect an athlete's participation in IAAF events. Btw, the UKAD and USADA budget is nearly 2/3rds the size WADA and any British or American athlete cover up would have to involve the national federations. With that said, WADA does not have confidence in RUSADA and does not rely on that federation, which is what makes it possible for a Russian cover up, but unlikely for a British or American athlete cover up.

Just so everyone is clear, this is really wrong. The IAAF absolutely conducts its own tests. In 2014, it conducted 3,800 tests according to WADA. (Page 6 in section 3 here:

) In the same period USADA conducted 7,000 tests, for reference.

And the broader point that you're making, that it's difficult for the IAAF to cover up tests, is also wrong. Anti-doping agencies like USADA have reporting requirements: when an athlete tests positive, the lab that records that test must send the result back to USADA, WADA, and the sport's governing body. (IAAF in the case of someone like Mo Farah.) With so many people getting the result, it becomes harder to bury a positive test. But the IAAF does not have a reporting requirement, as far as I know, which makes it VERY EASY to do exactly what's has been alleged in the Russian article—cover up a test by a big-name runner.

But you don't have to trust me. This is almost exactly what happened with Lilyia Shobukhova, and it's why there have been recent articles about WADA taking over drug testing from governing bodies. I obviously have no idea whether the IAAF covered up positive tests for Mo, but not only is it possible for them to have done so, there's good precedent for it.

Good lord, give it a rest. No one is going after Radcliffe.She is RETIRED. No one cares. There is no benefit in bringing down a RETIRED athlete.Are they going after Daniel Komen? What Salazar himself, did he dope?

in the know... wrote:

I sure hope Farah gets nailed! But the main target remains Radcliffe!

[quote]You're not in the know wrote:

What Salazar himself, did he dope?

[quote]

????!!!!!??????!!!!!

Clerk wrote:

3) Fukc Yes. This has been a problem from the get-go. The fact that he was voted in to begin with shows how terrible the system is. He was voted in because of his legacy and the promise of "globalizing" track and field. There is a clear benefit to the minority nations, as we see more and more IAAG events in Doha, Shanghai and Beijing. Globalization favors the countries that are willing to pay the extra dollars (pounds?) to have an event in their country, at the expense of the athletes' experience, performance, and the events' identity.

Bubka had a good familiarity with some European federations, Coe won through with the "obscure" nations that could gain from notoriety through TnF exposure: Latin America, Middle East, and SE Asia.

I'm not convinced Bubka would have been any better or worse than Coe as IAAF President. I couldn't bring myself to root for either side in the elections, I saw both as candidates that would make some positive changes within the IAAF but overall continue the culture of corruption.

The fact that Balakhnichev, who had supposedly stepped down as Treasurer in January, gave the financial report in August said a lot. I prefer my corrupt Federations keep it under the surface enough so that people can pretend things are not completely corrupt.

noce wrote:

wejo wrote:

3) Seb Coe needs to stop getting paid by Nike.

That would be purely symbolic. The sport still depends heavily on Nike for financial support, and Coe still has to keep them happy.

adidas is still the IAAF sponsor, not Nike. Coe refusing to cut ties with Nike sends a pretty clear message to adidas that their days as IAAF sponsor will be coming to an end soon.

Nike made sure their people were well placed after the last IAAF elections, there is no chance that adidas will continue as IAAF sponsor when their contract is up. Once Nike is the IAAF sponsor, they will be well-positioned to win the IOC sponsorship.

runnerboy1 wrote:

This all very well can be true; Nike with all their $$$$ and their golden boy Mo at his hometown London Games in 2012. The same rumors have existed about Michael Johnson testing positive at the Atlanta Games and Nike, USATF and IAAF all involved in the cover-up.

I used to laugh at all the people saying there were cover-ups. Figured it was too hard to do and too many people would know about it.

Looks like the joke is on me.

nope wrote:

But you don't have to trust me. This is almost exactly what happened with Lilyia Shobukhova, and it's why there have been recent articles about WADA taking over drug testing from governing bodies. I obviously have no idea whether the IAAF covered up positive tests for Mo, but not only is it possible for them to have done so, there's good precedent for it.

You are saying they could cover-up an IAAF test but not a UKanti doping test right? That gives me more confidence in UK athletes but not a ton if they scaled back testing before 2012.

What nobody is considering here is if Mo goes down then so does Galen... Which means Tariku and Kenenisa went 1-2 in the Olympics.

Yeah. Or just that it would be harder to cover up a UKAD test than an IAAF test, or a RUSADA test.

I don't actually know whether RUSADA has a reporting requirement or just ignores it. The important point is that drug testing is a bit of a fools errand if the people paying for and/or conducting the tests are not independent. USADA and UKAD are independent, IAAF and RUSADA are not.