The fact is that WADA was made aware of the doping because USADA informed them -- the opposite of "covered up US doping".
USADA: "WADA and the IF were also aware of the athletes’ cooperation, including the athletes’ return to competition"
Real fact: USADA claiming that they informed WADA does not make it a fact.
And even if they did tell WADA (when??), which is still unsubstantiated, but kept it from the public, the AIU, all other NADOs etc., which they did, it's still a (then larger) cover-up, not "the opposite of "covered up US doping"".
Fully with you on this rekrunner. I have stayed off this message board for the most part of 10 - 12 years .. I just pop in every now and then. The said poster is as annoying as one in the early 2000's when there was a huge response to Lydiard stuff with totally inane reasoning and no evidence. You and I are known to each other .. I no longer post here using my name .. and I tried to contact you recently through the email I had but noted you no longer have that contact. I too have changed my email. But my user name now may now give you a hint to who I am .. Cheers & regards
Real fact: USADA claiming that they informed WADA does not make it a fact.
And even if they did tell WADA (when??), which is still unsubstantiated, but kept it from the public, the AIU, all other NADOs etc., which they did, it's still a (then larger) cover-up, not "the opposite of "covered up US doping"".
Your pro-USADA, anti-WADA bias is quite extreme.
But it was substantiated by WADA. WADA confirmed in their statement that they were informed (at least) by 2021. Specifically, they confirmed "USADA eventually admitted to WADA what had been going on" and confirmed their reluctant acceptance "WADA had no choice but to agree", actually making it WADA legal. WADA did not launch any non-compliance proceedings against USADA since 2021.
I wonder if the timeline of when WADA was informed and/or the timeline of acceptance is a candidate for the source bias that caused Reuters to withdraw the story, and caused USADA to say that the reporting relied on a WADA spokesperson as the source, without doing sufficient diligence.
USADA said they also informed the IF (e.g. the AIU). Similarly I cannot confirm or deny that.
My current bias says there is a dispute about several historical facts. Because much is hidden from the public, I am not able to resolve that dispute, nor am I prepared to pick one side over the other, before such factual disputes are resolved.
That's why I said "maybe".
I'll let you know how my opinion evolves, and which side I pick, as more facts come out. But it seems premature to conclude that Tygart has compromised his expertise based on this public spat, before these factual disputes have been resolved.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Research on pork offal has zero to do with beef burritos.
I never talked about beef burritos. You are the one who keeps bringing them up.
I mainly referred to statements in a report made by the CAS and by findings made by researchers in their published work, and to controlling documents found at WADA's website.
I know you never talked about beef burritos, that's my point. She ate a beef burrito and your turned it into a Pork Nando burrito. Magic.
I never talked about beef burritos. You are the one who keeps bringing them up.
I mainly referred to statements in a report made by the CAS and by findings made by researchers in their published work, and to controlling documents found at WADA's website.
I know you never talked about beef burritos, that's my point. She ate a beef burrito and your turned it into a Pork Nando burrito. Magic.
Did she eat a beef burrito? What did the CAS say? According to witnesses, it looks like she ate most of an uncharacteristically greasy burrito. Your magical trick is as easy as someone mixing up the order -- a mistake that can happen everywhere.
Fully with you on this rekrunner. I have stayed off this message board for the most part of 10 - 12 years .. I just pop in every now and then. The said poster is as annoying as one in the early 2000's when there was a huge response to Lydiard stuff with totally inane reasoning and no evidence. You and I are known to each other .. I no longer post here using my name .. and I tried to contact you recently through the email I had but noted you no longer have that contact. I too have changed my email. But my user name now may now give you a hint to who I am .. Cheers & regards
Thanks. I have one idea, if you once sold me a book.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) responds to a Reuters story of 7 August 2024 exposing a scheme whereby the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) allowed athletes who had doped, to compete for years, in at least one case without ever publishing or sanctioning their anti-doping rule violations, in direct contravention of the World Anti-Doping Code and USADA’s own rules.
This USADA scheme threatened the integrity of sporting competition, which the Code seeks to protect. By operating it, USADA was in clear breach of the rules. Contrary to the claims made by USADA, WADA did not sign off on this practice of permitting drug cheats to compete for years on the promise that they would try to obtain incriminating evidence against others.
The fact is that WADA was made aware of the doping because USADA informed them -- the opposite of "covered up US doping".
USADA: "WADA and the IF were also aware of the athletes’ cooperation, including the athletes’ return to competition"
"WADA did not initiate a compliance case against USADA as they should have if they truly believed we failed to follow the rules."
But maybe it is Reuters and WADA who compromised their expertise. Reuters withdrew the story two months ago, for not meeting their standards of bias:
Reuters: "a post-publication investigation determined that Reuters standards for newsgathering were not met, specifically as they pertain to avoiding the appearance of bias in our sourcing."
USADA: "the reporting relied on a WADA spokesperson as the source without doing sufficient diligence to confirm accurate and truthful information."
USADA didn't inform WADA. That is the point. USADA wasn't revealing what it was doing or WADA wouldn't have approved. WADA - and more importantly, the public - found out because of an investigative story that broke it. You never look for the truth in anything to do with doping.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Real fact: USADA claiming that they informed WADA does not make it a fact.
And even if they did tell WADA (when??), which is still unsubstantiated, but kept it from the public, the AIU, all other NADOs etc., which they did, it's still a (then larger) cover-up, not "the opposite of "covered up US doping"".
Your pro-USADA, anti-WADA bias is quite extreme.
But it was substantiated by WADA. WADA confirmed in their statement that they were informed (at least) by 2021. Specifically, they confirmed "USADA eventually admitted to WADA what had been going on" and confirmed their reluctant acceptance "WADA had no choice but to agree", actually making it WADA legal. WADA did not launch any non-compliance proceedings against USADA since 2021.
I wonder if the timeline of when WADA was informed and/or the timeline of acceptance is a candidate for the source bias that caused Reuters to withdraw the story, and caused USADA to say that the reporting relied on a WADA spokesperson as the source, without doing sufficient diligence.
USADA said they also informed the IF (e.g. the AIU). Similarly I cannot confirm or deny that.
My current bias says there is a dispute about several historical facts. Because much is hidden from the public, I am not able to resolve that dispute, nor am I prepared to pick one side over the other, before such factual disputes are resolved.
That's why I said "maybe".
I'll let you know how my opinion evolves, and which side I pick, as more facts come out. But it seems premature to conclude that Tygart has compromised his expertise based on this public spat, before these factual disputes have been resolved.
"Eventually admitted" means they covered it up till they were found out. You always support the liars, frauds and dopers.
USADA didn't inform WADA. That is the point. USADA wasn't revealing what it was doing or WADA wouldn't have approved. WADA - and more importantly, the public - found out because of an investigative story that broke it. You never look for the truth in anything to do with doping.
Actually your original point was whether Tygart could be trusted to say that 30% of positive tests had an "innocent source". WADA's claim of ignorance about USADA informants subsequently competing has nothing to do with your previous point, as USADA did not claim that the informants' doping had an innocent source.
Unlike you, I looked further for the truth by reading the rest of the WADA statement you quoted. Do you think WADA was lying then about USADA informing them in 2021, three years before the 2024 story? If WADA thought USADA was non-compliant back in 2021, then once again, it seems that WADA failed in its duty to enforce its own Code.
In the spirit of always looking for the truth, I constantly ask you to provide evidence, data, and objective observations, in order to ascertain if your many fantastic claims can be considered truthful. When you fail, and instead can only respond with false accusations and insults and diversions, I can only conclude I was right to be skeptical rather than gullible.
Sinner's team and others like them run through all possibilities. They look at it this way. If the worst comes to the worst and we fail a test what do we do? So you construct a way out via the coach being blamed for rubbing stuff in his leg. Coach takes the fall everybody happy, problem solved. This means you need to have ready made excuses prepared. The dumb Kenyans aint sneaky enough so two faced white boys can dump it all on them
Stop lying to yourselves. The majority of athletes are doping. It is because IT WORKS. And we live, and the USA has spiritual laws justifying, a world ruled and competed by SOCIOPATHS. These people are like Gordon Gekko and Donald Trump. They only care about winning and not how they got there. And they tell people to stop crying and grow up.
These are the people who burn through social trust like a left winger with his fingers on the money printing devices. They are the people who insure that The Puritans rise, and they are the ones who insure their country will be invaded and destroyed by Pyschopaths.
Cos you see you fools who worship these Sociopaths, there are men in this world who won't just bend the rules they'll take a baseball bat to your knee or chop your thumbs off. These same Sociopaths will then cry like babies at the unfairness of it all.
Terry Henry the footballer said after he'd deliberately knocked a ball in with his hand that he'd do it again cos his allegiance was to France not to being fair. Now see his error? Terry doesn't seem to understand that a fan who found him and kneecapped him could use THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT to justify his behaviour.
And that, boys and girls, is why I am a genius and why none of you people deserve me. And yoou deserve the Psychopaths above to TEACH YOUA LESSON YOU WON'T FORGET!
I have seen in other posts last week that editing still works (the editing comment appears below an edited post).
Let me check. . .
Yes, the "Edit Post" appears at the bottom after posting, and still works (I edited this post twice). Now I see "You have 27 minutes to make edits to this post" below the editing window.
Thanks! I'll have to check that out more carefully after another one of my typo-laden postings.
I had a similar problem. But when I assured that I was logged in all the time I got the edit post function back again. Maybe goes for the block function too..?
This post was edited 54 seconds after it was posted.
In the science of sport podcast at around 1:05:55h Tygart says:
We'll have let's just ballpark 30% of our positive tests and up being innocent source positive - so meat contamination or water or kissing or intimacy or using your roommate's armsleeve or whatever.
Not intentional cheats.
One third of positives just from eating the wrong food or kissing is way higher than I expected it to be.
To be fair: The quote is with regards to regular untargeted testing - for targeted testing after an investigation he estimates that about all of the positives are intentional cheats.
I can't post links, so you'll have to search for it on Spotify yourself .
I finally listened to this over the holiday period. At around 82 minutes, Tygart goes even further and says that 18% were "proven" to be innocent, and there is another 20% which everyone believes is innocent, but they couldn't prove it, because it is hard to prove something that happened 6 weeks earlier.
Exactly, it's an opinion piece disguised as a serious study.
Anyone who is found to have an "unintentional positive test" should be banned for at least 6 months because they did actually have performance enhancing drugs in their system which, unintentionally or not, helped them be faster.
But I think 99% of "unintentional positives" are from purposeful dopers who just happened to find a way out.
This is the best post of the thread.
I'm not buying the "unintentional positive" nonsense. But even if you believe it, those athletes still had the drugs in their body and got bigger/faster/stronger from them which give them an unfair advantage.
They should serve a ban because they should not be rewarded for an "unintentional positive" by having enhanced performances against legit clean athletes.
Though I would argue the ban should be 12 months, not 6.
In the science of sport podcast at around 1:05:55h Tygart says:
We'll have let's just ballpark 30% of our positive tests and up being innocent source positive - so meat contamination or water or kissing or intimacy or using your roommate's armsleeve or whatever.
Not intentional cheats.
One third of positives just from eating the wrong food or kissing is way higher than I expected it to be.
To be fair: The quote is with regards to regular untargeted testing - for targeted testing after an investigation he estimates that about all of the positives are intentional cheats.
I can't post links, so you'll have to search for it on Spotify yourself .
This guy is either a moron or a liar.
This post was edited 51 seconds after it was posted.
Anyone who is found to have an "unintentional positive test" should be banned for at least 6 months because they did actually have performance enhancing drugs in their system which, unintentionally or not, helped them be faster.
But I think 99% of "unintentional positives" are from purposeful dopers who just happened to find a way out.
This is the best post of the thread.
I'm not buying the "unintentional positive" nonsense. But even if you believe it, those athletes still had the drugs in their body and got bigger/faster/stronger from them which give them an unfair advantage.
They should serve a ban because they should not be rewarded for an "unintentional positive" by having enhanced performances against legit clean athletes.
Though I would argue the ban should be 12 months, not 6.
This presumes that the drug is performance enhancing and that it actually helped the athlete to be faster. This wouldn't necessarily be the case for example drugs like diuretics, and/or drugs with low bioavailability when ingested in small amounts orally, and/or for drugs taken out of competition, where there was no performance at all, let alone a faster performance.
If you want to go this route, the most fair would be to perform an impact analysis to assess and determine and link the length of the "accidental" ban to the amount of unfair advantage. In addition to determining the innocent source, you'd have to consider it, on a case by case basis, depending on the drug, the timing of the effectiveness, the amount taken, the route taken, and things like bioavailability, in order to determine the expected advantage, if any. You'd also have to treat some banned drugs which are permitted out of competition differently.
The current approach is to annul any potentially impacted result without imposing a ban. Given the state of both the anti-doping science, and the anti-doping law, this seems to me to be the right measure. Although the accidental presence/use still counts as a first strike against the athlete, with the next accident becoming a second offense with lengthier bans.
The downside of lengthy bans due to aggressive anti-doping policies is that it will ruin the sport. The voices we should hear from are not the easily persuadable fans who have no skin in the game, or any personal investment, but the athletes themselves, e.g. through athlete representation at WADA when determining such policies.
The current approach is to annul any potentially impacted result without imposing a ban. G
Is that true? I thought only a result from the test date is annulled, not one from, say, 1 week after, which would also be potentially impacted (and both of that is regardless of the actual PED character).
I'm not buying the "unintentional positive" nonsense. But even if you believe it, those athletes still had the drugs in their body and got bigger/faster/stronger from them which give them an unfair advantage.
They should serve a ban because they should not be rewarded for an "unintentional positive" by having enhanced performances against legit clean athletes.
Though I would argue the ban should be 12 months, not 6.
This presumes that the drug is performance enhancing and that it actually helped the athlete to be faster. This wouldn't necessarily be the case for example drugs like diuretics, and/or drugs with low bioavailability when ingested in small amounts orally, and/or for drugs taken out of competition, where there was no performance at all, let alone a faster performance.
If you want to go this route, the most fair would be to perform an impact analysis to assess and determine and link the length of the "accidental" ban to the amount of unfair advantage. In addition to determining the innocent source, you'd have to consider it, on a case by case basis, depending on the drug, the timing of the effectiveness, the amount taken, the route taken, and things like bioavailability, in order to determine the expected advantage, if any. You'd also have to treat some banned drugs which are permitted out of competition differently.
The current approach is to annul any potentially impacted result without imposing a ban. Given the state of both the anti-doping science, and the anti-doping law, this seems to me to be the right measure. Although the accidental presence/use still counts as a first strike against the athlete, with the next accident becoming a second offense with lengthier bans.
The downside of lengthy bans due to aggressive anti-doping policies is that it will ruin the sport. The voices we should hear from are not the easily persuadable fans who have no skin in the game, or any personal investment, but the athletes themselves, e.g. through athlete representation at WADA when determining such policies.
If athletes are taking drugs for other than medical reasons they do it for performance enhancement. There is no other reason. So if it is a banned drugs the safest assumption is the drug was used to enhance performance. The degree it did so is absolutely irrelevant. The alternative conclusion is that the athlete is an idiot for taking a banned drug when it doesn't aid performance and WADA are also idiots for listing the drug as having the potential for aiding performance when it doesn't do so. Athletes don't take drugs that may harm their health if they gain nothing from it. In the same vein, athletes train because they know it will aid performance just as the shoes they wear will do so and the food they consume. Of course, to you athletes only become idiots and naive dupes when it comes to doping. They strangely know how to train, what to eat, and what to put on their feet.
The current approach is to annul any potentially impacted result without imposing a ban. G
Is that true? I thought only a result from the test date is annulled, not one from, say, 1 week after, which would also be potentially impacted (and both of that is regardless of the actual PED character).
Who determines when the potential impact ends?
AFAIK, there is no hard rule, and it would be decided on a case by case basis by the testing authority who detected the result, with possibilities for appeal by the IF (e.g. the AIU) and/or WADA. Note I said "impacted result", but it could be "impacted results", if they think a drug has a lingering effect and there is some supported justification. For example, Tyson Gay had ~1 year of results annulled before the start of his sanction, in addition to the sanction (itself reduced for cooperation).
If athletes are taking drugs for other than medical reasons they do it for performance enhancement. There is no other reason. So if it is a banned drugs the safest assumption is the drug was used to enhance performance. The degree it did so is absolutely irrelevant. The alternative conclusion is that the athlete is an idiot for taking a banned drug when it doesn't aid performance and WADA are also idiots for listing the drug as having the potential for aiding performance when it doesn't do so. Athletes don't take drugs that may harm their health if they gain nothing from it. In the same vein, athletes train because they know it will aid performance just as the shoes they wear will do so and the food they consume. Of course, to you athletes only become idiots and naive dupes when it comes to doping. They strangely know how to train, what to eat, and what to put on their feet.
None of that is relevant, because no one was talking about the reasons of athletes who take drugs intentionally. We were talking about the "unintentional positive" (see thread subject).