How does a bribed IAAF official cover up a drug positive?
I suspect it is not as easy just putting the report in the shredder.
How does a bribed IAAF official cover up a drug positive?
I suspect it is not as easy just putting the report in the shredder.
any thoughts?
Athlete "A" tests positive.
Athlete's "A" agency starts working the back channels as it goes through the process.
Maybe they know who will do the "B" testing and can bribe that person. Looks like in this case if the allegations are true, they go higher up and say to Diack or head of IAAF Anti-Doping "We are innocent. What can we do to make this go away?" "How about pay us a bunch of money?"
Somehow then they go down the chain and get the positive test to vanish. I assume at this point a few people would know about it so maybe that is why there is a trail and something like this could be discovered.
I'm not sure if what you are trying to get at but the more people involved in each step of the process, the harder it is to bribe someone to make it all go away and actually get by with it.
Thankfully that IAAF whistleblower came forward. If these allegations aren't true it's good to have this investigation.
Read the effing Wada standards!!!!!
IAAF has to just choose not to sanction. Be far enough up the chain of command at the IAAF and you too can accept bribes.
Bribes to hide a positive
Bribes to raise the rank of an event
Bribes to get an event on the calendar.
Bribes, bribes, bribes.
I would think it would be easier to tamper with the OOC test schedule to keep "hot" athletes from getting tested until they have a chance to get clean. That way they never test positive to begin with.
ooc pool wrote:
I would think it would be easier to tamper with the OOC test schedule to keep \"hot\" athletes from getting tested until they have a chance to get clean. That way they never test positive to begin with.
Done and done. It\'s built into the WADA standards.. Read the WADA standards.
The anti-doping administrators at WADA send a list of athletes they recommend testing. It\'s only a recommendation. The IAAF does not have to test any of them. Or, they can test them and never open a case on the positives, just like the last Seppelt article showed.
The understood story that was behind the JADCO non-existent testing was that there was testing so athletes leaving the country for meets would never test positive at those meets.
All kinds of opportunities to hide positives.
Who was president when uncle bernie lagat had an A sample come up hot?
The pro leagues have the ultimate power to punish, hide test results. That's the cause of super QBs like Rodgers, Brady, in the NFL, astronomical rise is number of perfect games, no hitters and shutouts in MLB, etc.
This will be very interesting to read about.i will be especially interested in - their knowledge of specific athletes results or need for testing- coordination with countries to avoid testing That is the irony about this and pro team sports. The pro sports are a huge joke when it comes to PEDs. At least people try to do something in track and cycling. noone cares in the big sports and it helps encourage kids to think it is ok to use them.- The NFL doesn't even care about concussions and PeD use might make a player lose a game or two if your are enough of an idiot to get caught. - Baseball has let all records become meaningless. - In the NBA, we are led to believe that the only player of significance to use PEDs was Rashard Lewis. All this with way more money involved than in track. There should be laws against PED use in the U.S. Either take the leagues out of the middle or make them have a real program and disclose results and audits . a hearing once im a while does nothing.
Pro Sports are cheats wrote:
The pro leagues have the ultimate power to punish, hide test results. That's the cause of super QBs like Rodgers, Brady, in the NFL, astronomical rise is number of perfect games, no hitters and shutouts in MLB, etc.
Makes it pretty clear that that "donation" Lance made to UCI was probably a quid pro quo indeed
1- Get an order from the Queen.
2- Appoint a Lord to oversee the clandestine operations.
Pro Sports are cheats wrote:
The pro leagues have the ultimate power to punish, hide test results. That's the cause of super QBs like Rodgers, Brady, in the NFL, astronomical rise is number of perfect games, no hitters and shutouts in MLB, etc.
baseball was a bad example. the pitchers haven't gotten better, the batters have gotten worse. you see more no hitters nowadays because fewer doped up sluggers are hitting HRs
If the head of IAAF was bribed, would not be surprised if one or two others lower down in the food chain were as well, in order to actually disappear the proof/charges. They probably did the dirty work, Diack just got a slice of the action to look the other way and not ask questions.
Yes
Bobblehead radcliffe was an expert at bribing officials to cover up her doping positives.
Pro Sports are cheats wrote:
The pro leagues have the ultimate power to punish, hide test results. That's the cause of super QBs like Rodgers, Brady, in the NFL, astronomical rise is number of perfect games, no hitters and shutouts in MLB, etc.
PEDS for Pitchers are the best example of how doping has invalidated pro sports. It's criminal how MLB dopes it's pitchers. Taxpayers will be stuck having to pay for the consequences of doping and not the owners.
Posted this in the IAAF thread:Keep in mind that the president of the Russian Federation was IAAF Treasurer. The story about chief medical doctor recieving bribes also shows where the system leaks.
To protect the an innocent athlete, there are a lot of steps before a positive result is released:
Reporting of the A sample result (to the athlete and governing body) happens within 10 days.
If it is a positive, the athlete is notified, (and governing bodies). The athlete has 7 days to request a B-sample analysis, or to accept the A-sample result as an adverse finding.
If the athlete opts for a B-sample, and it is also positive, it is an adverse finding.
With an adverse finding comes a provisional and confidential suspension.
Within 10 days of being told about the adverse finding, the athlete can request a hearing.
Hearings happen within 14 days if expedited, or later if not expedited.
After this hearing, NADOs have 20 days to publicly announce adverse finding and sanction (or non-sanction in no-fault/warning situations).
The timeline after the B sample is up to NADOs, and the above is based on UKAD.
So, there are a few entry points for the governing body to make it go away. If it is an IAAF test, then all of the proceedings are done by IAAF. If USADA rant he test, it would be USADA, and so on.
The governing body is notified right away. If someone has enough clout to influence individuals to stop doing their job, that person can end the proceedings there (changing the result would be the easiest. Or, never analyzing a test. Or, analyzing it at a basic level and not opting for EPO, or HGH screening, which can be extras. Or not putting the sample into the biopassport)
The governing body holds the hearing. They could easily be "convinced" of a no-fault situation. Or easily "convinced" that a substance has a valid TUE. Or whatever.
For example, Kenyan athletes have been told after a positive test (and bribe) to say that they were pregnant, as a no-fault out from a sanction. Shobukhova presumably bribed the Russian Federation after a positive test, but before it was reported to media and IAAF. On the other end, Cycling officials threatened riders saying "I can make you test positive". Steve Mulling asserts that JADCO officials (that Herb Elliot was behind) switched samples. Or, athletes have been allowed to file for a TUE after the positive test.
Given the cronyism in the IAAF and other Federations and NADOs, it is easy for the lower-rungs to oblige to a higher-up's wishes. Cultures of corruption are its own sociology, if you really want to dig in.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6832602&page=1#ixzz3qeEsSQL3
Clerk wrote:
The story about chief medical doctor recieving bribes also shows where the system leaks.
Pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:
Read the effing Wada standards!!!!!
IAAF has to just choose not to sanction. Be far enough up the chain of command at the IAAF and you too can accept bribes.
Bribes to hide a positive
Bribes to raise the rank of an event
Bribes to get an event on the calendar.
Bribes, bribes, bribes.
Radcliff is a prime example of a well orchestrated caught athlete ( her values were out of the WADA standards) but just enough in the grey zone to get swept under the carpet.
Coe has a gigantic issue on his hands to try and seem like he's cleaning up a problem but the depths are far greater than what shows on the surface. To really clean it would mean loosing major sponsors not wanting to get caught up in the downfall. Its unfortunate but its seems the equally corrupt USATF does not get the same formal investigation and audit as the IAAF is getting.
Note Ms. Hightower's recent IAAF appointment and her husbands long term ties with the IAAF and events in the UK, strange bedfellows as the say.
Maybe if Mr. Coe would put a reward out leading to the arrest and conviction of participating parties in the corruption, he may get a few leads.
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Des Linden: "The entire sport" has changed since she first started running Boston.
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
Ryan Eiler, 3rd American man at Boston, almost out of nowhere
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion