BREAKING: IAAF Suspends Russian Athletics Federation

My my

A step in the right direction. Now have WADA evaluate Kenya, Turkey, past findings of IAAF.

I'm glad they did this. But, as others have commented in other threads, it ignores other countries with questionable oversight.

I suppose "state sponsored" is a different level than "state practices a don't ask don't tell" approach....but both are frustrating.

The question is, will they hold firm or is this a show of strength, and then they'll back down when Russia gets mad about Rio?

What about top medal counter U$A? Not worthy of being inve$$$tigated?

Provisionally suspended for how long?

Also guys, you may have missed the order to destroy Russian samples was carried out by a Swiss guy whose name pops up in numerous IOC doping scandals, Martial Saugy.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/saugy-denies-telling-armstrong-how-to-avoid-epo-positive/

Martial Saugy runs the organization that does the actual administrative work of testing samples, as ordered by sports federations, worldwide. He's done so for a very long time, pre-WADA.

https://twitter.com/wada_ama/status/581024852758241280

Director of Lausanne lab Martial Saugy tells #WADASymposium whom to test, when to test,and what and how to test.

He's a bad, bad guy.

Don't buts Bolt mahn.....

USADA does OK overall in the States. It would be better if WADA covered instead, but they don't have the $$. IAAF needs to ban the Gatlins and Gays for life. And WADA needs to probe NOP. Again, inadequate funding.

USA USA USA wrote:

What about top medal counter U$A? Not worthy of being inve$$$tigated?

The Russian Federation was non-compliant with WADA, yes? Per the investigation report released Monday they were duplicitous and recklessly non-compliant. All other programs have their faults and cheaters but are they non-compliant? Perhaps as some suggest federations such as Kenya and Jamaica are, in which case this provides WADA with leverage for these countries to rapidly come into compliance or face suspensions themselves. It also provides WADA with leverage to get the Russians (or others) to talk and expose who the other cheaters (athletes, agents, or federations) may be. Talk of Russia being singled out at this point is purely deflection.

I hope they give those delegates security and food tasters.

~ wrote:

The Russian Federation was non-compliant with WADA, yes? Per the investigation report released Monday they were duplicitous and recklessly non-compliant. All other programs have their faults and cheaters but are they non-compliant? Perhaps as some suggest federations such as Kenya and Jamaica are, in which case this provides WADA with leverage for these countries to rapidly come into compliance or face suspensions themselves. It also provides WADA with leverage to get the Russians (or others) to talk and expose who the other cheaters (athletes, agents, or federations) may be. Talk of Russia being singled out at this point is purely deflection.

Yes, they didn't pay the requested donation.

The USA is "compliant" by teams conducting their own secret tests --which should be banned-- to keep their athletes optimally compliant.

Shall we assume it was Bubka who voted against booting Russia?

Rachel Thomas wrote:

Shall we assume it was Bubka who voted against booting Russia?

Coe stated he did not want Russia booted.

All a show. They'll be back before Rio. They are trying to scapegoat Russia and deflect attention from IAAF itself. Sent Coe was head of the FIFA ethics committee. He knows how to whitewash a scandal when needed.

it's not a show, it's not a scapegoat issue - the country was ruled non compliant.

I would bet $100 that it will be compliant in 6 months, just in time for Rio.

WADA has also declared the Russian Anti-Doping Agency "noncompliant" with the World Anti-Doping Code. They can also do this with the athletics federation, which would take the matter out of Coe's hands for Rio.

Personally, I think they should do the same thing with the IAAF and force Coe and all the other people under Diack out. Why should sponsors pay anything if the rules don't mean anything?

I'm going to assume that the IAAF leadership here got at least a partial look at the part of the WADA report that was redacted for public consumption at this time because of the ongoing French criminal investigation. If Diack is talking in exchange for reduced or no jail time, it could be what the public doesn't know right now is as much responsible for the ban as what was in the report released to the press.

agip wrote:

it's not a show, it's not a scapegoat issue - the country was ruled non compliant.

I would bet $100 that it will be compliant in 6 months, just in time for Rio.

I am sure they will be "compliant" just in time for Rio--but of course their athletes will still have the benefits of doping coursing through their bodies.

~ wrote:

The Russian Federation was non-compliant with WADA, yes? Per the investigation report released Monday they were duplicitous and recklessly non-compliant. All other programs have their faults and cheaters but are they non-compliant? Perhaps as some suggest federations such as Kenya and Jamaica are, in which case this provides WADA with leverage for these countries to rapidly come into compliance or face suspensions themselves. It also provides WADA with leverage to get the Russians (or others) to talk and expose who the other cheaters (athletes, agents, or federations) may be. Talk of Russia being singled out at this point is purely deflection.

Duplicitously and recklessly non-compliant sports federations is rather common actually.

Any discussion of a WADA certified lab being run unprofessionally is another matter entirely and very difficult to regulate as the labs getting WADA certified are ordinary commercial medical testing labs.

You too can have your blood drawn and analyzed just like an IOC sanctioned sport athlete. Just get the fluids drawn and pay for the tests.

agip wrote:

it's not a show, it's not a scapegoat issue - the country was ruled non compliant.

I would bet $100 that it will be compliant in 6 months, just in time for Rio.

You're trying to refute Mr. Obvious but then you agree with his main point.