Goodbye Mahkloufi! IAAF to retest London samples...

Does anybody have confidence in those retests at this point?

The Beijing 2008 samples are also being retested

Retest for what exactly? What was missed first time out?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Does anybody have confidence in those retests at this point?

The world is full of fools. For proof just look at how the Trump for President joke backfired.

Sellerdore wrote:

Retest for what exactly? What was missed first time out?

Everything.

here's the article - fascinating stuff. Sounds like if a 2012 gold medalist retires, she is most likely safe and won't be retested. Maybe Makh will see the writing on the test tube and get "injured" before Rio.

and they are targeting countries and athletes. Which sounds creepy, but I suppose they have to.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/14/sebastian-coe-iaaf-doping-russia

Meanwhile, the International Olympic Committee revealed it would retest “hundreds” of stored samples from the London 2012 Olympics in a bid to catch cheats using substances that could not be detected at the time.

“There will be hundreds of samples from London that will be re-analysed. We are working very closely with Wada and we have agreed with Wada exactly which sports and which countries we are targeting,” Richard Budgett, the IOC medical director, said. “It is going to be athletes who are likely to be competing in Rio and for very specific analyses where there has been an advance over the last four years. It will be based on intelligence.”

Advertisement

Given that urine samples from the Games are finite, Budgett said not all medallists would be tested now. “Unless we have got a gold medallist who is likely to compete in Rio and they are from a sport where we think there is a particular risk we will keep those samples waiting for further improvement in analysis,” he said.

“We also want to keep as many samples as we can for the next eight, nine or 10 years, because who knows what progress there will be [in science] over the next few years.”

IAAF are going to do it?

It'll come back 100% clean (besides 4 Russians) nothing to see here.

2008 retests

Sure he's probably dirty but I don't get the hate directed towards this one specific dude. You really want a sauced-up Centro to be given a medal?

The entire 1500 field was doped to the dorsals with the exception of MAYBE Ingebrigtsen and Willis.

The IAAF must need to prop up its budget with adidas threatening to leave. Does anyone know what the IAAF's expected bribe amount will be for positive tests?

and Manzano.

well goodbye bolt...

when that happens i'll believe in the process.

This retesting is all for show so that on the surface, we think that the IAAF is doing everything it can to have a clean Rio. But alas, we will see many unexpected wr in Rio due to doping.

Phantasy Star wrote:

Sure he's probably dirty but I don't get the hate directed towards this one specific dude. You really want a sauced-up Centro to be given a medal?

The entire 1500 field was doped to the dorsals with the exception of MAYBE Ingebrigtsen and Willis.

I suspect that there is a fair amount of doping in our sport. The incentive structure would seem to guarantee it.

But what I don't understand is how folks (like Phantasy Star for example) have any idea who is and who is not doped. How did you determine that the entire 1500 field (with 2 possible exceptions) was doped? And how did you figure out that Ingebrigtsen and Willis were clean (possibly)?

Serious question - I really would like to know because I haven't a clue other than the "where there is smoke there is fire" method (hear lots of rumors - must be true). This does not seem like a very reliable method.

rhhwefwewfe wrote:

well goodbye bolt...

when that happens i'll believe in the process.

I am a fairly skeptical track fan, but I am not swayed by those who are convinced that Bolt is cheating. There is just as much reason to believe he is clean as dirty. His talent is prodigious, and other proven dopers have not achieved what he has achieved. So, it could well be the guy's talent is bona fide. I could be wrong, obviously. There are many cases where I have been on the side of those who assume doping explains fast times. But in this particular case, having watched sprinters for nearly 50 years, I think it's likely that he is in fact naturally this good. Let's hope. (And yes, I know we will now be reading how naive I am. Go on guys, let off your steam, I know it's what you live for.)

Fentrekker wrote:

But in this particular case, having watched sprinters for nearly 50 years, I think it's likely that he is in fact naturally this good.

It's probably been 50 years since the last clean top class sprinter, so yay for Bolt.

agip wrote:

Meanwhile, the International Olympic Committee revealed it would retest “hundreds” of stored samples from the London 2012 Olympics in a bid to catch cheats using substances that could not be detected at the time.

....

“We also want to keep as many samples as we can for the next eight, nine or 10 years, because who knows what progress there will be [in science] over the next few years.”

Which is a nice way to sound like the IOC is doing something and then do nothing.

The IAAF makes a big show of announcing retests. Why don't they make a big show of announcing all the results instead? Is it because they are looking for bribes and negotiations from individual athletes and nations, like they did before? And then they appear to be doing something but we get no results. Where are those 99 Meldonium positives? Where are the 28 positives they caught before Beijing World's?

jjjjj wrote:

The IAAF makes a big show of announcing retests. Why don't they make a big show of announcing all the results instead? Is it because they are looking for bribes and negotiations from individual athletes and nations, like they did before? And then they appear to be doing something but we get no results. Where are those 99 Meldonium positives? Where are the 28 positives they caught before Beijing World's?

It is all a show, and you know this. They want people to shake in their boots and feel compelled to take a preemptive measure to keep bad things from happening to them. "oh no, what if they popped me? I'll pay I'll pay, just don't ruin me." It's pathetic