IOC Finds 23 Positives from 2012 London Olympics

Sometingwong wrote:

Apologies if this has already been posted. I saw the 2008 thread, just not one on this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2016/05/27/ioc-23-positives-in-retests-of-samples-from-london-olympics/85024002/

So far 23 positives in 5 sports from 6 countries. Here we go again...

So 23 positives from 265 tests. That's almost 9% positive rate. The regular positive rate is nowhere near that high so it just shows how it takes time for testing to catch up with the cheaters. That's why we need more sample saving for later tests. I'm sure these were targeted at certain athletes which increased the positive rate but still higher than I would expect.

We need to see increase power retest past samples, punish athletes, and retrieve prize money for positive tests like these.

Maybe we need to think about testing samples less when they're taken and holding onto them for a couple of years before testing. Athletes know there is little chance of anti doping catching them now. But if they know there is a good likelihood of being caught in the next couple of years and punishments are severe enough we could more seriously discourage doping.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

So 23 positives from 265 tests. That's almost 9% positive rate. The regular positive rate is nowhere near that high so it just shows how it takes time for testing to catch up with the cheaters. That's why we need more sample saving for later tests. I'm sure these were targeted at certain athletes which increased the positive rate but still higher than I would expect.

One piece is that retests are targeted, so the likelihood of testing a doper is higher.

What are the chances we see any more female Russian distance runners go down in this bunch? Marathoners in particular.

and 27 of those positives are Russian

In retrospect, Morgan Uceny should have gotten up and jogged herself across the London finish line in the 1500. At this point, an 11th place across the line in 5:13 might have been where a bronze rolls down to once the retesting of those samples is complete.

Let me correct this for you..........."retrieve prize money WITH INTEREST".

messi wrote:

Let me correct this for you..........."retrieve prize money WITH INTEREST".

Why give money from one caught athlete to an athlete yet to be caught???

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

So 23 positives from 265 tests. That's almost 9% positive rate. The regular positive rate is nowhere near that high so it just shows how it takes time for testing to catch up with the cheaters. .

You are kind of butchering the numbers.

Let's conservatively assume 10,000 athletes at London, and 50 positives.That is a 0.05% chance of testing positive. Half of those only came AFTER the IOC has been shamed into retesting. So, no American news show replaying the ARD scandal and the likelihood of testing positive is about 0.025%.

If you get to elite international level, it seems totally reasonable to start doping with those odds. The IAAF and IOC make it pretty clear doping is the most lucrative choice.

lol... Or we could finally realize how ridiculous anti-doping efforts have become and redesign things from a harm reduction perspective, particularly given that eliminating drug use doesn't do much in terms of levelling playing fields.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

So 23 positives from 265 tests. That's almost 9% positive rate. The regular positive rate is nowhere near that high so it just shows how it takes time for testing to catch up with the cheaters. .

You are kind of butchering the numbers.

Let's conservatively assume 10,000 athletes at London, and 50 positives.That is a 0.05% chance of testing positive. Half of those only came AFTER the IOC has been shamed into retesting. So, no American news show replaying the ARD scandal and the likelihood of testing positive is about 0.025%.

If you get to elite international level, it seems totally reasonable to start doping with those odds. The IAAF and IOC make it pretty clear doping is the most lucrative choice.

Actually I'm not if you didn't cut out part of my post you would have shown I said this rate would be high because it was targeted. But still even if you're targeting those you think are dirty a 9% positive rate is an impressive catch rate. You on the other hand have just pulled numbers out of your ass and making things up. My main point was if you have a few years for doping controls to catch up to the cheaters there is a much greater chance of catching cheaters. So the best way to discourage doping given current technology is to invest more in saving samples for testing at a later date.

beachmouse wrote:

In retrospect, Morgan Uceny should have gotten up and jogged herself across the London finish line in the 1500. At this point, an 11th place across the line in 5:13 might have been where a bronze rolls down to once the retesting of those samples is complete.

Winner!

enquiring minds wrote:

What are the chances we see any more female Russian distance runners go down in this bunch? Marathoners in particular.

Good idea. Arkhipova with the bronze medal in the marathon was very suspicious. Mary Keitany would then move up from 4th to take the bronze medal.

The only surprise here is that there were only 23 positives. What constitutes a "targeted" athlete and why retest only their samples? This process seems very secretive and political, making it ripe for continued corruption.

they test only a few because 23 positives are bad. but 230 positives are worse

Not a big surprise wrote:

The only surprise here is that there were only 23 positives. What constitutes a "targeted" athlete and why retest only their samples? This process seems very secretive and political, making it ripe for continued corruption.

Half secretive, half not. The half that isn't secretive is using statistics in a variety of ways to find outlying scores to populate a watch list. A federation like the IOC then requests tests, a doping agency returns a list of probable athletes to test from all the scores in ADAMS. The IOC gets to pick and choose from that list. The IOC also chooses the tests to run. Urine tests are very popular because they are cheap and easy to defeat.

The secretive part is deciding who to sanction and who NOT to sanction. In this case, it's the IOC who has the authority to decide which athletes to sanction. Clearly Bolt is never testing positive. Paula? Never testing positive. USATF tried very hard to never test Dennis Mitchell positive. Did he get a refund like Shubakova?

Primo Numerous Uno wrote:

But still even if you're targeting those you think are dirty a 9% positive rate is an impressive catch rate.

Ok, it seems like maybe you didn't take statistics. Because that's not what it is saying. it's actually saying your general population is very likely to fail a legitimate drugs test.

Primo Numerous Uno wrote:You on the other hand have just pulled numbers out of your ass and making things up.

Are there more or less than 10,000 athletes at the Summer Games?

How many positives are from the London Games, circa 2012? How many from 2016?

Ricky, let's do the statistics together. Then you can post what you learned on buzzfeed.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Primo Numerous Uno wrote:

But still even if you're targeting those you think are dirty a 9% positive rate is an impressive catch rate.

Ok, it seems like maybe you didn't take statistics. Because that's not what it is saying. it's actually saying your general population is very likely to fail a legitimate drugs test.

Primo Numerous Uno wrote:You on the other hand have just pulled numbers out of your ass and making things up.

Are there more or less than 10,000 athletes at the Summer Games?

How many positives are from the London Games, circa 2012? How many from 2016?

Ricky, let's do the statistics together. Then you can post what you learned on buzzfeed.

I actually did take Stats. But you apparently failed algebra. They did 265 retests. 23 came back positive. Which is 8.65% which I rounded to 9%. Where you're getting this general population crap from is beyond me, I'm just not at your level. I wasn't commenting on what percentage of athletes tested positive from London. It was what percentage of retests they performed in this batch came back positive.

Even if you're targeting people you believe likely to be dirty a 9% positive rate is very high. Ask anyone who knows anything about doping controls they'd be thrilled if they could test those they knew were doping and get a positive 9% of the time, at an in competition test no less. The cheaters are always a step ahead and it takes time for testing to come up.

Did they release the full list of the 2008 positives?

Clerk wrote:

One piece is that retests are targeted, so the likelihood of testing a doper is higher.

So the likelihood of testing a Russian or East European doper is 100%. The likelihood of testing a UK or US doper is 0%.

This is set in stone once Coe became IAAF president.