Doping - 45 new failures from London and Beijing Games

5000ft wrote:

Key details from second wave of retesting:

386 samples selected from 2008;

30 athletes tested positive;

From four sports and eight countries;

138 samples selected from 2012;

15 athletes tested positive;

From two sports and nine counties.

First wave of retesting:

454 samples selected from 2008;

30 athletes tested positive;

From six sports and 12 countries;

265 samples selected from 2012;

23 athletes tested positive;

So, they had collected more sample (454) from the Beijing (2008) Olympics than the London Olympics (265) for re-test. Why?

Does this show you the commitment of the Olympics in fighting doping as the authority repeatedly claimed (also in the press release) ?

Interestingly, these numbers also confirms a trend that we suspected/already know, regardless the low capability of the testings in catching the cheats: doping is/has been on the rise.

1st re-test positives

2008: 6.6% (from 30/454)

2012: 8.7% (from 23/265)

2nd re-test positives

2008: 7.8% (from 30/386)

2012: 10.9% (from 15/138, don't know why the # of re-test samples has largely reduced from that in the 1st re-test)

Total (1st+2nd) re-test positive:

2008: 13.2% (from 60/454, would be 14.4% if we use 6.6+7.8%)

2012: 14.3% (from 38/265, would be 19.6% if we use 8.7+10.9%)

One would expect the 2nd re-testing to yield a lower percentage of positives as the samples already excluded the 1st re-testing positive ones. The higher % yielded in the 2nd re-test just shows the potential prevalence of doping in the sports (again, confirms what we already know/suspected) and the testing technology is far behind the doping practices.

It's been shown that UKAD decreased the number if tests on its own athletes leading up to London '12. It's been shown that IAAF decreased the number of tests at world championships.

Testing positive is bad for business.

I used to follow these things, but nobody is ever actually sanctioned. Just one or two throwers and a Russian runner. The rest vanish.

Citizen Runner wrote:

That seems inconsistent with the headline which I interpret as 45 in the second wave of testing. I wonder if one or the other is a typo.

Doh!, never mind.

45 in the second wave, 30 from 2008 plus 15 from 2012

53 in the first wave, 30 from 2008 plus 23 from 2012

And the % is higher if you do the math: dopers/medalists

Citizen Runner wrote:

confused i am wrote:

Yes, I figured it was the same 30. Thanks.

That seems inconsistent with the headline which I interpret as 45 in the second wave of testing. I wonder if one or the other is a typo.

Poseidon wrote:

Of course, no names given

The protocol is that the athlete and the athlete's national governing body are notified and they or a proxy may be present for B sample testing. Names are supposed to be released only after the B sample test.

Sorry, my comment was garbled. I think there were 2 different groups of 30.

Ben L Wrong wrote:

Spotter of dopers wrote:

What source might that be?

You heard it.

Leo Manzano, better you watch the news in the next hours/days.

I wish you actually had a source that was telling you anything.

I mean, EVERY real fan of the sport who watched the 1500 knew Mac was doped. Watching the semi-finals, I said to my wife, "I have no idea who that guy is, he's doped, and he's going to win gold." When its that obvious, and that easy to predict, it shouldn't take this long to bust.

Furthermore, he was training under a coach and with a group that was just CAUGHT doping. He may have not been there when they were caught, but he was with them when he was at his peak. The man is dirty and above all others, I hope to see him banned and stripped of his medal. (On second thought, Ganzebe is high on my list too.)

I really wish you knew something. Stop playing with my heart.

As usual, most of the names will never be announced.

The Meta Effect wrote:

Need to ask wrote:

I'm actually confused why you are confused. The passage you quoted seems very clear to me.

And I am confused about why you are confused why he is confused.

I'm confused about why I'm confused that anybody would ever be confused.

Devil Dog wrote:

I really wish you knew something. Stop playing with my heart.

My source is a Brazillian sports journalist, close to Rio Organization.

But he doesn't know if it is Makh-daddy. He only heard about a "1500m finalist"

I am not aware if any names have been published. Not running-related, but female Turkish weightlifter Sibel Özkan and 2008 silver medalist has been mentioned as one who tested positive, at least according to Swedish media.

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=179&artikel=6480550

What I would like to know is whether the type of tests that have just been run were available in 2008 and 2012.

If so, that would raise a new question: namely why these athletes didn't fail tests at the time.

Aragon wrote:

I am not aware if any names have been published. Not running-related, but female Turkish weightlifter Sibel Özkan and 2008 silver medalist has been mentioned as one who tested positive, at least according to Swedish media.

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=179&artikel=6480550

I'd be shocked if a female Turkish weightlifter wasn't doping.

Next!

Doubtful, doping does not help endurance athletes.

Ben L Wrong wrote:

Some sources are saying one of the positives is from the 1500m final!!!!!!

cleans wrote:

What I would like to know is whether the type of tests that have just been run were available in 2008 and 2012.

If so, that would raise a new question: namely why these athletes didn't fail tests at the time.

These are very interesting questions indeed, as according to some sources, the substance that got Özkan busted was stanozolol, one of the old-school anabolic steroids. Very strange, because my impression is that there are clear thresholds when a sample is considered positive for anabolic steroids (certain level of nanograms/millilitre), because body could possibly convert testosterone to anabolic steroids because they are chemically so closely alike. I don't know whether the threshold for adverse analytical finding has been lowered since 2008/2012 or what is actually going on here.

One far possibility is that the urine samples were rendered un-testable in the first place with altering pH-value or through some other method (urinating through fingernails) and accredited labs can now undo the process and test these samples.

Perhaps it is easiest simply to wait for further news releases.

cleans wrote:

What I would like to know is whether the type of tests that have just been run were available in 2008 and 2012.

If so, that would raise a new question: namely why these athletes didn't fail tests at the time.

In many cases, they are. But the HGH, Testosterone, , Insulin and CERA tests are not part of regular screening. Not all urine samples are tested for EPO.

So a lot of times, these retests aren't actually repeat tests, just new analyses on the samples. The decision is based on targetted testing based on investigative evidence.

For example, NOP's samples were likely given the regular screening in 2008. But allegations of Testosterone surface, so during the batch of retests, they now use the carbon isotope test on their samples. Same could go with Russians and EPO; likely not originally tested in the first screening, but testers do a double take after revelations, and target those athletes with an EPO test.

cleans wrote:

What I would like to know is whether the type of tests that have just been run were available in 2008 and 2012.

If so, that would raise a new question: namely why these athletes didn't fail tests at the time.

That is a good question.

Here are some answers.

Bingo!:

The test for EPO detection has also recently been improved. The period of time for detection is now longer than before.

How long is the window for detection now?

I am sorry.

That is a secret.

No sh!t.

And I'm sick to death of these revelations that are never to be heard about again!

Names or STFU!

Why are people saying the names won't be published?

Surely the IAAF have to publish the names eventually, and if that isn't the case then why isn't WADA and other bodies on their case demanding names?