Look for athletes who conveniently get 'injured' in the next couple of weeks.
Look for athletes who conveniently get 'injured' in the next couple of weeks.
Cue Sprintgeezer in 3......2......1......
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.
so how long does that take, 8 years? We heard about positives from beijing months ago and still no names.
Deanouk wrote:
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?
Maybe they will, maybe they won't but the precedent is not strong.
I looked it up before and can't remember now, but the requirements of the national federation, international federation or NADO to report sanctions are very loose. There are many cases where nothing is publicized, and then an athlete is revealed to be several months into their ban when an update to the sanctioned list comes out.
In fact, I haven't looked at the latest IAAF sanctioned lists. It could be that the athletes from retest v1.0 are listed. We know national federations want to stay as quiet as possible...
Deanouk, you ask why people say the names won't be published.
When are we going to see the 32 re-test positives from 2005/2007 that were announced before World's last year (article 2)?
When are we going to see the 99 Meldonium positives announced earlier this year? (article 1--answer, they're all probably going to get off because the substance could have stayed in their system longer than anticipated). We won't even know many of those that were cleared but still doping with this.
http://olympics.nbcsports.com/2016/03/11/list-of-athletes-test-positive-meldonium-doping/%20
http://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/positive-retests-helsinki-2005-osaka-2007
Alright now I'm confused
I seem to remember a big announcement about 2 years ago of like 117 positives-whatever happened to that
Clerk got banned wrote:
I looked it up before and can't remember now, but the requirements of the national federation, international federation or NADO to report sanctions are very loose. There are many cases where nothing is publicized, and then an athlete is revealed to be several months into their ban when an update to the sanctioned list comes out.
In fact, I haven't looked at the latest IAAF sanctioned lists. It could be that the athletes from retest v1.0 are listed. We know national federations want to stay as quiet as possible...
I think we're still waiting on B samples for a bunch of them, but many of the names from round 1 were leaked in the media.
Twitter.com/OlympicStatman is really one of the best resources, as soon as a name is leaked he'll tweet about it.
I'm calling ut a bus load of Russkies and a boatload of north Africans, and an Eyetalian.
Poseidon wrote:
Of course, no names given
The sample set (likely targeted based on prior scores) returning only 45 failures is a joke. That means it's probably all urinalysis.
We'll very likely see no bio-passport anything. That's where all the action is.
jjjjjj wrote:
Deanouk, you ask why people say the names won't be published.
When are we going to see the 32 re-test positives from 2005/2007 that were announced before World's last year (article 2)?
When are we going to see the 99 Meldonium positives announced earlier this year? (article 1--answer, they're all probably going to get off because the substance could have stayed in their system longer than anticipated). We won't even know many of those that were cleared but still doping with this.
http://olympics.nbcsports.com/2016/03/11/list-of-athletes-test-positive-meldonium-doping/%20http://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/positive-retests-helsinki-2005-osaka-2007
+100
The longer they can dribble them out as secretly as possible the better for everyone. By "everyone" I mean the IAAF.
only 45? the real figure would be 100 times that.
I'm not sure -- I guess it's easier to complain, than to search at "iaaf.org".The IAAF publishes names regularly at their website. I don't know about all of the other Olympic sports.For these IOC retests of the Olympic Games, the athletes still have a right of due process. It is inappropriate to name names now.The next step requires getting the respective national federations involved, possible B-Sample retests, collection of data/interviews with the athletes, reviews by panels of experts, etc.I don't see how the announcement of names can properly come any other way, but trickling out over time.If someone is truly interested in published names, the IAAF regularly maintains a list of sanctioned athletes, last updated this week (20 July):"List of athletes currently serving a period of ineligibility as a result of an anti-doping rule violation under IAAF rules"http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/documents/anti-doping
Deanouk wrote:
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?
So, you are saying, from a partial selection of 524 samples, you would expect about 4500 positives? Netting 8.5% of new positives from retests looks (disturbingly) rather significant.From the article:- 53 new positives from the first wave of tests- 45 new positives from the second wave of tests- two more sets of retesting are due to take placeThis seems to me like good news and bad news:- Catching 98 "new" athletes, and possibly about another 100 from the next two "waves", with the retests is a positive step forward (pardon the pun)- How were so many missed the first time around? Have the tests improved so much since 2008? Was it a lack of funding for testing more samples at the time?
jeff tallon wrote:
only 45? the real figure would be 100 times that.
Without names given it is just dirt in the wind.
If true announce the names and publicly request back medals and money. This disgrace has somehow to be eliminated. It paifull for any sport.
rekrunner wrote:
I don't see how the announcement of names can properly come any other way, but trickling out over time.
If someone is truly interested in published names, the IAAF regularly maintains a list of sanctioned athletes, last updated this week (20 July):
"List of athletes currently serving a period of ineligibility as a result of an anti-doping rule violation under IAAF rules"
http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/documents/anti-doping
Compare that list with
http://www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/positive-retests-helsinki-2005-osaka-2007, dated from August 2015:
"the IAAF made a second reanalysis of Helsinki 2005 and Osaka 2007 samples. This reanalysis has confirmed a further 28 athletes with 32 adverse findings. "
Helsinki was in August 2005, Osaka in August-September 2007.
So, how many athletes were sanctioned for Helsinki and Osaka after August 2015? Less than a handful from the 28, according to IAAF's list, "trickling out over time" during twelve months.
Oh boy.
So we seem to agree that the IAAF regularly publishes names.
And we can see that retroactive bans gets picked up by the media:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/athletics/article4633605.ece
And the IAAF updates the official results:
It's a fair point that this list is likely far from complete as:
"Due to the legal process, none of these athletes can be named yet."
12 months, as long as that sounds, might not be long enough.
But more importantly:
"A large majority of the 28 are retired, some are athletes who have already been sanctioned, and only very few remain active in sport."
Maybe someone will be inclined to do a "FOIA" type request for followups.
come on, it's definitely galkina this time
El Keniano wrote:
Look for athletes who conveniently get 'injured' in the next couple of weeks.
My thoughts exactly.