I'm not sure it's possible for anyone to effectively demonstrate that the IAAF is a clean and effective organisation to the satisfaction of those who have already convinced themselves (rightly or wrongly) that it is corrupt etc.
You'll never get a senior IAAF official who isn't close to current and former athletes, nor one who hasn't had close ties with a major sports company. Unless you want someone with no insight into athletics to be running the ship.
larkimm wrote:
I'm not sure it's possible for anyone to effectively demonstrate that the IAAF is a clean and effective organisation to the satisfaction of those who have already convinced themselves (rightly or wrongly) that it is corrupt etc.
You'll never get a senior IAAF official who isn't close to current and former athletes, nor one who hasn't had close ties with a major sports company. Unless you want someone with no insight into athletics to be running the ship.
Previous head. Does this sway you? Remember, Coe as his protege "knew nothing".
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/sports/olympics/papa-massata-diack-iaaf.amp.htmlReklessrunner wrote:
Rekrunner. What is your opinion on Coe and his position with the IAAF and whilst at FIFA (head of ethics at FIFA, ha ha ha!). Do you believe that he has no involvement with any of the corruption that engulfed these two organisations?
The relevance of this is that if this kind of mass corruption was common place how can we believe that any of the testing, protocol is genuine?
I would argue that Coe's personal and business relationships with current and former athletes (Radcliffe and Farah for a start not to mention Nike ) are too close for him to be objective in his judgement.
I don't believe for a second that the whole story has come out as far as IAAF is concerned. Whether it will is another story but given the corruption involved why would you ever believe that the testing around the sport's biggest stars and moneyspinners was whiter than white?
It's the equivalent of finding wholesale corruption involving every level of a business yet believing there is no need to investigate their tax returns because 'that was all being done correctly'....
You are the Letsrun equivalent of the Emperors New Clothes.
Don't ask rekrunner this...he'll give us a several paragraph dissertation that all is well & good. Rekrunner simply sees the doping world through rose-colored glasses. ?
Ok - but realize that at minimum, banging at the door occurs too.
Interestingly, Farah put a video about the doorbell on youtube, but not about banging at the door...
See also from your source:
"Simms submitted video evidence to UKAD to back up the athlete's defence that he did not hear the doorbell"
So they were concerned, at minimum.
casual obsever wrote:
Ok - but realize that at minimum, banging at the door occurs too.
Interestingly, Farah put a video about the doorbell on youtube, but not about banging at the door...
See also from your source:
"Simms submitted video evidence to UKAD to back up the athlete's defence that he did not hear the doorbell"
So they were concerned, at minimum.
As they should be - quite right. Just saying you didn't hear it certainly shouldn't be a reason to have no black mark on your record at all. I think the balance was just in whether this amounted to effectively an intentional attempt to avoid sampling, or a reasonable human error. If Farah had lived in a one bed flat with a front door next to his bedroom (as I expect some less well paid runners who are on whereabouts might do) clearly his excuse might have lost some of the plausbility, so getting evidence of how reasonable it might be not to hear something was worth doing by UKAD. After all, their whole raison d'etre is to be constantly suspicious of everyone.
Very clear wrote:
larkimm wrote:
I'm not sure it's possible for anyone to effectively demonstrate that the IAAF is a clean and effective organisation to the satisfaction of those who have already convinced themselves (rightly or wrongly) that it is corrupt etc.
You'll never get a senior IAAF official who isn't close to current and former athletes, nor one who hasn't had close ties with a major sports company. Unless you want someone with no insight into athletics to be running the ship.
Previous head. Does this sway you? Remember, Coe as his protege "knew nothing".
Fraud is fraud. By its very nature it is deliberately "hidden" by the perpetrators. The best frauds are either carried out by someone insignificant with undocumented powers or by collusion by a cabal of influential individuals. It seems that in the IAAF case, the Diack cabal had too much influence and was able to carry out their fraudulent activities hidden.
In terms of Coe knowing or not knowing - if I was Diack, the first thing I would have done once the lid was blown was take down as many others with me. The fact that he wasn't able to undermine Coe in this suggests to me that Coe was actually unaware. But we all draw different, personal views.
casual obsever wrote:
Ok - but realize that at minimum, banging at the door occurs too.
Interestingly, Farah put a video about the doorbell on youtube, but not about banging at the door...
See also from your source:
"Simms submitted video evidence to UKAD to back up the athlete's defence that he did not hear the doorbell"
So they were concerned, at minimum.
Ok but realise that Farah's house is probably quite big
My point is that if you truly want to change a corrupt organization, you change as many heads as possible, especially at the top. Here, only 1 of the top 3 was removed, and number 2 was promoted to number 1. Yes, the same number 2 who view number 1 as his spiritual leader.
casual obsever wrote:
My point is that if you truly want to change a corrupt organization, you change as many heads as possible, especially at the top. Here, only 1 of the top 3 was removed, and number 2 was promoted to number 1. Yes, the same number 2 who view number 1 as his spiritual leader.
I think it's fairly obvious to anyone that that "spiritual leader" tag isn't one that Coe would sign up to today and he'll rue the day he said it. We're all capable of misjudgements - just look at how many people pledge to spend their lives with their beloved ones and then end up in acrimonious divorces!!
Sebastian Coe's attempts at damage limitation last week after the revelation that the International Association of Athletics Federation had turned a blind eye to hundreds of suspicious blood tests gave me such a Groundhog Day feeling I half expected Bill Murray and Andie McDowell to hop up on the stage beside him.
We were back again with Pat McQuaid excoriating Lance Armstrong's accusers and Sepp Blatter pooh-poohing allegations of FIFA corruption. The man from the organisation at the centre of the controversy lashed out at the whistleblowers and the media and decided to get all bullish about the good name of his people. "It's a declaration of war on my sport," said the former Tory MP for Falmouth and Camborne.
As always in these cases the impression was of someone more concerned with protecting his own fiefdom than reaching out to neutrals concerned by the evidence of apparent wrongdoing.
Witness his description of Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto, the two specialists in this field, who analysed the test results for The Sunday Times and their colleagues in breaking the story German broadcaster ARD, as, "These SO-CALLED- EXPERTS - GIVE ME A BREAK. I know who I would believe."
Well, the IAAF judged Ashenden to be sufficiently expert to have employed him as recently as 2012 while more recently he's been an expert witness in a court case concerning the doping practices of Armstrong.
And despite the IAAF's claim that last week's report was "sensationalist and confusing," both Ashenden and Parisotto are sticking to their guns, commenting: "We note the concerns raised by the IAAF with regard to the analyses we undertook of the data. We have rebutted each and every one of their so-called 'serious reservations'. We followed the same procedure as IAAF expert panellists when reviewing Athletic Biological Passport profiles, classifying results as 'likely doping' when we were able to confidently exclude all other potential causes, or instead 'suspicious' when there was genuine evidence of blood manipulation."
Ashenden and Parisotto were called in after The Sunday Times and ARD came into possession of a database showing blood test results for around 5,000 athletes. And what they found was that around 800 of these athletes returned results which suggested either likely doping or a suspicion of doping between 2001 and 2012. The athletes in question have won 146 Olympic and World medals, including 55 golds.
Over a third of medal winners in the endurance events are implicated.
Last year the UCI took 9,483 blood and urine samples, the IAAF took 3,881. The UCI tested 3,252 competitors for EPO to the IAAF's 1,563. And the Biological Passport tests Coe boasted about last week? Cycling carried out 8,053 of them to 3,317 in athletics. Which is pretty unimpressive for athletics given that it has a much larger number of international competitors than cycling.
Australian Blood Experts From ARD/Sunday Times Report Respond To Serious Reservations Expressed By IAAF
Email this page
Press Release
August 5, 2015
Blood experts, Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto, respond to serious reservations expressed by IAAF in relation to The Sunday Times investigation into blood doping in athletics.
Overview
We note the concerns raised by the IAAF with regard to the analyses we undertook of the data. We have rebutted each and every one of their so-called ‘serious reservations’. The pre-2009 data is reliable, in fact by their own admission the IAAF has relied on those data to extend sanctions against athletes. We followed the same procedure as IAAF expert panelists when reviewing ABP profiles, classifying results as ‘likely doping’ when we were able to confidently exclude all other potential causes or instead ‘suspicious’ when there was genuine evidence of blood manipulation however further investigation such as target testing would have been required. And for the avoidance of doubt, we based our judgments on the entire blood test profile for the athlete not just on individual scores. We stand by the evaluations we submitted to Sunday Times and ARD/WDR.
General response to the IAAF media release
A detailed response is included as an addendum, but we make the following general observations.
‘It is unscientific to compare data collected prior to 2009’
Last December, the IAAF stated that: “When they are available, the IAAF has used the blood values prior to 2009 as “secondary evidence” in support of an increased sanction in addition to the post-2009 profile to establish the athlete’s long history of doping”.
In our opinion, if the pre-2009 data are considered sufficiently reliable to extend a sanction, then they are also sufficiently reliable to undertake our analyses.
‘The scientists had no authority to comment because of their lack of knowledge of the IAAF programme…it was pure guesswork’
Since 2011 Robin Parisotto has been retained by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) to review blood profiles of their elite track and field athletes. Consequently, he is currently providing expert opinion to multiple disciplinary proceedings involving IAAF athletes.
Michael Ashenden was a member of the WADA Passport Committee that devised targeting strategies for international federations such as the IAAF to adopt.
Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto were both founding members of the UCI’s Expert Panel, they have each provided expert testimony to disciplinary cases before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and have both advised anti-doping organisations on how to undertake target testing of athletes suspected of blood doping.
Professor Giuseppe d’Onofrio’s statement: ‘In particular, one should refrain from making any authoritative conclusion on individual cases on the basis of a one-off value, let alone when this value has been collected before the formal introduction of the ABP in 2009’
Many years before the standardisations he referred to were implemented, Prof d’Onofrio interpreted ‘raw data’ (in particular, medical documents seized during raids on the Juventus club offices in 1998) and felt sufficiently comfortable interpreting those ‘raw data’ to reach a conclusion that he was “practically certain” they had taken EPO.
When an abnormal result was present, the entire profile for the athlete was extracted from the data base and evaluated in its entirety;
We consider that the comparatively conservative conclusion we reached of ‘likely doping’ was warranted, given that the data we interpreted had been collected under the stringent IAAF Blood Testing Protocol.
Concluding remarks
We note that when the IAAF analysed the same raw data reported on by Sunday Times and ARD/WDR, they felt the data were sufficiently reliable for them to publish their conclusion that increased blood values “most probably implicated a doping behaviour” (see Clinical Chemistry Vol 57 no. 5 p765). We draw no distinction between the terminology used by IAAF and ourselves.
Finally, we note the IAAF’s confirmation that the database is “not a secret or hidden document in any way” and that the IAAF welcomes the opportunity to present to the Independent Commission. We therefore call on the IAAF to give a public undertaking that it will immediatelyshare the entire database with Dick Pound’s independent review.
Addendum
A detailed response to each of the serious reservations expressed by the IAAF is included below.
The two scientists should never have accepted to review blood data.
We acknowledge that the views on how much assistance should be provided to whistleblowers are contentious. We each sought a concrete undertaking from Sunday Times and ARD/WDR that our opinions on individual athletes would never be disclosed. In other words, we insisted on the same protections for individual athletes as the IAAF afforded to athletes when they published their own prevalence findings in 2011.
They sought to draw conclusions on the prevalence of blood doping in athletics today based on suspicious blood values that were collected up to 14 years ago.
We agree. Similarly, the IAAF sought to draw conclusions on the prevalence of blood doping in 2001, which was ten years after they published their findings. We do not see the distinction between those two scenarios.
The data reviewed by the scientists is now outdated.
That is arguable because some athletes are still competing. Nevertheless, that does not prevent the interpretation of blood data from 2001-2012, which is what we performed.
They sought to raise suspicions of blood doping on the basis of an analysis of the raw data only (including data collected prior to the introduction of the ABP) and in the absence of all the related information that is necessary for a rigorous interpretation of the results.
The IAAF analysed the exact same ‘raw data’ in their 2011 publication, when they felt comfortable drawing the conclusion “most probably implicated a doping behaviour” from elevated blood values in those raw data. The terminology we applied was “likely doping” which in every material way is entirely consistent with the IAAF’s terminology.
It is unscientific in the context of the current ABP system to seek to compare data that has been collected prior to 2009 (from samples that were not collected or analysed in a standardised manner) and data collected after 2009 that is derived from samples collected and analysed in accordance with the strict criteria of the WADA ABP Operating Guidelines.
In fact, all samples in the data base were collected and analysed in a standardised manner. This is confirmed by the IAAF in the Supplemental Data which accompanied the online publication of their 2011 article. Specifically, “Blood samples in the database were collected, transported and analysed following the IAAF Blood Testing Protocol” (see p1).
http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/5/762/suppl/DC1
As the IAAF attests in their media release, they specifically set out to ensure their blood tests were reliable. As the IAAF media release states: “The IAAF Blood Testing Protocol indeed eventually formed the outline basis for the WADA Guidelines which were adopted in 2009.”(see p6).
It is our opinion that the results were collected under a sufficiently standardised procedure to permit a valid scientific analysis of the data.
There is no clear indication of the number of suspicious profiles reviewed by the scientists that actually resulted in the IAAF concluding Adverse Analytical or Adverse Passport Findings.
We each assessed the data independently and forwarded our conclusions to the Sunday Times who collated our data. The Sunday Times then cross matched athletes with their competition results and any history of sanctions.
The scientists had no authority to comment on whether or not the IAAF had followed up on suspicious samples because of a lack of knowledge of the IAAF programme and a lack of experience in the field of Athletics generally. It was pure guesswork on their part.
Since 2011 Robin Parisotto has been retained by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) to review blood profiles of their elite track and field athletes. Consequently, he is currently providing expert opinion to multiple disciplinary proceedings involving IAAF athletes.
Michael Ashenden was a member of the WADA Passport Committee that devised targeting strategies for international federations such as the IAAF to adopt.
Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto were both founding members of the UCI’s Expert Panel, they have each provided expert testimony to disciplinary cases before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and have both advised anti-doping organisations on how to undertake target testing of athletes suspected of blood doping.
Professor Giuseppe d’Onofrio’s comments as to the dangers of comparing pre and post-2009 data.
The IAAF compares pre and post-2009 data when they use blood values prior to 2009 as “secondary evidence” in support of an increased sanction in addition to the post-2009 profile to establish the athlete’s long history of doping;
In our opinion, if the data are sufficiently valid to increase a sanction, then they are also sufficiently valid to draw a conclusion about ‘likely’ blood doping.
Overview of how blood profiles were evaluated
The data base comprised key blood results such as haemoglobin and reticulocyte levels, from which the OFF score was calculated;
Sorting the data according to these key variables quickly flagged those results that exceeded published thresholds utilised by anti-doping authorities to designate results as abnormal. Such results indicate the possible use of blood doping;
When an abnormal result was present, the entire profile for the athlete was extracted from the data base and evaluated in its entirety;
When potential medical and physiological factors that can affect the key blood profiles could confidently be excluded, the athlete was flagged as ‘likely blood doping’;
Results that were flagged as ‘suspicious’ represented genuine evidence of potential doping, but other factors such as medical or physiological conditions could not be confidently ruled out. Such profiles required further investigation, such as targeted testing, to determine whether blood doping had indeed taken place.
These two categories (‘likely blood doping’ and ‘suspicious’) are equivalent to the designations that IAAF expert panelists are asked to submit when ‘raw data’ in ABP profiles containing abnormal results are sent for expert review.
In summary, the analyses undertaken on behalf of Sunday Times and ADR/WDR followed the same underpinning principle which the IAAF Anti-Doping Commission members adopted for the publication of their prevalence findings in 2011. Namely, that large fluctuations within an athlete’s profile may provide strong evidence of blood manipulation.
Specifically, every athlete was assessed in terms of their entire blood profile. Appropriate weighting was afforded to results in light of the standard of blood collection at the time the sample was collected. Further, as attested to by the IAAF’s published article, it was possible to make an allowance for altitude where necessary because the altitude of the testing location depicted in the database followed a distribution similar to that of the altitude of the training location.
Michael Ashenden
Robin Parisotto
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-4177156/Nick-Davies-expelled-IAAF.html
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/sebastian-coe-inquiry-russia-doping
http://1gr.cz/fotky/idnes/16/012/cl6/TEN609f8d_5d9827989ce9440f823409972d04c9f9_0.jpg
Lord Sebastian = Total Joke
Blood Test Expert.President. Lord Sebastian Coe of Monaco: wrote:
Sebastian Coe's attempts at damage limitation last week after the revelation that the International Association of Athletics Federation had turned a blind eye to hundreds of suspicious blood tests gave me such a Groundhog Day feeling I half expected Bill Murray and Andie McDowell to hop up on the stage beside him.
We were back again with Pat McQuaid excoriating Lance Armstrong's accusers and Sepp Blatter pooh-poohing allegations of FIFA corruption. The man from the organisation at the centre of the controversy lashed out at the whistleblowers and the media and decided to get all bullish about the good name of his people. "It's a declaration of war on my sport," said the former Tory MP for Falmouth and Camborne.
As always in these cases the impression was of someone more concerned with protecting his own fiefdom than reaching out to neutrals concerned by the evidence of apparent wrongdoing.
Witness his description of Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto, the two specialists in this field, who analysed the test results for The Sunday Times and their colleagues in breaking the story German broadcaster ARD, as, "These SO-CALLED- EXPERTS - GIVE ME A BREAK. I know who I would believe."
Well, the IAAF judged Ashenden to be sufficiently expert to have employed him as recently as 2012 while more recently he's been an expert witness in a court case concerning the doping practices of Armstrong.
And despite the IAAF's claim that last week's report was "sensationalist and confusing," both Ashenden and Parisotto are sticking to their guns, commenting: "We note the concerns raised by the IAAF with regard to the analyses we undertook of the data. We have rebutted each and every one of their so-called 'serious reservations'. We followed the same procedure as IAAF expert panellists when reviewing Athletic Biological Passport profiles, classifying results as 'likely doping' when we were able to confidently exclude all other potential causes, or instead 'suspicious' when there was genuine evidence of blood manipulation."
Ashenden and Parisotto were called in after The Sunday Times and ARD came into possession of a database showing blood test results for around 5,000 athletes. And what they found was that around 800 of these athletes returned results which suggested either likely doping or a suspicion of doping between 2001 and 2012. The athletes in question have won 146 Olympic and World medals, including 55 golds.
Over a third of medal winners in the endurance events are implicated.
Last year the UCI took 9,483 blood and urine samples, the IAAF took 3,881. The UCI tested 3,252 competitors for EPO to the IAAF's 1,563. And the Biological Passport tests Coe boasted about last week? Cycling carried out 8,053 of them to 3,317 in athletics. Which is pretty unimpressive for athletics given that it has a much larger number of international competitors than cycling.
https://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/sebastian-coes-pathetic-statement-on-iaaf-revelations-is-worrying-31437497.htmlhttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11783081/Athletics-drugs-scandal-IAAF-slams-sensationalist-and-confusing-allegations.htmlAustralian Blood Experts From ARD/Sunday Times Report Respond To Serious Reservations Expressed By IAAF
Email this page
Press Release
August 5, 2015
Blood experts, Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto, respond to serious reservations expressed by IAAF in relation to The Sunday Times investigation into blood doping in athletics.
Overview
We note the concerns raised by the IAAF with regard to the analyses we undertook of the data. We have rebutted each and every one of their so-called ‘serious reservations’. The pre-2009 data is reliable, in fact by their own admission the IAAF has relied on those data to extend sanctions against athletes. We followed the same procedure as IAAF expert panelists when reviewing ABP profiles, classifying results as ‘likely doping’ when we were able to confidently exclude all other potential causes or instead ‘suspicious’ when there was genuine evidence of blood manipulation however further investigation such as target testing would have been required. And for the avoidance of doubt, we based our judgments on the entire blood test profile for the athlete not just on individual scores. We stand by the evaluations we submitted to Sunday Times and ARD/WDR.
General response to the IAAF media release
A detailed response is included as an addendum, but we make the following general observations.
‘It is unscientific to compare data collected prior to 2009’
Last December, the IAAF stated that: “When they are available, the IAAF has used the blood values prior to 2009 as “secondary evidence” in support of an increased sanction in addition to the post-2009 profile to establish the athlete’s long history of doping”.
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2014/12/iaaf-spokesman-nick-davies-writes-letsrun-com-reports-iaaf-not-follow-retesting-150-suspicious-samples-2006-2008/In our opinion, if the pre-2009 data are considered sufficiently reliable to extend a sanction, then they are also sufficiently reliable to undertake our analyses.
‘The scientists had no authority to comment because of their lack of knowledge of the IAAF programme…it was pure guesswork’
Since 2011 Robin Parisotto has been retained by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) to review blood profiles of their elite track and field athletes. Consequently, he is currently providing expert opinion to multiple disciplinary proceedings involving IAAF athletes.
Michael Ashenden was a member of the WADA Passport Committee that devised targeting strategies for international federations such as the IAAF to adopt.
Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto were both founding members of the UCI’s Expert Panel, they have each provided expert testimony to disciplinary cases before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and have both advised anti-doping organisations on how to undertake target testing of athletes suspected of blood doping.
Professor Giuseppe d’Onofrio’s statement: ‘In particular, one should refrain from making any authoritative conclusion on individual cases on the basis of a one-off value, let alone when this value has been collected before the formal introduction of the ABP in 2009’
Many years before the standardisations he referred to were implemented, Prof d’Onofrio interpreted ‘raw data’ (in particular, medical documents seized during raids on the Juventus club offices in 1998) and felt sufficiently comfortable interpreting those ‘raw data’ to reach a conclusion that he was “practically certain” they had taken EPO.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-drug-scandal-that-blackens-the-name-of-juves-team-of-the-nineties-6156776.htmlWhen an abnormal result was present, the entire profile for the athlete was extracted from the data base and evaluated in its entirety;
We consider that the comparatively conservative conclusion we reached of ‘likely doping’ was warranted, given that the data we interpreted had been collected under the stringent IAAF Blood Testing Protocol.
Concluding remarks
We note that when the IAAF analysed the same raw data reported on by Sunday Times and ARD/WDR, they felt the data were sufficiently reliable for them to publish their conclusion that increased blood values “most probably implicated a doping behaviour” (see Clinical Chemistry Vol 57 no. 5 p765). We draw no distinction between the terminology used by IAAF and ourselves.
Finally, we note the IAAF’s confirmation that the database is “not a secret or hidden document in any way” and that the IAAF welcomes the opportunity to present to the Independent Commission. We therefore call on the IAAF to give a public undertaking that it will immediatelyshare the entire database with Dick Pound’s independent review.
Addendum
A detailed response to each of the serious reservations expressed by the IAAF is included below.
The two scientists should never have accepted to review blood data.
We acknowledge that the views on how much assistance should be provided to whistleblowers are contentious. We each sought a concrete undertaking from Sunday Times and ARD/WDR that our opinions on individual athletes would never be disclosed. In other words, we insisted on the same protections for individual athletes as the IAAF afforded to athletes when they published their own prevalence findings in 2011.
They sought to draw conclusions on the prevalence of blood doping in athletics today based on suspicious blood values that were collected up to 14 years ago.
We agree. Similarly, the IAAF sought to draw conclusions on the prevalence of blood doping in 2001, which was ten years after they published their findings. We do not see the distinction between those two scenarios.
The data reviewed by the scientists is now outdated.
That is arguable because some athletes are still competing. Nevertheless, that does not prevent the interpretation of blood data from 2001-2012, which is what we performed.
They sought to raise suspicions of blood doping on the basis of an analysis of the raw data only (including data collected prior to the introduction of the ABP) and in the absence of all the related information that is necessary for a rigorous interpretation of the results.
The IAAF analysed the exact same ‘raw data’ in their 2011 publication, when they felt comfortable drawing the conclusion “most probably implicated a doping behaviour” from elevated blood values in those raw data. The terminology we applied was “likely doping” which in every material way is entirely consistent with the IAAF’s terminology.
It is unscientific in the context of the current ABP system to seek to compare data that has been collected prior to 2009 (from samples that were not collected or analysed in a standardised manner) and data collected after 2009 that is derived from samples collected and analysed in accordance with the strict criteria of the WADA ABP Operating Guidelines.
In fact, all samples in the data base were collected and analysed in a standardised manner. This is confirmed by the IAAF in the Supplemental Data which accompanied the online publication of their 2011 article. Specifically, “Blood samples in the database were collected, transported and analysed following the IAAF Blood Testing Protocol” (see p1).
http://www.clinchem.org/content/57/5/762/suppl/DC1As the IAAF attests in their media release, they specifically set out to ensure their blood tests were reliable. As the IAAF media release states: “The IAAF Blood Testing Protocol indeed eventually formed the outline basis for the WADA Guidelines which were adopted in 2009.”(see p6).
It is our opinion that the results were collected under a sufficiently standardised procedure to permit a valid scientific analysis of the data.
There is no clear indication of the number of suspicious profiles reviewed by the scientists that actually resulted in the IAAF concluding Adverse Analytical or Adverse Passport Findings.
We each assessed the data independently and forwarded our conclusions to the Sunday Times who collated our data. The Sunday Times then cross matched athletes with their competition results and any history of sanctions.
The scientists had no authority to comment on whether or not the IAAF had followed up on suspicious samples because of a lack of knowledge of the IAAF programme and a lack of experience in the field of Athletics generally. It was pure guesswork on their part.
Since 2011 Robin Parisotto has been retained by the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) to review blood profiles of their elite track and field athletes. Consequently, he is currently providing expert opinion to multiple disciplinary proceedings involving IAAF athletes.
Michael Ashenden was a member of the WADA Passport Committee that devised targeting strategies for international federations such as the IAAF to adopt.
Michael Ashenden and Robin Parisotto were both founding members of the UCI’s Expert Panel, they have each provided expert testimony to disciplinary cases before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and have both advised anti-doping organisations on how to undertake target testing of athletes suspected of blood doping.
Professor Giuseppe d’Onofrio’s comments as to the dangers of comparing pre and post-2009 data.
The IAAF compares pre and post-2009 data when they use blood values prior to 2009 as “secondary evidence” in support of an increased sanction in addition to the post-2009 profile to establish the athlete’s long history of doping;
In our opinion, if the data are sufficiently valid to increase a sanction, then they are also sufficiently valid to draw a conclusion about ‘likely’ blood doping.
Overview of how blood profiles were evaluated
The data base comprised key blood results such as haemoglobin and reticulocyte levels, from which the OFF score was calculated;
Sorting the data according to these key variables quickly flagged those results that exceeded published thresholds utilised by anti-doping authorities to designate results as abnormal. Such results indicate the possible use of blood doping;
When an abnormal result was present, the entire profile for the athlete was extracted from the data base and evaluated in its entirety;
When potential medical and physiological factors that can affect the key blood profiles could confidently be excluded, the athlete was flagged as ‘likely blood doping’;
Results that were flagged as ‘suspicious’ represented genuine evidence of potential doping, but other factors such as medical or physiological conditions could not be confidently ruled out. Such profiles required further investigation, such as targeted testing, to determine whether blood doping had indeed taken place.
These two categories (‘likely blood doping’ and ‘suspicious’) are equivalent to the designations that IAAF expert panelists are asked to submit when ‘raw data’ in ABP profiles containing abnormal results are sent for expert review.
In summary, the analyses undertaken on behalf of Sunday Times and ADR/WDR followed the same underpinning principle which the IAAF Anti-Doping Commission members adopted for the publication of their prevalence findings in 2011. Namely, that large fluctuations within an athlete’s profile may provide strong evidence of blood manipulation.
Specifically, every athlete was assessed in terms of their entire blood profile. Appropriate weighting was afforded to results in light of the standard of blood collection at the time the sample was collected. Further, as attested to by the IAAF’s published article, it was possible to make an allowance for altitude where necessary because the altitude of the testing location depicted in the database followed a distribution similar to that of the altitude of the training location.
Michael Ashenden
Robin Parisotto
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/08/australian-blood-experts-from-ardsunday-times-report-respond-to-serious-reservations-expressed-by-iaaf/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-4177156/Nick-Davies-expelled-IAAF.htmlhttps://www.express.co.uk/sport/othersport/752621/David-Bedford-surprised-and-disappointed-by-Seb-Coe-for-not-reading-Russian-doping-emailhttps://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/05/sebastian-coe-inquiry-russia-dopinghttp://1gr.cz/fotky/idnes/16/012/cl6/TEN609f8d_5d9827989ce9440f823409972d04c9f9_0.jpgLord Sebastian = Total Joke
"Coevett" thinks "Lord Sebastian" is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
larkimm wrote:
Just saying you didn't hear it certainly shouldn't be a reason to have no black mark on your record at all.
LOL. No.
In very rare instances an athlete is "surprised" with testing. 99% of the time, the test administrator calls the athlete ahead of the test to not waste everyone's time.
As it is, the testing is sparse to non-existent. If they were so lax with testing as you describe, dirty athletes would never be tested.
larkimm wrote:
We're all capable of misjudgements
Coe had upwards of 8 consecutive years of "misjudgements" as a vice-president at the IAAF. If the last report from the UK government is correct, his vice presidential duties included anti-doping.
The IAAF certainly liked the inactivity from Coe. 8 whole years of it! The only question left is what was his cut of the IAAF bribes.
Why do people keep posting numerous links and then copy & paste about 1000+ words of the report/story as if we can't click on the links and read the information ourself? ? Theses doping threads are the worst with so much copy & paste clutter it's unbelievable!
What's up with this? wrote:
Why do people keep posting numerous links and then copy & paste about 1000+ words of the report/story as if we can't click on the links and read the information ourself? ? Theses doping threads are the worst with so much copy & paste clutter it's unbelievable!
Unfortunately, no one gives a sh*t about your opinion. I am sorry about that.
Lord Coe 'misled' MPs on what he knew about doping in Russian athletics and is the figurehead of a sport with a 'tattered reputation', says a damning report.
Coe, president of athletics' world governing body the IAAF, was heavily criticised by a parliamentary select committee, with MPs questioning the IAAF's 'apparent desire to suppress revelations about doping'.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport report also expressed 'deep concern' about world athletics' willingness to share information with anti-doping agencies and asked whether the organisation is 'fully committed' to investigating 'difficult issues when they arise'.
The report concluded: 'These are matters of the greatest seriousness and affect the reputation of both the IAAF and Coe.'
Double Olympic champion Coe came in for particular condemnation over his bungled handling of initial claims Russian distance runner Liliya Shobukhova was asked to pay £330,000 to senior athletics officials to cover up positive doping tests and compete at London 2012.
Coe told MPs he did not know about 'specific allegations' until a German TV documentary aired in December 2014 but, as this newspaper and the BBC revealed in June 2016, he had been informed via an email from David Bedford, former race director of the London Marathon, four months earlier.
Coe claimed in December 2015 he neglected to open the attachment with Bedford's email and sent it on to Michael Beloff, chair of the IAAF's ethics commission.
The DCMS report, however, concluded it 'stretches credibility' to believe Coe was not aware of the allegations, 'at least in general terms'. It added it was 'disappointing' that the 61-year-old did not use the opportunity to 'make sure he was fully informed'.
MPs said Coe's observation in August 2015 that doping allegations were a 'declaration of war' on athletics was 'ill-judged'. The peer was also ridiculed for his response to questions about why the IAAF did not publish a World Anti-Doping Agency-sponsored report into doping in athletics, known as the Tubingen paper, until August 2017, some six years after it was completed.
It added: 'We find the IAAF's stated reasons for blocking publication of the study to be unconvincing, and we are concerned their behaviour indicates a lack of transparency and, worse, an apparent desire to suppress revelations about doping in sport.
'It is another example of a reluctance to share evidence relating to doping which suggests the IAAF is more concerned with preventing dissemination of evidence than addressing the core issue of doping itself. We call on Lord Coe, as president, to ensure that the IAAF acts resolutely at all times to tackle doping in athletics and to restore its tattered reputation.'
Speaking to BBC 5 Live's Sportsweek programme before the report was released, Lord Coe was asked whether he regretted sending a statement and refusing to appear in front of the committee when called for a second time in January 2017.
'I sat for well over three hours in the first select committee hearing (in December 2015),' he said. 'The questions I was posed, I answered.'
Lord and President Coe also refused to comment about the Paula "Pantani" Radcliffe scandal on Sunday:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/09/paula-radcliffe-physical-therapist-gerard-hartman-clean-dopinghttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-5460995/Athletics-reputation-tatters-Lord-Coe-condemned-MPs.htmlhttp://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/11/dr-gabriele-rosa-talks-turning-stanley-biwott-jemima-sumgong-marathon-stars-doping-kenya/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-5060239/Jemima-Sumgong-handed-four-year-doping-ban.htmlhttp://www.runblogrun.com/2016/12/boston-marathon-to-make-attempt-to-recover-175k-from-banned-runner-rita-jeptoo.htmlIt's not people -- it's just one poster. No one knows why.
What's up with this? wrote:
Why do people keep posting numerous links and then copy & paste about 1000+ words of the report/story as if we can't click on the links and read the information ourself? ? Theses doping threads are the worst with so much copy & paste clutter it's unbelievable!
https://www.rt.com/sport/421177-russian-curler-suspected-cocaine-smuggling/rekrunner wrote:
It's not people -- it's just one poster. No one knows why.
What's up with this? wrote:
Why do people keep posting numerous links and then copy & paste about 1000+ words of the report/story as if we can't click on the links and read the information ourself? ? Theses doping threads are the worst with so much copy & paste clutter it's unbelievable!
The Doper-Cheater-Liar-Fraud-Conspiracy™ is all over the planet now.
It is not a big surprise.
I have no opinion about FIFA. My opinion about the extent of proven IAAF corruption can be found in the detailed reports from the IAAF Ethics Commission, and the WADA IC. These reports named many actors who participated in the attempted bribery, extortion, delayed sanctions and cover-ups. They did not name Coe. If you need some reasons to believe the IAAF and their role in anti-doping, you should read Part III of the WADA IC Report #2: - "The IAAF was among the most active ADOs in the field of testing under the original EPO protocols and, subsequently, the ABP protocols. It has consistently followed accepted methodologies and has played an active role in the advancement of the applicable science." - "Follow up activities in the face of suspicious values have generally been thorough and reasonable in the circumstances." - "The IC does not endorse suggestions that the IAAF has not been sufficiently active in relation to EPO testing from the outset of a reliable test for rEPO. While nothing is perfect, the IAAF has been extremely active in this aspect of the fight against doping in sport." You may also want to read the IAAF's rebuttal. While some might doubt what the IAAF has to say about itself, the WADA IC and its expert group did not: - "The IAAF rebuttal dated 06 November 2015 was accepted as scientifically sound by the WADA expert group assisting the IC and the IC concurs with that judgment."
Reklessrunner wrote:
Rekrunner. What is your opinion on Coe and his position with the IAAF and whilst at FIFA (head of ethics at FIFA, ha ha ha!). Do you believe that he has no involvement with any of the corruption that engulfed these two organisations?
The relevance of this is that if this kind of mass corruption was common place how can we believe that any of the testing, protocol is genuine?
I would argue that Coe's personal and business relationships with current and former athletes (Radcliffe and Farah for a start not to mention Nike ) are too close for him to be objective in his judgement.
I don't believe for a second that the whole story has come out as far as IAAF is concerned. Whether it will is another story but given the corruption involved why would you ever believe that the testing around the sport's biggest stars and moneyspinners was whiter than white?
It's the equivalent of finding wholesale corruption involving every level of a business yet believing there is no need to investigate their tax returns because 'that was all being done correctly'....
You are the Letsrun equivalent of the Emperors New Clothes.
...The national Olympic body on Thursday withheld decision on naturalizing a Kenyan-born marathon runner with a doping history, citing the need to review his application further.
The Korean Olympic Committee (KOC) said it will need additional information from the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) regarding Wilson Loyanae Erupe and his positive doping test for EPO from 2012.
Kang Rae-hyeok, head of the KOC's legal affairs team, said the KOC needs to ensure Erupe, who is hoping to acquire a South Korean passport and represent the country at a future Olympics, accidentally took a banned substance for legitimate medical treatment. Once the KOC gives Erupe the green light, his application will reach the Justice Ministry for the final review.
Erupe, 27, joined an athletics club run by the Cheongyang County Office in South Chungcheong Province last summer. He has won five races in South Korea, including Gyeongju International Marathon last October. His personal best time is 2:05:37, nearly two minutes faster than the South Korean record of 2:07:20, set by former Olympic silver medalist Lee Bong-ju in 2000.
Erupe, however, failed an out-of-competition doping test in 2012 and received a two-year ban from the International Association of Athletics Federations in early 2013. He has claimed he was getting treated for malaria, though Kenya's national athletics federation didn't recognize his therapeutic use at the time.
Erupe faces another administrative hurdle in South Korea for his doping history. Under the KOC rules, an athlete who has served a doping ban is ineligible for any national team for three years following the end of the suspension. It would rule out Erupe for the 2016 Summer Games in Rio even if he's fast-tracked to South Korean citizenship.
However, Kang said the KOC will need to consider the fact that the KOC rule was instituted in July 2014, after Erupe's positive test.
Erupe, who has adopted a Korean name, "Oh Joo-han," which is translated as "I run for Korea," told reporters he'd love to help develop South Korean marathon further.
"I've won all five marathons I've run in South Korea, and I've fallen in love with the people's INTEGRITY here," he said. "Once I become naturalized, I will respect and honor the Korean tradition. I'd like to play a role where I can motivate younger athletes."
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/culturesports/2016/01/07/74/0702000000AEN20160107009800315F.html
I just had an episode of nausea and vomiting (N & V) after reading this article.
Oh boy.
rekrunner wrote:
Ridiculing with "coincidence" is used as a distraction to hide a failure to establish a link between two otherwise disjoint events, as is "nothing to see here".
Some "facts" simply never happened -- like "violating the ABP repeatedly (Ratcliffe) (sic)".
Other "facts" are simply legal.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
I'm not sure Rek even admits in coincidences. So you have a sh*t load of epo and steriods in one motel room (in Sabadell) and in another you have the world record holder for 1500m. Nah, that's not a coincidence.
I don't need a sidekick named Watson to solve this one Moriarty, the EPO in the other room was for Dibaba and Souleiman etc it wasn't part of the motel's drinks cabinet, always on offer by motel management.
1:49.84 - 800m Freshmen National Record - Cooper Lutkenhaus (check this kick out!!)
Emma Coburn to miss Olympic Trials after breaking ankle in Suzhou
Jakob on Oly 1500- “Walk in the park if I don’t get injured or sick”
VALBY has graduated (w/ honors) from Florida, will she go to grad school??
Men who run twice a day and the women who love/put up with them
