They supposedly tested positive on their A Sample and have not competed since, have they been suspended? If Yes For How Long? Will their previous times and Medals be annulled? thank you in advance.
They supposedly tested positive on their A Sample and have not competed since, have they been suspended? If Yes For How Long? Will their previous times and Medals be annulled? thank you in advance.
douglas burke wrote:
They supposedly tested positive on their A Sample and have not competed since, have they been suspended? If Yes For How Long? Will their previous times and Medals be annulled? thank you in advance.
Same song, second verse. Over two years later after a bust of one of the top coaches in the world (Aden), we still virtually are in the dark as to repercussions. Disgusting. Sorry to hijack your thread...just needed to rant.
Their cases are both being decided by the newly formed 'Athletics Integrity Unit'. I don't think there is any chance of Kiprop losing his medals. Didn't the IAAF already state that they wouldn't be retroactively awarding the 2008 gold to Nick Willis? I think the rule is that the athlete has to fail the test in the year they won the medal (as Ramzi did).
I think the IAAF have also destroyed all the blood samples taken at the Beijing Games :(
Coevett wrote:
I think the IAAF have also destroyed all the blood samples taken at the Beijing Games :(
I wonder why? ?
douglas burke wrote:
They supposedly tested positive on their A Sample and have not competed since, have they been suspended? If Yes For How Long? Will their previous times and Medals be annulled? thank you in advance.
Kiprop tested positive A + B sample . He was announced the day before that the test would take place next day.That is of course a breach of rules by the officials. Kiprop still denying EPO doping and I more and more believe him. Why stay and wait for the officials if he knew he had EPO in his body? That makes no sense. If so he could easily disappear and try to arrange an alibi for not being at home when the officials arrived there next day. No , I say this case is very strange when it comes to circumstances surrounding sampling. If he will be suspended they can not take away medals that was before the samples if they cant prove he was doped before.
It is indeed a strange case, and it leaves the likes of El K and Rekrunner with an awkward dilemma. Of course they want Kiprop - one of the biggest Kenyan stars of the last 30 years - to be innocent. But the only possibility that he is innocent rests in admitting that the anti-doping system in Kenya is corrupt beyond imagination, to the point where any reasonable observer who cares about the sport should think Kenya ought to be suspended indefinitely.
Why do you wonder? 8 year statute of limitations.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Coevett wrote:
I think the IAAF have also destroyed all the blood samples taken at the Beijing Games :(
I wonder why? ?
I have no dilemma. I guess in some ideal sense I would want all athletes to be innocent. There are possibilities that don't implicate the whole Kenyan anti-doping system, and we are very far from indefinite suspension being reasonable.
Coevett wrote:
It is indeed a strange case, and it leaves the likes of El K and Rekrunner with an awkward dilemma. Of course they want Kiprop - one of the biggest Kenyan stars of the last 30 years - to be innocent. But the only possibility that he is innocent rests in admitting that the anti-doping system in Kenya is corrupt beyond imagination, to the point where any reasonable observer who cares about the sport should think Kenya ought to be suspended indefinitely.
rekrunner wrote:
I have no dilemma. I guess in some ideal sense I would want all athletes to be innocent.
There are possibilities that don't implicate the whole Kenyan anti-doping system, and we are very far from indefinite suspension being reasonable.
I don't know about you rekrunner - from my perspective you give the impression of a Kenyan doping apologist.
You always undermine & rationalize their positive doping cases in relationship to thier performances. For example, when it's been suggested that Kiprop doped in 2015 when he ran the 3rd fastest 1500, your response is how do we know that since he tested positive in 2017.
Another good one is the Jeptoo case. Though she tested positive for EPO a few weeks before Chicago, WADA went back and looked at her ABP from a few months earlier at Boston, where she set a course record and running the 5th fastest time ever & WADA ruled there was conclusive evidence of doping consequently disqualified the win & flushed the time. Some of us point out how dope helped her pull off that incredible performance and your usual imperious response is she had "pacers" and some of "the other girls also ran a fast time."
These are just a few examples, and clearly your responses to Kenyan doping cases have the atmosphere of defending them.
You also seem to get defensive when people accuse Kenya of having a doping culture - as if you're taking it personal or something. So, the question arises in my mind: Are you affiliated with Kenyan Athletics or something ? Affiliated with the Rosas? Do you coach Kenyan runners or anything like that? I realise you have stated that you're an "American living in Europe" Big deal...you could be in Nairobi, the Rift Valley, the jungle, or anywhere for all I know. On an anonymous discussion forum anyone can say anything they want they about themselves.
I don't get why anyone could reasonably think the award of the 2008 medals were at risk from a doping positive 9 years later. Is there any such precedent for such a lengthy retroactive sanction? There is no " fail the test in the year they won the medal" rule, but there needs to be a reason with supporting evidence to take the medal. The IAAF has been successful at getting races annulled but only based on tangible supporting evidence, such as suspicious ABP profiles, or athletes' confessions with supporting documents. But... the IAAF is not the right organization to give Nick Willis an Olympic medal. With respect to the Beijing Olympics, the IOC is responsible for the organization, including the anti-doping process, and the awards of medals. With respect to the samples, in Dec. 2016, the IOC announced "The programme for Beijing samples has concluded due to the statute of limitations." Before the the statute of limitations expired, the IOC reanalyzed 1053 Beijing samples in 2015, resulting in 54 sanctions. Here is what Sports Integrity Initiative reported: "The ‘statute of limitations’ in force within IOC and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) regulations at the time specifies that sanctioning must be commenced within eight years after an alleged doping offence. As the Beijing 2008 Olympics concluded on 24 August, the statute of limitations regarding samples taken from the Games would have expired on 1 September last year (at the latest). ‘The re-analysis programme from the Olympic Games Beijing 2008 has come to an end since the statute of limitations has expired’, read a 3 April (2017) IOC statement ..." "Consistent with Article 17 of the Code the ownership of the samples is vested in the IOC for the eight years,’ reads Article 6.5 of the IOC’s Anti-Doping Rules for the Beijing 2008 Olympics. ‘During this period, the IOC shall have the right to re-analyse samples (taken during the Period of the Olympic Games). Any anti-doping rule violation discovered as a result thereof shall be dealt with in accordance with these Rules. After this period, the ownership of the samples shall be transferred to the laboratory storing such samples, provided that all means of identification of the Athletes will be destroyed and that proof of this destruction shall be provided to the IOC." "No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred’, reads Article 17 of the 2003 World Anti-Doping Code, which was in force at the time of the Beijing 2008 Olympics."
Coevett wrote:
Their cases are both being decided by the newly formed 'Athletics Integrity Unit'. I don't think there is any chance of Kiprop losing his medals. Didn't the IAAF already state that they wouldn't be retroactively awarding the 2008 gold to Nick Willis? I think the rule is that the athlete has to fail the test in the year they won the medal (as Ramzi did).
I think the IAAF have also destroyed all the blood samples taken at the Beijing Games :(
Rekrunner, you don't defend murders as a day job do you?
Since this name calling comes up so often, maybe it's me who doesn't know what "apologist" means. I don't think these are examples of "apologism", or even impressions of the atmosphere of apologism. Don't confuse me attacking your flawed methods of drawing conclusions, with a moral defense of doping. And don't confuse arguments about causes of performance, with a moral defense of doping. Unless you are Einstein, you cannot show cause and effect, if the cause occurs two years after the effect. Pointing out this logical inconsistency is not "apologism". You cannot conclude that doping is THE significant factor while ignoring other known significant causes of performance, like race tactics and pacing. If I say "pacing and drafting" on a point to point course significantly helped cause fast times for the top 7 women, this does not mean I'm arguing that doping was also not a factor, or that doping is OK. When you ignore other factors, I conclude that you over-estimate the effect of doping. These are really just basic rules about the right way to form conclusions from the available evidence, and not a moral defense of doping. If you want to say "I suspect" or "I believe", or simply just gossip, that's one thing. But belief is not knowledge, and suspicions are not conclusions. Regarding me and my affiliations, if you don't believe what I've already said, I don't see any point about confirming or denying them again. I just note that it follows a consistent pattern of attempting to form conclusions from baseless suspicions, bordering on ad hominem.
Oh -- another attempt at witty satirical humor. Ha Ha. I don't defend any wrongdoing.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Rekrunner, you don't defend murders as a day job do you?
Subway Surfers wrote:
Rekrunner, you don't defend murders as a day job do you?
rekrunner must montitor these threads 24/7 - any post that talks of doping & performance he dive bombs and throws in a response within a few hours of the post, sometimes much sooner! He seems really intent on refuting any post that states an elite athlete benefited from EPO doping. It'crazy....I've never seen anything like it. ?
Responding to the initial question, changes have been made recently so that the AIU publishes the status of on-going cases in the interest of fuller transparency. As of July 19, both Jebet and Kiprop were reported as provisionally suspended pending a Disciplinary Tribunal.https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/disciplinary-process/provisional-suspensions-in-forcehttps://www.athleticsintegrity.org/disciplinary-process/pending-first-instance-cases In the case of Kiprop, his A-sample was positive, his B-sample confirmed it, and Kiprop said he couldn't afford to fight it, so we can probably expect a suspension, plus annulment of races (let's see if they go as far back as 2015).
douglas burke wrote:
They supposedly tested positive on their A Sample and have not competed since, have they been suspended? If Yes For How Long? Will their previous times and Medals be annulled? thank you in advance.
I seem to be surrounded daily by the same cast of characters.
What's The Deal? wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
Rekrunner, you don't defend murders as a day job do you?
rekrunner must montitor these threads 24/7 - any post that talks of doping & performance he dive bombs and throws in a response within a few hours of the post, sometimes much sooner! He seems really intent on refuting any post that states an elite athlete benefited from EPO doping. It'crazy....I've never seen anything like it. ?
Yes, and after a couple of pages, these threads turn into
rekrunner vs. the rest.
Lately a bit
Coeevett vs. rekrunner vs. the rest.
Still, it's only an assumption that rekrunner = Coeevett = Jon Orange = DiscoGary = Flagpole.
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but this post by Rekrunner has definitely convinced me that he is in no way affiliated with the IAAF or the IOC.
One of the few posts from you containing no mistakes.
Coevett wrote:
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but this post by Rekrunner has definitely convinced me that he is in no way affiliated with the IAAF or the IOC.
casual obsever wrote:
Still, it's only an assumption that
rekrunner = Jon Orange
DiscoGary = Flagpole.
The first one is mildly possible, but the second is utterly headspinning. ?