rekrunner wrote:
Russia was not banned for doping, but for failing to anti-dope.
The leaked data published in the Sunday Times played very little role in the decision to ban Russia.
With respect to figures like the medal counts, which combined "likely doping" and "suspicious" results, I concur with the WADA IC:
"It was, in any event, improper to group "suspicious" results and "likely doping" into a single category, ..."
Subway Surfers wrote:
So says the IAAF's paid spam-bot. But even your employer takes it seriously, hence Russia has been banned.
Russia "was not banned for doping but failing to anti-dope"? That's like saying the problem is not that a country is corrupt but that it fails to do anything about its corruption - as though these are two unrelated issues, rather than reflecting a logical and factual
tautology. Russian failure to anti-dope was merely the other side of state-sponsored institutionalised doping, in which whistleblowers claimed "99% of athletes doped and were required to in order to compete". Doping which is fostered by the state and the failure by the state to do anything about its doping practices are the same problem. The failure of organised crime to enforce its adherence to the law is not actually distinguishable from the existence of organised crime: breaking the law is what it does. That you somehow see them as different shows only a mind that is constantly seeking a bolthole to escape from inconvenient truths.