The British Press Pulls No Punches

Slripe111 wrote:

It’s strange to see real news from a news outlet.

Anyone who dismisses an athletes doping guilt by pointing out that they never have failed a test is being candidly dishonest.

Did Armstrong ever fail a test?

In fact he failed two, but they were both covered up.

In the 1999 Tour de France a urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid. After a brief flurry of activity the team produced a prescription for a cream to treat saddle sores and explained that must have been the source of the corticosteroid. Whoops, my bad. The officials agreed to drop the charge as it was unintentional. After Lance's admission of guilt it came out that the prescription had been written after the test and back dated to before the test.

During the 2001 Tour de Suisse he tested positive for EPO. After some discussion it was agreed that the results were highly suspicious but not positives . Shortly after that Armstrong made donations totaling US$125,000 to the UCI to ' promote anti-doping efforts'.

Whose extremely suspicious 1500m progression is this?

2015 4:07.44

2016 4:06:53

2017 4:03.55

2018 4:05.83

2019 3:56.12

An unknown Kenyan? A dirty Russian?

And over the course of his seven victories he repeatedly denied doping accusations pointing to the fact that he never failed a test and like not only did he not fail but like he was the most tested athlete on the tour

My point is that passing drug tests isn’t enough evidence of someone’s innocence, just means they have a good doctor.

How many times do we need to see these episodes play out before we realize we’ve already seen them

Marathon Cheater Coach wrote:

[quote]Big Stick wrote:

Opinion from across the Pond!!!

The common denominator with all of these corrupt individuals is NIKE.

Bingo! How they took over high school running and became the default brand at least in the US and UK is beyond me. How long will 90% of the LRC MB continue to be vigorously opposed to their competitors? Their are HS and NCAA meets with 100% Nike-shod competitors. Threads regularly appear here to promote them and/or bash any other brands.

Since Ben Johnson their is no controversial or corrupt athlete anywhere in the world that I'm aware of who is not Nike-affiliated and -paid. Bonds, Lance, Tiger, it ain't just track. Mo takes a shortcut by stepping inside the track, is not DQ'd. Ditto Jakob. Quigley does too, but is booted. All wear Nike. A certain very popular sprinter makes every relay finals (until that changed today) for a decade without posting a top-4 US time nor placing in the corresponding individual event at USATF. This same runner gets a National Team spot after trying for 3rd at Nationals without a tie-breaking runoff. Faster and better-placing runners were passed over for those relay spots. The unearned placement of course goes to the Nike sponsored athlete.

ASICS runners don't juice, short-cut, nor break any other rules apparently. Brooks seems to bribe nobody and no federation to get unearned team placements. No Saucony coaches nor athletes are ever sanctioned. Nike, on the other hand, hires a sprinter coming off a doping ban and mandates coaching by another of the formerly banned as an element of the contract.

The corruption is appalling, yet so is their popularity and the support of the masses. I don't imagine myself sending a dollar their way from here on out. So much is out in the open, I mean Coe himself has always been on their payroll. Will the teenagers of America don another shoe now? Will things change?

guessing game wrote:

Whose extremely suspicious 1500m progression is this?

2015 4:07.44

2016 4:06:53

2017 4:03.55

2018 4:05.83

2019 3:56.12

An unknown Kenyan? A dirty Russian?

Whose?

Deanouk wrote:Johnson’s views haven’t been much better. He is so biased towards American athletes and always downplays those caught doping or who have infringed doping rules, backing the various excuses and loopholes that got them off on technicalities. His comments the day after, re Norman’s ‘jog’ in the 400 semi, were hardly convincing; i.e. he didn’t ‘feel right’ and thought something bad would happen!?!

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Johnson said Norman's comments didn't make sense. He said if he didn't feel right, he would have noticed in the warm-up and if he had felt good enough to race he would have stopped during the race if he felt bad rather than just run slowly (why risk an injury if he wasn't able to run well enough to qualify). If you disagree with Johnson are you saying you agreed with Norman's excuse?

Are we seeing the same thing play out? It is written history that Lance failed 4 tests in July 1999 for cortico-steroids. The UCI accepted a backdated prescription. The UCI later found that the UCI acted against its own anti-doping guidelines, and the UCI should have sanctioned Lance in July 1999. If we count the 2004 French lab research, Lance failed 6 more tests in 1999, and 2 more samples were suspicious. If we count the 2001 Tour de Swiss, this was not a failed test, not meeting the threshold. Yet Lance told other teammates that he failed a test. It's long past time to reject this debunked myth that Lance never tested positive or Lance never failed a test. With respect to Salazar's athletes, there is more than the reporters words of just "passing drug tests": "USADA’s investigation yielded a wide range of evidence referenced in the hearing, including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records. Between the two cases, USADA relied on more than 2,000 exhibits, which the AAA heard along with the defendants’ cases. In all, the proceedings included 30 witnesses and 5,780 pages of transcripts."

Slripe111 wrote:

And over the course of his seven victories he repeatedly denied doping accusations pointing to the fact that he never failed a test and like not only did he not fail but like he was the most tested athlete on the tour

My point is that passing drug tests isn’t enough evidence of someone’s innocence, just means they have a good doctor.

How many times do we need to see these episodes play out before we realize we’ve already seen them

El Keniano wrote:

guessing game wrote:

Whose extremely suspicious 1500m progression is this?

2015 4:07.44

2016 4:06:53

2017 4:03.55

2018 4:05.83

2019 3:56.12

An unknown Kenyan? A dirty Russian?

Whose?

That progression does not include other times run in 2019 which are quicker than 4.03.55.

Slripe111 wrote:

Anyone who dismisses an athletes doping guilt by pointing out that they never have failed a test is being candidly dishonest.

Yes!

Slripe111 wrote:

Did Armstrong ever fail a test?

Yes. So, that is not an argument.

Use: countless East Germans like Shorter and Koch, and Jarmila, Junxia, FloJo, El G, Radcliffe, Bolt, and the cyclists who actually admitted to cheating like Riis and Zabel.

Well, maybe not FloJo, El G, Bolt or Radcliffe, because technically they haven't been proven to be cheats, so the drug cheat apologists would come out in full force again.

Or that (likely more! than) 44% of the world championship athletes in 2011 are cheats (44% out of 1800, so roughly 800), but far fewer get caught. The AIU page for example lists 1 - 3 cases per month, which include non-championship athletes.

Or refer to experts, for example:

Dick Pound, ex WADA President:

"you can miss two tests simply by not answering the door if you're on something."

"There is no general appetite to undertake the effort and expense of a successful effort to deliver doping-free sport."

"There's this psychological aspect about it: nobody wants to catch anybody. There's no incentive. Countries are embarrassed if their nationals are caught. And sports are embarrassed if someone from their sport is caught."

ESPN: "Pound complained that athletes don't speak out against doping, national and international federations are weak on the issue, national agencies are under the influence of governments, and governments have no incentive to catch their own nationals."

Paul Scott, the chief science officer of Korva Labs, a testing and research laboratory focused on anti-doping:

"Drug testing has a public reputation that far exceeds its capabilities."

Yes it's all the Brits fault Salazar, Dr Brown and Nike doped athletes. It's all their fault that nearly every decent US sprinter turns out to be a doper or that there is no testing in Ethiopia and the Russians ran a state sponsored doping program. Next you will blaming the Brits for all the doping in baseball and the NFL!

Snowdon wrote:

El Keniano wrote:

Whose?

That progression does not include other times run in 2019 which are quicker than 4.03.55.

That is because it lists "season's bests" from each year. How dumb are you.

Gabriella Stafford of Canada. Gee, I wonder why nobody is talking crap about the suspicious progression!

what about shelby houlihan

Flat Stanley wrote:

Yes it's all the Brits fault Salazar, Dr Brown and Nike doped athletes. It's all their fault that nearly every decent US sprinter turns out to be a doper or that there is no testing in Ethiopia and the Russians ran a state sponsored doping program. Next you will blaming the Brits for all the doping in baseball and the NFL!

UK Cycling did not test any cyclist for a 13 month period prior to the 2012 London Olympics . The follow-up report stated " logistics " issues. End of Story .

El Keniano wrote:

How long before I'm accused of ghostwriting that article?

Ha ha ha ha!

El Keniano,

Haki nimecheka.

Teh naysayers will now claim you are a Brit......

A Brit attacking NOP

That you wear a spruce, well cut three piece suit with a flower on your lapel like Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi.

Ha ha haha!

I've laughed at that.

Coevett is putting together his drivel with which to attack you.

Let's just wait.

Ha ha ha ha!

Too funny. That sounds like a race to the bottom between the US, UK and Kenya, but alas, the Russians are already there.

Shouldn't they more accurately be called "not yet proven to be drug cheat" apologists?

I am interested in your thoughts about studies that compare the UQM method used in the Tuebingen study to other estimation methods (e.g. "A potential inflating effect in estimation models: ...DOI:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.08.003")

I am also interested in your interpretations of Table 6 (Single Sample Count) in the Tuebingen study. Do you see anything anomalous with the distributions? For convenience I've copied the table for reference, and summed the totals of the two columns:

Rekrunner, it would be really helpful if you could distinguish between an argument and a shower of pigeon sh*t.

Busted wrote:

Big Stick wrote:

Opinion from across the Pond!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/04/sebastian-coe-alberto-salazar-very-british-hypocrisy-athletics

Tough comparisons being assumed - I mean you got Mo hanging with Jama and his hundreds of vials of EPO but his time with Salazar and that L- carnitine that’s what put him over the top.

Look the reality is the fact that Salazar is getting punished for marginal sins is a good sign that USADA is doing there job, but it shows just how far behind other agencies are.

I mean look at the Florida/Jamaican HS sprinter Williams busted red handed with what appears to be pre-planned excuse and Jamaica does literally nothing.

Indeed.

And why is that an American track coach being busted over doping offences draws the conclusion from Americans here at this American dominated running site, that it's all the fault of dirty as hell Brits with their crooked teeth?

Why is it that the most critical news articles are coming from British papers, and yet Americans here are linking to them as proof that somehow Britain is the most corrupt nation on Earth and responsible for and turning a blind eye to doping in athletics?

And compare to Kenyan media when they have (a lot of) doping scandals. For example, outrage at a British paper publishing an article casting doubt over Kipchoge when yet another Kenyan had been busted (and this time with the same coach as Kipchoge).

Yeah, sure, if only Brits and their crooked teeth would disappear, we could all sit back and watch track and field believing that honest athletes are competing against honest athletes.

Dream on buddies.

rekrunner wrote:

Are we seeing the same thing play out?

It is written history that Lance failed 4 tests in July 1999 for cortico-steroids. The UCI accepted a backdated prescription. The UCI later found that the UCI acted against its own anti-doping guidelines, and the UCI should have sanctioned Lance in July 1999.

If we count the 2004 French lab research, Lance failed 6 more tests in 1999, and 2 more samples were suspicious.

If we count the 2001 Tour de Swiss, this was not a failed test, not meeting the threshold. Yet Lance told other teammates that he failed a test.

It's long past time to reject this debunked myth that Lance never tested positive or Lance never failed a test.

You have a lot of "if's" in your argument. However, Lance never had a positive test - by positive test we should clarify this as a "doping violation". Lance did not have a doping violation in 1999 for corticosteroids because he had a TUE which was accepted by the UCI in the 1999 Tour. Team Sky also had TUEs for corticosteroids (Bradley Wiggins) in the 2012 Tour so they did not have any doping violations for corticosteroids in the 2012 Tour - we have no way of knowing behind the scenes how the TUEs for team Sky were accepted by the UCI.

Lance's tests for EPO in 2004 on his 1999 Tour samples were also not doping violations. The procedures for testing of those samples did not follow standardized anti-doping test procedures and so the results of the tests could prove a "doping violation":

"In his report made public May 31, Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman said the French lab that performed those tests did not follow the stringent protocols required to establish a doping violation."

Armstrong was not convicted of doping in 2004 or 2006.

Conclusion: Rekrunner's myths of Armstrong testing positive in 1999 and 2004 = debunked.