Former World Women's Marathon World Record Holder Paula Radcliffe (UK) ‘There is no evidence those NOP athletes were dopin

rekrunner wrote:

Again, I only move the goalposts back to where they started.

From the first post and the link:

"Paula Radcliffe spoke to SNTV on Monday about Alberto Salazar's Nike Oregon Project saying athletes should not be tainted by association"

Direct quote from Paula, in the video linked in the first post:

"There is no evidence in all of that report that shows that any of these athletes were doping"

Evidently the goalposts always included:

1) guilt by association with the banned coach Salazar, and

2) "no evidence in all of that report"

The "dope" in your two examples was not been established:

1) "Likely Doping" can have many non-doping causes, and requires expert interpretation of a whole dossier.

Not according to the "Likely Doping" definition under the WADA-ABP operating guidelines (pg 58):

L.2.2.5 Expert Evaluation

L.2.2.5.1 When evaluating a Passport, an Expert weighs the likelihood that the

Passport is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method

against the likelihood that the Passport is the result of a normal physiological or

pathological condition in order to provide one of the following opinions: “Normal”,

“Suspicious”, “Likely doping” or “Likely medical condition”. For a “Likely doping”

opinion, the Expert shall come to the conclusion that the likelihood that the Passport

is the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method outweighs the

likelihood that the Passport is the result of a normal physiological or pathological

condition.

From there the passport is sent to a panel of three Experts, including the initial

Expert, as per section L.3 of this Annex L. (APMU)

On the FB leaked WADA document Rupp is listed as "Likely Doping" with a (+++ ) priority and Jager was also listed as "Likely Doping" with the highest priority rating (+++++). Some other interesting "Likely Doping" statuses from the document:

Kisorio - previous doping ban from 2012

Stambolova - previous doping ban from 2007

Ryemyen - previous doping ban from 2014

El Hissouf - ABP sanction 2016

Dmytrenko - ABP sanction 2017

Kovalenko - ABP provisional-suspension 2018

Mohammed - ABP sanction 2017

In addition, there are 3 other Ukrainians that were later sanctioned for ABP cases that were only listed as "passport suspicious" on the list.

Funny to see Kisorio on that list - I guess he didn't "reform" after serving his ban in 2014. Lol (remember how you said he ran faster after his ban - we know why now. Lol).

Wouldn't it be nice if the IAAF would explain why Rupp and Mo (and Jager etc.) were "likely dopers" but ultimately not banned in contrast to the other cases? With actual complete facts, not as in Radcliffe's case where the IAAF ignored the jumps in off score outright and only mentioned the Hct values, not increases?

If those athletes were clean, they should appreciate that instead of joining the anti transparency fight.

I don't see any mention of an explanation for the raised "doubts in IOC lab's internal scientific literature" in your source.

I did not argue -- the AAA panel rejected these charges, and I accepted their decision and reasons without argument.

the bottom of this wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

There seem to be a lot of disconnected or partial connections that do not "establish an unbroken link between three elements at the same time: Salazar, dope, and an NOP athlete".

a) That's your unsubstantiated opinion.

b) The "unbroken link" is your criterion that never occurred in this thread before you insisted on it.

c) At least you recognize that there are in fact connections between three elements at the same time: Salazar, dope, and an NOP athlete, but of course you have to ridicule them to stay true to your agenda.

a) FACT: You made a claim about an athlete who was not an NOP athlete, where the source of the "dope" was not determined.

b) I don't see how you support a claim of "Salazar doping NOP athletes" without making all three connections simultaneously.

c) Au contraire -- I have yet to see someone succeed in this necessary trifecta.

Did you pick any of those US athletes who incurred doping violations? If you didn't, then - like the rest of us - you wouldn't know who was doping and who is clean. Dopers tend not to advertise themselves. While it is true to say that the US doesn't have state-sponsored doping that doesn't give it a clean bill of health. Corporate interests can take over the role of the state. Surveys have shown that US athletes feel they are typically pressured by "a win-at-all-costs" mentality. They are also participating in an environment where testing is acknowledged to be largely ineffective. It may be of some comfort to you to believe that the US is not at the top of the doping tables but with the incentives to dope and the low risk of being caught it will inevitably have its own share of doping issues.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Dopers tend not to advertise themselves. While it is true to say that the US doesn't have state-sponsored doping that doesn't give it a clean bill of health. Corporate interests can take over the role of the state. Surveys have shown that US athletes feel they are typically pressured by "a win-at-all-costs" mentality. They are also participating in an environment where testing is acknowledged to be largely ineffective. It may be of some comfort to you to believe that the US is not at the top of the doping tables but with the incentives to dope and the low risk of being caught it will inevitably have its own share of doping issues.

Rekrunner and I agree with you!

For a better understanding, what's required here is not an explanation of an Excel spreadsheet entry according to an anonymous google poster -- but the Expert Evaluation you referred us to. For example, I note you quoted an ABP Guidelines document dated June 2019, for a spreadsheet dated April 2016. The ABP Guidelines v5.0, dated Oct. 2014, do not define the term "Likely Doping", while the next version, v6.0, dated Jan. 2017, does. It is unclear how far in the ABP process these entries indicate, but inferring from the lack of sanction, a panel of experts ultimately did not agree with "Likely Doping".

ABP "Likely Doping" wrote:

Not according to the "Likely Doping" definition under the WADA-ABP operating guidelines (pg 58):

L.2.2.5 Expert Evaluation

L.2.2.5.1 When evaluating a Passport, an Expert ...

rekrunner wrote:

It is unclear how far in the ABP process these entries indicate, but inferring from the lack of sanction, a panel of experts ultimately did not agree with "Likely Doping".

Or, in line with the IAAF's history, a fanboy/patriot/NIKE employee or a bribe made the Likely Doping label disappear. With this corrupt institution avoiding the limelight for good reason, we will never know. Very sad for the truth and clean sport.

Salazar: "It is impossible to be a world class runner or Olympic medalist without taking PEDs."

You stating the purpose of the report is made up in your head , and you stating it as a fact does not make it a fact .

There was no official statement on why the report was commissioned prior to its authoring.

You believe the IAAF response was to defend everyone that was in the likely doping list ... The IAAF basically stated the

report was because ..... "The IAAF said Radcliffe was the victim of untrue allegations and was “hounded remorselessly in the media” after blood samples collected in Portugal in 2003 " So in reality the report was about Coe responding because her feelings were hurt . She had no sanctions against her. There was no need for a follow-up on non-sanctioned athletes.

The other part of this was Coe admitting he was employed by Nike , and turning down his paid advisory role with Nike .

He had to do this with the IAAF boards insistance , and he did not do it on his own when he won the IAAF Chair position. Shame , Shame on his lack of ethics .

+1

Also worth repeating that in this PR attempt, the IAAF wisely chose to not mention the damning jumps in Paula's OFF SCORES; instead they picked and chose to discuss only the least damning tidbits of the leaked data in their obfuscation attempt. Yes, exactly like our rekrunner, who may very well have written that PR piece.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

I don't see any mention of an explanation for the raised "doubts in IOC lab's internal scientific literature" in your source.

Correct - but the ban proves that the panel rejected that rumor of "doubts" (or she would have gotten away with it), and you might want to accept their decision and reasons without argument. Her T:E ratio was a skyrocketing 11:1 instead of 1:1! So much for the lawyer's blanket but pointless statement that women's "hormone levels naturally fluctuate". Or not, lol.

But good job calling the drug cheat's attorney ever so neutrally "Duke Law School professor Doriane Lambelet Coleman".

But I bite: what doubts? What internal scientific literature? The IOC has a library? And scientists? Or did an intern leave a note somewhere? You are reaching.

He said it wrote:

Salazar: "It is impossible to be a world class runner or Olympic medalist without taking PEDs."

With a statement like that it's amazing how so many people are running damage control for a coach who's been hit with a major 4-yr ban for doping violations. Oh...wait a minute...I just realized the paid trolls are just doing their job. ?

Yes indeed! But the large wave of extra Nike shills disappeared as quickly as they came on the eve of the AAA decision. Now there are "only" a few regular PR shills left.

The Prophecy wrote:

Correct - but the ban proves that the panel rejected that rumor of "doubts" (or she would have gotten away with it), and you might want to accept their decision and reasons without argument. Her T:E ratio was a skyrocketing 11:1 instead of 1:1! So much for the lawyer's blanket but pointless statement that women's "hormone levels naturally fluctuate". Or not, lol.

But good job calling the drug cheat's attorney ever so neutrally "Duke Law School professor Doriane Lambelet Coleman".

But I bite: what doubts? What internal scientific literature? The IOC has a library? And scientists? Or did an intern leave a note somewhere? You are reaching.

And good job calling him an outsider -- not even a witness.

I extracted the title from a recent 2015 interview, as I said:

"In a statement to the BBC, Duke Law School professor Doriane Lambelet Coleman — a former nationally ranked 800 runner who helped with Slaney’s representation in the USATF doping hearing ..."

If there is an IAAF decision with stated reasoning you would like me to read, I'll be happy to read anything you provide.

If you want to read about the increasing number of IOC labs in the 1990s:

Issues in detecting abuse of xenobiotic anabolic steroids and testosterone by analysis of athletes’ urine

Don H. Catlin, Caroline K. Hatton, Sanja H. Starcevic -- Published July 1997

I don't have a reference for the IOC internal literature, but it is not hard to find out about birth control's impact on T-E tests dating back to 1998:

"The Impact of Genetics and Hormonal Contraceptives on the Steroid Profile in Female Athletes

Jenny J. Schulze, Jenny E. Mullen, Emma Berglund Lindgren, Magnus Ericsson, Lena Ekström, and Angelica Lindén Hirschberg" -- Published online 2014 Apr 10

"Furthermore, the use of hormonal contraceptives (HC) has been suggested to suppress the production of epitestosterone and thus lead to an increase in the T/E ratio" (16)

16. Mareck-Engelke U, Geyer H, Schänzer W. The interpretation of female steroid profiles. In: Schänzer W, Geyer H, Gotzman A, Mareck-Engelke U, editors. , editors. Recent Advances in Doping analysis (5). Köln: Sport und Buch Strauss; (1998). p. 51–70

Nearly all of these statements are demonstrably false.

rekrunner wrote:

For a better understanding, what's required here is not an explanation of an Excel spreadsheet entry according to an anonymous google poster -- but the Expert Evaluation you referred us to.

For example, I note you quoted an ABP Guidelines document dated June 2019, for a spreadsheet dated April 2016.

The ABP Guidelines v5.0, dated Oct. 2014, do not define the term "Likely Doping", while the next version, v6.0, dated Jan. 2017, does.

It is unclear how far in the ABP process these entries indicate, but inferring from the lack of sanction, a panel of experts ultimately did not agree with "Likely Doping".

Same definition in ABP guidelines v5.0 as in ABP guidelines v6.0. Here's v5.0 (page 51) highlighting the 3rd step in a module that renders an ATPF (steps 1 & 2 are normal passport & passport suspicious, respectively):

If the Haematological Module renders an ATPF, then the results/profile must be

reviewed by an Expert chosen by the APMU. This should occur in a timely manner.

The Expert shall review the Passport anonymously (without reference to the specific

Athlete by name) and conduct his/her activities in strict confidence. The Expert shall

evaluate the Passport and respond back to the APMU, which will trigger further APMU

action

Considering the information within the Athlete’s Passport, it is highly unlikely that the longitudinal profile is the result of a normal physiological or pathological condition, and likely may be the result of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.

4. Review by Three Experts

In the event that the evaluation of the appointed Expert in the initial review supports

the proposition that the profile is unlikely to be the result of a normal physiological or

pathological condition, the Passport shall then be sent by the APMU to a group of three

Experts for review, composed of the Expert appointed in the initial review and two

other Experts chosen by the APMU from the Expert Panel.

Here's my understanding:

"Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method" = doping. "Likely may the result of" means there's a likelyhood that the profile may have resulted from doping.

So, why are you obfuscating on this? You're smart enough to figure out what they're talking about when a profile is evaluated at step #3 (APMU). They're not talking about "passport suspicious" - as that would be step #2 where the course of action would be a referral to ADO and target testing.

Here's my understanding: We are neither at Step #2 nor Step #3 in the ABP process. These are internal spreadsheets to help prioritizing testing, and planning the collection of the next sample. We are back at Step #0, as the previous iteration failed to lead to a conclusive finding from one Expert, or a Panel of Experts. See the graphic on Page 12: "The ADO identifies the Athlete of interest for Testing." But the bigger point is that this dueling uninformed speculation from one anonymous outsider to another has no value.

ABP "Likely Doping" wrote:

...

Here's my understanding:

...

So, why are you obfuscating on this? You're smart enough to figure out what they're talking about when a profile is evaluated at step #3 (APMU). They're not talking about "passport suspicious" - as that would be step #2 where the course of action would be a referral to ADO and target testing.

rekrunner wrote:

Here's my understanding:

We are neither at Step #2 nor Step #3 in the ABP process.

These are internal spreadsheets to help prioritizing testing, and planning the collection of the next sample.

We are back at Step #0, as the previous iteration failed to lead to a conclusive finding from one Expert, or a Panel of Experts.

See the graphic on Page 12: "The ADO identifies the Athlete of interest for Testing."

But the bigger point is that this dueling uninformed speculation from one anonymous outsider to another has no value.

ABP "Likely Doping" wrote:

...

Here's my understanding:

...

So, why are you obfuscating on this? You're smart enough to figure out what they're talking about when a profile is evaluated at step #3 (APMU). They're not talking about "passport suspicious" - as that would be step #2 where the course of action would be a referral to ADO and target testing.

As I mentioned in another post, it's hard to decipher what you're saying half the time. Let my correct myself on one item though - it's not "steps" but classifications that I meant to say (i.e. normal, passport suspicious, likely doping, etc.).

And I understand the process - keep in mind on a "likely doping" status one expert initially classified the module as such. In the next process either one or both of the other two experts that reviewed the profile didn't agree with the first, therefore no ABP violation charge can be issued.

I get the impression you're troubled that Rupp & Jager were listed as "likely doping" on FB hack document? You at least look at it in a different light than I view it. My question is how can these two "likely doping" classifications amount to nothing when several Ukrainians and one Moroccan & one Moroccan-Saudi on the list were later charged & sanctioned for ABP violations. And with the exception Kiprop testing positive a few years later, none of the big names on that list ever tested positive or were charged with an ABP violation. Maybe it's used to only warn some athletes while charging others...makes you wonder what goes on behind closed doors there.