BREAKING - WADA TO INVESTIGATE ALL NOP ATHLETES

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

How is the possibility that Salazar's athletes may have been doping playing the issue up? The IOC would like an answer to that question.

I have not downplayed the "possibility".

The retreat into semantics begins. For you, "possibility" equates to the likelihood of being struck by lightning. Your preferred mantra is "no evidence". I imagine if you ever worked for WADA there wouldn't be a doping problem - because you would choose not to see it. And Alberto never doped his athletes.

rekrunner wrote:

practical questions wrote:

You ruin every fucking thread you participate in. Thanks a lot.

That's an interesting potty-mouthed claim.

I think you should dig a little deeper to isolate the root of the problem.

It is not me that makes these threads about me.

No, it is definitely you.

practical questions wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That's an interesting potty-mouthed claim.

I think you should dig a little deeper to isolate the root of the problem.

It is not me that makes these threads about me.

No, it is definitely you.

I'm just keeping things real.

For me, possible just means not impossible. It is possible "that Salazar's athletes may have been doping". I have never said or implied it was impossible. If you want to talk about likelihood, we can talk about that instead. I agree with Tygart about WADA's efforts. If I worked at WADA, not much would change -- I would look for evidence and determine if the evidence constitutes rule violations. Fantasy claims might trigger investigations, starting with a search for evidence, but would go no where without evidence.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The retreat into semantics begins. For you, "possibility" equates to the likelihood of being struck by lightning. Your preferred mantra is "no evidence". I imagine if you ever worked for WADA there wouldn't be a doping problem - because you would choose not to see it. And Alberto never doped his athletes.

rekrunner wrote:

For me, possible just means not impossible.

It is possible "that Salazar's athletes may have been doping". I have never said or implied it was impossible.

If you want to talk about likelihood, we can talk about that instead. I agree with Tygart about WADA's efforts.

If I worked at WADA, not much would change -- I would look for evidence and determine if the evidence constitutes rule violations. Fantasy claims might trigger investigations, starting with a search for evidence, but would go no where without evidence.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The retreat into semantics begins. For you, "possibility" equates to the likelihood of being struck by lightning. Your preferred mantra is "no evidence". I imagine if you ever worked for WADA there wouldn't be a doping problem - because you would choose not to see it. And Alberto never doped his athletes.

You're saying that it's possible that Salazar's athletes are doping but where do you put the likelihood at? Some posters here have said the likelihood is low because no NOP athlete has ever tested positive. However, I don't put a lot of weight on not failing drug tests simply because First World nations are much better at anti-doping countermeasures (nothing new there).

On looking for "evidence," has WADA retested NOP samples from both the 2011 WC & London Olympics? That might be a good place to start if it hasn't already been done (I recall another poster stating that the IAAF or IOC wasn't allowing the retest of samples from certain nations?).

I've notice on the AIU provisional-suspensions list there are some retest positives from Daegu & London, but it's always just Russia & former Eastern block nations (BLR, KAZ, TJK, etc.).

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

I've notice on the AIU provisional-suspensions list there are some retest positives from Daegu & London, but it's always just Russia & former Eastern block nations (BLR, KAZ, TJK, etc.).

Because those are the ones that are getting targeted, and rightfully so. That's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Now, if they'd start targeting NOP athletes, including CIR, then it will get interesting.

casual obsever wrote:

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

I've notice on the AIU provisional-suspensions list there are some retest positives from Daegu & London, but it's always just Russia & former Eastern block nations (BLR, KAZ, TJK, etc.).

Because those are the ones that are getting targeted, and rightfully so. That's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Now, if they'd start targeting NOP athletes, including CIR, then it will get interesting.

And I agree with you casual - that's what I'm trying to ascertain is if the samples from NOP athletes are being retested and if not, then why?

First of all, is it the IAAF or IOC, or both, that makes the call on sample retesting from Daegu & London? Is there a protocol on what athletes and nations to test? (e.g., medalists, non-medalists from certain nations deem to be a higher risk of doping, random selection from finalists, etc.).

You're right - they could retest every sample with CIR as well as the new sensitivity essay for microdosing EPO which wasn't yet developed back then (I'm not sure if CIR was available in 2011/2012 or if it was and just used as a secondary test after an athlete breached the 4:1 T/E ratio?).

Additionally, what about ABP data from Daegu & London? Recall when the Russian scandal broke the IAAF retrospectively examined several passports of Russian medalists from Daegu & London which showed evidence of hematological anomalies - but not enough to flag the ABP at the time - using that evidence toward suspension & annulment of results.

He can't possibly answer your question because that would require using his "imagination" - which he can't do - and entering the realm of "fantasy" or "la-la land" - which he refuses to do.

Of course the problem with that approach is that nothing exists until it is proven, so there can never be a justification for an investigation because the case isn't proven already. Until then there is simply "no evidence" - when it comes to doping.

rekrunner wrote:

For me, possible just means not impossible.

It is possible "that Salazar's athletes may have been doping". I have never said or implied it was impossible.

If you want to talk about likelihood, we can talk about that instead. I agree with Tygart about WADA's efforts.

If I worked at WADA, not much would change -- I would look for evidence and determine if the evidence constitutes rule violations. Fantasy claims might trigger investigations, starting with a search for evidence, but would go no where without evidence.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The retreat into semantics begins. For you, "possibility" equates to the likelihood of being struck by lightning. Your preferred mantra is "no evidence". I imagine if you ever worked for WADA there wouldn't be a doping problem - because you would choose not to see it. And Alberto never doped his athletes.

I agree , Paula Radcliffe was so wrong wanting to Ban All Russian athletes at the last Olympics . I saw no evidence , failed drug tests on 99% on the athletes who were Banned. She said all the athletes from Russia needed to be banned because you can't trust the dirty program. Now she says NOP athletes should not be banned because of the NOP dirty program, because they did did not fail drug testing, and you can trust the NOP athletes of this NOP dirty program.

Armstronglivs wrote:

He can't possibly answer your question because that would require using his "imagination" - which he can't do - and entering the realm of "fantasy" or "la-la land" - which he refuses to do.

Of course the problem with that approach is that nothing exists until it is proven, so there can never be a justification for an investigation because the case isn't proven already. Until then there is simply "no evidence" - when it comes to doping.

Oh...no, you've just invited another lecture and re-emphasis of his only "go by the facts"..."trust AAA explicitly" and thinking outside the box is "fantasy" philosophy with this case. We can expect his response to posts when he makes his morning rounds around ~3:00 AM Eastern time. ?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I have not downplayed the "possibility".

The retreat into semantics begins. For you, "possibility" equates to the likelihood of being struck by lightning. Your preferred mantra is "no evidence". I imagine if you ever worked for WADA there wouldn't be a doping problem - because you would choose not to see it. And Alberto never doped his athletes.

Our Rekrunner fails to grasp the severity of this news. The IOC, one of the most corrupt and rotten organizations on this planet is suspicious of an IAAF cover up on this one. That's how bad it is.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The retreat into semantics begins. For you, "possibility" equates to the likelihood of being struck by lightning. Your preferred mantra is "no evidence". I imagine if you ever worked for WADA there wouldn't be a doping problem - because you would choose not to see it. And Alberto never doped his athletes.

Our Rekrunner fails to grasp the severity of this news. The IOC, one of the most corrupt and rotten organizations on this planet is suspicious of an IAAF cover up on this one. That's how bad it is.

Wow!...thee "IOC" is suspicious of a IAAF cover up?

In this case, we also have "more than 2,000 exhibits, ... 30 witnesses and 5,780 pages of transcripts". I find it unlikely that USADA left any stone unturned, and if so,that WADA would find it. But the possibility remains.

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

You're saying that it's possible that Salazar's athletes are doping but where do you put the likelihood at? Some posters here have said the likelihood is low because no NOP athlete has ever tested positive. However, I don't put a lot of weight on not failing drug tests simply because First World nations are much better at anti-doping countermeasures (nothing new there).

On looking for "evidence," has WADA retested NOP samples from both the 2011 WC & London Olympics? That might be a good place to start if it hasn't already been done (I recall another poster stating that the IAAF or IOC wasn't allowing the retest of samples from certain nations?).

You need to be more specific and accurate about what Paula wanted. My recollection is that RUSADA was banned, with evidence, while given a roadmap to compliance, and ARAF was banned, with evidence, also given a roadmap to compliance. WADA recently lifted the ban on RUSADA, accepting shortcuts to the roadmap. The IAAF did not lift the ban on ARAF. Generally, Russian athletes were not banned, and were given a roadmap to compete as neutral athletes. Many Russian athletes are competing under a white flag. In principle, it is wrong to ban clean athletes, even Russian ones. The downside of blanket federation and anti-doping agency bans is that any clean athletes become collateral damage. The cases of Russia and NOP differ fundamentally in the facts, leading to different opinions: In the case of Russia, there is no doubt that many athletes received doping cocktails, given the many drug busts and admissions from whistle-blowers like Stepanov, Shobukhova, and Rodchenkov. In the case of NOP, we are way beyond "they did not fail drug testing" -- they also survived an USADA investigation and rigorous prosecution, resulting in "no evidence in all of that report".

Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:

I agree , Paula Radcliffe was so wrong wanting to Ban All Russian athletes at the last Olympics . I saw no evidence , failed drug tests on 99% on the athletes who were Banned. She said all the athletes from Russia needed to be banned because you can't trust the dirty program. Now she says NOP athletes should not be banned because of the NOP dirty program, because they did did not fail drug testing, and you can trust the NOP athletes of this NOP dirty program.

True, I did not grasp that the IAAF played any active role in an investigation led by USADA. Recently someone posted an Economist video where "insiders" accused the IOC of talking big about anti-doping, and suggesting it had conflicts with WADA and with big nations. It costs very little, when asked for a statement, for IOC and WADA to say -- "we take this seriously and need to look into the result to see if any NOP athletes cheated, even unknowlingly, in any of our events".

Subway Surfers wrote:

Our Rekrunner fails to grasp the severity of this news. The IOC, one of the most corrupt and rotten organizations on this planet is suspicious of an IAAF cover up on this one. That's how bad it is.

More serial nonsense. I can imagine likelihoods based on evidence and logic and reasoning and past experiences. If someone asks "where I put it", that's a direct invitation for me to offer the results of my thinking on the topic, whether it is evidence based or not. In this case it is evidence based. I don't require evidence or proof to "justify an investigation". On the contrary, investigations generally uncover evidence which allow us to prove things.

Armstronglivs wrote:

He can't possibly answer your question because that would require using his "imagination" - which he can't do - and entering the realm of "fantasy" or "la-la land" - which he refuses to do.

Of course the problem with that approach is that nothing exists until it is proven, so there can never be a justification for an investigation because the case isn't proven already. Until then there is simply "no evidence" - when it comes to doping.

And I agree with you casual - that's what I'm trying to ascertain is if the samples from NOP athletes are being retested and if not, then why?

First of all, is it the IAAF or IOC, or both, that makes the call on sample retesting from Daegu & London? Is there a protocol on what athletes and nations to test? (e.g., medalists, non-medalists from certain nations deem to be a higher risk of doping, random selection from finalists, etc.). [/quote]

Nobody said that the NOP samples would be reanalyzed, but it would be a natural way to go. Of course we are talking about organizations with questionable reputation, to put it mildly, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is all talk, no action.

Normally USADA/IAAF/WADA are in charge here, with the Olympics being the exception.

How the nations and athletes were targeted, was never published, as far as I recall.

P.S. 2 more points...

Let's get to the bottom of this wrote:

You're right - they could retest every sample with CIR as well as the new sensitivity essay for microdosing EPO which wasn't yet developed back then (I'm not sure if CIR was available in 2011/2012 or if it was and just used as a secondary test after an athlete breached the 4:1 T/E ratio?).

Additionally, what about ABP data from Daegu & London? Recall when the Russian scandal broke the IAAF retrospectively examined several passports of Russian medalists from Daegu & London which showed evidence of hematological anomalies - but not enough to flag the ABP at the time - using that evidence toward suspension & annulment of results.

1) CIR, yes that's old, but they only used that after a 4:1 breach. Example Floyd Landis from the last decade. Galen was reported to have an unusually high T:E ratio in 2016...

2) Hahaha, yes, that could be interesting too, especially since both Mo and Galen were classified as likely dopers by the IAAF in 2016, and Mo didn't open his door to the ooc tester in 2011 or so.

To come up with evidence of athletes doping is extremely difficult; to further try to link it to Salazar's activities even more so. I wouldn't expect much from the WADA investigation but if it puts NOP athletes on notice that they are likely to be subject to closer scrutiny, including targeted testing, it is likely we will see a fall off in performances over time - if they have been doping. Some athletes may meanwhile turn to other coaches who are able to do for them what Salazar was. (Jos Hermens, anyone?)