Drugs in other sports and the media.

kingstongraham

sherer wrote:

from y reading of this the Russians had to do two things to be allowed back in

1) Publicly admit the doping program
2) Allow access to the lab and samples

They are still denying the program so havent done one, and by the time two is done im sure anything dodgy will already have been removed

They haven't done 2) either, but they are still being let off.

yorkshireraw

My understanding is they are re-allowing RUSADA to conduct it's own tests? Albeit that appears naive at best....

As far as I know IAAF still have the ban in place for Russians in T&F?

sherer

KingstonGraham wrote:

sherer wrote:

from y reading of this the Russians had to do two things to be allowed back in

1) Publicly admit the doping program
2) Allow access to the lab and samples

They are still denying the program so havent done one, and by the time two is done im sure anything dodgy will already have been removed

They haven't done 2) either, but they are still being let off.

I think 2 is still in progress. Obviously they need to remove anything incriminating before that is done

So apart from appointing a few people and changing roles nothing else seems to have happened

kingstongraham

sherer wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

sherer wrote:

from y reading of this the Russians had to do two things to be allowed back in

1) Publicly admit the doping program
2) Allow access to the lab and samples

They are still denying the program so havent done one, and by the time two is done im sure anything dodgy will already have been removed

They haven't done 2) either, but they are still being let off.

I think 2 is still in progress. Obviously they need to remove anything incriminating before that is done

So apart from appointing a few people and changing roles nothing else seems to have happened

"This decision provides a clear timeline by which Wada must be given access to the former Moscow laboratory data and samples," - so it hasn't happened but will, assuming you believe them. So out of the two strict criteria, they have met neither.

Vino'sGhost

This is why people cheat. Because they can.

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

This is why people cheat. Because they can.

Ay, leave it long enough and people decide it's easier to ignore what you've refused to admit to.

With Russia like with Valverde.

larkim

I can't help but feel WADA have been given the Dan Roan treatment here - i.e. prejudged article conclusions based on limited actual evidence. Maybe I'm just being naive about WADA and their levels of integrity, but I trust them to manage the process of reaccreditation and if they have to offer a small bit of wiggle room which they judge is acceptable in the circumstances I am broadly happy to go along with that. THough it is noteworthy that some high profile individuals and bodies have been vociferous in opposing what WADA have done.

Vino'sGhost

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

This is why people cheat. Because they can.

Ay, leave it long enough and people decide it's easier to ignore what you've refused to admit to.

With Russia like with Valverde.

Mind you in Tennis any kind of bullshit tantrum consititutes proper behaviour. Like serena pannick room williams and Andy no tests murray lol

Vino'sGhost

a well written response from reedie re the reasonsa behind WADAs decision.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/spor ... -v9z0frhh3

kingstongraham

So when they haven't had the access by the end of the year, they'll throw them out again?

gweeds

Paywalled so I can't see it anyway

kingstongraham

Key section:

Heading into this summer, 29 of the 31 criteria of the compliance roadmap had already been achieved. The Russian agency had met the same standards expected of any other. Only the acknowledgement of wrongdoing and access to the Moscow laboratory remained, as they had since the roadmap was agreed by the Russians in January 2017.

WADA’s independent Compliance Review Committee met in June and developed further definitions for these two criteria. It was a clear effort to break a long deadlock, aimed primarily at securing the laboratory material we have long needed to show the culpability of suspected athletes. I proposed these two definitions to the Russian sports ministry, and on 13 September a response finally arrived. It offered both an acknowledgement of wrongdoing and established a tight timeframe for access.

The independent experts felt this sufficed. They proposed reinstatement, pending a critical deadline of 31 December for the access we require. WADA’s Executive Committee agreed.

larkim

I do think WADA are getting bit of an unnecessary beating over this. Dick Pound also backed Reedie's / WADA's decision. Whilst on the face of it any compromise which benefits the Russians in the widest sense is seen as a weakening of the position, the benefits of softening slightly one aspect but remaining firm on the other, more significant, element seem to me to be potentially worth it.

What happens when the data is handed over though... Perhaps they are anticipating backing Russia completely into a corner where they will get absolutely no movement at all from them and at least from WADA's position they will have an absolutely firm "red line" which is unarguable, as opposed to the fairly broad "fess up" condition that was on the table until the vote last week.

Vino'sGhost

larkim wrote:

I do think WADA are getting bit of an unnecessary beating over this. Dick Pound also backed Reedie's / WADA's decision. Whilst on the face of it any compromise which benefits the Russians in the widest sense is seen as a weakening of the position, the benefits of softening slightly one aspect but remaining firm on the other, more significant, element seem to me to be potentially worth it.

What happens when the data is handed over though... Perhaps they are anticipating backing Russia completely into a corner where they will get absolutely no movement at all from them and at least from WADA's position they will have an absolutely firm "red line" which is unarguable, as opposed to the fairly broad "fess up" condition that was on the table until the vote last week.

Id agree with that, but this is very much the proverbial slippy slope. And in any case does anyone really expect the Russians to have left everything in place and to fess up completely? I know some on here might apply the its not cheating if they cant be proved even when its obvious. aka wiliams and her panic room, wiggins and his TUE and jiffy bags etc this is more of the same.

I suspect WADA have lost the upper hand here.

bompington

Yeah, the jiffy bag, the Russian police state - it's all the same thing isn't it? :roll:

Vino'sGhost

bompington wrote:

Yeah, the jiffy bag, the Russian police state - it's all the same thing isn't it? :roll:

i think youre missing the point as ususal

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

bompington wrote:

Yeah, the jiffy bag, the Russian police state - it's all the same thing isn't it? :roll:

i think youre missing the point as ususal

You did say "this is more of the same".

Vino'sGhost

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

bompington wrote:

Yeah, the jiffy bag, the Russian police state - it's all the same thing isn't it? :roll:

i think youre missing the point as ususal

You did say "this is more of the same".

I was drawing parallels, but not obviously that the russian state interferance and Wiggins cheating were the same thing. But its interesting to see that people will defend one dishonest obvious cheat on a lack of "evidence and confession" but not another.

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

bompington wrote:

Yeah, the jiffy bag, the Russian police state - it's all the same thing isn't it? :roll:

i think youre missing the point as ususal

You did say "this is more of the same".

I was drawing parallels, but not obviously that the russian state interferance and Wiggins cheating were the same thing. But its interesting to see that people will defend one dishonest obvious cheat on a lack of "evidence and confession" but not another.

You can't help it, can you?

Vino'sGhost

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

bompington wrote:

Yeah, the jiffy bag, the Russian police state - it's all the same thing isn't it? :roll:

i think youre missing the point as ususal

You did say "this is more of the same".

I was drawing parallels, but not obviously that the russian state interferance and Wiggins cheating were the same thing. But its interesting to see that people will defend one dishonest obvious cheat on a lack of "evidence and confession" but not another.

You can't help it, can you?

you're kind of making the point though.......

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Vino'sGhost wrote:

bompington wrote:

Yeah, the jiffy bag, the Russian police state - it's all the same thing isn't it? :roll:

i think youre missing the point as ususal

You did say "this is more of the same".

I was drawing parallels, but not obviously that the russian state interferance and Wiggins cheating were the same thing. But its interesting to see that people will defend one dishonest obvious cheat on a lack of "evidence and confession" but not another.

You can't help it, can you?

you're kind of making the point though.......

You really can't help it.

Vino'sGhost

Oh the irony

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Oh the irony

menchovʹsstabilisers

Anyway else listening to the American Scandal podcast on BALCO?

I've only started listening but from what I've heard so far I'd recommend.

Vino'sGhost

Golf pga tests

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/spor ... -f07zqvh2h

jimmythecuckoo

I was interesting in watching the super league semi final between St Helens and Warrington on Friday evening.

The Saints Full back managed to get his finger dislocated when fending off a defender needed the physio to pop it back in as he squealed.

I'd never seen before what happened next where he took a couple of painkillers on the pitch and was branded a hero by the commentary team.

Now I know riders can go back to the team car or race doctor for certain medication in a bike race, it was just interesting to see that the commentators felt that by taking drugs and carrying on he was a hero.

Vino'sGhost

anyone who pops his fingers back in and carries on paracetamol or not is a hero. End of.

Who was the russian rider who bashed his shoulder back into place on the team car and rode on in one of the classics? 20 plus years ago he was a real big classics rider but i cant remember his name

orraloon

Just illustrates the silliness of positions adopted by pro cycling and its "supporters". Surely anything the average Joe in the street can buy OTC in a pharmacy without prescription should be no problem? No problem to Joe, why should it be a problem to Joe who happens to be a pro cyclist rather than a pro rugby player?

ducknumber1

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

I was interesting in watching the super league semi final between St Helens and Warrington on Friday evening.

The Saints Full back managed to get his finger dislocated when fending off a defender needed the physio to pop it back in as he squealed.

I'd never seen before what happened next where he took a couple of painkillers on the pitch and was branded a hero by the commentary team.

Now I know riders can go back to the team car or race doctor for certain medication in a bike race, it was just interesting to see that the commentators felt that by taking drugs and carrying on he was a hero.

A compound dislocation at that :shock:

Vino'sGhost

orraloon wrote:

Just illustrates the silliness of positions adopted by pro cycling and its "supporters". Surely anything the average Joe in the street can buy OTC in a pharmacy without prescription should be no problem? No problem to Joe, why should it be a problem to Joe who happens to be a pro cyclist rather than a pro rugby player?

Sport for some people is about rules

for others its about doing it the right way

for others its just about winning.

Ive noticed Joe Publics attitude is liable to change to suit the circumstances