Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IOC covering up Jamaican positives from 2008?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • IOC covering up Jamaican positives from 2008?

    From the latest Hajo Seppelt ARD investigation, German video (English one supposed to be up soon): http://www.sportschau.de/doping/vide...allen-100.html

    Here is the story: During retests of 2008 Beijing samples of several Jamaican athletes, very small amounts of Clenbuterol were found. According to the video any amount no matter how small is a positive. WADA confirmed the findings but claimed they could be contributed to contaminated food. The video then goes on to show that this is extremely unlikely, the Jamaican team brought their own food for a training camp in China, athletes were not allowed to bring any food into the village and all food produced for the Olympics was tested. In the case of a Polish athlete, the only Clenbuterol case in Beijing, the IOC claimed it was very unlikely that it was due to food contamination, the Pole was banned for two years. A former doping dealer claims he had been asked about Clenbuterol by Jamaican coaches in 2008 and before and he was absolutely certain they used it for Beijing. The IOC and WADA have closed these cases without investigation and declared all athletes with positive Clenbuterol retests from 2008 (turns out there were more cases from other countries) as innocent, no explanation why.
    Last edited by norunner; 04-02-2017, 05:15 PM.

  • #2
    It was not long after 2008 that Diack publicly scolded Jamaica for its lack of testing. If crooked Diack can say that you know it's gotta be bad.
    Having Jamaican positives doesn't suit anyone's agenda at the moment. The whole sport is based around certain Jamaican sprinters.

    Comment


    • #3
      this certainly needs to be taken into consideration: <<German broadcaster ARD claims the International Olympic Committee (IOC) learnt of the discovery late last year, but no action has been taken as the levels detected by testing using updated techniques are so small.>>

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by norunner View Post
        A former doping dealer claims he had been asked about Clenbuterol by Jamaican coaches in 2008 and before and he was absolutely certain they used it for Beijing.
        I don't believe or disbelieve that JAM was capable of doping in 2008, but the word of a 'former doping dealer' carries zero weight.

        Comment


        • #5
          Here is the complete text: http://www.sportschau.de/doping/dopi...lisch-100.html

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gh View Post
            this certainly needs to be taken into consideration: <<German broadcaster ARD claims the International Olympic Committee (IOC) learnt of the discovery late last year, but no action has been taken as the levels detected by testing using updated techniques are so small.>>
            However according to Seppelt any amount is a doping violation. So the question remains, why not investigate further?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gh View Post
              this certainly needs to be taken into consideration: <<German broadcaster ARD claims the International Olympic Committee (IOC) learnt of the discovery late last year, but no action has been taken as the levels detected by testing using updated techniques are so small.>>
              Katrin Krabbe and Grit Breuer liked Clenbuterol.

              Just a little bit of the stuff and it must have been in the water, or encountered from a handshake. Ok.

              Comment


              • #8
                If IOC wanted to cover up Jamaican positives specifically, is there any reason why they couldn't have taken the seemingly simpler, cheaper and safer option of not retesting Jamaican samples in the first place?

                Comment


                • #9
                  That would imply they knew or suspected those Jamaican samples would be positive. Imagine what would have happened if it had been made public that the IOC ordered all Jamaican samples from 2008 not to be tested.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    They could have extended it to a bunch of other countries and/or athletes, called it "targeted retesting" and said they didn't have the resources to retest every sample. But even "IOC orders Jamaican samples from 2008 not to be retested" - if that had become public - would be a better headline than "IOC covers up Jamaican positives from 2008"...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      gh, could you clarify what the text you posted implies? Is the detection now so good that it can pick up tiny amounts that might not even be specific doping? Is the set of new (retesting) positives showing substantially high levels and at tiny levels they have not acted? If so is the level that they now detect and declare Positive high enough for performance enhancement but the really lo levels close to being in the noise? Or, are they so low that they might be in the 'noise' and are below an adequate confidence level to be used for a Positive test result.

                      Not sure there is clarity here. However, the Seppelt opinion (and historical WADA positions) might be based on earlier periods when the just barely detectable amounts were at substantial physiological levels. Now, however, the detected amounts are really tiny and so that "anything is a violation" is not necessarily the operational level, although they do not want to give up the hammer that allows them to use.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Mario Thevis from the testing lab in Cologne said that the tests for Clenbuterol have improved a lot since 2008. They can now detect amounts in the order of 100 picogram where in 2008 it was 1000. Now if athletes/coaches knew about those testing limitations they could make certain to stay below them. That would explain the small amounts of Clenbuterol found in the samples. Of course it could just be that a few Jamaicans went out for a burger in Beijing and were really unlucky. That's why they need to investigate this and not bury it. The 2008 retests were focused on athletes still active and likely to compete in Rio, so we are not talking about people long retired.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How long does it stay in the system? Could athletes have eaten tainted meat before they left for the Olympics and still tested positive for trace amounts?

                          We know that the tainted meat excuse can be legit. But athletes still get banned for it, they just get a lighter sentence. An American got a ban for it recently.

                          If the threshold is zero then that's what should be applied. If tainted meat + better testing = a lot of athletes with positives, the threshold should be higher than zero.

                          We have banned athletes for minuscule trace amounts of cocaine in-competition, which is not performance enhancing. I personally think there should be a lower limit greater than zero for cocaine as well, since it is only banned in competition...

                          It's hard to pass judgement without the full context, but it certainly seems like something that warranted a thorough investigation.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by polevaultpower
                            How long does it stay in the system?
                            Halflife is 40 hours. After 8-10 days, it should be completely out of the body.
                            "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                            by Thomas Henry Huxley

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Pego View Post
                              Halflife is 40 hours. After 8-10 days, it should be completely out of the body.
                              ??!!
                              That's the first time I've seen that kind of information. Because this PED is MOST effective in the training phase (gettin' swoll, as it were), then EVERYone can be on it from Oct to May and just get off 2 weeks prior to the first comp??!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X