WADA confirm insufficient evidence against nearly all Russian athletes implicated in drug scandal

[Maofan7]

Thank you for posting this link. I am very glad there is such analysis of McLaren Report, as i see a lot of witch hunting against Russia in many areas.

However, just to be a devil's advocate (about the report, not you posting it), if i was on the opposite site, i would say "but just because logistical and technical errors which make McLaren Report inadmissible, and personal reasons of the whistle blower to expose it, there is still an indication that SOME cheating took place".....

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Nobody should ever be convicted on a maybe, and nor does any reputable court of law operate on that basis. And in this case, baseless accusations do not amount to an 'indication'. They remain nothing but baseless accusations.

 

[caseyedwards]

Complete garbage, as is the McLaren Report. I hope all of the athletes who have been exonerated sue WADA for every penny they have got.

The following provides an excellent analysis as to just how thoroughly discredited the McLaren Report is:-

It's a very interesting analysis. Mclaren has a theory and broad outline but this focus on the mechanics of each and every step does raise many questions! Even if you have all the Russian athletes texting their doping control form numbers to the ministry you still have to have a massive secret program of switching samples that no one ever saw during any event. Even the total cooperation and participation of the FSB wouldn't guarantee success.

 

[Tinami Amori]

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Nobody should ever be convicted on a maybe, and nor does any reputable court of law operate on that basis. And in this case, baseless accusations do not amount to an 'indication'. They remain nothing but baseless accusations.

That's a great law! although in Common/Roman (Canada/USA/UK) and Civil/German (Russia/Europe/etc) the Burden of Proof/Preponderance of Evidence are treated differently.

In the "Russian denial" there is a very self-incriminating information, they stated "The information spread in previous reports on Russian doping that Rodchenkov was involved in extorting money from athletes."

The Russian side is basically confirming that there WAS a reason for extortion....

(I am on the Russians' side. Banning the whole Team was a ridiculous suggestion, vs. individual cheaters.)

 

[kwanfan1818]

A
Personally, I think all the athletes caught during the Euro Games incident should be warning/banning/punishing/sanctioned retroactively "for not listing Meldonium during their drug screen", not doping per se, and Meldonium should just be subject to the more general rules that:

1) It must be listed during a drug screening
2) It must be taken under the supervision of a physician
3) It must be taken for the purposes regulatory agencies have approved it

I disagree with the third condition, even if it the more conservative approach, and removing it means anyone with a medical license can open up the floidgates. There are many legitimate off-label uses for drugs.

Just as there are drugs that are unregulated in some places, partially regulated in others, and by-prescription-only in others, and there are performance enhancing techniques that don't involve drugs, like those who starve minors so that their bodies can't change or adults who do the same to themselves so that they're not carrying an extra pound on the bicycle.

 

[Maofan7]

That's a great law! although in Common/Roman (Canada/USA/UK) and Civil/German (Russia/Europe/etc) the Burden of Proof/Preponderance of Evidence are treated differently.

In the "Russian denial" there is a very self-incriminating information, they stated "The information spread in previous reports on Russian doping that Rodchenkov was involved in extorting money from athletes."

The Russian side is basically confirming that there WAS a reason for extortion....

(I am on the Russians' side. Banning the whole Team was a ridiculous suggestion, vs. individual cheaters.)

In UK criminal law, the burden of proof is upon the prosecuting authorities and they must prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, they are no where near that.

 

[bardtoob]

I disagree with the third condition, even if it the more conservative approach, and removing it means anyone with a medical license can open up the floidgates. There are many legitimate off-label uses for drugs.

That is an interesting point, and something I will consider.

I only listed the three rules because they are the current standards for drugs not specifically banned.

Physician's can prescribe drugs because some so-called "side effects" are therapeutically desirable. For example, marijuana is considered a hallucinogen, but one of the side effects is getting "the munchies" so some have proposed that marijuana can be used therapeutically to treat anorexia.

 

[Willin]

My opinion on why doping is that it should be banned to protect the athletes - not the integrity of sport. TBH I'd love to see what fully doped up humans can achieve - a human in optimal peak condition with all the performance enhancing drugs possible would be fascinating. And let's be honest, there's a ton of athletes all over the world (in some sports more than others) who get away with doping, so there's already a question about the integrity of certain sports (Cycling anyone?).

BUT no medications are without consequences. Ritalin, for instance, can cause sudden cardiac death, high blood pressure, and tachycardia (as can Meldonium). Anabolic Steroids cause heart attacks, liver damage, cancer, hormonal problems like infertility, and high infection risk. hCG can cause diabetes and dangerously enlarged internal organs. Blood doping (including epogen use) can lead to heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolism, and convulsions. Even something common like insulin can be very serious - if you take it you're at risk for life threatening low blood sugar, and even more so if you take it before you exercise. No one should be taking these unless they need them for a health condition. Even though they're dangerous we give them because the effect of not having them is worse. In some cases (like for Epogen, insulin, and hCG) they are usually only given to make up for a deficit in the body of that substance, so they shouldn't be dangerous when making up for that deficit, but in a healthy individual can be deadly.

As for off-label uses, I'm fine with it as long as that off-label use has evidence behind it. That is, it doesn't need to have quite the body of evidence that a normal use would have, but it still needs to have a couple studies with good methods and peer review to support it. In the case of Meldonium, the off-label use for these athletes is against prescribing standards for the medicine and not supported by any good evidence. As for Maria Sharapova's case, Meldonium has 0 good evidence that it works for prediabetes. Honestly, it has little good evidence for helping anything other than post-MI/Stroke patients. Even then, for the most part, prediabetes is not treated in the US, just monitored. Diet and lifestyle changes are encouraged (although what could you really do for a top athlete in that regard?), but no medication is given unless it progresses to diabetes or the person is hospitalized for an illness and needs it (illnesses raise blood sugar).

 

[MacMadame]

No, but at the same time you can't prove that she doesn't get advantage from the drugs. So she is legally taking drug from which she may or may not have advantage over her competitors. That's unfair.

It's only unfair in your mind because you've decided that it must give athletes an advantage even if there is no evidence that people with ADHD taking Ritalin get any real advantage and plenty of evidence that, in Simone's case anyway, she did not.

Just because you are not familiar with any studies on these drugs showing what they do to people with or without the condition, that doesn't mean there aren't any.

For example, in this study, they found the kids with ADHD were poorer readers than the control group even after taking Ritalin. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-10736-001

If you study all the literature, you will find that in general whether or not Ritalin gives people an edge regardless of ADHD diagnosis very much depends on what aspect you are studying. There may be one or two areas that show improvement regardless of condition but there are also some tasks where even though Ritalin helps those with ADHD, they still perform more poorly than those without the condition. When you put it all together, given how complex humans are and how complex sports performance is, it's really hard to make a case that athletes who truly have ADHD and are on Ritalin have some sort of advantage over athletes without ADHD.

Basically, Ritalin helps but not enough to make up for having ADHD in the first place.

Especially when the drug is banned and ther must be a reason why it is banned?

There must be? Like Meldonium?

There are also issues where blanket bans with no consideration of rational medical backing is over-inclusive and needlessly discriminatory towards entire groups of people. The idea usually is to not be so needlessly discriminatory which is why these things are handled in a case-by-case basis and there is a reason why it was determined that those with ADHD can receive an exemption so long as proper strict procedures and reports and updates are given.

Yes! I think it would be one thing if sports were so pure that allowing even a slight chance of having an advantage just could not be allowed, but sports are not even close to being that pure. There are a ton of things that aren't fair about sports that we just accept. Like how much money and where you were born making a difference in how far you get (or if you even start).

Also, if being on Ritalin when you have ADHD was such an advantage, why aren't gymnastics teams full of athletes with ADHD diagnosis? There are certainly enough people with ADHD diagnosis out there that you'd at least expect the gymnastics world to have about the same percentage of people with ADHD as you find in the world if the drug truly made a level playing field. And, if it truly gave an advantage, you'd expect to see even more athletes with an ADHD diagnosis than you do in the general population. But instead, they are so few and far between that we basically have one we're talking about. Which says to me that the real world is confirming the studies that show that overall taking Ritalin for ADHD doesn't confer an advantage.

 

[Maofan7]

Geraint Thomas on why therapeutic use exemptions should be banned

"It's such a grey area. Everyone is debating whether [it is] needed...or not. Get rid of it and you don't have that issue. The main issue is the system and the rules around it. It's not clear-cut."

This article sets out the central problem with therapeutic use exemptions:-

In his book The Secret Race: Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France, former American cyclist Tyler Hamilton explained how competitors used TUEs to hide unfair practices: "…Team doctors would invent some phantom problem — a bad knee, saddle sore — and write a note allowing you to use cortisone or some similar substance."

Cortisone and corticosteroids — for which Serena and Venus tested positive — increase airflow to the lungs by opening the airways, and also reduce pain during high intensity exercise. That could explain why 60% of cyclists at the 2006 Tour de France were using TUEs.

Indeed the use of TUEs has been increasing steadily. According to WADA’s own report, approved Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) in ADAMs (Anti-Doping Administration & Management System) increased by between 40% and 50% every year. There were 636 approved TUEs in 2013, 897 in 2014 and 1,330 in 2015.

Now why on earth would there be a genuine need for increased numbers of TUE's, such that there use more than doubled in the space of just 2 years......... (going from 636 in 2013 to 1,330 in 2015).

If someone bans certain drugs, then those drugs should not be taken by anyone. The drug was banned because it is giving advantage to whoever it takes it. If you need to use medication that is forbidden, then you shouldn't compete against those who are not taking the drug. it is not fair for anyone within the competition take it.

Exactly, once a drug has been banned, it should be banned full stop. No exceptions whatsoever.

 

[Tinami Amori]

In UK criminal law, the burden of proof is upon the prosecuting authorities and they must prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, they are no where near that.

But sports-drugs is not a criminal case, and it would not be handled in UK. Sports Court of Arbitration is in Switzerland, and Swiss System is German/Civil right?
But again, if one of Russia's defense " Rodchenkov is unreliable, and one of the reasons is that he was involved in extorting money from athletes", then it is an admission that samples were being tampered with for these specific athletes because that is the only reason for extortion in the given circumstances.....

 

[Willin]

@Maofan7 @hanca So you're saying anyone taking even very common medications should be banned? Do you realize how many top athletes would be taken out? Do you realize that many of the conditions these things treat do not prevent one from participating in athletics, especially if treated correctly?

-Beta-blockers are banned, but are often necessary for even young and healthy patients. It can help with anxiety, palpitations, dysrhythmia, etc. It is also used to treat Hypertension - which does affect even high level athletes.
-Again, many sports have higher prevalences of ADHD than in the general population. So would knocking out a significant portion of Olympic athletes (likely higher than 7%) be good for sports?
-Beta-2-Agonists - a VERY important part of asthma treatment - are also banned. So should we ban patients with asthma?
-Athletes are banned from taking most opioid painkillers. So should no athletes be allowed to get pain treatment after an injury or surgery? I guarantee you banning TUEs for this would eliminate at least 75% of athletes at the Olympics.
-Glucocorticoids are important in treating allergic reactions, autoimmune disease, and joint injuries.
-Insulin (for Diabetes) is also banned.

ETA: Also, do you realize how much this choice would harm people? Choosing between living a healthy life and giving up what's likely been your life for most of your life.

 

[Maofan7]

But sports-drugs is not a criminal case, and it would not be handled in UK. Sports Court of Arbitration is in Switzerland, and Swiss System is German/Civil right?
But again, if one of Russia's defense " Rodchenkov is unreliable, and one of the reasons is that he was involved in extorting money from athletes", then it is an admission that samples were being tampered with for these specific athletes because that is the only reason for extortion in the given circumstances.....

I was using the UK as an example of the way a legal system works. Whatever the jurisdiction, the prosecutor is going to have to establish their case to a required standard, and in this case, it comes nowhere near, not even on the balance of probabilities

There are always going to be some athletes in every country that cheat, including in Russia. It does not follow that the fact that there are allegations that those particular athletes were subject to extortion, that there was any kind of state sponsored cheating going on.

@Maofan7 @hanca So you're saying anyone taking even very common medications should be banned? Do you realize how many top athletes would be taken out? Do you realize that many of the conditions these things treat do not prevent one from participating in athletics, especially if treated correctly?

-Beta-blockers are banned, but are often necessary for even young and healthy patients. It can help with anxiety, palpitations, dysrhythmia, etc. It is also used to treat Hypertension - which does affect even high level athletes.
-Again, many sports have higher prevalences of ADHD than in the general population. So would knocking out a significant portion of Olympic athletes (likely higher than 7%) be good for sports?
-Beta-2-Agonists - a VERY important part of asthma treatment - are also banned. So should we ban patients with asthma?
-Athletes are banned from taking most opioid painkillers. So should no athletes be allowed to get pain treatment after an injury or surgery? I guarantee you banning TUEs for this would eliminate at least 75% of athletes at the Olympics.
-Glucocorticoids are important in treating allergic reactions, autoimmune disease, and joint injuries.
-Insulin (for Diabetes) is also banned.

ETA: Also, do you realize how much this choice would harm people? Choosing between living a healthy life and giving up what's likely been your life for most of your life.

Yes - its a tough world. If they are going to ban a drug in the first place, it should be banned for everyone. There is little doubt that the TUE system has been abused, and as Geraint Thomas points out, the fairest solution is to ban TUE's

I think it unlikely that 75% of athletes require opioid painkillers. I mean, 1,330 TUE's were approved in 2015, of which only a fraction related to such painkillers. On that basis, the number of athletes requiring opioid painkilers is tiny in percentage terms

As for ADHD, there is no medical consensus that that condition even exists. Given this, you should certainly not be handing out TUE's in relation to it.

 

[Tinami Amori]

There are always going to be some athletes in every country that cheat, including in Russia. It does not follow that the fact that there are allegations that those particular athletes were subject to extortion, that there was any kind of state sponsored cheating going on.

I see what you're saying. I was talking about "individual cheating", not state sponsored. I don't believe there was a state sponsored project. However, if Radchenkov had "subjects" to extort from, these ones are suspects.

 

[Maofan7]

I see what you're saying. I was talking about "individual cheating", not state sponsored. I don't believe there was a state sponsored project. However, if Radchenkov had "subjects" to extort from, these ones are suspects.

Sadly, as I said, there are cheats in every country

 

[skatingguy]

Complete garbage, as is the McLaren Report. I hope all of the athletes who have been exonerated sue WADA for every penny they have got.

The following provides an excellent analysis as to just how thoroughly discredited the McLaren Report is:-

I'm not sure that that site is good source of credible information.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-duran/

 

[Maofan7]

I'm not sure that that site is good source of credible information.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-duran/

Bias is in the eye of the beholder. But look at the rating at the bottom in 'How do you rate'. The winning rating - credible source! Looks like their own biased article backfired on them!

And if you look elsewhere on that site, it's clear they have an agenda of their own, including a number of anti Russian articles such as 'Russia knowingly hit US backed SDF in Syria'

 

[skatingguy]

Bias is in the eye of the beholder. But look at the rating at the bottom in 'How do you rate'. The winning rating - credible source! Looks like their own biased article backfired on them!

I don't think you can take an online poll as evidence of anything. The blurb on 'the duran' says that they do post legitimate news stories just that they also post propaganda and conspiracy theories from the far right of the political spectrum.

 

[Deleted member 40371]

I don't think you can take an online poll as evidence of anything. The blurb on 'the duran' says that they do post legitimate news stories just that they also post propaganda and conspiracy theories from the far right of the political spectrum.

What the Duran article posted is extracts from the actual report and things McLaren said in his two reports, showed flaws in the article. So now it is not a legitimate news article because you found a ragtag from somewhere, whose legitimacy is highly questionable.

 

[Maofan7]

I don't think you can take an online poll as evidence of anything. The blurb on 'the duran' says that they do post legitimate news stories just that they also post propaganda and conspiracy theories from the far right of the political spectrum.

It's evidence that most people regard their 'blurb' as complete garbage. Labelling something as 'biased' is itself an exercise in propaganda

 

[bardtoob]

How about read the actual report?

McLaren Independent Investigation Report - Part I

McLaren Independent Investigation Report - Part II

 

[bardtoob]

And since we have discussed Meldonium, here is an academic article about the Euro Games incident that resulted in Meldonium being banned.

Meldonium use by athletes at the Baku 2015 European Games

Results Meldonium was declared as imported into Azerbaijan by 2 of 50 National Olympic Committee medical teams at the Games, but athletes from 6 countries declared the use of meldonium.

Only 23 of the 662 (3.5%) athletes tested from 8 to 28 June 2015 declared the personal use of meldonium, which included 13 competition winners.

However, 66 of the total 762 (8.7%) athlete urine samples analysed during the Games and during precompetition tested positive for meldonium. Meldonium use was detected in athletes competing in 15 of the 21 sports during the Games.

Conclusions This study highlights the widespread and inappropriate use and prescribing of this prescription drug in a generally healthy athlete population. Subsequent to these findings, WADA has included meldonium as a prohibited substance on the 2016 List of Prohibited Substances.

 

[Maofan7]

This is the follow up article by the same journalist on the discredited McLaren Report. It is written in the form of an open letter to WADA and the IOC

It is important to look at the facts objectively. As shown below, there are significant inconsistencies, inaccuracies and errors in McLaren Report #2. The problems range from the lack of specific evidence to distortion of the findings of the “toolmarks expert”

Clearly the situation has been politicized. We need you to resist the pressures and reject calls for blanket condemnations which hurt innocent and guilty alike. Please reject the politicization of doping in sports.

Inaccuracies and distortions in the final McLaren Report include:

(1) McLaren’s Report #2 falsely claims the first report was not challenged. On page 7 McLaren says “The fundamentals of what was described in the 1st Report have neither been the subject of criticism nor contested …” That is untrue. Here are a few examples:

* Forbes published a concise but devastating editorial titled “Russian Complaints about McLaren Report on Alleged State Sponsored Doping Have Merit”. The author, a well known sports and ethnics attorney, identified three ways in which the McLaren Report #1 violated due process. He talked of the significance of this failing:

“Due process is not an empty phrase. Without it, there cannot be justice. Surely it should be required before a major sporting nation’s athletes are banned from the Olympics and Paralympics.”

* The British Sports Integrity Initiative published a detailed critique of McLaren Report #1 with the following conclusion:

“WADA has an important task that deserves support, but not if it becomes a politically biased crusade. As shown above, the McLaren Report has major deficiencies. The targeting of Russia and indiscriminate punishment of their athletes is a betrayal of the Olympic spirit.”

* The Italian Dirito Penale Contemporaneo published a Critical Analysis of the Report of Richard McLaren. The 13 page analysis concludes that the McLaren Report #1 possesses “inconsistencies and exaggerations” and is “biased and unsubstantiated”.

(2) McLaren is inconsistent in his accusations against Russian athletes and knows the evidence may be weak. On page 2 he says “Over 1000 Russian athletes …. can be identified as being involved in or benefiting from manipulations to conceal positive doping tests.” On page 5 there is less certainty as he says “over 1000 Russian athletes … appear to have been involved ….” On page 20 the previous certainty is reduced even more as he says “246 athletes can be identified as potentially knowingly participating in manipulation…” (underlining added). On page 18 McLaren acknowledges the evidence may be weak as he says “the IP has not assessed the sufficiency of the evidence to prove an ADRV by any individual athlete.” (For readers unfamiliar with the acronyms, McLaren is the “Independent Person” or “IP” and “ADRV” is anti-doping rule violation).

(3) Sports Federations are now confirming that McLaren’s evidence is weak. The lack of evidence is confirmed in the recent findings by different athletic federations. For example the International Biathlon Union recently evaluated McLaren’s information and cleared 22 of 29 Russians who had been implicated. Investigation of the other 7 continues. Even if all 7 are ultimately found guilty that means that 76% were not and suggests that McLaren’s accusation of 1000 complicit Russian athletes was a huge exaggeration.

(4) McLaren accuses Russian officials and institutions without providing evidence. On page 20 he states “The cover up and manipulation of doping control processes involved officials in the Ministry of Sport (“MofS”), CSP , and Federal Security Service (“FSB”) as well as other sport officials and coaches. Also included were both the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (“RUSADA”) and the Moscow Laboratory.” It is widely known that Rodchenkov and the Moscow Laboratory were at the center of doping violations. What is new and requires evidence are the accusations that officials from the Ministry of Sports, Security Services and RUSADA were part of a conspiracy.

When this author contacted Richard McLaren asking where the evidence is, he replied“The EDP is divided into categories so you can locate the documents you are looking for.” The “Evidence Disclosure Package” contains 1,031 evidence documents. A chart assigns each document among twelve general categories. McLaren’s major accusations do not reference a specific document. In effect, the Independent Person tells readers to find it for themselves. This is a very curious way to persuade or convince anyone. It raises the question whether the evidence is weak or non-existent. McLaren admits that there is “no direct evidence of ROC (Russian Olympic Committee) involvement in the conspiracy.”

By contrast, when McLaren explained why he declined the request of the Vice Chairman of the IOC Ethics Commission, he refers to a specific letter which documents the communication (EDP1164). When McLaren describes the WADA directive telling Moscow Laboratory to save samples, he documents the communication (EDP1160). If McLaren has evidence of the “institutional conspiracy”, why does he not identify or present the evidence?

(5) McLaren smears all Russian athletes, innocent and guilty alike. On pages 46-47 he says “doping manipulation and cover up of doping control processes was institutionalized … It is unknown whether athletes knowingly or unknowingly participated in the processes involved. However they may be part of the conspiracy… Together, all of these parties were implicated parts amounting to a conspiracy….” With this logic, McLaren says all Russian athletes are guilty – whether or not they knew, whether or not they participated.

(6) McLaren claims that Rodchenkov followed the directions and instructions of high officials in the Ministry of Sports but provides no evidence. For example, on page 82 McLaren says “On Deputy Minister Nagornykh’s instructions, the first phase in developing the sample swapping technique was launched.” On page 83 he says “At the direction of the MofS, these athletes would collect clean urine in baby bottles, Coke bottles or similar containers and supply it to the CSP.” On page 84 he says, “By direction of Minister Mutko and Deputy Minister Nagornykh all pre-competition washout samples for testing were to be collected only ‘under the table’ in unofficial containers.” If this is true, why does McLaren not provide the evidence in the form of emails or other communication?

(7) McLaren suggests without evidence that the Ministry of Sports was responsible for distributing performance enhancing drugs (“PEDs”). On page 64 he says “Centralizing and controlling distribution of PEDs to athletes became an increasingly important element of the doping control system and manipulation.” This is contradicted by the fact that Rodchenkov was previously arrested for possession and distribution of PEDs and his sister was convicted for this activity. It is contradicted by the fact the Rodchenkov and coach Melnikov received payments for the drugs and falsified tests. Many piece of evidence confirm the guilt of McLaren’s principal witness, Dr. Rodchenkov, but none give proof of collusion or direction by the Minister of Sports or another high official. In a footnote on page 68 McLaren says “it appears that athletes had to pay Coach Melnikov and Rodchenkov for positive samples to be clean.” This suggests a profit making or extortion scheme rather than state organized.

(8) McLaren makes sensational accusations based on erroneous or misleading references. For example on page 74 he refers to the ‘hijacking of the London 2012 Games’. To substantiate this extraordinary claim, McLaren refers to the 2016 IOC media release “IOC sanctions eight athletes for failing anti-doping test at London 2012” . It is implied these are some of the Russian athletes who “hijacked” the London Games. This is misleading because only two of the eight disqualified athletes were Russian.

(9) McLaren bases his “forensic analysis” on the findings of a “world renowned expert in firearms and toolmarks examinations” but mysteriously keeps his identity secret and does not cross-check or validate his investigation results. Richard McLaren says his conclusions are based on “immutable facts” and “forensic analysis”. The lofty words largely boil down to this:

– A toolmarks expert determined there was a way to open the supposedly tamper-proof urine sample bottles to allow exchange of dirty urine with clean urine. However the clandestine bottle cap opening would leave some slight marks. The marks were found to be of two types.

– Based on advice from Rodchenkov, McLaren did an investigation of select Russian sample bottles from the Sochi Games and afterwards and found that the samples were contaminated and either had mismatched DNA or impossible salt content.

– The toolmarks expert studied a small number of sample bottles from during and after the Sochi Games, again based on Rodchenkov’s suggestions, and determined that most of them had the “marks” suggesting they had been clandestinely opened.

Given the importance of the investigation, and the fact it was presumed to be impartial and objective, it is reasonable to ask some questions: Why is the expert anonymous? How was his evaluation and testing cross-checked and validated? Why was the Swiss manufacturer of the sample bottles (Berlinger) not involved in the examination and testing? That should have been done for two reasons:

1. because Berlinger has technical staff who are the most knowledgeable about these urine sample bottles
2. to assist in correcting any flaw in the design, if it actually exists, to prevent future abuse.

In addition, it is important to note the highly selective nature of this examination. The Sochi Olympic and Paralympic athletes’ samples that were investigated were selected by the person who was said to be at the heart of the corruption.

(10) McLaren distorts the findings of the “toolmarks expert”. On page 103 McLaren says “the forensic testing, which is based on immutable facts, is conclusive… The results of the forensic and laboratory analysis initiated by the IP establish the conspiracy that was perpetrated at the Sochi Games.” However, the toolmarks expert makes no such claims. The findings in the “Forensic Report” (EDP0902) are much more qualified:

1. McLaren asserts that “marks” on the inside of the urine sample bottle confirm tampering. However the expert does not say that. Regarding “Type 1 marks”, the expert concluded that “these marks were reproduced and found to be present after screwing the lid on forcefully”. This means that if a user over-tightened the bottle cap trying to insure no urine leakage, it would cause similar marks.
2. Regarding “Type 2 marks”, the expert found that “If there was manual manipulation of the metal ring and spring steel washer before the lids were screwed on for whatever reason, marks similar to some of the Type 2 marks were reproduced. This could for example result from fingers or cloth being used to wipe the inside of the lid to clean it.”
3. On page 22 of the “Forensic Report”, the expert concludes with the following warning: “These marks on their own should not be considered to be conclusiveevidence of opening the bottles or attempts to open the bottles ….”. (underlining added). This is opposite to what McLaren claimed.

Finally, I note the following: If the goal was to discover whether or not there was widespread tampering with sample bottles from one country, then it could be done by examining random sample bottles from many different countries to see if there are telltale marks from only one country. That would also be a strong indicator that the marks were from tampering and not from the incidental causes which the toolmarks expert warned of. This was evidently not done.

Conclusions

It’s clear that there were doping violations by some Russian athletes with collusion and assistance by the Moscow Laboratory Director Rodchenkov and some others. Despite McLaren’s accusations of “state sponsored doping” and an “institutional conspiracy”, he has presented little or no evidence showing this.

If there is clear evidence in the Evidence Disclosure Package, why is it not identified? What does it say about the integrity and fairness of someone in authority who makes sensational accusations which grab the headlines while knowing the evidence is weak and many of the accused may be innocent? What kind of ethics and “fair play” does this demonstrate?

It seems clear there needs to be an independent and NOT nationally-based testing authority which can implement common standards and prevent doping use, evasion and false accusations.

 

[hanca]

Yes - its a tough world. If they are going to ban a drug in the first place, it should be banned for everyone. There is little doubt that the TUE system has been abused, and as Geraint Thomas points out, the fairest solution is to ban TUE's

I think it unlikely that 75% of athletes require opioid painkillers. I mean, 1,330 TUE's were approved in 2015, of which only a fraction related to such painkillers. On that basis, the number of athletes requiring opioid painkilers is tiny in percentage terms

As for ADHD, there is no medical consensus that that condition even exists. Given this, you should certainly not be handing out TUE's in relation to it.

Exactly. I think WADA should review the drugs that are banned, to make sure they don't ban any drugs without any proper reason, but then if a drug is banned, it is banned for everyone. No exceptions. If you need the drug, you may have to make a decision whether there is anything else you could take that isn't banned, or whether you really need it, and if you do, you shouldn't be competing. Alternatively, if there is so many people needing to take it, don't ban the drug. Make the field equal.

Can you imagine someone getting some exceptions in running? For example, oh, poor athlete, his leg is hurt, let him start the race two seconds before everyone else... medical conditions are part of the life. Athletes miss competitions because of being ill or injured. If one needs banned drug, he should not be competing. (Or, alternatively, if many athletes need the drug, the drug should not be banned).

 

[VGThuy]

As for ADHD, there is no medical consensus that that condition even exists. Given this, you should certainly not be handing out TUE's in relation to it.

First off, DailyMail. Second, taking the article at face value, that article doesn't say there's no medical consensus that ADHD exists. It quotes one person who doesn't think it exists but does think a collection of symptoms that people associate with ADHD does exist and needs to be treated. The other part talks about issues of over-diagnosis and DSM-V's definition and how doctors need to be careful and make sure they diagnose it correctly not that they doubt that the condition even exists. It even says it's easy to see in "severe" cases. Then the last part discusses how the issue isn't bad in the UK since they have stricter guidelines with one doctor saying the case of under diagnosing being a big problem there and how people who need treatment won't get it.

ADHD has been controversial due to people's lack of understanding of it, natural skepticism because it's a psychological condition (that may result itself physically), media reporting distorting truths and promoting ideas that it was just a fad or new generation symptom, and possible over-diagnosing especially in children causing some concern related to the issue of medicating and over-medicating children. However, saying there is no medical consensus that it exists is like the way climate change deniers use the tiny smaller percentage of scientists (or not even but people who may have an otherwise impressive educational title) to show there is no medical consensus that climate change is happening.

Here's some background of medical consensus of ADHD:

http://www.chadd.org/understanding-adhd/about-adhd/the-science-of-adhd.aspx

This has a lot of links to medical literature.

I've responded to this because I don't like the display of ignorance when it comes to this condition. The talk about TUES, delegitimizing Simone Biles out of revenge, and blatant discrimination against whole groups of people are opinion based and you guys can have that, but I don't like false statements about ADHD, especially as someone who knows how it has affected someone she's close to and seeing behavioral issues up close and personal.

 

[Sasha'sSpins]

Someone should sue WADA. If you don't have evidence, don't destroy the sportsmen's careers!

ITA!

 

[Willin]

Exactly. I think WADA should review the drugs that are banned, to make sure they don't ban any drugs without any proper reason, but then if a drug is banned, it is banned for everyone. No exceptions. If you need the drug, you may have to make a decision whether there is anything else you could take that isn't banned, or whether you really need it, and if you do, you shouldn't be competing. Alternatively, if there is so many people needing to take it, don't ban the drug. Make the field equal.

Can you imagine someone getting some exceptions in running? For example, oh, poor athlete, his leg is hurt, let him start the race two seconds before everyone else... medical conditions are part of the life. Athletes miss competitions because of being ill or injured. If one needs banned drug, he should not be competing. (Or, alternatively, if many athletes need the drug, the drug should not be banned).

So you're saying that athletes with legitimate conditions should have to choose between their health (and possibly dying) and their lifelong dream? You're saying that even athletes like Simone Biles who train 40+ hours/week cannot compete because she is treating a condition that could otherwise impair her opportunity for anything beyond gymnastics? That Venus Williams should have had to choose whether to risk death or stop competing?
That's really awful.

Also @Maofan7 I assure you ADHD exists - it's in the official diagnostic manual and has official medical billing codes and has thousands of peer reviewed studies about it. "Fake" conditions with no consensus do not have that. They've even found possible biological mechanisms and genes for it - which is a lot further than a lot of other, "real" conditions.

 

[hanca]

So you're saying that athletes with legitimate conditions should have to choose between their health (and possibly dying) and their lifelong dream? You're saying that even athletes like Simone Biles who train 40+ hours/week cannot compete because she is treating a condition that could otherwise impair her opportunity for anything beyond gymnastics? That Venus Williams should have had to choose whether to risk death or stop competing?
That's really awful.

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. I know it would suck, but that's life. There are all sorts of tough choices we all have to do throughout our lifetime, and those may include having to give up on your dream, but if she can't exist without banned drugs, she shouldn't be competing. Sorry!

 

[Willin]

@hanca Dven for conditions like Type 1 Diabetes, Adrenal Insufficiency, Kidney problems, etc. where the medicine (insulin, corticosteroids, epogen) will give a healthy athlete an advantage, but no advantage is given to someone taking the medicine for their condition?

It's really cruel and unfair. It's not black and white like you think it is.

 

[barbarafan]

First off, DailyMail. Second, taking the article at face value, that article doesn't say there's no medical consensus that ADHD exists. It quotes one person who doesn't think it exists but does think a collection of symptoms that people associate with ADHD does exist and needs to be treated. The other part talks about issues of over-diagnosis and DSM-V's definition and how doctors need to be careful and make sure they diagnose it correctly not that they doubt that the condition even exists. It even says it's easy to see in "severe" cases. Then the last part discusses how the issue isn't bad in the UK since they have stricter guidelines with one doctor saying the case of under diagnosing being a big problem there and how people who need treatment won't get it.

ADHD has been controversial due to people's lack of understanding of it, natural skepticism because it's a psychological condition (that may result itself physically), media reporting distorting truths and promoting ideas that it was just a fad or new generation symptom, and possible over-diagnosing especially in children causing some concern related to the issue of medicating and over-medicating children. However, saying there is no medical consensus that it exists is like the way climate change deniers use the tiny smaller percentage of scientists (or not even but people who may have an otherwise impressive educational title) to show there is no medical consensus that climate change is happening.

Here's some background of medical consensus of ADHD:

http://www.chadd.org/understanding-adhd/about-adhd/the-science-of-adhd.aspx

This has a lot of links to medical literature.

I've responded to this because I don't like the display of ignorance when it comes to this condition. The talk about TUES, delegitimizing Simone Biles out of revenge, and blatant discrimination against whole groups of people are opinion based and you guys can have that, but I don't like false statements about ADHD, especially as someone who knows how it has affected someone she's close to and seeing behavioral issues up close and personal.

Thank-you for this. As I live with someone with ADHD I appreciate this. To have this disease can prevent you from doing most things (without treatment)as schooling ranges from difficult to impossible without medication. If anything the medication helps level the playing field (not 100%)so you can be in a position to compete. The brain ..laymen's term is wired differently so the drugs react differently to a person with ADHD than someone without. I also have someone in my family who is out of town so not a lot of day to day details but the parents found their child on the meds was turned into a robot-well behaved -no personality so they do give her the meds but never increased the dose from the age of 8 and they just deal with the episodes.

 

[MacMadame]

Some types of Hyperactivity (which these days are lumped in with all the other forms of ADHD, but weren't when I was in college) can be detected via biological tests where they scan the brain. So it isn't always a psychological condition. It is sometimes very easy to definitively diagnosis.

As for "if you have to take a banned substance, don't compete," the problem with that is that the list of what is and isn't banned changes constantly. So what if someone worked hard, qualified for the Olympics, and 6-12 months before they took place, a drug they took for a medical condition becomes banned? It's one thing to tell an 8 year old not to even try for the Olympics but go for the Paralympics but telling a 20-year-old who has been training for 10-16 years and was fine up until that that "hey, that's life!" is a good way to get sued. It's also incredibly cruel and DUMB.

There is no reason for it for many of the banned drugs as it is clear when the person has the medical condition and it's clear their medicine is not giving them any advantage. For the rest, here's a novel idea: make the rules tighter! We aren't dealing with 8-year-old here who can't understand nuances or scientific studies. It's possible to make rules that make it hard to get a TUE without making it impossible and to cut out the current abuse that we see.