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

[hanca]

@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.

As far as I am concerned, it is pretty straightforward. You are allowing a group of athletes take something that other group of athletes is not allowed to take. The field should be equal. Either don't ban the drug - make the drug allowed for everyone, or ban it for everyone. If it means that minority of people are going to be prevented from competing, so be it. At least no one can abuse the system with claiming that they have certain conditions and taking drugs other people are not allowed. There are many conditions that are not as straightforward to prove (e.g. there is no blood test that would prove beyond doubt that the person has the condition). So all the athletes that want to cheat need to do is find a dodgy doctor who will confirm that they have that conditions, and suddenly there is exception and the banned drug is allowed for them. That's unfair. And before you start saying that a doctor wouldn't lie, I know about quite a few dodgy doctors. What about the one who abused the female gymnasts? Does anyone think that such an individual would have a problem to confirm that you have any illness you choose, so that you are allowed to take drugs that may give you an advantage?

 

[Tinami Amori]

So you're saying that athletes with legitimate conditions should have to choose between their health (and possibly dying) and their lifelong dream?

This is not "at you" or specifically about Biles' situation, but the idea that we are lately hearing so often that "the world has to adjust its norms just because someone has a life-long dream, perhaps unrealistic".

People are born with different systems, conditions, body structures, and talents. If a 5-ft adult man has a dream to be a basketball player, it does not mean the hoops should be lowered to accommodate him or he should be allowed to play on stilts... .

Sports is a choice. Making a computer-company's stair case wheel-chair accessible so a talented programmer on a wheel-chair can come to work and earn a living is one issue; or to do the same for a chess tournament where a wheel-chair does not affect the game; but to request to change rules in regular hokey games in such situation is unreasonable.

We're all given a set of conditions and circumstances at birth and later in life. We can't make the whole world accommodate us. Asses yourself, and find what fits, without inconveniencing the rest of the people. Make your dream realistic..

 

[Maofan7]

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.

I never actually said what my own personal views were. I simply stated that there is no medical consensus. That is a fact. There is no consensus. You can call the sceptics names, question there qualifications, question there motives, question how many there are, or whatever. But the fact of the matter is, they exist. They hold an opposing view, as is there right.

Interesting broadcast: Part 1 of 3, Part 2 of 3, Part 3 of 3

Scepticism about ADHD is far more prevalent outside North America. I have always kept an open mind as to whether it actually exists, but am very sceptical. At the very least, I think it is heavily over diagnosed. If there such a thing, then I think the French approach has been far more successful than the American one (Article 1, Article 2). As the articles point out, there is too much "pathologizing" in the United States of what is no more than "normal childhood behavior", which has led to 9% of children there being diagnosed with ADHD and medicated for it , mostly with psycho stimulant drugs such as Ritalin and Adderall (with up to another 6% diagnosed but not medicated). These are shocking and highly disturbing statistics, and they compare to just 0.5% in France (who are diagnosed and medicated). If there is such a condition as ADHD, then I think the French statistics are far more credible as to its real scale.

GIven all of the controversies that surround ADHD, there should certainly be no TUE's being handed out for it

 

[Willin]

@Maofan7 Skepticism of ADHD is not really a thing in the medical community (Well, unless you include adult ADHD and that skepticism is quickly going away). In parenting communities and mommy blogs and alternative medicine practitioners (who do not need actual full medical training), sure, but not in psychology or psychiatry or other medical fields. It's a real thing with little controversy.

Wikipedia, Collective-Evolution, and some random YouTube video are NOT valid sources. It should be noted that Psychology Today also released a blog post contradicting the blog post you cited with much better sources (and blog posts are NOT valid sources).

DSM-V, the official diagnostic manual of psychiatric condition is a good source - that includes ADHD. ICD10, international classifications of recognized diseases published by the WHO, is an amazing source - it includes ADHD. European Medical societies both recognize it and have standard guidelines for diagnosing and treating it - that doesn't make it seem controversial. In fact, many advances in ADHD treatment come from the European medical and scientific community. Those in Europe who are skeptical tend to be policymakers and concerned parents who were raised when there was a heavy stigma against ADHD.

As for why it's more common in the US. According to articles there are a few reasons. First, Europe has a different, much more tight set of diagnostic criteria for it compared to the US. Second, due to the stigma against ADHD among people in Europe, parents are disincentivized to get their child diagnosed. No diagnosis means no treatment. The estimated prevalence is actually similar to the US if you used similar diagnostic criteria and everyone needing a diagnosis got one (In the US, ADHD is screened for in school children and teachers can recommend students for diagnosis if show signs/symptoms; it appears that is not the case in all of Europe, so parents must get their kid evaluated). Third, in Europe, there is a stigma against the drugs used to treat ADHD in the US, so many parents reject them. Fourth, in Europe they're trying many types of treatment in trials instead of these drugs including other medications and CBT, so fewer kids are given those drugs in favor of other treatments. In the US, new drug therapies take a long time to be approved and CBT is incredibly expensive (and the current standard of care is just fine), so it's hard to avoid taking those drugs.

I have no idea where you're coming from that it's controversial in medical community - it isn't. If you can find one source saying a non-negligible percentage of physicians doubt it exists (a published, peer-reviewed article in a good journal with a publication date in the last 5 years), I may be less skeptical of your claim.

 

[Maofan7]

@Maofan7 NOT valid sources.
DSM-V, the official diagnostic manual of psychiatric condition is a good source

Just because they have an apposing view, does not make them invalid.

Official? Your referring to something that has been heavily criticised as having contributed to the over-diagnoses

You have your view. I have mine. We will agree to disagree. This thread is not about ADHD. Go set another thread up somewhere else if you want to discuss the issue with others

 

[Willin]

@Maofan7 I'm saying they're invalid because they have no scientific citations or medical background to back them up. My sources for that post were all official government sites or peer-reviewed published articles archived in NIH PubMed.
The source you posted there (Frontline) is 16 years old - much has changed since then. The DSM they cited there is DSM-IV. Due to the criticisms of DSM-IV and based on new research, an incredibly overhauled version was published in 2013 with much clearer and better diagnostic criteria. I cited the overhauled version - DSM-V. That definition of ADHD is not controversial at all, and continues to be updated as new research comes out to further refine it. This has addressed much of the criticism from that article.

 

[Maofan7]

@Maofan7I cited the overhauled version - DSM-V....not controversial at all

Really? I think not

My best advice to clinicians, to the press, and to the general public - be skeptical and don't follow DSM 5 blindly down a road likely to lead to massive over-diagnosis and harmful over-medication.

DSM 5 has neither been able to self correct nor willing to heed the advice of outsiders. It has instead created a mostly closed shop- circling the wagons and deaf to the repeated and widespread warnings that it would lead to massive misdiagnosis

 

[Willin]

@Maofan7 Sure, nothing's perfect, but the blog post you cited is so biased I'll disregard it. The man writing it is an author of the DSM-IV (which DSM-V replaced), and trying to sell books about this exact topic - as stated in his bio. This is also a blog post - which requires no data, no peer review, no nothing. Again, if you can find a scientific, peer-reviewed study in a journal published within the last 5 years, that is evidence. This is not evidence - only evidence that someone has a book to sell.

ETA: And even in this criticism, your point is invalid. Your point, that ADHD is controversial, is not addressed in this point. What the author finds controversial is the potential for overdiagnosis, not whether or not it exists. And overdiagnosis is a problem, and everyone recognizes that - but that doesn't mean that it's a controversial diagnosis.
This problem will always exist in psychiatry because there's no good, clear cut lab test for most conditions (although, I will note, there are extensive tests you can do to help support a diagnosis for things like ADHD). If WADA feels like they need to appoint an independent expert or have two separate professionals confirm the diagnosis of ADHD before allowing the exemption due to the risk of over or misdiagnosis, they can. And if they aren't, they are allowed to assume that all Psychiatrists are competent.

 

[Maofan7]

@Maofan7 Sure, nothing's perfect, but the blog post you cited is so biased I'll disregard it. The man writing it is an author of the DSM-IV (which DSM-V replaced), and trying to sell books about this exact topic - as stated in his bio. This is also a blog post - which requires no data, no peer review, no nothing. Again, if you can find a scientific, peer-reviewed study in a journal published within the last 5 years, that is evidence. This is not evidence - only evidence that someone has a book to sell.

ETA: And even in this criticism, your point is invalid. Your point, that ADHD is controversial, is not addressed in this point. What the author finds controversial is the potential for overdiagnosis, not whether or not it exists. And overdiagnosis is a problem, and everyone recognizes that - but that doesn't mean that it's a controversial diagnosis.
This problem will always exist in psychiatry because there's no good, clear cut lab test for most conditions (although, I will note, there are extensive tests you can do to help support a diagnosis for things like ADHD). If WADA feels like they need to appoint an independent expert or have two separate professionals confirm the diagnosis of ADHD before allowing the exemption due to the risk of over or misdiagnosis, they can. And if they aren't, they are allowed to assume that all Psychiatrists are competent.

There you go again, being selective. Basically, if anybody has an opposing view, you think they are biased.

It was not a blog post, it was from Psychology Today - a highly regarded magazine. The Author is Allen J Frances M.D, a highly regarded Professor from Duke University. All the evidence and data you could want is contained in his book, Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life. Go and buy a copy. Here is a very extensive review of the book by Dr Helene Guldberg Ph.D. (Developmental Psychology) from the Open University (previously Manchester University). Here is an extract from the review:-

Take Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), which is "spreading like wildfire." This diagnosis is applied so promiscuously that ‘an amazing 10 percent of kids now qualify’, Frances writes. In the US, boys born in December are 70 percent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than boys born in January. The reason diagnosing ADHD is so problematic is that it essentially is a description of immaturity, including symptoms such as "lack of impulse control," "hyperactivity," or "inattention." Boys born in December tend to be the youngest in their school year group (in the US) and thus they are more likely to be immature. In the UK, the youngest children in a school classroom are born in August, and so here, August-born kids are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD. We have medicalised immaturity.

I imagine you will claim that review is biased as well.....

And even in this criticism, your point is invalid. Your point, that ADHD is controversial, is not addressed in this point.

You will note from the above review that ADHD is addressed by Frances in his book. ADHD is a key factor in his criticism of DSM-5

Your going in circles. As I said earlier, we will agree to disagree. This is not a thread about ADHD. If you want to discuss that subject with others, go start a new thread somewhere else

 

[Willin]

@Maofan7 In that review they are discussing the overdiagnosis of ADHD - not arguing that it doesn't exist. Her argument and the data about time of year born is a common problem with the overdiagnosis of ADHD (and experts recognize this) - particularly in this day and age when parents put their children into school as young and possible and then are shocked when their angel doesn't do well and therefore must attribute it to ADHD. But, there are people who legitimately have ADHD - just ask teachers, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses/aides, parents of kids with ADHD, etc. When you see a person with it who is untreated, it's very obvious.

As someone with experience in healthcare and academics, just because someone is well respected or otherwise had a good position doesn't mean that they aren't trying to sell books or gain prestige or one-up someone else. There are a lot of very smart, very well read professors who sensationalize or misrepresent their ideas because that will get them more money/attention/prestige/speaking engagements/etc. This book was written for the popular science market - you can tell by the buzzwords in the title ("big pharma" "medicalization") and the fact that it is an "international bestseller." I suspect this is a case of a popular idea in the field (ie. trying to treat psychiatric conditions with therapy instead of medication when possible and controlling the overdiagnosis of psychiatric conditions) sensationalized to sell copies - as the reviews from other professionals seem primarily to praise those two ideas.

Reading more about this book and article - this does not support your view that ADHD is controversial - just that people think it's overdiagnosed, which is true.

ETA: Also, this is not peer-review. Peer review means peers knowledgeable about the topic critically evaluate your book/paper/article/etc. and tear it to shreds (usually no less than 2-3 times) before you publish it. Then they don't endorse it, and usually the reviews are not published for everyone to see. These are endorsements, which are typically found in popular science to add credibility to the book.

 

[Maofan7]

@Maofan7 In that review they are discussing the overdiagnosis of ADHD - not arguing that it doesn't exist.

Your losing the plot. In post 156, you stated:-

I cited the overhauled version - DSM-V. That definition of ADHD is not controversial at all

I then referred to the Frances article which shows that quite clearly that definition is highly controversial because it leads to extensive over diagnoses. A key element of the controversy is over diagnosis and if you don't think that is controversial then you have a highly distorted view of what controversy is all about. Over diagnoses is highly relevant when it comes to TUE's because the extent of the over diagnoses is such that it is likely that a proportion of those asking for TUE's re ADHD are amongst the over diagnosed

 

[Willin]

@Maofan7 By definition I do not mean diagnostic criteria (what they are debating/addressing) - I mean the definition of the disease. That it exists as a discrete condition without any controversy. That it exists is not debated at all (which is what you were originally arguing, therefore what I was referring to). According to DSM-V, ADHD exists and is defined as: "A persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with development." That definition is not controversial. How you diagnose it is (understandibly if you read how vague the criteria are).

 

[Maofan7]

@Maofan7 By definition I do not mean diagnostic criteria (what they are debating/addressing) - I mean the definition of the disease. That it exists as a discrete condition without any controversy. That it exists is not debated at all (which is what you were originally arguing, therefore what I was referring to). According to DSM-V, ADHD exists and is defined as: "A persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with development." That definition is not controversial. How you diagnose it is (understandibly if you read how vague the criteria are).

Of course the U.S. definition is part of the problem that leads to over diagnoses! Its too wide, too ambiguous, and too vague (the word you use yourself). Hence (as this article points out):-

The US has a higher rate of diagnosis and medication than the UK. This may be because: the definition of ADHD (used in the US) is wider than that of 'hyperkinetic disorder', which is the diagnostic term still used by some clinicians in the UK

http://The US has a higher rate of ... term still used by some clinicians in the UK
And the very reason why France has many fewer diagnosis is because there definition is different

 

[Willin]

@Maofan7 But it does exist! And the criteria is what is wider - not the definition. In fact, ADHD and Hyperkinetic Disorder have the same ICD code and same ICD definition (F90). They are the same disease, just with different diagnostic criteria per the standards of diagnosis for each country.

EDIT: For clarity of how this relates to DSM-V, when developing DSM-V definitions of diseases were brought in line with the ICD (international) definition of each disease.

 

[Maofan7]

Sophistry. The criteria are too wide because the definition is too wide and too ambiguous. A tighter definition would produce a tighter set of diagnostic criteria. The article referred to in post 163 clearly states that they have a wider definition in the United States and that that is part of the problem

 

[Willin]

@Maofan7 But - the definition in DSM is in line with the ICD definition. The ICD definition is what is used for diagnosis in Europe. The only difference in the DSM definition is worse wording of diagnostic criteria and that the diagnostic criteria being separated from the definition.

 

[TAHbKA]

How on earth is that a SKATE debate?

 

[aftershocks]

@Willin's argument makes the most sense to me, and it's backed up seemingly by more reliable and reasoned data. So point proven regarding the ADHD controversies and complexities, despite all the talking in circles and projecting that some posters are doing. (ITA with @Willin's argument that ADHD does exist, and that the controversy is not over whether it exists, but over how it is diagnosed and treated). This entire thread is not specifically about SKATE debate in any case. It's about the Russian doping controversy and WADA's mishandling of it (particularly in terms of how the Meldonium ruling affected certain figure skaters). This led to other related discussion about Russian hacking and release of top American athletes' (Simone Biles, Williams sisters) medical records in 2016 in order to unfairly smear them.

Obviously this is an emotional discussion tangentially related to figure skaters, i.e., those Russian skaters who were affected by the WADA ban of Meldonium. While WADA apparently has mishandled the investigation and aftermath, as well as been lacking in how they have developed and set guidelines regarding banned substances, I don't think there's any doubt that Russia has engaged in doping practices for a long time in a number of sports (apparently their figure skating athletes were not as extensively affected by the practice -- particularly since the drug at the center of the figure skating controversy was not considered illegal until recently). As I've said previously, I don't generally blame the Russian athletes, as I think they are in a position of having to trust their government and their federation, and to do as they are told if they wish to compete. Of course Russia is not the only country that has engaged in corrupt doping practices. And there are a number of individual athletes in different sports from different countries who have engaged in illegal doping to achieve an advantage.

Undeniably, there's no excuse for breaching the privacy of anyone's medical records. Simone Biles and the Williams sisters followed all the rules and the proper procedures, and it's the height of hypocrisy and revenge for them to have been purposely singled out by the hackers. Quite clearly Biles and the Williams sisters are high level athletes with prodigious talent who were not surreptitiously or egregiously taking drugs for the purpose of achieving any kind of advantage over their competitors. No one should accuse Irina Slutskaya either of having taken drugs for the purpose of achieving a competitive advantage after she suffered from a serious health condition and received permission to take prescribed medication.

The serious nature of Russia's ongoing and widespread cyber-hacking enterprises for nefarious purposes is of even more grave concern on a global level than their athlete doping practices have been.

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

Hehe, it makes me wonder how the thread of Russian ban has drifted to ADHD.
I would like to make a couple of points, please.

1. Whether taking drugs for a condition gives an unfair advantage over healthy athletes who don't take anything is totally irrelevant. The rules allow it. Why and what is the reason - I don't care. The point is, that as long as this is the case, any discussion about it is a waste of precious Internet space. And it has nothing to do with the doping allegedly taken by the Russians.

2. Whether there's a good reason to ban meldonium or whatever is also irrelevant. As much as some would love to present Russia as poor disadvantaged country, it is not. It is a very major player in the world of sports, and if it had a clear case for meldonium or against some analog that allegedly is used in other countries, it would use it. And it would succeed and getting its agenda heard. Not to mention, that if we disregard the battle of pharmaceutic companies, if this is the case, let the Russians use that alleged Western analog. End of story. As you all well know, in figure skating Russians promote their ideas very successfully. I fail to understand why it would fail to do the same where it matters for other sports.

3. Whether McLaren, WADA or whoever can bring solid proofs or not, there's absolutely not the slightest doubt in my mind that Russia indeed had some doping scheme. You have to understand the official modern Russia, where showing off and phallometry are much more important than the actual substance. This is why Russia is leading in ballet, sports and space, but some 10% of its population still doesn't have indoors plumbing. This is the reason behind everything that goes on there, from foreign politics to stewardesses of Aeroflot, and this is also why they wouldn't think twice before developing some idiotic scheme to allow their athletes to use doping. And for it being totally idiotic is obligatory.

So technicalities-shmechnicalities, but I can assure you that upon hearing about the McLaren report, an average Russian didn't even stop to consider the possibility that his sports officials didn't do it. The question is not whether they did it or not, but whether they would get caught or not. Given the official reaction, it's pretty obvious they realize they got.

And while I sympathize with the athletes, who often don't have any choice, I don't think it would be smart for the cyclists (of all the people!) to make too much noise. Because if someone smarter than WADA starts digging this dumpster, it won't end up well first of all for the cyclists themselves.

 

[aftershocks]

Hehe, it makes me wonder how the thread of Russian ban has drifted to ADHD.

Apparently because someone had at some point referenced the fact that Simone Biles is diagnosed with ADHD and had been approved to take medications for the condition. The medications are treating her condition, not providing her with unfair advantage over other athletes. Russian hackers were found to have illegally hacked into certain American athletes' medical records, and then released the details publicly. The ADHD straying away from the original topic, appears to involve an attempt to try and construct false equivalencies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/...na-venus-williams-russian-hackers-doping.html

And thanks @Andrey aka Pushkin for providing no-nonsense, matter-of-fact clarity to the thread in your previous post.

 

[hanca]

Apparently because someone had at some point referenced the fact that Simone Biles is diagnosed with ADHD and had been approved to take medications for the condition. The medications are treating her condition, not providing her with unfair advantage over other athletes. Russian hackers were found to have illegally hacked into certain American athletes' medical records, and then released the details publicly. The ADHD straying away from the original topic, appears to involve an attempt to try and construct false equivalencies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/...na-venus-williams-russian-hackers-doping.html

And thanks @Andrey aka Pushkin for providing no-nonsense, matter-of-fact clarity to the thread in your previous post.

Well, considering that @Maofan7 just showed us that the condition is so broadly and vaguely defined that it leads to over diagnosis especially in the USA, how can you be sure that Biles actually has the condition and is not one of the people who were just diagnosed without actually having it? In such case she is getting drugs that are banned (while she is allowed to take them, so everything is alright), and getting unfair advantage over other competitors. And I am not picking on Biles, there is plenty of sportsmen doing exactly the same, and according to the current system it is considered acceptable. That's why I believe that the system should be changed - there should not be any medical exceptions. A drug is either allowed for everyone or forbidden for everyone.

 

[aftershocks]

^^ Again @hanca, you are engaging in distraction and false equivalency, but continue on, as you will.

I would suggest that you try to get over attempting to defame Simone Biles, PDQ.

 

[hanca]

^^ Again @hanca, you are engaging in distraction and false equivalency, but continue on, as you will.

I am not. You just selectively discard the arguments that don't fit with your opinion and praise those who agree with you.

 

[aftershocks]

I am not. You just selectively discard the arguments that don't fit with your opinion and praise those who agree with you.

Well, it's useless conversing with persons who are intent on engaging in obsfucation, prevarifiction, unfounded accusations, finger-pointing distractions, projecting, and construction of false arguments in order to continue living in their glass houses.

 

[Andrey aka Pushkin]

Well, considering that @Maofan7 just showed us that the condition is so broadly and vaguely defined that it leads to over diagnosis especially in the USA, how can you be sure that Biles actually has the condition and is not one of the people who were just diagnosed without actually having it? In such case she is getting drugs that are banned (while she is allowed to take them, so everything is alright), and getting unfair advantage over other competitors. And I am not picking on Biles, there is plenty of sportsmen doing exactly the same, and according to the current system it is considered acceptable. That's why I believe that the system should be changed - there should not be any medical exceptions. A drug is either allowed for everyone or forbidden for everyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Biles is neither Russian nor banned, thus having nothing to do with this thread. She's not even a skater for that matter.

In general this appears to be the argument of the same sort as the one against Pistorius when he used the artificial legs. It gives him unfair advantage? Good, amputate your legs and do it too, if you really think so.

 

[Meoima]

Well, considering that @Maofan7 just showed us that the condition is so broadly and vaguely defined that it leads to over diagnosis especially in the USA, how can you be sure that Biles actually has the condition and is not one of the people who were just diagnosed without actually having it? In such case she is getting drugs that are banned (while she is allowed to take them, so everything is alright), and getting unfair advantage over other competitors. And I am not picking on Biles, there is plenty of sportsmen doing exactly the same, and according to the current system it is considered acceptable. That's why I believe that the system should be changed - there should not be any medical exceptions. A drug is either allowed for everyone or forbidden for everyone.

As someone who isn't living in Russia or has any tie to Russia, also has no tie to American. I'd say it has been known to us, who has some connection to the sport world (I worked at a stadium for 2 years during my college): American athletes are known to take special medications thanks to their doctors. I've heard that US swimmers have "asthma" more than usual and take medications which normal athletes shouldn't.
I would say it's not known as happening to the whole system but It does exist.
Of course we also heard stories about Russian and Chinese athletes. Just saying it's a bit funny when some certain block of fans single out the Russian though.
As someone neutral, I'd heard not very good stories about doping in American sport too. And in many cases, it's so thankful towards the doctors.

 

[Willin]

@Meoima The difference in US vs Russia is that in the US it's individual bad doctors.
Contrary to apparently popular belief on this forum (among people thinking we're singling out Russia), US sport - even ones like US Swimming - are not centralized for training. The most centralized is gymnastics and even that sport has the athletes spend the majority of their time on their own. Athletes here are expected to find their own doctors, their own funding, their own coaches, their own equipment, etc. The only time it's centralized is for international competition, and even then the centralized part is primarily clothing and travel - NOT doctors or coaches. The government also had absolutely 0 involvement. In fact, the US is one of only a handful of countries that does not have their Olympic organization directed or funded by the government. Even our anti-doping labs are entirely separate from the government.

The reason Russia's being singled out is that their sports organizations are run and heavily influenced by the Russian Sports federation. That means athletes get doctors from that organization, got tested (for Sochi) by that organization, are given coaches/facilites/equipment by that organization. It seems like only those athletes in sports where doping isn't common (skating, gymnastics, etc.) and those not training at Russian-run facilities were safe. The Russian government also destroyed the evidence. It all points to a systemic problem, not a problem of bad individuals as you find in the US.

Of course, it's likely unfair to single out Russia for systemic doping. Jamaica's track & field team is also under investigation for it, and I have no doubt that China carries out bad systemic practices as well. Russia's just the one that has had any impact on sports so far with the bans and the lab.

 

[Meoima]

@Meoima The difference in US vs Russia is that in the US it's individual bad doctors.
Contrary to apparently popular belief on this forum (among people thinking we're singling out Russia), US sport - even ones like US Swimming - are not centralized for training. The most centralized is gymnastics and even that sport has the athletes spend the majority of their time on their own. Athletes here are expected to find their own doctors, their own funding, their own coaches, their own equipment, etc. The only time it's centralized is for international competition, and even then the centralized part is primarily clothing and travel - NOT doctors or coaches. The government also had absolutely 0 involvement. In fact, the US is one of only a handful of countries that does not have their Olympic organization directed or funded by the government. Even our anti-doping labs are entirely separate from the government.

The reason Russia's being singled out is that their sports organizations are run and heavily influenced by the Russian Sports federation. That means athletes get doctors from that organization, got tested (for Sochi) by that organization, are given coaches/facilites/equipment by that organization. It seems like only those athletes in sports where doping isn't common (skating, gymnastics, etc.) and those not training at Russian-run facilities were safe. The Russian government also destroyed the evidence. It all points to a systemic problem, not a problem of bad individuals as you find in the US.

Of course, it's likely unfair to single out Russia for systemic doping. Jamaica's track & field team is also under investigation for it, and I have no doubt that China carries out bad systemic practices as well. Russia's just the one that has had any impact on sports so far with the bans and the lab.

Yes I understand that in US it's not actived by the government. But the individual doctors and the medication system also make it possible to manipulate in big number.
It's good that the doping labs are entirely separated from the government.

 

[hanca]

@Meoima The difference in US vs Russia is that in the US it's individual bad doctors.
Contrary to apparently popular belief on this forum (among people thinking we're singling out Russia), US sport - even ones like US Swimming - are not centralized for training. The most centralized is gymnastics and even that sport has the athletes spend the majority of their time on their own. Athletes here are expected to find their own doctors, their own funding, their own coaches, their own equipment, etc. The only time it's centralized is for international competition, and even then the centralized part is primarily clothing and travel - NOT doctors or coaches. The government also had absolutely 0 involvement. In fact, the US is one of only a handful of countries that does not have their Olympic organization directed or funded by the government. Even our anti-doping labs are entirely separate from the government.

The reason Russia's being singled out is that their sports organizations are run and heavily influenced by the Russian Sports federation. That means athletes get doctors from that organization, got tested (for Sochi) by that organization, are given coaches/facilites/equipment by that organization. It seems like only those athletes in sports where doping isn't common (skating, gymnastics, etc.) and those not training at Russian-run facilities were safe. The Russian government also destroyed the evidence. It all points to a systemic problem, not a problem of bad individuals as you find in the US.

Of course, it's likely unfair to single out Russia for systemic doping. Jamaica's track & field team is also under investigation for it, and I have no doubt that China carries out bad systemic practices as well. Russia's just the one that has had any impact on sports so far with the bans and the lab.

In Russia it may be due to systemic cheating (although whatever has been published has been quite weak on concrete evidence), in the USA it is thanks to doctors who are far too willing to diagnose all sorts of things, which makes their cheating 'legal' and in compliance with the rules. But the bottom line is, the result is the same - getting unfair advantage over their competitors. So I am not sure why some posters here think that one way of cheating is unacceptable, whereas the other form of cheating is alright. Yes, the athletes who were 'diagnosed' something they don't have haven't been caught cheating, but that doesn't make it any less cheating.

 

[MacMadame]

I never actually said what my own personal views were. I simply stated that there is no medical consensus. That is a fact. There is no consensus. You can call the sceptics names, question there qualifications, question there motives, question how many there are, or whatever. But the fact of the matter is, they exist. They hold an opposing view, as is there right.

Some people believe that the earth is flat and write scores of blog posts and articles about it. That doesn't mean there isn't a consensus that the earth is round.