Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Russian Olympics Doping scandal appears to be unravelling

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,292
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked 224 Times in 173 Posts

    The Russian Olympics Doping scandal appears to be unravelling

    My eye was caught by an article in RT
    https://www.rt.com/news/425357-rodch...awsuit-doping/

    The core of the story is that the credibility and evidence of the former Russian Olympics official Grigory Rodchenkov, is being systematically shredded in the Court of Arbitration of Sport, in Switzerland, where a long list of Russian athletes have challenged the evidence and the judgement of the IOC and are having their Life long bans overturned and medals returned.

    The listing of recent decisions posted by the CAS certainly supports the key assertions (although not necessarily a full bill of innocence) of the article

    http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprude...decisions.html (btw the tas in the address relate to the Swiss/French name of the organisation, not to the Russian news agency .

    The article makes play of the lack of coverage in the Western media. Given the high profile coverage of the allegations and now overturned bans and medal reallocation's, I think that it is a very fair criticism.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Oxfordshire
    Posts
    1,903
    Thanks
    727
    Thanked 750 Times in 512 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sampan View Post
    My eye was caught by an article in RT
    https://www.rt.com/news/425357-rodch...awsuit-doping/

    The core of the story is that the credibility and evidence of the former Russian Olympics official Grigory Rodchenkov, is being systematically shredded in the Court of Arbitration of Sport, in Switzerland, where a long list of Russian athletes have challenged the evidence and the judgement of the IOC and are having their Life long bans overturned and medals returned.

    The listing of recent decisions posted by the CAS certainly supports the key assertions (although not necessarily a full bill of innocence) of the article

    http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprude...decisions.html (btw the tas in the address relate to the Swiss/French name of the organisation, not to the Russian news agency .

    The article makes play of the lack of coverage in the Western media. Given the high profile coverage of the allegations and now overturned bans and medal reallocation's, I think that it is a very fair criticism.
    All I can say is that Grigory Rodchenkov had better be very careful of touching any door handlesl !!!

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Major Sinic For This Useful Post:

    cromwell (28-04-2018), johnofgwent (29-04-2018)

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    4,325
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 465 Times in 386 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sampan View Post
    My eye was caught by an article in RT
    https://www.rt.com/news/425357-rodch...awsuit-doping/

    The core of the story is that the credibility and evidence of the former Russian Olympics official Grigory Rodchenkov, is being systematically shredded in the Court of Arbitration of Sport, in Switzerland, where a long list of Russian athletes have challenged the evidence and the judgement of the IOC and are having their Life long bans overturned and medals returned.

    The listing of recent decisions posted by the CAS certainly supports the key assertions (although not necessarily a full bill of innocence) of the article

    http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprude...decisions.html (btw the tas in the address relate to the Swiss/French name of the organisation, not to the Russian news agency .

    The article makes play of the lack of coverage in the Western media. Given the high profile coverage of the allegations and now overturned bans and medal reallocation's, I think that it is a very fair criticism.
    “Lausanne, 23 April 2018 – The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has published two of the 39 decisions in the cases of the Russian athletes who challenged the decisions taken by the Disciplinary Commission of the International Olympic Committee (IOC DC) in relation to the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games. On 1 February 2018, the CAS announced that 28 appeals had been upheld and the other 11 partially upheld.”

    Reading the following more fully may put a more nuanced interpretation of the RT story which appears to be a loose interpretation of CAS/TAS findings so far:

    http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/use...C__FINAL...pdf
    The poster reserves the right to amend or completely change any opinions he has posted at any time — meanwhile, still waiting for the whip hand that Enoch forecast...

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    8,272
    Thanks
    1,191
    Thanked 980 Times in 818 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    having read that PDF, I contend that it is bull shite

    it is a fact that the Russian sporting body routinely and deliberately tampered with samples to ensure that a negative doping result was achieved.

    It does not matter if the individual athletes were complicit or innocent of criminal or civil wrongdoings in this matter

    The fact remains their drug free status at the time of the event CANNOT be established and therefore all performances by all athletes "tested" by that corrupt state body must be null and void. I have no problem with the stain of complicity being washed from the records of individual athletes where no evidence is provided that they personally were not party to this act, but unlike the case of a certain 100metre sprinter of previous competitions and a certain tour de farce cyclist, this was never an allegation of wrong doing levelled against individual athletes was it. It was a proven fact that the government testing body deliberately falsified results

    To allow any athletes tested by this bunch of crooks to claim anything other than public sympathy for their sporting efforts being necessarily voided as a direct result of the criminal acts of others is a massive injustice to all those whose lives are burdened by having to meet these stringent test requirements by those playing the game as it should be.

    I am not exactly a bystander here; those who have been round a while may recall my pointing out in past posts my eldest taught, and still does teach, and my youngest was up to her mid teens a competitive participant in, national swimming competitions in which she was officially ranked and timed as completing 100, 200 and 400 metre freestyle and 200m fly well inside the qualifying times olympic athletes had to meet. That isn't quite as grand as it sounds as the qualifying times are well short of the records, but the point is, she like many other 13-16 year olds had her successes noted followed by the national team organisers and was from the earliest of her victories subjected to drug testing as a matter of routine. Jennifer gave up competitive swimming because she could not stand the toll the training took on her; many others make the same choice; to have performers whose success cannot be proven to be equally drug free given the benefit of their success in those circumstances is a travesty and a slap in the face to all who could have continued and enjoyed the fruits of success without the rigour of training...
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,292
    Thanks
    153
    Thanked 224 Times in 173 Posts
    Is it a matter of fact John?
    The PDF linked by Pat is a 2 page press release. My link was for a list of full adjudications (no I obviously have not skimmed more than a couple of them) while the RT article was in reference to a 160 page summary of all the adjudications, which seemed not to be in the public domain when I opened the thread.

    Now, I cannot pretend to be an expert in any matters relating to doping and athletics, but I do recognise glaring inconsistency, when I see, hear or read it.
    The whole significance of Rodchenkov's original testimony, was that this was a senior official who was spilling the beans and giving all the facts:
    That there was a state sanctioned doping program
    That he knew who was doing it
    That he knew how it was being done
    That he knew who had benefited from the program.

    Whoever, we are now being told that the Summary says that Rodchenkov did not know who was doing it or how these unknown people managed to tamper with the tamper proof bottles in an undetectable way.
    Further, that the proof presented of tampering was itself unreliable and failed to compare bottles on a like for like basis.
    In short, by not being able to prove who did it or how it was done, he was unable to actually prove anything at all and simply provided little (if nothing) more than hearsay.
    Given that no hard proof of a "crime" being committed was presented to the Court, it is hardly surprising that the Athletes penalised, were cleared of any blame albeit of active or passive cheating.

    It is not about any athlete proving that they are drug free, but the sporting authorities proving they were not. The CAS has found that the IOC did not.

Similar Threads

  1. Russian spy: Jeremy Corbyn aide queries proof of Russian guilt
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 18-03-2018, 03:07 PM
  2. Ex-chairman quits 'unravelling' UKIP
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-03-2017, 01:39 PM
  3. UKIP 'almost unravelling' amid Gill and leadership rows
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17-08-2016, 10:00 AM
  4. Mail's position unravelling - Labour
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-10-2013, 08:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •