Failed Drugs Tests At London Games

As the Olympics draws closer to its conclusion it might be time to look at those who have failed drugs tests during the Games and assess the overall substance abuse situation.

So far, 10 athletes have been provided samples that provided evidence of illegal substance use:

(Name, country, event, substance)


Victoria Baranova, Russia, Women's sprint, Male hormone testosterone

Kissya Cataldo, Brazil, Single sculls, EPO

Nicholas Delpopolo, United States, Judo, Cannabis

Luiza Galiulina, Uzbekistan, Artistic gymnastics, Furosemide

Amine Laalou, Morocco, 1500 m, Furosemide

Marina Marghiev, Moldova, Hammer throw, Furosemide

Diego Palomeque, Colombia, 400 m, Stanozolol

Hysen Pulaku, Albania, Weightlifting - Men's 77 kg, Stanozolol

Alex Schwazer, Italy, 50 km walk, EPO

Tameka Williams, Saint Kitts and Nevis, 100 m/200 m, Not yet fully established


10 athletes out of 10'000+ testing positive for substance abuse is a very low number, but of course, there are still a couple of days to go and it must be remembered that some tests take longer to complete so news of other positive test results may yet come to light.

But London compares fairly well with other Games so far. There were 18 positive outcomes from the Beijing Games, 28 from Athens and 12 from Sydney.

Those who think drugs testing is ineffective though may like to consider that only 2 athletes tested positively at Atlanta and 5 at Barcelona which may be because the cheats were better able to evade the testing procedures at that time. So.... if we start with the presumption that drugs abuse is a constant, then testing procedures would appear to be becoming more effective.

I think it's reasonable to suggest that the evidence so far shows the London Games to have been overwhelmingly "clean". From the peak of 28 postive tests in Athens, through 18 in Beijing to 10 (ish) in London, we can consider this as evidence that there is a downward trend in drugs abuse in sport.

The usual questions will still be relevant: Does the lower numbers of positive tests mean that the cheats are getting more clever at evading the testing protocols..? Or are fewer athletes taking the risk due to improved testing...? You pays your money, you takes your choice.

I'm quite optimistic that the IOC change to retaining samples for up to 8 years is a very powerful deterrent. Those who take the risk know that simply evading a positive test during the Games themselves is no guarantee that they will get away with it indefinitely. Those who abuse substances will be looking over their shoulders up to and beyond Rio 2016, until wherever 2020...... and testing technology is improving all the time.

So let's say that London has been about as clean as can be expected and be pleased that another aspect of these marvellous Games has come out of it in a positive light.

.

Trouble is the ones who get caught at the Games are only the careless and unsophisticated , for the most part. So the statistics don't really mean a lot.

The serious drug taking is done while training over the previous months , and it is really then that the testers have to catch their targets. Which hopefully is getting better with all the unannounced tests and compulsory location recording. The only problem being that testing programmes are somewhat ...variable ...depending where you live...

I personally believe drug use is rife in all sports, the unlucky (or stupid) ones get caught.

Drug testing isnt the most sophisticatedin the world and masking agents can work wonders these days.

The key word here is "clean".

Being a "natural" athlete means not using and having never used PED's.

Being a "clean" athlete means being temporaily off using PED's.

Almost all the athletes competing at the Olympics are clean.
Very few, if any at all, are natural.

AAS, HGH, Insulin, EPO, Peptides, Diuretics.....
You name it, they've used it.

alfie wrote:Trouble is the ones who get caught at the Games are only the careless and unsophisticated , for the most part. So the statistics don't really mean a lot.

The serious drug taking is done while training over the previous months , and it is really then that the testers have to catch their targets. Which hopefully is getting better with all the unannounced tests and compulsory location recording. The only problem being that testing programmes are somewhat ...variable ...depending where you live...

The figures I quoted don't include out of competition testing. The purpose of this thread is to discuss those individuals who are caught cheating during the games. I appreciate that you're taking a broader view and that's fair enough, but if you wish to start a discussion on out of competition drugs abuse, then I look forward to reading your propositions.

Drugs testing during the Olympic Games is not variable, it is carried out under the auspices of the IOC and there are set procedures which must be adhered to for test results to be valid.

Again, I would be interested to read your insights into what happens outside of competition if you decide to start such a discussion.


.

Sorry Jen , didn't mean to hijack your topic and take it off in another direction

I do agree with your suggestion that the retention of samples for eight years appears to have had a deterrent effect. Would also appear that testing is becoming more thorough ...or is it that they are taking it more seriously than in the 90s ?

But overall , I am not sure that these fairly small numbers in a huge mass of tests are enough to really establish a definite trend. Suppose it rather depends on one's personal bias : fewer positives may mean a cleaner games , or it may mean the evil chemists have taken the lead again ...

alfie wrote:Sorry Jen , didn't mean to hijack your topic and take it off in another direction

I do agree with your suggestion that the retention of samples for eight years appears to have had a deterrent effect. Would also appear that testing is becoming more thorough ...or is it that they are taking it more seriously than in the 90s ?

But overall , I am not sure that these fairly small numbers in a huge mass of tests are enough to really establish a definite trend. Suppose it rather depends on one's personal bias : fewer positives may mean a cleaner games , or it may mean the evil chemists have taken the lead again ...

Evil chemists will always be one step ahead. They invent a way of hiding it, drugs body come up with something to counter it. Repeat.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:I personally believe drug use is rife in all sports, the unlucky (or stupid) ones get caught.

Drug testing isnt the most sophisticatedin the world and masking agents can work wonders these days.

Exactly what methods aren't sophisticated enough for your liking..? Do you think that that Direct or Indirect systems of testing are better for discovering the presence of, say, Recombinant Erythropoietin..? I'd be interested to read your detailed thoughts on the subject.

.

Hopefully its a sign that less athletes are willing to take the risks and that there has been a crackdown. Drug abuse in sports should carry a zero tolerance approach and lifetime bans. Its a shame that the likes of Gatlin and Chambers were allowed to compete. They should not be welcome in competition that promotes ethics, fair play and respect.

Gordy wrote:Hopefully its a sign that less athletes are willing to take the risks and that there has been a crackdown. Drug abuse in sports should carry a zero tolerance approach and lifetime bans. Its a shame that the likes of Gatlin and Chambers were allowed to compete. They should not be welcome in competition that promotes ethics, fair play and respect.

Everyone deserves a second chance. Chambers in particular served his time, campaigned against drugs and helped the testers.

Gatlin had his second chance as far as I'm concerned. He should be banned for life.

alfie wrote:Sorry Jen , didn't mean to hijack your topic and take it off in another direction

I do agree with your suggestion that the retention of samples for eight years appears to have had a deterrent effect. Would also appear that testing is becoming more thorough ...or is it that they are taking it more seriously than in the 90s ?

But overall , I am not sure that these fairly small numbers in a huge mass of tests are enough to really establish a definite trend. Suppose it rather depends on one's personal bias : fewer positives may mean a cleaner games , or it may mean the evil chemists have taken the lead again ...

No problem, Alfie, you weren't hijacking anything and the point you made was a good and valid one, I just wanted to prompt some discussion based on the apparent downward trend in the numbers of those caught. As you quite rightly say, it is either a case of fewer abusers or that they are getting cleverer. Or it could just be that Athletes are being deterred from abusing drugs because they are becoming less confident of getting away with it.

I genuinely think there is real evidence of the latter being the case.

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no evidence of secret government laboratories whacking out vast quantities of hitherto undiscovered designer drugs that are being mass produced for nefarious purposes. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't happening on a lesser scale but then you have to question the level of expertise of those who research and develop such substances.

It can take many years before a new medication reaches the stage where an athlete can reliably use it safely and without risk of seriously detrimental after effects. Again, although there have been stories in the past of some athletes having a cavalier attitude towards their own health in the pursuance of sporting glory, better education of the risks involved in drugs abuse is another factor which cannot be ignored.

Even then, once that drug is actulaly found, then the makers have to find the means to effectively hide it from detection, a process that can take many more years. All this has to be carried out with some of the worlds' most eminent biochemical scientists, using the most sophisticated techniques available in well funded, well resourced laboratory conditions hot on thier heels.

There was a time when drugs abuse was rife in sport and the drugs cheats definitely had the upper hand, but those days are, I believe, on the wane. The tide has most definitely turned.


.

The legs of Olympic German cyclist Robert Forstermann

http://theoriginalgreenwichdiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/olympic-cyclist-andre-greipel-and-robert-forstemann.jpg

Very natural looking pair of thighs, possible to build and mantain simply with heavy squats, intense cycling...............



.....and a truckload of drugs

J.Benson II wrote:The legs of Olympic German cyclist Robert Forstermann

http://theoriginalgreenwichdiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/olympic-cyclist-andre-greipel-and-robert-forstemann.jpg

Very natural looking pair of thighs, possible to build and mantain simply with heavy squats, intense cycling...............

.....and a truckload of drugs

Large quadriceps muscle development is possible. Body builders do it all the time.

If you think he's been using drugs, which ones do you think he may have used..?

J.Benson II wrote:The legs of Olympic German cyclist Robert Forstermann

http://theoriginalgreenwichdiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/olympic-cyclist-andre-greipel-and-robert-forstemann.jpg

Very natural looking pair of thighs, possible to build and mantain simply with heavy squats, intense cycling...............



.....and a truckload of drugs

Its Forstermans thighs that are the big ones. he comes from a mountain biking background and hasnt been subjected to the same level of historical testing as Greipel. Chances are he did used to do something ( like most tour cyclists used to up till they changed the testing procedures and lots of people got caught) but he would be taking huge risk of getting caught if he still is.

I think, perhaps counter-intuitively, that the absurd over-development of Forstermann's thighs probably indicate he's clean and just a freak - they are almost certainly over-developed for optimum performance in his event (sprint cycling, and particularly being the lead-off guy in the team sprint). If he was taking high doses of steroids, the coaches would probably cut him down to make him leaner, lighter and more efficient. He may have great power but the energy demand of that much muscle mass over a 20 second effort must be incredible (especially as the mass has to get up to speed on a bike).

Compare with Chris Hoy, who's also a big lad, but is no where close to as over-developed. Jason Kenny, by comparison, is stick thin but able to produce the same pace with superior endurance.

I do hope you are right , Jen. My own gut feeling is that the increased efficiency of testing , out of competition testing and now these biological passports have indeed swung the game towards the side of the angels.
Certainly the evidence is that cycling is being cleaned up. The funny thing is that now some people complain that they no longer see the incredible feats once often performed in the mountains , and the Tour has become boring as a consequence...
Still have my doubts about a fair few competitors in the athletics so am pleased to see a couple have been busted there already

Will be interesting to see if there are any more over the last few days.

Jennifer1984 wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:The legs of Olympic German cyclist Robert Forstermann

http://theoriginalgreenwichdiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/olympic-cyclist-andre-greipel-and-robert-forstemann.jpg

Very natural looking pair of thighs, possible to build and mantain simply with heavy squats, intense cycling...............

.....and a truckload of drugs

Large quadriceps muscle development is possible. Body builders do it all the time.

If you think he's been using drugs, which ones do you think he may have used..?

Bodybuilders are juiced to their eyeballs. All of them. The top pro's (Phil Heath, Dennis Wolf etc.) take unholy amounts of drugs (10-15 injections a day). Bodybuilding at the highest level is ALL DRUGS.

Anyway, judging by the picture, I'm guessing that he's on heavy dosages of Test (+1000mg a week). Most likely Test Prop due to its short shell life. Heavy user of Tren Ace (another short esther) and probably Deca/Equipona or Masteron. Only oral (if any) would be anavar. Obviously on substantial amounts of pharma-grade HGH too, which all world class athletes are on.

Its also worth noting that the much maligned chinese have done their upmost to clean their image up, if they are still sponsoring some kind of cheating they are do a hell of a lot better job of covering it up than they used to and must be confident they cant be caught. The far more likely answer is that they are largely clean now. The state invests in sport to boost the nations priide and standing internationally, having the swim team busted for drugs in the 90;'s was a complete embaressment for them...a similar thing at their home games wouldve been unacceptable and destroyed the whole point of them putting so much in in the first place.As much as I dislike the Chinese state its fair to say that when they decide to do something they get it done, and they made decision to clean up their sports. Its also worth noting that most of the Chinese medals have come in skill based sports were PEDs would have less effect.

alfie wrote:I do hope you are right , Jen. My own gut feeling is that the increased efficiency of testing , out of competition testing and now these biological passports have indeed swung the game towards the side of the angels.
Certainly the evidence is that cycling is being cleaned up. The funny thing is that now some people complain that they no longer see the incredible feats once often performed in the mountains , and the Tour has become boring as a consequence...
Still have my doubts about a fair few competitors in the athletics so am pleased to see a couple have been busted there already

Will be interesting to see if there are any more over the last few days.

Alfie

My suspicion is less that OOC testing and bio passports have swung things towards the side of the angels, but that they have had the effect of significantly reducing the performance advantages that can be gained through doping, and so clean competitors are now on close to a level playing field.

There was one simple reason this year's Tour de France was poor was that the competition beyond Team Sky was weak - Contador suspended, Andy Schleck injured, several of the previous serious challengers showing signs of age and the younger guys having not yet developed quite enough.

dummy_half wrote:I think, perhaps counter-intuitively, that the absurd over-development of Forstermann's thighs probably indicate he's clean and just a freak - they are almost certainly over-developed for optimum performance in his event (sprint cycling, and particularly being the lead-off guy in the team sprint). If he was taking high doses of steroids, the coaches would probably cut him down to make him leaner, lighter and more efficient. He may have great power but the energy demand of that much muscle mass over a 20 second effort must be incredible (especially as the mass has to get up to speed on a bike).

Compare with Chris Hoy, who's also a big lad, but is no where close to as over-developed. Jason Kenny, by comparison, is stick thin but able to produce the same pace with superior endurance.

Forstermann's thighs aren't achievable naturally. Not by a long shot.
You're right in saying that the added weight they provide is counter-productive. However, it's those legs that give Forstermann the accelaration and explosivness he needs. Lose some of the muscle and he probably wouldnt make the team.
I also suspect that Robert probably has hyper-responders. Put 2 guys on the same steriod cycle, 1 guy might gain 7lbs from it, the other 14lb. Its all genetics.

All the Olympians have tremendous genetic. Give me all the drugs in the world and I still wouldnt be able to out-run the slowest man at the games or out-lift the weakest. My genetic limitations would restrict me.

The top athletes all have great genetics, designed perfectly for top sporting performance. However, it doesnt change the they're all on drugs.

Theres a man who knows his stuff. Good posts J. Benson

It is even rife in uncompetitive sport. My local boxing gym is crawling with the stuff as is my local training establishment.

Just let people take them.

J.Benson II wrote:The legs of Olympic German cyclist Robert Forstermann

http://theoriginalgreenwichdiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/olympic-cyclist-andre-greipel-and-robert-forstemann.jpg

Very natural looking pair of thighs, possible to build and mantain simply with heavy squats, intense cycling...............



.....and a truckload of drugs

Excuse my German but those thighs just don't make any fokkering sense. Either some abnormality or some drug induced abnormality.

ps What is the point of sport if people are prepared to deform themselves to win the spoils. They need to introduce weight and shape rules.

Bumped, as to no great surprise the Olympics has its first rescinded gold medal, this being in the women's shot put.

Now I know that judging steroid use on physical appearance is sometimes unfair, but Ostapchuk definitely looked rather masculine (my wife's comment was 'no way is that a woman'), and also appears to have changed appearance (face shape for example) rather more over recent years than natural changes would explain.

dummy_half wrote:Bumped, as to no great surprise the Olympics has its first rescinded gold medal, this being in the women's shot put.

Now I know that judging steroid use on physical appearance is sometimes unfair, but Ostapchuk definitely looked rather masculine (my wife's comment was 'no way is that a woman'), and also appears to have changed appearance (face shape for example) rather more over recent years than natural changes would explain.

I was watching the shot (don't ask about the rubbish French commentary, my holiday was really badly timed). At one point I noticed a bloke wearing a hoody, and I tried to figure our who he was the coach of - turned out it was Ostapchuk wearing the hoody to keep warm between throws

Ostapchuk had spent the last 4 years finishing 2nd behind Adams, so I can understand the temptation to cheat, though ironically Val was off-form on the day (due to stress over the incompetent NZ team officials who'd stuffed up her entry paperwork, meaning she nearly missed competing), and Ostapchuk might have won anyway.

Jennifer1984 wrote:

J.Benson II wrote:The legs of Olympic German cyclist Robert Forstermann

http://theoriginalgreenwichdiva.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/olympic-cyclist-andre-greipel-and-robert-forstemann.jpg

Very natural looking pair of thighs, possible to build and mantain simply with heavy squats, intense cycling...............

.....and a truckload of drugs

Large quadriceps muscle development is possible. Body builders do it all the time.

If you think he's been using drugs, which ones do you think he may have used..?

I have a friend who's a pro body builder but competes on the 'clean' circuit so takes no PEDs, I asked him about this and he said there is no way those thighs are achievable 'naturally'. Now he doesn't have a doctorate in biology or similar (just some crappy sports science college qualification I think) but his life, day in day out, is about getting as big and as defined as possible. He lives and breaths this stuff there I'd take his opinion with more than a pinch of salt.