Doping Cases and Bans 2018 Thread

[heywoodu 16,059]

39 minutes ago, De_Gambassi said:

 

 

Which is sort of what CAS said as well. 

[De_Gambassi 1,267]

Il y a 1 heure , heywoodu a déclaré:

 

Which is sort of what CAS said as well. 

 

Well, CAS did said that today's deicision didn't necesseraly mean that the 28 ones were "innocents" (contrary to what Russians will like to believe)

 

BUT, if there is not enough evidences for CAS to sanction these athletes, why would there be enough evidences to strip them of the "privilege of an invitation" to Pyeongchang ?

 

If the IOC sticks with the exclusion of these 28 athletes, I dont see how the CAS could come with a different decisision (ie: we can't vouch for the innoncence of these guys, but as it stands we do not have enough evidences to strip theml of the "priviliege of an invitation". Let them in)

 

EDIT: Maybe, they will consider that the IOC beeing the one inviting russian athletes (and not the Russian OC), they can invite or not invite them on whatever criterias they chosse apropiate. We'll see. Back to popcorn.

Edited February 1, 2018 by De_Gambassi

[JoshMartini007 2,769]

The ruling was expected. Just because the Moscow lab protected those athletes doesn't mean the athletes were doping (essentially it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt). If you were the lab and were successful at covering things up you might as well cover all of your best athletes.

 

I imagine those active athletes have been tested for the last two seasons in other labs so at the very least they're clean now.

[Dragon 2,034]

18 minutes ago, JoshMartini007 said:

The ruling was expected. Just because the Moscow lab protected those athletes doesn't mean the athletes were doping (essentially it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt). If you were the lab and were successful at covering things up you might as well cover all of your best athletes.

 

I imagine those active athletes have been tested for the last two seasons in other labs so at the very least they're clean now.

I was really surprised so many of them cleared. Remember this was nor based on "beyond reasonable doubt" but "balance of probabilty" - meaning they just had to prove it was more likely that they were doping than not,

The story coming out is that the judges didn't accept the evidence that the bottles had been tampered with and said that traces of other peoples DNA in the samples could have come from contamination.

The IOC are likely to appeal to the Swiss courts.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Dragon

[JoshMartini007 2,769]

41 minutes ago, Dragon said:

I was really surprised so many of them cleared. Remember this was nor based on "beyond reasonable doubt" but "balance of probabilty" - meaning they just had to prove it was more likely that they were doping than not,

The story coming out is that the judges didn't accept the evidence that the bottles had been tampered with and said that traces of other peoples DNA in the samples could have come from contamination.

The IOC are likely to appeal to the Swiss courts.

 

It's still easy enough to argue that the workers were under orders to rig the samples of top athletes. That's the issue of this whole thing, we know it was done, but evidence that ties to a specific athlete is a lot harder. Still there was enough evidence to find a decent portion guilty which seems to be forgotten in all this.

 

The bottles not being tampered with is a big thing. DNA contamination is interesting, but can be proven one way or the other (it's less likely the sample was contaminated if a significant portion was the wrong DNA)

[bestmen 2,907]

why didn't you add the dopers of page 17 (the table will be happy), you forgot them

[bestmen 2,907]

Why would the  ban on Russian athletes suddenly be overturned? Maybe because the investigation proved their innocence.

[Dragon 2,034]

9 minutes ago, bestmen said:

why didn't you add the dopers of page 17 (the table will be happy), you forgot them

There's more to come from that source. I'll add the totals when I finish adding more names.

[JoshMartini007 2,769]

37 minutes ago, bestmen said:

Why would the  ban on Russian athletes suddenly be overturned? Maybe because the investigation proved their innocence.

 

You can't prove innocence, only guilt. It's why we say not guilty instead of innocent in court.

[Dimast 88]

If the IOC wants to retain at least the remnants of its reputation, he should right now say "thank you" to Mrs. Furneyrnon and return to the Russian Olympic Committee the right to formulate the roster for the Games at its discretion, as any other national Olympic committee