- Joined
- Oct 31, 2014
Don't you think you are the one of those responsible for "spreading nasty rumors based on no ground" just because of your defense for Russia?
McLaren investigation report Pt. 2 released
- Thread starter gsk8
- Start date
Don't you think you are the one of those responsible for "spreading nasty rumors based on no ground" just because of your defense for Russia?
Just showing people how absurd they are =)
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2014
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2014
Ironically, you've behaved like you're one of "them".
From page 19 in report part 2, only 44 B samples from Sochi were selectively analyzed. Among those protected athletes, a Russian figure skater's sample was included as you can cross-reference from competition schedule of Sochi national team and the skater's identification code number (A1322 or A0848) with sample number and forensic report. The name initial is kinda visible to me, but I won't say it.
1. https://www.ipevidencedisclosurepackage.net/documents/EDP1162.pdf (daily competition schedule which identified protected
athletes)
Alexey Velikodniy created a daily competition schedule that identified protected
athletes. The schedule was continuously updated during the Games and included
all those on the Sochi Duchess List and athletes added during the Games, such as the
female hockey team. (p.38)
https://www.ipevidencedisclosurepackage.net/documents/EDP1149.pdf (Medals Care Sochi)
https://www.ipevidencedisclosurepackage.net/documents/EDP1166.pdf
https://www.ipevidencedisclosurepackage.net/documents/EDP0902.pdf
2. "ii. The IP analyzed 44 B urine bottles from Sochi Olympic athletes known to
have been protected or on the female ice hockey team. Their urine bottles
showed evidence of scratches and marks indicating tampering. When the
corresponding A sample bottles were analysed for salt concentration, 6
samples contained more salt than physiologically possible in the urine of a
healthy human, and 2 samples contained salt concentration below what is
physiologically possible in the urine of a healthy human. The results establish
that the urine contents had been swapped or tampered with.
iii. Nineteen of the corresponding A bottles of the 33 protected athletes’ B
samples were examined for DNA. As expected, because the scheme was to
swap dirty urine with the athlete’s own clean urine, no inconsistencies were
found for the athletes known to have been protected."
(page 38)
From these samples, the IP analyzed 33 B bottles for evidence of scratches and marks
indicating tampering. All of those bottles were found to have scratches and marks
evidence.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2016
Actually, moriel was pretty obviously sarcastic to me.
Type 1 scratch marks only are not a clear indicator that the bottle has been opened, especially if the content of the bottle isn't suspicious (I'm refering to A0848).
The IP analyzed 33 Sochi Olympic athletes known to have been protected from Sochi Duchess cocktail. The skater's name had to be in that list to be selected, so she is known to be taking the cocktail and at the same time her Sochi sample was found to have type 1 scratch marks. I wonder if it's a coincidence.
see page 19: "Referred to in the report as the Sochi Duchess List of protected athletes. This list was prepared
before Sochi and included athletes known to be taking the cocktail and for whom the CSP was
collecting clean urine to be stored in the urine bank at the Command Center and used to swap the
athletes’ dirty urine for their own clean during the Games."
see page 19: "Referred to in the report as the Sochi Duchess List of protected athletes. This list was prepared
before Sochi and included athletes known to be taking the cocktail and for whom the CSP was
collecting clean urine to be stored in the urine bank at the Command Center and used to swap the
athletes’ dirty urine for their own clean during the Games."
I respect jkaruna's effort to direct us to the primary source ourselves...we don't want to libel anyone, and the Independent Person's role was just to identify the athletes who may have benefited from manipulation of the doping control process. It was not intended to and did not to make judgements, that's for the appropriate international sports federations...
from page 18
The mandate of the IP did not involve any authority to bringAnti-Doping Rule Violation (“ADRV”) cases against individual athletes. What wasrequired is that the IP identify athletes who might have benefited frommanipulations of the doping control process to conceal positive doping tests.Accordingly the IP has not assessed the sufficiency of the evidence to prove anADRV by any individual athlete. Rather, for each individual Russian athlete, whererelevant evidence has been uncovered in the investigation, the IP has identified thatevidence and is providing it to WADA in accordance with the mandate. It fullyexpects that the information will then be forwarded to the appropriate InternationalFederation (“IF”) for their action.
I really appreciated being able to go through the links myself. I see what jkaruna sees on the competition schedule...but McLaren was using numerical designators to protect identities. We should respect that in my view even if the covering over of the names was not perfectly successful.
Clearly one of the two Russian female skaters in the singles event designated A0848, and not the reserve/alternate, was identified as being in the Duchess program and had a sample vial that had "forensic marks'. In other words, it was in a condition consistent with substitution. Whether or not that is sufficient evidence to prove a violation is to be determined by the process of the responsible federation, presumably the ISU in this case.
I'm not clear on the other female skater designated A1322 as her sample is not listed at the end of the report...
But the protocol noted for post event testing for the ladies singles event, only the 3 medallists and two other competitors chosen at random would have been sampled..
In any case, my heart goes out to these skaters who were legally minors at the time....They were following the protocols given to them, and were vulnerable....The coaching team is really is where in my view questions should be posed...
You are making assumptions. How do you now that IP only arranged further analysis on sample bottles associated with athletes who were on the Duchess list? That wouldn't be well done from a forensic point of view by the way. I'm very sure that all bottles associated with medal winners were examined.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
- Country
-
Really? After years prior receiving notification via email and other sources about a potential doping scheme they didn't even look at the evidence in their possession. :think:
Hmmmm? At least a couple of sentences were dedicated to WADA's irresponsibility in this
hwell:
Last edited:
In fact, no. Not all the samples from all the medal winners were reexamined. There had to have been another source of evidence to justify doing that it seems. [Not a fishing expedition.] For example, a positive on another test, the Duchess list, e-mail evidence, recollections by the lab director of interference, or being a member of the hockey team.
If you go through the Russian team list that lines up with the event and testing schedule for the various events, you can see that there are very many names blacked out that do not have numerical identifiers attached to them. And if there was a reason for a reexamination, the person had to have actually been sampled after the event on the basis of either being a medal winner or having been one of the athletes randomly selected [drawn by lot] for testing. So it appears that there are individuals who had been on the Russian team who were assigned identifiers, such as those from the Duchess list, but who did not have a post event sample that could be reexamined.
Granted, digging though the documents is arduous, even with a search engine, but these are the kinds of issues where extreme care needs to be used in redacting and posting information. Best I feel comfortable doing is pointing folks back once again to this document...
https://www.ipevidencedisclosurepackage.net/documents/EDP1149.pdf
Ladies figure skating freeskate on February 20th is the only figure skating event where sample identifiers are shown. The team event, as well as the pairs FS, the Free Dance and Men's Freeskate have blacked out names without numeric identifiers...The sample identification numbers can then be checked against the outcome of the analysis at the end of the report.
Lastly, once again, I'd like to make the points..
-- The Russian ladies in the singles events were legally minors, that is legally children, and there were adults who had the legal responsibility for decisions and oversight about whatever they might have been taking..This evidence does not seem to include material about how their elite training school/facility was involved, but for me this is a key issue in any consideration of violations.
--The IP was responsible only for finding and organizing the evidence for each athlete. Whether or not the evidence found for any given athlete is sufficient to determine a violation took place is yet to be determined by the legally responsible international sports federation.
You might want to read this article: The destruction of samples and Martial SaugyReally? After years prior receiving notification via email and other sources about a potential doping scheme they didn't even look at the evidence in their possession. :think:
Hmmmm? At least a couple of sentences were dedicated to WADA's irresponsibility in this
How do you know that not all samples from medal winners were examined for scratch marks? The forensic report only includes those sample bottles where they actually found something, there's no information regarding how those sample bottles were selected and how many were actually examined for scratch marks.
Yes, you are correct that the report only provides a listing of samples where there was at least one finding of evidence across many laboratory, documentation and testimony sources. So it may be possible bottles from other medallists and athletes drawn by lot were examined, but I see nothing in the documentation that suggests that, in fact the contrary is indicated.
But I would encourage you to read the main report again regarding the question of how the samples were selected...p. 18 is quite clear in citing the Duchess list as others have noted. As well, I've had success using the search engine to pull up additional supporting documents that are the sources for the check marks in the table.
Page 19 of the McLaren report part II says:
Results of 69 sample bottles are listed in the Forensic report. There's an obvious discrepancy, unless we believe that 25 sample bottles are from members of the female ice hockey team and that's not likely. Anyway, even if an athlete is on the protected list, the sample bottle has type 1 scratch marks and the analytical findings regarding salt levels / dna are normal - is this a definite proof that the sample has been tampered with? I don't think so. Type 2 scratch marks and/or tampered with urine are proof imho, type 1 scratch marks only are not enough imho.
