Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Sport doping study revealing wider usage published after 'scandalous' delay
Source: The Guardian
Sport doping study revealing wider usage published after 'scandalous' delay
Almost six-year wrangle delays release of anonymous surveys done after elite athletics events in 2011, in which 57% of competitors doing admitted doping compared to under 4% in Wada results
Nicola Davis
Tuesday 29 August 2017 18.16 BST
A controversial study suggesting that doping in sport is far more prevalent than was found to be by conventional testing has finally been published after years of wrangling.
The research, based on anonymous surveys carried out at two elite athletics competitions in 2011, found that up to 57% of competitors admitted doping in the previous 12 months, a figure far surpassing the 1-2% identified by blood and urine tests carried out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada), and higher even than the 14% prevalence estimated from the athlete biological passport.
But the research, commissioned and funded by Wada, has taken almost six years to be officially published, despite the results being leaked to the New York Times in 2013 and later released in the UK under parliamentary privilege by the culture, media and sport committee on blood doping in athletics.
Giving evidence at the inquiry into blood doping in athletics in 2015, Sebastian Coe, president of the IAAF, said that the delay was down to issues surrounding the researchers’ methodologies.
However Rolf Ulrich, first author of the study from the University of Tübingen, pushed back, accusing the IAAF of blocking the release of the study and co-authoring a response to the committee arguing that the delay and comments from Coe and his colleague Thomas Capdevielle were damaging to the authors’ reputations, efforts to combat doping, and scientific freedom.
-snip-
Almost six-year wrangle delays release of anonymous surveys done after elite athletics events in 2011, in which 57% of competitors doing admitted doping compared to under 4% in Wada results
Nicola Davis
Tuesday 29 August 2017 18.16 BST
A controversial study suggesting that doping in sport is far more prevalent than was found to be by conventional testing has finally been published after years of wrangling.
The research, based on anonymous surveys carried out at two elite athletics competitions in 2011, found that up to 57% of competitors admitted doping in the previous 12 months, a figure far surpassing the 1-2% identified by blood and urine tests carried out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada), and higher even than the 14% prevalence estimated from the athlete biological passport.
But the research, commissioned and funded by Wada, has taken almost six years to be officially published, despite the results being leaked to the New York Times in 2013 and later released in the UK under parliamentary privilege by the culture, media and sport committee on blood doping in athletics.
Giving evidence at the inquiry into blood doping in athletics in 2015, Sebastian Coe, president of the IAAF, said that the delay was down to issues surrounding the researchers’ methodologies.
However Rolf Ulrich, first author of the study from the University of Tübingen, pushed back, accusing the IAAF of blocking the release of the study and co-authoring a response to the committee arguing that the delay and comments from Coe and his colleague Thomas Capdevielle were damaging to the authors’ reputations, efforts to combat doping, and scientific freedom.
-snip-
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/29/sport-doping-study-revealing-wider-usage-published-after-scandalous-delay
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
