Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Response to IOC by IWF

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,041
    Post Thanks / Like

    Response to IOC by IWF

    the response to the request for how the IWF will deal with the doping scandal isn't going to be "we'll try harder". it will have to be something pretty substantial in my opinion. What do you think it will (or should) be? Do you think they will let WADA take over testing? what else can they do?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanwtyler View Post
    the response to the request for how the IWF will deal with the doping scandal isn't going to be "we'll try harder". it will have to be something pretty substantial in my opinion. What do you think it will (or should) be? Do you think they will let WADA take over testing? what else can they do?
    Ryan, I am currently returning from the IWF Congress and meetings in Tokyo.

    The EB, then ratified by Congress, brought together a working group of experts in the field. The headline one they need to finalize a contract with before announcing, though I can confirm that they are an absolute top expert in Anti-Doping. They did the same on the sport structure (weight categories etc.), again with some excellent names in the room.

    Those people will then report back to an extraordinary board meeting with recommendations.

    The EB as a whole, led by Dr Tamas Ajan, made it clear they are going the route of banning Federations (via due legal process), and even went to the length to say they do not need 192 nations in the Federation, and will eliminate nations totally if they must.

    Having spent a great deal of time with the EB members in the last few days, it is clear there is a will and an understanding of the critical nature of reform.

    I will add a personal word - if we are going to eradicate doping from Weightlifting, it will entail positives. The USA is a great example of that, we test USA Weightlifting more than almost any other sport in any other nation on the planet (almost 100 controls per month so far!), and we get a fair share of positives from that.

  3. #3
    AKA Tony Arkitect FFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    Phil, first of all thank you for the info.



    In my opinion the penalties have to be so severe that it is absolutely not worth the risk. I think possibly some like 10 year ban of a federation if an underage lifter is busted or there are multiple busts in the same season/competition. I think fining the individual is also a possible avenue.
    Currently reading: Field of Blood by Karen Armstrong

    Just finished reading:Slaughter House-Five by Kurt Vonnegut

    Friend me on Facebook

    Give us a shoutout on IG by using #WLForums and we'll follow you!

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    The EB is full of past roid users, what do you expect?

    Commission should feature Alexei Ni, Zlatan Vanev and Igor Bour for ultimate competence.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FFF View Post
    Phil, first of all thank you for the info.



    In my opinion the penalties have to be so severe that it is absolutely not worth the risk. I think possibly some like 10 year ban of a federation if an underage lifter is busted or there are multiple busts in the same season/competition. I think fining the individual is also a possible avenue.
    Correct - we'll see what the review board comes back with (I certainly have my own views and suggestions). Fining the individual I'm not sure is sustainable, for a couple of reasons. First, the IWF has no real hold of the individual in a financial sense, the other is that many many individuals just wouldn't be reasonably able to afford it. Bear in mind, that any sanction has to stand up to scrutiny at CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport).

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    133
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilAndrews View Post
    The EB as a whole, led by Dr Tamas Ajan, made it clear they are going the route of banning Federations (via due legal process), and even went to the length to say they do not need 192 nations in the Federation, and will eliminate nations totally if they must.
    . . . if we are going to eradicate doping from Weightlifting, it will entail positives. . .
    Phil -- again thanks for volunteering the info and the informed opinion. Have a question for you, an insider (of sorts) in international weightlifting: from where do most of the national federations get their funding, and to what degree is that funding tied to Olympic participation or at least the possibility of Olympic participation? You probably know where I'm going with this but, just in case. . . wouldn't an outright "Olympic ban" (the next Olympics) for a federation be a bigger threat than 1 or 2 year suspension?

    I'd imagine that most of the funding for "problem" federations comes from their government or national sports federation. . . funding that is given because (a) WL is an Olympic sport and (b) WL is an Olympic sport in which the nation stands some demonstrable chance of hitting the podium. . . . I'm sure that the WL federations of China, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, etc. attain very little (if any) funding from membership, sponsors, or service activities done by the federation itself (like offering cert courses). Though I'm also sure that the coaches, physicians and national fed leaders get some sort of pay out for world championship medals and such, I'd have to believe that the primary driver is the Olympic: take that away, and the sport loses funding in its entirety (or damn near it). Accordingly, for a federations with multiple violations in the past quad or similar (let's say, at least 4 violations over any 4 year period, or >2 violations involving minors over any 4 year period), why doesn't the IWF go with the IOC (or similar) to take the case directly to the nation's lead Olympic-related governing body: put in place a tighter testing standards (ideally, via a local WADA enforcement agency), make sure that the national WL fed accepts & implements certain athlete-education practices and coaching bans, and make sure that all WL athletes are available for out-of-comp testing for a pre-Olympic period of 6-9 or so months. . . or no WL Olympics for you AND get a certain amount of spots removed from other "major" sports. I'm sure that the IWF discussed these sorts of punishments before, but have they done so (or considered doing so) via national "Olympic sporting" bodies? A lot of "what if", but I'd have to believe that many national governments would just choose to dump WL-funding (funding for their local fed) rather than risk other portions of the show-and-show-off wonder of the Olympics. . . . the national WL federation leaders have to know this (and want to keep their funding and power >0), so they'd be more likely to eat crow at the world record and WC table rather than eat it at the Olympic-participation table. Basically, this approach speaks to the incentives for the folks in power at the top of the feds rather than for the athletes and even (to a lesser degree) coaches: a direct threat to their cash flow.
    Last edited by mb_here; 06-17-2017 at 04:07 PM.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mb_here View Post
    Phil -- again thanks for volunteering the info and the informed opinion. Have a question for you, an insider (of sorts) in international weightlifting: from where do most of the national federations get their funding, and to what degree is that funding tied to Olympic participation or at least the possibility of Olympic participation? You probably know where I'm going with this but, just in case. . . wouldn't an outright "Olympic ban" (the next Olympics) for a federation be a bigger threat than 1 or 2 year suspension?

    I'd imagine that most of the funding for "problem" federations comes from their government or national sports federation. . . funding that is given because (a) WL is an Olympic sport and (b) WL is an Olympic sport in which the nation stands some demonstrable chance of hitting the podium. . . . I'm sure that the WL federations of China, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, etc. attain very little (if any) funding from membership, sponsors, or service activities done by the federation itself (like offering cert courses). Though I'm also sure that the coaches, physicians and national fed leaders get some sort of pay out for world championship medals and such, I'd have to believe that the primary driver is the Olympic: take that away, and the sport loses funding in its entirety (or damn near it). Accordingly, for a federations with multiple violations in the past quad or similar (let's say, at least 4 violations over any 4 year period, or >2 violations involving minors over any 4 year period), why doesn't the IWF go with the IOC (or similar) to take the case directly to the nation's lead Olympic-related governing body: put in place a tighter testing standards (ideally, via a local WADA enforcement agency), make sure that the national WL fed accepts & implements certain athlete-education practices and coaching bans, and make sure that all WL athletes are available for out-of-comp testing for a pre-Olympic period of 6-9 or so months. . . or no WL Olympics for you AND get a certain amount of spots removed from other "major" sports. I'm sure that the IWF discussed these sorts of punishments before, but have they done so (or considered doing so) via national "Olympic sporting" bodies? A lot of "what if", but I'd have to believe that many national governments would just choose to dump WL-funding (funding for their local fed) rather than risk other portions of the show-and-show-off wonder of the Olympics. . . . the national WL federation leaders have to know this (and want to keep their funding and power >0), so they'd be more likely to eat crow at the world record and WC table rather than eat it at the Olympic-participation table. Basically, this approach speaks to the incentives for the folks in power at the top of the feds rather than for the athletes and even (to a lesser degree) coaches: a direct threat to their cash flow.
    Hi MB:

    No problem, happy to share what I know.

    Yes, a vast majority of Olympic NGBs Worldwide typically derive their primary funding from the NOC (National Olympic Committee) or a similar body, although an increasing amount are finding alternative revenue sources. The USA is the exception with almost our entire funding coming from our own membership and revenue.

    What you are suggesting is similar to the reason the WADA code was made into 4 year bans from 2014, to eliminate one Olympic Games. This may well be one approach considered by the IWF review group. Unfortunately the IOC's approach is that the International Federation must resolve doping issues, not the IOC - so moving it "up" to the IOC is not a good approach, but the possibility of longer suspensions is. The IWF has previously banned Bulgaria on multiple occasions from the Olympic Games - including this most recent Olympic Games.

    A good example of the IOC approach is regarding Russia, where they left it to the IFs to decide. The IWF was one of two IFs to ban Russia entirely, though some removed specific athletes and others allowed full Russian participation.

    Regarding the WADA local testing agency, actually that is really what already happens. Understanding the web of agencies involved in drug testing is somewhat useful to analysis of this problem but virtually all testing is carried out by a NADO (National Anti-Doping Agency) approved by WADA, under the jurisdiction of XYZ (in this case the IWF Anti Doping Commission).

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    131
    Post Thanks / Like
    It would be interesting to know if there were any mutterings about splitting with the IOC, although I guess it's too much of a cash cow.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    790
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris McCarthy View Post
    It would be interesting to know if there were any mutterings about splitting with the IOC, although I guess it's too much of a cash cow.
    What would that achieve? The IWF would essentially be voluntarily removing itself from the Olympics. WL losing its place in the Olympics is the worst thing that could happen to the sport.

  10. #10
    AKA Tony Arkitect FFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DylanJM View Post
    What would that achieve? The IWF would essentially be voluntarily removing itself from the Olympics. WL losing its place in the Olympics is the worst thing that could happen to the sport.
    I used to think the same thing but I no longer agree with this. While the public at large still sees the Olympics as a coveted event, it's really nothing more than a schill organization used to suck revenue out of spectators. The true essence of amateur competition is completely gone, and the IOC ranks, imo as one of the most corrupt sporting organizations in the world.
    Currently reading: Field of Blood by Karen Armstrong

    Just finished reading:Slaughter House-Five by Kurt Vonnegut

    Friend me on Facebook

    Give us a shoutout on IG by using #WLForums and we'll follow you!

Posting Permissions

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