McLaren investigation report Pt. 2 released

Sam-Skwantch · Dec 21, 2016

psusanne said:
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.

But the most likely candidates for duchess list are endurance athletes like speed skaters or cross country athletes. Wouldn't they compete in multiple events thereby increasing the number of sample bottle while not increasing the number of protected athletes. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here and I admit that when I look at the daily medal count report with all of the blacked out names it feels overwhelming considering the amount of time I usually have to glance at the report which I'm still only on page 84 of :shocked:

TGee · Dec 21, 2016

psusanne said:
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.

Totally agree that it is not in any way established in the report that having only two pieces of evidence -- the Duchess protected list and the type 1 scratch -- is sufficient to determine a violation. But neither am I willing to speculate that it is not.

The IP was mandated to put together the evidence. It's done and it's available. The ISU, or other appropriate authority will need to make that determination.

In terms of reconciling the numbers, part of the story may be that Paralympians were also on the protected list. Also, it looks like there was a number bottles analysed in the first past assessment of some sample bottles from Sochi, but that subsequently additional bottles were analyzed on the grounds that the athletes were on the protected list. ...from page 103

6.5.1 Bottle Tampering and Confirmation of Scratches and Marks
The 1st IP Report described how the IP’s expert was able to unscrew the caps off of B sample bottles leaving scratches and marks, which were only visible upon microscopic examination. These scratches and marks in the experiment by the IP’s expert were comparable to the scratches and marks which the IP observed on a number of B sample bottles taken at the Sochi Games. The IP has now had the time to examine further Sochi B sample bottles from athletes named on the protected list or of those belonging to athletes who were added to the list. A total of 96 B samples bottles from protected athletes at the Sochi Olympic Games and 21 from the Sochi Paralympic Games have been examined by the IP’s expert. All exhibit evidence ofscratches and marks indicative of tampering.

This seems like a reasonable forensic protocol. Randomly look at some samples. If evidence of tampering is found, examine 100% of the samples for which there is supporting documentary evidence of interference.

solani · Dec 21, 2016

Sam-Skwantch said:
But the most likely candidates for duchess list are endurance athletes like speed skaters or cross country athletes. Wouldn't they compete in multiple events thereby increasing the number of sample bottle while not increasing the number of protected athletes. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here and I admit that when I look at the daily medal count report with all of the blacked out names it feels overwhelming considering the amount of time I usually have to glance at the report which I'm still only on page 84 of :shocked:

The numbers in the McLaren report are not consistent. Read TGee's post above, the report says that 96 samples from protected athletes have been examined. 69 samples are listed in the Forensic report.
Page 37 of the McLaren report part II says:

There were 37 athletes named on the Sochi Duchess List. Urine samples from 27 of these athletes were collected during the Games and were subsequently sent for storage to the Lausanne Laboratory. There were 62 samples provided by the 27 athletes stored in the Lausanne Laboratory. At the request of the IP and with the cooperation of the International Olympic Committee these samples were transferred to the London Laboratory for forensic and other analysis. 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.

Because of that I think that we have no way to find out wether athlete A0848 was on the Sochi Duchess list. My personal opinion is that it's rather unlikely, based on the fact that the ingredients of the Duchess cocktail might not be very beneficial (could even backlash if the athlete isn't used to it) for the sport that athlete A0848 is participating in.

TGee said:
Totally agree that it is not in any way established in the report that having only two pieces of evidence -- the Duchess protected list and the type 1 scratch -- is sufficient to determine a violation. But neither am I willing to speculate that it is not.

There could be more evidence against athlete A0848 of course, we don't know that. But I'm pretty sure that a name on a list and no clear evidence that the sample has indeed been tampered with isn't enough. It should not be enough. Innocent until proven guilty. There's tons of evidence against Russia but not against that particular athlete.

TGee · Dec 21, 2016

psusanne said:
The numbers in the McLaren report are not consistent. Read TGee's post above, the report says that 96 samples from protected athletes have been examined. 69 samples are listed in the Forensic report.
Page 37 of the McLaren report part II says:

Because of that I think that we have no way to find out wether athlete A0848 was on the Sochi Duchess list. My personal opinion is that it's rather unlikely, based on the fact that the ingredients of the Duchess cocktail might not be very beneficial (could even backlash if the athlete isn't used to it) for the sport that athlete A0848 is participating in..

I've been thinking that this likely all reconcilable, but that the IP should have written an annex laying out the process/protocol followed the numbers and reconciling them. Scientists get pushed to write a narrative, and they usually have that table or flowchart of the testing process or search protocol in their lab notes. But the narrative can never cover all of it, and it's hard to figure out without the algorithm with the numbers associated with it....

The process algorithm documents in medical research, as an example, are dreary reading, but one really wants to be able to refer to them. Otherwise, one gets into the kind of question loops that psusanne is quite rightly pointing out.

solani · Dec 22, 2016

TGee said:
I've been thinking that this likely all reconcilable, but that the IP should have written an annex laying out the process/protocol followed the numbers and reconciling them. Scientists get pushed to write a narrative, and they usually have that table or flowchart of the testing process or search protocol in their lab notes. But the narrative can never cover all of it, and it's hard to figure out without the algorithm with the numbers associated with it....

The process algorithm documents in medical research, as an example, are dreary reading, but one really wants to be able to refer to them. Otherwise, one gets into the kind of question loops that psusanne is quite rightly pointing out.

I think that there is an exact protocol, there must be. But it's not accessible to us because I think the IP doesn't want us to speculate. The bad side effect is that many people are very likely speculating about an innocent athlete. An athlete many people want to speculate about anyway (so I wouldn't exactly hold that against McLaren).

TGee · Dec 22, 2016

psusanne said:
I think that there is an exact protocol, there must be. But it's not accessible to us because I think the IP doesn't want us to speculate. The bad side effect is that many people are very likely speculating about an innocent athlete. An athlete many people want to speculate about anyway (so I wouldn't exactly hold that against McLaren).

Not sure.

If the intent was to make the evidence and the methodology available but not identify individuals, then the protocol or algorithm should be in there.

I don't see how the international federations can move forward without it, so the report as currently posted does not stand in its own.

When I think about it, the table of evidence by individual identification number at the end of the report should include columns for the Duchess list, the e-mail record, and the recollections of the administrator.

solani · Dec 22, 2016

TGee said:
Not sure.

If the intent was to make the evidence and the methodology available but not identify individuals, then the protocol or algorithm should be in there.

I don't see how the international federations can move forward without it, so the report as currently posted does not stand in its own.

When I think about it, the table of evidence by individual identification number at the end of the report should include columns for the Duchess list, the e-mail record, and the recollections of the administrator.

The International Federations received detailed data concerning particular athletes. The IP report tells us how the system worked, it's intention isn't to convict certain athletes. So as long as the data is available to the International Federations and to the affected athletes (so that they can defend themselves properly) this should be fine.

TGee · Dec 22, 2016

psusanne said:
The International Federations received detailed data concerning particular athletes. The IP report tells us how the system worked, it's intention isn't to convict certain athletes. So as long as the data is available to the International Federations and to the affected athletes (so that they can defend themselves properly) this should be fine.

Fair point. But the report doesn't completely succeed in terms of telling us the methodology followed.....

But then, I'm less concerned about pointing accusations at a given athlete, especially as, whomever it was, the skater was not of an age of legal responsibility.

I'm actually more interested to see, given there is a question of systemic violations, whether a particular school / coaching team was associated with questionable practices....Because in the end, beyond the importance of fairness, my deepest concern is for the well being of these young women. For me this is so far beyond the question of any given athlete at Sochi.

Russia had skaters from a number of schools that competed at Sochi across the various figure skating events. But only the ladies event has indentifiers tagged. It definitely raises the question for me whether there was another source of evidence that justified that selection for sampling. And equally, given overlap with the team event, why there would be tagging of all three skaters (two competitors plus reserve) on one and none on the other?

solani · Dec 22, 2016

TGee said:
Fair point. But the report doesn't completely succeed in terms of telling us the methodology followed.....

But then, I'm less concerned about pointing accusations at a given athlete, especially as, whomever it was, the skater was not of an age of legal responsibility.

I'm actually more interested to see, given there is a question of systemic violations, whether a particular school / coaching team was associated with questionable practices....Because in the end, beyond the importance of fairness, my deepest concern is for the well being of these young women. For me this is so far beyond the question of any given athlete at Sochi.

Russia had skaters from a number of schools that competed at Sochi across the various figure skating events. But only the ladies event has indentifiers tagged. It definitely raises the question for me whether there was another source of evidence that justified that selection for sampling. And equally, given overlap with the team event, why there would be tagging of all three skaters (two competitors plus reserve) on one and none on the other?

I agree, the methodology used would be interesting. I would select all samples from athletes that supposedly were on the Duchess list, all medal winners plus a sufficient number of randomly selected samples or stratified samples (sports - training groups, something like that).

LoveSkater · Dec 22, 2016

It seems to me that all these evidence is not enough to disqualify that athlete. It will be a disaster and scandal of all times.

Corwin · Dec 23, 2016

This report is nothing.... 0 evidence.

TGee · Dec 26, 2016

The IOC has announced that it is opening "28 new doping cases" based on the McLaren report. This will invoke reanalysis of samples.

Additionally, samples fromRussian athletes at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver will be reexamined.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/russia-doping-ioc-1.3910463

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-russian-doping-20161223-story.html

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...leged_manipulation_of_drug_tests/?ref=rl&lp=3

TGee · Dec 26, 2016

psusanne said:
I agree, the methodology used would be interesting. I would select all samples from athletes that supposedly were on the Duchess list, all medal winners plus a sufficient number of randomly selected samples or stratified samples (sports - training groups, something like that).

It's important to keep in mind that Professor McLaren's expertise is in law. He was organizing and assessing the evidence available, but the IOC and other sport authorities do have the possibility to order further analyses.

McLaren investigation report Pt. 2 released

Sam-Skwantch

“I solemnly swear I’m up to no good”

TGee

solani

TGee

solani

TGee

solani

TGee

solani

LoveSkater

Corwin

TGee

TGee

Similar threads

Connect with us