Russia Banned From 2022 World Cup

[Havre]

What is the huge difference?

 

[Blender]

What is the huge difference?

That one involves the state actually leading the program...

It's not even in the same ballpark. The US has often stood by athletes until they are publicly exposed, then they will throw them under the bus hard to protect the integrity of their system. Russia actively helped their athletes dope, the system has no integrity and can't be trusted.

 

[Havre]

That one involves the state actually leading the program...

It's not even in the same ballpark. The US has often stood by athletes until they are publicly exposed, then they will throw them under the bus hard to protect the integrity of their system. Russia actively helped their athletes dope, the system has no integrity and can't be trusted.

Case A: State is hands on involved
Case B: "Private" projects, companies etc. is doing the leg work

Result is the same.

Obviously Russia could easily set up a "Case B" kind of scenario. I guess they haven't because there isn't any difference between the two.

The only thing I do trust the US are better than Russia (at least today - not sure historically) is that the USADA is more independent than RUSADA. That has very little to do with how the sports themselves are organized in the country though. Norway and Sweden got "state ran/sponsored" teams in quite a few sports and unless they have just been better than the Russians at hiding it that is probably two of the countries with the lowest number of high profile doping cases (they all got them though).

By your logic the US can never be sanctioned as a country - because it isn't a country running things. Then all nations would just restructure how they operate.

 

[Jussi]

Case A: State is hands on involved
Case B: "Private" projects, companies etc. is doing the leg work

Result is the same.

Obviously Russia could easily set up a "Case B" kind of scenario. I guess they haven't because there isn't any difference between the two.

The only thing I do trust the US are better than Russia (at least today - not sure historically) is that the USADA is more independent than RUSADA. That has very little to do with how the sports themselves are organized in the country though. Norway and Sweden got "state ran/sponsored" teams in quite a few sports and unless they have just been better than the Russians at hiding it that is probably two of the countries with the lowest number of high profile doping cases (they all got them though).

By your logic the US can never be sanctioned as a country - because it isn't a country running things. Then all nations would just restructure how they operate.

It's been a long running public secret in cross country circles that Norway's got a lot of push/influence at FIS which explains how they've manage to excape with fewer high profile doping cases (Johaug is probably the biggest exception). Or do you find nothing suspicious in that virtually all the Norwegian skiers are on asthma medication?

 

[Jussi]

The US has a long history of turning a blind eye to doping and protecting their star athletes as best as they can. Russia actively participated and encouraged a doping program. There is a huge difference between those two things.

I think the biggest issue with the US is their legal system. Several clear cut positive cases being overturned in courts in obscure technicalities and whatnot. There's nothing the USADA can do about them until authorities fix potential loopholes.

 

[Havre]

It's been a long running public secret in cross country circles that Norway's got a lot of push/influence at FIS which explains how they've manage to excape with fewer high profile doping cases (Johaug is probably the biggest exception). Or do you find nothing suspicious in that virtually all the Norwegian skiers are on asthma medication?

I guess they are doping Trump-style - telling everyone about what they are doing so that they can't be caught doing it?

Norway - one of the smallest countries in the world are corrupting FIS? I have worked a lot in Finland and Sweden. There is a huge difference in interest in cross-country skiing among the three countries. Norway is basically the only country in the world where cross-country skiing really matters. I don't find it that strange that Norway are dominating. Not to mention the resources spent on preparing skies etc. It really is ridiculous.

Anyway. This is not relevant for the thread. I purposely used several examples to show that doping is widespread and not a specific Russian problem. It is rather off topic discussing the finer details of how Norwegian cross country skiers are using medicine (because I randomly chose to include Finnish athletes on the list of my examples). I am happy to have that discussion, but that should be its own thread. What is considered "medicine" and what is considered "doping" isn't black and white. And that goes for much more than Norwegian cross country skiers.

 

[Albatros]

And I am not sure if I agree that you can say it is sufficient to just "ban the project". If it was that easy Russia could also set up several "private" initiatives safeguarding the whole system by just blaming individual "projects" if they get caught.

The difficult part for them is having a serious anti-doping agency. The lack of one makes all Russian athletes unclean by default no matter how they are organized.

 

[Pouchkine]

Well, I said that because it's suspicious how they became from a fringe football team to one of the top in the World Cup.

Russia made the Euro 1/2's in 2008, when was the last time England did anything before 2018?

 

[Jussi]

Russia made the Euro 1/2's in 2008, when was the last time England did anything before 2018?

Well they won in 1966. It's not like Russia's even played in the WC final.

 

[Prntscrn]

I guess they are doping Trump-style - telling everyone about what they are doing so that they can't be caught doing it?

Norway - one of the smallest countries in the world are corrupting FIS? I have worked a lot in Finland and Sweden. There is a huge difference in interest in cross-country skiing among the three countries. Norway is basically the only country in the world where cross-country skiing really matters. I don't find it that strange that Norway are dominating. Not to mention the resources spent on preparing skies etc. It really is ridiculous.

Anyway. This is not relevant for the thread. I purposely used several examples to show that doping is widespread and not a specific Russian problem. It is rather off topic discussing the finer details of how Norwegian cross country skiers are using medicine (because I randomly chose to include Finnish athletes on the list of my examples). I am happy to have that discussion, but that should be its own thread. What is considered "medicine" and what is considered "doping" isn't black and white. And that goes for much more than Norwegian cross country skiers.

It's definitely bigger in Norway, but it's a big deal in Sweden too. I remember reading Charlotte Kalla was more popular than Zlatan a couple of years back.

I think cross country skiing average around 1 000 000 viewers per race (the women's, the guys might be less because they suck). The bigger events more and the smaller events a little less.


And on the subject of doping. Norway are definitely bending the rules with astma I think but not blatant doping. I don't trust Russia one bit. I still remember Legkov going up that last hill in Sochi, yeah right

 

[Albatros]

Well they won in 1966. It's not like Russia's even played in the WC final.

On the other hand at the European Championships Russia/USSR has a much better record than England.

 

[Vancouver Canucks]

Russia made the Euro 1/2's in 2008, when was the last time England did anything before 2018?

I'm not sure. I only follow the EPL, as far as Britain is concerned.

 

[Pouchkine]

I'm not sure. I only follow the EPL, as far as Britain is concerned.

1996 at home if not 1990...

 

[Pouchkine]

Well they won in 1966. It's not like Russia's even played in the WC final.

England would have never made a World Cup final on foreign land, USSR could have won a World Cup in the 60's 70's if they had one at home. Made 1\2's in 1966, overall their national team has a better history.
USSR won the first Euro and made 3 other finals + 2 semi-finals.

 

[IceColdOx]

Russia had never hosted a major tournament though, and eventually made a fairly good job. Besides England finished last out of four candidates so it wouldn't have been them anyway.

I get the vibe that FIFA and UEFA hate the English because the media in the UK exposed a ton of corruption. England practically invents the game and have only hosted a World Cup once.

 

[Pouchkine]

Do you remember Euro 96?

 

[Albatros]

I get the vibe that FIFA and UEFA hate the English because the media in the UK exposed a ton of corruption. England practically invents the game and have only hosted a World Cup once.

England leaving FIFA several times may have something to do with it too. For a long time the English had a terrible attitude towards the global game.

 

[Jussi]

Do you remember Euro 96?

"It's coming home, it's coming home, it's coming, football's coming home..."

 

[Live in the Now]

What is the huge difference?

If you want to know the difference, watch Icarus. It will blow your mind. I can’t really explain the whole documentary but the gist of why they’re being punished is related to the state doping service using their access to the Sochi lab to change submitted dirty samples and replace them with clean ones.

 

[Live in the Now]

The difficult part for them is having a serious anti-doping agency. The lack of one makes all Russian athletes unclean by default no matter how they are organized.

The only thing I do trust the US are better than Russia (at least today - not sure historically) is that the USADA is more independent than RUSADA. That has very little to do with how the sports themselves are organized in the country though. Norway and Sweden got "state ran/sponsored" teams in quite a few sports and unless they have just been better than the Russians at hiding it that is probably two of the countries with the lowest number of high profile doping cases (they all got them though).

RUSADA were the ones running the doping program. For many, many years.

 

[Havre]

If you want to know the difference, watch Icarus. It will blow your mind. I can’t really explain the whole documentary but the gist of why they’re being punished is related to the state doping service using their access to the Sochi lab to change submitted dirty samples and replace them with clean ones.

I know, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the principle difference between privately ran "projects", "teams" whatever you want to call it vs. state sponsored teams.

In Kenya things are loosely organized and not comparable to Russia at all - still the use of PEDs among runners is just as widespread as doping among Russian athletes. So when the result is the same I don´t see what the "huge difference" is. Both systems can fail and both systems can work. As mentioned Norway and Sweden organize much of their activities very similarly to the Russians - except the corrupt doping part of it.

 

[IceColdOx]

Do you remember Euro 96?

The EPL is arguably the most watched league in the world. It's blown up everywhere. I doubt you'd have an empty seat issue. I've always had this aching feeling that Platini had it in for the Brits.

 

[Vasilevskiy]

I know, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the principle difference between privately ran "projects", "teams" whatever you want to call it vs. state sponsored teams.

In Kenya things are loosely organized and not comparable to Russia at all - still the use of PEDs among runners is just as widespread as doping among Russian athletes. So when the result is the same I don´t see what the "huge difference" is. Both systems can fail and both systems can work. As mentioned Norway and Sweden organize much of their activities very similarly to the Russians - except the corrupt doping part of it.

Agreed. To me it's the same in the end and make no mistake the state knows whats going on there, turning a blind eye makes them guilty in principle

 

[Pouchkine]

The EPL is arguably the most watched league in the world. It's blown up everywhere. I doubt you'd have an empty seat issue. I've always had this aching feeling that Platini had it in for the Brits.

There was a lot of empty stadiums and bad atmosphere at Euro 96

 

[IceColdOx]

There was a lot of empty stadiums and bad atmosphere at Euro 96

But I think that would be a non-issue this time around. The Prem is on everywhere and people I know would book a flight immediately if the UK got a World Cup.