World Anti-Doping Agency Says It Was Hacked By Russia (theverge.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World Anti-Doping Agency Says It Was Hacked By Russia (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @11:00AM from the revenge-is-a-dish-best-served-cold dept.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is accusing Russian state-sponsored hackers of hacking its database of athletes involved in this year's Olympic Games in Rio. Whether it's in response to the WADA banning 119 Russian athletes from participating in the games due to a doping scandal, it has yet to be determined. The Verge reports: The agency claims the state-sponsored group Fancy Bear is behind the attack, although it doesn't clarify how that attribution was made. The accessed data included medical information, like Therapeutic Use Exemptions issued by International Sports Federations and National Anti-Doping Organizations. The group has reportedly released some of this data and threatened to release more. The attackers reportedly relied on spear phishing emails to gain access to the database and eventually used credentials specifically made for the Rio Olympic games. Fancy Bear was the same group responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee earlier this year.

97 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

America needs war! by For+a+Free+Internet · 2016-09-13 11:07 · Score: -1, Insightful

Democracy!
Drugs!
International Community!
Authoritarian!
Freedom!
Human rights!
U.S. imperialism needs war!
How do you spell CIA? NGO!
Democracy!
Drugs!
Authoritarian!
Barrel Bomb!
Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror! Alert! Nation! Spies! Chinamen! Terror! Terror! Terror! Terror!
Terror!
Nation!
Let's get ready for WAR!!!!!!!!

--
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
1. Re: America needs war! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 11:18 · Score: -1
  
  Russians, they're the new Arabs, who replaced the Old Russians who took over for the Nazi Germans and Japanese who succeeded the Imperial Germans who came after the Spanish and Plains Indians, which followed the Abolitionists and Mexicans who became prominent after the British gave us the Irish.
2. Re: America needs war! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 11:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  And not surprisingly, the US was discovered to be doping at massive levels thanks to the hack. US gymnastics gold medalist "super-star" Simone? Caught doping, but got "doctor's permission" to dope.
  So it's not surprising that after a US-led investigation "caught" Russia doping, it turns out that the US was doping just as much. The only difference is that the US rewrote the rules to allow their doping.
3. Re: America needs war! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 11:56 · Score: -1
  
  Hi Russia. Go fuck yourself. You should treat your people better. I feel sorry for your citizens.
4. Re: America needs war! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 12:11 · Score: -1
  
  Hi USA. Go fuck yourself. You should treat your colored people better. I feel sorry for your minorities and males.
  In Russia the only fear is criticizing the government.
  In the West, fear is the norm as everything is offensive to everyone. You can't even look into a woman anymore without being charged for eye rape.
  Two can play this stupid game.
5. Re: America needs war! by amicusNYCL · 2016-09-13 12:33 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Anyone complaining about the treatment of American males must not have anything better to complain about.
  
  In Russia the only fear is criticizing the government.
  You shouldn't fear that. The government should fear the citizens, not the other way around. "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
  
  In the West, fear is the norm as everything is offensive to everyone.
  1. How would you know? 2. How come I'm not afraid all the time?
  
  You can't even look into a woman anymore without being charged for eye rape.
  God, I hope not. That does sound awfully invasive, depending on which hole you're looking into.
  
  Two can play this stupid game.
  That's true, but some people are better at playing stupid games than other people.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
6. Re: America needs war! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 15:19 · Score: 0
  
  As someone who lives in a major US city where people are being shot in the streets all the time by thugs and police officers, I can't say I live in fear, but I can't say this is paradise either. I was with the Russian propagandist until he started defending the guys whose little sissy racist rants make them scared because they know they talk their sexist, racist, homophobic nonsense offline they'll get smacked down. Anyway, just had to say that real quick. Carry on.
7. Re: America needs war! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 23:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Massive scale?" The hack listed a grand total of four athletes, all of whom had medical exemptions.
  Biles' was for Ritalin for ADHD, a condition she has been under treatment for since she was a young child. Williams' was for painkillers and anyiinflammmatories for chronic injuries.
  The fact that the media have failed to put the ridiculousness of the Russian claims front and center and have perpetuated the "drug cheats" narratice promulgated by the Russian hackers in their headlines shows just how far the standards of the fourth estate have fallen.
  In fact, the hack doesn't show doping occurred at all, since the only evidence it has uncovered is for appropriate therapeutic uses of controlled substances under prescription and properly reviewed and obtained waivers by the WADA.
  Of course for the 90% of news "readers" who merely look at a headline and pass judgment, none of this matters, and the damage is done. Yet because news outlets know that such salacious headlines are the only way to get views and resultant ad revenue, they are perversely incentivized to keep making them.
  The Russkies aren't dumb; they know this effect well and are exploiting it to push their agenda in international discourse. The major political parties and their operatives in the U.S. do too, which is why you will see patently absurd headlines like "Trump Says Obama literally is the founder of ISIS" made, since the average reader is too stupid/lazy to look below the fold to see the body of the story explaining "duh, this isn't true" and will accept the statement at face value.
8. Re: America needs war! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  Why didn't the Russian athletes just get permission with phony letters from their doctors? When cheating, you still have to follow the rules (of cheating). Russia did not.
9. Re: America needs war! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Bingo!
10. Re: America needs war! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  Id imagine it would be hard to get a legitimate sounding doctors note to explain why an athlete needed to be treated with HGH
11. Re: America needs war! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  By your logic, leaded gasoline does not contain lead as long as there is a "waiver" of some sort.
12. Re: America needs war! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  perhaps an injury
How to Argue About Doping in Sport by Bruce+Perens · 2016-09-13 11:07 · Score: 1

I found this interesting article how to argue about doping in sport. I am not a sports fan in general, it's just never interested me. Thus, I am sitting on the sidelines rather than involved as so many are. From the sidelines the anti-doping movement has the flavor of a witch-hunt. Now, you might have good arguments in favor of it, but it should not go as unchallenged as it seems to be today.

--
Bruce Perens.
1. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by cfalcon · 2016-09-13 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  I mean, at the end of the day, any contest will have rules. If the question is doping, the only question should be, "what should the rules be on this". Questions regarding the harshness of the punishment, economic inequality, certain nations getting butthurt because they thought they had a foolproof way to cheat and did not... all are secondary. If you have a set of rules, those that violate them can't really be said to be participating at all.
  Good link, and it seems mostly to be aimed at that.
2. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by HBI · 2016-09-13 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  I actually agree with you about something. It's been rare over the years.
  1.Mainly, because I think people should have the liberty to be as smart or stupid as they choose to be, as long as their choice has no impact on others' lives. And competing in sport IS a choice, not a compulsion.
  2. On a purely humanitarian level, artificial rules are just itching to be contravened, and i'd rather people shoot up the stuff we understand rather than new test-evading substances with unknown effects.
  3. The rules whiners are the lowest form of humanity and deserve to be disappointed.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
3. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by farble1670 · 2016-09-13 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  2. On a purely humanitarian level, artificial rules are just itching to be contravened, and i'd rather people shoot up the stuff we understand rather than new test-evading substances with unknown effects.
  The contest is supposed to be physical and mental, not chemical (or financial, if it comes to buying drugs from another country).
  Regardless, you think a free-for-all won't result in athletes using less-than-tested drugs? Have any of these drugs gone through the rigorous test procedures that are say required for a prescription drug to come to market? Of course not.
4. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by bloodhawk · 2016-09-13 13:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Personally I think the rules make sense as as you said it is supposed to be about who is the best athlete not who has the best chemists, the enforcement however is a disgrace as they seem to be completely political. I think it is pathetic that they banned Russia yet other countries that were arguably even worse violators received no such sanctions. As long as the rules a based on politics rather than fairness things will only continue to get worse.
5. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by HBI · 2016-09-13 14:06 · Score: 2
  
  You rules people...do you not realize that a significant portion of the population will cheat? The people you hold up as heroes and say "they'd never cheat" are the exact people I am talking about.
  It's all about being properly cynical about human nature, and there's lots to be cynical about.
  I venture to say just about every winning athlete has found a way to dope without getting caught. Period.
  So, if we get that BS argument about "honesty and fairness" out of the way...the answer is obvious. Just let them, and let them use well understood substances.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
6. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by HBI · 2016-09-13 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you convinced that you or anyone else has the power to remove chemistry from the mix?
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
7. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by bloodhawk · 2016-09-13 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  If you allow well understood substances then they will simply use those PLUS new not well understood substances. As you say it is in the nature of many of them, they aren't there to compete or show there skill as athletes, they are there to win and many will win at any cost which means if you level the playing field they simply look to find a new edge which will probably be something even more dangerous and unsafe, all allowing some substances does is push them to find new substances.
8. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by bloodhawk · 2016-09-13 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  you can't. but to not try would be fucking insane and make most sports even more pointless.
9. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 14:32 · Score: 0
  
  Ahhh yes fantastic idea.
  "Daddy I want to be an olypmic athelete"
  "ok son just let me pop down to the drug store and we will start you on your required steroid and doping regime now so that you have a glimmer of a hope when you are old enough"
  seriously did you even think about how fucking stupid it would be to make doping a requirement to compete at top level, it almost is a requirement now and that is aweful and destroying so many peoples lives.
10. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 14:52 · Score: 0
  
  That is a really terrible article and basically reads as if the author has a definite bias for allowing it and trying to create a justification for it. the reality is people do it to win all the rest is just garbage justification for doing anything to get an advantage over your competitor rather than trying to simply compete. The reality is if you permit it then sports are basically dead, you can't regulate it or supervise it as the same people that cheat now will simply cheat outside of whatever rules you create to allow certain practises or drugs. They have already demonstrated they will cheat to win regardless of consequences or rules.
11. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  So you honestly believe if you suddenly allowed substances we understand that those that are willing to cheat your "artificial rules" won't now move on to new test-evading substances? are you delusional? they cheat to win, they will do so whatever the cost, if you level the playing field taking away their advantage they will simply reach for the next advantage, they care about winning and many of them know the only way to ensure that is to cheat. delusional idiots like you that think you can just allow "some safe well understood substances" and suddenly everyone will play fair must live in some fairy land. Your new "artificial rules" boundary would simply see cheating with even more riskier substances, cheats don't suddenly become fair players because you changed the rules.
12. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by Bruce+Perens · 2016-09-13 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well, auto racing used to be in part about building better cars. Until the turbine came along. Now, turbines and 4-wheel drive are banned at the Indy 500.
  It's not too long before someone with a genetic advantage comes along and gets banned.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
13. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by rtb61 · 2016-09-13 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently it is not cheating if you get a medical exemption and you have a corrupt government backing that exemption. So if you suffer from "inability to attain sufficient muscle mass syndrome" or "inability to zone out and exercise like a bot syndrome" or "low threshold of pain syndrome" or "slow reflex syndrome", don't worry those countries who generate the most advertising dollars and those corrupt politicians who can pick up the most votes, with look at the sports winners and ignore the economy, will get you all the drugs you need. Of course if they do not pay the advertising dollar bribes, than watch out. Take drugs or not and you will be accused and banned.
  Russian did this, yeah uh huh. How about smart people totally sick and fed up with this kind of bullshit, did this, no matter where from the world they are. Look at Australia, where you have an institute of sport (where lame arse athletes get paid to train at tax payer expense, and provide nothing of use to the economy, except demands for more money) and no institute of science where the best and brightest get trained ( who would actually produce real substantive returns). The whole Olympics thing is one giant scam to sell government subsidised sports advertising and to scam votes out of the electorate with really lame bullshit hero worship. Apparently in crazy fucked up capitalist society land, being able to lift a hundred pounds is worth more (unless you are an actual labourer than it is minimum wage or less) than being able to spell one hundred pounds.
  I am sure Russia's best and brightest are just as sick of the government wasting tax payer dollars on people proving how more capable animals they are (simply physically able), rather than on how much more human they are (creative and smart and humane). Good job who ever you were (I am sure many in various government agencies around the world are also sick of it).
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
14. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  auto racing had relatively strict rules long before turbines and 4 wheel drive was banned. sport is about competing using a set of rules to determine the best at something, things like motor racing require constant evolution of those rules as technology develops, similarly so does athletic events, especially in the realms of what you can pump into your body to gain a competitive advantage, those rules are what prevents it turning into a highly dangerous free for all that is completely unavailable to anyone that isn't willing to pump themselves full of chemicals in order to see if they even have a chance to compete.
15. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by HBI · 2016-09-13 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  If they want to be modern day gladiators and kill themselves, then that's their right to be dumb as fuck for people's enjoyment.
  I think enough allowance would be made for this by allowing them to dope if they really want to. If they choose to kill themselves or make their junk fall off, that's not my fault and I actually have no control over it - as stated, they'll shoot up junk-destroying drugs regardless of what I think.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
16. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by bloodhawk · 2016-09-13 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  So you believe all top level sports should only be available to people willing to dope themselves up to the eyeballs is your basic belief as every sport will always have those willing to go past safe limits if permitted. personally if you want that then you are welcome with those athletes to start your own competition that permits, perhaps you will even get enough people that only want to watch to see what the best chemists can do to the human body, personally it doesn't interest me nor I think most normal people.
17. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 19:24 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, just leave it where it is, where the US can afford to use hyperbaric chambers and oxygen tents or red cell transfusions from stored blood or gene-doping in order to WIN the sports propaganda wars.
  It's apparently not "cheating" if it doesn't fail a "drug" test.
  After all, it's all about who has the most MONEY to win and the US see that as THEIR domain.
18. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by serviscope_minor · 2016-09-13 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  From the sidelines the anti-doping movement has the flavor of a witch-hunt. Now, you might have good arguments in favor of it, but it should not go as unchallenged as it seems to be today.
  Well, you can argue for or against doping in general, but as it stands in the current rules, it's cheating. Sport has to have rules, otherwise it's not sport. With literally no rules, you could "win" the 100m sprint by using a rocket sled, or hell, by starting 1m from the finish line. As it currently stands it's about on the same level as hiding an electric motor in your bike frame. A race on power assisted bikes might be interesting in its own right, but that's what race categories are for. Entering an unassisted race on a powered vehicle makes the whole thing pointless at best.
  I've never been one much for spectator sport but what makes it fun to play is competing within the rules. You can argue about whether the rules are fair or about some absolute sense of fairness but ultimately, when you shake hands with the opposing captain before the match, you're agreeing to compete within those rules. If you start breaking the rules intentionally to win, well, that tends to piss off the other team (it also pisses off the umpire too) because you're breaking your agreement. If you didn't like the rules you could not play, or start up your own league with the metaphorical blackjack and hookers.
  There's certainly an argument for starting up an open category where doping is allowed. I have no personal objection to that. But the people doping within the existing rules aren't trying to do that. If they want to dope, they should set up their own controlling organisation with its own set of rules and host their own set of tournaments. Naturally, of course they'll have to draw lines too about precisely what is and isn't allowed as yet again without actual rules, the entire thing becomes pointless.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
19. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by serviscope_minor · 2016-09-13 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  I think you've nailed the point. All sports are necessarily an arbitrary set of rules. Without enforcement of those rules it's pointless.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
20. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  Just like in motor racing, where new "yet-to-be-banned" technologies are often the difference between competitors, athletics has also evolved past just "chemicals", particularly in the US.
  Some "wealthy" countries are utilizing deep genetic-level enhancements, mixed with proven techniques such as hyperbaric chambers, oxygen enrichment and high altitude training. None of which will "test" as "cheating".
  We have no idea how many athletes have had advance electroactive polymer enhancements or wear clothing with EAPs to take advantage of new muscle-enhancing technologies.
  Motor racing rules are an excellent example of where some team "secrets" can give huge advantages until "realized" and either banned or included in the mix. Downforce/additives/turbines, always something new.
21. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by cellocgw · 2016-09-14 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well, auto racing used to be in part about building better cars. Until the turbine came along. Now, turbines and 4-wheel drive are banned at the Indy 500.
  That's utter nonsense. You might as well bitch that IndyCars aren't allowed in NASCAR races. Or that sticks with more than 1.5" curve depth aren't allowed in the NHL. Or that metal bats aren't allowed in MLB. Or double-strung rackets in tennis.
  Every sport has rules and limits, often for safety if nothing else. If you don't think race teams have teams of engineers trying to make the car a teensy bit faster and a teensy bit better at holding speed in corners while staying within the design rules, time to think again.
  Back to human doping: I won't disagree that there's a fine line between PEDs and legal stuff like high-protein diets and a few cans of RedBull. And for that matter, the kind of diet (both type and quantity) that NFL players eat does in fact have ramifications for their long-term health. I think the difference is (supposed to be) that banned doping substances are radically dangerous even in the levels in use, let alone overdosing.
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
22. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by HBI · 2016-09-14 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, i'm not, since the doping thing is mostly written into law at this point.
  Nothing illustrates the 'bread and circuses' viewpoint of today so much as the recent doping scandals and the lawmaker response to same. Sports are there to keep the general public dopey and not politically active, but ironically the players themselves can't use dope. That and a SNAP card and the Roman Emperors would be envious.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
23. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by farble1670 · 2016-09-14 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Just let them, and let them use well understood substances.
  And what if they don't? After all, an athlete would NEVER use an untested performance enhancer to get an edge over those using the "understood substances", right?
  Oh wait. THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THAT NOW.
24. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by farble1670 · 2016-09-14 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  If they want to be modern day gladiators and kill themselves, then that's their right to be dumb as fuck for people's enjoyment.
  It's our right as a society to impose rules on them because it's US sponsoring the competition. Which we are doing. You are right, they can take whatever drugs they want on their own time and compete in whatever competitions will allow them. Just not internationally regulated sports.
  There are always rules in a competition. They don't allow mopeds in the 400 meter. You can't wear a jetpack in the pole vault. You can't cork your bat.
25. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by farble1670 · 2016-09-14 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Sports are there to keep the general public dopey and not politically active, but ironically the players themselves can't use dope.
  Whether or not either of those is true, your conclusion is ridiculous. I think you can do better than that.
26. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by Coren22 · 2016-09-14 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  When rules are made that the methods you mention aren't allowed, then you can get on the USs case if they continue. Until then, how is it any difference than the athletes having access to a good gym vs what might be available to a third world country's athletes?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
27. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by HBI · 2016-09-14 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  OK. The rules are there to satisfy the same morons who watch the sports and keep them on the government's reservation. It's a wank-fest for compulsive followers.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
28. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 17:58 · Score: 0
  
  But doping does have impact on every other athlete who isn't doping. It means they lose to the cheaters.
29. Re:How to Argue About Doping in Sport by farble1670 · 2016-09-15 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, sounds like you got a few wedgies from the jocks when you were younger. Well, so did I. However, my son plays soccer and it makes a big difference in his life. Professional sports is one thing, but the vast majority of athletes struggle in silence without TV coverage or fans, with almost no wanking at all. Almost all Olympic athletes fall into that category.
Database Shouldn't Be Online by Luthair · 2016-09-13 11:11 · Score: 0

Sorry but the issue here is this database shouldn't have been connected to the internet.
1. Re:Database Shouldn't Be Online by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 12:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The ADAMS database is where athletes have to log in and report their whereabouts in order to be available for out-of-competition testing (the most reliable way of catching dopers). It is also where athletes and the doctors requested Theraputic Use Exemptions (TUE's). There HAS to be a connection to make that work. Like too many of these types of hacks, it was a a weak user password that was compromised.
  So far the dump just shows that the American athletes were following the rules like they were supposed to. This hack is Russia's way to try to cloud the picture and make it look like the exclusion of their athletes was "unfair", when in actuality their ENTIRE anti-doping infrastructure was completely compromised (including test samples being swapped out at the Sochi games). FYI there is another more detailed MacLaren report due to come out next month. S
2. Re:Database Shouldn't Be Online by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 19:16 · Score: -1
  
  You mean that Americans were following the "evasions" and "loopholes" that were allowed for them to use, while the Russians, like Sharapova were just labelled cheats.
  Sharapova and many other Russians had taken the same heart medication for over a decade but the US lackies had it banned, albeit under a name not used in Russia, despite ZERO evidence of any sporting advantage.
  Remember too, that there was zero ACTUAL evidence of systemic Russian doping, only the "word" of an ex-Russian doping boss in exile in the US evading massive corruption charges in Russia !
  Far more Americans have been ACTUALLY caught doping than Russians.
  Unlike the US, other countries simply cannot AFFORD the high-altitude, enriched-oxygen tents and other "non-chemical" cheats that allow US success at many sports. Blood banking for athletes is also hard for most countries to manage quietly.
3. Re:Database Shouldn't Be Online by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  I should know better than to respond to the typical Russian troll trying to spread FUD., but these are the facts:
  1. The TUE process is open to all athletes. Not the US fault the Russians chose not to pursue that.
  2.. WADA banned Meldomium, WADA is not a US-controlled agency the last time I looked. Russia could have presented evidence to the WADA that Meldonium was not performance enhancing. The manufacturer's own web site says the drug is used “for the improvement of work capacity of healthy people at physical and mental overloads and during rehabilitation period.” Which EXACTLY fits into the definition of a performance-enhancing drug.
  3. Sharapova was sent FIVE notifications that Meldonium was added to the list. All athletes are held to "strict liability" standard for what they take, so the onus was on Sharapova to make sure she was compliant.
  4. There is more than one single witness. Mr. Vitaly Stepanov, a former employee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), who made the first allegations, and Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the former Director of the WADA-accredited MoscowAnti-Doping Laboratory. Dr. Rodchenkov cooperated with the MacLaren investigation.
the latest excuse for poor security by ooloorie · 2016-09-13 11:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

"We were hacked by Russia" seems to be the latest excuse for poor security.
Hopefully, the World Anti-Doping Agency will be sued into oblivion over their mishandling of personal data.
1. Re:the latest excuse for poor security by smooth+wombat · 2016-09-13 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  If Target, TJ Maxx Company, Home Depot and all the other companies who have mishandled personal data haven't been sued into oblivion, it won't happen here.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
2. Re:the latest excuse for poor security by dunkindave · 2016-09-13 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  "We were hacked by Russia" seems to be the latest excuse for poor security.
  Correct. Blame a security breach on an entity who people believe has advance hacking weapons, and you can claim no matter what steps you took, they would have got in. They think it will get them off the hook for their poor practices.
  Trouble is, I can see why Russia WOULD do this, either to tamper with data on Russian athletes to remove harmful info, or to tamper with other athletes' info then have Russia point at the hack "by someone" and say the previous bad doping results for Russian athletes were a setup, and the database hack was only now discovered. Their athletes should be exonerated!
3. Re:the latest excuse for poor security by AHuxley · 2016-09-13 12:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Security experts are so quick to find this "Fantasy Bear" everywhere, in all networks, systems when called in. But to stop access or have discovery while active in any network seems to be an issue even with such perfect and rapid after event detection....
  Always using the same easy to find Fancy Bear after an event, any event, all events.
  Yet Fancy Bear is always able to get in with no issues, stay in totally undetected to get so much data out and exit gracefully without detection every time.
  But is still fully understood by so many security experts and Fancy Bear is nice enough to be fully found in logs and ip's left all over any network it enters.
  Mythically powerful on any network until the worlds' s media is quickly told it is found in full every time... Fully detected.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
4. Re:the latest excuse for poor security by farble1670 · 2016-09-13 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  Wow. You even type Russian.
5. Re:the latest excuse for poor security by AHuxley · 2016-09-13 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  The code even types ...
  No wonder fully intact logs, huge readable code fragments, a nations ip range and working day time zone data magically allowed to be fully discovered and recovered must be always point to a nation of origin..
  Stay up late or early, the magical tool set that seems to be floating around for anyone to use and find a staging server with the perfect cover ip range...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
6. Re:the latest excuse for poor security by bloodhawk · 2016-09-13 14:37 · Score: 2
  
  Target etc weren't holding your medical records. most countries have extremely strict laws around the storage of medical details, access controls, encryption etc etc. if they have not followed those then they most definitely are open to be sued into oblivion.
7. Re:the latest excuse for poor security by farble1670 · 2016-09-14 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Donec sit amet urna nec tellus semper dignissim tincidunt non ipsum. Mauris ultrices metus id risus aliquet, sit amet imperdiet arcu tempus. Mauris molestie dui ornare purus venenatis viverra. Sed fringilla volutpat tortor in tincidunt. Pellentesque eu nunc in turpis efficitur molestie sed vel quam. Donec nec varius nulla, at tempor magna. Duis volutpat tortor eget sem elementum, at accumsan orci laoreet. Proin fringilla felis ipsum, id convallis dolor tincidunt eu. Ut tristique mauris at eros lobortis, et posuere ipsum tristique. Etiam placerat cursus leo, vitae cursus lacus.
More Fancy Bear fiction again? by AHuxley · 2016-09-13 11:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

It would be nice to actually listen to the people in news rather than place all blame on the cyber fantasy of Fancy Bear:
"Julian Assange: 'A lot more material' coming on US elections" (July 27, 2016)
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07...
""Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces. But to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are,""
Its amazing how that well understood but really powerful "Fancy Bear" tools set gets into so many well protected networks unnoticed... Only to be found by investigators so quickly as it is so just easy to find once it is in a network...
So rather than some all powerful, hard to track, no logs, no tools left behind method is a rather common "spear phishing" event...

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
1. Re:More Fancy Bear fiction again? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  A quote of Julian Assange's speculation on something is neither proof of anything nor a substantive response to an assertion. This may come as a surprise to you, but the standards of informed, rational discourse are much higher than snarky statements that seem to cast doubt on something. You'll fit in nicely with the rest of the internet's idiot choir.
Only 24 hours left by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 11:24 · Score: -1

For the taxidermist to prep Hillary for the debate...
1. Re:Only 24 hours left by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 15:00 · Score: -1
  
  It may not be necessary, I heard a fun rumor today: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/dnc-emergency-meeting-replacing-clinton/
  What a fucking shit show with these two losers. If it actually mattered who was President, I might start to feel depressed about the choices.
2. Re: Only 24 hours left by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 00:13 · Score: -1
  
  I don't buy into the looney Clinton health conspiracy theories, but as a Democrat. I would LOVE for Biden or AL Gore to step in and win in a walk over Trump, as I am of the opinion that HRC is just about the only nominee Trump could have a realistic shot of beating in the general.
Not bad, looks like a clean record to me. by wherrera · 2016-09-13 11:27 · Score: 0

Looking at the details, it looks like the positives in the US database were related to treament of injuries plus one gymnast with an ADHD diagnosis. Whereas, as far as we can tell, the Russian athletes were being dosed with more conventional doping agents that have no general use in Russia for non-athletes, and were forbidden to be tested for exactly that reason.
So I see the hack results as so far posted as a vindication for the US Olympic teams. Either they were remarkably clean or they were unusually good at hiding any doping that actually went on. Upright living (and avoiding doing vandalism if you are a swimmer) can be an excellent defense against scandal.
1. Re:Not bad, looks like a clean record to me. by LTIfox · 2016-09-13 12:24 · Score: 2
  
  plus one gymnast with an ADHD diagnosis
  That's some crafty spinning on your part. That "one gymnast" is no other than Simone Biles. One of the most prominent stars of the Olympics. And, apparently, she was doping her entire life
2. Re:Not bad, looks like a clean record to me. by wherrera · 2016-09-13 13:02 · Score: 2
  
  Too bad almost none of the commentators understand common facts about sports physiology and pharmacology. For example, the CORTICOsteroids given the tennis players for injuries would tend to make them weaker, not stronger (it is the ANDROGEN type steroids that are used by dopers), And it's dubious that Ritalin would help a gymnast, though it might an endurance athlete.
3. Re:Not bad, looks like a clean record to me. by LTIfox · 2016-09-13 13:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And it's dubious that Ritalin would help a gymnast, though it might an endurance athlete.
  Are you high?! (sorry, can't help it)
  And it's not just Ritalin. For years she was scarfing Adderall and Dexedrine too. All stimulants. All banned.
  
  Taking this to extreme: let's attach a jet pack to Steven Hawking's chair (under doctor's prescription) and let him compete in 100m sprint. Although it would be fun to watch, it would definitely be unfair to other athletes.
  And that is my point: occasionally taking drugs to overcome injuries is totally fine by me. But taking them for years gives an unfair advantage - exactly what anti-doping tries to prevent.
4. Re:Not bad, looks like a clean record to me. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  Just look at the history of the US cycling teams, if it wasn't for whistle blowers and a few mistakes it would be just as rampant today (and probably still is), the US trainers and atheletes are incredibly skilled at avoiding positive drug results, most of which is about timing and correct measurement of doses to ensure when they are testing they will get clean results. Not suggesting the US is any worse than the rest of the world, but to suggest they are incredibly clean is incredibly naïve and a gross underestimation of how advanced drug cheating has gotten in recent years.
5. Re:Not bad, looks like a clean record to me. by dunkelfalke · 2016-09-13 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  does that really look clean to you?
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
6. Re:Not bad, looks like a clean record to me. by ilguido · 2016-09-13 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad almost none of the commentators understand common facts about sports physiology and pharmacology. For example, the CORTICOsteroids given the tennis players for injuries would tend to make them weaker, not stronger.
  Serena took Prednisone, which is a corticosteroids, that's true, but the problem is that she was positive to two Prednisone active metabolites: Prednisolone and Methylprednisolone. Those are steroids (who could think that Serena took steroids?) and in this case she was cleared because she can say "I didn't take those banned substances, I'm positive as a side effect of that other substance, allowed under restrictions". It is Lance Armstrong all over again to me.
7. Re:Not bad, looks like a clean record to me. by dunkelfalke · 2016-09-13 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  It is just like a decade ago or so a lot of sportsmen officially had asthma so they could take clenbuterol legally. Except that someone with actual asthma is unlikely to excel in an endurance sport.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
8. Re:Not bad, looks like a clean record to me. by Coren22 · 2016-09-14 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  All of those drugs are amphetamine analogs used to treat ADHD, or are you going to try and say that her ADHD diagnosis was faked?
  https://www.drugs.com/ritalin....
  https://www.drugs.com/adderall...
  https://www.drugs.com/cdi/dexe...
  Both of my kids, and I have ADHD, I have taken all of these except Adderall, and they had varying effects on my attention issues. Perhaps we should just ban treatment of any issues with athletes, they should just not use any medications?
  These people used medications in the course of medical treatment of actual conditions. If Russia wanted to diagnose all their athletes with ADHD to give them all Ritalin, it would be possible within the rules. Instead, they chose a drug that is used only for recovery from major illnesses and used it on most of their athletes, despite it being a banned drug, and without a doctors exemption for treatment.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
9. Re:Not bad, looks like a clean record to me. by wherrera · 2016-09-14 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  This willful display of continued ignorance as to the different kinds of steroids does prove my point above.
Those naughty Russians and Chinese.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 11:31 · Score: 0

Blame Canada!...oops...I mean Russia or China.
Does ANYONE believe this shit?
1. Re:Those naughty Russians and Chinese.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  In Soviet Russia, this shit believes YOU!
ADHD superhumans? by LTIfox · 2016-09-13 12:10 · Score: 1

So, how do you compete against ADHD athletes? Effectively, Simone Biles was doped her entire life.
1. Re:ADHD superhumans? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  It is actually one of the more interesting questions and fuzzy areas as some people do have natural chemical imbalances outside the norm that can give them an advantage in certain sports. e.g. female athletes with unnaturally high testosterone. I always wondered if maybe these people belong in the para Olympics in their own category. It is insane to suggest though that these people that exist outside the norm should be an excuse for doping as then it is no longer a sport, it is who has the best scientists, perhaps one day their is a place for that but it certainly shouldn't be in any current modern sports.
2. Re:ADHD superhumans? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  I think that's a good point, and something we don't have a good answer for. There are people with physical or biochemical advantages (this is particularly obvious in basketball for example), you have the physical advantages of Kenyan runners (I know, that they also have a doping problem, but they do have an advantage to start with), then you have cases like Caster Semenya and her unusual testerone-level for a female. Simone Biles and her ADHD may just be another example of a more or less natural initial advantage. In theory teams/organizations/regimes who work with performance-enhancement drugs to produce more successful athletes could go just the other route: forget about doping, put all your money into finding these people, work on your methods how to biochemically select your future gold medalists.
  I don't see a real solution there. What should be the criteria how to reward a performance in sports?
3. Re:ADHD superhumans? by Coren22 · 2016-09-14 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Funny thing, people with ADHD respond in exactly the opposite way to these drugs as people without the drug. If you have ADHD and take a stimulant, it has the effect of calming you, not of improving your performance in any way.
  There are tests to determine if someone has ADHD, to claim that someone is just taking the drugs to compete better is a really odd thing to say.
  So, how is the weather in Moscow? I see they suggested you create accounts now so that you aren't as easily disbelieved.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
They're just takin' the piss, right? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 12:16 · Score: 0

Silly Russia.
wow that article is stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 12:18 · Score: 0

hope your comment doesn't get voted up.
That article doesn't at all ask or say anything useful, like perhaps why chemicals are considered "dope" and why other chemicals are not.
And the name itself "doping" is fucking stupid. How about using a better term that articulates (somewhat) what performance enhancing chemicals are. They certainly aren't "dope", but whatever.
That stupid article actually states that there many different reasons people take performance enhancing chemicals. There is not. People take them to win.
OP is making stuff up by BradMajors · 2016-09-13 13:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

WADA (not a reliable source) said they were hacked by Russians. They did not say they were hacked by Russia.
1. Re:OP is making stuff up by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 15:21 · Score: 0
  
  well they actually didn't even go as far as to say that, they basically said the hack originated from inside Russia. makes Russians a highly likely candidate but by no means a certainty given anyone anywhere in the world can make it appear like they are coming from any country they choose if they have even some basic networking skills which any hacker beyond a script kiddie will have.
My air conditioner broke last week by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 14:56 · Score: 0

FUCKING PUTIN DID IT. I know the Russians are to blame. They always did hate then I was comfortable in the summer.
The world anti doing agency is a bad joke, and the only thing they've done it turn this into a purely political thing.
So not a Fireeye customer? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 16:19 · Score: 0

Because it was china...
Why wasn’t the WADA info public? by khz6955 · 2016-09-13 18:22 · Score: 1

"Hacktivists, who have released WADA files that greenlighted therapeutic use of banned substances by US athletes, did a public service, as greater transparency is needed so as to understand whether the system is impartial, independent writer Rick Sterling told RT." ref
1. Re: Why wasn’t the WADA info public? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Come back after you have googled "HIPAA violation and criminal penalties."
This woman is not on steroids .. by pokemon219 · 2016-09-13 18:41 · Score: 1

This woman is not on steroids
The usual anti-Russian distraction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 19:18 · Score: 1

The usual anti-Russian witch hunt, when publically confronted with some unpallitible facts, regarding their own action. It does look clear that this leaked information should have been public to begin with, given its clear implications for the credibility of WADA. We clearly can't have some athletes using banned substances, while others can not.
Now that WADA has made these claims, they also better deliver some actal evidence, or their credibility will only sink further. They also better look at their policies, since it appears that at least some US athletes may have unfairly benefited.
1. Re:The usual anti-Russian distraction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  You mean, the usual Russian distraction whenever they get caught. And damn, do they get caught a lot. Seriously, modifying EVERY SINGLE SAMPLE at the Sochi games? Was there not a single athlete on the Russian team that wasn't cheating?
  Of course, since the entire Russian Paralympic team was banned for cheating, I guess it shows that are no limits to how low the Russians will go.
Ridiculous propaganda by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 19:42 · Score: 0

to think that Russia's government would gather up a bunch of hackers, instruct them to call themselves "Fancy Bears", make it known to everyone that they were paid by the government, and then instruct them to always leave plenty of traces behind, is ridiculous.
I don't know what's in those papers or who got hold of them, but to immediately say that there's a trove of evidence left behind linking Russia's government to it is ridiculous. They would only ever use compromised computers, and leave little or no evidence behind, and IF you could link them to it, then you certainly wouldn't be able to do it in the immediate afternoon following the breach.
Double standards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 20:32 · Score: 0

Compare with: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Rducan#Doping_charge
1. Re:Double standards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 21:06 · Score: 0
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Raducan#Doping_charge
2. Re: Double standards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  While the outcome of the Raducan case was admittedly a travesty, there is a huge legal difference in that she and her team doctor never even attempted to go through the appropriate WADA reporting and waiver protocols, which is precisely what the American athletes did and why, for that matter, the hacked records even exist in the first place.
3. Re: Double standards by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-15 03:12 · Score: 0
  
  True. Biles has been cheating legally all her life. Raducan's doctor made a stupid mistake and she was stripped of her medal according to the rules. All by the law. Move along citizen, nothing to see here.
Did WADA do something wrong? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 20:44 · Score: 0

If WADA did not do anything wrong then it does not need to fear the release of their data. Isn't this what governments are telling us when snooping on us?
PHB Syndrome by ThatsNotPudding · 2016-09-14 00:02 · Score: 1

"Everything sensitive must be online and remotely accessible by me so I don't have to leave the golf course (or my mistresses' bed)."

This would be the only reason not to have stuff like this physically walled-off from the net. What, do they dump their results directly onto Twitter?
Admit it! Everyone is doping by Master5000 · 2016-09-14 00:25 · Score: -1

Everybody at every level in any sport is doping. That is the truth. Your average gym rat at the local shitty gym? He's on a ton of gear. If those guys are on gear and they're not making any money out of it or gain any fame, what makes you think that the pros aren't on a shitton of stuff?
U.S. athletes dope like junkies by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 03:21 · Score: 0

But it's the Russians who are guilty. Serena Williams takes horse doses of amphetamines, yet natural Meldonine is banned by the US. Olympics have truly became an international joke. From now on I don't believe any american athlete has won his/her own gold medal without being doped up high as a sky.
Why was this stuff even online? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-14 07:31 · Score: 0

Why isn't the medical data stored offline? It doesn't need to be accessed 24/7. It could be stored digitally but air gapped so to speak. If a sporting event or doctor or organization needs access to certain medical passports then they put in a request. This is meant to be very private information, regardless of doping guilt or not.
Medical exemptions are not exclusive to US athletes(ie. Russians can request them also, it's just steroids are harder to get exemptions for) and are a very commonly accepted thing in sports. They can be abused though (see the accusations against Alberto Salazar). But, if the athletes are following the rules they are given, it's all above board by the rules of the sport. This isn't state sponsored attempts to pump steroids into athletes and then cover up failed drug tests(the real reason Russian athletes were banned to such an extent in Rio).
When an athlete has an injury or medical condition that can be treated by medicine that would be performance enhancing in healthy individuals, a medical exemption can be requested. Would it be fair to say that you can get treatment but you wont be able to compete in your sport anymore? That's moronic.