Weightlifting Forums

https://iwf.sport/2024/05/02/lifters-mo ... ugee-team/

Refugee lifters selected, the top performers were chosen. Not sure if this is setting a precedent for the Tripartite/Universality slots, we'll have to see what happens.

I will make the thread for the Olympic Games closer to the date.

https://iwf.sport/wp-content/uploads/do ... 052024.pdf

Nina Sterckx goes down in the 49kg category and Magistris is in!

Elle wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 4:50 am https://iwf.sport/wp-content/uploads/do ... 052024.pdf

Nina Sterckx goes down in the 49kg category and Magistris is in!

I'm really surprised

Thanks, I hate it.

I wanted to see Sterckx at a filled 59, I don't want to see her (or anyone) get starved to make a weight category. Subjectively, I think Rosegie Ramos PHI at 49 has a better chance of being genuinely competitive than Lucrezia Magistris ITA at 59, so I think it's unfortunate that Rosegie misses out.

This is also not the "true" final qualification list, as reallocation of unused continental slots (W81, W81+) and the finalisation of host country and universality slots has not been included.

W81 continental is likely rolled over to 11th Weronika Zielinska Stubinska POL. W81+ to 11th Nurul Akmal INA.

strapping wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 1:30 pm Subjectively, I think Rosegie Ramos PHI at 49 has a better chance of being genuinely competitive than Lucrezia Magistris ITA at 59, so I think it's unfortunate that Rosegie misses out.

You are right, we are obviously happy for her here in Italy, but someone has to say it: she had a really bad qualifying tournament. Ok, sport is also made of fortune but...

Can't wait to see Italian athletes lifting tonight: how Magistris will perform here in Italy (Recently I don't think I've ever seen her participate in a national competition)?

This is nuts.

ITA just posted 2 more Ukrainian positives, is Konotop staying in at 59 or what?

To clarify, they arent new cases, these are resolved cases from earlier.

Hawkpeter wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 11:19 pm This is nuts.
ITA just posted 2 more Ukrainian positives, is Konotop staying in at 59 or what?

Put it in the sanctions thread next time, not a big deal but it just makes it a bit easier to keep a continuous log.

I think it's not unlikely that Konotop stays in at 59, maybe I am a bit of a pessimist.

The IWF has still not processed the loss of "some or all" Turkish qualification slots, despite the fact that Turkey has had eight ADRVs (seven resolved) in the qualifying period. 4 reanalyses from London 2012 which were processed in 2021,3 AAS positives and 1 whereabouts failure in 2023. Ukraine's positives were given 42 month sanctions, so they are not automatically banned but fall under the same clause as Turkey.

A rather petty question I have now is whether we will see Italy continue to make complaints about the inclusion of the Turkish and Ukrainian athletes, now that it probably doesn't affect their Olympic qualification. For the sake of clean sport, I hope that would be the case.

strapping wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 12:59 am A rather petty question I have now is whether we will see Italy continue to make complaints about the inclusion of the Turkish and Ukrainian athletes, now that it probably doesn't affect their Olympic qualification. For the sake of clean sport, I hope that would be the case.

There have not yet been any public statements since the confirmation of Magistris' qualification, but I think the idea is still to fight doping anyway (also for Urso).

Before last weekend's competition, celebrating Magistris' qualification, a joke was made about the Bulgarians' doping. Qualifications or not, the fight against doping remains an important thing for Italy (or at least that's what it looks like).

https://openarchive.ki.se/xmlui/handle/10616/49116

An interesting anti-doping paper/thesis from Karolina Institutet (Sweden), a reasonably high level university focused on health sciences.

Men test positive for S1 substances more commonly than women.

The short summary of the paper is that anti-doping tests regarding testosterone, particularly the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio, are designed around male physiology and are not appropriate or effective for anti-doping in women. Notably, there appears to be confounding variables in women regarding the T:E analysis, such as oral contraceptives increasing the ratio or the fluctuations in hormones throughout the menstrual cycle.

The researchers suggest that testosterone:androstenedione is a more appropriate test. Their reasoning appears to makes sense but I don't have an opinion as I have no background in bioanalytical chemistry.

Interestingly, the author of the thesis is also a weightlifter and official.