Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The informant of the world anti-doping Agency (WADA) Grigory Rodchenkov refused the former indications concerning the use by the Russian athletes of a doping cocktail under the name "Duchess".
As follows from the materials published on the website Of the sports arbitration court in Lausanne (CAS), Rodchenkov, in particular, said that he never gave a cocktail to Russian athletes, did not see how they used it, and did not see that athletes or coaches received instructions for its use. In addition, according to his new testimony, he had never seen athletes pre-harvest clean urine for doping tests and that they generally somehow manipulated with their tests.
Also Rodchenkov declared that doesn't know who and as reported numbers of a doping test in Sochi-2014 Irina Rodionova who, according to his initial statements, managed distribution of the forbidden preparations in the Russian sport. When Rodchenkov showed his previous statements in which it was said that "the athlete or the member of his environment expelled a photo Rodionova", he declared that it was only the plan. At the same time, this record was used as evidence of substitution of doping samples in Sochi-2014.
Rodchenkov also could not name the exact composition of the "Duchess cocktail" when the judge asked him to do it, although previously it was repeatedly stated that Rodchenkov invented this mixture.
After Rodchenkov Professor Richard McLaren – the head of the independent Commission WADA, the author of the report on the use of doping in the Russian national team refused the previous conclusions.
"In my report, I did not claim that certain Russians participated in the doping scheme. Only said they could participate. This does not mean that they violated the anti – doping rules," McLaren said.
Note that on the basis of the report of McLaren and testimony Rodchenkova the international Olympic Committee has conducted its own investigation, the outcome of which was the deprivation of Russians of the Olympic medals and a suspension from participation at the Olympic games in Phenchhane under its flag.
Is it seems like USA destroy USSR by Afgani war 1979-1989?
No, this wouldn't be my assumption.
(Remember, I was THERE through those years, and my opinion is that the USSR collapsed because of its own internal problems. See, unlike the *collective* West, that didn't have any particular ideological hang-ups ( except for probably McCartism era,) Russians were sticking to ideology rather than common sense.
The West with its multi-party system didn't have problems arguing the case of "right and left" politics, combining both in the process, and not feeling like "losers," when straying away from "pure" capitalism.
Russians, however, were reluctant to budge and to adjust their economy, including the elements of capitalism ( as in implementing the private sector,) because it was contradicting the "teachings of Marxism-Leninism" and what's not. And of course one-party system was assuring that no one could legally argue the case or even worse - trying to change anything.
And that's why the Soviet system nosedived at the end - because of these factors, and NOT because it didn't have any potential.
Afghanistan came as an additional strain at that time, and Russians were absolutely correct to interfere, before the radical Islamic infestation would spread to their borders and beyond.
No, this wouldn't be my assumption.
(Remember, I was THERE through those years, and my opinion is that the USSR collapsed because of its own internal problems. See, unlike the *collective* West, that didn't have any particular ideological hang-ups ( except for probably McCartism era,) Russians were sticking to ideology rather than common sense.
The West with its multi-party system didn't have problems arguing the case of "right and left" politics, combining both in the process, and not feeling like "losers," when straying away from "pure" capitalism.
Russians, however, were reluctant to budge and to adjust their economy, including the elements of capitalism ( as in implementing the private sector,) because it was contradicting the "teachings of Marxism-Leninism" and what's not. And of course one-party system was assuring that no one could legally argue the case or even worse - trying to change anything.
And that's why the Soviet system nosedived at the end - because of these factors, and NOT because it didn't have any potential.
Afghanistan came as an additional strain at that time, and Russians were absolutely correct to interfere, before the radical Islamic infestation would spread to their borders and beyond.
Well said. Clears up some things for me. I always felt that After the 50s and 60s and all the rebuilding the economic system stagnated because the politicians refused to change seeking to preserve their power and status over the well being of the country.
Do you think the private sector and competition would have been enough?
Well said. Clears up some things for me. I always felt that After the 50s and 60s and all the rebuilding the economic system stagnated because the politicians refused to change seeking to preserve their power and status over the well being of the country.
Do you think the private sector and competition would have been enough?
It is my opinion, that Russia can't be governed by the same rules as the US, and vice versa.
Russians I think are very "communal" in nature, and they should have preserved their natural way of life - i.e. sharing the "public space," - forests lakes and rivers. Those should have never been *privatized,* it should have remained communal as during Soviet times.
For the same reasons, they shouldn't have had an "urban sprawl" American way, where everyone is trying to live a mile apart from each other. They should have kept a strong government involvement in economy, and NEVER EVER privatize the natural resources. Heavy industry ( plus science & technology sector) should have been continued to be governed by the state as well, as much as health care and education.
From my point of view these social arrangements were assuring the welfare of children and families ( thus no demographic gaps) and women's emancipation was a very real thing, unlike the fakeness of "feminism" that I see in America.
With that being said, I saw a dark side of the Soviet system, ( a VERY dark side) - that is a forceful conformation to everything that state dictates, with a tendency to destroy everyone daring to contradict it - both morally and physically.
I could understand this mode of state functioning during dangerous times more or less - namely Stalin's times, and may be few years after it.
But later on it was unforgiving, up to the point of self-destruction.
They ( the Soviet government) should have ABSOLUTELY given the outlet to people to breath, to be creative, to run their own business, to hire whom they wished to hire, to have night life, to have better distribution channels, better food processing industry, clothing and the rest, that would have made Soviet life less drub and more plentiful. The light industry sector was perfect for it, but as I've already said, those in charge were stubbornly sticking to the tenets of ideology, that anyone hired by anything other than the state was "exploitation," prohibited by the Soviet system.
So whatever what was left from private sector from Stalin's times has been wiped out by Khrushev, and dead completely by Brezhnev's times.
Plus the whole "class ideology" thing, which was yet another whole devastating matter, invented yet again back in the 1917 and not abolished till the bitter end. Which, ( put in simple terms,) was an "affirmative action" to hire\appoint people from "peasants and workers" background (those "ideologically reliable" of course) in leading positions.
The older folks in my family were particularly grievous about it I remember, been qualified specialists in the tech field.
They were saying that "these loyal to Communist Party idiots" were often hampering the work process, and their presence became increasingly persistent with Khrushev's arrival.
So yes, I DO think that fixing this couple of problems would have alleviated the system pressure and gave population the needed outlet to enjoy the life more, instead of bringing everything to a boiling point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
