This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
There was quite a lot of discussion about this when the rumours then allegations were made about Radcliffe.
IAAF investigation has cleared her of any wrong doing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34948287
IAAF investigation has cleared her of any wrong doing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34948287
8
1
In reply to The New NickB: Liliya Shobukova is a significantly slower marathoner than Paula and has been banned for doping. I think she was on more than just tea and scones.
2
15
11
In reply to Yanis Nayu: true, you still need to put the work in. But you're naive If you think she was clean.
3
14
5
1
In reply to Gaz22: She was pretty good and trained a lot you know. Her marathon is obviously super quick, but is comparable to her 10K.
I tihnk clean. I heard stories about other people at the time, but never her. FWIW the people I heard stories about were not from the UK
I tihnk clean. I heard stories about other people at the time, but never her. FWIW the people I heard stories about were not from the UK
1
1
In reply to The New NickB:
All I'm saying is Paula is faster than athletes who have been banned for doping. So You couldn't blame people for thinking maybe she did, no?
All I'm saying is Paula is faster than athletes who have been banned for doping. So You couldn't blame people for thinking maybe she did, no?
2
2
2
In reply to Gaz22:
Maybe? You seemed certain earlier.
> All I'm saying is Paula is faster than athletes who have been banned for doping. So You couldn't blame people for thinking maybe she did, no?
Maybe? You seemed certain earlier.
2
2
In reply to The New NickB:
You couldnt blame people. I can't speak for anyone else hence the maybe.
My opinion is I fully believe she did.
You couldnt blame people. I can't speak for anyone else hence the maybe.
My opinion is I fully believe she did.
3
1
In reply to Gaz22:
So is every world record holder in, say, the last 50 years on drugs? Seems to be by your logic.
> All I'm saying is Paula is faster than athletes who have been banned for doping.
So is every world record holder in, say, the last 50 years on drugs? Seems to be by your logic.
3
2
In reply to Gaz22:
Given your opinion, I assume you.ve read her autobiography? Dedication isnt the half of it. You.re entitled to your opinion, but with that much talent & stupendously hard work, I think she should be praised for her achievements not criticised in her well earned retirement. She.s not the WR holder for 10000m- wang junxia of china is- tho her time is under some suspician.....
Given your opinion, I assume you.ve read her autobiography? Dedication isnt the half of it. You.re entitled to your opinion, but with that much talent & stupendously hard work, I think she should be praised for her achievements not criticised in her well earned retirement. She.s not the WR holder for 10000m- wang junxia of china is- tho her time is under some suspician.....
1
3
In reply to Robert Durran:
I'm not implying that. I've made my own opinion on what I've read about, seen and discussed.
I'm not implying that. I've made my own opinion on what I've read about, seen and discussed.
2
2
1
In reply to Gaz22:
Your opinion is in opposition to the IAAF and the UK Anti Doping Agency who have had full access to her blood testing history, above and beyond what is accessible to the public. I can only assume, therefore, that you are being deliberately contrary, presumably because you think it makes you more interesting as a person and demonstrates your desire to be individual, a maverick perhaps?
It doesn't do any of those things, although it is probably libellous.
Why, in this country, do we insist on shooting down our genuinely world class sporting talent? Paula Radcliffe is an inspiration and an outstanding athlete who achieved what she did with hard work, dedication, a lot of training and a little bit of luck. Why not celebrate her?
Your opinion is in opposition to the IAAF and the UK Anti Doping Agency who have had full access to her blood testing history, above and beyond what is accessible to the public. I can only assume, therefore, that you are being deliberately contrary, presumably because you think it makes you more interesting as a person and demonstrates your desire to be individual, a maverick perhaps?
It doesn't do any of those things, although it is probably libellous.
Why, in this country, do we insist on shooting down our genuinely world class sporting talent? Paula Radcliffe is an inspiration and an outstanding athlete who achieved what she did with hard work, dedication, a lot of training and a little bit of luck. Why not celebrate her?
26
5
6
In reply to XXXX:
I think she isn't a cheat, based on the little I know. However, given the seemingly never ending list of atheletes caught after years of being give a clean sheet, it is not unreasonable for someone to think otherwise.
I think she isn't a cheat, based on the little I know. However, given the seemingly never ending list of atheletes caught after years of being give a clean sheet, it is not unreasonable for someone to think otherwise.
1
In reply to XXXX:
Lance Armstrong was an inspiration and an outstanding athlete who achieved what he did with hard work, dedication, a lot of training and a little bit of luck. And a lot of people believed him for a very long time.
My opinion wasn't formed just to 'be individual' I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in thinking it.
Lance Armstrong was an inspiration and an outstanding athlete who achieved what he did with hard work, dedication, a lot of training and a little bit of luck. And a lot of people believed him for a very long time.
My opinion wasn't formed just to 'be individual' I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in thinking it.
6
3
In reply to digby: sorry, I didn't realise I didn't have a right to free speech. An opinion is neither right nor wrong. It's an opinion, that's all.
5
1
In reply to Gaz22:
How did I know that you would bring Armstrong up! Armstrong failed tests, he would have failed a lot more under the regime that Radcliffe was tested. Pretty much everyone in cycling knew Armstrong was dirty, witnesses were speaking out even when he was winning Tours. If Radcliffe cheated, she was a lot better at it than Armstrong.
> Lance Armstrong was an inspiration and an outstanding athlete who achieved what he did with hard work, dedication, a lot of training and a little bit of luck. And a lot of people believed him for a very long time.
How did I know that you would bring Armstrong up! Armstrong failed tests, he would have failed a lot more under the regime that Radcliffe was tested. Pretty much everyone in cycling knew Armstrong was dirty, witnesses were speaking out even when he was winning Tours. If Radcliffe cheated, she was a lot better at it than Armstrong.
3
1
In reply to The New NickB: Talking about doping is sport and reacting with that comment when he is brought up is silly. You cant just ignore it. He was the most tested athlete of his time and cyclists in general still are. We know now he failed tests. And we know he payed people to keep quiet.
2
In reply to The New NickB:
A few people spoke out and were viciously ridiculed for it. A lot of people kept quiet. The omerta.
A few people spoke out and were viciously ridiculed for it. A lot of people kept quiet. The omerta.
3
In reply to Gaz22:
It seems that in addition to all the urine she gave to scientists for testing, she reserved some to piss in your chips.
Lance Armstrong was cheating, therefore Paula Radcliffe was cheating. Logical fallacy doesn't quite cover it.
It seems that in addition to all the urine she gave to scientists for testing, she reserved some to piss in your chips.
Lance Armstrong was cheating, therefore Paula Radcliffe was cheating. Logical fallacy doesn't quite cover it.
6
1
In reply to XXXX:
she's been cleared by a governing body so she must be clean. Fair one ha.
she's been cleared by a governing body so she must be clean. Fair one ha.
Post edited at 23:06
4
1
In reply to Gaz22:
Everybody close to Radcliffe has backed her 100%. It comes out eventually as the Armstrong case proved.
> A few people spoke out and were viciously ridiculed for it. A lot of people kept quiet. The omerta.
Everybody close to Radcliffe has backed her 100%. It comes out eventually as the Armstrong case proved.
2
In reply to Gaz22:
Armstrong claimed to be the most tested, he wasn't!
> Talking about doping is sport and reacting with that comment when he is brought up is silly. You cant just ignore it. He was the most tested athlete of his time and cyclists in general still are. We know now he failed tests. And we know he payed people to keep quiet.
Armstrong claimed to be the most tested, he wasn't!
2
3
In reply to Gaz22:
She is, her achievements do make many question her cleaness, she's the greatest ever, by a long long away. Most women who got with 3-4 minutes of her times have doped.
However apart from performance what other evidence is there
Like Bolt I think and hope she's clean.
> You couldnt blame people. I can't speak for anyone else hence the maybe.
> My opinion is I fully believe she did.
She is, her achievements do make many question her cleaness, she's the greatest ever, by a long long away. Most women who got with 3-4 minutes of her times have doped.
However apart from performance what other evidence is there
Like Bolt I think and hope she's clean.
3
1
In reply to Gaz22: I note that you're a runner and cyclist. Are you doping? Would you? Is it ok because everyone is doing it?
In reply to Gaz22:
So you think she took drugs, but only when running marathons?
> I was meaning her marathon record.
So you think she took drugs, but only when running marathons?
In reply to Gaz22:
You're free to voice your opinion, and we are free to say you're spouting bolleux.
Armstrong was suspected to be a doper for years, it was a combination of a lack of evidence , collusion (read money) and fear that took so long to out him.
Radcliffe on the other hand - the nearest she's been to drugs is the sweetners in her tea.
There is no evidence or suspicion that would suggest she ever doped. None. Nobody is pointing the finger at her, she's an outspoken critic if dopers and there are lots of dirty athletes who would love to bring her down. Where are they?
So, speak your mind by all means, but if you are going to accuse a professional athlete of doping, being some evidence to the table.
It 's the old "Do you still beat your wife"? scenario....
You're free to voice your opinion, and we are free to say you're spouting bolleux.
Armstrong was suspected to be a doper for years, it was a combination of a lack of evidence , collusion (read money) and fear that took so long to out him.
Radcliffe on the other hand - the nearest she's been to drugs is the sweetners in her tea.
There is no evidence or suspicion that would suggest she ever doped. None. Nobody is pointing the finger at her, she's an outspoken critic if dopers and there are lots of dirty athletes who would love to bring her down. Where are they?
So, speak your mind by all means, but if you are going to accuse a professional athlete of doping, being some evidence to the table.
It 's the old "Do you still beat your wife"? scenario....
Post edited at 11:45
2
1
Performance enhancing drugs are extremely effective. Look at a sport where it's more transparent and see the guys competing in natural weightlifting vs untested lifting competitions. It's the equivalent of comparing Sunday league with premiership football.
Not sure how it is for women's sports or athletics in general, but in sports such as mma it's classed as legal if their testosterone levels are only 4 times higher than the natural maximum levels to account for those on TRT... So therefore everyone is on TRT... Many performance enhancing drugs have short esthers attached to the chemical structure so that they are in and out of the system by the time the race/training session/whatever is over. Likewise it is true that the 'cheaters' are always one step ahead of the testers - you can't test for something that you're not looking for!
I wouldn't be surprised if everyone competing at a high level in athletics is getting chemical assistance in some way. College kids in the states get pushed into using for their football, baseball, etc... Because it's impossible to compete without, and that's just at an amateur level. It would be nice to be wrong but that's how I see it - You just can't compete with those who do use chems as a natural athlete, genetics can only take you so far
Post edited at 11:54
1
In reply to The New NickB:
It's a sad thing, if only we could prove in retrospect that athletes had been cheating, I always felt sorry for Christina Boxer who regularly finished fourth in major medal attempts when there was no doubt the athletes in front of her were cheating, like Paula, I have no doubt that Boxer was clean.
It's a sad thing, if only we could prove in retrospect that athletes had been cheating, I always felt sorry for Christina Boxer who regularly finished fourth in major medal attempts when there was no doubt the athletes in front of her were cheating, like Paula, I have no doubt that Boxer was clean.
1
In reply to Liamhutch89:
I used to compete "at a high level" in athletics, and still know personally a number of people who did so much more successfully than I did, including those who performed all the way up to world records and Olympic medals.
If you have any basis for your insulting remarks, then I suggest that you bring them to the attention of the appropriate authorities, or even the Sunday Times journalists if you do not trust the authorities.
If you do not, then kindly stop accusing ME and my friends of drug taking.
In the event that you continue, then I will feel the need to report you for abuse.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if everyone competing at a high level in athletics is getting chemical assistance in some way. .... and that's just at an amateur level. It would be nice to be wrong but that's how I see it - You just can't compete with those who do use chems as a natural athlete, genetics can only take you so far
> I wouldn't be surprised if everyone competing at a high level in athletics is getting chemical assistance in some way. .... and that's just at an amateur level. It would be nice to be wrong but that's how I see it - You just can't compete with those who do use chems as a natural athlete, genetics can only take you so far
I used to compete "at a high level" in athletics, and still know personally a number of people who did so much more successfully than I did, including those who performed all the way up to world records and Olympic medals.
If you have any basis for your insulting remarks, then I suggest that you bring them to the attention of the appropriate authorities, or even the Sunday Times journalists if you do not trust the authorities.
If you do not, then kindly stop accusing ME and my friends of drug taking.
In the event that you continue, then I will feel the need to report you for abuse.
3
1
In reply to Liamhutch89:
Do you have any evidence that college kids are pushed?
I don't think many if any amateurs use chemicals.
I think at the top level they use every possible gain and TUE they can. But that's not doping.
It's not as black and white as people think though.
Do you have any evidence that college kids are pushed?
I don't think many if any amateurs use chemicals.
I think at the top level they use every possible gain and TUE they can. But that's not doping.
It's not as black and white as people think though.
In reply to fred99:
Stop being a drama queen...
If you are offended by someone you don't know not even accusing, but just stating that they would not be surprised if drug use was taking place in athletics (i used these words) then you need some thicker skin.
I still believe that a natural competitor can't compete with a chemically assisted competitor most of the time.
Stop being a drama queen...
If you are offended by someone you don't know not even accusing, but just stating that they would not be surprised if drug use was taking place in athletics (i used these words) then you need some thicker skin.
I still believe that a natural competitor can't compete with a chemically assisted competitor most of the time.
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I dont personally have evidence beyond annonymous discussions on forums where people discuss their drug use for their sports.
It was on bodybuilding forums where the drug talk was open and people from other sports joined in. I distinctly remember amateur football and baseball players contributing.
It's fairly obvious that some of the football players are using when they are more muscular than elite tested bodybuilding competitors
I dont personally have evidence beyond annonymous discussions on forums where people discuss their drug use for their sports.
It was on bodybuilding forums where the drug talk was open and people from other sports joined in. I distinctly remember amateur football and baseball players contributing.
It's fairly obvious that some of the football players are using when they are more muscular than elite tested bodybuilding competitors
Post edited at 15:37
In reply to Liamhutch89:
I find that you are a tiny-minded individual who feels that they can throw insults about willy-nilly.
You've been around for less than 2 months on this forum and feel that you can insult anyone you like.
I know the people at the level you disparage, they work (or worked) hard to be good at their sport - something you would most probably find way beyond your capabilities, like all the other armchair experts.
When you actually do something you can make assessments, until then I, and most likely virtually everyone else, will regard your puerile rants as pure unadulterated jealousy.
I find that you are a tiny-minded individual who feels that they can throw insults about willy-nilly.
You've been around for less than 2 months on this forum and feel that you can insult anyone you like.
I know the people at the level you disparage, they work (or worked) hard to be good at their sport - something you would most probably find way beyond your capabilities, like all the other armchair experts.
When you actually do something you can make assessments, until then I, and most likely virtually everyone else, will regard your puerile rants as pure unadulterated jealousy.
1
3
In reply to fred99:
Quite right. Here's a list of a few of them in athletics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics
Here are some more in cycling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
You may need the scroll button to see them all.
> I know the people at the level you disparage, they work (or worked) hard to be good at their sport - something you would most probably find way beyond your capabilities
Quite right. Here's a list of a few of them in athletics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics
Here are some more in cycling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
You may need the scroll button to see them all.
2
In reply to Liamhutch89:
Bodybuilding isn't athletics, I assume you mean American Football. Again very different from Athletics, particularly the endurance based events we are talking about.
So no athletics examples to give us.
> I dont personally have evidence beyond annonymous discussions on forums where people discuss their drug use for their sports.
> It was on bodybuilding forums where the drug talk was open and people from other sports joined in. I distinctly remember amateur football and baseball players contributing.
Bodybuilding isn't athletics, I assume you mean American Football. Again very different from Athletics, particularly the endurance based events we are talking about.
> It's fairly obvious that some of the football players are using when they are more muscular than elite tested bodybuilding competitors
So no athletics examples to give us.
In reply to MG:
Obviously we know people have doped in Athletics and Cycling, that doesn't mean all in both sports are dopers. As seems to be suggested.
Obviously we know people have doped in Athletics and Cycling, that doesn't mean all in both sports are dopers. As seems to be suggested.
In reply to fred99:
You are being ridiculous and it seems you are the one throwing around insults, but I'm not going to go and cry over it...
Tiny minded? You know nothing about me
Feel I can insult anyone I like? No I haven't insulted anyone on this forum.
Beyond my capabilities to work hard and be good at my sport? No that is incorrect.
Jealous? No I have no interest in athletics and I'm not even jealous of anyone is sports that I do enjoy
Nice of you to speak for everyone else on the forum, but I've already met a few people from here in my short 2 months and at least one of them disagrees that I have posted anything here that should cause offence.
Now you'll notice that I've simply defended each point that you have made against me here and not insulted you at all. Comments that you made just because I shared a different opinion to you, perhaps you are not familiar with reasonable debate. Now it would be nice to agree to disagree without yourself feeling hurt over my opinions, or for you to not make further baseless assumptions about my character. You can carry on, but I'll be here to comment back every time you do
You are being ridiculous and it seems you are the one throwing around insults, but I'm not going to go and cry over it...
Tiny minded? You know nothing about me
Feel I can insult anyone I like? No I haven't insulted anyone on this forum.
Beyond my capabilities to work hard and be good at my sport? No that is incorrect.
Jealous? No I have no interest in athletics and I'm not even jealous of anyone is sports that I do enjoy
Nice of you to speak for everyone else on the forum, but I've already met a few people from here in my short 2 months and at least one of them disagrees that I have posted anything here that should cause offence.
Now you'll notice that I've simply defended each point that you have made against me here and not insulted you at all. Comments that you made just because I shared a different opinion to you, perhaps you are not familiar with reasonable debate. Now it would be nice to agree to disagree without yourself feeling hurt over my opinions, or for you to not make further baseless assumptions about my character. You can carry on, but I'll be here to comment back every time you do
Post edited at 17:47
1
In reply to The New NickB:
No, but assuming as a default that those at the top might well be is reasonable, unfortunately for them and sport.
No, but assuming as a default that those at the top might well be is reasonable, unfortunately for them and sport.
In reply to The New NickB:
Nope I have no specific knowledge of athletics doping beyond the ones that are common knowledge.
I was merely extrapolating what I know about the prevalence of chems in professional and amateur sports that I do know about and also the effectiveness of performance enhancing drugs in endurance events as we have seen in cycling for example.
As I stated in my first post I would like to be wrong but I believe more are using than we know about.
Don't get me wrong, if they were all using then i still wouldn't be taking anything away from them. The same people would still be winning, just all times improve
Nope I have no specific knowledge of athletics doping beyond the ones that are common knowledge.
I was merely extrapolating what I know about the prevalence of chems in professional and amateur sports that I do know about and also the effectiveness of performance enhancing drugs in endurance events as we have seen in cycling for example.
As I stated in my first post I would like to be wrong but I believe more are using than we know about.
Don't get me wrong, if they were all using then i still wouldn't be taking anything away from them. The same people would still be winning, just all times improve
In reply to MG:
Which is why WADA, UKAD etc exist. Most of the positives are coming out of countries with historical problems with their testing set up / governing bodies. Not unlike the problems the UCI have had in the recent past.
> No, but assuming as a default that those at the top might well be is reasonable, unfortunately for them and sport.
Which is why WADA, UKAD etc exist. Most of the positives are coming out of countries with historical problems with their testing set up / governing bodies. Not unlike the problems the UCI have had in the recent past.
In reply to The New NickB:
Is it not possible that drug tests can easily be beaten, especially by countries that have the best doctors/researchers administering them?
Perhaps like the recreational drug market that has 10 new designer drugs (legal highs) coming out every time one gets banned, designer performance enhancing bdrugs are also made at similar rates. How could all of these be tested for?
(ps before anyone else gets offended I'm mostly just playing devils advocate for the sake of discussion)
Is it not possible that drug tests can easily be beaten, especially by countries that have the best doctors/researchers administering them?
Perhaps like the recreational drug market that has 10 new designer drugs (legal highs) coming out every time one gets banned, designer performance enhancing bdrugs are also made at similar rates. How could all of these be tested for?
(ps before anyone else gets offended I'm mostly just playing devils advocate for the sake of discussion)
In reply to Liamhutch89:
Some people are naturally fantastic athletes.
I very much doubt Ronaldo uses anything illegal, he's too much to learn. I think, like Bolt and Radcliffe, they are freaks of nature. Who work incredibly hard.
But they won the genetic lottery.
Some people are naturally fantastic athletes.
I very much doubt Ronaldo uses anything illegal, he's too much to learn. I think, like Bolt and Radcliffe, they are freaks of nature. Who work incredibly hard.
But they won the genetic lottery.
2
In reply to fred99:
I've trained with world class athletes and would have no doubts about them being clean.
I knew a Cameroonian guy who ran 10.26 for the 100m barely training. I stayed in his house for a week, so knew him pretty well. He was focussed on an IT career and couldn't give enough of a shit to dope. Some people are just genetically so much better than others. If you find some a little more talented than him, combine it with dedication and good coaching, good medical back-up and a bit of luck, you end up with Usaib Bolt or Paula Radcliffe.
I've trained with world class athletes and would have no doubts about them being clean.
I knew a Cameroonian guy who ran 10.26 for the 100m barely training. I stayed in his house for a week, so knew him pretty well. He was focussed on an IT career and couldn't give enough of a shit to dope. Some people are just genetically so much better than others. If you find some a little more talented than him, combine it with dedication and good coaching, good medical back-up and a bit of luck, you end up with Usaib Bolt or Paula Radcliffe.
4
In reply to MG:
This list goes back 30+ years, and includes the entire world.
I'm not surprised that there are a fair number.
Also a number are for the use of Ephedrine - any idea what over-the-counter medicines this is contained within.
I would give a pound to a penny that you have used it yourself.
As an athlete I had to keep away from virtually all the normal medicines that people use for coughs and colds;
*** Night Nurse, Day Nurse, Actifed, Sudafed, Benylin Expectorant *** - to name but a few.
Use any of those and you're banned - no excuses accepted.
*** - there are now versions for babies and small children - these may be OK, but those above were all out of bounds in my day.
> Quite right. Here's a list of a few of them in athletics
This list goes back 30+ years, and includes the entire world.
I'm not surprised that there are a fair number.
Also a number are for the use of Ephedrine - any idea what over-the-counter medicines this is contained within.
I would give a pound to a penny that you have used it yourself.
As an athlete I had to keep away from virtually all the normal medicines that people use for coughs and colds;
*** Night Nurse, Day Nurse, Actifed, Sudafed, Benylin Expectorant *** - to name but a few.
Use any of those and you're banned - no excuses accepted.
*** - there are now versions for babies and small children - these may be OK, but those above were all out of bounds in my day.
In reply to Liamhutch89:
Nor does anyone else - you have NO profile - we don't know if you even climb
You've had a damn good go at some - IanRUK is/was a pretty good fell runner, I was a ruddy good track athlete as well.
You've insulted just about every successful athlete in the world en masse, purely by saying that none of them could have done it without taking illegal substances.
How do I believe that, you're just some anonymous nobody who didn't exist before October 1st.
For someone with no interest or jealousy you're taking a lot of interest and doing a lot of moaning.
1 swallow does not a summer make
As I'm sure you will - probably because you have little if anything to do with your sad little life.
> Tiny minded? You know nothing about me
Nor does anyone else - you have NO profile - we don't know if you even climb
> Feel I can insult anyone I like? No I haven't insulted anyone on this forum.
You've had a damn good go at some - IanRUK is/was a pretty good fell runner, I was a ruddy good track athlete as well.
You've insulted just about every successful athlete in the world en masse, purely by saying that none of them could have done it without taking illegal substances.
> Beyond my capabilities to work hard and be good at my sport? No that is incorrect.
How do I believe that, you're just some anonymous nobody who didn't exist before October 1st.
> Jealous? No I have no interest in athletics and I'm not even jealous of anyone is sports that I do enjoy
For someone with no interest or jealousy you're taking a lot of interest and doing a lot of moaning.
> Nice of you to speak for everyone else on the forum, but I've already met a few people from here in my short 2 months and at least one of them disagrees that I have posted anything here that should cause offence.
1 swallow does not a summer make
> Now you'll notice that I've simply defended each point that you have made against me here and not insulted you at all. Comments that you made just because I shared a different opinion to you, perhaps you are not familiar with reasonable debate. Now it would be nice to agree to disagree without yourself feeling hurt over my opinions, or for you to not make further baseless assumptions about my character. You can carry on, but I'll be here to comment back every time you do
As I'm sure you will - probably because you have little if anything to do with your sad little life.
4
In reply to The New NickB:
"there are clearly plausible explanations for the values in her profile that are entirely innocent"
Is "plausible" an odd choice of word? - reasonable but not actually right.
"there are clearly plausible explanations for the values in her profile that are entirely innocent"
Is "plausible" an odd choice of word? - reasonable but not actually right.
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
I agree, the wording does leave room for manoeuvre.
However isn't that always the case.
When the police release someone they never say "X is innocent", instead they use terminology which includes a phrase such as "insufficient evidence".
The authorities will always leave themselves "wriggle-room", and they never seem to care that this leaves a nasty taste in the mouth of those who truly are innocent.
I agree, the wording does leave room for manoeuvre.
However isn't that always the case.
When the police release someone they never say "X is innocent", instead they use terminology which includes a phrase such as "insufficient evidence".
The authorities will always leave themselves "wriggle-room", and they never seem to care that this leaves a nasty taste in the mouth of those who truly are innocent.
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
Geraint Thomas was flagged as at the upper end of acceptable based on his UCI blood passport.
Unless they have made Brains Double Dragon a banned substance I doubt he was going to fail a drug test.
sometimes the anomalies are due to other factors, but when taken as raw data look anything but...
Geraint Thomas was flagged as at the upper end of acceptable based on his UCI blood passport.
Unless they have made Brains Double Dragon a banned substance I doubt he was going to fail a drug test.
sometimes the anomalies are due to other factors, but when taken as raw data look anything but...
In reply to The New NickB:
Do you really believe that the purpose of WADA is to catch dopers? If this were true, it would be properly funded and equipped, and armed with better legal thumb screws than it currently has (e.g. retesting of older samples).
To stay with the spirit of the season, trusting WADA appears to me as naive as believing that the presents are brought by a fat guy with a beard, a red suit, and a relativistic reindeer sleigh.
To me, WADA and all its programs look like a fig leaf for the sports associations to hide behind. Like the CAS, the main purpose of WADA is to keep organized sport out of the regular, state judicial systems, so that the organizers can enrich themselves and act out their delusions of grandeur without interference from the governments they bleed dry. Any doping will be investigated only up to the minimum necessary to keep states from interfering. Just look at the massive lobbying against making doping and especially the possession of doping drugs a criminal offence.
Nothing ever comes out from inside the sports organizations, you need the FBI or the French police.
The Armstrong or BALCO cases (or FIFA / IAAF for corruption rather than doping) are good examples.
Investigative journalists only achieve anything if they work for an organization that is big enough so that it cannot be intimidated by costly law suits (in the case of the Russian athletics federation this was the German state TV broadcaster, or the Spiegel magazine in case of the black accounts associated with the German WC2006 bid).
As to PR or UB being clean, who knows. Certainly the athlete blood pass as it currently is set up does not prove anything (as it is not designed to do so). Thus, it looks extremely dodgy if an athlete has any deviations that need "plausible" alternative explanations.
Also, there is not that much technical development in track running (unlike, say, skin suits in swimming), so if athletes again approach records (whether valid or deleted) known to be set with illegal means, the likelihood that the new times are achieved cleanly gets smaller (especially notable in the women´s sprint events, where times achieved by Kratochvilova, Griffiths-Joyner or Jones, are again within range or have even already been bettered).
CB
> Which is why WADA, UKAD etc exist. Most of the positives are coming out of countries with historical problems with their testing set up / governing bodies. Not unlike the problems the UCI have had in the recent past.
Do you really believe that the purpose of WADA is to catch dopers? If this were true, it would be properly funded and equipped, and armed with better legal thumb screws than it currently has (e.g. retesting of older samples).
To stay with the spirit of the season, trusting WADA appears to me as naive as believing that the presents are brought by a fat guy with a beard, a red suit, and a relativistic reindeer sleigh.
To me, WADA and all its programs look like a fig leaf for the sports associations to hide behind. Like the CAS, the main purpose of WADA is to keep organized sport out of the regular, state judicial systems, so that the organizers can enrich themselves and act out their delusions of grandeur without interference from the governments they bleed dry. Any doping will be investigated only up to the minimum necessary to keep states from interfering. Just look at the massive lobbying against making doping and especially the possession of doping drugs a criminal offence.
Nothing ever comes out from inside the sports organizations, you need the FBI or the French police.
The Armstrong or BALCO cases (or FIFA / IAAF for corruption rather than doping) are good examples.
Investigative journalists only achieve anything if they work for an organization that is big enough so that it cannot be intimidated by costly law suits (in the case of the Russian athletics federation this was the German state TV broadcaster, or the Spiegel magazine in case of the black accounts associated with the German WC2006 bid).
As to PR or UB being clean, who knows. Certainly the athlete blood pass as it currently is set up does not prove anything (as it is not designed to do so). Thus, it looks extremely dodgy if an athlete has any deviations that need "plausible" alternative explanations.
Also, there is not that much technical development in track running (unlike, say, skin suits in swimming), so if athletes again approach records (whether valid or deleted) known to be set with illegal means, the likelihood that the new times are achieved cleanly gets smaller (especially notable in the women´s sprint events, where times achieved by Kratochvilova, Griffiths-Joyner or Jones, are again within range or have even already been bettered).
CB
2
1
In reply to cb294:
It was Travis Tygart of USDA that brought down Armstrong.
WADA is certainly under resourced, but that isn't there fault. As I have said not all national drug administrations and national governing bodies are as good as others, Russia and potentially Kenya and Jamaica spring to mind.
Dafne Schippers certainly surprised a few people, the time alone makes the performance suspicious, but that doesn't mean she is doping. Hopefully it means she is tested regularly and her samples are retained for future reference.
Has anyone got even close to Krotachvilova's time? Or Marita Koch's? I don't think so!
It was Travis Tygart of USDA that brought down Armstrong.
WADA is certainly under resourced, but that isn't there fault. As I have said not all national drug administrations and national governing bodies are as good as others, Russia and potentially Kenya and Jamaica spring to mind.
Dafne Schippers certainly surprised a few people, the time alone makes the performance suspicious, but that doesn't mean she is doping. Hopefully it means she is tested regularly and her samples are retained for future reference.
Has anyone got even close to Krotachvilova's time? Or Marita Koch's? I don't think so!
In reply to cb294:
Diet and training can improve and certainly in sprint events, some tracks are known to be very fast, Beijing being one.
Diet and training can improve and certainly in sprint events, some tracks are known to be very fast, Beijing being one.
In reply to cb294:
Alyson Felix is the current women's World Champion has a PB nearly 2 seconds slower than Koch's WR.
Alyson Felix is the current women's World Champion has a PB nearly 2 seconds slower than Koch's WR.
In reply to The New NickB:
But why was Travis Tygart so effective? The only reason was that he could put the pressure on by making anybody involved risk being investigated for perjury in parallel criminal investigations and law suits (especially the Landis and US Postal fraud cases). He also could go back to any evidence the FBI uncovered, and confronted Armstrong's legal team with this.
Of course WADA is underresourced. I assume that most WADA inspectors and officials still believe in a clean sport and are actually interested in catching cheats, but IAAF, UCI, FIFA (especially!) and the other sports organizations are clearly not. They are interested in money, power, and to achieve this, they need a both new world records and a clean image. Whether the sport is really clean is of secondary importance.
I am extremely sceptical that Western sports is overall any cleaner than Russian athletics. On average, similar performances do imply similar preparation. Conversely, differences require explanation, both at the individual and state level. How come Kenya is suddenly so far ahead of the other East Africans in the long distance events? A few years ago, Ethiopia could still compete. Ma£s army was also obvious before anyone was caught, and no, it was not turtle blood soup.
CB
Edit: I stand corrected on the women´s sprint records, but Kratochvilova and Koch were way out. But what about FloJo (who doped herself to death) and Marion Jones, who even went to prison for perjury with respect to her doping?
But why was Travis Tygart so effective? The only reason was that he could put the pressure on by making anybody involved risk being investigated for perjury in parallel criminal investigations and law suits (especially the Landis and US Postal fraud cases). He also could go back to any evidence the FBI uncovered, and confronted Armstrong's legal team with this.
Of course WADA is underresourced. I assume that most WADA inspectors and officials still believe in a clean sport and are actually interested in catching cheats, but IAAF, UCI, FIFA (especially!) and the other sports organizations are clearly not. They are interested in money, power, and to achieve this, they need a both new world records and a clean image. Whether the sport is really clean is of secondary importance.
I am extremely sceptical that Western sports is overall any cleaner than Russian athletics. On average, similar performances do imply similar preparation. Conversely, differences require explanation, both at the individual and state level. How come Kenya is suddenly so far ahead of the other East Africans in the long distance events? A few years ago, Ethiopia could still compete. Ma£s army was also obvious before anyone was caught, and no, it was not turtle blood soup.
CB
Edit: I stand corrected on the women´s sprint records, but Kratochvilova and Koch were way out. But what about FloJo (who doped herself to death) and Marion Jones, who even went to prison for perjury with respect to her doping?
Post edited at 17:10
In reply to The New NickB:
And, the very nature of sport is that there will be individuals, who, by dint of genes and development and training and assorted imponderables, will be different, and will be better than everyone else. When Michael Johnson came on the scene, a lot of people laughed at his style, but it worked for him, and his 400m record still stands.
> Diet and training can improve and certainly in sprint events, some tracks are known to be very fast, Beijing being one.
And, the very nature of sport is that there will be individuals, who, by dint of genes and development and training and assorted imponderables, will be different, and will be better than everyone else. When Michael Johnson came on the scene, a lot of people laughed at his style, but it worked for him, and his 400m record still stands.
In reply to cb294:
Ethiopia do compete strongly with Kenya in both men's and women distance events and women's middle distance.
Farah is of course East African by birth, although no doubt you are convinced he is doping as well.
Ethiopia do compete strongly with Kenya in both men's and women distance events and women's middle distance.
Farah is of course East African by birth, although no doubt you are convinced he is doping as well.
Post edited at 17:27
In reply to cb294:
Flo Jo and Jones are still 1 and 2 on the all time list, but even if their records do get beaten, it doesn't mean that the person who beats them is a doper.
Flo Jo and Jones are still 1 and 2 on the all time list, but even if their records do get beaten, it doesn't mean that the person who beats them is a doper.
In reply to The New NickB:
But it is rather plausible that they would be, and the current testing regime wouldn£t tell us anything about it. Again, it is not fit for purpose, at least not for the supposed purpose of catching high end dopers, as it was not designed with this in mind. It needs to catch a few, to maintain an illusion of effectiveness, but that is all.
Even WADA£s own, anonymous survey at the Daegu championships in 2011 almost a third of athletes (sample size > 2000) admitted the use of illegal substances in the runup to the games, although this is almost certainly an underestimate as many athletes will not have trusted the promised anonymity. Did we see 700 positive tests in the runup or competition?
I see this as an indication that most athletes are not happy with a framework that almost forces them to dope (and admit it in the hope that then something may be done about it), as grants and support or are typically coupled to results (this is not even taking starting fees or prize money into account, which are anyway available in a few disciplines only).
I have no doubt that performances would overall go down if doping would be tackled in earnest, which would reduce the marketing value that demands continuous new records. Of course this cannot be allowed to happen from the viewpoint of the organizing bodies.
CB
But it is rather plausible that they would be, and the current testing regime wouldn£t tell us anything about it. Again, it is not fit for purpose, at least not for the supposed purpose of catching high end dopers, as it was not designed with this in mind. It needs to catch a few, to maintain an illusion of effectiveness, but that is all.
Even WADA£s own, anonymous survey at the Daegu championships in 2011 almost a third of athletes (sample size > 2000) admitted the use of illegal substances in the runup to the games, although this is almost certainly an underestimate as many athletes will not have trusted the promised anonymity. Did we see 700 positive tests in the runup or competition?
I see this as an indication that most athletes are not happy with a framework that almost forces them to dope (and admit it in the hope that then something may be done about it), as grants and support or are typically coupled to results (this is not even taking starting fees or prize money into account, which are anyway available in a few disciplines only).
I have no doubt that performances would overall go down if doping would be tackled in earnest, which would reduce the marketing value that demands continuous new records. Of course this cannot be allowed to happen from the viewpoint of the organizing bodies.
CB
Post edited at 17:39
In reply to cb294:
Do you think all the WRs were done doped?
We know some where, more women than men, but I think a large number of them are clean.
Do you think all the WRs were done doped?
We know some where, more women than men, but I think a large number of them are clean.
2
In reply to The New NickB:
I would definitely assume that the majority are dirty, same with TdF CG riders or cross country skiers. Steroids for the field and sprint disciplines, Epo - like drugs for the endurance disciplines. Of course at the elite end never the flavour the testers know about.
Just to emphasize, at Daegu 2011 30% of competitors anonymously admitted the use of illegal substances, mostly in training for the championships.
Let´s say the true value is half (although I really assume the reported value is a even more massive underestimate, but even if it were indeed correct): Why would one assume that dopers would be underrepresented among the medalists / record holders? Rather, the conservative assumption would be that athletes from elite performance programs that can run their own pretesting labs and have access to the newest drugs (or are happy to make positive tests disappear, much less difficult to arrange..) are more successful and at the same time less likely to be caught.
CB
I would definitely assume that the majority are dirty, same with TdF CG riders or cross country skiers. Steroids for the field and sprint disciplines, Epo - like drugs for the endurance disciplines. Of course at the elite end never the flavour the testers know about.
Just to emphasize, at Daegu 2011 30% of competitors anonymously admitted the use of illegal substances, mostly in training for the championships.
Let´s say the true value is half (although I really assume the reported value is a even more massive underestimate, but even if it were indeed correct): Why would one assume that dopers would be underrepresented among the medalists / record holders? Rather, the conservative assumption would be that athletes from elite performance programs that can run their own pretesting labs and have access to the newest drugs (or are happy to make positive tests disappear, much less difficult to arrange..) are more successful and at the same time less likely to be caught.
CB
In reply to cb294:
Really?
I hope XC a skiing isn't dirty
We'll see in time. I think running is much dirtier than we think at the sub elite level, testing is pretty much non-existent.
Really?
I hope XC a skiing isn't dirty
We'll see in time. I think running is much dirtier than we think at the sub elite level, testing is pretty much non-existent.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
XC and Biathlon are dirty as hell, absolute pioneers in Epo use and blood doping. Name another discipline where a multiple world and Olympic champion had to return his medals because of doping (Johann Muehlegg, a German religious nutter starting for Spain, after accusing the German coach of cursing his drinks). Several members of the Russian women's team were also caught over the years (e.g. Ljubov Jegorova), the Austrian team was banned for having a blood centrifuge in their hotel room, Finland had to withdraw its entire team (including multiple WC winner Harri Kirvesniemi), the father of an Italian biathlete was banned from his position in the Italian federation for arranging visits of his son to Michele Ferrari, allegedly for discussing training periodization....
Googling "Doping Skilanglauf wikipedia" gives you a page with more than 30 international competitors that caught in the last few years, but, as usual, I would assume that this represents a small fraction of the actual dopers.
CB
XC and Biathlon are dirty as hell, absolute pioneers in Epo use and blood doping. Name another discipline where a multiple world and Olympic champion had to return his medals because of doping (Johann Muehlegg, a German religious nutter starting for Spain, after accusing the German coach of cursing his drinks). Several members of the Russian women's team were also caught over the years (e.g. Ljubov Jegorova), the Austrian team was banned for having a blood centrifuge in their hotel room, Finland had to withdraw its entire team (including multiple WC winner Harri Kirvesniemi), the father of an Italian biathlete was banned from his position in the Italian federation for arranging visits of his son to Michele Ferrari, allegedly for discussing training periodization....
Googling "Doping Skilanglauf wikipedia" gives you a page with more than 30 international competitors that caught in the last few years, but, as usual, I would assume that this represents a small fraction of the actual dopers.
CB
I'm still happy to believe in fast times and records. I'm 42 and when last tested had hct of 48 and Vo2 max of 70. I've taken Koms of pro and semi pro riders half my age. If I could loose a few more kilos my Vo2 would go up to tour winner levels. DESPITE THIS I have friends and have ridden with people who out class me. The same is true in terms of intelligence, I know people who are dazzlingly smart.
It is a shame that these achievements and people are tarnished by drugs cheats who trot out the same excuses and rob them of their rightful reward and recognition and fill our minds with doubts about the sports we love.
Cheers
Toby
It is a shame that these achievements and people are tarnished by drugs cheats who trot out the same excuses and rob them of their rightful reward and recognition and fill our minds with doubts about the sports we love.
Cheers
Toby
In reply to cb294:
what annoy sme right now is Yanks.. they are furious that Elisa Desco was allowed to race in the TNF50 in San Fran this weekend.. she was banned for EPO use in 2010 and is the husband of one of the worlds great mountain runners..
However the nike trail running team, all American, are generally trained by top coaches with Carmichael Training Systems.. i.e. Lances Coach...
what annoy sme right now is Yanks.. they are furious that Elisa Desco was allowed to race in the TNF50 in San Fran this weekend.. she was banned for EPO use in 2010 and is the husband of one of the worlds great mountain runners..
However the nike trail running team, all American, are generally trained by top coaches with Carmichael Training Systems.. i.e. Lances Coach...
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
The Nike guys are about as squeaky clean as Ma´s army. What is the US equivalent of turtle blood? God helped me train well, it was my destiny to win for my country....?
CB
The Nike guys are about as squeaky clean as Ma´s army. What is the US equivalent of turtle blood? God helped me train well, it was my destiny to win for my country....?
CB
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...