http://www.rte.ie/sport/athletics/2015/0609/706832-mo-farahs-medical-data-to-be-analysed/ (http://www.rte.ie/sport/athletics/2015/0609/706832-mo-farahs-medical-data-to-be-analysed/)
Is the Farah story simply going to run dry or will it lift the lid on something a lot more sinister in UK sports?
Whatever about Farah there have been a couple of performances from athletes across the water over the years that raised the eyebrows, one in particular that I can think of. It will be interesting to watch the handwringing if systematic doping is proved.
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 01:19:15 PM
http://www.rte.ie/sport/athletics/2015/0609/706832-mo-farahs-medical-data-to-be-analysed/ (http://www.rte.ie/sport/athletics/2015/0609/706832-mo-farahs-medical-data-to-be-analysed/)
Is the Farah story simply going to run dry or will it lift the lid on something a lot more sinister in UK sports?
Whatever about Farah there have been a couple of performances from athletes across the water over the years that raised the eyebrows, one in particular that I can think of. It will be interesting to watch the handwringing if systematic doping is proved.
Rudisha 800m London 2012?
There have been mutterings online about Farah for a couple of years in relation to his performances. Probably nothing in it but when a English players takes a dive in a soccer match the commentators are generally looking the other way, so you aren't going to see many
meaningful investigations into Britain's golden boy.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 09, 2015, 01:24:54 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 01:19:15 PM
http://www.rte.ie/sport/athletics/2015/0609/706832-mo-farahs-medical-data-to-be-analysed/ (http://www.rte.ie/sport/athletics/2015/0609/706832-mo-farahs-medical-data-to-be-analysed/)
Is the Farah story simply going to run dry or will it lift the lid on something a lot more sinister in UK sports?
Whatever about Farah there have been a couple of performances from athletes across the water over the years that raised the eyebrows, one in particular that I can think of. It will be interesting to watch the handwringing if systematic doping is proved.
Rudisha 800m London 2012?
There have been mutterings online about Farah for a couple of years in relation to his performances. Probably nothing in it but when a English players takes a dive in a soccer match the commentators are generally looking the other way, so you aren't going to see many meaningful investigations into Britain's golden boy.
Nor previous golden girls either, some who were tipped off about the testers and for some inexplicable reason changed hotels, I wonder why? Maybe she didn't have any whiskey to hand!!
A fella in work was saying if Bolt ever fails a drugs test they will cover it up as it will be the end of Athletics !
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 01:19:15 PM
http://www.rte.ie/sport/athletics/2015/0609/706832-mo-farahs-medical-data-to-be-analysed/ (http://www.rte.ie/sport/athletics/2015/0609/706832-mo-farahs-medical-data-to-be-analysed/)
Is the Farah story simply going to run dry or will it lift the lid on something a lot more sinister in UK sports?
Whatever about Farah there have been a couple of performances from athletes across the water over the years that raised the eyebrows, one in particular that I can think of. It will be interesting to watch the handwringing if systematic doping is proved.
Dame Kelly Holmes ?
I am not going to name anyone, not least as I don't have any proof, but let's say at least one of you lads is on the same wavelength as I am.
Michelle Smith's times went to world class level in her mid 20s. To say that was unusual for a top class female athlete or swimmer, would be understating it. A couple of the British performers peaked well after that.
It is really sad that sport is reduced to this level of suspicion all the time, but until they start outing the obvious cheats, it will go on and on and on. Look how long it took for them to get Armstrong and the damage that did in the long run.
I'd say more likely Christine Oghuruogo, in between big events she is dort but has peaked for much of the big ones and stays like a 4 miler.
After Armstrong I have suspicions about every sport, the fact that a modern day 'hero' can build a multi million £ fortune in such a short space of time cheating will always be an issue. Ffs the yank dude broke the 100 metres Diamond league record after his second ban this past week. Also I'm no sports scientist but is the waters between a supplement and a PEDs just getting muddier.
Regarding Farah I'm now led to thinkingn There is no smoke without fire. At his press conference he was very bullish but the comment that worried me was ' if you have anything on me, bring it' sounded very Armstrongesqe. And if I'm honest and I was a runner and I'm forever coming in 6/7th and struggling to pay the mortgage I wouldnt half be tempted when I know all the guys in front of me are at it. In such as premier league is no longer a sport rather a business, taking PEDs has to be classed as a business decision albeit a very risky one.
He's on the verge of becoming Somalian runner Mo Farah!
I've been burned before in this but I've read that Bolt was breaking records since he was very young and I also read an article by a British Sprinter stating that he believed Bolt was one of the few legit guys out there but it remains to be seen.
The whole thing is rotten though... what can you do?!!!
Personally given the fact that taking even one course of steroids can improve your lifetime performance there should be a lifetime ban in place for anyone who's caught at it. For Gatlin to be caught twice and still be running is just farcical at this stage!!
Quote from: screenexile on June 09, 2015, 02:36:04 PM
I've been burned before in this but I've read that Bolt was breaking records since he was very young and I also read an article by a British Sprinter stating that he believed Bolt was one of the few legit guys out there but it remains to be seen.
The whole thing is rotten though... what can you do?!!!
Personally given the fact that taking even one course of steroids can improve your lifetime performance there should be a lifetime ban in place for anyone who's caught at it. For Gatlin to be caught twice and still be running is just farcical at this stage!!
In fairness to Bolt his times as a teenager were sensational. He was coming for a long time. I remember Michael Johnson mentioned him as being 'the guy who will break my 200m record'. It was the first time I had heard of Bolt.
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 02:53:13 PM
Quote from: screenexile on June 09, 2015, 02:36:04 PM
I've been burned before in this but I've read that Bolt was breaking records since he was very young and I also read an article by a British Sprinter stating that he believed Bolt was one of the few legit guys out there but it remains to be seen.
The whole thing is rotten though... what can you do?!!!
Personally given the fact that taking even one course of steroids can improve your lifetime performance there should be a lifetime ban in place for anyone who's caught at it. For Gatlin to be caught twice and still be running is just farcical at this stage!!
In fairness to Bolt his times as a teenager were sensational. He was coming for a long time. I remember Michael Johnson mentioned him as being 'the guy who will break my 200m record'. It was the first time I had heard of Bolt.
I would agree but according to the Panorama programme last week US athlete Galen Rupp was on PEDs since he was 16.
Quote from: Minder on June 09, 2015, 02:56:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 02:53:13 PM
Quote from: screenexile on June 09, 2015, 02:36:04 PM
I've been burned before in this but I've read that Bolt was breaking records since he was very young and I also read an article by a British Sprinter stating that he believed Bolt was one of the few legit guys out there but it remains to be seen.
The whole thing is rotten though... what can you do?!!!
Personally given the fact that taking even one course of steroids can improve your lifetime performance there should be a lifetime ban in place for anyone who's caught at it. For Gatlin to be caught twice and still be running is just farcical at this stage!!
In fairness to Bolt his times as a teenager were sensational. He was coming for a long time. I remember Michael Johnson mentioned him as being 'the guy who will break my 200m record'. It was the first time I had heard of Bolt.
I would agree but according to the Panorama programme last week US athlete Galen Rupp was on PEDs since he was 16.
Wasn't he Farah's training partner?
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 02:59:28 PM
Quote from: Minder on June 09, 2015, 02:56:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 02:53:13 PM
Quote from: screenexile on June 09, 2015, 02:36:04 PM
I've been burned before in this but I've read that Bolt was breaking records since he was very young and I also read an article by a British Sprinter stating that he believed Bolt was one of the few legit guys out there but it remains to be seen.
The whole thing is rotten though... what can you do?!!!
Personally given the fact that taking even one course of steroids can improve your lifetime performance there should be a lifetime ban in place for anyone who's caught at it. For Gatlin to be caught twice and still be running is just farcical at this stage!!
In fairness to Bolt his times as a teenager were sensational. He was coming for a long time. I remember Michael Johnson mentioned him as being 'the guy who will break my 200m record'. It was the first time I had heard of Bolt.
I would agree but according to the Panorama programme last week US athlete Galen Rupp was on PEDs since he was 16.
Wasn't he Farah's training partner?
Yes it was part of the investigation into Farahs coach, Salazar, he was silver medallist behind Farah in the 2012 Olympics.
If Rudisha was ever found to be dirty, I'd give up on individual sports.
Quote from: screenexile on June 09, 2015, 02:36:04 PM
I've been burned before in this but I've read that Bolt was breaking records since he was very young and I also read an article by a British Sprinter stating that he believed Bolt was one of the few legit guys out there but it remains to be seen.
The whole thing is rotten though... what can you do?!!!
Personally given the fact that taking even one course of steroids can improve your lifetime performance there should be a lifetime ban in place for anyone who's caught at it. For Gatlin to be caught twice and still be running is just farcical at this stage!!
During Bolt's early years coming up through the ranks, drug testing in the Caribbean islands was more or less non existent. It was only at international events that their athletes were getting tested with any regularity. So it is not that difficult to see why there was such a surge from that part of the world. Dangle the sort of money that is involved in these diamond leagues etc and you will get people cutting corners every day of the week.
Quote from: deiseach on June 09, 2015, 03:04:33 PM
If Rudisha was ever found to be dirty, I'd give up on individual sports.
Often thought exactly the same!! I was lucky enough to be in the Olympic stadium the night he set the world record, it was also the night Bolt won the 200m. It was and remains a night that is the highlight of a lifetime attending sporting events.
Maybe I'm naïve but I always believed Bolt to be drug free simply because he's been a freak athlete since was 15 and Rudisha was from a part of the world where they weren't sophisticated enough to take drugs!!! The fact that so many of their peers are being caught always leaves a nagging doubt though.
Here's hoping..
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 02:14:15 PM
I am not going to name anyone, not least as I don't have any proof, but let's say at least one of you lads is on the same wavelength as I am.
Michelle Smith's times went to world class level in her mid 20s. To say that was unusual for a top class female athlete or swimmer, would be understating it. A couple of the British performers peaked well after that.
It is really sad that sport is reduced to this level of suspicion all the time, but until they start outing the obvious cheats, it will go on and on and on. Look how long it took for them to get Armstrong and the damage that did in the long run.
That is very noble of you, let us know when you get the blood and urine results back won't you!
Aged 24 Farah finished 6th in the 5000m in the World Champs in 2007
Aged 25 Farah failed to qualify for the 5000m final at the Beijing Olympics in 2008
Aged 26 Farah finished 7th in the 5000m in the World Champs in 2009
Aged 27 Farah won the 10,000m at the European Cup breaking his PB by 16 secs in 2010
Aged 27 Farah won the 5k and 10k double at the European Champs in 2010
In 2010 Farah broke the British record for 5k becoming the first Brit to run under 13 mins
Aged 28 in 2011 Farah set British and Euro records in the 5k & 10k
Aged 29 Farah won the 5k & 10k gold at the London Olympics
Aged 30 he won the 5k & 10k gold at the World Champs...
Now there's an argument that Farah is a late developer and none of his gold medal performances were particularly quick.
However there's one run that does make you sit up...in July 2013 aged 30 Farah broke the British & European records for the 1500m. The British record had stood to Steve Cram for 28 years and i believe the European record had stood for 16 years. In fact the self described 10k specialist ran the 6th fastest 1500m of all time. Faster than Cram, Coe and Ovett.
Not bad for a 30 year old part time 1500m runner. ???
Quote from: topcuppla on June 09, 2015, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 09, 2015, 02:14:15 PM
I am not going to name anyone, not least as I don't have any proof, but let's say at least one of you lads is on the same wavelength as I am.
Michelle Smith's times went to world class level in her mid 20s. To say that was unusual for a top class female athlete or swimmer, would be understating it. A couple of the British performers peaked well after that.
It is really sad that sport is reduced to this level of suspicion all the time, but until they start outing the obvious cheats, it will go on and on and on. Look how long it took for them to get Armstrong and the damage that did in the long run.
That is very noble of you, let us know when you get the blood and urine results back won't you!
I'll tell you what, you post a list of all the athletes you think are taking drugs. Don't worry about being sued, I am sure you will perform brilliantly in court.
I have had an interest in this topic for about 6 or 7 years now. The more I've read the more I am convinced that most of the top athletes are doping to some extent. Tennis, Boxing, MMA, Athletics, Cycling, Football, Rugby etc. Cycling is the most well publicised but they're all at it and just as bad if not worse! At least cycling has tried to put some things in place to stop it i.e. Bio Passport. Though they're micro dosing now so the bio passport is useless in that regard! The olympics is now a farce and some of the testing in other sports is laughable.
It's a shame because I watch sports now, with a doubt that the performance I was watching was down to pure natural ability and hard work. More than likely it was due to some sort of chemical or medical help! If it looked too good to be true then it probably is too good to be true.
It has apparently crept into amateur sports as well apparently! I was talking to a fella in Tenerife and he was saying whenever he was at some big amateur cycling event in Europe, the staff at his hotel found shit loads of doping products in the rooms after the guests had checked out.
A few good articles/podcasts/forums here if anyone is interested:
http://www.outsideonline.com/1924306/drug-test (http://www.outsideonline.com/1924306/drug-test)
http://www.tracktalk.net/showthread.php?t=7931 (http://www.tracktalk.net/showthread.php?t=7931)
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk (http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk)
http://www.letsrun.com/2003/epoqa.php (http://www.letsrun.com/2003/epoqa.php)
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/cathgh.htm (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/cathgh.htm)
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/second-captains (http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/second-captains)
What's micro dosing Jim? Is it as the name suggests? If so, is there a benefit to a tiny amount?
Micro dosing is when drugs, in sport usually EPO or steroids are given in small quantities allowing it to pass through the system in around four hours. The effects are almost as effective. When you're talking about elite athletes they only need a 1-2% of benefit.
On Panorama last week the BBC presenter micro dosed on EPO that he'd sourced from China on the internet. His biological passport result came back clear and his performance in a VO2 max test increased by 7%. If he could do it easily without a team behind him there really is very little stopping any organised, professional team from doing the same thing.
The reality is that the thresholds for some of these substances are so high that it gives coaches and doctors targets to aim for in terms of getting these substances into the body.
I've a right interest in this myself. Reading papers you'd think this was confined to cycling but to be honest I'm fairly sure that the biggest stories over the next decade will be in football. Given the money in the game and the benefits of greater fitness it only stands to reason that coaches and doctors would want to push the limits. That some of Europe's top players have played almost every minute for their club teams this season is a little too good to be true as far as I'm concerned
Seems like a winner of an idea tbf, lower cost, lower risk, decent results.
Would be very surprised if it's not rife in soccer, rugby & gaa
Seems like a winner of an idea tbf, lower cost, lower risk, decent results.
Would be very surprised if it's not rife in soccer, rugby & gaa
Quote from: barelegs on June 10, 2015, 12:53:16 AM
Micro dosing is when drugs, in sport usually EPO or steroids are given in small quantities allowing it to pass through the system in around four hours. The effects are almost as effective. When you're talking about elite athletes they only need a 1-2% of benefit.
On Panorama last week the BBC presenter micro dosed on EPO that he'd sourced from China on the internet. His biological passport result came back clear and his performance in a VO2 max test increased by 7%. If he could do it easily without a team behind him there really is very little stopping any organised, professional team from doing the same thing.
The reality is that the thresholds for some of these substances are so high that it gives coaches and doctors targets to aim for in terms of getting these substances into the body.
I've a right interest in this myself. Reading papers you'd think this was confined to cycling but to be honest I'm fairly sure that the biggest stories over the next decade will be in football. Given the money in the game and the benefits of greater fitness it only stands to reason that coaches and doctors would want to push the limits. That some of Europe's top players have played almost every minute for their club teams this season is a little too good to be true as far as I'm concerned
Here is a summary from the Panorama reporter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32983932
Linford Christie, case closed.
Things could get sticky for Farah now, Daily Mail reporting that he missed two drugs tests the year before London 2012 Olympics
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3128695/Mo-Farah-missed-two-drug-tests-London-Olympics-putting-2012-double-gold-risk.html
Quote from: Minder on June 17, 2015, 10:32:59 PM
Things could get sticky for Farah now, Daily Mail reporting that he missed two drugs tests the year before London 2012 Olympics
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3128695/Mo-Farah-missed-two-drug-tests-London-Olympics-putting-2012-double-gold-risk.html
Only a matter of time before he gets caught. Always came across as an arrogant bollox.
Seems like Rupp has been on the juice for years...and still couldn't beat a "clean" Farah. People need to get heads out of the sand.
As Jimstynes has said it...professional sport is rife with it.
Juventus admitted to taking EPO in 1988.
Spain World Cup 2010 were juicing, all the files and blood work "disappeared".
::)
Quote from: ballinaman on June 17, 2015, 10:55:35 PM
Quote from: Minder on June 17, 2015, 10:32:59 PM
Things could get sticky for Farah now, Daily Mail reporting that he missed two drugs tests the year before London 2012 Olympics
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3128695/Mo-Farah-missed-two-drug-tests-London-Olympics-putting-2012-double-gold-risk.html
Only a matter of time before he gets caught. Always came across as an arrogant bollox.
Seems like Rupp has been on the juice for years...and still couldn't beat a "clean" Farah. People need to get heads out of the sand.
As Jimstynes has said it...professional sport is rife with it.
Juventus admitted to taking EPO in 1988.
Spain World Cup 2010 were juicing, all the files and blood work "disappeared".
::)
Spanish testing is a joke! The blood files that went missing contained a lot of very famous sports men!
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/curious-case-of-rafael-nadal.html (http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/curious-case-of-rafael-nadal.html)
Froome under a lot of pressure at the minute with suspicious data files
If Froome is clean then he is truly one of the all time greats. Not for me though. Looks sickly thin yet is still able to generate unbelievable power. Achieved nothing of note in his career until he was about to be ditched by Sky at age 26, then produced a performance out of nowhere in the Vuelta after miraculously finding a cure for a disease that very few had heard of.
They're claiming a 'data hack (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cycling/33517897)'. Looks to me like they are getting in their retaliation first against an impending adverse finding.
Seriously hope he is clean, just for the sport itself. Had liked to see Froome do well after he had to let Wiggins win the Tour de France despite him clearly being the stronger of the two. I'm no expert but would 26 not still be relatively young in cycling terms?
I quite like Froome so I would be disappointed if he is found to be doping. You just can't trust anyone in top level sport though.
Quote from: JimStynes on July 14, 2015, 11:30:17 AM
I quite like Froome so I would be disappointed if he is found to be doping. You just can't trust anyone in top level sport though.
Especially cycling.
Quote from: oakleaflad on July 14, 2015, 11:29:56 AM
Seriously hope he is clean, just for the sport itself. Had liked to see Froome do well after he had to let Wiggins win the Tour de France despite him clearly being the stronger of the two. I'm no expert but would 26 not still be relatively young in cycling terms?
At that stage he had shown no signs of being even a decent one day racer never mind a future grand tour champion. He need not have necessarily been winning grand tours at age 26 but you would expect a natural upward progression. Froome showed none of that and came out of nowhere when his contract was about to expire whilst not being renewed. Indeed he was disqualified form the previous years Giro for holding onto a motor cycle whilst riding up a climb. Believe what you want but to me it doesn't add up and his visual appearance, even moreso this year doesn't look natural.
Quote from: oakleaflad on July 14, 2015, 11:29:56 AM
Seriously hope he is clean, just for the sport itself. Had liked to see Froome do well after he had to let Wiggins win the Tour de France despite him clearly being the stronger of the two. I'm no expert but would 26 not still be relatively young in cycling terms?
You'd have to wonder. If I was a betting man I'd say they're still at something. What are stage times like now compared to when Lance was wired to the moon?
Quote from: JimStynes on June 17, 2015, 11:10:59 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on June 17, 2015, 10:55:35 PM
Quote from: Minder on June 17, 2015, 10:32:59 PM
Things could get sticky for Farah now, Daily Mail reporting that he missed two drugs tests the year before London 2012 Olympics
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3128695/Mo-Farah-missed-two-drug-tests-London-Olympics-putting-2012-double-gold-risk.html
Only a matter of time before he gets caught. Always came across as an arrogant bollox.
Seems like Rupp has been on the juice for years...and still couldn't beat a "clean" Farah. People need to get heads out of the sand.
As Jimstynes has said it...professional sport is rife with it.
Juventus admitted to taking EPO in 1988.
Spain World Cup 2010 were juicing, all the files and blood work "disappeared".
::)
Spanish testing is a joke! The blood files that went missing contained a lot of very famous sports men!
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/curious-case-of-rafael-nadal.html (http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/curious-case-of-rafael-nadal.html)
http://www.insidetennis.com/2009/10/short-history-drugs-tennis/ (http://www.insidetennis.com/2009/10/short-history-drugs-tennis/)
I think people are right to be skeptical about cyclists but i have to say that i would be very very surprised if Froome was doping. The temptations of course for individual athletes are huge but it would be impossible for Froome to dope and Sky not to know about it. So if you believe that Froome is/has doped then you have to believe that this is a sanctioned programme by his team and that just goes against everything we know about Sky. Their whole raison d'etre was to win cleanly. See how they dealt with the Tiernan-Locke case and compare it to Astana. I'm no Sky fan-boy but if their riders are systematically doping then i think it is time to give up on cycling.
oh dear ;)
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/irish-cyclist-hit-with-fouryear-ban-for-doping-31407771.html (http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/irish-cyclist-hit-with-fouryear-ban-for-doping-31407771.html)
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/irish-athlete-hit-with-twoyear-ban-for-doping-31382468.html (http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/irish-athlete-hit-with-twoyear-ban-for-doping-31382468.html)
A famous UK athlete has obtained a super injunction to stop the press from reporting on his/her blood samples taken when he/she was competing.
A quick google has revealed who it is!
Nothing really showing up for me but is it a current female long distance world record holder?
Quote from: JimStynes on August 07, 2015, 10:11:04 AM
Nothing really showing up for me but is it a current female long distance world record holder?
This athlete has a distinctive running style!
Was reading about her on the digger forum the other day but nothing been mentioned since!
She takin the p1ss? ;)
Quote from: macdanger2 on August 07, 2015, 10:38:11 AM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on August 07, 2015, 10:29:22 AM
She takin the p1ss? ;)
You're sh*tting me??
Very good!!
Also seems to be another superinjunction by a prominenet PL Goalkeeper about him riding Katie Price!!
Of all the women he could have picked, he picked her ffs
Quote from: screenexile on August 07, 2015, 11:12:23 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on August 07, 2015, 10:38:11 AM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on August 07, 2015, 10:29:22 AM
She takin the p1ss? ;)
You're sh*tting me??
Very good!!
Also seems to be another superinjunction by a prominenet PL Goalkeeper about him riding Katie Price!!
A lot of lads would be bragging about it.
Quote from: screenexile on August 07, 2015, 11:12:23 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on August 07, 2015, 10:38:11 AM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on August 07, 2015, 10:29:22 AM
She takin the p1ss? ;)
You're sh*tting me??
Very good!!
Also seems to be another superinjunction by a prominenet PL Goalkeeper about him riding Katie Price!!
did he not get married recently and she tweeted something about him telling the truth.
At this stage you must have no respect for your cóck to be putting it in that!
Quote from: Geoff Tipps on August 07, 2015, 10:16:03 AM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 07, 2015, 10:11:04 AM
Nothing really showing up for me but is it a current female long distance world record holder?
This athlete has a distinctive running style!
Nods head in agreement
Quote from: johnneycool on August 07, 2015, 01:28:59 PM
Quote from: screenexile on August 07, 2015, 11:12:23 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on August 07, 2015, 10:38:11 AM
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on August 07, 2015, 10:29:22 AM
She takin the p1ss? ;)
You're sh*tting me??
Very good!!
Also seems to be another superinjunction by a prominenet PL Goalkeeper about him riding Katie Price!!
did he not get married recently and she tweeted something about him telling the truth.
At this stage you must have no respect for your cóck to be putting it in that!
http://www.heatworld.com/2015/06/katie-price-tweets-and-deletes-weird-message-to-england-goalkeeper-joe-hart-on-his-wedding-weekend
What I was always suspicious of was that every time a country would host the Olympics, there would be a meteoric rise up the medals table at that Olympics.Especially team GB. And where was their greatest success? In the cycling!
There are already reports that the follow on from 2012 is non-existent and that athlete development courses are being abandoned.
Surely if all the training and victories were above board, Team GB and the government would want to keep this momentum going after all the hard work? Suspect. Very Suspect.
Hmmmmm https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/gbcyclingteam/article/Gbrst_gb-cyclingteam-GB-Cycling-Team-Medal-History--0
It is very interesting to see Athletics squirm at recent revelations, Coe is doing them no favours with his head in the sand approach. Matthew Syed had a fantastic article in the Times one day last week (I tried to post it then but it is subscription based online), there were a few nice quotables - paraphrasing - 'spectacular feats of sporting achievement are being treated as prima facia evidence of doping & that attitude is poisonous'.
Quote from: BarryBreensBandage on August 10, 2015, 09:45:43 PM
What I was always suspicious of was that every time a country would host the Olympics, there would be a meteoric rise up the medals table at that Olympics.Especially team GB. And where was their greatest success? In the cycling!
There are already reports that the follow on from 2012 is non-existent and that athlete development courses are being abandoned.
Surely if all the training and victories were above board, Team GB and the government would want to keep this momentum going after all the hard work? Suspect. Very Suspect.
There have been massive cuts in funding post olympics. Massive. Tories would cut anything. There are olympic and world medalists not getting near funding and can't sustain training at the highest level.
The cycling in particular had big funding now it doesn't seem to have as much.
If you look at track and field though there are really only a handful who threaten.
That said not convinced all are innocent... athletics, in particular the 100 metres, is clouded with nothing but doubt these days.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CME8xKaW8AIoSnS.jpg:large)
Quote from: Declan on August 11, 2015, 08:41:51 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CME8xKaW8AIoSnS.jpg:large)
I vividly remember that. Edmonton 2001 against Yegorova - sat up through the night to watch it almost all week. The BBC and Brendan Foster were all over Radcliffe's protest. If she turns out to have been on the juice it'll be absolutely calamitous for them all.
I always book marked those games in my mind as the watershed for Radcliffe. Shortly after her performances kicked on from international to world class. Maybe it was simplyextra motivation...
Quote from: DuffleKing on August 11, 2015, 11:18:07 AM
I always book marked those games in my mind as the watershed for Radcliffe. Shortly after her performances kicked on from international to world class. Maybe it was simplyextra motivation...
Her marathon world record should have set alarm bells off years ago...minutes faster then previous record and women who've been proven to be juicing can't get near. Wonder will she up on bbc commentary team for world championships...
Brendan Foster seems to be one of the good guys - which only goes to prove that jingoism infects even the best of us.
Whats this about? Paula on the juice?
Quote from: ballinaman on August 11, 2015, 04:38:04 PM
Quote from: DuffleKing on August 11, 2015, 11:18:07 AM
I always book marked those games in my mind as the watershed for Radcliffe. Shortly after her performances kicked on from international to world class. Maybe it was simplyextra motivation...
Her marathon world record should have set alarm bells off years ago...minutes faster then previous record and women who've been proven to be juicing can't get near. Wonder will she up on bbc commentary team for world championships...
VO2 Max is off the charts by all accounts
There's one of them court things that no one can mention, about someone that no one can mention, about something that no one can mention.
So inevitably it is all over twitter. Along with another story about one of them court things that no one can mention.......
Look up #superinjunction
Quote from: INDIANA on August 11, 2015, 04:57:29 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on August 11, 2015, 04:38:04 PM
Quote from: DuffleKing on August 11, 2015, 11:18:07 AM
I always book marked those games in my mind as the watershed for Radcliffe. Shortly after her performances kicked on from international to world class. Maybe it was simplyextra motivation...
Her marathon world record should have set alarm bells off years ago...minutes faster then previous record and women who've been proven to be juicing can't get near. Wonder will she up on bbc commentary team for world championships...
VO2 Max is off the charts by all accounts
V02 max is just a number, it's one of a number of factors in running economy. I've a 70 V02 max and I know lads who have lower than me and can beat me and the same for myself with lads who have higher...V02 max can be increased micro doping they said on the bbc panorama doc on Salazar a few months back.
Quote from: ballinaman on August 11, 2015, 04:38:04 PM
Quote from: DuffleKing on August 11, 2015, 11:18:07 AM
I always book marked those games in my mind as the watershed for Radcliffe. Shortly after her performances kicked on from international to world class. Maybe it was simplyextra motivation...
Her marathon world record should have set alarm bells off years ago...minutes faster then previous record and women who've been proven to be juicing can't get near. Wonder will she up on bbc commentary team for world championships...
I personally don't think she was at it at all. A current prominent brit I wouldn't be so sure about mind you... That was from way before any bbc stuff i thought that too. Though it does pain me that the xenophobic daily mail jump on it and if it were your woman i'd say they'd be nowhere near it.
Do you mingle in athletics circles much who speak about these kind of things bm?
Quote from: imtommygunn on August 11, 2015, 09:25:06 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on August 11, 2015, 04:38:04 PM
Quote from: DuffleKing on August 11, 2015, 11:18:07 AM
I always book marked those games in my mind as the watershed for Radcliffe. Shortly after her performances kicked on from international to world class. Maybe it was simplyextra motivation...
Her marathon world record should have set alarm bells off years ago...minutes faster then previous record and women who've been proven to be juicing can't get near. Wonder will she up on bbc commentary team for world championships...
I personally don't think she was at it at all. A current prominent brit I wouldn't be so sure about mind you... That was from way before any bbc stuff i thought that too. Though it does pain me that the xenophobic daily mail jump on it and if it were your woman i'd say they'd be nowhere near it.
Do you mingle in athletics circles much who speak about these kind of things bm?
Well there was a guy at a race recently who used to be an elite athlete who ran in America, still a quality runner now and is convinced that Mo is on it..very reliable source from England he said, cover ups order of the day now.
That's 3rd hand info by this stage so you'd have to take that into account...
Ha yeah. Salazar had a paper from years ago on how to beat the africans - involved performance enhancing drugs. Surprised it hasn't come out but damned if i can find it.
I'm not convinced mo too popular in athletics circles over uk. Lack of local races etc gets to them. It's still something we'll maybe never know though. Some will believe him and some won't.
Proper elite level athletics becoming very hard to have faith in to be honest. 100 metres loaded with boys then you have turkey, russia etc and cynicism over their athletes and quite a few others too. Still interesting but most watch with cynicism.
https://ewanmackenna.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/forget-the-silky-seduction-of-pro-sport-its-time-we-saw-it-for-what-it-is/ (https://ewanmackenna.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/forget-the-silky-seduction-of-pro-sport-its-time-we-saw-it-for-what-it-is/)
In an area where we pay to fund the creation and promotion of false gods, it's about time the customer got real and realised that it's a lie in the name of profit, writes Ewan MacKenna
'This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.'
Morpheus, The Matrix
I've a secret to confess. It's kind of awkward for someone who makes a living watching, analysing, dissecting and delving into a very defined and specific area. But here goes. I have not believed in professional sport for quite some time. Indeed how anyone could is beyond me for, when you step back, it's clear we're being swooned by a lie as big business makes big bucks off our fawning naivety.
On Wednesday, the countdown to the Olympics dipped below the year mark. I've never covered a Games as I was always too far down the pecking order in papers but I do remember asking a colleague what it was like after he returned from Beijing in 2008. "Amazing," he enthused. "One minute you're watching Djokovic and Nadal, then you're back to the stadium to see Usain Bolt break a world record, then you get a call to say we've a chance of a medal in the show jumping. It's just remarkable."
Break that list down. Or, worse still, look forward to next August and the greatest festival of sport showing up high-end competition for what it really is. Rio de Janeiro will be my first Olympics and when asked if I was excited, I said no. What's to be excited about? Pretending it's not chemistry masquerading as sport? I'd rather the painful, depressing truth viewed through open eyes.
In 12 months we'll again have Bolt with his connections to back-street chemist Angel Hernandez taking on unrepentant double-doper Justin Gatlin in the sprint final; in long-distance we'll be told to be honoured to see Mo Farah after his refusal to leave Alberto Salazar, Galen Rupp as he's pushed forward by the suspicious Nike Oregon Project and the Kenyans with a testing system so rigid that stories emerged of athletes taking off into the woods at the sight of officials looking for urine; we'll have tennis with its biggest names shrouded by doping questions due to a cosy cartel; and we'll have the cesspit of cycling and all it represents.
We can talk about the banking sector, major pharmaceuticals, tobacco and politics, but on a consistent, worldwide level has any other industry knowingly taken us for such an expensive and make-believe ride? At best, the sports industry is certainly up there, even rivaling religion for having the gall to ask us to blindly accept miracles as just that. What is supposed to be a carefree escape from the problems of the real world is now contributing to those problems and those within and over these sports know it but mask it. But is anyone surprised? Does anyone even care? After all, the liar only lies to others but the visionary lies to himself.
Winning may well be everything to athletes but more dangerous are those behind them from sponsors to owners to governing bodies as, for them, profit is everything. In terms of selling a show, doping makes that easier as athletes across sports go stronger, faster, higher and that moves tickets. Meanwhile exposing how they do it would smear mud when a clear name moves commercial rights. It's merely a game of creating and promoting fictional heroes and cashing in on it. Look at it this way, great sports journalism was once about celebrating what we presumed to be the truth whereas now it's about destroying the myth you're being sold.
It's far from just the Olympics though. According to some, right now we're in the midst of a summer of remarkable sport. Yet slip off the blindfold and you'll realise all that is remarkable is how many of us accept what we are witnessing as genuine. The sensible talk around the Tour de France has been about how Chris Froome won, not that he won. The rumbling noise of the NFL is getting louder, a place where deflating a ball is viewed as more wrong than illegally changing your genetic make-up. The World Athletics Championships are thundering towards us amidst leaked documents showing between 2001 and 2012, 800 out of 12,000 athletes including a third of endurance medal winners at major events recorded blood tests which were "highly suggestive of doping, or at the very least abnormal". The IAAF described these reports as "sensationalist and confusing" but denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
However if the IAAF and others can't look at themselves in the mirror, then we've to ask ourselves the same question for don't think our greatest passions are exempt. The giddiness about our Rugby World Cup chances mean we've thus far ignored the fact that rugby has a history of doping. It's just two years since former French international Laurent Benezech raised serious and worthwhile questions about what he described as "medical assistance" yet in a professional era where the style of game means doping would make more sense and more profit, we're told all is suddenly well with no explanation as to when, why or how.
Soccer isn't immune either as it tries to stare down its nose at the rest. Feyenoord 1970, Ajax 1970-73 and Bayern Munich 1973-76 used amphetamines; shortly before he won the 1985 European Cup, Giovanni Trapattoni had to deny his players had used the muscle-strengthening carnitine; EPO usage casts a shadow over the Juventus side of the 1990s. So why now, when there's more money to be made, would soccer suddenly get clean? It's illogical but then so too was the decision of a Spanish judge in 2013 to destroy the blood bags belonging to Dr Eufemiano Fuentes rather than hand them over to anti-doping authorities. This after Fuentes was told he need name only cyclists he had doped when he offered to name athletes from many other sports including soccer and tennis.
Growing up, I naively used to think sport was about fun, purity, and the brilliance of an honest battle of minds and bodies for our hearts. But take the red pill and you'll see it's anything but.
All things aside - I think Ewan might be in the wrong job, seems totally disenchanted & doesn't have the Kimmage wherewithal, insider knowledge of any particular sport (bar GAA like the rest of us) or venom to genuinely expose.
I think he was an infrequent poster here IIRC?
That Radcliffe interview to the BBC is a bizarre about turn from her. From holding up placards saying 'EPO cheats out' to now saying that athletes shouldn't release their blood profiles as they are too difficult to understand. She is probably feeling a lot safer now that Coe has got elected to protect UK stars like her.
To a certain degree you can see her point though. The passport stuff can be very open to interpretation. Still surprised she said it though.
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
Quote from: imtommygunn on August 19, 2015, 10:02:36 PM
To a certain degree you can see her point though. The passport stuff can be very open to interpretation. Still surprised she said it though.
I can see her point as well. If she is dirty she will not want her blood passport independently examined. If I was a clean athlete (as she proclaims to be) who has had all sorts of aspersions cast on her in the last few weeks and having had to take a super injunction out, then I'd be letting Ashenden or other known experts examine my passport to clear my name. Any other reason she gives for withholding the information is simply PR bullshit.
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
Isn't the whole thing about Bolt that he has been a freak from an early age winning Jamaican schoolboy titles from 15 or so? Look I'm not saying he's not at it but his times have at least been consistent for a long time.
Call me naive but I love sport and tend to give the benefit of the doubt to people but it is getting much harder to do that. As McKenna says how can Bolt be exposed he's the biggest star in the world nobody is going to let that happen as so many walls will come tumbling down.
The one thing I think needs introduced is a lifetime ban for doping. I remember reading somewhere that taking one course of steroids can improve your performance by 30 odd percent and that even if you don't do it again your body retains 15% of that. Gatlin's been done twice so how can he now be seen as 'clean'??
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
Bolt was a superstar at 15. That is a fact. There is every chance he is a genetic freak. He's let down by the the appalling Jamacian doping system which is a disgrace. IAAF have never tackled it.
I believe he is clean and I've got the background in sports science that helps me believe it. The sport is finished if he isn't.
Kelly Holmes, Farah, Rathcliffe are not clean in my opinion. I'd have grave doubts over Michael Johnson. We know everyone in the 100m 1988 final wasn't clean.
Tennis the next sport where the shit will hit the fan. Its rampant. Rugby Union as well will break open like the NFL in the next 5 years.
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
I should know better....but.
Holmes, fair enough.
But, can you show us how Bolt's 'time improvements........just don't add up' please?
Quote from: INDIANA on August 19, 2015, 11:15:25 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
Bolt was a superstar at 15. That is a fact. There is every chance he is a genetic freak. He's let down by the the appalling Jamacian doping system which is a disgrace. IAAF have never tackled it.
I believe he is clean and I've got the background in sports science that helps me believe it. The sport is finished if he isn't.
Kelly Holmes, Farah, Rathcliffe are not clean in my opinion. I'd have grave doubts over Michael Johnson. We know everyone in the 100m 1988 final wasn't clean.
Tennis the next sport where the shit will hit the fan. Its rampant. Rugby Union as well will break open like the NFL in the next 5 years.
I'd be of a similar opinion. I'd like to think Bolt is clean and the fact that he has had results from a young age leads me to believe that he is clean. But you can never be certain and that's the sad thing.
The others have had huge performance spikes later in their careers though and I'd agree that they all took PEDs though the chances are they will never be busted. Id have serious doubts over Nadal and Djokovic in tennis whilst steroid abuse has long been touted in rugby.
Quote from: INDIANA on August 19, 2015, 11:15:25 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
Bolt was a superstar at 15. That is a fact. There is every chance he is a genetic freak. He's let down by the the appalling Jamacian doping system which is a disgrace. IAAF have never tackled it.
I believe he is clean and I've got the background in sports science that helps me believe it. The sport is finished if he isn't.
Kelly Holmes, Farah, Rathcliffe are not clean in my opinion. I'd have grave doubts over Michael Johnson. We know everyone in the 100m 1988 final wasn't clean.
Tennis the next sport where the shit will hit the fan. Its rampant. Rugby Union as well will break open like the NFL in the next 5 years.
I thought Robson da Silva was famously the only clean athlete in that race.
I'd eat my hat if Johnson was dirty.
Quote from: gallsman on August 19, 2015, 11:41:29 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on August 19, 2015, 11:15:25 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
Bolt was a superstar at 15. That is a fact. There is every chance he is a genetic freak. He's let down by the the appalling Jamacian doping system which is a disgrace. IAAF have never tackled it.
I believe he is clean and I've got the background in sports science that helps me believe it. The sport is finished if he isn't.
Kelly Holmes, Farah, Rathcliffe are not clean in my opinion. I'd have grave doubts over Michael Johnson. We know everyone in the 100m 1988 final wasn't clean.
Tennis the next sport where the shit will hit the fan. Its rampant. Rugby Union as well will break open like the NFL in the next 5 years.
I thought Robson da Silva was famously the only clean athlete in that race.
I'd eat my hat if Johnson was dirty.
Calvin Smith never tested positive for anything, AFAIK.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/12/article-2169255-13F13D87000005DC-314_964x555.jpg)
Spain World Cup winning team in 2010 supposedly riddled with it. Evidence mysteriously disappeared ::)
Quote from: screenexile on August 19, 2015, 11:00:46 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
Isn't the whole thing about Bolt that he has been a freak from an early age winning Jamaican schoolboy titles from 15 or so? Look I'm not saying he's not at it but his times have at least been consistent for a long time.
Call me naive but I love sport and tend to give the benefit of the doubt to people but it is getting much harder to do that. As McKenna says how can Bolt be exposed he's the biggest star in the world nobody is going to let that happen as so many walls will come tumbling down.
The one thing I think needs introduced is a lifetime ban for doping. I remember reading somewhere that taking one course of steroids can improve your performance by 30 odd percent and that even if you don't do it again your body retains 15% of that. Gatlin's been done twice so how can he now be seen as 'clean'??
No, his times improved by half a second in a year leading up to the 08 olympics. At that level half a second is astronomical.
Gatlin is running faster at 33 than when he was when he was on drugs apparantly. That's how much of a joke the 100m competition is.
Quote from: INDIANA on August 19, 2015, 11:15:25 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
Bolt was a superstar at 15. That is a fact. There is every chance he is a genetic freak. He's let down by the the appalling Jamacian doping system which is a disgrace. IAAF have never tackled it.
I believe he is clean and I've got the background in sports science that helps me believe it. The sport is finished if he isn't.
Kelly Holmes, Farah, Rathcliffe are not clean in my opinion. I'd have grave doubts over Michael Johnson. We know everyone in the 100m 1988 final wasn't clean.
Tennis the next sport where the shit will hit the fan. Its rampant. Rugby Union as well will break open like the NFL in the next 5 years.
Bolt was always super fast but he stagnated. He's notoriously lazy, he took the easy option and as you say it's hard to catch the Jamaicans.
We know Nadal in tennis but there's other big names who have yet to be revealed. Rugby union and league is riddled with it.
Quote from: muppet on August 19, 2015, 11:15:50 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
I should know better....but.
Holmes, fair enough.
But, can you show us how Bolt's 'time improvements........just don't add up' please?
He improved by almost half a second in both the 100m and 200m in a year. I'm not even sure if he'd broken 10 seconds the year before Beijing.
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 11:58:05 PM
Quote from: screenexile on August 19, 2015, 11:00:46 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
Isn't the whole thing about Bolt that he has been a freak from an early age winning Jamaican schoolboy titles from 15 or so? Look I'm not saying he's not at it but his times have at least been consistent for a long time.
Call me naive but I love sport and tend to give the benefit of the doubt to people but it is getting much harder to do that. As McKenna says how can Bolt be exposed he's the biggest star in the world nobody is going to let that happen as so many walls will come tumbling down.
The one thing I think needs introduced is a lifetime ban for doping. I remember reading somewhere that taking one course of steroids can improve your performance by 30 odd percent and that even if you don't do it again your body retains 15% of that. Gatlin's been done twice so how can he now be seen as 'clean'??
No, his times improved by half a second in a year leading up to the 08 olympics. At that level half a second is astronomical.
Gatlin is running faster at 33 than when he was when he was on drugs apparantly. That's how much of a joke the 100m competition is.
How many senior 100m races had he run until 2008? You say "at that level" yet fail to note that at that age he happened to be 21, an age when you'd expect a world class athlete to start significantly lowering their PB.
Jesus lads, how do people still believe Bolt is clean. Of course he was a freak at 15. They all are freaks at the young age groups.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/78049000/jpg/_78049457_top5_100m_web_2.jpg)
Quote from: gallsman on August 20, 2015, 12:05:47 AM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 11:58:05 PM
Quote from: screenexile on August 19, 2015, 11:00:46 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
Isn't the whole thing about Bolt that he has been a freak from an early age winning Jamaican schoolboy titles from 15 or so? Look I'm not saying he's not at it but his times have at least been consistent for a long time.
Call me naive but I love sport and tend to give the benefit of the doubt to people but it is getting much harder to do that. As McKenna says how can Bolt be exposed he's the biggest star in the world nobody is going to let that happen as so many walls will come tumbling down.
The one thing I think needs introduced is a lifetime ban for doping. I remember reading somewhere that taking one course of steroids can improve your performance by 30 odd percent and that even if you don't do it again your body retains 15% of that. Gatlin's been done twice so how can he now be seen as 'clean'??
No, his times improved by half a second in a year leading up to the 08 olympics. At that level half a second is astronomical.
Gatlin is running faster at 33 than when he was when he was on drugs apparantly. That's how much of a joke the 100m competition is.
How many senior 100m races had he run until 2008? You say "at that level" yet fail to note that at that age he happened to be 21, an age when you'd expect a world class athlete to start significantly lowering their PB.
He improved his 200m time by a similar amount. You're at your best in those sprint races at 23/24. To improve is expected, to improve from over 10 seconds to 9.69 in a year is crazy and then to do 9.58 is just not believable. His 200m time improved from 19.75 to 19.30 in a year, that is huge!!!! Then to improve it to 19.19???? If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it.............
An article from a few years ago:
Is Usain Bolt on steroids
Is Olympic Sprinter Usain Bolt on Steroids?
As we prepare to watch the 2012 Olympic Track and Field events, all eyes are squarely on Jamaican sprinter and world record holder Usain Bolt to see if he can match or surpass his blindingly fast times from the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008. But does anyone care to investigate whether the worlds greatest sprinter Usain Bolt is on steroids?
Usain Bolts Record Breaking History
In those 2008 Games, Bolt shocked the world by smashing the world record in the 100m and 200m races, becoming the first sprinter to ever crack the 9.7s barrier by running a 9.69s (including the early celebration that began 5m prior to the finish line) in the 100m and a 19.30s in the 200m. The following year at the 2009 World Championships, Bolt lowered his time in the 100m to a seemingly impossible 9.58s and in the 200m to a mind-numbing 19.19s.
The Case in Favor of Usain Bolts Steroid Use
In the three years since smashing two of the most famous world records in 2009, we havent heard much from Usain Bolt. Rumors of injuries and relationships kept him largely out of the public eye until he re-appeared on the scene at the 2011 World Championships, where he ran a more modest 19.40s in the 200m before anchoring a world record-breaking 400m relay for the Jamaican Team.
Since 2009, Bolt hasnt come close to touching any of his records and his performance at the 2012 Olympic Trials (in which he ran a mortal 9.86s in the 100m and 19.83s in the 200m) seemed to indicate that his best times are well behind him.
But that would ignore the entire process of steroid cycling.
As everyone who understands steroids knows, athletes utilize Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) pursuant to a cycle that seeks to slowly elevate testosterone and growth hormone levels (and corresponding to an increase in performance) to a peak that is concurrent with a competition.
How Usain Bolt and other Olympic Sprinters Can Beat Olympic Drug Testing
A typical PED cycle would begin 12 weeks out from competition with the target date being the day prior to or of the competition. Along with the use of undetectable steroids and daily growth hormone injections, the athlete would also have his blood drawn on a daily basis to monitor his testosterone and rhGH ratios in an effort to keep them within Olympic World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing limits. Close monitoring of these ratios allow an Olympic sprinter such as Bolt to both use PEDs up to the day of competition while still comfortably submitting to multiple drug tests.
This isnt evidence particular to Usain Bolt, as it could just as easily describe the protocol that every Olympic sprinter is using to pass the drug tests. However, it is mentioned simply to point out how easily Olympic athletes are able to pass an Olympic-level drug test, even with the highest levels of scrutiny. The bottom line is that if an athlete is within the permissible testosterone and rhGH ratios, he is deemed clean. The reality is that any athlete who doesnt maximize his testosterone and rhGH levels to the maximum permissible level has no chance of breaking a world record.
For example, lets assume that a talented NCAA sprinter has a testosterone ratio (testosterone: epitestosterone) of 1:1 which is considered normal, or average. The current WADA guidelines permit a ratio of up to 4:1. Given the fact that the only way for an NCAA sprinter to make any money sprinting is to win international competitions and garner endorsements, what reason could that NCAA sprinter possibly have for NOT quadrupling his testosterone ratio up to the maximum of 4:1? Using a number of undetectable steroid compounds, that same athlete would presumably see a major improvement in his sprint times without ever testing positive.
And this is the folly of drug testing: It gives dirty athletes all the ammunition they need to proclaim themselves clean replete with Olympic level testing results.
Passing an Olympic Drug Test Does Not Make Usain Bolt Clean
The worst argument that anyone can make for Usain Bolt being a clean athlete is that he has yet to fail a steroid or other drug test, despite being subjected to rigorous drug testing protocols.
The reality is that most Olympic athletes have their blood levels so closely monitored that only an egregious miscalculation in the timing of a steroid injection or use of a masking agent (i.e. diuretics) to dilute the levels of a steroid within the blood would result in a positive test. This is the only reason why we rarely see positive tests for Olympic level athletes.
International steroid expert Anthony Roberts told Muscleweek: With regards to fooling the Olympic drug tests, many of the same loopholes that existed ten to twenty years ago still exist today. Until those loopholes are closed, there will always be a shadow of doubt falling on the Olympics.
Roberts continued, Testosterone, hGH and most of the other highly potent anabolics are virtually undetectable when we see a positive test and a tearfully apologetic athlete, he or she probably represents less than 1% of those who are actually using banned substances.
Olympic Drug Testing is a Joke
United States Olympic Gold Medalist Marion Jones proudly proclaimed that she passed more than 160 drug tests in her career. The fact remains that she won three gold medals at the 2000 Olympics while passing the supposedly stringent requirements of Olympic WADA testing.
And yet, despite breaking world records in the 100m and 200m sprints; despite being romantically involved with and coached by Olympic shot-putter CJ Hunter who tested positive for steroids four times leading up to the 2000 Olympics and was subsequently banned by the ITAF; despite being romantically involved with and coached by Olympic sprinter Tim Montgomery who tested positive for steroids and was subsequently banned; despite training under track coach Trevor Graham who has been banned for life from track and field; and despite her affiliation with BALCO Labs and the insistence of BALCO president Victor Conte who admitted to injecting Marion Jones with steroids, the general public and sports journalists were still gullible enough to believe that Marion Jones was in fact, a clean athlete.
As Marion Jones proved, testing clean means absolutely nothing.
Usain Bolts Track Coach is a Steroid Expert
Interestingly (and perhaps damningly) in making a case against Usain Bolt, a fact that is often ignored is that the man who worked with Victor Conte at Balco Labs and later testified against CJ Hunter, Tim Montgomery, Marion Jones, and yes current 2012 U.S. Olympic sprinter Justin Gatlin was a man by the name of Angel Heredia. Prior to working at BALCO, Angel Heredia was a national discus champion for Mexico. In the case against BALCO and Graham, he is referred to as Source A and his testimony against BALCO athletes in verifying the documents that detailed the drug schedules for those athletes was crucial in obtaining convictions or confessions from those individuals.
But BALCO drug guru Angel Heredia never served a day in prison.
Even more suspiciously, sometime after 2008, Angel Heredia legally changed his name to Angel Hernandez.
Pop Quiz: Why would Angel Heredia change his name to Angel Hernandez?
Answer: Usain Bolt hired the new incarnation of Angel Heredia to become his track coach in 2009. Unfortunately for Mr. Heredia, Google Search can be a terrible thing for a man with a past like Angel.
Here is a video of Usain Bolts track coach Angel Heredia (Hernandez) obtaining steroids in Mexico and injecting growth hormone on camera for a German documentary:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0GbnVdWaIU
And a small piece of the interview transcript from German publication Der Spiegels 2008 interview with Angel Hernandez:
PIEGEL: Mr. Heredia, will you watch the 100 meter final in Beijing?
Heredia: Of course. But the winner will not be clean. Not even any of the contestants will be clean. (emphasis added)
SPIEGEL: Of eight runners
Heredia: eight will be doped.
SPIEGEL: There is no way to prove that.
Heredia: There is no doubt about it. The difference between 10.0 and 9.7 seconds is the drugs.Bolts Coach is more of a Chemist than a Coach
According to the New York Times, Usain Bolts track coach Angel Hernandez has referred to himself as a chemist, scientist and nutritionist.
Pop Quiz #2: Why would the worlds top natural sprinter need the services of a chemist affiliated with BALCO and multiple dirty sprinters?
Answer: A logical response would be that Usain Bolt isnt any more clean than Marion Jones, Justin Gatlin, Ben Johnson, Tim Montgomery, or even Jamaican-born U.S. sprinter Debbie Dunn who bowed out of the 2012 Olympics just days prior to the opening ceremonies when she tested positive for a testosterone derivative.
Logic would seem to dictate that sprinters need sprint coaches, not chemists. But no, Usain Bolt needs a chemist.
Just as those aforementioned sprinters who have broken track records before have.
Because a great sprint coach could never help a track athlete as much as a great chemist can. Heres more from Usains coach explaining his precise skill set as it applies to coaching in that 2008 interview:
SPIEGEL: So you became a therapist for the athletes in matters of drugs?
Heredia: More like a coach. Together we found out what was good for which body and what the decomposition times were. I designed schedules for cocktails and regimens that depended on the money the athletes offered me. Street drugs for little money, designer drugs for tens of thousands. Usually I sent the drugs by mail, but sometimes the athletes came to me.Still not convinced? Consider this New York Times article from 2008 that documented how Angel Heredia (Hernandez) was on the payroll of no less than 12 Olympic level athletes, including Olympic Gold Medalist Sprinter Maurice Greene (detecting a pattern here, no?):
In recent interviews with The New York Times, Mr. Heredia described how and with whom he worked, sharing copies of records that appear to link him to many of the best sprinters of the last decade. Those records include e-mail exchanges of doping regimens, canceled checks, telephone recordings, shipping records, laboratory readings of blood and urine samples, and Justice Department documents.
Among his clients, Mr. Heredia identified 12 athletes who had won a combined 26 Olympic medals and 21 world championships. Four of the 12 athletes, including Ms. Jones, had been named and barred from competition for illicit drug use. Eight of the 12 notably, the sprinter Maurice Greene have never been previously linked to performance-enhancing drugs.
Mr. Greene, a two-time Olympic gold medalist and a five-time world champion, has never failed a drug test.
Mr. Heredia showed The Times a copy of a bank transaction form showing a $10,000 wire transfer from a Maurice Greene to a relative of Mr. Heredias; two sets of blood-test lab reports with Mr. Greenes name and age on them; and an e-mail message from a close friend and track-club teammate of Mr. Greenes, attaching one of the lab reports and saying, Angel, this is maurices results sorry it took so long.Why would an athletes own coach, errr, I mean chemist be testing his own athletes blood?
Well, if you believe the coaches, its to analyze the blood and determine if there are any deficits in any areas that may need to be addressed. But a chemist would just tell you that its to confirm that the testosterone and ghGH ratios are within the legal limits. Who would you believe?
Would you believe Usain Bolts coach? If so, then you might want to consider this, from the same Times Article:
Mr. Heredia, 33, a former Mexican national discus champion, is a secretive figure on the track circuit who describes himself as a chemist, scientist and nutritionist. The son of a chemist, Mr. Heredia received an undergraduate degree in kinesiology from Texas A&M in Kingsville, records show.
He said he used family connections to pharmacies and labs in Mexico to help his business. For years, Mr. Heredia said, he helped his clients flout the rules and easily avoided detection. Substances like human growth hormone and the blood booster erythropoietin, or EPO, are still virtually impossible to detect, and it is still easy to use testosterone with fast-acting creams, he said.
You combine all these things boom! you get amazing results, Mr. Heredia said.Amazing, indeed. Earlier today, Usain Bolt just became the first Olympic athlete to repeat winning Gold in the 100m and 200m sprints. His times of 9.63s in the 100m and 19.32 in the 200m are his best times since the 2009 World Championships and after his 200m victory, he boldly declared that he is the greatest athlete who ever lived.
It probably doesnt hurt that he just happens to have the greatest chemist who ever lived right there in his corner.
Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3175768&page=7#ixzz3jJ3iMxhp
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 12:05:26 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 19, 2015, 11:15:50 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
I should know better....but.
Holmes, fair enough.
But, can you show us how Bolt's 'time improvements........just don't add up' please?
He improved by almost half a second in both the 100m and 200m in a year. I'm not even sure if he'd broken 10 seconds the year before Beijing.
Well that was pretty flimsy.
The year before Bejing Bolt was 21. He ran 19.75 for the 200m which would have been a World Record until Michael Johnson demolished it in Atlanta, running his 19.32.
At that stage Bolt's coach was still convinced he was a 400m runner and didn't want him running the 100m and he had done very little at that distance. Hence the 'poor' times. The 19.75 time changed the coach's mind about Bolt's sprinting.
So he ran his debut 100m in 2007. He ran 10.03. Your comment 'I'm not even sure if he'd broken 10 seconds the year before Beijing' looks a bit silly in this context.
At 200m he had run 20.13 as a 16 YEAR OLD! Michael Johnson didn't do that until he was 20. He was the first junior to run 200m under 20 seconds.
Bolt may or may not be clean. But to say his times don't add up is completely daft. He is the athlete I heard pundits talking about a couple of years before he was even on the international scene. If ever a world record holder's times added up it was Bolt. He has had constant improvement since a young age.
Quote from: JimStynes on August 20, 2015, 12:10:47 AM
Jesus lads, how do people still believe Bolt is clean. Of course he was a freak at 15. They all are freaks at the young age groups.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/78049000/jpg/_78049457_top5_100m_web_2.jpg)
Show us the others' times at 15 so we can compare and verify your claim 'they are all freaks'.
Quote from: gallsman on August 19, 2015, 11:41:29 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on August 19, 2015, 11:15:25 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
Bolt was a superstar at 15. That is a fact. There is every chance he is a genetic freak. He's let down by the the appalling Jamacian doping system which is a disgrace. IAAF have never tackled it.
I believe he is clean and I've got the background in sports science that helps me believe it. The sport is finished if he isn't.
Kelly Holmes, Farah, Rathcliffe are not clean in my opinion. I'd have grave doubts over Michael Johnson. We know everyone in the 100m 1988 final wasn't clean.
Tennis the next sport where the shit will hit the fan. Its rampant. Rugby Union as well will break open like the NFL in the next 5 years.
I thought Robson da Silva was famously the only clean athlete in that race.
I'd eat my hat if Johnson was dirty.
There is an enormous spike in Johnson's adult career. He was a nobody junior athlete. I'm not saying he did but the suspicions have to be there
Quote from: JimStynes on August 20, 2015, 12:27:58 AM
An article from a few years ago:
Is Usain Bolt on steroids
Is Olympic Sprinter Usain Bolt on Steroids?
As we prepare to watch the 2012 Olympic Track and Field events, all eyes are squarely on Jamaican sprinter and world record holder Usain Bolt to see if he can match or surpass his blindingly fast times from the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008. But does anyone care to investigate whether the worlds greatest sprinter Usain Bolt is on steroids?
Usain Bolts Record Breaking History
In those 2008 Games, Bolt shocked the world by smashing the world record in the 100m and 200m races, becoming the first sprinter to ever crack the 9.7s barrier by running a 9.69s (including the early celebration that began 5m prior to the finish line) in the 100m and a 19.30s in the 200m. The following year at the 2009 World Championships, Bolt lowered his time in the 100m to a seemingly impossible 9.58s and in the 200m to a mind-numbing 19.19s.
The Case in Favor of Usain Bolts Steroid Use
In the three years since smashing two of the most famous world records in 2009, we havent heard much from Usain Bolt. Rumors of injuries and relationships kept him largely out of the public eye until he re-appeared on the scene at the 2011 World Championships, where he ran a more modest 19.40s in the 200m before anchoring a world record-breaking 400m relay for the Jamaican Team.
Since 2009, Bolt hasnt come close to touching any of his records and his performance at the 2012 Olympic Trials (in which he ran a mortal 9.86s in the 100m and 19.83s in the 200m) seemed to indicate that his best times are well behind him.
But that would ignore the entire process of steroid cycling.
As everyone who understands steroids knows, athletes utilize Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) pursuant to a cycle that seeks to slowly elevate testosterone and growth hormone levels (and corresponding to an increase in performance) to a peak that is concurrent with a competition.
How Usain Bolt and other Olympic Sprinters Can Beat Olympic Drug Testing
A typical PED cycle would begin 12 weeks out from competition with the target date being the day prior to or of the competition. Along with the use of undetectable steroids and daily growth hormone injections, the athlete would also have his blood drawn on a daily basis to monitor his testosterone and rhGH ratios in an effort to keep them within Olympic World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing limits. Close monitoring of these ratios allow an Olympic sprinter such as Bolt to both use PEDs up to the day of competition while still comfortably submitting to multiple drug tests.
This isnt evidence particular to Usain Bolt, as it could just as easily describe the protocol that every Olympic sprinter is using to pass the drug tests. However, it is mentioned simply to point out how easily Olympic athletes are able to pass an Olympic-level drug test, even with the highest levels of scrutiny. The bottom line is that if an athlete is within the permissible testosterone and rhGH ratios, he is deemed clean. The reality is that any athlete who doesnt maximize his testosterone and rhGH levels to the maximum permissible level has no chance of breaking a world record.
For example, lets assume that a talented NCAA sprinter has a testosterone ratio (testosterone: epitestosterone) of 1:1 which is considered normal, or average. The current WADA guidelines permit a ratio of up to 4:1. Given the fact that the only way for an NCAA sprinter to make any money sprinting is to win international competitions and garner endorsements, what reason could that NCAA sprinter possibly have for NOT quadrupling his testosterone ratio up to the maximum of 4:1? Using a number of undetectable steroid compounds, that same athlete would presumably see a major improvement in his sprint times without ever testing positive.
And this is the folly of drug testing: It gives dirty athletes all the ammunition they need to proclaim themselves clean replete with Olympic level testing results.
Passing an Olympic Drug Test Does Not Make Usain Bolt Clean
The worst argument that anyone can make for Usain Bolt being a clean athlete is that he has yet to fail a steroid or other drug test, despite being subjected to rigorous drug testing protocols.
The reality is that most Olympic athletes have their blood levels so closely monitored that only an egregious miscalculation in the timing of a steroid injection or use of a masking agent (i.e. diuretics) to dilute the levels of a steroid within the blood would result in a positive test. This is the only reason why we rarely see positive tests for Olympic level athletes.
International steroid expert Anthony Roberts told Muscleweek: With regards to fooling the Olympic drug tests, many of the same loopholes that existed ten to twenty years ago still exist today. Until those loopholes are closed, there will always be a shadow of doubt falling on the Olympics.
Roberts continued, Testosterone, hGH and most of the other highly potent anabolics are virtually undetectable when we see a positive test and a tearfully apologetic athlete, he or she probably represents less than 1% of those who are actually using banned substances.
Olympic Drug Testing is a Joke
United States Olympic Gold Medalist Marion Jones proudly proclaimed that she passed more than 160 drug tests in her career. The fact remains that she won three gold medals at the 2000 Olympics while passing the supposedly stringent requirements of Olympic WADA testing.
And yet, despite breaking world records in the 100m and 200m sprints; despite being romantically involved with and coached by Olympic shot-putter CJ Hunter who tested positive for steroids four times leading up to the 2000 Olympics and was subsequently banned by the ITAF; despite being romantically involved with and coached by Olympic sprinter Tim Montgomery who tested positive for steroids and was subsequently banned; despite training under track coach Trevor Graham who has been banned for life from track and field; and despite her affiliation with BALCO Labs and the insistence of BALCO president Victor Conte who admitted to injecting Marion Jones with steroids, the general public and sports journalists were still gullible enough to believe that Marion Jones was in fact, a clean athlete.
As Marion Jones proved, testing clean means absolutely nothing.
Usain Bolts Track Coach is a Steroid Expert
Interestingly (and perhaps damningly) in making a case against Usain Bolt, a fact that is often ignored is that the man who worked with Victor Conte at Balco Labs and later testified against CJ Hunter, Tim Montgomery, Marion Jones, and yes current 2012 U.S. Olympic sprinter Justin Gatlin was a man by the name of Angel Heredia. Prior to working at BALCO, Angel Heredia was a national discus champion for Mexico. In the case against BALCO and Graham, he is referred to as Source A and his testimony against BALCO athletes in verifying the documents that detailed the drug schedules for those athletes was crucial in obtaining convictions or confessions from those individuals.
But BALCO drug guru Angel Heredia never served a day in prison.
Even more suspiciously, sometime after 2008, Angel Heredia legally changed his name to Angel Hernandez.
Pop Quiz: Why would Angel Heredia change his name to Angel Hernandez?
Answer: Usain Bolt hired the new incarnation of Angel Heredia to become his track coach in 2009. Unfortunately for Mr. Heredia, Google Search can be a terrible thing for a man with a past like Angel.
Here is a video of Usain Bolts track coach Angel Heredia (Hernandez) obtaining steroids in Mexico and injecting growth hormone on camera for a German documentary:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0GbnVdWaIU
And a small piece of the interview transcript from German publication Der Spiegels 2008 interview with Angel Hernandez:
PIEGEL: Mr. Heredia, will you watch the 100 meter final in Beijing?
Heredia: Of course. But the winner will not be clean. Not even any of the contestants will be clean. (emphasis added)
SPIEGEL: Of eight runners
Heredia: eight will be doped.
SPIEGEL: There is no way to prove that.
Heredia: There is no doubt about it. The difference between 10.0 and 9.7 seconds is the drugs.Bolts Coach is more of a Chemist than a Coach
According to the New York Times, Usain Bolts track coach Angel Hernandez has referred to himself as a chemist, scientist and nutritionist.
Pop Quiz #2: Why would the worlds top natural sprinter need the services of a chemist affiliated with BALCO and multiple dirty sprinters?
Answer: A logical response would be that Usain Bolt isnt any more clean than Marion Jones, Justin Gatlin, Ben Johnson, Tim Montgomery, or even Jamaican-born U.S. sprinter Debbie Dunn who bowed out of the 2012 Olympics just days prior to the opening ceremonies when she tested positive for a testosterone derivative.
Logic would seem to dictate that sprinters need sprint coaches, not chemists. But no, Usain Bolt needs a chemist.
Just as those aforementioned sprinters who have broken track records before have.
Because a great sprint coach could never help a track athlete as much as a great chemist can. Heres more from Usains coach explaining his precise skill set as it applies to coaching in that 2008 interview:
SPIEGEL: So you became a therapist for the athletes in matters of drugs?
Heredia: More like a coach. Together we found out what was good for which body and what the decomposition times were. I designed schedules for cocktails and regimens that depended on the money the athletes offered me. Street drugs for little money, designer drugs for tens of thousands. Usually I sent the drugs by mail, but sometimes the athletes came to me.Still not convinced? Consider this New York Times article from 2008 that documented how Angel Heredia (Hernandez) was on the payroll of no less than 12 Olympic level athletes, including Olympic Gold Medalist Sprinter Maurice Greene (detecting a pattern here, no?):
In recent interviews with The New York Times, Mr. Heredia described how and with whom he worked, sharing copies of records that appear to link him to many of the best sprinters of the last decade. Those records include e-mail exchanges of doping regimens, canceled checks, telephone recordings, shipping records, laboratory readings of blood and urine samples, and Justice Department documents.
Among his clients, Mr. Heredia identified 12 athletes who had won a combined 26 Olympic medals and 21 world championships. Four of the 12 athletes, including Ms. Jones, had been named and barred from competition for illicit drug use. Eight of the 12 notably, the sprinter Maurice Greene have never been previously linked to performance-enhancing drugs.
Mr. Greene, a two-time Olympic gold medalist and a five-time world champion, has never failed a drug test.
Mr. Heredia showed The Times a copy of a bank transaction form showing a $10,000 wire transfer from a Maurice Greene to a relative of Mr. Heredias; two sets of blood-test lab reports with Mr. Greenes name and age on them; and an e-mail message from a close friend and track-club teammate of Mr. Greenes, attaching one of the lab reports and saying, Angel, this is maurices results sorry it took so long.Why would an athletes own coach, errr, I mean chemist be testing his own athletes blood?
Well, if you believe the coaches, its to analyze the blood and determine if there are any deficits in any areas that may need to be addressed. But a chemist would just tell you that its to confirm that the testosterone and ghGH ratios are within the legal limits. Who would you believe?
Would you believe Usain Bolts coach? If so, then you might want to consider this, from the same Times Article:
Mr. Heredia, 33, a former Mexican national discus champion, is a secretive figure on the track circuit who describes himself as a chemist, scientist and nutritionist. The son of a chemist, Mr. Heredia received an undergraduate degree in kinesiology from Texas A&M in Kingsville, records show.
He said he used family connections to pharmacies and labs in Mexico to help his business. For years, Mr. Heredia said, he helped his clients flout the rules and easily avoided detection. Substances like human growth hormone and the blood booster erythropoietin, or EPO, are still virtually impossible to detect, and it is still easy to use testosterone with fast-acting creams, he said.
You combine all these things boom! you get amazing results, Mr. Heredia said.Amazing, indeed. Earlier today, Usain Bolt just became the first Olympic athlete to repeat winning Gold in the 100m and 200m sprints. His times of 9.63s in the 100m and 19.32 in the 200m are his best times since the 2009 World Championships and after his 200m victory, he boldly declared that he is the greatest athlete who ever lived.
It probably doesnt hurt that he just happens to have the greatest chemist who ever lived right there in his corner.
Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3175768&page=7#ixzz3jJ3iMxhp
Jim a look at his Blood Passport in the last 10 years will show whether he is clean or not. It's simply not true that these substances are undetectable. They are- nobody can regulate their blood that well. Everyone has a base line of testosterone for example. Everyone has a base line red blood cell count. It's not rocket science if both show sharp spikes over a period of time that the athlete is taking PEDs.
in the 1984 positive Olympics drug tests were covered up. Its still happening. Bolt should declare his blood passport available over the the last 10 years. There is no way in the world he's the only athlete in the world who can manage his blood that good.
As regards the Spanish soccer team- PED's were not an enforceable offence in Spain until recently. Hence why it was the PED's factory of the world for many years.
Its the cover ups is the issue. They can't afford for Bolt not to be clean. But be under no illusions if he isn't he will be caught. Some doctor, lab technician etc will leak it . May take a few years but it will come out
The case in hs favour:
Bolt is 6ft 5. he is seven inches taller then the other sprinters. At 16 he ran 20.13 for 200m and 45.35 at 400m.
He ran 19.93 at 17 for 200m. It's open to debate whether it's unreasonable that he couldn't lower that by half a second by 23 if he's a freak
Anyone can look through the Armstrong thread, I was convinced he was doping at a very early stage.
But that article from JimStynes deserves a few comments.
It is based on a few key points.
All sprinters are doping so Bolt must be doping.
He explains how dopers might avoid being caught which is fair enough.
He then points to Bolt's 2008 times versus his 2011 times. Calling 19.40 for 200m metres 'modest' is just nonsense.
But the main, and somewhat valid, point is Hernandez. It is undoubtedly very damaging that Bolt hired such a man and if Bolt is clean then this needs explaining. However it is worth noting that Bolt hired him after 2009. After the 2008 records.
Did PRs eyes look a bit strange in the "I ran clean interview" on the BBC sport website?
Looked as if she spent the last week prepping for it
it
Maybe she was on something, or coming down off a "hit", or whatever them druggies be at :D
Quote from: quit yo jibbajabba on August 20, 2015, 09:09:22 AM
Maybe she was on something, or coming down off a "hit", or whatever them druggies be at :D
Some of them drugs also have a bit of an unwanted side effect, i.e. the shits. Did Paula ever have the shits??
8)
Some really interesting links from https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport (https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport)- well worth a look ;)
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 12:31:04 AM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 12:05:26 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 19, 2015, 11:15:50 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 19, 2015, 10:46:31 PM
It's easy enough to spot the cheats, just look at their time improvements. Some of them just don't add up. Radcliffs don't, Bolts don't, Farahs don't. Look at your one Kelly Holmes winning double gold at her age. Not to just say they're all at it but it's true that a high number of entries in every event has taken performance enhancing drugs.
I should know better....but.
Holmes, fair enough.
But, can you show us how Bolt's 'time improvements........just don't add up' please?
He improved by almost half a second in both the 100m and 200m in a year. I'm not even sure if he'd broken 10 seconds the year before Beijing.
Well that was pretty flimsy.
The year before Bejing Bolt was 21. He ran 19.75 for the 200m which would have been a World Record until Michael Johnson demolished it in Atlanta, running his 19.32.
At that stage Bolt's coach was still convinced he was a 400m runner and didn't want him running the 100m and he had done very little at that distance. Hence the 'poor' times. The 19.75 time changed the coach's mind about Bolt's sprinting.
So he ran his debut 100m in 2007. He ran 10.03. Your comment 'I'm not even sure if he'd broken 10 seconds the year before Beijing' looks a bit silly in this context.
At 200m he had run 20.13 as a 16 YEAR OLD! Michael Johnson didn't do that until he was 20. He was the first junior to run 200m under 20 seconds.
Bolt may or may not be clean. But to say his times don't add up is completely daft. He is the athlete I heard pundits talking about a couple of years before he was even on the international scene. If ever a world record holder's times added up it was Bolt. He has had constant improvement since a young age.
Flimsy? Are you ok? Improving times by nearly half a second at the top level in a year doesn't add up. That's the key indicator when detecting cheats, a huge spike in performance. Half a second in sprint races at elite level is outlandish.
He may not have ran many 100m races competitively but do you actually believe that his coach never seen or timed him over that distance or that this 'special training' he had for a year turned him into a 9.69 100m runner? Do you still believe in santa aswell?
He also improved by nearly half a second in the 200m, did he just start running 200m also? Maybe the 'special training' he got for the 100m helped him out here also.
By the way I'm not sure when exactly the 'special training' started, it could have been 06 or 07. The thing I do know is that the people who believe he's clean are the most gullible people going. It's more obvious than Armstrong even!
What do we (you) "know" about Nadal?
Quote from: gallsman on August 20, 2015, 11:18:49 AM
What do we (you) "know" about Nadal?
What do you think? You know anything about Fuentes?
Quote from: gallsman on August 20, 2015, 11:18:49 AM
What do we (you) "know" about Nadal?
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 11:23:45 AM
Quote from: gallsman on August 20, 2015, 11:18:49 AM
What do we (you) "know" about Nadal?
What do you think? You know anything about Fuentes?
Did Murray and Federer not more or less come out and accuse Raffa when the Spainish government in their wisdom destroyed all the blood evidence?
Again, what does anyone "know" here? Very strong word to use. I'm all for transparency and pursuit of dopers but claiming to "know" something, for the majority of people on this board, is utter bullshit.
People like to see doping as black and white, when in reality it's not. Gatlin (who I despise) never gets mentioned now add anything other than "twice convicted doper Justin Gatlin", while never acknowledging that he was reinstated early from the first ban by the IAAF after they accepted the positive had come from medication he'd been taking since he was a kid. Contador's positive test was by the absolute tiniest of margins.
Of all the athletes Bolt is the one I am not sure is cheating. He is 6ft 5 where as most traditional sprinters have been 5ft 10 or below. It takes him 41 strides to do the 100 metres where as Yohah Blake takes 46 strides to do the same race so Bolt is rewriting the rules of what it takes to be a great sprinter. He doesn't need to be even near blakes stride speed with his longer legs to beat him. It's a bit like saying Dick Fosbury was automatically a cheat because he was able to clear a higher bar but because he redefined the best technique for something it's probable he didn't need to cheat to win.
The rest I would suspicious of.
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 11:16:42 AM
Flimsy? Are you ok? Improving times by nearly half a second at the top level in a year doesn't add up. That's the key indicator when detecting cheats, a huge spike in performance. Half a second in sprint races at elite level is outlandish.
He may not have ran many 100m races competitively but do you actually believe that his coach never seen or timed him over that distance or that this 'special training' he had for a year turned him into a 9.69 100m runner? Do you still believe in santa aswell?
He also improved by nearly half a second in the 200m, did he just start running 200m also? Maybe the 'special training' he got for the 100m helped him out here also.
By the way I'm not sure when exactly the 'special training' started, it could have been 06 or 07. The thing I do know is that the people who believe he's clean are the most gullible people going. It's more obvious than Armstrong even!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You think the coach was cheating, but you want to rely on times the coach 'might' have kept for a distance he 'must' have run.
As for the 200m, he was sub 20 seconds as a 16 year old. Whether or not he was on drugs, would you not think he would have been considered likely to go into the low 19.00s with that time at 16? He was probably the most likely 200m runner in history to go into the low 19.00s.
Or was he destined never to improve?
I am disputing your claim that Bolt's times don't add up. Your argument to date on that issue is....well..... flimsy is being kind.
At least now with Lord Coe heading up world athletics we can be sure of zero tolerance on drugs cheats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 11:49:38 AM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 11:16:42 AM
Flimsy? Are you ok? Improving times by nearly half a second at the top level in a year doesn't add up. That's the key indicator when detecting cheats, a huge spike in performance. Half a second in sprint races at elite level is outlandish.
He may not have ran many 100m races competitively but do you actually believe that his coach never seen or timed him over that distance or that this 'special training' he had for a year turned him into a 9.69 100m runner? Do you still believe in santa aswell?
He also improved by nearly half a second in the 200m, did he just start running 200m also? Maybe the 'special training' he got for the 100m helped him out here also.
By the way I'm not sure when exactly the 'special training' started, it could have been 06 or 07. The thing I do know is that the people who believe he's clean are the most gullible people going. It's more obvious than Armstrong even!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You think the coach was cheating, but you want to rely on times the coach 'might' have kept for a distance he 'must' have run.
As for the 200m, he was sub 20 seconds as a 16 year old. Whether or not he was on drugs, would you not think he would have been considered likely to go into the low 19.00s with that time at 16? He was probably the most likely 200m runner in history to go into the low 19.00s.
Or was he destined never to improve?
I am disputing your claim that Bolt's times don't add up. Your argument to date on that issue is....well..... flimsy is being kind.
I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.
The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58????? It's laughable.
Quote from: dferg on August 20, 2015, 12:33:02 PM
At least now with Lord Coe heading up world athletics we can be sure of zero tolerance on drugs cheats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe
The worms will be sealed back firmly into the can when it comes to UK athletes now. Nothing to see here, lets move on and to hell with the so called experts.
Quote from: dferg on August 20, 2015, 12:33:02 PM
At least now with Lord Coe heading up world athletics we can be sure of zero tolerance on drugs cheats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe
Radcliffs pal. Have a look at some of his times from the 80's, the Africans are barely past them well over 30 years later.
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 12:41:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 11:49:38 AM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 11:16:42 AM
Flimsy? Are you ok? Improving times by nearly half a second at the top level in a year doesn't add up. That's the key indicator when detecting cheats, a huge spike in performance. Half a second in sprint races at elite level is outlandish.
He may not have ran many 100m races competitively but do you actually believe that his coach never seen or timed him over that distance or that this 'special training' he had for a year turned him into a 9.69 100m runner? Do you still believe in santa aswell?
He also improved by nearly half a second in the 200m, did he just start running 200m also? Maybe the 'special training' he got for the 100m helped him out here also.
By the way I'm not sure when exactly the 'special training' started, it could have been 06 or 07. The thing I do know is that the people who believe he's clean are the most gullible people going. It's more obvious than Armstrong even!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You think the coach was cheating, but you want to rely on times the coach 'might' have kept for a distance he 'must' have run.
As for the 200m, he was sub 20 seconds as a 16 year old. Whether or not he was on drugs, would you not think he would have been considered likely to go into the low 19.00s with that time at 16? He was probably the most likely 200m runner in history to go into the low 19.00s.
Or was he destined never to improve?
I am disputing your claim that Bolt's times don't add up. Your argument to date on that issue is....well..... flimsy is being kind.
I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.
The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58????? It's laughable.
Nobody's saying they believe or disbelieve anything or anyone - just pointing out that all you've done is speculate and backed it with nothing other than an observation of "he ran really fast".
Quote from: gallsman on August 20, 2015, 12:48:21 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 12:41:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 11:49:38 AM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 11:16:42 AM
Flimsy? Are you ok? Improving times by nearly half a second at the top level in a year doesn't add up. That's the key indicator when detecting cheats, a huge spike in performance. Half a second in sprint races at elite level is outlandish.
He may not have ran many 100m races competitively but do you actually believe that his coach never seen or timed him over that distance or that this 'special training' he had for a year turned him into a 9.69 100m runner? Do you still believe in santa aswell?
He also improved by nearly half a second in the 200m, did he just start running 200m also? Maybe the 'special training' he got for the 100m helped him out here also.
By the way I'm not sure when exactly the 'special training' started, it could have been 06 or 07. The thing I do know is that the people who believe he's clean are the most gullible people going. It's more obvious than Armstrong even!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You think the coach was cheating, but you want to rely on times the coach 'might' have kept for a distance he 'must' have run.
As for the 200m, he was sub 20 seconds as a 16 year old. Whether or not he was on drugs, would you not think he would have been considered likely to go into the low 19.00s with that time at 16? He was probably the most likely 200m runner in history to go into the low 19.00s.
Or was he destined never to improve?
I am disputing your claim that Bolt's times don't add up. Your argument to date on that issue is....well..... flimsy is being kind.
I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.
The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58????? It's laughable.
Nobody's saying they believe or disbelieve anything or anyone - just pointing out that all you've done is speculate and backed it with nothing other than an observation of "he ran really fast".
Yes they are, they think he's clean. I'm showing how his times don't add up and how he had opportunity to cheat, he hired the staff to assist his cheating. People really want him to be a clean athlete, looking at it with common sense would tell everyone that it's not possible.
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 12:41:08 PM
I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.
The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58????? It's laughable.
This is your argument? ;D ;D
The coach famously wanted him to run the 400m. Bolt wanted to run the 100m. His debut time at 100m was 10.03. But at 17 years of age he was clocked at 45 seconds for the 400m in a relay. That time would put him half a second off the medals in London 2012, at 17!
http://www.news.com.au/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957 (http://www.news.com.au/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957)
The rest of your argument is you putting words in my mouth, because you have nothing else.
I don't know if Bolt is doping or not. You have to pretend I am claiming that he is not doping, to justify yourself.
Your claim that his times don't add up are idiotic. He was a sprinting phenomenon as a scrawny teenager. As I have shown.
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 12:46:09 PM
Quote from: dferg on August 20, 2015, 12:33:02 PM
At least now with Lord Coe heading up world athletics we can be sure of zero tolerance on drugs cheats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe
Radcliffs pal. Have a look at some of his times from the 80's, the Africans are barely past them well over 30 years later.
You're on a roll now , so are you saying that every elite record that has stood for a long time was the result of being juiced up? Would you say the same about Eamon Coughlan, Ray Flynn, Marcus O'Sullivan, John Tracey were on drugs?
He hasn't failed a test and he probably won't or it will be covered up. I can't see him being caught at this stage. Armstrong nearly got away with it only he came back into the sport after four years out.
Everyone has their own opinions on it. I personally don't believe in athletics at all now. Marion Jones and numerous others never failed a test, the bio passport is a joke, the testers are two or three steps behind the dopers, so not failing a test means nothing.
Bolt is destroying records set by dopers, he has been associated with well known doping coaches, all of his main Jamaican training partners have been caught, Jamaican testing is farcical at best, he didn't specialise in 100m and then destroys the record and so on.
Everyone will have their own opinion. My opinion is he a fraud and a doper.
Interesting podcast from Victor Conte if you have a an hour or two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azzhD2QJ8B0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azzhD2QJ8B0)
Quote from: gallsman on August 20, 2015, 11:37:53 AM
Again, what does anyone "know" here? Very strong word to use. I'm all for transparency and pursuit of dopers but claiming to "know" something, for the majority of people on this board, is utter bullshit.
People like to see doping as black and white, when in reality it's not. Gatlin (who I despise) never gets mentioned now add anything other than "twice convicted doper Justin Gatlin", while never acknowledging that he was reinstated early from the first ban by the IAAF after they accepted the positive had come from medication he'd been taking since he was a kid. Contador's positive test was by the absolute tiniest of margins.
Now that's bullshit. Go onto Instagram and look at professional athletes- pre season posting huge muscle gain with no corresponding entry in body fat. I don't need to know their diet or training programmes to know they are on PED's.
Not physiologically possible.
Quote from: JimStynes on August 20, 2015, 01:20:01 PM
He hasn't failed a test and he probably won't or it will be covered up. I can't see him being caught at this stage. Armstrong nearly got away with it only he came back into the sport after four years out.
Everyone has their own opinions on it. I personally don't believe in athletics at all now. Marion Jones and numerous others never failed a test, the bio passport is a joke, the testers are two or three steps behind the dopers, so not failing a test means nothing.
Bolt is destroying records set by dopers, he has been associated with well known doping coaches, all of his main Jamaican training partners have been caught, Jamaican testing is farcical at best, he didn't specialise in 100m and then destroys the record and so on.
Everyone will have their own opinion. My opinion is he a fraud and a doper.
Interesting podcast from Victor Conte if you have a an hour or two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azzhD2QJ8B0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azzhD2QJ8B0)
You can't fool the blood biological passport Jim. Not a hope the likes of Michael Ashenden won't be able to tell a doper from it.
If he's not clean people are covering it up. And the world will find out.
A lab technician who gets fired, an IAAF offiicial gets pissed off etc. It will come out. Rest assured . Armstrong would not have gotten away with it either. He was a dead man walking the day Tyler Hamilton wrote his book because he was the one guy Armstrong couldn't say wasn't good enough or was a liar like he discredited all the others.
Quote from: INDIANA on August 20, 2015, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: gallsman on August 20, 2015, 11:37:53 AM
Again, what does anyone "know" here? Very strong word to use. I'm all for transparency and pursuit of dopers but claiming to "know" something, for the majority of people on this board, is utter bullshit.
People like to see doping as black and white, when in reality it's not. Gatlin (who I despise) never gets mentioned now add anything other than "twice convicted doper Justin Gatlin", while never acknowledging that he was reinstated early from the first ban by the IAAF after they accepted the positive had come from medication he'd been taking since he was a kid. Contador's positive test was by the absolute tiniest of margins.
Now that's bullshit. Go onto Instagram and look at professional athletes- pre season posting huge muscle gain with no corresponding entry in body fat. I don't need to know their diet or training programmes to know they are on PED's.
Not physiologically possible.
OK, so tell me what you "know" about Usain Bolt from his Instagram pictures
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 12:41:08 PM
I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.
The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58????? It's laughable.
This is your argument? ;D ;D
The coach famously wanted him to run the 400m. Bolt wanted to run the 100m. His debut time at 100m was 10.03. But at 17 years of age he was clocked at 45 seconds for the 400m in a relay. That time would put him half a second off the medals in London 2012, at 17!
http://www.news.com.au/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957 (http://gaaboard.com/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957)
The rest of your argument is you putting words in my mouth, because you have nothing else.
I don't know if Bolt is doping or not. You have to pretend I am claiming that he is not doping, to justify yourself.
Your claim that his times don't add up are idiotic. He was a sprinting phenomenon as a scrawny teenager. As I have shown.
No, my argument is his times improved on an impossible scale. You're ignoring that and just saying he was fast as a junior so he'd be fast as a senior. He was always fast but he had illegal help to make him out of this world fast.
Well do you think he's doping? Clear the issue up.
A fast junior doesn't equal a 19.19 or 9.58 senior.
Quote from: ludermor on August 20, 2015, 01:15:20 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 12:46:09 PM
Quote from: dferg on August 20, 2015, 12:33:02 PM
At least now with Lord Coe heading up world athletics we can be sure of zero tolerance on drugs cheats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Coe
Radcliffs pal. Have a look at some of his times from the 80's, the Africans are barely past them well over 30 years later.
You're on a roll now , so are you saying that every elite record that has stood for a long time was the result of being juiced up? Would you say the same about Eamon Coughlan, Ray Flynn, Marcus O'Sullivan, John Tracey were on drugs?
I never said that. It's just common sense. Look at Coe's times.
I'm not sure about Coughlan but I think the others were clean. I'm not just saying these people are dopers because they're not Irish, look at our cyclists in the 80's!!! Imagine trying to claim they were clean.
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 02:00:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 12:41:08 PM
I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.
The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58????? It's laughable.
This is your argument? ;D ;D
The coach famously wanted him to run the 400m. Bolt wanted to run the 100m. His debut time at 100m was 10.03. But at 17 years of age he was clocked at 45 seconds for the 400m in a relay. That time would put him half a second off the medals in London 2012, at 17!
http://www.news.com.au/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957 (http://gaaboard.com/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957)
The rest of your argument is you putting words in my mouth, because you have nothing else.
I don't know if Bolt is doping or not. You have to pretend I am claiming that he is not doping, to justify yourself.
Your claim that his times don't add up are idiotic. He was a sprinting phenomenon as a scrawny teenager. As I have shown.
No, my argument is his times improved on an impossible scale. You're ignoring that and just saying he was fast as a junior so he'd be fast as a senior. He was always fast but he had illegal help to make him out of this world fast.
Well do you think he's doping? Clear the issue up.
A fast junior doesn't equal a 19.19 or 9.58 senior.
Do you have proof of this?
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 02:06:18 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 02:00:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 12:41:08 PM
I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.
The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58????? It's laughable.
This is your argument? ;D ;D
The coach famously wanted him to run the 400m. Bolt wanted to run the 100m. His debut time at 100m was 10.03. But at 17 years of age he was clocked at 45 seconds for the 400m in a relay. That time would put him half a second off the medals in London 2012, at 17!
http://www.news.com.au/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957 (http://gaaboard.com/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957)
The rest of your argument is you putting words in my mouth, because you have nothing else.
I don't know if Bolt is doping or not. You have to pretend I am claiming that he is not doping, to justify yourself.
Your claim that his times don't add up are idiotic. He was a sprinting phenomenon as a scrawny teenager. As I have shown.
No, my argument is his times improved on an impossible scale. You're ignoring that and just saying he was fast as a junior so he'd be fast as a senior. He was always fast but he had illegal help to make him out of this world fast.
Well do you think he's doping? Clear the issue up.
A fast junior doesn't equal a 19.19 or 9.58 senior.
Do you have proof of this?
Yeah, I'm his doctor.
Quote from: gallsman on August 20, 2015, 01:57:29 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on August 20, 2015, 01:43:37 PM
Quote from: gallsman on August 20, 2015, 11:37:53 AM
Again, what does anyone "know" here? Very strong word to use. I'm all for transparency and pursuit of dopers but claiming to "know" something, for the majority of people on this board, is utter bullshit.
People like to see doping as black and white, when in reality it's not. Gatlin (who I despise) never gets mentioned now add anything other than "twice convicted doper Justin Gatlin", while never acknowledging that he was reinstated early from the first ban by the IAAF after they accepted the positive had come from medication he'd been taking since he was a kid. Contador's positive test was by the absolute tiniest of margins.
Now that's bullshit. Go onto Instagram and look at professional athletes- pre season posting huge muscle gain with no corresponding entry in body fat. I don't need to know their diet or training programmes to know they are on PED's.
Not physiologically possible.
OK, so tell me what you "know" about Usain Bolt from his Instagram pictures
He's not stupid enough to post his gains like other athletes. You don't need to go beyond these shores either.
He is 6ft 5 inches tall. Unprecedented in sprinting terms. But he's Jamacian, he trains with iffy doctors and has to be under suspicion
So basically, you "know" nothing, but have your suspicions, yes?
Quote from: gallsman on August 20, 2015, 02:19:08 PM
So basically, you "know" nothing, but have your suspicions, yes?
About Bolt- I don't. But nobody does because he's either the greatest athlete of all time or the biggest fraud. He doesn't have any published blood values, testosterone levels, body fat or otherwise publicised to make an evaluation.
On the others it's obvious. And as I said you don't have to leave these shores.
Some of the Rugby lads have to be on something. The way they come back from injuries, and the changes in body shape over the last 5 years just can't be right.
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 20, 2015, 02:30:59 PM
Some of the Rugby lads have to be on something. The way they come back from injuries, and the changes in body shape over the last 5 years just can't be right.
Absolutely rampant and has been for 10 years or so. I'm continually staggered by their gains with little body fat increases. Steroids are rampant in amateur Welsh Rugby and NZ and they mean to tell us the pro game is clean ;D.
Extensive use over here too- if steroids are being used in every gym in Ireland it's completely illogical to say all field sports including GAA are somehow clean.
It's hard to believe that any of the top athletes / cyclists / weightlifters / tennis players are clean.
It's also hard to believe that it's seemingly so rare in rugby or soccer when there's obvious benefits to it (and plenty of cash to be earned) in these sports
Even in GAA, I'd be surprised if there aren't some guys juicing although the lack of cash means they're going to be less sophisticated than in sports where there's an opportunity to earn big
Quote from: INDIANA on August 20, 2015, 01:50:03 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 20, 2015, 01:20:01 PM
He hasn't failed a test and he probably won't or it will be covered up. I can't see him being caught at this stage. Armstrong nearly got away with it only he came back into the sport after four years out.
Everyone has their own opinions on it. I personally don't believe in athletics at all now. Marion Jones and numerous others never failed a test, the bio passport is a joke, the testers are two or three steps behind the dopers, so not failing a test means nothing.
Bolt is destroying records set by dopers, he has been associated with well known doping coaches, all of his main Jamaican training partners have been caught, Jamaican testing is farcical at best, he didn't specialise in 100m and then destroys the record and so on.
Everyone will have their own opinion. My opinion is he a fraud and a doper.
Interesting podcast from Victor Conte if you have a an hour or two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azzhD2QJ8B0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azzhD2QJ8B0)
You can't fool the blood biological passport Jim. Not a hope the likes of Michael Ashenden won't be able to tell a doper from it.
If he's not clean people are covering it up. And the world will find out.
A lab technician who gets fired, an IAAF offiicial gets pissed off etc. It will come out. Rest assured . Armstrong would not have gotten away with it either. He was a dead man walking the day Tyler Hamilton wrote his book because he was the one guy Armstrong couldn't say wasn't good enough or was a liar like he discredited all the others.
They're currently beating the bio passport in cycling.
Quote from: INDIANA on August 20, 2015, 02:34:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 20, 2015, 02:30:59 PM
Some of the Rugby lads have to be on something. The way they come back from injuries, and the changes in body shape over the last 5 years just can't be right.
Absolutely rampant and has been for 10 years or so. I'm continually staggered by their gains with little body fat increases. Steroids are rampant in amateur Welsh Rugby and NZ and they mean to tell us the pro game is clean ;D.
Extensive use over here too- if steroids are being used in every gym in Ireland it's completely illogical to say all field sports including GAA are somehow clean.
If we are testing as per sports council guidelines, how likely is it that a lot of GAA lads are juicing though? I'm involved in the GAA and I certainly haven't seen it, other than lads who have no need of one using an inhaler before a game.
My understanding is that to stay 'ahead' of the testers, you need to be fairly sophisticated and organised, and I'm not sure that level of sophistry is in an amateur game.
Quote from: JimStynes on August 20, 2015, 02:38:34 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on August 20, 2015, 01:50:03 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 20, 2015, 01:20:01 PM
He hasn't failed a test and he probably won't or it will be covered up. I can't see him being caught at this stage. Armstrong nearly got away with it only he came back into the sport after four years out.
Everyone has their own opinions on it. I personally don't believe in athletics at all now. Marion Jones and numerous others never failed a test, the bio passport is a joke, the testers are two or three steps behind the dopers, so not failing a test means nothing.
Bolt is destroying records set by dopers, he has been associated with well known doping coaches, all of his main Jamaican training partners have been caught, Jamaican testing is farcical at best, he didn't specialise in 100m and then destroys the record and so on.
Everyone will have their own opinion. My opinion is he a fraud and a doper.
Interesting podcast from Victor Conte if you have a an hour or two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azzhD2QJ8B0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azzhD2QJ8B0)
You can't fool the blood biological passport Jim. Not a hope the likes of Michael Ashenden won't be able to tell a doper from it.
If he's not clean people are covering it up. And the world will find out.
A lab technician who gets fired, an IAAF offiicial gets pissed off etc. It will come out. Rest assured . Armstrong would not have gotten away with it either. He was a dead man walking the day Tyler Hamilton wrote his book because he was the one guy Armstrong couldn't say wasn't good enough or was a liar like he discredited all the others.
They're currently beating the bio passport in cycling.
They aren't Jim. They are covering it up again there is a difference. Cycling is done and dusted as a sport. They should remove all drug protocols and let athletes take what they like. You can't beat it- it's not possible.
I don't believe the SKY Team either Jim. Same speeds as Armstrong and Co going up the same climbs- faster in some cases
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 20, 2015, 02:39:56 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on August 20, 2015, 02:34:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 20, 2015, 02:30:59 PM
Some of the Rugby lads have to be on something. The way they come back from injuries, and the changes in body shape over the last 5 years just can't be right.
Absolutely rampant and has been for 10 years or so. I'm continually staggered by their gains with little body fat increases. Steroids are rampant in amateur Welsh Rugby and NZ and they mean to tell us the pro game is clean ;D.
Extensive use over here too- if steroids are being used in every gym in Ireland it's completely illogical to say all field sports including GAA are somehow clean.
If we are testing as per sports council guidelines, how likely is it that a lot of GAA lads are juicing though? I'm involved in the GAA and I certainly haven't seen it, other than lads who have no need of one using an inhaler before a game.
My understanding is that to stay 'ahead' of the testers, you need to be fairly sophisticated and organised, and I'm not sure that level of sophistry is in an amateur game.
In the GAA you have an unbelievably low chance of being tested, never mind being caught. There was a discussion about this on the radio recently - Oisin McConville said he'd been tested once in his whole career. JJ Delaney said he had never been tested.
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 20, 2015, 02:39:56 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on August 20, 2015, 02:34:18 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on August 20, 2015, 02:30:59 PM
Some of the Rugby lads have to be on something. The way they come back from injuries, and the changes in body shape over the last 5 years just can't be right.
Absolutely rampant and has been for 10 years or so. I'm continually staggered by their gains with little body fat increases. Steroids are rampant in amateur Welsh Rugby and NZ and they mean to tell us the pro game is clean ;D.
Extensive use over here too- if steroids are being used in every gym in Ireland it's completely illogical to say all field sports including GAA are somehow clean.
If we are testing as per sports council guidelines, how likely is it that a lot of GAA lads are juicing though? I'm involved in the GAA and I certainly haven't seen it, other than lads who have no need of one using an inhaler before a game.
My understanding is that to stay 'ahead' of the testers, you need to be fairly sophisticated and organised, and I'm not sure that level of sophistry is in an amateur game.
Putting silly images of yourself on social media don't help much either! Physique gains in some cases in GAA are not natural. Smaller chance of being tested in the GAA too.
You look at the torture of bodybuilding and the amount of chemicals they take to get a certain shape to their physique. You then see guys from field sports with similar physiques and they want to tell us one is chemically induced and the other is natural. It's absurd. It's not rampant in GAA but it definitely goes on. I'd have my suspicions about a couple of players in particular.
You'd be surprised how up to date some guys are on sports science considering the volume of material out there and the
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 02:09:56 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 02:06:18 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 02:00:29 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 20, 2015, 12:41:08 PM
I'm not relying on the things the coach did for anything. You're trying to claim that the coach had the fastest man ever to grace this planet but somehow he didn't realise it or somehow Bolt never ran a 100m ever before 2007. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D
Of course he was fast when he was young, no one can deny that but there's a huge difference between below 20 seconds, even 19.75 and 19.19. There's improving your time and then there's 19.19.
The times don't add up, he's in a country where the testing is virtually non existent, he's hired dodgy people, the majority of runners under 9.90 have been doped up and yet you believe 9.58????? It's laughable.
This is your argument? ;D ;D
The coach famously wanted him to run the 400m. Bolt wanted to run the 100m. His debut time at 100m was 10.03. But at 17 years of age he was clocked at 45 seconds for the 400m in a relay. That time would put him half a second off the medals in London 2012, at 17!
http://www.news.com.au/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957 (http://gaaboard.com/sport/video-teenage-usain-bolts-frightening-400m-speed/story-fndpu6dv-1226450207957)
The rest of your argument is you putting words in my mouth, because you have nothing else.
I don't know if Bolt is doping or not. You have to pretend I am claiming that he is not doping, to justify yourself.
Your claim that his times don't add up are idiotic. He was a sprinting phenomenon as a scrawny teenager. As I have shown.
No, my argument is his times improved on an impossible scale. You're ignoring that and just saying he was fast as a junior so he'd be fast as a senior. He was always fast but he had illegal help to make him out of this world fast.
Well do you think he's doping? Clear the issue up.
A fast junior doesn't equal a 19.19 or 9.58 senior.
Do you have proof of this?
Yeah, I'm his doctor.
But you said
'he had illegal help to make him out of this world fast'.
Do you have proof of this?
Indiana:
On the phone so can't post as easily here. There have been a few programmes and experiments recently that have beaten the bio passport. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-television-report-shows-how-micro-dosing-can-beat-uci-biological-passport/ (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-television-report-shows-how-micro-dosing-can-beat-uci-biological-passport/)
You obviously know a lot about the sports science end of things. I just have an interest in this topic and would regularly read forums about it. The talk is the bio passport is nearly letting cyclists micro dose all they want now and giving them a free run at it. There was a programme on TV a while back as well showing a fella passing all the doping tests while micro dosing. I'm not sure if I have understood the bio passport correctly though so feel free to correct me.
Quote from: JimStynes on August 20, 2015, 03:37:39 PM
Indiana:
On the phone so can't post as easily here. There have been a few programmes and experiments recently that have beaten the bio passport. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-television-report-shows-how-micro-dosing-can-beat-uci-biological-passport/ (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-television-report-shows-how-micro-dosing-can-beat-uci-biological-passport/)
You obviously know a lot about the sports science end of things. I just have an interest in this topic and would regularly read forums about it. The talk is the bio passport is nearly letting cyclists micro dose all they want now and giving them a free run at it. There was a programme on TV a while back as well showing a fella passing all the doping tests while micro dosing. I'm not sure if I have understood the bio passport correctly though so feel free to correct me.
I hadn't seen that Jim- thanks for that. Disturbing is not the word for it. Will make for some good discussions at lunch-time tomorrow with the rest of the staff.
Essentially shows that micro-dosing with a cocktail of drugs can beat the biological passport. Micro-dosing simply with EPO can be picked up now since about 2010- it's how Contador and a few other cyclists were caught. Michael Ashenden devised the test for that.
Micro-dosing is injecting straight into the vein on a daily basis in small doses . Previously they did higher doses with fewer injections into other areas of the body
Quote from: INDIANA on August 20, 2015, 03:49:32 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 20, 2015, 03:37:39 PM
Indiana:
On the phone so can't post as easily here. There have been a few programmes and experiments recently that have beaten the bio passport. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-television-report-shows-how-micro-dosing-can-beat-uci-biological-passport/ (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-television-report-shows-how-micro-dosing-can-beat-uci-biological-passport/)
You obviously know a lot about the sports science end of things. I just have an interest in this topic and would regularly read forums about it. The talk is the bio passport is nearly letting cyclists micro dose all they want now and giving them a free run at it. There was a programme on TV a while back as well showing a fella passing all the doping tests while micro dosing. I'm not sure if I have understood the bio passport correctly though so feel free to correct me.
I hadn't seen that Jim- thanks for that. Disturbing is not the word for it. Will make for some good discussions at lunch-time tomorrow with the rest of the staff.
Essentially shows that micro-dosing with a cocktail of drugs can beat the biological passport. Micro-dosing simply with EPO can be picked up now since about 2010- it's how Contador and a few other cyclists were caught. Michael Ashenden devised the test for that.
Micro-dosing is injecting straight into the vein on a daily basis in small doses . Previously they did higher doses with fewer injections into other areas of the body
Interesting alright.
This would require a lot of planning and logistics to have the stuff available every day in, for example, the Tour De France. It would require vigilance and discipline to have no one caught carrying the stuff and of course no trace left afterwards, so disposal would be very important. Staying in a different hotel every night might be perceived as very risky considering how often we accidentally leave things behind us.
Camper vans might be handy in that case. ;)
Sky weren't allowed to use the camper vans at the TdF.
Contador was caught for Clenbutarol not EPO.
As for microdosing, it was for this reason that the UCI recently introduced night time testing.
Athletics seems to be where cycling was about 10 years ago.
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 04:16:43 PM
Contador was caught for Clenbutarol not EPO.
As for microdosing, it was for this reason that the UCI recently introduced night time testing.
Athletics seems to be where cycling was about 10 years ago.
Michael Ashenden was called to give evidence against Contador in the Court of Arbritration in Switzerland because his blood passport was off the charts. it was his evidence in 2012 that got him outed once and for all as a cheat. So while Clenbutarol may have been the public line it was very much blood doping as well.
Contador was done twice in 2006 for having a hematocrit level over 50% which showed the arrogance cyclists had for the rules at the times
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 04:16:43 PM
Contador was caught for Clenbutarol not EPO.
As for microdosing, it was for this reason that the UCI recently introduced night time testing.
Athletics seems to be where cycling was about 10 years ago.
I read recently where the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) Chief claimed its budget was smaller than Wayne Rooney's salary.
It hasn't a prayer really.
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 05:21:30 PM
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 04:16:43 PM
Contador was caught for Clenbutarol not EPO.
As for microdosing, it was for this reason that the UCI recently introduced night time testing.
Athletics seems to be where cycling was about 10 years ago.
I read recently where the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) Chief claimed its budget was smaller than Wayne Rooney's salary.
It hasn't a prayer really.
May be. It has operating costs of about $30m per annum. Surely more than Rooney's salary?
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 05:21:30 PM
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 04:16:43 PM
Contador was caught for Clenbutarol not EPO.
As for microdosing, it was for this reason that the UCI recently introduced night time testing.
Athletics seems to be where cycling was about 10 years ago.
I read recently where the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) Chief claimed its budget was smaller than Wayne Rooney's salary.
It hasn't a prayer really.
May be. It has operating costs of about $30m per annum. Surely more than Rooney's salary?
http://news.yahoo.com/wada-decide-tougher-doping-rules-elect-leader-learn-151319720--spt.html (http://news.yahoo.com/wada-decide-tougher-doping-rules-elect-leader-learn-151319720--spt.html)
"We've got a budget of not even the salary that Wayne Rooney earns at Manchester United," WADA director general David Howman told The Associated Press.
Quote from: INDIANA on August 20, 2015, 04:23:36 PM
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 04:16:43 PM
Contador was caught for Clenbutarol not EPO.
As for microdosing, it was for this reason that the UCI recently introduced night time testing.
Athletics seems to be where cycling was about 10 years ago.
Michael Ashenden was called to give evidence against Contador in the Court of Arbritration in Switzerland because his blood passport was off the charts. it was his evidence in 2012 that got him outed once and for all as a cheat. So while Clenbutarol may have been the public line it was very much blood doping as well.
Contador was done twice in 2006 for having a hematocrit level over 50% which showed the arrogance cyclists had for the rules at the times
I always found it hilarious when reading about all the riders hematocrit levels sitting at 49.5.
So are we all still split about whether bolt is doping or not? ::)
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 05:21:30 PM
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 04:16:43 PM
Contador was caught for Clenbutarol not EPO.
As for microdosing, it was for this reason that the UCI recently introduced night time testing.
Athletics seems to be where cycling was about 10 years ago.
I read recently where the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) Chief claimed its budget was smaller than Wayne Rooney's salary.
It hasn't a prayer really.
May be. It has operating costs of about $30m per annum. Surely more than Rooney's salary?
http://news.yahoo.com/wada-decide-tougher-doping-rules-elect-leader-learn-151319720--spt.html (http://news.yahoo.com/wada-decide-tougher-doping-rules-elect-leader-learn-151319720--spt.html)
"We've got a budget of not even the salary that Wayne Rooney earns at Manchester United," WADA director general David Howman told The Associated Press.
Well i don't know what his source is for Rooney's salary but according to wikipedia it is £13m, so around $20m US. So their annual expenditure is 50% higher than Rooney's salary.
Pedantry aside, what annual budget figure would be sufficient to adequately tackle doping in sport?
Quote from: JimStynes on August 20, 2015, 05:44:01 PM
So are we all still split about whether bolt is doping or not? ::)
You might be interested in this book
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-bolt-supremacy-inside-jamaicas-sprint-factory-by-richard-moore--book-review-10397247.html
Haven't read it myself but I've enjoyed his books on cycling.
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 05:39:44 PM
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 05:34:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 05:21:30 PM
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 04:16:43 PM
Contador was caught for Clenbutarol not EPO.
As for microdosing, it was for this reason that the UCI recently introduced night time testing.
Athletics seems to be where cycling was about 10 years ago.
I read recently where the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) Chief claimed its budget was smaller than Wayne Rooney's salary.
It hasn't a prayer really.
May be. It has operating costs of about $30m per annum. Surely more than Rooney's salary?
http://news.yahoo.com/wada-decide-tougher-doping-rules-elect-leader-learn-151319720--spt.html (http://news.yahoo.com/wada-decide-tougher-doping-rules-elect-leader-learn-151319720--spt.html)
"We've got a budget of not even the salary that Wayne Rooney earns at Manchester United," WADA director general David Howman told The Associated Press.
Well i don't know what his source is for Rooney's salary but according to wikipedia it is £13m, so around $20m US. So their annual expenditure is 50% higher than Rooney's salary.
Pedantry aside, what annual budget figure would be sufficient to adequately tackle doping in sport?
Forbes put it at $26m US. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/02/22/wayne-rooney-signs-104-million-contract-with-manchester-united/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/02/22/wayne-rooney-signs-104-million-contract-with-manchester-united/)
And I don't know, why don't you ask WADA?
Sorry Muppet, I took it that your claim was that WADA's budget was too small to adequately deal with the problem of doping in sport?
I realise that my question is akin to asking about the proverbial length of string, and i'm sure with more money they could do more.
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 06:02:34 PM
Sorry Muppet, I took it that your claim was that WADA's budget was too small to adequately deal with the problem of doping in sport?
I realise that my question is akin to asking about the proverbial length of string, and i'm sure with more money they could do more.
This would seem to be reasonable.
If, purely for example, Floyd Mayweather earned more for a single fight, than WADA will spend in a decade, it is easy to see that if Mayweather wanted to cheat, his resources alone would dwarf those charged with catching him first of all, and then successfully prosecuting and sentencing him. (NB. I only picked Floyd because of his high earnings, I have no reason to believe that he or anyone else in boxing ever cheated). In monetary terms it would be a heavyweight boxer against a flyweight.
Hard to know how to level the playing field.
One possibility might be to force sportspeople, particularly high earners, to give a percentage of their incomes to WADA or an equivalent.
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 06:02:34 PM
Sorry Muppet, I took it that your claim was that WADA's budget was too small to adequately deal with the problem of doping in sport?
I realise that my question is akin to asking about the proverbial length of string, and i'm sure with more money they could do more.
This would seem to be reasonable.
If, purely for example, Floyd Mayweather earned more for a single fight, than WADA will spend in a decade, it is easy to see that if Mayweather wanted to cheat, his resources alone would dwarf those charged with catching him first of all, and then successfully prosecuting and sentencing him. (NB. I only picked Floyd because of his high earnings, I have no reason to believe that he or anyone else in boxing ever cheated). In monetary terms it would be a heavyweight boxer against a flyweight.
Hard to know how to level the playing field.
One possibility might be to force sportspeople, particularly high earners, to give a percentage of their incomes to WADA or an equivalent.
Well i agree with the sentiment that anti-doping should be well funded.
I'm not sure that i buy the argument that the benchmark should be the salary of highest paid athletes though as i suspect that cheating and detecting cheating have asymmetrical costs.
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 06:26:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 06:13:34 PM
Quote from: Clov on August 20, 2015, 06:02:34 PM
Sorry Muppet, I took it that your claim was that WADA's budget was too small to adequately deal with the problem of doping in sport?
I realise that my question is akin to asking about the proverbial length of string, and i'm sure with more money they could do more.
This would seem to be reasonable.
If, purely for example, Floyd Mayweather earned more for a single fight, than WADA will spend in a decade, it is easy to see that if Mayweather wanted to cheat, his resources alone would dwarf those charged with catching him first of all, and then successfully prosecuting and sentencing him. (NB. I only picked Floyd because of his high earnings, I have no reason to believe that he or anyone else in boxing ever cheated). In monetary terms it would be a heavyweight boxer against a flyweight.
Hard to know how to level the playing field.
One possibility might be to force sportspeople, particularly high earners, to give a percentage of their incomes to WADA or an equivalent.
Well i agree with the sentiment that anti-doping should be well funded.
I'm not sure that i buy the argument that the benchmark should be the salary of highest paid athletes though as i suspect that cheating and detecting cheating have asymmetrical costs.
Part of the idea would be the perverse please I would take from, for example, a Lance Armstrong-type having to give millions to someone to figure out what he was doing to earns those millions. Twisted I know.
On micro-dosing; apologies if this has been posted previously:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932)
Quote from: Niall Quinn on August 20, 2015, 06:31:52 PM
On micro-dosing; apologies if this has been posted previously:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932)
Very interesting article. I had seen it on BBC but don't know if anyone posted it here.
Reading that, any halfwit could be on EPO in amateur sports and easily get away with it. Even in most professional sports where testing isn't exactly rigorous it would be easy to get away with it.
http://www.outsideonline.com/1924306/drug-test (http://www.outsideonline.com/1924306/drug-test)
Another good article about the benefits of PEDs.
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: Niall Quinn on August 20, 2015, 06:31:52 PM
On micro-dosing; apologies if this has been posted previously:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932)
Very interesting article. I had seen it on BBC but don't know if anyone posted it here.
Reading that, any halfwit could be on EPO in amateur sports and easily get away with it. Even in most professional sports where testing isn't exactly rigorous it would be easy to get away with it.
It's not that easy at professional level and I'd lay any odds that amateur would test positive at professional level.
What's happening at professional level is the covering up of thousands of positive tests by the individual federations. Sport governing bodies are happy with the level of funding for testing because it drastically reduces the chances of one of their athletes testing positive.
When an athlete enters the professional ranks his blood passport should be documented. If he was regularly tested during the year he'd find it near impossible to spike his blood levels. But that won't happen unless the Federations decide to get serious which they won't.
Probably at the stage to just let athletes take whatever they bloody want but I just abhor the notion of it.
Quote from: INDIANA on August 20, 2015, 09:19:09 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 20, 2015, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: Niall Quinn on August 20, 2015, 06:31:52 PM
On micro-dosing; apologies if this has been posted previously:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932)
Very interesting article. I had seen it on BBC but don't know if anyone posted it here.
Reading that, any halfwit could be on EPO in amateur sports and easily get away with it. Even in most professional sports where testing isn't exactly rigorous it would be easy to get away with it.
It's not that easy at professional level and I'd lay any odds that amateur would test positive at professional level.
What's happening at professional level is the covering up of thousands of positive tests by the individual federations. Sport governing bodies are happy with the level of funding for testing because it drastically reduces the chances of one of their athletes testing positive.
When an athlete enters the professional ranks his blood passport should be documented. If he was regularly tested during the year he'd find it near impossible to spike his blood levels. But that won't happen unless the Federations decide to get serious which they won't.
Probably at the stage to just let athletes take whatever they bloody want but I just abhor the notion of it.
Only way it can be controlled. Set the acceptable levels of testosterone, EPO, etc, and let them fire away at what ever they want whilst keeping their bloods within the "acceptable" limits.
The sure let them get on with attitude to drugs in sport is non sensical. In any sport there has to be a dominant link between talent and performance. To switch that dominance to who has the smarter chemist rather than who has the greater talent just destroys sport.
In GAA there is widespread use of supplements at the elite level. Proper international standard testing is a must. Winter testing is key
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/20/doping-world-athletics-championships-cheats
Farah vs Africans in 10,000m at 1.45pm today.
Is rugby not awash with this stuff nowadays too?
https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/
Quote from: ballinaman on August 22, 2015, 07:05:55 AM
Farah vs Africans in 10,000m at 1.45pm today.
Farah being from Somalia and all that
Quote from: Franko on August 22, 2015, 01:01:18 PM
https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/
I liked this bit:
The case of Usain Bolt serves as a particularly useful example when it comes to highlighting the extraordinary putridity of the bullshit we are expected to swallow. A quick examination of the 20 fastest 100m times ever recorded, for instance, reveals some interesting truths. Bolt himself has run the fastest three times in history. The only other athletes to make this elite list are: Tyson Gay – convicted doper, Justin Gatlin – twice-convicted and unrepentant doper, Asafa Powell – doper, and Bolt's very own training partner Yohan Blake – clean (really? No, of course not, he's served a doping ban as well).
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
Quote from: JimStynes on August 22, 2015, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 22, 2015, 01:01:18 PM
https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/
I liked this bit:
The case of Usain Bolt serves as a particularly useful example when it comes to highlighting the extraordinary putridity of the bullshit we are expected to swallow. A quick examination of the 20 fastest 100m times ever recorded, for instance, reveals some interesting truths. Bolt himself has run the fastest three times in history. The only other athletes to make this elite list are: Tyson Gay – convicted doper, Justin Gatlin – twice-convicted and unrepentant doper, Asafa Powell – doper, and Bolt's very own training partner Yohan Blake – clean (really? No, of course not, he's served a doping ban as well).
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
Another way to look at that, is that the testers have caught the owners of 17 of the fastest 20 100m times in history. Bolt owns the other 3. If avoiding being caught is so easy, why have the others all failed tests, and Bolt hasn't?
Gonna say Bolt, MJ and Frankie Fredericks the other 3?
Quote from: gallsman on August 23, 2015, 01:38:25 PM
Gonna say Bolt, MJ and Frankie Fredericks the other 3?
3 times, not three different men.
AFAIK neither MJ or FF never tested positive.
But then we know from Lance Armstrong and even Michele De Bruin just how poor an argument that statement is.
Whatever about doping, I really enjoyed that.
Bolt still the man for the big occasion.
http://deadspin.com/5857439/what-do-usain-bolt-and-juan-manuel-marquez-have-in-common-they-train-with-the-same-admitted-steroids-dealer
Quote from: muppet on August 23, 2015, 02:42:00 PM
Whatever about doping, I really enjoyed that.
Bolt still the man for the big occasion.
Gatlin made a balls of it. Dipped way too early.
Quote from: muppet on August 23, 2015, 01:35:16 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 22, 2015, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 22, 2015, 01:01:18 PM
https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/
I liked this bit:
The case of Usain Bolt serves as a particularly useful example when it comes to highlighting the extraordinary putridity of the bullshit we are expected to swallow. A quick examination of the 20 fastest 100m times ever recorded, for instance, reveals some interesting truths. Bolt himself has run the fastest three times in history. The only other athletes to make this elite list are: Tyson Gay – convicted doper, Justin Gatlin – twice-convicted and unrepentant doper, Asafa Powell – doper, and Bolt's very own training partner Yohan Blake – clean (really? No, of course not, he's served a doping ban as well).
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
Another way to look at that, is that the testers have caught the owners of 17 of the fastest 20 100m times in history. Bolt owns the other 3. If avoiding being caught is so easy, why have the others all failed tests, and Bolt hasn't?
The answer to your question was (more than) alluded to in the second paragraph...
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 10:39:43 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 23, 2015, 01:35:16 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 22, 2015, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 22, 2015, 01:01:18 PM
https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/
I liked this bit:
The case of Usain Bolt serves as a particularly useful example when it comes to highlighting the extraordinary putridity of the bullshit we are expected to swallow. A quick examination of the 20 fastest 100m times ever recorded, for instance, reveals some interesting truths. Bolt himself has run the fastest three times in history. The only other athletes to make this elite list are: Tyson Gay – convicted doper, Justin Gatlin – twice-convicted and unrepentant doper, Asafa Powell – doper, and Bolt's very own training partner Yohan Blake – clean (really? No, of course not, he's served a doping ban as well).
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
Another way to look at that, is that the testers have caught the owners of 17 of the fastest 20 100m times in history. Bolt owns the other 3. If avoiding being caught is so easy, why have the others all failed tests, and Bolt hasn't?
The answer to your question was (more than) alluded to in the second paragraph...
Nope.
I'll put it another way. If Jamaicans have it so easy with the testers, why have they all been caught, but Bolt hasn't?
This would be like all of Armstrong's team mates getting suspended while he was winning the TDF.
Quote from: INDIANA on August 23, 2015, 04:27:43 PM
http://deadspin.com/5857439/what-do-usain-bolt-and-juan-manuel-marquez-have-in-common-they-train-with-the-same-admitted-steroids-dealer
The more I read about Bolt the less convinced I am that he is actually clean. Logic would dictate that it is not possible to do what he is doing unless he is doping and although I wouldn't condemn him with certainty as a doper, I would think on the balance of probablity that he probably is.
The fawning BBC coverage over the likes of Farah and seeing the likes of Radcliffe in commentary is part of the problem. Media, authorities and sports companies indulging and protecting these athletes, they just don't want to know as they are all part of the gravy train.
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 10:56:46 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 10:39:43 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 23, 2015, 01:35:16 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 22, 2015, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 22, 2015, 01:01:18 PM
https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/
I liked this bit:
The case of Usain Bolt serves as a particularly useful example when it comes to highlighting the extraordinary putridity of the bullshit we are expected to swallow. A quick examination of the 20 fastest 100m times ever recorded, for instance, reveals some interesting truths. Bolt himself has run the fastest three times in history. The only other athletes to make this elite list are: Tyson Gay – convicted doper, Justin Gatlin – twice-convicted and unrepentant doper, Asafa Powell – doper, and Bolt's very own training partner Yohan Blake – clean (really? No, of course not, he's served a doping ban as well).
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
Another way to look at that, is that the testers have caught the owners of 17 of the fastest 20 100m times in history. Bolt owns the other 3. If avoiding being caught is so easy, why have the others all failed tests, and Bolt hasn't?
The answer to your question was (more than) alluded to in the second paragraph...
Nope.
I'll put it another way. If Jamaicans have it so easy with the testers, why have they all been caught, but Bolt hasn't?
This would be like all of Armstrong's team mates getting suspended while he was winning the TDF.
OK, I'll state it in plain English. Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive. The other Jamaicans can afford to be thrown under the bus. If Bolt goes down, every result in athletics will be viewed through the same tainted lens as cycling results are now.
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 10:56:46 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 10:39:43 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 23, 2015, 01:35:16 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 22, 2015, 11:05:44 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 22, 2015, 01:01:18 PM
https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/
I liked this bit:
The case of Usain Bolt serves as a particularly useful example when it comes to highlighting the extraordinary putridity of the bullshit we are expected to swallow. A quick examination of the 20 fastest 100m times ever recorded, for instance, reveals some interesting truths. Bolt himself has run the fastest three times in history. The only other athletes to make this elite list are: Tyson Gay – convicted doper, Justin Gatlin – twice-convicted and unrepentant doper, Asafa Powell – doper, and Bolt's very own training partner Yohan Blake – clean (really? No, of course not, he's served a doping ban as well).
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
Another way to look at that, is that the testers have caught the owners of 17 of the fastest 20 100m times in history. Bolt owns the other 3. If avoiding being caught is so easy, why have the others all failed tests, and Bolt hasn't?
The answer to your question was (more than) alluded to in the second paragraph...
Nope.
I'll put it another way. If Jamaicans have it so easy with the testers, why have they all been caught, but Bolt hasn't?
This would be like all of Armstrong's team mates getting suspended while he was winning the TDF.
OK, I'll state it in plain English. Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive. The other Jamaicans can afford to be thrown under the bus. If Bolt goes down, every result in athletics will be viewed through the same tainted lens as cycling results are now.
Really?
When and with what?
Do you think he is clean because he hasn't failed a test muppet?
There is a lot of suspicion that that is really the case with Bolt, that he is not clean but for the sake of the sport he needs to be kept up there. If it is the case I wonder why the likes of Gaitlin and the American Athletics body have not been pushing the agenda behind the scenes? He is a freak of nature and was running unreal times his whole career, it does happen some times. I wonder would he voluntarily publish all his test results?
Quote from: JimStynes on August 24, 2015, 11:17:15 AM
Do you think he is clean because he hasn't failed a test muppet?
I don't know whether he is clean or not.
But Franko said 'he has been caught'. It that is true then he isn't clean. If that isn't true, then why make it up? Unlike Armstrong, Smith, Ben Johnson etc, Bolt looked like a dominant world champion from a very early age. That is why he will take a little more convincing for me than the others.
I was convinced Armstrong was on the juice all along. I am also convinced Indurain was as well. This despite the fact that Indurain never failed a test.
The lads who got joint 3rd yesterday were both 20 years of age. They are the next champions. Are they juicing as well? If Bolt and those two young lads are juiced, then athletics is completely screwed.
Are there any details on this Franko? If he were caught and it got out then it would be massive. I find it hard to believe you would know and the mainstream media wouldn't find out....
I would have strong suspicions mind you. As has been stated he mingles in certain circles. So does Farah - and that's not Salazar.
Gatlin should have beat him yesterday though. He lost that race by doing whatever the hell he was doing with about 6 or 7 strides to go.
Probably not a good time to mention one of Bolt's coaches is Angel Hernandez :'(
Quote from: Dinny Breen on August 24, 2015, 12:44:42 PM
Probably not a good time to mention one of Bolt's coaches is Angel Hernandez :'(
This was discussed a bit earlier in the thread.
It is obviously not smart from Bolt, if he is clean.
But Hernandez was appointed after 2009. Bolt had already made it by then. But I agree, at the very least, the optics are terrible.
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 11:51:21 AM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 24, 2015, 11:17:15 AM
Do you think he is clean because he hasn't failed a test muppet?
I don't know whether he is clean or not.
But Franko said 'he has been caught'. It that is true then he isn't clean. If that isn't true, then why make it up? Unlike Armstrong, Smith, Ben Johnson etc, Bolt looked like a dominant world champion from a very early age. That is why he will take a little more convincing for me than the others.
I was convinced Armstrong was on the juice all along. I am also convinced Indurain was as well. This despite the fact that Indurain never failed a test.
The lads who got joint 3rd yesterday were both 20 years of age. They are the next champions. Are they juicing as well? If Bolt and those two young lads are juiced, then athletics is completely screwed.
I didn't state it. I paraphrased what that article clearly alluded to. Obviously I don't know when and with what. But I am looking at a substantial body of (circumstantial) evidence and drawing my own conclusions.
You stated that you were convinced that Armstrong was juicing 'all along'. I take it you knew 'when and 'with what' in order to be convinced. Or were you looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions? ::)
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/bernstein-usain-bolt-is-probably-doping-and-you-know-it
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 01:12:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 11:51:21 AM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 24, 2015, 11:17:15 AM
Do you think he is clean because he hasn't failed a test muppet?
I don't know whether he is clean or not.
But Franko said 'he has been caught'. It that is true then he isn't clean. If that isn't true, then why make it up? Unlike Armstrong, Smith, Ben Johnson etc, Bolt looked like a dominant world champion from a very early age. That is why he will take a little more convincing for me than the others.
I was convinced Armstrong was on the juice all along. I am also convinced Indurain was as well. This despite the fact that Indurain never failed a test.
The lads who got joint 3rd yesterday were both 20 years of age. They are the next champions. Are they juicing as well? If Bolt and those two young lads are juiced, then athletics is completely screwed.
I didn't state it. I paraphrased what that article clearly alluded to. Obviously I don't know when and with what. But I am looking at a substantial body of (circumstantial) evidence and drawing my own conclusions.
You stated that you were convinced that Armstrong was juicing 'all along'. I take it you knew 'when and 'with what' in order to be convinced. Or were you looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions? ::)
'I was convinced he was juicing'.....is not the same as 'he was caught'. Not even in the same country.
Can you please show us where the article 'clearly alluded' that Bolt was caught doping?
Here are the 8 fastest men in 100m history (legal runs only), in order.
Bolt's times are, in 100m terms, streets ahead of this list of deviants. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Usain Bolt
Clean
Tyson Gay
Banned
Yohan Blake
Banned
Asafa Powell
Banned
Justin Gatlin
Banned
Nesta Carter
Clean
Maurice Greene
Clean - Never tested positive but suspicions arose due to a pre-2008 $10,000 payment to none other than Angel Guillermo Heredia for what he described as 'stuff'.
Steve Mullings
Banned
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 01:43:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 01:12:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 11:51:21 AM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 24, 2015, 11:17:15 AM
Do you think he is clean because he hasn't failed a test muppet?
I don't know whether he is clean or not.
But Franko said 'he has been caught'. It that is true then he isn't clean. If that isn't true, then why make it up? Unlike Armstrong, Smith, Ben Johnson etc, Bolt looked like a dominant world champion from a very early age. That is why he will take a little more convincing for me than the others.
I was convinced Armstrong was on the juice all along. I am also convinced Indurain was as well. This despite the fact that Indurain never failed a test.
The lads who got joint 3rd yesterday were both 20 years of age. They are the next champions. Are they juicing as well? If Bolt and those two young lads are juiced, then athletics is completely screwed.
I didn't state it. I paraphrased what that article clearly alluded to. Obviously I don't know when and with what. But I am looking at a substantial body of (circumstantial) evidence and drawing my own conclusions.
You stated that you were convinced that Armstrong was juicing 'all along'. I take it you knew 'when and 'with what' in order to be convinced. Or were you looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions? ::)
'I was convinced he was juicing'.....is not the same as 'he was caught'. Not even in the same country.
Can you please show us where the article 'clearly alluded' that Bolt was caught doping?
OK, I'll say this. I 'am convinced' he was caught. Is that OK now? Because by your own standards of proof it's perfectly adequate to say this.
In the second paragraph.
Quote from: yellowcard on August 24, 2015, 01:41:13 PM
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/bernstein-usain-bolt-is-probably-doping-and-you-know-it
I thought this quote in that article was a little bit rich:
Quote"When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time," Carl Lewis told the Times of London. "But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don't question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you're a fool. Period."
Quote from: macdanger2 on August 24, 2015, 01:51:38 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on August 24, 2015, 01:41:13 PM
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/bernstein-usain-bolt-is-probably-doping-and-you-know-it
I thought this quote in that article was a little bit rich:
Quote"When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time," Carl Lewis told the Times of London. "But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don't question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you're a fool. Period."
Why? Because he was a doper is his opinion not valid? Floyd Landis was ridiculed for saying similar about Armstrong but his version of events turned out to be accurate. For what reason would Lewis make that statement other than the fact that he believes it to be true?
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 01:47:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 01:43:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 01:12:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 11:51:21 AM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 24, 2015, 11:17:15 AM
Do you think he is clean because he hasn't failed a test muppet?
I don't know whether he is clean or not.
But Franko said 'he has been caught'. It that is true then he isn't clean. If that isn't true, then why make it up? Unlike Armstrong, Smith, Ben Johnson etc, Bolt looked like a dominant world champion from a very early age. That is why he will take a little more convincing for me than the others.
I was convinced Armstrong was on the juice all along. I am also convinced Indurain was as well. This despite the fact that Indurain never failed a test.
The lads who got joint 3rd yesterday were both 20 years of age. They are the next champions. Are they juicing as well? If Bolt and those two young lads are juiced, then athletics is completely screwed.
I didn't state it. I paraphrased what that article clearly alluded to. Obviously I don't know when and with what. But I am looking at a substantial body of (circumstantial) evidence and drawing my own conclusions.
You stated that you were convinced that Armstrong was juicing 'all along'. I take it you knew 'when and 'with what' in order to be convinced. Or were you looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions? ::)
'I was convinced he was juicing'.....is not the same as 'he was caught'. Not even in the same country.
Can you please show us where the article 'clearly alluded' that Bolt was caught doping?
OK, I'll say this. I 'am convinced' he was caught. Is that OK now? Because by your own standards of proof it's perfectly adequate to say this.
In the second paragraph.
Ah right.......I see.
It is ok to have an opinion on something.
It is a different thing altogether to state it as a fact as you did.
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 01:59:23 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 01:47:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 01:43:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 01:12:24 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 11:51:21 AM
Quote from: JimStynes on August 24, 2015, 11:17:15 AM
Do you think he is clean because he hasn't failed a test muppet?
I don't know whether he is clean or not.
But Franko said 'he has been caught'. It that is true then he isn't clean. If that isn't true, then why make it up? Unlike Armstrong, Smith, Ben Johnson etc, Bolt looked like a dominant world champion from a very early age. That is why he will take a little more convincing for me than the others.
I was convinced Armstrong was on the juice all along. I am also convinced Indurain was as well. This despite the fact that Indurain never failed a test.
The lads who got joint 3rd yesterday were both 20 years of age. They are the next champions. Are they juicing as well? If Bolt and those two young lads are juiced, then athletics is completely screwed.
I didn't state it. I paraphrased what that article clearly alluded to. Obviously I don't know when and with what. But I am looking at a substantial body of (circumstantial) evidence and drawing my own conclusions.
You stated that you were convinced that Armstrong was juicing 'all along'. I take it you knew 'when and 'with what' in order to be convinced. Or were you looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions? ::)
'I was convinced he was juicing'.....is not the same as 'he was caught'. Not even in the same country.
Can you please show us where the article 'clearly alluded' that Bolt was caught doping?
OK, I'll say this. I 'am convinced' he was caught. Is that OK now? Because by your own standards of proof it's perfectly adequate to say this.
In the second paragraph.
Ah right.......I see.
It is ok to have an opinion on something.
It is a different thing altogether to state it as a fact as you did.
Wrong. See part in bold.
This is what you said. It is clear and ambiguous.
QuoteOK, I'll state it in plain English. Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive.
You are now desperately backtracking, trying to say that you are merely re-wording what was said in the article.
Can you please show us where that, or anything like that, was said in the article?
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 02:03:41 PM
This is what you said. It is clear and ambiguous.
QuoteOK, I'll state it in plain English. Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive.
You are now desperately backtracking, trying to say that you are merely re-wording what was said in the article.
Can you please show us where that, or anything like that, was said in the article?
If that's how you want to look at it there's not a lot I can do about it. But both literally and metaphorically speaking you pulled that quote out of context to make your point. I think that others who were perhaps a little more perceptive may have realised what I was doing, but just in case, I cleared it up in my very next post (which you have ignored twice now). Like I said, none so blind... etc.
Quote from: yellowcard on August 24, 2015, 01:56:16 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on August 24, 2015, 01:51:38 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on August 24, 2015, 01:41:13 PM
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/bernstein-usain-bolt-is-probably-doping-and-you-know-it
I thought this quote in that article was a little bit rich:
Quote"When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time," Carl Lewis told the Times of London. "But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don't question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you're a fool. Period."
Why? Because he was a doper is his opinion not valid? Floyd Landis was ridiculed for saying similar about Armstrong but his version of events turned out to be accurate. For what reason would Lewis make that statement other than the fact that he believes it to be true?
To me the tone of the article seemed fairly anti-Jamacian as much as anti-drugs and while he quoted Lewis, he didn't state that Lewis is also a drug cheat which is a pretty important fact considering the article. Didn't BBC have Lewis on their Olympics coverage last time around? I don't think he's widely recognised as being a cheat so I think if you're writing an article about PEDs there are surely plenty of clean athletes (or at least athletes who haven't been caught) who could have given that same opinion - it's not exactly a ground-breaking insight from Lewis.
Quote from: macdanger2 on August 24, 2015, 02:58:48 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on August 24, 2015, 01:56:16 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on August 24, 2015, 01:51:38 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on August 24, 2015, 01:41:13 PM
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/bernstein-usain-bolt-is-probably-doping-and-you-know-it
I thought this quote in that article was a little bit rich:
Quote"When people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all time," Carl Lewis told the Times of London. "But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don't question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you're a fool. Period."
Why? Because he was a doper is his opinion not valid? Floyd Landis was ridiculed for saying similar about Armstrong but his version of events turned out to be accurate. For what reason would Lewis make that statement other than the fact that he believes it to be true?
To me the tone of the article seemed fairly anti-Jamacian as much as anti-drugs and while he quoted Lewis, he didn't state that Lewis is also a drug cheat which is a pretty important fact considering the article. Didn't BBC have Lewis on their Olympics coverage last time around? I don't think he's widely recognised as being a cheat so I think if you're writing an article about PEDs there are surely plenty of clean athletes (or at least athletes who haven't been caught) who could have given that same opinion - it's not exactly a ground-breaking insight from Lewis.
I'll say to the people who don't believe in athletics, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry that you can't dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a sport. This is a great sport and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the sport for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it. Vive world athletics."
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 02:03:41 PM
This is what you said. It is clear and ambiguous.
QuoteOK, I'll state it in plain English. Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive.
You are now desperately backtracking, trying to say that you are merely re-wording what was said in the article.
Can you please show us where that, or anything like that, was said in the article?
If that's how you want to look at it there's not a lot I can do about it. But both literally and metaphorically speaking you pulled that quote out of context to make your point. I think that others who were perhaps a little more perceptive may have realised what I was doing, but just in case, I cleared it up in my very next post (which you have ignored twice now). Like I said, none so blind... etc.
I'll take that as a no. :)
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 05:47:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 02:03:41 PM
This is what you said. It is clear and ambiguous.
QuoteOK, I'll state it in plain English. Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive.
You are now desperately backtracking, trying to say that you are merely re-wording what was said in the article.
Can you please show us where that, or anything like that, was said in the article?
If that's how you want to look at it there's not a lot I can do about it. But both literally and metaphorically speaking you pulled that quote out of context to make your point. I think that others who were perhaps a little more perceptive may have realised what I was doing, but just in case, I cleared it up in my very next post (which you have ignored twice now). Like I said, none so blind... etc.
I'll take that as a no. :)
Ah, no.1 in the standard list of GAABoard smart Alec responses. It's sad to see you reduced to this muppet.
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 06:16:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 05:47:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 02:03:41 PM
This is what you said. It is clear and ambiguous.
QuoteOK, I'll state it in plain English. Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive.
You are now desperately backtracking, trying to say that you are merely re-wording what was said in the article.
Can you please show us where that, or anything like that, was said in the article?
If that's how you want to look at it there's not a lot I can do about it. But both literally and metaphorically speaking you pulled that quote out of context to make your point. I think that others who were perhaps a little more perceptive may have realised what I was doing, but just in case, I cleared it up in my very next post (which you have ignored twice now). Like I said, none so blind... etc.
I'll take that as a no. :)
Ah, no.1 in the standard list of GAABoard smart Alec responses. It's sad to see you reduced to this muppet.
What can I do?
You made an outrageous claim.
You claimed, that this claim, what what was implied in the linked article.
When asked which part of the article suggested what you claimed, you cited 'more perceptive people', and 'none so blind' etc, or in other words you reached for the standard GaaBoard ad hominems, but naturally didn't trouble yourself by answering the question.
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:29:45 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 06:16:12 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 05:47:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 24, 2015, 02:14:38 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 02:03:41 PM
This is what you said. It is clear and ambiguous.
QuoteOK, I'll state it in plain English. Bolt has been caught, but like the banks a few years back, he's 'too big to fail' so they've been covered up to keep the legend alive.
You are now desperately backtracking, trying to say that you are merely re-wording what was said in the article.
Can you please show us where that, or anything like that, was said in the article?
If that's how you want to look at it there's not a lot I can do about it. But both literally and metaphorically speaking you pulled that quote out of context to make your point. I think that others who were perhaps a little more perceptive may have realised what I was doing, but just in case, I cleared it up in my very next post (which you have ignored twice now). Like I said, none so blind... etc.
I'll take that as a no. :)
Ah, no.1 in the standard list of GAABoard smart Alec responses. It's sad to see you reduced to this muppet.
What can I do?
You made an outrageous claim.
You claimed, that this claim, what what was implied in the linked article.
When asked which part of the article suggested what you claimed, you cited 'more perceptive people', and 'none so blind' etc, or in other words you reached for the standard GaaBoard ad hominems, but naturally didn't trouble yourself by answering the question.
I'd answered the question twice previously. I didn't feel the need to do it for a third time. If you check back I actually answered your question before you asked it. Hence my 'none so blind' remark.
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
Admit your wrong. Bolt ia juicing. Fact!!!
Quote from: mikehunt on August 24, 2015, 06:57:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
Admit your wrong. Bolt ia juicing. Fact!!!
I never said he wasn't.
But since you now said it was a 'fact', you can obviously prove it?
Quote from: mikehunt on August 24, 2015, 06:57:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
Admit your wrong. Bolt ia juicing. Fact!!!
You can't prove it Mike. I think you're right by the way but unfortunately unless he's caught we can't say it
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 07:02:12 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on August 24, 2015, 06:57:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
Admit your wrong. Bolt ia juicing. Fact!!!
I never said he wasn't.
But since you now said it was a 'fact', you can obviously prove it?
Obviously.
Quote from: mikehunt on August 24, 2015, 08:16:47 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 07:02:12 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on August 24, 2015, 06:57:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
Admit your wrong. Bolt ia juicing. Fact!!!
I never said he wasn't.
But since you now said it was a 'fact', you can obviously prove it?
Obviously.
You are the author of the GAA Rulebook aren't you?
Listen lads, I'm right and you're all wrong.
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on August 24, 2015, 08:16:47 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 07:02:12 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on August 24, 2015, 06:57:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
Admit your wrong. Bolt ia juicing. Fact!!!
I never said he wasn't.
But since you now said it was a 'fact', you can obviously prove it?
Obviously.
You are the author of the GAA Rulebook aren't you?
Wrong again.
Quote from: mikehunt on August 24, 2015, 08:43:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on August 24, 2015, 08:16:47 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 07:02:12 PM
Quote from: mikehunt on August 24, 2015, 06:57:07 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
Admit your wrong. Bolt ia juicing. Fact!!!
I never said he wasn't.
But since you now said it was a 'fact', you can obviously prove it?
Obviously.
You are the author of the GAA Rulebook aren't you?
Wrong again.
Is that a 'fact'?
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones). He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not
drug testing. This is where my opinion came from.
Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test
that you guys know about"
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones). He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not drug testing. This is where my opinion came from.
Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test that you guys know about"
I honestly don't see what you are implying, but you may be right. He may be treating very carefully due to libel laws etc.
The difference with Armstrong and Bolt is that while they were winning, Armstrong's cheating teammates were not failing tests or at least not publicly. Bolt's are.
Admit you're wrong and move on.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones). He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not drug testing. This is where my opinion came from.
Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test that you guys know about"
I honestly don't see what you are implying, but you may be right. He may be treating very carefully due to libel laws etc.
The difference with Armstrong and Bolt is that while they were winning, Armstrong's cheating teammates were not failing tests or at least not publicly. Bolt's are.
I think you're proving my point here muppet. If Armstrong's teammates had been cheating and failing tests (like Bolt's) and he was still massively outperforming them, would logic not lead you to conclude that either:
1. Some sort of cover up was going on wrt Armstrong's test results
2. Armstrong was Superman
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones). He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not drug testing. This is where my opinion came from.
Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test that you guys know about"
I honestly don't see what you are implying, but you may be right. He may be treating very carefully due to libel laws etc.
The difference with Armstrong and Bolt is that while they were winning, Armstrong's cheating teammates were not failing tests or at least not publicly. Bolt's are.
I think you're proving my point here muppet. If Armstrong's teammates had been cheating and failing tests (like Bolt's) and he was still massively outperforming them, would logic not lead you to conclude that either:
1. Some sort of cover up was going on wrt Armstrong's test results
2. Armstrong was Superman
I've been half following this conversation, did you show yet where he's been caught doping or did you back your way out of that one??
Quote from: Boycey on August 25, 2015, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones). He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not drug testing. This is where my opinion came from.
Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test that you guys know about"
I honestly don't see what you are implying, but you may be right. He may be treating very carefully due to libel laws etc.
The difference with Armstrong and Bolt is that while they were winning, Armstrong's cheating teammates were not failing tests or at least not publicly. Bolt's are.
I think you're proving my point here muppet. If Armstrong's teammates had been cheating and failing tests (like Bolt's) and he was still massively outperforming them, would logic not lead you to conclude that either:
1. Some sort of cover up was going on wrt Armstrong's test results
2. Armstrong was Superman
I've been half following this conversation, did you show yet where he's been caught doping or did you back your way out of that one??
Instead of taking time to post, maybe you should use that time to read back through. I believe the phrase is "close your mouth and open your ears".
I think those sports where it's about endurance, power and speed (cycling, running, weight lifting, field athletics etc) with little skill then they are pretty much all at it especially when it comes to financial rewards. i.e. reward outweighs the risk.
Those sports that require a lot of skill to excel soccer, basketball etc then less so but if they can get away it particular when it comes to recovery then yea these guys too will do anything to get an edge.
The money spent on drug testing is a pittance compared to what these athletes earn. Money makes these sports go around, you don't upset the apple cart too much.
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 03:02:13 PM
Quote from: Boycey on August 25, 2015, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones). He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not drug testing. This is where my opinion came from.
Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test that you guys know about"
I honestly don't see what you are implying, but you may be right. He may be treating very carefully due to libel laws etc.
The difference with Armstrong and Bolt is that while they were winning, Armstrong's cheating teammates were not failing tests or at least not publicly. Bolt's are.
I think you're proving my point here muppet. If Armstrong's teammates had been cheating and failing tests (like Bolt's) and he was still massively outperforming them, would logic not lead you to conclude that either:
1. Some sort of cover up was going on wrt Armstrong's test results
2. Armstrong was Superman
I've been half following this conversation, did you show yet where he's been caught doping or did you back your way out of that one??
Instead of taking time to post, maybe you should use that time to read back through. I believe the phrase is "close your mouth and open your ears".
That's a no then so, carry on..
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 03:02:13 PM
Quote from: Boycey on August 25, 2015, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones). He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not drug testing. This is where my opinion came from.
Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test that you guys know about"
I honestly don't see what you are implying, but you may be right. He may be treating very carefully due to libel laws etc.
The difference with Armstrong and Bolt is that while they were winning, Armstrong's cheating teammates were not failing tests or at least not publicly. Bolt's are.
I think you're proving my point here muppet. If Armstrong's teammates had been cheating and failing tests (like Bolt's) and he was still massively outperforming them, would logic not lead you to conclude that either:
1. Some sort of cover up was going on wrt Armstrong's test results
2. Armstrong was Superman
I've been half following this conversation, did you show yet where he's been caught doping or did you back your way out of that one??
Instead of taking time to post, maybe you should use that time to read back through. I believe the phrase is "close your mouth and open your ears".
Franko - "Bolt has been caught"
that's all you need to know Boycey, there in black & white :-)
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones). He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not drug testing. This is where my opinion came from.
Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test that you guys know about"
I honestly don't see what you are implying, but you may be right. He may be treating very carefully due to libel laws etc.
The difference with Armstrong and Bolt is that while they were winning, Armstrong's cheating teammates were not failing tests or at least not publicly. Bolt's are.
I think you're proving my point here muppet. If Armstrong's teammates had been cheating and failing tests (like Bolt's) and he was still massively outperforming them, would logic not lead you to conclude that either:
1. Some sort of cover up was going on wrt Armstrong's test results
2. Armstrong was Superman
Armstrong's team mates didn't publicly fail tests while they were his team mates. (There was the odd one like Gianpaolo Mondini in 2002, who caught with EPO, and was sacked by US Postal).
In 2012 the USDA stated that Armstrong's US Postal team operated '
the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme the sport has ever seen'.
Some ex-US Postal riders were caught doping, after they had left the team.
My point here is that some of them, after they were caught, broke the silence and pointed the finger at Armstrong. The beginning of the end for Armstrong was when these former teammates started to talk. The incentive for them to do so was high. A couple sold books to explain themselves, make money and to put the record straight regarding Armstrong. Landis and Hamilton spring to mind.
The same could apply to Jamaican and indeed other sprinters, who are done for doping. Are any of these men pointing the finger at Bolt? If so please post up some links, if they are not pointing the finger, why not? Let's face it, they would know a lot more than we do.
Quote from: Boycey on August 25, 2015, 03:55:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 03:02:13 PM
Quote from: Boycey on August 25, 2015, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones). He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not drug testing. This is where my opinion came from.
Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test that you guys know about"
I honestly don't see what you are implying, but you may be right. He may be treating very carefully due to libel laws etc.
The difference with Armstrong and Bolt is that while they were winning, Armstrong's cheating teammates were not failing tests or at least not publicly. Bolt's are.
I think you're proving my point here muppet. If Armstrong's teammates had been cheating and failing tests (like Bolt's) and he was still massively outperforming them, would logic not lead you to conclude that either:
1. Some sort of cover up was going on wrt Armstrong's test results
2. Armstrong was Superman
I've been half following this conversation, did you show yet where he's been caught doping or did you back your way out of that one??
Instead of taking time to post, maybe you should use that time to read back through. I believe the phrase is "close your mouth and open your ears".
That's a no then so, carry on..
Ah, another one reduced to the smartarse responses. Reading mustn't be your thing Boycey.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 04:47:30 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones). He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not drug testing. This is where my opinion came from.
Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test that you guys know about"
I honestly don't see what you are implying, but you may be right. He may be treating very carefully due to libel laws etc.
The difference with Armstrong and Bolt is that while they were winning, Armstrong's cheating teammates were not failing tests or at least not publicly. Bolt's are.
I think you're proving my point here muppet. If Armstrong's teammates had been cheating and failing tests (like Bolt's) and he was still massively outperforming them, would logic not lead you to conclude that either:
1. Some sort of cover up was going on wrt Armstrong's test results
2. Armstrong was Superman
Armstrong's team mates didn't publicly fail tests while they were his team mates. (There was the odd one like Gianpaolo Mondini in 2002, who caught with EPO, and was sacked by US Postal).
In 2012 the USDA stated that Armstrong's US Postal team operated 'the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme the sport has ever seen'.
Some ex-US Postal riders were caught doping, after they had left the team.
My point here is that some of them, after they were caught, broke the silence and pointed the finger at Armstrong. The beginning of the end for Armstrong was when these former teammates started to talk. The incentive for them to do so was high. A couple sold books to explain themselves, make money and to put the record straight regarding Armstrong. Landis and Hamilton spring to mind.
The same could apply to Jamaican and indeed other sprinters, who are done for doping. Are any of these men pointing the finger at Bolt? If so please post up some links, if they are not pointing the finger, why not? Let's face it, they would know a lot more than we do.
I don't think that Jamaican athletics operates a team-wide doping programme as per US Postal. Cycling, at Armstrong's level is/was a team sport. Athletics is an individual thing. And doping within athletics is an individual thing that's possibly whispered between close associates within a strictly defined and trusted inner circle. Some of them aren't pointing the finger because they probably have no hard evidence.
Also, it's widely accepted and worth remembering that Armstrong would most likely have gotten away with the whole she-bang had he not got greedy and decided to make a comeback in 2009.
Quote from: JoG2 on August 25, 2015, 04:00:27 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 03:02:13 PM
Quote from: Boycey on August 25, 2015, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2015, 06:52:18 PM
You referred to this paragraph twice. And the usual 'none so blind' twice.
Are we to believe that Bolt has run considerably faster than all of these men, fuelled only by his favoured diet of chicken nuggets? When you consider the other high-profile Jamaican athletes, such as Veronica Campbell Brown and Sherone Simpson, who have fallen foul of doping rules, coupled with the historically lax approach of Jamaican officials to anti-doping, it all starts to look rather ominous. Is Bolt really the only high-profile Jamaican not to succumb to doping? The fastest man in the history of humankind, who trains with dopers, races against known dopers and has been linked with a notorious Mexican chemist. Surely not!
I don't read that as stating that Bolt was caught and that there is a big cover up.
I read it as suggesting that it is highly unlikely Bolt isn't juicing.
Now again please, for the completely 'blind', where in that paragraph does it clearly point to him being caught and it being covered up, as against the suggestion that it is unlikely that he is the only one not juicing?
He's saying that other high profile Jamaican athetes have been caught, which would indicate that they do indeed test, and test enough to catch a few of the dopers (even the high-profile ones). He then says that this is coupled with Jamaica's histoically lax approach to "anti-doping" - ie. not drug testing. This is where my opinion came from.
Lance Armstrong's famous "I've never failed a drugs test" line should read "I've never failed a drugs test that you guys know about"
I honestly don't see what you are implying, but you may be right. He may be treating very carefully due to libel laws etc.
The difference with Armstrong and Bolt is that while they were winning, Armstrong's cheating teammates were not failing tests or at least not publicly. Bolt's are.
I think you're proving my point here muppet. If Armstrong's teammates had been cheating and failing tests (like Bolt's) and he was still massively outperforming them, would logic not lead you to conclude that either:
1. Some sort of cover up was going on wrt Armstrong's test results
2. Armstrong was Superman
I've been half following this conversation, did you show yet where he's been caught doping or did you back your way out of that one??
Instead of taking time to post, maybe you should use that time to read back through. I believe the phrase is "close your mouth and open your ears".
Franko - "Bolt has been caught"
that's all you need to know Boycey, there in black & white :-)
A wonderful contribution. Thanks.
Armstrong was a Narcissist. I accept cycling is structured differently, particularly from the team pov, but human nature is the same.
But if the suggestion is that Bolt failed a test, and that it was covered up, presumably in Jamaica (?), then those Jamaicans that were hung out to dry must be pretty pissed off watching Bolt the world's poster child, while they are Asafa Powell the drugs cheat etc .
If he failed in a major championship and it was covered up, then it is amazing to me that not a whisper has been said anywhere. There are lots of people who could make money, even just telling the story. There would be lots of athletes who have been banned, who would be happy to point the finger too. Gatlin is refusing to speak to the BBC because they call him 2 time drugs cheat all the time. Not to mention the whole Good versus Evil portrayal of his duel with Bolt.
I'd imagine if he had a sniff of evidence he would be singing from the rooftops.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:43:48 PM
Armstrong was a Narcissist. I accept cycling is structured differently, particularly from the team pov, but human nature is the same.
But if the suggestion is that Bolt failed a test, and that it was covered up, presumably in Jamaica (?), then those Jamaicans that were hung out to dry must be pretty pissed off watching Bolt the world's poster child, while they are Asafa Powell the drugs cheat etc .
If he failed in a major championship and it was covered up, then it is amazing to me that not a whisper has been said anywhere. There are lots of people who could make money, even just telling the story. There would be lots of athletes who have been banned, who would be happy to point the finger too. Gatlin is refusing to speak to the BBC because they call him 2 time drugs cheat all the time. Not to mention the whole Good versus Evil portrayal of his duel with Bolt.
I'd imagine if he had a sniff of evidence he would be singing from the rooftops.
I understand this. But there are many ways to make it in a guy's own interests to stay quiet. Lance nearly did it with many tens of people. If he hadn't been such an arrogant and obnoxious bollix he might have managed it. It was only after the lid came off that things started to really come out about him. It may never come out in Bolt's case, but equally, I will never be convinced that he's clean.
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 05:51:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:43:48 PM
Armstrong was a Narcissist. I accept cycling is structured differently, particularly from the team pov, but human nature is the same.
But if the suggestion is that Bolt failed a test, and that it was covered up, presumably in Jamaica (?), then those Jamaicans that were hung out to dry must be pretty pissed off watching Bolt the world's poster child, while they are Asafa Powell the drugs cheat etc .
If he failed in a major championship and it was covered up, then it is amazing to me that not a whisper has been said anywhere. There are lots of people who could make money, even just telling the story. There would be lots of athletes who have been banned, who would be happy to point the finger too. Gatlin is refusing to speak to the BBC because they call him 2 time drugs cheat all the time. Not to mention the whole Good versus Evil portrayal of his duel with Bolt.
I'd imagine if he had a sniff of evidence he would be singing from the rooftops.
I understand this. But there are many ways to make it in a guy's own interests to stay quiet. Lance nearly did it with many tens of people. If he hadn't been such an arrogant and obnoxious bollix he might have managed it. It was only after the lid came off that things started to really come out about him. It may never come out in Bolt's case, but equally, I will never be convinced that he's clean.
The thing is, if there is a systematic cover up, it will come out in the end. It always does.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:53:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 05:51:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:43:48 PM
Armstrong was a Narcissist. I accept cycling is structured differently, particularly from the team pov, but human nature is the same.
But if the suggestion is that Bolt failed a test, and that it was covered up, presumably in Jamaica (?), then those Jamaicans that were hung out to dry must be pretty pissed off watching Bolt the world's poster child, while they are Asafa Powell the drugs cheat etc .
If he failed in a major championship and it was covered up, then it is amazing to me that not a whisper has been said anywhere. There are lots of people who could make money, even just telling the story. There would be lots of athletes who have been banned, who would be happy to point the finger too. Gatlin is refusing to speak to the BBC because they call him 2 time drugs cheat all the time. Not to mention the whole Good versus Evil portrayal of his duel with Bolt.
I'd imagine if he had a sniff of evidence he would be singing from the rooftops.
I understand this. But there are many ways to make it in a guy's own interests to stay quiet. Lance nearly did it with many tens of people. If he hadn't been such an arrogant and obnoxious bollix he might have managed it. It was only after the lid came off that things started to really come out about him. It may never come out in Bolt's case, but equally, I will never be convinced that he's clean.
The thing is, if there is a systematic cover up, it will come out in the end. It always does.
I hope you're right. And if it does, I won't even say I told you so!
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:53:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 05:51:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:43:48 PM
Armstrong was a Narcissist. I accept cycling is structured differently, particularly from the team pov, but human nature is the same.
But if the suggestion is that Bolt failed a test, and that it was covered up, presumably in Jamaica (?), then those Jamaicans that were hung out to dry must be pretty pissed off watching Bolt the world's poster child, while they are Asafa Powell the drugs cheat etc .
If he failed in a major championship and it was covered up, then it is amazing to me that not a whisper has been said anywhere. There are lots of people who could make money, even just telling the story. There would be lots of athletes who have been banned, who would be happy to point the finger too. Gatlin is refusing to speak to the BBC because they call him 2 time drugs cheat all the time. Not to mention the whole Good versus Evil portrayal of his duel with Bolt.
I'd imagine if he had a sniff of evidence he would be singing from the rooftops.
I understand this. But there are many ways to make it in a guy's own interests to stay quiet. Lance nearly did it with many tens of people. If he hadn't been such an arrogant and obnoxious bollix he might have managed it. It was only after the lid came off that things started to really come out about him. It may never come out in Bolt's case, but equally, I will never be convinced that he's clean.
The thing is, if there is a systematic cover up, it will come out in the end. It always does.
Flo Jo, Miguel Indurain are widely accepted to be dopers (I'm sure there were plenty of others) but to the best of my knowledge were not caught.
Quote from: yellowcard on August 25, 2015, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:53:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 05:51:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:43:48 PM
Armstrong was a Narcissist. I accept cycling is structured differently, particularly from the team pov, but human nature is the same.
But if the suggestion is that Bolt failed a test, and that it was covered up, presumably in Jamaica (?), then those Jamaicans that were hung out to dry must be pretty pissed off watching Bolt the world's poster child, while they are Asafa Powell the drugs cheat etc .
If he failed in a major championship and it was covered up, then it is amazing to me that not a whisper has been said anywhere. There are lots of people who could make money, even just telling the story. There would be lots of athletes who have been banned, who would be happy to point the finger too. Gatlin is refusing to speak to the BBC because they call him 2 time drugs cheat all the time. Not to mention the whole Good versus Evil portrayal of his duel with Bolt.
I'd imagine if he had a sniff of evidence he would be singing from the rooftops.
I understand this. But there are many ways to make it in a guy's own interests to stay quiet. Lance nearly did it with many tens of people. If he hadn't been such an arrogant and obnoxious bollix he might have managed it. It was only after the lid came off that things started to really come out about him. It may never come out in Bolt's case, but equally, I will never be convinced that he's clean.
The thing is, if there is a systematic cover up, it will come out in the end. It always does.
Flo Jo, Miguel Indurain are widely accepted to be dopers (I'm sure there were plenty of others) but to the best of my knowledge were not caught.
Your point is correct, but if was different times, and there still was smoke.....
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/FLO-JO+DID+USE+DRUGS+TO+WIN%3b+Steroids+transformed+her+says+training...-a060559543 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/FLO-JO+DID+USE+DRUGS+TO+WIN%3b+Steroids+transformed+her+says+training...-a060559543)
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/drugs-in-sport-indurain-allowed-to-use-banned-drug-1379584.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/drugs-in-sport-indurain-allowed-to-use-banned-drug-1379584.html)
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 06:12:40 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on August 25, 2015, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:53:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 05:51:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:43:48 PM
Armstrong was a Narcissist. I accept cycling is structured differently, particularly from the team pov, but human nature is the same.
But if the suggestion is that Bolt failed a test, and that it was covered up, presumably in Jamaica (?), then those Jamaicans that were hung out to dry must be pretty pissed off watching Bolt the world's poster child, while they are Asafa Powell the drugs cheat etc .
If he failed in a major championship and it was covered up, then it is amazing to me that not a whisper has been said anywhere. There are lots of people who could make money, even just telling the story. There would be lots of athletes who have been banned, who would be happy to point the finger too. Gatlin is refusing to speak to the BBC because they call him 2 time drugs cheat all the time. Not to mention the whole Good versus Evil portrayal of his duel with Bolt.
I'd imagine if he had a sniff of evidence he would be singing from the rooftops.
I understand this. But there are many ways to make it in a guy's own interests to stay quiet. Lance nearly did it with many tens of people. If he hadn't been such an arrogant and obnoxious bollix he might have managed it. It was only after the lid came off that things started to really come out about him. It may never come out in Bolt's case, but equally, I will never be convinced that he's clean.
The thing is, if there is a systematic cover up, it will come out in the end. It always does.
Flo Jo, Miguel Indurain are widely accepted to be dopers (I'm sure there were plenty of others) but to the best of my knowledge were not caught.
Your point is correct, but if was different times, and there still was smoke.....
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/FLO-JO+DID+USE+DRUGS+TO+WIN%3b+Steroids+transformed+her+says+training...-a060559543 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/FLO-JO+DID+USE+DRUGS+TO+WIN%3b+Steroids+transformed+her+says+training...-a060559543)
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/drugs-in-sport-indurain-allowed-to-use-banned-drug-1379584.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/drugs-in-sport-indurain-allowed-to-use-banned-drug-1379584.html)
I don't think there is any doubt Indurain doped. But he was a freak as well. Lowest recorded resting heart rate of a cyclist ever I- 28 beats a minute.
The measurement was taken very early in his career . His lung capacity was twice a normal man's and his VO2 Max was way above Lance Armstrong's. He was also a very talented young cyclist.
Not suggesting he didn't dope- everyone did at that time. But I think in a clean race he'd have won anyway- not that it makes it right.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:53:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on August 25, 2015, 05:51:39 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 05:43:48 PM
Armstrong was a Narcissist. I accept cycling is structured differently, particularly from the team pov, but human nature is the same.
But if the suggestion is that Bolt failed a test, and that it was covered up, presumably in Jamaica (?), then those Jamaicans that were hung out to dry must be pretty pissed off watching Bolt the world's poster child, while they are Asafa Powell the drugs cheat etc .
If he failed in a major championship and it was covered up, then it is amazing to me that not a whisper has been said anywhere. There are lots of people who could make money, even just telling the story. There would be lots of athletes who have been banned, who would be happy to point the finger too. Gatlin is refusing to speak to the BBC because they call him 2 time drugs cheat all the time. Not to mention the whole Good versus Evil portrayal of his duel with Bolt.
I'd imagine if he had a sniff of evidence he would be singing from the rooftops.
I understand this. But there are many ways to make it in a guy's own interests to stay quiet. Lance nearly did it with many tens of people. If he hadn't been such an arrogant and obnoxious bollix he might have managed it. It was only after the lid came off that things started to really come out about him. It may never come out in Bolt's case, but equally, I will never be convinced that he's clean.
The thing is, if there is a systematic cover up, it will come out in the end. It always does.
One thing to note about Jamacian sprinter's recent positive drug tests.
Some well sports scientists have remarked to Richard Moore in his recent book on Jamacian sprinting that they don't believe there exists a structured doping culture on the Island. For the following reasons:
- they get popped for using sports supplements in most cases. Usually with a banned substance not labelled on the product. In a systematic drug regime like the Americans or the US Postal team they rarely if ever got popped for using supplements - because their doctors would have picked it up. ie a sophisticated drug regime
- Sprinting is a culture on the Island. Kids at 5/6 are taught the mechanics and bio-mechanics of how to run properly from a technical point of view. Often at 5 years of age. Not even the U.S. do this.
- An extremely homophobic country whereby it is a culturally unacceptable to watch another man to pee into a cup.
They said they don't believe there is no doping in Jamacian athletics- but they claim it's nonsense to say there is a systematic regime of doping like other countries because the country hasn't the infrastructure and is too badly organised to have one.
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/an-inconvenient-truth.html (http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/an-inconvenient-truth.html)
An Inconvenient Truth
This is territory I've covered before, but it bears repeating.
In 2009, the New York Times reported that the International Tennis Federation (ITF) conducted EPO tests "only if blood screening indicates a player may be using the drug."
On February 20, 2012 I asked the ITF to confirm the reporting of the New York Times. On February 21, 2012 I received a response from the ITF. The person from the ITF communications department who responded to my e-mail stated that "I spoke with Dr. [Stuart] Miller about the article in the New York Times and, as he recalls, he was quoted correctly about the programme at the time."
Further, in August 2013, ITF anti-doping manager Stuart Miller told Barry Flatman of The Sunday Times the following: "What we used to do was what are called 'blood screenings', which were samples we collected and sent to a local laboratory or haematology lab that were screened for evidence, a non-sanctioned analysis which would give us an indication of whether players were likely to be using EPO or an oxygen enhancing agent."
These statements by the ITF mean that, at the time, EPO tests were only triggered by a blood screening indicating a player may be using the drug (i.e., they were targeted tests based on blood screening results and not random). I examined the ITF's anti-doping statistics for 2008 and 2009 for the players that received an EPO test (again, the EPO test was conducted because, as per ITF policy, a blood screening indicated the player may be using the drug).
The tables are below.
As you'll see, many players tested were (and currently are) highly ranked, including a number of Grand Slam winners.
The EPO data raises a number of questions:
(1) What were the blood parameter values from the blood screenings that indicated these players may be using EPO?
(2) Given the number of EPO test triggered, how is it that no tennis player has committed an anti-doping rule violation for using EPO?
(3) Will the ITF or the players in question release the blood screening results for independent analysis?
(4) Did the ITF retest any stored samples based on blood screening results?
Here are the EPO tests conducted by the ITF in 2009:
Competition Last Name First Name Test date
Roland Garros Verdasco Fernando 28/05/2009
Roland Garros Azarenka Victoria 26/05/2009
Roland Garros Vesnina Elena 26/05/2009
Roland Garros Kuznetsova Svetlana 02/06/2009
Wimbledon Djokovic Novak 01/07/2009
Wimbledon Hewitt Lleyton 01/07/2009
Wimbledon Karlovic Ivo 01/07/2009
Wimbledon Bryan Bob 04/07/2009
Wimbledon Bryan Mike 04/07/2009
Wimbledon Nestor Daniel 04/07/2009
Wimbledon Zimonjic Nenad 04/07/2009
Wimbledon Federer Roger 05/07/2009
Wimbledon Knowles Mark 05/07/2009
Wimbledon Roddick Andy 05/07/2009
Wimbledon Lisicki Sabine 30/06/2009
Wimbledon Radwanska Agnieszka 30/06/2009
Wimbledon Schiavone Francesca 30/06/2009
Wimbledon Stosur Samantha 04/07/2009
Wimbledon Groenefeld Anna-Lena 05/07/2009
US Open Makarova Ekatarina 10/09/2009
US Open Williams Serena 14/09/2009
And here are the players who were tested for EPO in 2008:
Competition Last Name First Name Test date
Australian Open Mirza Sania 27/01/2008
Roland Garros Bondarenko Alona 26/05/2008
Roland Garros Chardy Jeremy 01/06/2008
Roland Garros Huber Liezel 04/06/2008
Roland Garros Black Cara 04/06/2008
Roland Garros Vemic Dusan 05/06/2008
Roland Garros Cuevas Pablo 07/06/2008
US Open Spears Abigail 03/09/2008
US Open Gonzalez Maximo 03/09/2008
US Open Sugiyama Ai 04/09/2008
Paris Open Del Potro Juan Martin 30/10/2008
Paris Open Simon Gilles 30/10/2008
Paris Open Nadal Rafael 31/10/2008
Paris Open Murray Andy 31/10/2008
Paris Open Federer Roger 31/10/2008
Paris Open Roddick Andy 31/10/2008
Paris Open Davydenko Nicolay 01/11/2008
Paris Open Blake James 01/11/2008
Paris Open Nalbandian David 02/11/2008
Paris Open Tsonga Jo-Wilfried 02/11/2008
Out-of-Competition Llagostera Vives Nuria 24-Apr-08
Out-of-Competition Martinez Sanchez Maria-Jose 24-Apr-08
Out-of-Competition Suarez-Navarro Carla 24-Apr-08
Out-of-Competition Zheng Jie 24-Apr-08
Out-of-Competition Cravero Jorgelina 24-Apr-08
Out-of-Competition Dulko Gisela 25-Apr-08
Out-of-Competition Jozami Betina 25-Apr-08
Out-of-Competition Salerni Maria Emilia 25-Apr-08
Out-of-Competition Peer Shahar 20-Jul-08
Out-of-Competition Pennetta Flavia 20-Jul-08
Out-of-Competition Safina Dinara 20-Jul-08
Out-of-Competition Vaidisova Nicole 20-Jul-08
Out-of-Competition Zvonareva Vera 20-Jul-08
Out-of-Competition Ivanovic Ana 11-Oct-08
Out-of-Competition Szavay Agnes 11-Oct-08
Out-of-Competition Kirilenko Maria 11-Oct-08
Out-of-Competition Bartoli Marion 11-Oct-08
Out-of-Competition Azarenka Victoria 11-Oct-08
Out-of-competition Coria Guillermo 06-Jul-08
Out-of-competition Del Potro Juan Martin 06-Jul-08
Out-of-competition Huss Stephen 06-Jul-08
Out-of-competition Hutchins Ross 06-Jul-08
Out-of-competition Djokovic Novak 20-Jul-08
Out-of-competition Federer Roger 20-Jul-08
Out-of-competition Mathieu Paul-Henri 20-Jul-08
Out-of-competition Robredo Tommy 20-Jul-08
Out-of-competition Federer Roger 12-Oct-08
Out-of-competition Nadal Rafael 12-Oct-08
Out-of-competition Ferrer David 12-Oct-08
Out-of-competition Youzhny Mikhail 12-Oct-08
Out-of-competition Andreev Igor 12-Oct-08
Out-of-competition Ancic Mario 12-Dec-08
Out-of-competition Davydenko Nikolay 06-Dec-08
Out-of-competition Djokovic Novak 22-Dec-08
Out-of-competition Kanepi Kaia 28-Dec-08
Out-of-competition Pennetta Flavia 13-Dec-08
Out-of-competition Radwanska Agnieszka 16-Dec-08
Out-of-competition Schiavone Francesca 13-Dec-08
Out-of-competition Tanasugarn Tamarine 28-Dec-08
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-dopping-athletics-kenya-idUSKCN0QU1MY20150825 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-dopping-athletics-kenya-idUSKCN0QU1MY20150825)
Kenyan athletes warned of doping tests, says ARD
Some Kenyan athletes were warned ahead of unannounced doping tests and a banned runner accused athletics officials of demanding money to hide positive tests, German state broadcaster ARD reported on Tuesday.
ARD and Britain's Sunday Times reported recently that the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had not followed up on hundreds of suspicious doping tests, throwing the sport into turmoil.
ARD has reported on allegations of doping in Kenyan athletics in the past.
In the latest report on Kenyan athletes, Frimin Kiplagat Kipchoge, a former runner who works with athletes, said some testers called up athletes ahead of their visits and were willing to reschedule them if they were not available.
According to doping rules, unannounced tests can take place at any time with the athlete having to register his or her daily whereabouts with a central system so as to be available for drug-testing, both in and out of competition.
Banned athlete Ronald Kipchumba, who tested positive for blood-boosting EPO in 2012, told ARD some athletics officials in the country were also demanding money from them to bury positive tests.
The governing body of athletics has been in crisis since the data from thousands of blood samples was leaked to the two media organizations this month.
Three weeks of further leaks and allegations that the IAAF has been soft on dopers overshadowed the run-up to its biennial showpiece, the world athletics championships, which opened in Beijing last week.
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) chief Craig Reedie told ARD Kenyan authorities were aware of what was needed to be done in the fight against doping, when he was asked if WADA would launch a separate investigation into the country's athletes.
WADA has launched two separate investigations into previous ARD allegations of doping.
(Reporting by Karolos Grohmann, editing by Ed Osmond)
That Tennis post is amazing Jim.
Why do you think we have not heard more about it? Why is it that tennis players, with suspicious results, could be getting a free ride?
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 07:53:51 PM
That Tennis post is amazing Jim.
Why do you think we have not heard more about it? Why is it that tennis players, with suspicious results, could be getting a free ride?
Why do you think Lance got a free ride.
Rugby and soccer players get a free ride
Athletes get a free ride
Money
Quote from: INDIANA on August 25, 2015, 07:57:03 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 07:53:51 PM
That Tennis post is amazing Jim.
Why do you think we have not heard more about it? Why is it that tennis players, with suspicious results, could be getting a free ride?
Why do you think Lance got a free ride.
Rugby and soccer players get a free ride
Athletes get a free ride
Money
I don't recall even Lance getting a free ride once data regarding suspicious blood tests were in the public domain.
If you can show similar suspicious data to the above for soccer & rugby or even athletics (other than the recent leak) I'll agree with you.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 07:59:53 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on August 25, 2015, 07:57:03 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 07:53:51 PM
That Tennis post is amazing Jim.
Why do you think we have not heard more about it? Why is it that tennis players, with suspicious results, could be getting a free ride?
Why do you think Lance got a free ride.
Rugby and soccer players get a free ride
Athletes get a free ride
Money
I don't recall even Lance getting a free ride once data regarding suspicious blood tests were in the public domain.
If you can show similar suspicious data to the above for soccer & rugby or even athletics (other than the recent leak) I'll agree with you.
Conconi and Donati listed several Italian football teams in their files. Juventus being the biggest offenders. Closely followed by Milan.
Fuentes a convicted Spanish doping doctor had Nadal and the Spanish Football team as his clients. All of that is a fact- listed and documented when the office was raided.. Now if you want to believe they were simply swopping cola bottles then that's up to you. It is also said several other tennis players were on his books.
The same doctor looked after Tyler Hamilton, Contador , ullrich and Riis. But I'm sure he gave the tennis and football players legal supplements.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/67536920/soccer-doping-problem-shows-no-signs-of-stopping
There is a difference between rumours and a list of suspicious blood samples.
I happen to believe that Fuentes was doping his clients/patients. But without evidence it isn't much good.
"There allegedly exists a full list of every athlete every to be doped at Fuentes' clinic, but we may never get to read it.'
The Tennis link above shows a lost of tennis players who, if the criteria outlined but the Tennis authorities is correct, recorded suspicious blood samples regarding EPO. That would appear to be evidence. Why are the media not demanding answers from the people on that list?
Unfortunately, we don't have any such list for soccer or rugby.
But as I said before, if it is happening on a large scale, it will come out.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 08:24:43 PM
There is a difference between rumours and a list of suspicious blood samples.
I happen to believe that Fuentes was doping his clients/patients. But without evidence it isn't much good.
"There allegedly exists a full list of every athlete every to be doped at Fuentes' clinic, but we may never get to read it.'
The Tennis link above shows a lost of tennis players who, if the criteria outlined but the Tennis authorities is correct, recorded suspicious blood samples regarding EPO. That would appear to be evidence. Why are the media not demanding answers from the people on that list?
Unfortunately, we don't have any such list for soccer or rugby.
But as I said before, if it is happening on a large scale, it will come out.
There is a list for soccer. Fuentes has it. It contains some of the biggest names in World Football. It'll come out eventually
EPO is the absolute perfect drug for soccer and has been used in the sport since the mid 80's. And it's still used today
Fair play, tear on imo
Quote from: INDIANA on August 25, 2015, 08:29:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 08:24:43 PM
There is a difference between rumours and a list of suspicious blood samples.
I happen to believe that Fuentes was doping his clients/patients. But without evidence it isn't much good.
"There allegedly exists a full list of every athlete every to be doped at Fuentes' clinic, but we may never get to read it.'
The Tennis link above shows a lost of tennis players who, if the criteria outlined but the Tennis authorities is correct, recorded suspicious blood samples regarding EPO. That would appear to be evidence. Why are the media not demanding answers from the people on that list?
Unfortunately, we don't have any such list for soccer or rugby.
But as I said before, if it is happening on a large scale, it will come out.
There is a list for soccer. Fuentes has it. It contains some of the biggest names in World Football. It'll come out eventually
EPO is the absolute perfect drug for soccer and has been used in the sport since the mid 80's. And it's still used today
Is that a fact? Was it not for a similar assertion that Franko was pedantically pulled up on?
Not that I really give a fcuk and I'd probably say he does have it but it's just funny to see the double standards that exist.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/34060603 (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/34060603)
There's a surprise ;)
Quote from: trileacman on August 26, 2015, 12:06:49 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on August 25, 2015, 08:29:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 08:24:43 PM
There is a difference between rumours and a list of suspicious blood samples.
I happen to believe that Fuentes was doping his clients/patients. But without evidence it isn't much good.
"There allegedly exists a full list of every athlete every to be doped at Fuentes' clinic, but we may never get to read it.'
The Tennis link above shows a lost of tennis players who, if the criteria outlined but the Tennis authorities is correct, recorded suspicious blood samples regarding EPO. That would appear to be evidence. Why are the media not demanding answers from the people on that list?
Unfortunately, we don't have any such list for soccer or rugby.
But as I said before, if it is happening on a large scale, it will come out.
There is a list for soccer. Fuentes has it. It contains some of the biggest names in World Football. It'll come out eventually
EPO is the absolute perfect drug for soccer and has been used in the sport since the mid 80's. And it's still used today
Is that a fact? Was it not for a similar assertion that Franko was pedantically pulled up on?
Not that I really give a fcuk and I'd probably say he does have it but it's just funny to see the double standards that exist.
the list is proven to exist . It hasn't been released. There is no evidence anywhere that Bolt has doped. I'm not saying he hasn't I'm very suspicious about him .
Quote from: INDIANA on August 26, 2015, 01:09:24 PM
Quote from: trileacman on August 26, 2015, 12:06:49 AM
Quote from: INDIANA on August 25, 2015, 08:29:48 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2015, 08:24:43 PM
There is a difference between rumours and a list of suspicious blood samples.
I happen to believe that Fuentes was doping his clients/patients. But without evidence it isn't much good.
"There allegedly exists a full list of every athlete every to be doped at Fuentes' clinic, but we may never get to read it.'
The Tennis link above shows a lost of tennis players who, if the criteria outlined but the Tennis authorities is correct, recorded suspicious blood samples regarding EPO. That would appear to be evidence. Why are the media not demanding answers from the people on that list?
Unfortunately, we don't have any such list for soccer or rugby.
But as I said before, if it is happening on a large scale, it will come out.
There is a list for soccer. Fuentes has it. It contains some of the biggest names in World Football. It'll come out eventually
EPO is the absolute perfect drug for soccer and has been used in the sport since the mid 80's. And it's still used today
Is that a fact? Was it not for a similar assertion that Franko was pedantically pulled up on?
Not that I really give a fcuk and I'd probably say he does have it but it's just funny to see the double standards that exist.
the list is proven to exist . It hasn't been released. There is no evidence anywhere that Bolt has doped. I'm not saying he hasn't I'm very suspicious about him .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/10027763/Operation-Puerto-judge-sparks-outrage-by-ordering-destruction-of-blood-bags.html
Major cover up job and evidence was ordered to be destroyed to protect athletes indentities.
Orohougu doesn't quite get the mix right this year.
Quote from: Pub Bore on August 27, 2015, 01:52:24 PM
Orohougu doesn't quite get the mix right this year.
A victory for good over evil (© Steve Cram)
Bolt destroys Juicer Gatlin in the 200m
Quote from: Pub Bore on August 27, 2015, 01:58:03 PM
Bolt destroys Juicer Gatlin in the 200m
Didn't see that coming Gatlin's semi time was very good and Bolt didn't look his usual self. That was him back on form in the final though.
Some performance*
*If at some point he isn't found out to be a shnakey cheating b**tard
Quote from: Pub Bore on August 27, 2015, 01:58:03 PM
Bolt destroys Juicer Gatlin in the 200m
that's the word. He could have ran the last 30m backwards and still won
I'm amazed at some reports this week though that had Bolt's win in the 100 as a shock and were not expecting him to win the 200. The fact remains that Gatlin's best in either discipline is miles behind Bolts best. Bolt only has to run a decent race to beat him. He slowed down in the 200m again today at the end.
Quote from: JoG2 on August 27, 2015, 02:16:41 PM
Quote from: Pub Bore on August 27, 2015, 01:58:03 PM
Bolt destroys Juicer Gatlin in the 200m
that's the word. He could have ran the last 30m backwards and still won
Whenever I see/hear things like that my radar pops up. The first one I remember that looked so comfortable was Ben Johnson. Even back then when you saw him basically waltzing to the tape, you knew it was freaky. Then when the test results came out, the bubble burst on all Athletics as far as I was concerned.
Quote from: screenexile on August 27, 2015, 02:10:10 PM
Quote from: Pub Bore on August 27, 2015, 01:58:03 PM
Bolt destroys Juicer Gatlin in the 200m
Didn't see that coming Gatlin's semi time was very good and Bolt didn't look his usual self. That was him back on form in the final though.
Some performance*
*If at some point he isn't found out to be a shnakey cheating b**tard
Nah, Bolt jogged the last 70m of his semi final and still ran sub 20.
I think Bolt got it tight in the 100m and finished strong in the 200m - I think it's overhyped that he destroyed the American in the 200m he did well but he wasn't cruising - Bolt just has such a long stride and is a freak athlete. I would highly doubt he is on PED's his body type would suggest he isn't but who knows...
Quote from: The Iceman on August 27, 2015, 04:54:00 PM
I think Bolt got it tight in the 100m and finished strong in the 200m - I think it's overhyped that he destroyed the American in the 200m he did well but he wasn't cruising - Bolt just has such a long stride and is a freak athlete. I would highly doubt he is on PED's his body type would suggest he isn't but who knows...
Sure Franko does. . . have you not been reading the thread??
Quote from: The Iceman on August 27, 2015, 04:54:00 PM
I think Bolt got it tight in the 100m and finished strong in the 200m - I think it's overhyped that he destroyed the American in the 200m he did well but he wasn't cruising - Bolt just has such a long stride and is a freak athlete. I would highly doubt he is on PED's his body type would suggest he isn't but who knows...
As I said before Bolt is
destroying records set by dopers, he has been associated with well and coached by well known doping coaches (and they're only the coaches we know about), all of his main Jamaican training partners have been caught, Jamaican testing is farcical at best and he is the main cash cow in the sport. If he goes down the money and sponsors go too. Why the hell would he work with a well known doping coach, with his long stride and freakish athletic ability would he not win with any coach? Or does he need a certain type of coach to get that half second of difference! If a top cyclist went and work with Dr Ferrari what would everyone think! I would say athletics is worse than cycling for drugs at the minute.
I actually like Bolt, he seems like a decent fella, he's a great show man and his races are always great to watch. But I hate that everyone is fooled that he is some kind of saviour of the sport! he is just as bad as the rest of the dopers. At the minute he has not been found out and he may never be found out but in my opinion it is blatantly obvious what is going on.
I always felt he was clean but the fact that he pulled up near the end of some his 100ml runs niggled a bit. Is he too afraid of going even faster in case the times get so ridiculous no-one believes them.
"I've no problem with Justin Gatlin. I live for competition and respect the fact that he shows up, ready to run" - Bolt yesterday after his 200m gold.
Not sure what to make of that, but I do know if I was clean and racing against dopers, I'd be constantly moaning about having to race against cheats (the way Paula Radcliffe used to moan when she was an also-ran, then stopped moaning about drugs and became a winner)
Off twitter...
Fastest times recorded over 100m. Those who served time for drugs ban marked in red.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNc91RlWIAAi3Ow.jpg)
Quote from: The Iceman on August 27, 2015, 04:54:00 PM
I think Bolt got it tight in the 100m and finished strong in the 200m - I think it's overhyped that he destroyed the American in the 200m he did well but he wasn't cruising - Bolt just has such a long stride and is a freak athlete. I would highly doubt he is on PED's his body type would suggest he isn't but who knows...
He won by 0.2 seconds. That is a destruction.
Quote from: Hound on August 28, 2015, 09:25:30 AM
"I've no problem with Justin Gatlin. I live for competition and respect the fact that he shows up, ready to run" - Bolt yesterday after his 200m gold.
Not sure what to make of that, but I do know if I was clean and racing against dopers, I'd be constantly moaning about having to race against cheats (the way Paula Radcliffe used to moan when she was an also-ran, then stopped moaning about drugs and became a winner)
And that's what has me suspicious . It's like cycling's omertà . They seem to get on very well for an allegedly clean athlete and a known doper
When you look who Bolt hangs around with all evidence suggests doping .
Yes he was a top class underage athlete and he's a genetic freak but when something walks like a duck , talks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's usually a duck
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on August 28, 2015, 09:32:56 AM
Off twitter...
Fastest times recorded over 100m. Those who served time for drugs ban marked in red.
:o :-\
It's all a farce. I just turned on the athletics on the BBC. They're about to go into a long segment celebrating the great saviour Bolt, who's there to praise him? Radcliffe and Johnson. It's a joke!
I actually kind of wanted Gatlin to win the 100 metres to see the raction out of all those guys.
I would have my doubts over him and Farah. Farah also mingles in circles which are a bit dubious.
Dafne Schippers...eyebrow raising stuff ???
Quote from: Pub Bore on August 28, 2015, 02:05:22 PM
Dafne Schippers...eyebrow raising stuff ???
Only Flo Jo and Marion Jones have ran faster. :D
Hadn't run below 22 seconds last year and now 21:63!!! It's a Bolt like improvement. Maybe it's because she's tall and the extra stride lenght makes her super human. :D
Quote from: Teo Lurley on August 28, 2015, 02:07:01 PM
Quote from: Pub Bore on August 28, 2015, 02:05:22 PM
Dafne Schippers...eyebrow raising stuff ???
Only Flo Jo and Marion Jones have ran faster. :D
European Record, so quicker than all those pilled up East Germans :o
Straight away Mo thanks his medical team. :D
Quote from: screenexile on August 27, 2015, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on August 27, 2015, 04:54:00 PM
I think Bolt got it tight in the 100m and finished strong in the 200m - I think it's overhyped that he destroyed the American in the 200m he did well but he wasn't cruising - Bolt just has such a long stride and is a freak athlete. I would highly doubt he is on PED's his body type would suggest he isn't but who knows...
Sure Franko does. . . have you not been reading the thread??
Obviously you haven't. ::)
https://twitter.com/Matt_Lawton_DM/status/641214159984717824 (https://twitter.com/Matt_Lawton_DM/status/641214159984717824)
Quote from: Declan on September 08, 2015, 01:11:06 PM
https://twitter.com/Matt_Lawton_DM/status/641214159984717824 (https://twitter.com/Matt_Lawton_DM/status/641214159984717824)
QuoteBen Atkins @benatkins_uk 34m34 minutes ago
@Matt_Lawton_DM @mattslaterbbc Jimmy Savile?
Too soon?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34183754
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/34190297
shes clutching for supporters
Shit happens, Paula.
*nods head in agreement
http://www.paularadcliffe.com/statement-september-2015/
Quote from: pullhard on September 08, 2015, 03:44:35 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/34190297
shes clutching for supporters
Or maybe she's done nothing wrong!
Is everybody that breaks a record a doper?
Testing for red blood cells for a start is nonsense. The normal parameters are not valid because athletes that get to that level are freaks without taking any illegal substances. From the start they are special. likes of Sonia and Caitríona McKiernan. The reason they are special is because of a combination of several physiological advantages.
I'm no elite athlete but I managed to do a decent half marathon 1 week after having 3 pints of blood taken in 14 days. My haemoglobin stayed up - but most people would not be able to go down to the shop after they had that done. Red blood cell count is all over the place.
Altitude training and training in hotter temps. could affect it as well. Women and red blood cell count is even more iffy for obvious reasons.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/gerard-hartmann-i-would-swear-on-my-life-paula-radcliffe-is-clean-31512674.html (http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/gerard-hartmann-i-would-swear-on-my-life-paula-radcliffe-is-clean-31512674.html)
She certainly didn't look comfortable in that BBC interview done a couple of weeks ago. Wonder what the non verbal communication experts are seeing here?
part of it at this link here http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/34190297 (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/34190297)
I always admired her for her gritty style and was happy to see her get the global recognition fairly late in her career
The problem she has now is her credibility. You can only call for transparency if you're transparent yourself - if you don't you look hypocritical.
I don't actually believe she did anything. There are a lot of complexities to blood data which the average Joe, very much including me, wouldn't know and journalists are having a field day sensationalising with that.
However she has really shot herself in the foot.
Quote from: pullhard on September 08, 2015, 10:33:00 PM
http://www.paularadcliffe.com/statement-september-2015/
That's a very strong defence from someone who hasn't been accused of anything.
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport (https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport)
Just follow some of the conversations here - fascinating stuff
In the last month
Athletics
Rugby
Cycling
Boxing
and they're just the high profile ones.
Is there any sport out there that isn't touched by drugs?
Golf? Would there be much use of PEDs in golf, apart from maybe increasing drive distance by increasing strength?
Quote from: Mike Tyson on September 10, 2015, 10:36:25 AM
Golf? Would there be much use of PEDs in golf, apart from maybe increasing drive distance by increasing strength?
Ask Vijay
Beta-blockers.
You could look at Radcliffe and have suspicions purely on the fact that she holds the world record in the marathon (so many years after setting it) in an event dominated by Africans. That, coupled with her pretty average track career, would lead many to question the authenticity of her achievements.
Farah obviously has his own critics too, especially when you look at the fact he only started to become a player on the world stage at the age of 27/28 and that was around the time he started working with Salazar who by all accounts is fond of supplying his athletes with illegal supplements.
Quote from: Pub Bore on September 09, 2015, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: pullhard on September 08, 2015, 10:33:00 PM
http://www.paularadcliffe.com/statement-september-2015/
That's a very strong defence from someone who hasn't been accused of anything.
Agreed. I don't believe a word she says.
Quote from: nrico2006 on September 10, 2015, 10:49:58 AM
You could look at Radcliffe and have suspicions purely on the fact that she holds the world record in the marathon (so many years after setting it) in an event dominated by Africans. That, coupled with her pretty average track career, would lead many to question the authenticity of her achievements.
Farah obviously has his own critics too, especially when you look at the fact he only started to become a player on the world stage at the age of 27/28 and that was around the time he started working with Salazar who by all accounts is fond of supplying his athletes with illegal supplements.
Sally Gunnell and Kelly Holmes are always the 2 that spring to my mind....there is not a hope that they weren't up to their eyes in whatever the rage was , enhancement wise, in their day (imo).
Linford too, but he was caught as far as I know. The other 2 were lucky
Mo Farrah and Paula Radcliffe had to have been on the juice as well.
Linford was actually caught in a comeback from retirement race.
Farah, as well as working with Salazar, has been seen training with an ethiopian guy who's currently serving 2 years for doping.
I'm not convinced Radcliffe is guilty - I don't think she was at it. She has handled it pretty badly though.
No on Gunnell or Holmes too.
At this rate no one is clean in Athletics or any other money spinning sport!!!!
Which then surely makes it ok as everyone else is so there is no one getting an advantage on anyone else
I know you are being facetious, but it's not okay. Even if there was carte blanche and we knew the playing field was level in that perspective, it would be extremely dangerous to the health of the athletes, and to all the other athletes aspiring to be like them.
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 10, 2015, 11:43:09 AM
I know you are being facetious, but it's not okay. Even if there was carte blanche and we knew the playing field was level in that perspective, it would be extremely dangerous to the health of the athletes, and to all the other athletes aspiring to be like them.
I am and yes this has to be controlled somehow but unless they spend the money (which they don't have) on proper regular checks with the most up to date testing kits that can test for every type of enhancement then you will get people risking it to achieve (in their own mind) medals/money/fame
Keeping things like this a secret seems to be the hardest thing, how many people are involved, sports person/ coach/ manager/ family/ the drug guy????? surely someone will get pissed off and write a book about it.. massive secret to keep
Money is not an issue - there is enough money in professional sports to keep them clean. The question is - is there enough will?
I would have said a lot of money is spent on tests.
One of the big problems is that it's a reactive business. The guys doping are one step ahead of the testers. You have to reveal what you're testing for and then with blood results etc the doctors / chemists stay within these parameters.
Then the testers will find new substances etc which will be made illegal and the guys guilty will just move on to the next thing and stop with that.
Then there is the unavailability for testing. Reading Chambers book there was a simple trick. Fill your mobiles message inbox then they can never leave a message and you are uncontactable. You then make yourself contactable when whatever is out of your system.
There are things with whereabouts but it you could probably make it plausible enough to make yourself unavailable.
If they were to go back to samples from the 80s and 90s then a lot would be found guilty too but whatever was taken then wasn't illegal. Even in cycling EPO was ok up until a certain point (not exactly sure on this but maybe late 90s?). Armstrong had it in his blood before it was banned.
On the brits ohorugu I think missed 3 tests and was given a bye ball.
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 10, 2015, 11:28:22 AM
Linford was actually caught in a comeback from retirement race.
Farah, as well as working with Salazar, has been seen training with an ethiopian guy who's currently serving 2 years for doping.
I'm not convinced Radcliffe is guilty - I don't think she was at it. She has handled it pretty badly though.
No on Gunnell or Holmes too.
For some reason I'd be in the same boat.
Call it gut or naivety but a lot seems to be based on the fact she broke a world record that remains unbroken. I've read articles in support of her that outline her track record and cross country background as been indicators of her potential over longer distances on the road. Her record was achieved on a perfect day for marathon running on a fast course with a male pacer more or less the whole way, all these fall into place and its unusual to do so. She has challenged the record herself, so not as if she hasn't got close to these times before. The depth of womens marathon running is way off the mens field, so the challenges aren't there to push to this time yet.
The articles and speculation about her alleged guilt seem to be a lot of hearsay and indicators rather than hard factual information.
Maybe she is guilty and it will come out later but to me she seems like someone trying hard to prove her innocence and feels that the other way to do so is speak out and deny it. In those cases it can be very difficult to deny something when you aren't sure of what exactly you are supposed to have done, when you did it and why it has come out how. She can only comment on her bloods that many argue is a flawed procedure with many possible variants.
I'm open to the fact she could have juiced but i'd give her the benefit of doubt.
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 10, 2015, 11:28:22 AM
Linford was actually caught in a comeback from retirement race.
Farah, as well as working with Salazar, has been seen training with an ethiopian guy who's currently serving 2 years for doping.
I'm not convinced Radcliffe is guilty - I don't think she was at it. She has handled it pretty badly though.
No on Gunnell or Holmes too.
Gunnell famously changed hotels at the last minute to avoid the dopers at a World championships or what not. She didn't fail the test, but went to huge lengths to avoid one, but seemed to have inside information ahead of the dopers...
Quote from: Bingo on September 10, 2015, 11:59:02 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 10, 2015, 11:28:22 AM
Linford was actually caught in a comeback from retirement race.
Farah, as well as working with Salazar, has been seen training with an ethiopian guy who's currently serving 2 years for doping.
I'm not convinced Radcliffe is guilty - I don't think she was at it. She has handled it pretty badly though.
No on Gunnell or Holmes too.
For some reason I'd be in the same boat.
Call it gut or naivety but a lot seems to be based on the fact she broke a world record that remains unbroken. I've read articles in support of her that outline her track record and cross country background as been indicators of her potential over longer distances on the road. Her record was achieved on a perfect day for marathon running on a fast course with a male pacer more or less the whole way, all these fall into place and its unusual to do so. She has challenged the record herself, so not as if she hasn't got close to these times before. The depth of womens marathon running is way off the mens field, so the challenges aren't there to push to this time yet.
The articles and speculation about her alleged guilt seem to be a lot of hearsay and indicators rather than hard factual information.
Maybe she is guilty and it will come out later but to me she seems like someone trying hard to prove her innocence and feels that the other way to do so is speak out and deny it. In those cases it can be very difficult to deny something when you aren't sure of what exactly you are supposed to have done, when you did it and why it has come out how. She can only comment on her bloods that many argue is a flawed procedure with many possible variants.
I'm open to the fact she could have juiced but i'd give her the benefit of doubt.
Yeah likewise I would give her benefit of doubt but would be open to the fact she may have. She won world cross so proved her strength there but just didn't have the speed to kick on in the track. Strength a bigger factor than speed, within reason(Look at Farah in London), in a marathon. She was 4th in an olympic(or was it world) 10,000 so not like she had absolutely no pedigree on track either. There is this perception that she was a failed athlete until the marathon but that is nto the case.
Didn't know that on Gunnell Johnney. Maybe jury out on her too!
But Holmes?!!!!!!
Quote from: Bingo on September 10, 2015, 11:59:02 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 10, 2015, 11:28:22 AM
Linford was actually caught in a comeback from retirement race.
Farah, as well as working with Salazar, has been seen training with an ethiopian guy who's currently serving 2 years for doping.
I'm not convinced Radcliffe is guilty - I don't think she was at it. She has handled it pretty badly though.
No on Gunnell or Holmes too.
For some reason I'd be in the same boat.
Call it gut or naivety but a lot seems to be based on the fact she broke a world record that remains unbroken. I've read articles in support of her that outline her track record and cross country background as been indicators of her potential over longer distances on the road. Her record was achieved on a perfect day for marathon running on a fast course with a male pacer more or less the whole way, all these fall into place and its unusual to do so. She has challenged the record herself, so not as if she hasn't got close to these times before. The depth of womens marathon running is way off the mens field, so the challenges aren't there to push to this time yet.
The articles and speculation about her alleged guilt seem to be a lot of hearsay and indicators rather than hard factual information.
Maybe she is guilty and it will come out later but to me she seems like someone trying hard to prove her innocence and feels that the other way to do so is speak out and deny it. In those cases it can be very difficult to deny something when you aren't sure of what exactly you are supposed to have done, when you did it and why it has come out how. She can only comment on her bloods that many argue is a flawed procedure with many possible variants.
I'm open to the fact she could have juiced but i'd give her the benefit of doubt.
A lot of it is based on that she didn't want her blood results released because she knew they were suspicious.
Maybe she is innocent but then pretty much any athlete ever accused of cheating could use
... has pointed out her blood test results, which have been called into question, could have been skewed by factors such as altitude training, taking antibiotics and post-race dehydration. Is peoples gut feeling more to do with Paula being white, middle class, slightly innocent looking. If it was Frankie Fredericks saying
... has pointed out his blood test results, which have been called into question, could have been skewed by factors such as altitude training, taking antibiotics and post-race dehydration. would he get much sympathy?
Isn't the whole argument about releasing blood tests that they are so open to interpretation and speculation in isolation and by the public that very few athletes are willing to do it?
Quote from: Bingo on September 10, 2015, 01:29:19 PM
Isn't the whole argument about releasing blood tests that they are so open to interpretation and speculation in isolation and by the public that very few athletes are willing to do it?
Lots of athletes are willing to have them released e.g. Mo Farah.
Of course they are open to interpretation, that's the point of them, so that they can be interpreted.
Radcliffe made a rod for her own back by setting herself up as the conscience of the sport. Caesar's wife and all that.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/doping-crisis-paula-radcliffe-should-just-come-clean-and-make-all-her-data-public-10493824.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/doping-crisis-paula-radcliffe-should-just-come-clean-and-make-all-her-data-public-10493824.html)
Then there is Radcliffe – so prepared for Norman's gaffe that she had a lengthy four-page defence ready to press the button on. She was neither named nor accused of anything in Parliament, and yet her haste in getting her side of the story across suggested she was waiting for this moment, which has turned the narrative into one about an MP denigrating a national heroine.
Then UK Athletics chief Ed Warner said Coe's comments were justifiable as he had an IAAF presidential election to win and accused the British press of "some lazy shorthand journalism at times" this summer. We had to assume he was describing the Daily Mail's entirely justifiable decision to report that, shortly before the London Olympics in 2012, Mo Farah failed to answer the door to drug testers who had been instructed to ring his doorbell repeatedly over the course of an hour.
Quote from: Declan on September 10, 2015, 02:47:20 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/doping-crisis-paula-radcliffe-should-just-come-clean-and-make-all-her-data-public-10493824.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/doping-crisis-paula-radcliffe-should-just-come-clean-and-make-all-her-data-public-10493824.html)
QuoteThen there is Radcliffe – so prepared for Norman's gaffe that she had a lengthy four-page defence ready to press the button on.
;D
Quote from: deiseach on September 10, 2015, 02:49:17 PM
Quote from: Declan on September 10, 2015, 02:47:20 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/doping-crisis-paula-radcliffe-should-just-come-clean-and-make-all-her-data-public-10493824.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/doping-crisis-paula-radcliffe-should-just-come-clean-and-make-all-her-data-public-10493824.html)
QuoteThen there is Radcliffe – so prepared for Norman's gaffe that she had a lengthy four-page defence ready to press the button on.
;D
She would have known about this coming to light ages ago, and what other Marathon winning Brit would they have been talking about? Radcliffe has got her retaliation in first it seems, whether she's guilty or not she's taken the initiative...
For the sport I hope she's not guilty and not because she's white middle class nice looking bird, no just for the sport as it's taking a bit of a battering and I'd be so keen to get my daughter more hooked on a sport she loves doing without the cloud of drugs hanging over it all the time
That's a disgraceful comment. Paula Radcliffe is not a 'nice looking bird' :) Jessica Ennis now...
Airbus released the ACARS system messages from the doomed AF 447 computers, very shortly after it went missing, despite the fact that 99% of the population wouldn't have a clue what they were about and the 1% that did understand the messages, would still find it completely perplexing.
But they still released the data immediately.
I find the argument that some athletes won't release their blood data to the public, because it might be 'misunderstood', very odd, unless of course the data itself is very odd.
Quote from: muppet on September 10, 2015, 03:36:46 PM
Airbus released the ACARS system messages from the doomed AF 447 computers, very shortly after it went missing, despite the fact that 99% of the population wouldn't have a clue what they were about and the 1% that did understand the messages, would still find it completely perplexing.
But they still released the data immediately.
I find the argument that some athletes won't release their blood data to the public, because it might be 'misunderstood', very odd, unless of course the data itself is very odd.
Well, I can see it in one sense. People are now predisposed to assume guilt in these cases, so any sort of hard to interpret data will make people start shouting about your guilt.
In the past though, did Paula Radcliffe not actively seek results to be made public?
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 10, 2015, 03:45:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 10, 2015, 03:36:46 PM
Airbus released the ACARS system messages from the doomed AF 447 computers, very shortly after it went missing, despite the fact that 99% of the population wouldn't have a clue what they were about and the 1% that did understand the messages, would still find it completely perplexing.
But they still released the data immediately.
I find the argument that some athletes won't release their blood data to the public, because it might be 'misunderstood', very odd, unless of course the data itself is very odd.
Well, I can see it in one sense. People are now predisposed to assume guilt in these cases, so any sort of hard to interpret data will make people start shouting about your guilt.
In the past though, did Paula Radcliffe not actively seek results to be made public?
True, but couldn't refusing to be transparent risk predisposing people even more to assume guilt?
It could, see the current discussion :) It's a bit catch-22.
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 10, 2015, 03:45:08 PM
Quote from: muppet on September 10, 2015, 03:36:46 PM
Airbus released the ACARS system messages from the doomed AF 447 computers, very shortly after it went missing, despite the fact that 99% of the population wouldn't have a clue what they were about and the 1% that did understand the messages, would still find it completely perplexing.
But they still released the data immediately.
I find the argument that some athletes won't release their blood data to the public, because it might be 'misunderstood', very odd, unless of course the data itself is very odd.
Well, I can see it in one sense. People are now predisposed to assume guilt in these cases, so any sort of hard to interpret data will make people start shouting about your guilt.
In the past though, did Paula Radcliffe not actively seek results to be made public?
Yes she did actively seek for results to be made public then backtracked. She completely changed stance and that is what a lot of people are struggling with in her case. That and the immediate threat to sue the sunday times.
I still wouldn't be convinced she's guilty. She just hasn't dealt with it well. Could be wrong mind you...
Quote from: Declan on September 10, 2015, 02:47:20 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/doping-crisis-paula-radcliffe-should-just-come-clean-and-make-all-her-data-public-10493824.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/doping-crisis-paula-radcliffe-should-just-come-clean-and-make-all-her-data-public-10493824.html)
Then there is Radcliffe – so prepared for Norman's gaffe that she had a lengthy four-page defence ready to press the button on. She was neither named nor accused of anything in Parliament, and yet her haste in getting her side of the story across suggested she was waiting for this moment, which has turned the narrative into one about an MP denigrating a national heroine.
Then UK Athletics chief Ed Warner said Coe's comments were justifiable as he had an IAAF presidential election to win and accused the British press of "some lazy shorthand journalism at times" this summer. We had to assume he was describing the Daily Mail's entirely justifiable decision to report that, shortly before the London Olympics in 2012, Mo Farah failed to answer the door to drug testers who had been instructed to ring his doorbell repeatedly over the course of an hour.
That's very lazy journalism really. She has known this was coming from when the whispers began weeks back, of course she was going to be ready if and when her name was brought up in the media. Its been all over the internet since the info was leaked.
If she hadn't have said anything or delayed saying anything, the same paper would be questioning why or how come it took her so long to come up with a response.
You can't win in these situations.
http://www.sbnation.com/longform/2015/9/9/9271811/can-boxing-trust-usada (http://www.sbnation.com/longform/2015/9/9/9271811/can-boxing-trust-usada)
Interesting if you could be bothered to read it!
Radcliffe on now, Christ she's struggling big time, looking haggard and voice ready to go, I do really hope she isn't a cheat...
She really has made the whole thing so much harder on herself than she needed to.
Saw this on Twitter, involved in a conversation with Ross Tucker. https://teamworldblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/lies-damned-lies-etc/
I dont know about Radcliffe, cant say I care a great deal about her specific case but Doping as a topic of discussion is so poisonous, it does bug me at times. You might as well shout Paedo or Pervert when you accuse someone of doping, a huge stigma that rarely shifts as people remember the initial accusations but rarely maintain the interest to see how things pan out in the longterm.
Sunday Times has a front page expose of doping in top level Soccer today. Dont have a link.
68 samples from 4,000 (7.7%) showed atypical results, tests carried out 2008-2013 on teams competing in Champions League, Europa League and International European Champs.
https://twitter.com/Dopingnytt/status/662325206845890561 (https://twitter.com/Dopingnytt/status/662325206845890561)
::)
Quote from: JimStynes on November 05, 2015, 08:41:51 PM
https://twitter.com/Dopingnytt/status/662325206845890561 (https://twitter.com/Dopingnytt/status/662325206845890561)
::)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTES48lXIAAuEBv.jpg)
I reckon the odds on Bolt being a doper just got a whole lot shorter. Anyone want to bet that the Russians were the only ones in cahoots with the IAAF to cover up failed drugs tests?
Yeah I have a bit on the Armstrong thread about it. It's lost all credibility at this stage I don't think anyone is beyond suspicion now.
Sad state of affairs!!
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/iaaf-consider-suspending-russia-over-152825353.html (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/iaaf-consider-suspending-russia-over-152825353.html)
Suspending Russia would be a good start. But it is hard to escape the view that pointing the finger at the Russkys is politically convenient at the moment and certainly not down to any great desire to tackle doping.
Jamaica's terrible doping programme should see them suspended as well, at least until they can prove that they are up to speed and thus there is a level (if still dirty) playing field.
But Jamaica aren't Russia.
Quote from: muppet on November 09, 2015, 05:09:42 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/iaaf-consider-suspending-russia-over-152825353.html (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/iaaf-consider-suspending-russia-over-152825353.html)
Suspending Russia would be a good start. But it is hard to escape the view that pointing the finger at the Russkys is politically convenient at the moment and certainly not down to any great desire to tackle doping.
Jamaica's terrible doping programme should see them suspended as well, at least until they can prove that they are up to speed and thus there is a level (if still dirty) playing field.
But Jamaica aren't Russia.
You're spot on here muppet. if they investigated a lot of other countries with the same rigour that they've investigated Russia, there wouldn't be any athletics programme in Rio. When the governing body is up to its oxters in the cover up of cheating it's hard to have any faith in any athlete from any country.
All sports all levels, would really make you think why bother...
Seb Coe took a bit of a hammering from JOn Snow on c4 news last night. Good to see.
Coe on about what he was going to do when he was president even though he was vice president when all this stuff was going on. Snow pulled him on it. Asked him was he asleep.
I'd be willing to bet that the Jamaican authorities with their "historically lax approach to anti-doping" are every bit as bad as the Russians.
And just so as it doesn't come as a surprise, when it comes out, I'm going to say I told you so. :)
Quote from: muppet on November 09, 2015, 05:09:42 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/iaaf-consider-suspending-russia-over-152825353.html (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/iaaf-consider-suspending-russia-over-152825353.html)
Suspending Russia would be a good start. But it is hard to escape the view that pointing the finger at the Russkys is politically convenient at the moment and certainly not down to any great desire to tackle doping.
Jamaica's terrible doping programme should see them suspended as well, at least until they can prove that they are up to speed and thus there is a level (if still dirty) playing field.
But Jamaica aren't Russia.
They won't suspend Russia - Coe has pretty much said so already. If they were to kick them out they have no stick to beat them with to keep them quiet. There is NO way that Coe was VP of the IAAF for so long and had no clue that this sort of thing was going on. He's as dirty as the rest. And if he plays hard ball with the Russians now, they could blow the lid on the whole thing.
Does anyone watch the Olympics anymore without the view that its utterly corrupt?
Quote from: Franko on November 10, 2015, 10:58:40 AM
Quote from: muppet on November 09, 2015, 05:09:42 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/iaaf-consider-suspending-russia-over-152825353.html (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/iaaf-consider-suspending-russia-over-152825353.html)
Suspending Russia would be a good start. But it is hard to escape the view that pointing the finger at the Russkys is politically convenient at the moment and certainly not down to any great desire to tackle doping.
Jamaica's terrible doping programme should see them suspended as well, at least until they can prove that they are up to speed and thus there is a level (if still dirty) playing field.
But Jamaica aren't Russia.
They won't suspend Russia - Coe has pretty much said so already. If they were to kick them out they have no stick to beat them with to keep them quiet. There is NO way that Coe was VP of the IAAF for so long and had no clue that this sort of thing was going on. He's as dirty as the rest. And if he plays hard ball with the Russians now, they could blow the lid on the whole thing.
Yeah, if London 2012 was the drugfest it appears then there's no way they want that "legacy" tarnished
Quote from: Declan on November 10, 2015, 11:14:50 AM
Does anyone watch the Olympics anymore without the view that its utterly corrupt?
I want to believe. If it transpires that David Rudisha was doping, and given that Kenya is one of the countries where the government and the authorities connive to make testing as useless as possible I think the chances are high that he was, that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me.
I don't believe he is. He strikes me as an honest guy plus if he was on them it wouldn't have taken him as long to come back from his latest injury. (I'm not convinced he's fully back yet either TBH).
It is hard to believe these days but I do still love watching athletics. 100 metres has gone too far and is now a farce but the rest of it I still, perhaps naively, hold out some hope for.
Quote from: Declan on November 10, 2015, 11:14:50 AM
Does anyone watch the Olympics anymore without the view that its utterly corrupt?
Looks like it.
We still haven't had a Lance Armstrong moment, but I am wondering about cycling in all of this.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTe4Qo0UcAAZplv.jpg:large)
This is SebdCoe's acceptance speech extract when elected President of the IAAF.
A mere 12 weeks ago.
Coe is not looking to have much credibility here and that is putting it politely. Big questions being asked.
I was listening to an Olive Loughnane interview on today fm last night which was pretty good. Didn't realise she'd be upped to world gold.Heffernan should get an olympic bronze now too.
They were asking her about Coe. She said he has an opportunity to clear the decks here but the question is whether he has the stomach for it. They then asked her if she thought the Russians would be in Rio and she said yes which I guess summed up her opinion on Coe.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTYpjZeWUAAjXbA.jpg:large)
June 2013: IOC say no knowledge of corrupt lab.
Evidence provided to them.
Nov 2015: IOC shocked at corruption.
Also you'd have to ask how serious sport really is about tackling doping when WADA annual budget is $30m, despite the billions sports industry makes
Quote from: Declan on November 11, 2015, 08:56:07 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTYpjZeWUAAjXbA.jpg:large)
June 2013: IOC say no knowledge of corrupt lab.
Evidence provided to them.
Nov 2015: IOC shocked at corruption.
Also you'd have to ask how serious sport really is about tackling doping when WADA annual budget is $30m, despite the billions sports industry makes
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/c610ccb8d9adf6b5901d4d51aa67e005/tumblr_mimq9qezIB1r71gs5o1_500.gif)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/7031132.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/7031132.stm)
Saturday, 6 October 2007
IAAF president Lamine Diack believes disgraced American sprinter Marion Jones will be remembered as "one of the biggest frauds in sporting history".
The American admitted taking steroids ahead of the Sydney Olympics where she won five medals, three of them gold.
"A lot of people believed in her achievements and this confession leaves a very bitter taste," Diack said.
"It is a tragedy, and I am glad she is aware of the damage that her actions have caused."
http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/34721317 (http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/34721317)
5 November 2015
Lamine Diack, ex-head of the IAAF, is being investigated over allegations he took payments for deferring sanctions against Russian drugs cheats.
French prosecutors - acting on information supplied by the World Anti Doping Authority - suspect Senegalese Diack, 82, of receiving money in 2011.
The IAAF's new president Lord Coe was questioned by French police on Tuesday, having offered to co-operate.
Athletics' world governing body says it is "fully co-operating" with inquiries.
It confirmed police had carried out searches and interviews at its Monaco headquarters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34902105 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34902105)
Wonder is in GAA or how bad it is in GAA!!
http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk (http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk)
It's out! I'll wait a few days so I can read what the experts say.
http://gu.com/p/4eze3/sbl (http://gu.com/p/4eze3/sbl)
Another one of Mo's pals
Interesting info this morning
Dan Roan @danroan · 14m14 minutes ago
Monaco-based IAAF has $76m in reserve.
Before his election Coe pledged $22m dividend to 214 member assoc's
2015 anti-doping budget: $2m
I would be very suspicious of Coe. Lot of things don't add up.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 10, 2015, 09:23:34 AM
I would be very suspicious of Coe. Lot of things don't add up.
In it up to his neck. Always came across as a duplicitous twat.
(http://www.globerunner.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Sebastian-Coe-with-Steve-Ovett.jpg)
Always came across as a ponce.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJRPxmTuxoI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJRPxmTuxoI)
Great documentary just released by Al Jazeera
The Aussies are at it. Essendon FC: 34 Australian rules players banned for doping.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/35288575 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/35288575)
Looks like the net is closing in on the teflon Lord...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/35309759
Rumours of mechanical doping in the cyclocross championships!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35750285 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35750285)
Sharapova caught! No more perving for a while now ffs.
Quote from: JimStynes on March 07, 2016, 09:40:57 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35750285 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35750285)
Sharapova caught! No more perving for a while now ffs.
More evidence of just how far ahead the dopers are of the testers. If Sharapova is on Meldonium for a disease then God knows what Djokovic and Serena are taking. It was also bizarre how she announced her own drugs test failure, where was the governing body. Tennis as a sport has a serious problem with little or no regulation. Djokovic was barely able to complete 5 sets up until 5/6 years ago, all of a sudden he went gluten free and turned into the marathon man, whilst Serena is built like a body builder.
So she forgot to click on an email link
puuullleezzzzzzeeeee
Quote from: JimStynes on March 07, 2016, 09:40:57 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35750285 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35750285)
Sharapova caught! No more perving for a while now ffs.
Okay, so she failed a drug test. I still wouldn't chuck her out of bed.
(http://images.sportsworldnews.com/data/images/full/9286/maria-sharapova.jpg?w=600)
Quote from: Orior on March 07, 2016, 11:12:31 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on March 07, 2016, 09:40:57 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35750285 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/35750285)
Sharapova caught! No more perving for a while now ffs.
Okay, so she failed a drug test. I still wouldn't chuck her out of bed.
(http://images.sportsworldnews.com/data/images/full/9286/maria-sharapova.jpg?w=600)
Except she probably has a dick downstairs now.....
<hmmm Orior still thinking about it>
Every sport is drug infested, as someone pointed out to me you have the lads in the gym doing steroids to look good in the mirror. It's human nature to cheat...
(http://www.runnersworld.com/sites/runnersworld.com/files/styles/article_main_image_2200px/public/finish-v9_2.jpg)
Women's 1500m final 2012 Olympics
https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage/status/707143924108886016 (https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage/status/707143924108886016)
Surprise Surprise Serena defends her good friend
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/serena-williams-maria-sharapova-courage-drug-confession-meldonium?CMP=share_btn_tw (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/serena-williams-maria-sharapova-courage-drug-confession-meldonium?CMP=share_btn_tw)
The manufacturer of the drug says the normal course of treatment is four to six weeks (though this may be repeated 2 -3 times per year). It is meant for people with chronic heart conditions.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/meldonium-treatment-four-to-six-weeks-maria-sharapova
QuoteThe manufacturer of the drug says the normal course of treatment is four to six weeks (though this may be repeated 2 -3 times per year). It is meant for people with chronic heart conditions.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/meldonium-treatment-four-to-six-weeks-maria-sharapova
And full clinical trials didn't take place till 2008 but she's been on it since 2006
1 in 5 Russian athletes on it too..
Quote from: Dinny Breen on March 08, 2016, 05:40:39 PM
1 in 5 Russian athletes on it too..
What about the other 4 ;)
LONDON (AFP) -
Some 490 athletes, including 13 medallists, may have taken meldonium -- the drug responsible for tennis star Maria Sharapova's failed dope test -- at last year's European Games in Baku, according to research published on Wednesday in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
Meldonium was placed on the World Anti-Doping Agency's list of banned substances on January 1, with the research, carried out on behalf of the European Olympic Committees, contributing to the global watchdog's decision.
The findings were based on information volunteered by athletes and their medical teams as well as anti-doping tests given at the European Games last June.
Thirteen medallists were found to have been taking meldonium and the drug was detected in athletes competing in 15 of the 21 sports.
Sharapova is not the only Russian sports star to have fallen foul of the new status of meldonium, Russian media said on Tuesday.
The state-run agency TASS reported that volleyball international Alexander Markin, speed skating world champion Pavel Kulizhnikov and short track Olympic champion Semen Yelistratov have also tested positive for meldonium.
Monday saw Sharapova confess to having failed a dope test at the Australian Open in January, with Russian ice dancer Ekaterina Bobrova's positive test for meldonium revealed earlier on Monday.
Former world number one Sharapova said the change in WADA's banned drugs list for 2016 led to an inadvertent violation, for which she will be "provisionally suspended" by the International Tennis Federation.
Sharapova said she originally began taking meldonium for a variety of symptoms, including a tendency to become ill often, an irregular EKG heart test and a family history of diabetes.
Meldonium is used to treat heart trouble, including angina and heart failure.
In adding it to the banned list, WADA said there was evidence it has been used by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance.
But its use since it became a prohibited substance has not been solely a Russian problem, with Sweden's Abeba Aregawi, originally from Ethiopia, the world 1500 metres champion in 2013, Ukrainian biathletes Olga Abramova and Artem Tychtchenko, the Ethiopian marathon runner Endeshaw Negesse and six Georgian wrestlers also returning positive tests.
It has been banned for 2 months so it's a bit unfair to be hammering people for the use of this compound prior to 1st Jan. However it does go to show that WADA are way behind the athletes in terms of their product knowledge.
So in terms of improving your performance what does it do?? Are Paralympic athletes tested differently due to possible illnesses they have? Would those banned substances improve their ability to perform??
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 09, 2016, 11:17:50 PM
So in terms of improving your performance what does it do?? Are Paralympic athletes tested differently due to possible illnesses they have? Would those banned substances improve their ability to perform??
Apparently given to people with ischaemia and it improves blood supply to muscles etc so helps endurance and recovery.
If she finds herself at a loose end now she knows how to find me.
(http://images.mid-day.com/images/2014/oct/16Maria-Sharapova-1.jpg)
ive come to believe that 99% of sports are as flawed as capitalism is in the western world ie whiter than white but darker than dark, ( interput that as you wish) the media dont report any dark truths until there is someone easy to take the rap or 'public opinion' swings - professional sport is corrupt as anything!!!! When huge sums of money are involved then win at all costs becomes the reality just like the floor of the stock market, the street markets or any person who wants to succeed financially - cheat the system until you get caught or exploit every loophole until its closed. Legally Maria didnt cheat until the drug was re-classified in January but it was still a fecking PERFORMANCE ENHANCING CHEMICAL being taken by many athletes. Sharapovas media stint the other day stunk of the Tiger Woods presser and irrespective of how he is now he successfully recovered from his big scandal. From now on for me all athletes are on PEDs until proven otherwise, tbh i dont really care that much as a fan/consumer the truth is i like to be entertained, but to make all PEDs legal is just not rational. I dont have the answers and i dont even know if im accurate with this rant but its just my feelings on the issue.
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on March 10, 2016, 01:28:21 AM
ive come to believe that 99% of sports are as flawed as capitalism is in the western world ie whiter than white but darker than dark, ( interput that as you wish) the media dont report any dark truths until there is someone easy to take the rap or 'public opinion' swings - professional sport is corrupt as anything!!!! When huge sums of money are involved then win at all costs becomes the reality just like the floor of the stock market, the street markets or any person who wants to succeed financially - cheat the system until you get caught or exploit every loophole until its closed. Legally Maria didnt cheat until the drug was re-classified in January but it was still a fecking PERFORMANCE ENHANCING CHEMICAL being taken by many athletes. Sharapovas media stint the other day stunk of the Tiger Woods presser and irrespective of how he is now he successfully recovered from his big scandal. From now on for me all athletes are on PEDs until proven otherwise, tbh i dont really care that much as a fan/consumer the truth is i like to be entertained, but to make all PEDs legal is just not rational. I dont have the answers and i dont even know if im accurate with this rant but its just my feelings on the issue.
That's kinda where I'm coming from too....
The list of things an athlete cant use must be massive!! If they do have a condition that requires a drug to help the condition they have and its banned, what are their options?? I don't think for one second that Maria is whiter than white (Christ she is smoking in that pic Tony!!) but for to keep on top of this is impossible for the WADA
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 10, 2016, 07:58:23 AM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on March 10, 2016, 01:28:21 AM
ive come to believe that 99% of sports are as flawed as capitalism is in the western world ie whiter than white but darker than dark, ( interput that as you wish) the media dont report any dark truths until there is someone easy to take the rap or 'public opinion' swings - professional sport is corrupt as anything!!!! When huge sums of money are involved then win at all costs becomes the reality just like the floor of the stock market, the street markets or any person who wants to succeed financially - cheat the system until you get caught or exploit every loophole until its closed. Legally Maria didnt cheat until the drug was re-classified in January but it was still a fecking PERFORMANCE ENHANCING CHEMICAL being taken by many athletes. Sharapovas media stint the other day stunk of the Tiger Woods presser and irrespective of how he is now he successfully recovered from his big scandal. From now on for me all athletes are on PEDs until proven otherwise, tbh i dont really care that much as a fan/consumer the truth is i like to be entertained, but to make all PEDs legal is just not rational. I dont have the answers and i dont even know if im accurate with this rant but its just my feelings on the issue.
That's kinda where I'm coming from too....
The list of things an athlete cant use must be massive!! If they do have a condition that requires a drug to help the condition they have and its banned, what are their options?? I don't think for one second that Maria is whiter than white (Christ she is smoking in that pic Tony!!) but for to keep on top of this is impossible for the WADA
They can apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) which basically means you are cleared to take an otherwise banned substance if you have a particular condition. These are common in high level sport. The amount of asthmatics who are world class athletes is amazing ???
Quote from: AQMP on March 10, 2016, 09:27:23 AM
The amount of asthmatics who are world class athletes is amazing ???
;D
I've really come to enjoy tennis more in recent years. If they don't come down on Sharapova like a ton of bricks, I'm done.
Quote from: deiseach on March 10, 2016, 09:53:01 AM
Quote from: AQMP on March 10, 2016, 09:27:23 AM
The amount of asthmatics who are world class athletes is amazing ???
;D
I've really come to enjoy tennis more in recent years. If they don't come down on Sharapova like a ton of bricks, I'm done.
Interesting. I watch NFL and really enjoy it, but although it's safe to assume that a substantial proportion of the players are drug cheats, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of it. If a few GAA players started testing positive it would certainly affect how I look at the sport and would take away a lot of the joy I get from it, but with professional sports it wouldn't for some reason. I even love watching the 100m, and I assume they're all cheats.
Though I should add it does annoy me when I read about Szabo and the Chinese athletes who beat Sonia. They were doping and robbed a great athlete of gold medals she deserved.
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 10, 2016, 10:45:14 AM
Though I should add it does annoy me when I read about Szabo and the Chinese athletes who beat Sonia. They were doping and robbed a great athlete of gold medals she deserved.
I looked before to see if there was smoking gun on Szabo but never found one. What did I miss?
I know about this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3031535.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3031535.stm)
And this odd one: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2002/apr/03/athletics (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2002/apr/03/athletics)
My enjoyment of tennis is pretty shallow. I used only follow Wimbledon (natch) but in era of 24 hour coverage I'd follow the other Grand Slam events with a lot of interest. It's a golden age in the men's game in particular. I'm conscious through it all though that doping is likely widespread. Jacques Anquetil's line about not being able to ride Le Tour on mineral water could be applied to those five-set blockbusters that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have been treating us to for the last decade or so. If tennis can't deal severely with what is the doping equivalent of an open goal, or a simple volley when your opponent has crashed into one of the line judges, then any illusions about those contests are going to be stripped bare as far as I'm concerned.
All elite level professional sports are medicalised to within a millimetre of what's currently legal
Always remember Maurice Green's coach on the BBC when asked about doping in athletics and he asked the reporter did he drive a car? Reporter said yes and told him he drove a family saloon. Coach smiled and said would you say that your car and a Formula 1 car are the same just because they are both cars? Reporter said obviously not and then the Coach said do you think you'd put the same type of fuel in to both cars?? Enough said no more questions from reporter
Quote from: Declan on March 10, 2016, 11:46:41 AM
Always remember Maurice Green's coach on the BBC when asked about doping in athletics and he asked the reporter did he drive a car? Reporter said yes and told him he drove a family saloon. Coach smiled and said would you say that your car and a Formula 1 car are the same just because they are both cars? Reporter said obviously not and then the Coach said do you think you'd put the same type of fuel in to both cars?? Enough said no more questions from reporter
I can think of plenty of follow-up questions.
Funny that Nadal has spoken out now on the issue, it wasnt that long ago that he was being linked with the dodgy Spanish doctor in the case in which the Spanish Courts ruled for the destruction of the blood bags from the clinic.
I wonder is it any coincidence that since around that time he has not been the force that he once was and it was also strange to note at the time that Murray and Fed basically called him out on it.
Quote from: muppet on March 10, 2016, 10:51:12 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 10, 2016, 10:45:14 AM
Though I should add it does annoy me when I read about Szabo and the Chinese athletes who beat Sonia. They were doping and robbed a great athlete of gold medals she deserved.
I looked before to see if there was smoking gun on Szabo but never found one. What did I miss?
I know about this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3031535.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3031535.stm)
And this odd one: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2002/apr/03/athletics (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2002/apr/03/athletics)
I should probably have checked back on the Szabo story before I posted muppet. I had it in my head that she'd been caught driving a car with PED's in it but never faced sanction for it. :-[
Sounds like she deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 10, 2016, 03:56:25 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 10, 2016, 10:51:12 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 10, 2016, 10:45:14 AM
Though I should add it does annoy me when I read about Szabo and the Chinese athletes who beat Sonia. They were doping and robbed a great athlete of gold medals she deserved.
I looked before to see if there was smoking gun on Szabo but never found one. What did I miss?
I know about this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3031535.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3031535.stm)
And this odd one: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2002/apr/03/athletics (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2002/apr/03/athletics)
I should probably have checked back on the Szabo story before I posted muppet. I had it in my head that she'd been caught driving a car with PED's in it but never faced sanction for it. :-[
Sounds like she deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one.
I had thought the same as you until I went looking a few years ago and couldn't find much. In fairness she did come out and accuse people in her own country of doping, which makes me think it would draw attention to herself if she was at it. So probably the benefit of the doubt as you said.
Nice change to see from the usual omerta within sports Murray speaking out
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/10/maria-sharapova-andy-murray-ban-drugs-test-meldonium?CMP=twt_gu (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/10/maria-sharapova-andy-murray-ban-drugs-test-meldonium?CMP=twt_gu)
QuoteMurray said it was ethically wrong to take a drug just for performance. "I think taking a prescription drug that you don't necessarily need, but just because it's legal, that's wrong, clearly. That's wrong. If you're taking a prescription drug and you're not using it for what that drug was meant for, then you don't need it, so you're just using it for the performance enhancing benefits that drug is giving you. And I don't think that that's right."
Always knew that Andy was all right.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/18/1411001802017_wps_7_Andy_Murray_Tweet_2_jpg.jpg)
Quote from: NAG1 on March 10, 2016, 11:59:33 AM
Funny that Nadal has spoken out now on the issue, it wasnt that long ago that he was being linked with the dodgy Spanish doctor in the case in which the Spanish Courts ruled for the destruction of the blood bags from the clinic.
I wonder is it any coincidence that since around that time he has not been the force that he once was and it was also strange to note at the time that Murray and Fed basically called him out on it.
Operacion Puerto, allegedly a lot of Tennis players and footballers in addition to the cyclists. Most obvious cover up / whitewashing ever perpetrated in sport.
We now have racquet manufacturers trying to dictate doping policy in tennis!!!
]https://twitter.com/richard_conway/status/708258479287496705[url] (https://twitter.com/richard_conway/status/708258479287496705%5Burl)[/url]
Quote from: Declan on March 11, 2016, 12:33:15 PM
We now have racquet manufacturers trying to dictate doping policy in tennis!!!
https://twitter.com/richard_conway/status/708258479287496705[url]]]https://twitter.com/richard_conway/status/708258479287496705[url] (https://twitter.com/richard_conway/status/708258479287496705%5Burl=http://)[/url]
Is that Dick talking about Head?
Company motto: "Hoping To Get Some"
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 09, 2016, 11:28:28 PM
If she finds herself at a loose end now she knows how to find me.
(http://images.mid-day.com/images/2014/oct/16Maria-Sharapova-1.jpg)
Bump
Rob Heffernan retrospectively awarded a bronze medal for the 50km walk at London 2012
A whole load of fellas from Collingwood AFL team have been caught using PEDs apparently.
Quote from: AQMP on March 24, 2016, 11:27:02 AM
Rob Heffernan retrospectively awarded a bronze medal for the 50km walk at London 2012
Amazing how he did so well to stay close to guys on EPO, not as if his coach Paco Fernandez was banned for drugs or anything.
Pretty much like motor racing just call it Formula Athletics/Tennis/MMA/Boxing/GAA etc etc - the best combination of drugs and athletic prowess wins...
You will probably die young but think of the glory....
You left Rugby off that list. As a professional sport with massive changes in body shape over the last few years I'd say it's more likely to be a problem in Rugby than GAA.
I know rugby has a problem I see lads popping caffeine pills and salbutamol at adult level in the junior leagues ffs.
Don't be naive and think that that culture doesn't exist in GAA. I would put money on it being there at all levels, and you know what these guys are all amateurs and it's their bodies and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. This to me is human nature, the war on drugs at all levels will never be won.
When you see lads taking steriods to look good in the mirror.....
Yeah, I'm sure lads in the GAA are taking stuff, but I thought it was unusual you didn't list Rugby, which has undergone the most obvious changes in body shape, and style of game.
I don't, genuinely, think a lot of lads in the GAA are taking steroids or the like, but I'd say there are some dodgy supplements around.
I just realised, I misread your last sentence. Are you saying you *don't* have a problem with sportmen and women trying to use illegal PEDs to win things? JEsus, I'd be 180 degrees from you in that case.
It was really Formula All Sports.
Cycling, Athletics, Tennis, Rugby, AFL, NFL, Soccer, Weightlifting, Swimming would be the obvious ones..
However every sport including GAA has some level of drug use, nothing compared to the professional sports above where programs are designed to be always one step ahead of the testers but none the less I don't believe any sport to be free.
Just on Rob Heffernan, he uses an altitude tent to replicate high altitude training and increase your red blood cell count, helps with endurance. This is allowed but he is still changing his natural physiology into an unnatural physiology. This is still doping to me, it's allowed but what is the difference between using a tool like that and injecting yourself with EPO?
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2016, 03:07:57 PM
I just realised, I misread your last sentence. Are you saying you *don't* have a problem with sportmen and women trying to use illegal PEDs to win things? JEsus, I'd be 180 degrees from you in that case.
I would love all sports to be clean but it's just not going to happen, competitors use PEDs in the Paralympics ffs How depressing is that (http://www.bbc.com/sport/disability-sport/19533177)
Between financial doping and actual doping there are few sports that you can sit back and really enjoy anymore where you know it your heart and soul it's not a level playing field.
I just accept that it's no longer fair, I want Leicester to now win the EPL but I look at their lack of injuries, I look at their body shapes, I look at their work rate and I just wonder...
If I thought you had to dope to win at Gaelic Football or Hurling, I would quit being involved in it, or coaching. I'd hate it.
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2016, 03:04:43 PM
Yeah, I'm sure lads in the GAA are taking stuff, but I thought it was unusual you didn't list Rugby, which has undergone the most obvious changes in body shape, and style of game.
I don't, genuinely, think a lot of lads in the GAA are taking steroids or the like, but I'd say there are some dodgy supplements around.
Creatine, caffine pills, red bull....
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2016, 03:34:39 PM
If I thought you had to dope to win at Gaelic Football or Hurling, I would quit being involved in it, or coaching. I'd hate it.
I don't think you coach to win, I think you like me coach to develop and watch young men fulfill their potential and become a better player and a better person. Football and Hurling will never be in the same bracket as the above sports because of less financial reward but on a individual level players will take drugs to improve endurance and to help with recovery, they already do. It's out nature we want to win..
I coach for both reasons. And some day I hope to coach at adult level, and win :)
Quote from: LeoMc on March 24, 2016, 03:43:11 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2016, 03:04:43 PM
Yeah, I'm sure lads in the GAA are taking stuff, but I thought it was unusual you didn't list Rugby, which has undergone the most obvious changes in body shape, and style of game.
I don't, genuinely, think a lot of lads in the GAA are taking steroids or the like, but I'd say there are some dodgy supplements around.
Creatine, caffine pills, red bull....
ASthma Inhalers! But that's going since I was playing. All the smokers used to suck on an inhaler before a game..
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2016, 03:46:49 PM
I coach for both reasons. And some day I hope to coach at adult level, and win :)
The new Eugene Magee..
God I hope not. Although going by recent developments here in Tipp, it might have to be back in Offaly I go!
QuoteI coach for both reasons. And some day I hope to coach at adult level, and win
For a greater sense of satisfaction stay coaching kids - Don't think I'll ever coach adult teams again
Quote from: Declan on March 24, 2016, 03:52:47 PM
QuoteI coach for both reasons. And some day I hope to coach at adult level, and win
For a greater sense of satisfaction stay coaching kids - Don't think I'll ever coach adult teams again
I've coached at Adult level. I enjoyed it. I enjoy the challenge. Next time I even hope to win :)
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2016, 03:54:11 PM
Quote from: Declan on March 24, 2016, 03:52:47 PM
QuoteI coach for both reasons. And some day I hope to coach at adult level, and win
For a greater sense of satisfaction stay coaching kids - Don't think I'll ever coach adult teams again
I've coached at Adult level. I enjoyed it. I enjoy the challenge. Next time I even hope to win :)
I'm with Declan, no interest in coaching at adult level ever.
Quote from: AZOffaly on March 24, 2016, 03:54:11 PM
Quote from: Declan on March 24, 2016, 03:52:47 PM
QuoteI coach for both reasons. And some day I hope to coach at adult level, and win
For a greater sense of satisfaction stay coaching kids - Don't think I'll ever coach adult teams again
I've coached at Adult level. I enjoyed it. I enjoy the challenge. Next time I even hope to win :)
Have done both, always prefer coaching kids. Massive challenge coaching adults, develop a squad and create competition for places, you will always me missing players so need depth and competition drives standards and removes complacency.
QuoteI've coached at Adult level. I enjoyed it. I enjoy the challenge. Next time I even hope to win
Fair play AZ - each to their own
Italian rugby player Davide Vesta has tested positive for 11 separate performance enhancing drugs (http://www.fanpage.it/doping-da-record-a-catania-rugbista-positivo-ad-11-sostanze/)
Must be a record..
Big doping story apparently coming out tomorrow in the Sunday Times. Footballers involved as well.
Leicester very suspicious. Very few injuries and players recovered from injuries in a week which normally would take three plus weeks. Also performing high in sprints in last few minutes of games.
This is starting to kick off. A doctor by the name of Mark Bonar (no, really) claims he doped 150 athletes including British Tour de France cyclists, an England cricketer and a British boxing world champion.
Not one of them are named
Arsenal Leicester and Chelsea named.
Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, and Birmingham players among his clients apparently.
Quote from: StephenC on April 02, 2016, 10:49:02 PM
Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, and Birmingham players among his clients apparently.
Yeah it's all his word though, Sunday Times have said they have no independent evidence that he treated any of them.
Quote from: mrdeeds on April 02, 2016, 10:48:32 PM
Arsenal Leicester and Chelsea named.
He gave the Arsenal players laxatives instead of performance drugs, that's why they shite themselves at this time every season.
He is Irish isn't he although there are no Irish players at those clubs.
http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Off_The_Ball_Highlights/133212/Sunday_Sports_Pages_Doping_scandal_hits_Premier_League (http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Off_The_Ball/Off_The_Ball_Highlights/133212/Sunday_Sports_Pages_Doping_scandal_hits_Premier_League)
Interesting chat on this one yesterday
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9735987/New-claims-made-over-widespread-doping-in-cycling.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9735987/New-claims-made-over-widespread-doping-in-cycling.html)
Quote from: Declan on April 14, 2016, 03:39:19 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9735987/New-claims-made-over-widespread-doping-in-cycling.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9735987/New-claims-made-over-widespread-doping-in-cycling.html)
Article from 2012 ?
Really surprised at the apathy towards Sakho's positive test at the weekend.
Double standards in this are appalling. If an athlete was caught they'd rightly get condemned all over the show for it but a footballer is caught doping and it's barely discussed!! Any wonder the Premier League is a corrupt cesspit when this kind of thing is basically ignored!!
I think it's the nature of it. A fat burning drug. But it is cheating, and he is an idiot, and he's going to get a ban, rightly so.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 25, 2016, 11:42:08 AM
I think it's the nature of it. A fat burning drug. But it is cheating, and he is an idiot, and he's going to get a ban, rightly so.
Spin me baby right round baby right round. They tend to be masking agents.
I thought Leicester would have been caught by now, Liverpool wouldn't have been on my radar due to their high level of injuries. Klopp and his style have changed that.
If anything, I'd have expected Sahko to be caught for Cocaine!
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 25, 2016, 05:45:48 PM
If anything, I'd have expected Sahko to be caught for Cocaine!
Would probably get a bigger ban too.
Is there any sports that take drugs serious? Or is just all about the money?
Anyone who follows cycling have a hold on how big and widespread the secret electric motor scandal is yet?
Professional sports/sportsmen will go to whatever lengths they feel they can get away with to get to the money.
Quote from: theskull1 on April 25, 2016, 05:57:26 PM
Anyone who follows cycling have a hold on how big and widespread the secret electric motor scandal is yet?
Professional sports/sportsmen will go to whatever lengths they feel they can get away with to get to the money.
Mechanical doping being going in motor sports for years. Didn't the America's Cup have a big scandal as well.
It's just human nature. Juts thinking about Cricket a civilised game, from Borderline to ball tampering, people will still do anything to win, add in money and it's a given.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 25, 2016, 11:42:08 AM
I think it's the nature of it. A fat burning drug. But it is cheating, and he is an idiot, and he's going to get a ban, rightly so.
So if he wasn't taking this fat burning drug he would be fatter which would make him slower and affect his stamina. That makes it performance enhancing.
Quote from: theskull1 on April 25, 2016, 05:57:26 PM
Anyone who follows cycling have a hold on how big and widespread the secret electric motor scandal is yet?
Professional sports/sportsmen will go to whatever lengths they feel they can get away with to get to the money.
There was a joint French/Italian tv documentary last week that promised to reveal motor use at the Giro using cameras that detect heat sources, however the evidence they presented was fairly weak (going on what i've seen reported - i haven't seen the programme). The UCI have been testing bikes for motors for a few years now suggesting that they may have had a tip off about the practice but at the moment it is mostly just suspicion rather than concrete evidence.
They are seeing heat signatures and saying they are motors - no smoke without fire seems a very appropriate adage here. At the Strade Bianchi race (an Italian one day race used as a Classics warm up) they reckon there was a few at it. I read the story a while back and didn't know what to think, i'd be inclined to wait for definitive proof. Cycling is the only sport where guilt is assumed and you've to prove your innocence.
It's notable that no team has been fingered as yet, so the documentarians aren't 100% or are getting all their legal ducks in a row. It's a new low if true.
Quote from: lenny on April 25, 2016, 06:18:38 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 25, 2016, 11:42:08 AM
I think it's the nature of it. A fat burning drug. But it is cheating, and he is an idiot, and he's going to get a ban, rightly so.
So if he wasn't taking this fat burning drug he would be fatter which would make him slower and affect his stamina. That makes it performance enhancing.
He has played a lot better recently
Quote from: lenny on April 25, 2016, 06:18:38 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 25, 2016, 11:42:08 AM
I think it's the nature of it. A fat burning drug. But it is cheating, and he is an idiot, and he's going to get a ban, rightly so.
So if he wasn't taking this fat burning drug he would be fatter which would make him slower and affect his stamina. That makes it performance enhancing.
Yep, that's what I said, it is cheating. If you use an artificial, banned, aid to help you get in better condition, then it's cheating. Even if it's not a masking agent for something else.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 26, 2016, 09:21:08 AM
Quote from: lenny on April 25, 2016, 06:18:38 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 25, 2016, 11:42:08 AM
I think it's the nature of it. A fat burning drug. But it is cheating, and he is an idiot, and he's going to get a ban, rightly so.
So if he wasn't taking this fat burning drug he would be fatter which would make him slower and affect his stamina. That makes it performance enhancing.
Yep, that's what I said, it is cheating. If you use an artificial, banned, aid to help you get in better condition, then it's cheating. Even if it's not a masking agent for something else.
Do you think it's just isolated to Sahko? I'm looking at Origi here, he's got an awful lot bigger very quickly....
I actually had that exact thought about Origi a couple of weeks ago. But then I look at Coutinho, Lallana, Firmino, Sturridge and the other waifs and think 'nah'.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 26, 2016, 10:07:19 AM
I actually had that exact thought about Origi a couple of weeks ago. But then I look at Coutinho, Lallana, Firmino, Sturridge and the other waifs and think 'nah'.
That's because you are a Liverpool fan, looking in it does raise a flag. Leicester to me are definitely are on something...
What are Arsenal smoking?
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 26, 2016, 11:34:31 AM
What are Arsenal smoking?
Arsenal currently have no injuries, is that sports science or just science? I am just a complete cynic now.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 26, 2016, 11:34:31 AM
What are Arsenal smoking?
There is no question that Arsenal is full of dopes.
imagine the laugh if anyone at villa is found to be on performance enhancing drugs. That would put people right off them
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/542/motor-doping-is-happening-and-weve-tested-it
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/performance-enhancing-drugs-now-a-public-health-crisis-731729.html (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/performance-enhancing-drugs-now-a-public-health-crisis-731729.html)
British track cyclist caught taking PEDs, no name yet. Could be just the start
Simon Yates, road cyclist for a right while now, tested positive at Paris-Nice. Him & his brother both cycle with Orica Green Edge. His da is Sean, relatively famous Brit cyclist of the Kelly era, worked for Sky too.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/orica-greenedge-take-responsibility-simon-yates-positive-test-223054?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#3JCoXP7QftqYpDek.99
Innocent enough sounding incident. No doubt Kimmage would agree with me😇
Quote from: bennydorano on April 29, 2016, 07:38:10 AM
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/orica-greenedge-take-responsibility-simon-yates-positive-test-223054?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#3JCoXP7QftqYpDek.99
Innocent enough sounding incident. No doubt Kimmage would agree with me😇
That's the problem, they're all "innocent enough sounding". The TUE system is a joke and easily abused.
Quote from: bennydorano on April 28, 2016, 11:49:32 PM
Simon Yates, road cyclist for a right while now, tested positive at Paris-Nice. Him & his brother both cycle with Orica Green Edge. His da is Sean, relatively famous Brit cyclist of the Kelly era, worked for Sky too.
They're unrelated to Sean Yates i think (who seemingly had to leave his job at team sky due to his doping past)
Then why did they ever give him the job in the first place though.
Quote from: bennydorano on April 29, 2016, 07:38:10 AM
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/orica-greenedge-take-responsibility-simon-yates-positive-test-223054?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#3JCoXP7QftqYpDek.99
Innocent enough sounding incident. No doubt Kimmage would agree with me😇
Another asthmatic competing in high level sport.
Quote from: AQMP on April 29, 2016, 10:05:36 AM
Quote from: bennydorano on April 29, 2016, 07:38:10 AM
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/orica-greenedge-take-responsibility-simon-yates-positive-test-223054?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#3JCoXP7QftqYpDek.99
Innocent enough sounding incident. No doubt Kimmage would agree with me😇
Another asthmatic competing in high level sport.
Amazing.
Forcibly retire all Asthmatics then chaps??
Think this is innocent tbh, never seen a team do a Mea Culpa like that before. Orica would be well thought of too, the likes of Astana or Katusha would have been laughed out of the room.
Quote from: bennydorano on April 29, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
Forcibly retire all Asthmatics then chaps??
Think this is innocent tbh, never seen a team do a Mea Culpa like that before. Orica would be well thought of too, the likes of Astana or Katusha would have been laughed out of the room.
You're coming across very defensive on this Benny - you lament the fact that nobody gives cycling a chance any more and then when something like this happens you're trying to sweep it under the carpet. The team have admitted it was the very first time it was administered to him, which is plenty suspicious in its own right given how they're parading his "well documented history of asthma".
If cycling fans can just brush it off as easily as you appear to be doing, then it's no wonder "outsiders" still see the sport as a joke with too man people willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes.
Quote from: bennydorano on April 29, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
Forcibly retire all Asthmatics then chaps??
Think this is innocent tbh, never seen a team do a Mea Culpa like that before. Orica would be well thought of too, the likes of Astana or Katusha would have been laughed out of the room.
Most (not all) people develop asthma in their youth, so there should be Doctors notes to support their claim. I'd be surprised at professional athletes getting astma in their prime so to speak.
Shouldnt affect his career too much. if irish rugby is used as a guide, indeed he could be on TV as an 'Expert' in no time
Quote from: gallsman on April 29, 2016, 03:42:37 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on April 29, 2016, 03:23:50 PM
Forcibly retire all Asthmatics then chaps??
Think this is innocent tbh, never seen a team do a Mea Culpa like that before. Orica would be well thought of too, the likes of Astana or Katusha would have been laughed out of the room.
You're coming across very defensive on this Benny - you lament the fact that nobody gives cycling a chance any more and then when something like this happens you're trying to sweep it under the carpet. The team have admitted it was the very first time it was administered to him, which is plenty suspicious in its own right given how they're parading his "well documented history of asthma".
If cycling fans can just brush it off as easily as you appear to be doing, then it's no wonder "outsiders" still see the sport as a joke with too man people willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes.
Defensive because I dont jump on the 'dopers' bandwagon? Default cycnicism sickens my hole. Holy jaysus did u read the post that started this little run? "British track cyclist caught taking PEDs, no name yet. Could be just the start" - that's what cycling has to deal with. Am I being defensive by pointing out the actual facts & offering an informed opinion??
No, you're being defensive by sweeping it aside by repeatedly using the word "innocent".
Used innocent twice and I've used it because I've came to an informed conclusion from having knowledge of the subject. I mostly let the continuous cycnicism pass, I actually do think this one is worth defending as it goes.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 29, 2016, 11:02:02 AM
Quote from: AQMP on April 29, 2016, 10:05:36 AM
Quote from: bennydorano on April 29, 2016, 07:38:10 AM
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/racing/orica-greenedge-take-responsibility-simon-yates-positive-test-223054?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social#3JCoXP7QftqYpDek.99
Innocent enough sounding incident. No doubt Kimmage would agree with me😇
Another asthmatic competing in high level sport.
Amazing.
4 Month Ban. Sharapova must feel hard done by.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/36564327 (http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/36564327)
People are naturally sceptical about the seemingly widespread use of inhalers among cyclists but they are in fact more likely to suffer from asthma than the general public. Moreover, they performance enhancing benefits for the likes of Yates are minimal, given he is a climber and not a sprinter.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/whats-deal-asthma-pro-cycling-223300
If he was/is doping he would be most unlikely to do it this way.
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 08:17:22 PM
People are naturally sceptical about the seemingly widespread use of inhalers among cyclists but they are in fact more likely to suffer from asthma than the general public. Moreover, they performance enhancing benefits for the likes of Yates are minimal, given he is a climber and not a sprinter.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/whats-deal-asthma-pro-cycling-223300
If he was/is doping he would be most unlikely to do it this way.
This is what the article said (my emphasis):
...Is it performance-enhancing?
There is evidence emerging that large doses of terbutaline in inhaled form may improve sprint and power performance, but there is no strong evidence to suggest they would improve endurance performance. From a performance-enhancement point of view, these drugs don't improve lung function. They are called beta-2 agonists because they act directly on beta-2 adrenoreceptors in the muscle, which improves the strength and power produced in each muscle contraction. It works in a similar way to adrenaline. Essentially you're getting better adaptations in sprinting and power performance. From an endurance point of view for a cyclist, there are not many gains to be had.....Surely 'minimal' performance enhancement is well worth the effort at the top level, given the 'inches' we always hear of? Unless you get caught of course.
He's a climber not a sprinter though. So "though it may improve sprint and power performance" there is no strong evidence (in the words of the article) to suggest it would improve endurance.
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 08:41:16 PM
He's a climber not a sprinter though. So "though it may improve sprint and power performance" there is no strong evidence (in the words of the article) to suggest it would improve endurance.
Climber or not, surely anything that helps with your breathing help endurance, especially at altitude?
Or put it another way, how do people with breathing difficulties beat athletes without breathing difficulties in endurance sports?
Quote from: muppet on June 17, 2016, 08:44:27 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 08:41:16 PM
He's a climber not a sprinter though. So "though it may improve sprint and power performance" there is no strong evidence (in the words of the article) to suggest it would improve endurance.
Climber or not, surely anything that helps with your breathing help endurance, especially at altitude?
Or put it another way, how do people with breathing difficulties beat athletes without breathing difficulties in endurance sports?
If what you're saying is that a person with asthma will benefit (performance wise) from having their asthmatic symtoms treated with an asthmatic drug through the direct actions the drug has on alleviating said symptoms, then that seems uncontroversial to me. Whether such individuals should be allowed to compete in elite sporting events while under treatment is an interesting moral question and one which i'm sure people will have differing opinions.
However, that seems to me quite a different case from the non-asthmatic who takes terbutaline (either through an inhaler or in some other form) to effect gains in their sprint performance through its action on muscles.
Which Simon Yates is, i do not know.
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 09:07:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 17, 2016, 08:44:27 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 08:41:16 PM
He's a climber not a sprinter though. So "though it may improve sprint and power performance" there is no strong evidence (in the words of the article) to suggest it would improve endurance.
Climber or not, surely anything that helps with your breathing help endurance, especially at altitude?
Or put it another way, how do people with breathing difficulties beat athletes without breathing difficulties in endurance sports?
If what you're saying is that a person with asthma will benefit (performance wise) from having their asthmatic symtoms treated with an asthmatic drug through the direct actions the drug has on alleviating said symptoms, then that seems uncontroversial to me. Whether such individuals should be allowed to compete in elite sporting events while under treatment is an interesting moral question and one which i'm sure people will have differing opinions.
However, that seems to me quite a different case from the non-asthmatic who takes terbutaline (either through an inhaler or in some other form) to effect gains in their sprint performance through its action on muscles.
Which Simon Yates is, i do not know.
If you look at the statistics of the human population percentage that suffer from asthma.
Then look at the percentage of sporting people who suffer from asthma.
You'll get your answer.
Hopefully Fuentes blood bags will be handed to WADA soon to test.
Watch professional sport turned on it's head if that happens
I liked Paul Kimmage's tweet a while ago
"To be a truly great sportstar you don't need Angina, ADHD, Asthma, Bilharzia or Testicular Cancer...but it sure helps."
Quote from: INDIANA on June 17, 2016, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 09:07:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 17, 2016, 08:44:27 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 08:41:16 PM
He's a climber not a sprinter though. So "though it may improve sprint and power performance" there is no strong evidence (in the words of the article) to suggest it would improve endurance.
Climber or not, surely anything that helps with your breathing help endurance, especially at altitude?
Or put it another way, how do people with breathing difficulties beat athletes without breathing difficulties in endurance sports?
If what you're saying is that a person with asthma will benefit (performance wise) from having their asthmatic symtoms treated with an asthmatic drug through the direct actions the drug has on alleviating said symptoms, then that seems uncontroversial to me. Whether such individuals should be allowed to compete in elite sporting events while under treatment is an interesting moral question and one which i'm sure people will have differing opinions.
However, that seems to me quite a different case from the non-asthmatic who takes terbutaline (either through an inhaler or in some other form) to effect gains in their sprint performance through its action on muscles.
Which Simon Yates is, i do not know.
If you look at the statistics of the human population percentage that suffer from asthma.
Then look at the percentage of sporting people who suffer from asthma.
You'll get your answer.
Hopefully Fuentes blood bags will be handed to WADA soon to test.
Watch professional sport turned on it's head if that happens
As mentioned above it is not quite as straight forward in the case of asthma as endurance athletes such as cyclists and swimmers are more susceptible to asthma than the population at large.
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 09:19:46 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on June 17, 2016, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 09:07:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 17, 2016, 08:44:27 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 08:41:16 PM
He's a climber not a sprinter though. So "though it may improve sprint and power performance" there is no strong evidence (in the words of the article) to suggest it would improve endurance.
Climber or not, surely anything that helps with your breathing help endurance, especially at altitude?
Or put it another way, how do people with breathing difficulties beat athletes without breathing difficulties in endurance sports?
If what you're saying is that a person with asthma will benefit (performance wise) from having their asthmatic symtoms treated with an asthmatic drug through the direct actions the drug has on alleviating said symptoms, then that seems uncontroversial to me. Whether such individuals should be allowed to compete in elite sporting events while under treatment is an interesting moral question and one which i'm sure people will have differing opinions.
However, that seems to me quite a different case from the non-asthmatic who takes terbutaline (either through an inhaler or in some other form) to effect gains in their sprint performance through its action on muscles.
Which Simon Yates is, i do not know.
If you look at the statistics of the human population percentage that suffer from asthma.
Then look at the percentage of sporting people who suffer from asthma.
You'll get your answer.
Hopefully Fuentes blood bags will be handed to WADA soon to test.
Watch professional sport turned on it's head if that happens
As mentioned above it is not quite as straight forward in the case of asthma as endurance athletes such as cyclists and swimmers are more susceptible to asthma than the population at large.
Only a tiny potion of the sports you named were studied and in some cases there was no medical evidence that some of them actually suffered from asthma.
It is an absolute nonsense that 40% of the cycling population suffer from asthma.
In some cases the cyclists only need inhalers for certain times of the year.
The interviewee of the article you are referring to himself when questioned on whether it had an increase in endurance for cyclists remarked - "well you can find studies to prove anything these days"
Quote from: INDIANA on June 17, 2016, 09:40:02 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 09:19:46 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on June 17, 2016, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 09:07:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 17, 2016, 08:44:27 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 08:41:16 PM
He's a climber not a sprinter though. So "though it may improve sprint and power performance" there is no strong evidence (in the words of the article) to suggest it would improve endurance.
Climber or not, surely anything that helps with your breathing help endurance, especially at altitude?
Or put it another way, how do people with breathing difficulties beat athletes without breathing difficulties in endurance sports?
If what you're saying is that a person with asthma will benefit (performance wise) from having their asthmatic symtoms treated with an asthmatic drug through the direct actions the drug has on alleviating said symptoms, then that seems uncontroversial to me. Whether such individuals should be allowed to compete in elite sporting events while under treatment is an interesting moral question and one which i'm sure people will have differing opinions.
However, that seems to me quite a different case from the non-asthmatic who takes terbutaline (either through an inhaler or in some other form) to effect gains in their sprint performance through its action on muscles.
Which Simon Yates is, i do not know.
If you look at the statistics of the human population percentage that suffer from asthma.
Then look at the percentage of sporting people who suffer from asthma.
You'll get your answer.
Hopefully Fuentes blood bags will be handed to WADA soon to test.
Watch professional sport turned on it's head if that happens
As mentioned above it is not quite as straight forward in the case of asthma as endurance athletes such as cyclists and swimmers are more susceptible to asthma than the population at large.
Only a tiny potion of the sports you named were studied and in some cases there was no medical evidence that some of them actually suffered from asthma.
It is an absolute nonsense that 40% of the cycling population suffer from asthma.
In some cases the cyclists only need inhalers for certain times of the year.
The interviewee of the article you are referring to himself when questioned on whether it had an increase in endurance for cyclists remarked - "well you can find studies to prove anything these days"
Here's a 3 part equation
1. What would be the expected prevalence of inhaler use / Asthma symtoms in the peleton given the added environmental risk they face?
2. What would be the level at which it would be highly likely that inhaler abuse was occurring?
3. What is the actual level of inhaler use?
Knowing these 3 things would be very useful in ascertaining how far we can trust modern cycling.
However, regardless of the actual value of these 3 bits of info, its important to note that this could only tell us about general trends and not about the guilt or innocence of any individual. Its a logical fallacy to suppose otherwise.
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 10:40:21 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on June 17, 2016, 09:40:02 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 09:19:46 PM
Quote from: INDIANA on June 17, 2016, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 09:07:23 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 17, 2016, 08:44:27 PM
Quote from: Clov on June 17, 2016, 08:41:16 PM
He's a climber not a sprinter though. So "though it may improve sprint and power performance" there is no strong evidence (in the words of the article) to suggest it would improve endurance.
Climber or not, surely anything that helps with your breathing help endurance, especially at altitude?
Or put it another way, how do people with breathing difficulties beat athletes without breathing difficulties in endurance sports?
If what you're saying is that a person with asthma will benefit (performance wise) from having their asthmatic symtoms treated with an asthmatic drug through the direct actions the drug has on alleviating said symptoms, then that seems uncontroversial to me. Whether such individuals should be allowed to compete in elite sporting events while under treatment is an interesting moral question and one which i'm sure people will have differing opinions.
However, that seems to me quite a different case from the non-asthmatic who takes terbutaline (either through an inhaler or in some other form) to effect gains in their sprint performance through its action on muscles.
Which Simon Yates is, i do not know.
If you look at the statistics of the human population percentage that suffer from asthma.
Then look at the percentage of sporting people who suffer from asthma.
You'll get your answer.
Hopefully Fuentes blood bags will be handed to WADA soon to test.
Watch professional sport turned on it's head if that happens
As mentioned above it is not quite as straight forward in the case of asthma as endurance athletes such as cyclists and swimmers are more susceptible to asthma than the population at large.
Only a tiny potion of the sports you named were studied and in some cases there was no medical evidence that some of them actually suffered from asthma.
It is an absolute nonsense that 40% of the cycling population suffer from asthma.
In some cases the cyclists only need inhalers for certain times of the year.
The interviewee of the article you are referring to himself when questioned on whether it had an increase in endurance for cyclists remarked - "well you can find studies to prove anything these days"
Here's a 3 part equation
1. What would be the expected prevalence of inhaler use / Asthma symtoms in the peleton given the added environmental risk they face?
2. What would be the level at which it would be highly likely that inhaler abuse was occurring?
3. What is the actual level of inhaler use?
Knowing these 3 things would be very useful in ascertaining how far we can trust modern cycling.
However, regardless of the actual value of these 3 bits of info, its important to note that this could only tell us about general trends and not about the guilt or innocence of any individual. Its a logical fallacy to suppose otherwise.
1. How do people with diagnosed breathing difficulties beat everyone else in endurance sports, environmental risk or not? I suffer in that my legs don't go fast enough, can I just take something to overcome that?
2. Surely if even just one person was getting an unfair advantage then that would be abuse.
3. Very good question that needs to be answered.
Regarding trusting modern cycling, inhalers abuse would only be the tip of the iceberg surely. Also inhaler abuse is by no mean limited to cycling. Look at the Olympics and Rugby.
Interesting article: http://science.howstuffworks.com/10-performance-enhancing-drugs6.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/10-performance-enhancing-drugs6.htm)
Seb Coe is a joke with a neck like brass. He's gone and rightfully banned Russia from the Olympics but for the wrong reasons (to try and save his own skin). It could backfire though as the Russians aren't happy and depending on what they know and reveal there could be more people implicated in doping scandals now. Athletics is a big circus full of doping, corruption and protection and unless the authorities rip up the template it will always be thus. Cycling promised to do similar in the wake of Festina and Armstrong scandals but in reality Cookson has failed to reform the doping culture but simply continued with the status quo. The will is not there from the authorities to tackle the problem as they are financially invested in the process themselves.
]http://www.elespanol.com/deportes/otros-deportes/20160705/137736924_0.html[url] (http://www.elespanol.com/deportes/otros-deportes/20160705/137736924_0.html%5Burl)[/url]
Interesting read
See something on Twitter about Sunday Times going to expose a doping ring involving British athletes.
Getting beyond a joke now.
Worse than cycling!
The cheer leading is worse than cycling.
2nd on the medals table. More golds and one less overall than 5th Germany and 6th Italy combined.
http://www.thesportscampus.com/2016091356774/articles/wada-site-hacked-american-athletes-medical-data-splashed-over-the-internet (http://www.thesportscampus.com/2016091356774/articles/wada-site-hacked-american-athletes-medical-data-splashed-over-the-internet)
The banning of Russia, while ignoring everyone else, may just blow up in WADA's faces.
Russian hackers have accessed some of WADA's American files.
http://www.thesportscampus.com/2016091356774/articles/wada-site-hacked-american-athletes-medical-data-splashed-over-the-internet (http://www.thesportscampus.com/2016091356774/articles/wada-site-hacked-american-athletes-medical-data-splashed-over-the-internet)
The number of TUEs Serena has and the shit she's on ffs!
One of Bradley Wiggins former team doctors was on newsnight on BBC 2 just now questioning why Wiggins was prescribed steroids before the tour de france. I just saw the intro as I didn't have the remote. Did anyone else see it?
Quote from: Capt Pat on September 23, 2016, 10:58:02 PM
One of Bradley Wiggins former team doctors was on newsnight on BBC 2 just now questioning why Wiggins was prescribed steroids before the tour de france. I just saw the intro as I didn't have the remote. Did anyone else see it?
No but there is a link to his story on the BBC website on the Cycling page.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 23, 2016, 11:09:51 PM
Quote from: Capt Pat on September 23, 2016, 10:58:02 PM
One of Bradley Wiggins former team doctors was on newsnight on BBC 2 just now questioning why Wiggins was prescribed steroids before the tour de france. I just saw the intro as I didn't have the remote. Did anyone else see it?
No but there is a link to his story on the BBC website on the Cycling page.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37456623 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37456623)
A former team doctor of Sir Bradley Wiggins has questioned the decision to allow him to use a banned steroid just days before major races.
Prentice Steffen said he was "surprised" he was prescribed the drug.
He told BBC Newsnight the sport's governing body was wrong to give the cyclist permission to use a powerful corticosteroid before major races.
Did I see earlier he is doing an interview with Andrew Marr to be broadcast this weekend, is he gonna fess up ?
Quote from: Minder on September 23, 2016, 11:24:56 PM
Did I see earlier he is doing an interview with Andrew Marr to be broadcast this weekend, is he gonna fess up ?
It's an unusually bold and swift response so his PR people will want him to nip it in the bud. The fact that that were given TUEs will cover him as he'll have needed the injections due to an underlying condition. Everyone knows it's bollocks. I feel ashamed for believing he did it clean.
This Budesonide seems to be an odd choice for asthma. He appears (according to the leak (https://fancybear.net/page-2.html)) have been on it for a full year in 2009, along with Formoterol and Salbutamol.
http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-22008/budesonide-oral/details (http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-22008/budesonide-oral/details)
Formoterol is another interesting choice for asthma:
https://www.drugs.com/mtm/budesonide-and-formoterol-inhalation.html (https://www.drugs.com/mtm/budesonide-and-formoterol-inhalation.html)
'For people with asthma: This medicine is for use only if asthma is severe or is not well-controlled on other long-term asthma medication, such as an inhaled steroid.'
But he was already on Salbutamol. And took an extra 200 μg on 13 June, 2009, 3 weeks before the TDF where he replaced Armstrong in 3rd place. (He already had won Olympic medals riding for the all conquering British team).
He also took 250 ng of Fluticasone (noted as being approved along with 250 μg of Salbutamol) for the year. Whatever that is, it comes with the following warning: Do NOT use fluticasone aerosol inhaler if:
....you are allergic to any ingredient in fluticasone aerosol inhaler
....you are having a severe asthma attack requiring quick relief
Why so much asthma medication? Let's face it, that last thing a normal person with asthma would do, would be to take on the TDF. And why medication that can't be taken if the condition is severe? I could understand medication for a sever condition being granted in TUE. That would make sense. But allowing banned medication (with performance enhancing benefits) that explicitly warns against being taken during the extreme end of the scale, stinks to be honest.
And that is without mentioning the triamcinolone acetonide which he took just before the TDF that he won.
A Google search shows the this is the drug that Lance Armstrong failed a test for in 1999 and that it is sometimes used as an anti-inflammatory drug for horses!
I am not going to pretend to be a pharmacist or a doctor, or that I even understand the contents of the leaks (I don't) but that seems to be quite a cocktail of treatments for asthma. I'm surprised the lad could get out bed of never, never mind win the TDF.
But the fact of the matter is that Wiggins didn't cheat, from a legal perspective. He got permission from the cycling bodies to take these drugs. It's utterly ridiculous.
But that's why all TUEs should be made public, so both the athletes and governing bodies can be held to higher standards and can't get away with facilitating what is effective cheating.
If you've got an embarrassing medical condition that you don't want made public (which is a very small mintority of the TUEs) then take an alternative substance that's not on the banned list, or take a break. But you can't have the case of a clean athlete saying "I wish I had asthma or I wish I had ADHD because then I could take the drugs that the lad who beat me took."
And more importantly, the governing bodies should have doctors who can suggest alternative (non-performance enhancing) treatments, so the athlete wouldnt have to go on any public TUE list.
Even publishing details of TUEs won't fully work. You'll end up discriminating against healthy athletes. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that there are performance enhancing aspects of corticosteroids that wouldn't be available to non asthma sufferers, for example.
Froome might come along and say, "I have terrible asthma, it's only fair that I'm allowed treat it to enable me to complete" which, at first glance might seem fair enough, but then also helps him shave weight without losing power. That's not right. Maybe time to draw the line where nature intended.
They're all pushing the boundaries of what is legal and have been for years! I still like Wiggins and think he's a phenomenal cyclist but this has definitely tainted his achievements. Froome and co are all doing the exact same. And as someone said earlier it's technically not illegal. I can't see sport ever being fully clean.
Why should an asthmatic get to take banned substances, that help them overcome their condition, to get up the mountain and not, for example, an obese person?
And this assumes everyone is 100% honest with their conditions.
Quote from: Hound on September 24, 2016, 07:52:43 AM
But that's why all TUEs should be made public, so both the athletes and governing bodies can be held to higher standards and can't get away with facilitating what is effective cheating.
Yip, making TUEs Public Record could definitely make the TUE Tourists think twice.
Quote from: bennydorano on September 24, 2016, 10:28:28 AM
Quote from: Hound on September 24, 2016, 07:52:43 AM
But that's why all TUEs should be made public, so both the athletes and governing bodies can be held to higher standards and can't get away with facilitating what is effective cheating.
Yip, making TUEs Public Record could definitely make the TUE Tourists think twice.
Agreed. Then every TUE would open it to proper medical scrutiny. Some British doctors have described Wiggins' prescription for the corticosteroid triamcinolone as
"bonkers" and akin to "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut". (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2016/09/20/sir-bradley-wigginss-last-resort-drug-was-utterly-bonkers-say-me/)
Great quote in the Guardian today.
Quote"Wiggins, whose own personality is not always his best friend"
In other words, he's a p***k.
TUEs are only valid and legal if there's no deception in acquiring them. Pretty evident at this stage that the intramuscular injections are way beyond what any normal doctor would prescribe for treating asthma. David Millar has had said he's never felt as strong while so skinny as when he was on the same stuff. Sanctioned doping is all it is.
Quote from: gallsman on September 24, 2016, 01:51:31 PM
Great quote in the Guardian today.
Quote"Wiggins, whose own personality is not always his best friend"
In other words, he's a p***k.
TUEs are only valid and legal if there's no deception in acquiring them. Pretty evident at this stage that the intramuscular injections are way beyond what any normal doctor would prescribe for treating asthma. David Millar has had said he's never felt as strong while so skinny as when he was on the same stuff. Sanctioned doping is all it is.
I think the injections were for hay fever and allergies, which is even worse again.
Quote from: muppet on September 24, 2016, 08:26:00 PM
Quote from: gallsman on September 24, 2016, 01:51:31 PM
Great quote in the Guardian today.
Quote"Wiggins, whose own personality is not always his best friend"
In other words, he's a p***k.
TUEs are only valid and legal if there's no deception in acquiring them. Pretty evident at this stage that the intramuscular injections are way beyond what any normal doctor would prescribe for treating asthma. David Millar has had said he's never felt as strong while so skinny as when he was on the same stuff. Sanctioned doping is all it is.
I think the injections were for hay fever and allergies, which is even worse again.
Injections for hay fever for grass that isn't grown in Italy.
David Walsh must feel like a dick now
I only half heard it yesterday morning on Newstalk, but did Paul Kimmage go into meltdown mode when he was talking about David Walsh?
Quote from: AZOffaly on September 26, 2016, 11:59:17 AM
I only half heard it yesterday morning on Newstalk, but did Paul Kimmage go into meltdown mode when he was talking about David Walsh?
Yeah called him out big time and said their friendship was over.
Was it over before this Wiggins TUE stuff being unveiled? I would imagine it was.
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 26, 2016, 12:15:23 PM
Was it over before this Wiggins TUE stuff being unveiled? I would imagine it was.
m
Yeah they fell out a good while ago
Walsh has been unpopular for his sky stance for a while now and Kimmage does seem to have let a lot of things consume him wrt Armstrong etc.
Walsh's article in the Sunday Times yesterday was particularly scathing & well worth a read (as was last week's). I've always felt I'm missing something where DW is concerned, the Irish cycling twitterati seem to hate him more than Armstrong. I've always felt he has maintained his independence even when ensconced with Sky.
Quote from: bennydorano on September 26, 2016, 01:04:40 PM
Walsh's article in the Sunday Times yesterday was particularly scathing & well worth a read (as was last week's). I've always felt I'm missing something where DW is concerned, the Irish cycling twitterati seem to hate him more than Armstrong. I've always felt he has maintained his independence even when ensconced with Sky.
:( :(
That would be the bit where they disagree with you.
brailsford being interviewed later on bbc apparently with regard to team sky tue stance. could be interesting.
I would expect he will be a bit slicker than wiggins in dealing with questions.
Quote from: AQMP on September 26, 2016, 05:06:12 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on September 26, 2016, 05:00:36 PM
brailsford being interviewed later on bbc apparently with regard to team sky tue stance. could be interesting.
I would expect he will be a bit slicker than wiggins in dealing with questions.
Expect a smooth PR version of "We didn't break any rules"
I would expect nothing else. Strikes me as slippery that guy. The other thing is his role in "team GB". I wonder will they ask him on that.
He's just been on Sky Sports News, the reporter was fairly good to be fair to him, much superior questioning to Andrew Marr yesterday who clearly didn't know the subject matter. Smooth as expected from Brailsford but the genie can't go back in the bottle imo. Still Legally fine but ethically wrong.
Don't think anyone is disputing that the rules were abided by, same with Serena. It's the manipulation of those rules to gain an advantage that is unacceptable.
Walsh was just on Newstalk.
Said Wiggins TdF victory is now tainted.
While it might have been legally ok, it was certainly not ethically ok.
He refused to say anything negative about Kimmage when they quoted some of the stuff he said about Walsh yesterday.
Quote from: AQMP on September 27, 2016, 09:41:13 AM
As expected other than to say that everything they did was within the rules Brailsford didn't really provide clarity around some of the questions. He did waver slightly when admitting that the use of TUEs was a grey area rather than whiter than white and also saying that the "didn't know" whether the injection, while treating a medical condition, was also performance enhancing (which it looks like it was). I think the facts show that Wiggins/Sky did not break any rules but on the moral/ethical issue, the facts also show that Sky (just like ever other team) pushed the legality of TUEs to their absolute limit and therefore the zero tolerance policy was a load of ballix.
What I'd like to see them chased on is whether there was any deception involved in obtaining the TUE. Several doctors have come out and stated that the prescription was ludicrous, so I'd like to see details on who the specialist and three independent parties it was referred to were. If medical personnel were either misled about the extent of his allergies (the timing of the injections before Grand Tours is certainly suspect) or were complicit in a wider push to test out grey areas (so much for Sky's whiter than white claims), then have the rules really been adhered to?
It would be very interesting to know what % of TUEs are rejected. I'd guess not many....
Brailsford has talked many times about marginal gains and the importance of that extra 1% so it is not surprising that he pushed TUEs right to the wire. I'm sure the focus will change to Team GB at some point.
Quote from: Hound on September 26, 2016, 06:37:48 PM
Walsh was just on Newstalk.
Said Wiggins TdF victory is now tainted.
While it might have been legally ok, it was certainly not ethically ok.
He refused to say anything negative about Kimmage when they quoted some of the stuff he said about Walsh yesterday.
Walsh's credibility is shot imo. I naively defended his stance on Sky before this all came out, but the more you read and hear about these TUEs Wiggins had, the lengths that Sky went to portray themselves as the champions of clean cycling and the massive hypocrisy of doing all this on the sly(and you'd have to call it a cover-up not to disclose something so glaringly obviously performance enhancing) at the same time, I find it impossible to come to any conclusion other than Wiggins is a cheat, Sky are cheats and Brailsford is a glorified conman.
Walsh saying in his latest article that "Brailsford created a magnificent team that mostly played by the rules but at a critical moment played fast and loose with etihcs", is pathetic, and Kimmage is right that Walsh has applied totally different standards to Wiggins and Sky than the ones he applied to Lance. Walsh sold his journalistic soul to Team Sky and The Sunday Times, and fair play to Kimmage for calling him on it.
Quote from: bennydorano on September 26, 2016, 01:04:40 PM
Walsh's article in the Sunday Times yesterday was particularly scathing & well worth a read (as was last week's). I've always felt I'm missing something where DW is concerned, the Irish cycling twitterati seem to hate him more than Armstrong. I've always felt he has maintained his independence even when ensconced with Sky.
I didn't think it was. I thought he went far too easy on them. He should have said that Sky had duped him and they were a sham.
Quote from: AQMP on September 30, 2016, 02:24:09 PM
Has the horse already bolted Wiggo??
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/30/bradley-wiggins-full-story-asthma-allergies-tues
Yep not going down well on Twitter, seems to be digging a bigger hole.
Does the Tyson Fury story go here or the boxing thread?
More info coming out on Sky and British cycling this evening. Is the house of cards going to come down? Also talk of positive tests for steroids for Carter, Rokocoko and Imhoff after last season's super 14 rugby final.
Quote from: yellowcard on October 06, 2016, 11:48:30 PM
More info coming out on Sky and British cycling this evening. Is the house of cards going to come down? Also talk of positive tests for steroids for Carter, Rokocoko and Imhoff after last season's super 14 rugby final.
Wiggins and co seem to story's that are not quite straight.
Same with Carter. No TUE and now yes a TUE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3825848/Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-Sir-Dave-Brailsford-package-delivered-Team-Sky-Sportsmail-investigation.html
Apologies for using the Daily Heil buy this is simply fascinating.
Brailsford sounds like a man who is beginning to crack.
It's an intriguing story and sounds very shady. Simon Cope should be the man to clarify what went on, but according to his wiki page "In January 2015, he was named as the directeur sportif of the new UCI Continental level team, WIGGINS." That's the team founded by Sir Bradley Wiggins obviously so that makes things even trickier.
With such strong links between British Cycling and Team Sky, every Olympic Cycling medal won at the last 2 Olympics by the Brits is also tainted by what's been revealed. It's all pretty hilarious when you think back to how sanctimonious their Olympic coverage was in relation to Efimova and the Russians, Sun Yang, Justin Gatlin etc.
How far back does the ADAMS system cover? I'd simply love to see if there was anything in there about Radcliffe or Kelly Holmes. Whatever about the rest of them, Holmes, Farah and Froome are three I will just never believe in.
Quote from: gallsman on October 07, 2016, 08:49:59 AM
How far back does the ADAMS system cover? I'd simply love to see if there was anything in there about Radcliffe or Kelly Holmes. Whatever about the rest of them, Holmes, Farah and Froome are three I will just never believe in.
I'd have to read up on Holmes but I've read up a bit on Farah before and his rise is suspicious.
And of course his circle of friends doesn't look great either.
Quote from: gallsman on October 07, 2016, 08:49:59 AM
How far back does the ADAMS system cover? I'd simply love to see if there was anything in there about Radcliffe or Kelly Holmes. Whatever about the rest of them, Holmes, Farah and Froome are three I will just never believe in.
I really think the whole things casts big questions over team gbs cycling successes too.
Every sport is at iit including the GAA, lots of flags with some senior county teams. If you want to watch clean sport - underage sport up until I would say u16s is as far as you would get.
Lance Armstrong on Off The Ball tonight.
Will be interesting to see what that p***k has to say. Christ I use to defend him!!!
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 07, 2016, 09:43:44 AM
Every sport is at iit including the GAA, lots of flags with some senior county teams. If you want to watch clean sport - underage sport up until I would say u16s is as far as you would get.
What evidence in GAA Dinny?
Quote from: Asal Mor on October 07, 2016, 08:59:06 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 07, 2016, 08:49:59 AM
How far back does the ADAMS system cover? I'd simply love to see if there was anything in there about Radcliffe or Kelly Holmes. Whatever about the rest of them, Holmes, Farah and Froome are three I will just never believe in.
I'd have to read up on Holmes but I've read up a bit on Farah before and his rise is suspicious.
in recent years, Dame Kelly is the one athlete I've looked and thought, seriously, how the fcuk? The rise from decent runner to world's best, those crazy manic eyes after victory etc...natural? Not a chance imo
Quote from: JoG2 on October 07, 2016, 11:07:20 AM
Quote from: Asal Mor on October 07, 2016, 08:59:06 AM
Quote from: gallsman on October 07, 2016, 08:49:59 AM
How far back does the ADAMS system cover? I'd simply love to see if there was anything in there about Radcliffe or Kelly Holmes. Whatever about the rest of them, Holmes, Farah and Froome are three I will just never believe in.
I'd have to read up on Holmes but I've read up a bit on Farah before and his rise is suspicious.
in recent years, Dame Kelly is the one athlete I've looked and thought, seriously, how the fcuk? The rise from decent runner to world's best, those crazy manic eyes after victory etc...natural? Not a chance imo
Double Olympic Champion at 34 having spent her entire career in Mutola's shadow? Un f**king likely.
L'Equipe reporting that Dan Carter, Joe Rokocoko and Juan Imhoff had traces of steroids in their urine when tested at last year's Top 14 final. Rugby stars in steroid scandal is no real shock but a Carter positive test could really wake people's eyes up to the problems in Rugby.
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 07, 2016, 10:03:13 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 07, 2016, 09:43:44 AM
Every sport is at iit including the GAA, lots of flags with some senior county teams. If you want to watch clean sport - underage sport up until I would say u16s is as far as you would get.
What evidence in GAA Dinny?
You old romantic you, start with Thomas Connolly.
Then on the conjecture side - players publicly opposing blood tests for drugs, body shape of certain players.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 07, 2016, 11:49:00 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on October 07, 2016, 10:03:13 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 07, 2016, 09:43:44 AM
Every sport is at iit including the GAA, lots of flags with some senior county teams. If you want to watch clean sport - underage sport up until I would say u16s is as far as you would get.
What evidence in GAA Dinny?
You old romantic you, start with Thomas Connolly.
Then on the conjecture side - players publicly opposing blood tests for drugs, body shape of certain players.
There was a lot of joking around this week about the neck of one particular multiple All Ireland winning footballer.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 07, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
Lance Armstrong on Off The Ball tonight.
Will be interesting to see what that p***k has to say. Christ I use to defend him!!!
me too. He was my hero. The sad thing is, the way he trained he probably would have won a tour without doping.
What channel is that on?
Quote from: tonto1888 on October 07, 2016, 01:17:52 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 07, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
Lance Armstrong on Off The Ball tonight.
Will be interesting to see what that p***k has to say. Christ I use to defend him!!!
me too. He was my hero. The sad thing is, the way he trained he probably would have won a tour without doping.
What channel is that on?
Newstalk
Listen on-line here
http://www.newstalk.com/ (http://www.newstalk.com/)
Quote from: tonto1888 on October 07, 2016, 01:17:52 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 07, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
Lance Armstrong on Off The Ball tonight.
Will be interesting to see what that p***k has to say. Christ I use to defend him!!!
me too. He was my hero. The sad thing is, the way he trained he probably would have won a tour without doping.
What channel is that on?
You're still dreaming. With all the other lads on the juice as well?
Quote from: tonto1888 on October 07, 2016, 01:17:52 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 07, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
Lance Armstrong on Off The Ball tonight.
Will be interesting to see what that p***k has to say. Christ I use to defend him!!!
me too. He was my hero. The sad thing is, the way he trained he probably would have won a tour without doping.
What channel is that on?
Surely your having a laugh, he wouldn't have been top 50.
Quote from: gallsman on October 07, 2016, 01:40:31 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on October 07, 2016, 01:17:52 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 07, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
Lance Armstrong on Off The Ball tonight.
Will be interesting to see what that p***k has to say. Christ I use to defend him!!!
me too. He was my hero. The sad thing is, the way he trained he probably would have won a tour without doping.
What channel is that on?
You're still dreaming. With all the other lads on the juice as well?
Finishing a tour after his recovery should have been a sufficient achievement.
Quote from: yellowcard on October 07, 2016, 02:49:31 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on October 07, 2016, 01:17:52 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 07, 2016, 09:47:44 AM
Lance Armstrong on Off The Ball tonight.
Will be interesting to see what that p***k has to say. Christ I use to defend him!!!
me too. He was my hero. The sad thing is, the way he trained he probably would have won a tour without doping.
What channel is that on?
Surely your having a laugh, he wouldn't have been top 50.
I disagree, possibly wrongly, but as Tony baloney said below finishing a tour would have been some achievement after the cancer
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-3828716/Sir-Dave-Brailsford-feeling-heat-Sir-Bradley-Wiggins-UK-Anti-Doping-investigation-continues.html
The UKAD investigation is under way. On top of Brailsford's lies in attempting to explain away the Simon Cope package, I thought this part was interesting.
The UKAD investigation is now under way. The investigators did not turn up at Team Sky and British Cycling's headquarters at Manchester velodrome on Friday for a cosy, routine chat, whatever Sky argued in a statement on Saturday.
They also appeared to imply that they all but instigated the investigation. 'Team Sky was recently contacted by Sportsmail regarding an allegation of wrongdoing which we strongly refute,' they said.
'We informed British Cycling of the allegation and asked them to contact UK Anti-Doping (UKAD). We understand that UKAD are currently investigating this as you would expect.'
UKAD launched their investigation before BC or Sky contacted them.
It's classic Team Sky PR.
Fair play to the Daily Mail on this one. They're leading the chase on this and have exposed some seriously dodgy goings-on at Team Sky. Sir David Walsh could learn a lot from them(I gave him the knighthood myself as I think the title suits him).
Heard them talking about Sharapova, who got a great reception at a charity event in Las Vegas, on Sky Sports News. The English presenter said she might not be that welcome at Wimbledon because "we don't forgive that kind of thing so easily here". >:(
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/37691574 (http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/37691574)
Three-time Tour de France winner Chris Froome and six-time Olympic champion Sir Chris Hoy say "questions remain" over Sir Bradley Wiggins' use of a banned steroid before major races.
Wiggins, 36, took the anti-inflammatory drug triamcinolone for allergies and respiratory problems, after applying for therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs).
He said he used the drug to put himself "back on a level playing field".
"I think it is up to Bradley - he needs to clear his name," Hoy said.
Former Team Sky team-mate Froome, 31, said: "Questions remain over his symptoms, the choice of treatment and the related performance benefits from that treatment."
But he said it was "impossible to say" whether Wiggins was "operating in a grey area".
Froome & Hoy not exactly standing up for Wiggins. In fact, it is hard to find high profile British cycling superhero who is. Is Wiggins the outlier or is it a case of rats pedalling overboard?
There have to be looming questions over "Team GB" now with Brailsford involved.
Quote from: muppet on October 18, 2016, 11:33:08 PM
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/37691574 (http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/37691574)
Three-time Tour de France winner Chris Froome and six-time Olympic champion Sir Chris Hoy say "questions remain" over Sir Bradley Wiggins' use of a banned steroid before major races.
Wiggins, 36, took the anti-inflammatory drug triamcinolone for allergies and respiratory problems, after applying for therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs).
He said he used the drug to put himself "back on a level playing field".
"I think it is up to Bradley - he needs to clear his name," Hoy said.
Former Team Sky team-mate Froome, 31, said: "Questions remain over his symptoms, the choice of treatment and the related performance benefits from that treatment."
But he said it was "impossible to say" whether Wiggins was "operating in a grey area".
Froome & Hoy not exactly standing up for Wiggins. In fact, it is hard to find high profile British cycling superhero who is. Is Wiggins the outlier or is it a case of rats pedalling overboard?
Wiggins is not a well liked character as far as I can see!
He's reaping what he has sewn personality wise. Froome certainly seems to be revelling in Wiggin's discomfort.
Quote from: bennydorano on October 19, 2016, 12:17:36 PM
He's reaping what he has sewn personality wise. Froome certainly seems to be revelling in Wiggin's discomfort.
He has every reason to. If he was let at him in the year Wiggo won the tour it would have been a different outcome.
Quote from: Asal Mor on October 12, 2016, 06:45:22 PM
Heard them talking about Sharapova, who got a great reception at a charity event in Las Vegas, on Sky Sports News. The English presenter said she might not be that welcome at Wimbledon because "we don't forgive that kind of thing so easily here". >:(
no brits take performance enhancing drugs, dive on a football pitch, take bungs etc etc don't you know...
Froome is deflecting. They are all at it.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on October 19, 2016, 02:22:59 PM
Froome is deflecting. They are all at it.
Considering the damage it is doing to all of their reputations, I find it strange that they are not supporting him. Or do they think people are only looking at him?
As an aside, imagine if the Armistead (now Deignan - She married a Sky cycling professional last month) story broke now. How would people view her 3 missed tests?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3822128/Olympic-crash-victim-Annemiek-van-Vleuten-claims-Lizzie-Armitstead-not-Rio-Games-missing-three-drugs-tests.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-3822128/Olympic-crash-victim-Annemiek-van-Vleuten-claims-Lizzie-Armitstead-not-Rio-Games-missing-three-drugs-tests.html)
Quote from: bennydorano on October 19, 2016, 12:17:36 PM
He's reaping what he has sewn personality wise. Froome certainly seems to be revelling in Wiggin's discomfort.
Froome seems to forget his own TUEs
No, his TUEs were known & out in the open - eventhough one at the Tour de Romandie infuriated Kimmage and others as they said he should have withdrew instead. Getting a TUE is not a hangable offence in itself, Wiggins's are causing a kerfuffle because they are highly dubiously timed to coincide with the start of various Grand Tours.
The real debate in cycling now is 'what is clean' & I doubt there's any pro cycling team not sailing close to the wind and therefore 'clean' - as in the ideal.
Quote from: tonto1888 on October 19, 2016, 04:49:11 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on October 19, 2016, 12:17:36 PM
He's reaping what he has sewn personality wise. Froome certainly seems to be revelling in Wiggin's discomfort.
Froome seems to forget his own TUEs
Froome's leg, as posted by Sky themselves:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10996274/Leg-it-Seven-gruesome-pictures-of-cyclists-scary-pins.html?frame=2989146 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10996274/Leg-it-Seven-gruesome-pictures-of-cyclists-scary-pins.html?frame=2989146)
As Lance might say, unnatural.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02989/Froome_2989146k.jpg)
Quote from: bennydorano on October 19, 2016, 05:58:43 PM
No, his TUEs were known & out in the open - eventhough one at the Tour de Romandie infuriated Kimmage and others as they said he should have withdrew instead. Getting a TUE is not a hangable offence in itself, Wiggins's are causing a kerfuffle because they are highly dubiously timed to coincide with the start of various Grand Tours.
The real debate in cycling now is 'what is clean' & I doubt there's any pro cycling team not sailing close to the wind and therefore 'clean' - as in the ideal.
Cheers mate. I was unaware of the circumstances surrounding them
Parliamentary select committee getting involved. Seems a bit ridiculous?
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/british-cycling-forced-parliamentary-committee-reveal-contents-medical-package-2011-dauphine-297211?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
A bit of a joke yesterday that a boxer got a three year ban for a recreational drug.
Quote from: nrico2006 on October 28, 2016, 01:27:05 PM
A bit of a joke yesterday that a boxer got a three year ban for a recreational drug.
Yea, he should have just got it on a TUE.
Quote from: bennydorano on October 28, 2016, 12:56:31 PM
Parliamentary select committee getting involved. Seems a bit ridiculous?
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/british-cycling-forced-parliamentary-committee-reveal-contents-medical-package-2011-dauphine-297211?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
Why is it ridiculous?
A Parliamentary select committee???? Due process through the cycling system first of all might be in order.
Quote from: bennydorano on October 28, 2016, 04:07:20 PM
A Parliamentary select committee???? Due process through the cycling system first of all might be in order.
They receive taxpayer funding and should therefore be open to scrutiny from Parliament.
What is the "cycling system"? What due process should they follow? The only process anyone on the administration side of the British cycling sphere has been following is to race to the nearest beach so they can dig a big f**king hole to shove their heads in.
Apologies, I actually mis-read that a bit. Thought it was Sky & not British Cycling that had been summonsed. Still seems like overkill & premature while UKAD are still investigating the situation.
Shane Sutton will hopefully have a lot to say in the next couple of days.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/bradley-wiggins-to-be-cleared-in-ukad-investigation-into-medical-package-303637?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social
Poor oul Wiggins
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.timeinc.net/cyclingweekly/news/racing/bradley-wiggins-poised-to-ink-multi-million-pound-sponsorship-deal-with-skoda-uk-303542%3Fsource%3Ddam?client=ms-android-h3g-gb
These are just some of the interesting questions regarding Wiggins' package:
From the BBC:
Why send for a routine, innocuous drug from over 1,000 kilometres away when it could have been easily sourced in France?
Why did former coach Shane Sutton "authorise" the delivery of something, the details of which he claims not to be aware of? And why did Wiggins' long-term mentor not know what medication his star cyclist was taking?
And why was Wiggins taking a decongestant that apparently is not meant to be used by asthmatics (like him)?
Great interview on Off The Ball with Matt Lawton from the Daily Mail, the journalist who uncovered the story about the mystery package. Interesting that Brailsford told a new set of lies to the MPs. His first explanation was that Simon Cope was travelling to meet Emma Pooley, then the bus had already left before Wiggins, now it's Fluimicil which might not be plausible either. Even David Walsh is now saying that Brailsford has to go.
Lawton reports that Brailsford asked him 'If you didn't write the story, is there anything else that could be done?'
Quote from: muppet on December 20, 2016, 06:37:17 PM
These are just some of the interesting questions regarding Wiggins' package:
From the BBC:
Why send for a routine, innocuous drug from over 1,000 kilometres away when it could have been easily sourced in France?
Why did former coach Shane Sutton "authorise" the delivery of something, the details of which he claims not to be aware of? And why did Wiggins' long-term mentor not know what medication his star cyclist was taking?
And why was Wiggins taking a decongestant that apparently is not meant to be used by asthmatics (like him)?
Apparently it can be bought over-the-counter for 8 euros in France. Surprising oversight from such a meticulous team.
Team Sky is unravelling dirty as any of them. Great radio on Off the Ball last night, David Walsh is even putting his hand up saying it got it wrong. This won't end well.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on December 22, 2016, 09:07:51 AM
Team Sky is unravelling dirty as any of them. Great radio on Off the Ball last night, David Walsh is even putting his hand up saying it got it wrong. This won't end well.
Well I think he is saying they are all dirty, but somehow Froome is clean :-[
Quote from: Minder on December 22, 2016, 09:09:58 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on December 22, 2016, 09:07:51 AM
Team Sky is unravelling dirty as any of them. Great radio on Off the Ball last night, David Walsh is even putting his hand up saying it got it wrong. This won't end well.
Well I think he is saying they are all dirty, but somehow Froome is clean :-[
That was throughly bizarre but then when you invest so much and want to believe so badly as many did with LA it can be hard let go even when logic dictates otherwise.
No one is so goodat cycling to be clean a2nd competing for tour wins, its that simple folks.
Quote from: stew on December 22, 2016, 10:31:27 AM
No one is so goodat cycling to be clean a2nd competing for tour wins, its that simple folks.
That's it. Just recently read the Tyler Hamilton book, The Secret Race. He was famed for having an incredible pain threshold and work ethic. When he first raced in Europe he couldn't believe the power of the riders. He was consistently battling just to finish races and not get cut. When he finally made the 'a' team, and had his first hit of epo, just one hit, he finished in the top 20 the next race. There is not a single rider at the top level 'clean' imo
I wonder what benny's views are at this stage...
Quote from: JoG2 on December 22, 2016, 12:00:39 PM
Quote from: stew on December 22, 2016, 10:31:27 AM
No one is so goodat cycling to be clean a2nd competing for tour wins, its that simple folks.
That's it. Just recently read the Tyler Hamilton book, The Secret Race. He was famed for having an incredible pain threshold and work ethic. When he first raced in Europe he couldn't believe the power of the riders. He was consistently battling just to finish races and not get cut. When he finally made the 'a' team, and had his first hit of epo, just one hit, he finished in the top 20 the next race. There is not a single rider at the top level 'clean' imo
Good book.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/21/british-biathlon-union-boycott-world-cup-russia-doping (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/dec/21/british-biathlon-union-boycott-world-cup-russia-doping)
Great Britain will boycott the biathlon World Cup in Russia in March, with executives branding Russian athletes "brainwashed" for disowning the McLaren report.
The board of the British Biathlon Union has voted unanimously to shun the World Cup meeting in Tyumen in March......
......."The board has taken the unanimous decision that Great Britain will not compete at the biathlon World Cup in Tyumen," the British Biathlon Union's statement read.
"This follows the brain-washed, deluded and dishonest comments of Russian World Cup athletes that McLaren is about politics, not sport and the unprecedented booing of the Russian female athlete who won the sprint at World Cup Two last weekend in Nove Mesto.Delighted that the Brits are taking the high moral ground on doping in sports. ;D ;D
Quote from: gallsman on December 22, 2016, 12:08:33 PM
I wonder what benny's views are at this stage...
I don't think any different than I did a few weeks ago. The real debate now is what is clean.
Happy that you value my opinion.
Quote from: Dinny Breen on December 22, 2016, 09:07:51 AM
Team Sky is unravelling dirty as any of them. Great radio on Off the Ball last night, David Walsh is even putting his hand up saying it got it wrong. This won't end well.
That was a brilliant interview. At first Walsh was trying to pat himself on the back, reminding the listeners that he'd called for Brailsford to resign 2 months ago, but the interviewer (Joe Molloy??) really knew his stuff and absolutely grilled him over all the bad judgement calls he'd made, plus the positive publicity he'd given Team Sky for so long. I thought Walsh was getting very tetchy and defensive at times. For a man whose most lauded book was based on the principle(as he reminded the reader throughout) of journalists not accepting what's taken by others to be the truth, and instead asking the difficult questions, he didn't seem to appreciate facing a few himself. It was a great laugh listening to him squirm actually, and I'm sure Lance will enjoy it thoroughly too.
Kimmage was putting the boot into him last night
Quote from: Minder on December 22, 2016, 01:28:06 PM
Kimmage was putting the boot into him last night
What was that on Minder? Would love to have a listen.
Quote from: bennydorano on December 22, 2016, 12:52:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on December 22, 2016, 12:08:33 PM
I wonder what benny's views are at this stage...
I don't think any different than I did a few weeks ago. The real debate now is what is clean.
Happy that you value my opinion.
I wasn't being snarky or anything, just that you're the prominent sky defender on the board. Do you still reckon Froome is clean?
Yes. I certainly don't think Sky or Froome cheat in the traditional way - EPO etc... Froome isn't abusing TUEs & has inadvertently been exonerated by the Fancy Bears leaks. Until there's proof of anything you have to give him the benefit of the doubt (I do anyway).
Quote from: bennydorano on December 22, 2016, 04:21:28 PM
Yes. I certainly don't think Sky or Froome cheat in the traditional way - EPO etc... Froome isn't abusing TUEs & has inadvertently been exonerated by the Fancy Bears leaks. Until there's proof of anything you have to give him the benefit of the doubt (I do anyway).
Benny I did the same thing for Armstrong, you have tremendous knowledge in the area of professional cycling, me? Not so much, do you really think Drop me is that good he could compete and beat the best of the best who were doping? I think not, what do you think?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/38413852 (http://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/38413852)
Among the other allegations made by Matheson are:
The World Class Performance Programme worked in a "bubble" with "little or no supervision" by British Cycling's management.
A "considerable amount of money" has been spent on financial settlements for staff who were "forced" to leave British Cycling.
Favoured athletes and staff tended to form "enclaves" and those on the outside were "often treated badly and fearful for their future".
Matheson's account of events is highly critical of Sir Dave Brailsford, who joined British Cycling in 1997 and worked under Keen before succeeding him in 2003.
Great interview with Paul Kimmage on Eamon Dunphy's new podcast "The Stand" which imo has been brilliant so far. It's remarkable what happened to Kimmage a few years back for taking the opposite stance to David Walsh with regard to Team Sky.
Also, I never knew that Sean Kelly had actually tested positive twice for PEDs.
Quote from: Asal Mor on January 04, 2017, 02:55:59 PM
Great interview with Paul Kimmage on Eamon Dunphy's new podcast "The Stand" which imo has been brilliant so far. It's remarkable what happened to Kimmage a few years back for taking the opposite stance to David Walsh with regard to Team Sky.
Also, I never knew that Sean Kelly had actually tested positive twice for PEDs.
What happened Kimmage for taking an opposing stance to Walsh?
Despite winning several awards, more than the rest of the sports department put together, he was sacked by The Sunday Times, who are part of the same corporation as the backers of Team Sky, and spent 7 months signing on the dole in Dublin. Walsh sold out and gave Sky his full backing. He is still chief Sports Writer at the the ST and is now trying to paint himself as someone who is pursuing Brailsford and Wiggins. Kimmage and Walsh were once best friends but no longer speak to each other.
You're a few years out there horse with the time lines & have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the line.
Quote from: bennydorano on January 04, 2017, 09:41:30 PM
You're a few years out there horse with the time lines & have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the line.
That's as Kimmage told it. Where exactly is it wrong?
He got the road from the ST in the Lance Armstrong era.
Quote from: bennydorano on January 04, 2017, 10:00:53 PM
He got the road from the ST in the Lance Armstrong era.
You're right actually. My mistake. He said he was sacked over his refusal to let go on the Armstrong story, after the lawsuit and settlement when his editor started to get wary of printing anything about Lance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/38744846
Usain Bolt loses one Olympic gold medal as Nesta Carter tests positive
Usain Bolt will have to hand back one of his nine Olympic gold medals after Jamaican team-mate Nesta Carter tested positive for a banned substance.
Carter was part of the Jamaican quartet that won the 4x100m in Beijing in 2008.
His was one of 454 selected doping samples retested by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) last year, and has been found to contain the banned stimulant methylhexaneamine.
Bolt, 30, completed an unprecedented 'triple triple' in Rio last summer.
He won gold in the 100m, 200m and 4x100m relay to add to his successes in the same events in 2008 and 2012.
Carter, 31, was also part of the squad that won the event in London five years ago and helped Jamaica win at the World Championships in 2011, 2013 and 2015.
He ran the first leg for Jamaica's 4x100m relay team in Beijing, which also included Michael Frater, Asafa Powell and Bolt.
The team won in a then world record of 37.10 seconds, ahead of Trinidad and Tobago and Japan, who will now have their medals upgraded. Brazil will receive bronze.
The test and what happened next?
Carter was tested on the evening of the Beijing final in 2008 but that was found at the time to contain no "adverse analytical finding".
More than 4,500 tests were carried out at those Games, but just nine athletes were caught cheating.
An anomaly was discovered in Carter's submission following the IOC's decision to retest 454 samples from Beijing using the latest scientific analysis methods.
Carter and the Jamaican National Olympic Committee were told of the adverse finding in May - before the Rio Games - and told his B sample would be tested.
It was reported by Reuters in June that Carter's A sample had been found to contain methylhexanamine, which has been on the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) prohibited list since 2004.
It was reclassified in 2011 as a "specified substance", meaning one that is more susceptible to a "credible, non-doping explanation".
Sold as a nasal decongestant in the United States until 1983, methylhexanamine has been used more recently as an ingredient in dietary supplements.
Reaction - 'It takes the shine off Bolt's achievement'
Britain's two-time Olympic silver medallist Roger Black on BBC Radio 5 live
It takes the shine off Bolt's achievement. Eight doesn't have the same ring - 'double treble, plus two'.
It will be really frustrating for him. You can only account for yourself, you cannot account for your team-mates.
We know it has nothing to do with Usain Bolt - it will not damage his reputation - but it will affect it, take shine off it and he won't be a happy man.
When I hear stories like this, a part of me does celebrate. If athletes think they have got away with, then with retrospective testing they can never sleep peacefully.
It has to be the strongest deterrent the sport now has. Even when athletes retire they can still have their medals taken away. That is a really good deterrent.
With the above failed test of the Jamician, Carter. Bolt is now the only person to have ever ran under 9.79 and not failed a drug test....
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-struggling-over-legality-of-naming-operacion-puerto-athletes/?utm_content=bufferacbfc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Could be squeaky bum time soon for some Footballers & Tennis players (in addition to Cyclists).
Right now what is a supplement and what is a PED? Do all the sports drink advertise performance enhancement? It's been long known that fat burners here have been used for years in pre season for many sports including gaa. I know it's taboo but why not get the sports world together with the scientists and have a big boy conversation with amnisety to info and develop a system where certain enhancers deemed healthy can be taken and develop levels appropriate to modern society.
Big story about salazar in the sunday times today which doesn't look good for him or farah.
British Cycling and Team Sky credibility in tatters after hearing.
"The record-keeping failure exposed in the saga of the Jiffy Bag delivered to Wiggins in 2011 undermines everything Brailsford and co have said about drugs"
(why the capital letters for jiffy bag?)
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/02/british-cycling-team-sky-dave-brailsford-credibility-tatters (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/02/british-cycling-team-sky-dave-brailsford-credibility-tatters)
Personally, I don't see why Team Sky cannot be found guilty by default, in the same way a competitor can be found guilty when avoiding an impromptu compulsory drug test (Rio Ferdinand - went shopping, forgot). There's no proof of drug abuse but there's a strict duty of care to be available to prove your innocence. Sky have clearly not followed duty of care procedure, therefore guilt by default.
Unfortunately given the power of the Sky team in cycling unless evidence is uncovered or someone whistleblows they will get off.
The UK media (when they do mention this) almost seem to preface it by saying Sky have never been found guilty of wrongdoing.
Much like the LA story - lets hope it is only a matter of time before the truth comes out.
Add this to the Mo story and the success by UK athletes at recent Olympics could all be rewritten
Quote from: Taylor on March 02, 2017, 10:11:35 AM
Unfortunately given the power of the Sky team in cycling unless evidence is uncovered or someone whistleblows they will get off.
The UK media (when they do mention this) almost seem to preface it by saying Sky have never been found guilty of wrongdoing.
Much like the LA story - lets hope it is only a matter of time before the truth comes out.
Add this to the Mo story and the success by UK athletes at recent Olympics could all be rewritten
In fairness the Mail have been pushing this hard and have done a lot of digging
Smells like someone is about to be thrown under a bus
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/sky-doctor-prevented-richard-freeman-applying-fourth-bradley-wiggins-tue-318094?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social
Quote from: Main Street on March 02, 2017, 10:06:37 AM
British Cycling and Team Sky credibility in tatters after hearing.
"The record-keeping failure exposed in the saga of the Jiffy Bag delivered to Wiggins in 2011 undermines everything Brailsford and co have said about drugs"
(why the capital letters for jiffy bag?)
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/02/british-cycling-team-sky-dave-brailsford-credibility-tatters (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/02/british-cycling-team-sky-dave-brailsford-credibility-tatters)
Personally, I don't see why Team Sky cannot be found guilty by default, in the same way a competitor can be found guilty when avoiding an impromptu compulsory drug test (Rio Ferdinand - went shopping, forgot). There's no proof of drug abuse but there's a strict duty of care to be available to prove your innocence. Sky have clearly not followed duty of care procedure, therefore guilt by default.
Jiffy is a brand name so it the first letter is capitalised. What it contains was IFFY.
Quote from: bennydorano on March 05, 2017, 05:31:07 PM
Smells like someone is about to be thrown under a bus
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/sky-doctor-prevented-richard-freeman-applying-fourth-bradley-wiggins-tue-318094?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social
As the noose gets tighter Benny someone will have to be the fall guy to protect Wiggins and the big bosses
Quote from: LeoMc on March 07, 2017, 10:54:56 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 02, 2017, 10:06:37 AM
British Cycling and Team Sky credibility in tatters after hearing.
"The record-keeping failure exposed in the saga of the Jiffy Bag delivered to Wiggins in 2011 undermines everything Brailsford and co have said about drugs"
(why the capital letters for jiffy bag?)
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/02/british-cycling-team-sky-dave-brailsford-credibility-tatters (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/02/british-cycling-team-sky-dave-brailsford-credibility-tatters)
Personally, I don't see why Team Sky cannot be found guilty by default, in the same way a competitor can be found guilty when avoiding an impromptu compulsory drug test (Rio Ferdinand - went shopping, forgot). There's no proof of drug abuse but there's a strict duty of care to be available to prove your innocence. Sky have clearly not followed duty of care procedure, therefore guilt by default.
Jiffy is a brand name so it the first letter is capitalised. What it contains was IFFY.
The J-iffy bag
Quote from: Main Street on March 02, 2017, 10:06:37 AM
British Cycling and Team Sky credibility in tatters after hearing.
"The record-keeping failure exposed in the saga of the Jiffy Bag delivered to Wiggins in 2011 undermines everything Brailsford and co have said about drugs"
(why the capital letters for jiffy bag?)
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/02/british-cycling-team-sky-dave-brailsford-credibility-tatters (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/mar/02/british-cycling-team-sky-dave-brailsford-credibility-tatters)
Personally, I don't see why Team Sky cannot be found guilty by default, in the same way a competitor can be found guilty when avoiding an impromptu compulsory drug test (Rio Ferdinand - went shopping, forgot). There's no proof of drug abuse but there's a strict duty of care to be available to prove your innocence. Sky have clearly not followed duty of care procedure, therefore guilt by default.
Totally agree. Brailsford has also been caught out lying twice about the package, before eventually coming up with a 3rd excuse(Fluimicil) which defies logic. It can't be disproven, but only be cause Sky didn't keep(or destroyed) proper records. Apparently Freeman could be in trouble with the medical council over the saga because obviously doctors are required to keep records of drugs that they administer to people.
If it were a case of trial by jury, Sky wouldn't have a chance.
So what was actually in the Jiffy bag?
Quote from: imtommygunn on February 26, 2017, 09:48:45 AM
Big story about salazar in the sunday times today which doesn't look good for him or farah.
Salazar sounds like a total chemist. He was even testing performance enhancers and messaging Lance to tell him how amazing the results were. And Sir Mo Farah's career took off when he teamed up with him. It's hilarious really.
Quote from: JimStynes on March 07, 2017, 10:37:08 PM
So what was actually in the Jiffy bag?
Not an over-the-counter decongestant anyway, which was widely available in France and which Team Sky have previously purchased in other European countries from the nearest Pharmacy.
Sky released an 8 page document that answered a lot of questions (to nobody's satisfaction) worth reading if only to get a semblance of balance on the subject.
"It is reported that as many as 70 ampoules of triamcinolone were ordered by Team Sky in 2011 alone. This is incorrect. Our records indicate that 55 ampoules of triamcinolone were ordered by Team Sky over a four-year period between 2010 and 2013."
It's more than a bit rich for Sky to try to use their records to back up their story, but even allowing for that, 55 still sounds like a lot.
"Only a small proportion of this was administered to Team Sky riders. According to Dr Richard Freeman, the majority was used in his private practice and to treat Team Sky and British Cycling staff."
;D
Quote from: Asal Mor on March 08, 2017, 08:46:01 PM
"It is reported that as many as 70 ampoules of triamcinolone were ordered by Team Sky in 2011 alone. This is incorrect. Our records indicate that 55 ampoules of triamcinolone were ordered by Team Sky over a four-year period between 2010 and 2013."
It's more than a bit rich for Sky to try to use their records to back up their story, but even allowing for that, 55 still sounds like a lot.
"Only a small proportion of this was administered to Team Sky riders. According to Dr Richard Freeman, the majority was used in his private practice and to treat Team Sky and British Cycling staff."
;D
Brutal defence that. Nasacort and its generics are the standard way to adminster Triamcinolone to those suffering mild to moderate hay fever and allergies. Direct IV is for treatment of the most severe symptoms. It is classified as an extremely hazardous substance and is carcinogenic. Freeman being set up as the fall guy.
Three time World Champion and 2008 Olympic 1500m Champion Asbel Kiprop of Kenya has tested positive for EPO. It transpires he was alerted to the fact that he was about to be tested. Ironically he won his 2008 gold medal after finishing 2nd in the race when the original winner was stripped of the gold after failing a drugs test.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/may/04/epo-suspect-asbel-kiprop-athletics-integrity-unit
I see an English man called Wightman is putting the Kenyans in their place in the 1500 metres. I never thought we would see a clean white English man dominating this event with a Norwegian. Wightman was 10th at the Olympics last year. He is 28.
Same thought occurred to me. They were saying he always had potential so I assumed he was around the 20 mark. Surprised when they said 28 and 10th last year
Despite having an English accent he's actually Scottish. I wouldn't say he's dominating this event - a real medal prospect who had the race of his life. Ingebrigtsen is just a once in a lifetime talent. (Who it's great to see getting beat when you see his interviews)
I would still be shocked if farah wasn't up to his neck in it.
He didn't come out of the blue though. Any predictions I saw before the race had him at silver or bronze.
He ran 3:29 a couple of years ago
https://athleticsweekly.com/athletics-news/jake-wightman-uk-no2-monaco-1500m-1039931550/
Him and Kerr were widely predicted to challenge for medals. Read there his da was a 213 marathoner and his mum 231.
9 times out of 10 wightman doesn't win that world final but 9 out of 10 he wouldn't finish tenth either.
Its just I'm confused. A few years ago I was lead to beleive that the Kenyans and Ethiopians etc were untouchables to white Europeans in middle and long distance events. I never heard of his parents, they obviously were not that good. His dad is identified as a commentator and coach not as a former elite runner. Only 2 Kenyans and one Ethiopian in that final but 3 Spaniards and 2 Brits. Why the sudden change from a few years back when Africans dominated.
They were international athletes both of them though neither absolute top end. You would imagine that would be a help to an athlete.
The Kenyans and Ethiopians don't dominate the 800 and 1500 the way that they do at 5000 and up. (Tbh it's 3000 and up but only steeplechase at 3000 in outdoor). E.g. there's never been an Olympic 1500 metre winner from Ethiopia.
Farah broke the dominance in 5000 and 10000 but I think we all know the reasons there.
N.b. They dominate more in women's but have really in the men's.
Europeans have always been competitive at middle distance, both the 800 and 1500 and while the Kenyans and North Africans (Ethiopia has never really been a men's might distance force the way Kenya has) took most of the golds, there's a more than healthy scattering of world and Olympic medals amongst Europeans. An American lad won gold in Rio. Ingebritsen has been marked for greatness and superstardom since his mid teens. Wightman ran a PB on a very fast track and others didn't run what they are capable of. Don't think there's anything to raise an eyebrow at.
Mad to see that the time to win it yesterday is around the time Cram won it in. You would have expected times now to have improved on those from 40 years ago.
El Guerrouj's WR is nearly 25 years old. Ingebritsen hasn't got within two seconds of it yet, although he's only 21.
They reckon the shoe technology makes little to no difference on 800/1500 kind of distance so maybe a part of why other distances getting much quicker and this not.
Ingebrtsen not likeable at all but huge talent. I honestly thought he showed a real lack of character in this race. Wightman passed him and it was just like ok that's it. There was no dying last I will give everything I have here.
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 21, 2022, 07:44:17 AM
They reckon the shoe technology makes little to no difference on 800/1500 kind of distance so maybe a part of why other distances getting much quicker and this not.
Ingebrtsen not likeable at all but huge talent. I honestly thought he showed a real lack of character in this race. Wightman passed him and it was just like ok that's it. There was no dying last I will give everything I have here.
But then you look at Karsten Warholm who knocked nearly a second of a 29 year old world record in the space of a month last summer in such a short distance.
They reckon it's 800-1500 it doesn't see as many gains(actually more 800). I think it's Ross Tucker was talking about it and actually the 400 hurdles may be the perfect distance to reap the benefit. 400 hurdles very quick this year too. Warholm near last but I think he's had a very bad injury this year.
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 21, 2022, 08:52:57 AM
They reckon it's 800-1500 it doesn't see as many gains(actually more 800). I think it's Ross Tucker was talking about it and actually the 400 hurdles may be the perfect distance to reap the benefit. 400 hurdles very quick this year too. Warholm near last but I think he's had a very bad injury this year.
Aye, I assume his position is as a result of injury, think he did his hamstring in June.