Drugs in UK sports....

[Milltown Row2]

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

[AZOffaly]

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.

[Milltown Row2]

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

[Franko]

Money is not an issue - there is enough money in professional sports to keep them clean.  The question is - is there enough will?

[imtommygunn]

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.

[Bingo]

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.

[johnneycool]

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...

[imtommygunn]

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!

[muppet]

But Holmes?!!!!!!

[dferg]

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?

[Bingo]

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?

[dferg]

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.

[deiseach]

Radcliffe made a rod for her own back by setting herself up as the conscience of the sport. Caesar's wife and all that.

[Declan]

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.

[deiseach]

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.