Paula Radcliffe should give Wang Junxia the benefit of the doubt

I think Paula may be basing her evaluation of the worth of Wang Junxia’s performance on the fact that during that period, Chinese women suddenly made unnaturally massive improvements in sports other than athletics.

Setting new world records in weightlifting and swimming for instance.

Wang set her record in 93.

In the 1994 World Championships in Rome, Chinese women swimmers won an amazing 12 gold medals out of a possible 16.

The American team director was accused at the time of sour grapes, calling for an immediate improvement in drug-testing procedure.

But in 98, luggage belonging to a Chinese swimmer arriving for the world championships, was seized by Australian customs uncovering 26 vials of human somatropin, a human growth hormone.

I think the shock of all the resulting scandal and the fall-out from that - forced the Chinese authorities to clean up their act and put a stop the their obvious replication of the old East German drug culture.

It is noticeable that at the Beijing Olympics, things were back to normal and the Chinese women only won one gold and a few minor medals.

And we have had no Wangs since 93 either.

Wang was likely doped, but if you believe that Radcliffe's 2:15 wasn't aided by EPO you're incredibly naive.

Good point...if the East Germans were doing this then why doesn't the international committee nulify Marita Koch's 400 m records..wasn't her name found on a list of athletes being given steroids from 81-84..

I really wish the governing body would make a concerted effort to answer some of these questions, for instance give Marita , Wang , and Qu a monetary incentive to come forward with information relating to what they were ingesting or being injected with (then but asteriks in the record books)...Do this before the record holders pass away, or else the record books will be forever meaningless

break it up wrote:

Radcliffe's 2:15 marathon from a runner that never broke 30:00 for 10k is equally off the charts as Wangs 10k.

2:15 is off the charts for several reasons (and will never be broken) but Radcliffe backs it up with a 1:05:40 Half. While this time was not run on a legal course, many have argued that Newcastle is not easier than a flat Half.

A 1:05:40 Half equals pretty much a 29:31 10k.

I am absolutely sure that Paula could have broken 30min in a HM and M WR shape.

Paula was slower than her pacemaker during Vienna. They ran 4-5 secs ahead of her. How come she can't run a world record in Berlin or 2:20:00.

kevin azn boyss wrote:

Mary Keitany is disappointing. In London Marathon 2012 she could've run 2:18:20 or 2:17:42 if she goes out in 1:10:00. Can she learn to pace herself not too fast not too slow. She needs to run 5:18 miles splits evenly and negetive splits which she done.

"Disappointing?" You make it sound so easy.

kevin azn boyss wrote:

evenly and negetive splits which she done.

negative splits which she did.

Hey distance guys, let me chime in for a second...

There is doping, and there is DOPING.

The early greats--before any meaningful testing was implemented--were DOPING. This includes the east germans, russian throwers, bulgarians, chinese, etc. This was essentially unrestricted doping, the line only being drawn at the point where the athlete would collapse if given any more drugs.

This should be contrasted to mere doping, where substances for which testing is done are used in such a manner as to be able to avoid testing positive. It is NOT no-holds-barred DOPING, and even mere doping changes with changing testing protocols and frequency. For instance, some things are now reported to be taken in the evening right before bed, and clear the system before the earliest possible testing in the morning.

All those records that still stand or that are still very near the top are the products of either completely unrestricted DOPING or doping during the early period of testing for a particular substance.

DOPING - Sedykh, Litvinov, Beyer, Timmerman, Schult, Dumchev, Koch, Kratochvilova, Junxia, etc., etc., etc.

doping - Radcliffe, El-G, Johnson 1.0, Griffith-Joyner, Dreschler, Johnson 2.0, McKoy, Issajenko, etc., etc., etc., likely people like Bubka, Sotomayor, etc.

There were some hybrids, like Johnson 1.0, who actually got busted--who were managing the doping schedule successfully, then went off the rails into unrestricted territory.

The difference is HUGE, and he is perhaps the best example. DOPERS are unreasonable, while dopers still appear reasonable, although their times might be comparable.

Many of the early unrestricted DOPERS STILL hold their WR's decades after they set them. This is especially remarkable given the advances in training, equipment, and facilities that have taken place in the interim--maybe not so much in the throws and jumps, but especially on the track.

Consider Johnson. Had he not goofed, he would have run a 9.75-9.76 in Seoul. Had he had better spikes and a better track and been allowed to continue doping, he would have gone 9.6x at some point, if he hadn't died first. Ridiculous.

A lot of you guys on this board are probably pretty young, but let me tell you, the 1980's was still the stone-age of scientific training, even though there were some glimmers beginning. The 1980's was basically an extension of the 1970's, still very analog, with lots of ignorance and very poor dissemination of information.

The fact that many DOPING performances were done in the 1980's is absolutely incredible. Sure some programs--like the Russians in the throws--were very deep technically, but that deep technique was enabled by the doping. If conditions had been as they are today, all of those records would be even better than they actually are--like Johnson 1.0 at 9.69 instead of 9.79, for instance. Can you imagine?

Today there is very much doping going on, and very little DOPING IMHO, only with newly-developed substances for which there is currently no good test, and discouraged by the biologic passport.

But there for sure is lots of doping. I don't know enough about Radcliffe to comment on her meaningfully one way or another, but the Chinese about whom she complains were most certainly DOPING.

Track records are still incredibly young, in their earliest infancy. We talk about performances 20-30 years ago like they were in the stone age. People 200 years from now will look at all of this like it was in the stone age. Likely there will be a huge revision of records at some point, unless unrestricted DOPING becomes the order of the day, in which case it won't matter, as there will be an entirely new echelon of performances.

As far as Radcliffe goes, she should stop whining and start training, to convince us that she was clean when she ran the WR.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

As far as Radcliffe goes, she should stop whining and start training, to convince us that she was clean when she ran the WR.

Are you serious? Paula ran her WR at age 28. She is now 10 years older and has birthed 2 kids in the meantime and suffered from many injuries. What does she have to run in order to convince you that she was clean?

I question this idea that being a statistical outlier means someone is doping, just because there are in fact freaks of nature in almost everything else.

For example, if you tried to use statistic to show how tall a person could be, would you ever predict that someone could be 8' 11" tall? That's crazy tall and a complete outlier but someone that tall really existed. Or if you look at vocal range, having a several octave range is very unusual, but the record range is 8 octaves.

The physical characteristics that make someone a great runner aren't as easy to measure but who is to say there aren't freakish outliers and Radcliffe is one.

Kevin azn is probably the worst poster on this board.

I have suspicions about Junxia, but I imagine her coaches were more at fault for any wrong doing than she.

Sprintgeezer has it right. The reason these races were all run in China is NOT that it was a short track, but that there was no testing. Especially for women, the times achievable with unrestricted doping are absolutely incredible. That is why no one has approached the female doped records despite all the advances in doping technology.

Shoebacca wrote:

I have suspicions about Junxia, but I imagine her coaches were more at fault for any wrong doing than she.

The same is true for most Eastern European athletes back in the 80's. Many of them didn't even know what they were given. And there was no alternative - say no and you're out of the team.

i hope to see somday keitany both kiplagats and priscah jeptoo someday beat paula's 2:17:18. 2:15:25 is difficult.

it is probably that paula will lose this year's olympics. when she splits 1:13 for the half in the london games 2012 in london I hope she quits.

paula radcliffes marathon time is pathetic. she couldn't even break 1:11 at vienna half. how she expects to win olympic games. it is sad she is on the downside of her career but im glad its almost over.

People are overlooking the obvious answer. How come there are all these female times but no times for men? Wang Junxia and crew were just a bunch of short skinny dudes with effeminate features.

the BRObius strip wrote:

People are overlooking the obvious answer. How come there are all these female times but no times for men? Wang Junxia and crew were just a bunch of short skinny dudes with effeminate features.

!!!

"would you ever predict that someone could be 8' 11" tall? That's crazy tall and a complete outlier "

Wadlow- 8"11"

Rogan- 8" 9"

Hardly a complete outlier.