Adil Kaouch provisionnally suspended by IAAF

PS: In order to not sound totally stupid, I was referring above to male distance runners. We all know about Regina, etc.

Funny thing is, with the possible exception of Webb, who revealed one in a billion-type talent in high school, American distance runners just aren't very competitive internationally, which, in and of itself, probably suggests that they are not doping. The drops in time just have not been on par with the Africans. If the Americans really are doping to get to a place where they are still lapped by the best Africans, then God help us.

Sagarin wrote:

Funny thing is, with the possible exception of Webb, who revealed one in a billion-type talent in high school, American distance runners just aren't very competitive internationally, which, in and of itself, probably suggests that they are not doping. The drops in time just have not been on par with the Africans. If the Americans really are doping to get to a place where they are still lapped by the best Africans, then God help us.

Precisely. We're struggling to get guys to 3:35 in the 1500, to 13:10 in the 5,000, and to 27:20 in the 10,000. There's simply no realistic comparison between American distance runners and those of several African countries. Of course, we can find even worse examples--and thus, perhaps, even "cleaner" athletes--in Britain, the Scandanavian countries, etc. But any rational look at the situation would suggest that US distance runners are basically as clean as any group of world-class runners could be.

Sagarin wrote:

Funny thing is, with the possible exception of Webb, who revealed one in a billion-type talent in high school, American distance runners just aren't very competitive internationally, which, in and of itself, probably suggests that they are not doping. The drops in time just have not been on par with the Africans. If the Americans really are doping to get to a place where they are still lapped by the best Africans, then God help us.

What's REALLY funny is when athletes who were doped to the gills in their prime--Linford Christie and Michael Johnson, for example--berate up and coming athletes for their lack of success by suggesting that they just aren't trying hard enough. Trying hard to do what, Michael? Stick a syringe in their butts?

i think i hate every poster on this website.

according to all of the letsrun posters, every athlete ever was doped at some point.

every athlete should be tested after every race to ensure that no one is doped.

even in youth 100m races at AAU meets/.

honestly wrote:

i think i hate every poster on this website.

according to all of the letsrun posters, every athlete ever was doped at some point.

every athlete should be tested after every race to ensure that no one is doped.

even in youth 100m races at AAU meets/.

agreed, and also apparently if they aren't world beaters and running fast times that proves they aren't doping.

no great talent can do such without doping though, I guess Michael Jordan was doping along with Michael Johnson

Give me a ring I know a way 0800 842 472

whoran wrote:

Let´s make one thing clear: international sports associations doesn´t give a shit about PC. All they care about is money and if they wanted to protect athletes they wouldn´t have busted all the sprinters above, who has a much greater market value.

Wrong. The only time the yank sprinters are popped is when they piss off their benefactors. There's always another one in the wings. Get your head out of the dirt mate.

reality is fun wrote:

Sagarin wrote:

Funny thing is, with the possible exception of Webb, who revealed one in a billion-type talent in high school, American distance runners just aren't very competitive internationally, which, in and of itself, probably suggests that they are not doping. The drops in time just have not been on par with the Africans. If the Americans really are doping to get to a place where they are still lapped by the best Africans, then God help us.

What's REALLY funny is when athletes who were doped to the gills in their prime--Linford Christie and Michael Johnson, for example--berate up and coming athletes for their lack of success by suggesting that they just aren't trying hard enough. Trying hard to do what, Michael? Stick a syringe in their butts?

Where are the gills?

no one has challenged b-sample bill so i think he took the discussion.

B-sample Bill wrote:

Now if you repeat the test for the B-sample even with the same chance of a false positive, the probability that a non-doper will test positive are extremely close to zero, even if the same test is used with the same error rate (though interestingly, there's still a possibility that a non-doper will test positive again--which is why I don't support lifetime bans).

thats why you only get 2 years for your first time. so if you are caught once then you are unlucky enough to get 2 false positives, i dont fell sorry for you. a lightning strike will take you out of track before you get a lifetime ban for 4 false positive tests of the same drug

duhhhhh

Some of you people are as bad for the sport as the actual drug cheats. You speak about clean athletes (never tested positive) as cheats, with absolute certainty. No one is exempt from your insinuations. How can you enjoy this sport if you believe that anyone who achieves something great has to be cheating. Jim Ryan, with today's training methods and tracks, would have run MONSTER times. Was he a cheat too? Believe it or not, hard work and the lottery gene pool can produce ridiculous results.

29' LJ, 8' HJ, 60' TJ and even 1:41 and 3:43. I feel sorry for you guys. You are trying to destroy the joy for anyone who has a passion for the sport. Take the high road here. Assume innocence until proven guilty. Isn't that the American way?

cctv is watching you wrote:

no one has challenged b-sample bill so i think he took the discussion.

Except that he just made up a false positive rate of 1%. It could be .001% and all his lovely math means little. We don't know what that rate is. From what I've heard, I'm not even sure that the testers know. And that brings up a whole other set of issues.

B-sample bill is right that's why, if there is a chance the system is wrong, then the news SHOULD NOT be released until the test is 100% sure.

So if Adil Kaouch is out, who do we think are the favorites for the Osaka 1500m? Webb, Kipchirchir Komen, and Ramzi (if he's even running)? I guess you could add Baala and Belal Mansoor Ali to that list.

old tymer wrote:

Hard to prove probably because it's not true. I can't even think of a single top American distance runner busted for anything. Can you? Right off the bat, I can think of several top Moroccans who have been busted--including Boulami, after his 7:53 "WR" in 2002.

Eddy, Roidgina (admittedly middle distance), Deeja.

dingle wrote:

cctv is watching you wrote:

no one has challenged b-sample bill so i think he took the discussion.

Except that he just made up a false positive rate of 1%. It could be .001% and all his lovely math means little. We don't know what that rate is. From what I've heard, I'm not even sure that the testers know. And that brings up a whole other set of issues.

I suspect that the false-positive rate is higher on the A samples than on the B samples, since the A sample is like a screening where you do many samples. Another reason to not announce until the B is known -- however, there should not be a lag of more than a few days. Also, there are times when the A will cause you to take some actions (drop a runner from the 4x400 team, a rider before starting the Tour, ...)

Mr. Obvious wrote:

old tymer wrote:

Hard to prove probably because it's not true. I can't even think of a single top American distance runner busted for anything. Can you? Right off the bat, I can think of several top Moroccans who have been busted--including Boulami, after his 7:53 "WR" in 2002.

Eddy, Roidgina (admittedly middle distance), Deeja.

Eddy is not a "top American distance runner," period. Ditto Deeja (who?). As I noted above, I was focusing on male distance runners: Jacobs we all know about.

26mi235 wrote:

dingle wrote:

Except that he just made up a false positive rate of 1%. It could be .001% and all his lovely math means little. We don't know what that rate is. From what I've heard, I'm not even sure that the testers know. And that brings up a whole other set of issues.

I suspect that the false-positive rate is higher on the A samples than on the B samples, since the A sample is like a screening where you do many samples. Another reason to not announce until the B is known -- however, there should not be a lag of more than a few days. Also, there are times when the A will cause you to take some actions (drop a runner from the 4x400 team, a rider before starting the Tour, ...)

I would suspect that is true, too, although I haven't seen any published false positive rates. I'm sure they don't want to publicize it as it would lead to more media mischief by those who do test positive. I can't remember exactly what he said but Caitlin said something to the effect of having never made a false positive. I know he wasn't quite as bald-faced as saying he was infallible, but it was basically trying to get the media to go down the false positive route.

How long does an athlete have to ask for a B sample? The process should be streamlined so that the athlete has 2-3 days to ask for a B sample and the testers have 2-3 more days to complete it. I think some of the delay between tests may be the athlete postponing the obvious. Landis's B samples weren't tested for several weeks after the Tour and I think they were waiting on him to decide.

Regardless, I'm sure that the false negative rate is still higher than the false positive rate.