sjc wrote:
How many times have we seen athletes be outspoken against doping, deny doping, only to be caught?
List them, because I think it's a short list.
I can't speak to cycling or other sports, but the days of federation protection (at least in the free world) are a thing of the past. If American Olympic Champions are getting busted, then no one is safe.
I'll start. Here are two:Marion JonesJustin Gatlin
Jeff Wigand wrote:
sjc wrote:How many times have we seen athletes be outspoken against doping, deny doping, only to be caught?
List them, because I think it's a short list.
I can't speak to cycling or other sports, but the days of federation protection (at least in the free world) are a thing of the past. If American Olympic Champions are getting busted, then no one is safe.
Not my real name wrote:
I'll start. Here are two:
Marion Jones
Justin Gatlin
Neither of them were ever outspoken against drugs.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
[quote]J.R. wrote:
There are two possibilities:
A. Paula Radcliffe is dirtier than Lance Armstrong ever was, or;
B. Drugs don't help performance to any significant degree and all drug testing is a shame.
------------------------------
Or C. That cycling is different to running in terms of doping. Most top cyclists were born at sea level whereas most top runners were born at altitude. Of course some still dope but there is a difference and none of the top long distance runners have been busted unlike in cycling
One more thing, I don't think Paula''s record is as unbeatable as people think. A lot of the top male runners moved to the marathon but that has not happened on the womens side. Look at the other sub 2:20 girls they are nearly all far slower over 10km than Paula.
If runners like Defar or Dibaba had switched to the marathon a few years ago the record would already be under threat
Of course she could be doping we don't know and that's why the drug cheats ruining the sport should be banned for life
I always read your posts for the wrong words and poor grammar and spelling, but this one has more to love. I love the UK and the English in particular, but you write like you are 88 yrs old and not too bright.
Something can be "different from" something, NOT "different to" it.
"and none of the top long distance runners have been busted unlike in cycling" ...?
I guess if you only consider marathoners you may be right, but you can't say that NONE of them have. Right off the top of my head: Ngugi, Mourhit, Ramzi, Boulami ... and with a little digging I could find 25 more but these guys were WR-level or World Champions or both.
Lots of other drugs than EPO that she was probably on.
True. Name two that are undetectable.
She could have used EPO (or other drugs) for training, then gone off for competition.
Umm, no, she couldn't. EPO works by upgrading the oxygen delivery system (erythrocytes) - no increased PCV, no benefit. Simple.
If she wasn't doping, then there is only one person in the world who knows for sure, and that is Paula.
Wrong - look at Lance, lots and lots of people knew he was doping. If Paula were doping, lots and lots of people would know that too.
Her times are crazy, especially given her poor mechanics.
What "poor mechanics"?
where are these frozen samples at?
Probably in a lab somewhere, DOH!
when does paula plan to have them retested ?
I don't think she does, my understanding is that they will be retested if the UK equivalent of USADA requests that.
Letsrun Gunner wrote:
Remember blood doping is still undetectable.
Completely false - even autologous blood doping is very much detectable using a ratio of mature : the number of immature RBCs.
What there isn't, at present, is a test which is accepted for the purposes of banning athletes - which is a legal measure and has nothing to do with the science.
Show me a dirty athlete, anywhere in the sport's history, who had the guts to take a stand like this at a time when EPO was flooding endurance events. https://twitter.com/FreddyOvett/status/291405126218940416/photo/1
'Something can be "different from" something, NOT "different to" it.'
Do you understand this is a message board not an English exam. I bet you read through your simplistic posts about 10 times checking for errors. Starting two sentences running with I hardly matches the works of the great literati.
Have a look at this smart arse:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/different-from-than-or-to
If you are going to correct someone - get it right!
Now to running which is what this site is supposed to be about. Since when was Ramzi been a long distance runner? I should however have excluded Morocco and Spain from my comments on doping.
Nobody who knows anything about running thinks Ngugi was doping, what would he be taking back then? They had just started unannounced tests and some stranger turned up at his door.
Back to my point check the winners of the Tour over the last 20 years for dopers. Then compare that to the Olympics and World Champions plus world record holders for the same period
Then onto my other point that if runners like Defar or Dibaba had switched to the marathon a few years ago the record would already be under threat.
Chick on the left = hottie!
ftrddf wrote:
Show me a dirty athlete, anywhere in the sport's history, who had the guts to take a stand like this at a time when EPO was flooding endurance events.
https://twitter.com/FreddyOvett/status/291405126218940416/photo/1
That's Hayley Tullet a former 3:59 1500m runner
This is of course the truth.In addition, antidoping is way more strict in pro cycling and TdF in particular, than in athletics.No hematrocrit limit in athletics makes it free for all to dope, unless you do something overzealous like a large dose of EPO the day before competition, or long lived steroids. The IAAF thinks only about short time sponsor money.However, it is pointless to critizice individual athletes. The majority of the best athletes are doped, but it is the system that is flawed. Imagine that you spent 10-15 years of your life doing whatever you can to be the best in your sport only to find out that doping is widespread and nearly undetectable.Would any of you really reject? You come perhaps from a poor background, have little education. The money and fame in winning is huge. Think about it.
sjc wrote:
If you don't think doping is going on at the highest levels of every sport, you're naive. That doesn't mean you have to scrutinize specific athletes, trying to discern who is/isn't using, it just means that a shocking percentage are doping. Radcliffe is suspicious because she is at the top of the sport. I don't care how squeaky clean you appear, if you are at the top, you are immediately more suspect than most.
How many times have we seen athletes be outspoken against doping, deny doping, only to be caught? How many times have athletes been caught without a positive test? So many athletes are protected by governing bodies and/or sponsors which makes them invincible. Lance Armstrong and Carl Lewis are perfect examples. Both were protected by governing bodies and Nike. I guarantee there are Americans in track and field right now who are protected and dope without a second thought because it can all be swept under the rug with a bit of money. That is why folks like Armstrong can be outspoken, because they know a positive test would probably never occur, and if it did, it would never see the light of day.
The Tyler Hamilton book is ridiculous if you haven't read it. This guy was doing multiple drugs and transfusions in the lead up to competition, on competition days, and right after competitions. It took him awhile to finally test positive. If he avoided a positive as long as he did, while doping as extensively as he did, you can bet others are doing the same to this day.
This is of course the truth.In addition, antidoping is way more strict in pro cycling and TdF in particular, than in athletics.No hematrocrit limit in athletics makes it free for all to dope, unless you do something overzealous like a large dose of EPO the day before competition, or long lived steroids. The IAAF thinks only about short time sponsor money.However, it is pointless to critizice individual athletes. The majority of the best athletes are doped, but it is the system that is flawed. Imagine that you spent 10-15 years of your life doing whatever you can to be the best in your sport only to find out that doping is widespread and nearly undetectable.Would any of you really reject? You come perhaps from a poor background, have little education. The money and fame in winning is huge. Think about it.
sjc wrote:
If you don't think doping is going on at the highest levels of every sport, you're naive. That doesn't mean you have to scrutinize specific athletes, trying to discern who is/isn't using, it just means that a shocking percentage are doping. Radcliffe is suspicious because she is at the top of the sport. I don't care how squeaky clean you appear, if you are at the top, you are immediately more suspect than most.
How many times have we seen athletes be outspoken against doping, deny doping, only to be caught? How many times have athletes been caught without a positive test? So many athletes are protected by governing bodies and/or sponsors which makes them invincible. Lance Armstrong and Carl Lewis are perfect examples. Both were protected by governing bodies and Nike. I guarantee there are Americans in track and field right now who are protected and dope without a second thought because it can all be swept under the rug with a bit of money. That is why folks like Armstrong can be outspoken, because they know a positive test would probably never occur, and if it did, it would never see the light of day.
The Tyler Hamilton book is ridiculous if you haven't read it. This guy was doing multiple drugs and transfusions in the lead up to competition, on competition days, and right after competitions. It took him awhile to finally test positive. If he avoided a positive as long as he did, while doping as extensively as he did, you can bet others are doing the same to this day.
RADCLIFFE WASN'T ON EPO, PEOPLE, that's why she took a stance. She was on HGH.
Same reasonsing why athletes in the NFL say they don't do steroids. Technically, they are right.
Nutella1 wrote:
1. 2:15 is significantly stronger than 14:35/29:47. What Sage and Paula have in common is that they never showed their true potential in the 5/10k. Paula in 2002/2003 would have easily been able to run 14/29 FLAT.
Not sure about Paula, but no way is Sage running 14 flat.
Now maybe if he moved to altitude and what not. But what do you think we were training him for in college. We trained for the 5 and 10.
He used to talk about how "untalented" he was. I should call him up and ask him to talk about what he thinks his track potential was.
Heard through the grapevine wrote:
Rojo,
Nearly the very same arguments were used to defend Armstrong.
1) " But the fact that she has been so outspoken her entire career against doping..."
About Armstrong they said he was the most tested athlete of all time.
Those are two different things.
The fact is Lance and Paula were outspoken about doping in TOTALLY DIFFERENT ways.
Paula was very much raising awareness about doping when she was a track runner. She felt like she was getting crushed by cheats and was very outspoken about it.
Lance did the opposite. He was outspoken about doping in a totally different way - he attacked anyone who said the sport was dirty or he was dirty.
I'll admit that all of my other arguments are circumstantial and you raise good points about them and their comparison to Lance.
But besides the fact that Lance never was leading the ant-doping fight, the other thing is no one has ever come out and said Paula did anything. There have never been any accusations other than the fact that she ran "too fast".
Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:
Serious question. Why has every post of mine, excluding the original post, been deleted from this thread? I had several posts that added to the discussion by either bringing up new points, or rebutting other people's posts. By only allowing my original post to stand, an unfair picture is being painted of me as a poster (one who only starts a thread to ignite controversy, which is not the case).
Serious question: Did you ever e-mail rojo?
Or is anything other than anonymous communication too much for you to handle?
Two reasons why we dislike Paula (aside from her being a juicer):
She looks a lot like Sean Penn, not an attractive look for a woman.
She sounds like she has a mouth full of marbles. Go to a speech therapist, please!
Of course, we still like Suzy because (aside from her not being a juicer):
She is cute.
She sounds normal.
So let me get this straight. You think it would be 'great' if the most acclaimed female marathoner in history was discovered to be a fraud so that you can laugh at the reactions others on this message board and watch the sport's reputation burn. Is that the jist of your post?
Readers of the board wrote:
Serious question: Did you ever e-mail rojo?
Or is anything other than anonymous communication too much for you to handle?
Nope, and I made a post giving the specific reasons why not. However, that post was deleted for some reason. But my main purpose is engaging rojo in a public forum, where he announces his beliefs with a megaphone. If one is willing to state their beliefs so blatantly, he/she should be willing to defend them as well. Rojo's posting of his email was a passive aggressive attempt at machismo. If I wanted to debate him privately, I very easily could have located his email, which is public information on this site.