Wang Junxia - Was she on peds or was she on PEDs???

10 Chinese women running 3:55 or better in 2 days.....Absolutely impossible if not on PEDs.

bigup wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuOSbU4N-AE

Short track.

Watch this video that shows parts of the 1500m record. The leader goes through 300m in 41-42 with the entire field in tow. Tiny women with shuffling form cruising through 300m at that pace, impossible! Then watch any 3:30 men's race and watch the men go through at the same pace clearly running fast.

There is a tread on this somewhere with loads of video evidence comparisons.

That's not a short track. That's drugs.

No one did anything special at the Asian Games in 1990 on the same track.

You think it's a short track. Look at the men's results, with their lifetime bests in parentheses if set elsewhere:

10.24 (with a +2.0)

20.92 (20.60)

45.85

1:49.27 (1:46.44)

3:48.68

13:32.46 (13:32.38)

28:40.81

13.49 (13.37)

49.59

8:24.87

39.16 (38.38 - 2012 team)

3:08.54 (3:03.26 - 2010 team)

Tell me how short you think the track is that a 20.60 man runs 20.92, even with a moderate headwind. If it were 10m short, a 20.8 effort would yield a 20.30 (better than the standing NR).

Just look at the difference between the Chinese men's and women's national records and note than zero standing men's records were set at the Beijing National Games in 1993, while 10 women's records are still standing:

Can we drop the short track theory now?

The idea that the track was short or that they used a different starting point is well accepted within the community.

Do I think they doped? Certainly, but since they never tested positive, we can't strike those records from the books.

What's astonishing is not the records itself. If you compare the 3000 or 10000m record to the 5000m record, you realize that they are not out of this world. They are not crazy marks like Paula Radcliffes M record (which will stand forever).

What's astonishing is that she ran all these records within a few days, on the same track and she never came remotely close to these records outside of China. Also, the fact that all other ladies in these races ran ridiculous times is a big red flag.

Also notice these women didn't look like men like some of the former sovjet/east German women.

Can we drop the PED concept? It's just as stupid.

Nutella1 wrote:

The idea that the track was short or that they used a different starting point is well accepted within the community.

Both are ludicrous.

Tell me how short the track must have been that Omega's Swiss timers didn't notice, and that the women were able to run so ridiculously fast but the men run more or less in line with what you would expect. How could a short track results in only excellent women's times? And again in Shanghai four years later?

You've seen the clips from the 1500m. They're not starting 15m up from the curve. And this wasn't some in house, Chinese timers recording all this. Omega knows a thing or two about properly timing a race, a big part of that is the start line.

No doubt wang was doped, but also no doubt Paula doped.

It seems like many of us were duped by Paula at the time and drank her kool-aid. Now we know better.

Ows wrote:

Stupid comments wrote:

they trained hard, period.

Gave me a good laugh right before dinner, thanks.

Taking PED's doesn't turn a person into a WR holder automatically. I don't know about all steroids, but I think the way they generally work is by allowing the body to recover faster, which allows athletes to train harder without getting injured. So either way I'm sure she trained hard and that can't be used as proof for/against PED use.

push it to the limit wrote:

The problem with the short distance theory is that the men didn't run crazy times. Why would China dope the women, but not the men? I don't think the times are legit, but it's interesting.

The hormone effect sounds like it has some scientific basis, so I like it, but I wonder if it's because of the competition too?

I think these records were broken before the east African women started competing more on the global scene, making the sport of distance running easier to medal in on the women's side. The countries with said dopers from the 90's have been known to be competitive with olympic medals so maybe there was a push to have successful runners.

On the mens side, let's be honest: I doubt any Chinese man, even on PEDs, would have the ability to win a global medal against the superior genetics of the East Africans. So why try with the PEDs?

I'm assuming that is a troll attempt? Paula wasn't doped.

D1 Bro wrote:

On the mens side, let's be honest: I doubt any Chinese man, even on PEDs, would have the ability to win a global medal against the superior genetics of the East Africans. So why try with the PEDs?

Exactly what superior genetics are those?

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Both are ludicrous.

OK, if it was drugs, which drugs? Testosterone? Steroids? EPO? HGH? Blood Doping? All of the above?

According to Canova, drugs work well for mediocre athletes to get to elite levels but not for WR caliber. So did they invent some kind of miracle drug? Why has no one else used it since?

--> Track was short.

D1 Bro wrote:

I think these records were broken before the east African women started competing more on the global scene, making the sport of distance running easier to medal in on the women's side. The countries with said dopers from the 90's have been known to be competitive with olympic medals so maybe there was a push to have successful runners.

On the mens side, let's be honest: I doubt any Chinese man, even on PEDs, would have the ability to win a global medal against the superior genetics of the East Africans. So why try with the PEDs?

The women and men are coming from the same gene pool. The difference is that women will respond much more drastically than men to certain drugs.

Nutella1 wrote:

The idea that the track was short or that they used a different starting point is well accepted within the community.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Both are ludicrous.

Tell me how short the track must have been that Omega's Swiss timers didn't notice, and that the women were able to run so ridiculously fast but the men run more or less in line with what you would expect. How could a short track results in only excellent women's times? And again in Shanghai four years later?

You've seen the clips from the 1500m. They're not starting 15m up from the curve. And this wasn't some in house, Chinese timers recording all this. Omega knows a thing or two about properly timing a race, a big part of that is the start line.

Ummm...ever heard of bribery? I think for the right price, the Swiss timing officials may have turned a blind eye.

Also, if the splits someone mentioned earlier in the thread for the 10k are accurate, something was up with the track. (No, I can't explain why the men didn't run faster.) There is no way the existing 3k world record was broken after 7k at 10k world record pace. Simply not possible.

Shanghai in 1997. I got nothing.

Regardless of how the Chinese women "achieved" those WRs in '93, they should be erased from the books. There is NO way that they are legit.

college kid wrote:

There is no way the existing 3k world record was broken after 7k at 10k world record pace. Simply not possible.

THIS

Jeff Wigand wrote:

António Cabral wrote:

2 - 10.61 Lavardo Smith 10/06/2007 –

You're going to have to refresh my memory on this one.

Florence Griffith-Joyner of course.

Nutella1 wrote:

college kid wrote:

There is no way the existing 3k world record was broken after 7k at 10k world record pace. Simply not possible.

THIS

Yeah they were doping - just like the east africans today. Watching the dibaba etc. is eerily similar to junxia etc at the WCs in 93.

No mention of turtle soup yet?

Seriously, she was doped to the gills, although I expect without really understanding what Ma was doing to her. Ma's other athletes eventually tested positive before Sydney and her times are so outside of what anyone else - including any other Chinese women - have done that there's no other reasonable conclusion. I am also highly skeptical that during that era Chinese authorities could or had any real interest in preventing doping. I would also say the same thing about Flo Jo and the Eastern Europeans with WR from that Era. In the absence of any real proof, I would give Dibaba and Radcliffe the benefit of the doubt, but all of the other women's WR are highly doubtful.

Nutella1 wrote:

OK, if it was drugs, which drugs? Testosterone? Steroids? EPO? HGH? Blood Doping? All of the above?

Everything under the sun.

Nutella1 wrote:

According to Canova, drugs work well for mediocre athletes to get to elite levels but not for WR caliber. So did they invent some kind of miracle drug? Why has no one else used it since?

The combination they used plus insanely hard training clearly worked for these individuals. Who else is given free reign on all drugs, zero risk of drug testing, with a coach that beats his athletes into submission and has them hammer 40km day after day? This was from a very large group of women that Ma destroyed until he had his Army.

Nutella1 wrote:

--> Track was short.

How short? Where are the men's records? There are zero national records on the men side dating to that meet.

Nutella1 wrote:

The idea that the track was short or that they used a different starting point is well accepted within the community.

college kid wrote:

Ummm...ever heard of bribery? I think for the right price, the Swiss timing officials may have turned a blind eye.

Also, if the splits someone mentioned earlier in the thread for the 10k are accurate, something was up with the track. (No, I can't explain why the men didn't run faster.) There is no way the existing 3k world record was broken after 7k at 10k world record pace. Simply not possible.

Shanghai in 1997. I got nothing.

Regardless of how the Chinese women "achieved" those WRs in '93, they should be erased from the books. There is NO way that they are legit.

It's extremely unlikely that the track was actually short, for reasons already mentioned.

But let me put forth all the issues with this.

1) The Swiss timing officials were present. Could they be bribed? Possibly.

2) The male athletes ALL ran relatively mediocre times relative to their own personal bests. There is honestly no feasible explanation for this that I can come up with.

3) The Asian Games were held on the same track, but yielded normal results. Had the track been short, I'm certain that the Japanese and Koreans would have had something to say about it, considering their animosity with China.

4) Similar results for the women were obtained in 1997 in Shanghai on a different track. That same track was was used for multiple other events that did not yield illogical results.

The only one of these four problems with the theory that can actually be addressed is the first.

Are the times legitimate? No. But was it a short track? No. It's one thing for there to be slight problems with the theory. However, points 2-4 realistically cannot be addressed at all.

The only people who "widely accept" this theory are the ones willing to look three major impossibilities that come along if it were true.

Now, I know other people have proposed that they just started or finished on the wrong lines and such, but there's another piece of evidence that disproves that.

This video was posted in the thread earlier.

1) It shows they started at the beginning of the straightaway, which is the correct place for a 1500m race

2) It shows they finished at the end of the straightaway, which is the correct place for a 1500m race.

And no one talked?

With a whole lot of drugs and whole lot of really hard training. It's a superhuman performance. She covered the last 3000m about 11 seconds slower than she ran in the 3000m final.

The same way they did in 1993. The fact that only the women ran out of their minds screams drugs. A short track would have resulted in the best Chinese male performances, too, even without all their drugs. There would have at least been a spat of standing national records, but there isn't a single one.

I would be very happy to see them rescinded.