My boy is innocent, look at this sweet son of mine and tell me he's guilty
https://www.instagram.com/p/7bZ_nFmhG1/?taken-by=taoufikmakhloufi&hl=en
My boy is innocent, look at this sweet son of mine and tell me he's guilty
https://www.instagram.com/p/7bZ_nFmhG1/?taken-by=taoufikmakhloufi&hl=en
Welcome back, Renato! I didn't think you'd ever post here again, after how cruel so many were in your thread that was skeptical about doping.
Interesting that the Kenyans in that race may have been improperly or overly trained leading up to the race. From their performances in successive years it looks like they learned a lesson.
Guilty by progression, 1500m:
Andrew Wheating, 2008-2010: 3:38, 3:40, 3:30
Taoufik Makhloufi, 2010-2012: 3:34, 3:32, 3:34, 3:30
Ok, Wheating is white, and handsome,so he's innocent.
Mak daddy is shiftier looking than Saddam Hussein and bin Ladan combined, therefore he is guilty.
Yeesh, what a bunch of racists, probably all voting for Trump.
Da judge wrote:
Guilty by progression, 1500m:
Andrew Wheating, 2008-2010: 3:38, 3:40, 3:30
Taoufik Makhloufi, 2010-2012: 3:34, 3:32, 3:34, 3:30
Ok, Wheating is white, and handsome,so he's innocent.
Mak daddy is shiftier looking than Saddam Hussein and bin Ladan combined, therefore he is guilty.
Yeesh, what a bunch of racists, probably all voting for Trump.
You almost had a point...until you discredited yourself with the same lump-sum prejudice against a group of people that you claim to be against. Not all pro-Trump voters are racist. Not all pro-Trump voters are voting for him for the same reasons. Furthermore, if someone is not anti-Trump, it also does not make him/her pro-Trump, either. I'm getting really sick of seeing Trump get used on these boards as a poster-boy for things people hate. He has no more a crony-ist past than Hillary Clinton, but I don't see you speaking out against her. Unlike Hillary, he did not commit treason.
The fact that everyone wants to just condemn MAKHLOUFI is absurd. That he is singled out is really just because he's not a white guy. Willis just PRd last year yet no one suspects him of anything. MAKHLOUFI didn't come out of nowhere to win. I'm not saying he's clean but he certainly doesn't seem any more suspicious than anyone else.
webby wrote:
Metric Miler wrote:It was added to the banned list this year. People found using it in 2012 cannot be retroactively punished for the rules 4 years later.
I disagree. It don't believe it has never been the case that drugs had to be known before athletes could be banned for taking them. For instance, from section M1 of the WADA code:
PROHIBITED METHODS
M1. MANIPULATION OF BLOOD AND BLOOD COMPONENTS
The following are prohibited:
2. Artificially enhancing the uptake, transport or delivery of oxygen. Including, but not limited to: Perfluorochemicals; efaproxiral (RSR13) and modified haemoglobin products, e.g. haemoglobin-based blood substitutes and microencapsulated haemoglobin products, excluding supplemental oxygen.
I disagree again. As far as I know, athletes cannot be banned retrospectively for substances not illegal at the time. There is no concrete evidence that melodonium increases uptake in oxygen either.
The report about melodonium said they have detected it in many athletes, and so became wary of it's potential as a PED.
Also read this:
Meldonium was added to the WADA list of banned substances on January 1st, 2016 because of “evidence of its use by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance.†Therefore, none of the athletes banned for this substance will have performances prior to that date removed from the records and Aregawi will keep her 2013 world title.
Source:
https://jakegshelley.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/what-is-melodoniummildronate/I am interested as to what drug people think Makhloufi would have supposedly been on in order to produce such a kick at the end of that race? Sure isn't melodonium or EPO.
I think Makhloufi's win at London 2012 had more to do with that particular race than drugs. Kiprop was injured, Kiplagat ran a bad race and didn't even medal (Makhloufi also shoulder barged him quite a few times), the pace wasn't that fast and Makhloufi had the better 800m ability than the other medallists, and has the power (look at his build) for a big last 200m. Well executed race really.
You needed to be in 1:43/3:30 shape to win that particular race. Makhloufi was. And he had run 3:32 two years previously and 3:30 that year, I really don't see the unnatural progression everyone talks about. If you want that, look at 1:47 to 1:41 in a year.
Sellerdore wrote:
Retest for what exactly? What was missed first time out?
The science of detection is always improving.
Not Illegal wrote:
WADA has a legal list
Nope. They don't. You can get a TUE for some drugs. That is not the same as a "legal list."
Taoufiks mum wrote:
My boy is innocent, look at this sweet son of mine and tell me he's guilty
https://www.instagram.com/p/7bZ_nFmhG1/?taken-by=taoufikmakhloufi&hl=en
Maybe he thinks weed is a PED.
betifeelslightlybetter wrote:
yeah I just rewatched it too.. you forget how ridiculous it was and how cheated you felt at the time. WHAT a finish from Leo though..
This just sums up the ridiculous bias on this forum. Makhloufi's finish wasn't that fast despite what Cram said on the commentary at the time. In the absence of an actual retrospective bust, no suggestion of cheating.
The stuff about him and the 800m final is just a red herring and doesn't suggest he is doping.
You wouldn't trust a guy with this Tinder profile?
https://www.instagram.com/p/7LxGSsQZ_m/
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Not Illegal wrote:WADA has a legal list
Nope. They don't. You can get a TUE for some drugs. That is not the same as a "legal list."
Wrong, on your part.
Example:
2016 List of Prohibited Substances and Methods -- S6. Stimulants
All stimulants, including all optical isomers e.g. d- and l- where relevant, are prohibited. Stimulants include:
. . .
and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).
EXCEPT:
- clonidine
- Imidazole derivatives for topical/ophthalmic use and those stimulants included in the 2016 Monitoring Program*.
* Bupropion, caffeine, nicotine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradol and synephrine: These substances are included in the 2016 Monitoring Program, and are not considered Prohibited Substances.
** Cathine: Prohibited when its concentration in urine is greater than 5 micrograms per milliliter.
*** Ephedrine and methylephedrine: Prohibited when the concentration of either in urine is greater than 10 micrograms per milliliter.
**** Epinephrine (adrenaline): Not prohibited in local administration e.g. nasal, ophthalmologic, or co-administration with local anaesthetic agents.
***** Pseudoephedrine: Prohibited when its concentration in urine is greater than 150 micrograms per milliliter.
http://list.wada-ama.org/list/s6-stimulants/Not sure this constitutes a legal list. It isn't exhaustive this is just some exceptions and clarifications. There isn't list that has all the drugs you can take, just a list of ones you can't and some that you can take up to a limit or exceptions.
You can get minor bans for taking drugs that are similar to banned ones, as this is seen as bending the rules. You can't get banned for taking drugs not on a 'legal list'. The banned drugs are ones thought to have performance enhancing effects. They don't just ban everything including paracetomol etc. Melodonium for example, up to this point was not thought to be useful as a PED so wasn't banned. It was on a watched list because of it's frequency of use amongst athletes from all different disciplines.
Makhloufi roughly 39.3 finish probably in both 2012 and 2015 (about 1 second faster to 1200m in 2012)
Kiprop roughly 38.6 finish in 2015 (pace to 1200m was 2:55.6/finish in 3:34 low), and apparently about 51 last 400m, as the leader was 2:42 to 1100m and Kiprop was close to a second behind (2:43ish) and finished in 3:34!
To close a 3:34 in 38/51 on mondo, with some outside running, it takes a 3:26.69 guy and to have to chase a bunch of guys. (Ryun closed a 3:38 unpushed with 36.x/49.7-50.6 on dirt).
LM wrote:
betifeelslightlybetter wrote:yeah I just rewatched it too.. you forget how ridiculous it was and how cheated you felt at the time. WHAT a finish from Leo though..
It absolutely did look ridiculous. Of that there is no doubt.
However, he 'only' ran 52 high and 39s for his final 400 and 300, of a relatively slow pace. Those closing speeds are not in any way ridiculous or unbelievable. The fact that they looked unbelievable when they weren't tells us that the other guys in the race that should have been deadly just weren't on their game. They all closed in 54-56, fairly unimpressive for a slower 1500m race.
This doesn't excuse Makhloufi, especially given the almost mocking style of how he ran his round, but I firmly believe nothing he did in the final was suspicious or indicative of doping.
Spot on. +1
Let's get out those '64 samples an re-test Billy Mills! A nobody who clearly was on DOPE!
Metric Miler wrote:
Not Illegal wrote:Wrong, on your part.
EXCEPT:
http://list.wada-ama.org/list/s6-stimulants/Not sure this constitutes a legal list. It isn't exhaustive this is just some exceptions and clarifications. There isn't list that has all the drugs you can take, just a list of ones you can't and some that you can take up to a limit or exceptions.
What? You can't possible be so dense. EXCEPT: was a single example. There are many more from WADA. Make your own list of specifically allowed uses (caffeine, etc.), or you can cry to WADA and demand they make the list for you.
El Flaco Pelon Rojo wrote:
Let's get out those '64 samples an re-test Billy Mills! A nobody who clearly was on DOPE!
You're not a million miles out
India actually has an appalling anti doping record
eotbs wrote:
[quote]Da judge wrote:
Guilty by progression, 1500m:
Andrew Wheating, 2008-2010: 3:38, 3:40, 3:30
Taoufik Makhloufi, 2010-2012: 3:34, 3:32, 3:34, 3:30
Ok, Wheating is white, and handsome,so he's innocent.
Mak daddy is shiftier looking than Saddam Hussein and bin Ladan combined, therefore he is guilty.
Yeesh, what a bunch of racists, probably all voting for Trump.
Not all pro-Trump voters are racist. Not all pro-Trump voters are voting for him for the same reasons. Furthermore, if someone is not anti-Trump, it also does not make him/her pro-Trump, either.
Yowza, touchy or what! What you say here is true, but also not what Da judge said or implied. What's implied is not that all those who vote for Trump are racist, but all those who are white racists vote for Trump. The black racsists will vote for Clinton, because as TheRoot says, he was the Blackest white person in America.