Gatlin, Rupp, Froome anyone surprised by drug allegations

Two of these guys seem to have huge organisations around them helping them bend the rules as much as they can. Similar to Russia's systemic issues in my opinion. Big difference with an individual opting to cheat by purchasing over-the-counter drugs.

Yep hard to not believe! Froome comes out of nowhere and Gatlin is a sprint god for 18 years! Drugs have kept them in the game.

Rupp at least has an excuse with thyroid and asthma issues!

the surprise is not that Gatlin is the fastest man at 35, but that he is running so fast.

Without drugs, 10 secs would be broken very seldom(ly).

tiredofdrugs wrote:

Gatlin is again in the spotlight but is anyone surprised? I mean to be the fastest man in the world at the age of 35!

Froome not really surprised either as here is a guy who made his name first by representing Kenya in mountain biking and according to some sports scientist would have to have a VO2 Max of 95+ to ride at some of the wattage during stages of the Tour.

Well enough has been posted about Rupp so won't go there but as a former wantabe pro athletes will do whatever they can to reach the top but such a shame it is often through cheating.

Gatlin? Surprised? No he's been dabbling with this and that sine his teens and as wejo implies, surrounded by suppliers of the same.

Froome, now youre paraphrasing the idiots who say his power outputs are super human, which is just made up stuff. 6 watts per kilo is normal for a good cyclist at 90% VO2 max

Rupp and cheating? Well you know as much as me, which is lots of stories and nothing that conviced rojo other than a lot of unprovable maybes. What is cheating anyway when these supposed improvements are actually thermodaynamically unfeasible. Oops sorry I used big words none of the twitterati understand.

You forgot to mention not being surprised by all the allegations against Turkey, Morocco, Kenya, and Ethiopia as well.

Yet, you destroyed the facade of your pseudo intellectualism with horrible sentence structure and poor punctuation.

Why don't we just allow drugs in the Olympics and sport?

Or have to divisions: one doped and the other one clean?

You are mixing up 3 very different cases.

Back to the pile, homie... wrote:

feasibility study designer wrote:

Gatlin? Surprised? No he's been dabbling with this and that sine his teens and as wejo implies, surrounded by suppliers of the same.

Froome, now youre paraphrasing the idiots who say his power outputs are super human, which is just made up stuff. 6 watts per kilo is normal for a good cyclist at 90% VO2 max

Rupp and cheating? Well you know as much as me, which is lots of stories and nothing that conviced rojo other than a lot of unprovable maybes. What is cheating anyway when these supposed improvements are actually thermodaynamically unfeasible. Oops sorry I used big words none of the twitterati understand.

Yet, you destroyed the facade of your pseudo intellectualism with horrible sentence structure and poor punctuation.

What do you expect when I'm too lazy to proofread. I'm not getting paid for this you know?

Anyway, stop sulking because I pointed out how you and everyone is duped by false information.

Libertarian vegan wrote:

Why don't we just allow drugs in the Olympics and sport?

Or have to divisions: one doped and the other one clean?

I can understand the argument for just allowing a person to use whatever he/she wants, but I think it is a very poor one. If we were only talking about consenting adults then I would be much more open to the idea. However, kids will be affected as they will mimic the behaviors of their heroes.

You are free to start your own league that allows the use of any PED.

and then they put out that asthma stuff just in time for that

british sports personality of year crap .

you know there is a vast control network within these sports

easily achieved if connected

froome would of won it in my opinion , they go for cyclist in recent times

yyy wrote:

Without drugs, 10 secs would be broken very seldom(ly).

Clean sub 10 has never been.

Sub 20, something's funny.

Sub 44, at the drug store.

1:42, never was true.

Sub 3:30, always dirty.

Sub 13, never clean.

Bad Wigins wrote:

yyy wrote:

Without drugs, 10 secs would be broken very seldom(ly).

Clean sub 10 has never been.

Sub 20, something's funny.

Sub 44, at the drug store.

1:42, never was true.

Sub 3:30, always dirty.

Sub 13, never clean.

They’re clean when run by Lemaitre, Wariner, Coe, Cram, Willis and Motram.

El Keniano wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Clean sub 10 has never been.

Sub 20, something's funny.

Sub 44, at the drug store.

1:42, never was true.

Sub 3:30, always dirty.

Sub 13, never clean.

They’re clean when run by Lemaitre, Wariner, Coe, Cram, Willis and Motram.

With the exception of Wariner you're probably right...

El Keniano wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Clean sub 10 has never been.

Sub 20, something's funny.

Sub 44, at the drug store.

1:42, never was true.

Sub 3:30, always dirty.

Sub 13, never clean.

They’re clean when run by Lemaitre, Wariner, Coe, Cram, Willis and Motram.

^This.

El Keniano wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Clean sub 10 has never been.

Sub 20, something's funny.

Sub 44, at the drug store.

1:42, never was true.

Sub 3:30, always dirty.

Sub 13, never clean.

They’re clean when run by Lemaitre, Wariner, Coe, Cram, Willis and Motram.

I simply cannot understand what you're getting at ?

(Also Wigins is hinting at a poetry competition eg 7-20, drugs a plenty).

Bad Wigins wrote:

Clean sub 10 has never been.

Sub 20, something's funny.

Sub 44, at the drug store.

1:42, never was true.

Sub 3:30, always dirty.

Sub 13, never clean.

Wigins are you sure about this? Especially the 1500 & 5000? What about Coe & Cram in the 1500? How about Willis' sub-3:30 & Solinski's sub-13? I don't know about this - I think you're going to start a firestorm of controversy. ? Haven't you put your reputation as well respected long-time poster on the line here?

On the outside looking in wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Clean sub 10 has never been.

Sub 20, something's funny.

Sub 44, at the drug store.

1:42, never was true.

Sub 3:30, always dirty.

Sub 13, never clean.

Wigins are you sure about this? Especially the 1500 & 5000? What about Coe & Cram in the 1500? How about Willis' sub-3:30 & Solinski's sub-13? I don't know about this - I think you're going to start a firestorm of controversy. ? Haven't you put your reputation as well respected long-time poster on the line here?

Follow-up question Wigins: There's more guys than I realized going sub-3:30 sometime in their careers. Are you suggesting that they are all "dirty" times? ?

aduck2022 wrote:

froome would of won it in my opinion , they go for cyclist in recent times

If you say "would of" your opinion is automatically negated.