If you are imply S Richardson is secretly allowed to take p.e.d.s, you are incorrect. S Richardson was forced to sit out of World Champs last year due to weed. Do you think she would be allowed to get away with ingesting a performance enhancing drug?
She wasnt forced to sit out last year she didnt qualify. She served a one month ban for weed. Probably was glowing for something else and easy to cover up with a weed ban
Assume nobody's clean in any event. It's been that way for 50+ years. It truly doesn't matter. Same goes for the shoes.
I'd rather watch some doped up prize pony, bounce to a 3:26 1500m, with carbon fiber shoes on a super bounce ball track, than watch a totally clean dude run 3:39 in leather shoes on dirt, any day.
If you are imply S Richardson is secretly allowed to take p.e.d.s, you are incorrect. S Richardson was forced to sit out of World Champs last year due to weed. Do you think she would be allowed to get away with ingesting a performance enhancing drug?
She wasnt forced to sit out last year she didnt qualify. She served a one month ban for weed. Probably was glowing for something else and easy to cover up with a weed ban
I feel dumber simply for ready your post! What makes you believe top officials at World Athletics like S Richardson? What makes you believe top officials at World Athletics like and respect S Richardson enough to conceal a positive p.e.d. result? There have been allegations regarding some U.S. T&F athletes over the past (30 to 40) years failing p.e.d. test(s) and results covered up. Up until today, S Richardson has not been a corporate darling. Maybe marketing types will try to make S Richardson a corporate favorite, but I am certain, S Richardson would not be allowed to participate if she were a p.e.d. user.
About the only one in that final that I thought might be clean is Asher-Smith. She's a very talented athlete but ran 11.0 for second to last. She never gets close to the times of the Jamaicans and Americans, who I would say are all absolutely juiced.
dina asher smith who had to wear braces as an adult?
Is it possible to discuss their performances without smearing them with doping allegations?What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' ? These doping threads are tired and boring.
Is it possible to discuss their performances without smearing them with doping allegations?What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty' ? These doping threads are tired and boring.
I agree they are boring, only because they’re all doping.
It’s like continually debating the wetness of water.
She wasnt forced to sit out last year she didnt qualify. She served a one month ban for weed. Probably was glowing for something else and easy to cover up with a weed ban
I feel dumber simply for ready your post! What makes you believe top officials at World Athletics like S Richardson? What makes you believe top officials at World Athletics like and respect S Richardson enough to conceal a positive p.e.d. result? There have been allegations regarding some U.S. T&F athletes over the past (30 to 40) years failing p.e.d. test(s) and results covered up. Up until today, S Richardson has not been a corporate darling. Maybe marketing types will try to make S Richardson a corporate favorite, but I am certain, S Richardson would not be allowed to participate if she were a p.e.d. user.
Ummm.... World Athletics had nothing to do with that... do better.
I agree they are boring, only because they’re all doping.
It’s like continually debating the wetness of water.
Agreed, re: "boring." Certain Letsrun posters are simply not seeing the forest for the trees...or perhaps the inverse of that, actually. Can't see the trees for the forest.
If most of the top runners are doping - and that could certainly be the case - then the question of "are they doping" is silly and boring and pointless.
The perspective that matters is relative to the "mean doper." In other words, when you look at a runner, the question to ask is "Is this runner getting a larger benefit from PEDs than their elite peers?"
The East Germans were, pound for pound, one of the most effective track and field squads in history, particularly on the women's side. This is because they had perfected doping with the highest technology of their era, and took advantage of weaknesses in testing methods. They were far above the "mean doping" level of the era.
As testing and drug technology change, the profile of the mean doper also changes. But theoretically, we still can compare runners to their peers unless they have somehow attained extra PED advantages.
Unfortunately this question will always be asked. It's a cat and mouse game between testing technology and doping techniques. It's not going away anytime soon. It's about to get very murky as peptide technology and gene therapy become widely available.
Many have been busted. The question is how many have gotten away free and clear?
About the only one in that final that I thought might be clean is Asher-Smith. She's a very talented athlete but ran 11.0 for second to last. She never gets close to the times of the Jamaicans and Americans, who I would say are all absolutely juiced.
dina asher smith who had to wear braces as an adult?
Firstly, that is a VERY big exaggeration. She never had "braces", she used InvisAlign for 6 months (which is extremely normal and I'm guessing you didn't know this and are just making something up) and her teeth also looked fine before. I could literally get on InvisAlign right now if I wanted as my teeth are not perfectly even but they look fine so I won't.
I agree they are boring, only because they’re all doping.
It’s like continually debating the wetness of water.
Agreed, re: "boring." Certain Letsrun posters are simply not seeing the forest for the trees...or perhaps the inverse of that, actually. Can't see the trees for the forest.
If most of the top runners are doping - and that could certainly be the case - then the question of "are they doping" is silly and boring and pointless.
The perspective that matters is relative to the "mean doper." In other words, when you look at a runner, the question to ask is "Is this runner getting a larger benefit from PEDs than their elite peers?"
The East Germans were, pound for pound, one of the most effective track and field squads in history, particularly on the women's side. This is because they had perfected doping with the highest technology of their era, and took advantage of weaknesses in testing methods. They were far above the "mean doping" level of the era.
As testing and drug technology change, the profile of the mean doper also changes. But theoretically, we still can compare runners to their peers unless they have somehow attained extra PED advantages.
Being ok with dirty sport is like being ok with a country that only pretends to be a democracy. But if you come from the US today you probably are.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.