Craig Virgin's Terrible Decisions

E_Smith wrote:

[quote]Boom Boom Pow wrote:

I will bet that you think that Lance was clean too?

Don't be so naive dude - no doubt that they were doped to the gills.

[quote]

Maybe they are great runners. seems just as likely to me. without evidence, other than great performances, why should we assume something.

Is Usain Bolt dirty, merely because he is insanely fast?

This is the problem with this message board: 12 year-old boys posting who have no inkling of the history of T&F, who still believe in Santa Claus and the Toof Fairy.

Or as Charlie Francis would put it, those just don't know "the facts of life."

In the 80s and 90s, a lot of these preteen boys would read FLEX and see their favorite bodybuilders hawking expensive and worthless Weider supplements and never have a clue that they used, oh, say, 3 grams of steroids/week.

Ah, innocence...

Premature Fontaining wrote:

This is the problem with this message board: 12 year-old boys posting who have no inkling of the history of T&F, who still believe in Santa Claus and the Toof Fairy.

Or as Charlie Francis would put it, those just don't know "the facts of life."

In the 80s and 90s, a lot of these preteen boys would read FLEX and see their favorite bodybuilders hawking expensive and worthless Weider supplements and never have a clue that they used, oh, say, 3 grams of steroids/week.

Ah, innocence...

If Wejo can run 28 flat (clean), I feel comfortable with the best ever running 26:20.

I could believe your explanation for the times getting faster in the 90's but how do you explain the fact that they are so much slower now, coinciding with testing for epo. It is not just the best times that have gotten worse since the 90's, but the depth as well. Look at the fastest time of the 1oth best runner in the world every year. Are you trying to argue that the use of epo was not common among elite runners in the 90's? Does it really make sense that everyone but the very best was cheating?

The fact that we are now in a period that there is a regression in the average times of the top 20 or so performances at 5000m/10000m indicates to me that there was mass drug use in the 90's.

This combined with a decline in American runners going away from volume (during the 90's) work created a big gap.

Now we are seeing the top World class runners in the low 12:50's. This combined with Americans slowly improving is starting to make things a bit more interesting.

All he said was that he'd have to make some hard decisions and he is right. If you are good enough now days, you either have to decide to take drugs and compete or stay clean and watch the finals. Those are your choices. If you think any of the top guys are clean, you don't know the sport. Sorry. I don't know anyone that you've seen run an TV that wouldn't tell you the same thing. But please don't ask the 18:00 5K runner if he thinks Lance is on drugs. He probably thinks he is clean.

E_Smith wrote:

Maybe Virgin needs to consider that Geb and Tergat (and Barrios and Chelimo before them; and I suppose Bekele also deserves Virgin's suspicion--unless we are to assume Bekele is superman and the others are cheats) are just that much better than him. Did Virgin win any WC or OG medals? No. Did Virgin run any world records? No. Maybe the question Virgin needs to ask himself is why he wasn't competitive in the track world championships he participated in, not what "terrible decisions" he would have to make in his hypothetical. Maybe the terrible decision he would have to make is moving up to the marathon, because he would have gotten his doors blown off, no matter what the pace, by superior athletes.

You seem more upset that he said it than in what he said.

Also....what WC or OG medals would you have reasonably expected him to get considering a historical review?

oldguy4 wrote:

All he said was that he'd have to make some hard decisions and he is right. If you are good enough now days, you either have to decide to take drugs and compete or stay clean and watch the finals. Those are your choices. If you think any of the top guys are clean, you don't know the sport. Sorry. I don't know anyone that you've seen run an TV that wouldn't tell you the same thing. But please don't ask the 18:00 5K runner if he thinks Lance is on drugs. He probably thinks he is clean.

So which is it, was EPO prevalent in the 90s and everyone was dirty...and now with the regression athletes are clean, or is everyone still dirty, but the drugs just aren't as effective?

Also, I didn't say I thought everyone was clean, what I said was that we don't know who, and we can't say all the WRs are illegitimate. Basically I'm saying its speculation as to who is dirty.

If you are going to make a blanket statement that everyone in the finals of every major championship are dirty, lets hear some evidence. Or at least some credible hearsay. Because you are accusing a shitload of people of drug use.

Billy Pilgrim wrote:

I could believe your explanation for the times getting faster in the 90's but how do you explain the fact that they are so much slower now, coinciding with testing for epo. It is not just the best times that have gotten worse since the 90's, but the depth as well. Look at the fastest time of the 1oth best runner in the world every year. Are you trying to argue that the use of epo was not common among elite runners in the 90's? Does it really make sense that everyone but the very best was cheating?

I'm not saying that the use of EPO was not common (although we don't know how common)...I'm saying we don't know that the record progression was due to EPO use. The lack of depth is consistent with less cheating overall. Bekele has run faster in the 10K. Does that mean Bekele MUST be dirty? Maybe when an athlete puts a mark way out there, it doesn't mean that the athlete must be dirty, it could mean that athlete is great. And maybe less athletes running as fast is indicative of less drug use, but does not automatically discredit those athletes that set the marks.

Do you think that there aren't non-testable alternatives to EPO that these athletes have access to now?

Despite what Virgin says, there have been jumps in the 10K record progression, and the progression from 1980 to the mid 90s is not that unbelievable. IN 1965 Ron Clarke went from 28:14 to 27:39 (breaking his own record). Is it really that unbelievable that thirty years later Geb could bring it from the 27 flat area to 26:30s?

E_Smith wrote:

So which is it, was EPO prevalent in the 90s and everyone was dirty...and now with the regression athletes are clean, or is everyone still dirty, but the drugs just aren't as effective?

Care to share your thoughts on the women's WRs?

E Smith. Get over it, jerkwad.

So your whole point is what you think you thought you heard him say implicitly? And such strong accusations should come with names and proof?

I read it and see him implicitly say he could no longer compete without taking EPO and HGH, as if the Africans were really getting that good, and the Americans and Europeans needed external help to attempt to remain competitive. After all, he was already known for giving his all every race.

When things are implied, there's a lot of room for different interpretations.

E_Smith wrote:

I don't know about the testing, my guess would be maybe the testing is catching up with the science. Regardless, my point stands that accusing people w/o evidence is silly and sounds like you are making excuses. He has his right to his opinion, but making public statements is another story (and doing it with an air of "we have to face the facts here," yada yada yada).

You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. First thing- the fact that you are even "guessing" that testig is catching up to the science pretty much invalidates any opinion you have regarding drugs in the sport. I have yet to read a quote from anyone involved in the upper levels (coaches, executives, athletes, etc.) who think the cheats are not waaaay ahead of the game. The only big bust in the last 10 years was Balco, and that NEVER would've happened w/out T. Graham mailing the syringe. But I digress...

Virgin's statements are not at all off the wall or inappropriate. He simply said look at the time progression during the 90s in light of the *coincidental* development of certain KNOWN drugs at the same time. He didn't name names, but yes he was obvioulsy suggesting that many of the top guys were using. You are acting like this is some sort of revelation, when in fact many people before him have suggested, implied, or outright claimed the same things.

I personally think he was pretty tactful about his approach. He did not say, "look- Morcelli, El G, Haile, Komen, Kiptanui, Tergat, etc. etc. were all using." He simply pointed out the obvious correlation between heretofore unprecedented drops in times and the corresponding PED advancements. Again, not exactly a groundbreaking observation.

E_Smith wrote:

If Wejo can run 28 flat (clean), I feel comfortable with the best ever running 26:20.

Ha ha, although I will admit this is a fairly compelling argument! Still, the bigger picture is to consider the relative improvement at the very top level. Granted, Haile G is a superhuman talent, but the improvements were happening across the board, in every long distance event, with people from every country (well, except for the pitiful 90s US scene).

a wrote: That isn't what he said. He said be 84 (when Finnish guy got caught) everyone thought that steroids and the like was a sprint/weight thing. AFter 84 you couldn't deny that distance guys did drugs.

I had a conversation with Don Kardong (who came fourth in the 76 OG marathon) a few years ago about what he thought about Cierpinski, the East German winner. Kardong said something similar: at the time, it never even occurred to him that Cierpinski was cheating, because they all assumed that steroids were for sprinters and throwers. It was only years later (maybe in 84?) that he and others realized that distance runners were using steroids.

As for the OP's point, I'm a little confused. You seem to agree that EPO may have been common in the 1990s, but you're adamant that we can't know for sure WHO was using it. Well, the way I read Virgin's comments is that he feels he wouldn't have been competitive in the 1990s without using drugs. That's consistent with your point: he doesn't need to know who exactly was using in order to know that enough of the world top-10 was using that he wouldn't have been a contender.

Come on! --If you are going to actually listen, comprehend and state things with logic and accuracy -- you have no place on this forum!

First, we are talking EPO, not all drugs. The wisdom seems to be that there is less EPO or EPO-like drug use because there isn't as many people running sub 13/sub 27. If that is true, then we can say that at least with regard to oxygen enhancing drugs the testing is catching up (I don't know if that is the case or not, obviously).

Second, I am aware that people agree with Virgin's speculation on the WR progression. My point is that we don't know who was using, and his statements clearly pointed the finger at the WR setters of the 90s. I'm not denying there was and is drug use, I'm saying its pointless and self-serving to try to discredit the WRs without any evidence.

As for the other guy's statement about Virgin just saying Americans needed help to beat the clean Africans...that is clearly not what he was saying. Listen to the interview and you won't have that impression anymore. He flat out stated that the WR progression was "pharmaceutically enhanced." His implication was that U.S. athletes aren't as far off as Wejo suggested (and therefore Virgin would also not be that far off with his times), because all these super fast times are just dirty. With an even playing field and proper development, U.S. runners can return to the medal stand (that he should have occupied in '80).

hold the phone wrote:

As for the OP's point, I'm a little confused. You seem to agree that EPO may have been common in the 1990s, but you're adamant that we can't know for sure WHO was using it. Well, the way I read Virgin's comments is that he feels he wouldn't have been competitive in the 1990s without using drugs. That's consistent with your point: he doesn't need to know who exactly was using in order to know that enough of the world top-10 was using that he wouldn't have been a contender.

that is a good point, except that he specifically credited the progression in WRs, not just the great depth of athletes in the 90s, to drug use. I'm not sure its so unbelievable that Geb/Tergat took the 10K from 27 flatish to 26:30ish. I bet when Clarke took it from 28:15 to 27:39 people were a little shocked too. This is 30 years later and with the influx of the talent from E. Africa. Are we really going to pretend these guys aren't extremely talented?

Yep and don't forget that the U.S 10k national record holder is from east Africa so it only makes since that the BEST east Africans are running 40-50 seconds faster for that event.

Well where do you think that WR progression came from? With dense enough depth near the top you start seeing performances bunch up and then one by one they start shooting up beyond the rest.

Oh and newsflash, the East African "influx of talent" started in the 1960s, not the 1980s or 1990s.

Are you really trying to pretend that talent and PED use is mutually exclusive?