Dafne Schippers ties 60m Dutch record in Berlin(7.00)

Clerk wrote:

I want to see how you reapond to a thought experiment: Why is she innocent until proven guilty? She is at the top of an event dominated by dopers and running as fast as dopers. The sport, and her events, have shown corruption at every level of management.

There is no historical record of integrity.

So why innocent until proven guilty?

My own answer is that there is value in trust, and it is not efficient to start out with accusations. But when the level of trust is so low, as in the case with sprining, the IAAF, and elite athletes in general, there is a very low threshold for "suspicious." Dafne meets that with her performances.

Geez I do not know what to say on that one. So if an athlete runs fast he/she is by your definition a suspect doper. She was/is a top hepthatelete where doping is very rare, ran very fast times in that period as well, but since she runs very fast, she is inmediately is a dope suspect.

I see there is absolutely no basis to continue any discussion on this matter since you imply that all winners are doped / cheaters. What is the point of being here at all? Do you even enjoy watching T&F ?

Doping is rare in heptathlon?

At the end of the Day its still women's sports.

When she runs 6.38 I'll be impressed, and you can pull out the dipstick and establish the dose.

Full disclosure.

I don't care if she is doping.

I just LOVE seeing a pretty white girl take it to the American/Jamaican shebeasts.

Yes. Given that we know

-the pervasiveness of doping evidenced through positive tests (and the pervasiveness at all levels: pro, masters, junior, amatuer)

- the fallibility of teating

-that the IAAF is willfully not acting on evidence it does have

-the option to bribe one's way out of a sanction if you do test positive

...then yes, every athlete has to earn trust. Many of them do.

Fair enough. I am interested in truth, and if you are not, then I cannot say an honest look at the sport is more enjoyable for you than a naive view.

I enjoy the sport tremendously. I do pause my militancy and am able to enjoy watching every race without a feeling of alienation. When the excitement of a big performance wears off though, my frustrations come back.

Truth is not about making your own Truth and all sorts of othere allegations. Truth only is truth when it is proven. "I think" or "I believe" have no place in Truth.

Naive is denying that dope exists, I don't. But it is also naive to think that a certain athelete is clean and another is doped when there is no single piece of evidence on both of them.

If you can't deal with the fact that you won't have any certainty on whether an athlete is doped or not, it would seem to me you'd be unable to enjoy the sport except perhaps in an own created imaginary world of "clean" and "doped" athletes, mostly driven by the color or nationality of the athletes in question. If you're comfortable with that, (and I know lots of people who do), fine, I can respect that. But it also means that your opinions do not carry any value outside of that self created reality.

The fact is that there are only two types of atheletes: 1. Ones who where proven to be doped and 2. of we do not know whether they are doped.

There might be athletes who missed dope controls or there is other substancial evidence (e.g. having relations to medical doctors who have been proven to have relations with doping), they might fall in a seperate category. In any case this is not applicable here.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Phantasy Star wrote:

Full disclosure.

I don't care if she is doping.

I just LOVE seeing a pretty white girl take it to the American/Jamaican shebeasts.

damn right

cant wait for the Olympics to begin.

Even doped up that fisher price hair flower shit and her gang aint gonna be a threat to dafne. thats right

You're creating a false dichotomy in saying there are either proven dopers or athletes on whom we cannot make any conclusions. It is silly to ignore that an athlete can be suspicious, highly suspicious, or just a little.

What you choose as evidence to discern one from the other ignores the realities of the sport.

You say that missed tests can lead to suspicions and connections with bad actors can lead to suspicions. I agree. But alien performances that match or beat known dopers, or top-level success in a culture of doping should also lead to suspicions. We are not at a point where clean athletes can out-perform the most juiced-up athletes of all time.

I already listed the evidence that leads me to be weary of Schippers.

She has a nice big butt.

Track-fan wrote:

She has a nice big butt.

Not only that....she is one of the few runnergirls who would be very hot. In spite of the fact she's a. Dutch and b. white. LOL!

I WILL CRUSH YOU!!!

suspicious or highly suspicious or not, it still has of be proven. Can you place yourself in an athlete who is clean and gets all those questions and has to deal with accusations that he or she is doped. To an athlete it is the same as you being accused of being a child molester because someone saw you looking at a child in a certain way. How would you feel? How would you feel being locked up at death row for murder while there isn't any evidence? It seems to me you're on a witch hunt.

So what is so alien about Schippers? Running 21.63 is in the same leage as Marlene ottey, Eliane thompson and Allyson Felix. Her 10.81 is even less eyeballing. The 7.00 is by far not the fastest we have seen in the past.

Perhaps you should accept that she is an exceptional athlete in this era, just as Fanny Blankers Koen was 70 years ago. And schippers can only just stand in her shadow at the moment.

In your theory a world record can never be broken by a clean athlete...

Well someone has to win for goodness sake.

Clerk wrote:

I want to see how you reapond to a thought experiment: Why is she innocent until proven guilty? She is at the top of an event dominated by dopers and running as fast as dopers. The sport, and her events, have shown corruption at every level of management.

There is no historical record of integrity.

So why innocent until proven guilty?

My own answer is that there is value in trust, and it is not efficient to start out with accusations. But when the level of trust is so low, as in the case with sprining, the IAAF, and elite athletes in general, there is a very low threshold for "suspicious." Dafne meets that with her performances.

WM: you keep saying "no evidence", and bring up examples of criminal accusations with "no evidence".

You ignore what I have told you in each reply, yet you have yet to respond to: her outlier performance is the evidence. A person can be accused of being a child molester when they meet objective ceiterea that have only been met by other child molesters. A person can be investigated for murder when they meet objective criteria that have only been met by known murderes. (Of course, there is no such thing, showing that you are trying to obfuscate the issue with irrelevent comparisons). Stay focused on the topic, WM. what does Schippers do to make up the 5-7% performance gap between her supposed clean self and the dopers she matches and outperforms? How can you show she is the exception to what has become a rule in high level sprinting?

Yes, someone has to be first, but that does not mean the best clean athlete can match or outperform athletes who are known to dope to the highest degree.

Qwartel wrote:

In your theory a world record can never be broken by a clean athlete...

You are right. I don't see how a clean athlete can surpass a doped athlete without several generations of innovation and evolution (for lack of a better word).

Do you think a clean athlete can outperform doped ones of equal natural ability, training, and commitment?

Idiot alert wrote:

kettle wrote:

But she is just so talented s he's up there with the greatest dopers in history. Schippers is a great talent there's no doubt let's be honest here, she's competing on the same terms as the athletes she is emulating. Great performance regardless.

So you´re saying that it´s impossible to be clean and beat doped athletes? I´m going to start doping and run the 10k in 32 minutes. Anyone who then runs faster than me is clearly on drugs.

Right. Because you are a world class runner.

Good lord you're annoying."Innocent until proven guilty" is the standard of a specific institution (the criminal justice system) in a specific country. And 'proven' means a bunch of people looked at evidence and stuff and said "yep, this is pretty much what happened". It's not a universal standard for how to think about everything.And the notion that "if you think everyone's doping you can't possibly like T&F" is, well, not a smart notion. I like the NFL fine. I'm positive they're all doping. Just as I was positive Lance was doping the whole time, because it was obvious. How else was he going to beat the other dopers? I hated him at the time, not for doping, but for being such a self-righteous liar. Turns out he was a bigger a-hole than I thought.It is mental weakness to desperately believe in things that are almost certainly not true. People like you who suffer from this weakness, always lament how people who don't, must be miserable.You are mistaken. We're doing fine.Grow up and stop spending so much time and energy sounding like a fool.

Note that I have made no accusation or insinuation about Schippers.