Wang Junxia - Was she on peds or was she on PEDs???

I'm guessing 392m = 2% short.

You've cited full results for the meet on several occasions - can you provide a link to those results?

And how does a woman running 4:03 back to back equal a man running 3:35 back to back? Where's your math on that?

This has been a thought provoking thread for me. I don't have a reasonable explanation for the times either.

When Omega times a meet I had always assumed that meant that the "timing system" was an Omega system but the operators were local. It appears that is incorrect. Does Omega always send their timers to these kinds of meets?

The short track theory does not make a lot of sense to me given the mens times at the same meet.

The drugs theory also does not make a lot of sense to me. These times were remarkably faster than anything these women ran at other meets. I can't believe even an unlimited amount of drugs could cause the sort of time drop we see from Stuttgart. That is just a feeling or belief because I really have no idea what is possible.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

This has been a thought provoking thread for me. I don't have a reasonable explanation for the times either.

When Omega times a meet I had always assumed that meant that the "timing system" was an Omega system but the operators were local. It appears that is incorrect. Does Omega always send their timers to these kinds of meets?

The short track theory does not make a lot of sense to me given the mens times at the same meet.

The drugs theory also does not make a lot of sense to me. These times were remarkably faster than anything these women ran at other meets. I can't believe even an unlimited amount of drugs could cause the sort of time drop we see from Stuttgart. That is just a feeling or belief because I really have no idea what is possible.

I'm not aware of whether or not Omega sends the timers to the meet, but if you watch the video containing clips of the 1500m record posted earlier in the thread, there are Caucasian officials who appear to be manning the timing system.

What if the 10,000 was 9,600?

And the 3,000 was really 2,800 (= 7 laps)

and the 1,500 was really 1,400 ?

Yes we are, obviously. You don't get to decide what gets labelled "debate".

Some people who, mistakenly I'm sure, think there is something to be debated:

see the part about fixing thyroid imbalance due to the use of HGH and testosterone, and the one about possible EPO production increase.

And just have a look at all the threads on this topic on this forum.

So you're waiting for an athlete to openly say he's being using PEDs and describe exactly how it improved his performance?

In the meantime, if you want to know what the closest we have to athletes think of thyroid hormones, you will find some interesting links here:

for instance.

Talking about scientists, this guy

certainly seems to believe thyroid hormone helps his patients train more, that is: enhance their performance.

And for some quotes from someone who should know about doping:

They have not yet made the decision to ban it, but this may, or even should come. In any case, this fits perfectly the TUE debate, since Jeffrey Brown claims he is curing a disease, and at the same time, everything points to thyroid hormones being PEDs, or enhancing performance when used in synergy with other PEDs, or rebalancing things to avoid the downsides of using other PEDs. This is exactly a question of "is it a cure" versus "is it a PED".

Purdy equates 14:10 to 8:10 and 3:46 and 29:41.Daniels equates 14:10 to 8:08 and 3:48 and 29:28.McMillan equates 14:10 to 8:04 and 3:46 and 29:25.12:40 equates to 7:19 (Purdy) 7:15 (Daniels) and 7:12.6 (McMillan)It's easy to find contradictory evidence that ALL tables are not accurate.All the tables suggest that 1500m women could be faster (jono could be right?!?)All the tables (besides the IAAF) suggest that Dibaba's 10K can be faster than 29:54.9, but disagree by how much.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

I disagree completely. Show me the table that puts 14:10 on par with 8:06. It would have to be ancient, dating back to the days when the women's 5000m wasn't a regularly contested event.

To say that a 14:10 is equivalent to 8:06 is to say that 12:40 is equivalent to 7:14.

kdkl wrote:

You disagree because you ignore my points. The IAAF table is not accurate. Did you read what I wrote about it's suggested 10k time for Dibaba??? There is no way you honestly disagree that she is much faster than that.

The other tables are purdy, jack Daniels, and McMillan. Where did you get that 12:40 equals 7:14? How did you arrive at that?

It's painful that I have to respond to so many links, so forgive me if I don't include each one inline.

My points are simple:

- How can anyone call it a "PED" if we don't know it is PE?

- Why give thyroid medication as an interchangeable example of TUE abuse, when, although it might be for "TU", the "E" is not required? These might be similar discussions but they are independent of each other.

The definition you gave me of "debate" says "serious discussion by many people". I don't doubt that there is a lot of discussion by many people. But I mean to say that all of the discussion about thyroid medication as a "performance enhancing" drug that should be banned is not serious. Much of it is mindless chatter, often accepting the hypothesis as a foregone conclusion.

I've already read most of those links, and none of them show that thyroid medication is "performance enhancing" in otherwise healthy, but overtrained/fatigued athletes. The best they do is one doctor's repetition of his personal belief, and some links which say that it works well when combined with other banned performance enhancing substances. Then the question about cheating and performance enhancing linked to thyroid medication becomes philosophical, if the only benefit comes when already cheating with banned performance enhancing substances.

The baseball link says that HGH can affect thyroid levels. They talk about "indicators" and what "may be", but nothing suggests that thyroid medication is performance enhancing for runners. The article was in 2010, and apparently WADA wasn't convinced enough at the next board meeting to ban them. They also mention bodybuilders, but bodybuilding performance is not running performance.

The sportsscientists are responding to the WSJ article about Dr. Jeffrey Brown. They basically say "IF (for the sake of argument) it is true that thyroid medication allows you to train harder, by alleviating a condition caused by hard training, THEN this should be considered cheating." They don't show anything that says thyroid medication is performance enhancing. They don't even accept that thyroid medication allows harder training, but preface their article with "if the allegation in WSJ is true...". They likewise acknowledged that the "performance enhancing benefit" is questioned.

The Blog Hills runners didn't add any value, but just referenced the sportsscientists, and opined that thyroid medication should be a banned substance, comparing it to asthma (and accusing healthy athletes of cheating with steroid based inhalers). But thyroid medication is not a steroid based inhaler, and while the two situations may look similar, there are significant differences. For one, steroids are known to enhance performance. The sportsscientists pointed out these distinctions.

Steve Magness gives a lot of information about people with real thyroid issues. Here he mentions that bodybuilders use thyroid medication in the short term, to get lean. He says "the SIMPLE reason" "it's NOT to enhance performance". Bodybuilders and runners have a different idea of "performance". He suggests the "simple reason" is that thyroid medication is used to "balance" hormones due to testosterone and HGH use. Now there's an angle worth some discussion. Thyroid medication might be banned, not because it's performance enhancing, but because it's used with other banned performance enhancing substances. Magness also talked about an EPO increase study, and also looked at recovery, but cast major doubts on both points.

Dr. Jeffrey Brown believes his ideas work. What else would you expect him to say? This is his business. Is he selling snake oil? Smith said it didn't enhance his performance. Salazar says he's the best endocrinologist, and Begley says he's the most thorough. Do they say that only because of thyroid problems? Maybe thorough means many other things. The article itself is inconclusive about the positive effects. The IOC says the evidence is not there.

The "letsrun thread" repeats the "performance" of bodybuilders angle (mainly short term weight loss), and triggers the mindless chatter. But bodybuilding performance is not running performance. The best we have is one anonymous poster saying the effects are well known in cycling. What's well known in cycling is that many drugs are combined.

The article quoting Victor Conte merits discussion. Too bad they didn't discuss it. Victor Conte gave it to sprinters. He says that when combined with steroids, the increased metabolism makes the steroids work faster. His opinion is formed by "athletes telling me they felt light and fast". It's an interesting hypothesis, but is feeling fast the same as being faster?

Accusations of thyroid abuse and TUE abuse may overlap and parallel each other, but my point was more basic -- that since no "E" is required, these are two separate things. Contrary to "everything", nothing points to thyroid hormones as "PEDs", because "PE" is still in doubt. The "PE" is doubted by the IOC and couldn't convince WADA. Synergy with other PEDs, or avoiding downsides of other PEDs, is not enough to merit calling thyroid medication "performance enhancing". So there is no "cure" versus "PED" question yet (unless you think that testosterone, HGH, and steroids are part of the cure).

Track Measurer wrote:

What if the 10,000 was 9,600?

And the 3,000 was really 2,800 (= 7 laps)

and the 1,500 was really 1,400 ?

Several problems with this:

1) There is a video of the 1500m record on this thread, and the clips indicate that they started and finished the race in the correct locations.

2) The 1500m times were replicated several years later (1997 to be precise)

3) Omega Timing sent its own officials. I would think that they would clearly know something was up if the start and finish lines were in the wrong places (If you watch the clips of the 1500m record, you'll see European males in official dress manning the timers).

4) Tens of thousands of individuals were present as spectators. Unless this was a massive conspiracy with every spectator agreeing not to spill the news to any media outlet, it's unlikely that the Chinese could get away with running a lap short on the 10,000m, running 200m short on the 3,000m, and running 100m short on the 1500m. Especially since fans who actually made their way into the stadium to watch the race would likely know where the start and finish lines are supposed to be.

rekrunner wrote:

Purdy equates 14:10 to 8:10 and 3:46 and 29:41.

Daniels equates 14:10 to 8:08 and 3:48 and 29:28.

McMillan equates 14:10 to 8:04 and 3:46 and 29:25.

12:40 equates to 7:19 (Purdy) 7:15 (Daniels) and 7:12.6 (McMillan)

It's easy to find contradictory evidence that ALL tables are not accurate.

All the tables suggest that 1500m women could be faster (jono could be right?!?)

All the tables (besides the IAAF) suggest that Dibaba's 10K can be faster than 29:54.9, but disagree by how much.

Exactly. So according to all the tables, the Ethiopians' performances are indeed on par with Wang's.

Why do they delete the doper paula threads and leave up this one?

kdkl wrote:

So then you agree with me that others have come within striking distance of Wang's records and ability. That's what you just said in the quote.

Within reach of the 10000m (which was not run to the best of Wang's abilities that day), yes.

dkny64 wrote:

I'm guessing 392m = 2% short.

You've cited full results for the meet on several occasions - can you provide a link to those results?

Keep this in mind. You're contesting that the best men could only run 21.35 for 200m (0.7 slower than his lifetime best), 46.76, and 1:51.3 for 400m. And that the track was secretly torn up and refitted following the 1990 Asian Games and that they did the same for the same for the 1997 National Games in Shanghai without anyone noticing.

kdkl wrote:

Exactly. So according to all the tables, the Ethiopians' performances are indeed on par with Wang's.

They could possibly get Wang's 10000m time, which was not nearly as good as she could have run that day.

How many years must pass before you concede that the 3000m time is well out of reach for any modern day women distance runner?

rekrunner wrote:

I wouldn't agree at all. What is it that NOP is doing to screw up the integrity of the sport?

These finishes are not statistically significant.

Take away the East African gene pool from the equation and you see just how statistically significant these finishes are. Previous to 2010 the fastest a man of non-east African descent had run a 10,000 was Fernando Mamede's 27:11. RUPP DESTROYED THAT BY OVER 20 SECONDS! Imagine a Kenyan breaking the Kenyan record by 20 seconds? And just a year previous to Rupp, Solinsky, also of NOP, becomes the the first white dude to run sub 27. The heaviest runner by far to ever do so. The space between these two events and the proximity of their training grounds is not statistically significant? Lightning basically struck twice. And if you don't recognize that there is a difference in long distance talent between white people and east Africans then you truly have your head in the sand.

Here is fun fact: Of the top eight times ever run by white people in the 5000, 6 are by US athletes, and all but one happened in a two year span and since 2009. And all train in Oregon. lets look at some of the other white people who have been left in dust by our recent "harder trainers." Dieter Baumann, Cathal Lombard, Antonio Pinto, Alberto Garcia. A whose who of doping. Most of the previous fastest anomaly white dudes have all been dopers and now we are leaving them in the dust!

If Lametrie was to run 9.85 next year, would you make the argument that it is only like the 60th fastest time in history and therefore not statistically significant? how about if five other white french men ran between 9.98 and 10.05 all in the same year? Thats basically what we have in US distance running right now.

By the way, I purposely left out Moroccans from this argument for obvious reasons. Also, I do not think for a second the fastest African are clean either. But right now their methods are lagging behind the the Americans are in the lead of this pharmaceutical race.

Jim Ryun was capable of 1'40 / 3'24 / 3'41, better than any african

rekrunner wrote:

- Why give thyroid medication as an interchangeable example of TUE abuse, when, although it might be for "TU", the "E" is not required? These might be similar discussions but they are independent of each other.

I understand your concern and your pointing out it is not (yet) banned.

rekrunner wrote:

The definition you gave me of "debate" says "serious discussion by many people".

"Serious" does not mean "in agreement with you".

rekrunner wrote:

His opinion is formed by "athletes telling me they felt light and fast". It's an interesting hypothesis, but is feeling fast the same as being faster?

And based on the fact it works in synergy with steroids, according to him. Some would also argue distorting one's perception of his body is cheating. Take the pain feeling away, for instance, and you can probably run faster.

For a substance to work in synergy with others to enhance performance should set alarm bells: the combos are PEDs. Same if the substance is used to counteract the side effects of known PEDs. This would warrant banning it, if it were not for the fact that there is a legitimate use for it, even in young otherwise healthy people. When using a product reveals some doping activity, be it performance enhancing or not, it should probably be banned. Like diuretics, for instance.

Well you wouldn't have to tear up the track, just repaint the lines (perhaps secretly overnight), assuming there's enough track on the inside.Maybe more relevant than the sprint events is the winner of the men's 5K. Bo Hong ran 13:32.46 in Beijing in 1993, and repeated it next year with a 13:32.28 in Tokyo in 1994. Considering the Chinese national record is 13:25 (by Feng-yuan Xia in Shanghai in 1997), and Bo Hong was 1.27 seconds shy of the 1994 Chinese national record with his Tokyo performance, it's hard to argue that Beijing or Shanghai could have been shorter than Tokyo in 1994.He's the only men's "distance" example I could find.http://www.arrs.net/AllTime/AL_O5K3.htmLooking at that link, it's interesting to look at the contrast between the Chinese women's and men's top national performances. While the men produced 5 of the best 8 performances in Shanghai (1997) and Beijing (1993), 3rd and 4th best performance occurred in London (1986) and Tokyo (1994). Two men broke the 1986 record in Shanghai in 1997, by 6 and 3 seconds, respectively.This progression seems credible, assuming the national importance of the Shanghai and Beijing meets.However, the women tell a statistically different story. They didn't run the 5000m in Beijing in 1993, but they did in Shanghai in 1997.8 women produced 12 of the top 16 women's national performances in Shanghai within three days in 1997.6 women managed to break the previous national record holder's 1995 time of 14:45.90.4 women broke it twice over three days.3 women managed to break the existing world record, Fernanda Ribeiro's 14:36.45. 2 of them broke it twice (while "bronze" was 1.7 seconds slower).Ji-ang Bo, the previous national record holder, broke her own record twice, by 14, then 17 seconds. She broke the world record by 8.36 seconds.Only two women remain in the top 20, with performances outside of China.As amazing and damning as these statistics may seem, there remains the possibility that the women's 5000m as an event was still immature, both for the Chinese, and the world, and that Chinese women do not often compete outside of China, or do not often compete the 5000m. Since 1995, 28 women (including the 3 chinese) have broken Fernanda Ribeiro's 1995 world record. The Shanghai performances, as strong as they were at that time, did not last as long as the Beijing performances.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_7th_National_Games_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

Keep this in mind. You're contesting that the best men could only run 21.35 for 200m (0.7 slower than his lifetime best), 46.76, and 1:51.3 for 400m. And that the track was secretly torn up and refitted following the 1990 Asian Games and that they did the same for the same for the 1997 National Games in Shanghai without anyone noticing.

I asked what things NOP was doing that ruins the integrity of the sport. You gave me a list of successful results, but that doesn't answer what NOP is doing that lacks integrity.Success in training, in and of itself, is not screwing up the integrity of the sport. On the contrary, success is a necessary part and desirable part of the sport. One could argue that Nike is providing necessary support and structure that has been lacking for decades, without mentioning drugs, or other banned methods. Their success will inspire the next generation.After a dry spell of 20 years, breaking 13:00 and 27:00 was long overdue. Kenyans and Ethiopians did break the records by 20 seconds. They just did it in the 90's, and 2000's.Mamede set his time in 1984. Solinsky's debut sub-27 was a surprise, but he had the perfect race, and 3 pacemakers up to 9100m, and he was a talented 5K runner. Rupp's been improving every year since high school. Rupp's 26:48 is amazing, but he also had good pacemakers. He was far from winning and still far away from 26:17, so he still pales compared to East Africans.For 5K, despite your representation. I only found 5 US athletes, 4 of which happened in a 3 year span since Aug. 2009. None of their times seem statistically significant, compared to Kennedy's 12:58, or Syndey Maree (South African?) 13:01 from 1985. Dieter Baumann's 12:54 is still faster than all the white Americans. Pinto's 13:02.86 is less impressive (5 seconds slower than Kennedy), as is Alberto Garcia's, both ranking around 500. And what did Lombard do? 13:19? I couldn't find anything better.