IAAF Set to Wipe all pre 2005 World Records from the Books

just sayin wrote:

Feadmjll 2.5 wrote:

The critical issue is that whoever is proposing such nonsense thinks they can actually catch the cheats. The dopers will always progress faster than the vampires. ALWAYS! This is a fundamental aspect of human nature: the desire to expand oneself is more powerful than the ability to limit another's expansion.

Doping will continue to advance. It doesn't fit in with our morals, but its march forward can not be stopped so long as technology is progressing.

The IAAF is wasting their limited resources with this stunt. They would end up getting sued by WR holders and whether they won or not they don't have the financial might to deal with those lawsuits.

Anti-doping is 90% spin ,10% enforcement

I wish the situation was this rosy, reports indicate that it could be 30% of participants at major champs are doping, but less than one percent of elites are caught doping. So it is more like anti-doping is 99% spin, 1% enforcement. Sadly.

casual obsever wrote:

Testoboost wrote:

Paula may want to rethink her lawsuit, because it will probably result in a lot of things being public that haven't been made public yet.

Nonsense. Clean athletes like Paula have nothing to fear. Remember how she was always advocating full transparency for this very reason?

I can't wait for her to prove her innocence in court, for example with all her test data, and weather reports and travel documents. She'll show the doubters! MAGA!!

Wait a minute, when was a rule written that an athlete has to be a meterologist? WTF is the weather report retort suppose to mean?

Do you ever type anything that isn't stupid?

No Credibility wrote:

I don't see how sports federations and leagues have a leg to stand on when

accusing athletes of doping whether recently, years or even decades before.

They don't have US Law Enforcement certified technicians gather the samples nor do they have proper Chain of Custody Procedures as required by Courts for Jury convictions. This is the biggest legal, moral, and public weakness in this

issue as far as I see it.

The collection part is pretty hard to corrupt because it's disinterested contract medical testers. As soon as the samples hit the lab, all bets are off..

Isn't that nice the way that has worked out for the ioc?? It turns out they work very hard to permit doping using the false argument, "keeping politics out of sport. "

It rains money every four years!

USADA uses College Students wrote:

Look soon for a lawsuit in US Federal Court which will invalidate WADA/USADA findings due to gross lack of standard procedures and protocols.

It's our lifetime careers at stake and USATF has dumb college kids involved?

Lance Armstrong made many lawsuits against everybody. And was he clean after all?

Oh, My, Gosh wrote:

Wait a minute, when was a rule written that an athlete has to be a meterologist? WTF is the weather report retort suppose to mean?

What rule are you talking about?

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

No Credibility wrote:

I don't see how sports federations and leagues have a leg to stand on when

accusing athletes of doping whether recently, years or even decades before.

They don't have US Law Enforcement certified technicians gather the samples nor do they have proper Chain of Custody Procedures as required by Courts for Jury convictions. This is the biggest legal, moral, and public weakness in this

issue as far as I see it.

The collection part is pretty hard to corrupt because it's disinterested contract medical testers. As soon as the samples hit the lab, all bets are off..

Isn't that nice the way that has worked out for the ioc?? It turns out they work very hard to permit doping using the false argument, "keeping politics out of sport. "

It rains money every four years!

Vials can be intentionally mislabeled and tainted by corrupt individuals at meetings. Lab technicians can be bribed by criminals. Thus, every person involved MUST be a background checked and government certified. Not doing so would invalidate any conclusions in a Court of Law.

Ben L Wrong wrote:

Lance Armstrong made many lawsuits against everybody. And was he clean after all?

That goes without saying. Just measurement errors, false rumors, and some people misstating the facts.

This is outrageous wrote:

USADA uses College Students wrote:

Look soon for a lawsuit in US Federal Court which will invalidate WADA/USADA findings due to gross lack of standard procedures and protocols.

It's our lifetime careers at stake and USATF has dumb college kids involved?

Athletics/Sports can be a career for a handful of people but you should ALWAYS have a backup plan that is YOUR OWN and NEVER FREAK'N EVER put your financial future in the hands of the USATF, NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, so-on-and-so-forth, ad infinitum.

And please don't repeat the same old song about your lifetime career/s. For those of us that love the sport, have participated in the sport but have never excelled in the sport it's hard for some of us to have empathy for you while you travel on the support of tax dollars and donations.

Most of us have to work 30/40 years at jobs that suck balls to support families. Many pro athletes signing/endorsement payments are more than the average sports fan earns in a lifetime.

I love track and field and many other sports but when I hear track and field athletes crying/complaining, my first thought is, get a real job. My second thought, if they don't like my first thought is, see the above paragraph concerning ball sucking. CHEERS ALL!!!!

In the women's events alone there are many suspect records. The 100, 200, 400, 800 are all LOL. Hopefully the IAAF presses the restart button.

Birmingham wrote:

I have seen the suggested new WR's from 2005 and this includes many that I can't believe will have had what I would assume is the number of tests (perhaps 4 ?). In this context I have such in mind as the Kenyan jav chap (for instance ).

2005 is never mentioned in the EAA recommended proposal. 2005 may or may not turn out to be a year of any particular significance for a given WR.

Also, the EAA proposal does not call for vacated WRs to be filled by going down the existing performance lists. It's not like stripping a gold medalist and giving the medal to the next in line.

Rather the record is considered vacated and a future time period set, after which the best performance in that future time period may be ratified as the new record.

Coach Crazy wrote:

Do you ever type anything that isn't stupid?

YouYouYou = Jap = Pwnage = Hahahahaha = Coach Crazy = Jama Aden?

Really mature. Go grow a brain moron.

Dump women's 100, 200, 400, 800 as they are obvious... leave the rest. There, problem solved.

ALAN WEBB IS NOW THE WR HOLDER IN THE MILE

Bobby B wrote:

Dump women's 100, 200, 400, 800 as they are obvious... leave the rest. There, problem solved.

I agree, but then they will go to court. With this policy no one can sue because they are just instituting guidelines, and not targeting any specific records.

Also if you erase Flo Jo's doped 200 time the next time is busted doper Marion Jones. With this policy her times will also be thrown out because all those with at least one doping violation will no longer be eligible for world record ratification

This will not pass. The Brits now own the IAAF (Lord help us if they ever get their hands on FIFA) and so far, the media is trumpeting the narrative about injustice to their clean, hardworking, unimpeachable heroes Jonathan Edwards (probably true) and Paula Radcliffe (dubious). All media coverage has focused just on these two as if they're the only ones that matter. Nauseating. The only good sign is that it's their fellow Europeans proposing the re calibration so Coe has no reason to back down.

Coach Crazy wrote

Also if you erase Flo Jo's doped 200 time the next time is busted doper Marion Jones. With this policy her times will also be thrown out because all those with at least one doping violation will no longer be eligible for world record ratification

The proposed policy calls for vacated records to be replaced by future performances, not the "next best valid" past performance. FloJo would lose WR recognition, but her times would stay on the past performance lists along with Jones and everyone else who has ever run the W200m. And no one on the past performance list would be elevated to WR status.

From the report: "When a record is removed, no immediate successor is ratified, rather a limit is then set for a new record to be established at a future date."

Bobby B wrote:

Dump women's 100, 200, 400, 800 as they are obvious... leave the rest. There, problem solved.

This