Is Keely Hodgkinson clean?

123 please kill me wrote:

Black and White wrote:

I'm just the opposite. Mu I think is clean, and Kelly Hodgkinson I think is doping.

Any white girl that beats a black girl in track raises flags in my book. It feels unnatural to me. That's just on general principle. Call it "Black Supremacy" or whatever one wants to call it. Whenever it happens it just looks weird as hell to me, and suspect as hell.

It's the same with Ingebrigtsen. A white guy just leaving Africans in the dust on the track? Something is going on there. He's probably never going to get caught, but whatever he's doing isn't real, in my opinion.

If I see a dozen a people from Norway doing that then I'll believe it. But just one? Hell no. No one is that special.

Why you think Mu is clean?

Reasons she is not:

She has Kersee as her coach.

He coached Flo-Jo

Was connected with the Balco scandal(look it up)

He coached Marion Jones

She never races but manages to be top in an event that generally requires a good amount of racing.

She does not need to be doping for me to hate her. She never races and does not like the sport so there is no way I would ever cheer for someone who ends up stunting the growth of the sport. I am not saying Keely is clean but she sure as hell is cleaner than this drug bag.

For those who want to understand who coaches Mu:

Its still Black and White wrote:

Yorkshire Fell wrote:

You do understand that this does not apply to all track distances? Sprinting yes due to fast twitch-slow twitch genetic make up. But when we look at middle distance running (and even 400 is more mixed) this does not apply. There’s a real mixture 800m upwards. The UK for example and in particular the Scottish excel at 1500m - are they all doping too?

I had no idea Americans were so obsessed with accusing innocent athletes of doping until I read these boards. Knowing what I do about the level of drug testing in this country then all these claims are ridiculous.

It’s a shame that there isn’t consistency across the world with drug testing. But flinging out random accusations with no evidence, based on the color of someone’s skin is quite sad.

It's just a simple eye test. Nothing scientific.

When I see one group of people winning all of the time, or the majority of the time, at all of the distances on the track (and the roads too for that matter), then it's very easy for me to draw the conclusion that this group of people are faster than the others.

When someone from that other slower group beats those from the faster group, then that's when questions arise for me. How did that happen? How did they do that? That's not the normal course of things, so is this being done naturally?

There is of course the possibility that it is being done naturally, but chances are it isn’t.

Further, if we want to go with the belief that most or all are doping, then the same eye test applies. If most or all are doping, and the same group are still faster than the others, then we're back in the same position.

Exceptions or outliers do of course exist, but track & field being what it is in regard to doping, exceptions or outliers are highly suspect and suspicious to me.

I'm one of those people that believed that Lance Armstrong was real. When it turned out that wasn't the case, I rarely believe anything now. That said, some people I do still believe are real, most I don't though.

So it's purely subjective, nothing scientific.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Its still Black and White wrote:

It's just a simple eye test. Nothing scientific.

When I see one group of people winning all of the time, or the majority of the time, at all of the distances on the track (and the roads too for that matter), then it's very easy for me to draw the conclusion that this group of people are faster than the others.

When someone from that other slower group beats those from the faster group, then that's when questions arise for me. How did that happen? How did they do that? That's not the normal course of things, so is this being done naturally?

There is of course the possibility that it is being done naturally, but chances are it isn’t.

Further, if we want to go with the belief that most or all are doping, then the same eye test applies. If most or all are doping, and the same group are still faster than the others, then we're back in the same position.

Exceptions or outliers do of course exist, but track & field being what it is in regard to doping, exceptions or outliers are highly suspect and suspicious to me.

I'm one of those people that believed that Lance Armstrong was real. When it turned out that wasn't the case, I rarely believe anything now. That said, some people I do still believe are real, most I don't though.

So it's purely subjective, nothing scientific.

But doping, on the other hand, is scientific. It isn't voodoo or mere "superstition", as denialists here will argue. That's why it is so pervasive.

rekrunner wrote:

123 please kill me wrote:

Are you talking about Jones? If so: she got popped real hard. And Flo-Jo, well, if I could go all in on whether or not she took steroids I would in a heartbeat. And so would everyone but Rekrunner maybe.

I wouldn't like to bet against Flo Jo and/or Kersee on the question of doping, but there are questions about a broken wind-meter reading of 0.0 on a day with high winds.

This doesn't speak for all steroids, but I just found data from a recent observational study correlating high testosterone with performances in the 2011 and 2013 IAAF World Championships. For Marion Jones' and FloJo's events, high testosterone women ran slower than low testosterone women in the 100m (12.06s versus 11.44s), and slightly faster in the 200m (23.17s versus 23.25s).

Connecting this back to Keely Hodgkinson's event, the 800m, the results of the high testosterone women were faster (1:59.4 versus 2:02.0). Comparing Keely Hodgkinson (and Athing Mu) on the alltime lists with 1980s performances, and XY DSD performances, Keely and Athing are right about where we should expect the fastest clean athletes to be.

Take that for what it's worth, and carry on.

jeff tallon wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I wouldn't like to bet against Flo Jo and/or Kersee on the question of doping, but there are questions about a broken wind-meter reading of 0.0 on a day with high winds.

This doesn't speak for all steroids, but I just found data from a recent observational study correlating high testosterone with performances in the 2011 and 2013 IAAF World Championships. For Marion Jones' and FloJo's events, high testosterone women ran slower than low testosterone women in the 100m (12.06s versus 11.44s), and slightly faster in the 200m (23.17s versus 23.25s).

Connecting this back to Keely Hodgkinson's event, the 800m, the results of the high testosterone women were faster (1:59.4 versus 2:02.0). Comparing Keely Hodgkinson (and Athing Mu) on the alltime lists with 1980s performances, and XY DSD performances, Keely and Athing are right about where we should expect the fastest clean athletes to be.

Take that for what it's worth, and carry on.

No way. Teenage girls cannot run in the 1.55 range, no matter how talented they appear to be. Only DSD teenagers,or dopers can run that fast. Also only the best drugged up adult women have ever run that fast. I'm not buying it that athing or keely could be as fast as caster semenya .

I wouldn't like to bet against Flo Jo and/or Kersee on the question of doping, but there are questions about a broken wind-meter reading of 0.0 on a day with high winds.

Its still Black and White wrote:

Yorkshire Fell wrote:

You do understand that this does not apply to all track distances? Sprinting yes due to fast twitch-slow twitch genetic make up. But when we look at middle distance running (and even 400 is more mixed) this does not apply. There’s a real mixture 800m upwards. The UK for example and in particular the Scottish excel at 1500m - are they all doping too?

I had no idea Americans were so obsessed with accusing innocent athletes of doping until I read these boards. Knowing what I do about the level of drug testing in this country then all these claims are ridiculous.

It’s a shame that there isn’t consistency across the world with drug testing. But flinging out random accusations with no evidence, based on the color of someone’s skin is quite sad.

It's just a simple eye test. Nothing scientific.

When I see one group of people winning all of the time, or the majority of the time, at all of the distances on the track (and the roads too for that matter), then it's very easy for me to draw the conclusion that this group of people are faster than the others.

When someone from that other slower group beats those from the faster group, then that's when questions arise for me. How did that happen? How did they do that? That's not the normal course of things, so is this being done naturally?

There is of course the possibility that it is being done naturally, but chances are it isn’t.

Further, if we want to go with the belief that most or all are doping, then the same eye test applies. If most or all are doping, and the same group are still faster than the others, then we're back in the same position.

Exceptions or outliers do of course exist, but track & field being what it is in regard to doping, exceptions or outliers are highly suspect and suspicious to me.

I'm one of those people that believed that Lance Armstrong was real. When it turned out that wasn't the case, I rarely believe anything now. That said, some people I do still believe are real, most I don't though.

So it's purely subjective, nothing scientific.