Matt Carpenter

I really have no idea what thread you are talking about. I guess I just like the facts. I wasn\'t meaning to reply like I did. I just know that matt rarely races road races in the springs and would hav been damn supprised myself if he had done that recently. My bad for the attitude of the reply.

Interesting that ultra running isn't really under USTF's domain (except a couple 50 milers).

yomama wrote:Interesting that ultra running isn't really under USTF's domain (except a couple 50 milers).

USATF has championships listed for:

50k road

100M trail

50M trail

100k trail

50M road

and for some reason (logistics?) the 100k is not listed.

What is more interesting is Carpenter being talked of as a regular at ultras. He doesn't run them mery often, something like five of them over five years.

I think it is absolutely absurd that people on a running forum will think that anybody who does well and isn't tested is using PEDs. For a start, I'd like to give people be benefit of the doubt, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing and what not.

But it is just throwing out baseless accusations without thought. The people who have been caught doping had a large financial incentive if nothing else. If people that Track & Field isn't given much credit, where do you think trail and mountain running stands. Not to mention one is more likely to hear people say that non-track athletes who don't run competitive marathons aren't worth talking about on Let's Run than the latest results of USATF Mountain Running championships.

There is no money and no glory outside of a small esoteric group of runners in any of the events Carptener does. He has no reason to be doing any PEDs and I don't think the thought has ever crossed his mind.

Before people go dropping thinly vailed accusations they should stick to falsely accusing the runners they know something about. I don't think Pavro Numri was ever test, nor Zatopek for that matter, and everybody knows that testing wasn't really anything in the 70s so throw in Pre as well.

If simply not being tested is your standard for who is doping then every runner past, present and future is doping. Especially those people who struggle through a 5:45 marathon.

You manifest very little logic. First you try to say Matt Carpenter has little financial incentive to dope, which means you must assume that Matt Carpenter runs mainly for the sake of money...which means he has little incentive to run at all, using your logic. Then you tell us that Carpenter has no reason to be using PEDs. I can tell you that I wanted to be the best, money or no money, but apparently you think Carpenter simply wants to win money, which you've asserted he cannot. Then you tell us that you don't think the thought of using PEDs has ever crossed Carpenter's mind. You must assume that Carpenter is an idiot, as it appears that you are.

SoCal Pete wrote:

Avocado - any chance you can get me contact info for Matt. I'd love to have him be the subject for a post on my new blog, "Younger Legs For Older Runners."

Thanks if you can.

coachmagill@gmail.com

Pete,

I talked to Matt this afternoon, and sent you his email address. If you didn't receive it, let me know.

-AN

937;

You have encountered an age old letsrun cultural issue. If it involves trails or ultras (except for Cox's recent run), the full hatred of the ignorant comes to the forefront.

This is passed on from year to year with a dogmatism that is unparalleled.

No, he has encountered the fact that he has an ostensible paucity of reasoning skills, a trait which he shares with you.

one who shall not be named wrote:No, he has encountered the fact that he has an ostensible paucity of reasoning skills, a trait which he shares with you.

You just got a new thesaurus, didn't you.

I was not doing any reasoning, merely stating a few facts--not trying for an argument at all.

That was your first mistake. Here on LetsRun, you get an argument whether you want one or not. Too many mental adolescents just dying to practice their insults.

937; wrote:

I think it is absolutely absurd that people on a running forum will think that anybody who does well and isn't tested is using PEDs. For a start, I'd like to give people be benefit of the doubt, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing and what not.

Then you're fucking naive. It's not that he must be using because he isn't testing, it's that we can't know either way. Trusting in performance at the top of almost ANY sport today is foolish.

Dopers are usually more driven by the thrill of victory than by money.

knows better. wrote:

It's not that he must be using because he isn't testing, it's that we can't know either way. Trusting in performance at the top of almost ANY sport today is foolish.

Dopers are usually more driven by the thrill of victory than by money.

I don't subscribe to the "innocent until proven guilty" view. There are lots of athletes who I believe are (or have been) dopers, even though I'm not aware of any positive tests for them. In fact, during various eras, I have assumed that just about every top athlete in certain sports or events was a doper, and that just about every top runner from certain countries was a doper, and that just about every top athlete with a certain coach was a doper.

But as to this particular athlete, I have just never seen or heard anything in the past twenty years that would cause me to have any suspicion of doping, so it just seems odd that the subject of doping was even mentioned in the New York Times article or debated on this thread. Do people actually sit around and debate about whether Jordan Hasay is a doper? What about German Fernandez, Ryan Hall, or Ed Whitlock? Has the sport of distance running fallen into such disrepute that any reasonably good runner is regarded with the same suspicion that was once reserved for East German shotputters and Mr. Olympia contestants?

Most of the mountain runners that I know wouldn't even eat a McDonald's hamburger or a Pringle's potato chip for fear that it would poison their body. (I wouldn't either, by the way.) They certainly wouldn't inject themselves with some substance that might damage their kidneys or liver in order to experience the "thrill of victory" that comes at the end of a 100-mile run on rocky footpaths out in the middle of nowhere.

If you're looking for dopers, just go to your local gym and look for guys with big pecs and bad attitudes.

You're sitting around debating whether Matt Carpenter is a doper. The point is that basically nobody is above suspicion, not that a certain person should be suspected. Without a highly effective doping control program and given what we've seen in the sport and in the science of PEDs in the past 20 years, why should anyone be given a pass? Because you think you know him well enough to vouch for him? If we could determine dopers from appearances alone then we wouldn't need WADA and USADA. Did Eddy Hellebuyck look and act like an aggro roider to you? How about Deeja Youngquist? Waldemar Cierpinski?

Also, most of Carpenter's races are much shorter than 100 miles.

I doubt Matt Carpenter is a doper, but he's probably a joker, a smoker, and a midnight toker.

you might be biased wrote:

Did Eddy Hellebuyck look and act like an aggro roider to you? How about Deeja Youngquist? Waldemar Cierpinski?

Also, most of Carpenter's races are much shorter than 100 miles.

If you knew the sport, you'd know that rumors about Eddy's doping were around for many years before he finally got caught. And Cierpinski -- are you serious? As for Deeja, just look at the company she kept.

As for Matt, I'm not sitting around debating whether he's a doper. I'm simply saying that it's silly for people to be using a thread about Matt Carpenter to make the trivial point that anyone could be a doper. Why don't you go to a thread about Jordan Hasay and make the same trivial point? You could even mention that, for all we know, she could be a heroin dealer.

You're the one who suggested that you can pick out dopers at gyms by how they look, I just turned it back around. Your statement had nothing to do with rumors within the sport or other people they associate with. It was all about appearances (physical and behavior). So what about how Cierpinski, Hellebuyck, and Youngquist looked and behaved, looking just at them like you would with your suggestion regarding some freaks in a gym, would paint them as dopers?

Show me a news article that mentions Hasay's history with doping control protocols. It was in the story, that's why it's relevant in a thread about said story. You build any more strawmen and it'll be a fire hazard in here.

you might be biased wrote:

Show me a news article that mentions Hasay's history with doping control protocols. It was in the story, that's why it's relevant in a thread about said story. You build any more strawmen and it'll be a fire hazard in here.

From the original article:

...No rigorous antidoping program exists in high-altitude trail running, primarily because such an effort would be prohibitively expensive. Carpenter has never been publicly accused of doping; he said he has never taken performance-enhancing drugs and was happy to be tested any time.

------------------------------

I'll venture that the whole thread is made of straw. You could even make a stronger case again Hasay because she is in a part of running that supposedly has a testing program, but she has never tested ... what is being hidden? Why?

Robert Jindal wrote:

You could even make a stronger case again Hasay because she is in a part of running that supposedly has a testing program, but she has never tested

Are you sure she's never been tested?

Cross Nationals, OT wrote:

Robert Jindal wrote:

You could even make a stronger case again Hasay because she is in a part of running that supposedly has a testing program, but she has never tested

Are you sure she's never been tested?

Well, I've never seen any results, therefore .... ??!...

What if Carpenter was lieing? What if he has been tested, but Hasay hasn't? Why should we believe him about not being tested?