Regarding Hersh's Radcliffe/KK editorial

Portland Runner wrote:

Facts:

Tents-LEGAL

Training at altitude-LEGAL

Running faster than most men-LEGAL

Whether you like it or not, Paula has followed the rules. Having the means to afford a tent is no different than having the means to live at altitude, travel to training sites, hire a coach, buy shoes, etc.

Can't buy a tent? Then save up or shut up.

I agree with everything you just said guy, I'm not the enemy around here!

Paula is my heroine, in case you haven't noticed.

Money shouldn't come into it, what happens if say a drug comes on the market which is entirely legal, for example lets say its a naturally occuring drug, a plant extract of something really common but its very very expensive to extract, what do we do? Lets say its benefits are incredible, a 30% improvement in performance... what do we do, let it be legalised and let a select few millionaires win the Olympic medals on offer?

Of course we don't, it would be made illegal...

whats the difference?

What you can and cannot afford should not be an issue in this sport, how on earth do you draw a line in the sand otherwise.

Some people can afford to spend more on running gear than others. Some people can afford to go warm weather training, some can't. Some people have the disposable income for vitamins and supplements, some haven't. Some people can afford to train full time, most can't.

Life isn't fair.

Correct it isn't but I don't want to see a major games wheer the athleets aren't the best athletes just the atheletes with the best doctors and scientists backing them up.

waz wrote:

Correct it isn't but I don't want to see a major games wheer the athleets aren't the best athletes just the atheletes with the best doctors and scientists backing them up.

I can't afford a lactic adid meter like Marius Bakken has, they should be banned!

that is a way of measuring and quantifying effort, not enhancing performance. That what is the difference between a tent and the usual arguments of shoes etc... To improve performance by using a tent you don't need to train, you just sitin it and your body reacts, its hardly training.

Other "advantages" that should be banned:

Training camps (exclusive, invite only = elitist)

Medical care (better doctors in western cultures)

Massage and Physical Therapy (Hartmann's calendar full)

Living at altitude (most mountain towns are spendy)

Food (more abundant in the west, easier to get)

Air travel (not everyone can afford tickets)

Cars (not everyone can drive to the track)

All weather tracks (not every village can afford one)

I could come up with more but, you get the point. Face reality. There are always going to be haves and have nots. Unless running becomes a "hooray for everybody!", level playing field, socialist endeavor (kind of like youth soccer), someone will always have more and those that don't will bitch about it.

By the way, with a few notable exceptions, the third world "have nots" are successfully defeating our money and science driven methods.

You don't get it, my argument is about something which is improving performance in a way which involves no training, its not purely a financial argument. All of the things you have listed involve somebody training or being manipulated in a NATURAL way or responding to a NATURAL envioment, you train, you improve, somebpody massages your legs, you recover... you sit in a tent for a few hours, you run faster, don't you get it? Its a question of ethics, not developed world against undeveloped or rich versus poor. You are coming up with situations which you consider similar but they are ridiculous, the aye totally unrelated or distantly related from actual physical performance.

By the way, with a few notable exceptions, the third world \"have nots\" are successfully defeating our money and science driven methods.[/quote]

Portland Runner is correct, again.

Maybe biggest advantage any athlete can have is to be able to run full-time, but I believe *Queen Catherine* of Kenya was working as a telephonist and running in her *spare time* and still winning against the Pros !

All the advantages money can buy are not going to cut it for you if you are lacking just 1% of what it takes to run out there.

That is why it is much, MUCH easier for a girl to become a top model or actress or singer than it is to be the world\'s best over 26.2 miles -- you can\'t fake it and there aren\'t many harder ways of making your money that I can think of!

So, if you sit in an atlitude tent but do no training you'll run faster. Brilliant! I'm gonna get one for Xmas.

Portland Runner wrote:

Other "advantages" that should be banned:

Training camps (exclusive, invite only = elitist)

Medical care (better doctors in western cultures)

Massage and Physical Therapy (Hartmann's calendar full)

Living at altitude (most mountain towns are spendy)

Food (more abundant in the west, easier to get)

Air travel (not everyone can afford tickets)

Cars (not everyone can drive to the track)

All weather tracks (not every village can afford one)

You could sum that up by saying anything Radcliffe does, even though not legal, is okay.

And anything OY does, even though legal, is not okay because she still beats Radcliffe.

We get your point. Thanks

SlgEdith wrote:

Edith

not Paula's twin, promise

Scary.

Though I admire your passionate prerogatives. :)

dunes runner wrote:

Portland Runner wrote:

Other "advantages" that should be banned:

Training camps (exclusive, invite only = elitist)

Medical care (better doctors in western cultures)

Massage and Physical Therapy (Hartmann's calendar full)

Living at altitude (most mountain towns are spendy)

Food (more abundant in the west, easier to get)

Air travel (not everyone can afford tickets)

Cars (not everyone can drive to the track)

All weather tracks (not every village can afford one)

You could sum that up by saying anything Radcliffe does, even though not legal, is okay.

And anything OY does, even though legal, is not okay because she still beats Radcliffe.

We get your point. Thanks

Yeah, we get your point too. You could care less whether Radcliffe is legal or not, you're just pissed that your precious OY is history and Radcliffe is running all over so you throw anything you can at her...Only she still hasn't got out of town like you told her, has she? Just proves she got no shame at all.

--Edith

SlgEdith wrote:

Just proves she got no shame at all.

--Edith

Yes it sure does, Edith.

dunes runner wrote:

SlgEdith wrote:

Just proves she got no shame at all.

--Edith

Yes it sure does, Edith.

I think you should write to the President about it.

Waz, no I dont get it. I really don't. I'm attracted to running, in part, because of the simplicity of the concept (just bloody run) and the complexity of the execution (read this board). I really do not know how you can seperate what is natural and what is not. It doesn't work.

I came to running knowing nothing, and have improved my performance enormously in a 'non-natural' way through the internet, hrm, coaching software etc. All passive, technology driven aids to improvement.

I dont think you can simplistically seperate 'natural' and 'non-natural' methods for running improvement.

Dave

DavidW wrote:

I dont think you can simplistically seperate 'natural' and 'non-natural' methods for running improvement.

I think you are correct.

Therefore there is absolutely no ethical purpose for having drug "testing".