World Champs - Day 6 - Official discussion thread

>apparently hasn't paid attention to anything 400 related for the past decade

>"where did all these guys come from?"

Yeah cause we're a first world country with almost 400 million people. We SHOULD be winning all the time, every time

why is rojo such a dick lol 'we need rojo to go down and ask the right questions' BLAH

He just looks fat to me.

Except at least 2/3 of Americans are completely incapable of walking across a room without getting out of breath.

Ok, so 133 million people. WE SHOULD BE WINNING ALL THE TIME.

Pointing to a bunch of guys still in their 20s isn’t helping the argument that Botswana’s rise in the event isn’t “sudden.”

I’m willing to buy at this point that they were all inspired by the long career of Isaac Makwala. If they were in their teens when he started doing well, the timeline would matchup fairly well, no?

No NBA. No NFL. maybe the 400 and 800 are basically their national sport. Like the 100/200 in Jamaica.

Knighton was an elite athlete; one of the best in the world. He may not have won an Olympic medal but that he was doping suggests he was better than if he were clean.

Ask yourself this: if doping is known to be widespread in the sport (athlete surveys indicate this, as well as WADA likening t and f to body building, weightlifting and cycling) are those athletes who are doping gaining an advantage? That's the first important question and the one that concerns WADA the most, because it affects the fairness of sport. If athletes aren't gaining advantage then the attempts to eradicate doping are redundant, but if they are gaining an advantage then it doesn't mean a) they will beat all other doped athletes (Knighton won't be the only doped sprinter), or even b) that an athlete of lesser ability will beat a clean athlete of much greater ability.

But the differences in ability at the top are often marginal. So doping will make a difference in outcomes; of who wins and who loses, and who breaks the records. It is hard to see at that level how a clean athlete can beat the best dopers. It means that every successful athlete now can be suspect - but some show they are much more suspicious than others. That is what most of the discussion centres on. It is a speculative assessment because it applies necessarily to those athletes who haven't been caught. Most dopers aren't, so there is no getting around that speculation is ultimately all we have. But the speculation has often been on the money - Ramzi, Katir.

I think running a 400 and 400H double at LA is enough on her plate. Not to mention trying to beat an East German world record back in the days of systematic government steroid doping. That was serious stuff they were using back them.

WADA takes the view that when there is a sudden leap in performance by groups of athletes, including national groups, that is a red flag for likely doping.

Armstrong says he hates doping but he really loves it. It is what he lives for. Waiting to automatically accuse any great runner of doping. He says not all elite runners dope but in ArmstrongWorld the only ones who are clean are the back of the packers. I think we should just universally ignore him. He turns every discussion ugly and who needs that? (except Armstrong) Yes, doping is a problem in athletics, but give me a break. I am also glad they no longer can get away with (most of the time) using the kind of anaerobic steroids that was so prevalent in the 60s, 70s and 80s. But acknowledging the used of PEDS is one thing. Armstrong is a joke.

Right because inspiration is all that is needed for a small, poor country to suddenly start churning out world class sprinters by the handful.

Is Josh Kerr a doper?

So how is ignoring me working out for you?

He possibly could be, as might anyone in a global final. But he doesn't reek of it, as some do.

That goes back to me saying, if everyone is doing it then what is the difference?

Or I'll amend that: if, as you say, many at the top are doping, and we still have consistent results... meaning, the same people win the majority of the time, then what is the difference? Because then it's just a case of dopers racing against one another and the fastest person is still winning the majority of the time.

So, again, what is the difference?

Or on the other hand, in cases like Shelby Houlihan, was she beating other people who were also doping or was she beating people who were clean?

Is Cole Hocker doping? Is Grant Fisher doping? They've had incredible results lately. Are they beating other people who are suspected of doping while they're clean?

Is Jakob Ingebrigtsen doping? Or is he beating others who may be suspected of doping while he's clean?

In Sydney McLaughlin's case, is she doping? Or is she beating others who may be suspected of doping while she's clean? Or are most of the top women in the 400m doping and she's beating them while she's doping too -- one doper beating other dopers?

I fully understand the speculation aspect of all of this. Just how far does it extend though to the point of absurdity?

It takes more than inspiration - as many sprinters today know.