Eddy took steroids? He sure didn't look like a muscle freak.
He has paid a price for his mistakes, though he may not have paid back those that missed out on prize money because of his cheating.
Clearly his dirty records must go. But since he came clean in the interview I would cut him some slack.
Avocado's Number wrote:
I think that you may be overstating .. her role in "caus[ing] the end of Ms Yegorova's running career.
Ms Yegorova was met with a barrage from the press as a result of P Radcliffe's actions, which caused her to end her season, and she never again had the motivation to compete at the highest levels she'd attained.
The A sample does NOT test positive for anything. It is only an indicator that that B sample should have closer scrunity, which it did and Ms Yegorova was cleared.
The 2008 Russian Olympic Team fiasco had nothing to do with actions by Ms Yegorova, but was again based on politics. Whether some Russian official had stupidly, as alledged, tainted all the women's team samples, was not ever proven, or whether it was simply another case of bad testing procedures. In any case, Ms Yegorova was not guilty of any wrongdoing, and very likely did not even know the person who tampered with the samples.
Again all the supposition regarding Ms Yegorova has been based on Politics, not athletics. The hysteria began with the lies and misrepresentations by P Radcliffe. I recall at the time, even after the truth had come out and Ms Yegorova was cleared, P Radcliffe kept spouting the lies.
That, to me, was where the cheating occurred.
When an athlete in 2nd, 3rd, 18th or wherever, conspires to cheat the winner out of their just reward -- that is cheating. That person is a cheat.
"A fox smells its own stink first."
When that sign was very first held up, is when I KNEW FOR SURE, who the fox was with the stink.
ghost wrote:
Hellebuk has served his time, and most of his records should be allowed to stand, because his EPO use was of short duration and sporadic. Ironically, many of his notable records will go unrecognized, because many of those records have been falsely attributed to EPO use, when, in fact, he was not on the EPO.
Oh yes, no doubt. Nobody ever took PEDs except for the very short period before they tested positive.
I think it is fairly likely that the people that are installed as the new record holders in the various distances in his place also used PEDs, but just never admitted it in public. So many use PEDs without ever failing a test for so long it is difficult to imagine there are many clean elite athletes out there. I think there are really very few elite clean track athletes out there. There are lots of chemists, doctors, and other scientists quite willing to assist in creating not yet detectable PEDs for athletes to use. It seems to me that one would have to be incredibly naive to think otherwise. Heck, I ran low level D II track and there were a couple of guys doing this who had no chance to make it to the national let alone international stage.
Eddie was just honest, even if belatedly so. I still believe his records should go away. But really, this is a completely hopeless battle.
G_D
Most are caught the first time they ever try them, and are only using them to recover from injury.
Have to disagree with you on this mate. No way should his records stand during the period he took EPO. Although I`m in favor of forgiveness you can`t just welcome someone back as if nothing happened.
Referring back to the time when Paula finished around 300th in that maiden 12 year old girl's cross country race. 12 year old girls are not known for running massive mileage, and when everyone is more or less at the same training level one can assess their basic talent. In that case, Radcliffe, was average in relation to her peers at that time.
Later, dedication, hard work and attention to minute details distanced Paula from all her rivals.
Ghost in Saudi,
, apply today
Bottom line, I feel anyway, their all using "something"...better drugs and better masking.
Eddy didn't come clean one bit!!! He would do anything and everything he could get away with. When he got caught, he tied to play the poor guy, down on his luck, I want my kids to know the truth, I hope people will forgive me and I can keep f**king them over card..
And his wife probably beat his ass when he "fessed up". She went to jail one night in Aluquerque for beating his ass, when she caught him with another girl. I know who bailed her out...
Eddy has always taken every drug he could. The tests finally caught up with him, and he was desperate and greedy enough to FINALLY get caught.
Eddy is a con artist plain and simple! And his wife is even worse. Nothing he ever did should count.
J.R. wrote:
The A sample does NOT test positive for anything. It is only an indicator that that B sample should have closer scrunity, which it did and Ms Yegorova was cleared.
The 2008 Russian Olympic Team fiasco had nothing to do with actions by Ms Yegorova, but was again based on politics. Whether some Russian official had stupidly, as alledged, tainted all the women's team samples, was not ever proven, or whether it was simply another case of bad testing procedures. In any case, Ms Yegorova was not guilty of any wrongdoing, and very likely did not even know the person who tampered with the samples.
In 2001, there was no B sample that "cleared" Yegorova. The testing protocol at the time required both a urine test and a blood test. Yegorova tested positive for synthetic EPO in the urine test, but no blood was drawn for a conformatory blood test. A later blood test did shown suspicious results, but it was too late.
I'm not sure where you got your inside information that Yegorova was not guilty of any wrongdoing in the urine sample switch in 2007 and the follow-up investigation, suspension, and ban in 2008.
Avocado's Number wrote:
In 2001, there was no B sample that "cleared" Yegorova. The testing protocol at the time required both a urine test and a blood test. Yegorova tested positive for synthetic EPO in the urine test
The A only shows if the sample is within the range of further testing, in which case the B sample is looked at with more scrutiny. You cannot fail a drug test based on a urine sample. IF that were the case, there would be no reason for having invasive blood tests, which of course there aren't any reasons for anywaym as the whole thing is a hypocritical mess.
, but no blood was drawn for a conformatory blood test. A later blood test did shown suspicious results, but it was too late.
The A and B samples are taken at the SAME time, not one later than the other.
I'm not sure where you got your inside information that Yegorova was not guilty of any wrongdoing in the urine sample switch in 2007 and the follow-up investigation, suspension, and ban in 2008.
It is very simply reality, not any inside information. The verdict was that the samples had been switched. As far as I know and was publicized, there was no determination of WHO switched the samples or when.
Avocado's Number wrote:
In 2001, there was no B sample that "cleared" Yegorova. The testing protocol at the time required both a urine test and a blood test. Yegorova tested positive for synthetic EPO in the urine test, but no blood was drawn for a conformatory blood test. A later blood test did shown suspicious results, but it was too late.
What you posted is all total nonsense and wrong.
Ms Yegorova did NOT test positive for synthetic epo.
Ive known Eddy a longggg time......
This post is funny......and TRUE
You apparently don't know the testing protocol for EPO that was in effect back in 2001, nor do you appear to know about the efficacy of urine tests to detect synthetic EPO, nor do you appear to be know anything at all about Yegorova's "guilt" relating to tampering with urine samples in 2007. It's perfectly O.K. to be ignorant about these things, but not so O.K. to make false assertions without any knowledge of the facts.
Regarding Yegorova's positive urine test for synthetic EPO in 2001, here are portions of an interview with Don Catlin in 2003. Note, in particular, Catlin's response to question 4, specifically regarding Yegorova's positive urine test for synthetic EPO and the issue about whether the blood test, although unnecessary to detect synthetic EPO in light of the positive urine test, was nevertheless a procedural requirement for the finding of a doping violation resulting in disciplinary action under the rules in place at the time. It is important to keep in mind that the situation with Yegorova was very different from the subsequent case of Bernard Lagat, which had to do with two urine samples -- an "A" sample (the testing of which suggested presence of synthetic EPO) and a "B" sample (the testing of which did not support a finding of synthetic EPO):
http://www.letsrun.com/2003/epoqa.php
Yegorova tested positive for synthetic EPO. Insofar as Paula asserted that Yegorova was an "EPO cheat," it seems to me that Paula was on very solid ground. Whether Yegorova should have been disqualified from the 2001 world championships (and other competitions) based on the positive EPO test was quite a different issue, legal rather than medical, and Paula did not prevail in her argument on that matter.
Avocado's Number wrote:
You apparently don't know the testing protocol
Really. You don't know, so therefore I don't know huh. Therefore you're the scientific one. I see, what I have no use for your stupid "science." I did see the protocols for the tests, and which had considerable overlap, not conclusive as LR says, pretending to be Catlin, maybe one or the other, who knows -- but not scientific at all.
Here is a quote from the link you provided.
Question:
5) What about an athlete testing falsely positive? Isn't that a possibility.
It's highly, highly unlikely if proper procedures are carried out.
That quote is by the Brojos, not by Catlin. The Brojos are not experts in drug testing protocols.
As Dr. Catlin said the urine test is "a very solid test." Dr. Catlin said, "I don't know how other labs do it (the exact procedures they use in carrying out the test)
Not so scientific, huh. Catlin doesn't know how the other labs do the tests, yet the Brojos are convinced of who is guilty and who isn't.
It's perfectly O.K. to be ignorant about these things, but not so O.K. to make false assertions without any knowledge of the facts.
I hope you read this, what you said!
It is important to keep in mind that the situation with Yegorova was very different from the subsequent case of Bernard Lagat, which had to do with two urine samples
Unbelievable. This is making me laugh. :)
Yegorova tested positive for synthetic EPO.
No, she did not. Ms Yegorova was cleared.
Paula asserted that Yegorova was an "EPO cheat,"
Yes, P Radcliffe did make that assertion, which convinced me that P Radcliffe was the cheat, because of wanting to win by CHEATING, regardless the of the method, not by winning a race.
Seriously? The testing protocol???? Who gives a crap. Eddy used drugs, and he admitted to that. He is a worhtless f**k, just like his wife Shawn is..
And I hope running will never be disrupted by them ever again!!!
NM Guy wrote:
Seriously? The testing protocol???? Who gives a crap.
Right, who gives a crap.
The point is that Avocado # is a huge proponent (1) that drugs work, (2) that drugs help you to perform way beyond what you would be able to do without them and, by his constant hysteria, (3) emphasizes those messages with each one of his posts!
My position is that, even though some people take drugs, it does not matter. This is because (1) the drugs don't help anyone to run any faster than they could run without them, regardless of level of training or ability, (2) drugs are often harmful and HAVE caused many deaths, (3) athletes can run faster over distance without taking any drugs, and (4) drugs and worrying about drugs are a hindrance to running one's best.
The hysterical crowd must lose a lot of sleep over this issue, BECAUSE they think (or at least are pushing that message) that drugs can make someone superhuman, which is rubbish. You can do much better with a healthy diet, good habits, and getting plenty of sleep, in addition to your training. No one taking any drugs will ever do any better than this.
Avocado #, you seem quite desperate to prove otherwise.
Good points, and that is why we see guys like Chambers run just as fast without being juiced. The only thing is the ageing factor. People say that Lombard's use of EPO helped him lower his 10,0000 record from 30.00 to 27.30. This is nonsense, because he was improving massively despite the use of EPO which had more of a placebo effect than physical. Proof of this is when Lombard returned from his drugs ban, and won the Irish Inter counties cross country, running a super fast time, and beating all the best the Emerald Isle had to offer. Of course, he then stopped running, in the face of all the animosity following his comeback. It is incomprehensible as to why Lombard faced such hostility, whereas Fagan (the quintessential punk rocker of the distance scene) has people feeling sorry for him and not condemning him (safe a few)? They are essentially identical cases of runners who wanted to take short cuts to reach the highest level.
Fagan did not need that, as he had showed in that half marathon (when he was clean) posting an essentially effortless 62 minutes, with much more to come.
Ghost in Saudi,
, apply today
