should i be worried?
should i be worried?
Well I don't think Mo was protected at any point, as noted in my 2nd line. If he doped, I think it more likely he just "beat the system".
How I read this is: poster A said "Mo and Usain are protected". You reply with "if those two were protected, why wasn't Gay?". So I tried to explain why I find Mo and Usain could be protected and not Tyson. Do I believe any of them were protected?... probably not.
Guys, Syd is 20. She could just be referring to a text argument with her bae. Not every vague post made by a 20 year-old is about their training regimen.
george oscar bluth wrote:
Guys, Syd is 20. She could just be referring to a text argument with her bae. Not every vague post made by a 20 year-old is about their training regimen.
This. Come on, use logic people, it's not Sydney
rojo wrote:
Abrahamson's "up to three" may be because he's hearing parts of rumors. I'm hearing it's for three missed tests.
If that's all there is, then it's not exactly massive news. I'd expect one of the tests to get excused because of a "misunderstanding", either now or in arbitration, and then nothing would happen.
george oscar bluth wrote:
Guys, Syd is 20. She could just be referring to a text argument with her bae. Not every vague post made by a 20 year-old is about their training regimen.
Yeah, sounds more like an overdramatic Instagram post about “finding herself” rather than some acknowledgement of doping.
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
As another poster said...my guess would be Coleman, as well...Pulled out of Birmingham meet with absolutely no update or reason as to why.
As sad as this is to say, it was the first thing that went thru my mind when I saw the news here on letsrun that he wasn't running Birmingham. No reason given by him or meet organizers (from what I saw..maybe I'm wrong here) and my mind went "I bet he tested positive and this is why he isn't running"
Same, that's the exact thought process I had.
wakkoxc wrote:
WinnytheBish wrote:
Wasn't it Michael Rogers pretended to not know that his coach was involved with a positive test in his past? I never believed that he didn't know that, and my money is on him.
I don't think Michael Rogers would be MASSIVE doping news.
2nd place at the US champs would mean he's probably top 10 in the world. Huge news to me.
I'm going with him and then either Gatlin or Coleman.
Doubt its Gatlin.
Apophis99 wrote:
under a bridge wrote:
Why would Mo Farah be protected and Tyson Gay not?
Our (American) medalists get popped for drugs, scrutinized and ridiculed by foreign media, fans and by our own compatriots.
Meanwhile I can’t even make out half of what Steve Cram says in his commentary because he takes every bit of Farah in every single broadcast. Radcliffe sure is a one in a billion talent, too.
You ever find it odd that every single other top-10 100m runner has tested positive except Bolt? Or how all of the sudden Britain’s top distance runner goes from a nobody to unbeatable at age 30 around the same time Coe rises to prominence in British Athletics then runs the IAAF as a whole.
America has always been competitive in sports. We could stand to be brought down a peg or two while a blind eye is turned toward the behavior of rising stars because the right amount of scandal mixed with the right amount of game rigging creates parity. Parity puts aszes in the seats raising all boats.
that didnt happen he was never a nobody and his times are normal progression and won double Olympic gold at 29 age 23 5000m he did 13:09 his pb is 12:53
under a bridge wrote:
Apophis99 wrote:
You ever find it odd that every single other top-10 100m runner has tested positive except Bolt?
When did Maurice Greene, Christian Coleman*, and Richard Thompson test positive?
*could be recently, apparently
Maurice Greene retired right before he got outed for buying PEDs “for his teammates.”
Oh ok. Would you stake your home on Richardson, whose international career basically only spanned a couple of seasons, being clean? Not a lot of time in the testing pool, conveniently. He ran really, really fast but only for a little bit. It’s not really his thing, you know.
Hold the presses on Coleman...
Lance never tested positive either. Or maybe he did. But it was covered up by the UCI. Allegedly. Or not. The point is that there are no protected dopers, least of all in British athletics. Not Farah, Froome or Paula. Barry Fudge doesn’t know Jama Aden. Britain has been a perennial medal accumulator.
Bolt is squeeeeaky clean though.
Hardloper wrote:
george oscar bluth wrote:
Guys, Syd is 20. She could just be referring to a text argument with her bae. Not every vague post made by a 20 year-old is about their training regimen.
This. Come on, use logic people, it's not Sydney
Yeah guys, Sidney McLaughlin is among the untouchables. She will never test positive just like Usain bolt didn't.
WinnytheBish wrote:
wakkoxc wrote:
I don't think Michael Rogers would be MASSIVE doping news.
2nd place at the US champs would mean he's probably top 10 in the world. Huge news to me.
I'm going with him and then either Gatlin or Coleman.
This isn't for positive tests, it's missed tests (3) and possibly not having a TUE. Total of 3 involved, one apparently got a slap on the wrist, the other 2 got 2 year bans. One accepted the ban and the other is fighting it. All unconfirmed but most likely accurate.
alsal wrote:
Apophis99 wrote:
Our (American) medalists get popped for drugs, scrutinized and ridiculed by foreign media, fans and by our own compatriots.
Meanwhile I can’t even make out half of what Steve Cram says in his commentary because he takes every bit of Farah in every single broadcast. Radcliffe sure is a one in a billion talent, too.
You ever find it odd that every single other top-10 100m runner has tested positive except Bolt? Or how all of the sudden Britain’s top distance runner goes from a nobody to unbeatable at age 30 around the same time Coe rises to prominence in British Athletics then runs the IAAF as a whole.
America has always been competitive in sports. We could stand to be brought down a peg or two while a blind eye is turned toward the behavior of rising stars because the right amount of scandal mixed with the right amount of game rigging creates parity. Parity puts aszes in the seats raising all boats.
that didnt happen he was never a nobody and his times are normal progression and won double Olympic gold at 29 age 23 5000m he did 13:09 his pb is 12:53
How many dollops of testo-boost should I smear across my loins between sets of pushups?
Apophis99 wrote:
under a bridge wrote:
When did Maurice Greene, Christian Coleman*, and Richard Thompson test positive?
*could be recently, apparently
Maurice Greene retired right before he got outed for buying PEDs “for his teammates.”
Oh ok. Would you stake your home on Richardson, whose international career basically only spanned a couple of seasons, being clean? Not a lot of time in the testing pool, conveniently. He ran really, really fast but only for a little bit. It’s not really his thing, you know.
Hold the presses on Coleman...
Lance never tested positive either. Or maybe he did. But it was covered up by the UCI. Allegedly. Or not. The point is that there are no protected dopers, least of all in British athletics. Not Farah, Froome or Paula. Barry Fudge doesn’t know Jama Aden. Britain has been a perennial medal accumulator.
Bolt is squeeeeaky clean though.
"every top-10 runner has tested positive except Bolt".
You now acknowledge that 3 of the 9 did not test positive. Why do you say blatantly untrue things? Do you think that helps your case? Do you think no one will notice? Your credibility is trash.
right!!!!!
So, as soon as someone pulls out of a meet, you think its drugs? smh that's the state of our sport now? sad
It will be massive news if rojo's judgment is accurate and this turns out to be more than moderately interesting news.
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
"It was the beef, d@mnit!"
It's never my fault.
Gossipy little betch