White Rock Marathon-Liza Hunter-Galvan

Um, welcome to the professional era. That's what comes with increasing paydays, in any sport. You probably defended Eddy Hellebuyk and Regina Jacobs, too. Apparently there's no explanation as to why you would choose to believe things that are too good to be true.

I hear LHG is turning to a hip-hop career. From now on she is known as L HGH.

So, great call picking LHG as a probable cheat.

My question is, is there really much difference between her and say...

ALAN WEBB?

I mean sure, Liza as a pure athlete clearly does not have the talent of Webb, but then again a 2.29 Marathon doesn't really equate to 1.43 and 3.46 for a mile.

Still, much has been made of the fact that Liza's had a massive increase in performance and the fact she is short, squat chick with horrible running form.

Well, Alan Webb didn't only have a massive increase in performance, he had MULTIPLE massive fluctuations and he is a short, squat dude with horrible running form. Now he is a mid to high 3.50 miler and a 1.47-48 runner, who just happened to have had one year where he became the American record holder and 7th fastest guy over a mile EVER.

What I am saying is - LHG running 2 hours 29 for a 'thon is about as farking believable as Alan Webb running 1.43 and 3.46 for a mile.

Yes we hear what you're saying but...because you are attempting to compare a phenom to a never was makes you pretty farking unbelievable.

A better presupposition would have been comparing Webb's improvements to Ramzi's which, while not very valid, would have given your position a little more credibility.

That being said, we have long ago left the world of innocent until proven guilty…

Simon Stitch-Up Says wrote:

What I am saying is - LHG running 2 hours 29 for a 'thon is about as farking believable as Alan Webb running 1.43 and 3.46 for a mile.

I disagree. LHG never ran the equivalent of a 3:53 mile in highschool. There is a big difference between the two runners. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Alan Webb had the potential to run sub 3:28. On the other hand, there should be doubt that LHG can run under 2:25

Dear Jefe.

Reading and comprehension is obviously not your strongest suite now is it?

I believe I actually made the very point you yourself are making in, lets see, the 4th line of my post.

I guess what I was really trying to say is that it is rather comical that you Americans are so quick to point the finger (and credit due this time around because you were right), when there are just as many implausible and highly unlikely cases under your own noses.

Because I'll tell you right now - there is no way that little frog-in-a-blender chump Webb busted 3.46 for a mile and 1.43 without some serious gear.

Welcome to the era of being unable to understand what you read. What part of my last post looks at all like I'm defending anyone? And no, I never defended either Hellebuyk or Jacobs. But I also never accused them of anything until there was evidence.

Simon Stitch-Up Says wrote:

Dear Jefe.

Reading and comprehension is obviously not your strongest suite now is it?

I believe I actually made the very point you yourself are making in, lets see, the 4th line of my post.

I guess what I was really trying to say is that it is rather comical that you Americans are so quick to point the finger (and credit due this time around because you were right), when there are just as many implausible and highly unlikely cases under your own noses.

Because I'll tell you right now - there is no way that little frog-in-a-blender chump Webb busted 3.46 for a mile and 1.43 without some serious gear.

I know she runs for Nzl. but since she has lived here quite a few years and the OP began the speculation based on a local Texas race wouldnt that count as looking "under our own noses"?

There was plenty of evidence on both Jacobs and Hellebuyck, as well as Hunter-Galvan. There's a reason why the BroJos went after Jacobs prior to having any test results to go by. You have been defending those who defended Hunter-Galvan prior to her positive test announcement. You should know that test results aren't the only evidence of doping.

HRE wrote:

Welcome to the era of being unable to understand what you read. What part of my last post looks at all like I'm defending anyone? And no, I never defended either Hellebuyk or Jacobs. But I also never accused them of anything until there was evidence.

Again. you need to work on your reading comprehension. All I've said is that I don't believe in accusing someone of drug taking just because they run faster than you think they should. In truth, there are loads of people that I have serious doubts about but I won't accuse them of something just because I have doubts.

Ok so I went back and reread your post and specifically paragraph 4 where you wrote “I mean sure, Liza as a pure athlete clearly does not have the talent of Webb, but then again a 2.29 Marathon doesn't really equate to 1.43 and 3.46 for a mile. Still, much has been made of the fact that Liza's had a massive increase in performance and the fact she is short, squat chick with horrible running form.”

Your comment is conflicted. What L HGH is or did is in no way comparable to A Webb. Not the event, not the improvement, not the gender, not the age, etc.

So what I take from your attempt to compare them is that you believe that because Liza only improved to a 2:29 ‘thon on drugs then Webb’s 1:43/3:46 is just out of this world crazy! I would respond, yes for a male equivalent to Liza it would be out of this world crazy, for Webb, those time are much more probable.

This is why I wrote that if you want to impugn Webb then do it with something more credible than just “he ran really, really fast for a short squat dude with horrible running form!” Maybe it’s just me but this appears to be a desperate attempt by you to fit a round peg into a square hole.

So my comment to you was; drop the silly comparison and just say what you really wanted to say which is that you think Americans only point the finger at other nations' athletes.

I’ve always thought that we Americans have been pretty good at pointing the finger at our own athletes, except for some who desperately want to believe, I don’t think there is a performance out there that hasn’t been viewed with a skeptical eye.

But we’re not as quick to convict just because you think they mimic diced up amphibians (I’m assuming that this is your particular problem with Webb and not Ritz?).

Also what is with this personal bias against short, squat runners? How would you describe Bekele? Are you tall, lean and slow?

Maybe you should be working on your ability to express your thoughts in writing better, pal. I'm not going to guess why you would hesitate to accuse someone you have "serious doubts" about because if you have doubts then you've already accused them in your head. Maybe by accusing people before the doping control protocols finally catch up to them we fans will put more pressure on the officials in our sport to find a better deterrent to doping! Being harsh on the athlete only after they've been caught obviously isn't doing a fat lot of good.

I have doubts about a lot of things but I am not going to say them publicly because there's a world of difference between thinking that someone is an argumentative, fat headed, half wit and publicly telling people that he is.

But yeah, let's accuse anyone we wonder about because their performace is better than we expected of them. Let's be harsh on someone who busted their tail, spent a few years working on what's been holding them back and finally succeeds. Let's automatically dump on Ritzenhein, Webb, Bolt, and Radcliffe because there's something about every one of their careers that someone could interpret as "evidence" of drug use. That'll really be great for the sport.

dallas white rock wrote:

What is running coming to. This is heartbreaking that people can so easily get away with it. What does it teach the next generation of runners.

QFE

HRE wrote:

Let's be harsh on someone who busted their tail, spent a few years working on what's been holding them back and finally succeeds. Let's automatically dump on Ritzenhein, Webb, Bolt, and Radcliffe because there's something about every one of their careers that someone could interpret as "evidence" of drug use. That'll really be great for the sport.

Because burying heads in the sand and blithely pretending that anti-doping measures really work has done wonders for the sport? The sport will continue down the path of absurdity until it becomes regarded as just another 'roid circus like body building and pro wrestling. I guess that's what you want.

Liza Hunter-Galvan is irrelevant. What is relevant is that an unsophisticated soccer mom got EPO at a race in South Texas through an elite male runners recommendation.

How prevalent is EPO on the US Road Racing scene, where very few races test.

This is the race that all the fall-out is about.

http://www.iaapweb.com/results/09/02_07_2009.htm

Also, if you haven't read the NZRun.com message board threads on this you only know half the story.

An open letter to LHG:

Dear Liza,

Why did you do it? Do you think about the honest runner who should have gone to the Olympics in your place? Do you worry that your name is now synonymous with drug cheats like Marion Jones and Regina Jacobs? Would you be able to face Arthur Lydiard if he were alive? After serving a pathetic 2-year suspension, are you going to cheat on the Masters running circuit? Did you ever want to coach kids? Too late for that now. No parent would let their kid be coached by a drug cheat.

100% Pure NZ

P.S. It was a great piece of observation by the OP. Drug testers would be doing the same - looking at out of the ordinary performances or superhuman recoveries - and chasing those athletes down for out of competition testing.

Yes. That's what I want. Clearly you know better than I do what I want. Thanks. So now can we have a serious discussion about how we can get Ritzenhein, webb, Radcliffee, Rowbury and so on suspended? Because now that my head's out of the sand I can see that all of them have made really big improvements when it looked like they'd peaked, don't show up well at international championships where there is testing, have some sort of affiliation with someone who's suspected of using or advocating PEDs or just seem way bettert han I think they should. Now that my head's out of the sand, there's something fishy about Ed Whitlock too. Let's get after them.

You moved your head from the sand to the bullshit. Or maybe to the crackhouse. I'm okay with you remaining in your ignorant stupor, if that's what you really prefer. I'll still be here, level-headed and sane and dropping knowledge to counter buffoonery.