Video Highlights 2015 Boston Marathon
April 20, 2015
trossi wrote:
because no one would want to be considered "juiced" (including race organizers for public perception reasons) you would want to have the two categories be "tested" and "untested"
Yes, good idea. I agree with this.
I wouldn't not want any of the drug believers to stick a needle in me.
Thus I would race in the untested division, and I bet most other intelligent runners would do the same thing.
runDirtyrun wrote:
For a race the size of Boston, this may be asking too much. The logistics of screening runners would be very difficult. I agree with the intent though.
What is ridiculous is a Masters runner getting more than $20 and a trinket for winning. The race must make a killing every year if they are blowing $10,000+ on Masters.
Totally my $0.02, but Masters should be one-and-done doping bans.
No it's not asking for too much. How many women do the elite start? You have the John Hancock elites and then the BAA elites, who are getting free entry and maybe hotel. All it takes is entering their name in this database and boom.
http://www.dopingsanctions.comrunDirtyrun wrote:
There's a reason the NCAA/BCS, IOC, USOC push hard to keep doping out of criminal law even though it is plainly fraud. Criminalizing doping is a clear threat to their "business."
No, it's because taking drugs has never been proven to give anyone an unfair advantage, in fact the opposite is the case.
Were they to take the cases to court, they would lose, which would further expose the drug test hypocrisy, and that's not what they want.
Amerikano wrote:
Nike dropped Lance how quickly once $hit hit the fan? Or did Nike sign Lance for a much bigger deal post-cheating scandal?
Uhh. Seriously?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dope-and-glory-10-04-2001/Lance was on the same team, Carmichael doping him from the start. It was obvious then to anyone that bothered to look at the facts. Facts don't change anything.
RULES DO NOT MATTER until you p!ss off too many people (Armstrong), or the wrong person with more power than you.
nomnom wrote:
Agreed with Marchand, she continued to race would leave right away after races. Collect the prize and go. Seeing her at many NWI races you would know regardless she would win.
Don't understand why Americans (and NW Indianans) aren't more outraged by the Rachelle Marchand situation.
LHG is eligible (and should be) for the $10,000. What part of FORMER don't you people understand. Maybe not eligible for travel expenses and comped entry.....but definitely eligible for prize money.
LHG was not racing (or training even) while on Recormin (sp).....it was to heal an injury, so what prize $$$$ would you have her pay back?
BAA can't deny her the $10,000 she EARNED it. Nor can they deny her entry into the race.....discriminatory lawsuit there.
You people seem to forget that she has done/completed her 2 year penance. That was 2 years of earning NO prize $$$$. LHG PAID HER DUES.
Unlike Rachelle Marchand, LHG did all that WADA/USADA have asked of her.
I am actually in favor of the new 4 year ban, because the old 2 year ban was obviously not enough of a deterrent.
First she denied everything. Then she managed to fool Peter Snell into publically backing her innocence. Then she tried to get her B sample testing thrown out by looking for technicality loopholes in the testing (note: not whether the result of the B would be positive or not). When that failed, she fessed up to taking one dose, thinking that was all that they had on her. When she found out that they had proof of 2 earlier positives, she "confessed" to those as well. Then she tried to lay the blame on Athletics New Zealand by saying that they didn't speak nicely to her and therefore forced her into taking drugs. She cried to the media saying that they called her a failure when what they actually wrote to her was that she failed to meet the expected agreed results required for selection.
She weasled her way onto two Olympic marathon teams (taxpayer funded) through legal challenges of the NZ selection criteria. The first time was a bit dodgy and Athletics NZ only caved in on the second occasion in order to save on legal expenses with a limited budget during an Olympic year.
For anyone interested, the selection criteria was to meet the qualifying time AND to show a reasonable expectation of a top 16 placing. Doper-Galvan met the time but her international racing record was an embarrassment.
A second chance ? I'm counting about 7.
"$20 and a trinket for winning"--what a narrow view of the sport. Considering all of the time, effort, and expense involved, I think Master's purses should be increased. In most cases, these are people with jobs, families, and other responsibilities. They also have age creeping up on them, with all of the various struggles and discomforts associated with that, year after year.Sad to see this elitist opinion expressed here on LR.
runDirtyrun wrote:
[quote]not so fast. wrote:
What is ridiculous is a Masters runner getting more than $20 and a trinket for winning. The race must make a killing every year if they are blowing $10,000+ on Masters.
Why is EPO only injected anyway? Why is it not available in a pill?
BAA is a private entity and can refuse or offer entry to anyone it would like. Discrimination lawsuit? You are an idiot. On which protected class are they discriminating? If the BAA chose to say "You have been caught doping, we will not give you a bib to run in our race. Ever." - then there is nothing your precious LHG can do.
As for inviting dopers, the policies of the WMM races seems to have changed a number of times and it is difficult to find an older statement ... but there was this one released in 2006:
Here is another one:
Suspensions of 2 or 4 years are not enough. To encourage clean races, there needs to be a stronger deterrent. The WMM races formed to isolate themselves and make a separate name - a smart marketing strategy. But if they plan to call themselves the leaders because of the prize money and the prestige, then they also need to be a leader in deterrence as well. They need to outright say "if you are caught doping, you will never be welcome in any of our races again, even if it's a fun run."
This isn't just about punishing dopers, this is about setting a deterrent and making it clear that cheating will not be tolerated.
No.
Lance Armstrong? Tyson Gay? Ben Johnson? Once a cheater then you're branded and don't expect us to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.
If someone embezzles would you put them in charge of petty cash or your accounting AGAIN? Honestly?
And research is showing that some drugs give lingering benefits for a long period after usage is stopped.
KMB wrote:...It would actually not surprise me at all to learn that whoever assigned Liza Hunter-Galvan her bib number did not know her doping history. She may seem high-profile to Letsrun regulars, but in truth her suspension ended four years ago and she doesn't appear to have run any U.S. marathons since 2011 (San Antonio). Unless the workings of this arm of the BAA have changed drastically in the past couple of years, they typically use a pre-determined cut-off time to assign numbers to the quasi-elite, e.g., masters, men under 2:28-ish, local women under 2:50-ish...
While this is certainly possible, I would expect better of the BAA or whoever is handling the assignment of bib numbers for Boston. A simple google search of her name brings up 3 articles on the first page related to her suspension. This is a basic. I work for a marathon and handle the invitation aspect of our elite field. Mostly what I do is runners email me looking to be part of our elite field and I check their racing resume and tell them yes or no. We got a request this year from the agent of an athlete who served a 2-year suspension 8 years ago. We got that info off some very basic research, and based on that chose not to invited that athlete to participate in our race. The runner is free to enter our race on their own, but our written policy is that they are not eligible to win prize money.
I'm amazed that Boston doesn't do something similar.
wtf come on wrote:
Female masters winner, Gavan-Hunter finishes her 2 year ban, gets invited runner status from Hancock and picks up 10K for winning the masters. WTF!!
Are you angry with BAA, Hancock, or USATF? If you are angry with the USATF for not giving her a lifetime ban, I see your point.
Since you top-posted, I'll do it too.If they are older people with jobs and families, they don't have running careers. They run because it's who they are. That's fine and good. Trinkets and $20 for them.If they are older, never joined the more normal workforce, fast local runner, then there's nothing good that can come from having them hang around battling for $10,000 among people who joined the adult world. Now, if said Masters runner has sponsorship and other running-related revenue outside the event itself, they won't "need" 10K The trinkets and $20 will do just fine for them because it enhances their business.
outsiderunner wrote:
"$20 and a trinket for winning"--what a narrow view of the sport. Considering all of the time, effort, and expense involved, I think Master's purses should be increased. In most cases, these are people with jobs, families, and other responsibilities. They also have age creeping up on them, with all of the various struggles and discomforts associated with that, year after year.
Sad to see this elitist opinion expressed here on LR.
runDirtyrun wrote:[quote]not so fast. wrote:
What is ridiculous is a Masters runner getting more than $20 and a trinket for winning. The race must make a killing every year if they are blowing $10,000+ on Masters.
el hombre wrote:
I'm all for her being allowed to race again, if she can show an independent audit of all race money she won while ostensibly cheating, and provide proof of remuneration to everyone she stole from while doing so.
I guess while I'm dreaming, she should also have to take at least 6 months completely off of running.
The alledged offense supposedly took place in 2009 or before.
The idea of her stealing from someone just because she competed and won is absurd, and I will be glad to see the day when you low life jerks will have to pay for your false accusations.
Penal system wrote:
So you folks don't believe in giving someone a second chance?
She served her ban and was publicly humiliated. How many of you have ever done something you weren't proud of?
Any of you ever cheat on a college exam or paper? Are you going to return your degree? If they accused you of cheating and were going to take your degree do you suppose you might make up a bs response too to avoid the humiliation?
Being sanctioned in the past means she is now tested more than her peers. Give her break. If she cheats again she's out for life.
"hang around battling for $10,000 among people who joined the adult world"
Hang around? Adult world? I guess Joanie was just an overgrown child wasting her time on Monday.
Have some respect for your fellow runners...please...it is embarrassing.
Reformed Runner wrote:
Being sanctioned in the past means she is now tested more than her peers. Give her break. If she cheats again she's out for life.
She's not tested at all, you fvcking dummy. She goes to races where there is no testing, and there is no testing of masters athletes by the vast majority of races because there is no budget for it.
Further, there is no rule stating that she is "banned for life" if she gets caught again. You're just making sh!t up.
She stole money and Olympic team placement from her peers by cheating with EPO multiple times over the course of years. She should be banned for life from the sport and toiling away in an office somewhere.
She didn't steal anything.
I believe this article I wrote back in 2009 says all there needs to say on this subject: http://simonstitchup.blogspot.co.nz/2009/08/liza-hunter-galvan.html
Simon Stitch-up wrote:
I believe this article I wrote back in 2009 says all there needs to say on this subject:
http://simonstitchup.blogspot.co.nz/2009/08/liza-hunter-galvan.html
Just read this earlier today. Finally someone who is not gullible. Well said
To all these 2nd chancers who say she has served her time. Where in jail with the other people committing fraud! Give her a 2nd chance doing something else
'only took it 3 times' Liar!
'Some people like to focus on the negative'
Yeah I'm postive you helping ruin our sport!