Eddie Hellebuyck "'Yeah,' he says, 'I did it.'"

Ivo wrote:

Why are the obvious a-holes like Regina, Eddy, Marion and Ramzi getting busted, since "everybodyis doing it"? Maybe it's only a few D-bags after all, or are teh "nice guys" getting a pass?

Well, Marion never ever failed a test.

Eddy mentioned that he passed several tests while doping.

Ramzi passed all of the tests while racking up medals from 2005-2007.

So, since we know you can dope and pass tests we assume the "catch rate" is very low and that most of the athletes that dope are not caught.

toro wrote:

So, since we know you can dope and pass tests we assume the "catch rate" is very low and that most of the athletes that dope are not caught.

What set of data are you using to arrive to that conclusion? Wouldn't you need to know the number of athletes taking drugs, the number of those taking drugs and subject to testing, and then compare those figures to the number of positive tests? Isn't the "catch rate" unknown?

The Kenyans may not approve, but their culture would forbid them from venting their venom on a 'powerful' (economically) 'muzungu.'

It is a grey area with Eddie, because although he confessed to doping, we don't know (and will never know) when and where he started.

Many of the athletes you cite had minimal contact with Eddie and Shawn, and it is a pity to paint them all as being necessarily linked to Shawn Helleybuyck.

Once again, one can understand some negativity, but the amount of venom is disproportionate to the 'crime' committed. It is way over the top. You would think the guy was a serial rapist the way some portray him. This is sad, and one saw the same reaction with the unfortunate Irish athlete - Cathal Lombard, when he was caught, by Irish customs and BLE came down on him.

We can learn from Eddie, and he still has a role to play in athletics. He is showing excellent form now at almost age 50, recently running a 10km road race in 30:30, and although it had significant downhills, on a regular course it would have been around 1.30 - 2.00 minutes slower, so 32 minutes at almost 50 years is still a classy result.

It would be good if Eddie would post here and show and inform us about his m.o. and other aspects of the case. We could learn and so could our young people. The risks involved with doping would then be brought to light and many would be discouraged, which is not a bad thing.

Ghost in Saudi,

www.kfupm.edu.sa

Ask Laura Matson if Eddy is a rapist. He was at one time.

Doesn't Eddy have an older son that was in High School at the time of the drug conviction? Why wasn't it important to be straight with that son? I remember Shawn in the Hotel Bar in Parkersburg Virginia with her infant son after 11pm. The bartender told her that it wasn't an appropriate place for a child and she told him to go fvck himself. I remember thinking what a great job of parenting.

That entire family is so morally f***ed it is rediculous. I am sure they are still stealing from people, spitting out more lies than truths, giving underagers alcohol (he frequently did this for his La Cueva athletes and their friends), eddy is likely still sleeping with anything that has a hole, Shawn is still a conceited b**** with an agenda to benefit only herself and eddy, and they both probably help loads of athletes use PEDs.

"The tragedy in this whole affair is that Eddie did not need to dope. As everyone knows, with his 'white African build' - his physique was ideally suited to the sport."

What does "not needing to dope" mean? I keep reading this crap in articles and a few times on this thread. Doping isn't just for people who aren't talented or don't want to work. It helps everyone. There isn't some ceiling that some people are naturally closer to. If you are "naturally" a 2:04 guy, you'd be faster with doping. Drugs raise the "natural" ceiling higher for everyone.

My data is taking athletes known to have taken drugs and get a rate by taking the number of failed tests over the number of tests taken.

The "catch rate" is very low when you look at that.

So you don't need to know the number of athletes taking drugs.

All you have to know is that mosts tests are passed even if the athlete is on drugs (based on KNOWN drug users).

Doesn't that make you think that most athletes using would tend to never get caught?

Ghost

You must put the crime in the right context. Doping is the worst crime in sports. You cannot compare it to real crimes because sports will always be inferior. Outside of the running scene nobody has the right to judge Eddy, he's just another person that should be treated with respect.

There are plenty of good role models in our sport, if some cheating basterd steals the headlines nobody will know about the true heroes. They will finish second and be forgotten while some scum takes the glory.

And what can we inside the running community possible learn from Eddy? Cheating is wrong? I didn't know that...I was just about to inject some "B12" in my veins.

What? A runner took drugs?

Unbelievable!

ghost wrote:

I have been to Kenya twice, and no one there has a bad thing to say about Eddie.

So, as a 50-something ex-pat Brit whose own running peaked with a 15:17 5,000m PR thirty years ago, you claim to know what "the Kenyans" -- including "all" of the people of Eldoret and Iten -- think of Eddy, based on two visits to Kenya over the course of your entire life?

I have to admit that your posts are sometimes so bizarre that I'm not sure what to make of them. You're not impolite, which is a very good thing on this site, but your repeated efforts to minimize the positive drug tests of various runners -- Eddy H. (EPO), Cathal Lombard (EPO), Sureyya Ayhan (stanozolol, methandianone), Benoit Z. (methyltestosterone) -- seem very strange to me. Aside from having been a recreational runner at some point, what is your connection to the world of disgraced runners? Why do you consistently minimize positive doping tests and the effects of doping?

ghost wrote:

It would be good if Eddie would post here and show and inform us about his m.o. and other aspects of the case. We could learn and so could our young people. The risks involved with doping would then be brought to light and many would be discouraged, which is not a bad thing.

At last, we agree on something.

I, by the way, think that the "risks" of doping -- at least, physical risks to the athlete -- have often been overblown, just as the performance-enhancing effects of doping have often been unduly minimized. My own views about doping and its regulation have more to do with the positive social effects of enforcing generally beneficial rules of the sport and discouraging dishonest conduct. To me, the best reason for not doping is that it's against the rules -- not that it's "risky" or ineffective. That reason may not be good enough for many athletes.

Ghost- this is a strange line: "Back to Eddie - everyone makes a big thing about what he stole, but if this were really significant, the hot shot lawyers would have gone after him a long time ago, ever since the story got out. As it was, there was basically 'no case' which goes to show that the damage, basically, was minimal. If there had been 'a case' for money making, those lawyers would have gone after him."

This is a strange argument- basically, "nobody is suing him, so how bad can it be?"

First off, the news isn't that old, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone does sue him. The twin cities marathon executive director is quoted in the local paper as still considering action: "Brophy Achman said it was too early to say whether race officials would attempt to recoup the $30,500 in prize money that Hellebuyck received for his 2003 victory".

(http://www.startribune.com/sports/106355603.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU)

2nd- the numbers are large for a runner (see the 30 grand for twin citis marathon above), but a pretty paltry sum for a "hot shot" lawyer to be salivating over. But, just because a lawyer may not see a huge payday, doesn't mean the guy that got 10 or 15,000 for 2nd place shouldn't be steamed and want the difference. Also, whoever was 2nd to him that year lost the chance to have a marathon win on their resume- which might get invitations to other races, and future earnings.

toro wrote:

My data is taking athletes known to have taken drugs and get a rate by taking the number of failed tests over the number of tests taken.

The "catch rate" is very low when you look at that.

So you don't need to know the number of athletes taking drugs.

All you have to know is that mosts tests are passed even if the athlete is on drugs (based on KNOWN drug users).

Doesn't that make you think that most athletes using would tend to never get caught?

The part I struggle with is how you have the foreknowledge of who is a "known" drug user before the positive test comes back. Everyone knows some, but I haven't met everybody that knows all of them. What do your numbers look like for this last season?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

check my previous posts because i'm not supporting EH - the opposite! I just don't want young athletes to think they need to cheat

I understand that, but we still need to be honest about doping, and that means -- among other things -- acknowledging that doping works. That's why people like Eddy do it. Eddy's running history indicates that doping had a hugely positive effect on his performances. No amount of altitude training or self-belief could accomplish what regular injections of EPO did. As I recall, Eddy wasn't even cracking 2:20 after he turned 40. Then, on EPO, he was suddenly winning a U.S. open men's championship in 2:12 at the age of 42, after over twenty years of racing marathons at a fairly modest level by international standards. That's a problem for people who assert that no one "needs" to dope to compete successfully.

I know everyone one here thinks that EPO is magic but

"No amount of altitude training or self-belief could accomplish what regular injections of EPO did" is not true.

EPO is a natural hormone that raises Hemoglobin/HCT. A normal runner will have lower levels than normal, let's say 14. It has been shown that altitude training can get you to the low 16s. The fallacy is that more is better. Around 17 the relationship between Hemoglobin and viscosity goes from linear to exponential.

The thicker blood obviously puts a greater load on your heart....and as dehydration sets in during the marathon the situation gets worse. That's why cycling set the 50% HCT (equal to low/mid 16 hemoglobin) as a safe limit. Studies have shown that non-athletic residents of very high altitude to have hemoglobin levels of 20+.

So, if you can get to the low 16s with altitude training and you are risking death above 17, exactly what is the benefit of EPO for those that have access to altitude training? I am specifically addressing EPO only, not doping in general.

As for those that Eddie cheated. You tell me what is wrong with the situation of a 40+ year old beating all comers with (at best) at 1-2 point hemoglobin value advantage....I'd say lack of competition.

My message to younger runners is you DO NOT need EPO.

As to the effectiveness of EPO, why not put the question to someone who has used it extensively, Mr. Hellebuyk himself?

If you believe what he says, he ran 2:11 clean (with altitude training) in his younger days. He feels he could have run 2:06 with EPO. So no, you don't EPO, unless you want to see similar improvement with no extra workload.

Avocados Number wrote:

... To me, the best reason for not doping is that it's against the rules -- not that it's "risky" or ineffective. That reason may not be good enough for many athletes.

I agree completely. I would add that it's "people", not "athletes" that find that reason to be insufficient. We cheat at "life" (sport, business, relationships, etc...) for our own pleasure. We are selfish. :)

I totally agree on this one!

This little cheater was even cheating about being a so called "officer" in the belgian army! I think he was just a corporal before he went to America ( with a little luck a corporal chief).

Once a liar always a liar my parents told me when I was a little kid..........