Frank Shorter in the NYTimes basically convicts all of Kenya for doping

The dopers are already dominating the Olympics. And I don't just mean the Kenyans, by a long stretch.

The good ole USofA leads the parade.

Our women sprinters who broke the East German 4x100 by .55 and destroyed the Jamaican squad was a dead give away that nobody wanted to address.

Of course, we got Gatlin and Gay leading the men now. Merritt is back in the 400.

We've got coaches long associated with drug users still coaching. We got Dennis Mitchell in the USATF association.

I'm all for cleaning up the sport - and we got our own share of cleaning to do, too.

broken arrow wrote:

There are only TWO solutions, 1. Allow any/all drugs, or 2. If you test positive for any drug on the list of illegal drugs you get a LIFETIME ban form all professional sports.

End of discussion.

What the form look like? What if they didn't fill out the form?

Yes the shocking destruction of the old GDR record is a sign of something is up. No clean team could come close to that time and drugged teams in the past weren't really close either. I fear a new generation of PED's.

I think there is some truth to Frank's observation. Until the Kenyan government and the athletics federation clear their mess, I suggest that all major city marathons stop inviting Kenyan runners. Given how a big revenue maker running is for Kenya as a whole, such a ban will force them to deal with the cheats once and for all. Otherwise, it is not fair for all the runners from other countries who play by the rule. FYI, out of the 12 world marathon major races this year (both for men and women), Kenyan athletes have won 9 of them - with the exception of Ethiopian women winning in Tokyo and Berlin and, of course, Meb's Boston win).

typo, should have been from Einstein.

oodle wrote:Hard work is merely a myth. Who works harder than the Japanese female distance runners??!!

Perhaps a better question about the Japanese female distance runners is, why can't their marathon women run sub 2:20 like they used to?

The best times in the bio-passport era seem to be 2:23-2:24.

Did they stop working hard?

I agree testing in Kenya should be improved, but it's not nonexistent like some are trying to make out. Rita Jeptoo and Mathew Kosorio were caught as was Jemima Sumgong even though she was cleared as her medical issues were well documented. A lab in Eldoret will go some way in restoring trust, but to expect a government of Kenya's limited resources to prioritise sport over the many issues facing the country, or to even afford an agency at USADA's level is a bit unrealistic. Funding will have to be sourced externally.

However, those hoping this will wipe out East African running like what happened with the East German sporting machine, opening the door to American and British dominace, are setting themselves up for an epic disappointment. I understand the wish to identify with runners and have them look like you (see it all the time here even in shorter events where white European sprinters stoke far more excitement and buzz than your own American black athletes) but saying Kenyans are good at running distance because of drugs is a ridiculous.

I will agree with the first point. The second point is odd. I did not read each post but I think you are making a straw man argument. To the issue at hand, I think it is fair for WMM to require adherence to some testing regiment if runners want to be invited. Then the burden is on the runner to be available for the test, particularly if they are demanding lucrative appearance fees (as Shorter pointed out, its not like those runners are poor).

Mundus Vult wrote:

I don't have a problem with what Frank did. I have a problem that he crusades against "doping" when he was a cheater himself.

He's "crusading" against doping, the biggest single threat to the sport, not professionalism. So your implication that his anti-doping stance makes him a hypocrite is ludicrous.

I've been following this thread since it was started and the more I've thought about the - surprisingly - sophisticated and sincerely passionate posts, the more I've become unsettled.

The runners of Frank's era and just after -the roadies of the 70s and 80s were my heroes growing up. Not least because they bucked the establishment. The fact that they did take money to compete in the amateur era was an act of civil disobedience. Nothing could be more basic than to receive fair compensation for your labor. Especially when others - meet organizers et al were often profiting so handsomely on the back of it.

Despite all of that, though, what's not in dispute are the following facts:

1. No matter how hypocritical, exploitative and arcane the rules were, those guys broke them

2. Breaking the rules gave them some competitive advantage.

Now reasonable people can argue about the size of that advantage, or whether the rules should have existed, but those facts, are, I think, beyond dispute. They are also the facts that matter any time a governing body - or fan - considers punishing a competitor. They are why doping should result in sanctions. (There's other reasons besides, health, being a role model, etc. but, in terms of competition, they are the most important.)

So, with a bad feeilng in the pit of my stomach, I've got to agree with the minority here: Shorter is being hypocritical.

That said, Shorter is to be admired for speaking out. He has every right, and, I would argue, the responsibility to do so. He's not demanding - the whole Montreal thing aside - that he be rewarded somehow for taking this public stance. I'm glad he is.

I've been following this thread since it was started and the more I've thought about the - surprisingly - sophisticated and sincerely passionate posts, the more I've become unsettled.

The runners of Frank's era and just after -the roadies of the 70s and 80s were my heroes growing up. Not least because they bucked the establishment. The fact that they did take money to compete in the amateur era was an act of civil disobedience. Nothing could be more basic than to receive fair compensation for your labor. Especially when others - meet organizers et al were often profiting so handsomely on the back of it.

Despite all of that, though, what's not in dispute are the following facts:

1. No matter how hypocritical, exploitative and arcane the rules were, those guys broke them

2. Breaking the rules gave them some competitive advantage.

Now reasonable people can argue about the size of that advantage, or whether the rules should have existed, but those facts, are, I think, beyond dispute. They are also the facts that matter any time a governing body - or fan - considers punishing a competitor. They are why doping should result in sanctions. (There's other reasons besides, health, being a role model, etc. but, in terms of competition, they are the most important.)

So, with a bad feeilng in the pit of my stomach, I've got to agree with the minority here: Shorter is being hypocritical.

That said, Shorter is to be admired for speaking out. He has every right, and, I would argue, the responsibility to do so. He's not demanding - the whole Montreal thing aside - that he be rewarded somehow for taking this public stance. I'm glad he is.

I had a similar take on this. Rupp and Farah are regularly cited here as potential PED users for times nowhere near the WRs. I do not know if they are on PEDs or not but it strikes me as odd that people on theses boards freely accuse them and then just accept the huge depth of runners coming out who can run 59 or low 59 and 2:05s. And then they go on to argue that this means there are a number of Kenyans who can go 26:30 and medal but choose not to do so. I am sure a number of those 59 / 2:05 guys are legitimate but the sheer numbers makes me wonder. I know, I know, 'all these young guys skipped track for road money.' But these times equate to some great track times. I could see a lot of guys doing 60s and 2:06s but we suddenly have a set of guys right there with the all time greas.Also, Rojo's point on the 90s makes no sense to me since that is when EPO came out. I am not saying that all the 90s were doped but that is an odd way to make an argument for East African dominance. The 80s would be a better discussion point. There were great Kenyans and Ethiopians then as well. Just look at XC.

Galen Rupp Number on Fan wrote:

nameeman wrote:

My God are Galen Rupp and Mo Farrah the only runners capable of world medals by hard work alone?

I honestly agree with you. RUpp is one of the FEW clean guys out there- even if the TUE stuff is in a gray-area.

The limit for (clean) human performance is probably fairly close to 3:30/12:55/26:40;59:00. I'm quite suspicious of any times that exceed those by to much.

First: Sorry for the double post. I'm a bit confused by what happens after you hit post. Rather than returning to the boards, or the thread as it used to, I just got a blank screen.

Second: To isitthathard: I don't think that, for the most part, people suspect Rupp and Mo of doping because of their speed. We - and I include myself here - suspect them of doping because of their coach. And their shoe sponsor. Nike has a well documented history of encouraging doping. Salazar... all I can say is that to know him is to suspect him.

But you're right, that some runners have generally gotten a free pass here at LR. Geb, Bekele, Tergat. It's not fair. So, let me be one of the few here to say it. I believe that those guys doped. There. I said it. Like calling out Shorter and my other heroes from the seventies, it makes me feel wretched doing it - after all I have no proof that Geb et. al doped, but to be so good, so dominant, in the era of undetectable epo ..... it'd be foolish to argue that they didn't.

There are lessons to be learned from the past, but the point now is that we are operating in a changed environment and we have to adjust for that or watch the sport sink even lower in regard.

Testing has to improve. Penalties have to stiffen.

If someone robs a store and is caught, the penalty isn't that he can't come back into the store for 2 years.

The dopers are not robbers, but they're cut from the same cloth.

I didn't watch the New York Marathon - I've lost interest in it with the obvious boom in marathon drugs. It's about as exciting as watching Gatlin race Gay.

Who gives a sh*t which doper beats which doper?

Link wrote:

Despite all of that, though, what's not in dispute are the following facts:

1. No matter how hypocritical, exploitative and arcane the rules were, those guys broke them

2. Breaking the rules gave them some competitive advantage.

Your second premise is false.

Doping gives a competitive advantage. It makes you better than you would be had you not doped.

Accepting money after the competition is over does not improve the result of the race you just ran in. It does not give you a competitive advantage.

Link wrote:

So, with a bad feeilng in the pit of my stomach, I've got to agree with the minority here: Shorter is being hypocritical.

If Shorter was speaking out against athletes accepting money for competing, he would be hypocritical.

Speaking out against doping when you've never doped is not hypocritical.

El Keniano wrote:

However, those hoping this will wipe out East African running like what happened with the East German sporting machine, opening the door to American and British dominace, are setting themselves up for an epic disappointment. I understand the wish to identify with runners and have them look like you (see it all the time here even in shorter events where white European sprinters stoke far more excitement and buzz than your own American black athletes) but saying Kenyans are good at running distance because of drugs is a ridiculous.

I don't think many would argue with the claim that, drugs aside, Kenya would be one of the top countries for distance running - quite possibly the #1 country. But if they are so good, the last thing the competitive scene needs is to give a group of runners who are already good a competitive advantage over the group of runners who are struggling to keep pace.

Another point that this brings up is how annoying it is when I keep hearing that the reason marathon times have improved so much is that runners have changed the way they race. They just go after it from the start, instead of "pacing themselves" like the guys from the past. Ridiculous. It's like suggesting that when guys were running 2:08 or 2:12 or whatever, the reason they didn't run faster was that they just weren't being aggressive enough. A better explanation of the faster times would be lots of young runners on rocket fuel.

Sorry, you're wrong. And I think you must know it. Your point is almost intentionally solipsistic;You're too good a writer not to have the small amount of brains to notice it; I'm tempted to think you're trolling by posting it. Still, I'll bite:

It's not the money he won after the race, it's the money he 'won', or was paid illegally to appear in it or through sponsors, usually, but not exclusively shoe companies, that enabled him to train harder, rest more, and, therefore, compete more successfully that gave him a competitive advantage. To deny this is to deny that current pros know what they're doing when they run full time rather than work full time. What's more, if Frank had had to work a full time job, he might not have gotten the time off to be in that race in the first place.

Shorter is hypocritical because he is criticizing others for what he himself did: breaking the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. How he did it and how they did it is not of particular importance.

There might be a strong argument that Frank is not being hypocritical, but you haven't made it. And neither has anyone else on here.

Oh... geez. I meant specious, not solipsistic, although that might be true, too.

And, honestly, you don't know that Shorter didn't dope, and more than he knows that Kenyans who haven't tested positive have. Although,admittedly, I agree with him...

If Shorter was taking money under the table and Viren was taking money under the table and Dixon and Rono and So On and So On were taking money under the table and Eastern Bloc athletes were paid salaries for competing, how do any of them have a competitive advantage over anyone else? The obvious answer is that because Shorter could get away with not working he'd get a competitive advantage over an up and coming guy who had to fit his running in with a job.

But the playing field was never even nor can it be. In Shorter's prime nearly all the big meets in the US with the best competition were on the west coast. An established athlete could get paid air fare to them but an up and coming east coast athlete was at a disadvantage because he had to cover travel expenses that his west coast counterpart didn't. Even now, when it's legal to make money, a late blooming athlete, one who did nothing spectacular enough as a college runner to land a shoe contract is at a disadvantage to the ones who did. Legality is beside the point. Once you've shown a certain level of ability you get money for running and that gives you an edge over those who don't.

And there are always some people born to circumstances in which money is not an issue at all or manage to attain them. The business of moving to altitude to train happened during Shorter's prime. Lots of us packed off for Boulder to have a go. But some guys had families and jobs that they couldn't leave or simply didn't have the cash to get settled in a new place where they didn't have a job waiting. and were perhaps disadvantaged compared to those of us who didn't have those issues.

Yes. there were rules against accepting money but by Shorter's time the rules were vague and really not enforced. You can call him a hypocrite if you want but it's like calling someone who drives above 65 mph on the New Jersey Turnpike where maybe one or two cars a day observe that limit a hypocrite for working to pass laws requiring more safety features built into new cars.