hey a few posts just disappeared for some reason, must be a glitch in the message board system because it's not the first time this type of thing has happened.. anyway.....
Someone was asking where in Nairobi they could get EPO and I said that Hersh mentioned he could get EPO in Mexico...
Canada Coach wrote:
My god. Has anyone improved as gradual as Rupp? If you are going to butcher him for a quick improvement, then everyone is fair game. He was fast in HS, a little faster in college and has progressed over many years now as a pro.
Look a little deeper at how they are training. Many of these things have been ignored (especially by North Americans) for years.
1. Increasing your weekly volume with extra non-running cardio training
2. Speed is very important for distance runners. This is something that will be questioned - especially from the (Lydiard / Cardio is the only important thing advocates.
3. Weight training - For years the aerobic first or aerobic only advocates have complained that so many runners are on steroids (which help with hypertrophy) yet can't figure out that strength training might be valuable.
4. Type of weight training - Those distance runners that did weight train did it in such a wimpy and wrong manner (huge reps rather than huge weights) that it was pretty much useless.
5. Dynamic flexibility and plyometrics - ignored by most distance runners
6. The great use of properly place aerobic intervals, fartleks, etc to increase aerobic development.
7. Spending all year (rather than just the last 6 weeks before a meet) to work on speed.
8. Technique - In the past, distance runners felt technique was useless, but Salazar has quickly figured out that is just as important, or maybe more, than it is for sprinters.
9. North American distance runners have only recently used altitude to their advantage.
So rather than yell "PED" everytime someone runs fast, take a close look at what is going on.
They have looked at training outside of the very tight box that distance runners have got themselves locked up in.
Montesquieu,
Just as devil's advocate. You couldn't get much more synonymous with Nike as Lance Armstrong. They did, afterall, name a building after him.
WhatYo wrote:
Montesquieu,
Just as devil's advocate. You couldn't get much more synonymous with Nike as Lance Armstrong. They did, afterall, name a building after him.
This needs to be questioned, but many people like to befriend and surround themselves with people that are considered "successful". From presidents to the heads of the IOC, and especially sponsors, people love to be seen with champions. If we now prosecute everyone through guilt by association with Lance, we will have to paint all of them with that same brush.
Albertostrong wrote:
I want to believe NOP is clean but until they are much more transparent there is going to be tremendous doubt. That's why athletes like Galen have to be open and transparent, not because they themselves have crossed the line but to prove to the public that they are clean. Sad reality of having to overcome what past generations have done to our sport.
I am not suspicious of Rupp per se but rather the people with whom he associates. Salazar, Knight, Stray-Gundersen, etc. do not have the best reputations.
Watch the dynamics of the Rupp-Salazar relationship in the BU weight room. Do you really think Rupp would question Salazar if the latter instructed "Take these multivitamins?"
If Rupp was running for a different company I wouldn't doubt his performances for an instant. The same reason I don't doubt Hall, Simpson, Huddle, and the like.
It is naive to assume one is clean simply because one hasn't failed a drug test. How many did Armstrong fail?
I truly hope all Nike runners are clean but it is nothing we can just blindly assume. These kind of questions do need to be asked. Public TUEs are a great idea.
Basically everything that has been said in support of Rupp not doping could have been said (and was said) about Armstrong.2 things that gave Armstrong away, and might be said about Farrah and Rupp - How are they fairing against known dopers - answer, about the same. Second, look at who he associates with - Armstrong with Ferrari, and Rupp with Nike/Alberto. So yes, there are some suspicious parallels that fuel the questions. Does it prove he's doping? No. No more than your ancillary info proves he's innocent. The biggest tipoff for dopers are their associations...
Rupp Supporter wrote:
Do you honestly believe that Rupp Dopes? Is it that hard to believe that someone can work hard for what they earn and be completely legit? The kid ran sub 14 for 5k in HS. He has been working closely with Salazar and professionals for nearly a decade. Why jump to the conclusion that he is cheating? If anything, he is approaching the standards of people like Lagat and other well know runners. Rupp has range. We should all be excited for him and acknowledge his accomplishments. He's not cocky about it as far as I can tell. He even ran a workout on a treadmill after his great performance. I see humility. I see someone who is willing to sacrifice to be the best. Someone who truly loves what they do.
wejo wrote:
That leads to discussion and debate which hopefully leads to a cleaner sport.
I thought maybe Ben Johnson's bust in 1988 would lead to a cleaner sport.
Then maybe the BALCO bust in 2003.
The persecution of Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong lead us to find out things that the tests weren't telling us.
But look at the money and energy spent chasing them.
I don't think it can be maintained. There isn't much return on investment on this.
But the athletes get a nice return on drug use that keeps ahead of testers.
If Solomon and Rupp are on a similar undectable PED program as Jones and Armstrong, we will likely never know.
I can't see them being chased in the same fashion.
Salazar > Lydiard wrote:
Logical Man wrote:#8 came from Al Sals dissatisfaction with his own technique.
But who was consulting WITH to learn about technique?
some of it was dan pfaff and john cook. although there is probably more
How many drugs do you guess are on Rupp's TUE...? Anyone care to guess?
[quote]Bum wrote:
Basically everything that has been said in support of Rupp not doping could have been said (and was said) about Armstrong.
2 things that gave Armstrong away, and might be said about Farrah and Rupp - How are they fairing against known dopers - answer, about the same. Second, look at who he associates with - Armstrong with Ferrari, and Rupp with Nike/Alberto.
__
You seriously equate Alberto with Ferrari? That doesn't pass the giggle test. Salazar has had one athlete 'caught' - Mary Decker - and the test that got her was subsequently discontinued because of its numerous false positives.
get in touch with reality.
Salazar answers the haters:
Skip ahead to 5:10
Great statement.
A Duck wrote:
Salazar answers the haters:
http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/250010-2013-BU-Terrier-Invitational/video/685983-Alberto-Salazar-Haters-Gonna-HateSkip ahead to 5:10
Great statement.
That was a great statement and I truly hope NOP is entirely aboveboard. I will continue to give them the benefit of the doubt but refuse to castigate people for simply asking questions. Unfounded assumptions of guilt are wrong but there is no harm in asking questions.
Armstrong was a wake-up call for many and it will prove beneficial to sport. Nobody ultimately wins from doping, not even those who may materially benefit from the practice.
The truth always wins out.
Read up on the Biological Passport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_passport
It is not fool proof, but it is pretty darn good. Look at the endurance athletes (Cycling, Tri, IM, TTF, Swimming and Running) who were being tested on a regular basis prior to 2009 and their performance has declined. Look at the number of athletes who have retired in the last couple of years and/or those who can't come close to their marks prior to '09. Obviously this doesn't stop athletes who come from out of nowhere, but the ones who have biochem markers on the record are playing a very risky game if they cheat. Like I said, the system in not perfect, but the playing field is more level than it has been in 3 decades.
agip wrote:
You seriously equate Alberto with Ferrari? That doesn't pass the giggle test. Salazar has had one athlete 'caught' - Mary Decker - and the test that got her was subsequently discontinued because of its numerous false positives.
get in touch with reality.
Wait, what? Are you suggesting that Mary Decker was clean? Seriously?
Wait Wait What? wrote:
agip wrote:You seriously equate Alberto with Ferrari? That doesn't pass the giggle test. Salazar has had one athlete 'caught' - Mary Decker - and the test that got her was subsequently discontinued because of its numerous false positives.
get in touch with reality.
Wait, what? Are you suggesting that Mary Decker was clean? Seriously?
__
Due to its history of false positives, especially among older female athletes, the (T/E) ratio test has since been revised and laboratories now also run a carbon isotope ratio test (CIR) if the ratio is unusually high.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Deckertruth will be spoken wrote:
Salazar > Lydiard wrote:But who was consulting WITH to learn about technique?
some of it was dan pfaff and john cook. although there is probably more
Those are the two names I've heard mentioned as well in interviews. It's safe to be publicly associated with Pfaff and Cook. I agree, there's probably more.
agip wrote:
Due to its history of false positives, especially among older female athletes, the (T/E) ratio test has since been revised and laboratories now also run a carbon isotope ratio test (CIR) if the ratio is unusually high.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Decker
If you look at the annotated link [14], nowhere does it say that there was a history of false positives, only that the carbon isotope ratio test is more accurate hence the 4:1 ratio as compared to the old 6:1 ratio.
Galen_Rupp_1 wrote:
6. The great use of properly place aerobic intervals, fartleks, etc to increase aerobic development.
Is this something new???
The rest of your post makes sense.
How can you call Rupp's mile a SOLO mile? He was paced damn near perfect through 1200
The questions you think need to be asked are not "hard".It's easy to say that all winners dope. "Hard" questions require critical thinking.
P White wrote:
At 28, Solomon goes from a run of the mill 1.45/1.46 athlete to a 1.42 guy who smashes ARs.
Galen Rupp is smashing out 3.50 miles indoors on his own.
If these guys were Moroccan, you would not believe them.
Letsrun/Brojos - you need to start asking the hard questions.