Former Columbia runner and American citizen Lisa Nemec (runs for Croatia) positive on doping control

letsrisible wrote:

rojo wrote:

Totally different era. People barely knew how to train in the 1970s. Remember in the 1960s, Arthur Lydiard was able to dominate the Olympics as they were the only ones training properly.

Rodgers graduated college in 1970. He started winning Boston in 1975.

Your claims are so wrong that I don't know where to start.

140-150 miles a week with 2 speed and a 20

Croatia was part of the former Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was Communist but not at all a Soviet Bloc country - it was fiercely independent from the Soviet Union after WWII. There's no connection there. None. To lump it in with East Germany reveals your ignorance.

Mike Bloomfield wrote:

Some folks seem to be having a hard time grasping why Nemec's large improvement after college keeps being mentioned.

- large improvements are not enough to convict a runner, but they can provide a strong suggestion as to who is likely doping

This is total rubbish.

Doping has absolutely NO positive relationship to improving performances.

sanchobaile wrote:

I want to read Rojo's takedown of why Desi's progression is less suspicious than Lisa's [aside from the positive test and the Eastern European factor] just like he explained re: Wejo's progression.

I'm not familiar with Linden's whole story but some have pointed out she broke 5 as a frosh in college. That's quite good.

But without much thought, my main argument would be that Des Linden trains in a very high profile American group - Hansons. It would be very hard to fathom she's doping as part of that group and that some of the others aren't as well. There have been no ungodly improvements from anyone else in the group.

Nemec is training in the Eastern Bloc and that's where her improvements came. Call it xenophobic but a flight to a foreign country and huge improvement is a lot more suspicious than the big improvement in Hanson's in the USA where drug testing is more stringent.

I'm sure there are some ASU alums who would know more about Linden's lack of amazing success at ASU.

Linden's improvement is indeed dramatic. That's why she's such a great story. Until this positive test, I always thought Nemec's was a great story that no one celebrated. Hence in our previews, I always tried to point out she was born and raised in the US to give her story more publicity.

The 10th in NCAA cross statement seems to be coming from Wikipedia and this needs to be corrected immediately. IT'S A FALSE STATEMENT. Anyone know how to edit Wikipedia? Please correct it and add in something about her doping positive.

The way the Wikipedia page is written it sounds like she was 10th in cross country. She wasn't. It says:

Not sure if the error was intentional or simply a problem in the translation from the Croatia article. Stublic was an All-American only in xc where she was 33rd in 2005. In track, she was 10th as a senior in the steeple but not All-American. The article also makes it sound like she personally qualified for NCAA xc when in reality she got there on the teams.

Nemec's NCAA cross finishes were as follows:

2002 144

2003 93

2004 99

2005 33

letsrisible wrote:

rojo wrote:

Totally different era. People barely knew how to train in the 1970s. Remember in the 1960s, Arthur Lydiard was able to dominate the Olympics as they were the only ones training properly.

Rodgers graduated college in 1970. He started winning Boston in 1975.

Your claims are so wrong that I don't know where to start.

Please start... Now.

The argument of "I have lots of great things to say but won't say them" is a bad one. Please start. I'm not familiar with what Rodgers was doing but clearly proper training theory was just starting to be known during the first running boom in the 1970s and didn't really get adopted by the masses worldwide until the 2000s. Idiots in the 1990s tried to figure out a "less is more" approach and get away from what worked so well for the likes of Lydiar's boys in the 60s and Shorter in the 70s.

I also imagine the Vietnam War and 60s was quite a distraction for Bill as well but again don't know why he wasn't better in college.

J.R. wrote:

This is total rubbish.

Doping has absolutely NO positive relationship to improving performances.

Not writing to J.R., but instead writing to everyone else:

Don't feed the troll.

Don't feed the troll.

Please. Don't feed it.

rojo wrote:

The 10th in NCAA cross statement seems to be coming from Wikipedia and this needs to be corrected immediately. IT'S A FALSE STATEMENT. Anyone know how to edit Wikipedia? Please correct it and add in something about her doping positive.

Be sure to correct DRUG CHEAT Radcliffe's Wikipedia first with all her DOPING POSITIVES.

ShilohGreathouse345 wrote:

Didn't Desi Davila make a similar improvement to this girl?

Like 16:XX for 5k in college to being a 2:22 marathoner and running down the Kenyans in Boston?

I am not implying either is doping, but the ability of females to make this kind of dramatic acclamation to the marathon seems to be somewhat common.

To add some insight here- A lot of women dramatically improve simply because of LARGE changes in body composition. Look at college photos of Deena, Shalane, and Desi-- huge, huge changes in body composition, likely brought on through training and dietary (and better care for their health). You are less likely to see men dramatically improve like this, because their body fat is already low. With women though-- going from 18-20% body fat down to 10-12% (or lower) could definitely lead to dramatic drops in time. Larger differences in body composition and physiology could also explain why "elite" women have a larger overall spread of time.

Not that this is the case for Desi, but I've heard of the Hanson's having their athletes experiment with L-carnitine supplements, which is supposed to help metabolize body fat. Salazar's group was experimenting with injecting it. I wouldn't put it past any other groups that, like Salazar, they're experimenting with the gray zone.

I find it hard to believe that Nemec finishes her progressive long runs at 5.05 to 5.15 mile pace, because her best mile time is only in the 4.45 to 4.50 range all out! This means impossible for her to 'cruise' as low as 5.05 pace. That kind of training could only be done by a male, sub elite, 2:15 to 2:20 type runner who had, at least, 4.20 flat mile speed.

Ghost in China

Still don't know what she tested positive for.

She ran sub 5 for the mile in freshman year of HIGH SCHOOL (not college) when sub 5 was a big deal. Any high school freshman who runs sub 5 is very talented. Period.

She doesn't compete at the mile and is obviously much faster then that.

No, you are right - she does not compete at the mile, and with good reason. Nemec's basic speed is, shall we say, very 'challenged' - she basically has very little native foot speed...even at her best, when she did loads of intervals with other team members, she would not have beaten 4.40 for the mile. You can talk to any other former Columbia team members who know Lisa well.

Ghost in China

Ghost wrote:

even at her best, when she did loads of intervals with other team members, she would not have beaten 4.40 for the mile

You're an idiot.

4:40 is faster than 4:45, and that was many years ago, now a few seconds faster as a PRO and she's as fast at the mile as Thweatt, who has only run one marathon and on a difficult course.

This thread proves that trying to make sense with idiots is fruitless.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Still don't know what she tested positive for.

Apparently for being from Croatia.

Same here wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Still don't know what she tested positive for.

Apparently for being from Croatia.

No, it's training in Croatia.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Still don't know what she tested positive for.

+1

it could be a cough medicine or it could be EPO

Thanks for the clarification. Yes it looked like she had been 10th in XC, which as indicated is fairly significant. That said, she did improve a lot in college, and then a huge amount after that.