Laura MF Muir 3:55

Algonquin wrote:

Context does matter. Another reason why she is probably clean: we all know the Scots distance running tradition. Far superior than the Ethiopian or Kenyan tradition. The Ethiopians and Kenyans came out of nowhere in the past few years. The only explanation must be drugs because East Africans have no distance running culture or other advantages.

In contrast, Scotland has always been the home of distance running. There have been numerous threads on these boards about the genetic superiority of Scots and whether any non-Scot could ever compete with a Scot. There was Ian Stewart, Yvonne Murray (the only clean runner in the 1988 Olympics), and hundreds of others. In contrast, can we name one Ethiopian or Kenyan who has ever been successful in distance running? I mean look at Dibaba--is there any reason to think that the town of Bekoji in Ethiopia is conducive to producing good distance runners? No. Bekoji is no Milnathort, UK. Bekoji has the disadvantage of good weather year around, 9000 feet altitude, dirt roads. This is why the druggie Ethiopians travel to Scotland to train.

In short, you have to look at context. And cultural and athletic context and history tell us that we should expect there to be scores of record-breaking Scots like Muir and very few record-breaking Africans. Dibaba out of nowhere. Muir is just another in a long-line of Scot greats.

Algonquin wrote:

Context does matter. Another reason why she is probably clean...

"UKAD has testified before parliament that they did not pursue information about a doping doctor. Graham Arthur was fired for the mistakes he made in his position as Legal Director (with regard to pursuing doping cases). UKAD reduced the number of tests before the 2012 Olympics. UKAD was in charge of helping Russia reform its anti-doping program (How's that work out?) UKAD has been shown to not announce sanctions publicly. The head of UKAD has been revealed to direct her agency cover up leaked IAAF data. A UKAD board member had an email revealed that the agency did not even “know how effective” it was as pursuing anti-doping.

UKAD is not one of the strictest NADOs in the world. UKAD is no authority to prove that it's athletes are clean."

Clerk wrote:

Infeel like I meed to copy a disclaimer and post at the bottom of every reply I make: "Read everything I wrote for meaning. Don't just read to find something you can distort."

Algonquin wrote:

Context does matter. Another reason why she is probably clean...

Are you replying to me? Quote one paragraph where I say she is "probably clean"

And to the poster regarding UKAD's integrity, you saw what I wrote, and you chose to assume I was an ignorant fanboy. For context here's what I wrote in another thread

"UKAD has testified before parliament that they did not pursue information about a doping doctor. Graham Arthur was fired for the mistakes he made in his position as Legal Director (with regard to pursuing doping cases). UKAD reduced the number of tests before the 2012 Olympics. UKAD was in charge of helping Russia reform its anti-doping program (How's that work out?) UKAD has been shown to not announce sanctions publicly. The head of UKAD has been revealed to direct her agency cover up leaked IAAF data. A UKAD board member had an email revealed that the agency did not even “know how effective” it was as pursuing anti-doping.

UKAD is not one of the strictest NADOs in the world. UKAD is no authority to prove that it's athletes are clean."

But I still mean what I wrote: that in the context of weighing the suspicion of runners from different nations, even the UKAD (that UKAD)have more integrity than those of Russia, Morocco, etc.

Algonquin wrote:

Context does matter. Another reason why she is probably clean: we all know the Scots distance running tradition. Far superior than the Ethiopian or Kenyan tradition. The Ethiopians and Kenyans came out of nowhere in the past few years. The only explanation must be drugs because East Africans have no distance running culture or other advantages.

In contrast, Scotland has always been the home of distance running. There have been numerous threads on these boards about the genetic superiority of Scots and whether any non-Scot could ever compete with a Scot. There was Ian Stewart, Yvonne Murray (the only clean runner in the 1988 Olympics), and hundreds of others. In contrast, can we name one Ethiopian or Kenyan who has ever been successful in distance running? I mean look at Dibaba--is there any reason to think that the town of Bekoji in Ethiopia is conducive to producing good distance runners? No. Bekoji is no Milnathort, UK. Bekoji has the disadvantage of good weather year around, 9000 feet altitude, dirt roads. This is why the druggie Ethiopians travel to Scotland to train.

In short, you have to look at context. And cultural and athletic context and history tell us that we should expect there to be scores of record-breaking Scots like Muir and very few record-breaking Africans. Dibaba out of nowhere. Muir is just another in a long-line of Scot greats.

Disclaimer wrote:

If your point is that you're measuring integrity as relative to the Russian "anti"-doping authorities, you don't really have a point.

jeff tallon wrote:

a lot of people seem to think that because shes scottish,and ran 4.07 in 2013,shes clean.i dont know if she is,or not,but if she were chinese,russian,moroccan,turkish, or ukrainian,and ran 4.07 in 2013,and then ran 3.55 in 2016,there would be an outcry,and a massive amount of condemnation.no turk has ever ran as fast as she has,no american either.russia has been banned from athletics,yet none of their heavily drugged superwomen have run as fast as laura muir,and no soviet has run 3.55 since the 80s.

Clerk wrote:Scotland doesn't have history of a doping culture. Scottish coaches haven't been linked to doped athletes. UKAD has shown massive incompetence (purposeful or not), but seemingly has more integrity than IAAF or the NADOs of Russia, Turkey or Morocco.

Context matters.

Those aren't reasons to say she is clean. Rather, that context is the reason why there will be a different reaction from Muir than Hellen Obiri, who has a very similar profile of results.

worse yet wrote:

Algonquin wrote:

Context does matter. Another reason why she is probably clean: we all know the Scots distance running tradition. Far superior than the Ethiopian or Kenyan tradition. The Ethiopians and Kenyans came out of nowhere in the past few years. The only explanation must be drugs because East Africans have no distance running culture or other advantages.

In contrast, Scotland has always been the home of distance running. There have been numerous threads on these boards about the genetic superiority of Scots and whether any non-Scot could ever compete with a Scot. There was Ian Stewart, Yvonne Murray (the only clean runner in the 1988 Olympics), and hundreds of others. In contrast, can we name one Ethiopian or Kenyan who has ever been successful in distance running? I mean look at Dibaba--is there any reason to think that the town of Bekoji in Ethiopia is conducive to producing good distance runners? No. Bekoji is no Milnathort, UK. Bekoji has the disadvantage of good weather year around, 9000 feet altitude, dirt roads. This is why the druggie Ethiopians travel to Scotland to train.

In short, you have to look at context. And cultural and athletic context and history tell us that we should expect there to be scores of record-breaking Scots like Muir and very few record-breaking Africans. Dibaba out of nowhere. Muir is just another in a long-line of Scot greats.

POY.