Your attitude is profoundly offensive to any athlete who doesn't cheat. Valerie Adams finished second to an athlete from Belarusa in the 2012 Olympic shot-put. The athlete, Astapchuk, subsequently tested positive for banned substance as a result of retested blood samples. Adams was outraged that she had been cheated out of her Olympic moment in winning the competition. Any athlete would be.
A doped athlete cheated a doped athlete? You might explain this strange view.
A proven doped athlete beat another athlete not shown to be doped. But the point which inferior intellects like yours don't get is that doping can be viewed with outrage by those athletes who believe they have been cheated. Cheating still remains cheating in sports. It isn't viewed with equanimity.
What is your evidence that Valerie Adams was clean?
Come on, she's from NZ.
You're nearly always guessing about this topic but for me, that she's a Kiwi nudges me toward thinking she's clean. The only Kiwis I can think of who have failed drug tests were not living there when they failed. That may only mean that they do a lousy job of drug testing in New Zealand but I think it's more likely because they're well above the norm in terms of clean athletes. But again, there's nearly always a bit of guesswork involved.
No it's not. I don't present an either-or scenario. They are both profoundly offensive to clean athletes.
How do you know? Do you know any athletes, holed up as you are in your basement? Your usual false equivalence. I would be pretty sure most top athletes would be much more p*ssed about being cheated out of a medal than gossip on a social media site they would probably ignore. Speculation about doping in sport today is a commonplace in the world of sport; athletes would learn to live with it even if they didn't care for it. But losing races because they were cheated has real consequences for them; they wouldn't feel the same about that.
Your attitude is profoundly offensive to any athlete who doesn't cheat. Valerie Adams finished second to an athlete from Belarusa in the 2012 Olympic shot-put. The athlete, Astapchuk, subsequently tested positive for banned substance as a result of retested blood samples. Adams was outraged that she had been cheated out of her Olympic moment in winning the competition. Any athlete would be.
You are incapable of understanding how a clean athlete who has been cheated out of a genuine accomplishment might feel. On this, you live in a moral vacuum, devoid of any principle that conforms to sportsmanship.
What is your evidence that Valerie Adams was clean?
She has consistently been the best in the world in her event and yet has never approached the records set by doped E Bloc athletes. If she had easily beaten those records I would take a different view. She also comes from a country known to have a very low incidence of doping.
However I am not arguing that she is clean but used her as an example of how a top athlete may respond when they know they have been cheated by a confirmed doper. Her anger was very real.
So, let's say Coe in '81 was clean. That would indicate that on gear he would have run 1:39.7 in '81 conditions.
Modern shoes: 1:38.7 current mondo tracks: 1:38.2 wavelight for perfect splits: 1:37.9
The fastest the doped Africans could do this season was 1:42.8. Coe was clean.
No he wasnt.Human beings cant run that fast,clean.I doubt sub 1.44 is possible clean.,and even 1.45 would be only the best of the best.
Not quite. Snell ran 1:44 on grass in '62. That's worth a much faster time on modern tracks with modern shoes. 1:42 today still has to be within a clean ballpark.
The only ones who don't dope are white American women marathoners and the only ones who dope are black women from Africa!
letsrun is 100% an American website and all answers should be viewed in that light :)
You haven't read many threads here, have you? But not many US women marathon runners are approaching 2:11. They are a long way behind that. Everybody is.
how many kenyan busts were in kenya vs international?
how many tests were conducted in ethopia this year?
a long time ago i could see a 212 marathon by some outlier female and the 2 hour marathon for men. under all conditions..
looks like the men can go 159 and women 210 with the shoes and pacing, and the perfect race.
and the ones to do this will either be on peds (95% probability) or a genetic blessed individual with enlarged kidneys, certain glands, organs, body type, with an obsession for a pass time sport, with little money, except if you are from a 3rd world country.
How do you know? Do you know any athletes, holed up as you are in your basement? Your usual false equivalence. I would be pretty sure most top athletes would be much more p*ssed about being cheated out of a medal than gossip on a social media site they would probably ignore. Speculation about doping in sport today is a commonplace in the world of sport; athletes would learn to live with it even if they didn't care for it. But losing races because they were cheated has real consequences for them; they wouldn't feel the same about that.
Do you know any athletes holed up in your basement?
Do any of them tell you that they are not offended by false and baseless accusations of doping from ignorant fans that question their morals and ethics and integrity, simply for achieving what every athlete works their whole lives for?
I did not falsely equate one with the other. But the point is that you cannot control who beats Valerie Adams, but you are in complete control of what you say in a public forum about athletes who can be clean despite your ability to believe it. Being offensive is a personal choice you make.
How can it be good for the sport when everytime someone wins, all of its fans believe without any specific basis that it wasn't legitimate? Should we just all start celebrating last place while demonizing the winners? Just because it has become commonplace doesn't mean that normalizing these baseless accusations are healthy for the sport.
Not really an accurate comparison. There have been about 7 or 8 women who have run the 5k between 14:00 to 14:15.
There has only been one woman who has run the marathon between 2:11 to 2:13.
If your theory was correct, then there should have been a lot more women running in the 2:11 to 2:13 range by now.
No, because those women in the 14:00-14:15 range haven't been focusing on the marathon. If people like Hassan, Gidey, Taye, etc were to really focus on the marathon, we would see times in the 2:09:30-2:11:00 range for women. Remember that a woman is also different to a male, thanks to better fat burning capacity. In the past when we saw Joan Benoît (15:30/32:00) run 2:21:50, we knew that she was running with men in the 14:30-14:45/29:50-30:20 range.
In a few years when an Ethiopian woman runs 2:09:30, almost as fast as Bill Rodgers, people will continue the doping rumors, with zero substance.
Hassan ran a marathon this year just before a 10k WR. Her time was 2:18:33. She struggled, but came back to win.
A likely difference between a 29:05 male running 2:11 and the female is the female is racing for big money and at the very top of the world at 5k/10k. The male is struggling to make a living racing often and wisely decides to move up to the marathon rather than invest years getting to an also not professionally viable 28:30.
A doped athlete cheated a doped athlete? You might explain this strange view.
A proven doped athlete beat another athlete not shown to be doped. But the point which inferior intellects like yours don't get is that doping can be viewed with outrage by those athletes who believe they have been cheated. Cheating still remains cheating in sports. It isn't viewed with equanimity.
If male 14:00/29:00 type runners can run 2:08:00-2:10:00, and multitudes have done so, it is perfectly logical for a woman to run 2:11:53, with the same under distance credentials.
Your theory is wrong for many reasons but the most obvious is that a clean woman CLEARLY cant run 14:00 or 29:00
Junxia ran 8:06 which still stands today. Everyone knew she was doped to the gills but this record is so suspect that many believe the doping wasnt even enough and the track was short. Well guess what, 8:06 converts to around 14:00. A clean woman will never run 14 unless the come out with robotic shoes and cold air thrusters you can put up your ***
No he wasnt.Human beings cant run that fast,clean.I doubt sub 1.44 is possible clean.,and even 1.45 would be only the best of the best.
Not quite. Snell ran 1:44 on grass in '62. That's worth a much faster time on modern tracks with modern shoes. 1:42 today still has to be within a clean ballpark.
Acording to you, McBrain, shoes and tracks have a very small influence.
There were multiple doping threads on Gudaf Tsegay the other day that were deleted by the mods very quickly. Why is Gudaf Tsegay protected but this thread stays up?