In Rome. What happened in Athens?
Subway Surfers wrote:
You're clutching at straws there Rek, Ramzi beat El G in 2004.
In Rome. What happened in Athens?
Subway Surfers wrote:
You're clutching at straws there Rek, Ramzi beat El G in 2004.
0000000lllllllI wrote:
Interesting if you could prove that casual obsever supports perverted psychopaths.
Don't hold your breath. That's just another one of his made-up stories.
rekrunner wrote:
In Rome. What happened in Athens?
Subway Surfers wrote:
You're clutching at straws there Rek, Ramzi beat El G in 2004.
Ha! He was obviously glowing and went into hiding until next year when he did the "double" something Aouita couldn't do at an international level. Yet you don't put Ramzi in their league, you stated so on the previous page.
rekrunner wrote:
Not only can you, you should assume that subsequent tests would eventually catch more and more dopers.
Exceptions like Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones would exist, but generally, many others would eventually get caught.
In any case, both Armstrong and Jones tested positive.
Not only does it not miss the point, that is exactly the point. While you find it regrettable and attempt to rationalize it, I find it all the things the authors said: unscientific, immoral, an attack on the essence of the sport, insulting to clean athletes, and jeopardizing the credibility of the sport. Undeniably, some athletes are doping and that is ruining the sport, but "fans" like you are making it worse, when you point the finger at distance runners, like Ingebrigtsen and East Africans, and say "because Armstrong, because Jones", or bring up "black market" figures which surely combine Olympic sports, non-Olympic sports, elites, pros, amateurs, non-athletes, etc. It is not interesting for the sport of distance running how many local gym-rats are pumping themselves up.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Firstly, you can't assume that increased testing of those whom you might consider "serial dopers" will yield more positives than the so far recorded 1-2%; Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong underwent hundreds of tests without testing positive. Then as now, testing lags behind doping. It is one of the reasons that estimates of actual doping are far higher than recorded positives.
The quoted extract is correct, when it says that accusations of doping for merely excelling discredits the sport as well as the individual athlete concerned. But it somewhat misses the point. The prevalence of doping is such that it renders all outstanding performance suspicious - regrettable as that may be. The reasons for that are 1. doping enhances performance (the extent of that is variable but as a general effect it is no longer questionable, in my view), 2. most doping remains undetectable still, 3. the estimated extent of it, as a billion dollar black market industry, and the observable history of its use, suggests it is likely being used by the very best athletes, with the further logic that elites of near equal ability will lose to their competitors if they don't avail themselves of the same advantage, which includes doping. Added to that is the reality, that to train and compete as hard as athletes are now required to do today - and to maintain their careers into their 30's and even 40's - makes doping a virtual necessity in modern professional sport. Thus it becomes impossible to distinguish the clean performance from the doped performance - particularly at the highest level.
But to acknowledge this openly damages the credibility of the sport amongst the wider public - as the writer observes (which is why sports governance bodies are so concerned to give the appearance that they are eradicating the practice. But it is window-dressing).
My own view is that the sporting world is increasingly divided into those such as professional athletes who regard doping as a necessity, and those - mainly fans - who want to maintain the idealistic and outdated fantasy that their sport and their heroes are clean.
Jones and Armstrong did not fail drug tests - and that is the point, it took the testimony of Balco to reveal Jones' doping and the evidence of Armstrong's former team mates and the USADA to bring him to account. Testing was unable to do that.
Your defending so-called clean athletes against the 'slander' of drug allegations depends on being able to dismiss the actual incidence of doping as a minor and insignificant practice, and particularly in the sport you choose to focus on. International and elite athletics is reported as one of the worst offenders. To suggest the figures are skewed by the local 'gym rats' is risible. In the face of the continued evidence of pervasive and widespread doping in the sport of running your position is wilfully naive, and reveals that whatever your oft-protested concerns about doping you are effectively a denier.
rekrunner wrote:
Not only does it not miss the point, that is exactly the point. While you find it regrettable and attempt to rationalize it, I find it all the things the authors said: unscientific, immoral, an attack on the essence of the sport, insulting to clean athletes, and jeopardizing the credibility of the sport. Undeniably, some athletes are doping and that is ruining the sport, but "fans" like you are making it worse, when you point the finger at distance runners, like Ingebrigtsen and East Africans, and say "because Armstrong, because Jones", or bring up "black market" figures which surely combine Olympic sports, non-Olympic sports, elites, pros, amateurs, non-athletes, etc. It is not interesting for the sport of distance running how many local gym-rats are pumping themselves up.
You start off there making a lot of sense, and I'd have no problem with you if that was your real agenda, but then you say something as stupid as - 'when you point the finger at distance runners, like Ingebrigtsen and East Africans' as if pointing fingers at both are equally as bad or unjustified, when there's been dozens of doping cases coming out of Kenya in just the last 3 years, including Olympic champions and world record holders, and truly staggering confirmation of the abysmal standards of testing there such as advanced text warnings and 'tea money' bribes.
Seems there is very few people here who can distinguish between clear evidence of doping/doping cultures and simply suspicion because someone is running fast (and being white).
Neither you nor Casual Observski can, and endlessly debate from apparently opposite poles - 'everybody cheats' to 'nobody cheats (or doping doesn't work so nobody gains an edge from cheating)'. Meanwhile, anybody like myself who bases their suspicions of doping on confirmed evidence (such as the doping tragedy in Kenya) is a 'racist'.
casual obsever wrote:
0000000lllllllI wrote:
Interesting if you could prove that casual obsever supports perverted psychopaths.
Don't hold your breath. That's just another one of his made-up stories.
No it's not unfortunately - the same troll who regularly leaves truly obscene ramblings involving unmentionable things came into the moderation thread and Casual Observer supported him over me and claimed I was making these stories up. The mods are well aware of these obscene posts, I have a number of them screencapped, and if the mods/Brojos haven't sent them to the FBI already, then I will. Maybe at the same time the FBI could take a look at who exactly Casual Observer is, and whether he is a Russian troll trying to undermine the integrity of the sport and cover Russian doping on the biggest Running website/forum?
There is no way that you (Casual Observski) could not have seen some of the obscene posts or threats I've regularly received from that particular troll, given that you appear to be on here 24/7.
Yes. I still don't consider him in the same class as other Moroccans before him, like Aouita and El Guerrouj, as I've now stated on this page too.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Ha! He was obviously glowing and went into hiding until next year when he did the "double" something Aouita couldn't do at an international level. Yet you don't put Ramzi in their league, you stated so on the previous page.
Coevett wrote:
I've never said I'm a racist, in fact I've always categorically denied it. Apparently, some people allege I'm a racist on account of my statements here. Ex Doper has never said explicitly he's a doper, but he's still yet to categorically deny it. See how he wont reply to the request for clarification above. And any person of average intelligence and honesty would interpret his language as an admission of doping. He's stated several times his belief that virtually everybody dopes, including in the UK, or at least 'when they get the opportunity'. He's claimed that Anthony Whiteman is doping when he competes in the BMC meets as there is no testing. Yet he claims that he himself has been a UK sub-elite and presumably a regular at those BMC meets himself. Again, maybe you're an idiot or just being obstinate, but any fool can correctly see that ex-doper's statements here imply he himself he was indeed a doper. His general attitude to doping is not consistent with somebody who believes most of his rivals were doping, but he himself stayed clean.
The fact that you were a huge fan of athletics 15 years ago says it all.
I have no problem at all being hated by doping apologists such as yourself and ex-doper.
I've never doped. I have a life so don't check this website every day. You deliberately misrepresent people's contributions as shown above so I don't bother posting often; I'm sure other posters feel the same way. This name calling has ruined many threads.
Your general attitude to athletics is not consistent with somebody who has ever set foot on a track.
The measure in question wasn't a sanction, but a positive test result. Armstrong had 4 and Jones had 1. With respect to track and field, I've seen muddied figures that combine distance running with sprints, fields, walking, and combine men and women. We have seen that these figures vary widely depending on event, on country, and even differ between men and women. Can you give me better estimates for distance running -- what is the doping prevalence estimate for distance running men? women? black market value of drugs for elite track and field distance running? Because without these better figures, your rationalization falls apart. When the IAAF gives us blood doping prevalence estimates of around 15% for distance men (*), which includes Russian race-walkers, and the Sunday Times published suspicious averages of 8% and 5% for Kenya and Ethiopia, respectively, and figures as low as 11% for World Champion and Olympic medal winners in the men's and women's marathon, I think we are still very far from a reasonable threshold where we can point the finger at every successful distance performance across all events, or suggest that EPO was the reason for the decades long superiority of East Africans. And another question remains unaddressed -- if doping is as pervasive and effective as you suggest -- why isn't superiority more equally distributed to match? (*) The study didn't single out endurance men, but this is my estimate from other data they did give, separating non-distance from distance, and men from women.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Jones and Armstrong did not fail drug tests - and that is the point, it took the testimony of Balco to reveal Jones' doping and the evidence of Armstrong's former team mates and the USADA to bring him to account. Testing was unable to do that.
Your defending so-called clean athletes against the 'slander' of drug allegations depends on being able to dismiss the actual incidence of doping as a minor and insignificant practice, and particularly in the sport you choose to focus on. International and elite athletics is reported as one of the worst offenders. To suggest the figures are skewed by the local 'gym rats' is risible. In the face of the continued evidence of pervasive and widespread doping in the sport of running your position is wilfully naive, and reveals that whatever your oft-protested concerns about doping you are effectively a denier.
It is equally as bad, even after considering dozens of doping cases including Olympic champions and world record holders. When you consider the population of elite athletes that have come out of Kenya, and East Africa,"dozens" is still a relatively small percentage. You try to hide it with words like "staggering confirmation" and "clear evidence of doping/doping cultures", to make the case appear stronger, and attempt to put yourself in a large camp of "sane and rational" observers -- I see this as part of the problem. Point the finger at the doped champions, but not at the clean ones. If you can't tell the difference -- that is also part of the problem.
Coevett wrote:
You start off there making a lot of sense, and I'd have no problem with you if that was your real agenda, but then you say something as stupid as - 'when you point the finger at distance runners, like Ingebrigtsen and East Africans' as if pointing fingers at both are equally as bad or unjustified, when there's been dozens of doping cases coming out of Kenya in just the last 3 years, including Olympic champions and world record holders, and truly staggering confirmation of the abysmal standards of testing there such as advanced text warnings and 'tea money' bribes.
Seems there is very few people here who can distinguish between clear evidence of doping/doping cultures and simply suspicion because someone is running fast (and being white).
Neither you nor Casual Observski can, and endlessly debate from apparently opposite poles - 'everybody cheats' to 'nobody cheats (or doping doesn't work so nobody gains an edge from cheating)'. Meanwhile, anybody like myself who bases their suspicions of doping on confirmed evidence (such as the doping tragedy in Kenya) is a 'racist'.
It's not a small percentage - 3 of the 7 Kenyan male finalists from London in the 800, 1500 and 5000 have been busted. And given the still.low standards of testing it's unlikely all the cheats on that team have been caught.
So you claim everybody else at the BMC was doping but unlike Rekrunner, you admit doping works, else you wouldn't have claimed everybody who has ran faster than 3:29 doped.
So you were one of the few clean Brit athletes and you were cheated out of medals and teams by dopers, but you spend half your day arguing with anti-dopers here and vehemently defending people like Amos who have missed tests, and Ethiopians who are almost never tested out of comp?
Coevett wrote:
No it's not unfortunately - the same troll who regularly leaves truly obscene ramblings involving unmentionable things came into the moderation thread and Casual Observer supported him over me and claimed I was making these stories up.
More lies, naturally, and no evidence, as per usual.
7 is a rather small number to condemn a whole nation. I don't know which 3 male finalists you mean. I guess by London finalist, you mean 2012 Olympics. I found 7 finalists, but only one busted and he placed DFL. I found none in 800m and none in 5000m. I found a second one on a Fancy Bears list, right below Henrik. Granted I did not dig long, as it is not up to me to back up your vague claims with facts. By small percentage, I'm looking at the performance of the whole nation you wish to condemn, and not just cherry-picking one event. Recall the topic here is the invalidity of calling a performance as doped, based solely on the performance, with judgements like "unscientific". Arguments like "given the still low standards of testing", falling in the category of logical fallacy "argument from ignorance" only underscore my point.
Coevett wrote:
It's not a small percentage - 3 of the 7 Kenyan male finalists from London in the 800, 1500 and 5000 have been busted. And given the still.low standards of testing it's unlikely all the cheats on that team have been caught.
Why do you keep repeating the same lies?
Coevett wrote:
but unlike Rekrunner, you admit doping works, ...
Coevett wrote:
So you claim everybody else at the BMC was doping but unlike Rekrunner, you admit doping works, else you wouldn't have claimed everybody who has ran faster than 3:29 doped.
So you were one of the few clean Brit athletes and you were cheated out of medals and teams by dopers, but you spend half your day arguing with anti-dopers here and vehemently defending people like Amos who have missed tests, and Ethiopians who are almost never tested out of comp?
You are embarrassing yourself.
rekrunner wrote:
Why do you keep repeating the same lies?
Coevett wrote:
but unlike Rekrunner, you admit doping works, ...
Oh yeah, all the doping apologists here like to play the game of call Coevett a liar, and now that you've accused me of lying that you claim doping does not work, nobody on this forum will ever again believe that you have ever claimed that doping does not work.
Except that it wont change much.
If you're NOT claiming that doping doesn't work, nobody here, and I mean NOBODY, has a clue what you are talking about, and let's face it, you've talked about it a lot - maybe spent entire months of your life here trying to get across a message that literally nobody understands.
ex-runner wrote:
You are embarrassing yourself.
Ex-Runner, you've stated here in another thread that you think 3:28 low is the clean limit for 1500m.
There are 7 runners who have achieved that, including potato Tim, all of whom you are claiming must have been doping (to anyone who understands basic English and logic - unfortunately a small minority here it seems).
What do you think is the clean limit for 800m?
The 8th fastest man ever at 800m is Sammy Koskei at 1:42.28. Do you think a time around this range represents the clean limit?
If not, why not? Is it because doping is more effective at 1500m? Or maybe there simply hasn't been so many dirty 800m runners?
But if you do think 1:42 low is the clean 800m limit, why do you insist on defending Amos, a man who has already come close to being suspended for evading tests?
Coevett wrote:
Ex-Runner, you've stated here in another thread that you think 3:28 low is the clean limit for 1500m.
There are 7 runners who have achieved that, including potato Tim, all of whom you are claiming must have been doping (to anyone who understands basic English and logic - unfortunately a small minority here it seems).
For someone who is always talking about logic, you have no clue what logic is.
If they have run what he "stated" he thinks is the clean limit, then how do you infer from that that now he is claiming they are dirty?
It's you who doesn't seem to understand basic English and logic.
3:28 low = clean limit
runner runs 3:28 low
runner has run within said clean limit
Is it that hard to understand?
rekrunner wrote:
The measure in question wasn't a sanction, but a positive test result. Armstrong had 4 and Jones had 1.
With respect to track and field, I've seen muddied figures that combine distance running with sprints, fields, walking, and combine men and women. We have seen that these figures vary widely depending on event, on country, and even differ between men and women. Can you give me better estimates for distance running -- what is the doping prevalence estimate for distance running men? women? black market value of drugs for elite track and field distance running? Because without these better figures, your rationalization falls apart.
When the IAAF gives us blood doping prevalence estimates of around 15% for distance men (*), which includes Russian race-walkers, and the Sunday Times published suspicious averages of 8% and 5% for Kenya and Ethiopia, respectively, and figures as low as 11% for World Champion and Olympic medal winners in the men's and women's marathon, I think we are still very far from a reasonable threshold where we can point the finger at every successful distance performance across all events, or suggest that EPO was the reason for the decades long superiority of East Africans.
And another question remains unaddressed -- if doping is as pervasive and effective as you suggest -- why isn't superiority more equally distributed to match?
(*) The study didn't single out endurance men, but this is my estimate from other data they did give, separating non-distance from distance, and men from women.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Jones and Armstrong did not fail drug tests - and that is the point, it took the testimony of Balco to reveal Jones' doping and the evidence of Armstrong's former team mates and the USADA to bring him to account. Testing was unable to do that.
Your defending so-called clean athletes against the 'slander' of drug allegations depends on being able to dismiss the actual incidence of doping as a minor and insignificant practice, and particularly in the sport you choose to focus on. International and elite athletics is reported as one of the worst offenders. To suggest the figures are skewed by the local 'gym rats' is risible. In the face of the continued evidence of pervasive and widespread doping in the sport of running your position is wilfully naive, and reveals that whatever your oft-protested concerns about doping you are effectively a denier.
There have been no confirmed reports that Jones and Armstrong failed drug tests, only allegations, but if they had failed drug tests why weren't they busted? We can have little confidence in anti-doping if serial dopers do fail tests yet escape sanction.
We know that doping is to be found in all sports in all countries yet you hold to the view that distance running will somehow be less afflicted than most other sports - and that is notwithstanding the series of busts that have recently come out of Kenya. We should expect doping to found most in those sports where it can easily lead to performance enhancement, and these are the sports that depend more on physical than technical features. Running - both short and long distance running - easily falls into that category.
Then we might ask, why would runners have a different attitude from other athletes about taking drugs? Are they not similarly motivated to succeed? Do their ethics make them a breed apart? That would be an extraordinary view to take.
The question is not why would any top athlete take drugs but why wouldn't they. If, as an elite athlete, you know that some of your competitors are doping and you may lose to them, why would you accept that disadvantage? For a top athlete their sport is their life; it is their living, and also that of those who depend on them, it is mostly all they know and indeed it is their identity; failure - particularly in modern culture, which professional sport so clearly mirrors - is not an acceptable option. Human nature being what it is, I believe in that situation you would do whatever it takes - and that includes doping. Victor Conte agrees, when he estimates that 90% of Olympians would be doping.
But your holding to the position that doping is an aberration, particularly in distance running, says more about your need to believe that than what is the likely reality. For you, your statistics are a haven because they cannot reveal the full extent of that which is conducted in secret. You can choose to believe those that you are able to find acceptable, and reject any others.