SERIOUS DISCUSSION: 2:15:25 what category are you in SKEPTICAL, PRO, or ANTI!

And hey,

how about a shining example of sportsmanship from America's first lady of the marathon, from the article posted by Jebediah:

Third-placed Deena Drossin was full of praise for her rival's performance.

"It was an impressive performance by Paula - I can't wait to see the clips of it," she said.

"I think it's an inspiration to other runners to make little extra sacrifices, to start training at a higher level to try to close the gap again."

I think this board could learn from Deena's fine example. Nevertheless, I stand by my baseless accusations: I still think Jason, vipam, and waz are all on drugs.

[quote]foxin wrote:

Do you think men and women?s records will at some point nearly be equivalent?

Impossible in marathon, but because of the biology of the women and men, females get closer to the men when the distance gets longer. Less lactic better for women... this is because female body fat is naturally higher than men. Paula's new record is only 7.8 percent away from mens marathon record... when looked at 100 km world records women are even closer to the men... difference is only around 20 minutes if I remember correctly... less than 7.8 percent away from the mens record. I would guess that there may be a running event where the records may be equivalent... one day when there is someone silly enough to run that far enough!

GO PAULA...

JasonInBangkok wrote:

(1) I am very pro-Paula, because I am very pro-humanity and pro-running. I want to believe that the sexes are equal, but the scientific data says otherwise.

My british doctor here in BKK, who was a UK-team sprinter in the early-80's, says that there are really no true genetic freaks in the world. There is but two things that differentiate the runners of the world: Drugs and really hard work.

Can a woman run 2;15 from just really hard work? I hope so.

Jason

Was this really Jason? I was sure this was a poser when I read it... "very pro-Paula"... That doesn?t sound like Jason judging from his previous posts.

Genetics make a HUGE difference; there are people who are genetic outliers that make them far more suitable for running than most, that?s irrefutable, just basic biology. I could train my ass off (actually I couldn't I'd fall apart pretty quickly) and have everything Paula has going for her in way of training, recover, medical team, whatever and despite my and my team of trainers and doctors efforts I would probably never even be able to even reach elite status. Why? Genetics. Not to be a downer, but I?d contend that genetics, are far more responsible for success in athletics (and most areas of life) than anything else. To put that level of hard work in, a person has to have the right body (i.e. right genes). Many (most?) people would never even be able to get to the point of fitness where they could take 130 miles a week of hard training.

Pete, well waz is on drugs for sure. A big ol' dose of dumbass.

Man, I just couldn't let this go unchallenged...

I Love Sara Wells wrote:

...and if you wanna talk about frequent podium missers...what about Michael Johnson?? Same kinda deal...always at the cusp of being the top dog...and never quite getting over the hump...until '96, then he was unstoppable.

ILSW

Johnson's World Rankings up to 96:

200m

90 = 1st

91 = 1

92 = 3

93 = 4

94 = 1

95 = 1

96 = 1

400m

90 = 1

91 = 1

92 = 5

93 = 1

94 = 1

95 = 1

96 = 1

Yep, a total unknown until Atlanta.

Thanks man, I saw that too, and was like "what?!?!?!" Yeah, and Geb broke through at last Olympics with his medal huh?

TO BRIAN:

I agree completely with you that there are ?genetic freaks? of course. But I disagree that most people do not accept talent as part of the success equation, most people do because (which I know you agree with, but felt like pointing out anyway)-

Great achievement in anything is due to a combination of natural gifts and hard, smart, focused effort (if there is indeed such a thing as free will, as most people believe). Most people realize that great achievers are partly lucky(genes and environment they were born into), and partly incredibly hard workers (also possibly due to some environmental influences). Even the athletes themselves realize this (why do so many black athletes thank God every 2 seconds? They know they received a gift at birth). So people are OK with the good fortune/luck part of the equation of success. They accept that environment/genes play a huge role in success. But they do not accept cheating. Drugs are cheating, plain & simple. It may be a form of evening the playing field against a more genetically talented athlete, but so is cutting the course, starting the race early, or tripping someone. We do not accept those actions, correct? Of course not. Only non-reflective people deny the ?luck? part of the success equation (luck + hard work/effort = success). And only non-reflective people would deny that drugs are cheating/unacceptable in that equation (as is any breaking of the rules).

You also said: ??loony relativistic anti-war liberal argument that America has no right judging Iraq because we have done bad things in the past.?

That arguemnt is not completely ?looney.? Maybe in this case the argument that US is not perfect, therefore how dare we interfere in another country, is a dumb one(because of many factors in this particular case). But each situation is different, and the argument itself, in certain circumstances is not a bad one. It is called being holier than thou, or a hypocrite, something we all detest. So, if the US started criticizing a country for hanging lots of its citizens, who did indeed have ?fair? trials, and appeared to truly be guilty of some fairly serious crimes, where would we get off raising our voices?? (I am not saying that has happened, it is just a hypothetical. But it would not surprise me if it did happen). We execute many people in this country, and many who are innocent (it has been proven). So would it be our place to raise our voices in that case? It would hypocritical to. So that would be a case where the ?relativistic liberal argument? that America has no right judging?.because we have done bad things in the past(/present)..? would not be so loony. Do you agree?

But can Mike Weir run?

Did run Hamilton, unfortunately didn't run up to expectations but had a helluva' time just the same. I was on 1:57 pace at 27 km and then the legs just plain fell apart! Had to go back later to pick up the pieces. I slipped on some black ice 6 weeks ago and cracked a rib so the running has been up and down ever since. Odd thing is that since a couple of down days following the race, I've been running pain free - it's as if the cure to a broken bone is a brisk 30km...

While I think that Ottawa are on their way, c'mon - I'm a Toronto Boy! Doug Gilmour's back, it's gonna' be great (probably next year).

By the way, Montgomery is my middle name...

Monty

My stance is as a skeptic with a strong leaning towards pro-Paula.

I am a skeptic because it is a problem in our sport in such a magnitude that no one is beyond suspicion.

Have any of you cheated at anything? I sure have! When I've cheated (or whatever), yes you want things to appear that there is no reason to suspect. So, yes, I would expect a cheating Paula to say with confidence, "No, I don't cheat. Test me." However, a cheating Paula, would not want to do ALL she could to bring attention to herself in her stance against drugs. As a cheater, you do not know what the future in detection holds, so you would not offer (or plead) to find some way to have your fluids kept and tested at a later date. Also, a runner may get caught (as some have), so making the HUGE stance against drugs that Paula has that extends well beyond running circles would be a tremendous risk on her part because if she were to EVER get caught (even 20 yrs later with her stored fluids), she would not only be shunned in running, but her entire reputation as a person with an ounce of integrity would forever be tarnished.

Also, if Paula were a cheater, I would expect her to do the minimum and get what she is after. Again, why bring all of the additonal scrutiny and doubts by running a 2min PR, if you can get paid the same for running a 5sec PR?

Lastly, I do not know Paula, but Weldon does. The fact that Weldon says (based on personal interaction with her) that if she were to be a cheat, he would never run again is more meaningful to me than the pure conjecture on most of our parts.

The womens' marks are "weaker" in that they haven't been at it as long and there have been much fewer women participants. Webb's 3:53 was incredible (HS record for men, again a deeper field than womens' was 30yrs old)... was he tested? Why not the outcry for his potential doping?

If I were Paula and ran a 2:17 DEBUT off of splits of 70 and 67 (or whatever), then you bet I would think that 2:15 was possible. Where were all the people doubting that performance?

Jebediah wrote:

Well, Paula's performance should not shock you, considering she does 17 mile training runs at 5:21 pace when in Albuquerque.

I ran mine at 4:31 pace.

gddmg wrote:

blood testing one needs to understand that traces of anything can be picked up as much as up to 3 months in arrears

Sorry JEH, but you have a lot of holes in your logic (no offense, but they are there). Some points are good, but here is where I refute you (and I am not saying I think PR is necessarily a cheater at all, just disagreeing with your logic)-

"However, a cheating Paula, would not want to do ALL she could to bring attention to herself in her stance against drugs." I can see why you would say that, but, it has apparently worked to convince you and others that she is more likely innocent because of this stance. Therefore, it appears to be a good stance for a cheater to take I guess. "Sometimes the best defense is a good offense."

"Also, if Paula were a cheater, I would expect her to do the minimum and get what she is after. Again, why bring all of the additonal scrutiny and doubts by running a 2min PR, if you can get paid the same for running a 5sec PR? " The whole point in training hard, cheating, or whatever one does to succeed is posterity. Once you risk cheating, you go for it all. She has been scrutinized already. Based on your logic, I guess FloJo is innocent(she crushed records)? Or Ben J? He already had one WR/Gold Medal (WC?s), why risk going for another?

"Lastly, I do not know Paula, but Weldon does. The fact that Weldon says (based on personal interaction with her) that if she were to be a cheat, he would never run again is more meaningful to me than the pure conjecture on most of our parts." Wejo's opinion means nothing to me. Plus, his admiration of/connection to PR would cloud his judgement. There are probably friends close to many cheaters that still believe in their innocence.

"Where were all the people doubting that performance?" You have a short memory, this entire discussion is just a rehash of past discussions of Paula. Her 2:17 was absolutely doubted. And this is 2 minutes faster, so even more doubts.

Do you see the holes? Whole lotta of holes.

Da Man, I totally agree that there are holes... the whole argument that ANYONE has presented is circumstantial. That is all we have. So, you just have to take a look at all the "Holey" evidence and go with what seems to be most reasonable. That's all.

So, what do you think? I am not trying to see where yours has holes as I am sure it does - not a diss, but how can you prove the unprovable? And, I am just interested in other opinions.

I agree with your posterity angle, but another earlier poster said it all came down to money. So, my small incremental improvement theory was more of a counter to that.

If we just say that any improvements (and I realize this one is big) MUST be aided, then we are saying that we have reached the ceiling of human potential. Personally, I think we are far away from that... big time.

I think in FloJo's or Johnson's case, it is a little more difficult to achieve a great, yet not too great, of a performance. Again, pure speculation on my part.

Friends/Family that consistently say one thing does not prove such a thing, but it is a favorable indication, no?

Lastly, the 2:17 debut was not NEARLY as contested. Going 70/67 in a debut is more raised-eyebrow worthy in my mind than a 2:15 third marathon. The experience of simply racing a marathon is worth something.

Anyway, forget about the last few paragraphs as I am just saying what I said before... yeah... there're holes... it's the state of the sport, and that is truly unfortunate.

Vipam-

I'm SKEPTICAL.

Why? First off, I enjoyed reading about Paula's performance. I wish I could have seen the race (I did get to watch the tape of Chicago). I also enjoyed watching Michael Johnson run 19.32 back in 1996. I can take these performances and enjoy them at face value. They are the fastest times ever run in those events. Period.

Whether or not these times were performance enhanced, they are still the fastest ever. They're faster than any

"clean" or "dirty" runners have ever run. They weren't running downhill or with a constant tailwind. Their human bodies ran that fast.

All that being said, if I had to guess, I would say that both performers used some type of performance enhancing substances to help get them to this level. All this talk about Paula simply training harder than anyone else, or having the perfect support system, or altitude training, blah blah blah is silly. Many performance enhancing drugs ALLOW runners to train harder than normally possible. Have you read what type of mileage the Chinese runners were running back when all the records were falling? If I could consistently run even 100M+ of QUALITY runs (not a marathon a day)every week without getting injured or sick, I would expect to significantly destroy my personal records too.

Most of us will admit that there IS a drug problem in our sport. Why won't many of you admit that the very best runners MIGHT be involved in this drug problem? One way to give Paula credit, while still viewing her as a possible drug cheat, is to consider that some of the former marathon WRs were drug records - and she still annihilated them!

Another annoying discussion that keeps coming up is about her very public anti-drug stance. Do you think that if she gets busted, the big worry is that she's a hypocrite? No, the big worry would be that she got busted! And I agree that she's already covered herself to a point by talking about the possibility of being sabotaged.

Don't "red flags" go up when you start reading talk about her breaking or demolishing the "Chinese Records" that almost everyone assumes are dirty? If later this summer she runs under 29:00 for 10K, would you just continue blindly saying "well, she's a freak" or "she's never failed a drug test" or "she's got the best work ethic and pain tolerance I've ever seen."

And as far as never failing a drug test, and offering to be tested whenever - exactly who has failed drug tests? The EPO test is extremely limited, and as others have stated, the best "users" are always way ahead of the testers. Take HGH for instance. From what I've read, use of HGH at the '96 Olympics was rampant. 6 1/2 years have passed and still no test! By the time a test is developed, the drug cheats will have moved on to bigger, better, and (most importantly) undetectable methods.

So, I am not Pro-Paula or Anti-Paul. I'm Skeptical, Pro-Track & Field, and Anti-Drug.

I will continue to enjoy incredible performances as they happen, while keeping in mind the very real possibility that they had something up their sleeve.

Creepy,

(nice new name)

I'm with you ALL the way on the Doug Gilmour train. TOOT TOOT! This guy is my favourite player of the past 15 years, no shit. I picked him in my wife's work playoff pool even though he's out for the first round, because HE'S A KILLER. SERIOUSLY. I won't be pulling for his team if the Leafs make it to battle the Sens, obviously, but I'll love watching him pound Radek Bonk (slacker) into the corners at the ripe old age of 39.

Sorry about the race result, but it sounds like you're recovering nicely. I pulled out of a broken foot by winning an uncompetitive 2 miler a couple of years ago (after 3.5 weeks-o-healin'). Sometimes a damn hard run is as good as a rest, as they say.

I have to say I am SKEPTICAL, her performace just seems too good to be true, which often means it is. Her marathon time is better than all the women's records with only the 8:06 and 10.49 being in the same ballpark, both of these are assumed to be drug aided. Paula has been at high level for years now from the late 90s she has been one of the best in the world but has missed out at the big meets. Now, less than 2 years after missing the podium in the 10k there is no one, not the women who beat her, not anyone, who can run with her. This is strange. There is talk of her running close to 29:00 is the 10k this would be her 5k PR pace from last year, after being world class for 10 years doesn't that seem ludicrous.

-About her anti-doping stance, that doesn't mean shit to me, Dieter Baumann was big into that too, Dennis Mitchell was the head of the US anti-doping committee, Mourhit said that cheaters should all be banned for life, so did Ben Johnson who also denounced drug use before Seoul.

-She has been near the top for so long, now she explodes, like I said some are saying low 29 for 10k a huge improvement in just a year. Yegorova was derided because she improved her 5k 13 seconds in 2 years, at the age of 26, this is nothing compared to what Paula has done, and may continue to do.

-Her training is rumored to be brutal, inhuman, and such. She is said to at times run so hard in practice she'll pass out. That is suspicious, not because she presses hard or anything, but because she can do that sort of stuff and recover and keep training and improving while wrecking herself like that. Drugs enable one to train harder at superhuman levels which is how she's described.

-The point the last poster, BDG, made about her talk of destroying the Chinese records is one I agree with, shit if they were super doped how can she demolish them clean.

I don't know Paula Radcliffe and I'm not going to say she is a doper, but I'm skeptical.

BDG,

in your rambling logic, you've both accused Paula of being dirty and tried to excuse yourself for having done so. Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Given the suspicions you've publicly cast, I can only conlude that you are also using drugs, and make your accusation in part to rationalize your own cheating and lack of personal ethics and moral fibre.

C'mon, come clean. Take the first baby step - only 11 more after that to get you back on the straight and narrow.

Mackenzie,

read what I wrote to BDG, above, and apply the same comments to yourself. Don't gimme any of this "I'm not going to say she is a doper, but I'm skeptical" pap. You've taken a stand, and thrown a stone on a public forum. Be a man and stand up with your heels together for your opinions.

You, my friend, are on drugs. You should be ashamed of yourself. Be careful, man, that shit CAN kill you. It's not worth the PRs or the glory (unless maybe you've got no wife or kids, in which case, what the hell, go ahead).

To everyone here who has posted & any that will after me:

WHO CARES????????? She ran fast. She still had to run the race. She ran the time. I believe she is on drugs BUT SO WHAT????????? DRUGS work get over it. You have nothing to lose in trying to win. Train/run 2-3 hrs per day, (don't/take drugs, your choice) find out for yourself. Enjoy the fact you are living in a time when you can see this happening. What do you want proof of drugs, ya right in your dreams.

How about this one year the TDF officals find TONS of drugs, next year...NOT ONE POSITIVE, ya right.

Mackenzie wrote:

I have to say I am SKEPTICAL, her performace just seems too good to be true, which often means it is. Her marathon time is better than all the women's records with only the 8:06 and 10.49 being in the same ballpark, both of these are assumed to be drug aided. Paula has been at high level for years now from the late 90s she has been one of the best in the world but has missed out at the big meets. Now, less than 2 years after missing the podium in the 10k there is no one, not the women who beat her, not anyone, who can run with her. This is strange. There is talk of her running close to 29:00 is the 10k this would be her 5k PR pace from last year, after being world class for 10 years doesn't that seem ludicrous.

No, it's a well established pattern with top level 10k runners who convert to the marathon. You imply that she is continuing to run the same races that she ran before, she is not she has run 3 marathons over the space of a year and has shown the sort of improvement you'd expect. Grete Waitz did very much the same in three races over 2 years, except that Grete broke the record on her first run (and the second and the third)! Knocking off just over 2 mins off the first time, 5 mins the next, and 2 mins the next! Also a consequence of the training for the marathon has often been an improvement in the 10k time even though they might have plateaued previously, Lopes is a good example who ran 2:08.39 in his first marathon and a few months later ran the second fastest 10k in 27:17.48, easily better than his career prior to taking up the marathon.