Regarding Hersh's Radcliffe/KK editorial

Indeed.

And besides that were Chinese.

he seems to diminish his own argument a bit.

he admits it is ok to question the chinese records. But his next paragraph is not related to the one above. No one assumes they must be dirty just because they are chinese and radcliffe and kristiansen must be clean since they are white. They question the records as he said above because they are suspicious. And I don't think anyone just assumes anyone must be clean. They look at the evidence themselves, analyze it and come to their own conclusions.

Not sure why he needed to throw the race card out there after he said it is totally ok to question the chinese records. I guess to protect himself from being labeled a racist.

Then it's okay to question the english records isn't it.

No?

Because wang and qu and their teammates are chinese and radcliffe and kristiansen must be clean since they are white. Very suspicious. Right?

If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean by "suspicious"?

Right. But apparently a lot of people are not doing that.

Kind of a catch 22 isn't it. : )

I certainly believe the Chinese performances should be considered suspect. Huge improvements, limited competition, and uncanny depth in some of the races lead most of us to believe there was something fishy going on. However, none of their record performances were ever invalidated due to a positive test.

So, it's hard to justify other top performers as unquestionably clean because they never tested positive. The good cheaters are typically miles ahead of the testers. I've asked this question before on this board: how many distance runners have ever tested positive for EPO? The tests have only been available for a little while. And again, EPO is already an old drug as the cheaters have moved on to bigger and better things that can't be tested for yet.

All we can say about a top performer who hasn't tested positive is the following: they are neither clean nor dirty; they haven't tested positive.

Don't take this the wrong way. I have enjoyed watching the outstanding performers over the past 20 years - Paula, Geb, Michael Johnson, Flo-Jo, Tergat, etc. No matter what, they did the training and achieved the performances. We just don't know if they had illegal help or not. So when I see a WR or other phenomenal performance, I enjoy it and then place an "*" next to it in my head. The "*" means I don't know.

As for the racial aspects of the topic, there is certainly something to that, although it's deeper than that. People tend to believe the performers who are like them, or those who are who are from the same country, or those who project positive values & work ethic.

The Chinese were very different (and again, downright bizarre performances went along with them) and therefore very suspect - although they never tested positive. But white athletes such as Mary Slaney, Uta Pippig, and Dieter Baumann all tested positive and had a large following of supporters.

Ben Johnson (who did test positive) was different and unlikeable (he was Canadian/Jamaican, stuttered his way through English and swore at US hero Carl Lewis) and therefore was unbelievable. But Americans like Flo-Jo, Marion Jones, and Michael Johnson (all being US citizens who never tested positive) are/were considered clean by the masses - even though they were all phenomenal performers with questions floating around them:

Flo-Jo's 1988 performances were/are untouchable, but the masses don't question her performances, even though she retired immediately and later died at a young age.

Michael Johnson's performances (esp 200, but even 400) were/are untouchable, and he didn't seem to ever field many drug questions.

Marion has dominated the world sprint scene pretty much since her return to the track. Even though she's a dominant, very muscular sprinter with a positive testing shot putting ex-husband, most people seem to consider her clean.

Paula Radcliffe's 2002 season was one of the best ever, even considering it was a non-major year. Her range was incredible (3K to marathon). And to most people, she's very likeable - she displays a positive attitude, strong work ethic, and complains about doping. Also, she's white and English. Again, I don't think of Paula as clean or dirty - she hasn't tested positive. But if I was a top performer who did cheat, I would take the same public stance against doping as she does. Because if she does test positive, she'll be suspended anyway - which is worse than being considered a hypocrite. Plus, she can say that as a strong doping opponent she makes a great target for tampering or sabotage (as Dieter says).

So, in the meantime, I enjoy the performances and place my "*" next to the great ones.

>when I see a WR or other phenomenal performance, I enjoy >it and then place an "*" next to it in my head. The "*" >means I don't know.

Yeah, 90% of top athletes are drug-cheats and the other 10% are liars so we just got to figure out which, right? That is what the drug-cheat money in the sport wants everyone out there to believe and if they succeed the Steroid Olympics will be right up there with the pro bodybuiders and wrestlers, like one big fuc*ing joke.

That is why drug testing should be made credible and compulsary for all athletes and why the drug cheat scum hate radcliffe's name and would certainly destroy her if they could. If she has a motive to cheat and lie to win, they have just as much motive to smear her as one of them and I know which one I prefer to believe cos I know how many young women runners are inspired by Radcliffe and if she goes down the damage will be big, no question.

Hate Radcliffe, noname, opposed to compulsary blood-tests...kind of goes together don't it ???

Edith French

SlgEdith wrote:

If [Radcliffe] has a motive to cheat and lie to win, they have just as much motive to smear her

Since she cheats and lies, all anyone has to do is tell the truth about her.

I know how many young women runners are inspired by Radcliffe and if she goes down the damage will be big, no question.

You know all 2 of them?

Hate Radcliffe, noname, opposed to compulsary blood-tests...kind of goes together don't it ???

I don't hate Radcliffe. Compulsary blood tests are totally polital and have nothing to do with who takes drugs and who doesn't, wake up Edith. Radcliffe has admitted doping with her tent or don't you remember that. If it had been on the doping list she wouldn't have said anything about it. Which makes you wonder what else she is doing.

I don't take blood tests and if I was breaking world records I would not take them either. Besides being inaccurate, they are invasive and dangerous. Urine tests and hair samples are easy to take, and much more accurate than testing the blood.

I agree with the pseudo scientist [on here] who said the day when all drug testing will be useless is fast approaching. Though that day arrived about 50 years ago.

The primary issue is that Radcliffe stirred up opposition to her competitors. She had 1/2 the stadium booing Yegorova in her races! I am sure Radcliffe would have loved 1/2 the people booing her at Chicago.

After seeing her response to a 4th place finish, there is no way she would have finished the run.

Tents aren't on any banned list. Anything that isn\'t banned is allowed. If you aren't trying every LEGAL advantage available, then you aren't trying.

The questioning besides the drugs is because Wang went 8:20 for 3k at the end of a 10k, this seems suspect no matter who you are and what country you are from.

3k speed wrote:

The questioning besides the drugs is because Wang went 8:20 for 3k at the end of a 10k, this seems suspect no matter who you are and what country you are from.

Since Wang Junxia ran 8:05 for the 3000m, 3:51 for 1500m, and the last half of a marathon at 2:15 pace, it is not at all surprising that she ran 8:20 at the end of her 29:31 WR 10000m.

In addition, Wang Junxia made a comeback to win gold and silver medals in the Olympics, and has passed every drug test given to her at any time.

[/quote]Since she [Radcliffe] cheats and lies, all anyone has to do is tell the truth about her.

I know how many young women runners are inspired by Radcliffe and if she goes down the damage will be big, no question.

You know all 2 of them?

[quote]Hate Radcliffe, noname, opposed to compulsary blood-tests...kind of goes together don't it ???

The primary issue is that Radcliffe stirred up opposition to her competitors. She had 1/2 the stadium booing Yegorova in her races! I am sure Radcliffe would have loved 1/2 the people booing her at Chicago.

DuneRunner obviously don't do debating for a living.

1. If only couple people inspired by Radcliffe, the BBC would not have given live coverage to Chicago. Fact is crowds love her and so do loads of young women runners out there. And if she a nobody how could she get all those people booing Y and other women athletes threatening to boycott Y ???

2. DuneRunner is entitled to his opinion, worthless as that may be, that PR is a cheat. Why don't he write himself up a placard and start booing her next time she runs? He might even get out alive! But if he is entitled to run his mouth on here calling PR a cheat then he can't reasonably object to Radcliffe expressing her opinion about what other people are up to...Or is he claiming privilege?

3. If what Radcliffe does for a living is that easy, how come nobody is writing him big cheques just to show up?

Edith French

3k speed wrote:

The questioning besides the drugs is because Wang went 8:20 for 3k at the end of a 10k, this seems suspect no matter who you are and what country you are from.

Can't disallow times just cos some people don't happen to like it. When some people wanted the Chinese womens' 10k WR struck Radcliffe said NO, it's got to stand or else nothing stands !

Edith

Wang Junxia made a comeback to win gold and silver medals in the Olympics, and has passed every drug test given to her at any time.[/quote]

Double standards (again) -- Wang passes a test so she must be clean, radcliffe passes and it *proves* she's a dirty cheat! He can run this crap any way he likes cos he knows it is not technically possible for anyone to prove innocence beyond all doubt.

It's just his opinion and he ain't no arbiter of truth, that is certain.

Edith

Yeah, and it takes real *character* to bad-mouth Radcliffe safe behind your keyboard, don't it?

--Edith

As has been said on this board before as regards Radcliffe and the use of the Hypoxic oxygen tent. In her post Chicago interviews she said that she no longer uses the tent and was somehwat rattled, however, she is still on Hypoxia.com's website stating the long term benefits teh tent has had on her training and performance... This is a worrying standpoint, is ita misunderstanding or is she saying one thing and doing another. If this is the case who is to say she isn't slamming the drug users in public and has other views behind closed doors.

Regarding the tent, the IOC has ststed that it is very concerned about its use, Jaque Rogge the president of the IOC believes it takes training too far and has pledged 10 millin pounds towards research to see exactly what benefits it has. This is research that Radcliffe has publicly criticised, she says the IOC should be pursuing research into EPO testing and suchlike... is this not a case of double standards?

In actual fact the tent has been shown to have significant benefits, inproving red blood cell count by 40%, vastly improving oxygen efficiency and improving performance by as much as 3% ( a huge amount at world level). 'But its just like training at altitude' I hear you say, ITS NOT. At altitude the athlete suffers a period of detraining whilst his body aclimatizes, this does not happen using a tent. Its ben proven also that internitent hypoxia is far more beneficialin terms of EPO response than long periods of altitude. Again this is not possible in a natural enviroment. The Hypoxia tent is also a very very accurate peice of equipment, allowing the athlete to experiment with very fine differences in altitude something which is not possible at altitude without further detraining.

It is also veryu stupid to say that 'anyone who is not doing everything legally possible is not trying hard enough', the IOC considers tents to be a grey area, in the 1970's Blood doping was seen as a grey area, were the athletes who chose not to blood dope in the 70's not trying hard enough? Or wree they a little more moralistic than todays millionaires?

The IOC has been concerned about the tent for less time than they've had EPO testing. i.e., the data are even less conclusive. They had said nothing about tents as recently as only 2 years ago. The moral difference between the tent and injecting drugs is that the tent is using the body's response to an external effort, rather than changing the body's chemistry through addition of chemicals. I would accept an argument for banning tents, etc (beyond any health risks that might be identified) on an economic basis, in that not everyone can afford one, but hell, some countries already have better tracks than others.

As to suspicion of the Chinese, it's not racial - that government has already shown suspect behavior in terms of course measurement, accuracy of timing in internal competitions, and significant use of performance enhancing drugs by government trained runners. I guess the closest analogy would be suspecting the Rosa trained runners if they all started setting major PRs at one time.

I think breathing a combination of man manipulated gases is just about artificial as injesting a drug. People can't seem to differentiate between the lack of Oxygen at Altitude being cause by pressure whilst in the hypoxic tent its created by calculating a mix of various gases to reduce the oxygen content.

waz wrote:

It is also veryu stupid to say that 'anyone who is not doing everything legally possible is not trying hard enough', the IOC considers tents to be a grey area, in the 1970's Blood doping was seen as a grey area, were the athletes who chose not to blood dope in the 70's not trying hard enough? Or wree they a little more moralistic than todays millionaires?

No, it's only extremely naive to claim moral superiority to those who take advantage of every possible aid short of cheating. There is no grey area, something is either banned or it isn't, it's not really hard to figure out what to avoid. Using something in your so-called "grey area" won't result in a disqualification or ban. Just pat yourself on the back with your morals while watching the medals ceremony from the stands, see if that softens the blow.

So even if Jaques Rogge states that 'tents are a grey area' it has no importance. He is morally against the practice. He is probably THE most important person regarding our sport and how it is percieved, after all the OG are the be all and end all of our sport. What I am saying is that blood doping was not illegal in the seventies yet many performances are now looked back on as being tainted, don't tell me you have never heard that Viren, Vatainen and Vienios performances (and a whole load more) are now regarded as tainted, although never proven (although some athletes from Finland have come out and admitted using the practice).

If what you are saying is true Vienio, the Silver Medallist in LA should have kept his medal (infact the only reason they found out he had blood doped was becasue theer were traces of steroid in the blood he had re-injected), thats crazy...