Eddie Hellebuyck "'Yeah,' he says, 'I did it.'"

Along these lines...

The odds of both an "A" and "B" sample being false positives (as claimed by Eddy prior to "coming clean"):

1 in 250,000,000

Take it to the bank. Eddy sure did.

Please avoid posting under my name (even though you add the ? following it) as it could lead to confusion.

You claim that you think Eddie is still doping now! That is ridiculous! Trust me, Eddie has learnt his lesson, and what benefit would doping do now? Even though he is pushing 50, Eddie is hardwired to run fast, and can run in the 31 minutes range for 10km right now, on a regular flat course. That is not far from the top in his age group on a world level, and yet he is not training with anywhere near the same intensity as compared with the past. Fortunately his light build and good biomechanics have kept him injury free for most of his career. But Eddie has such talent, that he could run 32 minutes for 10km in his late 40s on minimal training of around 3 days a week, long after his hero - Karel Lismont (the double Olympic marathon medallist from Borgloon, Belgium) stopped running.

Lismont was another interesting case, with his unique (at the time) method of running 3 times 10km per day. But forgive the digression.

Eddie is more 'outward directed' these days with his coaching duties and his concern for his son, both on a professional level and for his career beyond running.

Eddie would be stupid to dope to win masters events. It would make no sense. Please credit him with more intelligence than that.

Many of the people who post here appear to hold negative views against Eddie, but the sad thing is that he has hundreds of supporters as well, but most of those people do not go to 'letsrun.com' so we are not aware of those people. He has mostly universal support in his school jurisdiction, according to the article which recently appeared.

Saying that you suspect Eddie is doping now is tantamount to slander, and does more discredit to the poster than to Eddie. The man deserves a modicum of respect.

Ghost in Saudi,

www.kfupm.edu.sa

Why would he be stupid to dope to win master's events? Most races have decent prize money for master's competitors, and the competition is generally pretty sparse. A 31 minute 10k will win all but the most competitive master's races, meaning easy money for Eddy. I doubt he'll ever be tested out of competition again since he's not vying for spots on international teams, so the downside risk is practically nil.

Best of all, there are people like you who think that it's okay to steal all that money, never give it back, and go on your merry way (as long as you apologize and confess 6 years later)!

You keep stating that it would be difficult to prove in a court which performances were aided. This is true, but for some reason you're still viewing it from the perspective of what WE can do to EDDY. Eddy knows exactly which performances were doped. He could choose to make amends. HE DOES NOT DO SO. He wants people like you to hem and haw over his "renewed integrity", without ever having to face the simplest type of justice that there is: fixing what you broke. He stole the money. He still has the money. How are you not understanding this? He may legally be able to get away with it, but that doesn't make it right, anymore than testing negative all those years made it okay to run on EPO!

He should be in jail for theft unless he pays back every single dirty cent. I am glad he confessed, but that doesn't change anything. Words mean nothing when they come from someone who has spent the last 10 years LYING!

ghost, if you know EDDY so well, how is it that you do not seem to grasp the correct spelling of his name?

ghost wrote:

You claim that you think Eddie is still doping now! That is ridiculous! Trust me, Eddie has learnt his lesson, and what benefit would doping do now?

Why in the world would we trust you? You are the biggest apologist for dopers on this whole board.

I have no idea if Eddy is cheating now or not, don't know the man from Adam. I do think it is extremely naive or disingenuous to say that there is no way he could be cheating.

Do you even know Eddy?

hey brojo's, any way to permanently ban ghost? or would you donate to find a good little suicide bomber in saudi to take care of ghost? gawd that guy makes my head hurt.

blissful ignorance wrote:

ghost, if you know EDDY so well, how is it that you do not seem to grasp the correct spelling of his name?

I'm guessing that the closest "ghost" has ever gotten to an international-caliber runner is getting lapped on a track thirty years ago.

ghost wrote:

even Pacquiao, the world best pound for pound fighter has been under suspicion for years as he refuses blood tests before bouts, claiming it would 'make him feel weak.' Altough the other boxer would also have to do the same, does not affect Pacquiao, and the fights take place. He was never caught and will never be caught, because boxing engenders massive revenue from t.v. and commercial products.

So now you think that Pacquiao is doping? Here's what you said last December:

ghost:

"Pacquiao is clean, but he has a problem with being tested close to bouts. This is a physiological and psychological problem, and he is not willing to change that.

Mayweather and company are just jumping on the chance to denigrate Pacquiao.

He has been tested zillions of times, and has always come out clean. He is a natural.

You have to remember that he has gone up through the weight classes, and that is not easy.

Ghost in Saudi,

, apply today."

Here was my response:

"Although I try not to jump to conclusions about alleged dopers, you seem to be on the side of virtually every alleged or adjudged doper. Why is that?

Neither you nor I know whether Pacquiao is clean. I would love to believe he is, but I've had doubts in the past, and this latest dispute inclines me to believe that it's more likely than not that he's a doper. Arum and others seem to have done a pretty good job of obfuscating the debate, suggesting that (1) Pacquiao is simply resisting blood withdrawals within a couple of days before the fight, (2) USADA is in the pocket of Golden Boy, and (3) Mayweather is simply trying to get under Pacquiao's skin or get out of the fight altogether. I don't think that any of those suggestions bear up under scrutiny, although many sports journalists and members of the general public seem to be taking the Pacquiao camp's talking points at face value.

I give Mayweather credit for insisting on serious doping testing, even if it jeopardizes a guaranteed payday of tens of millions of dollars for him."

[quote]ghost wrote:

Est ce que vous etes le vrai Steve Tunstall? Celui qui a couru pour la France au mondial de cross, ou il termine en 14eme position, et premier blanc?

Voudriez vous nous donner des idees sur vos methodes d'entrainement quand vous etiez a votre meilleure niveau.

Merci.

---------------

No, it's me (not Steve)

Pardon!

I salute your athletics knowledge. Everyone has their own opinion

Here is some interesting reading for you

http://tnfnorth.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=4122

http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/1999spring.pdf

read Ovett part

Some things missing:

Eddy was caught sleeping with Khalid Kannouchi's wife.

He was caught taking money for a masters age group award AFTER he was suspended.

Many people in jail like to say "I'm in here for the one time I was caught"

I'm starting to think ghost might be a major PED peddler. Perhaps he's losing his New Mexico-Tucson client base?

I don't think Pacquiao is doping, and one has to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am disappointed, though, that Pacquiao refuses to do the blood tests before fights, which his opponent would also have to do - so they would both, in theory, be slightly weaker.

With regard to Eddie: It seems like there is a collective, irrational, hysteria, surrounding the whole issue here, and people are getting influenced in thinking the guy is a villain.

What more does he have to do to make amends? One feels reasonably certain, that with his integrity, Eddie would pay back some of the winnings he earned, if it became clearly established when his doping advantage had benefits on the races he ran, but that will be difficult to do.

Running masters races would really not be that lucrative for a guy like Eddie. Anyway, the savvy business person that Eddie is - he does not need those extra earnings. He loves to run and race because it is natural to him, and he will continue to do so, paid or not. And no - he does not need to dope to run 32 minutes......he could do that with his eyes closed, and that kind of time, would win most races, masters or not, in the Tucson area.

Ghost in Saudi,

www.kfupm.edu.sa

reader wrote:

Querfeldein wrote:

If, on the other hand, thereÄs any hope

Q, how on earth does one inadvertently type a capitalized "a" with an umlaut? Strangest typo ever.

By using a German keyboard, where the äÄ key sits right next to the #' key (you have to press shift-# to type a '). Querfeldein is German for cross country, by the way.

Good post by the way.

Thanks

Fascinating stuff about Jon Richards, John Downes, and other British/Irish legends in those days (70s and 80s). In those days the standards in the UK were so high, with so many sub 28 minutes track 10,000 guys. That has all changed now, with the long distance ranking times being much more modest.

However, interesting to note, that the middle distance times in the UK still appear to be good (800/1500 rankings), which leads one to think that training for middle distances is less onerous than distance, but this is counter intuitive, as training for distance running is, in many ways, 'easier' than middle distance, with less focus on painful track sessions. When Geb moved to the marathon, he said the training became much easier and more enjoyable, with nowhere near the level of pain he experienced when he focused on track sessions.

Could you post the link and entry to the website in the UK which has all those good recollections.

Ghost in Saudi,

www.kfupm.edu.sa

People ask me why Britain was so good in those days? It was before the age of mass electronic use and sedentary ways. Also, you did not have the collective hysteria, at the time, about being scared to let your kids 'play outside' lest they be abducted (ridiculous, because stats show that most 'abductors' are more likely to be relatives or 'friends' of the family). Many athletes came from a background of football, when younger, and football is very effective transfer sport to running....it is interval training in disguise! Youngsters in the UK and Ireland grew up (in the 50s, 60s, 70s) grew up spending hours every day playing outside....something akin to the Kenyans running to and from school.....so you could develop a base that way. Look at Mottram and his brothers who all dabbled in different sports when young.....tremendous base for Craig...who played soccer, basketball and swimming in age group competitions.

Also, at the time, there was emulation. My club, for instance (Hercules Wimbledon) had several international runners. People like Dave Clarke (3.39/7.50/13.22/27.56, 2.13), Bob Holt (3.51/7.59/13.48/28.39/2.16) and many more in the club who were around 29 - 30 minutes for 10,000 and who could all race 10 miles road, week in week out in under 49 minutes. The clubs were more 'elitist' in the UK at that time, and what is wrong with that, as it is merely the pursuit of excellence.

Now, every Tom, Dick and Jane wants to run a marathon in the UK, and they are hailed in the workplace as 'wonderful athletes' even if they complete the course in 3 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours or slower! It has become ridiculous. Now, nothing wrong with jogging a marathon, but to be lauded for poor quality performances is bizarre and misguided. These people are not athletes....and telling people they are 'wonderful athletes' just for putting one foot in front of the other sends the message that poor quality is laudable.

I remember in Hercules, if you could not at least run the marathon in sub 2.30, you were not even considered a runner. Anything slower than 5.30 or 5.40 mile pace for the marathon was considered 'jogging' and/or recreational running. You would get no respect in the clubhouse (Lauriston cottage). Now if you run 3 hours or less, people are in awe! it makes no sense. Let's get real.

So we all tried to emulate Clarke, Holt and company and logged many miles following them on Wimbledon Common and Richmond Park.

Also, we should note that all our top class runners in the UK at the time (all the sub. 28 minute men for 10,000) had full time jobs - Black, Simmons (College Lecturer and Technician at Luton College), Ford (Tax man in Central London), Clarke (Geography and P.E. teacher), Foster (Secondary school teacher), and the list goes on.

They worked 8 hour days, and trained in the morning or lunch time as well as evening. Holt - only trained once a day and only ran around 60 miles a week.

We had guys like Barratt and Roberts who were 30 minutes 10,000 men, who only ran around 35 to 50 miles a week. But many of the runs were progressive, 'eyeballs out' runs on parkland or roads. We were tough then.

Now the culture has changed, and running is not a viable sport for most youngsters. There are plenty of fun 'joggers' around completing marathons. But distance times have fallen off.

I used to run 52 - 53 minutes in 10 mile road races in the UK in the 70s and 80s but would usually place around 30th to 50th, such was the depth at the time. Now with my times, I would win many 10 milers in the UK. When I ran 1.50.49 in the Finchley '20' I placed back in the 40s, whereas that time would have won the race this year......

The point of all this is that people still have the same potential, but it is a matter of lifestyle and lack of emulation goals which mean that standards in distance running have fallen drastically in the UK over the past two decades.

Ghost in Saudi,

www.kfupm.edu.sa

, apply today

Ghost:

I just found the previous posts by pure chance looking for something else

Try he, but the one I put up was an old post:

http://tnfnorth.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general

Another treat middle distance runner Matt Yates (1:45 800m). He kindly responded to my requests for his training:

http://www.eightlane.com/forum.php?req=thread&id=2777&nocount=1&page=8

The main reason in my opinion for the lack of performances of longer distance is that you need to go to altitude for long periods of time to achieve this. On the middle distance it is beneficial but you can get away wwith doing less

Of course the guys in the 60's, 70's did not do much at altitude but the motivation is not there nowadays to achieve 27.30-28 because you will still struggle to make a living

Take Mo Farah, people think oh he's an African moved to uk its just genetic. But he has spent extensive time training at altitude (he spent years doing this and it took a long time to get to that sub 13) and even in the UK he trains with Kenyans. Incidently a few years back doing hill reps in my local park. Some kids joined in and were racing me, on the last one one a new one went for it and edged me on the line. Turned out it was Mo Farah's cousin!

If you took the top 50 distance runners in the uk and moved them to East African training camps for months on end for several years we could have more sub 27/13 but who is going to fund this and who can afford to sacrifice university

Another tester for you. My old coach was Walter Hesketh - a runner from the 50's. Look him up - I've got a few stories you would be interested in there

Mick Lovin wrote:

Eddy was caught sleeping with Khalid Kannouchi's wife.

Seriously? That's the first I'd heard of this. How do you know this?

whoa hold the phone wrote:

Mick Lovin wrote:

Eddy was caught sleeping with Khalid Kannouchi's wife.

Seriously? That's the first I'd heard of this. How do you know this?

Couldn't be true; I did not read of an honor killing.

Querfeldein wrote:

By using a German keyboard, where the äÄ key sits right next to the #' key (you have to press shift-# to type a ').

Thanks

:) fair enough