1999 1500m WC: A Case Against El G? Please give opinions

go rupp wrote:

the IOC had their chance last year-of course they reluctantly retested only 100 samples and caught a few eastern european randommers

Go Rupp,

Do you know where I can find a list of who they tested? I've been trying to figure this out. WADA and IAAF told me I need to contact the IOC but was wondering if you knew.

there certainly are many who suspicious of El G and others from that era and it seems odd to me if the only events they re-tested were non-popular throwing events.

Look at his face with 100m to go, he is grimacing so bad they should paint him purple and let him work for Mcdonalds. Using the last 20 meters to determine effort, when he already has the race in the bag, is not a good indication.

J.R. wrote:

Drug believers = Dumb.

This, the only reason drugs give anyone an advantage in a sport is because they're made illegal.

crwnikeboy wrote:

El G never had a bad race? Atlanta 1996 Olympics.

I would say that was his one bad race.

And it wasn't for lack of fitness but tactics.

I never saw El G run a race where he just didn't have it that day and fell back.

Here are his "bad" races:

Silver in 1995

Falling in 1996

Silver in 2000

2nd to Lagat in 2004 Zurich in 3:27.64

And he did a ton of races so you can't say he was picking his moments for only when he felt good.

He lost when someone else ran better, not when he ran bad.

He only lost to Morceli (WR holder), Ngeny (2nd fastest miler ever) and Lagat (second fastest 1500 ever).

Crazy consitancy

Agree.

I thought at the time he (and several others) were on something and with time my opinion has only become more steadfast.

He just ran too many super fast races, with too little recovery between them, and just made them look too easy.

That 99 final was probably the most doped up 1500 field in history. The level of performance was quite a bit higher than the Olympic final the following year. Perhaps EL G and others heard about the EPO test there and decided to not take too many chances.

El G also had a great advantage in that he often had teammates rabbit him. Without those rabbits he wouldn't have been nearly so consistent.

toro wrote:

I would say that was his one bad race.

And it wasn't for lack of fitness but tactics.

I never saw El G run a race where he just didn't have it that day and fell back.

Here are his "bad" races:

Silver in 1995

Falling in 1996

Silver in 2000

2nd to Lagat in 2004 Zurich in 3:27.64

And he did a ton of races so you can't say he was picking his moments for only when he felt good.

He lost when someone else ran better, not when he ran bad.

He only lost to Morceli (WR holder), Ngeny (2nd fastest miler ever) and Lagat (second fastest 1500 ever).

Crazy consitancy

1500m

1 Ramzi Rashid BRN 3:30.25

2 Lagat Bernard KEN 3:30.81

3 Baala Mehdi FRA 3:31.25

4 Songok Isaac Kiprono KEN 3:31.94

5 Silva Rui POR 3:32.13

6 Kipchirchir Alex KEN 3:32.35

7 East Michael GBR 3:32.37

8 El Guerrouj Hicham MAR 3:32.64

9 Willis Nicholas NZL 3:32.68

10 Yemmouni Mounir FRA 3:32.97

11 Liefers Gert-Jan NED 3:33.87

12 Sullivan Kevin CAN 3:34.43

13 Higuero Juan Carlos ESP 3:34.48

14 Shabunin Vyacheslav RUS 3:35.50

15 Selmouni Anis MAR 3:37.36

16 Korir Paul KEN 3:37.69

Hatungimana Arthémon BDI DNF

Kipkurui Benjamin KEN DNF

Lelei David KEN DNF

Obrist Christian ITA DNF

The time was quite fast though.

The Dingo wrote:

.... there is absolutely NO strain on his face whatsoever.

Please closely examine El G's face with 100m to go, at 4:17-4:18 in the video. And tell us again how unstrained El G looks. Seriously though, tell us again so I can laugh at you more.

Sorry I missed that post earlier with El G in 8th place.

Imagine 3:32.64 being the worse race of your professional career.

codger wrote:

El G. never had a bad race.......not one.

8th place isn't a bad race for him?

EPO Cheats OUt wrote:

Link a specific post or stop wasting our time.

Example #1: The college freshman.

When I transferred to an NCAA DI school, there was another transfer student who was a sophomore. He was transferring from another, smaller, NCAA DI school.He was an excellent runner and the state cross country champion in a large, competitive state with only one division. During his freshman year at his previous school, he contracted mono near the end of indoor season and missed a large block of training during the late winter and early spring. His previous coach thought the team was in the running to win a conference title, so he put my teammates on steroids to help get them back in time for the conference meet. They worked, of course, and he won the conference title despite missing a large block of training at a crucial time. He described the effect of the steroids with almost hushed reverence about how sudden and dramatic the impact was. He went off to steroids after the conference meet, never used them again and transferred.

The moral of this parable is that a college coach in a non-revenue sport was motivated to put a college freshman with mono on steroids to get him to perform at the conference meet. If the motivation is sufficient to cheat for a college freshmen in a nonrevenue sport to win the conference title in a mid-major conference, one can only imagine how great the motivation to cheat is for athlete on the verge of making a national team, moving from the minor leagues to the major leagues, setting a record, getting a contract, getting a medal or winning a real championship.

Example #2: The highest placing non-American

In 1987, a good friend of mine, himself a former national-class runner who raced "B" meets in Europe, was coaching at a JUCO. Also at this JUCO was a coach from the former Soviet Union. My friend called me one night in 1987 to tell me that the Soviet coach told him that there had been a rampant rumor in Europe before he left that, due to public perceptions about drug use in sport, an edict had been sent out by a governing body that the "highest-placing non-American in the 100 meters" was to fail his drug test at the upcoming Olympics in Seoul to send a signal.

We laughed about it at the time and said, "well, we'll find out in about a year if it's true."

At the 1988 Olympics, Ben Johnson, "the highest-placing non-American in the 100 meters" failed his drug test.

The moral of this parable is an illustration of the amount of complicity which exists with coaches, governing bodies, sponsors and the like. The US is a major part of the television market for the Olympics so throwing an American under the bus would be bad publicity and bad for business. However, growing public suspicion over the use of drugs in sports demanded that a major figure be thrown under the bus to create the false impression that testing actually "works" thereby restoring some public confidence and keeping them watching, which in turn keeps the advertising rates up.

Example #3: The drug test results reveal, uh, an "injury", yeah, that's it, an injury!

In the 1990s, a popular and well-known US athlete just missed making a national team by one place. The winner of that selection race was tearing up the track and setting records all over the place. The individual who missed making the team by one place went to Europe, ran a few PR's then returned home during the break in competition while the international championship was conducted.

Only a couple of days before the international championship was to begin, the athlete who just missed making the team by one place got an urgent call from our governing body.

"We need you on a plane to [name of city were championship is being conducted] immediately. [Name of winner of the selection race] isn't going to be able to compete and we need you to take their place." Surprised and delighted at being able to compete, the athletes who missed making the team by one place finally asked why the winner wasn't going to be able to compete. The response by the governing body official was as direct and blunt as can be: "He/she can't compete because they tested positive for [name of a major PED] at the selection race and we don't want to take a chance on them testing positive during the [name of international championships]. We just got the B sample back confirming it."

Of course, this positive test result never saw the light of day.

The moral of this parable is that even when athletes do test positive, governing bodies are not above covering up those results in order to protect the image of the sport and its stars.

The second moral of this parable is that when athletes suddenly perform poorly or withdraw from major championships, the reasons given may, or may not, be true. The increased frequency and sophistication of testing at events like the WCs and Olympics just as often result in withdraws or poor performances (because the athlete is off the substance earlier to avoid detection) as do injuries or inability to handle the pressure on such a large stage.

I competed in track and cross-country for two different universities, one NAIA and the other NCAA DI in a BCS conference. I had a law school classmate who after graduation went to work for the NCAA as an investigator. Later he worked directly for the NFL, and then went to work for two NFL franchises. Through a combination of both my sport and my profession, I have been very fortunate to get to know a good number of world-class and professional athletes in a variety of different sports. Because of my profession, I am regularly provided a large amount of information because those giving it to me know that it is privileged and cannot be divulged. So, in this summary don't expect many details or names because you won't get any. Rather, I will distill and explain more generally my understanding of the subject into a few main principles. In a separate post, I will provide a few selected examples not as anecdotal evidence but rather as examples or illustrations of the concept.

Here goes:

Principle #1: The cheaters are (almost) always ahead of the testers.

The hardest thing for people to understand is that negative test results truly don't mean a thing. They really don't. Whether or not an athlete has never tested positive is absolutely, completely and totally irrelevant. Marion Jones passed 162 drug tests during a period of time when she was using a designer steroid, EPO and HGH. I have seen guys take the medicine chest one day and test clean the next. The multiple reasons for this (use of undetectable substances, masking agents, cycling the drug use, pre-testing and monitoring done by sponsors or even governing bodies to assist with avoiding detection, etc.) are many and beyond the scope of this simple post.

Just like in the BALCO scandal, there are labs who create undetectable drugs for the sole purpose of evading testing. Remember, in BALCO the only way the designer steroid that Regina Jacobs and many others were using was discovered was because a syringe containing a tiny amount of the drug was provided to WADA. From there, they created a test and went back and tested previously tested samples that had been frozen and preserved. Had it not been for Trevor Graham providing that syringe, we still wouldn't know about that designer steroid. You can rest assured that there are other substances out there that were created for exactly the same purpose that we still don't know exist, and may never know exist.

The key point to understand here is that when someone tests positive, that is the exception not the rule. The rule is that it is normal and ordinary for drug cheats to test negative. A positive test usually results from either absolute stupidity or just sheer bad luck. It is critical that you understand this. As the saying goes, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Principle #2: Doped up athletes are good for business.

Doped up athletes run faster, jump higher, set records, perform more consistently, defy the aging process and are generally more exciting to watch. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if doped up athletes are more exciting to watch and attract more fans, TV viewers, and revenue, then those who profit from that increased revenue are more than willing to, at the very least, turn a blind eye to doping but are far more likely to even participate in, and possibly even encourage, the doping and avoiding detection. This includes everyone from the athletes themselves to the governing bodies to sponsors to the media to agents to sponsors and even teammates and spouses.

The motives to dope are many and large. Agents work on a commission, so a bigger contract for the athlete means a bigger commission for the agent. One way to get a bigger contract is to perform better and one of the most certain ways to perform better is to dope. Pro teams make money by selling tickets and through TV contracts. If you want to sell more tickets and attract more eyeballs to more TV sets, then doped athletes will unquestionably help your bottom line. I could go on and on.

It is also true of governing bodies. As I have posted before, our own governing body performed pre-testing prior to the 1984 Olympic Trials and Olympics in order to aid our own athletes and avoiding detection:

. Even though I've posted before, it's worth repeating here:

It's not just the East Germans and Moroccans whose governing bodies are more than happy to help their drug athletes avoid detection.

The bottom line is that there is a tremendous support system in place that encourages, fosters and promotes athletes doping. Athletes ascending the performance ladder are surrounded by coaches, teammates, spouses, agents, sponsors, teams, and governing bodies who all benefit from their doping. And, of course, the athletes themselves benefit.

Principle #3: You should never be surprised by who tests positive.

The most surprising thing about a positive test is that someone actually slipped up and got caught. However, as to who that someone is there should be no surprise. The reason for that is that the incidence of drug use is so high and the risk of detection is so low. The high probability of any one athlete out of a population of athletes with a very high incidence of drug use simply means that you cannot be surprised when someone turns out to be a drug cheat. Negative tests mean nothing, and activism against drug use means nothing. That said, while no one can be above suspicion because the incidence of drug use is so high, there are certainly those who are suspected more than others (see Principle #5 below).

The very best quote I've ever seen regarding this point was by KevinM when he said in reference to Floyd Landis that "When the Amish kid tests positive, no one can be above suspicion."

Principle #4: Cheaters are extremely skilled liars

There are a lot of reasons for this. Many truly do not believe they're doing anything wrong because "everybody does it" and they are surrounded by people supporting and protecting them in their drug use. It's a little bit of a chicken and egg question; do they only lie after beginning to cheat or is it because they are liars that they cheat? I've never fully answer that one to my satisfaction. All I know for sure is the drug cheats are some of the most magnificently skilled liars I've ever encountered.

Principle #5: I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

When you've had a peek inside that world, he learn that otherwise very subtle or innocuous things can mean a great deal. There often isn't any one telltale sign of cheating, although there can be (like Lagat's recent braces, acquired in his late 30s despite previously having previously flawless teeth; a prominent sign of HGH use). It's usually a combination of a variety of factors, including competition patterns, performances, the company they keep, and a lot of other things. It's usually not one thing, but rather an overall picture that emerges based on a myriad of factors. You cannot simplistically look at performances and know who doped and who doesn't. Performances are just one of many factors that paint picture.

Principle #6: Logic means nothing , and everything.

This is the part that most people can't get past. They apply logic to PEDs ("it doesn't make sense that they would use PEDs because . . .") PED use doesn't conform to our logic. A lot of human behavior defies logic. If logic governed human behavior, all we'd have to do is point out to an alcoholic that drinking that much is ruining their life and they'd stop. I know this sounds nuts, but logic and what makes "sense" or "adds up" will get you nowhere in understanding the world of PEDs. It ain't about logic. It's a special kind of warped behavior with its own rules and sick rationalizations.

But on the other hand, logic is everything. To the athletes and the enablers with which they are surrounded, it is only logical to use if "everyone's doing it", it helps them make more money, there is very little chance of detection, etc.

In the world of PEDs, you can believe very little of what you see. It's a world that operates on its own sick rationalizations that are foreign to the vast majority of people on the outside looking in at that world. There's always a wizard or two behind the curtain creating an illusion for those looking in so they don't see the reality. In the world of PEDs, what you see is often nothing but a carefully crafted mirage.

Not really so... wrote:

There were so many, many dopers in that final - like Reyes Estevez Lopez. It makes you wonder is El G like Armstrong, just that much better that he could dominate while being clean?

10/10

sure he looks pretty unspent in the replay, which is weird, but the real problem is how lame his kiss blowing thing is. stupid, but also poor sportsmanship. makes me doubt him a little more, just being such a jackass/having that impulse to blow kisses

A few guys in this final asking the same questions about 1997

Gold medal Hicham El Guerrouj (MAR) 3:35.83

Silver medal Fermín Cacho (ESP) 3:36.63

Bronze medal Reyes Estevez (ESP) 3:37.26

4. Noureddine Morceli (ALG) 3:37.37

5. Ali Hakimi (TUN) 3:37.51

6. Mohamed Suleiman (QAT) 3:37.53

7. Graham Hood (CAN) 3:37.55

8. Robert Kiplagat Andersen (DEN) 3:37.66

9. John Mayock (GBR) 3:38.67

10. Rüdiger Stenzel (GER) 3:38.82

11. Laban Rotich (KEN) 3:41.27

12. Nadir Bosch (FRA) 3:48.35

Once an Expert wrote:

Not really so... wrote:

There were so many, many dopers in that final - like Reyes Estevez Lopez. It makes you wonder is El G like Armstrong, just that much better that he could dominate while being clean?

10/10

Is the El G case even worth discussing? Even his Rabbit in that race was later busted for EPO.

There are even rumors that El G's training mates, 6 guys, were all on EPO just to rabbit and hang on with Hicham during training.

El. G, Estevez, Cacho, Lagat, Ngeny, Hesko, Rui Silva, Morceli, Ramzi, the Rabbit.....

There was more than cereals

someone had to do it,Those are great stories. Why are you afraid to name names?It's been 20 + years. If you are interested in letting the truth come out, please email me at robertjohnson@letsrun.com

he was linking off a dyestat thread, not actually writing that. i believe "zatopek" was the original poster of that on the dyestat forum. the link is earlier in this thread and you'll see that post on the first 2 pages.