london Olympic champion Turkish Cakir Alptekin dopes positive

luv2run wrote:

mako wrote:

Just because they are all from eastern Europe, you idiot? I can't speak for these Russian and Belorussian women because I know nothing about their trainig but Klocová is clean, I know the enviroment where she trains. And I can assure you that (former) Czechoslovakia is culturally a very different country than Russia or Belorussia and the training system is completely different. (for me, the American runners are suspicious)

So Russians are dirty and Americans are dirty, but Czechs are clean? I am guessing no Czech has ever tested positive in any sport?

Except for Kostetskaya ... she's hot!

Is Uceny eligible to win the gold?

Good Job America! wrote:

Without sarcasm I am happy America has the most Drug convictions. This means we are at least catching some of the dopers. It is creating a situation where you feel like you can get caught if you do it and its not worth it. With all of the Kenyans getting caught Americans are going to become a lot more competitive once everything gets clean.

We need more drug testing nation wide!

100% support out of competition testing and lots of it!!

It would be interesting to see a geographic and event breakdown of the USA positives.

Galen Rupp Number on Fan wrote:

Someone like Lagat, competing for two countries at the Olympics, not so much.

+10. Also he tested positive for EPO so I dislike him even more for his doping.

I think the real deal is you are a racist.

Lagat was innocent, as the B sample proved and served its purpose.

AND, Lagat is a fantastic guy.

someone had to do it wrote:

We know the 2 Turks in that race were juiced

The Russian was also juiced, been busted before, no shock there

what are the chances Rowbury gets a silver? gold?

Leo will likely be upgraded too, even 2008 1500m olympic champ Asbel Kiprop thinks makloufi is dirty, see comment section -

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=484009548301726&set=a.347961335239882.70487.347950848574264&type=1

We don't know this. "We," suspect this. We let the system take it process and HOPEFULLY "We" write the IAAF and support them in their efforts and push/encourage them to do even more.

Agreed, this (and Kiprop's peanut gallery quip) are awesome.

ban em for life wrote:

British Announcer called it the second it happened, very subtly.

Yes, noticed that. Great call by him.

the only clean ones were rowberry and that girl who fell.

'Lagat was innocent, as the B sample proved and served its purpose.'

As it did for Marion Jones

If Alptekin were to lose her Gold medal than would move 4th placed Tatyana Tomashova into Bronze. Tomashova received a 2 yr doping ban in 2008.

Time to increase the 2 year doping ban!

London coach wrote:

Loe keep dreaming for the Gold, never gonna happen , makhloufi is clean and will keep his gold. That's for sure

Yup.

Manzano's silver is MUCH more suspicious than Makh-Daddy's gold.

Somebody mentioned earlier in the trend how deflating it was watching the women's 1500m at the Olympics. I couldn't agree more. But for me, it wasn't that I suspected some of the athletes to be on drugs, that it all looked a bit unbelieveable, or that some of the athletes wouldn't have looked out of place in the men's race. For me, it was the fact that some of them had already served drug bans and in my eyes shouldn't have even been there. Two years for a doping offence is an absolute joke - in most cases that's just one full season (the same as you're likely to miss with surgery, birth of a child, glandular fever.....). By my reckoning that's about the 6th athlete in the last 12 months to have been caught for the second time. Wouldn't a life ban be so much easier first time around? People argue that people diserve a second chance - but what about the first chance that they deny other athletes? In other professions you wouldn't get off so lightly for professional misconduct (and doping is much worse). Why do we care more about dopers than we do the innocent who never dope and never get to shine. We need to take a stand! Anything less than a life ban is makes a mockery of our sport.

I believe one obstacle to first-time lifetime bans may be EU labor laws.

British Announcer called it the second it happened, very subtly.

lol

those pesky foreign dopers

Jeff Wigand wrote:

I believe one obstacle to first-time lifetime bans may be EU labor laws.

I too have heard this and I don't understand it.

The IAAF is a private entity. The IOC is a private entity.

Why wouldn't they be able to ban who they want at their discretion?

It is a sport, not a job. The IOC & IAAF don't have a contract with the athletes to race.

douglas burke wrote:

i guess we can say congratulations to the new womens 1500 olympic gold medalist in the 2012 womens 1500, 20 year old gamze bulut.

Yep, congratulations Gamze for also progressing from a 4:18.23 1500 in July 2011 to the Olympics in August 2012 with a 4:06.69 heat, 4:01.18 semi and 4:10.40 final. Awesome.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'Lagat was innocent, as the B sample proved and served its purpose.'

As it did for Marion Jones

If Alptekin were to lose her Gold medal than would move 4th placed Tatyana Tomashova into Bronze. Tomashova received a 2 yr doping ban in 2008.

Time to increase the 2 year doping ban!

Spoken like the complete ahole you are.

You know Lagat was innocent; you're just hateful of him for some reason you don't care to state.

IAAF announcing they have NOT made a formal positive announcement (yet?).

someone had to do it wrote:

I too have heard this and I don't understand it.

The IAAF is a private entity. The IOC is a private entity.

Why wouldn't they be able to ban who they want at their discretion?

It is a sport, not a job. The IOC & IAAF don't have a contract with the athletes to race.

Those labor laws only apply to the individual countries. IAAF/IOC can make any rule they want, so why don't they? They have all kinds of rules about who can qualify to compete at the Olympics, to the fact that they still allow banned dopers to compete speaks to their priorities.

someone had to do it wrote:

I too have heard this and I don't understand it.

The IAAF is a private entity. The IOC is a private entity.

Why wouldn't they be able to ban who they want at their discretion?

It is a sport, not a job. The IOC & IAAF don't have a contract with the athletes to race.

It's because there is no alternative to IAAF sanctioned meetings, and that a professional track and field athlete, once banned for good by the IAAF, is out of a job.