Once an Expert wrote:
"of course, they're testing more now. You can read between the lines on that."
Coghlan just outed himself as a drug believer who used drugs.
Once an Expert wrote:
"of course, they're testing more now. You can read between the lines on that."
Coghlan just outed himself as a drug believer who used drugs.
To the Limit wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:Like they were testing when Coghlan set his WR...
All world records set in the 1980's had to have a drug test to be ratified.
ROTFLMAO.
Yeah, those in-competition drug tests did a great job of catching EPO use that was discontinued days before competition.
Lydiard is God wrote:
just sayin wrote:only in your peabrain..
Ventolin, you forgot what handle you were using. 'Just sayin' doesn't use such intemperate language does he?
Wow. Ventolin actually busted arguing with himself.
rupp-certified logic wrote:
To the Limit wrote:All world records set in the 1980's had to have a drug test to be ratified.
ROTFLMAO.
Yeah, those in-competition drug tests did a great job of catching EPO use that was discontinued days before competition.
Do yourself a favor and look up the timeline of EPO's development. Hint: Eamonn Coghlan probably didn't develop EPO years before actual scientists.
Mrr82 wrote:
To the Limit wrote:All world records set in the 1980's had to have a drug test to be ratified.
Drug tests for what? If Coghlan was tested it was 100 times more of a joke than today's. You have any idea what they tested for 30 years ago?
It's always tough to believe your heroes cheated. But those without that bias would not think twice before doubting any/all of the late 70/80's milers.
Do some research. Back in 1980 they didn't have half the PEDS available to athletes now. No EPO, no HGH (first known use as a doping agent was 1982). The only thing they had of any note was steroids, which was primarily for sprints and power events. All medalists at major Champs and any world record performances had to be ratified with a steroid test.
In retrospect those guilty of steroid use were the communist nations, especially their women, whose performances would improve greater % wise.
We have Italians and some Finns blood doping & I would imagine quite a few sprinters were (when have they not?).
Other than the above I would bet my mortgage that the milers of the 70's and 80's were a darn sight cleaner than any of the generations that have followed.
To the Limit wrote:
In retrospect those guilty of steroid use were the communist nations, especially their women, whose performances would improve greater % wise.
Where is the proof that steroids help women more than men?
rupp-certified logic wrote:
To the Limit wrote:All world records set in the 1980's had to have a drug test to be ratified.
ROTFLMAO.
Yeah, those in-competition drug tests did a great job of catching EPO use that was discontinued days before competition.
LOL.
You show your ignorance. Firstly. they didn't have EPO in Coghlan's days. Ergo, and secondly, they therefore had no test for EPO. The test I talk of was for steroids. 1980 - NO EPO, NO HGH.
It is a fact that they had to drug (i.e steroids) test before ratifying any world record.
And where did I say that such testing was 100% successful?
It is so amazing that 90% of people who post on drug threads have no clue when EPO came out or when the test was developed.
Just goes to show you how ignorant this forum is on doping in our sport.
osi wrote:
To the Limit wrote:In retrospect those guilty of steroid use were the communist nations, especially their women, whose performances would improve greater % wise.
Where is the proof that steroids help women more than men?
Because steroids generally raise the levels of testosterone in the body, something which women have less of.
There might dopers in the future who will be using drugs that haven't yet been developed.
In the 70s and 80s blood doping was popular.
To the Limit wrote:
Because steroids generally raise the levels of testosterone in the body, something which women have less of.
That explanation makes no sense. Giving it to men would improve their testosterone too so the gap would remain constant. It doesnt matter who had more or less to begin with. Do you have a better explanation?
Alala wrote:
In the 70s and 80s blood doping was popular.
http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/dopes.htm
"Popular" is a leading term. It occurred, yes, but it was certainly not popular. You also fail to acknowledge that your link is almost totally about cycling. Historically, this sport has always been one of the leaders in "drug use", with athletics always several years behind.
As far as I'm aware there are a handful of known cases of autologous blood doping in track. .... Vainio in 84 Olympics, and a couple of the Italians from that period have either admitted to it or been called out by their coaches. Can't recall which ones, Cova & Antibo I think?
Be glad to hear from you a definitive list of all those distance runners that used it!
mumbo jumbo on the loose wrote:
Once an Expert wrote:"of course, they're testing more now. You can read between the lines on that."
Coghlan just outed himself as a drug believer who used drugs.
+
osi wrote:
To the Limit wrote:Because steroids generally raise the levels of testosterone in the body, something which women have less of.
That explanation makes no sense. Giving it to men would improve their testosterone too so the gap would remain constant. It doesnt matter who had more or less to begin with. Do you have a better explanation?
No, it makes perfect sense actually. You just don't understand it.
data analyst wrote:
No, it makes perfect sense actually. You just don't understand it.
Thanks dummy. I made it clear that I don't understand and that's why I was asking. Why don't you try being useful and actually try to explain it. His explanation actually doesn't make any sense, because testosterone affects men too. He has provided no logic for why the women would be affected more than men.
osi wrote:
To the Limit wrote:Because steroids generally raise the levels of testosterone in the body, something which women have less of.
That explanation makes no sense. Giving it to men would improve their testosterone too so the gap would remain constant. It doesnt matter who had more or less to begin with. Do you have a better explanation?
Makes plenty sense to me and pretty much the entire medical community.
"However, supplements of the weaker androgens DHEA or androstenedione may be of little or no benefit to healthy young men who wish to improve their strength and sporting performance if, as would be expected, any anabolic effect is primarily mitigated through peripheral conversion to testosterone. Ingestion of DHEA can result in an increase in circulating DHEA and androstenedione, but it is not resolved as to whether there is an increase in plasma testosterone, see for example Brown et al. (1999). This is not surprising because in the adult men the overall peripheral contribution of these precursor steroids to circulating testosterone is small. Any contribution from exogenous DHEA or androstenedione will be largely moderated by the large amount of testosterone contributed by the testis. In women, an increase in performance may be possible following ingestion of these supplements, as circulating testosterone would be expected to increase. The plasma concentration of endogenous testosterone is approximately 1/10th that found in men and the relative proportion arising from peripheral conversion of weaker androgens is much greater. Even though only 12–14% of androstenedione is converted peripherally to testosterone (Horton and Tait, 1966; Bardin and Lipsett, 1967), this amount accounts for about half the circulating testosterone in the women. As the peripheral contribution to blood testosterone is far greater in the young adult women than the men, ingestion of modest amounts of androstenedione, DHEA or androstenediol (the natural steroid or the Δ4 analogue) is likely to significantly raise circulating testosterone. There are modest-to-large increases in circulating testosterone following androstenedione administration to women."
"It is accepted that the administration of anabolic steroids to healthy women and children has an anabolic effect, and that with the virilizing effects, there is a gain in muscle mass and strength. However, for many years, it was difficult to prove conclusively that the administration of these steroids had a myotrophic effect in healthy young sportsmen, as discussed by Ryan (1976) (see the section ‘Anabolic steroids as performance enhancers in sport'). Around that period, an interesting but speculative biochemical explanation for this difference in response between the sexes was that due to the exposure to testosterone during puberty in men, there is a downregulation of receptors (decrease in responsiveness of receptors often followed by decrease in numbers) in the skeletal muscle and that the androgen receptor population is then saturated with testosterone in the adult, so that no further response can be induced by pharmacological doses of androgens."
"The action of anabolic steroid in increasing skeletal muscle mass and strength in women is not questioned. Male and female athletes from the German Democratic Republic (GDR), from about 1972 onwards did exceptionally well in international events, being consistently in the top ranking of medal winners. Sporting performance among their female athletes, particularly in strength-dependent events, was spectacular. Following the reunification of Germany in 1990, ground-breaking documental research was made by the former athlete, Mrs Brigitte Berendonk, and her husband Professor Werner Franke, who had succeeded in acquiring a number of highly classified scientific reports that had not been destroyed. These documents deal with the systematic state-sponsored programme of doping of athletes and included scientific reports, doctoral theses and a hand-written protocol book giving the times and dosage of administration of anabolic steroids to athletes. Several thousand athletes were treated with anabolic steroids every year, including adolescents of each sex. Particular emphasis was placed on the administration of anabolic steroids to women and adolescent girls, despite the virilizing effects, because of the rapid gains in sporting performance. It is important to note that the GDR scientists established (to themselves) that ‘androgenic initiation' has permanent effects in girls and women, where increases in strength and performance do not return to pretreatment values after the drug is withdrawn."
All extracts from-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2439524/Hope you can follow that.
So Coghlan admits he had injury issues, didn't run very high mileage for long periods at a time and considers current runners soft because they don't drink alcohol after races.
I'm not sure Eamonn's times sound any more believable with those conditions compared to El G, Ngeny or Lagat back when they were clicking off routine sub 3:30s.
As for the last part of his interview where he says to read between the lines, it's quite ambiguous actually.
No, your initial explanation did not make any sense and would hot make an sense to 'pretty much the entire medical community' because it was only a couple of sentences with no backup.
Now that you've actually shown some research and science, you have actually provided an explanation that has the potential to make sense.
But your statement is wrong. At least according to the information you just provided.
The 1st paragraph says that conversion of precursors to testosterone is limited more in men than in women. This does not mean that direct testorone supplementation is limited too.
The 2nd paragraph clearly says that the idea of a greater effect in women is only speculative.
The 3rd paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Also, the 1st paragraph says that it's only 'likely' that women would get a greater benefit. Only one chemical has been shown to work like that it says.