Eamonn Coghlan implies that El G was dirty in interview

trollism wrote:

The women were effectively being turned into men by taking them. The men that took them were only being turned into slightly more 'manly' men.

It's a simple way of looking at it, but surely anyone can see that women would 'benefit' more from taking a substance like testosterone.

It's a simple WRONG way of looking at it. Nowhere in that posted research was there indication that men respond any less than women.

To the Limit wrote:

"Popular" is a leading term. It occurred, yes, but it was certainly not popular.

just because you didn't hear all about it doesn't mean it wasn't popular

To summarize, your argument is that white people from the 80s couldn't have doped because "the only thing" was steroids, which are for sprinters. Yes, EPO wasn't around as you point out, but blood doping is simple and works for distance runners, and we know for a fact that cyclists and runners were doing it at that time when Coghlan was running. You must therefore concede that Coghlan is not any more above suspicion than Morceli, Ngeny, El G, etc. I know that probably is difficult for you because they're not European caucasians.

Blood doping was popular enough that it was the official policy of the US cycling team at the 1984 Olympics. The linked article was written by a physician at Stanford who worked with USCF in setting medical standards for cycling in the US. He also mentions his strong suspicion that Lasse Viren used blood doping. If the Olympic 10000 m champ could have been doing it, I'll bet a lot of others were doing it.

So when you provide me with the results of the tests Coghlan took for plasticizers, I'll be happy to agree with you that he is above suspicion.

To the Limit wrote:

Be glad to hear from you a definitive list of all those distance runners that used it!

by my count 10 out of the last 11 olympic 10,000m gold medals been won by blood dopers

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?

You assume the dose-response curve of testosterone is linear, when likely it is a threshold relationship.

just sayin wrote:

by my count 10 out of the last 11 olympic 10,000m gold medals been won by blood dopers

By your MIScount* is what you mean

ventolin^3 wrote:

to run 3'26-flat with a 53.2 finish was astonishing & i must admit that my immediate instinct was that he was doped

There was something in his eyes that day. I swear the federation made sure he was teeming with chemicals for that

ventolin 10th personality wrote:

just sayin wrote:

by my count 10 out of the last 11 olympic 10,000m gold medals been won by blood dopers

By your MIScount* is what you mean

how many you count?

i got 10

pharmcologist wrote:

osi wrote:

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?

You assume the dose-response curve of testosterone is linear, when likely it is a threshold relationship.

No, I didn't assume anything. I only used the information that was given to me. The poster did not say the response curve was a threshold relationship when I asked for an explanation.

Whether it is dose-dependent or threshold dependent is still not an explanation unless you provide actual numbers and show that those numbers have been reached. And there is no such thing as 'likely' here. It either is or it isn't.

afafafa wrote:

Blood doping was popular enough that it was the official policy of the US cycling team at the 1984 Olympics. The linked article was written by a physician at Stanford who worked with USCF in setting medical standards for cycling in the US. He also mentions his strong suspicion that Lasse Viren used blood doping. If the Olympic 10000 m champ could have been doing it, I'll bet a lot of others were doing it.

So when you provide me with the results of the tests Coghlan took for plasticizers, I'll be happy to agree with you that he is above suspicion.

You can't prove that Coghlan didn't dope, just as you can't prove that any modern athlete didn't dope, but I don't see any particular reason to believe that he did, unlike El G or guys like Viren.

Ho Hum wrote:

You can't prove that Coghlan didn't dope, just as you can't prove that any modern athlete didn't dope, but I don't see any particular reason to believe that he did, unlike El G or guys like Viren.

because he's a drug believer

osi wrote:

pharmcologist wrote:

You assume the dose-response curve of testosterone is linear, when likely it is a threshold relationship.

No, I didn't assume anything. I only used the information that was given to me. The poster did not say the response curve was a threshold relationship when I asked for an explanation.

Whether it is dose-dependent or threshold dependent is still not an explanation unless you provide actual numbers and show that those numbers have been reached. And there is no such thing as 'likely' here. It either is or it isn't.

Funny that it seems to make sense to everyone except you.

xenophobe wrote:

Coughlan doped just as Cathal Lombard did. In fact all of the Irish guys back to 1956 (Milers) were dopers. Just becuase they didn't get caught, doesn't mean they didn't dope. That is why they all ran better indoors than out (no testing in the US - they said they tested but really they didn't). This paved the way for the doping protocols for the 1984 Olympics (at which the cyclists blood-doped as we all know, but that was only the tip of the iceberg).

All of the athletes from Europe and elsewhere have been blood-doping since the early 1970's. It's an even playing field - certainly guys like Shorter were as well. That is the Florida connection and the Oregon one as well. Since it wasn't illegal until later, why does it matter?

And Elvis is still alive!

Paul McCartney died in 1966!

9/11 was an inside job!

data analyst wrote:

Funny that it seems to make sense to everyone except you.

Everyone = 2 or 3 people on an internet forum? I wouldn't call that everyone. The medical community seems to agree with me not you guys, so what are you talking about?

osi wrote:

pharmcologist wrote:

You assume the dose-response curve of testosterone is linear, when likely it is a threshold relationship.

No, I didn't assume anything. I only used the information that was given to me. The poster did not say the response curve was a threshold relationship when I asked for an explanation.

Whether it is dose-dependent or threshold dependent is still not an explanation unless you provide actual numbers and show that those numbers have been reached. And there is no such thing as 'likely' here. It either is or it isn't.

just shut off your brain and use your eyes. have you seen some of the women in track and field in the sprints/hurdles/throws especially in the 80's and especially the eastern europeans and those of african decent?

They get bigger quads and lats than men who go to the gym their whole lives.

a very good reason wrote:

Ho Hum wrote:

You can't prove that Coghlan didn't dope, just as you can't prove that any modern athlete didn't dope, but I don't see any particular reason to believe that he did, unlike El G or guys like Viren.

because he's a drug believer

So you're saying that drugs don't work?

It's ignorant to think that testosterone is only for sprinters. I thought that everyone knew that testosterone boosts erythropoiesis. This was even tested on my latest medical board exams...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266950/

EPO is just more direct, but the absence of EPO during the 70s and 80s in no way reduces suspicion of distance runners using PEDs.

osi wrote:

data analyst wrote:

Funny that it seems to make sense to everyone except you.

Everyone = 2 or 3 people on an internet forum? I wouldn't call that everyone. The medical community seems to agree with me not you guys, so what are you talking about?

Idiot.

Ever heard of diminishing returns? A woman could double her testosteron levels with the same amount that would just add a few tenths of a percent to a man.

Most Interesting Coach ITW wrote:

As time goes on, I actually think more and more that El G either was or could have run those times clean.

He was extremely light, went through a system where athletics was a lifestyle beyond what it is in the US and ultimately SOMEONE has to be the fastest. Being a North African, he comes from a land where inhabitants have the perfect genetic makeup for middle distance running.

Why couldn't the best grown man from North Africa, who is 15 pounds lighter at the same height, run 10 seconds faster than the best European-descent US HS runner ever did?

Whether El G was clean or not does not matter to me, that it's possible to do clean is what is important. I believe it's possible.

He was not born at altitude

Avoided 800m

History of EPO abuse in Morocco

Lacked basic speed to run 3:26 without EPO