The biggest doper wrote:
Everyone knows that Radcliffe is dirty, and is simply being protected by politics.
That´s the same argument people use for East African runners. "They are protected by political correctness".
The biggest doper wrote:
Everyone knows that Radcliffe is dirty, and is simply being protected by politics.
That´s the same argument people use for East African runners. "They are protected by political correctness".
I have to comment wrote:
Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:I don't think Lance was a cheat. He was a wealthy man who could afford altitude getaways, tents, and more physio than any other known person. That's all legal.
He was smart and tough and built up to the TdF in a perfect way...a world road race champ, an excellent triathlete who just lacked a maturity & strength.
He had a high pain threshold. The last TdF marathon he rode, finishing a close third with no support from his team.
Despite everything people say about Belgians and Spanish riders, he was the one with the perfect youthful upcoming, temperament, and toughness to be a great cyclist.
Nice one!
There´s one little difference that you are too stupid to remember. Lance was found guilty.
The other other guy! wrote:
Seiko stopwatch wrote:Last time I checked, the stopwatch does not run faster for women athletes. 2h 15 for the marathon is 2h 15 whatever the sex or age of the athlete that runs it.
Uhhh, no- try putting some fat and curves on those 2:02 guys and see how fast they run.
Uhh no. "Fat curves" have no effect on how fast time goes by. Time has gone by at the same rate for any athlete who has ever ran a marathon. 2h15 = 2h15, not something else.
ventolin^3 wrote:
those guys are italians/portuguese or limey fools
Why is this idiot, moron, fool, peabrain not told to moderate his language?
I think we all know (those in the circuit) that Paula was much like Lance in her "scientific advancements", but not in his behavior. He's a pop quiz, ask a guy like Salazar and he won't comment on if Paula was clean. Neither will Jerry.
There´s one little difference that you are too stupid to remember. Lance was found guilty.
Only because of Floyd Landis.
We just need a former teammate of Paula to come forward.
No, it's not ironic. What it is, is that she is strongly opposed to doping. She has always been outspoken and demonstrative about that. You must not know what irony is.
HardLoper wrote:
So, if the rest of the world had this same depth, the world record would be about 2:15:30 - and that's still not accounting for the tailwind in London 2003, which ARRS says was worth even more over a flat course than Boston 2011.
Hard loper, a great analysis.
Can you email what you mean by ARRS and the wind-aided stuff? I don't see how the wind could be a huge deal in London.
London is a records-eligible course. It does start farther east than west (maybe 5-6 miles worth) and it finishes a little north or where it start, but the wind doesn't seem that crazy for that day.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EGLL/2003/4/13/MonthlyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NAIf she got 10 mph for 6 miles, maybe that's what 30 seconds?
Does anyone know what time the 2003 race started?
rojo wrote:
London is a records-eligible course. It does start farther east than west (maybe 5-6 miles worth)
Don't record eligible courses have to finish within 10% (2.6 miles) of the start.
If she got 10 mph for 6 miles, maybe that's what 30 seconds?
30 seconds a mile?
Seiko Stopwatch wrote
Uhh no. "Fat curves" have no effect on how fast time goes by. Time has gone by at the same rate for any athlete who has ever ran a marathon. 2h15 = 2h15, not something else.
Sorry, a man running 2:15 is not equivalent to a woman running 2:15. It's unbelieble that anyone would even believe this.
I was just trying to point out the fallacy of the logic that training smarter and having better resources means you are clean. It just means you haven't tested positive.
Certification :: wrote:
Don't record eligible courses have to finish within 10% (2.6 miles) of the start.
50% according to IAAF rules
oh please wrote:
Out of comp testing doesn't happen enough. Be interesting to see how often she was tested.
Radcliffe was tested 5 times randomly in 2002 at her own request.
Why don't you time both and see whether there is a difference.
ukxc wrote:
Radcliffe was tested 5 times randomly in 2002 at her own request.
lol
ukxc wrote:
oh please wrote:Out of comp testing doesn't happen enough. Be interesting to see how often she was tested.
Radcliffe was tested 5 times randomly in 2002 at her own request.
and you'll never see the results.
sffsjk wrote:
Uh, if the samples are frozen and can be retested, it doesn't make much difference if there was a cover up then. Test them now and you should have her busted now, right Columbo?
No, Paula's samples can not be retested NOW. Athens 2004 samples were retested (Paula was a DNF IIRC)...and 2008 beijing samples (not retested yet)...well, Paula finished 23rd with a respectable(?) 2:32:38. In London 2012 she was a "no show".
About 2005 WC's retested samples...well, look at the "negatives": Gatlin, Gay, Rashid Ramzi, Adil Kaouch, Paquillo Fernandez, all the medalists for 50k walk, VCB, Tomashova, Yegorova, Ivanova, Kotova, Sadova, Lysenko, etc.
And i'm talking only about the medalists...
Why I have to think that Gatlin was clean at the time?
Extent that to Paula.
Ben L Wrong wrote:
About 2005 WC's retested samples...well, look at the "negatives": Gatlin, Gay, Rashid Ramzi, Adil Kaouch, Paquillo Fernandez, all the medalists for 50k walk, VCB, Tomashova, Yegorova, Ivanova, Kotova, Sadova, Lysenko, etc.
And i'm talking only about the medalists...
Why I have to think that Gatlin was clean at the time?
Extent that to Paula.
You don't have to believe any of those athletes were clean because they were all busted or outed later on. You cannot extend that logic to Paula because she was not busted or outed later on.
It was YOU who said there was a cover-up. Tell me, if they busted a gold medalist in the most popular even in track, competing for the richest nation on earth, why did they go out of their way to cover up a female marathoner? Extend that to Paula.
Cronje wrote:
You don't have to believe any of those athletes were clean because they were all busted or outed later on. You cannot extend that logic to Paula because she was not busted or outed later on.
It was YOU who said there was a cover-up. Tell me, if they busted a gold medalist in the most popular even in track, competing for the richest nation on earth, why did they go out of their way to cover up a female marathoner? Extend that to Paula.
Yes, I think there was a cover up. Not only with Paula
.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11285757/Athletics-doping-scandal-where-the-suspected-athletes-come-from.html
watch this graphic of the nationalities of athletes accused of producing "suspicious" blood values.
The Brits may be doping but what about the Americans? All of your positive tests swept under the carpet before the 84 and 88 Olympics?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Des Linden: "The entire sport" has changed since she first started running Boston.
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
Ryan Eiler, 3rd American man at Boston, almost out of nowhere
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion