get a pool full of epo then you diveeee in, pool full of epo then you diveee in
get a pool full of epo then you diveeee in, pool full of epo then you diveee in
Even if ElG was doped and given the number doping then and today, doesn't that still mean he's the greatest ever? If all the greats doped it almost levels the field and he's still the best.
Does steroid use lead to bigger jaws? That would explain the sudden use
of braces among adults. Why would you suddenly need to correct
your teeth as a an adult (if your smile is reasonable)?
I wasn't aware of ELG's braces.
It's not a cynical thing to assume El G was doped. Just as it's not a cynical thing to wonder if Asbel is doping.
The most confusing thing to me is why El G never ran another 15 or mile after the Olympics. His appearance fees would have been incredible.
Silent ban from the IAAF? Never will be certain but wouldn't doubt it.
"The game is rigged man. Feel like them little b*tches on the chess board." Bodie.
You all have to understand how much money is in this. Renato is a millionaire off the sweat of Africans. The agents he's friends with too. Then you have all the money kicked in taxes to the IAAF. You could feed all the hungry in Addis Ababa with that dirty money.
El G probably gave his money from Nike for pacing Lance in the New York City Marathon to IAAF.
Paula Radcliffe made 1 million dollars from a single race
Geb and hermens were making millions every year
The very top of the sport is where the most outrageous dopers are to be found
L0gik wrote:
bad_stats wrote:
Pacifico wrote:
The way his career panned out, to me suggests he was doping.
...the lack of 800m races....
Why does a lack of 800m races suggest doping?
The 800m is referred to as the undopable event
eh ???
so by your logic, wada/iaaf shoud just say :
"we won't bother to test any 800 runners ever & you can take any dope you like & however much you like as it is "undopeable"
so to allay suspicion he wouldn't race it frequently, because if his performances were lackluster compared to his 1500/mile prowess perhaps he felt he could be implicated as a doper
so what do you think he couda run for 800 in his 3'26wr shape considering soulemain in his 1'42.97 this year ran an outrageous ~ 8.5m extra on bends with little drafting & some quit at the end when beat, ~ 1'41.5 if he'd got perfect race ?
bad_stats wrote:I suppose that is what he meant. I've seen it stated that the 800m is updopable but I've always been skeptical given that the it's sandwiched between the 1500m and 400m both of which are seen as highly dopable. Couldn't an 800m runner just do both the PEDs of a sprinter and a distance runner?
your assertion is 100% correct
the only drawback with 800 doping is that you have ~ double the risk of being caught
for 400m you need steroids as main dope, meaning you can only risk being caught for steroids
for 1500m you need EPO as main dope, meaning you can only risk being caught for EPO
800m being "in-between event" will likely need combo of steroids/EPO for best possible doping & maximum improvement
you are therefore leaving yourself open to be caught for either steroids or EPO, therefore ~ doubling your risk of being caught
that is only reason 800 doping shoud be considered "harder" than for 400 or 1500, ~ double chances of being caught
the actual combo of drugs for 800 doping shoud theoretically be only trivially more difficult to do than the single drug doping for 400 or 1500
any 1/2 decent pharmacist coud advise on a working regime
ventolin^3 wrote:
bad_stats wrote:I suppose that is what he meant. I've seen it stated that the 800m is updopable but I've always been skeptical given that the it's sandwiched between the 1500m and 400m both of which are seen as highly dopable. Couldn't an 800m runner just do both the PEDs of a sprinter and a distance runner?for 400m you need steroids as main dope, meaning you can only risk being caught for steroids
for 1500m you need EPO as main dope, meaning you can only risk being caught for EPO
Right, and even sprinters have been known to use EPO.
Out of curiosity I did some lurking on bodybuilding forums a while back. It seems their favorite drug is now insulin and the second favorite is HGH--supposedly it enhances the anabolic effect of the insulin, allows other things to grow to keep up with the muscles I imagine. Steroids are a distant third. I'm wondering why I don't hear much about insulin on these boards. anyone know?
Exactly, John Walker came 10 years after Roger Bannister. As always, very carefully detectet stats from Bad Wigins...
They were all covered wrote:
impetus wrote:
i was referring to mid/distance where EPO is more effective than steroid
i should have made that clear
There are political forces at work in many sports that are trying to enforce a type of social conditioning on Westerners, on certain Westerners in particular. The E. Africans were and are protected, even though the protection is crumbling a bit. If Russians (or lets be blunt, any European or Americans - of a certain hue - or Japanese) were to consciously avoid, and be allowed to, miss out of season and spot testing, the cries of outrage would be deafening. But lots of people have been brainwashed to think that Africans are the noblest of peoples, honest to a fault. The people who were most protected were smiling frauds like KB and Geb. El G might have been protected, but for the most part the Arabs were pursued and punished for drug use, while the E. Africans were allowed to laugh and do whatever they wanted. If caught, they would get preposterous excuses made for them, a la Lagat, or things would be covered up "for the good of the sport" a la Ngeny in Sydney, whose convenient injuries explained his sudden drop off in performance across the board.
It's the modern version of the 'noble savage' myth. White middle-class leftys are actually the most patronizing racists on Earth.
The ironic thing is that if the IAAF decided that the war on doping cannot be won, so lets make PEDs legal and let everyone have a level playing field, whites would totally dominate again. Not so much because they are better runners, but because they would have far and away the best labs - similar to how cycling is dominated by whites.
Just as European science has allowed the African population to grow by about 100 times its natural level and eventually lead to Europeans being replaced and colonized by Africans and Arabs, European science leads to the most scientific testing being used to prevent white athletes from cheating while allowing Africans in their backward countries to benefit from European invented PEDs that it would have taken Kenyans another million years to come up with on their own.
ventolin^3 wrote:
bad_stats wrote:I suppose that is what he meant. I've seen it stated that the 800m is updopable but I've always been skeptical given that the it's sandwiched between the 1500m and 400m both of which are seen as highly dopable. Couldn't an 800m runner just do both the PEDs of a sprinter and a distance runner?
your assertion is 100% correct
the only drawback with 800 doping is that you have ~ double the risk of being caught
for 400m you need steroids as main dope, meaning you can only risk being caught for steroids
for 1500m you need EPO as main dope, meaning you can only risk being caught for EPO
800m being "in-between event" will likely need combo of steroids/EPO for best possible doping & maximum improvement
you are therefore leaving yourself open to be caught for either steroids or EPO, therefore ~ doubling your risk of being caught
that is only reason 800 doping shoud be considered "harder" than for 400 or 1500, ~ double chances of being caught
the actual combo of drugs for 800 doping shoud theoretically be only trivially more difficult to do than the single drug doping for 400 or 1500
any 1/2 decent pharmacist coud advise on a working regime
You claim to be an expert but some of your posts are pure broscience. So because the 800m falls between the 400m and 1500m, it is actually the most dopable but doubles the risk of being caught??? So how come there have been so few 800m doping busts as compared to sprints and longer distances? According to your logic, the 800m should have the most failed tests. Yet not only is the opposite true (it has the fewest failed tests), it has had the most white runners at the elite level in recent years, from countries with the strictest testing.
Is this another joke? wrote:
ventolin^3 wrote:
your assertion is 100% correct
the only drawback with 800 doping is that you have ~ double the risk of being caught
for 400m you need steroids as main dope, meaning you can only risk being caught for steroids
for 1500m you need EPO as main dope, meaning you can only risk being caught for EPO
800m being "in-between event" will likely need combo of steroids/EPO for best possible doping & maximum improvement
you are therefore leaving yourself open to be caught for either steroids or EPO, therefore ~ doubling your risk of being caught
that is only reason 800 doping shoud be considered "harder" than for 400 or 1500, ~ double chances of being caught
the actual combo of drugs for 800 doping shoud theoretically be only trivially more difficult to do than the single drug doping for 400 or 1500
any 1/2 decent pharmacist coud advise on a working regime
You claim to be an expert but some of your posts are pure broscience. So because the 800m falls between the 400m and 1500m, it is actually the most dopable but doubles the risk of being caught??? So how come there have been so few 800m doping busts as compared to sprints and longer distances? According to your logic, the 800m should have the most failed tests. Yet not only is the opposite true (it has the fewest failed tests), it has had the most white runners at the elite level in recent years, from countries with the strictest testing.
I don't know if he's referring to men or women or both. However, there has been a lot of women 800m runners busted either for steroids or EPO, and in some cases both.
impetus wrote:
the dental issues prior to sydney seem likely due to growth hormone abuse
Highly likely.
Not sure if this has been mentioned but EPO doesnt work on Africans.
Lawdy wrote:
You would think certain groups of athletes might be offered protection.
1. Athletes that are wildly popular and draw a lot of revenue to the governing bodies.
2. Athletes from nations are are willing to pay bribes to the right folk.
In Hicham's case, it would be a case of bribing.. How rich is Morocco really? Corrupt, for sure. The world records were good for the sport, but if you assume he was allowed to dope freely, was he that special of a runner? Maybe so..
I do not understand the "political correctness theory" of east africa. I doubt these nations can really provide the €€€ to bribe, especially cause there are so many athletes from ethiopia & kenya. They are not really helping the IAAF make revenue. They basically marginalized a huge audience of "western" middle distance/distance fans and athletes, too. I think they are simply better, combined with other cultural & economic motivational factors. And it must be a task to set up drug testing in these corrupt and technologically poor nations.
3. Athletes that can set world records.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2017 World 800 champ Pierre-Ambroise Bosse banned 1 year for whereabouts failures