The other dude wrote:
I can't believe the BROJOS went with this story for quote of the day.
How many "allegedly" can you fit in one sentence.
So if I make up a story how they doped and sign it with "Frank Shorter" and "Paula Radcliffe" and date it 1985 and 2005, are you going to publish it?
Nutella1 wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Just becuse they told everyone how hard they trained does not prove they trained harder than any other athlete.
Keep in mind that there were basically hundreds of athletes in Mo's army. He trained everyone that hard. Only few "survived". It's what Jack Daniels refers to as throwing eggs to the wall and see what sticks.
Nutella1 wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:
It still doesn't fully make sense of the 1993 records, which were outliers for so many of these athletes, including Wang.
That's an understatement:
3000m
Athelete Beijing Time Best time outside of Beijing
Wang Junxia 8:06 8:27
Qu Yunxia 8:12 8:28
Zhang Linli 8:16 8:29
Ma Liyan 8:18 (no other recorded time)
Zhang Lirong 8:22 8:31
I think everyone here can agree that the total distance covered in China was probably around 2850m, not 3000.
In other words, the track would have to be exactly 380m long.
The naked eye would not be able to tell a 380m track from a 400m track.
End of thread.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Nutella1 wrote:
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Just becuse they told everyone how hard they trained does not prove they trained harder than any other athlete.
Keep in mind that there were basically hundreds of athletes in Mo's army. He trained everyone that hard. Only few "survived". It's what Jack Daniels refers to as throwing eggs to the wall and see what sticks.
Without doping we would never had heard of his runners as they did not have the talent no matter what bs was writtten about their training
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Ridiculous. There is no chance on earth the track was short. Answer me on these points to convince me that it wasn't a 400m track.
1. The same track was used for the 1990 Asian Games. Nothing out of the ordinary.
2. The men ran ordinary times.
3. The women did it again to a smaller extent in Shanghai in 1997.
4. Omega timed the meet. You don't think they would notice?
5. How the hell would the hurdlers hit there marks? Setting up each hurdle 5% closer would completely throw them all off and the events would be ruined.
Why has no one done it before or since?
jjjjj wrote:
Two old articles, the first about Junren's athletes testing positive for testosterone and epo in 2000-1 (the article includes an amusing note about IAAF President Jacques Rogge, a Belgian physician, supposedly being very strict about controlling doping in track), the second about the 1995 break of Wang and others from his control, apparently the occasion for the drug letter mentioned now.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2001/jul/25/athletics.duncanmackay%20
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/record-breaking-athletes-desert-gruelling-regime-of-mas-army-1567048.html
'The results from 1993 and 1997 are from drugs and training. Why has no one done it before or since? You can't do it. They had a large group of women that Ma literally beat into shape and they ran 25 miles a day, really hard and took every drug imaginable. Talent + drugs + training no one else would do.'
No, its down to drugs
Even dopers usually have to exert some restriction - they had none
Russian/ East German women had similar times and some even better on middle distances and sprints. Similar free for all with drugs and little competitions oustide country
The only reason they did not run faster over 5 - 10km is it was not on the Olympic program and the 3,000m only came in during 80's
ukathleticscoach wrote:
Russian/ East German women had similar times and some even better on middle distances and sprints.
The only reason they did not run faster over 5 - 10km is it was not on the Olympic program and the 3,000m only came in during 80's
Nutella1 wrote:
Same stadium, but the track could have been altered/resurfaced in the meantime
Nutella1 wrote:
Well, their men are really really slow. With the short track, they were still slow. When was the last time you saw a semi decent Chinese MALE runner? Like, never?
Nutella1 wrote:
Pretty sure you're referring to the 1500 where only partial clips are availble online. I believe they altered the starting location and ran 1400 instead of 1500.
Nutella1 wrote:
As mentioned above, a 380m track looks identical to a 400m to the naked eye.
Nutella1 wrote:
Do you have proof that they hit their marks?
Nutella1 wrote:
I said it before. The track was destroyed. Did you even read my post?
ukathleticscoach wrote:
'The results from 1993 and 1997 are from drugs and training. Why has no one done it before or since? You can't do it. They had a large group of women that Ma literally beat into shape and they ran 25 miles a day, really hard and took every drug imaginable. Talent + drugs + training no one else would do.'
No, its down to drugs
Even dopers usually have to exert some restriction - they had none
Russian/ East German women had similar times and some even better on middle distances and sprints. Similar free for all with drugs and little competitions oustide country
The only reason they did not run faster over 5 - 10km is it was not on the Olympic program and the 3,000m only came in during 80's
Sonia o'sullivan lost out 2 gold medals in 1993
Now says she knew they were up to something
Nutella1 wrote:
Same stadium, but the track could have been altered/resurfaced in the meantime
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Nutella1 wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:
It still doesn't fully make sense of the 1993 records, which were outliers for so many of these athletes, including Wang.
That's an understatement:
3000m
Athelete Beijing Time Best time outside of Beijing
Wang Junxia 8:06 8:27
Qu Yunxia 8:12 8:28
Zhang Linli 8:16 8:29
Ma Liyan 8:18 (no other recorded time)
Zhang Lirong 8:22 8:31
I think everyone here can agree that the total distance covered in China was probably around 2850m, not 3000.
In other words, the track would have to be exactly 380m long.
The naked eye would not be able to tell a 380m track from a 400m track.
End of thread.
Ridiculous. There is no chance on earth the track was short. Answer me on these points to convince me that it wasn't a 400m track.
1. The same track was used for the 1990 Asian Games. Nothing out of the ordinary.
2. The men ran ordinary times. There's not one standing men's Chinese national record from the 1993 games, while there are ten Chinese women's records from the 1993 National Games.
3. The women did it again to a smaller extent in Shanghai in 1997. The same venue for the Diamond League. They didn't shrink it just for the women.
4. Omega timed the meet. You don't think they would notice?
5. How the hell would the hurdlers hit there marks? Setting up each hurdle 5% closer would completely throw them all off and the events would be ruined.
6. Ma Miaolan set huge personal bests in the long jump, high jump and javelin during her heptathlon national record at the 1993 National Games. Did they use a short tape to measure them?
The results from 1993 and 1997 are from drugs and training. Why has no one done it before or since? You can't do it. They had a large group of women that Ma literally beat into shape and they ran 25 miles a day, really hard and took every drug imaginable. Talent + drugs + training no one else would do.
We knew damn well back then that obviously something wasn't right. Those times were and remain so far off the charts that obviously something had to be up. Proving it is a different story. Hate to tie this to PR's 2:15 marathon, but much like those Chinese gals that run is an anomaly. You know that someday down the road the truth will come out. She'll either fess up, slip up and someone else will reveal it, or testing will meet the level that whatever it was she took will result in a positive test. I'm sure there's samples frozen somewhere.....
If it looks like a duck wrote:
Those times were and remain so far off the charts that obviously something had to be up. Hate to tie this to PR's 2:15 marathon, but much like those Chinese gals that run is an anomaly.
Nutella1 wrote:
If it looks like a duck wrote:
Those times were and remain so far off the charts that obviously something had to be up. Hate to tie this to PR's 2:15 marathon, but much like those Chinese gals that run is an anomaly.
Apples and oranges. If you want to compare the Chinese runners to Paula's 2:15, then I hate to tell you but Paula's 2:15 is way off the charts.
The Chinese 10,000m and 3000m are now pretty much in line with the 5000m or even a bit weaker.
If they were really forced to take the drugs, that is absolutely sickening.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
If you were going to have an anomalous result that was clean, a 1-off like Radcliffe's seems much more likely than the Chinese. After all this is much better than her next best run, but even if you scotched this time she would still be the WR holder. Here you had a string of women vastly outperforming anything that they would ever run before or after, in one meet. They had a string of women running WRs multiple times in close succession, in prelim heats, and in multiple events within the same meet.
McMillan calculator has some serious flaws. Best to avoid it. More accurate comparisons are available.
None of the best women have seriously pressed for a 10000m record in years, no doubt some could get close. True though that Radcliffe's record is as suspect as any, comparatively at least in mathematical terms.
He said Russian / East German. Kazankina ran 3:52
