"It's a filthy, dirty sport." - Nick Symmonds

have to ask wrote:

(1) Where's the evidence? Name names. Tell specifics of what you've seen.

Suppose Nick is clean and he is where a lot of us are: he suspects a lot of the guys in an OL 800m final are on PEDs, he just isn't 100% sure which ones. What's he supposed to say? This isn't a rhetorical question. I don't know what I'd say in that position. Here are the options as I see them:

a) keep my mouth shut

-Downside: most athletes have been doing this for 40yrs and the situation hasn't changed much.

b) guess and name names

-Downside: smears some clean athletes, may have legal ramifications

c) say more or less what Nick is saying.

-Downside: comes off badly, adds little constructive to the conversation

d) say bland stuff about supporting strong testing/stiffer penalties

-Downside similar to (a)

e) ?

Seems like there's no good option.

It's mind boggling to me that anyone could take issue with what Nick said, especially given all of the positive tests results over the last year or two.[/quote]

Agree with what Nick said, but it does not change the fact that he is a colossal douchebag, perhaps the greatest the sport has ever produced.

test2 wrote:

have to ask wrote:

(1) Where's the evidence? Name names. Tell specifics of what you've seen.

Suppose Nick is clean and he is where a lot of us are: he suspects a lot of the guys in an OL 800m final are on PEDs, he just isn't 100% sure which ones. What's he supposed to say? This isn't a rhetorical question. I don't know what I'd say in that position. Here are the options as I see them:

a) keep my mouth shut

-Downside: most athletes have been doing this for 40yrs and the situation hasn't changed much.

b) guess and name names

-Downside: smears some clean athletes, may have legal ramifications

c) say more or less what Nick is saying.

-Downside: comes off badly, adds little constructive to the conversation

d) say bland stuff about supporting strong testing/stiffer penalties

-Downside similar to (a)

e) ?

Seems like there's no good option.

The best option is of course to shut up about it. It is not a productive action and if every athlete complained that their competitiors are doping for the next 40 years the situation will not be improved. He knows NOTHING. Unless he trains with these guys and sees them doping, he knows nothing more than me or you. If Nick thinks has run 1:42 clean, then it should not be a difficult leap for him to imagine guys have run slightly faster whilst clean also. I'll bet if you asked him he reckons he could have run 1:42 flat or faster also clean.

Nick comes across as a sore loser, nothing more. He has no inside knowledge or he would be ringing WADA.

test2 wrote:

have to ask wrote:

(1) Where's the evidence? Name names. Tell specifics of what you've seen.

Suppose Nick is clean and he is where a lot of us are: he suspects a lot of the guys in an OL 800m final are on PEDs, he just isn't 100% sure which ones. What's he supposed to say? This isn't a rhetorical question. I don't know what I'd say in that position. Here are the options as I see them:

a) keep my mouth shut

-Downside: most athletes have been doing this for 40yrs and the situation hasn't changed much.

b) guess and name names

-Downside: smears some clean athletes, may have legal ramifications

c) say more or less what Nick is saying.

-Downside: comes off badly, adds little constructive to the conversation

d) say bland stuff about supporting strong testing/stiffer penalties

-Downside similar to (a)

e) ?

Seems like there's no good option.

He says the truth. But is more specific than just saying "it's a filthy dirty sport" with no context.

"I have no first hand proof of doping. But where there is smoke there is fire, and I see a whole lot of smoke every day. On top of those that have already been busted, I have witnessed suspicious behavior, heard suspicious conversations, and gained second hand knowledge from sources I trust. The cumulative effect makes me believe that this is a filthy, dirty sport."

Metric Miler wrote:

The best option is of course to shut up about it. It is not a productive action and if every athlete complained that their competitors are doping for the next 40 years the situation will not be improved. He knows NOTHING. Unless he trains with these guys and sees them doping, he knows nothing more than me or you. If Nick thinks has run 1:42 clean, then it should not be a difficult leap for him to imagine guys have run slightly faster whilst clean also. I'll bet if you asked him he reckons he could have run 1:42 flat or faster also clean.

Nick comes across as a sore loser, nothing more. He has no inside knowledge or he would be ringing WADA.

I don't disagree with you. In his position (if he is clean), myself I'd take your advice and shut up about it, offer some bland clichés about testing when pressed. But it seems that Nick is wired differently and I don't particularly blame him for saying out load what a lot of people are thinking.

"Nick comes across as a sore loser"

There's nothing wrong with being sore about losing to a cheater.

Damn straight.

If he thinks it, then I don't blame him for voicing his thoughts either. It doesn't help the sport or himself though, in my opinion. But in terms of his public profile that he is no doubt trying to improve now that he is on his way out of the sport, he'd do well to not appear sour.

Albuquerque wrote:

"Nick comes across as a sore loser"

There's nothing wrong with being sore about losing to a cheater.

Damn straight.

That is pure sore loser mentality. He doesn't KNOW anyone who has beaten him is a cheater. He just thinks they are. Rather than thinking he lost to guys that play fair and train hard like he does, he has gone to the conclusion that those that beat him must be cheats.

test2 wrote:

have to ask wrote:

(1) Where's the evidence? Name names. Tell specifics of what you've seen.

Suppose Nick is clean and he is where a lot of us are: he suspects a lot of the guys in an OL 800m final are on PEDs, he just isn't 100% sure which ones. What's he supposed to say? This isn't a rhetorical question. I don't know what I'd say in that position. Here are the options as I see them:

a) keep my mouth shut

-Downside: most athletes have been doing this for 40yrs and the situation hasn't changed much.

b) guess and name names

-Downside: smears some clean athletes, may have legal ramifications

c) say more or less what Nick is saying.

-Downside: comes off badly, adds little constructive to the conversation

d) say bland stuff about supporting strong testing/stiffer penalties

-Downside similar to (a)

e) ?

Seems like there's no good option.

No good option?

A) You shut your &%$# mouth.

Another guy next to Symmonds in the same race is probably thinking, All these other athletes are filthy if they can beat me.

Be like Frank Shorter. He got cheated out of Olympic gold by a filthy athlete. Did he shoot his mouth off like Symmonds does? No. And Shorter has our respect.

Yeah it's dirty, like all the rest of sport.. But I love it anyway.. What you gonna do? Athletics roots out more cheats than any other sport, no question about that..so what more do you guys want???? Can't wait for Doha..Indoor WC was GREAT...

exthrower wrote:

You nailed it...I've known many of them and it kills me how glibly they lie.

The most outrageous dopers of all are usually the most outrageous liars

A Ethiopian who has been doped to the eyeballs for 20 years is the most obvious of these after the British female Lance Armstrong

Now's the time to name names and call some people out. This has been danced around for long enough and with the threats to ban Russia, Kenya and whomever else is on the short list time to call 'em out.

If people are insulted by the accusations and are in fact 'clean' let them scream from the rooftops and declare the innocence.

You're judged on the company you keep. Play near with fire long enough you also get burned. I find it very far fetched someone training with a doping group will continue to stay on the straight and narrow while everyone else on the group is on the juice.

But Shorter has repeatedly complained that Cierpinski was part of the East German doping program. Yes, he waited a respectable length of time before making those allegations. Does that changes things?

Look, the problem is that what Symmonds is saying sounds like sour grapes but it's also probably true and the fact that the guy standing next to him on the starting line could say the same doesn't make it any less true. Look at the 2012 women's Olympic 1500m final where half of the participants have been linked to PEDs. He likes being an outspoken guy and that wins him some fans while it ticks off some people. You are in the latter camp which is fine.

runnerboy1 wrote:

Now's the time to name names and call some people out. This has been danced around for long enough and with the threats to ban Russia, Kenya and whomever else is on the short list time to call 'em out.

If people are insulted by the accusations and are in fact 'clean' let them scream from the rooftops and declare the innocence.

You're judged on the company you keep. Play near with fire long enough you also get burned. I find it very far fetched someone training with a doping group will continue to stay on the straight and narrow while everyone else on the group is on the juice.

Name names, call'em out, and you open yourself up to legal action about libel.

It's not going to happen.

They're right.

Here's a list of 271 clergy members involved in abuse cases:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/06/least-clergy-have-been-accused-child-sex-abuse-boston-archdiocese/5cKpjVOPhEh7IYnCwRqIJI/story.html

Here's a list of just the 5 biggest business scandals in 2015 (involving tens of millions of people):

http://fortune.com/2015/12/27/biggest-corporate-scandals-2015/

Doping endemic in Russia:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/09/sport/athletics-doping-wada-coe/

List of doping cases in Athletics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics

99 Confirmed Meldonium positive tests (there have now been hundreds):

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/11/wada-99-positive-tests-meldonium-sharapova

runnerboy1 wrote:

Now's the time to name names and call some people out. This has been danced around for long enough and with the threats to ban Russia, Kenya and whomever else is on the short list time to call 'em out.

If people are insulted by the accusations and are in fact 'clean' let them scream from the rooftops and declare the innocence.

You're judged on the company you keep. Play near with fire long enough you also get burned. I find it very far fetched someone training with a doping group will continue to stay on the straight and narrow while everyone else on the group is on the juice.

You seem to be one of those conspiracists that believes everyone in the sport knows these big secrets but some force is preventing them from spilling the beans.

Here in the real world, athletes train privately and do not go around telling their competitors their business, nobody is dancing around any issues. If Nick knew names he'd go to WADA but he doesn't. He is as much in the know as me or you. You can accuse everyone and everyone can say they are innocent and you are no closer to the truth. Accusations should come with evidence that the relevant authorities can investigate in order to catch cheats. That is productive, and how a lot of dopers are caught.

...i can instantly spot athletes on drugs.physiques too ripped,too lean,too shredded,too vascular,unnatural looking shoulders ,adams apples on too many women,strange looking chins,and jaws...

When I work with weights I bulk up fast and have lots of big veins in the arms and legs and some on the chest. I have a naturally large jawline and a large chin. When I ran a lot of distance I was down to around 1.5% body fat and had even more veins showing. I've never doped, in any form. So you really can't say someone is doping from the way they look, except that the majority of humans will not have those looks unless they are doping. The conundrum is that elite athletes are freaks of nature, that is what gives them the attributes enabling elite performance. Someone with freakish natural talent gets labeled as a doper these days because so many of lesser talent dope. And it is a big problem when freakishly talented people also dope. But my point is there are people who look like dopers who in fact are not.

Symmonds is awful at running now and has realized he'll never compete on the world stage again. Especially with a guy like Boris Berian who runs the 800m like a man and leads from the gun rather than drafting of the field and giving a little kick at the end like Symmonds did every single damn time. This is just an attempt to keep himself and his brand (caffeinated chewing gum... wow) in the news by making himself some sort of leader in the fight against doping.

SymmondsSucks wrote:

Symmonds is awful at running now and has realized he'll never compete on the world stage again. Especially with a guy like Boris Berian who runs the 800m like a man and leads from the gun rather than drafting of the field and giving a little kick at the end like Symmonds did every single damn time. This is just an attempt to keep himself and his brand (caffeinated chewing gum... wow) in the news by making himself some sort of leader in the fight against doping.

This is most likely the real story. If athletics paid more and he could retire a very rich man like football players, he probably wouldn't bother saying anything.