...by Gladwell if one can assume that the tests can actually determine if someone is doping. (That is not a comment about Rupp, it's only about Gladwell's statement.)
...by Gladwell if one can assume that the tests can actually determine if someone is doping. (That is not a comment about Rupp, it's only about Gladwell's statement.)
wejo wrote:
I don't follow his logic at all.
Let's not make this about Galen but any athlete.
1) If you follow the sport, the only person you should say "there is no way X dopes" is yourself. Paula Radcliffe told me that a long time ago and it is great advice. You can really think someone doesn't dope, but to say "there's no way X dopes" is crazy.
2) If there was "no way" anyone dopes, they wouldn't be tested by USADA. Either that or a) it's just for show testing or b) to keep them from doping in the future.
3) The biological passport is helping but microdosing is the way you dope. We just had a raid in Spain and after staking out the place for week and reportedly timing the raid to be as most effective as possible and finding EPO, NO ONE tested positive. We can believe a) no one was using the drugs or b) it's hard to test positive if you are doping correctly.
4) I would love to see his list of athletes who "no way they dope". Anyone and everyone can be doping.
1. Do you have info on the bio passport being implemented on ALL athletes and is it on record? I cannot find a list of the athletes with a bio started
2. Does the bio still just measure hormonal indicators? Thus designer stimulants are still undetectable.
Ignorance is bliss wrote:
The Dingo^3 wrote:His argument is that Rupp was tested "50 times last year".
If Gladwell said this, that's pathetic. It's easy to look the numbers up. If he had, he'd see that nobody was tested anywhere near that often last year. From a quick scan of the list, it looks like the only people test more than Rupp were some boxers. And the most they were tested was 29 times.
I don't know about you all, but in my world, 50 times is a lot more than 21 times.
Maybe Gladwell highly exaggerated the 50 tests, but the USADA number typically doesn't include tests done at non-USADA events, correct? For example, would testing at track meet in Europe show up in the USADA total? Galen certainly didn't run 29 other races last year, but maybe the actual number is somewhere in between the USADA figure and 50?
wejo wrote:
Please tell me the time someone has to break to make them an "obvious" doper.
Are there different standards for Americans vs the rest of the world?
Paula and Galen should be treated the same. I think it is foolish to say you "know" either one of them dopes or doesn't dope. That is the whole point.
The history of doping has shown you can dope and not flunk tests. Microdosing is where it is at.
Way back I had said I would shut down the site if Paula was a doper. That would make her the biggest hypocrite of all-time. Worse than Lance. I have changed my stance on shutting down the site because the history of the sport shows anyone can dope no matter what they say. Paula's own words said you only know about yourself. Having said that I think Paula was clean.
I agree with the overall thought. BUT given the statements about the history of doping, the logical thought process would be that most if not all dope. And you, with all due respect are bias for Paula given you previous position and the fact that you personally know her. Always hard to say that nice person dopes.
"Armstrong was tested about 275 times in his cycling career (nowhere near the 500-600 times he’s claimed). The World Anti-Doping Agency, UCI, French authorities (AFLD) and USADA tested his support riders at U.S. Postal as well. The familiar refrain from Armstrong is that he never tested positive, therefore he didn’t dope. The USADA efforts aim to obliterate the go-to Armstrong defense, outlining just how the Texan easily gamed a system that was years behind the peloton."
Read more at
yuiop wrote:
Maybe Gladwell highly exaggerated the 50 tests, but the USADA number typically doesn't include tests done at non-USADA events, correct? For example, would testing at track meet in Europe show up in the USADA total? Galen certainly didn't run 29 other races last year, but maybe the actual number is somewhere in between the USADA figure and 50?
This number includes overseas tests requested by the USADA, but not other tests overseas. Since Galen raced overseas last year, you are right that he must have been tested more than 21 times. But if all of the overseas tests were at races, then they don't really tell us much, do they?
Maybe Gladwell got that number from Rupp or Salazar. Who knows?
wejo wrote:
Please tell me the time someone has to break to make them an "obvious" doper.
Are there different standards for Americans vs the rest of the world?
Paula and Galen should be treated the same. I think it is foolish to say you "know" either one of them dopes or doesn't dope. That is the whole point.
The history of doping has shown you can dope and not flunk tests. Microdosing is where it is at.
Way back I had said I would shut down the site if Paula was a doper. That would make her the biggest hypocrite of all-time. Worse than Lance. I have changed my stance on shutting down the site because the history of the sport shows anyone can dope no matter what they say. Paula's own words said you only know about yourself. Having said that I think Paula was clean.
Okay, let's allow Paula to be treated the same.
Go back and allow her to be called a Dyke 10,000 times while you post on the same threads and fail to delete those posts.
Blind Stupid Arsehole is too good a term for your idiocy.
DTbigwaveorwhatever wrote:
The average LRC is obviously way smarter than Malcolm Gladwell.
As sad as it is, its starting to look that way.
What's the value of Gladwell's opinion when 50 he spouts off is 2.38x higher than the actual count ..? Sounds like suck suck suck and then $$$$. Hey if Malcolm said Galen is clean..well hell he must be ..cause hell he was tested 50x... Total bullsyt
Doping NOPers wrote:
Malcolm Gladwell is being incredibly naive and foolish. Of course rupp is a doping cheater. That is a fact. Gladwell says that the proof of rupp's honesty is fifty passed tests. Well, how many of those were actual failures that nike bribed to go away? Or, even if the tests didn't detect any of the multitude of PEDs that rupp is taking, to say that fifty negatives proves anything is like Gladwell saying that because he was chilly fifty times last year there is no climate warming.
Be sure to wear that tinfoil hat anytime you go outside.
wejo wrote:
3) The biological passport is helping but microdosing is the way you dope. We just had a raid in Spain and after staking out the place for week and reportedly timing the raid to be as most effective as possible and finding EPO, NO ONE tested positive. We can believe a) no one was using the drugs or b) it's hard to test positive if you are doping correctly.
Not to pull this thread off track but the point above has been proven through admission. Of course everyone denies they dope until they are found out. We are forced to reckon with the reality that in our present climate doping is so scientific and lab-based that WADA doesn't stand a chance. When we look at BALCO and Armstrong there's a confronting truth. There are those out there who have made it their life's work to develop undetectable PED use.
You have to assume that a coach (let's play with Aden here) pushing PEDs on his athletes is testing the athlete on his own constantly. It's about knowing the acceptable limits and sitting just below the ceiling. It's like speeding. The limit is 60, but there's at least a 5 mph overdraft safe zone. The difference will be a speeding driver five miles further down the road after an hour ticks off.
Also, the difference with #cleansport is that is fails to acknowledge that the sport only occurs because of dollars and cents, and coaches, trainers, and athletes all need to be paid. Professional athletes with poor results aren't paying the bills. So as long as the competitive window is open, make it count.
Unfortunately, the climate has had a polarizing impact. Gladwell uses "impossible" and a large percentage now use "probable".
The Dingo^3 wrote:
His argument is that Rupp was tested "50 times last year".
.
The issue of cost is if Rupp is using a drug/System where you could test hime 700+/yr and he wouldn't test positive. You can debate how sophisticated doping is. Some people are delusional (Nike running a doping business for Galen and risking their reputation seems very unlikely) but companies like Balco have shown making designer drugs that don't show up on tests is definitely doable for people with pretty low budgets.
Track and Field doping is hard. We know about state doping in the 70s/80s. Western athletes struggled to come close to the times of the russians/east germans/romanians and the like in the 800m/1500/300 during that period and modern athletes still struggle to match those times. So either people aren't doping as well today or the sport is cleaner.
RQ wrote:
"Armstrong was tested about 275 times in his cycling career (nowhere near the 500-600 times he’s claimed). The World Anti-Doping Agency, UCI, French authorities (AFLD) and USADA tested his support riders at U.S. Postal as well. The familiar refrain from Armstrong is that he never tested positive, therefore he didn’t dope. The USADA efforts aim to obliterate the go-to Armstrong defense, outlining just how the Texan easily gamed a system that was years behind the peloton."
Read more at
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/analysis/no-armstrong-never-tested-positive-but-how_261616#9iHdCdKozY7JxBdU.99
Except Armstrong did test positive a few times. He had a prescription/exemption for saddle sores the first time and the second time couldn't hold up because of the process followed. It's factually inaccurate to say Lance never tested positive. He then also failed the biopassport.
WK wrote:
I think it also depends on what they consider 'doping'. People are always looking for that edge. Guarantee athletes are taking some drugs/supplements for performance enhancement (even if the drug has no proof that it enhances performance) that are currently not on WADA's banned substance list yet. How many different 'experiments' has Salazar done? Is it odd that Rupp and a majority of Salazar's athletes get similar TUEs after training under him? What are the odds that these athletes suddenly need inhalers and thyroid meds? Is this even considered 'doping'?
Take meldonium for example. It was not banned until this past January and in many countries it was available over the counter. Now people are getting busted left and right for a drug that has not shown to definitively enhance performance (just the potential for performance enhancement). Were people taking this drug doping before the ban or only just after it. Is it doping if it can not be shown that it enhances performance?
Great points, great questions
Ignorance is bliss wrote:
yuiop wrote:Maybe Gladwell highly exaggerated the 50 tests, but the USADA number typically doesn't include tests done at non-USADA events, correct? For example, would testing at track meet in Europe show up in the USADA total? Galen certainly didn't run 29 other races last year, but maybe the actual number is somewhere in between the USADA figure and 50?
This number includes overseas tests requested by the USADA, but not other tests overseas. Since Galen raced overseas last year, you are right that he must have been tested more than 21 times. But if all of the overseas tests were at races, then they don't really tell us much, do they?
Maybe Gladwell got that number from Rupp or Salazar. Who knows?
False.
And please don't call it "the" USADA.
DTbigwaveorwhatever wrote:
The average LRC is obviously way smarter than Malcolm Gladwell.
True
wejo wrote:
Having said that I think Paula was clean.
Seriously?
Then look at the actual numbers of her published blood passport anomalies, not the qualitative excuses a la "dehydration can increase the hemoglobin concentration". I.e., the observed 30% increase in Hb cannot be explained by dehydration during a 67 minute race in the mid- to low-70s under scattered clouds in October, measured 60 - 90 minutes after rehydrating.
The same is true for her Hb increase of 2 g/dl allegedly caused by altitude (while the ret-% remained normal!).
As for the cut-off for clean performances, how about if you are >1% better than the rest, including the best of best of the most extremely talented dopers?
Or how about if no one can come within 99% of your world record for more than a decade, despite all of our progress?
Why are you saying you "guarantee" it? Alberto Salazar openly says and advertises that he doesn't condone doping but is looking for every advantage he can to improve the performance of his athletes. Its like you are guaranteeing the New England Patriots will win the 2016 Super Bowl. This is what I find absurd about the NOP doping allegations. Ultimately all the evidence points to Salazar doing exactly what he always said he was doing.
WK wrote:
I think it also depends on what they consider 'doping'. People are always looking for that edge. Guarantee athletes are taking some drugs/supplements for performance enhancement (even if the drug has no proof that it enhances performance) that are currently not on WADA's banned substance list yet. How many different 'experiments' has Salazar done? Is it odd that Rupp and a majority of Salazar's athletes get similar TUEs after training under him? What are the odds that these athletes suddenly need inhalers and thyroid meds? Is this even considered 'doping'?
Take meldonium for example. It was not banned until this past January and in many countries it was available over the counter. Now people are getting busted left and right for a drug that has not shown to definitively enhance performance (just the potential for performance enhancement). Were people taking this drug doping before the ban or only just after it. Is it doping if it can not be shown that it enhances performance?
The evidence in the best case (as in closest to actually being clean) leads me to believe that they are almost certainly micro dosing testosterone.
That group is shady as hell. I'm sure they were able to win 1500 through 10k and a marathon medal just by doing extra cross training....Right.
ryan foreman wrote:
Ultimately all the evidence points to Salazar doing exactly what he always said he was doing.
Well. We also know that he was drug cheat Slaney's coach, that he thinks one can't be among the top runners without doping, and that he is dishonest and doesn't care about rules. For the latter, remember that he has repeatedly smuggled drugs in hollow books, and had Gabe disqualified against the regulations, using Nike's power.
We also know how Doorbell Farah (admittedly co-coached by Aden) suddenly improved around age 28 after joining Salazar. The only other comparable cases that come to mind are drug cheat Baumann and triple ABP-flagged Radcliffe.