Laura Muir wins her second gold at European Indoors. I really hope she's clean but... :(

rojo wrote:

2013- 2:00/4:07

2014- 2:00/4:00

2015 - 2:00/3:58

2016- 2:00/3:55

12 second drop total over 4 years from Muir. Here's a similar progression from a world class female 1500 runner at the same ages as the Muir progression (10 second drop total.)

4:05

3:57

3:57

3:55i

This progression is from Genzebe Dibaba who is widely suspected of doping.

Assuming Muir is clean, my point is that you cannot tell simply from progression whether a runner is clean or doped.

ummmmm wrote:

Except Rupp has a bunch of sketchy connections while Muir doesn't.

And a lab report indicating that he is took testosterone. And a former assistant coach who accused him of doping. And he received a hollowed book with pills in it from his coach. And The Mayo Clinic . . .

2 minutes?

I wouldn't be surprised if Laura runs 1min 56/57 secs this summer.

In the middle of winter training she runs 2 mins on her way to 1000m.

If the cries of "cheat" are loud now, by the summer they will be deafening.

But, I don't she's clean,

Why?

Well, If she is found to be on drugs, she won't be able to step foot in Scotland, again AND she'd be thrown out to vet college.

No way, that she'd take that risk.

Why last posting went a bit wrong.

I certainly do believe Laura is clean.

Which raises the point, why do some athletes cheat?

Fame? Money? Stupidity ?

Bad advice whispered in their ear?

I don't any of the above would apply to Laura.

Les wrote:

This progression is from Genzebe Dibaba who is widely suspected of doping.

Assuming Muir is clean, my point is that you cannot tell simply from progression whether a runner is clean or doped.

No 3:55 was ever clean. I don't follow your assumption, on the contrary.

Portsea57 wrote:

Which raises the point, why do some athletes cheat?

Because everyone else - everyone else - does.

Because you can travel a long way without ever taking a big step.

Maura Luir wrote:

captainrobbo wrote:

How come that when we got Ovett, then Coe, we suddenly had half a dozen more guys around 3:35?

How come a couple of little towns in East Africa keep producing stars?

Scottish Athletics seems to have had very good management recently, numbers coming into the sport have been rising since well before 2012, there's access to good facilities and coaches, and a lot of local competition in a fairly small area.

You have a point there.

But Laura is not racing Butchart, who's not racing Hawkins...

I will be happy to know what triggered this! I coach young athletes and I want to know what is happening here so that I can pass it on to them.

Genetically modified cells.

HIF Stabilisers.

https://cyclingtips.com/2013/02/the-future-of-blood-doping-epo-gene-doping/

Mr. 69%

http://d4nuk0dd6nrma.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/riis.jpg

That should have been Mr. 60%

It's obvious, old chap wrote:

Portsea57 wrote:

Which raises the point, why do some athletes cheat?

Because everyone else - everyone else - does.

Because you can travel a long way without ever taking a big step.

^this right here, this is what the mods should be deleting. Whether it's tiresome trolling mischief or smalltown paranoia, it is all to the same end. It's tiresome to have to refute such posts.

Anyway, for absence of doubt: not true. Not all athletes cheat. Pathetic assertion.

WTF? Half of Scotland is on drugs, its the new norm there and other half, whisky and Irnbru.

Muir could easily avail herself of some doggie "treats" that aid recovery, much as it would an aging Airedale, but I doubt it.

bmg wrote:

Les wrote:

This progression is from Genzebe Dibaba who is widely suspected of doping.

Assuming Muir is clean, my point is that you cannot tell simply from progression whether a runner is clean or doped.

No 3:55 was ever clean. I don't follow your assumption, on the contrary.

I don't usually like to get involved in these discussions, but don't you think that is a bit of a silly claim?

A theoretical athlete of either gender that can run under 1:59 and around 14:35 for the 5k should be able to run 3:55.

1:59 and 14:35 are not times that are unthinkable for a woman. It just takes the right athlete and right training to achieve both.

Middle94 wrote:

bmg wrote:

No 3:55 was ever clean. I don't follow your assumption, on the contrary.

I don't usually like to get involved in these discussions, but don't you think that is a bit of a silly claim?

A theoretical athlete of either gender that can run under 1:59 and around 14:35 for the 5k should be able to run 3:55.

1:59 and 14:35 are not times that are unthinkable for a woman. It just takes the right athlete and right training to achieve both.

And regardless of doping, there have been various with the tools: O'Sullivan, Dibaba, Decker, Budd, Kipyegon etc.

(Talking of which, I'd really like to see Eunice Sum have a serious go at the 1500m. Absolutely born to run, but obviously doesn't have the power to take on Caster.)

fasterfasterfaster wrote:

^this right here, this is what the mods should be deleting. Whether it's tiresome trolling mischief or smalltown paranoia, it is all to the same end. It's tiresome to have to refute such posts.

Anyway, for absence of doubt: not true. Not all athletes cheat. Pathetic assertion.

Ok, you got me. I didn't mean to say that everyone cheats. I was reacting to the very incomplete and silly list of reasons for cheating offered above. That list ignores one of the most common reasons athletes, especially elite athletes, cheat. They cheat because they believe their competitors are cheating. If "everyone" is doing it, then it isn't really cheating, is it?

The paranoia runs deep. Every elite athlete I know agrees with Paula Radcliffe: You only know about yourself; you don't know about anyone else.

In that world, everyone is a suspect. That is why, when a very nice A list runner was asked if s/he thought Mary Cain was clean, s/he would only say, "You certainly hope so."

In that world, the calculus of cheating looks very different than the list of venal sins given above suggests. In that world, where "everyone is doing it," then it's not really cheating.

I bet the wee lass drinks Buckfast, yeah that's the ticket.

How about she hit the genetic lottery?

Ultradude wrote:

How about she hit the genetic lottery?

No; that's Colleen Quigley.