IAAF Set to Wipe all pre 2005 World Records from the Books

YouYouYou wrote:

Genzebe has passed more isotope tests than any athlete in history, including her blood tests from '15 Monaco

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Take some time from your busy schedule and educated yourself about the underground Doping and Corruption that permeates the Track and Field Arena.

Jazeera and ARD Tv has some indepth stories.

It's pathetic seeing all these dopers on here getting upset because this measure will clean up doping. They want everyone on drugs like them in their twisted minds they think it will somehow absolve them, constantly accuse everyone else

YouYouYou wrote:

They didn't set those records at a national meet. No men ran at all. Only Ma's Army women ran. It was a staged farce meet in November. A 19 yr Chinese girl with a previous PR of 11.69 ran a 10.77 and never ran faster than 11.5 after that.

It was a track built specifically for that meet and destroyed immediately after. Omega clocks were not used. They were Chinese clocks.

Even a truckload of drugs would not take anyone from a n 11.69 to a 10.77

Nothing you wrote is correct.

Results of the 1993 National Games. You'll notice the men's results. And that it was in October.

Liu Xiaomei, who won the women's 100m at the 1993 National Games in 11.02, had no time on record before 1993.

It was the same track used in the Asian Games three years earlier.

Notice Omega's equipment on the infield here.

Mark Boen wrote:

Many competitors in these PED countries stay in their countries using drugs and train (safe from out-of-competition testing). Then they stop using the PED's, wait a few weeks and then travel the world to compete.

Russia aside, this isn't the case. I don't understand how people can think that Galen Rupp could go training Jamaica and the powers that be would just sit on their hands and say, "well, we can't touch him now."

Mr. Obvious wrote:

YouYouYou wrote:

Genzebe has passed more isotope tests than any athlete in history, including her blood tests from '15 Monaco

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Yes, it's a documented fact

YouYouYou wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Yes, it's a documented fact

Where is it documented?

Jeff Wigand wrote:

[quote]YouYouYou wrote:

They didn't set those records at a national meet. No men ran at all. Only Ma's Army women ran. It was a staged farce meet in November. A 19 yr Chinese girl with a previous PR of 11.69 ran a 10.77 and never ran faster than 11.5 after that.

It was a track built specifically for that meet and destroyed immediately after. Omega clocks were not used. They were Chinese clocks.

Even a truckload of drugs would not take anyone from a n 11.69 to a 10.77

Nothing you wrote is correct.

/quote]

Everything I wrote is correct, you're just stupid. Go find her 100m time on the all time list

BTW, do realize none of you moron links proved your argument? Lol

I agree that if they want a "reset", start completely anew, today, not from 2005. That's a little bit ridiculous and equally unfair. Some athletes might have run very different races if they'd have had a shot at a WR.

So start with a completely clean slate.

And, of course, take the same standard for the IAAF itself. We know the administration has had persistent and consequential problems with corruption. So completely reset the admin. Throw them ALL out and start over.

It's beyond absurd to hold one set of standards for the athletes and a completely diffferent one for the administrators.

I can't help but wonder how supportive Coe would be of this reset were he still a WR holder.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

YouYouYou wrote:

Yes, it's a documented fact

Where is it documented?

IAAF, WADA, IOC

YouYouYou wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Where is it documented?

IAAF, WADA, IOC

OK. I will just assume you are making it up.

Wtfunny wrote:

I agree that if they want a "reset", start completely anew, today, not from 2005. That's a little bit ridiculous and equally unfair. Some athletes might have run very different races if they'd have had a shot at a WR.

So start with a completely clean slate.

And, of course, take the same standard for the IAAF itself. We know the administration has had persistent and consequential problems with corruption. So completely reset the admin. Throw them ALL out and start over.

It's beyond absurd to hold one set of standards for the athletes and a completely diffferent one for the administrators.

I can't help but wonder how supportive Coe would be of this reset were he still a WR holder.

That's stupid though. They have the blood tests from '05 on the same as they do for now. There is no difference. You sound like you have an ax to grind on some current record.

There will probably be a couple results that didn't meet these new guidelines that were set after '05 too. Those will be invalidated

Mr. Obvious wrote:

YouYouYou wrote:

IAAF, WADA, IOC

OK. I will just assume you are making it up.

That's only because you are stupid

I hope this is a joke !!! The stupidity of IAAF mafia has no limit!!!

2005 ???? Why??? Have been those pre 2005 athlets tested positive???

No! So how IAAF want to do such a stupid things??

And from 2005 to 2017 are all athlets are clean???

Absolutely no!! So somebody at IAAF wants tell me that El Guerrouj 1500

is not clean while Genzebe Dibaba 1500 is clean??

All Bolt records are clean while Florence Griffith not clean.?? Hmmmm

All the recent women halfmarathon world records are made only eating lot of ugali and with hard training.?

To me is like IAAF wants to gain some credibility that has totally lost.

And wants to do it with such stupid operation

But they don't have, at all, the requisite blood samples to qualify any athlete from 2005 under the new standard.

I think the protocol should at last be consistent ... if the admin of the IAAF was as corrupt as it appears to have been, then throw out the entire pool ... this is the same procedure they're suggesting for the athletes. We don't really know which athletes doped and which didn't .... and the same thing applies to the admin.

Just start over.

Or, consider those athletes who we know doped .. Koch, etc, and throw out their records. And move along,

Is it actually feasible to say that from 2005 on existing samples can be retested using more advanced methods to ensure that WR were not the result of doping?

The statute of limitations for retesting samples is now 10 years.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/international/ct-ioc-retests-beijing-drug-samples-20160310-story.html

Would this be changed? As I understand it, right now, only tests taken in 2007 or later could result in a DQ for doping and as time goes on, more and more WR marks would not be subject to retesting or disqualification.

Also, are there technical limitations on how long samples can be kept and validly retested? Is any of the testing destructive so it uses up part of the sample?

And I m thinkng also another big reason for the stupidity of this Wipe all pre 2005 WR is this:

If we look back to the situation of antidoping at the end of 90's of course

back then it was not advanced like nowdays to find Epo or other substances.

till 1997 no limit on % HTC and so for example it wasnt uncommon to have athlets with

HTC superior to 50% and hemoglobin to 17-18% value that in a long distance runners or cross country skiers or cyclist are not natural or very rare.

Then antidoping have done progress and so they change the way of doping

using microdose , and other tricks to not be caught .

So I want say if at the end of 90's or beginning of years 2000 they doping in a more massive way cos antidoping wasnt so strong

While nowdays they still use doping but in a different way (microdose etc.)

Where is the difference??? I think somebody is still cheating ,now like 15 or 20 years ago.

I know Pre set lots of world records but 2005 of them? Come on.

dirtbag runner wrote:

Good. There are no clean records currently in the books.

There is one that I am 99% sure of and would be a shame to wipe and that is Edward's triple jump effort. The rest I care not for as very likely dirty.