Doping In Athletics

[Happy dude]

http://www.footballforums.net/showthread.php/315011-Bolt-v-Gatlin/page2

The problem is real, red Stretford ends' comment

 

[Texeng]

Re: Re:

Have the middle distance events been and gone yet? Taoufik Makhloufi beat his PB in the 1500m last month and is working with an ex-Oregon Project coach. Cram was such an ass about Makhloufi at the Olympics when compared to his unquestioning attitudes to other ridiculous outliers, so I want to know how he behaves about the Algerian now.

I have not been following middle distance but the Beeb previewed the women's 800m and a young lady crossing the line to set a new WR with the next finisher over 60m back and eulogised about the prospects ahead. It was like turning the clock back a few decades and listening to stuff about Flo Jo as she finished 10m clear in the 100m or those real kick-arse GDR/CCCP/USA 4 x 100 or 4 x 400 women's relay finals with the 4th team half a lap back. The narrative is worrying and I think having Paula in their midst and suspecting she is the person who put out the super-injunction is starting to freak the Beeb into this overdoing the "we're cleans" narrative.

Isn't the whole Paula super-injunction a myth? I thought it had been shown to be a footballer who had issued the injunction and not her? Was covered earlier in this thread. Linford Christie tweeted about it but it was his mistake? http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1793621#p1793621

 

[the sceptic]

Re:

Despite the Cram-esque "super-hero saves his sport" and all the other good/evil malarky from the BBC coverage, I don't think any commentator has ever once mentioned the word "doping". Presumably the editors have said the word is forbidden and must not be mentioned. But I'm honestly unclear why would that be?

The BBC's agenda is to preserve the interests of the sport, and the interest of the sport is to pretend Bolt is clean. The best way to do this is to create this narrative that Bolt is saving the sport from the evil dopers. But, they must be careful to not make people think too much about this stuff, because they know the whole narrative will collapse within 2 seconds of critical thinking.

So the words "Bolt" and "doping" appearing too close to each other is not good.

 

[mrhender]

Re:

http://www.footballforums.net/showthread.php/315011-Bolt-v-Gatlin/page2

The problem is real, red Stretford ends' comment

I suppose they ain't got no clinic over there

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

http://www.footballforums.net/showthread.php/315011-Bolt-v-Gatlin/page2

The problem is real, red Stretford ends' comment

Invite him here

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re: Re:

Isn't the whole Paula super-injunction a myth? I thought it had been shown to be a footballer who had issued the injunction and not her? Was covered earlier in this thread. Linford Christie tweeted about it but it was his mistake? http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1793621#p1793621

Happy to be corrected. No super injunction but certainly as reported in the Sunday Times I purchased the female British Athlete made it quite clear she was going to use her high powered legal team to sue and the ST would not be getting its money back like they did in the Lance case. There will be a few in the Beeb, who maybe don't have much control over the likes of Cram and Jackson coming out with drivel, but who are looking on a bit worried about the pack of presenters in front of them and what they come out with. Just possible this "concern" is feeding through to those in the shop window to overdo the "we're cleans".

 

[Happy dude]

Re: Re:

http://www.footballforums.net/showthread.php/315011-Bolt-v-Gatlin/page2

The problem is real, red Stretford ends' comment

Invite him here

I posted links to every single doping forum I could think of

 

[No_Balls]

Re:

Despite the Cram-esque "super-hero saves his sport" and all the other good/evil malarky from the BBC coverage, I don't think any commentator has ever once mentioned the word "doping". Presumably the editors have said the word is forbidden and must not be mentioned. But I'm honestly unclear why would that be?

Actually they did talk about Bolt today competed in a field of nine were no less than four have been suspended for doping. But Bolt saved the day and won.

Yes, it does becomes this ridicoulus sometimes and in order of mainting worship, common sense has to be thrown under the bus.

 

[SeriousSam]

Bitterly disappointed Bolt won. The "Bolt saving credibility of athletics" story is insultingly stupid drivel. With Coe becoming president, Froome esque late bloomer Farah dominating and Bolt "saving athletics", all you can do is laugh at athletics.

 

[iejeecee]

Re:

Bitterly disappointed Bolt won. The "Bolt saving credibility of athletics" story is insultingly stupid drivel. With Coe becoming president, Froome esque late bloomer Farah dominating and Bolt "saving athletics", all you can do is laugh at athletics.

Yes, I was rooting so hard for Gatlin just to see the media hypocrites lose their ***. Also how convenient when you can tailor your race to the exact time you need to win. I guess Bolt went out for some of his chicken nuggets with special sauce in between the semies and the finals.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Despite the Cram-esque "super-hero saves his sport" and all the other good/evil malarky from the BBC coverage, I don't think any commentator has ever once mentioned the word "doping". Presumably the editors have said the word is forbidden and must not be mentioned. But I'm honestly unclear why would that be?

The BBC's agenda is to preserve the interests of the sport, and the interest of the sport is to pretend Bolt is clean. The best way to do this is to create this narrative that Bolt is saving the sport from the evil dopers. But, they must be careful to not make people think too much about this stuff, because they know the whole narrative will collapse within 2 seconds of critical thinking.

So the words "Bolt" and "doping" appearing too close to each other is not good.

I disagree - I could take the argument that the BBC is pro-Brit, but pro-Jamaican? No sorry - doesn't wash with me. Now - you might argue they are protecting Coe, but why? If they know anything on anyone why not throw them under the bus now - after all, not Coe's fault, and perhaps it helps them paint him as the saviour? Wouldn't that be the ultimate conspiracy theory??

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Isn't the whole Paula super-injunction a myth? I thought it had been shown to be a footballer who had issued the injunction and not her? Was covered earlier in this thread. Linford Christie tweeted about it but it was his mistake? http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1793621#p1793621

Happy to be corrected. No super injunction but certainly as reported in the Sunday Times I purchased the female British Athlete made it quite clear she was going to use her high powered legal team to sue and the ST would not be getting its money back like they did in the Lance case. There will be a few in the Beeb, who maybe don't have much control over the likes of Cram and Jackson coming out with drivel, but who are looking on a bit worried about the pack of presenters in front of them and what they come out with. Just possible this "concern" is feeding through to those in the shop window to overdo the "we're cleans".

Well, the whole point about superinjunctions is that you cant even report their existence.

If I was a famous / wealthy person and was asked about whether I had one, then my answer would always be "I cant comment, its against the law" rather than saying no. Just because one day I might have one and be asked about it and if I lied (ie said no) it could come back and bite me.

And the whole Paula focus. IF she is potentially on a list, etc. then why respond to interviews? Its very easy to be "out of the country", "on holiday", or "too busy". Why do a 10 min interview that you know people will pick to pieces??

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

Despite the Cram-esque "super-hero saves his sport" and all the other good/evil malarky from the BBC coverage, I don't think any commentator has ever once mentioned the word "doping". Presumably the editors have said the word is forbidden and must not be mentioned. But I'm honestly unclear why would that be?

The BBC's agenda is to preserve the interests of the sport, and the interest of the sport is to pretend Bolt is clean. The best way to do this is to create this narrative that Bolt is saving the sport from the evil dopers. But, they must be careful to not make people think too much about this stuff, because they know the whole narrative will collapse within 2 seconds of critical thinking.

So the words "Bolt" and "doping" appearing too close to each other is not good.

I disagree - I could take the argument that the BBC is pro-Brit, but pro-Jamaican? No sorry - doesn't wash with me. Now - you might argue they are protecting Coe, but why? If they know anything on anyone why not throw them under the bus now - after all, not Coe's fault, and perhaps it helps them paint him as the saviour? Wouldn't that be the ultimate conspiracy theory??

where in my post does it say anything about the BBC being pro Jamaican?

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

where in my post does it say anything about the BBC being pro Jamaican?

You said, and I quote "The BBC's agenda is to preserve the interests of the sport, and the interest of the sport is to pretend Bolt is clean. "

Quite clearly talking Bolt and Jamaica as opposed to the UK.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Re: Re:

certainly would be an easy case in civil court, where the standard is "a preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable (or really ANY doubt).

I'm going to have to say not providing exculpatory evidence leads me to agree the civil level has been reached by Paula. Those who are waiting for incontrovertible proof ought to also be given some deference and encouragement to continue their case. Civil penalties can be determined after the criminal case....

If there is enough evidence in your opinion for a civil level case please go ahead and sue Paula. I'd be interested to hear why you feel she has to provide evidence when, as far as I know, there are no charges for her to respond to. Or is this the court of (some of) the public opinion we keep hearing about?

K

 

[Happy dude]

We aren't allowed to talk about doping on the normal forums, so why should people be allowed to talk about not doping here :'(

Have you Bolt is clean guys seen Bolts coaches?

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

where in my post does it say anything about the BBC being pro Jamaican?

You said, and I quote "The BBC's agenda is to preserve the interests of the sport, and the interest of the sport is to pretend Bolt is clean. "

Quite clearly talking Bolt and Jamaica as opposed to the UK.

If you read the quote carefully you will see that the word Jamaica is nowhere to be found in that sentence.

The BBC is pro BOLT

at the same time, they have another agenda which is to push pro-brit patriotic nonsense.

these things can be independent from each other and yet exist at the same time.

 

[Benotti69]

BBC (and so called journalists) commentary team going ecstatic over Bolt's win. So much for impartiality!

https://twitter.com/5liveSport/status/635456370976927745

Brendan Forster dancing in the stands!!! These people are not interested in clean sport!

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

where in my post does it say anything about the BBC being pro Jamaican?

You said, and I quote "The BBC's agenda is to preserve the interests of the sport, and the interest of the sport is to pretend Bolt is clean. "

Quite clearly talking Bolt and Jamaica as opposed to the UK.

Beeb is extremely pro-Bolt though. Also, given that Bolt is probably the biggest household name in atheltics, it's in the IAAF's interest to maintain his squeaky clean image

 

[The Hitch]

Steve Cram to me today jumped up in the scumbag rankings up to number 1. "Bolt saved his sport". These people are pure evil.

And what happened to Gatlin. What a choke.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

http://www.footballforums.net/showthread.php/315011-Bolt-v-Gatlin/page2

The problem is real, red Stretford ends' comment

Imagine having any other debate this way.

EG, who was better Cancellara or Boonen. However if you say Cancellara we will delete your post and ban you.

Which is how the entire discussion on doping continues to work.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Not that this is the place for it, but that was the most interesting way to resolve this race.

Gatlin choked. He ran his slowest time of the season. You can see him tie up and flail. If he just held his form he might have had a chance.

Gatlin was scared of what Bolt could do.

GATLIN was SCARED of what Bolt could do.

Even from the clinic perspective, that was awesome.

 

[Freddythefrog]

I have a long term acquaintance - known her about 10 years. Retired, professional job all her life, got a good degree in the 60's when only a few made it from a working class background. Never ever showed any spark of interest in sport in all her gazzilion posts on facebook since she retired. Today she "shared" that Bolt winning was the best ever sporting event she had ever seen and wasn't it great.

The overwhelming totality of the message from the Beeb causes rational thought to be suspended; it is so pervasive.

It's frightening.

Sir Brad, the dawg and Paula will sleep more easily in their beds tonight.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Re:

BBC (and so called journalists) commentary team going ecstatic over Bolt's win. So much for impartiality!

https://twitter.com/5liveSport/status/635456370976927745

Brendan Forster dancing in the stands!!! These people are not interested in clean sport!

Thanks, that made me laugh !

However I look at the clip and think there are two groups of people at the Beeb rejoicing. First, he ex athletes who doped and know the inside story and 2nd those too stupid to work out that they are being sold a lie by the dopers covering up the current doping.

 

[Alpe73]

Re:

BBC (and so called journalists) commentary team going ecstatic over Bolt's win. So much for impartiality!

https://twitter.com/5liveSport/status/635456370976927745

Brendan Forster dancing in the stands!!! These people are not interested in clean sport!

I see many excited people ... journalists, athletes, spectators ... having a good time. How do you know that 'these people' have no interest in clean sport?