Doping In Athletics

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

the sceptic said:
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.
 
Feb 22, 2011
364
0
0
Re: Re:

Texeng said:
skippythepinhead said:
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
 
Jul 27, 2014
339
0
0
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?
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
the sceptic said:
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.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
the sceptic said:
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
 
Re:

Happy dude said:
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.
 
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.
 
Jul 10, 2010
697
0
0
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.
 
Jul 10, 2010
697
0
0
Re:

Benotti69 said:
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.
 
Re:

Benotti69 said:
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?
 
Re: Re:

PremierAndrew said:
TheSpud said:
the sceptic said:
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
and the Beeb print this:
"Usain Bolt produced perhaps his greatest performance of all as he put a troubled build-up behind him to beat two-time doper and clear favourite Justin Gatlin to retain his world 100m title."
tongue-in-cheek jibe?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/34032366

or does no one else read that as 'even with a troubled build up he still beats known dopers'?
 
Jun 4, 2015
285
0
0
Re:

Freddythefrog said:
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.

'It was the result we all wanted' according to the BBC. Really? It wasn't the result I wanted. The brainwashing attempts are a little frightening in as much as, what else are we being lied to about? Does anyone else notice that when a subject comes up in the media that you know something about, from say work or your interests, you can see through the misinformation rather quickly?
 
Whilst I like Cram (we used to compete together....he won), I found the his, and the BBC's commentary/narrative quite nauseating. Probably for different reasons than some zealots on here mind. It was just way way over the top. Super hero indeed. I could have eaten my own fingers.

I did want Bolt to win (didn't think he would mind you). I did want Bolt to win mainly because I don't like Gatlin. The view that Bolt is likely to be clean draws childish abuse in the clinic from adults who should know better, but hey, that's how I see it at the moment.

One thing that the hyping of the good v evil/clean vs doper narrative did do was to heap a lot of pressure on Bolt. Not for the race necessarily, but for the future. If indeed he has doped/does dope, it will weigh very very heavily on him indeed. He will know that the adoration will turn to utter revulsion in a flash if he is busted. The consequences for him would be way more painful than those that Gatlin faces.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?
 
Re:

sniper said:
you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?
On balance, I do think Bolt is likely clean. Can't be certain, of course, but have followed his career since he first made waves as a junior and it's the view I hold at the moment. Been through all this on here before though.

There are some athletes/cyclists I'm pretty sure dope, some I am suspicious of and some that, on balance, I don't see enough damning evidence against. They won't necessarily coincide with prevailing wisdom in the clinic. If it happens to be a clinic bogeyman/woman (Bolt/Radcliffe) thein it usually brings out the worst in some posters who seem to regard a failure to agree with their view as confirmation of my stupidity/nationalism (a particularly crass one)/naivety/ ignorance etc.
 
Re: Re:

Alpe73 said:
Benotti69 said:
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?
Because they work for the BBC
 
Aug 31, 2012
5,221
0
0
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
sniper said:
you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?
On balance, I do think Bolt is likely clean. Can't be certain, of course, but have followed his career since he first made waves as a junior and it's the view I hold at the moment. Been through all this on here before though.

There are some athletes/cyclists I'm pretty sure dope, some I am suspicious of and some that, on balance, I don't see enough damning evidence against. They won't necessarily coincide with prevailing wisdom in the clinic. If it happens to be a clinic bogeyman/woman (Bolt/Radcliffe) thein it usually brings out the worst in some posters who seem to regard a failure to agree with their view as confirmation of my stupidity/nationalism (a particularly crass one)/naivety/ ignorance etc.
Whatever you think the chance is that Bolt is clean, it's less than the chance Gatlin is clean.
 
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
armchairclimber said:
sniper said:
you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?
On balance, I do think Bolt is likely clean. Can't be certain, of course, but have followed his career since he first made waves as a junior and it's the view I hold at the moment. Been through all this on here before though.

There are some athletes/cyclists I'm pretty sure dope, some I am suspicious of and some that, on balance, I don't see enough damning evidence against. They won't necessarily coincide with prevailing wisdom in the clinic. If it happens to be a clinic bogeyman/woman (Bolt/Radcliffe) thein it usually brings out the worst in some posters who seem to regard a failure to agree with their view as confirmation of my stupidity/nationalism (a particularly crass one)/naivety/ ignorance etc.
Whatever you think the chance is that Bolt is clean, it's less than the chance Gatlin is clean.
In your head, fine. There is no factual or statistical basis for that comment.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
sniper said:
you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?
On balance, I do think Bolt is likely clean. Can't be certain, of course, but have followed his career since he first made waves as a junior and it's the view I hold at the moment. Been through all this on here before though.

There are some athletes/cyclists I'm pretty sure dope, some I am suspicious of and some that, on balance, I don't see enough damning evidence against. They won't necessarily coincide with prevailing wisdom in the clinic. If it happens to be a clinic bogeyman/woman (Bolt/Radcliffe) thein it usually brings out the worst in some posters who seem to regard a failure to agree with their view as confirmation of my stupidity/nationalism (a particularly crass one)/naivety/ ignorance etc.
I just don't seen any logical arguments in favor of Bolt being clean.
Regardless of whether he has the athletic capabilities to beat dopers, the question still is: why would he be clean?
You'd have to assume (a) Usain knows what's on the banned list, which I doubt (b) that he has some fair-play gene that very few others have and (c) that his coaches, trainers, advisors share that fair-play morale, for some reason.

Yes, he was/is a natural talent, but unfortunately that has zero bearing on (a), (b) and (c).
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
armchairclimber said:
sniper said:
you still think bolt is likely clean?
you think he knows what's on the banned list in the first place?
On balance, I do think Bolt is likely clean. Can't be certain, of course, but have followed his career since he first made waves as a junior and it's the view I hold at the moment. Been through all this on here before though.

There are some athletes/cyclists I'm pretty sure dope, some I am suspicious of and some that, on balance, I don't see enough damning evidence against. They won't necessarily coincide with prevailing wisdom in the clinic. If it happens to be a clinic bogeyman/woman (Bolt/Radcliffe) thein it usually brings out the worst in some posters who seem to regard a failure to agree with their view as confirmation of my stupidity/nationalism (a particularly crass one)/naivety/ ignorance etc.

I just don't seen any logical arguments in favor of Bolt being clean.
Regardless of whether he has the athletic capabilities to beat dopers, the question still is: why would he be clean?
You're assuming (a) he knows what's on the banned list, which I doubt, (b) that he has some fair-play gene that very few others have, (c) that his coaches, trainers, advisors share that fair-play morale, for some reason.

Yes, he was/is a natural talent, but unfortunately that has zero bearing on (a), (b) and (c).
We all have our criteria for making the assessment of someone's potential cleanliness or otherwise. For me, I need to see more than 1) the undoubted ignorance and gullibility of some athletes (I don't know how stupid or otherwise Bolt is tbh) 2) the existence and availability of PEDs in the sport 3) the existence of coaches and advisors who will bypass morality in search of profit.
I will also look at someone's long term development. Bolt was producing times as a junior that don't so much predict his senior performances as provide a context which makes them possible/believable.

Turning your question on its head, if you have gone through you athletic career able to beat your rivals without doping, why would you dope?
 
Aug 5, 2015
50
0
0
Re: Re:

The Carrot said:
Freddythefrog said:
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.

'It was the result we all wanted' according to the BBC. Really? It wasn't the result I wanted. The brainwashing attempts are a little frightening in as much as, what else are we being lied to about? Does anyone else notice that when a subject comes up in the media that you know something about, from say work or your interests, you can see through the misinformation rather quickly?
And if it doesn't conflict with your own knowledge, is it still misinformation? Brainwashing - really? Considering how many choices people have to get their information from these days you believe the Beeb has that much clout?
 
Aug 5, 2015
50
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Alpe73 said:
Benotti69 said:
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?
Because they work for the BBC
Well I knew the Beeb had a big budget but didn't think they could pay for a whole stadium of spectators :D
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
Turning your question on its head, if you have gone through you athletic career able to beat your rivals without doping, why would you dope?
the only thing his early potential is good for is that it takes away the "transformation" argument that we have for a guy like Froome and Wiggins and several other late bloomers.
But it doesn't take away any of the other legion of arguments that suggest Bolt is more likely dirty than clean.

To answer your question: becoming world #1 sprinter is not about beating your rivals in local races.
Who cares if he was winning every local race he took part in. What matters is: was he running anywhere close to 10 secs?
Plenty of incentives to dope if you want to break through internationally.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY