Doping In Athletics

Page 30 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 11, 2012
296
0
0
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
How about I laugh out loud everytime I hear the word probably (or might, or could be, or ...) in connection with a known doper... ah, skip that... better not be taken seriously but nailing it with a good ol short "LOLZ". I like that more. :D (I love to post emoticons too, to keep posts short... ;) )
Flo Jo is not a known doper, you, me and a lot of people only think she is.

That's a slight difference. You must be laughing a lot.
 
Aug 11, 2012
296
0
0
Re: Re:

Lerate said:
"Jeff" if you think that run was unaided then fair enough you're on the wrong forum (planet), but sorry it was ridiculous I'm struggling to think of a more alien athletic performance. By the way "Jeff" what are your thoughts on WWE wrestling?
I dont watch that bull, Lerate. I do think you need to re-read my original comment as well.

Lerate my question to you , if I am allowed ? Why using your 2nd account here to to embarrass yourself ? You cant tell me you registered here tonight, just to post this **** ? No offense, seriously asking.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

"Jeff"":n6lusq8x][quote="FoxxyBrown1111 said:
How about I laugh out loud everytime I hear the word probably (or might, or could be, or ...) in connection with a known doper... ah, skip that... better not be taken seriously but nailing it with a good ol short "LOLZ". I like that more. :D (I love to post emoticons too, to keep posts short... ;) )
Flo Jo is not a known doper, you, me and a lot of people only think she is.

That's a slight difference. You must be laughing a lot.[/quote]


Darrell Robinson admitted that he sold HGH to her in 1988.
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
Back to the topic:
T&F is so much more rotten than cycling, that people dont dare to post in the "dope-free" threads. They have a combined 30 posts count. It´s simply (close to) impossible to talk about athletics without mentioning doping.

Btw, where is the freak and 2nd coming of FloJo (Carmelita Jeter that is, for those wondering)? Is she injured, or already retired coz of too much drugs taken?
 
Aug 28, 2015
5
0
0
Re: Re:

"Jeff"":3repnpmk][quote="Lerate said:
"Jeff" if you think that run was unaided then fair enough you're on the wrong forum (planet), but sorry it was ridiculous I'm struggling to think of a more alien athletic performance. By the way "Jeff" what are your thoughts on WWE wrestling?
I dont watch that bull, Lerate. I do think you need to re-read my original comment as well.

Lerate my question to you , if I am allowed ? Why using your 2nd account here to to embarrass yourself ? You cant tell me you registered here tonight, just to post this **** ? No offense, seriously asking.[/quote]


I did in fact register tonight "Jeff" I've been a long time reader but your post made me laugh so I registered to reply. I have no idea why you think anyone would either have or use a 2nd account. And as for embarrassing "Jeff" - I have re-read your original comment and yes it is
 
Aug 28, 2015
5
0
0
Re:

FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Back to the topic:
T&F is so much more rotten than cycling, that people dont dare to post in the "dope-free" threads. They have a combined 30 posts count. It´s simply (close to) impossible to talk about athletics without mentioning doping.

Btw, where is the freak and 2nd coming of FloJo (Carmelita Jeter that is, for those wondering)? Is she injured, or already retired coz of too much drugs taken?
She's training for Mr Universe :)
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
Re: Re:

Lerate said:
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
Back to the topic:
T&F is so much more rotten than cycling, that people dont dare to post in the "dope-free" threads. They have a combined 30 posts count. It´s simply (close to) impossible to talk about athletics without mentioning doping.

Btw, where is the freak and 2nd coming of FloJo (Carmelita Jeter that is, for those wondering)? Is she injured, or already retired coz of too much drugs taken?
She's training for Mr Universe :)
LOLZ. :) :D
 
Apr 20, 2009
327
0
0
Re: Re:

Fearless Greg Lemond said:
]She wasnt focussed, she is only 0,2 seconds faster than Evelyn Ashford in 1979, the track has become faster, she had a tailwind, she works harder, is more focussed.
Basically, athletics tracks are faster if the surface is less bouncy. This reduces the amount of energy lost, but increases wear on tear on athletes. It's mostly an advantage for the shorter distances, as they output more energy and don't run that long. Longer distance athletes pay the price for these faster tracks, by getting more injuries.

Supposedly, some actual advances have been made to the surfaces and shoes in recent years as well, that should improve the times: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-18735617

She also doesn't work harder, she actually reduced her work load, which is logical going from training for 7 events to 1.

BTW. To the guy who said her huge improvement was proof of doping: that only makes sense if the athlete keeps doing the same sport. If an athlete changes sports, it is suspicious if her new training regimen doesn't make her faster in her new sport. You would also expect a track cyclist to get much better at long distance riding if he switches to the road and starts doing much more endurance training. Also keep in mind that she never enjoyed running and only switched due to an injury that manifests itself for the jumping element of the heptathlon.

The argument that her paleness should hold her back is pretty ignorant as well. In speed skating the Dutch long had the mantra that they couldn't defeat Asians in the sprint distances. Then they actually started trying & changed their training and suddenly they could win. I think the genetic advantage of black athletes is much smaller than many people think. Jamaica has a huge focus on short distance running, so they catch way more talents than most other countries. That focus also means those talents get better training.

None of this means she isn't doping, but I agree with Jeff that most of the arguments used against her are just ignorance dressed up as wisdom.
 
Aug 11, 2012
296
0
0
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
"Jeff"":n2seglq4][quote="FoxxyBrown1111 said:
How about I laugh out loud everytime I hear the word probably (or might, or could be, or ...) in connection with a known doper... ah, skip that... better not be taken seriously but nailing it with a good ol short "LOLZ". I like that more. :D (I love to post emoticons too, to keep posts short... ;) )
Flo Jo is not a known doper, you, me and a lot of people only think she is.

That's a slight difference. You must be laughing a lot.

Darrell Robinson admitted that he sold HGH to her in 1988.[/quote]I always love these one liners from you, Benotti.

Aapjes said:
None of this means she isn't doping, but I agree with Jeff that most of the arguments used against her are just ignorance dressed up as wisdom.
I am glad you at least understand it. Nobody needs to agree with it, no problem.

Making stuff up that has never been said, is just sad. Than you are a waste of bandwidth.
 
Aug 31, 2012
5,221
0
0
Re: Re:

[quote=""Jeff"":1axxjnja]
Yes Jones was doped and Flo-Jo probably as well but when exactly is the right time to come close to those times without being accused of doping ? Here in the clinic, probably never.
[/quote]

Getting close or even breaking doped up records by the most talented/best responding athletes is very strong evidence of doping, so would naturally lead to accusations of doping.

We have yet to see an explanation how this could be conceivably done without doping that is more believable than "working harder than everyone else" or Brailsfraudian human evolution. Until such an explanation exists, beating doped up world records, or coming close, will remain strong evidence of doping.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

Aapjes said:
BTW. To the guy who said her huge improvement was proof of doping: that only makes sense if the athlete keeps doing the same sport. If an athlete changes sports, it is suspicious if her new training regimen doesn't make her faster in her new sport. You would also expect a track cyclist to get much better at long distance riding if he switches to the road and starts doing much more endurance training. Also keep in mind that she never enjoyed running and only switched due to an injury that manifests itself for the jumping element of the heptathlon.

None of this means she isn't doping, but I agree with Jeff that most of the arguments used against her are just ignorance dressed up as wisdom.
Kilo riders can do 20,000km training on the road.

Pursuit riders at least that -- and typically race road at the same time.
 
Aug 11, 2012
296
0
0
Re: Re:

SeriousSam said:
[quote=""Jeff"":splfic1g]
Yes Jones was doped and Flo-Jo probably as well but when exactly is the right time to come close to those times without being accused of doping ? Here in the clinic, probably never.
Getting close or even breaking doped up records by the most talented/best responding athletes is very strong evidence of doping, so would naturally lead to accusations of doping.

We have yet to see an explanation how this could be conceivably done without doping that is more believable than "working harder than everyone else" or Brailsfraudian human evolution. Until such an explanation exists, beating doped up world records, or coming close, will remain strong evidence of doping.[/quote]I think you confuse evidence with speculation.
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
Re: Re:

"Jeff"":15wn8fht][quote="SeriousSam said:
[quote=""Jeff"":15wn8fht]
Yes Jones was doped and Flo-Jo probably as well but when exactly is the right time to come close to those times without being accused of doping ? Here in the clinic, probably never.
Getting close or even breaking doped up records by the most talented/best responding athletes is very strong evidence of doping, so would naturally lead to accusations of doping.

We have yet to see an explanation how this could be conceivably done without doping that is more believable than "working harder than everyone else" or Brailsfraudian human evolution. Until such an explanation exists, beating doped up world records, or coming close, will remain strong evidence of doping.[/quote]I think you confuse evidence with speculation.[/quote]

I´d call that nit-picking... So, is there evidence that all those athlets (or any of them) coming close to the doper records are clean? Or is this pure speculation?
 
Apr 7, 2015
395
0
0
Give Schippers a break, she only started training seriously this year. Previous years she only showed up for meets and didn't even bother to warm up. Do you guys have any idea what a proper warm-up can do to your muscles? Why do HGH (spelling?) when you can simply warm yourself up to be better than possible?

Also, she won the local Kindergarden Grand Prix three years in a row between ages 3 and 6 so she is clearly talented. Talented people don't do drugs. Sure, this particular Grand Prix was a pony race and she was the only one there with a real pony, but that's beside the point.

Besides, she used to run barefoot to school and back again, she is born at a high-altitude and... Oops, wrong country.

Anyway, bottom line is that they do drug tests now (I think), so there is no way athletes are still on drugs.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

"Jeff"":1z9lm75g][quote="SeriousSam said:
[quote=""Jeff"":1z9lm75g]
Yes Jones was doped and Flo-Jo probably as well but when exactly is the right time to come close to those times without being accused of doping ? Here in the clinic, probably never.
Getting close or even breaking doped up records by the most talented/best responding athletes is very strong evidence of doping, so would naturally lead to accusations of doping.

We have yet to see an explanation how this could be conceivably done without doping that is more believable than "working harder than everyone else" or Brailsfraudian human evolution. Until such an explanation exists, beating doped up world records, or coming close, will remain strong evidence of doping.[/quote]I think you confuse evidence with speculation.[/quote]

I think you are confusing evidence with proof. A very common mistake here.
 
Jun 15, 2009
7,378
0
0
@ Lyon... More LOLZ... :D
Just wait when she goes into marginal gains and starts to warm down too... Hell breaks loose. 20.78 sec WR in the waiting.
 
Apr 20, 2009
327
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Kilo riders can do 20,000km training on the road.

Pursuit riders at least that -- and typically race road at the same time.
I wasn't talking about their ability to train, which is irrelevant. I can train 20,000 km too, but I'll never win a top tier race. So I was talking about their performance. Theo Bos took quite some time to switch to the road, having huge problems to adapt to the long lead-in to the sprint on the road. He still ended up a fairly mediocre road sprinter, probably due to a lack of slow-twitch muscles.

Now imagine that Theo Bos had started on the road, doing a bit of track racing in winter, but never really focusing his training on the latter. He would presumable have performed somewhat similar to Cavendish on the track, a decent 6 day rider, but not in contention for WC or Olympic gold on the track, due to a lack of really focused training. Imagine that he would then have switched to the track full time and achieved the same results he did on the track (just turn his palmares upside down). People would be amazed at his sudden transformation from a Tour de Langkawi winner to a gold medal winner. He would be called a mega-doper.

That is more or less what happened to Schippers. But because Theo made the switch the other way around, no one is batting an eye.....
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

Aapjes said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Kilo riders can do 20,000km training on the road.

Pursuit riders at least that -- and typically race road at the same time.
I wasn't talking about their ability to train, which is irrelevant.
Then perhaps what you actually wrote

You would also expect a track cyclist to get much better at long distance riding if he switches to the road and starts doing much more endurance training.
Should be clearer?
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

Aapjes said:
That is more or less what happened to Schippers. But because Theo made the switch the other way around, no one is batting an eye.....
Noone's batting an eyelid coz he didn't smash them, not because he went the other way. If he had have been some dominant road sprinter ala Cavendish's first couple of years, I am pretty sure there would be legitimate questions being asked, as there are for Schippers.

It's not like Schippers never ran a sprint before, right? This transformation is sudden and noteworthy.
 
Aug 11, 2012
296
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
"Jeff"":cozhhs8a][quote="SeriousSam said:
[quote=""Jeff"":cozhhs8a]
Yes Jones was doped and Flo-Jo probably as well but when exactly is the right time to come close to those times without being accused of doping ? Here in the clinic, probably never.
Getting close or even breaking doped up records by the most talented/best responding athletes is very strong evidence of doping, so would naturally lead to accusations of doping.

We have yet to see an explanation how this could be conceivably done without doping that is more believable than "working harder than everyone else" or Brailsfraudian human evolution. Until such an explanation exists, beating doped up world records, or coming close, will remain strong evidence of doping.
I think you confuse evidence with speculation.[/quote]

I think you are confusing evidence with proof. A very common mistake here.[/quote]No I understand that. I just think evidence is too harsh based on the arguments provided here.

If the police find $100.000 cash under my bed, they might think that's evidence I robbed a bank. To me its just speculation........I just dont trust banks. ;)
 
Apr 20, 2009
327
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Then perhaps what you actually wrote should be clearer?
I think it is common sense that in the context of pro athletes 'getting better' refers to their competitive results, unless noted otherwise. A pro athlete's goal isn't to become better at training, after all.

Only casual cyclists like me see that as their goal.
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re: Re:

Aapjes said:
Dear Wiggo said:
Then perhaps what you actually wrote should be clearer?
I think it is common sense that in the context of pro athletes 'getting better' refers to their competitive results, unless noted otherwise. A pro athlete's goal isn't to become better at training, after all.

Only casual cyclists like me see that as their goal.
Wiggo raced on the road and track. Your argument here would support the notion that his road riding improved because he was now focused on the road. I have shown previously that the road training for pursuit is pretty much identical to the sorts of things done for road racing.

This is a single example but I will respectfully agree to disagree that track riders are going to get better at longer races if they focus on those longer distances because they are already focused on those longer distances (endurance track riders specifically).
 
Apr 20, 2009
327
0
0
Re: Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
Aapjes said:
That is more or less what happened to Schippers. But because Theo made the switch the other way around, no one is batting an eye.....
Noone's batting an eyelid coz he didn't smash them, not because he went the other way. If he had have been some dominant road sprinter ala Cavendish's first couple of years, I am pretty sure there would be legitimate questions being asked, as there are for Schippers.
I find your reasoning rather absurd. Schippers is not a dominant runner. She lost the 100 m and barely won the 200 m. So your claim that she is super dominant like Cavendish in his early years makes no sense. In relative terms (which was your measuring stick for Cavendish), she is not dominant at all.

Her time was super fast, but the fact that Elaine Thompson got the 6th fastest time ever, while not even winning the race was amazing too. Having three runners below 22 seconds hasn't happened since 1988.

This can have two explanations, either all three runners used the same elixir or the conditions were optimal. Or both. But the fact that you focus only on Schippers, while all three runners had an amazing race, shows that you have blinders on. You fail to see things in context.

It's not like Schippers never ran a sprint before, right? This transformation is sudden and noteworthy.
She ran many sprints before, but usually with a body that was conditioned to perform well in disparate events, but not optimally in any of them. Even back then her sprint was her best event.

It's not like people didn't notice that she might be a better sprinter than a heptathlon athlete. People have been pushing her towards the sprint for a pretty long time now, but she enjoyed the heptathlon much more than just sprinting. Again, it was injuries that made her change her training for a bit to see how well she could do as a pure sprinter and the results surprised everyone. At that point she really started optimizing her training for the sprint with the current result.

Getting better at 1 event after changing your training to focus on that event is not 'sudden.' It is what any sane person would expect. Probably not the extent to which she could improve, but you and I know jack *** about heptathlon, so how can we really know?

PS. If you had pointed at the sharp improvement in her times as possible proof of doping, I could see your point. It's your insistence that the 'suddenness' is relevant that is ignorant.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY