Doping In Athletics

[Aapjes]

Re: Re:

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.....

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

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?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

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.

 

["Jeff"]

Re: Re:

[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.

 

[del1962]

Speculative evidence

https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Speculative Evidence.html

Anyway the non speculative evidence against Flo Jo is the account by Darrell Robinson of selling her HGH

 

[Aapjes]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

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).

 

[Aapjes]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[ray j willings]

I have changed my mind about Bolt and not one of you has had the courtesy to go na na na na na we told you or at least make some kind of smug comment about how wrong I was.

I'm upset.

 

[Irondan]

I have changed my mind about Bolt and not one of you has had the courtesy to go na na na na na we told you or at least make some kind of smug comment about how wrong I was.

I'm upset.

Wow! You don't hear this kind of admission too much on this forum. What finally changed your mind?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

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.

Wait so if Theo had have dominated road sprinting you don't think people would have been making doping accusations? No, that seems utterly absurd to me.

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.

I think you're reading too much into what I said and not understanding the difference between riding and running.

You are comparing someone who just won a world championship event in the third fastest time ever with someone who turned from track sprinting to road racing and saying "because he went long noone questions him". You did write that. It is completely absurd.

I point out if he was dominating, he would be questioned.

This is correct. You can say it is absurd, but you are wrong. Every thread in the clinic proves you wrong.

Schipper just went from over #100 to #3 on the all time list of times. So she completely smashed her previous self. She won a world championships - that's done by dominating the other racers.

If Theo boss was going to do something similar, finishing in a faster time than he had ever done before in a road race would be a ridiculous comparison. He has won races, no it didn't raise any eyebrows but not, as you claim, because he went from track to road. Competely absurd claim and comparison.

So what is a fair comparison?

IMO, a fair comparison is if he was dominating races, winning all the time. Like Cavendish did when he first started.

Am I saying Schipper is like Cav? No.

Am I saying the claim that Theo is not questioned because he "went the other way" is a silly comparison? Yes.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

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.

lololololololololololololololololololololololololol

This is like the Sky fans insisting all these GT winners were taking minimum wage doing track events when they could have been earning millions as GT winners (or Schippers being world champion sprinter).

Stop getting personal with the "sane" BS and get a clue.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I have a hypothesis: if the fans or countrymen of athletes were not allowed to defend them in the clinic, its post count would be 10% of what it is.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

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.

I don't know the veracity of this wiki entry

In June 2015 Schippers announced via Twitter that she would focus on sprinting in the run up to the 2015 World Championships in Athletics in Beijing and the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.[5]

But becoming world champ in 3 months seems pretty sudden to me?

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

I have changed my mind about Bolt and not one of you has had the courtesy to go na na na na na we told you or at least make some kind of smug comment about how wrong I was.

I'm upset.

clinic regulars are waaaaaaay too sophisticated for that sort of behaviour

i quick glance in the suspensions folder will clearly demonstrate that

plus
they have now turned you to their side and any more bandwidth is wasted

they have many other fence-sitters and nah sayers to convert
busy work

watching from the sidelines is much more entertaining

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Thing is, outside of this place...which the BBC definitely is...you'll not find the same obsessive interest in doping. Yes, it's an issue....and is considered to be so...but, by and large, most BBC employees/freelancers/contributors involved with sport don't see it as the complete cesspit that folks here do. To be honest, a good number of people I meet are past caring. They'll be gutted/devastated etc if one of their Brit heroes is implicated (or worse, busted) but they don't have the desire to go digging. Some people like digging around in ****...others would rather hold their nose.

So why were they so outraged by makhloufi? Still hasn't failed a test from what I've seen, but the bbc just knew he was doping and treated it like some global tragedy that he won.

"This place" is against one thing. Hypocrisy. People who are consistent in their stance be it a) anti doping, b) pro doping or c) dont give a *** about doping, do not get any hate here.

It's the liars and frauds who use doping as a tool to falsely drum up support for their favourite athletes and countries while shamelessly scapegoating the ones they don't like, who get hate.

Sean Kelly also defends dopers. He also "believes froome is clean" just as he "believed Armstrong is clean". And yet despite being the most heard voice in the sport for the last decade he hardly gets mentioned in the clinic. Unlike Kirby and ligget. Why?

Isn't the clinic super anti froome and wants to kill everyone who defends him?

Why does Kelly get a pass?

Because he's not a hypocrite about it. He doesn't discriminate or scapegoat or paint froome as Jesus fighting against Barabas. His stance is consistent. He "thinks" everyone is clean, doping doesn't really matter, let's just focus on the cycling.

When the bbc stops scapegoating gatlin or demonizing makhloufi, or in the most astounding example of 21st century racism paid for by taxpayer money openly discussing if Chinese swimmers are doping because their performances are good- but breathe not a word about Michael Phelps swimming 13 races in a week and winning every single one, then people here won't care about the bbc either. The stalinistic revisionism by fans with typewriters behaving like children, spreading lies to get their favourite athletes more support, is what's disgusting.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

She always did the heptathlon and since this season she started focussing on the sprint. Semi finals she was chilling the last 50 meters.

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.

Jadajadaja.

I dont care about athletics to be frank. Too much doping.

Correct and Ashford was always seen as a clean athlete...[/quote]
By who? Ashford may very well have been clean but the phrasing "Seen as clean athlete" is idiotic and widely used and abused by hacks to defend their favourite athletes. What does it even mean. You took a poll of fans/ athletes/ the whole world and 60/70/80/90/100% said they thought the athlete of clean?

Even if you did it would be meaningless because just because some uninformed people believe something doesn't make it true. In any case we both know you didn't.. You just decided yourself that YOU think the athlete is clean and don't have the ability to make your point so instead you use a deceitful phrase designed to give the illusion that you have backup for your opinion when you have none.

Also explain why it's dumb to think someone is doping based on extraordinary performances?
Don't just say "it's dumb" as if you saying it somehow proves the point.

It seems to me to be perfectly logical to suspect all champions and record holders of doping because a history of doping reveals that clean athletes can't beat dopers and all evidence points to doping today being extremely rife and as far as athletics goes, essentially a free for all.

Anyone who has followed and read about the history of doping will strongly doubt incredible performances. Anyone who hangs posters of athlete celebrities in their bedroom and still thinks doping is something a few Russians once did in the name of communism that ultimately is defeated by good old western hard work, thinks that the former is a dumb opinion and is happy to regress back into their simplified good vs evil view of the world.

 

[Alpe73]

Re: Re:

Thing is, outside of this place...which the BBC definitely is...you'll not find the same obsessive interest in doping. Yes, it's an issue....and is considered to be so...but, by and large, most BBC employees/freelancers/contributors involved with sport don't see it as the complete cesspit that folks here do. To be honest, a good number of people I meet are past caring. They'll be gutted/devastated etc if one of their Brit heroes is implicated (or worse, busted) but they don't have the desire to go digging. Some people like digging around in ****...others would rather hold their nose.

So why were they so outraged by makhloufi? Still hasn't failed a test from what I've seen, but the bbc just knew he was doping and treated it like some global tragedy that he won.

"This place" is against one thing. Hypocrisy. People who are consistent in their stance be it a) anti doping, b) pro doping or c) dont give a **** about doping, do not get any hate here.

It's the liars and frauds who use doping as a tool to falsely drum up support for their favourite athletes and countries while shamelessly scapegoating the ones they don't like, who get hate.

Sean Kelly also defends dopers. He also "believes froome is clean" just as he "believed Armstrong is clean". And yet despite being the most heard voice in the sport for the last decade he hardly gets mentioned in the clinic. Unlike Kirby and ligget. Why?

Isn't the clinic super anti froome and wants to kill everyone who defends him?

Why does Kelly get a pass?

Because he's not a hypocrite about it. He doesn't discriminate or scapegoat or paint froome as Jesus fighting against Barabas. His stance is consistent. He "thinks" everyone is clean, doping doesn't really matter, let's just focus on the cycling.

When the bbc stops scapegoating gatlin or demonizing makhloufi, or in the most astounding example of 21st century racism paid for by taxpayer money openly discussing if Chinese swimmers are doping because their performances are good- but breathe not a word about Michael Phelps swimming 13 races in a week and winning every single one, then people here won't care about the bbc either. The stalinistic revisionism by fans with typewriters behaving like children, spreading lies to get their favourite athletes more support, is what's disgusting.

I'm with you on several points - esp their (BBC) commentary on Chinese swimmers vs Phelps. Your praise for consistency ... one way or the other ... good post. Eki,Livingston, Michael Johnson Omerta -ya gotta love it, pal. It has a place ... it has a reason ... it has a pulse.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

]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.

Since you are accusing others of "ignorance", just wanted to check if you are aware of the fact that Jamaica was caught not testing their athletes and threatened with a ban and if you know that several Jamaican athletes and medal winners have in recent years been caught doping. Because you say that all they did is get better training.

Bit rich calling others ignorant yet displaying such astounding ignorance yourself.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

[quote=""Jeff"":3hrgn8n5]
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]

That's a pretty desperate and weak challenge to sam's post.

Everything sam said is 100% correct.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

Thing is, outside of this place...which the BBC definitely is...you'll not find the same obsessive interest in doping. Yes, it's an issue....and is considered to be so...but, by and large, most BBC employees/freelancers/contributors involved with sport don't see it as the complete cesspit that folks here do. To be honest, a good number of people I meet are past caring. They'll be gutted/devastated etc if one of their Brit heroes is implicated (or worse, busted) but they don't have the desire to go digging. Some people like digging around in ****...others would rather hold their nose.

So why were they so outraged by makhloufi? Still hasn't failed a test from what I've seen, but the bbc just knew he was doping and treated it like some global tragedy that he won.

"This place" is against one thing. Hypocrisy. People who are consistent in their stance be it a) anti doping, b) pro doping or c) dont give a **** about doping, do not get any hate here.

It's the liars and frauds who use doping as a tool to falsely drum up support for their favourite athletes and countries while shamelessly scapegoating the ones they don't like, who get hate.

Sean Kelly also defends dopers. He also "believes froome is clean" just as he "believed Armstrong is clean". And yet despite being the most heard voice in the sport for the last decade he hardly gets mentioned in the clinic. Unlike Kirby and ligget. Why?

Isn't the clinic super anti froome and wants to kill everyone who defends him?

Why does Kelly get a pass?

Because he's not a hypocrite about it. He doesn't discriminate or scapegoat or paint froome as Jesus fighting against Barabas. His stance is consistent. He "thinks" everyone is clean, doping doesn't really matter, let's just focus on the cycling.

When the bbc stops scapegoating gatlin or demonizing makhloufi, or in the most astounding example of 21st century racism paid for by taxpayer money openly discussing if Chinese swimmers are doping because their performances are good- but breathe not a word about Michael Phelps swimming 13 races in a week and winning every single one, then people here won't care about the bbc either. The stalinistic revisionism by fans with typewriters behaving like children, spreading lies to get their favourite athletes more support, is what's disgusting.

Strange response. I wasn't having a poke at the clinic or defending the BBC. Both are constituencies full of individuals with differing opinions. If I recall it was Cram that seemed most vocal about Makhloufi. It don't think the BBC had a party line on that individual or any other. It's not really the way things work in the BBC. You will always have to bear in mind compliance (ie. don't get us sued) but the notion that an exec producer will sit down in production meetings and say "right chaps, we all know those Chinese are cheating barstewards, so help yourself....but Brits, Yanks, Aussies etc are off limits" is just nonsense.

The fact that you appear to be more disgusted by "hypocritical" media darlings than dopers is a bit weird to me.

 

[Defiets]

Re:

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.

She has always had big acne problems. Two years ago, five years ago. The progression of number two Thompson is a lot steeper. A jump from 23,23 to 21,66 this year, instead of from 22,03 to 21,63. Both are born in the month june 1992. Nobody is questioning her much steeper progression.
And as the foreign and German press noted, Schippers had 50 tests past year and 8 blood tests. Probably more than the rivals, and more than other European athletes, but that fact is somehow used against her.

 

[Aapjes]

Re: Re:

Wait so if Theo had have dominated road sprinting you don't think people would have been making doping accusations? No, that seems utterly absurd to me.

It's getting a little ridiculous that you still can't grasp my point. Theo Bos was much better in one kind of cycling, than in another kind of cycling. The difference was night and day, really. Schippers is much better in some heptathlon events than in others (which has always been true, btw). Theo had his 'transformation' the other way around, going from good to bad, while Schippers went the other way (although she was much, much, much better at heptathlon than Theo is/was at road cycling).

Yet you have gigantic blinders on, since you cannot look beyond: 'Theo became worse, while Schippers became better.' You are unable to realize that this is at least as valid: Theo and Schippers are both much better at 1 kind of sport than at another.

I am going to stop explaining this now, since I don't know to make you understand something so simple.

You are comparing someone who just won a world championship event in the third fastest time ever with someone who turned from track sprinting to road racing and saying "because he went long noone questions him".

The exact same argument that you make (an absurdly fast time) was applied by others to Greg Lemond for his record TT time. Supposedly this was also proof of doping. This ignored that he raced a downhill course with strong tailwind and the other times were incredibly fast as well.

You fail to grasp how significant the conditions are. A doping athlete can can run a bad time in poor conditions and a non-doping athlete can run a very good time in superb conditions. You determine the conditions by looking at the other times, which were amazing as well. Again you fail to grasp something rather basic.

Again, I'm not saying that she isn't doping. I'm saying that you fail to understand elementary points, which make your reasoning really, really, really poor and ignorant.

But becoming world champ in 3 months seems pretty sudden to me?

3 months???

She did heptathlon until August 2013, but despite this lack of training focus, won the 100 m for U23 women in a great time during the same year (note that she could compete in U23 since she is very young and a fast development can be expected for young athletes). Then she spend a year (= 12 months) training specifically for the sprint and won the 100 m and 200 m during the European Championships of August 2014 with a very good time. This was in adverse conditions and the other times in the final were quite poor (so she didn't have to go all out to win), so her real level was already beyond the 22.03 that she displayed there. Now we are a year later again, so I'm counting 24 months....which is 8 times as long as the ignorant claim you made.

Look at her progression:
2010: 1st @ heptathlon WC for juniors (no 200 m time known)
2011: 1st @ heptathlon EC for juniors (no 200 m time known)
2011: 22.92 @ 200 m (9th) <- here her trainer tested her ability without the tiredness and holding back that the heptathlon causes/requires, but she was still training for all events
2012: 23.53 @ 200 m <- bad wind conditions in the final and she under performed as well, since she ran 22.70 during the semis. The differences between the semis and the final shows the importance of the conditions, all athletes ran at least .20 slower in the final than in the semis.
2012: 12th @ heptathlon Olympic Games (22.83 on the 200m) <- here she ran as part of the heptathlon, so her actual ability is much more than the 200 m time
2013: 3rd @ heptathlon WC (22.84 on the 200 m) <- her overall improvement show a focus on the other events. She likely trained less for the 200m, as you would otherwise expect an improvement for a developing athlete
2014: 22.03 @ 200 m EC (1st) <- 1st result ever with complete focus on the sprint. Conditions were bad (cold, rain & some headwind). An improvement of .67 compared to 2012
2015: 21.63 @ 200 m WC (1st) <- much improved conditions (warm, small tailwind) and another year of 'pure' sprint training. An improvement of .40 compared to 2014.

Note that she won the 200 m event in both the heptathlons where I could find the results of the individual events. Even in her first adult heptathlon (2012 Olympics), where she got spanked in all other categories. It is pretty special for an athlete to be so competitive directly in her first adult event and her lack of immediate competitiveness in the other events that make up the heptathlon really underscores her talent as a pure sprinter.

I find these palmares very consistent with a very talented sprinter who makes steady progression and increases that progression due to focused training. Her moving back and forth between sprinting and heptathlon is somewhat obscuring, since she didn't do comparable events every year, nor trained the same. Using those missing data point as proof of a 'sudden' transformation is just ignorant.

Again, I'm far from convinced that she is clean, but your arguments are simply ignorant and poor.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

And remind: we Dutch dont do doping, we only invented the word

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dope

 

[Aapjes]

Re: Re:

Since you are accusing others of "ignorance", just wanted to check if you are aware of the fact that Jamaica was caught not testing their athletes and threatened with a ban and if you know that several Jamaican athletes and medal winners have in recent years been caught doping. Because you say that all they did is get better training.

I never said that 'all they did was better training.' I was pointing out that Jamaica have a bigger pool of talents & better training and that this explains part of why there are so many Jamaican sprinters. The claim was that white athletes have a huge genetic disadvantage. I think that this is highly exaggerated and that the fact that most top sprinters are black has non-genetic reasons (and yes: doping too).

However, if doping was the key factor, you'd see many Russian sprinters winning, as we know that they have a big doping program. Yet they don't. That is why I didn't mention it, because it is not a deciding factor one way or the other.

BTW, you also have no proof that the Jamaican athletes are still doping as hard as they were. Jamaica was forced to start testing their athletes and quite a few of their athletes were popped, so they probably stepped down their program. How far is anyone's guess, but arguably this is the least suspicious time for a newcomer to defeat the Jamaicans. If Schippers would have won the 200 m a few years ago, that would be much more suspicious.

Of course, in cycling we've also heard the 'now we are clean, honest' spiel many times before and I also have my doubts, but again: my argument was not that Schippers is clean, it's that 'winning while white' isn't good proof that she is doping. 'Winning from athletes who probably doped in the past and might still dope now' is a much stronger claim, but still far from conclusive.

Bit rich calling others ignorant yet displaying such astounding ignorance yourself.

Distorting someones argument and then calling it ignorant is a bit ironic....