Doping In Athletics

[Red Rick]

Wait so the argument is as follows: "She doesn't dope, because she's talented" rofl

She is talented, but differences in talent are not so big that you can beat marginally less talented (still hugely talented) athletes who dope whilst being clean.

Noone in the media thinks about doping cuz she's a white, Dutch female, which is hypocrisy in itself.

It's just that people like to be ignorant
dumb ******* and like to be entitled to clearn winners, and when they found out that their athletes have doped, they rage and rant whilst they've only sat on their couch and done nothing with their life

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

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?

As aapjes has already pointed out, this must go down as one of the most ignorant comments ever seen on here. If you have zero knowledge about a subject (you have already admitted this is the case in your previous sentence), maybe it's best if you don't make such ludicrous statements in the future.

 

[Aapjes]

Re:

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

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

Pedantic mode: your link shows that the English (re-)invented the word, but that it was derived from a Dutch word. A derived word is a new word and the actual invention is by the people doing the reinvention. So you are wrong.

The words dip and dope are two different words, with different meaning. This is also clear because the new word has been copied back into Dutch.

This is a lot like what happened with the word drugs, which also goes back to Dutch (droog (= the Dutch word for dry) was put on containers for medicine that had to be kept dry, the French then misinterpreted that as a word for medicine, then the English copied that). Amusingly, we have since copied the word drugs back from English (but with a partially different meaning, since it only refers to recreational drugs, not medicine in general). So despite using the same word, it was actually reinvented again when the word was copied to Dutch.

In general there are many traces of Dutch in other languages due to the fact that 'we' have been a trading nation for centuries and a world power for some time as well. This is especially true for English, as the Dutch were the only nation to 'conquer' Britain from the continent (Glorious Revolution). At that point many of the Dutch elite moved to Britain and this had it's effect on the language (and ended the Dutch golden age).

PS. Tidbit of the week: the Dutch word that was copied by most languages is baas/boss.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

It's getting a little ridiculous that you still can't grasp my point....

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.

I am not understanding your points, but that's more a case of them being poorly presented, not because I am ignorant. It's clear you do not understand mine either, but you will forgive me for not insulting you about it, I trust?

I think I will leave it there.

 

[Aapjes]

Re:

Wait so the argument is as follows: "She doesn't dope, because she's talented" rofl

Straw man. I've seen no one here claim that she is clean, just that the 'proof' being offered that she must be doping is poor.

She is talented, but differences in talent are not so big that you can beat marginally less talented (still hugely talented) athletes who dope whilst being clean.

You haven't proven that the other athletes are doping. It may be likely, but it is far from certain.

Noone in the media thinks about doping cuz she's a white, Dutch female, which is hypocrisy in itself.

Yesterday in my Dutch newspaper: a story only talking about the doping accusations against her.
Today: "Only known doped athletes were ever faster" <- in the sub-header, plus talk about the accusations in the article.

But yes, no one in the media is talking about it <- sarcasm

 

[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?

As aapjes has already pointed out, this must go down as one of the most ignorant comments ever seen on here. If you have zero knowledge about a subject (you have already admitted this is the case in your previous sentence), maybe it's best if you don't make such ludicrous statements in the future.

I am sorry that a tweet from the athlete herself, indicating she is only now, in June, you know, 3 months ago, focusing exclusively on the sprint, can lead to a timeline of 3 months of going from wherever she was to winning the world championships.

It's really simple maths. And trusting that the athlete knows what she has been concentrating on when she tweets what she is doing.

I admitted I had not checked for the tweet. If you were really so insulted and disgusted you should have followed it up and really put me in my place. That you chose to insult me instead is indicative of your own hypocritical lack of knowledge.

 

[Lyon]

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....

So what you are saying is that right now it is probably easier for a clean athlete to win in the sprints because athletes (especially Jamaicans) do less drugs, even though the winning times in the women's sprints keep getting faster.

You are also saying that drugs cannot be the decisive factor in sprinting or else sprinters from nations where drug use among athletes is rife, like Russia, would win more often, ignoring things like knowledge, access, logistics, responders, money, knowing people in high places and everything else that goes into a perfect program - and which is crucial when athletes of similar genetic background, talent and coaching all try to be the best.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What I find particularly disappointing is both Bernie's eyesore and Aapjes are claiming their opinion is correct while mine (and others) is wrong. Or somehow lesser quality, based on their own subjective measure. And then insulting you because of that.

Their opinions. Their measures.

Good grief. The arrogance is staggering.

 

[Aapjes]

Re: Re:

I am sorry that a tweet from the athlete herself, indicating she is only now, in June, you know, 3 months ago, focusing exclusively on the sprint, can lead to a timeline of 3 months of going from wherever she was to winning the world championships.

Your mistake is that you misinterpreted her words. She didn't say that she was going to switch at that point. She had already had spend over a year (close to two) training specifically for the sprint, to see if a permanent switch was worth it. So her tweet has not an announcement that she would switch to the sprint, it was an announcement that she wouldn't switch back to heptathlon.

Almost a year before that tweet she had improved her 200 m time immensely already, going from 22.70 to 22.03. No one who knew that was surprised by this tweet, the only surprise is why it took her so long to make that final decision.

Your confusion is not that strange if you don't understand the context, which the tweet itself didn't provide, but people who followed her much longer understood it perfectly. The IAAF got it, for instance ("stick with"):
https://twitter.com/iaaforg/status/606062614758727680

PS. I'm not claiming you are incorrect because of a difference in subjective opinion. You are making objectively false claims. If you base your opinion on incorrect facts, then you are simply wrong.

 

[Lerate]

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.

Nailed perfectly

 

[Defiets]

Guess three times where the former GDR coaches and athletes are working currently... It ain't in Holland.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re:

What I find particularly disappointing is both Bernie's eyesore and Aapjes are claiming their opinion is correct while mine (and others) is wrong. Or somehow lesser quality, based on their own subjective measure. And then insulting you because of that.

Their opinions. Their measures.

Good grief. The arrogance is staggering.

Your 'opinion' (if that's what you call copying and pasting something from wikipedia) is wrong. She was the second fastest in the world last year at 200m, 0.01 seconds behind Felix who didn't compete in the 200m in Beijing. She has not gone from zero to hero in 3 months as you implied. You were 100% wrong, beyond any argument whatsoever.

 

[Aapjes]

Re: Re:

So what you are saying is that right now it is probably easier for a clean athlete to win in the sprints because athletes (especially Jamaicans) do less drugs, even though the winning times in the women's sprints keep getting faster.

That is actually a fair argument for a change.

It's not conclusive, since top sprinters only truly peak at very few events (usually only 1, WC or Olympics). A record only happens if the conditions are optimal and the athletes peak. So there are actually very few opportunities to set new records, a few per decade perhaps.

A major issue with all this focus on her time is that it is just one data point, which may be exceptional, for her as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the is much slower (just as the rest of the field), during next years Olympics.

If that BBC link is not sponsorship BS, but there have been actual advances in material, then the overall times would be faster. Changes in training could also improve the times, etc. This would be hidden most of the time, since in non-optimal conditions you cannot judge what the time would otherwise be. So improvements that happen over a long time accumulate, unseen, until the circumstances are optimal. Then you suddenly see an improvement. But I fully admit that this is just speculation....just as your opinion that she can't set this time without doping is speculation.

I'd just like people to admit that their speculation is just that.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

She had already had spend over a year (close to two) training specifically for the sprint, to see if a permanent switch was worth it. So her tweet has not an announcement that she would switch to the sprint, it was an announcement that she wouldn't switch back to heptathlon
<snip>
Your confusion is not that strange if you don't understand the context, which the tweet itself didn't provide, but people who followed her much longer understood it perfectly. The IAAF got it, for instance ("stick with"):
https://twitter.com/iaaforg/status/606062614758727680

No offense but I am not ESL. "Stick with" is not strong enough to indicate past (she had made a decision ages ago) or future tense (you've made a decision now, keep going) intention.

What's clear from the tweet is she had publicly announced the decision in June. The wording seems to indicate it had just been made then.

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.
...
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

Your 'opinion' (if that's what you call copying and pasting something from wikipedia) is wrong. She was the second fastest in the world last year at 200m, 0.01 seconds behind Felix who didn't compete in the 200m in Beijing. She has not gone from zero to hero in 3 months as you implied. You were 100% wrong, beyond any argument whatsoever.

Really?

She improved the 200 m record during the 2014 edition of the heptathlon at the Hypo-Meeting in Götzis, her time of 22.35 being one of the best 200m performances ever in a heptathlon.[citation needed].

That's May/June 2014, not August 2013.

Here's a link to her result of 9th in the shotput in 2013: 13.71m http://www.iaaf.org/results/iaaf-world-combined-events-challenge/2013/39th-hypo-meeting-5339/women/heptathlon/shot-put/result

Here's a link to her result of 14th in the shotput in 2014: 13.69m http://www.iaaf.org/results/iaaf-world-combined-events-challenge/2014/40th-hypo-meeting-5418/women/heptathlon/shot-put/result

Here's a link to her result of 6th in the shotput in 2015: 14.66m http://www.iaaf.org/results/iaaf-world-combined-events-challenge/2015/41st-hypo-meeting-5777/women/heptathlon/shot-put/result

That's May/June 2015, not August 2013.

While the winner remained at a constant ~15.4m throw, Schipper increased her shotput throw from the previous year by A METER. A fricken meter further.

Are you seriously telling me she focused on sprinting alone and threw a shotput a meter further in one year?

I will not insult your apparent ignorance. Please tell me more about how closely you follow her, I am all ears.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Her high jump improved 8cm from 2014 to 2015.
Her javelin from 41.39 2014 to 42.22 2015 -- about 80cm.

Good going for someone focusing on sprinting.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The Hypo-meeting heptathlon finished 31st of May. Her tweet was on the 6th of June.

That is when she decided to focus on the sprint. Not before. I am 100% confident of that now.

Any javelin, shotput or other muscle that is throwing or jumping specific is now slowing her sprint down, correct?

 

[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.

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

My only reason for giving Bolt the benefit of the doubt was the fact he was smashing records as a youngster and no evidence that he was doping as a youngster.

Then I saw the link a few pages back that showed Bolt has a connection with a dodgy Dr when he was a youngster.

So my reason for doubt [ bolt being clean] has been washed away. Shame. He was about the only top athlete I thought could have been clean.

 

["Jeff"]

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...

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.[/quote]You must really be a sports lover.

Its obvious you have an agenda and its a total waste of time to discuss things. Its okay to pick a side, but here is no room for debate.

Besides, too many people here are putting words into somebody's mouth. People must defend themselves against things that has not been said. I just fail to understand that, it seems like this has become human nature.


A normal discussion is difficult enough already, but now its utterly senseless.

 

[Defiets]

Schippers had her biggest career progression in 2014, when she shaved off 2.9% of her 200m time. For the 100m it is 2015 with a 1.9% improvement.
Elaine Thompson meanwhile gained almost 7%, and Fraser-Pryce improved 4.7% in the year 2008.

 

[Miburo]

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.

This one cracked me up the most as many will use this an actual argument while it's only more proof that she's doping.

Good post xD

 

[Aapjes]

Re: Re:

"Stick with" is not strong enough to indicate past (she had made a decision ages ago) or future tense (you've made a decision now, keep going) intention.

English is not my native language, but I don't find your interpretation of 'stick with' very convincing. It doesn't really matter that much however, since these tweets are part of a much longer soap that has been playing out in the Dutch media over the last few years.

You also only have to look at her palmares to see that I am right and that the only major events she did in 2014 were sprint events, which is the year before this tweet.

While the winner remained at a constant ~15.4m throw, Schipper increased her shotput throw from the previous year by A METER. A fricken meter further.

Are you seriously telling me she focused on sprinting alone and threw a shotput a meter further in one year?

She and her coach have explained in the Dutch media that her sprint training consists of an adapted version of her heptathlon training. When I said 'focus on sprint,' I didn't mean that she would never shotput again, I meant that her entire training was focused on becoming a better sprinter. She may still get better at some of the heptathlon events, since she is still a young athlete, but probably less than if she would give it more focus. I don't see her getting an overall score during a heptathlon that is anywhere close to her WC performance in Moscow ever again.

The problem with your example is that we have no clue how much she peaked for either event. Depending on her season build-up, it's possible that she used one as pure training and was more serious for the other. There is no way to know, since this event is just a 'training event.' That's also why your timeline is incorrect, you cannot just treat a minor heptathlon event as if it was her major goal that season and use that as proof that she was focusing on heptathlon until then.

I don't have the expertise to judge whether you can achieve these kind of sprint results with the training she does, but I do know that some cyclists also do weight lifting and other non-cycling training and swear by it. So a diversified training regimen may be the best for her.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

[quote=""Jeff"":15o6y9tt]
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]

No, I'm using the word as it's broadly used in science. I'd prefer to stick to that rather than use your idiosyncratic definitions, so in the interest of making sure we're on the same page, here is a definition.

A fact P is evidence for a claim Q if and only if, were Q true, P is more likely to occur than if Q were false.
Here, P= "Running the 200m in 21.6"
Q="Dafne is doping".

So, running 21.6 is clearly evidence of doping. Only a lunatic would deny that. It simply follows from dope actually making you faster. What about strength of evidence though? Can we make that precise too or are we reduced to vague nonsense like asserting something is "speculation"? Turns out we can make it precise and it's really intuitive. The evidence is strong if P is much more likely to occur if Q were true than if it were false. Here, the evidence is strong if running 21.6 is much more likely to happen if Dafne is doping than if she's clean.

So the strength of the evidence for doping that running 21.6 is depends on how likely it is she can run that time whilst clean, as one would intuitively expect. Most here think that is very unlikely because the two people in history going faster are notorious dopers that were highly talented (Jones, at least).

If you don't think running 21.6 is strong evidence of doping, you must have some alternative story why she's that quick. So what is it? Working harder than everyone else? Human evolution? Crazy adaptive physiology?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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. (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.

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.[/quote]

So you cant deny that Flo Jo bought HGH off Darrell Robinson, rather take a pop at me and then go onto accuse people of making stuff up.

Did Flo Jo sue Robinson?

It seems the hypocrites are the ones wasting bandwidth. But that is nothing new.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

You also only have to look at her palmares to see that I am right and that the only major events she did in 2014 were sprint events, which is the year before this tweet.

While the winner remained at a constant ~15.4m throw, Schipper increased her shotput throw from the previous year by A METER. A fricken meter further.

Are you seriously telling me she focused on sprinting alone and threw a shotput a meter further in one year?

She and her coach have explained in the Dutch media that her sprint training consists of an adapted version of her heptathlon training. When I said 'focus on sprint,' I didn't mean that she would never shotput again, I meant that her entire training was focused on becoming a better sprinter. She may still get better at some of the heptathlon events, since she is still a young athlete, but probably less than if she would give it more focus. I don't see her getting an overall score during a heptathlon that is anywhere close to her WC performance in Moscow ever again.

The problem with your example is that we have no clue how much she peaked for either event. Depending on her season build-up, it's possible that she used one as pure training and was more serious for the other. There is no way to know, since this event is just a 'training event.' That's also why your timeline is incorrect, you cannot just treat a minor heptathlon event as if it was her major goal that season and use that as proof that she was focusing on heptathlon until then.

I don't have the expertise to judge whether you can achieve these kind of sprint results with the training she does, but I do know that some cyclists also do weight lifting and other non-cycling training and swear by it. So a diversified training regimen may be the best for her.

Now you are taking the piss, surely. She improved her shotput by 1m and you just accept face value that her coach and her explain it away as sprint training is modified heptathlon training.

That's a 7% improvement in throwing a heavy round ball by sprinting.

Funny how you change your claim from "the last time she did heptathlon was 2013" to "the only major events she did in 2014 were sprint events".

She did heptathlon until August 2013

No. Completely wrong. She did heptathlon until May 31 2015, with some consistent -- and stunning -- improvements in non-running events.

Clearly you are not going to apologise for calling me ignorant, but your posts look utterly stupid now.

 

["Jeff"]

Re: Re:

[quote="

So you cant deny that Flo Jo bought HGH off Darrell Robinson, rather take a pop at me and then go onto accuse people of making stuff up.

Did Flo Jo sue Robinson?

It seems the hypocrites are the ones wasting bandwidth. But that is nothing new.

Just for you than. I know you always need some help.

Flo Jo has never been tested positive. Now we all know that means nothing.

Yet, because somebody (who was a friend of Ben Johnson's coach) said he sold steroids to her (which might be very true), does not hold water.