• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Doping In Athletics

Page 38 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Re:

armchairclimber said:
Want to talk hypocrisy? Regardless of whether or not Bolt is clean, clinic regulars cheering on Gatlin takes the biscuit.
Not as much as those that are offended by it. That takes the whole packet of biscuits.
 
Re: Re:

armchairclimber said:
The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
del1962 said:
Cramps said:
Saw both your allowed comment and the "removed by the moderators" placeholder. This is nuts. Obviously the possibility that Bolt could dope conflicts with the headline, which is literally "1. Bolt vs Gatlin - the greatest miracle of all". puh-leeEEZZZE!

OK, now I've been upvoting the comments that ask for more impartial analysis than Steve Cram seems capable of.
Cram's hyberbole is painful for me, mainly because I like Cram, always have. I remember first seeing him in a youth road race at Berwick in the 1970s, I was running in the age group lower than him. I was gutted when he got beat by Coe in 1984 Olympics, used to watch his races in the 80s and I have a friend who finished top 100 in the great north run in the 80s, has met both him and Brendon Foster and he thinks Cram is a nice chap while he doesn't think much of Foster.
I too like Cram, for similar reasons. I did have to turn him off this year though...just too painful to listen to. However, I don't think he is some evil PR merchant with a brief to sell the "clean bolt dirty Gatlin" narrative, nor do I think he has a similar brief with regards to Farah. He just doesn't have a clinic mind-set. I just don't think he has seen enough to vocally "dis-believe". He may not even be sceptical at all. I don't think that's hypocrisy...I just think it's genuinely his position.

He was vocal about Makhloufi... and clinic regulars chide him for it. It obviously has nowt to do with Makhloufi's north African origin. All he said was something along the lines of "I don't know what I'm seeing here". Fair enough, I would have thought.
This kind of defense of sports.commentators reminds me of when some mobster or ex dictator finally gets caught by authorities and to avoid humiliation the lawyers dress him up in a wheelchair and gas mask and plead - he's to ill to stand trial.

It's so predictable and weak. Just like when fans make up the - oh he doesn't know excuse for commentators they like.

First of all, your account of what cram said about makhloufi is totally false. They had about 5 minutes of broadcasting left after makhloufi won and it was all taken up by cram making the single most clear accusation of doping without using the d word in human history. They never commented on the race or the tactics or the other finisher, just how sad the result made cram feel.

And with such a blatant accusation of.doping at makhloufi, his behaviour thereafter with bolt and farah is nothing short of extreme hypocrisy.

Also you say it has nothing to do with tm being north African. I find that difficult to believe. No one is saying he's a racist who would not treat a north African with respect if he met them. But as far as the media goes it's clear there's subconscious distrust of "the other" and i don't think it's a coincidence that an unknown athlete from north Africa is his target over a British or a European or an American. (Bolt transcends this paradigm because a) he's Anglophone and b) he's a celebrity)

But the real piece de resistance of your post is - he just doesn't have a clinic mentality. Get real. This is athletics. We aren't talking about a sport like say darts where commentators might not know what doping is. We aren't even talking about sports like tennis or football where there is very minor plausible deniability left over from a lack of drug scandals.
It's athletics which has been rocked by doping positives and scandals since cram was born and he's what 50 now(?).

What's more he's an insider and he was an insider when Johnson doped and could only run 9.79. He was an insider when elements of the ddr programme were revealed. He was an insider when Lewis and the US basically admitted they had their own doping programmes. He was an insider when Balco happened. And all the other positives since. The revelations that the Sydney games had so many retrospective positives it should have been canceled. All the 100 m champs who've fallen. And just last year's seppelts first revelations. And just 2 months ago Salazar. And just last month the whole new massive scandal.

And cram "doesn't have a clinic mindset"? :D
Sorry that don't fly. He can't possibly after those last 3 decades, be ignorant of the fact that his sport is rife with doping.
Can't be arsed with most of this drivel. You get upset when someone else calls out a performance that he suspects is a doping performance when he doesn't call out other performances that you think are doped. This speaks volumes... and not about Cram. Hubris Hitch. Hubris.

Racism? If you can find Cram casting aspersions regarding Aouita or El Guerrouj then you can have it.
Racism?

Really. You gonna play the race card?

Shows how weak your side is. You don't have any arguments so resort to ignoring the whole post and trying to make it about race, the oldest trick in the internet. of course no attempt to address the wider point. Which is that its absolutely not possible for Cram to actually think athletics is clean.

He's been in it for 30 years and he's seen more scandals than you can count. the ONLY reason he claims its all clean is the same reason Ligget and Fotheringham and all those other sell outs always claim cycling is clean then plead the same - oh we didn't know.

They are part of the system which makes money from selling athletics as clean and would lose if people realized its doped.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
This is athletics. We aren't talking about a sport like say darts where commentators might not know what doping is. We aren't even talking about sports like tennis or football where there is very minor plausible deniability left over from a lack of drug scandals.
It's athletics which has been rocked by doping positives and scandals since cram was born and he's what 50 now(?).
whole post, but this paragraph especially.
 
Defiets said:
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.
I didn't have the time to check these numbers before, but you're way off as far as Schippers is concerned.

She improved her PB by 1.01 second or 4.3% from 2010-2011 and 3.2% on the 100. Both in her third year of her IAAF recognized sprints. Or her 4th and 5th year on the 200m and 100m overall. The above data is straight from iaaf.org (If you would include the years before, you'd have a higher max. percentage improvement for the 100m)

(2008 24.95 (not recognized by IAAF.org))


2009 24.21 (3.0% improvement)

2010 23.70 ( +1.2 m/s) Desenzano, 2.1% improvement

2011 22.69 ( -0.3 m/s) Daegu. 4.3% -- a 1.01 second improvement


That's a significant jump at that stage of a sprinter's career, and that's ignoring the wind factor.


Those 3.2% (100m) 4.3% (200m) don't stand out too much, or at all, and other times actually look worse when comparing her to suspected super chargers and caught dopers. Only Thompson's 6.8% improvement really stands out, but her whole career trajectory does vs. other sprinters. Jamaicans included. I don't think she's any more doped than, say, Blake was.


Biggest improvements per year based on former personal bests:

percentages in bold are those where the maximum percentage improvement was made in the second year of the distance in question -- IAAF recognized sprints only -- when big improvements are a lot more common.


Schippers 3.2% (100m) 4.3% (200m)

Thompson 3.0% (100m) 6.8% (200m)

Fraser-Pryce 4.7% (100m) , N/A (no IAAF recognized 200m between 2004-2008)

Campbell-Brown 4.4%, 2.3%

Jeter 4.0%, 1.5%

Bowie 3.1%, N/A

Asher-Smith 2.1%, 2.8%


Bolt 3.4% (100m), 5.3% (200m)

Blake 2.2%, 4.0%

Powell 1.5%, N/A (no IAAF recognized 200m in 2003 and 2005)

Gay 2.4%, N/A (no IAAF recognized 200m in 2003)

Gatlin 2.7% (100m), 2.1% (pre-suspension) 2.6% post-suspension only (200m)

Lemaitre 2.6 %, 2.5%,

all info from http://www.iaaf.org/





Aapjes said:
I really think that you are suffering from 20/20 hindsight where looking back, it is obvious to spend big bucks on her development. But at the time, she was just one talent of many, in one sport of many. This particular sport hasn't given Holland that many medals, so it's not a priority sport. Holland has other priority sports, like swimming. Jamaica has sprinting as their priority sport.
I didn't say make it a priority sport. It would not have been a huge investment to make to get her a proper trainer, in my opinion. We're talking about a nation that blows tens of millions of dollars on Olympic sports every single year. I disagree with you on her 2011 200m race in Daegu, 22.69 (- 0.3 m/s) and the medal potential she showed there, even if they knew that she was doped to the max. It should have already been clear back then, bearing in mind also that her trainer (and probably her technique) was way below par and that she wasn't even close to being a dedicated sprinter.


The Frog said:
18-Valve. (pithy) said:
The Frog said:
Thanks for your answer but I hoped for something more specific (even if it was: "Arron clean?! You must be really ignorant/stupid/moronic/blindly patriotic to believe that" :D ). I was curious to know how these athletes (Perec, Arron, Hurtis, Lemaitre) where perceived in other countries, but I do realize that they aren't really famous outside french borders.
Of the hyped white sprinters Lemaitre is the most believable to me. Of course they (sprinters) all dope at that level, but he wasn't crazy fast or anything. His 9.92 was wind-legal, although barely. He also peaked early at age 20 or thereabouts. His appearance didn't change all that much when he got older, either.
Yeah, he seems the most believable of my four "french myths" (whith Hurtis perhaps).
I read an article in a trustworthy magazine ("Sport et Vie") about a test where they measure the power of Lemaitre and some amateur athletes (student who tried to become P.E. teachers) and he was in the middle of the pack.
Has Lemaitre commented on his decline since then?
 
Slightly off topic but what drugs do people think Flo jo used? Her improvement was almost as ridiculous as Bolts, though not quite. Still, the East German girls were better than her in 1987 and then in 1988, BAM!!!. though she had a silver before, it was from 84 when the commies couldn't participate and it was only in 1988 for the olympics that her time improved dramatically.

The whole world knows (well the whole world apart from Steve Cram apparently), that the US and DDR were doping throughout the 1980's and it was a political pr battle. Flo Jo was a good sprinter in the early 1980's who "became a legend" and "saved her sport" to paraphrase of our favourite commentator, by drastically improving her time in 1988. Did the US find a wonder drug, did they make a deal with the authorities? What was the reason for this improvement right then?
 
She is linked with HGH, and almost certainly steroids.

Any change maybe in the amount used, or maybe going to a BALCO style designer steroid that was just a bit more efficient.

She predates the independent USADA, so the US authorities were likely involved in her rise as well. Dope freely, get 'clean' before a meet, run, then back to home soil to dope again.
 
Hitch,
1. You brought up racism. A mistake.
2. You can't even be consistent with your arguments, which is why I don't give them much of my time. You accuse Cram of selling the "clean sport" myth when you know (because you've brought it up enough times) that he has called athletes out.
3. You supported Gatlin.

I know athletics isn't clean. I wouldn't pretend it is for a second. Cram knows it isn't clean. Give me just one example of him saying the sport is clean. Pretty much the whole way through the World Championships there was a subtext/debate about doping in the sport.
FFS. You ask for consistency from other posters...how about getting your own arguments straight first.

I look forward to some more cohesive (and less hypocritical) reasoning.
 
Apr 20, 2009
327
0
0
Re:

18-Valve. (pithy) said:
That's a significant jump at that stage of a sprinter's career, and that's ignoring the wind factor.
Your entire argument depends on sudden huge improvements. But why would an athlete with a long term doping program have any bigger jumps than a clean athlete?

If an athlete starts doping at (for instance) 16, the big jump happens long before the times you are looking at. After that, you'd expect a semi-steady progression as they mature, train better, etc. Just like a clean athlete. After all, the doping program doesn't change much then, especially if the federation or a shared trainer has a doping program, so there is no need to experiment.

I didn't say make it a priority sport. It would not have been a huge investment to make to get her a proper trainer, in my opinion. We're talking about a nation that blows tens of millions of dollars on Olympic sports every single year.
Why would the best trainers work in a country without top talent? Before Schippers, there were no top sprinters. Besides, even though they have a lot of money, it's spread out a lot more than in Jamaica, where they put almost all their money into sprinters.
 
Re: Re:

Aapjes said:
If an athlete starts doping at (for instance) 16, the big jump happens long before the times you are looking at. After that, you'd expect a semi-steady progression as they mature, train better, etc. Just like a clean athlete. After all, the doping program doesn't change much then, especially if the federation or a shared trainer has a doping program, so there is no need to experiment.
It's not "my argument." I (obviously) agree that a slow progression past a certain age is not a sign of cleanliness at all.

The poster who I quoted argued that her modest gains vs. other (Jamaican) sprinters pointed towards her being clean / much cleaner. Not a peep from you then. Why not? Well, it turned out that those gains weren't as modest as they were presented by that poster. So I pointed that out.


Why would the best trainers work in a country without top talent?
Money, of course. I was talking about one trainer, BTW.

Before Schippers, there were no top sprinters. Besides, even though they have a lot of money, it's spread out a lot more than in Jamaica, where they put almost all their money into sprinters.
You didn't read what I wrote.
 
Re:

armchairclimber said:
Hitch,
1. You brought up racism. A mistake.
.
You mean your mistake. An apology would do nicely too. Not that I hold my breath.
2. You can't even be consistent with your arguments, which is why I don't give them much of my time. You accuse Cram of selling the "clean sport" myth when you know (because you've brought it up enough times) that he has called athletes out.
Picking on scapegoats is part of the clean sport myth. I honestly can't believe someone posting in the clinic is unaware of the long history in cycling and athletics and all sports of less popular athletes being sacrificed to maintain the illusion that the sport is fighting doping.

btw you still bizzarely act as if Cram did nothing wrong.

He accused an athlete of doping because because they guy met a certain criteria of dodgyness Cram had set.
And yet when Mo Farah, who just so happens to be British and have major sponsorship deals, breaks the same criteria time and time again. Cram defends him.

Keep thinking on it. Maybe one day you will see the difference between right and wrong.

3. You supported Gatlin.
Oh goodie. the mind control Taliban is back.

No surprise that you haven't responded to the argument that you started. When you tried to claim Cram was ignorant of the doping that goes on in athletics. Which clearly can't be the case because of all the scandals he has seen.

No response huh? Sure, why not just accuse me of thought crime instead.
 
Feb 25, 2014
20
0
0
Re:

18-Valve. (pithy) said:
Defiets said:
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.
I didn't have the time to check these numbers before, but you're way off as far as Schippers is concerned.
I'm not when just looking at the senior years (I copied-pasted it from a T&F board). I'm also talking about just the senior years of Thompson (born same year), Fraser-Pryce etc. That is also the problem with you noting the progression in the first year or the second year. Not to mention that her 200m best times stalled between 2011 and 2013, and the 100m times stalled between 2011 and 2014.

You're also shooting yourself in the foot. The theory that a more gradual progression signals a carefully monitored doping regime since the (early) teenager years doesn't stand the test of scrutiny any longer.
 
Apr 20, 2009
327
0
0
Re: Re:

18-Valve. (pithy) said:
Money, of course. I was talking about one trainer, BTW.
If it was that attractive, why did Glen Mills (Usain Bolt's coach) stay in Jamaica for 22 years? And there is no way he is making less than Schippers' coach now.

It seems like a coach is better off following the talent and then becoming a private coach of a top talent, then move to a 3rd rate athletics country and hope for a unique talent to come along. Schippers' coach got incredibly lucky.
 
Re: Re:

Defiets said:
=

I'm not when just looking at the senior years (I copied-pasted it from a T&F board). I'm also talking about just the senior years of Thompson (born same year), Fraser-Pryce etc. That is also the problem with you noting the progression in the first year or the second year. Not to mention that her 200m best times stalled between 2011 and 2013, and the 100m times stalled between 2011 and 2014.
You didn't specify that it was just about "their senior years," and were, in fact, talking about their "biggest career progressions." You couldn't have been more clear. Also, I'm not surprised that you are *only* focusing on those (suspected) super chargers who you believe make your compatriot look like an angel, but miss me with that.

You're also shooting yourself in the foot. The theory that a more gradual progression signals a carefully monitored doping regime since the (early) teenager years doesn't stand the test of scrutiny any longer.
Okay, we're done here. You're just trolling at this point. You know I didn't say or imply that at any point

The exact quote:

"I (obviously) agree that a slow progression past a certain age is not a sign of cleanliness at all."

That's all I said.


Aapjes said:
18-Valve. (pithy) said:
Money, of course. I was talking about one trainer, BTW.
If it was that attractive, why did Glen Mills (Usain Bolt's coach) stay in Jamaica for 22 years? And there is no way he is making less than Schippers' coach now.

It seems like a coach is better off following the talent and then becoming a private coach of a top talent, then move to a 3rd rate athletics country and hope for a unique talent to come along. Schippers' coach got incredibly lucky.
Did I claim that Mills was available or that he's not making money? Seriously, WTF. You keep bringing up irrelevant points that no one has ever questioned. I seriously doubt that the Dutch can't get a significantly better coach than they currently have, though. If he sucks as bad as you have claimed in this thread then it shouldn't be too hard. If not, she could also train and live abroad like other ultra clean champs do - VCB or Lalova for example. You believe in impossibilities way too much, in my opinion. Get or move to the best coach available. If the idea is to get as fast as possible, that is.
 
Feb 25, 2014
20
0
0
Re: Re:

18-Valve. (pithy) said:
Defiets said:
=

I'm not when just looking at the senior years (I copied-pasted it from a T&F board). I'm also talking about just the senior years of Thompson (born same year), Fraser-Pryce etc. That is also the problem with you noting the progression in the first year or the second year. Not to mention that her 200m best times stalled between 2011 and 2013, and the 100m times stalled between 2011 and 2014.
You didn't specify that it was just about "their senior years," and were, in fact, talking about their "biggest career progressions." You couldn't have been more clear. Also, I'm not surprised that you are *only* focusing on those (suspected) super chargers who you believe make your compatriot look like an angel, but miss me with that.

You're also shooting yourself in the foot. The theory that a more gradual progression signals a carefully monitored doping regime since the (early) teenager years doesn't stand the test of scrutiny any longer.
Okay, we're done here. You're just trolling at this point. You know I didn't say or imply that at any point

The exact quote:

"I (obviously) agree that a slow progression past a certain age is not a sign of cleanliness at all."

That's all I said.
Here, in case you have forgotten the initial statement. But now you claim the progression was not so gradual, while the conclusion remains the same.
viewtopic.php?p=1803775#p1803775

I've checked your post history and it seems me wise indeed to stop the discussion here.
 
Apr 20, 2009
327
0
0
Re: Re:

18-Valve. (pithy) said:
Did I claim that Mills was available or that he's not making money? Seriously, WTF. You keep bringing up irrelevant points that no one has ever questioned.
It's not irrelevant. Mills is clearly a successful coach and he never went for the money in Holland, the UK, Germany, etc. It undermines your claim that those other countries could just easily get a coach like that.

Fact is that those kind of coaches don't end up in Holland.

I seriously doubt that the Dutch can't get a significantly better coach than they currently have, though. If he sucks as bad as you have claimed in this thread then it shouldn't be too hard.
:facepalm:

I never claimed that he was bad. If Schippers is an indication, he may be a very good coach. But he is Dutch and never worked with top sprinters before Schippers. It is much harder for coach who usually works with mediocre talent to bring talent to the top, than a coach who has a lot of experience with top talent. That is why success tends to be self-replicating. Good sportspeople results in good coaches, who can find and train good sportspeople, which results in good coaches, etc.

A country with no history of success needs all the stars to align...
 
Hitch 1) the implication that Cram called Mahkloufi out because he was North African was yours, not mine.
2) I know that cycling and athletics are rife with cheating and doping. I don't ever pretend otherwise. What I do want to see though is good, reasoned argument and not inconsistency. You haven't been consistent and I called you out. Sorry if that upsets you.
3.Just highlight where I have said that Cram is ignorant of doping in sport for me, there's a good chap.
He clearly isn't. He discusses is on air often enough. Just because he hasn't called out Mo Farah or Paula Radcliffe or because he might think that Bolt is clean doesn't mean he is ignorant of doping in the sport. Just because someone doesn't share your precise viewpoint doesn't make them ignorant of the subject matter.

Just to get you back to basics, so that you don't attribute thoughts and arguments to me that I don't have or hold, I don't think athletics is a clean sport. I think there is a serious problem and it is not being tackled by the IAAF. I have little faith that Seb Coe will improve matters. I don't believe Farah is clean. I don't believe Froome is clean. I don't like SKY. I find jingoistic commentators nauseating. Ok.
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
The Culture Media and Sport Committee were having their hearing today on doping. Radcliffe's name was leaked.

She just released a statement.

Further, not one of the values questioned by the Sunday Times occurred around any of my best performances or races, including all my appearances at the London Marathon. This makes it all the more disappointing that my identity was effectively leaked at the Parliamentary Hearing, under the guise of there being a British athlete and London Marathon winner who is erroneously under suspicion.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sndpj9
 
Sep 29, 2012
8,087
0
0
Her Hb went up 2.8!!?

Here's the IAAF headline from the race where that test was taken, one where she says it was not one of her best performances:
Further, not one of the values questioned by the Sunday Times occurred around any of my best performances or races, including all my appearances at the London Marathon. This makes it all the more disappointing that my identity was effectively leaked at the Parliamentary Hearing, under the guise of there being a British athlete and London Marathon winner who is erroneously under suspicion.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sndpj9
Paula Radcliffe may not have delivered the world best performance everyone was forecasting when the 12th IAAF World Half Marathon Championships took place in Vilamoura, Portugal today. But clinching a third world half marathon title in four years, Radcliffe's winning margin of one minute and 27 seconds was the greatest ever achieved in the 12-year history of the championships.
http://www.iaaf.org/news/news/radcliffe-wipes-out-the-opposition-in-vilamou
 
Sep 8, 2015
120
0
0
you can't libel anyone if it's within the walls of the Palace of Westminster, covered by parliamentary privilege. Wonder what will happen next, will the other names in the Sunday Times investigation be made public in the DCMS hearing?


ETA: weirdly it looks like she wasn't named but she has said she was linked to it? Eh?
 
Re:

Cake said:
you can't libel anyone if it's within the walls of the Palace of Westminster, covered by parliamentary privilege. Wonder what will happen next, will the other names in the Sunday Times investigation be made public in the DCMS hearing?


ETA: weirdly it looks like she wasn't named but she has said she was linked to it? Eh?
I think it was revealed that one of the people in the report was a former London Marathon winner and British. That combination in this time period has only one answer, Paula.
 
Sep 4, 2012
193
0
0
Re:

I don't know how to interpret this number -- 2.8% Hb and no change in retic % -- can anyone put it into context?
Radcliffe says this is marginally above the 1 in 100 standard. So about 1% of samples would be expected to show this? And then dehydration is a mitigating factor?

Dear Wiggo said:
Her Hb went up 2.8!!?

Here's the IAAF headline from the race where that test was taken, one where she says it was not one of her best performances:
Paula Radcliffe may not have delivered the world best performance everyone was forecasting when the 12th IAAF World Half Marathon Championships took place in Vilamoura, Portugal today. But clinching a third world half marathon title in four years, Radcliffe's winning margin of one minute and 27 seconds was the greatest ever achieved in the 12-year history of the championships.
http://www.iaaf.org/news/news/radcliffe-wipes-out-the-opposition-in-vilamou
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts