Doping In Athletics

[blackcat]

Re: Nick Willis - its easy to spot the cheats!!

Anything run in lanes or done alone - jumping throwing just has to be impossible. Any of the longer distance running events are going to be near impossible because the drafting effect when running is so small. However the 800 in particular and the 1500 to a lesser extent are great events with nouce playing a huge part in the outcomes - dependent on the race itself and the recent history and relative performance capabilities of the contestants. also it is possible for "favourites" to go out in the semis due to mistakes and accidents so the final might well be less one or two of the best dopers. So not saying a clean runner has an even chance by a long way but in the 800 and 1500 is there a possibility that a clean runner can take a third ? I would say some chance, particularly if they have a kick.

That being said I have no idea how the semis or the final panned out or whether the guy has a kick. Easily conceivable is that the story is BS, but I tend to think that this is not a line of argument a doper would take, there are several others that are way more attractive.

after read the first para, immediately quoted this to reply about the heats and semis, but you have already placed the caveat.

i just dont buy the kumbaya round the campfire from the anti-dopers. My position is, the barrier to entry and the conversation occurs with self, and years before Olympic qualifying standards. Like in the pro peloton, there becomes a choice pretty early before you make national espoir teams, if you seek to pursue the pro career. I cant see this being a campfire conversation. He scraped thru the 2 rounds to make it to the final? nah, I cant buy that, there is too many hypodermic needles left in the hotel rooms of the russians at the world champs to believe in this sport.

 

[ebandit]

checked out let'srun.com..............lol my dreams coming true (as the site slogan) would

not include running............do these guys have no imagination?

but kelly holmes can't be far behind paula in the suspicious value stakes.........

Mark L

,,,,,,,,,,,,actually seeing paula popped would be a small dream fulfilled

 

[franic]

What’s the issue with Let’s Run? It’s actually pretty interesting, given that top coaches (e.g., Renato Canova) posts there about training methodology.

 

[flying_plum]

Re: Re:

He's already the most amazing sprinter ever to the unsullied who think doping doesn't actually work and is just some cheap shortcut evil Commie Russians do because they are too lazy to train.

For who pay attention to doping products, news, studies etc, I would say the word "unlikely" is an understatement.

He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever

I haven't understood the focus on whether or not this means Bolt is doping. All the media reports say, simultaneously, that this is data about endurance athletes, and then also say that Bolt is not implicated. So, is it all athletes, or is it just about endurance? Because if the latter, than his name wouldn't be involved...would it.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

He's already the most amazing sprinter ever to the unsullied who think doping doesn't actually work and is just some cheap shortcut evil Commie Russians do because they are too lazy to train.

For who pay attention to doping products, news, studies etc, I would say the word "unlikely" is an understatement.

He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever

I haven't understood the focus on whether or not this means Bolt is doping. All the media reports say, simultaneously, that this is data about endurance athletes, and then also say that Bolt is not implicated. So, is it all athletes, or is it just about endurance? Because if the latter, than his name wouldn't be involved...would it.

The media reports seem to mainly be talking about blood doping and passport violations/suspicious blood parameters. If that's the case it's less likely to include sprinters are they find the benefits in different products.

 

[flying_plum]

Re: Re:

He's already the most amazing sprinter ever to the unsullied who think doping doesn't actually work and is just some cheap shortcut evil Commie Russians do because they are too lazy to train.

For who pay attention to doping products, news, studies etc, I would say the word "unlikely" is an understatement.

He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever

I haven't understood the focus on whether or not this means Bolt is doping. All the media reports say, simultaneously, that this is data about endurance athletes, and then also say that Bolt is not implicated. So, is it all athletes, or is it just about endurance? Because if the latter, than his name wouldn't be involved...would it.

The media reports seem to mainly be talking about blood doping and passport violations/suspicious blood parameters. If that's the case it's less likely to include sprinters are they find the benefits in different products.

Yes, I appreciate that the data discussed is mainly talking about blood values. But the Times article (which I don't have with me right now) specifically referred to the fact that it was data on athletes in endurance events. And then, two columns later, mentioned that 'neither Mo Farah, nor Usain Bolt were implicated'. Clearly, he's a sprinter. It's not an endurance sport, he's much less likely to be using blood doping, so why does he keep getting mentioned as being exonerated? I mean, I know the general public don't want to believe he's doping, because he's a likeable guy and all, but this does not exonerate him in any way, if it is a list of athletes in events in which he does not compete?! It's just annoying me

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

He's already the most amazing sprinter ever to the unsullied who think doping doesn't actually work and is just some cheap shortcut evil Commie Russians do because they are too lazy to train.

For who pay attention to doping products, news, studies etc, I would say the word "unlikely" is an understatement.

He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever

I haven't understood the focus on whether or not this means Bolt is doping. All the media reports say, simultaneously, that this is data about endurance athletes, and then also say that Bolt is not implicated. So, is it all athletes, or is it just about endurance? Because if the latter, than his name wouldn't be involved...would it.

The media reports seem to mainly be talking about blood doping and passport violations/suspicious blood parameters. If that's the case it's less likely to include sprinters are they find the benefits in different products.

Yes, I appreciate that the data discussed is mainly talking about blood values. But the Times article (which I don't have with me right now) specifically referred to the fact that it was data on athletes in endurance events. And then, two columns later, mentioned that 'neither Mo Farah, nor Usain Bolt were implicated'. Clearly, he's a sprinter. It's not an endurance sport, he's much less likely to be using blood doping, so why does he keep getting mentioned as being exonerated? I mean, I know the general public don't want to believe he's doping, because he's a likeable guy and all, but this does not exonerate him in any way, if it is a list of athletes in events in which he does not compete?! It's just annoying me

it could be because the lawyers have demanded that a lawsuit would follow any story about doping which did not specifically say there was no evidence linking said athlete to the case under discussion... a bit like the wee intel (insert tune) tune that come on when a product with an intel (insert tune) chip is advertised

 

[flying_plum]

Re: Re:

it could be because the lawyers have demanded that a lawsuit would follow any story about doping which did not specifically say there was no evidence linking said athlete to the case under discussion... a bit like the wee intel (insert tune) tune that come on when a product with an intel (insert tune) chip is advertised

Yes...quite. It's just making me think that it's even more (circumstantial) evidence of doping, methinks the lady/Jamaican protests too much etc etc...

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

He's already the most amazing sprinter ever to the unsullied who think doping doesn't actually work and is just some cheap shortcut evil Commie Russians do because they are too lazy to train.

For who pay attention to doping products, news, studies etc, I would say the word "unlikely" is an understatement.

He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever
He's already the most amazing sprinter ever

I haven't understood the focus on whether or not this means Bolt is doping. All the media reports say, simultaneously, that this is data about endurance athletes, and then also say that Bolt is not implicated. So, is it all athletes, or is it just about endurance? Because if the latter, than his name wouldn't be involved...would it.

The media reports seem to mainly be talking about blood doping and passport violations/suspicious blood parameters. If that's the case it's less likely to include sprinters are they find the benefits in different products.

Yes, I appreciate that the data discussed is mainly talking about blood values. But the Times article (which I don't have with me right now) specifically referred to the fact that it was data on athletes in endurance events. And then, two columns later, mentioned that 'neither Mo Farah, nor Usain Bolt were implicated'. Clearly, he's a sprinter. It's not an endurance sport, he's much less likely to be using blood doping, so why does he keep getting mentioned as being exonerated? I mean, I know the general public don't want to believe he's doping, because he's a likeable guy and all, but this does not exonerate him in any way, if it is a list of athletes in events in which he does not compete?! It's just annoying me

I don't get the Times or have an online account, but from the quotes I've seen it does not specify that all of the data came from endurance athletes, they just focus on endurance athletes in their analysis. It's perfectly possible samples from Bolt were included.

 

[flying_plum]

Re: Re:

I don't get the Times or have an online account, but from the quotes I've seen it does not specify that all of the data came from endurance athletes, they just focus on endurance athletes in their analysis. It's perfectly possible samples from Bolt were included.

To be fair, I might have misread it then - perhaps they only sent the data from endurance events to Ashenden and Parisotto, and that's what the commentary has been on. I read it as they had only been sent info on endurance events, but I feel like I'm remembering this with less conviction as this conversation goes on

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

I don't get the Times or have an online account, but from the quotes I've seen it does not specify that all of the data came from endurance athletes, they just focus on endurance athletes in their analysis. It's perfectly possible samples from Bolt were included.

To be fair, I might have misread it then - perhaps they only sent the data from endurance events to Ashenden and Parisotto, and that's what the commentary has been on. I read it as they had only been sent info on endurance events, but I feel like I'm remembering this with less conviction as this conversation goes on

The Sunday Times and the German broadcaster ARD/WDR have been given access to a database containing more than 12,000 blood tests from 5,000 athletes, including many household names from across the world.

The blood-doping data reveals that a third of medals, including 55 golds, have been won in endurance events at the Olympics and world championships by athletes who have recorded suspicious tests

That's all I can get from the website. The first sentence doesn't specify endurance athletes so it's perfectly possible others were included.

Unsurprisingly their analysis would be focused on the endurance athletes because they are the ones likely to blood-dope, there'd be little point sending Bolts' blood-values to Ashenden et. al. as far as I understand. No doubt someone will use this to call Bolt clean, despite the fact that whatever he is likely taking isn't going to show up in these tests (the use of the word suspicious makes me think these are passport type tests but I can't be sure).

 

[Frosty]

Regarding epo and sprinters - Duane Chambers admitted taking EPO.

 

["Jeff"]

Is this Duane Chambers any good ?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Dwaine Chambers - good number of medals at sprints. PB was a shade under 10 sec, so good (when doping) for the time he was running, probably wouldn't even reach a semi-final these days.

 

["Jeff"]

Oh that man.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Thinking about it, didn't he try another comeback recently ?

He was better at 60M indoors, and never showed anything at 200m that I can recall.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Nick Willis - its easy to spot the cheats!!

"I suppose from a legal standpoint you can't say you know who is (cheating)," he said.

"The way it works though is that the athletes hang out together the whole time for three days before races and it becomes the number one topic of conversation for all those who aren't participating in it (doping).

"It becomes obvious...the ones who don't want to be part of the conversation are the ones who have a lot of guilt surrounding themselves. It would become obvious if they did try to join in because they don't have the same passion (against doping) as the rest of us.
It becomes pretty clear who is sitting at which tables."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11491256

Great account. And what happens when you are at a table at a non-multisport event and the rest all go quiet when you bring up ideas for busting the doping cheats ? Being branded a non-team player will be one of the better things that might happen.

didnt the kiwi come second in the Olympic 1500metre final? A silver medalist?

this is like making the final of the 100m sprint. NOT NORMAL. This silver medal, imo, not possible. Tho you look at his body, and he does not look as hormonal as the other endurance runners, his arms look more like the 1980s runners. Some of the new runners, even tho they are just as skinny, their arms and shoulders are shaped like greyhounds, separation of their shoulders, and shape in their arms. The kiwi did not have that. But I cant believe he did not have some O2 vectors and some recovery stuff like hgh testo and cortisone.

so I dont believe him. Like how they qualify doping in cycling, if it does not show up, it aint doping. And "recovery therapy".

sounds a little like a Paula Radcliffe limited hangout propaganda.

A championship 1500m final is a hard event to be consistent in, for dopers and clean athletes alike. Very rarely is any athlete able to repeat their performances. Asbel Kiprop was a (promoted) Gold medalist in 2008 and then last in 2012. Willis was 9th in 2012 after 2nd in 2008. Silas Kiplagat (3:27 guy beating Kiprop last year in a fast race) was 7th in 2012. Manzano got 2nd in 2012 and couldn't make the final in 2008. Doping or not, there is no reliability in the results.

More than any other event, the 1500m has the weakest relationship between fitness and finishing place. Like Paris-Roubaix in the rain. Sure, it's easier when you're stronger, but it is no guarantee. So, more than any other event, in my opinion, it is possible for a clean athlete to podium.

If you want to say Willis is doping, his 1500m silver is no evidence of it. Instead, look at his 1500m PR set as a 32 year old, or the swath of PR's he's made after turning 31 last year (1500m, Mile, 3000m and 5000m).

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Nick Willis - its easy to spot the cheats!!

More than any other event, the 1500m has the weakest relationship between fitness and finishing place. Like Paris-Roubaix in the rain. Sure, it's easier when you're stronger, but it is no guarantee. So, more than any other event, in my opinion, it is possible for a clean athlete to podium.

That's interesting. Actually, I'd say it surprising. Do you have any handle on the physiological reason for this? The times are not too far off 4km IP times (3.5 vs < 4.5 mins) and in the track world, IP medals are almost guaranteed.

The stand out anomaly there is the Dutch rider pinged at the same time as Hayles, but that explanation is obvious.

Do you think it's perhaps the depth of the competition is so much greater in T&F (just need shorts and shoes), where as track cycling is more like a Comm games event in terms of depth (where you need an indoor track to really train year round)?

 

[yaco]

Biggest surprise is that ONLY 35% of medallists had suspicious results. Had two good mates who reached the State Level in middle distance running in Australia - They always claimed 90% are juiced to their eyeballs.

 

[SeriousSam]

Not having suspicious blood values doesn't mean they aren't juiced to their eyeballs.

 

[Lyon]

Re:

Not having suspicious blood values doesn't mean they aren't juiced to their eyeballs.

Exactly. What this shows is how easy it is to game the system. Money, infrastructure etc.
You also have to want to game the system. In certain countries they are old-school and just dont give a damn.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re: Nick Willis - its easy to spot the cheats!!

More than any other event, the 1500m has the weakest relationship between fitness and finishing place. Like Paris-Roubaix in the rain. Sure, it's easier when you're stronger, but it is no guarantee. So, more than any other event, in my opinion, it is possible for a clean athlete to podium.

That's interesting. Actually, I'd say it surprising. Do you have any handle on the physiological reason for this? The times are not too far off 4km IP times (3.5 vs < 4.5 mins) and in the track world, IP medals are almost guaranteed.

The stand out anomaly there is the Dutch rider pinged at the same time as Hayles, but that explanation is obvious.

Do you think it's perhaps the depth of the competition is so much greater in T&F (just need shorts and shoes), where as track cycling is more like a Comm games event in terms of depth (where you need an indoor track to really train year round)?

I don't think it has much to do with physiology.

400m and below, everything is in lanes. Runners may have different tactics, but it is all individual. Positioning, drafting, boxing in, etc. is not an issue.

The 800m and 1500m are not, obviously. These races also feature much more level playing fields. That is to say, in addition to the max of 3 (or 4 in WCs) runners for Kenya and Ethiopia, the best from nations like the US, Spain, Algeria, and the best individuals from Europe are on par. The US, UK/Germany/France/Poland, Spain, Morocco, etc. send guys who are 3:30.x, and 1:43 or faster, just like Kenya and Ethiopia.

That is not the case in the 5000m and 10000m, where the best 3 from East African nations Kenya, Ethiopia, Qatar/Bahrain (Kenyan heritage), are soo much farther ahead than the best non-africans.

So, in the 5000m and 10000m, the relative form of the finalists is pretty wide. There is a big gap between the strongest and weakest runner in the field. As the race plays out then, whether fast or slow, only the stronger guys emerge at the front. There is usually a longer wind-up, really stretching things out, and minimizing traffic over the last 1000m.

Compare that then to the 1500m, where 12 guys will go into the last lap, all being 3:28,3:29, or 3:30 guys. Everyone is capable, being pretty equal in strength, and are there fighting for the same positions. Fast or slow, every runner will be in contention, and every runner is using the same tactic, kick hard when the kicking starts. A lot more friction, and a lot more potential for randomness in the way positioning emerges.

In the 800m, even though the playing field is equal, it is much less chaotic. Only 8 runners, and it is short enough where flying and dying (aka front running) can be a successful tactic. The race almost always features someone to stretch things out from the beginning. Even in a slow race, there isn't much bunching up; the speed is still too high to accelerate sharply mid race (the kind you see 1500m runners do, go from last to 3rd in a straightaway in the 2nd and 3rd lap. This race is a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TANckAdSWQ. Watch it a second time, and only focus on the back half of the race, and see how often they will rotate to the front half, to be rotated back again.)

Just my observations. Doping still matters, as it will always be easier to think, decide, and execute when you are the most prepped athlete in the field.

FWIW, I think that Manzano, (Silver in 2012), is clean. He has a fast PR, but performs so inconsistently, a refreshing realism of training/racing that is missing in the top tiers of athletics. I'm growing more skeptical of Willis because of his recent performances. Clean or not, he does espouse the right attitude ("all of us should be suspected. We must make every effort to create a reason for fans to believe otherwise.") that it is now the athlete's responsibility to prove cleanliness. I wish I didn't have a "them dirty Africans" perception, but there is just too much evidence to the contrary. I want to judge each athlete as individuals, but the federation and camp system, with their doping culture, make that too hard to do.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Happy to have my 1500/800 concept reversed to 800/1500 in terms of randomness by someone more knowledgeable. The Sunday times also did a great feature on doping in west Kenya, as part of the whole multi-page story. It has not received much comment. Reading it would ensure on the most desperate Kenyan fan believing any of their runners were not juiced to the max from teen-age times.

Runner = doper, don't even consider it unless you dope.

And doping = easy and well managed, total infrastructure in place.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Biggest surprise is that ONLY 35% of medallists had suspicious results. Had two good mates who reached the State Level in middle distance running in Australia - They always claimed 90% are juiced to their eyeballs.

Did they do anything with this information, aside from use it as pub chat?

If they know or knew there was doping by these particular individuals, did they report it to ASADA? What was the outcome?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Nick Willis - its easy to spot the cheats!!

More than any other event, the 1500m has the weakest relationship between fitness and finishing place. Like Paris-Roubaix in the rain. Sure, it's easier when you're stronger, but it is no guarantee. So, more than any other event, in my opinion, it is possible for a clean athlete to podium.

That's interesting. Actually, I'd say it surprising. Do you have any handle on the physiological reason for this? The times are not too far off 4km IP times (3.5 vs < 4.5 mins) and in the track world, IP medals are almost guaranteed.

The stand out anomaly there is the Dutch rider pinged at the same time as Hayles, but that explanation is obvious.

Do you think it's perhaps the depth of the competition is so much greater in T&F (just need shorts and shoes), where as track cycling is more like a Comm games event in terms of depth (where you need an indoor track to really train year round)?

Add to that I'd say the 1500m would be more akin to a short scratch race rather than an individual pursuit. Tactics, and positioning would matter, plus a greater need for neuromuscular power to apply or react to changes in pace. While it's not as large a contributing factor as with cycling, there is also some draft benefit in running too (WR pace is 26km/h).