Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mark English - "If Martin Fagan really loves the sport, he shouldn’t compete again."

Options
«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    NetwerkErrer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭NetwerkErrer


    RunRoryRun wrote: »
    http://www.the42.ie/mark-english-doping-gaa-soccer-rugby-2101073-May2015/

    One of the strategies he mentions is making previous dopers wear orange bibs in races after their return to essentially shame race directors into not extending invites to them....

    What do you think?

    I think the topic of Martin Fagan has grinded to dust and Mark English's comments don't add any value to an already tiresome debate. Orange bibs!? he's lost the plot, Hardly adresses anything. The man has done his time, nobody can force him to do anything more. If he wants to run, he can run and that's the story plain and simple. People may not like it but that's the way it is.

    The decision is in the hands of the RD and not the IAAF after a ban is served.


  • Options
    #3
    rom
    Registered Users Posts: 5,135 ✭✭✭rom


    That sounds a bit like something that happened in Nazi German.


  • Options
    #4
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,600 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    It's the constant hounding of an athlete that has served his ban that is more worrying that the original ban!


  • Options
    #5
    RunRoryRun
    Registered Users Posts: 476 ✭✭RunRoryRun


    rom wrote: »
    That sounds a bit like something that happened in Nazi German.

    I was thinking the same thing! :eek:


  • Options
    #6
    johnruns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭johnruns


    Delighted he said it hopefully more top athletes will follow suit.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    frankeee
    Registered Users Posts: 134 ✭✭frankeee


    I think it's great for someone like Mark English to give his opinion. It would be so easy for him to just sit on the fence. There's not many athletes in this country that are famous (for the right reasons) outside of athletic circles so for one of them to put his feelings on the record can only be positive IMHO.


  • Options
    #8
    youngrun
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭youngrun


    strong words from English and one can understand why. but doesnt and wont make any difference and sometimes opinions like the orange bibs really should be kept to yourself.

    Fagan served the ban and can run again and can be picked for championships as the Chambers case proved, and is certainly good enough to .


  • Options
    #9
    youngrun
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭youngrun


    frankeee wrote: »
    I think it's great for someone like Mark English to give his opinion. It would be so easy for him to just sit on the fence. There's not many athletes in this country that are famous (for the right reasons) outside of athletic circles so for one of them to put his feelings on the record can only be positive IMHO.

    How is this a positive view left me with a fairly negative outlook on it all really. after reading it ...:(


  • Options
    #10
    frankeee
    Registered Users Posts: 134 ✭✭frankeee


    youngrun wrote: »
    How is this a positive view left me with a fairly negative outlook on it all really. after reading it ...:(

    Look at cycling - it was the refusal of the top guys to spit in the soup that allowed the sport to end up where it is/was. When people like Mark speak out it highlights that they are not all the same (of course they could be lying, but that's a different issue).Out of curiosity do you also think Radcliffe holding up the "EPO cheats out" was a negative?

    The orange bibs is a bit extreme, but gain it's his opinion and he's as entitled to that as anyone else is to disagree with it.

    Drug use in Sport is negative - athletes speaking out against dopers/former dopers isnt in my opinion


  • Options
    #11
    j0hn1
    Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭j0hn1


    Did many of ye read the actual article?
      He didn't come up with the idea of the orange bib, he was retelling a suggestion that someone else came up with. He made a 4 line comment of Martin Fagan, which reads like a response to a probe from the interviewer. Certainly not banging on about Fagan. All his points relating to athletics would appear to be valid (in my non-expert opinion) Everything (except perhaps the soccer & rugby stuff) he says is true, without vendetta, and on the money

    He probably would have been better off not commenting on GAA, soccer or rugby, but the interviewer does appear to have drawn him into the GAA comment.

    Fair play to Mark English for speaking his mind, much better than the silence. And what he says is true, bans should be for life but that may not work legally.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,845 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    The orange color bibs was mentioned before or the they have a small kit logo on their top but the clean athletes have a proper big logo, but its not viable.

    In short, IAAF needs the drug cheats, otherwise the 100m's would be very boring and it kills me to say that.

    Jamaica does feck all testing, so are all the athletes banned from there, IAAF tested the Jamaican athletes very little also, Bolt went thru a whole season where he was not competing without getting tested, he admitted that!!!


  • Options
    #13
    frankeee
    Registered Users Posts: 134 ✭✭frankeee


    j0hn1 wrote: »
    Did many of ye read the actual article?
      He didn't come up with the idea of the orange bib, he was retelling a suggestion that someone else came up with.
      He made a 4 line comment of Martin Fagan, which reads like a response to a probe from the interviewer. Certainly not banging on about Fagan.
      All his points relating to athletics would appear to be valid (in my non-expert opinion)
      Everything (except perhaps the soccer & rugby stuff) he says is true, without vendetta, and on the money


      He probably would have been better off not commenting on GAA, soccer or rugby, but the interviewer does appear to have drawn him into the GAA comment.

      Fair play to Mark English for speaking his mind, much better than the silence. And what he says is true, bans should be for life but that may not work legally.

      He said he thought it was a good idea


    • Options
      #14
      walshb
      Registered Users Posts: 54,600 ✭✭✭✭walshb


      average_runner wrote: »
      In short, IAAF needs the drug cheats, otherwise the 100m's would be very boring and it kills me to say that.

      Sorry, that's ridiculous, and a very pessimistic and defeatist attitude. It implies that you believe that fast sprinting is not humanly possible without drugs? Does that mean that every WR holder was, or had to be a PED user?


    • Options
      #15
      ThisRegard
      Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


      average_runner wrote: »
      In short, IAAF needs the drug cheats, otherwise the 100m's would be very boring and it kills me to say that.

      Well I don't watch the 100 metres at all because I have no confidence in any of the competitors at top level.


    • Options
      #16
      PaulieC
      Registered Users Posts: 6,187 ✭✭✭PaulieC


      average_runner wrote: »
      In short, IAAF needs the drug cheats, otherwise the 100m's would be very boring and it kills me to say that.

      The 100m's would be maybe a second slower, but at least the contestants were running on talent and hard work and not PEDs.


    • Options
      #17
      Chivito550
      Registered Users Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


      j0hn1 wrote: »
      Did many of ye read the actual article?
        He didn't come up with the idea of the orange bib, he was retelling a suggestion that someone else came up with. He made a 4 line comment of Martin Fagan, which reads like a response to a probe from the interviewer. Certainly not banging on about Fagan. All his points relating to athletics would appear to be valid (in my non-expert opinion) Everything (except perhaps the soccer & rugby stuff) he says is true, without vendetta, and on the money

      He probably would have been better off not commenting on GAA, soccer or rugby, but the interviewer does appear to have drawn him into the GAA comment.

      Fair play to Mark English for speaking his mind, much better than the silence. And what he says is true, bans should be for life but that may not work legally.

      The soccer and rugby stuff is very much true. Lot of people burying their heads in the sand, and will never question the size of rugby players these days, or footballers running around at the end of extra time like its the 2nd minute of the game. And don't get me started on 6 hour tennis matches with 50 stroke rally's in the 5th set.


    • Options
      #18
      frankeee
      Registered Users Posts: 134 ✭✭frankeee


      ThisRegard wrote: »
      Well I don't watch the 100 metres at all because I have no confidence in any of the competitors at top level.

      Compared to other distances/disciplines ? I dunno, I know what your saying but other distances just dont create the headlines the same as the likes of Gatlin. I'm not sure they're any cleaner. EG if Nike were sponsoring Rashid Ramzi it probably would get a small mention and nothing more


    • Options
      #19
      Chivito550
      Registered Users Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


      PaulieC wrote: »
      The 100m's would be maybe a second slower, but at least the contestants were running on talent and hard work and not PEDs.

      1 second??? You really don't understand sprinting if you think that. I assume you mean a tenth of a second. Sure the Irish record is 10.18.


    • Options
      #20
      frankeee
      Registered Users Posts: 134 ✭✭frankeee


      Chivito550 wrote: »
      The soccer and rugby stuff is very much true. Lot of people burying their heads in the sand, and will never question the size of rugby players these days, or footballers running around at the end of extra time like its the 2nd minute of the game. And don't get me started on 6 hour tennis matches with 50 stroke rally's in the 5th set.

      Could n't agree more. When non athletics friends ask me do I think is athlete X on drugs, I typically reply "about as likely as rugby player Y" which generally doesn't go down too well


    • Options
      #21
      Pherekydes
      Registered Users Posts: 16,114 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


      PaulieC wrote: »
      The 100m's would be maybe a second slower, but at least the contestants were running on talent and hard work and not PEDs.

      10.6? Harold Abrahams ran that in 1924.


    • Advertisement
    • Options
      #22
      ThisRegard
      Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


      frankeee wrote: »
      Compared to other distances/disciplines ? I dunno, I know what your saying but other distances just dont create the headlines the same as the likes of Gatlin. I'm not sure they're any cleaner. EG if Nike were sponsoring Rashid Ramzi it probably would get a small mention and nothing more

      Yeah, I'm not naive about longer distances but sprinters have more a history with doping. And IMO, they tend to be dicks which never helps.
      Pherekydes wrote: »
      10.6? Harold Abrahams ran that in 1924.

      Probably with the aid of coke back then ! (a joke)


    • Options
      #23
      PaulieC
      Registered Users Posts: 6,187 ✭✭✭PaulieC


      Chivito550 wrote: »
      1 second??? You really don't understand sprinting if you think that. I assume you mean a tenth of a second. Sure the Irish record is 10.18.
      Pherekydes wrote: »
      10.6? Harold Abrahams ran that in 1924.

      alright lads, calm down. I was just refuting the point that the 100 would be less exciting without PEDs.

      WalshB, I'd include your reply in here too only you deleted it ;)


    • Options
      #24
      walshb
      Registered Users Posts: 54,600 ✭✭✭✭walshb


      I cannot for the life of me get behind the fact that the WR for 100 metres would be 10.5 or so if only clean athletes ran. That is dismissing every single great sprinter who ever ran faster times. Drigs help, no doubt, but there are humans out there who are extraordinary and who are honest and clean and still the best.


    • Options
      #25
      walshb
      Registered Users Posts: 54,600 ✭✭✭✭walshb


      PaulieC wrote: »
      alright lads, calm down. I was just refuting the point that the 100 wouldn't be any less exciting without PEDs.

      WalshB, I'd include your reply in here too only you deleted it ;)

      Thanks, I realized it was a dumb reply. You can disregard my post above as well.:)


    • Options
      #26
      my friend
      Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,129 ✭✭✭my friend


      rom wrote: »
      That sounds a bit like something that happened in Nazi German.

      Godwin @ post 3

      You're a champ!


    • Options
      #27
      frankeee
      Registered Users Posts: 134 ✭✭frankeee


      ThisRegard wrote: »
      Yeah, I'm not naive about longer distances but sprinters have more a history with doping. And IMO, they tend to be dicks which never helps.

      That they do :) While I'm definitely more of a distance fan myself, I was in the stadium when Bolt ran 9.58 and it has to go down as one of the most special sporting occasions I've ever witnessed.


    • Options
      #28
      average_runner
      Registered Users Posts: 12,845 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


      walshb wrote: »
      Sorry, that's ridiculous, and a very pessimistic and defeatist attitude. It implies that you believe that fast sprinting is not humanly possible without drugs? Does that mean that every WR holder was, or had to be a PED user?


      No i believe the drug cheats pushes the other runners to new levels in 100m

      But then again how many clean WR in 100m over the last 20 years?


    • Options
      #29
      average_runner
      Registered Users Posts: 12,845 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


      Chivito550 wrote: »
      The soccer and rugby stuff is very much true. Lot of people burying their heads in the sand, and will never question the size of rugby players these days, or footballers running around at the end of extra time like its the 2nd minute of the game. And don't get me started on 6 hour tennis matches with 50 stroke rally's in the 5th set.



      Ah now are you talking about a certain country that starts with 'S' and causes alot of pain.

      Last euro champs was the perfect scenario, out on their feet against Portugal and fresh as anything against Italy!!!


    • Options
      #30
      walshb
      Registered Users Posts: 54,600 ✭✭✭✭walshb


      average_runner wrote: »
      No i believe the drug cheats pushes the other runners to new levels in 100m

      But then again how many clean WR in 100m over the last 20 years?

      I believe Bolt's to be clean. I understand the Jamaican issue. I can see the point here.

      If the drugs cheats push the others to new levels then are you saying that some of the others are clean?


    • Advertisement
    • Options
      #31
      Chivito550
      Registered Users Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


      ThisRegard wrote: »
      Yeah, I'm not naive about longer distances but sprinters have more a history with doping. And IMO, they tend to be dicks which never helps.



      Probably with the aid of coke back then ! (a joke)

      You are joking right? Distance running is just as tainted by drug use, if not more. What about the flying finns of the 70s and 80s, Ma's Army in the 90s, who's records remain untouchable, the Soviets such as Olga Kasinkina, the Romanians of that time, Mary Decker, the women's 1500m from 2012 where first, second and fourth were filthy, all the Turks in general, Olga Yegerova who was caught twice (same as Gatlin) but got off on a technicality. What about all the medals that Sonia has lost out on during her career due to cheats. What about the crisis in Kenya right now, or Shobukhova. What about the EPO era in the 90s, where athletes who are still considered legends took down the WR by as much in 5 years as was done in the previous 25. I know this is pretty much a distance board, but a dose of reality wouldn't go astray. They are both as dirty as each other.


    Advertisement