Impressive - Martin Fagan

drquirky

clear thinking wrote: »

Many non-elite plodders doped up on EPO and other assorted angel dust would be able to compete at elite level. Lots of 2.25 marathon guys could have 2.15s, lots of 2.18s could have 2.08s so no need for pinches of salt at all.

IMO that shows a pretty limited understanding of the potential benefits of EPO...

A 2:18 to a 2:08 ? Show me one example of that lol

tomdempsey200

drquirky wrote: »

IMO that shows a pretty limited understanding of the potential benefits of EPO...

A 2:18 to a 2:08 ? Show me one example of that lol

more like a couple of minutes at the sharp end

less performance enhancement for elite
than sub-elite

drquirky

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

more like a couple of minutes at the sharp end

less performance enhancement for elite
than sub-elite

Yup more like say 2:05- 2:03 even less with the kind of micro dosing common now. As Team Sky in cycling would call it, "marginal gains"

corny

theboyblunder wrote: »

hahahaha. well said.

First off - I dont like that he hasnt answered questions - and I dont buy the unsupported 'just the once' argument.

However, I cant understand the how harsh some people are about this and other cases. If youve poured your life into athletics (coaching kids or adults, organising events etc), or competed at the highest level and been robbed by a drugs cheat, then yeah I wont judge you holding on to the grudge, I think youre entitled.

If youre a average joe/josephine jogging around the roads of ireland like myself in search of PBs in your spare time, I take the indignation, the urge to punish and keep a humiliated man down, with a large pinch of salt.

Jog on - vote for lucinda creightons party when it gets going and pray that you or yours never make a big mistake in life.

Funny thing indignation. Works both ways if you ask me.

For what its worth I think you can take a dim view without being emotionally compromised.

PVincent

For the complete idiots amongst us about epo and any of the other stuff that they take to enhance performance, will someone in black and white just give me a short explanation of what the benefits are of taking this stuff, because i am of the opinion that shag all of us understand what they are. Do they make you run faster , or do they enable you to train harder. If I took them , a 3.20 marathon runner, what would I gain , or is the benefit more applicable to elites , who can train better and longer, and have the natural talent already.

theboyblunder

PVincent wrote: »

For the complete idiots amongst us about epo and any of the other stuff that they take to enhance performance, will someone in black and white just give me a short explanation of what the benefits are of taking this stuff, because i am of the opinion that shag all of us understand what they are. Do they make you run faster , or do they enable you to train harder. If I took them , a 3.20 marathon runner, what would I gain , or is the benefit more applicable to elites , who can train better and longer, and have the natural talent already.

theres no iditots in bros pearse peter EPO is a natural signalling molecule which indirectly controlls red blood cell production in the bone marrow. More red blood cells means greater oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, leading to enhanced performance, particularly in endurance sports. Super elites already have highly developed aerobic systems, and benefit less than others. Even among elites, epo has more of an effect on athletes with naturally relatively low haematocrit (red blood cell count as a percentage of blood by volume) than those with naturally high haematocrit. On someone like me id say the effect would be bloody spectacular

You also cant keep increasing your haematocrit to improve performance. Eventually you get treacle for blood and all those horror stories of young cyclists getting up in the middle of the night to go on a stationary bike to avoid a heart attack.

PVincent

I always think it would be a very useful experiment to take a couple of athletes like say you and me , and conduct a few tests after a dose of the stuff. Mind you finding someone willing to sacrifice their body for the experiment might be more difficult than we think.

tomdempsey200

PVincent wrote: »

I always think it would be a very useful experiment to take a couple of athletes like say you and me , and conduct a few tests after a dose of the stuff. Mind you finding someone willing to sacrifice their body for the experiment might be more difficult than we think.

already been done
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/mobile/?articleID=2000104769&story_title=Drugs%20on%20the%20Track:What%20researchers%20have%20discovered%20among%20local%20runners/lifestyle/

johnruns

MrCreosote wrote: »

You've got evidence he hasn't been then? If so, I'd love to see it.

If not, then best to keep your unfounded speculation to yourself. At least I've got something to back up my opinion.

So how is drugs cheat as much a victim as a clean athlete?

desertcircus

If you think that only outright cynical cheats engage in doping, then that means accepting that sports as a whole is a uniquely attractive environment for awful people and that purely by being an elite athlete, someone can be identified as having a significant chance of being a total **** - if the personalities lead the doping, then the personalities have to be, by and large, horrible, and the people at the top of the table are massively more likely to be complete jerks than randomers pulled in off the street. If that's what you believe, then fine, but I don't. To advocate automatic life bans for dopers is to declare that a team leader in cycling who bullies a domestique into using EPO isn't any more guilty than the domestique - not to mention that an automatic life ban instantly removes any and all incentives for cooperation with investigations. Doping isn't a black and white issue; it's a thorny, awkward problem, and pretending the solution is straightforward does nobody any favours.

robinph

desertcircus wrote: »

...not to mention that an automatic life ban instantly removes any and all incentives for cooperation with investigations. Doping isn't a black and white issue; it's a thorny, awkward problem, and pretending the solution is straightforward does nobody any favours.

But you need to start from the point of get caught doping = life ban. Then you can work back from that with reducing the ban based on the particular circumstances.

When you start with a ban of two years and then reduce that if people play nicely with the authorities there is barely any punishment at all.

Enduro

PVincent wrote: »

For the complete idiots amongst us about epo and any of the other stuff that they take to enhance performance, will someone in black and white just give me a short explanation of what the benefits are of taking this stuff, because i am of the opinion that shag all of us understand what they are. Do they make you run faster , or do they enable you to train harder. If I took them , a 3.20 marathon runner, what would I gain , or is the benefit more applicable to elites , who can train better and longer, and have the natural talent already.

Another good article from a while back, which is a particularly good illustration of just how effective EPO can be was pubclished in Outside magazine called "drug Test" by Stuart Stevens.

EPO has a porentially massive effect on your ability to train. By being able to train much harder you make gains that last for a long time after you stop taking the drug. It's someone analogous to souped-up altitiude training. That's one of the things that makes EPO cheats hard to catch (Lance Armstrong for example), as the clever ones wouldn't be using it when they would be competing (and more likely to be tested).

MrCreosote

johnruns wrote: »

So how is drugs cheat as much a victim as a clean athlete?

Take a moment and consider that instead of your polarised world view that all dopers are bad bad people, and all clean/never-tested-positive athletes are virtuous demi-gods, a person's doping might be symptomatic of some other problem, or because of coercion, or because they are desperately trying to make ends meet. It's never black and white.

adrian522

I don't think anyone is saying they are bad,bad people but to portray them as victims is very disingenuous.

I think the punishment should be more of a deterrent than it currently is. At present the potential benefits outweigh the potential punishment for a lot of people.

nerraw1111

I can see how Fagan is a victim in all this. It would be awful for any person to suffer privately, turn to doping just once when at their lowest and bang, all their hard work, reputation is gone overnight. The sport you love is gone, the simple pleasure of lacing up your shoes to run the local race turns into a matter of public discussion.

There has to be a disincentive to doping and that’s where life bans come in. Hard cases make bad law and you’re then into the realm of mitigating circumstances when handing out bans and that would be a mess.

You can still support a life ban and sympathise with Fagan. Blame the dopers for that, not Joe and Josephine who support Irish athletes through taxes.

johnruns

MrCreosote wrote: »

Take a moment and consider that instead of your polarised world view that all dopers are bad bad people, and all clean/never-tested-positive athletes are virtuous demi-gods, .

I never said anything like that,maybe he is a nice guy I don't know,but fair enough if people want to welcome back a drug cheat because he is a nice guy,comes from Ireland,claims he was depressed and claims he just did it the once thats fine but I don't believe him and like many others don't think its good for the sport to have him back.

walshb

Reading some posts you'd swear the guy committed armed robbery. He was caught, served the ban. It should be matter closed. If they are the rules then so be it. This view shouldn't see people labeled as soft on cheats.

career_move

Enduro wrote: »

Another good article from a while back, which is a particularly good illustration of just how effective EPO can be was pubclished in Outside magazine called "drug Test" by Stuart Stevens.

EPO has a porentially massive effect on your ability to train. By being able to train much harder you make gains that last for a long time after you stop taking the drug. It's someone analogous to souped-up altitiude training. That's one of the things that makes EPO cheats hard to catch (Lance Armstrong for example), as the clever ones wouldn't be using it when they would be competing (and more likely to be tested).

I'm just wondering about this. Your kidneys naturally produce EPO when the kidney detects it is receiving a decreased oxygen supply. This stimulates the bone marrow to produce more red blood cells. this results in more oxygenated blood arriving at the kidneys and EPO production stops. If you inject yourself with EPO this will have the direct effect on the bone marrow of increasing red blood cell production and consequently blood oxygenation levels. My question is do your kidneys then become adapted to the higher blood oxygenation levels so that when you stop using exogenous EPO the kidneys take over production or how are the long term gains made once you stop injecting the EPO.

In that article (interesting read btw) he's using a combination of human growth hormone, testosterone, EPO and other anabolic steroids so that he's able to train harder and recover quicker and that's whats making him race better and I can see that the long term effects once you stop using would be maybe the muscle gains although in the article he says himself that once he stop using the drugs he noticed a decline pretty quickly in things like his eyesight and recovery times so I'm still a bit confused

MrCreosote

career_move wrote: »

I'm just wondering about this. Your kidneys naturally produce EPO when the kidney detects it is receiving a decreased oxygen supply. This stimulates the bone marrow to produce more red blood cells. this results in more oxygenated blood arriving at the kidneys and EPO production stops. If you inject yourself with EPO this will have the direct effect on the bone marrow of increasing red blood cell production and consequently blood oxygenation levels. My question is do your kidneys then become adapted to the higher blood oxygenation levels so that when you stop using exogenous EPO the kidneys take over production or how are the long term gains made once you stop injecting the EPO.

In that article (interesting read btw) he's using a combination of human growth hormone, testosterone, EPO and other anabolic steroids so that he's able to train harder and recover quicker and that's whats making him race better and I can see that the long term effects once you stop using would be maybe the muscle gains although in the article he says himself that once he stop using the drugs he noticed a decline pretty quickly in things like his eyesight and recovery times so I'm still a bit confused

There's also all the non-physiological stuff that you can benefit from if you're successful. The career opportunities that open, better funding, more access to better training facilities, joining a better team, getting a leadership or protected position on a team.

Look at the cyclist Ryder Hesjedal who admitted doping many years before winning the Giro in 2012. He says it was in the past, but who knows what trajectory his career would have taken without it?

Despite all that, I'd be strongly opposed to mandatory lifetime bans. Doping is more a symptom of an illness within a sport, than an individual failing.

mithril

theboyblunder wrote: »

hahahaha. well said.

First off - I dont like that he hasnt answered questions - and I dont buy the unsupported 'just the once' argument.

However, I cant understand the how harsh some people are about this and other cases. If youve poured your life into athletics (coaching kids or adults, organising events etc), or competed at the highest level and been robbed by a drugs cheat, then yeah I wont judge you holding on to the grudge, I think youre entitled.

If youre a average joe/josephine jogging around the roads of ireland like myself in search of PBs in your spare time, I take the indignation, the urge to punish and keep a humiliated man down, with a large pinch of salt.

Jog on - vote for lucinda creightons party when it gets going and pray that you or yours never make a big mistake in life.

There is some truth in what you are saying.
Martin Fagan has defined his whole life through running and the stakes for him in continuing to run are much higher than for any of us. I did feel for him on Sunday as a person going through a difficult time.

However when media journalists are not prepared to do their jobs properly,which is to tell the truth as accurately as possible, then it's reasonable to put an alternative point of view on the Internet which is believed to closer to the truth than the official line.

This is particularly true since he has not been prepared to date to give an honest and full account of the circumstances leading to his drug taking - perhaps because doing so would implicate others around him.

I would not regard this as humiliating the man.
Boards.ie is very much a minority community and has a lot less influence than you seem to think judging by his reception in Terenure ( http://www.news.msn.ie/martin-fagan-terenue-5-mile-1471869-May2014/ )
Best media rehabilitation campaign since cocaine fuelled Ben Dunne emerged on a balcony in Florida in his underpants threatening to jump, and emerged from the incident with his reputation enhanced.

Re. Lucinda, I am even less likely to vote for her party than you, but a rare example of integrity in politics. Made a commitment and destroyed a promising career to keep it. She would have replaced Alan Shatter as a cabinet minister if she had followed the party line in Fine Gael. Instead she runs in one of the most liberal constituencies in the country at the next election as an independent largely defined by the pro-life issue.

tang1

Another convincing win tonight in the Bob Heffernan 5km in 14.26. Nearly a minute clear of second place.

NiallG4

drquirky wrote: »

IMO that shows a pretty limited understanding of the potential benefits of EPO...

A 2:18 to a 2:08 ? Show me one example of that lol

I doubt he can do that but I would say he is not far off the mark. Cathal Lombard went from 30mins+ to 27.33. So if an Irish man can take 2.30 off his 10K, then surely 10 mins over a marathon is possible.

I think a lot of people are torn on this one. I am hearing the "once off" line which I don't for one second believe. I personally think it was going on for years (my opinion). I can't accept the depression excuse either. If every athlete who was depressed cheated, we would have some serious records.

On the other hand I have been talking to a few guys who know him and they all say he is a lovely guy and that's why some people are not as harsh on him as opposed to Armstrong who appears to be an arrogant ignoramus.

Anyway, he won again last night and I am wondering when do the benefits of cheating go away. There are people who believe the benefits remain for a period afterwards due to the fact that the body got to that level of performance and can cope with a return to a similar but higher than clean intensity training regime albeit without the recovery aides.

robinph

NiallG4 wrote: »

On the other hand I have been talking to a few guys who know him and they all say he is a lovely guy and that's why some people are not as harsh on him as opposed to Armstrong who appears to be an arrogant ignoramus.

From watching from the outside I'd say that the reason people are not being as harsh on him is down to him being Irish so they therefore have a soft spot for one of their own.

Clearlier

robinph wrote: »

From watching from the outside I'd say that the reason people are not being as harsh on him is down to him being Irish so they therefore have a soft spot for one of their own.

That doesn't fit with the treatment that Cathal Lombard received.

I'm deeply unimpressed with Ian O'Riordan. He has done a disservice to the sport. I could forgive him the inability to dig deep but he makes no attempt to dig at all.

On Martin Fagan. I think that he should be allowed to compete again but I don't welcome it if that makes any sense.

I understand and sympathise with the calls for lifetime bans but I disagree with them. Life is just not that black and white and the incentive to come clean and to help the testers improve their methods is lost. So while I don't want to see them compete again I accept it as the cost of improving the system. I would support an increase in penalties.

robinph

Clearlier wrote: »

On Martin Fagan. I think that he should be allowed to compete again but I don't welcome it if that makes any sense.

I don't think I'd actually have too much of a problem with people being allowed to compete again, it's just that needs to be the exception rather than the rule. They need to start from the position of lifetime ban and then if there are reasons to give a lesser ban then that is OK, but there has to be some decent justification for it.

brutes1

This issue will always divide people

Fagan was always a very good athlete, right from junior days .
see here for example of progression http://www.athleticsireland.ie/content/?page_id=615
Looks like he is coming back to some form, and will no doubt improve more

nerraw1111

Talk of form in relation to a doper is laughable.

kevd2000

If I look at that link. It looks like last nights run was a PB then!

Krusty_Clown

kevd2000 wrote: »

If I look at that link. It looks like last nights run was a PB then!

2006 14.01.15
2006 13.39.62
2005 13.56.82
2005 13.58.05
2004 14.09.35

*Edit*: A little easier to read here

ultrapercy

The lack of understanding regarding depression is astounding. No matter how many information campaigns that happen people still refuse to see the difference between a clinical illness and how they feel on a rainy day or when they narrowly fail to bring their 5k pb under 23 mins. Anyone who followed Fagans career could see signs of a problem early on. This is not to excuse what he did, it was very wrong but it does give it context. Thats the nature of the illness it interupts the decision making process. People who are depressed often take their own lives and sometimes even the lives of others but you all know this already just some of you are not strong enough to accept it. Its out there, its becoming increasingly more common, and it could happen to you,if it does, hopefully people will be more understanding than to accuse you of faking but you reap what you sow.