Do you think athletics will ever be drug free?

RealistSpy

Topic.

This is very heart breaking find out we are not running at an equal field. I think ther're more athletes doping thst are passing the test.

Running Bing

Yeah I think sports are absolutely over run with drugs.


All sports. I see the tennis players are bitching now about having to take drug tests and a few NASCAR drivers in the states have been busted:rolleyes:

I dont think athletics will ever be drug free but I would hate to see it go the way of cycling where its practically an accepted reality that to compete you need to be taking something.

At the end of the day the reason why a lot of top athletes are where they are is because of an overwhelming desire to win.

If the choice is between morals/ethics/ideals or winning a lot are going to pick winning.

thirtyfoot

RealistSpy wrote: »

Topic.

This is very heart breaking find out we are not running at an equal field. I think ther're more athletes doping thst are passing the test.

I'd disagree with you. Its a small percentage that are doping. Many of the elite Irish athletes who are possibly losing out of final slots because of athletes doping will say that the perception that everyone is doping is not a true reflection. Its a small number that is getting smaller. Its easy to say they are all on something and those that do are in many times looking for excuses. There is a lot less money around for athletes and the testers are catching up.

Also, the media love a drug story. The likes of Kimmage and Walsh will report on the drug story ahead of the actual event and that is fair enough as its their livelihood and area of expertise. Many books can be quoted with people saying read this and you'll change your mind but there are many books showing the work athletes did and that explains how they performed so well.

There is drugs out there but not as widespread as the media or as some people think. Probably as widespread as match-fixing in football or race-fixing in horse racing. People who dope in sport are usually unscrupolous b*stards who might steal money from the till at work or cheat on their partner, do you think the majority of athletes are like this? I'd be surprised.

--amadeus--

Mod hat on - discussion of the ethics, etc is fine. Allegations of drug use aren't, please be careful with what you say!

tunney

Running Bing wrote: »

I dont think athletics will ever be drug free but I would hate to see it go the way of cycling where its practically an accepted reality that to compete you need to be taking something.

I disagree. i don't think cycling is any more dirty that swimming, tennis or athletics. But there is now no cover up in cycling. Unlike other sports - look at Operation Puerto. Only a fraction of the blood bags were cyclists - yet the only ones sanctioned are cyclists. The athletics, soccer and tennis federations have done nothing over it.

robinph

There will always be someone willing to try and cheat in some form. Just as long as they never decide test me for anything.

shels4ever

robinph wrote: »

There will always be someone willing to try and cheat in some form. Just as long as they never decide test me for anything.

Something you want to tell us then?

PainIsTemporary

tunney wrote: »

I disagree. i don't think cycling is any more dirty that swimming, tennis or athletics. But there is now no cover up in cycling. Unlike other sports - look at Operation Puerto. Only a fraction of the blood bags were cyclists - yet the only ones sanctioned are cyclists. The athletics, soccer and tennis federations have done nothing over it.

Excellent point. Read lately of French Anti-Doping agency that retested hair samples from before Olympics. Highest percentage of subsequent positives were from Soccer players. Found that very interesting. Seldom hear negative stories of drug abuse in Soccer [except for cocaine use] and it is the most popular spectator sport. Hasn't been tarnished like other sports and seems to be blind eye given to it in the press/from their associations. FA refuse to sign up to WADA Athlete Whereabouts system which is suspicious. Anyhow back to above qoute. Tunney you're bang on. Does not reflect well on other sporting federations that they haven't followed up on Operation Puerto.

Running Bing

Tingle wrote: »

There is drugs out there but not as widespread as the media or as some people think. Probably as widespread as match-fixing in football or race-fixing in horse racing.

Dont know about horses but Id be amazed if it was not a lot more common than match fixing!

All you have to do is look at the number of positive drug tests versus the amount of uncovered match fixing scandals.

Also the Peleton in any of the grand tours in cycling is absolutely over run with drugs....I cant vouch for the characters of the cyclists but I cant imagine they are all unscrupulous bastards who would steal money....The sheep mentality is very strong in people, a lot of people are susceptible to the "well sure if everybody else is doing it...." attitude.

RealistSpy

Dwain Chamber

Thats a great link

SucCes09

Suprised there is not more about it in soccer alright. The only way is the blood passport method, but can't see too many signing up for that - they won't even sign up to WADA...

Running Bing

SucCes09 wrote: »

Suprised there is not more about it in soccer alright.

I was only thinking about this the other day.

tbh there is not as much to be gained...look at races in the olympics, the difference can often be a split second between individuals.


On a football pitch you have 21 other individuals not to mention the fact drugs are not going to do much for your skill with a football.

Overall the relatively small gains in speed/strength from doping would'nt be worth the risk in football imo.

thirtyfoot

Running Bing wrote: »

Dont know about horses but Id be amazed if it was not a lot more common than match fixing!

All you have to do is look at the number of positive drug tests versus the amount of uncovered match fixing scandals.

There was some guy on Newstalk saying Asian football is riddled with it and that it is coming into the lesser European leagues. Will never come into EPL as the players are unbribable due to their wages. Was on the radio and some journo said it so it must be true!

One example in Poland......

http://www.theoffside.com/europe/more-match-fixing-this-time-its-poland.html

Google match fixing and you'll find lots of it. You probably don't hear about it on Sky Sports as they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Running Bing

Tingle wrote: »

There was some guy on Newstalk saying Asian football is riddled with it and that it is coming into the lesser European leagues. Will never come into EPL as the players are unbribable due to their wages. Was on the radio and some journo said it so it must be true!

One example in Poland......

http://www.theoffside.com/europe/more-match-fixing-this-time-its-poland.html

Google match fixing and you'll find lots of it. You probably don't hear about it on Sky Sports as they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Yeah, who gives a sh1t about Asian football though:P


Seriously though look at the amount of athletes caught down through the years. Even somebody like Coughlan admits he was tempted and was on the brink of cheating. The allegations have always been there in athletics and I believe there is no smoke without fire (and anyway there is enough fire with all the people who were caught.)


Agree the media can go overboard though and its very annoying when you get people who would never watch athletics or have the slightest interest and say things like "sure their all on drugs":rolleyes:


The cheats are there but its very much the minority, the challenge is keeping it that way because I believe in cycling its very much the majority and I find that pretty sad (still love to watch cycling though).

MrCreosote

I was thinking about this myself recently.
If we knew the benefit from doping (say 10% better times in endurance events from EPO) you could argue that if a few are doing it, everybody must be, because 10% would be the difference between being a reasonable national athlete and say a competitive olympian.
Same thing for anabolics etc in strength events.
Like in cycling in the late 90s- all the top TDF cyclists have been caught or implicated in doping scandals. If somebody came along and went faster than them, can we believe it's just natural talent?

I'm not sure the benefit is known for sure though. So there's always some doubt/wriggle room:)

Running Bing

MrCreosote wrote: »

I was thinking about this myself recently.
If we knew the benefit from doping (say 10% better times in endurance events from EPO) you could argue that if a few are doing it, everybody must be, because 10% would be the difference between being a reasonable national athlete and say a competitive olympian.
Same thing for anabolics etc in strength events.
Like in cycling in the late 90s- all the top TDF cyclists have been caught or implicated in doping scandals. If somebody came along and went faster than them, can we believe it's just natural talent?

I'm not sure the benefit is known for sure though. So there's always some doubt/wriggle room:)

Its a good point. The cyclist Pantani is a case in point....obviously an incredibly talented cyclist but he was disqualified in 99 because of suspicious red blood count, his whole career was plagued by doping allegations yet there was still times when he was absolutely demolished by (not naming any names;)) other "clean" cyclists. Hmmmmmm.

MrCreosote

Exactly. People will always say innocent until proven guilty.
For me though- I don't believe it anymore, guilty by association I say!

(Of course I suspend disbelief for 3 weeks every July, and 2 weeks every 4 years for the olympics. Then return to my cynical self!)

ss43

Running Bing wrote: »

Seriously though look at the amount of athletes caught down through the years. Even somebody like Coughlan admits he was tempted and was on the brink of cheating. The allegations have always been there in athletics and I believe there is no smoke without fire (and anyway there is enough fire with all the people who were caught.)

I'm not having a go at Coghlan here but what has be done to deserve "even somebody like Coughlan" i.e. why would it be more surprising for him to take something than anybody else? Anyway, he came out with that when he was trying to sell a book, he mighn't have been as tempted as he was letting on.

MrCreosote wrote: »

I was thinking about this myself recently.
If we knew the benefit from doping (say 10% better times in endurance events from EPO) you could argue that if a few are doing it, everybody must be, because 10% would be the difference between being a reasonable national athlete and say a competitive olympian.
Same thing for anabolics etc in strength events.
Like in cycling in the late 90s- all the top TDF cyclists have been caught or implicated in doping scandals. If somebody came along and went faster than them, can we believe it's just natural talent?

I'm not sure the benefit is known for sure though. So there's always some doubt/wriggle room:)

I doubt you could have a set benefit for a drug. With EPO the purpose is to raise your red blood cell count which isn't beneficial after a certain level (cos your blood gets too thick and can't flow quick enough). If you have a naturally high count or are training at altitude, there is less potential for the EPO to improve performance.

With other drugs that help you to recover quickly then their efficacy will be based on how efficient the training is. Drugs that help strength gains through increasing bulk wouldn't be effective in someone who was already as big as would be good for them in their event.

MrCreosote wrote: »

Exactly. People will always say innocent until proven guilty.
For me though- I don't believe it anymore, guilty by association I say!

(Of course I suspend disbelief for 3 weeks every July, and 2 weeks every 4 years for the olympics. Then return to my cynical self!)

I only follow the running events in athletics and mainly the distance ones. Seeing the results people can get long before they could have access to drugs makes me tend to believe these achievements are possible.

MrCreosote

ss43 wrote: »

I doubt you could have a set benefit for a drug. With EPO the purpose is to raise your red blood cell count which isn't beneficial after a certain level (cos your blood gets too thick and can't flow quick enough). If you have a naturally high count or are training at altitude, there is less potential for the EPO to improve performance.

I only follow the running events in athletics and mainly the distance ones. Seeing the results people can get long before they could have access to drugs makes me tend to believe these achievements are possible.

I'd agree that a set benefit would vary for an individual athlete, but with EPO the benefits are still pretty huge. Looking at cycling again- EPO hit the peleton in the early 90s and there was a noticeable increase in average speeds. Greg Lemond went from winning TDF to being dropped by the peleton in 2 years. Different sports I know, but if the benefit is that large it will be used in other endurance events. Definitely used in Crosscountry skiing for example. The problem always is in extrapolating to an individual athlete.

The other thing with doping is to look at the world record times. Most of the women's times now aren't close to records from the 90s for longer distance, and 80s for field and strength events. For men a little less obvious, but the trend is still there. You could argue that this shows better testing now for anabolics (strength) and EPO/blood doping (endurance), or that the drugs used now are not as good!

And I'm not saying that great times aren't possible without doping. They are but it only needs a small relative improvement in time to have a big impact on career (and earnings). Say a 10k from 28:30 mins to 27:30 or so

thirtyfoot

Running Bing wrote: »

Yeah, who gives a sh1t about Asian football though:P

A lot more people than athletics.

Running Bing wrote: »

Seriously though look at the amount of athletes caught down through the years. Even somebody like Coughlan admits he was tempted and was on the brink of cheating. The allegations have always been there in athletics and I believe there is no smoke without fire (and anyway there is enough fire with all the people who were caught.)

Coghlan was talking of a time over 20 years ago. If we look back that far we might as well give up.

You slag cycling and probably rightly so but as Tunney pointed out its the sports that are most rigourous and take it most seriously that get the worst press.

At the top of the scale is cycling, then athletics follows behind that and then at the other end you have baseball, american football which have a terrible attitude to doping. But the money with TV, sponsors etc is so big there lets not taint it. Look at F1, a driver blatantly lied about race tactics to stewards last month and got a slap on the wrist. There is I'd imagine constant tweaking of cars, illegal add-ons etc but lets not tar the sport as its such big money spinner. See, as I say its easy to have suspicions in your head and turn them into black and white here and make them seem real. Unless you follow an athlete around 24/7 and see everything that goes into their body or else see that they have failed a drug test, then you must assume they are clean.

I'm not naive, athletics had and still has a problem (which is reducing though) but cheating of all levels goes on in all sports yet doping is a major favourite in the media because of the high profiles from Johnson to Jones. This will go around in circles as people have their opinions and they'll never be shifted or at least they won't be shifted until we have another few years like we have had in the past two where the number of high profile doping offences has fallen despite there be more advanced and frequent testing.

Running Bing

ss43 wrote: »

I'm not having a go at Coghlan here but what has be done to deserve "even somebody like Coughlan" i.e. why would it be more surprising for him to take something than anybody else? Anyway, he came out with that when he was trying to sell a book, he mighn't have been as tempted as he was letting on.

Im just saying generally Coughlan is held in very high regard by Irish people and rightly so imo.....its not an isolated incident, many athletes come out with stuff like this talking out against doping and I think its too convenient to right it off as trying to flog a book.

I only follow the running events in athletics and mainly the distance ones. Seeing the results people can get long before they could have access to drugs makes me tend to believe these achievements are possible.

When was that?

Doping has been going on for over 100 years.

You slag cycling and probably rightly so but as Tunney pointed out its the sports that are most rigourous and take it most seriously that get the worst press.

Im not "slagging" cycling off Tingle. I love the sport and watch it avidly Im just pointing about the way things are. You will not find anybody in their right mind who wont admit the sport has a serious drug problem.

As for other sports I dont think athletics gets as rough a ride as you say. Baseball is fvcked, everybody knows it and nobody has a problem saying it. Hamilton lying to stewards is hardly as big a deal as an athlete taking drugs. Imagine if Hamilton tested positive for a drug next week, there would be massive outrage and publicity. I get what your saying that cheating happens but there is different degrees (is a footballer diving to get a free kick as serious as somebody taking EPO?).

Again Ill say I agree 100% that the attitude is innocent until proven guilty (makes my blood boil when I hear people accusing Bolt or Tiger Woods of taking drugs:rolleyes:) unless it is blatantly obvious and that it is the minority in athletics but the question was !will athletics ever be drug free?" and I believe it wont be (and its certainly not drug free at the moment).

thirtyfoot

Running Bing wrote: »

unless it is blatantly obvious and that it is the minority in athletics but the question was !will athletics ever be drug free?" and I believe it wont be (and its certainly not drug free at the moment).

So what evidence do you need to have to believe its only the vast minority?

In 2008 there were 3487 tests by the IAAF. These threw up 16 positive tests, a return of 0.46%. Now you can say that 'oh but they are not be tested correctly' etc etc but what evidence do you have of that. The only stats say that 0.46% of IAAF tests are positive tests. Thats good!

In total there 94 doping violations last year. The vast majority of these are national level nobody athletes. If someone like me decided to take drugs and was caught, would it mean that Irish athletics was rampant with drugs because some random punter club athlete with a bit of disposable income tried some PED. I know a fair few of the top Irish athletes and I would have more disposable income than most of them so that rules out that they would have more money and better access to better chemists etc. The story in Ireland can be repeated in most countries. The majority of athletes outside of state run regimes are poor, on the breadline, they have no money to be staying ahead of the testers.

Thats what I'm believing anyway until I see some harder facts other than hearsay or hunches or what was read in this book or that book or what some guy in some organisation said. Thats of course unless the IAAF are in on the conspiracy:eek:

I don't want to say that everyone involved in athletics/running should be turning a blind eye or pretending there isn't a problem, but everyone in athletics/running should if they are offering an opinion educate themselves on the facts and at least give the sport the benefit of the doubt if the stats are looking better. Its the only way the sport will get back to pre-Ben Johnson popularity. Paul Hession runs 200's against some of the guys that you would expect to be on drugs if anyone was. He believes its a vast minority and that its overstated by the media. If I am going to leave the stats aside and go with some guys hunch, I'll go with Hessions hunch.

tunney

Running Bing wrote: »

I was only thinking about this the other day.

tbh there is not as much to be gained...look at races in the olympics, the difference can often be a split second between individuals.


On a football pitch you have 21 other individuals not to mention the fact drugs are not going to do much for your skill with a football.

Overall the relatively small gains in speed/strength from doping would'nt be worth the risk in football imo.

You are joking right?

EPO - so much fitter can play hard and fast and use all their skills for the entire 90 minutes.

Ever wondered why a normal person takes months to recover from a broken foot and a premiership footballer is back in 4-5 weeks?

tunney

Tingle wrote: »

So what evidence do you need to have to believe its only the vast minority?

In 2008 there were 3487 tests by the IAAF. These threw up 16 positive tests, a return of 0.46%. Now you can say that 'oh but they are not be tested correctly' etc etc but what evidence do you have of that.

The initial test for EPO had a very specific range - if you were inside this - you were doping. Scientists were sure of this. However after the first legal test cases WADA had to expand this range as while science is sure that they are doping judges weren't. Now there are loads of "negatives" that are only a legal negative not an actual negative.

BombSquad

Tingle wrote: »

In 2008 there were 3487 tests by the IAAF. These threw up 16 positive tests, a return of 0.46%. Now you can say that 'oh but they are not be tested correctly' etc etc but what evidence do you have of that. The only stats say that 0.46% of IAAF tests are positive tests. Thats good!

It'd be interesting to know how many times those 16 athletes were tested. Were they all caught the first time they were tested? That's not a good % if these athletes had been tested 3-4 times before being caught...

Also, interpreting the numbers depends on how many people were tested. I'm presuming individual athletes were tested multiple times. If 1 person was tested 3487 times and only had 16 positive samples that would be very worrying. Obviously this is highly unlikely but the point I'm trying to make is the stats need a lot more supporting data to be really meaningful.

Just my cynical 2 cents...

thirtyfoot

tunney wrote: »

The initial test for EPO had a very specific range - if you were inside this - you were doping. Scientists were sure of this. However after the first legal test cases WADA had to expand this range as while science is sure that they are doping judges weren't. Now there are loads of "negatives" that are only a legal negative not an actual negative.

Are you saying the range has expanded so does that mean more will fall within it or less? I'd think more will fall within it if it has expanded? I assume you mean more people are getting away with EPO, if so can you post the link as I'd be interested to read it.

cfitz

Further to what BombSquad said:

For many of the high profile doping cases, it appears that the athlete made big progress and then were caught maybe two years later. So the big jump in performance happens in say 2005 and then the athlete tests positive in say 2007. To me, this suggests that many of these athletes were doping and testing negative numerous times (feel free to disagree).

thirtyfoot

BombSquad wrote: »

It'd be interesting to know how many times those 16 athletes were tested. Were they all caught the first time they were tested? That's not a good % if these athletes had been tested 3-4 times before being caught...

Also, interpreting the numbers depends on how many people were tested. I'm presuming individual athletes were tested multiple times. If 1 person was tested 3487 times and only had 16 positive samples that would be very worrying. Obviously this is highly unlikely but the point I'm trying to make is the stats need a lot more supporting data to be really meaningful.

Just my cynical 2 cents...

Good point! The 3487 is all tests but the following is a breakdown of out of comp testing.

In IAAF Out of competition testing there were 15 athletes caught with 696 athletes tested OOC. A higher % of 2.16%. Still a vast minority, 1 in 50, hardly a pandemic;)

Of the 15 tested, 8 had 1-3 tests and 7 had 4+. Of the 4+, 1 was tampering, 1 cannabis and 2 were that they didn't bother turning up or being available. That was a quick tot but the gist is there or thereabouts.

cfitz

Tingle wrote: »

Good point! The 3487 is all tests but the following is a breakdown of out of comp testing.

In IAAF Out of competition testing there were 15 athletes caught with 696 athletes tested OOC. A higher % of 2.16%. Still a vast minority, 1 in 50, hardly a pandemic;)

Of the 15 tested, 8 had 1-3 tests and 7 had 4+. Of the 4+, 1 was tampering, 1 cannabis and 2 were that they didn't bother turning up or being available. That was a quick tot but the gist is there or thereabouts.

1 in 50 is high enough - that's at least one doper in most international XC or Road championships. You wouldn't fancy paying into a poker tournament if you suspected a few of the players to be cheating.

tunney

Tingle wrote: »

Are you saying the range has expanded so does that mean more will fall within it or less? I'd think more will fall within it if it has expanded? I assume you mean more people are getting away with EPO, if so can you post the link as I'd be interested to read it.

Sorry - didn't read the best.

The test was altered so less people fall within it. I'll try and fish it out but for all your doping information www.cyclingnews.com and go through the articles from a few years back. Even a section on how you can dope and not get caught (actually it was how the testing including OOC testing can be bypassed, amazingly easy, makes you realise that those that get caught deserve it, not for doping but for being thick).

thirtyfoot

I think we are screwed. If people in our own sporting family are dubious what chance do we have of convincing the non-athletic fraternity.

Am I naive and the only one who thinks the drug problem is not as bad as the media say it is or is this place full of cynics?

Maybe time to follow Sean Naughton's advice and stop trying to save the world and work with the athletes and people close by and get the most out of them. I'm retiring from my post as 'defender of the sport' on boards:( Anyone what to step up?

RoyMcC

Tingle wrote: »

I think we are screwed. If people in our own sporting family are dubious what chance do we have of convincing the non-athletic fraternity.

Am I naive and the only one who thinks the drug problem is not as bad as the media say it is or is this place full of cynics?

Maybe time to follow Sean Naughton's advice and stop trying to save the world and work with the athletes and people close by and get the most out of them. I'm retiring from my post as 'defender of the sport' on boards:( Anyone what to step up?

Nooo, don't retire. I'm on the fence here, not knowing enough about higher level athletics. But I do enjoy following the debates and we need good, well-informed opinions on all sides.

hunnymonster

RoyMcC wrote: »

Nooo, don't retire. I'm on the fence here, not knowing enough about higher level athletics. But I do enjoy following the debates and we need good, well-informed opinions on all sides.

+1. I'm with Roy, I just don't know enough. My gut feeling is that Tingle has an accurate picture but I just don't know

thirtyfoot

RoyMcC wrote: »

Nooo, don't retire. I'm on the fence here, not knowing enough about higher level athletics. But I do enjoy following the debates and we need good, well-informed opinions on all sides.

I'm skewed in this in that I like to sweep things under the carpet and move on, too positive for my own good. I blame my mother, if she sees two of her grandkids pucking the heads off each other and someone goes "look they're killing each", she'll go "no, its only a bit of horseplay" and when told "but his nose is pumping blood", she'll reply "sure its not real blood, they'd never punch each other". If she was WADA, she'd reply "ah it can't be positive, he is a lovely lad" but "his eyes are yellow and his testicles have shrunk" she'd reply "thats all the stress you are putting him under, he is a lovely lad"

Need to get more cynical

ss43

MrCreosote wrote: »

The other thing with doping is to look at the world record times. Most of the women's times now aren't close to records from the 90s for longer distance, and 80s for field and strength events. For men a little less obvious, but the trend is still there. You could argue that this shows better testing now for anabolics (strength) and EPO/blood doping (endurance), or that the drugs used now are not as good!

There's a lot of other factors. If someone thinks his competitors are on EPO, it might make him up his game and thus reach a level he mightn't ahve got to before. Training methods might have regressed. Wrong conclusions might have been drawn which led to training being less effective. It's very easy to put everything on drugs but there's alot of variables.

Running Bing wrote: »

When was that?

Doping has been going on for over 100 years.

I meant having heard of performances of people who don't have enough money to get proper shoes, I think they can be capable of much greater performances with a good setup without needing drugs.

tunney wrote: »

Ever wondered why a normal person takes months to recover from a broken foot and a premiership footballer is back in 4-5 weeks?

Maybe because a normal person goes to a normal physio who is a physio cos they got 600 points in their leaving rather than being suited to the job and then does a course that is based on helping people recover from serious injuries and learn to walk again and only do a tiny bit about sports injuries. Professional sports people go to physios who know something about sport and are competent.

tunney wrote: »

The initial test for EPO had a very specific range - if you were inside this - you were doping. Scientists were sure of this. However after the first legal test cases WADA had to expand this range as while science is sure that they are doping judges weren't. Now there are loads of "negatives" that are only a legal negative not an actual negative.

Were they not changed because it was found you could be naturally above them. Secondly, is it not possible for tests to show the difference between synthetic and natuarlly produced EPO. I thought this was the case.

cfitz wrote: »

Further to what BombSquad said:

For many of the high profile doping cases, it appears that the athlete made big progress and then were caught maybe two years later. So the big jump in performance happens in say 2005 and then the athlete tests positive in say 2007. To me, this suggests that many of these athletes were doping and testing negative numerous times (feel free to disagree).

They could have made big progress (legally perhaps, or illegally but in a careful way) initially. Then, when the progress slowed and they came to a plateau in their performances they started taking drugs to keep progressing (or took more drugs for those who were already cheating).

In my opinion, to be the best you need a champion's mentality. A champion believes in his ability. Taking drugs implies a lack of belief in one's ability. I believe that most top level athletes are clean. I don't see compelling evidence against it (in distance running anyway which is where I'm most interested).

thirtyfoot

ss43 wrote: »

In my opinion, to be the best you need a champion's mentality. A champion believes in his ability. Taking drugs implies a lack of belief in one's ability.

A hopeless running romantic like myself;)

RealistSpy

Tingle wrote: »

A hopeless running romantic like myself;)

You can have a champion mentality and still s**k. Athletics cost lots of money. From buying shoes to sprinting speedos to physio and proper coaching. If there is money in a sport you will gain the value through brilliant athletes.

Doping comes to play when some dude comes to you and tell you "Listen I am selling some stuffs to the other athletes without it you will keep coming last!". I am one of those cynics who thinks plenty are on dupes that we know. I also believe they all will get caught one day!

MrCreosote

ss43 wrote: »

There's a lot of other factors. If someone thinks his competitors are on EPO, it might make him up his game and thus reach a level he mightn't ahve got to before. Training methods might have regressed. Wrong conclusions might have been drawn which led to training being less effective. It's very easy to put everything on drugs but there's alot of variables.

True there are a lot of other factors, and like you said the exact benefit of doping is hard to quantify. But you have to agree that most of the women's t&f world records are highly suspect- sprint times from 20 years ago that even proven dopers like Marion Jones don't get near to, 5k and 10k times run on "turtle juice".

It's a real pity- seeing the 100m in Beijing last year my first thought was "doped to the eyeballs". I'm not saying he is, it's just that's what you think. Every 100m sprint champ since 1984 has been implicated or proven to dope.

Still- I want to believe! So don't give up Tingle. The testing lags behind but slowly it is catching up. Maybe in 20 years time we'll be discussing a clean Dublin 2028 Olympic 100m won in 10.1 seconds!

ss43

MrCreosote wrote: »

True there are a lot of other factors, and like you said the exact benefit of doping is hard to quantify. But you have to agree that most of the women's t&f world records are highly suspect- sprint times from 20 years ago that even proven dopers like Marion Jones don't get near to, 5k and 10k times run on "turtle juice".

It's a real pity- seeing the 100m in Beijing last year my first thought was "doped to the eyeballs". I'm not saying he is, it's just that's what you think. Every 100m sprint champ since 1984 has been implicated or proven to dope.

Still- I want to believe! So don't give up Tingle. The testing lags behind but slowly it is catching up. Maybe in 20 years time we'll be discussing a clean Dublin 2028 Olympic 100m won in 10.1 seconds!

5k time run by Dibaba, never heard any mention of turtle juice with her. Mentioning the turtle juice for Junxia is all well and good, why don't people mention the training she was doing and the system of which she was a product?

Why bother watch the Olympic 100m so? Are you trying to imply that anyone under 10 seconds is a cheat?

MrCreosote

ss43 wrote: »

5k time run by Dibaba, never heard any mention of turtle juice with her. Mentioning the turtle juice for Junxia is all well and good, why don't people mention the training she was doing and the system of which she was a product?

Why bother watch the Olympic 100m so? Are you trying to imply that anyone under 10 seconds is a cheat?

Again fair enough on the 5k, but it's a relatively new event for women in major champs I think. As for Junxia and chinese athletes- came out of nowhere, best time ever run by far, at a time when EPO and Hgh were being used but not tested for, and part of a regime that was subsequently proven to have institutionalised doping?? I'm sure they were training hard as well, but doesn't that strike you as even slightly suspicious?

That race against Sonia in the corld champs in 93 was the exact moment I lost my innocence. Maybe it was "our" Sonia getting beaten, but if people weren't asking questions after that...

To be fair to athletics, and this is purely as a fan not a competitor, they do seem to be more interested in doping control than say cycling. Cycling is in big trouble if the sponsors and TV pull out which is already happening. And yet Pat McQuaid still says it doesn't have a problem with doping?

And as for the 100m, I get sucked in each time. I'm not saying that anyone going under 10s is a doper of course, but at this stage the onus is on the winner to prove they are clean, not the other way around. Bolt's win was amazing, fantastic, but because of what's gone before always a little unbelievable. Whether that's fair or not I'm not sure, but that's the way it is for me at this stage, and most people I reckon. Things might change though.

ss43

MrCreosote wrote: »

Again fair enough on the 5k, but it's a relatively new event for women in major champs I think. As for Junxia and chinese athletes- came out of nowhere, best time ever run by far, at a time when EPO and Hgh were being used but not tested for, and part of a regime that was subsequently proven to have institutionalised doping?? I'm sure they were training hard as well, but doesn't that strike you as even slightly suspicious?

That race against Sonia in the corld champs in 93 was the exact moment I lost my innocence. Maybe it was "our" Sonia getting beaten, but if people weren't asking questions after that...

To be fair to athletics, and this is purely as a fan not a competitor, they do seem to be more interested in doping control than say cycling. Cycling is in big trouble if the sponsors and TV pull out which is already happening. And yet Pat McQuaid still says it doesn't have a problem with doping?

And as for the 100m, I get sucked in each time. I'm not saying that anyone going under 10s is a doper of course, but at this stage the onus is on the winner to prove they are clean, not the other way around. Bolt's win was amazing, fantastic, but because of what's gone before always a little unbelievable. Whether that's fair or not I'm not sure, but that's the way it is for me at this stage, and most people I reckon. Things might change though.

The Chinese do strike me as very suspicious. It annoys me though that people concentrate on the doping. If Junxia was doping and lots of people are doping now how come nobody comes close to her time? She did an animal amount of training. Much more than what people do now it would seem. It's fair enough to consider drugs could allow her to train at that level but it could be that the system was designed to train loads of people really hard so the few that survived would be successful while the rest would die trying?

From what I've read, thousands of girls were sent to these schools. They were chosen rather than they chose to go. They were selected based on a few things. Junren wanted athletes from peasant backgrounds used to working hard (apparently Junxia used catch fish by hand before being selected), I think they measured how long they could hold a squat for as well. The other things were probably a timed run and their body type, I'm going from memory here so not sure.

They were then trained very hard, for many years. I've also read that if one was sick or tired, Ma would drive them the 40k away and leave them there with no money so they had no choice but to run (or walk) back. There was continuity to their training - how many people are trained in the same systme by the same coach from early/mid teens to their peak?

They trained really hard, they only had to think about running, got plenty of rest. Why couldn't they run really good times? Maybe the best way to train is Ma Junren's method but nobody's bothered to research it properly because it's far easier to say they're better than us - they must be on drugs.

About Junren's athlete(s) testing positive before the 2000 Olympics, that could be a case of a formerly successful coach struggling to match former achievements and looking for an artificial aid to get back to the top - doesn't necessarily mean there was anything wrong with his earlier achievements.

They could have been on drugs, but how many of the people accusing them actually know anything about the training they did and the lives they led?

MrCreosote

Again I've no problem with the amount or intensity of the training they did. I have read about it and wouldn't be keen on it myself .

It's not the improvement or the new athletes but the degree of improvement is the thing- not just a good time or a new WR, but an improvement of over a minute? An unbelievable time if you ask me, and even less believable as time goes on, and we know more about the circumstances at the time.

And if the training programme is so successful it should be reproducible.
Where are the female chinese distance athletes now? Why are they not still using the same programme if it has worked so well before? How come NOBODY even got within 30s of the world record until 2008?

And finally- there was no testing for EPO/hct in 1993. It only became more routine in time for Sydney.

RealistSpy

What do athletes who use drugs use them?
Do you think the standard for athletics should be brought down or turned to divisions e.g. the graded meeting is a fantastic idea.
I think athletics needs to change its stratagie!

ss43

MrCreosote wrote: »

Again I've no problem with the amount or intensity of the training they did. I have read about it and wouldn't be keen on it myself .

It's not the improvement or the new athletes but the degree of improvement is the thing- not just a good time or a new WR, but an improvement of over a minute? An unbelievable time if you ask me, and even less believable as time goes on, and we know more about the circumstances at the time.

And if the training programme is so successful it should be reproducible.
Where are the female chinese distance athletes now? Why are they not still using the same programme if it has worked so well before? How come NOBODY even got within 30s of the world record until 2008?

And finally- there was no testing for EPO/hct in 1993. It only became more routine in time for Sydney.

They mightn't be churning about the same results cos it's borderline child abuse. It could have been decided that taking children and training them in such a way as there was a very strong possibility of serious injury/burnout and taking away any social lives they had wasn't really acceptable.

I don't think EPO explains the improvement either so do you think they were using another drug?

What is it that EPO does? I'm not that well up but I thought it helped to boost red blood cells. ALtitude training also does this so if you were altitude training and you responded well to it, would that not mean the benefits of EPO were minimal.

MrCreosote

EPO boosts the Red blood cells. They carry the oxygen so effectively you're improving oxygen delivery to muscles, and improving anaerobic threshold.
Altitude training does work in different ways, but part of it is by boosting your own EPO production. But with altitude your body can only go so far, with doping you can just inject more. At a certain level the blood becomes too thick though and you get problems.

In cycling they pull cyclists out when their red blood cell % is over 50%- for the cyclists "own safety".

There are all crazy stories about cyclists in the late 90s on EPO. They boosted so much the oxygen delivery was so efficient and their hearts would stop during the night. So they had to set an alarm at 3am and do an hour on a windtrainer to keep the heart rate up! Some amateurs but the pro teams could keep the blood counts boosted but tightly controlled.

And from what I've heard- nothing to back this up as far as I know- EPO is as good for endurance athletic performances as all the other doping agents combined...

thirtyfoot

RealistSpy wrote: »

Do you think the standard for athletics should be brought down or turned to divisions e.g. the graded meeting is a fantastic idea.
I think athletics needs to change its stratagie!

No, not at all. As I said drugs is a small problem. To clarify, there is no drug problem in Irish athletics right now. Anyone who thinks there is or uses it as an excuse for their own lack of success here is deluded.

RealistSpy

Tingle wrote: »

No, not at all. As I said drugs is a small problem. To clarify, there is no drug problem in Irish athletics right now. Anyone who thinks there is or uses it as an excuse for their own lack of success here is deluded.

You are right but I mean in general owrld wide like.

ss43

MrCreosote wrote: »

EPO boosts the Red blood cells. They carry the oxygen so effectively you're improving oxygen delivery to muscles, and improving anaerobic threshold.
Altitude training does work in different ways, but part of it is by boosting your own EPO production. But with altitude your body can only go so far, with doping you can just inject more. At a certain level the blood becomes too thick though and you get problems.

In cycling they pull cyclists out when their red blood cell % is over 50%- for the cyclists "own safety".

There are all crazy stories about cyclists in the late 90s on EPO. They boosted so much the oxygen delivery was so efficient and their hearts would stop during the night. So they had to set an alarm at 3am and do an hour on a windtrainer to keep the heart rate up! Some amateurs but the pro teams could keep the blood counts boosted but tightly controlled.

And from what I've heard- nothing to back this up as far as I know- EPO is as good for endurance athletic performances as all the other doping agents combined...

So if you have an athlete with a high red blood cell count (which I'd guess wouldn't be unusual among those who make it to the top), train them at altitude (like the Chinese), it would be very conceivable that they would be close to the upper limit before a higher count would impede performance. In such cases EPO would be damaging rather than helpful. In people with slightly lower but still high counts, the positive effects would be minimal.

That last bit would depend on the athlete's individual strengths and weaknesses.

MrCreosote

ss43 wrote: »

So if you have an athlete with a high red blood cell count (which I'd guess wouldn't be unusual among those who make it to the top), train them at altitude (like the Chinese), it would be very conceivable that they would be close to the upper limit before a higher count would impede performance. In such cases EPO would be damaging rather than helpful. In people with slightly lower but still high counts, the positive effects would be minimal.

That last bit would depend on the athlete's individual strengths and weaknesses.

Not really- top athletes still have similar red blood cell counts as normal people. And altitude only gives an increase of a couple of % (it does work in other ways too to make oxygen use more efficient so the benefit is not limited to this). But with EPo you can easily go from 40% (normal) to 50% or higher...one of the top TDF cyclists was known as Mr. Sixty Percent.

Pisco Sour

ss43 wrote: »

So if you have an athlete with a high red blood cell count (which I'd guess wouldn't be unusual among those who make it to the top), train them at altitude (like the Chinese), it would be very conceivable that they would be close to the upper limit before a higher count would impede performance. In such cases EPO would be damaging rather than helpful. In people with slightly lower but still high counts, the positive effects would be minimal.

That last bit would depend on the athlete's individual strengths and weaknesses.

Lads, who are we kidding here! You can give people the benefit of the doubt and all that, but in the end of the day if you stop and just look at this logically then theres no doubt that Wang was up to the gills.

The following is her times from the Chinese National Championships in 1993. In the space of 6 days she ran the following 5 times. SIX DAYS!

10000m - 29:31.78 - 08.09.1993
1500m - 4:01.55 - 10.09.1993
1500m - 3:51.92 - 11.09.1993
3000m - 8:12.19 - 12.09.1993
3000m - 8:06.11 - 13.09.1993

Now take for example Sonia O'Sullivan who at the time was the most dominant female middle distance athlete in the world by a country mile. She was head and shoulders above everybody else. Well in her ENTIRE CAREER her PB's for these same distances are:

1500m - 3:58.85 - 1995
3000m - 8:21.64 - 1994
10000m - 30:47.59 - 2002

Her times are slower than Wang by 7 seconds for 1500m, 15.5 seconds for 3000m and 1:16 for 10000m. The best distance runner in the world from 1993-1995 couldnt get within an asses roar of Wang's times despite having an entire career to try and do it. Wang performed all these times inside 6 days. Suspicious? I would have thought so!

RealistSpy

04072511 wrote: »

Lads, who are we kidding here! You can give people the benefit of the doubt and all that, but in the end of the day if you stop and just look at this logically then theres no doubt that Wang was up to the gills.

The following is her times from the Chinese National Championships in 1993. In the space of 6 days she ran the following 5 times. SIX DAYS!

10000m - 29:31.78 - 08.09.1993
1500m - 4:01.55 - 10.09.1993
1500m - 3:51.92 - 11.09.1993
3000m - 8:12.19 - 12.09.1993
3000m - 8:06.11 - 13.09.1993

Now take for example Sonia O'Sullivan who at the time was the most dominant female middle distance athlete in the world by a country mile. She was head and shoulders above everybody else. Well in her ENTIRE CAREER her PB's for these same distances are:

1500m - 3:58.85 - 1995
3000m - 8:21.64 - 1994
10000m - 30:47.59 - 2002

Her times are slower than Wang by 7 seconds for 1500m, 15.5 seconds for 3000m and 1:16 for 10000m. The best distance runner in the world from 1993-1995 couldnt get within an asses roar of Wang's times despite having an entire career to try and do it. Wang performed all these times inside 6 days. Suspicious? I would have thought so!

That does seem fishy, seriously if dwein can pass some evade some test what's holding the other athlete ahead of the testerS?