PED

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Why would Lewis not take juice when athletes at the time were effectively free to do so seeing as there was no out of competition testing?
Why would Lewis not juice when it was common knowledge all athletes at the time were doing so and thats what he needed to compete?

Why would any clean and honest athlete try to do it fairly? Bit of a silly question in fairness. By your logic everyone is on drugs, because if some are, then the others have to be otherwise they are being left behind. Sorry, I don't believe that all the great sprinters through history were dopers. I do believe some were.

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Lewis ran a 9.8 in the '91 championships too. Those times were not legal, they were aided by an illegal wind. Not sure why you are posting illegal times. Wonder what Johnson's 9.83 and 9.79 would look like with an illegal wind?

Which times specifically are 'illegal' :rolleyes:?

Giruilla

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Yeah he's a very unsavoury character, there are videos of him online buying epo over the counter in Mexico and injecting himself with it.

He calls himself memo now and works with boxers.

Victor conte and him have some amusing spats on twitter often, with conte continually casting aspersions on his work. I'm not sure what that means in itself as I don't know if I fully trust conte either, but he does talk up VADA a lot, who seem to have a very rigorous testing program for combat sports and have caught a few fighters out.

Yeah I think Victor Conte is 100% legit now.. he talks so openly about the subject and is looking now towards what gains can be made with natural remedies.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Which times specifically are 'illegal' :rolleyes:?

Carl's legal PB is 9.86 (with a following legal wind of above 1 m/s). You have him running a 9.79 in your list, you do realize that? That time was not a legal time.

At the U.S. championships in 1988: Carl ran a time of 9.78 seconds at the 1988 US Olympic trials in Indianapolis, but it was wind aided (the tail wind speed was +5.2 m/s).

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Carl's legal PB is 9.86. You have him running a 9.79 in your list, you do realize that? That time was not a legal time.

At the U.S. championships in 1988: Carl ran a time of 9.78 seconds at the 1988 US Olympic trials in Indianapolis, but it was wind aided (the tail wind speed was +5.2 m/s).

Yes your right my apoligies. I have Ben Johnsons times instead of lewis!

Can you post carl lewis time progression?

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Yes your right my apoligies. I have Ben Johnsons times instead of lewis!

Can you post carl lewis time progression?

Little snap shot set out below. It is clear that Lewis was never making gains that one would say were suspicious. Clear as day. That is not me saying he was never a drug user. I believe he wasn't, but who can know for sure. His progression and times and performances in comparison to other greats who tested positive tells me that he was likely a clean runner. Now, Johnson on the other hand. Just look at his time in the '84 final. It was 10.22. Lewis' was 9.99. In three years Johnson dropped to 9.83 and Lewis was 9.93 I think.

In Carl Lewis' career as a 100m runner he ran under 10 seconds 15 times; illegally (with wind greater than 2.0) he did it an additional 11 times - often needing hefty breezes coupled with the intensity of the championship to move him faster.

-He NEVER, EVER ran under 10s with negative wind and only twice ran under 10.05s w/neg wind (Lemaitre has run under 10.05 w/neg wind more times :shock: ) -of all of his 15 legal sub-10 clockings, only 4 were less than 1m/s wind and one of those was 0.9. -every time Lewis ran below 9.95 he had a wind greater than 1m/s; 9.86 being "achieved" on the "illegal" track of Tokyo and needing a gust of 1.2 for inspiration. -60% of all legal Lewis sub-10s were made in the either '88 or '91 (20% in'91 which would be the last year he broke 10).

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Little snap shot set out below. It is clear that Lewis was never making gains that one would day were suspicious. Clear as day. That is not me saying he was never a drug user. I believe he wasn't, but who can know for sure. His progression and times and performances in comparison to other greats who tested positive tells me that he was likely a clean runner. Now, Johnson on the other hand. Just look at his time in the '84 final. It was 10.22. Lewis' was 9.99. In three years Johnson dropped to 9.83 and Lewis was 9.93 I think.

In Carl Lewis' career as a 100m runner he ran under 10 seconds 15 times; illegally (with wind greater than 2.0) he did it an additional 11 times - often needing hefty breezes coupled with the intensity of the championship to move him faster.

-He NEVER, EVER ran under 10s with negative wind and only twice ran under 10.05s w/neg wind (Lemaitre has run under 10.05 w/neg wind more times :shock: ) -of all of his 15 legal sub-10 clockings, only 4 were less than 1m/s wind and one of those was 0.9. -every time Lewis ran below 9.95 he had a wind greater than 1m/s; 9.86 being "achieved" on the "illegal" track of Tokyo and needing a gust of 1.2 for inspiration. -60% of all legal Lewis sub-10s were made in the either '88 or '91 (20% in'91 which would be the last year he broke 10).

I take your point.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

I take your point.

He's no better/faster than Lemaitre really!:P

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

He's no better/faster than Lemaitre really!:P

Ha true. I agree with you, Lewis's time are less suspicious.. I won't argue that. I'm just extremely skeptical of any times from that era I suppose.

Then look at Bolts 9.58.. the next athletes best time.. who hasn't been subsequently banned for doping is Donovan Bailey with 9.84.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Ha true. I agree with you, Lewis's time are less suspicious.. I won't argue that. I'm just extremely skeptical of any times from that era I suppose.

Then look at Bolts 9.58.. the next athletes best time.. who hasn't been subsequently banned for doping is Donovan Bailey with 9.84.

I would have less issue with folks querying sub 9.75 times, as these were big leaps from the late 80s and early 90s times. I bet nobody ever thought that 9.79 would be legally reached.

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

I would have less issue with folks querying sub 9.75 times, as these were big leaps from the late 80s and early 90s times. I bet nobody ever thought that 9.79 would be legally reached.

So where would you stand on Bolt?

Edit: Saw in previous post you think he's clean.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

So where would you stand on Bolt?

Edit: Saw in previous post you think he's clean.

I do think he is clean. Sometimes a person's attitude and demeanor and personality can sway me. With him it does (added to the fact that he has never tested positive for PEDs). He really comes across as just being a great and natural sprinter. I would be very surprised if all he did was the result of PEDs. Again, it boils down to what humans are capable of over 100 metres?

The Jamaican issue as regards them not having their own national doping agency in place is worrying, and should be questioned. Lewis questioned it, and was bang on, yet he got slated for daring to question Bolt and the Jamaican's. It seems that they aren't playing the same rules as other countries. That is not to say that they are all doping, but it can't be dismissed or left that way.

Edit: They do have their agency in place; JADCO! It has been under scrutiny.

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

(added to the fact that he has never tested positive for PEDs).

This really should never be brought in as a reason based on what we know these days..

walshb wrote: »

The Jamaican issue as regards them not having their own national doping agency in place is worrying, and should be questioned. Lewis questioned it, and was bang on, yet he got slated for daring to question Bolt and the Jamaican's. It seems that they aren't playing the same rules as other countries. That is not to say that they are all doping, but it can't be dismissed or left that way.

Yeah all that is suspicious. For the whole Jamacian Olympic team one person was tested one time out of competition in the run up to London 2012. Thats all.
Jamacians went on to take 8/12 medals of the 100/200m at those games. 3/5 of those athletes subsequently went on to fail drugs tests.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

This really should never be brought in as a reason based on what we know these days..

.

Come on it has to have some bloody relevance. If not, then scrap testing altogether and tarnish every single person who ever runs fast, or who manages to play a couple of long 5 setters in a row. Again, I am sure that there are athletes out there using drugs who have never failed a test. The system is not perfect, but to completely dismiss it, and then to label those who haven't tested positive as drugs users? You are going too far in your skepticism.

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Come on it has to have some bloody relevance. If not, then scrap testing altogether and tarnish every single person who ever runs fast, or who manages to play a couple of long 5 setters in a row. Again, I am sure that there are athletes out there using drugs who have never failed a test. The system is not perfect, but to completely dismiss it, and then to label those who haven't tested positive as drugs users? You are going too far in your skepticism.

The problem is the huge majority of drug testing is 'in competition'. Atheletes don't juice mid competition with the exception of maybe EPO users. People don't use anabolic steroids during competition because you need to cycle off it to get the benefits. So when an athlete is quoted as having never failed a drugs test.. it doens't really mean anything.. because they would have been stupid and detrimental for them to be juiced up during a competition in the first place.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

The problem is the huge majority of drug testing is 'in competition'. Atheletes don't juice mid competition with the exception of maybe EPO users. People don't use anabolic steroids during competition because you need to cycle off it to get the benefits. So when an athlete is quoted as having never failed a drugs test.. it doens't really mean anything.. because they would have been stupid and detrimental for them to be juiced up during a competition in the first place.

And there does exist plenty of out competition tests and random tests. The system will never be perfect, but it's what we have. You dismissing it completely makes the debate on doping in sport completely useless.

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

And there does exist plenty of out competition tests and random tests. The system will never be perfect, but it's what we have. You dismissing it completely makes the debate on doping in sport completely useless.

As I said in previous page,

For the whole Jamacian Olympic team one person was tested one time out of competition in the run up to London 2012. Thats all.
Jamacians went on to take 8/12 medals of the 100/200m at those games. 3/5 of those athletes subsequently went on to fail drugs tests.

Did you know the olympics has a three strike rule out of competition on missed drugs tests? You can miss two tests without excuse. Miss a third and you're banned.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Swimming has a pretty good doping system in place. FINA publishes a list every year of who and when tests took place. Some people were tested 12+ times in a year, out of competition. Phelps had to be back in the doping pool for a full year before he could compete again. I don't know how it works in other sports but I'd say swimming is the one to model your doping program on.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

As I said in previous page,



Did you know the olympics has a three strike rule out of competition on missed drugs tests? You can miss two tests without excuse. Miss a third and you're banned.

We are in agreement as regards Jamaica. I was speaking about the whole testing procedure in general. Not perfect. I know this.

walshb

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Swimming has a pretty good doping system in place. FINA publishes a list every year of who and when tests took place. Some people were tested 12+ times in a year, out of competition. Phelps had to be back in the doping pool for a full year before he could compete again. I don't know how it works in other sports but I'd say swimming is the one to model your doping program on.

It's a very stringent system. We all remember Michelle. Wasn't she tested one evening when on a chat show? I think it was the Late Late Show. Her failed test was the result of an unannounced/random visit to her house I believe.

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Her failed test was the result of an unannounced/random visit to her house I believe.

In other words she didn't have the option to do what Serena Williams did.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

walshb wrote: »

It's a very stringent system. We all remember Michelle. Wasn't she tested one evening when on a chat show? I think it was the Late Late Show. Her failed test was the result of an unannounced/random visit to her house I believe.

There was a quite high profile case recently when Yulia Efimova failed an out of competition test a month after the World Championships. She was stripped of all her Worlds medals from last year and a few WR's too.
I'm sure I read too that FINA were threatening to kick the Russians out of all competitions if they're own doping program didn't improve. They're failing on the regular even at junior levels.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

In other words she didn't have the option to do what Serena Williams did.

Indeed. Serena calls the shots. Ridiculous. But, that's down to the wimps in power.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^ I don't know the full story on this Serena incident. Did she never take the test at all? Isn't that similar to what happened with Troicki recently where he said he was too tired to take the test and claimed he was told he could take it the next day He's been banned though.

walshb

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

^ I don't know the full story on this Serena incident. Did she never take the test at all? Isn't that similar to what happened with Troicki recently where he said he was too tired to take the test and claimed he was told he could take it the next day He's been banned though.

It's reported that she may have went a couple of years without a test. 2010 and 2011. Didn't she refuse testing before the 2004 Olympics?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

walshb wrote: »

It's reported that she may have went a couple of years without a test. 2010 and 2011. Didn't she refuse testing before the 2004 Olympics?

According to ITF documents she didn't take and out of competition test in 2010 or 2011. I think that was the time she was out with her blood clot and all that but I suppose when there's a lack of transparency it's easy to see why people would suggest the "silent ban" thing.

The problem with tennis is that they seem more interested in giving the impression that it's a clean sport than actually making sure that it is a clean sport. There are plenty of bans handed out in tennis but it's never a big name player.

Like I said, I think swimming is the model more sports should be following. They seem like an organisation that actually wants a clean sport rather than the impression of a clean sport.

Halloween Jack

Serena was out that time with a pulmonary embolism, which has often been cited as a potential side effect of using things like epo which serve to thicken the blood if I'm not mistaken.

The incident with the panic room did not result in a sample being collected at al. Don't understand how she wasn't banned.

Giruilla

Reasonably good article by Paul Kimmage here, but he should be saying more.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/inherent-decency-may-be-the-most-effective-masking-agent-of-them-all-30409273.html

Four years ago, Stefan Matshiner - a former Austrian track athlete - was sentenced to a 15-month jail term for enabling athletes and cyclists to dope. He had also worked with footballers. "Doping is as much a problem in football as it is in tennis, athletics, swimming and cycling," he said. "It's part of daily life. I've worked with footballers. They use testosterone, EPO, ephedrine and stimulants."

Two weeks ago, at a friend's wedding in Wicklow, I bumped into a former tennis player who would have spent the whole night talking about doping in cycling. But when I suggested his sport was possibly as bad he didn't want to know. There was nothing I could say . . . The ITF's indifference to testing; The top players' miraculous recovery rates; The cover-up of Andre Agassi's positive for methamphetamine in 1997; The association of Luis Del Moral - the Valencia-based doctor who had worked with Armstrong - with the sport; . . . to convince him.

And can you blame him? We've had wall-to-wall coverage of Wimbledon for two weeks now, and some curious games, but not once has the issue of doping been raised. Is there something inherently decent about tennis players?

walshb

I believe from the same article:

O'Rourke: "But I think you have to have room for the freaks of nature. I think Bolt is clean. I just think he's a freak. When he was 15 years old running in Jamaica, he was running 19 seconds (for the 200m). It's incredible. So I think you have to watch it, and you have to have room for that magic." - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/sport/inherent-decency-may-be-the-most-effective-masking-agent-of-them-all-30409273.html#sthash.bhUJe6je.dpuf"

I agree with her here. Though, why the need to label the man a freak. Not a very nice word choice. Twice she uses it. Unless she is trying to say that his performances are freak occurrences. If so, she didn't do a good job.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Ha true. I agree with you, Lewis's time are less suspicious.. I won't argue that. I'm just extremely skeptical of any times from that era I suppose.

Interesting to also compare Carl's form and performances over time to one of his rivals, Linford Christie. Carl used to always get the better of Christie when both were in the prime years. Christie runs a 9.87 PB in the '93 World final I believe, aged what, 33 or so? He couldn't do this aged 27/28/29/30/31. Lewis was the same age, but was in real decline. I think he finished 5th. Christie, as we know, tested positive for huge nadrolone levels in 1999. He balmed it on avocado:eek:

I always thought it odd that he'd risk being caught (so late in his career) when he had achieved everything in the sport years before. He too said this in his own defence.