PED

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

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.

You critisize Ben Johnson over his big time progression jumps.

Yet you think nothing of Bolt dropping from 10.03 to 9.69 in the space of a year?

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

You critisize Ben Johnson over his big time progression jumps.

Yet you think nothing of Bolt dropping from 10.03 to 9.69 in the space of a year?

Bolt's career and progression are for me more justified. He was an outstanding junior talent. I believe that he first focused as a 200 metre runner. He was a sub 20 runner at a young age, maybe 18 or 19. He had the basic raw and natural talent. It was developed. All the tools were there. I don't see his improvements as comparable to Johnson's improvements. I have no real issue with folks querying, or being shocked by the time improvement. I believe MJ did as well show shock when Bolt got a 9.76 100 metre run in 2008.

Oh, add in the fact that Ben tested positive for steroids, and admitted using for several years. But, for you the testing is irrelevant. Any tests Bolt passes means nothing.........

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Bolt's career and progression are for me more justified. He was an outstanding junior talent. I believe that he first focused as a 200 metre runner. He was a sub 20 runner at a young age. He had the basic raw and natural talent. It was developed. All the tools were there. I don't see his improvements as comparable to Johnson's improvements. I have no real issue with folks querying, or being shocked by the time improvement. I believe MJ did as well show shock when Bolt got a 9.76 100 metre run in 2008.

Your guy Carl Lewis isn't as confident in Bolt as you are

"So when people ask me about Bolt, I say he could be the greatest athlete of all-time. But for someone to run 10.03 one year and 9.69 the next, if you don't question that in a sport that has the reputation it has right now, you're a fool. Period."

"Let's be real. Let me go through the list: Ben Johnson, Justin Gatlin, Tim Montgomery, Tyson Gay and the two Jamaicans. Six people have run under 9.80 legally, three have tested positive, and one had a year out,"

"Not to say [Bolt] is doing anything, but he's not going to have me saying he's great and then two years later he gets popped. If I don't trust it, what does the public think?"

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Your guy Carl Lewis isn't as confident in Bolt as you are

I agree with Lewis. He is right to question it. I concede this. I just think that we have a one in a million talent in Bolt. But, maybe there are humans alive right now that can challenge that 9.58 in the near future.

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

But, for you the testing is irrelevant. Any tests Bolt passes means nothing.........

Yes you are correct.. any tests Bolt passes mean nothing to me. History has more than proven that the tests are not only beatable, but taken at the wrong times.

walshb wrote: »

Oh, add in the fact that Ben tested positive for steroids, and admitted using for several years.

How many times does it have to be said... Johnson tested positive for roids IN COMPETITION! Do you realise how ridiculous and nonsensical this is?? Have you read about Andre Jackson?

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

I agree with Lewis. He is right to question it. I concede this. I just think that we have a one in a million talent in Bolt. But, maybe there are humans alive right now that can challenge that 9.58 in the near future.

I can't find any definitive proof on it.. but many sources have stated Bolt worked with Angel Heredia.. including Victor Conte.

IF it was proven Bolt worked with Angel Heredia, would it change your perception on Bolt being clean?

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

How many times does it have to be said... Johnson tested positive for roids IN COMPETITION! Do you realise how ridiculous and nonsensical this is?? Have you read about Andre Jackson?

Not sure what point you're making here. In or out of competition, the guy was a proven cheat. He used steroids. So he got caught in competition, so what? He admitted to being a steroid user. That is the only relevant point relating to Johnson and his performances.

Bolt has never tested positive, in or out of competition. I cannot label him a user until that happens, or he admits to being a cheat. Or, a Lance Armstrong affair is unearthed.

Edit: I did read about Andre Jackson. Nothing to see here. All speculation and conjecture from a proven cheater in Johnson.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

I can't find any definitive proof on it.. but many sources have stated Bolt worked with Angel Heredia.. including Victor Conte.

IF it was proven Bolt worked with Angel Heredia, would it change your perception on Bolt being clean?

You said you have no proof. But, let us say that he did work with Heredia, of course, suspicion would be increased, but that doesn't prove that he is a cheat. People can change, can't they? Former doctors or people who were involved with doping can change, no?

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Not sure what point you're making here. In or out of competition, the guy was a proven cheat. He used steroids. So he got caught in competition, so what? He admitted to being a steroid user. That is the only relevant point relating to Johnson and his performances.

The point is sprinters do not take roids IN COMPETITION. Its all done prior OUT of! Its extremely likely Lewis had a hand in Johnsons failed drugs test.
He admitted using PED's after because he had nothing to lose after that.
Johnson didn't fail a drugs test during the time he was actually doping.

Lewis being able to beat athletes who were free to roid up is beyond remarkable.

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

You said you have no proof. But, let us say that he did work with Heredia, of course, suspicion would be increased, but that doesn't prove that he is a cheat. People can change, can't they? Former doctors or people who were involved with doping can change, no?

Yes they can, but not this guy Heredia who changed his name, never came out clean, describes himself as a 'chemist to the stars' and has numerous people go on record against him.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

The point is sprinters do not take roids IN COMPETITION. Its all done prior OUT of! Its extremely likely Lewis had a hand in Johnsons failed drugs test.
He admitted using PED's after because he had nothing to lost after that.
Johnson didn't fail a drugs test during the time he was actually doping.

Lewis being able to beat athletes who were free to roid up is beyond remarkable.

You seem to be forgetting that Lewis wasn't beating proven cheats. Ben destroyed Lewis in 1987 and 1988 finals. Destroyed him. Why?

Sure, Lewis got a few wins on the circuit, but he was still running 10 seconds and above when winning. Nothing at all remarkable.

Ben ran 9.83. Dominated Lewis in the world final. He saved up his best for the global finals. As far as I can recall Johnson didn't even look great in the heats in Seoul. Didn't he barely qualify for the final? I may be wrong on that. Anyway, he was holding back.

Extremely likely that Lewis and Douglas and Jackson had a hand in the failed test in 1988? Because Johnson says so? Because maybe Johnson's drugs doctor had injected Johnson too close to the games? That's not at all possible?

Why would Ben be taking a drink from a known competitor (Jackson) a few minutes after the race?

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

Extremely likely that Lewis and Douglas and Jackson had a hand in the failed test in 1988? Because Johnson says so? Because maybe Johnson's drugs doctor had injected Johnson too close to the games? That's not at all possible?

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of why and when athletes take steroids.
Also Johnson had an abnormally high level of stanozolol in his blood.

walshb wrote: »

Why would Ben be taking a drink from a known competitor (Jackson) a few minutes after the race?

What? Known competitor? Ben Johnson was drinking a beer in order to help him urinate. Jackson - a friend of Carl Lewis was given unexplained access to the testing facility and was pictured beside Johnson in the room.

In 2004, the two met and according to Johnson, Jackson admitted to spiking his drink with steroids on several occasions. The producers of 9.79 did their due diligence and attempted to verify the story with Jackson but he declined an on-camera interview.

He did tell them this however. "Maybe I did, maybe I didn't..

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of why and when athletes take steroids.
Also Johnson had an abnormally high level of stanozolol in his blood.



What? Known competitor? Ben Johnson was drinking a beer in order to help him urinate. Jackson - a friend of Carl Lewis was given unexplained access to the testing facility and was pictured beside Johnson in the room.

You come across as a conspiracy theorist. Jackson was a Santa Monica Track member, and friend of Lewis. Was it not Ben's claim that he took a drink from Jackson? Let's say he didn't take a drink from Jackson, and that somehow Jackson managed to spike the actual drink Ben drank. You still ready to believe Johnson here? It sounds like desperation and red herrings from a cheater. Is the theory possible? Yes. Many red herrings are. I am not ready to believe it. Bottom line is that Johnson's times were drugs aided. That is fact!

Back to your belief that Lewis dominated known roid users. What specific races were they?

It all boils down to you not really believing that humans can run 10 seconds without drugs. Because what Carl was doing was just that, running 10 seconds and barely below, with wind assistance for his 9.86.

It was Ben who was running to levels not achievable for him without help.

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

You come across as a conspiracy theorist.

FAIL.

Theres nothing I've said that hasn't already been widely reported.

As I said, I really don't believe you understand how and when atheletes use PED's. Why would Johnson take drugs IN COMPETITION? To make him slower and fail a drugs test he knew was coming up?

Halloween Jack

Giruilla wrote: »

FAIL.

Theres nothing I've said that hasn't already been widely reported.

As I said, I really don't believe you understand how and when atheletes use PED's. Why would Johnson take drugs IN COMPETITION? To make him slower and fail a drugs test he knew was coming up?

The tests are only window dressing. Look at how armstrong went down, it wasnt failed tests, rather, the authorities instigated an investigation which built up masses of evidence against armstrong and his cohorts. To this day armstrong only failed one or 2 failed tests amongst the 500 he took. The authorities realise that they wont catch the cheats through testing. Lance went down because a few courageous people wouldnt abide by omerta anymore.

Tennis needs a kimmage or a walsh to do some real journalism, it also needs a christoph bassons a who's willing to be shunned in the locker rooms on tour and let people know whats going on.

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

FAIL.

Theres nothing I've said that hasn't already been widely reported.

As I said, I really don't believe you understand how and when atheletes use PED's. Why would Johnson take drugs IN COMPETITION? To make him slower and fail a drugs test he knew was coming up?

There was wide reports regarding 9/11 and the moon landing as well.

I understand fully how PEDs work. You seem stuck on that one point. Like it or not, he was not the only person to be caught for drugs IN COMPETITION. Does that mean that all the fails were because of conspiracies, or from competitors conspiring to create the failed test?

Giruilla

Halloween Jack wrote: »

The tests are only window dressing. Look at how armstrong went down, it wasnt failed tests, rather, the authorities instigated an investigation which built up masses of evidence against armstrong and his cohorts. To this day armstrong only failed one or 2 failed tests amongst the 500 he took. The authorities realise that they wont catch the cheats through testing. Lance went down because a few courageous people wouldnt abide by omerta anymore.

Tennis needs a kimmage or a walsh to do some real journalism, it also needs a christoph bassons a who's willing to be shunned in the locker rooms on tour and let people know whats going on.

I think tennis had close to getting that in Wayne Odesnik.

Yet whats so called anti-doping activist Andy Murray's view on someone doing that?

"You want to make sure that people who are fined and suspended aren't let off because they are telling on other players," the Times quoted Andy Murray, the No. 1-ranked player from Great Britain as saying. "That is snitching."

Giruilla

walshb wrote: »

I understand fully how PEDs work.

Right so why would Johnson take steroids in competition to help him run slower and fail a drugs test then?

walshb

Giruilla wrote: »

Right so why would Johnson take steroids in competition to help him run slower and fail a drugs test then?

What do you mean "to help him run slower?"

Did you mean to ask me: "Right, so why would Johnson take steroids in competition? To help him run slower? To fail a drugs test?"

The phrasing of your question isn't entirely clear.

You believe the story of a man who failed a drugs test for steroids. He came up with a red herring that you accept. No big deal. The IOC and the IAAF did not accept anything other than the fact that Ben was the man responsible for the failed test.

walshb

Wasn't Linford Christie's failed 1999 test an in competition test. The test carried out after an indoor meet?

So, do you also accept Linford's red herring? I mean, it must be true, because NOBODY takes PEDs 'in competition.' Well, apart from Ben and Linford!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Giruilla wrote: »

I think tennis had close to getting that in Wayne Odesnik.

Yet whats so called anti-doping activist Andy Murray's view on someone doing that?

That Murray quote could be taken two ways though. Is he against snitching or is he against people getting reduced bans for snitching. Maybe he thinks people should name names without the promise of reduced punishment for themselves. Which is, granted, a little unrealistic.

Giruilla

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

That Murray quote could be taken two ways though. Is he against snitching or is he against people getting reduced bans for snitching. Maybe he thinks people should name names without the promise of reduced punishment for themselves. Which is, granted, a little unrealistic.

I think the phrase "That is snitching." sums up Andy "totally clean and steroids weren't behind his huge increase in physique" Murrays view on the subject.

Halloween Jack

Giruilla wrote: »

I think tennis had close to getting that in Wayne Odesnik.

Yet whats so called anti-doping activist Andy Murray's view on someone doing that?

Absolutely, he also on record complaining about being tested, and a real journalist would have asked him why he changed his tune about doping in the immediate aftermath of lance Armstrong affair.

I don't agree on Odesnik. He was caught red handed and probably fed a few small names to the authorities for a reduced ban.

I'm talking about someone who is genuinely clean and refuses to put up with the dopers ala Christophe bassons.

Halloween Jack

I'd like to add that I was a huge fan of murray (and to some extent still am), but too much doesn't stack up.

The winter training camps in Miami (generally seen as the new Spain in terms of doping) the flip flopping comments on doping and the fact that he could hang with nadal and djokovic for 4-5 hours did it for me.

walshb

Jeez, very flimsy "evidence" needed to sway some of you guys.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

Jeez, very flimsy "evidence" needed to sway some of you guys.

Im not saying its evidence or anything of the sort, just enough for me to put an asterisk beside his name in my head.

Thats the real calamity of doping for me. Knowing what i know about doping, how its done, who does it and how people get away with it makes it almost impossible for me to really buy in to anything extrordinary i see on the field of play.

I admire your belief in the existence of outliers who are just extra-ordinary, for sure they do exist, but it is impossible in my mind to know exactly who they are, as i cant be sure anyone is clean.

The likelihood is however, that there are a lot of very talented people out there who are being denied their rightful accolades by people of inferior talent who are willing to dope.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Thats the real calamity of doping for me. Knowing what i know about doping, how its done, who does it and how people get away with it makes it almost impossible for me to really buy in to anything extrordinary i see on the field of play.

I have little issue with extraordinary things being questioned. But it is subjective. Murray, for example, is not for me doing extraordinary things. Anyway, tennis and some other sports are more difficult to judge from performances. Swimming and track and field are more precise and accurate and measurable.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

I have little issue with extraordinary things being questioned. But it is subjective. Murray, for example, is not for me doing extraordinary things. Anyway, tennis and some other sports are more difficult to judge from performances. Swimming and track and field are more precise and accurate and measurable.

See i would say that being able to hang with djokovic over 5 gruelling sets its exceptional. These 4 and 5 hour matches back to back that we've seen so much of the last few years are exceptional.

As for tennis not being as measureable as track and field, id wager a kidney that if you compare how many metres ran in a match between the top 5 now and in 1986 you would see a colossal increase. I would expect a similar type of increase as regards footballers and id expect the number of active minutes on a rugby field to show similar increases.

To my mind these increases are mainly down to one thing.

walshb

Halloween Jack wrote: »

See i would say that being able to hang with djokovic over 5 gruelling sets its exceptional. These 4 and 5 hour matches back to back that we've seen so much of the last few years are exceptional.

As for tennis not being as measureable as track and field, id wager a kidney that if you compare how many metres ran in a match between the top 5 now and in 1986 you would see a colossal increase. I would expect a similar type of increase as regards footballers and id expect the number of active minutes on a rugby field to show similar increases.

To my mind these increases are mainly down to one thing.

I disagree that the increases are mainly down to one thing. Professionalism and money in sport has made humans a whole lot more committed and focused. They are like machines, and treated like machines. So much has improved and many bad habits have been eradicated. Of course, doping is seeing athletes perform better than ever, but technology and knowledge and equipment improvements have given huge gains. Put it this way, Mac doped to the eyeballs in 1984 still gets trounced by Nadal or Federer or Murray today.

Halloween Jack

walshb wrote: »

I disagree that the increases are mainly down to one thing. Professionalism and money in sport has made humans a whole lot more committed and focused. They are like machines, and treated like machines. So much has improved and many bad habits have been eradicated. Of course, doping is seeing athletes perform better than ever, but technology and knowledge and equipment improvements have given huge gains. Put it this way, Mac doped to the eyeballs in 1984 still gets trounced by Nadal or Federer or Murray today.

Why then, are there plenty of womens world records in athletics that exist from the 80's?

The consensus is that those records are a result of athletes who were 'doped to the eyeballs'. Surely the professionalism and increased investment you speak of would have obliterated those times by now?

And for the record, doping is not a recent phenomenon. Its as old as sport itself. It has been conclusively proven that many many track and field athletes doped during the 80's and earlier. Why wouldnt leading tennis pros of the time chance it?