Salazar takes a swipe at rumour mongers

thirstywork2

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/10253393/Alberto-Salazar-takes-a-swipe-at-rumour-mongers-who-put-Mo-Farahs-sudden-run-of-success-down-to-doping.html

pconn062

Bit wishy-washy really, no real hard questions put to him (at least any that he seemed to answer). I'm not saying he has anything to prove, just that this article says nothing really apart from he knows Mo is not doping.

downthemiddle

thirstywork2 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/10253393/Alberto-Salazar-takes-a-swipe-at-rumour-mongers-who-put-Mo-Farahs-sudden-run-of-success-down-to-doping.html

http://law.duke.edu/sites/default/files/migrated_files/dl_file-sportscenter-salazar_4.pdf
"I believe that it is currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone."

Perhaps if he hadn't made such statements his athletes wouldn't be open to such speculation. And of course there is the whole issue of Theraputic Use Exemptions. He must be extremely unlucky to coach so many athletes with such health problems.

walshb

Had Mo not run sub 3:29 nobody would be saying a word. His 5 and 10 k times are still great, but nothing inhuman.

eliwallach

Interestingly he says " We know we're never going to test positive for anything. No way in the world."
Not quite the same as saying " we have never taken PEDs".

walshb

eliwallach wrote: »

Interestingly he says " We know we're never going to test positive for anything. No way in the world."
Not quite the same as saying " we have never taken PEDs".

If anything it's clearer. He is so confident that his camp is honest and clean.

Kurt Godel

He has a stable full of athletes on asthma and thyroid drugs, which have been shown to increase recovery time and permit greater training volumes. Of course, the argument is that their very high training volume (and Salazar's athletes train harder than any) cause asthma and hypothyroidism, so they are in effect taking these (perfectly legal) steroids to alleviate an induced medical condition (very good analysis here from The Science of Sport).

Certainly, they have similar benefits to PED's currently on the banned list. Its down to your ethics on what side of the fence you fall here, do you see these medical interventions as a legal or illegal aid? Do they allow, or are the the product of, Salazar's intense training programs?

walshb

Surely using whatever is available and legal is alright?

Truth be known, there's probably too bloody much on the banned list. It's all over the place. Different sports and organisations with different lists and ingredients etc. Physical sports need a unified code and list.

walshb

eliwallach wrote: »

d'ya think.

Well, yes. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.;)

pgmcpq

Kurt Godel wrote: »

....the argument is that their very high training volume (and Salazar's athletes train harder than any) cause asthma and hypothyroidism, ....

Really? Not to drag the thread off topic ... and not to get into medical advice .... but is there any truth to this ??? Any connection to EIA ?

Frankie Lee

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/is-thyroid-replacement-a-performance-enhancing-drug/

A greyish area.

Kurt Godel

pgmcpq wrote: »

Really? Not to drag the thread off topic ... and not to get into medical advice .... but is there any truth to this ??? Any connection to EIA ?

(In)famous Wall Street Journal article

robinph

From my experience of popping the pills in question, as well as puffing on the inhalers and shooting up another hormone that athletes have been banned for taking. The thyroid meds are not something that is going to help performance, unless you define improved performance as the difference between falling asleep on your desk during the day and then being able to actually get through the day when taking the right dose of pills.

Getting the levels wrong either way is not a fun place to be and it is really just to get you back to a level where you can function like a normal person.

TFBubendorfer

<mod>Final warning, leave out the drugs speculation. Yes, I know, this leaves very little room to talk about in this thread, but next time I'm going to start handing out bans.</mod>

ultrapercy

robinph wrote: »

From my experience of popping the pills in question, as well as puffing on the inhalers and shooting up another hormone that athletes have been banned for taking. The thyroid meds are not something that is going to help performance, unless you define improved performance as the difference between falling asleep on your desk during the day and then being able to actually get through the day when taking the right dose of pills.

Getting the levels wrong either way is not a fun place to be and it is really just to get you back to a level where you can function like a normal person.

Im sure that is true, IF the person actually genuinely suffers from the condition those meds are intended to treat. IF not it may be a different scenario.

TRR

ultrapercy wrote: »

Im sure that is true, IF the person actually genuinely suffers from the condition those meds are intended to treat. IF not it may be a different scenario.

true just like EPO is used to treat anaemia

pc11

Kurt Godel wrote: »

He has a stable full of athletes on asthma and thyroid drugs, which have been shown to increase recovery time and permit greater training volumes. Of course, the argument is that their very high training volume (and Salazar's athletes train harder than any) cause asthma and hypothyroidism, so they are in effect taking these (perfectly legal) steroids to alleviate an induced medical condition (very good analysis here from The Science of Sport).

You mean *decrease* recovery time.

pc11

walshb wrote: »

If anything it's clearer. He is so confident that his camp is honest and clean.

What?! Not sure about that logic.

robinph

ultrapercy wrote: »

Im sure that is true, IF the person actually genuinely suffers from the condition those meds are intended to treat. IF not it may be a different scenario.

Agreed, but it is a very fine line between too little, just right, and too much.

Maybe they have different levels of dose available to them, but just going on the regular variations in strength that are available on prescription, by going one step up or down in the dosage myself from what I'm now stable on and you end up in a bad place. Yes, it does improve your "performance", but that is really just on a scale of bringing you back to normal from whatever rubbish level you were at before.

The scale that they figure this all out on though, the TSH, is a really rubbish way of figuring it out though. I'll probably be missing a few details in the retelling here, but what I have picked up is that there was one study one on a small group of people X years ago where they measured their TSH levels. That range was then decided on as being the standard range that you'll see quoted as anything from 0.2/0.5 -> 2/5 depending on who you talk to. I didn't get the impression from what I read that they actually did much with the test group to establish if they were actually "normal" or not anyway. TSH itself is not actually the active hormone anyway and it is just a potential indicator that the active thyroid hormones you need might not be quite right. It is very difficult to get them to actually test for the levels of the hormones that they should be testing for.

Just as an example of my test numbers when trying to figure my levels out.
2.1 - feel bad - increase dose by 1 pill
1.8 - think I feel OK but not sure as it's been so long- increase dose by 1 pill to check
0.46 - feel v bad - reduce does back again by 1 pill

It took a lot of persuasion though to convince the doctors that although my levels were below the 5 that they had on their "it's OK now" range, I still really wasn't. It is possible that they could be tweaking the thyroid hormones in order to aid performance, but it is a really fine line between OK and not OK and there isn't actually an agreed level of what OK is. I am definitely not OK when within the higher end of the supposed OK range.

Kurt Godel

pc11 wrote: »

You mean *decrease* recovery time.

I actually meant increase recovery rate, my apologies.

walshb

pc11 wrote: »

What?! Not sure about that logic.

Maybe he's so certain his athletes are clean that he states that they can or will never test positive for banned substances.

pc11

walshb wrote: »

Maybe he's so certain his athletes are clean that he states that they can or will never test positive for banned substances.

Yeah, I know what you said.

But it's not logical to say "we won't test positive" is a clearer (or stronger) statement than "we never took drugs". The original point by eliwallach is correct. Saying they won't test positive can be interpreted as hair-splitting evasion of the real question. Not testing positive does not equal "clean".

tomdempsey200

Kurt Godel wrote: »

He has a stable full of athletes on asthma and thyroid drugs

is there a link to back this up?

shels4ever

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

is there a link to back this up?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323550604578412913149043072.html

tomdempsey200

i know the articlein the link

if i recall it mentions rupp not a bunch of guys?no

tomdempsey200

i know none of the NOP group are doping

but thyroid is used in synergy with growth hormone

growth hormone doesn't work effectively without thyroid hormone

Kurt Godel

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

i know the articlein the link

if i recall it mentions rupp not a bunch of guys?no

From the article: "It's unclear exactly how many elite athletes are being treated for thyroid disorders, but of the 30 athletes who have trained with Salazar as part of Nike's elite team of distance runners, he said that five—or 17% --have been diagnosed with hypothyroidism."

overpronator

Kurt Godel wrote: »

From the article: "It's unclear exactly how many elite athletes are being treated for thyroid disorders, but of the 30 athletes who have trained with Salazar as part of Nike's elite team of distance runners, he said that five—or 17% --have been diagnosed with hypothyroidism."

I wonder is there a significant bump in performance associated with those athletes and treatments?

BobMac104

I belive him anyway.

Henry9

So to summarise:

He's offended that people would question his integrity.
People are only talking because he's so successful.
He has a clear conscience.
He works really really hard.
He's pissed of at the assumption that if you're winning you must be on drugs.
Drugs are an excuse for everyone else.
There's no sense to the accusations anyway because Nike have too much to lose.
He hardly trained before, now he trains hard.

This all sounds very familiar.
Maybe he's clean as a whistle, I don't know. But it's disappointing that they have to use to LA playbook to deal with it.

Wasn't he also linked recently with a tainted sprint coach?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2339903/Mo-Farah-backing-UK-Athletics-train-controversial-sprinter-John-Smith.html


The other thing which disconcerting is the BBC attitude to all of this.

If Radcliffe was being beaten over 10k and the same runner went top 6 of all time in 1500m, they'd be full of innuendo and knowing looks to the camera.
I know they can't be too cynical, but a little bit of objectivity from time to time wouldn't go amiss.

average_runner

Henry9 wrote: »

So to summarise:

He's offended that people would question his integrity.
People are only talking because he's so successful.
He has a clear conscience.
He works really really hard.
He's pissed of at the assumption that if you're winning you must be on drugs.
Drugs are an excuse for everyone else.
There's no sense to the accusations anyway because Nike have too much to lose.
He hardly trained before, now he trains hard.

This all sounds very familiar.
Maybe he's clean as a whistle, I don't know. But it's disappointing that they have to use to LA playbook to deal with it.

Wasn't he also linked recently with a tainted sprint coach?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2339903/Mo-Farah-backing-UK-Athletics-train-controversial-sprinter-John-Smith.html


The other thing which disconcerting is the BBC attitude to all of this.

If Radcliffe was being beaten over 10k and the same runner went top 6 of all time in 1500m, they'd be full of innuendo and knowing looks to the camera.
I know they can't be too cynical, but a little bit of objectivity from time to time wouldn't go amiss.

So basically we are saying you cant be successful in running now unless your on drugs?


Mo Farrah is as clean as Bolt is and Paula. Make what u want from that.

Henry9

average_runner wrote: »

So basically we are saying you cant be successful in running now unless your on drugs?

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not saying that.
I'm saying with all we've seen over the last 3 decades or so, it's not unreasonable to be cynical.
What's depressing is that each athlete in the line of fire responds in exactly the same way. Maybe the clean ones do too, but a lot of those who used this kind of defence have been shown to be lying.

average_runner wrote: »

Mo Farrah is as clean as Bolt is and Paula. Make what u want from that.

How on earth do you know that?

BobMac104

just saw on runners world that rupp has been tested 19 times in the first half of 2013.
that has to count for something regarding the nike project.

TRR

BobMac104 wrote: »

just saw on runners world that rupp has been tested 19 times in the first half of 2013.
that has to count for something regarding the nike project.

LANCE ARMSTRONG! that is all

Henry9

BobMac104 wrote: »

just saw on runners world that rupp has been tested 19 times in the first half of 2013.
that has to count for something regarding the nike project.

Depends doesn't it? I don't claim to know anything about testing, but doesn't it depend on what the test is for and how it's performed?
There's a long list of cheaters who never tested positive either.

But it kind of reinforces the point I was making. Using the number of tests as an alibi is reminiscent of someone else.

hardCopy

BobMac104 wrote: »

just saw on runners world that rupp has been tested 19 times in the first half of 2013.
that has to count for something regarding the nike project.

Testing doesn't always count for much.

Tyler Hamilton goes into great detail to explain how he beat the whereabouts system. Basically the testers could only call between 11pm and 7am each day which gave him an eight hour window that he couldn't be tested. He could then use small enough doses of Intravenous EPO at 11pm each night that it would be out of his system by the next morning. If he happened to take too much or take it too late he would just not answer the door and get a tick on his record for a missed test.

I'm pretty sure I read an article recently showing that not all not all samples taken are tested, of those that are tested, not all are tested for every substance. I can;t find a link for this now though.

On top of that you the fact that there will always be some new drug available for which there is no test, and then you have Therapeutic Usage Exemptions for athletes who have a doctor on their side.

walshb

Henry9 wrote: »

The other thing which disconcerting is the BBC attitude to all of this.

If Radcliffe was being beaten over 10k and the same runner went top 6 of all time in 1500m, they'd be full of innuendo and knowing looks to the camera.
I know they can't be too cynical, but a little bit of objectivity from time to time wouldn't go amiss.

I have a feeling Crammy is a wee bit suspicious. Hearing him after Mo ran the time made me think this. Of course, he can't come out with any sniff of suspicion

average_runner

Henry9 wrote: »

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not saying that.
I'm saying with all we've seen over the last 3 decades or so, it's not unreasonable to be cynical.
What's depressing is that each athlete in the line of fire responds in exactly the same way. Maybe the clean ones do too, but a lot of those who used this kind of defence have been shown to be lying.



How on earth do you know that?

I know that because all the tests they have done have never shown a trace of anything in their history. Innocent till proven guilty.

average_runner

TRR wrote: »

LANCE ARMSTRONG! that is all

Armstrong results were hidden with people on the inside of the cycling authority

Henry9

walshb wrote: »

I have a feeling Crammy is a wee bit suspicious. Hearing him after Mo ran the time made me think this. Of course, he can't come out with any sniff of suspicion

I think you might be right, or at least he has noticed that it is noticeable.

I'm not saying it's easy for the BBC, Cram in particular I remember being part of a generation of British runners who would work like dogs 'taking the race on' in the major champs, only for someone to kick on the home straight and take the gold.
So it must be nice to see their guy doing it to everyone else.

Mo is the golden boy, so nobody is going to get tainted with publically questioning him. I don't think the UK have the same affinity with wind up merchants that the Irish would have.

But what's weird is the way they fawn over Ohuruogu and talk about how she's 'been through so much' i.e. a doping ban. When Chambers got done they threw him under the bus.
Maybe because he said everybody else was doing the same?

Henry9

average_runner wrote: »

I know that because all the tests they have done have never shown a trace of anything in their history. Innocent till proven guilty.

So in other words you don't know that. You believe that. A very different thing.

average_runner wrote: »

Armstrong results were hidden with people on the inside of the cycling authority

You don't know whether that is the case now. By definition if it's hidden we don't know about it.
But you know the Americans for example have suppressed negative results in the past right?
Linford Christie was only found out in some mickey mouse event in Europe or somewhere.

In any event, it's presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The problem is the current crop of athletes don't start with a blank slate.

average_runner

Henry9 wrote: »

So in other words you don't know that. You believe that. A very different thing.


You don't know whether that is the case now. By definition if it's hidden we don't know about it.
But you know the Americans for example have suppressed negative results in the past right?
Linford Christie was only found out in some mickey mouse event in Europe or somewhere.

In any event, it's presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The problem is the current crop of athletes don't start with a blank slate.

No, i believe what the facts currently say, that up to now they are clean and there is no way you can say they aren't. They could cheat in the future but at the moment they are clean.

I read enough books on the Lance Armstrong thing at this stage that points to hidden results. Americans did hide one test result and admitted to around 94 roughly

As for Linford Christie, he was an "gone pass it" trying to relive former days. I don't believe he cheated at his prime.

Henry9

average_runner wrote: »

No, i believe what the facts currently say, that up to now they are clean and there is no way you can say they aren't. They could cheat in the future but at the moment they are clean.

I read enough books on the Lance Armstrong thing at this stage that points to hidden results. Americans did hide one test result and admitted to around 94 roughly

Oh right, so Armstrong was giving away clues which you can now read. And these clues don't apply now? What if there's different clues but you haven't read those books yet?

Everything you are saying now people said up to recently about Armstrong.
Even when the evidence all came out they disputed it. It was only when he admitted it that they accepted the truth.

The facts don't currently say they are clean. They are clean or they are not. We don't know the facts, we can only surmise based on limited information. The problem for 'believers' like yourself is that this plays out regularly with only the names changed.

Anyway my point was not to speculate about whether Farah is using. My point is given his improvement and his infallibility, even in distances he doesn't specialise in, it's quite reasonable to raise an eyebrow.

Further, given some of us have a raised eyebrow, it's disappointing and difficult not to have a sense of deja vu, when
1. To manage the suspicion the follow the playbook perfected by LA
2. The usual refrain of 'never failed a test' reappears.

BobMac104

Well want do you want them to say?
No really i promise i am not taking EPO? Would you believe them then?
Why is it so hard to accept that farah can run sub 3;29.
Id say bekele and Geb in their day would have been at that level except they never really ran those distances. To say farah doent specialise in 1500 meters is slightly unfair as he does alot of 800 and 1500m races during the indoor season. PLus the race he set it in he was beaten and probably dragged to that time to some extent. He is never "dragged" to a time over 5000 and 10000 as yet so we have no idea what his potential is over those distances.

With the biological passports surely EPO is a much much higher risk than in the days of LA.

Henry9

BobMac104 wrote: »

Well want do you want them to say?
No really i promise i am not taking EPO? Would you believe them then?
Why is it so hard to accept that farah can run sub 3;29.
Id say bekele and Geb in their day would have been at that level except they never really ran those distances. To say farah doent specialise in 1500 meters is slightly unfair as he does alot of 800 and 1500m races during the indoor season. PLus the race he set it in he was beaten and probably dragged to that time to some extent. He is never "dragged" to a time over 5000 and 10000 as yet so we have no idea what his potential is over those distances.

With the biological passports surely EPO is a much much higher risk than in the days of LA.

But the 6th best time ever or something similar wasn't it?
I don't have a view on his ability to run 3.29, I just think a run that ranks that highly is pretty noteworthy.

What can they do? I don't know. I remember Ian Thorpe offered blood tests to be frozen indefinitely, but I don't know the ins and outs of that.

I suppose what they can do is not get so pissy when someone asks legitimate questions based on past experience.

BobMac104

Well it would be kinda hard not to get annoyed. You push yourself to the extreem limits mentally and physically for years and years and it pays off and then you get continuous bull**** comments and questions totally undermining you. It must be very disconcerting.

There is nothing the athletes can do to prove themselves to be clean. Besides coperating with WADA etc what do people want them to do or say?

clear thinking

Paula Radcliffe tweeted today on her dismay at endemic cheating. It all boils down to lack of testing as a result of fear of embarrasment. Regular blood testing that can be held into the future for elites and regular testing at national level for sub elites is the only way to change the game.

I posted a story from the economist on here recently and applying game theory you'd be mad not to cheat as the system is so porous.

Henry9

BobMac104 wrote: »

Well it would be kinda hard not to get annoyed. You push yourself to the extreem limits mentally and physically for years and years and it pays off and then you get continuous bull**** comments and questions totally undermining you. It must be very disconcerting.

There is nothing the athletes can do to prove themselves to be clean. Besides coperating with WADA etc what do people want them to do or say?

Probably does piss them off, but they should take that up with the cheaters that went before them.

There is something else the athletes can do. The was a poster here detailing what went on during the press conferences is Moscow. Questions on doping lead to silences and walk outs. They could cut out that bullsh1t for a start.

ChickenTikka

The power of 10 has all Farah's times back to when he was an U13:-

http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=482

So the 1500m time that is raising eyebrows is a 5 second improvement on a time that he ran 4 years ago. Doesn't sound unreasonable particularly if he doesn't race that distance all that often and is doing alot of speedwork for his more usual 5k/10k distance.

His 1500m time has dropped 2.42% in those 4 years. Not all that remarkable I'd have thought in the 4 years from age 26 to 30 when he is in his prime years.

average_runner

ChickenTikka wrote: »

The power of 10 has all Farah's times back to when he was an U13:-

http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=482

So the 1500m time that is raising eyebrows is a 5 second improvement on a time that he ran 4 years ago. Doesn't sound unreasonable particularly if he doesn't race that distance all that often and is doing alot of speedwork for his more usual 5k/10k distance.

His 1500m time has dropped 2.42% in those 4 years. Not all that remarkable I'd have thought in the 4 years from age 26 to 30 when he is in his prime years.

People like a story. Farrah is winning big races because lack of team work from others.

His times over last 4 years is not that big of improvement.

Frankie Lee

A 5 second improvement over 1500m during his peak years is a significant improvement no matter what way you look at it.