Spearmon ban - disillusionment with elite athletics

ThePiedPiper

So, yet another high profile sprinter receives a doping ban, this time Wallace Spearmon, one of the top 200m guys ever. It doesn't sound like it was a performance enhancer per say, but it's another blow. People talk about the 88 Olympic final being the dirtiest race of all time and a watershed moment, but 30 years later, what's the difference.

The sheer numbers of big names getting banned is leading to massive credibility issues of sprinting in particular. This seems to be manifest in the public and media becoming much more interested in overhyped weak 5k and 10k races, rather than the traditional blue riband events. Unfortunately, this short term distraction is only postponing and masking a serious decline in the credibility and health of the sport we love. We are, I fear, only one more big name ban away from suffering an Armstrong sized explosion.

ecoli

According to the reports this was administered by his life long doctor and the substance used is not banned per say but rather the method in which it was administered (in the absence of a TUE) which is why a 3 month ban was given (along the same lines as Blake and Vessey in the past)

I think the biological passports are having a huge impact across the board and that is why we are seeing alot more high profile athletes failing. There was always gonna be an upheaval in the early stages but I think the bans being issued are where the main issues are lying. The number of full term bans being issued is minimal which see's WADA losing alot of creditibility (to be fair CAS also have a fair bit to answer for) with the likes of Gay, VCB, Powell being back after in the space of a season

Seems as though pandora's box has been opened and now that it has they are unwilling to stand by it

With regards the media focus I don't think this is truly the contributing factor and more to do with a "Brit" with a US based coach being dominant in distances African's have dominated since the height of athletics popularity has more to do with it. 100m is still the be all and end all to the general public come the Olympics, with regards the 1500m I think it is just missing a dominant character like an El G to return it to it's previous stature

ThePiedPiper

I don't think it really matters about the seriousness of the substance, as you say, the athlete will likely be back in competition soon. In a couple of years, we could be watching sprint races where a majority of the participants have served bans. The terms 'drugs ban' and 'prohibited substance' are one and the same to most.

ecoli

RunForestRun wrote: »

I don't think it really matters about the seriousness of the substance, as you say, the athlete will likely be back in competition soon. In a couple of years, we could be watching sprint races where a majority of the participants have served bans. The terms 'drugs ban' and 'prohibited substance' are one and the same to most.

Unfortunately that is already here:

Look at the 100m in the DL over the last 2 meets

Brussels (4 of 9 athletes have served bans of some length)
Zurich (3 of 9 athletes have served bans of some length)

As for the length I think that in alot of the shorter case's it is more of a case of the short ban escapes the general public's attention to the point where they are ignorant of the fact (how many people would be able to tell you Blake had a 3 month ban?)

Chivito550

RunForestRun wrote: »

So, yet another high profile sprinter receives a doping ban, this time Wallace Spearmon, one of the top 200m guys ever. It doesn't sound like it was a performance enhancer per say, but it's another blow. People talk about the 88 Olympic final being the dirtiest race of all time and a watershed moment, but 30 years later, what's the difference.

The sheer numbers of big names getting banned is leading to massive credibility issues of sprinting in particular. This seems to be manifest in the public and media becoming much more interested in overhyped weak 5k and 10k races, rather than the traditional blue riband events. Unfortunately, this short term distraction is only postponing and masking a serious decline in the credibility and health of the sport we love. We are, I fear, only one more big name ban away from suffering an Armstrong sized explosion.

1) How is this much different to Stephen Colvert? In that case we were willing to see how things panned out, gave the benefit of the doubt etc. But when it's an American sprinter pure guilt is assumed? Maybe he is telling the truth. I personally don't believe 2 years would be fair if what he is saying is true.

2) What's the deal with this sensationalist stuff to begin with? There's a reason the sport engages in anti-doping testing and biological passports. To catch the cheats. If people are getting caught it means that it must be working to some extent. Would you rather us be more like tennis, with it's phantom injuries and silent bans, and players suspiciously retiring from the sport when at the very top. Or would you prefer us to be more like football, where the governing body just sweeps the mass levels of doping under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exists?

corny

Chivito550 wrote: »

1) How is this much different to Stephen Colvert? In that case we were willing to see how things panned out, gave the benefit of the doubt etc. But when it's an American sprinter pure guilt is assumed? Maybe he is telling the truth. I personally don't believe 2 years would be fair if what he is saying is true.

2) What's the deal with this sensationalist stuff to begin with? There's a reason the sport engages in anti-doping testing and biological passports. To catch the cheats. If people are getting caught it means that it must be working to some extent. Would you rather us be more like tennis, with it's phantom injuries and silent bans, and players suspiciously retiring from the sport when at the very top. Or would you prefer us to be more like football, where the governing body just sweeps the mass levels of doping under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exists?

Irrelevant.

ecoli

Chivito550 wrote: »

2) What's the deal with this sensationalist stuff to begin with? There's a reason the sport engages in anti-doping testing and biological passports. To catch the cheats. If people are getting caught it means that it must be working to some extent. Would you rather us be more like tennis, with it's phantom injuries and silent bans, and players suspiciously retiring from the sport when at the very top. Or would you prefer us to be more like football, where the governing body just sweeps the mass levels of doping under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exists?

To be fair on this point as of this month blood passports are in effect (introduced last year but presume it took the year to collect enough samples for reference points) so hopefully this should improve the standard of testing (less than 10% of tests in 2012 were blood test's while the rest were urine)

Edit: 2013 stats

http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/statistics/data.aspx

mikeyjames9

ecoli wrote: »

with regards the 1500m I think it is just missing a dominant character like an El G to return it to it's previous stature

no thanks

walshb

mikeyjames9 wrote: »

no thanks

What do you mean?

Some Kind of Wizard

Chivito550 wrote: »

1) How is this much different to Stephen Colvert?

On that point, has there been any word on the second sample?

pconn062

walshb wrote: »

What do you mean?

No need to answer this.

walshb

pconn062 wrote: »

No need to answer this.

Why's that? Why doesn't the 1500 need a stand out great like EL G?

pconn062

Back on topic, to be perfectly honest I don't even bother watching the sprints anymore. Now I know the middle/long distance events are possibly just as likely to be as dirty as the sprints but all the big names that have been busted in sprints in recent years made it un-watchable for me, especially now that a lot of them are back competing (and ending up in a situation where you have 3/4 former dopers in a 8 man race).

Chivito550

pconn062 wrote: »

Back on topic, to be perfectly honest I don't even bother watching the sprints anymore. Now I know the middle/long distance events are possibly just as likely to be as dirty as the sprints but all the big names that have been busted in sprints in recent years made it un-watchable for me, especially now that a lot of them are back competing (and ending up in a situation where you have 3/4 former dopers in a 8 man race).

Ridiculous. If you are going to boycott sprints, then you need to boycott middle and long distance running also.

youngrun

I reckon this seems like a genuine mistake . Never looks good however . I can see why people would be pssd.

walshb

Why boycott anything? Of course there are athletes who will intentionally cheat, happens in many sports, but there are also a lot who are doing great things the honest and clean way.

pconn062

Chivito550 wrote: »

Ridiculous. If you are going to boycott sprints, then you need to boycott middle and long distance running also.

You can say "ridiculous" all you want, doesn't change my opinion. And as I already pointed out I said that the middle and long distance events are likely just as bad, however in recent times the big name busts are coming from sprints, no denying it. Also, I'm not boycotting anything, just my interest and sprints has dropped rapidly in recent times, don't know about you but I have no interest in watching Justin Gatlin, Powell and Gay racing each other.

Chivito550

pconn062 wrote: »

You can say "ridiculous" all you want, doesn't change my opinion. And as I already pointed out I said that the middle and long distance events are likely just as bad, however in recent times the big name busts are coming from sprints, no denying it. Also, I'm not boycotting anything, just my interest and sprints has dropped rapidly in recent times, don't know about you but I have no interest in watching Justin Gatlin, Powell and Gay racing each other.

Maybe replace the word sprints with 100m and to a lesser extent 200m then!

Of course the big name busts are in those events. Those are the marquee, blue ribboned, high profile events of the sport. They are the ones the average punter on the street who has a 20 second attention span will watch. So of course the people who compete in those events are going to be more well known (or "bigger names" so to speak) than those who run 5000m. I'm unconvinced that there are any more or any less cheating in sprinting than in the longer distances, and there have been countless busts over the long distances down the years. The only difference is the average man on the street knows who Justin Gatlin is, but don't know, or care, who Rashid Ramzi is! That's just the reality of it. More people would rather watch sprints than distance running. Not saying it's right but that's how it is.

pconn062

Chivito550 wrote: »

Maybe replace the word sprints with 100m and to a lesser extent 200m then!

Of course the big name busts are in those events. Those are the marquee, blue ribboned, high profile events of the sport. They are the ones the average punter on the street who has a 20 second attention span will watch. So of course the people who compete in those events are going to be more well known (or "bigger names" so to speak) than those who run 5000m. I'm unconvinced that there are any more or any less cheating in sprinting than in the longer distances, and there have been countless busts over the long distances down the years. The only difference is the average man on the street knows who Justin Gatlin is, but don't know, or care, who Rashid Ramzi is! That's just the reality of it. More people would rather watch sprints than distance running. Not saying it's right but that's how it is.

True, I probably should clarify, I am talking about the 100m and 200m here, the 400m is one of my favourite events to watch. I still don't think your comparisons are adding up, in the last 18 months or so you've had Powell, Spearmon, Gay, VCB, Simpson all busted on a variety of offences. These guys were all close to the top of their game in their distances when they were busted. Imagine you had the top 4-5 1500m men busted all within the same time period? I think anyone would start to become disillusioned.

pconn062

walshb wrote: »

Why boycott anything? Of course there are athletes who will intentionally cheat, happens in many sports, but there are also a lot who are doing great things the honest and clean way.

Of course it happens in many sports, who said it doesn't? But athletics is our sport so interests us more obviously. Now, don't get me wrong, I think athletics is one of the examples of a sport getting it right with doping. The federations are not afraid to bust the big names in the same way many other sports don't do, preferring to sweep it under the carpet.

Chivito550

pconn062 wrote: »

Of course it happens in many sports, who said it doesn't? But athletics is our sport so interests us more obviously. Now, don't get me wrong, I think athletics is one of the examples of a sport getting it right with doping. The federations are not afraid to bust the big names in the same way many other sports don't do, preferring to sweep it under the carpet.

So why punish the sport then (for want of a better way of saying it) by boycotting events when they are actually doing good work catching the cheats? It always annoys me that the sports that actually try to catch their cheats are the ones which end up with the worst reps. Twisted.

pconn062

Chivito550 wrote: »

So why punish the sport then (for want of a better way of saying it) by boycotting events when they are actually doing good work catching the cheats? It always annoys me that the sports that actually try to catch their cheats are the ones which end up with the worst reps. Twisted.

Because while they have aspects of the doping control correct, when it comes to catching the dopers, I have severe issues with the sanctioning the athletes receive when they are caught. Hence we end up with situations where we have 3/4 former dopers (in the case of Gatlin, 2 time offenders) back competing at the highest end of the sport. And I think your language is slightly hyperbolic, I'm not "punishing" the sport by not watching the short sprints, in fact if I wanted to use similar language you could say I'm protesting at the sport and the fact that dopers (sometimes serial dopers) are still allowed to compete after committing offences and after serving what sometimes are very short, lenient bans.

walshb

I sometimes get frustrated with the amount of pessimism out there relating to T&F. Even non fans so casually labeling athletes cheats and dismissing their fantastic performances.

I can understand questioning things and being a little suspicious, but so many people are just flatly slating the sport with no real evidence. This view is bolstered and encouraged by actual athletics fans. Just sit back and enjoy the sport and its brilliance. Some cheaters will get caught, some won't, and the ones who don't test positive for PEDs, leave them be.

mikeyjames9

walshb wrote: »

I sometimes get frustrated with the amount of pessimism out there relating to T&F. Even non fans so casually labeling athletes cheats and dismissing their fantastic performances.

I can understand questioning things and being a little suspicious, but so many people are just flatly slating the sport with no real evidence. This view is bolstered and encouraged by actual athletics fans. Just sit back and enjoy the sport and its brilliance. Some cheaters will get caught, some won't, and the ones who don't test positive for PEDs, leave them be.

keep in mind there isn't always a test available for new peds

it took years for the EPO test to come in
and even when it did the test was easily circumvented by changing the doping protocol

the IAAF and IOC have shown little real interest in retrospective bans as evidenced by the fact that the IOC actually forgot to retest samples from the Athens Olympics

ThePiedPiper

A few very good points have been raised here. An earlier poster suggested that the governing bodies of other sports are complicit in covering up, or at least ignoring positive tests, and that the IAAF deserves credit for not being afraid to address the issue. Its a good point, but in a way, its sort of a different issue. There must be massive questions to be asked in the likes of rugby and even, heaven forbid, the GAA, for the lack of off-season, or out-of-competition testing. Even the amount of club GAA players that are built like $hithouses would arouse suspicion.

However, the procedures adopted by some countries, especially a couple where there are numerous very good sprinters, are highly irregular. This related issue casts a shadow of doubt left by the numbers of positive tests.

The issue of whether Spearmon or Gay, or anyone else was let down by their advisers or doctors, or took something without their knowledge is starting to become a bit old. Yes, it may be true in these cases, but its a fairly handy excuse, all the same. It only proves that most elite athletes are filling themselves with all sorts of substances, some banned, some not banned yet. WADA is constantly playing catch-up to detect and add to the banned substance list as the sports scientists do the opposite. Its a bloody murky world detracting from any degree of purity that the armchair fan, or semi-serious runner, can every relate to or appreciate.

downthemiddle

Some Kind of Wizard wrote: »

On that point, has there been any word on the second sample?

There has been no official announcement AFAIK . The B test is not the most relevant issue in the process anyway. It will be very interesting to watch the fallout at the end of this.