Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Alberto Salazar banned for 4 years

Options
1…78101213…16

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,676 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    skyblue46 wrote: »
    Sorry can't help myself....I'm out :)

    Be yourself....

    Don’t feel the need to pander to the sheep...

    I like ya!


  • Options
    #273
    whatcanidonow
    Site Banned Posts: 127 ✭✭whatcanidonow


    walshb wrote: »
    Be yourself....

    Don’t feel the need to pander to the sheep...

    I like ya!

    "keep feeding me, pleaseeeeee"


  • Options
    #274
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,676 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    whatcanidonow wrote: »
    "keep feeding me, pleaseeeeee"

    Same for you. Stand up and be counted!

    Be an awful silly thread if we ALL believed that they were cheaters...


  • Options
    #275
    whatcanidonow
    Site Banned Posts: 127 ✭✭whatcanidonow


    walshb wrote: »
    Same for you. Stand up and be counted!

    *puts walshb on ignore*


  • Options
    #276
    skyblue46
    Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    nannerby wrote: »
    if ppl put him on ignore we can actually have a proper discussion.

    I never knew that was an option but I just did it. I feel liberated :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,676 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    skyblue46 wrote: »
    I never knew that was an option but I just did it. I feel liberated :pac:

    Let’s see how long you last...like a fad diet!!


  • Options
    #278
    nannerby
    Registered Users Posts: 362 ✭✭nannerby


    skyblue46 wrote: »
    I never knew that was an option but I just did it. I feel liberated :pac:

    now if others don't quote him it would be great :))))


  • Options
    #279
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    STB. wrote: »
    Don't try and belittle the result as being one of no consequence.


    Sonia had Qu Yunxia behind her. She was already a World Junior champion at 1500 and set a world record the following year in Beijing that stood for 22 years.

    I'm not belittling the result. You implied somehow that the races were comparable. Sonia herself was a 4:01 runner in 1992. It was a tactical race.


  • Options
    #280
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    I'm not belittling the result. You implied somehow that the races were comparable. Sonia herself was a 4:01 runner in 1992. It was a tactical race.


    Except the Gold she won at Sheffield in 4:12 was in 1991 (not 1992 as orginally stated).

    She didnt start putting in the sub 4's until 1993.

    1992 4:01.23 Zürich (SUI) 19 AUG 1992
    1990 4:11.20 Wrexham (GBR) 28 JUL 1990


  • Options
    #281
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,676 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    And still that 4 mins 12 in 1991 was just a slow tactical race from a still young and up and coming maturing athlete...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Ceepo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    thetimes.co.uk/article/paula-radcliffe-in-twitter-spat-with-lance-armstrong-whistleblower-tgb2997tg

    Paula (print it and i'll sue) Radcliffe in a spat with Betsy Andreu on twitter,


    Paula Radcliffe
    ✔
    @paulajradcliffe
    · Oct 1, 2019
    Replying to @kenem @danroan
    Not at all. Would just prefer to see greater investment in catching and removing cheating athletes from our sport as well as the systems behind them.


    betsy andreu
    @betsyandreu
    Have you ever tried to quash any journalist's story about you with regards to PEDs Mrs. Radcliffe? Catching cheats is very difficult especially when the rich and powerful ones threaten financial ruin via lawsuits when the journalists plan to reveal the truth they've uncovered.

    Paula Radcliffe
    ✔
    @paulajradcliffe
    · Oct 3, 2019
    Replying to @betsyandreu and 2 others
    I did say that.l was in a distressed state of shock at what they were threatening. I truly admired Walsh’s & your fight that exposed Lance for the bully and fraud he was. Now they were going to run a false, damaging story and I knew I was completely innocent.


    betsy andreu
    @betsyandreu
    Thank you for answering at least this truthfully. I was always told you were the female version of Armstrong. Thanks for confirming.

    Side note,
    I did think this was a strange statement from Paula considering the USADA investigation was going on for 4 years,
    "We talk about how much money has gone into (this investigation)...i think USADA were maybe trying to regain face after the Coleman fiasco.."
    Wonder what the US Anti-Doping Agency will make of Paula Radcliffe's take on their successful pursuit of the banned Alberto Salazar"
    I did think this was a strange statement considering the usada investigation had being going on for 4 years.. I cant see it having anything to do with Coleman.


  • Options
    #283
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,676 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Owl Betsy sounds like a real sour pants!


  • Options
    #284
    Ceepo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    walshb wrote: »
    Owl Betsy sounds like a real sour pants!

    Similar to what Lance said!!


  • Options
    #285
    Torsevt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 45 ✭Torsevt


    She fought against transparency because it suited her agenda of keeping her data under wraps.

    Other British athletes were releasing data but she fought to oppose it and got UKA on her side when transparency is what the sport needs


  • Options
    #286
    PatrickSmithUS
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 263 ✭✭PatrickSmithUS


    It should be revealed what companies are sponsoring the former athletes commenting on all events.



    The level of analysis from the BBC is shocking.


  • Options
    #287
    Marty Xavier
    Registered Users Posts: 230 ✭✭Marty Xavier


    What a disappointment Paula Radcliffe has turned out to be. Remember her sitting in the stands with her poster objecting to the Russian athletes in Canada was it?
    Now all this, I gave her the benefit of the doubt but deep down I knew , that she is most likely a dope cheat and so is Mo Farah too.


  • Options
    #288
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,676 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Marty Xavier wrote: »
    What a disappointment Paula Radcliffe has turned out to be. Remember her sitting in the stands with her poster objecting to the Russian athletes in Canada was it?
    Now all this, I gave her the benefit of the doubt but deep down I knew , that she is most likely a dope cheat and so is Mo Farah too.

    I really doubt Paula is a cheat, but here she is juts lacking real solid consistency due to vested interest and conflicts; the usual human psyche that affects every walk of life...


  • Options
    #289
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Torsevt wrote: »
    She fought against transparency because it suited her agenda of keeping her data under wraps.

    Other British athletes were releasing data but she fought to oppose it and got UKA on her side when transparency is what the sport needs

    The blood test data for everyone should be listed publicly, even if they just started off with listing who and when each person was tested and then gradually add to the information that gets released about test values.

    Why not just dump it all in one go though and release everything? Well it would be a significant change to privacy for athletes and what people know about them compared to whenever the various tests were taken and making a massive dump of all data for everyone going back forever I think would create more problems than it solves for a lot of people and it would need to be phased in.

    I would have absolutely no problem with my data being public if it were in amongst a shed load of other peoples being made public. I would absolutely not want my blood data being made public on it's own though as it will show all sorts of being generally crappy at managing my life and that is nobody elses business but my own (although I'd actually be relatively open about my blood data crappyness if anyone cared to ask). All of the data would need to have context around it as well. I have more blood test taken than the vast majority of people on here, but without context someone looking at my results for the last few years would wonder why I was briefly cured of one condition a few years ago (I think I also aged by 10 years and changed gender) but they refuse to remove that data from my records.

    Mine is a set of numbers for something completely different, but if a series of numbers such as mine were released without context or explanation around them then people would jump on completely the wrong thing, that is nothing to do with them and means something completely different to what they think it means.

    Yes, the data about athletes needs to be made more public, but this is something that needs to happen over time (as short a time as possible of course) and managed so that the public and the athletes know what it all means and the systems are in place to explain what needs explaining. That won't come from having a massive data dump of old test results taken under different regulations and expectations.


  • Options
    #290
    Torsevt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 45 ✭Torsevt


    Marty Xavier wrote: »
    What a disappointment Paula Radcliffe has turned out to be. Remember her sitting in the stands with her poster objecting to the Russian athletes in Canada was it?
    Now all this, I gave her the benefit of the doubt but deep down I knew , that she is most likely a dope cheat and so is Mo Farah too.

    I remember back to 92 when when won the world jr xc, so disappointing when the sh1t hit the fan and it turned out she was all talk


  • Options
    #291
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    Better piece from the beeb yesterday... without Radcliffe and Cram thank goodness (they've been talking rubbish for years).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49951671


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Sinbad_NI wrote: »
    Better piece from the been yesterday... without Radcliffe and Cram thank goodness (they've been talking rubbish for years).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49951671
    It is better but she should have held her fire on commenting on others, a lot of which is a projection of her own feelings about it.


  • Options
    #293
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    is_that_so wrote: »
    It is better but she should have held her fire on commenting on others, a lot of which is a projection of her own feelings about it.

    I'm glad she commented as she did. Just closed the book on her in my mind and removed the slightest thoughts of her being clean.


  • Options
    #294
    Ceepo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    Sinbad_NI wrote: »
    Better piece from the beeb yesterday... without Radcliffe and Cram thank goodness (they've been talking rubbish for years).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49951671

    ON Mo Farah,
    "He split with Salazar in 2017, which was the same year the coach was first charged by Usada, but the Briton insists he was not aware of the doping charges at the time." SERIOUSLY he didn't know about the charges when he left, USADA investigated Salazer's for 2 years '15 to '17, the Joe soap runner's like ourselves, the general public knew about the charges, it was public knowledge at the time.. Coming out now and saying that he has "no tolerance for anyone who breaks the rules or crosses a line". is paying lip service. Especially when it is considered my many that Salazar is still coaching him, and that Lough is a front.


  • Options
    #295
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,676 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Sinbad_NI wrote: »
    Better piece from the beeb yesterday... without Radcliffe and Cram thank goodness (they've been talking rubbish for years).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49951671

    Reading up on all this, there certainly seems to be wiggle room all over the place; no surprise with the whole mess that is PEDs in sport....

    Also, how can this Goucher lass know some athletes didn't do anything wrong? Was she with them 24/7?


  • Options
    #296
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Sinbad_NI wrote: »
    I'm glad she commented as she did. Just closed the book on her in my mind and removed the slightest thoughts of her being clean.
    Hassan? Sounds like you didn't need much convincing if the views of a clearly still traumatised individual sways you.


  • Options
    #297
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Ceepo wrote: »
    ON Mo Farah,
    "He split with Salazar in 2017, which was the same year the coach was first charged by Usada, but the Briton insists he was not aware of the doping charges at the time." SERIOUSLY he didn't know about the charges when he left, USADA investigated Salazer's for 2 years '15 to '17, the Joe soap runner's like ourselves, the general public knew about the charges, it was public knowledge at the time.. Coming out now and saying that he has "no tolerance for anyone who breaks the rules or crosses a line". is paying lip service. Especially when it is considered my many that Salazar is still coaching him, and that Lough is a front.
    Salazar is the only one who's been banned for now. Sure people will have their opinions about others but that doesn't make it true. I'm in the not sure about Farah camp. The inevitable secretive nature of all of these teams invites instant suspicion.


  • Options
    #298
    whatcanidonow
    Site Banned Posts: 127 ✭✭whatcanidonow


    Marty Xavier wrote: »
    What a disappointment Paula Radcliffe has turned out to be. Remember her sitting in the stands with her poster objecting to the Russian athletes in Canada was it?
    Now all this, I gave her the benefit of the doubt but deep down I knew , that she is most likely a dope cheat and so is Mo Farah too.

    Interestingly, that protest from Radcliffe was soon before her times started improving dramatically. If you can't beat them, join them?


  • Options
    #299
    Ceepo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,510 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Salazar is the only one who's been banned for now. Sure people will have their opinions about others but that doesn't make it true. I'm in the not sure about Farah camp. The inevitable secretive nature of all of these teams invites instant suspicion.

    Yes Salazar is the only one to be banned..
    But for Mo to come out and say he wasn't aware of the charges the were been brought against Salazar in incredible.
    Some people dont believe Mo didn't hear the doorbell. Some dont believe he wasnt clean. If he is to have any creditably at all, he should treat the public with some respect. Pretty sure he feels that some of public dont respect him. But that's life.. telling people he didnt know is BS..


  • Options
    #300
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,676 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Ceepo wrote: »
    Some people dont believe Mo didn't hear the doorbell. Some dont believe he wasnt clean. .

    "Some don't believe he wasn't clean?" Is this right, or did you mean to say some don't believe that he is clean?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,676 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Nike and their CEO seem to be quite adamant that Salazar is clean and not a cheat. They have obviously conducted a thorough enough investigation here...huge corporate brand...

    This one is far from cut and dried!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement