Alberto Salazar banned for 4 years

nannerby

Ah lads this guy is a known troll put him on ignore and please don't quote him.

Checkmate19

The amount of horse manure on this thread is scary. Epo and peds give major advantages. Look at ben johnsons 100 m to prove it. Our own michelle smith living proof. Cheating in sport is rife. It puts people off it. I used to watch athletics all the time. Couldnt care less now. Sonia o Sullivan was roobed of many medals by doping chinesse athletes. Theres records in womans running that where achieved with peds that are not achievable now. I thing they may reset some of them. Watch icarus if u want an eye opener. I said lance was on it miles before he was caught. Im convinced of one tennis player. And also convinced of a runner who rhymes with fo.

walshb

skyblue46 wrote: »

That's it! I'm now convinced you are a troll. Your main aim is simply to get people to bite. You talk $hite. There cannot be scientific proof to say a female can't run 2:15. Records have improved over time and will continue to do so. It's the evolution of sport. A clean woman will someday run 2:15. Performance has to be judged within it's era. Tyson v Ali, Woods v Nicklaus....She outperformed her era by a distance.

That’s the reply of someone who cannot back up what they are claiming..BS

30 minutes 10 k runner and 14.30 5 k runner...

They doped times as well?

2.15 is absolutely achievable for a woman who can do this. Hard and dedicated training...it’s called endurance. Old as the fooking hills..

skyblue46

walshb wrote: »

That’s the reply of someone who cannot back up what they are claiming..BS

30 minutes 10 k runner and 14.30 5 k runner...

They doped times as well?

2.15 is absolutely achievable for a woman who can do this. Hard and dedicated training...it’s called endurance. Old as the fooking hills..

Jog on ;-)

walshb

Checkmate19 wrote: »

The amount of horse manure on this thread is scary. Epo and peds give major advantages. Look at ben johnsons 100 m to prove it. Our own michelle smith living proof. Cheating in sport is rife. It puts people off it. I used to watch athletics all the time. Couldnt care less now. Sonia o Sullivan was roobed of many medals by doping chinesse athletes. Theres records in womans running that where achieved with peds that are not achievable now. I thing they may reset some of them. Watch icarus if u want an eye opener. I said lance was on it miles before he was caught. Im convinced of one tennis player. And also convinced of a runner who rhymes with fo.

EPO and PEDs give major advantages? No way, really?

I think you are mixing this thread up with some other?

TFBubendorfer

<mod>Like it or not, accusing an athlete of doping who has never tested positive is speculation, and specifically forbidden by the forum charter.

"Common sense" or whatever you want to call it does not come into it. Unless there is direct proof in form of a failed test, just hold your tongue.</mod>

robinph

echat wrote: »

There is nothing difficult here that requires a learned paper. Running 2:15 in 2003 which is still 500 metres faster than the next fastest time which was run in 2017 despite the large financial incentives in the major marathons. Runners know that there is something wrong with the time just like they know what a runner looking fresh means. This is not theory it is practice.

I am not following your remarks about you a man defending her. Are you saying only women can comment negatively on female athletes?

Nothing much different between the 2:15 paced time and the 2:17 non-paced time when you compare to Kipchoge running 2:00 with pacers and 2:01 high without pacers.

There are several 2:17 runners now, just like there are now 2 2:01 runners in the mens event.

The times, whilst remarkable, are not evidence in themselves.

Ceepo

robinph wrote: »

Nothing much different between the 2:15 paced time and the 2:17 non-paced time when you compare to Kipchoge running 2:00 with pacers and 2:01 high without pacers.

There are several 2:17 runners now, just like there are now 2 2:01 runners in the mens event.

The times, whilst remarkable, are not evidence in themselves.

Up until that point or later they were all pace races

healy1835

https://www.balls.ie/athletics/paula-radcliffe-alberto-salazar-bbc-418051

Nice to see Nike Ambassador and reknowned anti-doper Paula Radcliffe with such a strong take on things......

walshb

Does anyone lend any weight to Paula being so upfront and challenging and protesting about drugs cheats in the early noughties?

For her then to dope and set a WR, not saying it's not possible, but it seems to be a little incredulous...

She has proven elite speed endurance.....

As great as 2.15 is, it is still just an elite great running 4 10ks at 32 mins 15 seconds pace per 10k, or thereabouts. Exceptional. but not at all impossible. She can run 30 minutes for 10k

I mean, very difficult to do, but it's not like the mile or 5 k, where you really are putting your organs to the max......

robinph

Ceepo wrote: »

Up until that point or later they were all pace races

London Marathon has had a separate womens start from the mens for years, 2003 was an oddity that it was a separate start, but with male pacemakers as there were no women up to the job.

walshb

robinph wrote: »

Nothing much different between the 2:15 paced time and the 2:17 non-paced time when you compare to Kipchoge running 2:00 with pacers and 2:01 high without pacers.

There are several 2:17 runners now, just like there are now 2 2:01 runners in the mens event.

The times, whilst remarkable, are not evidence in themselves.

Does this view mean you are a troll? Like me, not automatically ready to label her a drugs cheat based off what one poster calls actual proof, her marathon time....

Well, echat? Is this poster also a troll?

Ceepo

robinph wrote: »

London Marathon has had a separate womens start from the mens for years, 2003 was an oddity that it was a separate start, but with male pacemakers as there were no women up to the job.

And other marathons?

OOnegative

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

<mod>Like it or not, accusing an athlete of doping who has never tested positive is speculation, and specifically forbidden by the forum charter.

"Common sense" or whatever you want to call it does not come into it. Unless there is direct proof in form of a failed test, just hold your tongue.</mod>

Is trolling not against the forum charter also?

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

That’s the reply of someone who cannot back up what they are claiming..BS

30 minutes 10 k runner and 14.30 5 k runner...

They doped times as well?

2.15 is absolutely achievable for a woman who can do this. Hard and dedicated training...it’s called endurance. Old as the fooking hills..

So why can't Flo jo be hard work and dedication?

Murph_D

OOnegative wrote: »

Is trolling not against the forum charter also?

Certainly breaks the DBaD rule. :rolleyes:

robinph

Ceepo wrote: »

And other marathons?

New York and Boston have separate starts, although not sure how long they have been doing so. Berlin is still just the one start.

Not sure of the relevance to the point though. The top female only times of several runners are comparable, the only outlier is Radcliffes 2003 time. But that isn't even comparable to a mixed single start time marathon major as whilst there are other male runners running with the lead women in the likes of Berlin, they are not specifically assigned to pace the women for the distance. They just happen to be fast blokes running at the same pace. Useful to the lead women no doubt, but not the same thing as 2003 London womens race or Kipchoges Breaking2 attempts.

The 2:15 time for Radcliffe should be discounted from such analysis for the same reasons that Kipchoges 2:00 is. She didn't get quite as much assistance as Kipchoge in terms of feed stations and freshness of the pacers, but it's the closest comparison.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

So why can't Flo jo be hard work and dedication?

She's dead, for starters!

And who said she could not?

Murph_D

robinph wrote: »

...

The 2:15 time for Radcliffe should be discounted from such analysis for the same reasons that Kipchoges 2:00 is. She didn't get quite as much assistance as Kipchoge in terms of feed stations and freshness of the pacers, but it's the closest comparison.

Is it really a good comparison?

Kipchoge ran behind an aerodynamic flying wedge of interchanging pacers, and those pacers were themselves paced by a moving laser on the road indicating 2-hr pace? Then whole thing happening on a flat Formula One track, with presumably unlimited water/feed stations, experimental footwear, and so on.

Not very similar at all to 'real' racing conditions.

robinph

Murph_D wrote: »

Is it really a good comparison?

Kipchoge ran behind an aerodynamic flying wedge of interchanging pacers, and those pacers were themselves paced by a moving laser on the road indicating 2-hr pace? Then whole thing happening on a flat Formula One track, with presumably unlimited water/feed stations, experimental footwear, and so on.

Not very similar at all to 'real' racing conditions.

No it's not a perfect comparison, but it is closer than to be comparing Radcliffs 2003 run to any of the 2:17 runs by women in women only races and why they did count it as a WR, then they didn't, then they did again.

It's just not possible for a man to pace a man to a WR from gun to tape though, so whilst the formation of Kichoges pacers was a new thing, them changing out each 5km isn't vastly different from a man running the whole distance for a woman.

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

She's dead, for starters!

And who said she could not?

"But if you analyse both of them and their careers, eras, times etc etc etc, they are different...there's a lot more to get behind if you wated to smear Flo Jo.

It just requires research; hell, even I am very skeptical on her."

You also said you wouldn't lump flo and Farah together.

So your skeptical of Flo but not Paula?

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

"But if you analyse both of them and their careers, eras, times etc etc etc, they are different...there's a lot more to get behind if you wated to smear Flo Jo.

It just requires research; hell, even I am very skeptical on her."

You also said you wouldn't lump flo and Farah together.

So your skeptical of Flo but not Paula?

Who isn't skeptical of Flo? Have you been living under a rock these past 30 + years?

BDI

Lads it’s rife in sport. Right across the board. There are two football manager who have teams that don’t get tired. One of them has all the money he wants but the other guy has to take players that were unwanted at top clubs and over the hill. He improves these players with his great coaching and they turn into the best players in the world. Some of them he gets on free transfers because the old clubs released them.
The guy with all the money doesn’t seem to like testers to know where he will be but his teams play with an intensity no other teams can match.
Every team he manages gets this intensity through his great coaching.

Nobody mentions it in football or asks questions.

I have a lot of respect for athletics and cycling in the sense everybody watching knows what’s going on.

Other sports have improvements from lads adopting cealiac diets or realizing they had asthma all these years.

It has ruined the thoughts of any of my children getting the call to do their chosen sport professionally,there’s chances the coach or agent will want to dope them or abuse them in some way or another. They’d be safer getting an apprenticeship and probably better off in the long run.

IvoryTower

We know other sports are rife, doesn't mean we don't worry about our own. We love to see the cheats get caught. Under no illusion that football etc are clean, if their fans don't care than that's none of our business.

walshb

BDI wrote: »

who have teams that don’t get tired. g.

N

Could you be any more vague?

BDI

walshb wrote: »

Could you be any more vague?

I see you in the boxing forum. Heavyweight division is squeaky clean isn’t it.

Ceepo

robinph wrote: »

No it's not a perfect comparison, but it is closer than to be comparing Radcliffs 2003 run to any of the 2:17 runs by women in women only races and why they did count it as a WR, then they didn't, then they did again.

It's just not possible for a man to pace a man to a WR from gun to tape though, so whilst the formation of Kichoges pacers was a new thing, them changing out each 5km isn't vastly different from a man running the whole distance for a woman.

"But that isn't even comparable to a mixed single start time marathon major as whilst there are other male runners running with the lead women in the likes of Berlin, they are not specifically assigned to pace the women for the distance. They just happen to be fast blokes running at the same pace. Useful to the lead women no doubt, but not the same thing as 2003 London womens race or Kipchoges Breaking2 attempts."

Sorry but I'm slightly confused by what you say.

Kipchoge breaking 2 is a completely different to Radcliffe being pace by men in London that's for sure. But while Radcliffe had specific Pacers, i don't see that being much different that the lead lady running with men in Berlin, as it's a lady having the benefit of working with someone for the duration of the race.

My initial point was that women have ran with men in a good few city marathons since london 03 and cant come near 2.15..

walshb

BDI wrote: »

I see you in the boxing forum. Heavyweight division is squeaky clean isn’t it.

Seems to be far from it!

robinph

Ceepo wrote: »

My initial point was that women have ran with men in a good few city marathons since london 03 and cant come near 2.15..

But have any of the mixed races had assigned male pacers, or even unassigned ones who just happen to run with the women all the way?

They are at the 2:17 female only time in female only races so no reason to think something a bit more organised pacing wise couldn't achieve the 2:15 standard if anyone was minded to.

Ceepo

robinph wrote: »

But have any of the mixed races had assigned male pacers, or even unassigned ones who just happen to run with the women all the way?

They are at the 2:17 female only time in female only races so no reason to think something a bit more organised pacing wise couldn't achieve the 2:15 standard if anyone was minded to.

Women have ran in mixed races and haven't came near 2.15...and while I could be wrong I think some of these had pacers... you think that buy getting "more organised " that they will run 2 minutes quicker.....
While nothing is impossible I dont see it happening any time soon

c.p.w.g.w

BDI wrote: »

Lads it’s rife in sport. Right across the board. There are two football manager who have teams that don’t get tired. One of them has all the money he wants but the other guy has to take players that were unwanted at top clubs and over the hill. He improves these players with his great coaching and they turn into the best players in the world. Some of them he gets on free transfers because the old clubs released them.
The guy with all the money doesn’t seem to like testers to know where he will be but his teams play with an intensity no other teams can match.
Every team he manages gets this intensity through his great coaching.

Nobody mentions it in football or asks questions.

I have a lot of respect for athletics and cycling in the sense everybody watching knows what’s going on.

Other sports have improvements from lads adopting cealiac diets or realizing they had asthma all these years.

It has ruined the thoughts of any of my children getting the call to do their chosen sport professionally,there’s chances the coach or agent will want to dope them or abuse them in some way or another. They’d be safer getting an apprenticeship and probably better off in the long run.

It's rife in football and tennis and any mention of it is met with stonewall dinile

MY BAD

His training in for xc back in 1977... https://www.highperformancewest.com/training-talk/2019/10/2/alberto-salazars-training-log-univ-of-oregon-1977-cross-country-season

walshb

Ceepo wrote: »

Women have ran in mixed races and haven't came near 2.15...and while I could be wrong I think some of these had pacers... you think that buy getting "more organised " that they will run 2 minutes quicker.....
While nothing is impossible I dont see it happening any time soon

And if women do run 2.16 and 2.15 in the near future, could you accept that it’s possibly clean?

Because the attitude seems to be a complete dismissal of it just because it’s a great time..

Ceepo

walshb wrote: »

And if women do run 2.16 and 2.15 in the near future, could you accept that it’s possibly clean?

Because the attitude seems to be a complete dismissal of it just because it’s a great time..

It would all depend on who does it...

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

And if women do run 2.16 and 2.15 in the near future, could you accept that it’s possibly clean?

Because the attitude seems to be a complete dismissal of it just because it’s a great time..

See i don't get why your skeptical of Flo jo and not Paula?

Both have run times that are way out there.

Need more than more than one person to get close to them.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

See i don't get why your skeptical of Flo jo and not Paula?

Both have run times that are way out there.

Need more than more than one person to get close to them.

On a scale of 1-10 I would be 9/10 skeptical on Flo. I think most people would be the same...

Not near that high for Paula

If you think I should be equal for both, so be it...I think that's you being a little silly

But if you really want to say that they are equal, or should be seen as equal as regards their possible PEDS usage, away you go....I don't see it like this.

Bringing it to simplistic terms for you. Gun to head and told one of the two used PEDs, pick the one who used and you live....in a fooking heartbeat I'd pick Flojo.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

Both have run times that are way out there.
.

Do yo think Paula's time is just not at all possible? It's long and hard and consistent running. Nothing super fast there. Just endurance and endurance and sheer will and desire. You don't think the female human body/mind is capable of this?

Paula always had brilliant endurance......

Ceepo

Some interviews from Simpson and then Engels on the subject.

Engels saying he didn't know anything until January of this year (really? he joined Nike in '17) but then says "when he joined he asked him and Pete assured he nothing to do with anything". i find it hard to believe that he didn't know anything about it. Anyone with a passing interest in the sport knew there was a cloud over Salazar. I also realize that he is a NOP athlete and has to be seen to defend Salazar.

Simpson interviews come across as open and honest. "The fruit of Alberto's labour is around here, and you know a tree by the fruit it bears, and there connected"

I think if you're associated with the now banned coach, rightfully or wrongfully then you can probably expect people to have some level of suspicion.

youtube.com/watch?v=6H6nqKL1xzY
youtube.com/watch?v=GB-AXOQpqH8&t=336s
youtube.com/watch?v=5AVy_iAFniA

walshb

If women started running low 10.5s at 100 and running 2.16s and 2.15s at marathon, and you had to say one was more likely not right, which one are you picking as not right?

robinph

average_runner wrote: »

See i don't get why your skeptical of Flo jo and not Paula?

Both have run times that are way out there.

Need more than more than one person to get close to them.

Radcliffe has only the third fastest time now for runs done under matching conditions. There is 5 different women with sub 2:18 times.

The 2:15 time is a bit out there, but it was run under different conditions and as such is classed as a different type of record.

The 2:17 time of Radcliffe was equally out there when it first happened, likewise Kipchoges 2:01 was about the same distance ahead of the previous record last year...but now two people have run that time. The times are really not that unusual compared to others and the difference between Kipchoge running behind a car, or not, matches up with the times for Radcliffe running with a male pacer, or not.

Ceepo

walshb wrote: »

Do yo think Paula's time is just not at all possible? It's long and hard and consistent running. Nothing super fast there. Just endurance and endurance and sheer will and desire. You don't think the female human body/mind is capable of this?

Paula always had brilliant endurance......

Do you think athletes like Adere, Chepchumba, Laroupe, Nderera, Sumgong Cheruiyot, Kiplagat etc didn't have brilliant endurance

Dr. Bre

Don’t forget Rugby - Steroid Africa some call them. It’s rife across all sports but athletics cycling are easy targets. Too much money in rugby football to go after them

Ceepo

robinph wrote: »

The times are really not that unusual compared to others and the difference between Kipchoge running behind a car, or not, matches up with the times for Radcliffe running with a male pacer, or not.

Kipchoge running behine a car and with paces is completely different story.

I dont see the difference of women running in a mixed race and Radcliffe having specific paces.
This could well be a case of 2 people looking at a number on the ground from different side, one see's the number 9, the other see's the number 6.

walshb

Ceepo wrote: »

Do you think athletes like Adere, Chepchumba, Laroupe, Nderera, Sumgong Cheruiyot, Kiplagat etc didn't have brilliant endurance

Yes, all these elites at the top have it. That is why they are elite. And there are more, who on the day could get to 2.16 and lower...

Paula ran the race of her life that day. These things can happen. Everything clicked. Like I said, long and hard and consistent. She did this, and got that time. It is not at all impossible what she did...

Pherekydes

walshb wrote: »

If women started running low 10.5s at 100 and running 2.16s and 2.15s at marathon, and you had to say one was more likely not right, which one are you picking as not right?

The fastest legitimate 100m is 10.61. Everyone in Athletics knows that, but Flo-Jo's 10.49 is still accepted by the IAAF. If this mark was expunged Flo-Jo would still hold the WR.

Remember that Flo-Jo ran 10.49 with zero wind in the QF of the US trials. :rolleyes:

Her time winning the trials was 10.61 +1.2

The Olympics gave 10.54 +3.0

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

Do yo think Paula's time is just not at all possible? It's long and hard and consistent running. Nothing super fast there. Just endurance and endurance and sheer will and desire. You don't think the female human body/mind is capable of this?

Paula always had brilliant endurance......

If its not super fast and just pure endurance and sheer will and desire, why has no one got close to it.

The amount of money alone would give the people the desire. Even with the lack of drug testing in Africa, they still can't get close to it.!!!

robinph

Ceepo wrote: »

I dont see the difference of women running in a mixed race and Radcliffe having specific paces.
.

The other womens 2:17 runs have been in London and Dubai, not certain on Dubai, but think that is a womens only field and London certainly is.

walshb

Pherekydes wrote: »

The fastest legitimate 100m is 10.61. Everyone in Athletics knows that, but Flo-Jo's 10.49 is still accepted by the IAAF. If this mark was expunged Flo-Jo would still hold the WR.

Remember that Flo-Jo ran 10.49 with zero wind in the QF of the US trials. :rolleyes:

Her time winning the trials was 10.61 +1.2

The Olympics gave 10.54 +3.0

Yes, I recall the anemometer readings were not working properly in those trials...

Haven't had a response yet to my query on low 10.5s in the 100 metres vs 2.15s and 2.16s in female marathon running....

Maybe both are very achievable clean..

Personally I think the low 10.5s would raise more eyebrows...

Ceepo

robinph wrote: »

The other womens 2:17 runs have been in London and Dubai, not certain on Dubai, but think that is a womens only field and London certainly is.

What has that got to do with women running mixed races and not getting close to 2,15 and Radcliffe being paced by men.
Women running in mixed race have pacers by proxy, even if they're not specific

robinph

Ceepo wrote: »

What has that got to do with women running mixed races and not getting close to 2,15 and Radcliffe being paced by men.
Women running in mixed race have pacers by proxy, even if they're not specific

The women running in mixed races are about 2 minutes further back than the women running in women only races. That doesn't prove anything about Radcliffes time, if anything it's just that the field in the likes of Berlin is actually getting in their way or that there is some other motivation lacking in the setup of that race for the women as we know it is super fast for the men.

Why is Berlin a fast course for the men, but a slow one for the women? That suggests to me that random blokes in the middle of the pack with you don't provide any assistance compared to actual assigned pacers. Even female pacers who can only make it to just about half way in London are of more use to the elite women is what I see from those stats comparing the races such as London and Berlin.