PED

Giruilla · 04-07-2014 10:15am

walshb wrote: »

Carl Lewis was found to have ingested a banned substance from a cold remedy. The levels were so very very low that the ingestion was not at all a PED. I do believe that he was a genuine clean athlete.

.. em

Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

He won a gold medal in whats considered the dirtiest race in history! The silver medalist in that race - Linford Christie - has been categorically proven to be a juicer.

walshb · 04-07-2014 11:26am

Giruilla wrote: »

.. em

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

He won a gold medal in whats considered the dirtiest race in history! The silver medalist in that race - Linford Christie - has been categorically proven to be a juicer.

I know about the affair. I am simply saying that I believe that Lewis was a genuine talent and that what he ingested was NOT a PED. Shown to be so. It's not on the list today. Back then almost everything was on the banned list. The US authorities exonerated him for the inadvertent ingestion of a banned substance. The levels were barely detectable

Johnson was on hard drugs, actual PEDs. His times and improvements prove this. Lewis' career, times, progression and natural talent all tell me that he was not juicing.

I believe had Lewis juiced like Johnson we may have seen a sun 9.6 from Lewis that day.

Lewis' actions and behaviour also add to my belief that he was clean. He was quite vocal about the use of PEDs. Yes, so have other proven PED users, but Lewis as far as I know never ever tested positive for a PED. He went on after 1988 and into the 90s and never failed a drugs test for PEDs.

Giruilla · 04-07-2014 12:11pm

walshb wrote: »

I know about the affair. I am simply saying that I believe that Lewis was a genuine talent and that what he ingested was NOT a PED. Shown to be so. It's not on the list today. Back then almost everything was on the banned list. The US authorities exonerated him for the inadvertent ingestion of a banned substance. The levels were barely detectable

Johnson was on hard drugs, actual PEDs. His times and improvements prove this. Lewis' career, times, progression and natural talent all tell me that he was not juicing.

I believe had Lewis juiced like Johnson we may have seen a sun 9.6 from Lewis that day.

Lewis' actions and behaviour also add to my belief that he was clean. He was quite vocal about the use of PEDs. Yes, so have other proven PED users, but Lewis as far as I know never ever tested positive for a PED. He went on after 1988 and into the 90s and never failed a drugs test for PEDs.

Theres really not enough evidence to prove either way on Lewis, so its going to come down to opinion.

Anyway, doping 'in competition' is almost pointless and stupid to do. Did they even do 'out of competition' testing back then? I doubt it. In my opinion I don't see how a clean athlete could have competed against all those guys proven to be juiced up. My same opinion holds for Usain Bolt today.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 04-07-2014 12:35pm

Just on the subject of blaming your steak dinner for failing a test... I can't remember where exactly it was but quite recently I saw some swimmers talking about how they were given notice before heading off to a competition somewhere to avoid eating any red meat as it may lead to failed drugs tests.
If there are places like this where it's known the meat is contaminated with whatever and they're warned not to eat any then the "it was in my dinner" defense really shouldn't be accepted anymore.

walshb · 04-07-2014 1:29pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Theres really not enough evidence to prove either way on Lewis, so its going to come down to opinion.

Anyway, doping 'in competition' is almost pointless and stupid to do. Did they even do 'out of competition' testing back then? I doubt it. In my opinion I don't see how a clean athlete could have competed against all those guys proven to be juiced up. My same opinion holds for Usain Bolt today.

I'd like to believe that we do have genuine clean greats in sport today that are doing brilliant things through hard work and dedication. And, beating other athletes who are cheating. If we cannot think this possible then what's it all for? We may as well scrap any record that exists in any athletic/endurance based sport.

I believe the Johnson story to be the most impacting and insightful example of how effective hard drugs can be to an already very capable athlete. He went from 3-4 meters behind Lewis to 3-4 meters ahead of Lewis in a couple of years. Lewis knew there was something amiss.

Calvin Smith is always held up as the clean guy, but if so, how come his 9.93 time was never questioned? I believe Lewis to be a naturally faster and talented sprinter, yet Lewis didn't break that time until 1988, and he broke it by a hair. I believe that Smith is clean, but logic tells me that so was Lewis. If he was not clean and was using PEDs then I think 9.93 would have been fairly "pedestrian" for him.

Giruilla · 04-07-2014 2:02pm

walshb wrote: »

Lewis knew there was something amiss.

Johnson says the same thing about Lewis!

The thing thats strange for me is athletes generally don't take steroids in competition. All the muscle building is done out of competition and its when you're off them and they're out of your system that the effects for speed come through.
I really wouldn't be surprised if Johnsons beer was tampered with in that respect. Allegedly Carl Lewis' friend Andre Jackson admitted to spiking his beer with roids.
Johnson is p*ssed off with it because he probably knows there shouldn't have been anything in his system at the time.. because he was genuinely doing it out of competition. Which is likely Lewis was doing too.

walshb wrote: »

We may as well scrap any record that exists in any athletic/endurance based sport.

Have you seen the current world records for womens track?
100/200/400/800 all stand from the 1980's! You think they're legit?

Da Shins Kelly · 04-07-2014 2:44pm

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Just on the subject of blaming your steak dinner for failing a test... I can't remember where exactly it was but quite recently I saw some swimmers talking about how they were given notice before heading off to a competition somewhere to avoid eating any red meat as it may lead to failed drugs tests.
If there are places like this where it's known the meat is contaminated with whatever and they're warned not to eat any then the "it was in my dinner" defense really shouldn't be accepted anymore.

I think a lot of it comes down to whether the amount ingested is actually enough to effect performance. Just because something showed up on a test, doesn't mean that it was necessarily of performance enhancing levels. There is always going to be suspicion, but there needs to be proof that people are knowingly taking something that is actually making them better than everyone else. That's what was proved with Lance Armstrong. I wouldn't be all that surprised if a similar truth is revealed about Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt in the future, but you can't just start throwing people out just because you suspect something. I would imagine you're leaving yourself very open to having the sh*t sued out of you if you accuse someone without concrete proof that they were taking something knowingly and that it was actually making them better athletes than they would be normally.

walshb · 04-07-2014 3:00pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Johnson says the same thing about Lewis!

The thing thats strange for me is athletes generally don't take steroids in competition. All the muscle building is done out of competition and its when you're off them and they're out of your system that the effects for speed come through.
I really wouldn't be surprised if Johnsons beer was tampered with in that respect. Allegedly Carl Lewis' friend Andre Jackson admitted to spiking his beer with roids.
Johnson is p*ssed off with it because he probably knows there shouldn't have been anything in his system at the time.. because he was genuinely doing it out of competition. Which is likely Lewis was doing too.

Have you seen the current world records for womens track?
100/200/400/800 all stand from the 1980's! You think they're legit?

What was amiss with Lewis, though? He wasn't running these fantastic time, nor was he suddenly dominating a man who used to dominate him. Johnson's full of crap in that regard. It was he who went from 10.10 to 9.8 in a couple of years. It was he who went from 4 meters behind Lewis to 4 meters ahead of Lewis in a couple of years.

Da Shins Kelly: "There is always going to be suspicion, but there needs to be proof that people are knowingly taking something that is actually making them better than everyone else. "

I agree with this to an extent, and it's perfect for the Lewis example. Lewis wasn't the one caught with anabolic steroids in his system. Lewis' times were not near as improved/dramatic as Johnson's. When all the evidence is weighed up I believe Lewis comes out as honest.

walshb · 04-07-2014 3:11pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Have you seen the current world records for womens track?
100/200/400/800 all stand from the 1980's! You think they're legit?

I have, and yes, they are all well documented and suspected. But, why stop there? How about Kevin Young's 46.7 for 400 MH? Jonathon Edwards 18.29 meters? We could dismiss a lot of WRs in any sport as being delivered by a cheater in that case. I am not naive to believe that all accomplishments/records were obtained clean. But, at the same time, I wouldn't be so pessimistic as to think that none were delivered by honest athletes who happen to have amazing natural ability.

Giruilla · 04-07-2014 3:17pm

walshb wrote: »

What was amiss with Lewis, though? He wasn't running these fantastic time, nor was he suddenly dominating a man who used to dominate him. Johnson's full of crap in that regard. It was he who went from 10.10 to 9.8 in a couple of years. It was he who went from 4 meters behind Lewis to 4 meters ahead of Lewis in a couple of years.

Da Shins Kelly: "There is always going to be suspicion, but there needs to be proof that people are knowingly taking something that is actually making them better than everyone else. "

I agree with this to an extent, and it's perfect for the Lewis example. Lewis wasn't the one caught with anabolic steroids in his system. Lewis' times were not near as improved/dramatic as Johnson's. When all the evidence is weighed up I believe Lewis comes out as honest.

You realise why it doesn't really make sense for someone to be caught with steroids 'in competition'? It's been near confirmed that Johnsons sample was tampered with.

You seem to be basing your opinion that Lewis is clean and Johnson isn't solely based on sudden performance gains over time. By the same logic you would think Lance Armstrong was clean and Chris Froome was a juicer?

walshb · 04-07-2014 3:23pm

Giruilla wrote: »

You realise why it doesn't really make sense for someone to be caught with steroids 'in competition'? It's been near confirmed that Johnsons sample was tampered with.

You seem to be basing your opinion that Lewis is clean and Johnson isn't solely based on sudden performance gains over time. By the same logic you would think Lance Armstrong was clean and Chris Froome was a juicer?

Confirmed? By whom? Johnson and his camp maybe. He got caught and was trying to bring down Lewis with him, or lessen the shame. The guy admitted he was a cheat, but said he didn't take stanozolol. What, we just take that as gospel?

It makes "less" sense that they'd be caught in competition, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Johnson is only one example. Many many more have been caught from competition samples.

Cycling and athletics are not comparable. 100 metres straight line run cannot be compared to a cyclist's route and times etc. There's so so much more to consider when looking at cycling. The thing with Athletics is that it is a lot easier to measure and compare and evaluate. Even more easier when the distance is so short.

My basis on Lewis being clean is to do with his natural ability/times/progression and the fact that he did not test positive for PEDs. He did not have steroids in his system. What else could anyone base it on? Compare this to Ben and it's only natural to think that Johnson was the PED user. Could have Lewis have been on them? Yes. But I don't believe he was based on the evidence.

Halloween Jack · 04-07-2014 4:29pm

walshb wrote: »

Confirmed? By whom? Johnson and his camp maybe. He got caught and was trying to bring down Lewis with him, or lessen the shame. The guy admitted he was a cheat, but said he didn't take stanozolol. What, we just take that as gospel?

It makes "less" sense that they'd be caught in competition, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Johnson is only one example. Many many more have been caught from competition samples.

Cycling and athletics are not comparable. 100 metres straight line run cannot be compared to a cyclist's route and times etc. There's so so much more to consider when looking at cycling. The thing with Athletics is that it is a lot easier to measure and compare and evaluate. Even more easier when the distance is so short.

My basis on Lewis being clean is to do with his natural ability/times/progression and the fact that he did not test positive for PEDs. He did not have steroids in his system. What else could anyone base it on? Compare this to Ben and it's only natural to think that Johnson was the PED user. Could have Lewis have been on them? Yes. But I don't believe he was based on the evidence.

Breathtaking naïveté......

If you think any sprinter in the last 35 years raced and won major honours clean....

Halloween Jack · 04-07-2014 4:37pm

I have to add Giurilla is doing a great job fighting the good fight here.

Da Shins Kelly · 04-07-2014 4:53pm

Lol

Halloween Jack · 04-07-2014 11:05pm

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Lol

What you lol'ing at chief?

walshb · 05-07-2014 10:27am

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Breathtaking naïveté......

If you think any sprinter in the last 35 years raced and won major honours clean....

I'd rather be believing that "some" humans that we have seen breaking 10 seconds were honest and clean. I never said all. I clearly stated this. You, on the other hand, believe that nothing is honest and clean from global medallists @ sprints over the past 35 years. That to me is just as naive.

And, the post of mine that you quoted listed ONE man that I thought was clean. Carl Lewis. Add in Bolt, and that makes two. Do you really believe that all the WCs and Olympic winners @ sprint level since 1988 were dopers?

How about Michael Johnson at 200? That is a sprint race. Was he, in your opinion, a doper? I would think he was honest and clean. Not sure how that view is breathtakingly naive.

BTW, I believe Froome to be an honest cyclist.

Henry9 · 05-07-2014 4:55pm

walshb wrote: »

Confirmed? By whom? Johnson and his camp maybe. He got caught and was trying to bring down Lewis with him, or lessen the shame. The guy admitted he was a cheat, but said he didn't take stanozolol. What, we just take that as gospel?

It makes "less" sense that they'd be caught in competition, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Johnson is only one example. Many many more have been caught from competition samples.

Cycling and athletics are not comparable. 100 metres straight line run cannot be compared to a cyclist's route and times etc. There's so so much more to consider when looking at cycling. The thing with Athletics is that it is a lot easier to measure and compare and evaluate. Even more easier when the distance is so short.

My basis on Lewis being clean is to do with his natural ability/times/progression and the fact that he did not test positive for PEDs. He did not have steroids in his system. What else could anyone base it on? Compare this to Ben and it's only natural to think that Johnson was the PED user. Could have Lewis have been on them? Yes. But I don't believe he was based on the evidence.

That all depends on when you think these athletes start doping.
Also, good old Lance never tested positive.

In 'Speed Trap' Charlie Francis went into a lot of detail about his programme and his methods. One may choose whether or not to believe what he said.

To think the greatest sprinter ever who has destroyed everyone else is clean, while one by one his competitors and team mates are caught is naive in my opinion.

But like the Lance issue, I don't think you'll see people change their minds.

Back to the original topic though, I have a feeling there is less abuse in tennis now than a couple of years ago.

It definitely looks less overwhelmingly physical than it was, the 3 obvious contenders look much less physically imposing too.

There is far less talk about Djokovic and his doctor, or egg chamber, or 'Gluten Free Diet' (LOL).
I don't think they're hitting the ball as hard as they were, and there's fewer of those back to back marathons of a couple of years ago.

These things might all be coincidence, or maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but I get the impression that after the Spanish court case and the potential disclosures some people in the sport started to take control.

walshb · 05-07-2014 5:26pm

Henry9 wrote: »

To think the greatest sprinter ever who has destroyed everyone else is clean, while one by one his competitors and team mates are caught is naive in my opinion.

But wasn't Calvin Smith held up as a clean and honest athlete? A claim I believe. He never tested positive for PEDs.

Henry9 · 05-07-2014 5:42pm

walshb wrote: »

But wasn't Calvin Smith held up as a clean and honest athlete? A claim I believe. He never tested positive for PEDs.

He was (and is) held up as such alright, partly by default because everyone else in the race tested positive, partly because of his physique probably.
He was also quiet and humble, that might help.

Not testing positive is completely irrelevant though. What we now know about those who did and it was suppressed, or whose excuses were accepted renders that null and void.

Remember that was always the cry of the Lance supporters, even when they finally got him and published hundreds of pages of evidence against him.
Even when they finally stripped him, "he never tested positive".

We now know he was doping on an industrial scale, no (public) positive test though.

walshb · 05-07-2014 6:46pm

Henry9 wrote: »

He was (and is) held up as such alright, partly by default because everyone else in the race tested positive, partly because of his physique probably.
He was also quiet and humble, that might help.

Not testing positive is completely irrelevant though. What we now know about those who did and it was suppressed, or whose excuses were accepted renders that null and void.

Remember that was always the cry of the Lance supporters, even when they finally got him and published hundreds of pages of evidence against him.
Even when they finally stripped him, "he never tested positive".

We now know he was doping on an industrial scale, no (public) positive test though.

I don't see the comparison with world class sprinters who have won global medals, and whom have never failed drugs tests, and Lance. The Lance affair was major cover up and systematic doping programme revolving around him and the authorities. It was based on the complicity of many many people.

So, you say not testing positive is irrelevant. Does that mean that we are to slate guys, or be highly suspicious of guys like Michael Johnson and Jeremy Wariner and Bolt and Allan Wells and (Maurice Greene, who I don't believe failed a drugs test) and many other athletes who never tested positive for drugs? Do we now just slate guys because they run very fast times? Is that how sad and desperate the world of sprinting is? That we shouldn't believe that humans can run very very fast whilst remaining clean?

Henry9 · 05-07-2014 8:14pm

walshb wrote: »

I don't see the comparison with world class sprinters who have won global medals, and whom have never failed drugs tests, and Lance. The Lance affair was major cover up and systematic doping programme revolving around him and the authorities. It was based on the complicity of many many people.

That's not true. It was systematic and involved him and his team. The authorities suppressed one or two failed tests with exemptions, but his programme wasn't put together in cohoots with the authorities.
Probably some of them suspected or knew about it, but few governing bodies would voluntarily give up their No 1 star.

The practicalities are different too. Doping a whole team, through a 3 week grand tour is a whole other logistical operation from one player, with his own entourage. A lot of the training is done in isolation.

walshb wrote: »

So, you say not testing positive is irrelevant.

It is, because the evidence is that even in the rare cases where they get caught, you often don't hear about it.
What about BALCO? How did they all get caught?

You say Lewis wasn't using anything performance enhancing, so why did he test positive? Why was it in his system, and was it masking anything else?
The bottom line is that he tested positive and it was suppressed.

walshb wrote: »

Does that mean that we are to slate guys, or be highly suspicious of guys like Michael Johnson and Jeremy Wariner and Bolt and Allan Wells and (Maurice Greene, who I don't believe failed a drugs test) and many other athletes who never tested positive for drugs?

Not slate them, but be suspicious yes. That's not my fault, blame the drug cheats. Is athletics clean? Did Powell test positive? And another Jamaican? Is it plausible they are acting in isolation?
Do the Jamaicans have a thorough testing approach? The word is that they don't.

What about Tyson Gay? So Bolt's two biggest rivals have been caught.
Why would anyone get the benefit of the doubt?

walshb wrote: »

Do we now just slate guys because they run very fast times? Is that how sad and desperate the world of sprinting is? That we shouldn't believe that humans can run very very fast whilst remaining clean?

You sound like one of those Lance believers who have to have faith because the alternative is so unpalatable.

walshb · 05-07-2014 8:24pm

Henry9 wrote: »

That's not true. It was systematic and involved him and his team. The authorities suppressed one or two failed tests with exemptions, but his programme wasn't put together in cohoots with the authorities.
Probably some of them suspected or knew about it, but few governing bodies would voluntarily give up their No 1 star.

The practicalities are different too. Doping a whole team, through a 3 week grand tour is a whole other logistical operation from one player, with his own entourage. A lot of the training is done in isolation.

It is, because the evidence is that even in the rare cases where they get caught, you often don't hear about it.
What about BALCO? How did they all get caught?

You say Lewis wasn't using anything performance enhancing, so why did he test positive? Why was it in his system, and was it masking anything else?
The bottom line is that he tested positive and it was suppressed.

Not slate them, but be suspicious yes. That's not my fault, blame the drug cheats. Is athletics clean? Did Powell test positive? And another Jamaican? Is it plausible they are acting in isolation?
Do the Jamaicans have a thorough testing approach? The word is that they don't.

What about Tyson Gay? So Bolt's two biggest rivals have been caught.
Why would anyone get the benefit of the doubt?

You sound like one of those Lance believers who have to have faith because the alternative is so unpalatable.

Lewis tested positive for a substance that was not deemed a PED. It's not even on the list now; and the levels were extremely low. He was cleared of wrongdoing. I just believe that Lewis was a genuine talent. I also believe that Bolt is. I don't believe that they all are. I agree with you as regards Jamaica's doping measures. That is worrying.

I think it's sad that because some test positive people judge them all as one. Fair enough, ask questions and be suspicious, but surely we should also be prepared and accepting of genuine talent and hard work and fairness bringing about quality results. We can't always put an asterisk beside athletes because some of their opponents decided to cheat.

I get labelled as being very naive because I believe that some great results have been achieved by cean athletes. That's silly.

Henry9 · 05-07-2014 8:36pm

But it was on the list, and he did test positive. Low level is not a defence, it could have mostly left his system by then.

walshb wrote: »

I get labelled as being very naive because I believe that some great results have been achieved by cean athletes. That's silly.

Some no doubt have.

But, you believe that the greatest feat in the history of track and field, and probably in all of sport was achieved clean.

This requires one to believe that all of the other supremely talented athletes, who were using and training just as hard, weren't just beaten but were destroyed by a clean athlete.

Imagine if the other guys were all clean, what would the margin have been then?
And the others are all freaks in their own right.

Johnson was doped to the eyeballs, an absolute speed freak, destroys Lewis who you believe in because he was so talented.
Bolt beats that time, by what 2 tenths? Slowing Down.

Maybe, I personally don't believe it.

But hypothetically, let's say Bolt tested positive in Bejing, would they have released it??

walshb · 05-07-2014 10:03pm

Henry9 wrote: »

But hypothetically, let's say Bolt tested positive in Bejing, would they have released it??

Absolutely they would have released it. At that time Bolt was a star, after that he became bigger, and after Berlin 2009 he became real global. I still don't think the authorities would cover up such a global star's test result had it been positive for PEDs. Maybe years ago, but now, pretty much nothing remains secret.

I realise that Bolt's times are extraordinary, but can he the man not be extraordinary? There are 7 billion people on earth. A super talented man.

Can I ask you what times would you consider possible and achievable for the fastest man on earth clean? Because you seem to be implying that anything close to ten or below is not really cleanly believable. Lewis' best times were 10 and below. Mainly 10 and above he ran, but at his best he was just below 10. In the 60s they were below 10 as well, and by the 80s they had advanced technologies and improved training. Do you think the elite men in the 70s and 60s were also running times that weren't humanly possible without drugs?

Rjd2 · 05-07-2014 10:28pm

Henry9 wrote: »

But hypothetically, let's say Bolt tested positive in Bejing, would they have released it??

Its doubtful, the guy is the biggest draw in athletics for decades, it would be covered up or he would have retired.
Not saying he is on anything but those in charge know he failing a drugs test would cripple athletics.

Henry9 · 05-07-2014 10:33pm

I don't think they would have. If Bolt tests positive I think athletics is finished.

I've no idea what they can run clean, but I'm using the other competitors as a benchmark. In a sport where you can train for years to shave a few hundredths off, to be trouncing guys who are super talented and using???

Sure the guy can be extraordinary, but everyone said Lance was extraordinary too.

Lewis' best times were 10 and below. Mainly 10 and above he ran, but at his best he was just below 10

The guy who before Bolt was considered the most 'natural' sprinter, broke his balls to run the the 9.9s.
Lewis's best is 9.86, almost 3 tenths of a second slower than Bolt.

Some people believe it, I don't. And a lot of the rhetoric used is the same that has been used umpteen times before.

walshb · 05-07-2014 11:53pm

Henry9 wrote: »

But it was on the list, and he did test positive. Low level is not a defence, it could have mostly left his system by then.

That's a valid point, but the substance found was not some PED. It was a stimulant found in very low levels. I think Lewis was just unfortunate. Most drugs test positives are deliberate and intentional cheating. Some are not, and some are not so much PED related. I believe that Lewis' positive test was non intentional on his part.

Giruilla · 06-07-2014 2:21am

Friedrich Nietzsche — 'Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.'

I just read up about Olympic testing and... no, they did not do out of competition testing in the 80's. Athletes were free to take whatever they wanted before major events, taper off before them and the juice would be out off their system. To take steroids during the competition and have levels of juice what Ben Johnson had would be unheard of and in fact detrimental to his performance. He was a doper for sure.. but that sample was tampered with.

So... aint no way Carl Lewis (who is hugely disrespected in athletics I might add) ran clean. Unless of course he is a Superman - not the Nietzsche kind - who could outrun athletes who were juiced to the gills on gear at that time. If he could, he's the greatest athlete there's ever been. Yet, this is a man even Usain Bolt had said he has no respect for..

Anyway, back onto the subject of tennis.. why would they dope?
There's no gains to be made doping in tennis?
There's no money in it?
Why would they risk their reputation?
The testing in tennis is too stringent?
Tennis shots are about skill, not power and stamina?
There's no evidence of players vastly increasing muscularity and stamina in a short space anyway?

walshb · 06-07-2014 12:27pm

Giruilla wrote: »

I just read up about Olympic testing and... no, they did not do out of competition testing in the 80's. Athletes were free to take whatever they wanted before major events, taper off before them and the juice would be out off their system. To take steroids during the competition and have levels of juice what Ben Johnson had would be unheard of and in fact detrimental to his performance. He was a doper for sure.. but that sample was tampered with.

So... aint no way Carl Lewis (who is hugely disrespected in athletics I might add) ran clean. Unless of course he is a Superman - not the Nietzsche kind - who could outrun athletes who were juiced to the gills on gear at that time. If he could, he's the greatest athlete there's ever been. Yet, this is a man even Usain Bolt had said he has no respect for..

So, now we slate any athlete in the 80s who was fast because the testing wasn't done all that much? That's bonkers. Slate them all because the authorities weren't testing them as much as they test today. Forget that many never tested positive for drugs. Just claim that they had to be cheating because the testing wasn't enough at the time. Coe/Ovett/Moses/Bubka and all the other greats were drug using?

Why does Lewis need to be superman to run 10 seconds? Bolt runs 9.58. What does that make him? Why is it that if Lewis was clearly a PED user he only managed 10 seconds and a bit below, yet Johnson, who not a better sprinter, was running .1 - .15 seconds faster? Was Lewis not using the good stuff?

What time do you consider valid for a human to run for 100 metres? Lewis' times and progression IMO are not at all suspicious. So, you must think that the 10 second barrier is just something not achievable for clean athletes. I dare to think what you make of the Bullet Hayes.

Do you believe that Bolt's 9.58 was clean?

Halloween Jack · 06-07-2014 11:21pm

There's an article in der spiegel, an interview with angel heredia, a confirmed dope guru who was involved with balco and was busted a while back. The interview takes place during the Olympics.

Heredia is asked whether or not he will watch the 100m final. He says he may watch it or may not, but adds that there is little point in doing so as every contestant will be doping, and he had worked with half of them himself.

He also states that around 10 secs, maybe a shade under is at the bounds of human ability, and improved times in the last few decades are pretty much down to improved methods of doping.

No way bolt is running 9:58 clean. Incidentally there have long been rumours that bolt has worked with heredia in the past.

Heredia works with boxers now, Marquez I believe and others...

Halloween Jack · 06-07-2014 11:27pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Friedrich Nietzsche — 'Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.'

I just read up about Olympic testing and... no, they did not do out of competition testing in the 80's. Athletes were free to take whatever they wanted before major events, taper off before them and the juice would be out off their system. To take steroids during the competition and have levels of juice what Ben Johnson had would be unheard of and in fact detrimental to his performance. He was a doper for sure.. but that sample was tampered with.

So... aint no way Carl Lewis (who is hugely disrespected in athletics I might add) ran clean. Unless of course he is a Superman - not the Nietzsche kind - who could outrun athletes who were juiced to the gills on gear at that time. If he could, he's the greatest athlete there's ever been. Yet, this is a man even Usain Bolt had said he has no respect for..

Anyway, back onto the subject of tennis.. why would they dope?
There's no gains to be made doping in tennis?
There's no money in it?
Why would they risk their reputation?
The testing in tennis is too stringent?
Tennis shots are about skill, not power and stamina?
There's no evidence of players vastly increasing muscularity and stamina in a short space anyway?

There does seem to have been a bit of a change in tennis lately, was it the French open last year that saw nadal and djokovic play 5hrs in the final after 2 mammoth semi's?

Murray certainly looks less muscular this year than last if my eyes don't deceive me.

A cynic might think that the attention the subject had been getting from bloggers and the like (seeing as mainstream fans with typewriters will never bite the hand that feeds them) was beginning to hit home.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 07-07-2014 1:17am

Halloween Jack wrote: »

There does seem to have been a bit of a change in tennis lately, was it the French open last year that saw nadal and djokovic play 5hrs in the final after 2 mammoth semi's?

Murray certainly looks less muscular this year than last if my eyes don't deceive me.

A cynic might think that the attention the subject had been getting from bloggers and the like (seeing as mainstream fans with typewriters will never bite the hand that feeds them) was beginning to hit home.

Murray had back surgery last year and was out of action for a few months. Not that hard to believe he'd have lost weight or muscle definition when he couldn't do anything for about 4-5 months.

Giruilla · 07-07-2014 9:09am

walshb wrote: »

Do you believe that Bolt's 9.58 was clean?

F*ck no

!!

Do you believe Flo Jo's 1988 WR's that stand today - 10.49/21.34 - were clean?

walshb · 07-07-2014 9:12am

Halloween Jack wrote: »

There does seem to have been a bit of a change in tennis lately, was it the French open last year that saw nadal and djokovic play 5hrs in the final after 2 mammoth semi's?

.

It's been mentioned before, but how much actual strain and effort occurs in that 5 hrs? They are not playing 5 hrs. There are many breaks and lulls in the action. Food and water taken on-board. To me it should not be some alarm bell going off because they play a couple of long matches in succession. It's not like a hard 5 hr stage in a Tour De France.

walshb · 07-07-2014 9:15am

Giruilla wrote: »

F*ck no !!

Do you believe Flo Jo's 1988 WR's that stand today - 10.49/21.34 - were clean?

I believe that Flo Jo was likely being aided by something. What it was I cannot know. Like I said, I am not naive enough to think that every record I see is from a clean athlete, but I do believe that some humans are just great, and can achieve the greatest results through hard work and talent. The Flo Jo and Ben times/performances are so much more obvious than others (who haven't tested for PEDs) that are being labeled cheats.

What would you say of the middle distance records over the past 35 years or so?

Giruilla · 07-07-2014 9:23am

walshb wrote: »

What would you say of the middle distance records over the past 35 years or so?

Thats a very broad question, but one thing I'd say is doping has been rampant with Kenyan athletes.

Giruilla · 07-07-2014 9:42am

walshb wrote: »

I believe that Flo Jo was likely being aided by something. What it was I cannot know. Like I said, I am not naive enough to think that every record I see is from a clean athlete, but I do believe that some humans are just great, and can achieve the greatest results through hard work and talent. The Flo Jo and Ben times/performances are so much more obvious than others (who haven't tested for PEDs) that are being labeled cheats.

You seem to think Lewis isn't a juicer solely because of his time progression compared to Johnsons yes?
Here's confirmed times each ran in years before 1988..

Lewis (Age, time) -
22, 10.12
23, 10.00
25, 9.83
26, 9.79
27, 9.92

Johnson (Age, time) -
22, 10.44
23, 10.22
25, 9.95
26, 9.83
27, 9.79

What exactly is sooo suspicious that you categorically say Johnson times are juice tainted yet Lewis is 100% clean??
They both make steady games each year. Lewis even hit 9.79 the year previously. Thats about half a metre behind each other at the same age.

Why would Lewis not take juice when athletes at the time were effectively free to do so seeing as there was no out of competition testing?
Why would Lewis not juice when it was common knowledge all athletes at the time were doing so and thats what he needed to compete?

Giruilla · 07-07-2014 9:50am

Halloween Jack wrote: »

There's an article in der spiegel, an interview with angel heredia, a confirmed dope guru who was involved with balco and was busted a while back. The interview takes place during the Olympics.

Heredia is asked whether or not he will watch the 100m final. He says he may watch it or may not, but adds that there is little point in doing so as every contestant will be doping, and he had worked with half of them himself.

He also states that around 10 secs, maybe a shade under is at the bounds of human ability, and improved times in the last few decades are pretty much down to improved methods of doping.

No way bolt is running 9:58 clean. Incidentally there have long been rumours that bolt has worked with heredia in the past.

Heredia works with boxers now, Marquez I believe and others...

Heard about that too.. now I never saw definitive proof he worked with Bolt, but theres lots of rumours and people saying he was pictured in Bolts race team celebrating after a few races.
Didn't Heredia also change his name or something?

This is a guy who describes himself as a 'chemist' and is working with athletes..

Halloween Jack · 07-07-2014 10:00am

Giruilla wrote: »

Heard about that too.. now I never saw definitive proof he worked with Bolt, but theres lots of rumours and people saying he was pictured in Bolts race team celebrating after a few races.
Didn't Heredia also change his name or something?

This is a guy who describes himself as a 'chemist' and is working with athletes..

Yeah he's a very unsavoury character, there are videos of him online buying epo over the counter in Mexico and injecting himself with it.

He calls himself memo now and works with boxers.

Victor conte and him have some amusing spats on twitter often, with conte continually casting aspersions on his work. I'm not sure what that means in itself as I don't know if I fully trust conte either, but he does talk up VADA a lot, who seem to have a very rigorous testing program for combat sports and have caught a few fighters out.

walshb · 07-07-2014 10:06am

Giruilla wrote: »

You seem to think Lewis isn't a juicer solely because of his time progression compared to Johnsons yes?
Here's confirmed times each ran in years before 1988..

Lewis (Age, time) -
22, 10.12
23, 10.00
25, 9.83
26, 9.79
27, 9.92

Johnson (Age, time) -
22, 10.44
23, 10.22
25, 9.95
26, 9.83
27, 9.79

What exactly is sooo suspicious that you categorically say Johnson times are juice tainted yet Lewis is 100% clean??
They both make steady games each year. Lewis even hit 9.79 the year previously. Thats about half a metre behind each other at the same age.

Why would Lewis not take juice when athletes at the time were effectively free to do so seeing as there was no out of competition testing?
Why would Lewis not juice when it was common knowledge all athletes at the time were doing so and thats what he needed to compete?

Lewis ran a 9.8 in the '91 championships too. Those times were not legal, they were aided by an illegal wind. Not sure why you are posting illegal times. Wonder what Johnson's 9.83 and 9.79 would look like with an illegal wind?

Facts are simple: Lewis went from 3-4 metres ahead in 1984 to 3-4 metres behind Johnson in 1987, despite Lewis running that "little bit" faster through them years.

walshb · 07-07-2014 10:08am

Giruilla wrote: »

Why would Lewis not take juice when athletes at the time were effectively free to do so seeing as there was no out of competition testing?
Why would Lewis not juice when it was common knowledge all athletes at the time were doing so and thats what he needed to compete?

Why would any clean and honest athlete try to do it fairly? Bit of a silly question in fairness. By your logic everyone is on drugs, because if some are, then the others have to be otherwise they are being left behind. Sorry, I don't believe that all the great sprinters through history were dopers. I do believe some were.

Giruilla · 07-07-2014 10:12am

walshb wrote: »

Lewis ran a 9.8 in the '91 championships too. Those times were not legal, they were aided by an illegal wind. Not sure why you are posting illegal times. Wonder what Johnson's 9.83 and 9.79 would look like with an illegal wind?

Which times specifically are 'illegal' :rolleyes:?

Giruilla · 07-07-2014 10:16am

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Yeah he's a very unsavoury character, there are videos of him online buying epo over the counter in Mexico and injecting himself with it.

He calls himself memo now and works with boxers.

Victor conte and him have some amusing spats on twitter often, with conte continually casting aspersions on his work. I'm not sure what that means in itself as I don't know if I fully trust conte either, but he does talk up VADA a lot, who seem to have a very rigorous testing program for combat sports and have caught a few fighters out.

Yeah I think Victor Conte is 100% legit now.. he talks so openly about the subject and is looking now towards what gains can be made with natural remedies.

walshb · 07-07-2014 10:18am

Giruilla wrote: »

Which times specifically are 'illegal' :rolleyes:?

Carl's legal PB is 9.86 (with a following legal wind of above 1 m/s). You have him running a 9.79 in your list, you do realize that? That time was not a legal time.

At the U.S. championships in 1988: Carl ran a time of 9.78 seconds at the 1988 US Olympic trials in Indianapolis, but it was wind aided (the tail wind speed was +5.2 m/s).

Giruilla · 07-07-2014 10:26am

walshb wrote: »

Carl's legal PB is 9.86. You have him running a 9.79 in your list, you do realize that? That time was not a legal time.

At the U.S. championships in 1988: Carl ran a time of 9.78 seconds at the 1988 US Olympic trials in Indianapolis, but it was wind aided (the tail wind speed was +5.2 m/s).

Yes your right my apoligies. I have Ben Johnsons times instead of lewis!

Can you post carl lewis time progression?

walshb · 07-07-2014 10:36am

Giruilla wrote: »

Yes your right my apoligies. I have Ben Johnsons times instead of lewis!

Can you post carl lewis time progression?

Little snap shot set out below. It is clear that Lewis was never making gains that one would say were suspicious. Clear as day. That is not me saying he was never a drug user. I believe he wasn't, but who can know for sure. His progression and times and performances in comparison to other greats who tested positive tells me that he was likely a clean runner. Now, Johnson on the other hand. Just look at his time in the '84 final. It was 10.22. Lewis' was 9.99. In three years Johnson dropped to 9.83 and Lewis was 9.93 I think.

In Carl Lewis' career as a 100m runner he ran under 10 seconds 15 times; illegally (with wind greater than 2.0) he did it an additional 11 times - often needing hefty breezes coupled with the intensity of the championship to move him faster.

-He NEVER, EVER ran under 10s with negative wind and only twice ran under 10.05s w/neg wind (Lemaitre has run under 10.05 w/neg wind more times :shock: ) -of all of his 15 legal sub-10 clockings, only 4 were less than 1m/s wind and one of those was 0.9. -every time Lewis ran below 9.95 he had a wind greater than 1m/s; 9.86 being "achieved" on the "illegal" track of Tokyo and needing a gust of 1.2 for inspiration. -60% of all legal Lewis sub-10s were made in the either '88 or '91 (20% in'91 which would be the last year he broke 10).

Giruilla · 07-07-2014 10:40am

walshb wrote: »

Little snap shot set out below. It is clear that Lewis was never making gains that one would day were suspicious. Clear as day. That is not me saying he was never a drug user. I believe he wasn't, but who can know for sure. His progression and times and performances in comparison to other greats who tested positive tells me that he was likely a clean runner. Now, Johnson on the other hand. Just look at his time in the '84 final. It was 10.22. Lewis' was 9.99. In three years Johnson dropped to 9.83 and Lewis was 9.93 I think.

In Carl Lewis' career as a 100m runner he ran under 10 seconds 15 times; illegally (with wind greater than 2.0) he did it an additional 11 times - often needing hefty breezes coupled with the intensity of the championship to move him faster.
-He NEVER, EVER ran under 10s with negative wind and only twice ran under 10.05s w/neg wind (Lemaitre has run under 10.05 w/neg wind more times :shock: ) -of all of his 15 legal sub-10 clockings, only 4 were less than 1m/s wind and one of those was 0.9. -every time Lewis ran below 9.95 he had a wind greater than 1m/s; 9.86 being "achieved" on the "illegal" track of Tokyo and needing a gust of 1.2 for inspiration. -60% of all legal Lewis sub-10s were made in the either '88 or '91 (20% in'91 which would be the last year he broke 10).

I take your point.

walshb · 07-07-2014 10:43am

Giruilla wrote: »

I take your point.

He's no better/faster than Lemaitre really!:P

Giruilla · 07-07-2014 10:54am

walshb wrote: »

He's no better/faster than Lemaitre really!:P

Ha true. I agree with you, Lewis's time are less suspicious.. I won't argue that. I'm just extremely skeptical of any times from that era I suppose.

Then look at Bolts 9.58.. the next athletes best time.. who hasn't been subsequently banned for doping is Donovan Bailey with 9.84.

walshb · 07-07-2014 11:10am

Giruilla wrote: »

Ha true. I agree with you, Lewis's time are less suspicious.. I won't argue that. I'm just extremely skeptical of any times from that era I suppose.

Then look at Bolts 9.58.. the next athletes best time.. who hasn't been subsequently banned for doping is Donovan Bailey with 9.84.

I would have less issue with folks querying sub 9.75 times, as these were big leaps from the late 80s and early 90s times. I bet nobody ever thought that 9.79 would be legally reached.

PED

Comments