Leaked IAAf report on doping

average_runner · 10-08-2015 10:33PM

john.han wrote: »

Seriously, first of all it's just your guess, but more importantly if a sport consists of 10 per cent cheats, then the sport is rancid. And what about the example I gave, 8/10 of the fastest men of all time are cheats. And most of those cheats in that sphere are still competing.

Your using one example but more to athletics than 100m. 100m is just a drug mule sprint

walshb · 10-08-2015 10:37PM

john.han wrote: »

Seriously, first of all it's just your guess, but more importantly if a sport consists of 10 per cent cheats, then the sport is rancid. And what about the example I gave, 8/10 of the fastest men of all time are cheats. And most of those cheats in that sphere are still competing.

Plenty who have ran sub 10 and sub 9.9 that are clean. More clean than dirty.

I mentioned elites. These are the men who are 10 second runners and below.

walshb · 10-08-2015 10:38PM

average_runner wrote: »

Your using one example but more to athletics than 100m. 100m is just a drug mule sprint

That's unfair, and untrue. There would be just as much temptation and desire-benefit to dope in events above 100 and 200 and 400.

average_runner · 10-08-2015 10:42PM

walshb wrote: »

That's unfair, and untrue. There would be just as much temptation and desire-benefit to dope in events above 100 and 200 and 400.

Ok I rephrase, the current 100m has plenty of drug mules in it.

john.han · 10-08-2015 10:42PM

average_runner wrote: »

Your using one example but more to athletics than 100m. 100m is just a drug mule sprint

I'm just highlighting what I consider the dirtiest part of athletics. You'd have to be naive in the extreme not to recognise that the likelihood is that the other areas have similar problems. There are far too many spectacular performances and improvements on too regular a basis for the sport to be clean. Anyone should be able to recognise that Radcliffe's improvement from a good at best 10,000m runner, to the greatest female marathon runner of all time is massively suspicious. When stuff doesn't make sense it usually tends to turn out to be too good to be true.

john.han · 10-08-2015 10:46PM

walshb wrote: »

Plenty who have ran sub 10 and sub 9.9 that are clean. More clean than dirty.

I mentioned elites. These are the men who are 10 second runners and below.

You're just moving goalposts. I can highlight plenty of 9.8 - 10 s sprinters that are also cheats, the reality is if the ones at the top are cheating and winning then the sport has an issue that is not being resolved or tackled properly.

Notwork Error · 10-08-2015 10:47PM

walshb wrote: »

Commonplace is an over-exaggeration. For every dirty elite track and field star I'd say there are 10 elites clean, maybe more.

Back to the thread. Has anything actually come of this ridiculous OTT and sensationalized report?

Yes. The sport has had to take a look at itself, what it takes from that is up to them but at least the antidoping authorities are taking the claims seriously. There is multiple big name retrospective bans coming in the next few days also, The IAAF says they are not a reaction to the leaks but when was the last time we had bans like this in the sport!? The pressure is on.

The Rape of Lucretia · 10-08-2015 10:52PM

john.han wrote: »

You're just moving goalposts. I can highlight plenty of 9.8 - 10 s sprinters that are also cheats, the reality is if the ones at the top are cheating and winning then the sport has an issue that is not being resolved or tackled properly.

Yes.

The number of clean also-rans is insignificant. It is the proportion medals winners at the top end of the sport that determine its credibility and value. The cheats in the this cohort in athletics is dominating. So rotting the sport.

The Rape of Lucretia · 10-08-2015 10:55PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

No offence, but I can't comprehend what you are trying to say, your post is so poorly written.

None taken. I can simplify it.

Is standing up for a sport worthwhile, simply because it is 'your' sport, no matter what.
Or does one stand up for it because it is unfairly in the dock ?

Chivito550 · 10-08-2015 10:57PM

See it is hard to take comments from blow ins seriously when you clearly don't understand the sport. If you think 30:01 for 10K is "good at best" then you are clueless.

Also, just to annoy ThisRegard, and to follow your logic, Jerry Flannery was a nobody until the age of 26, when he made a meteoric rise to number one Irish hooker. Bet you've never asked questions there. (Not accusing him to be clear, just making a point).

Learn the sport, then come back and discuss. You guys haven't a breeze.

Chivito550 · 10-08-2015 11:02PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

None taken. I can simplify it.

Is standing up for a sport worthwhile, simply because it is 'your' sport, no matter what.
Or does one stand up for it because it is unfairly in the dock ?

I stand up for it because I know that 1) it is not as dirty as outsiders think, particularly here in Ireland and 2) it gets unfairly slurred as a filthy sport where "they are all at it", when other sports which are as bad if not worse, get off free of suspicion, thanks to hugely corrupt organisations who do not care about doping. Say what you like about the IAAF, but at least they have gone after their cheats, which is more than FIFA, IRB, WTA or ATP can say. I think that is unfair. If you are going to dish it out, I will dish it back gladly. I take a keen interest in doping in sport, and it is rampant in the "clean sports".

walshb · 10-08-2015 11:02PM

The comparisons to other sports like rugby and tennis and soccer are silly. Those sports we can't see and measure and evaluate nearly as clearly like we can with T&F.

Chivito550 · 10-08-2015 11:03PM

walshb wrote: »

The comparisons to other sports like rugby and tennis and soccer are silly. Those sports we can't see and measure and evaluate nearly as clearly like we can with T&F.

Greece winning Euro 2004. Pretty visible if you ask me.

The Rape of Lucretia · 10-08-2015 11:08PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Greece winning Euro 2004. Pretty visible if you ask me.

Agree absolutely. It was very suss. All the more so when juxtaposed to their hosting the olympics and their relative success at it. Fair to guess that Greece's knowledge and use of PEDs in all sport had a boost in that era.

walshb · 10-08-2015 11:15PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Greece winning Euro 2004. Pretty visible if you ask me.

What exactly was visible? Is it because the underdogs won? And, really, what drugs could have made such underdogs in soccer become euro champs? I watched that tournament, and for me, they were simply very well organized, and had some lucky moments, as well as a solid defence. The euros are always so very competitive and tough. All teams. That to me is a lame example, and really clutching. Would you also throw in the Euro 92 Danish team?

ThisRegard · 10-08-2015 11:15PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Also, just to annoy ThisRegard, and to follow your logic, Jerry Flannery was a nobody until the age of 26, when he made a meteoric rise to number one Irish hooker. Bet you've never asked questions there. (Not accusing him to be clear, just making a point).

Learn the sport, then come back and discuss. You guys haven't a breeze.

Such a childish post.

Chivito550 · 10-08-2015 11:16PM

walshb wrote: »

What exactly was visible? Is it because the underdogs won? And, really, what drugs could have made such underdogs in soccer become euro champs? I watched that tournament, and for me, they were simply very well organized, and had some lucky moments, as well as a solid defence. The euros are always so very competitive and tough. All teams. That to me is a lame example, and really clutching. Would you also throw in the Euro 92 Danish team?

Iron endurance.

walshb · 10-08-2015 11:19PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Iron endurance.

Iron endurance? How so? I didn't see how the Greeks were so visibly fitter than their opponents. They are professional athletes. Did you expect them to be falling around the place after 70-80 to 90 minutes? Can you highlight this? Bottom line is that you are tainting a nation and a team based off them winning a soccer tournament, and the best you can come up with is iron endurance.... Who should have won that tournament? It's not always the flare and grace and magic that wins out.

Chivito550 · 10-08-2015 11:25PM

walshb wrote: »

What exactly was visible? Is it because the underdogs won? And, really, what drugs could have made such underdogs in soccer become euro champs? I watched that tournament, and for me, they were simply very well organized, and had some lucky moments, as well as a solid defence. The euros are always so very competitive and tough. All teams. That to me is a lame example, and really clutching. Would you also throw in the Euro 92 Danish team?

You should engage in some research sometime. I admire that you give the benefit of the doubt, but you are also so naive. A footballing team with no pedigree, particularly good footballers, relative skill levels, appear out of nowhere to topple the best in Europe, and disappear back into relative obscurity after. They manage this in the same year they host the Olympic Games, the dirtiest period in Greek sport, where tons of their medalists in those games have been subsequently busted, across a range of sports. Now it would be a massive coincidence that their footballers, who never did anything before or since, managed to win during this period, and through their outrageous endurance levels, which helped them to win games late on, and stay strong defensively when opposing attackers are tiring. So there was systematic doping going on in Greece around that time, yet the footballers weren't involved in that. Sure.

Pointless arguing with you, as unless you see the needle in the arm you will argue against the most obvious cheats.

walshb · 10-08-2015 11:30PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

You should engage in some research sometime. I admire that you give the benefit of the doubt, but you are also so naive. A footballing team with no pedigree, particularly good footballers, relative skill levels, appear out of nowhere to topple the best in Europe, and disappear back into relative obscurity after. They manage this in the same year they host the Olympic Games, the dirtiest period in Greek sport, where tons of their medalists in those games have been subsequently busted, across a range of sports. Now it would be a massive coincidence that their footballers, who never did anything before or since, managed to win during this period, and through their outrageous endurance levels, which helped them to win games late on, and stay strong defensively when opposing attackers are tiring. So there was systematic doping going on in Greece around that time, yet the footballers weren't involved in that. Sure.

Pointless arguing with you, as unless you see the needle in the arm you will argue against the most obvious cheats.

I'd hate to be a Greek reading this. You are now making them out to be obvious cheats? That is bang out of order. That team won fair and square, and as far as I know they had zero sanctions against them.

What they did or did not do after is of no relevance. You have tainted a nation and a team based off a win, and your whole evidence is 'Iron endurance.' Nothing more. That's ridiculous. So, in the 90 minutes the other so superior teams (as you seem to be making the Greeks out to be useless) had to outscore Greece, it was all down to the Greeks being doped and being so fit? BTW, if doping is very relavant in other sports would it not be a case that the other teams were doping too?

Do you think Denmark were doped in 1992? They didn't even qualify, and they won the event. How about the Czech team in the 70s I think it was? Doping the reason they won against cleaner teams?

For the record, attacking teams can very well use up more energy than defence minded teams who put 11 men behind the ball.

john.han · 10-08-2015 11:33PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

See it is hard to take comments from blow ins seriously when you clearly don't understand the sport. If you think 30:01 for 10K is "good at best" then you are clueless.

Also, just to annoy ThisRegard, and to follow your logic, Jerry Flannery was a nobody until the age of 26, when he made a meteoric rise to number one Irish hooker. Bet you've never asked questions there. (Not accusing him to be clear, just making a point).

Learn the sport, then come back and discuss. You guys haven't a breeze.

The "good at best" reference was in a world context, she was amongst the top table, but short on being categorically world class. But then suddenly is able to run marathons in times that are arguably beyond what should be possible. How many 10,000m races did she fade dramatically in and end up 4th? She struggled with stamina at various points in her career but then went on to dominate marathon running... if you can't see why that's suspicious then I'm not gonna try and argue. The petty blow in stuff is childish too, says a lot that the best way you see fit to defend the sport is to fling crap at other sports. (For the record I reckon Rugby is riddled, soccer has had some remarkably suspicious stuff going on and the GAA has to take a serious look at the massive physical increases in the sport in the past decade, no sport is 100% clean but if you want to turn it into an irrelevant athletics vs. other sports argument, you'll never win, history has shown us that time and time again)

walshb · 10-08-2015 11:39PM

john.han wrote: »

The "good at best" reference was in a world context, she was amongst the top table, but short on being categorically world class. But then suddenly is able to run marathons in times that are arguably beyond what should be possible. How many 10,000m races did she fade dramatically in and end up 4th?

How do you end up 4th in the world at global events and only get labeled good at best? That is world class.

Chivito550 · 10-08-2015 11:42PM

john.han wrote: »

The "good at best" reference was in a world context, she was amongst the top table, but short on being categorically world class. But then suddenly is able to run marathons in times that are arguably beyond what should be possible. How many 10,000m races did she fade dramatically in and end up 4th? She struggled with stamina at various points in her career but then went on to dominate marathon running... if you can't see why that's suspicious then I'm not gonna try and argue. The petty blow in stuff is childish too, says a lot that the best way you see fit to defend the sport is to fling crap at other sports. (For the record I reckon Rugby is riddled, soccer has had some remarkably suspicious stuff going on and the GAA has to take a serious look at the massive physical increases in the sport in the past decade, no sport is 100% clean but if you want to turn it into an irrelevant athletics vs. other sports argument, you'll never win, history has shown us that time and time again)

History shows that athletics and cycling tests more than other sports, hence more failed tests. That's all history proves. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not arguing about whether Radcliffe is clean or not. I'm simply saying your comments about her being good at best is way off the mark. She won a world silver medal in the 10000m in 1999.

john.han · 10-08-2015 11:51PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

History shows that athletics and cycling tests more than other sports, hence more failed tests. That's all history proves. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not arguing about whether Radcliffe is clean or not. I'm simply saying your comments about her being good at best is way off the mark. She won a world silver medal in the 10000m in 1999.

I have to laugh, you question how Greece could win a football tournament and suggest that as a freak outlier it is evidence of doping in soccer (ignoring the simple fact that the best team does not always win a football match) but have little to say about an athlete that ran a 2.15 marathon, having had a track career whose highlight was one medal at world championship level.

Chivito550 · 10-08-2015 11:55PM

john.han wrote: »

I have to laugh, you question how Greece could win a football tournament and suggest that as a freak outlier it is evidence of doping in soccer (ignoring the simple fact that the best team does not always win a football match) but have little to say about an athlete that ran a 2.15 marathon, having had a track career whose highlight was one medal at world championship level.

http://www.4dfoot.com/2013/02/09/doping-in-football-fifty-years-of-evidence/

Some bedside reading for you.

And you have no idea what my views on Radcliffe are. I'm choosing not to discuss it here given what's going on at the moment.

Notwork Error · 10-08-2015 11:59PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

I stand up for it because I know that 1) it is not as dirty as outsiders think, particularly here in Ireland and 2) it gets unfairly slurred as a filthy sport where "they are all at it", when other sports which are as bad if not worse, get off free of suspicion, thanks to hugely corrupt organisations who do not care about doping. Say what you like about the IAAF, but at least they have gone after their cheats, which is more than FIFA, IRB, WTA or ATP can say. I think that is unfair. If you are going to dish it out, I will dish it back gladly. I take a keen interest in doping in sport, and it is rampant in the "clean sports".

All fair enough but I don't think we can turn a blind eye to these leaks, the sport has definitely got a problem. I said this in the Russian thread a few months ago that while these leaks are speculative on an individual doping basis, they are very worrying when you look at the biggest picture. 1 in 7 out of 5000 athletes recorded suspicious/abnormal blood readings. Blood readings are all done statistically and the margin for an abnormal blood reading has to be so large as to rule out false positives(1 in 1000 iirc in the case of the BP that an athlete who isn't doping can trigger a positive) that it makes it an almost statistic impossibility that 1 in 7 athletes are registering false positives.

Now, not all of them will have been doping. The leaks do seem to back up claims that doping was/is at epidemic levels in endurance running. I don't see this as speculative at all when you look at it that way, it's only speculative when aimed at individual athletes and not the sport itself. The sport had/has a serious problem. The vast majority of those suspicious tests could have happened in the early 00's or they could be happening right now but at some point, the sport was absolutely rife with drugs even if we don't want to hear it.

Chivito550 · 11-08-2015 12:02AM

Notwork Error wrote: »

All fair enough but I don't think we can turn a blind eye to these leaks, the sport has definitely got a problem. I said this in the Russian thread a few months ago that while these leaks are speculative on an individual doping basis, they are very worrying when you look at the biggest picture. 1 in 7 out of 5000 athletes recorded suspicious/abnormal blood readings. Blood readings are all done statistically and the margin for an abnormal blood reading has to be so large as to rule out false positives(1 in 1000 iirc in the case of the BP that an athlete who isn't doping can trigger a positive) that it makes it an almost statistic impossibility that 1 in 7 athletes are registering false positives.

Now, not all of them will have been doping. The leaks do seem to back up claims that doping was/is at epidemic levels in endurance running. I don't see this as speculative at all when you look at it that way, it's only speculative when aimed at individual athletes and not the sport itself. The sport had/has a serious problem. The vast majority of those suspicious tests could have happened in the early 00's or they could be happening right now but at some point, the sport was absolutely rife with drugs even if we don't want to hear it.

Never said we should turn a blind eye. I just get frustrated hearing armchair athletics "fans" lecturing us about the sport. It's as frustrating when you have the Joe Duffy Brigade slagging off our athletes every 4 years on this forum for not winning medals.

That is all. I'm not turning any blind eye to the info which has come out of late.

ThisRegard · 11-08-2015 12:28AM

Chivito550 wrote: »

Never said we should turn a blind eye. I just get frustrated hearing armchair athletics "fans" lecturing us about the sport. It's as frustrating when you have the Joe Duffy Brigade slagging off our athletes every 4 years on this forum for not winning medals.

That is all. I'm not turning any blind eye to the info which has come out of late.

So you think that only regulars to this forum (of which I am) should be allowed comment?

What's the post count before one can become critical?

average_runner · 11-08-2015 06:51AM

walshb wrote: »

What exactly was visible? Is it because the underdogs won? And, really, what drugs could have made such underdogs in soccer become euro champs? I watched that tournament, and for me, they were simply very well organized, and had some lucky moments, as well as a solid defence. The euros are always so very competitive and tough. All teams. That to me is a lame example, and really clutching. Would you also throw in the Euro 92 Danish team?

Two examples I will show u:

A) last Euro finals, Spain out on their feet before they played Portugal, that game went to extra time and they were wrecked. Italy won their semi in 90 mins. Spain were like the Duracell bunny on the final.

All foreign coaches bringing their Spanish docs with them

C) barca and real on the books of the cyclists drug doctor in Spain, zidane one of his main clients.

I doubt Greece were dirty as they were just very organized and defensive in a poor quality tournament that year, like jo pavey in Euro 10,000m win

average_runner · 11-08-2015 06:54AM

Chivito550 wrote: »

You should engage in some research sometime. I admire that you give the benefit of the doubt, but you are also so naive. A footballing team with no pedigree, particularly good footballers, relative skill levels, appear out of nowhere to topple the best in Europe, and disappear back into relative obscurity after. They manage this in the same year they host the Olympic Games, the dirtiest period in Greek sport, where tons of their medalists in those games have been subsequently busted, across a range of sports. Now it would be a massive coincidence that their footballers, who never did anything before or since, managed to win during this period, and through their outrageous endurance levels, which helped them to win games late on, and stay strong defensively when opposing attackers are tiring. So there was systematic doping going on in Greece around that time, yet the footballers weren't involved in that. Sure.

Pointless arguing with you, as unless you see the needle in the arm you will argue against the most obvious cheats.

In fairness one of the reasons for their failure was that teams figured out their approach and changed their tactics.

Leaked IAAf report on doping

Comments