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

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Leaked IAAf report on doping

1151618202138

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    99% of the general public will pay little or no heed to this in the long term unless there is irrefutable evidence and at the moment that is missing.

    That's certainly true of the general UK public if her twitter and UK forums are anything to go by, but I wonder what they think in Russia, China or Kenya? :)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    I think, as notwork suggested, that he was talking in a general sense, could be wrong, won't know properly until the transcript comes out.

    Interesting though that a couple of the participants of the hearing have rejected any notion that they implicated Radcliffe or anybody else and have actually criticised her insistence that members hid behind 'the cloak of parliamentary privellige'

    Think that proves that the minister for Culture Media and Sport doesn't know what he's talking about if he thinks saying a British London Marathon winner is vague enough to not be obvious he's talking about Radcliffe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    robinph wrote: »
    Think that proves that the minister for Culture Media and Sport doesn't know what he's talking about if he thinks saying a British London Marathon winner is vague enough to not be obvious he's talking about Radcliffe.
    Either her or Eamon Martin is losing a lot of sleep now :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,022 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    If Radcliffe does turn out to be a cheater based on actual evidence then I'd jail her. After that 'stunt' she pulled with the placard back in 2001 I think it was, jail would be the only punishment....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    walshb wrote: »
    Exactly, hence why Paula snd other greats can do no right with this mentality. Ludicrous semantics that we could apply to anything. I will take a sensible and logical and fair approach. Until evidence of doping/cheating arises then athletes are clean. Btw, there is officially clean. It applies to non dope convicted athletes.

    You need to get your head out of the sand. Its a very apologetic stance otherwise.
    Those analysing reticulocytes, hemocrit and hemoglobin levels know exactly what is going on.

    You seem to believe that unless an athlete is pysically caught with epo paraphenalia or admits that they are a doper, then that you must believe it is not happening.

    When athletes start using the environment the tests were taken in, you know where the story is going,


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    STB. wrote: »
    You need to get your head out of the sand. Its a very apologetic stance otherwise.
    Those analysing reticulocytes, hemocrit and hemoglobin levels know exactly what is going on.

    You seem to believe that unless an athlete is pysically caught with epo paraphenalia or admits that they are a doper, then that you must believe it is not happening.

    I'm more of a lurker than a poster here, but if Radcliffe is ever proven to have doped, I will be truly shocked.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭downthemiddle


    walshb wrote: »
    If Radcliffe does turn out to be a cheater based on actual evidence then I'd jail her. After that 'stunt' she pulled with the placard back in 2001 I think it was, jail would be the only punishment....
    Good man. The voice of reason as usual.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 928 ✭✭✭TRR_the_turd


    walshb wrote: »
    If Radcliffe does turn out to be a cheater based on actual evidence then I'd jail her. After that 'stunt' she pulled with the placard back in 2001 I think it was, jail would be the only punishment....

    Fcuk it. I think she should be shot!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,022 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Good man. The voice of reason as usual.

    Cheers, man. Someone has to make sense of this nonsense! That doesn't sound right, but anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,022 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Good man. The voice of reason as usual.
    Fcuk it. I think she should be shot!

    Bit OTT that, but I catch your drift.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,022 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    STB. wrote: »
    You need to get your head out of the sand. Its a very apologetic stance otherwise.
    Those analysing reticulocytes, hemocrit and hemoglobin levels know exactly what is going on.

    You seem to believe that unless an athlete is pysically caught with epo paraphenalia or admits that they are a doper, then that you must believe it is not happening.

    When athletes start using the environment the tests were taken in, you know where the story is going,

    You need to read up. The investigation is not proof of cheating. Did you miss that part? And, regarding Paula, can you point to solid evidence that she cheated?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    Stheno wrote: »
    I'm more of a lurker than a poster here, but if Radcliffe is ever proven to have doped, I will be truly shocked.

    Why?
    No-one has ever got within 3 minutes of her WR and the ones that got closest are convicted dopers!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    Stheno wrote: »
    I'm more of a lurker than a poster here, but if Radcliffe is ever proven to have doped, I will be truly shocked.

    Is that because you dont believe she doped, or you think she did but its so well managed on the athletes side and/or the authorities are happy to keep things under wraps for her that she is getting away with it (for the moment) ?

    For me, the only sensible view to take is that any world class athlete from the last 40 years probably doped. Some may not have. But predominantly, they did, especially the winners and placers.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    menoscemo wrote: »
    Why?
    No-one has ever got within 3 minutes of her WR and the ones that got closest are convicted dopers!!
    Is that because you dont believe she doped, or you think its so well managed on the athletes side and/or the authorities are happy to keep things under wraps for her ?

    For me, the only sensible view to take is that any world class athlete from the last 40 years probably doped. Some may not have. But predominantly, they did, especially the winners and placers.

    It's me just being a bit head in the sands tbh. Find it hard to believe that with all of her campaigning over the years that she may be found to have doped.

    It's the hypocripsy of it if that makes sense?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭downthemiddle


    Is that because you dont believe she doped, or you think she did but its so well managed on the athletes side and/or the authorities are happy to keep things under wraps for her that she is getting away with it (for the moment) ?

    For me, the only sensible view to take is that any world class athlete from the last 40 years probably doped. Some may not have. But predominantly, they did, especially the winners and placers.
    If this is your sensible view I dread to think what you regard as nonsense.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    Stheno wrote: »
    I'm more of a lurker than a poster here, but if Radcliffe is ever proven to have doped, I will be truly shocked.

    What exactly is proof these days. Highly irregular blood passports or retrospective testing with more up to date methods only ever cast doubt.

    Sports enthuasiasts can only remain doubtful until proper thresholds,, monitoring and enforcement and penalties are in place for cheats. Fool me once........

    What did it take for armstrong to be stripped of his accolades ? His own admission. The charts, witnesses etc was not enough.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭downthemiddle


    Stheno wrote: »
    It's me just being a bit head in the sands tbh. Find it hard to believe that with all of her campaigning over the years that she may be found to have doped.

    It's the hypocripsy of it if that makes sense?
    Two words - Lance Armstrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,022 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    menoscemo wrote: »
    Why?
    No-one has ever got within 3 minutes of her WR and the ones that got closest are convicted dopers!!

    Does this itself not puzzle you? What drugs did she take to be so far ahead of the field, some who were using? You could apply this to many other greats. Bolt's WR is far ahead of convicted dopers. Is it not possible that he is clean?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    If this is your sensible view I dread to think what you regard as nonsense.

    That there were clean athletes winning Olympic and World Championship medals in athletics. Now that would be laughable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    walshb wrote: »
    Bolt's WR is far ahead of convicted dopers. Is it not possible that he is clean?

    Its possible. But so unlikely that its not worth considering seriously.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,022 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Two words - Lance Armstrong.

    Personalities not come into it? Not everyone is LA. LA never convinced me by his talk and personality. Arrogant swagger about that man


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    walshb wrote: »
    You need to read up.

    I dont actually.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 785 ✭✭✭Notwork Error


    STB. wrote: »
    What exactly is proof these days. Highly irregular blood passports or retrospective testing with more up to date methods only ever cast doubt.

    Sports enthuasiasts can only remain doubtful until proper thresholds,, monitoring and enforcement and penalties are in place for cheats. Fool me once........

    What did it take for armstrong to be stripped of his accolades ? His own admission. The charts, witnesses etc was not enough.

    Lance was stripped of his titles and banned 5 months before he admitted it. The evidence convicted him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    Interesting post from Steve Magness https://www.facebook.com/stephenmagness/posts/10100283829699831?_rdr=p. She has dug her own hole on this one....
    A few thoughts on the Paula Radcliffe situation:

    We all know that external factors can impact any blood parameter. How much so is up for scientific research and experts to determine. Of course there is a level of inspection and variance that we all have to realize.

    However, with Radcliffe what doesn't sit well with me is the way she went about it. When approached before the Sunday Times piece broke, she threatened lawsuits if they mentioned her name and remarked that they wouldn't get their money back like they did in the Armstrong situation.

    Further than that, she had her lawyers threaten lawsuits to any journalist who revealed that her name was on the list.

    At the very same time, she was initially stating that the names on the list should be released!

    The hypocrisy is quite concerning but it only got worse. Once the 2nd Sunday Times story broke about the detailed list of names AND values, she changed her tune in public stating that the names should not be released to anyone.

    It took until her back was against the wall when British parliament officials hinted at her being on the list that she finally came forward.

    If the science and external circumstances really showed that her test results did not show doping, why not hand it over to as many experts as possible, explain the situation and have them all determine it. Let the research dictate the results.

    Secondly, for someone who has been outspoken her whole career, it's very disapointing that when the tables are turned she clams up. What this shows, is it's not about the sport at all, it's about image. If it's about the betterment of the sport, and you know the results will come out eventually, you don't threaten lawsuits, you go with openness.

    Perhaps the lesson to take away is it's easy to demand honesty and openness when the situation fits, but more difficult to demand when the results don't fit your narrative.

    I have no idea if she is clean or not. I don't know about the abnormal tests beyond what is written and will leave that for the expert scientists to decide. Whether the 3 abnormal tests are confirmed or not, what is telling is the reaction to the whole endeavor.

    Always go with openness. Be transparent, even if the results don't show exactly what you want. It's transparency at all times, not just when it's convenient, that matters.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Two words - Lance Armstrong.

    See I never believed he was clean whereas with Radcliffe I would have held her up as an example.

    I'd tend to view Jess Ennis Hill as a clean athlethe as well.

    Perhaps I'm just naive.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,022 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    STB. wrote: »
    I dont actually.

    You do as regards your reply to me. My head is in no sand.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,022 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Its possible. But so unlikely that its not worth considering seriously.

    Nonsense. Your whole view seems to be that only dopers can win medals and set records. Ludicrous.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭neilc


    menoscemo wrote: »
    Why?
    No-one has ever got within 3 minutes of her WR and the ones that got closest are convicted dopers!!
    Long before this latest episode, for me this is the most glaring reason for suspicion.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    menoscemo wrote: »
    Why?
    No-one has ever got within 3 minutes of her WR and the ones that got closest are convicted dopers!!

    Was everyone else just not reading the instructions on the bottle of EPO correctly for them to be taking drugs and still be half a mile behind? Was she on some new drug that nobody else has still managed to get their hands on? Is she a freak of nature?

    Freak of nature is the most likely explanation based on what we know. Beating convicted drug cheats by such a significant margin doesn't prove cheating. It does prove that everyone else isn't trying hard enough though at either legal or illegal methods.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    robinph wrote: »

    Freak of nature is the most likely explanation based on what we know. Beating convicted drug cheats by such a significant margin doesn't prove cheating. It does prove that everyone else isn't trying hard enough though at either legal or illegal methods.

    That's probably my line of thinking put better above :)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement