Alberto Salazar banned for 4 years

YFlyer · 02-10-2019 4:13pm

Is pushing the envelope illegal?

Ceepo · 02-10-2019 4:16pm

walshb wrote: »

So, care to break this down....

It's not like he was some slouch who made massive time gains that cannot be explained via hard work and maturity...

It's this desperate kind of searching and picking to try and pin something on him..

Could do similar with so many other athletes who never failed tests.

May as well just say ALL are cheaters, and there is no such thing as fair play, honesty, morals, decency and integrity with humanity.

I am not as you say trying to pin something on him, I did shout him on in the euro xc in Santry in 09 were incedently he was beaten by a someone who later got busted for doping...
Of course you are right he was no slouch. He could have went from not making Olympic 5k final in 08 to double gold in London 4 years later by putting in hard work.

Why would you think Salazar was testing how to better administer L-c outside of permitted doses and timeframes.?
Do you accept Salazer reasons for testing testosterone patches on his son?..

walshb · 02-10-2019 4:20pm

YFlyer wrote: »

Is pushing the envelope illegal?

If it's not illegal it's not illegal..

Athletes should always be pushing for as much advantage as possible within limits..Look at Lasse Viren and the Finns back in the 1970s...

Said it a 1000 times, there is already a huge gulf in terms of facilities and money and access to the best between countries. So many athletes and sports people are already at a disadvantage....

Biggest PED of all is money!

YFlyer · 02-10-2019 4:21pm

walshb wrote: »

It is not impossible, and has never been proved to be impossible that a naturally clean athlete/sports star cannot beat those who are using PEDs....

Depends on the standard between the two.

walshb · 02-10-2019 4:22pm

Ceepo wrote: »

Why would you think Salazar was testing how to better administer L-c outside of permitted doses and timeframes.?
Do you accept Salazer reasons for testing testosterone patches on his son?..

Salazar is not Mo. We know about Salazar....

Salazar was trying to circumvent the system, find ways to gain advantages for his athletes, without breaking rules........good on him......that is called being human...

Now, he then went and broke the rules; that is called being human. Just that it's not really admired...

He has now been challenged on this, and punished.

walshb · 02-10-2019 4:24pm

YFlyer wrote: »

Depends on the standard between the two.

Yes, a lot to consider. There are greats out there who are simply great, and those playing catch up, legally and illegally still cannot beat them..

More athletes at elite level are clean than dirty. A lot more.

YFlyer · 02-10-2019 4:28pm

walshb wrote: »

If it's not illegal it's not illegal..

Athletes should always be pushing for as much advantage as possible within limits..Look at Lasse Viren and the Finns back in the 1970s...

Said it a 1000 times, there is already a huge gulf in terms of facilities and money and access to the best between countries. So many athletes and sports people are already at a disadvantage....

Biggest PED of all is money!

What about Pacquiao? I'm sure he went beyond the limits.

YFlyer · 02-10-2019 4:31pm

walshb wrote: »

Yes, a lot to consider. There are greats out there who are simply great, and those playing catch up, legally and illegally still cannot beat them..

More athletes at elite level are clean than dirty. A lot more.

Nadal has a question mark over him. Federer clean as a whistle as far as I know.

walshb · 02-10-2019 4:31pm

YFlyer wrote: »

What about Pacquiao? I'm sure he went beyond the limits.

Possibly did....

But, didn't do him much good (if he did) vs. JMM in fight 4...:P

Ceepo · 02-10-2019 4:32pm

walshb wrote: »

Paula's marathon time......? the better question is can a woman cover the marathon distance in 135 minutes?

I can't see why not.....unless you have some evidence to suggest that what she did was not physiologically possible for a woman?

I believe that Paula was a clean and decent and honest athlete, as well as one how never tested positive for PEDs...

On Bolt, like many greats,......anything is plausible. I personally believe that it's more likely that he was clean, and just an exceptionally fast human being, with so much natural ability and natural physiological traits to allow him be that fast..

Again, like with Paula, are you saying that his times are not humanly possible without PEDs?

I'd be quite confident that Bolt and Paula were always clean and playing fair......Mo too...

At this point in time we cannot say what was and what isn't possible without peds. What we can look at is what went before. We know that men and women 100m and womens marathon times are comparatively faster that the times of the closest rivals.. which of course doesnt mean much on it's own. But when you add that some of the closest runners to that time have * beside their name they this raises a red flag.
Are they really that much better that their closest rivals that have doped..?

Outside of all these elites having natural ability, What natural physiological traits do you think Bolt had over everyone else

YFlyer · 02-10-2019 4:39pm

walshb wrote: »

Possibly did....

But, didn't do him much good (if he did) vs. JMM in fight 4...:P

Victor Conte said that naturally speed goes before power with age. He said that stories of Pacquiaos power was significantly less post more strict drug test.

Saying that Mayweather shouldn't have got away with the IV injections prior to pacman fight.

Ceepo · 02-10-2019 4:46pm

walshb wrote: »

If it's not illegal

Said it a 1000 times, there is already a huge gulf in terms of facilities and money and access to the best between countries. So many athletes and sports people are already at a disadvantage....

Biggest PED of all is money!

But this is not really true is it. What advantage do Kenyan Ethiopia or most other easy African countries in terms of facilities.
Or the Ingebrgtens, they send the most of the their training in Norway..
Or Jamaica for that matter....
Scottish athletics is at a all time high...
Zac Seddon made the 3k steeple chance final running 8.23 is not funded

skyblue46 · 02-10-2019 4:46pm

Wow, wow, wow....Paula decent, clean and honest? That particular Nike Ambassador who reckons that USADA are wasting money on the Salazar investigation in order to "regain face after the Coleman fiasco". How could any clean athlete say anything negative about cleaning up the sport???

Mo never failed a test...just like Michelle de Bruin. He got better in his mid/late 20's as did our whiskey pi$$ing heroine. A failed test is not the only way of busting cheats in this day and age. Whistleblowers and witness statements play a bigger part. Steve Magness played a huge part in taking down Salazar.

While the Spanish authorities managed to kill Operation Puerto the details that were made public make it clear how many sports are rife with PEDs and blood doping. For anyone to dominate any event clean when the majority of their competition is juiced simply defies belief.

walshb · 02-10-2019 4:47pm

YFlyer wrote: »

Victor Conte said that naturally speed goes before power with age. He said that stories of Pacquiaos power was significantly less post more strict drug test.

Saying that Mayweather shouldn't have got away with the IV injections prior to pacman fight.

Well, in boxing speed does go before power, or at least more noticeably.

Both very much linked for some type boxers, Manny being one, who was not a heavy handed fighter, like say Arguello. Delivery speed is very linked to force/power of the punch impact...then there is the slower boxer who just ooze natural effortless power, ala Foreman....Tyson being the opposite....

Anyway, off topic...

walshb · 02-10-2019 4:52pm

Ceepo wrote: »

But this is not really true is it. What advantage do Kenyan Ethiopia or most other easy African countries in terms of facilities.
Or the Ingebrgtens, they send the most of the their training in Norway..
Or Jamaica for that matter....
Scottish athletics is at a all time high...
Zac Seddon made the 3k steeple chance final running 8.23 is not funded

I never said money was the only determining factor. I said it's the biggest Performance Enhancer....

Oh, and money, of course, also brings you easier access to the best PEDs....it's a minefield.

There are plenty of athletes out there who are just plain brilliant, and whose training is just old school hard work and putting in the miles.....with next to no real monetary investment.

But nobody can deny the gains that money and technology and access to facilities and the best people can bring to athletes. They wouldn't be investing the sums of money IF the gains ween't there.. it would be mostly old school training.

Again, Lasse Viren in the 1970s is one clear example of the gains that can be made, legally (when he was using) when you have access to what money gives you access to.

YFlyer · 02-10-2019 4:52pm

walshb wrote: »

Well, in boxing speed does go before power, or at least more noticeably.

Both very much linked for some type boxers, Manny being one, who was not a heavy handed fighter, like say Arguello. Delivery speed is very linked to force/power of the punch impact...then there is the slower boxer who juts oozes natural effortless power, ala Foreman....Tyson being the opposite....

Anyway, off topic...

I'm more arguing the limits allowed within sport.

walshb · 02-10-2019 4:57pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

Wow, wow, wow....Paula decent, clean and honest?

Have you some proof that she is not? Otherwise, to pardon the pun, jog on!

skyblue46 · 02-10-2019 5:06pm

walshb wrote: »

Have you some proof that she is not? Otherwise, to pardon the pun, jog on!

Oh yes, it's all about proof. I forgot that. :pac:

Before I join KSU on the sidelines and waste my time trying to remove your blinkers would you just answer one question? Are you only prepared to consider someone a likely drugs/blood/TUE cheat if they actually have a positive test from a lab?

One man's decent, clean and honest is another man's circling the wagons, suspect off scores and self serving.

Ceepo · 02-10-2019 5:07pm

walshb wrote: »

I never said money was the only determining factor. I said it's the biggest Performance Enhancer....

Oh, and money, of course, also brings you easier access to the best PEDs....it's a minefield.

There are plenty of athletes out there who are just plain brilliant, and whose training is just old school hard work and putting in the miles.....with next to no real monetary investment.

But nobody can deny the gains that money and technology and access to facilities and the best people can bring to athletes. They wouldn't be investing the sums of money IF the gains ween't there.. it would be mostly old school training.

Again, Lasse Viren in the 1970s is one clear example of the gains that can be made, legally (when he was using) when you have access to what money gives you access to.

But you believe most athletes are not in peds...
And most of the countries that were winning have the least facilities

walshb · 02-10-2019 5:08pm

skyblue46 wrote: »

Oh yes, it's all about proof. I forgot that. :pac:

Before I join KSU on the sidelines and waste my time trying to remove your blinkers would you just answer one question? Are you only prepared to consider someone a likely drugs/blood/TUE cheat if they actually have a positive test from a lab?

One man's decent, clean and honest is another man's circling the wagons, suspect off scores and self serving.

Is there really a point of me and you going back and forth here?

For you, actual evidence and proof and positive tests means jack sh1t.....

If there is even the slightest "whiff" it's cheater in your eyes....

Sinbad_NI · 02-10-2019 5:08pm

walshb wrote: »

It is not impossible, and has never been proved to be impossible that a naturally clean athlete/sports star cannot beat those who are using PEDs....

We have NO IDEA who's clean and who's not.
They could very well all be at it for all we know.

What's came out about cycling in the 80-00s has made me very sceptical.
And that was in a marginal sport with small money involved Vs athletics, tennis, football etc.

walshb · 02-10-2019 5:12pm

Ceepo wrote: »

But you believe most athletes are not in peds...
And most of the countries that were winning have the least facilities

Yes, most athletes at the elite level are not cheats.......

Higher percentage out there who are competing within the rules...

Most countries winning have least facilities? What does this mean?

Take a global championship like the Olympics...

Look at the medal table totals......

All sports.......they are dominated by wealthy enough type countries, like USA, Britain, France, Russia, China.

Money is a factor here. So are other things....

In track and field, sure, less wealthy countries win medals. Like African countries.....sometimes money is not a guarantee for success in sport.

walshb · 02-10-2019 5:15pm

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

We have NO IDEA who's clean and who's not.
They could very well all be at it for all we know.

Yes, and isn't this the inherent stupidity of us debating it, so?

I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs when there is this OTT pervasive attitude about athletics being full of cheats, and anyone who does anything amazing or class is a cheat...

skyblue46 · 02-10-2019 5:15pm

walshb wrote: »

Is there really a point of me and you going back and forth here?

For you, actual evidence and proof and positive tests means jack sh1t.....

If there is even the slightest "whiff" it's cheater in your eyes....

Maybe you are right.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/other-soccer/ewan-mackenna-murky-questions-surround-spanish-footballs-golden-era-and-people-might-not-like-the-answers-36943284.html

Sinbad_NI · 02-10-2019 5:20pm

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and isn't this the inherent stupidity of us debating it, so?

I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs when there is this OTT pervasive attitude about athletics being full of cheats, and anyone who does anything amazing or class is a cheat...

But your default is they are all clean unless proven guilty.
In my opinion, the testing is so useless and it catches such a low percentage that I find it impossible to hold that belief.
The doctors, athletes and all involved know that. Just because they say the right things in an interview doesn't prove anything.

We're not going to change anything here, I know that. But
I really do think you've your head in the sand on this one.

OOnegative · 02-10-2019 5:23pm

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

But
I really do think you've your head in the sand on this one.

walshb with his head in the sand, first bit of truth spoken on this thread......

walshb · 02-10-2019 5:24pm

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

But your default is they are all clean unless proven guilty.
.

And your default? Guilty until proven not guilty?

It's illogical nonsense....

If an athlete in today's world and recently is passing test after test after test, and in Mo's/Bolt's and Paula's case (tested fairly regularly), then I am happy to at least have some bloody confidence in them......not saying 100 percent, but jaysus, to be totally dismissive of these passed tests, and come out with the "clean tests mean little or nothing," well, that is pathetic.

walshb · 02-10-2019 5:26pm

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

I really do think you've your head in the sand on this one.

About what?

I mean, I have spelt it out clearly....we all know cheats exist....

If I am not as ready to believe that ALL are cheaters, how is this having your head in the sand?

Would it not be more a case that folks thinking ALL are cheaters is head in the sand stuff?

Ceepo · 02-10-2019 5:28pm

walshb wrote: »

Yes, most athletes at the elite level are not cheats.......

Higher percentage out there who are competing within the rules...

Most countries winning have least facilities? What does this mean?

Take a global championship like the Olympics...

Look at the medal table totals......

All sports.......they are dominated by wealthy enough type countries, like USA, Britain, France, Russia, China.

Money is a factor here. So are other things....

In track and field, sure, less wealthy countries win medals. Like African countries.....sometimes money is not a guarantee for success in sport.

My bad... as this is the Athletics forum and we were talking about athletics,,, I was only referring to athletics..
And you're right some countries have it harder that others.. look at Jamaica, apparently facilities are so bad over there that their Anti doping room has to double up as there broom closet...

Sinbad_NI · 02-10-2019 5:32pm

walshb wrote: »

And your default? Guilty until proven not guilty?

It's illogical nonsense....

If an athlete in today's world and recently is passing test after test after test, and in Mo's/Bolt's and Paula's case (tested fairly regularly), then I am happy to at least have some bloody confidence in them......not saying 100 percent, but jaysus, to be totally dismissive of these passed tests, and come out with the "clean tests mean little or nothing," well, that is pathetic.

Testing if rubbish.
US Postal and the entire peloton went years, decades even with only a few positive tests here and there.

It wasn't until the whistle blowers started to come forward and gave them up that things came out.

Read Tyler Hamilton's book for example to see how useless the testing is.

walshb · 02-10-2019 5:36pm

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Testing if rubbish.
US Postal and the entire peloton went years, decades even with only a few positive tests here and there.

It wasn't until the whistle blowers started to come forward and gave them up that things came out.

Read Tyler Hamilton's book for example to see how useless the testing is.

Well, there you are...

To your default...not clean until proven clean...

What’s the bloody point of it all, so?

Sinbad_NI · 02-10-2019 5:37pm

Ceepo wrote: »

My bad... as this is the Athletics forum and we were talking about athletics,,, I was only referring to athletics..
And you're right some countries have it harder that others.. look at Jamaica, apparently facilities are so bad over there that their Anti doping room has to double up as there broom closet...

Double jobbing as well.
Was it the head of anti doping was also the head of athletics (or something like that anyway)... some great motivation to catch people there alright.

Sinbad_NI · 02-10-2019 5:39pm

walshb wrote: »

Well, there you are...

To your default...not clean until proven clean...

What’s the bloody point of it all, so?

Entertainment... Take it for what it is.
Just don't be foolish enough to believe they're all clean until proven guilty... Be realistic and understand how the system works.

walshb · 02-10-2019 5:41pm

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Entertainment... Take it for what it is.
Just don't be foolish enough to believe they're all clean until proven guilty... Be realistic and understand how the system works.

So what’s the problem then, if it’s just entertainment..

Let them all at it? Genuine question. Scrap all this testing nonsense if no matter what the testing is, it’s seen as rubbish..

Sinbad_NI · 02-10-2019 5:44pm

walshb wrote: »

So what’s the problem then, if it’s just entertainment..

Let them all at it?

I never said that. Far from it. But just don't assume they all perfectly innocent.
Welcome to the real world.

Sinbad_NI · 02-10-2019 5:49pm

walshb wrote: »

So what’s the problem then, if it’s just entertainment..

Let them all at it? Genuine question. Scrap all this testing nonsense if no matter what the testing is, it’s seen as rubbish..

Sorry missed you second bit.

I don't have s solution.
First thing you need though is a willingness to change coming from the top. The response from the powers that be, athletics federation, FIFA, UCi, whoever else, just want to push it under the table. They certainly don't want the headlines, they certainly don't want to pay for it.

Ceepo · 02-10-2019 5:50pm

walshb wrote: »

So what’s the problem then, if it’s just entertainment..

Let them all at it? Genuine question. Scrap all this testing nonsense if no matter what the testing is, it’s seen as rubbish..

The problem with letting them all at is as you say... is simple...
There are many may many health risk to taking peds... if you had a free for all then you risk having a lot of deaths.
You could not have an organisation IAAF UCI etc stand over a sport that wilfully stood by and done nothing whlie people took peds..
I'm sure that I and most others would love to have a sport that we could believe is clean...
Unfortunately history says different..

Sinbad_NI · 02-10-2019 5:55pm

Ceepo wrote: »

The problem with letting them all at is as you say... is simple...
There are many may many health risk to taking peds... if you had a free for all then you risk having a lot of deaths.
You could not have an organisation IAAF UCI etc stand over a sport that wilfully stood by and done nothing whlie people took peds..
I'm sure that I and most others would love to have a sport that we could believe is clean...
Unfortunately history says different..

Cyclists dying in their sleep due to thick blood from EPO for example... then again those poor people never tested positive so they must have been clean!!!

echat · 02-10-2019 5:55pm

walshb wrote: »

Have you some proof that she is not? Otherwise, to pardon the pun, jog on!

For anyone with common sense, her marathon time is proof.

Sinbad_NI · 02-10-2019 5:57pm

Walshb.... have you watched the film Icarus?

That's quite an education.... Unfortunately.

walshb · 02-10-2019 6:01pm

echat wrote: »

For anyone with common sense, her marathon time is proof.

That’s your second blanket type post on performance..both ignorant and lacking teeth..

Have you some tangible scientific proof that a female cannot cover the marathon distance in 135 minutes..

Something to back up this proof you speak of?

Any women out there fighting the cause? Or is it just me, a man, cheerleading?

BDI · 02-10-2019 6:51pm

It’s rife in all sports. Fair play to athletics for atleast looking like its tackling it.

People who think a pee test proves somebody isn’t doping needs to go back a few decades.

Will any of his clients suddenly dip in form now or will his next in command keep things ticking over I wonder.

People thinking that a sport where going from 10.1 to 9.99 is huge and going from 9.95 is even bigger in a sport where from there every .1 is a miracle to suddenly having a guy with terrible form and who only gets moving after thirty-forty meters running around 9.7. And all his buddies are running near these times, and all the girls in the running team are crushing competition, and nobody is getting tested in a new world where you need a couple of hours to let your blood look clean to the best testing techniques in place.

Didn’t even the blade runner have a pile of dodgey stuff under his bed when they raided his flat following the murder.

That was the Paralympics. Think about what sport you think is clean. Do you reckon it is more deserving or noble than the paralympics to be clean?

Sinbad_NI · 02-10-2019 7:03pm

BDI wrote: »

It’s rife in all sports. Fair play to athletics for atleast looking like its tackling it.

People who think a pee test proves somebody isn’t doping needs to go back a few decades.

Will any of his clients suddenly dip in form now or will his next in command keep things ticking over I wonder.

People thinking that a sport where going from 10.1 to 9.99 is huge and going from 9.95 is even bigger in a sport where from there every .1 is a miracle to suddenly having a guy with terrible form and who only gets moving after thirty-forty meters running around 9.7. And all his buddies are running near these times, and all the girls in the running team are crushing competition, and nobody is getting tested in a new world where you need a couple of hours to let your blood look clean to the best testing techniques in place.

Didn’t even the blade runner have a pile of dodgey stuff under his bed when they raided his flat following the murder.

That was the Paralympics. Think about what sport you think is clean. Do you reckon it is more deserving or noble than the paralympics to be clean?

It's USADA doing this. Not athletics governing body.

skyblue46 · 02-10-2019 7:03pm

BDI wrote: »

It’s rife in all sports. Fair play to athletics for atleast looking like its tackling it.

People who think a pee test proves somebody isn’t doping needs to go back a few decades.

Will any of his clients suddenly dip in form now or will his next in command keep things ticking over I wonder.

People thinking that a sport where going from 10.1 to 9.99 is huge and going from 9.95 is even bigger in a sport where from there every .1 is a miracle to suddenly having a guy with terrible form and who only gets moving after thirty-forty meters running around 9.7. And all his buddies are running near these times, and all the girls in the running team are crushing competition, and nobody is getting tested in a new world where you need a couple of hours to let your blood look clean to the best testing techniques in place.

Didn’t even the blade runner have a pile of dodgey stuff under his bed when they raided his flat following the murder.

That was the Paralympics. Think about what sport you think is clean. Do you reckon it is more deserving or noble than the paralympics to be clean?

It will be interesting to see if athletics is actually tacking it. USADA is not athletics. Salazar and Armstrong were both nailed by USADA. Governing bodies in most sports are more interested in preserving their image and in many cases have cleared athletes after adverse findings.

echat · 02-10-2019 9:50pm

walshb wrote: »

That’s your second blanket type post on performance..both ignorant and lacking teeth..

Have you some tangible scientific proof that a female cannot cover the marathon distance in 135 minutes..

Something to back up this proof you speak of?

Any women out there fighting the cause? Or is it just me, a man, cheerleading?

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?

skyblue46 · 02-10-2019 10:02pm

echat wrote: »

walshb wrote: »

That’s your second blanket type post on performance..both ignorant and lacking teeth..

Have you some tangible scientific proof that a female cannot cover the marathon distance in 135 minutes..

Something to back up this proof you speak of?

Any women out there fighting the cause? Or is it just me, a man, cheerleading?

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.

On the Purdey tables it is also the best female distance performance...better than Ayala, all the Chinese dopers and the Dibabas. This from someone who was previously that little bit short of the very top.

walshb · 02-10-2019 10:07pm

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?

So, where is the scientific data and evidence to say that a female cannot complete a marathon in 135 minutes?

And, what do you reckon she was on to allow her to run 26 “slow” miles?

You do realize that she was a world class long distance runner before this marathon time? With proven 5k and 10k elite speed/endurance..

Is it not possible that her time was because she pushed hard hard hard for the whole race, and others didn’t push as hard hard hard, hence the gap to the second fastest time?

The marathon is not rocket science. It’s long and hard, but slow...it’s all about endurance and maintaining form..

skyblue46 · 02-10-2019 10:22pm

walshb wrote: »

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?

So, where is the scientific data and evidence to say that a female cannot complete a marathon in 135 minutes?

And, what do you reckon she was on to allow her to run 26 “slow” miles?

You do realize that she was a world class long distance runner before this marathon time? With proven 5k and 10k elite speed/endurance..

Is it not possible that her time was because she pushed hard hard hard for the whole race, and others didn’t push as hard hard hard, hence the gap to the second fastest time?

The marathon is not rocket science. It’s long and hard, but slow...it’s all about endurance and maintaining form..

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.

echat · 02-10-2019 10:23pm

walshb wrote: »

So, where is the scientific data and evidence to say that a female cannot complete a marathon in 135 minutes?

And, what do you reckon she was on to allow her to run 26 “slow” miles?

You do realize that she was a world class long distance runner before this marathon time? With proven 5k and 10k elite speed/endurance..

Is it not possible that her time was because she pushed hard hard hard for the whole race, and others didn’t push as hard hard hard, hence the gap to the second fastest time?

The marathon is not rocket science. It’s long and hard, but slow...it’s all about endurance and maintaining form..

We are talking about a 2003 performance, you do realise that don't you

She was almost one mile ahead of the next woman in a major marathon. Why do you think all other women marathoners in all marathons that they have ran, have collectively never pushed themselves as hard?

skyblue46 · 02-10-2019 10:33pm

echat wrote: »

We are talking about a 2003 performance, you do realise that don't you She was almost one mile ahead of the next woman in a major marathon. Why do you think all other women marathoners in all marathons that they have ran, have collectively never pushed themselves as hard?

He's trolling...end of. There's not a gob$hite in the word that would take the position he is.

Alberto Salazar banned for 4 years

Comments