Alberto Salazar banned for 4 years

Ceepo wrote: »

Mo outstanding performance against his previous performance

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.

Ceepo wrote: »

The marathon , long and slow, but surely the same for everyone, except is 2 minutes quicker that anyone for only 1 person..
And you dont Question Bolts Beijing performance?

Bolt's Beijing performance? No, I don't question that. Bolt is a once in a 1000 generations type athlete.

Like I said, may as well just label them ALL cheaters.....

Do you believe all WR holders in the sport today, and the past were on PEDs?

The marathon is an exceptional time......never said otherwise.

Why is one dominant individual put down to "once in lifetime/freak of nature" and another we point to doping? Bolt especially gets an easy out, because he is tall maybe? Even though he may be the biggest outlier in athletics performance since the 80s steroid era.

He competed in possibly the most competitive event in athletics and utterly dominated his peers, most of them have doping question marks. Remember all these guys are elite of the elite, they are all freaks of nature.

It is more logical to look at performances, testing (or lack of) athlete is subject to and their associates to give a fuller picture. But we cannot know about any athlete until there is a positive test.

Even looking at the NOP case, Salazar was checking testosterone patches to see how much would trigger a positive test. At least he had to work within those parameters because his athletes, in the US anyway, were subject to out of competition testing. This limited the doping they could do. In some other countries athletes and coaches do not have to worry about passing out of competition tests in off season and can do what they like.

Ceepo wrote: »

So do you think the exceptional marathon time is clean.?

How can you say" Bolt is a once in 1000 generation type athlete" to do that you would need to have examined athletes for 1000 of generations.. at best we can compare him to athletes over that last 100 or so years. Look what happens when we compare him to athletes of the last 2 generations... he is comparatively faster that his peers and as I stated previous most of them have * beside there name.
Of course he could well be a freak of nature.
He might also have benefit from a certain german doctor and lived in a country with no real testing procedures..

Both of these are plausible. Is one more plausible that the other

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 who 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...

JJJackal wrote: »

One dominant individual is often put down to doping, in my opinion, because this dominant individual is often destroying the field of athletes who are later proven to be dopers.

How can one man or woman overcome the known performance benefits of drugs? The athletes taking the drugs competing with the dominant individual (who lets say is not on drugs) would be top of their field without the drugs - but probably not in the top 2 or 3

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....

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?..

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.

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

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

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 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.

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....