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

Alberto Salazar banned for 4 years

12357…16

Comments

  • #122
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    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.


  • #123
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,539 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    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.


  • #124
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,539 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    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...


  • #125
    skyblue46
    Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    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. :D

    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


  • #126
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    OOnegative
    Registered Users Posts: 4,834 ✭✭✭OOnegative


    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......


  • #128
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,539 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    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.


  • #129
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,539 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    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?


  • #130
    Ceepo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,508 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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...


  • #131
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,539 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    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?


  • #133
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    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.


  • #134
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    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.


  • #135
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,539 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    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..


  • #136
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    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.


  • #137
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    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.


  • #138
    Ceepo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,508 ✭✭✭Ceepo


    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..


  • #139
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    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!!!


  • #140
    echat
    Registered Users Posts: 117 ✭✭echat


    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.


  • #141
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


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

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


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,539 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    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?


  • #143
    BDI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭BDI


    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?


  • #144
    Sinbad_NI
    Registered Users Posts: 1,059 ✭✭✭Sinbad_NI


    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.


  • #145
    skyblue46
    Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    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.


  • #146
    echat
    Registered Users Posts: 117 ✭✭echat


    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?


  • #147
    skyblue46
    Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    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.


  • #148
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,539 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    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..


  • #149
    skyblue46
    Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    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.


  • #150
    echat
    Registered Users Posts: 117 ✭✭echat


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    skyblue46
    Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement