Drugs in other sports and the media.
Comments
-
SmoggySteve wrote:Joelsim wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Shadowrider wrote:Jamaican 4x100 mens relay team stripped of Gold from 2008 Olympics
Cos of Nestor thingy*
*cant be arsed to look up his name
Get Carter.
Bolt loses his historic triple triple cos of the actions of another runner. Seems an injustice for him.
LOL..?0 -
SmoggySteve wrote:Joelsim wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Shadowrider wrote:Jamaican 4x100 mens relay team stripped of Gold from 2008 Olympics
Cos of Nestor thingy*
*cant be arsed to look up his name
Get Carter.
Bolt loses his historic triple triple cos of the actions of another runner. Seems an injustice for him.
'sway it works with relays innit. Relatively new thing, I think0 -
Ridgerider wrote:Why not...?
You win a major race, lets say P-R. one of your team mates in the race tests pozzie years later in a retrospective test, you get your name scrubbed off as winner of that edition of P-R
Seem fair?0 -
Difference is the performance of each runner is crucial to success in the relay. But for a doped cheat they may not have won the gold, so only fair they should all lose out.
You can have team mates off form in a bike race and still win - the glory is for the individual, whereas the team won (or not) the relay - quite different,0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Ridgerider wrote:Why not...?
You win a major race, lets say P-R. one of your team mates in the race tests pozzie years later in a retrospective test, you get your name scrubbed off as winner of that edition of P-R
Seem fair?
IMHO it would be fair if the test was carried out at that race.
I have decided that from this day the winners team will all be subject to post race doping control.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Ridgerider wrote:Why not...?
You win a major race, lets say P-R. one of your team mates in the race tests pozzie years later in a retrospective test, you get your name scrubbed off as winner of that edition of P-R
Seem fair?
IMHO it would be fair if the test was carried out at that race.
I have decided that from this day the winners team will all be subject to post race doping control.
Deleted.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Ridgerider wrote:Why not...?
You win a major race, lets say P-R. one of your team mates in the race tests pozzie years later in a retrospective test, you get your name scrubbed off as winner of that edition of P-R
Seem fair?
I know...I know. I just thought I would test the water!
An alternative scenario might be that a team pump their mountain or sprint lead out team with special brew, and deliver their squeaky clean team leader across the line first. That wouldn't be a fair result. That's where it gets a bit grey.
Anyway...Man City outcome - Unfair / Jamaica Relay team outcome - FairHalf man, Half bike0 -
All runners who've ever run 9.79 or faster have now been outed as dopers. Except Bolt.
3 of those banned were Jamaicans.0 -
Joelsim wrote:All runners who've ever run 9.79 or faster have now been outed as dopers. Except Bolt.
3 of those banned were Jamaicans.
And the other two are Americans. And who's next on the list? Maurice Greene who was linked to BALCO. You have to go back to Richard Thompson at 9.82 to find someone who I don't think has ever really been connected to a doping scandal, or 9.84 for Donovan Bailey if anyone knows anything about Thompson (I think Bailey is generally accepted to be a clean runner).
But Bolt is clean...0 -
Hinaultscrapcousin wrote:Joelsim wrote:All runners who've ever run 9.79 or faster have now been outed as dopers. Except Bolt.
3 of those banned were Jamaicans.
And the other two are Americans. And who's next on the list? Maurice Greene who was linked to BALCO. You have to go back to Richard Thompson at 9.82 to find someone who I don't think has ever really been connected to a doping scandal, or 9.84 for Donovan Bailey if anyone knows anything about Thompson (I think Bailey is generally accepted to be a clean runner).
But Bolt is clean...
Conte made a point of mentioning Thompson.0 -
ATHLETICS. Naughty Mr Coe http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/388092100
-
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Ridgerider wrote:Why not...?
You win a major race, lets say P-R. one of your team mates in the race tests pozzie years later in a retrospective test, you get your name scrubbed off as winner of that edition of P-R
Seem fair?
Nah, the P-R example is more like if Mo Farrah was stripped of 10,000m gold because a team mate in the same race tested positive.
In a relay, a quarter of the time is posted by the doped athlete. Ergo the overall winning time is illegitimate. Harsh on the other three, but fair. If one steps out of the lane and other three don't, same thing.
Even Bolt agreed witht the decision.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Timoid. wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Ridgerider wrote:Why not...?
You win a major race, lets say P-R. one of your team mates in the race tests pozzie years later in a retrospective test, you get your name scrubbed off as winner of that edition of P-R
Seem fair?
Nah, the P-R example is more like if Mo Farrah was stripped of 10,000m gold because a team mate in the same race tested positive.
In a relay, a quarter of the time is posted by the doped athlete. Ergo the overall winning time is illegitimate. Harsh on the other three, but fair. If one steps out of the lane and other three don't, same thing.
Even Bolt agreed witht the decision.
My post was aimed at debunking the idea that the same role of stripping a track team of a medal/title etc when one of the team is popped, should be applied to bicylist racing
We're of the same mind, Ridgeman0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:
My post was aimed at debunking the idea that the same role of stripping a track team of a medal/title etc when one of the team is popped, should be applied to bicylist racing
We're of the same mind, Ridgeman
Fair nuffIt's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Not going well for Coe or Mr Bung today.0
-
sherer wrote:
Sounds believable to me. You are a VP of the IAAF, you receive an email about doping claims, but the details are all in an attachment, so you just forward it on and never read it yourselfJoelsim wrote:Not going well for Coe or Mr Bung today.
Yes I agree, especially when followed up by a panicked phone call from Brendan Foster.0 -
Joelsim wrote:sherer wrote:
Sounds believable to me. You are a VP of the IAAF, you receive an email about doping claims, but the details are all in an attachment, so you just forward it on and never read it yourselfJoelsim wrote:Not going well for Coe or Mr Bung today.
Yes I agree, especially when followed up by a panicked phone call from Brendan Foster.
It was Dave Bedford.
Foster has made £££ off the back of dodgy Ethiopians etc and a free marketing service from the BBC, so he's never going to rock the boat.0 -
YorkshireRaw wrote:Joelsim wrote:sherer wrote:
Sounds believable to me. You are a VP of the IAAF, you receive an email about doping claims, but the details are all in an attachment, so you just forward it on and never read it yourselfJoelsim wrote:Not going well for Coe or Mr Bung today.
Yes I agree, especially when followed up by a panicked phone call from Brendan Foster.
It was Dave Bedford.
Foster has made £££ off the back of dodgy Ethiopians etc and a free marketing service from the BBC, so he's never going to rock the boat.
My bad. Always get those two mixed up.0 -
NRL player avoids drug ban with code switch to Toulon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/38824929
How the hell does that work? Surely a ban should apply to 'all' competitive sport.0 -
It looks like it was an out of competition failure for cocaine - which isn't an offence under the WADA code, but the NRL may have it's own additional rulesSPaM02 wrote:NRL player avoids drug ban with code switch to Toulon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/38824929
How the hell does that work? Surely a ban should apply to 'all' competitive sport.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Triathlete Tim Don got a suspension in Autumn 2006 for 3 months, for missing 3 OOC tests, the Ban expired in Dec that year. He then ran in the Manchester 10K in May '07 - which would have been held under UKA rules. UKA rules would have also meant an 18 month ban for missing 3 OOC (a al Christine Ohuruogu who was serving her 3 strikes whereabouts ban at the same time), but because the sanctioning body for Don was British Triathlon not UKA no-one seemed to pick up on this at the time.
Work that one out.0 -
-
-
apparently it was recreational drugs.. although of course they could also be performance enhancing tooDolan Driver wrote:0 -
FA policy on recreational drugs is for rehabilitation so not naming publicly and stigmatising.
Although how the press think that works now they gone to town on it is beyond me.0 -
Suddenly West Brom dropping him for being unprofessional makes sense.
I mean, imagine actually being where the club said he'd be and taking a test?! Totally unprofessional...0 -
smithy21 wrote:FA policy on recreational drugs is for rehabilitation so not naming publicly and stigmatising.
Although how the press think that works now they gone to town on it is beyond me.
it didnt use to be, admittedly they might have brought in that rule in the past decade, as the tabloids used to go to town on the players who were caught, which didnt help their rehab. But it used to be used, much like it is in other sports as evidence by the governing body their drug testing policies were working.0 -
Long enough. Garry O'Connor was banned while at Birmingham City and named in a Despatches documentary in 2011.0
-
Jake Livermores failed test was publicised at the time,maybe not by the FA directly if they didnt ban him for it but how did it get known then ?, and that was 2015 so not sure how this FA rule works http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... re-96621350
