Drugs in other sports and the media.

Richmond Racer 2

ShinyHelmut wrote:

Bo Duke wrote:

I sat on a plane next to the Argentina rugby 7's manager a couple of weeks ago and enjoyed a varied conversation with him. He was mentioning how fast, physical and impact heavy rugby had become, even in 7's, where they have 10 international tournaments in 6 months every season (HK, Singapore etc..). The players have a high injury rate, get worn down and recovery is at a premium. With the increased exposure of the game, improvements are happening in exponential jumps. The team and players acroos all sides know each other well over the course of a year and when they get together for the first tournament after the 6 month break there are always 'surprises'. Players who were 95kg are now 105 with bulging necks.

7's was introduced into the Rio Olympics for the first time and in the pre games build up, 5 Kenyan players tested positive. They wanted Kenya kicked out but decided the bad publicity as 7's was introduced would be counter productive. The players were however banned. Kenya won the Singapore 7's competition last year.

Makes you wonder how the Kenya rugby players were able to link into a sophisticated doping culture so smoothly... I'm sure it has no bearing on their long distance runners.

There can't be any doping in sevens rugby. Ross Tucker used to be a consultant for the SA rugby sevens team so they must be clean. :roll:

Well quite. And David Walsh says 'nothing to see here' so.

dinyull

Bo Duke wrote:

I sat on a plane next to the Argentina rugby 7's manager a couple of weeks ago and enjoyed a varied conversation with him. He was mentioning how fast, physical and impact heavy rugby had become, even in 7's, where they have 10 international tournaments in 6 months every season (HK, Singapore etc..). The players have a high injury rate, get worn down and recovery is at a premium. With the increased exposure of the game, improvements are happening in exponential jumps. The team and players acroos all sides know each other well over the course of a year and when they get together for the first tournament after the 6 month break there are always 'surprises'. Players who were 95kg are now 105 with bulging necks.

7's was introduced into the Rio Olympics for the first time and in the pre games build up, 5 Kenyan players tested positive. They wanted Kenya kicked out but decided the bad publicity as 7's was introduced would be counter productive. The players were however banned. Kenya won the Singapore 7's competition last year.

Makes you wonder how the Kenya rugby players were able to link into a sophisticated doping culture so smoothly... I'm sure it has no bearing on their long distance runners.

While I'm sure there are "experts" in that field over there, I can't see methods that could possibly help a long distance runner is going to help put 10kg of muscle on a rugby player.

bobmcstuff

Apparently European Athletics are planning to strike out all records from pre-2005 (when they started storing blood and urine samples...).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39777768

Seems a bit stupid to me - there's questions about the credibility of the sport today and I'm not sure how throwing out all records greater than 12 years old will help with that...

RichN95.

bobmcstuff wrote:

Apparently European Athletics are planning to strike out all records from pre-2005 (when they started storing blood and urine samples...).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39777768

Seems a bit stupid to me - there's questions about the credibility of the sport today and I'm not sure how throwing out all records greater than 12 years old will help with that...

Here's the iconic image of the first man to run a four minute mile - Laban Rotich at an indoor meeting in Boston on 29 January 2005

Richmond Racer 2

bobmcstuff wrote:

Apparently European Athletics are planning to strike out all records from pre-2005 (when they started storing blood and urine samples...).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39777768

Seems a bit stupid to me - there's questions about the credibility of the sport today and I'm not sure how throwing out all records greater than 12 years old will help with that...

yeah, I'd be highly teed off if I were Radcliffe, Cram et al

kingstongraham

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Apparently European Athletics are planning to strike out all records from pre-2005 (when they started storing blood and urine samples...).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39777768

Seems a bit stupid to me - there's questions about the credibility of the sport today and I'm not sure how throwing out all records greater than 12 years old will help with that...

yeah, I'd be highly teed off if I were Radcliffe, Cram et al

Would Shobukhova get the European marathon record for her 2011 run? Or would her later doping ban rule that out?

shinyhelmut

KingstonGraham wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Or would her later doping ban rule that out?

One of the other proposals is that any doping sanction would result in all previous records being struck from the books so not in this case.

I think they would struggle to find a marathon record holder to take her place though as they are insisting on (I think) 6 OOC checks in the 12 months before the time was set. I doubt many african runners meet this criterion.

Full proposal here;

http://www.european-athletics.org/mm/Document/Generic/General/01/28/11/44/ENGProjectTeamReportoncredibilityofERsFINAL_Neutral.pdf

It all looks to me like another kick in the knackers for any clean record holders out there. Assuming there are some.

tailwindhome

http://sportsscientists.com/2016/08/wor ... s-fossils/

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Apparently European Athletics are planning to strike out all records from pre-2005 (when they started storing blood and urine samples...).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39777768

Seems a bit stupid to me - there's questions about the credibility of the sport today and I'm not sure how throwing out all records greater than 12 years old will help with that...

yeah, I'd be highly teed off if I were Radcliffe, Cram et al

Michael Jordon once said about his record that he wasn't fussed about what happened to them now - it was part of his career in the past, and was an achievement then. He held them when he retired - what more could he do?

Whether the records stay or not is beyond his control - the shine isn't taken away from them.


If they do erase them we'll all still know and remember them.

It's not like I sit and watch the '03 Tour highlights and go 'WHAT, ARMSTRONG WAS THERE?!??"

TheBigBean

This is an interesting summary of the winners and losers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39777772

dinyull

So would that mean, in effect, every 10 years the records are wiped?

As I understand it, they propose to keep bloods for 10 years to allow retrospective testing. But what happens when 11 years down the road when a new test is developed and those bloods have been binned?

And if something new is added to the banned list, does that mean a runner 8 years ago using it has her times wiped?

Pross

It's a terrible idea. For years there would have been records that were created before drug testing was even introduced. The proposal to scratch all records by an athlete who fails a test make perfect sense but a wholesale scrapping of records is OTT. If anything, it gives a greater incentive to a clean athlete to beat a record that may have been set in dubious circumstances. I suspect it will end up at CAS if it is progressed.

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

It's a terrible idea. For years there would have been records that were created before drug testing was even introduced. The proposal to scratch all records by an athlete who fails a test make perfect sense but a wholesale scrapping of records is OTT. If anything, it gives a greater incentive to a clean athlete to beat a record that may have been set in dubious circumstances. I suspect it will end up at CAS if it is progressed.

Mike Powell (long jump 8.95m) has already threatened to sue.

I suspect this is not really about the records themselves but more an effort sell current testing procedures as highly robust (compared to older testing) to a disillusioned public.

yorkshireraw

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Apparently European Athletics are planning to strike out all records from pre-2005 (when they started storing blood and urine samples...).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39777768

Seems a bit stupid to me - there's questions about the credibility of the sport today and I'm not sure how throwing out all records greater than 12 years old will help with that...

yeah, I'd be highly teed off if I were Radcliffe, Cram et al

[Pedant mode on] Cram no longer holds any WRs, although does still have the Euro Mile & 2000m records [Pedant mode off]

Radcliffe can be teed off all she likes, but if someone was consulting Mueller-Wohlfahrt and banging down thyroxine these days, I hope they'd be subject to Wiggins-like scrutiny.

As it is other people have lost WRs in the past, due to rule changes in events - Mens Javelin got to 104m in 1984 before the spec of the spear was changed for safety reasons. Same with Seppo Raty in 1991, when the rules were changed about how it could be constructed.

The EAA proposal is simply another version of this - changing the rules that are applied to the acceptance of WRs, for the good of the sport. Edwards, Radcliffe etc have all (rightly) made a good living off the back of their achievements (and continue to do so), are their egos so fragile they can't cope with not being named on a list anymore - although given PRs comments on the BBC during the London Marathon this year, maybe so.

yorkshireraw

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

It's a terrible idea. For years there would have been records that were created before drug testing was even introduced. The proposal to scratch all records by an athlete who fails a test make perfect sense but a wholesale scrapping of records is OTT. If anything, it gives a greater incentive to a clean athlete to beat a record that may have been set in dubious circumstances. I suspect it will end up at CAS if it is progressed.

Mike Powell (long jump 8.95m) has already threatened to sue.

I suspect this is not really about the records themselves but more an effort sell current testing procedures as highly robust (compared to older testing) to a disillusioned public.

The type of track and runways in Tokyo (where Powell set his WR) were banned after the champs anyway for being illegally hard (which gives an advantage in explosive events).

Whether he still has the WR or not doesn't matter in my view - he and Lewis played out the greatest ever head to head in the LJ - that memory's not going to be erased.

seanoconn

Of the 18 men's and women's field world records, only 5 have been set this century! The majority of which having been set in the 80's to mid 90's. It does seem a bit strange that today's athletes aren't threatening to break these marks anytime soon.

RichN95.

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Edwards, Radcliffe etc have all (rightly) made a good living off the back of their achievements (and continue to do so), are their egos so fragile they can't cope with not being named on a list anymore - although given PRs comments on the BBC during the London Marathon this year, maybe so.

But on the flip side of that will Christian Taylor, who would inherit Edwards's record, be happy to call himself the world record holder? If he was introduced as such would he feel pride or embarrassment?

dinyull

If they're going to do it, wipe them clean from the day it's introduced. At least that would create a bit of excitement of all the new WR's being set.

The problem that they're trying to solve will never come to fruition though, as it's pointless trying to clean up the sport itself if the governing body is rotten to the core.

FocusZing

These plans seem radical to the point of a cliff.

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

I suspect this is not really about the records themselves but more an effort sell current testing procedures as highly robust (compared to older testing) to a disillusioned public.

You don't say

Richmond Racer 2

This will go to CAS

And a BR tenner says the claimant will win

Only way around that might be to create a new record going forward named differently - Hour Record stylie

RichN95.

Maybe they are looking at this the wrong way. Maybe World Records should allow drug taking. Let's see what humanity is capable of. Just focus on keeping championships clean. So maybe a Kenyan could try for a sub two hour marathon openly taking EPO - on the condition he doesn't run in championships for two or four years. Do people even care much about world records these days?

(not an entirely serious suggestion)

FocusZing

It's futile. It sets a president for future adjustments, too 1984.

You cheat, ban for life. Let the times change with a new generation.

tailwindhome

Change the competitive distances from metric to imperial.
The current records are frozen in time.
The standard is set at the last recorded time over the imperial distance.

That's that sorted.

shinyhelmut

^ so is the marathon a metric or imperial distance?

tailwindhome

ShinyHelmut wrote:

^ so is the marathon a metric or imperial distance?

Round it to 26 miles and rename it Snickers

kingstongraham

TailWindHome wrote:

Change the competitive distances from metric to imperial.
The current records are frozen in time.
The standard is set at the last recorded time over the imperial distance.

That's that sorted.

So el guerrouj keeps his mile record but loses the 1500m. Cool.

spam02

Makes no sense to me. It's potentially denying clean athletes who were unlucky enough to compete at a time when dope testing was less sophisticated that post-2005 standards. Some of the WR's being wiped are iconic moments in the sport.

Is the intention that all records are reset from say, 01.01.05 so that the first athlete to complete an event subsequent to that date is given the first (reset) WR and then all subsequent faster/longer/higher attempts are deemed to be the next WR.
Or will they just go back through the current records and say that as long as it was set after 2005, that this is the first (reset) WR, and If the current record was set prior to 2005, then they take the best effort since then as the WR?

Will this 'line in the sand' be moved every-time there is a major breakthrough in testing methods and they decide to retrospectively retest ALL the samples they hold at the time. All kinds of crazy that just smells of an attempt to shift the attention away from the fact that they haven't been governing the sport properly in the first place.

RichN95.

SPaM02 wrote:

Is the intention that all records are reset from say, 01.01.05 so that the first athlete to complete an event subsequent to that date is given the first (reset) WR and then all subsequent faster/longer/higher attempts are deemed to be the next WR.
Or will they just go back through the current records and say that as long as it was set after 2005, that this is the first (reset) WR, and If the current record was set prior to 2005, then they take the best effort since then as the WR?

It's the second option.

It's more that records will only be valid if test samples were taken and stored. They didn't store them until 2005. If the best post 2005 didn't have a stored sample, it won't be the new record. Similarly if a pre 2005 record somehow had a stored sample, it would stand - I don't think any did. (There are also criteria about OOC testing which will also have to be met)

bobmcstuff

The idea that records can be considered clean after 2005 is lols. When was Puerto again.......