Drugs in other sports and the media.
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:There are lessons to be learned though, on all sides, press, regulators, testers, athletes and I kinda feel they're not.
Ach they just need to bring in some management consultants and all will be sorted
0 -
dish_dash wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:There are lessons to be learned though, on all sides, press, regulators, testers, athletes and I kinda feel they're not.
Ach they just need to bring in some management consultants and all will be sorted
Wehay.
Genuinely, that'd be a great gig.
"Sort out doping in athletics".
Phwoar.0 -
'House of Lies: How Management Consultant Steal Your Watch and Then Tell You The Time'0
-
Most of the pundits have their own secrets they would like kept quiet, so they hardly going to bang on about someone else. In the same way Kelly goes all quiet when the subject comes up.0
-
TheBigBean wrote:Most of the pundits have their own secrets they would like kept quiet, so they hardly going to bang on about someone else. In the same way Kelly goes all quiet when the subject comes up.
That doesn't apply to Cram though!0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:'House of Lies: How Management Consultant Steal Your Watch and Then Tell You The Time'
As a management consultant, I hate this phrase. Clients hand you their watch and ask you the time, because they are too lazy or disfunctional to do it themselves. It's easier to pay someone else to do it.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Most of the pundits have their own secrets they would like kept quiet, so they hardly going to bang on about someone else. In the same way Kelly goes all quiet when the subject comes up.
That doesn't apply to Cram though!
Working on the assumption that Cram was spotlessly clean, has he shopped anyone who tried to get him to dope? Or am I to believe that he ran clean and blissfully ignorant of what everyone else was doing?0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Most of the pundits have their own secrets they would like kept quiet, so they hardly going to bang on about someone else. In the same way Kelly goes all quiet when the subject comes up.
That doesn't apply to Cram though!
Working on the assumption that Cram was spotlessly clean, has he shopped anyone who tried to get him to dope? Or am I to believe that he ran clean and blissfully ignorant of what everyone else was doing?
Neither. Cram doesn't keep quiet about people who he doesn't like because of doping when commentating. Though he is inconsistent on who he decides he doesn't like, which is exceptionally irritating.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Most of the pundits have their own secrets they would like kept quiet, so they hardly going to bang on about someone else. In the same way Kelly goes all quiet when the subject comes up.
That doesn't apply to Cram though!
Working on the assumption that Cram was spotlessly clean, has he shopped anyone who tried to get him to dope? Or am I to believe that he ran clean and blissfully ignorant of what everyone else was doing?
Neither. Cram doesn't keep quiet about people who he doesn't like because of doping when commentating. Though he is inconsistent on who he decides he doesn't like, which is exceptionally irritating.
yeah unlike the rest of us...0 -
dish_dash wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Most of the pundits have their own secrets they would like kept quiet, so they hardly going to bang on about someone else. In the same way Kelly goes all quiet when the subject comes up.
That doesn't apply to Cram though!
Working on the assumption that Cram was spotlessly clean, has he shopped anyone who tried to get him to dope? Or am I to believe that he ran clean and blissfully ignorant of what everyone else was doing?
Neither. Cram doesn't keep quiet about people who he doesn't like because of doping when commentating. Though he is inconsistent on who he decides he doesn't like, which is exceptionally irritating.
yeah unlike the rest of us...
I like to think I'm fairly consistent, no?
Maybe i'm not.0 -
Cram didnt hide his disdain at the time for the men's and women's 1500m winners in 2012 in London
He was absolutely correct
I have absolutely no problem with that. I had no problem with that at the time.
In contrast, Jonathan Edwardes heavily criticized Lisa Dobriskey for her comments after the womens 1500 final. Dobriskey of course was proved to be right. 6 of the first 9 finishers turned out to be dopers.
I have and had a problem with that.0 -
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Cram didnt hide his disdain at the time for the men's and women's 1500m winners in 2012 in London
He was absolutely correct
I have absolutely no problem with that. I had no problem with that at the time.
In contrast, Jonathan Edwardes heavily criticized Lisa Dobriskey for her comments after the womens 1500 final. Dobriskey of course was proved to be right. 6 of the first 9 finishers turned out to be dopers.
I have and had a problem with that.
He had the temerity to refer to Gatlin as 'convicted doper' but refused to do the same for Johan Blake IN THE SAME RACE.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Cram didnt hide his disdain at the time for the men's and women's 1500m winners in 2012 in London
He was absolutely correct
I have absolutely no problem with that. I had no problem with that at the time.
In contrast, Jonathan Edwardes heavily criticized Lisa Dobriskey for her comments after the womens 1500 final. Dobriskey of course was proved to be right. 6 of the first 9 finishers turned out to be dopers.
I have and had a problem with that.
He had the temerity to refer to Gatlin as 'convicted doper' but refused to do the same for Johan Blake IN THE SAME RACE.
maybe they are worried that if they named all of the Jamaican sprinters who had failed drugs tests, despite the abject failings of the local drug authorities, then nobody would believe in the saviour of world athletics0 -
Blake's case was a bit odd though. He got a three month ban after testing positive for a drug that wasn't banned but was similar to something that was. Gatlin on the other hand was positive for testosterone.Rick Chasey wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Cram didnt hide his disdain at the time for the men's and women's 1500m winners in 2012 in London
He was absolutely correct
I have absolutely no problem with that. I had no problem with that at the time.
In contrast, Jonathan Edwardes heavily criticized Lisa Dobriskey for her comments after the womens 1500 final. Dobriskey of course was proved to be right. 6 of the first 9 finishers turned out to be dopers.
I have and had a problem with that.
He had the temerity to refer to Gatlin as 'convicted doper' but refused to do the same for Johan Blake IN THE SAME RACE.
It's a bit like calling Valverde a convicted doper but not Simon Yates. Technically they both are, but....Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
Blake's case was a bit odd though. He got a three month ban after testing positive for a drug that wasn't banned but was similar to something that was. Gatlin on the other hand was positive for testosterone.Rick Chasey wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Cram didnt hide his disdain at the time for the men's and women's 1500m winners in 2012 in London
He was absolutely correct
I have absolutely no problem with that. I had no problem with that at the time.
In contrast, Jonathan Edwardes heavily criticized Lisa Dobriskey for her comments after the womens 1500 final. Dobriskey of course was proved to be right. 6 of the first 9 finishers turned out to be dopers.
I have and had a problem with that.
He had the temerity to refer to Gatlin as 'convicted doper' but refused to do the same for Johan Blake IN THE SAME RACE.
It's a bit like calling Valverde a convicted doper but not Simon Yates. Technically they both are, but....
Convert these times into watt/kg, compare against known limits which aren't known at all and post on an internet forum, and then I think you have more than enough evidence irrespective of whether it was a technicality or not.
100 metres 9.69 =#2 all time Lausanne, Switzerland 23 August 2012
200 metres 19.26 #2 all time Brussels, Belgium 16 September 20110 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Cram didnt hide his disdain at the time for the men's and women's 1500m winners in 2012 in London
He was absolutely correct
I have absolutely no problem with that. I had no problem with that at the time.
In contrast, Jonathan Edwardes heavily criticized Lisa Dobriskey for her comments after the womens 1500 final. Dobriskey of course was proved to be right. 6 of the first 9 finishers turned out to be dopers.
I have and had a problem with that.
He had the temerity to refer to Gatlin as 'convicted doper' but refused to do the same for Johan Blake IN THE SAME RACE.
^Yohan Blake
:P0 -
TheBigBean wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Blake's case was a bit odd though. He got a three month ban after testing positive for a drug that wasn't banned but was similar to something that was. Gatlin on the other hand was positive for testosterone.Rick Chasey wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Cram didnt hide his disdain at the time for the men's and women's 1500m winners in 2012 in London
He was absolutely correct
I have absolutely no problem with that. I had no problem with that at the time.
In contrast, Jonathan Edwardes heavily criticized Lisa Dobriskey for her comments after the womens 1500 final. Dobriskey of course was proved to be right. 6 of the first 9 finishers turned out to be dopers.
I have and had a problem with that.
He had the temerity to refer to Gatlin as 'convicted doper' but refused to do the same for Johan Blake IN THE SAME RACE.
It's a bit like calling Valverde a convicted doper but not Simon Yates. Technically they both are, but....
Convert these times into watt/kg, compare against known limits which aren't known at all and post on an internet forum, and then I think you have more than enough evidence irrespective of whether it was a technicality or not.
100 metres 9.69 =#2 all time Lausanne, Switzerland 23 August 2012
200 metres 19.26 #2 all time Brussels, Belgium 16 September 2011
Not a big fan of this method of 'evidence' tbh0 -
Timoid. wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:'House of Lies: How Management Consultant Steal Your Watch and Then Tell You The Time'
As a management consultant, I hate this phrase. Clients hand you their watch and ask you the time, because they are too lazy or disfunctional to do it themselves. It's easier to pay someone else to do it.
Do they remember to ask for it back?
A typical other one is they know the problem but want a bit of paper from an "independent" "expert" to get something done about it.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Have gotten halfway through Icarus.
Anyone else watched it?
Yes. Flawed but fascinating. It's bizarre from the start when he wants to know how to beat dope tests, and Rodchenkov is right up for helping him.
The meeting with WADA when Fogel explains what Rodchenkov is telling them is amazing.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Have gotten halfway through Icarus.
Anyone else watched it?
I heard it's very good. From a lady who used to play England U20 Rugby, who I was chatting to at the weekend and had just watched it. She seemed very surprised at the approach cycling takes compared to rugby, apparently even at the U20 level they were apparently having various injections before games as a matter of course (presumably nothing that is actually banned). Apparently quite a bit of cortisone as well (again I assume all legitimate under a TUE etc.).0 -
Yes, the original 'supersize me' style premise was a bit weak.
He doped for a race where he said they never tested.
I mean, I know he was trying to use the Ruskie to see if he was passing them or not, but i mean, what was the point?
Also; his own performance whilst on the juice; no doubt his numbers were better, but, as ever, there's more to finishing highly in bike races than just producing more power...0 -
bobmcstuff wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Have gotten halfway through Icarus.
Anyone else watched it?
I heard it's very good. From a lady who used to play England U20 Rugby, who I was chatting to at the weekend and had just watched it. She seemed very surprised at the approach cycling takes compared to rugby, apparently even at the U20 level they were apparently having various injections before games as a matter of course (presumably nothing that is actually banned). Apparently quite a bit of cortisone as well (again I assume all legitimate under a TUE etc.).
0 -
Well yes I wasn't very surprised, but she was.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Yes, the original 'supersize me' style premise was a bit weak.
He doped for a race where he said they never tested.
I mean, I know he was trying to use the Ruskie to see if he was passing them or not, but i mean, what was the point?
Also; his own performance whilst on the juice; no doubt his numbers were better, but, as ever, there's more to finishing highly in bike races than just producing more power...
It wasn't a great advert for Di2.0 -
-
So I finished Icarus.
So, great documentary film. The element of surprise that this guy has stumbled into the biggest story in doping, ever, really, is part of the fun.
But what was a shame, only from a nerdy cycling fan perspective, was that the Russian defector's amazing setup to beat the tests during London & Bejing. The Sochi urine swap is all very Jason Bourne and exciting, but I'd love to have seen how easy it really was to pass the tests.
We're all operating under the premise that the doping window is much smaller; to the point where clean athletes can be pretty competitive, but if it is as simple as the guy suggests (before he started swapping samples), then i'm obviously not so sure.0 -
I didn't quite understand how this hitherto unheard of filmmaker from Colorado - who wanted to dope in sportives - managed to persuade the main dude responsible for Russian anti-doping/doping (Rodchenkov) to become his advisor. That collaboration/trust wasn't fully explained, unless I missed it.Rick Chasey wrote:Have gotten halfway through Icarus.
Anyone else watched it?
Anyway - other than that, a highly entertaining doc - even at well over 2 hours. I loved the bit where Fogel (the director) drops a bomb on the table full of games officials (in Switzerland?) about the full extent of the doping that's been going on under their noses and that, with Rodchenkov's specs, if they'd care to retest the samples (from Sochi and London Olympics, etc), he'd guarantee positives. The incredulity was a treat.
But undoubtedly, Rodchenkov steals the show - on many levels.0 -
-
OCDuPalais wrote:I didn't quite understand how this hitherto unheard of filmmaker from Colorado - who wanted to dope in sportives - managed to persuade the main dude responsible for Russian anti-doping/doping (Rodchenkov) to become his advisor. That collaboration/trust wasn't fully explained, unless I missed it.
Fogel has said that he didn't understand either. “I was scratching my head as to why this guy was helping me, everything I was doing was against WADA code. Amateur or not, you’re not allowed to take someone’s urine samples to the WADA lab to test them. But that is what he was willing to do for me.”
He was only taking advice from Rodchenkov after being introduced by the American anti-doping expert who got cold feet when he realised what he was doing wouldn't look great for an anti doping expert. That introduction must have carried a lot of weight, but the American must have known that Rodchenkov for some reason would be up for it. Very strange all round.0
