Drugs in other sports and the media.
Comments
-
Dirty,dirty sport athletics. As for Paula I would never be surprised if she was on the rumba.Contador is the Greatest0
-
Here's the Ashenden open letter to Coe from a few days ago.Dear Lord Coe,
I trace my passion for antidoping back to one morning in the athletes dining hall at the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS). I sat alone with an athlete who was jetlagged from his 24 hour flight back from world championships. Working then as an exercise physiologist, I too had been up all night performing hourly checks on athletes sleeping in our simulated altitude facility as part of their preparation for international competition. These odd hours meant that we were alone in the cavernous dining hall, and our fatigue was a window for introspection.
The young man was dejected in the manner unique to athletes when they experience losing. But it ran deeper than that. He was certain in his mind that he had been beaten by dope cheats, even though they had all been subject to urine testing in the lead up to the championships. He also knew I was involved with nascent research into a blood test for EPO. What stung me deeply at the time, but eventually became my touchstone, was his challenge to me: You anti-doping guys dont care as much about catching cheats as I do about winning.
So I would pose the same question to you. Does the IAAF pursue its anti-doping mandate with the same single-minded, all-consuming dedication that athletes adopt in their pursuit of winning? Based on what I saw in the leaked database, my view is No.
Lets look at the figures. In its 2011 publication (and reiterated in its press release on 4th August), the IAAF estimated that 14% of your elite endurance athletes had blood doped during the 2001-09 era. Thats 700 blood dopers. Since 2011, just 63 Passport cases have been pursued by the IAAF. Publicly available documents list 72 positive cases for EPO (including CERA, admissions) in athletics between 2001 and now. To be ultra-conservative, lets add around 50% to those totals, and assume 200 sanctions for blood doping have or will be issued against athletes who raced through 2009. Based on the IAAFs own publication, there are likely to be 500 athletes who cheated, competed, and got away.
It is clear from results in the database that serious problems emerged in Russia around 2005. Yet the IAAF chose not to join other sports, such as cycling, cross country skiing, biathlon and speed skating, who had adopted no start rules in an attempt to stem the tide. It is true even those rules can be circumvented, but it is undeniable that they place something of a ceiling on competitors blood values. I recognise that hindsight is 20/20, but in my view the IAAF could have done more when the spectre of widespread Russian doping first appeared.
For the record, I applaud the innovative use of DNA techniques that eventually led to sanctions for some competitors in the womens 1500 metres in Helsinki 10 years ago. There is no question that it reflects determined and vigorous pursuit of those athletes on the part of your anti-doping department.
What I believe it also illustrates is that the IAAF suspected sophisticated, planned cheating by Russian athletes. According to comments attributed by the BBC to honorary life vice-president of IAAF Professor Arne Ljungqvist in August 2008, he thought that the urine tampering episode seemed to be an example of systematic planned doping.
How then will history view the performance of the IAAF anti-doping department, if it was aware in August 2008 that systematic doping might have penetrated Russian athletics?
The following year, having painstakingly collected blood samples since 2001 to refine its risk profile of suspect athletes, the IAAF finally had resort to impose sanctions via its freshly- minted, WADA-endorsed Passport. During the first year of operation in 2009, the database reveals that the third-highest OFF score amongst all 785 female samples came from Russian Liliya Shobukhova. And it came two days before she won the 2009 Chicago marathon.
I would like to think that the third highest OFF score for the entire year, collected from an athlete who won a major marathon, and who came from a country which the IAAF suspected had some level of systematic doping, triggered the IAAFs suspicion.
Indeed, the IAAF could see from its historical data that Shobukhova first presented an abnormal OFF score in June 2005. Her historical results show that her blood values were substantially lower out of season, and had been dramatically lower just a few weeks before the Chicago victory.
I assume that Shobukhova had been the subject of targeted urine testing since 2005, but evidently this strategy had failed to detect a prohibited substance. In the face of what I assume were repeated attempts and failures, the opportunity that presented itself in 2009 to pursue Shobukhova via the Passport must have seemed a godsend. In fact, I cannot conceive of a scenario more ideally suited to the pursuit of a passport-based sanction.
Yet the database indicates Shobukhova was not blood tested again until July 2010. In the months that followed, almost inexplicably, it seems she was not even blood tested when she won her second Chicago marathon in October of that year.
Setting to one side the apparent gap in blood tests, what the database does show are enormous fluctuations in her profile between July 2009 and July 2010. All these samples were collected under WADA guidelines, which dictate clearly how the IAAFs expert must classify the profile. Unless it is normal or a pathology (which can both be excluded given that her eventual infraction stretched back to October 2009) then the initial expert must either request target testing or else trigger a full review of the profile by all three expert panelists.
Yet there is no evidence of blood tests in the database until April 2011 when Shobukhova placed second at the London marathon (again with highly abnormal blood values).
Thereafter, a follow up test was collected in July 2011, and in fact this provided yet more assurance that her high OFF scores during major marathons were not normal. The last database result alongside her name was collected a couple of months later in October when Shobukhova won the Chicago marathon a third time with her highest ever OFF score...
In a nutshell, two years after Shobukhova first won the Chicago marathon with highly abnormal blood results, she won a third Chicago marathon with even more extreme blood values. The Sunday Times published an extensive expose on Shobukhova, who they reported was the top female marathon runner in the world during this period. My question to you is simple: Do you think the IAAF could have done better?
On a related note, I agree with London marathon chief executive Nick Bitel that the IAAF needs to do more to stop people with abnormal blood values from competing.
One option is to revisit a no start rule, at least for world championships and major marathons. WADA have advised unequivocally that so-called no start rules fall outside their strict anti- doping remit, and consequently it hands complete responsibility over to the federations to implement their own no start rules.
May I suggest one avenue that the IAAF might explore? WADAs ABP software automatically generates a so-called sequence probability for individual athletes that seems ideally suited for no start rules. Such an approach would require no additional sample collection or financial outlay, as the IAAF are already collecting blood samples from all competitors at the world championships, and evidently many major marathons.
Many objections to these no start rules centre around the possibility that innocent athletes might be ruled ineligible. However, I note the comments attributed to you in The Guardian last December, where you spoke of the possibility to suspend the Russian federation if it was concluded they were not in good standing. Even if it was assumed that 80% of Russians were blood doping, that would still mean that the 20% of innocent athletes would be precluded from competition if the IAAF invoked that clause. I can assure you that a no start rule would never wrongly exclude 20% of athletes.
All that remains is for the IAAF to legislate a ceiling of normality beyond which athletes will be unable to compete. Now that would truly be an example of the IAAF pioneering the way.
But there is also much more that the IAAF could do.
Shifting responsibility for antidoping to an independent entity funded but not controlled by the IAAF is a no-brainer. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I am confident that a dedicated organisation like Transparency International would have an existing template, or at least clear guidelines, on how to set up such an entity. I anticipate that would receive universal approval.
Additional reforms could also be introduced. In 2009 Major League Baseball created an independent Department of Investigations tasked with broad authority to take action to protect the integrity of its sport. One need look no further than the outcome of USADAs investigation into Lance Armstrong to recognise the potential benefit. As the Mitchell Report noted, the ability to investigate vigorously allegations of doping is an essential part of any meaningful drug prevention programme, yet to the best of my knowledge the IAAF does not have this capacity.
Which brings me to another point. I am surprised to read statements which suggest that the IAAFs position is that pre-2009 blood values in your database have no legal standing whatsoever. The IAAF is aware from the precedents evident in USADA vs. Tim Montgomery CAS 2004/O/645, that doping offences can be proved by a variety of means. In that particular case, USADA submitted alleged abnormal blood test results collected on five occasions between November 2000 and July 2001. It is correct that convictions are more difficult via this route, however, as the CAS panel declared when ruling on Mr Montgomery, that difficulty must not prevent the sports authorities from prosecuting such offenses...with the utmost earnestness and eagerness, using any available method of investigation.
Again, it comes back to how single-minded the IAAF chooses to be with respect to the pursuit of drug cheats. Is it reasonable for athletes to ask the IAAF to cut back on glamorous gala presentations and dedicate those savings toward establishment of an investigations department?
Similarly, should the IAAF be so brave as to pursue uncertain legal cases, perhaps against high profile athletes, if the consequences of a loss might threaten its very existence? USADAs pursuit of Lance Armstrong, in the face of very real threats that the entire organisation might be obliterated by legal and political retribution, demonstrated to the rest of the world where USADAs priorities lie. So my question to you is: Do you maintain that the IAAF matches USADAs zeal?
Finally, it would be remiss not to respond to the IAAFs second press release criticising my role in the Sunday Times story.
After we had responded to each and every one of the IAAFs initial serious reservations concerning the analyses we undertook, the single remaining strand of criticism centred on the assertion that we had no knowledge whatsoever of the actions taken by the IAAF in following these suspicious profiles. For the sake of completeness, I will address that assertion too.
First, although the Sunday Times cross matched athletes with competition results and any history of sanctions, they shared this information with us after we had submitted our opinions but before we were interviewed for the publications. Consequently, we did know which athletes had been sanctioned by the IAAF. Moreover, relying on the information provided in advance by the IAAF to Sunday Times, we were also familiar with the number of ABP cases (final, under appeal, and pending).
Second, the WADA ABP Operating Guidelines indicate how targeted blood tests on suspicious athletes should be scheduled. Indeed, I participated in the development of those strategies. Consequently, by interrogating the frequency of blood tests following a suspicious blood result, I was able to form an opinion on the robustness of the IAAFs follow up programme.
So in closing, although you deplore my participation in the revelations by the Sunday Times and ARD/WDR, I maintain that had I walked away from an opportunity to agitate for change then I would have betrayed every voiceless athlete who has been cheated out of podium glory since 2001. And I would have betrayed the litmus test I adopted soon after my breakfast in the AIS dining hall I would not have been doing my utmost to prevent doping in sport.
Yours faithfully, Michael Ashenden, PhD ENDS0 -
Comments on the headlines this morning?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33948924IAAF accused of suppressing athletes' doping study
Athletics' governing body suppressed a study which showed as many as a third of the world's top athletes admitted violating anti-doping rules, according to the Sunday Times.
The University of Tubingen in Germany is reported to have said the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) blocked publication.
Hundreds of athletes apparently told researchers in 2011 they had cheated.
While there is undoubtedly a whole heap more to come out about all this, especially as specific athletes and coaches get targeted, there's a part of me that is both angry and smug at the same time.
Angry that, for the last 10 years since Puerto in particular, whatever dirt was seen to be going on in other sports, cycling was always deemed the worst. Which meant that the negative attention could always be deflected away from those sports knowing that everyone's be-atch, cycling, would raise it's head above the parapet for another bashing. While there are big sporting events all the time, in terms of publicity, the only things that rival the Tour - the World Cup and Olympics - only happen very 4 years.
The smugness comes because, although I'm sure there's still doping in cycling, there are some long hard miles ahead for other sports that were sitting back enjoying the spectacle of "dirty cycling" ravish itself.
Only 3 days ago I heard a Roger Black interview where he said the IAAF were doing more than any other sporting authority when it comes to doping: now it would seem he might have meant in terms of covering up rather than tackling...0 -
Schadenfreude City, Arizona. This one is up there with the 1997 Portillo orgy. Loving it....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0
-
Agreed, it is all a bit matter of fact with him, but he does actually get people talking in not quite the same way Vayer etc do. I.e. its not all negative and almost throwaway. sure he's a massive self promoter, but these "voices often are.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19678084#p19678084]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Linked by Dan Lloyd on twitter. Conte speaks.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2015/08/11/more-sports/conte-says-coverup-protected-big-stars-seoul-games/#.VcpaBiZVhBf
Interesting read. Thanks for posting. Someone said in the Tom D thread that synthetic testosterone is very 90s. Apparently not!
Flo Jo. that performance was completely unnatural. she changed in the course of 5 years and not just physically, her voice went down an octave, and she retired at her peak ( a deal was supposedly cut).
Victor Conte's a good source for finger waggers. he's got a lot of experience!
You also have to treat what he comes out with, with a big dollop of salt. With him, its nuggets of truth buried amongst half-truths and a shedload of self-promotion and self-aggrandisement. There's a lot of Antoine Vayer about Conte.
His point from the article about testing the leading athletes of their generation with "his" test should be enacted, but of course it wouldn't be would it. I think the likes of Bolt are clean, but those that are challenging are very possibly pushing boundaries.
What makes you think Bolt is clean? Has there ever been a 100m champion who was never tainted with anything? What about all the Jamaicans done for this and that over the last few years including Bolt's training partners? Hmm, I would be very surprised if Bolt was clean but I guess I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Realistically he will not get busted as he is Mr Track & Field...reminds me of someone.
Carl Lewis perhaps? Bolts a genetic freak, he reminds me of Lewis except he's 3-4" bigger in terms of height and his stride pattern would be longer if he was as biomechanically efficient.... which up until recently is seems he was. He may well have been on the super steaks with HGH, and testoterone, but i have no way of proving it, and am not that worried about it. I think you are right pointing out that sprinting at the top level is very probably the dirtiest sport since the early 80's and the stromba and other drugs kicked in...0 -
Dirty,dirty sport athletics. As for Paula I would never be surprised if she was on the rumba.
think in one instance they substituted that with a mild laxative. Never liked Radcliffe. reminds me of a female equivalent of the churchill dogs head on an athletes body. an athlete that could only ever go at one really monotonous speed.0 -
Not sure if this statement was spotted amongst all the other recent ones - IAAF 'clarifying' their comparitive views on anti-doping in athletics v cycling
IAAF statement on UCI commitment to the fight against doping
"... To help avoid these comments being misunderstood or misinterpreted, and to also avoid giving offence were none was intended, we wish to elaborate on Friday’s comments and state that the UCI and IAAF anti-doping structures are different and fair comparisons are almost impossible to make..." blah blah
http://www.iaaf.org/news/iaaf-news/iaaf-uci-doping0 -
I saw that over the weekend. They claim to be spending more money, which I would imagine they do as they have a bigger athlete pool, but then don't really back that up with any stats on number of athletes testing, if they do night time testing etc or anything with any real substanceNot sure if this statement was spotted amongst all the other recent ones - IAAF 'clarifying' their comparitive views on anti-doping in athletics v cycling
IAAF statement on UCI commitment to the fight against doping
"... To help avoid these comments being misunderstood or misinterpreted, and to also avoid giving offence were none was intended, we wish to elaborate on Friday’s comments and state that the UCI and IAAF anti-doping structures are different and fair comparisons are almost impossible to make..." blah blah
http://www.iaaf.org/news/iaaf-news/iaaf-uci-doping0 -
Comments on the headlines this morning?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33948924IAAF accused of suppressing athletes' doping study
Athletics' governing body suppressed a study which showed as many as a third of the world's top athletes admitted violating anti-doping rules, according to the Sunday Times.
The University of Tubingen in Germany is reported to have said the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) blocked publication.
Hundreds of athletes apparently told researchers in 2011 they had cheated.
While there is undoubtedly a whole heap more to come out about all this, especially as specific athletes and coaches get targeted, there's a part of me that is both angry and smug at the same time.
Angry that, for the last 10 years since Puerto in particular, whatever dirt was seen to be going on in other sports, cycling was always deemed the worst. Which meant that the negative attention could always be deflected away from those sports knowing that everyone's be-atch, cycling, would raise it's head above the parapet for another bashing. While there are big sporting events all the time, in terms of publicity, the only things that rival the Tour - the World Cup and Olympics - only happen very 4 years.
The smugness comes because, although I'm sure there's still doping in cycling, there are some long hard miles ahead for other sports that were sitting back enjoying the spectacle of "dirty cycling" ravish itself.
Only 3 days ago I heard a Roger Black interview where he said the IAAF were doing more than any other sporting authority when it comes to doping: now it would seem he might have meant in terms of covering up rather than tackling...
Sums it up perfectly for me.
The only thing that would increase my feeling of schadenfreude would be if some bombshell hits football, but there's far too much money in it to allow that to happen.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
I saw that over the weekend. They claim to be spending more money, which I would imagine they do as they have a bigger athlete pool, but then don't really back that up with any stats on number of athletes testing, if they do night time testing etc or anything with any real substanceNot sure if this statement was spotted amongst all the other recent ones - IAAF 'clarifying' their comparitive views on anti-doping in athletics v cycling
IAAF statement on UCI commitment to the fight against doping
"... To help avoid these comments being misunderstood or misinterpreted, and to also avoid giving offence were none was intended, we wish to elaborate on Friday’s comments and state that the UCI and IAAF anti-doping structures are different and fair comparisons are almost impossible to make..." blah blah
http://www.iaaf.org/news/iaaf-news/iaaf-uci-doping
There are WADA reports that break it down by individual sport and I started wading through it before concluding its a classic case of being able to prove anything with statistics...
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/wada_2014_anti-doping-testing-figures_full-report_en.pdf0 -
I saw that over the weekend. They claim to be spending more money, which I would imagine they do as they have a bigger athlete pool, but then don't really back that up with any stats on number of athletes testing, if they do night time testing etc or anything with any real substanceNot sure if this statement was spotted amongst all the other recent ones - IAAF 'clarifying' their comparitive views on anti-doping in athletics v cycling
IAAF statement on UCI commitment to the fight against doping
"... To help avoid these comments being misunderstood or misinterpreted, and to also avoid giving offence were none was intended, we wish to elaborate on Friday’s comments and state that the UCI and IAAF anti-doping structures are different and fair comparisons are almost impossible to make..." blah blah
http://www.iaaf.org/news/iaaf-news/iaaf-uci-doping
They don't spend more money. They spend a lot less. They tried the 'oh but with cycling the teams contribute to the UCI's AD's budget so that shouldn't count'. Erm...sorry. IAAF?
Utter baloney.
They do no night-time testing. Cycling is the only sport to have introduced that.
They adopted the ABP after cycling.0 -
Carl Lewis perhaps? Bolts a genetic freak, he reminds me of Lewis except he's 3-4" bigger in terms of height and his stride pattern would be longer if he was as biomechanically efficient.... which up until recently is seems he was. He may well have been on the super steaks with HGH, and testoterone, but i have no way of proving it, and am not that worried about it. I think you are right pointing out that sprinting at the top level is very probably the dirtiest sport since the early 80's and the stromba and other drugs kicked in...
Is this the Carl Lewis you are talking about?
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/that-1980s-sports-blog/2013/oct/21/ben-johnson-carl-lewis-dirtiest-race-history
http://www.brobible.com/sports/article/did-carl-lewis-orchestrate-the-ben-johnson-positive-drug-test/
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1292284-usain-bolt-bolt-is-completely-right-to-slam-carl-lewis
I could go on.0 -
An awful lot of what Coe and co have been saying reminds me of what verbruggen and mcquaid were saying 10-20 years ago about doping in cycling.
Regarding Carl Lewis;
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay
b*gger, beaten to it!0 -
An awful lot of what Coe and co have been saying reminds me of what verbruggen and mcquaid were saying 10-20 years ago about doping in cycling.
Regarding Carl Lewis;
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay
b*gger, beaten to it!
Yep, and shades of Golden Boy Lance in Carl Lewis' history. Not only is he a liar and a cheat, but he is a thoroughly revolting, arrogant human being. Uck.0 -
Not a fan then?
0 -
Not a fan then?
Is it that obvious?
No, I'm not. Horrible bloke.0 -
Well there we are, he must be a doper then.Not a fan then?
Is it that obvious?
No, I'm not. Horrible bloke.0 -
To be fair to Joel it's probably the host of other evidence he posted which makes him think he's a doper. Particularly the piece of evidence where he admitted failing three tests at the US Trials before the Seoul Olympics
Well there we are, he must be a doper then.Not a fan then?
Is it that obvious?
No, I'm not. Horrible bloke.
0 -
To be fair to Joel it's probably the host of other evidence he posted which makes him think he's a doper. Particularly the piece of evidence where he admitted failing three tests at the US Trials before the Seoul Olympics
Well there we are, he must be a doper then.Not a fan then?
Is it that obvious?
No, I'm not. Horrible bloke.
Not had a chance to check the links but if he failed 3 tests how on earth was he allowed at the Olympics ? Has he ever admitted doping or been officially caught ?0 -
To be fair to Joel it's probably the host of other evidence he posted which makes him think he's a doper. Particularly the piece of evidence where he admitted failing three tests at the US Trials before the Seoul Olympics
Well there we are, he must be a doper then.Not a fan then?
Is it that obvious?
No, I'm not. Horrible bloke.
Not had a chance to check the links but if he failed 3 tests how on earth was he allowed at the Olympics ? Has he ever admitted doping or been officially caught ?
Swept under the carpet by USATF. There were several Team USA athletes in question.
(just going off what I read in Richard Moore's book)0 -
I've said this several times before, the biggest issue is that it is an athlete's own organisation that has to police the anti doping. That should be taken away and ALL sports signed up to the WADA code should have independent testers.
Why would the Spanish want to catch Contador or Valverde, or Jamaica find out Bolt is cheating ? None of them do and part of their income is linked to the top stars.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19681549#p19681549]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:
To be fair to Joel it's probably the host of other evidence he posted which makes him think he's a doper. Particularly the piece of evidence where he admitted failing three tests at the US Trials before the Seoul Olympics
Well there we are, he must be a doper then.Not a fan then?
Is it that obvious?
No, I'm not. Horrible bloke.
Not had a chance to check the links but if he failed 3 tests how on earth was he allowed at the Olympics ? Has he ever admitted doping or been officially caught ?
Swept under the carpet by USATF. There were several Team USA athletes in question.
(just going off what I read in Richard Moore's book)
Claimed he didn't knowingly take it... an OTC herbal remedy was tainted... only small quantity found etc... usual story.0 -
I've said this several times before, the biggest issue is that it is an athlete's own organisation that has to police the anti doping. That should be taken away and ALL sports signed up to the WADA code should have independent testers.
Why would the Spanish want to catch Contador or Valverde, or Jamaica find out Bolt is cheating ? None of them do and part of their income is linked to the top stars.
As has been said before Athletics would implode if Bolt was busted. Hence he never will be.0 -
To be fair to Joel it's probably the host of other evidence he posted which makes him think he's a doper. Particularly the piece of evidence where he admitted failing three tests at the US Trials before the Seoul Olympics
Well there we are, he must be a doper then.Not a fan then?
Is it that obvious?
No, I'm not. Horrible bloke.
Quite right. If you watch the Ben Johnson Story on YouTube then you'll see Lewis in all his (very American) glory. He's a toad.0 -
I've said this several times before, the biggest issue is that it is an athlete's own organisation that has to police the anti doping. That should be taken away and ALL sports signed up to the WADA code should have independent testers.
Why would the Spanish want to catch Contador or Valverde, or Jamaica find out Bolt is cheating ? None of them do and part of their income is linked to the top stars.
As has been said before Athletics would implode if Bolt was busted. Hence he never will be.0 -
They said that about cycling and Armstrong. I said it myself.I've said this several times before, the biggest issue is that it is an athlete's own organisation that has to police the anti doping. That should be taken away and ALL sports signed up to the WADA code should have independent testers.
Why would the Spanish want to catch Contador or Valverde, or Jamaica find out Bolt is cheating ? None of them do and part of their income is linked to the top stars.
As has been said before Athletics would implode if Bolt was busted. Hence he never will be.
Cycling has shown that a sport can survive all sorts of scandals.Twitter: @RichN950 -
I've said this several times before, the biggest issue is that it is an athlete's own organisation that has to police the anti doping. That should be taken away and ALL sports signed up to the WADA code should have independent testers.
Why would the Spanish want to catch Contador or Valverde, or Jamaica find out Bolt is cheating ? None of them do and part of their income is linked to the top stars.
See for example the case of Asli Cakir Alptekin 1500m winner at the London Olympics. Cleared by the Turkish authorities, appealed to CAS by the IAAF and now whacked with a 8 year ban.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33964788
Surely in cases like this where the athlete has obviously been cleared by a "homer" anti doping body some sanctions should be applied to them as well as the athlete?0 -
Quite right. If you watch the Ben Johnson Story on YouTube then you'll see Lewis in all his (very American) glory. He's a toad.
Have to agree with you on Lewis. Watched some Ben Johnson stuff and Lewis is very similar to Armstrong wrt to bullying tactics and pretending to be the hard done by nice guy.Raleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon0 -
Quite right. If you watch the Ben Johnson Story on YouTube then you'll see Lewis in all his (very American) glory. He's a toad.
Have to agree with you on Lewis. Watched some Ben Johnson stuff and Lewis is very similar to Armstrong wrt to bullying tactics and pretending to be the hard done by nice guy.
Just thoroughly unpleasant. The sort of person the world would be better without.
It also wouldn't surprise me if he had pulled a few strings like Lance. See Hamilton & Landis like Johnson. It's pure evil.0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/athletics-drugs-doping-iaaf-legalise#comments
Possibly the dumbest article I've ever read on the subject.
And Joel, it's not evil. It's cheating at sports."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0
