Drugs in other sports and the media.
Comments
-
we've almost turned into the clinic !!
So far there is no training partners \ coaches or anyone on the inside circle that he any claims against her.
Lets agree to disagree and try and move on0 -
All these hater are well off the mark. The truth of the matter is the long socks restricted blood to the lower part of her legs. Consequently there is more blood oxygenated to vital organs and upper leg muscles.0 -
The problem with this theory is that it relies on your incredibly simplistic understanding of distance running tactics. You are assuming that she was running at 'personal best' pace in both. That there is only one way to front run. This is just not true.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683608#p19683608]Wallace and Gromit[/url] wrote:
The 10k is a different matter. In the 1999 WCs and the 2000 OGs she ran with the same tactics in the same race situation - go as fast as possible to try and burn off the fast finishers. In both these races she clocked 30:27, which seems like a decent estimate of the fastest she was capable of aged 25/26, as she didn't win and presumably didn't coast home.
In the 2002 European Champs, victory was never really in doubt given the quality of the field but she again ran as fast as she could from the off and clocked 30:01.
So if one is being cynical, one could ask if a 26s improvement over 10k is likely aged 28, given that she'd already explored the boundaries of how fast she could run in several major championship finals. By my reckoning, this is approximately 4%-5% more power, all other things being equal. Which is a lot at that age.Twitter: @RichN950 -
And then I bet you went out and showed him you could handle it by doing a bang on performance - which is what he wanted all along. That's probably why he's a coach.Have you seen Paula's husband? I mean I wouldn't put anything past that mug.
Oi. I knew him a bit back in the day and whilst a difficult (miserable) type a lot of the time I don't think he'd go down that route. A lot of people who know him well would agree. I could be completely wrong of course.
I was once asked to help pace him to 800m of a 1500m when he was coming back from injury - the pace required wasn't super-quick but he still asked point blank if I could handle it. git ;-)Twitter: @RichN950 -
And then I bet you went out and showed him you could handle it by doing a bang on performance - which is what he wanted all along. That's probably why he's a coach.Have you seen Paula's husband? I mean I wouldn't put anything past that mug.
Oi. I knew him a bit back in the day and whilst a difficult (miserable) type a lot of the time I don't think he'd go down that route. A lot of people who know him well would agree. I could be completely wrong of course.
I was once asked to help pace him to 800m of a 1500m when he was coming back from injury - the pace required wasn't super-quick but he still asked point blank if I could handle it. git ;-)
I did, he didn't ;-) You could be right but I think it was just GL being rude in that case. Especially as it was HIS coach who asked me, knowing my G Thomas like selfless reliability....0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683639#p19683639]Wallace and Gromit[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683608#p19683608]Wallace and Gromit[/url] wrote:So if one is being cynical, one could ask if a 26s improvement over 10k is likely aged 28, given that she'd already explored the boundaries of how fast she could run in several major championship finals. By my reckoning, this is approximately 4%-5% more power, all other things being equal. Which is a lot at that age.
I would be really interested to see your working for this, "power" is rarely used as a metric in running.
Crudely, there is a cubic relationship between increases in speed and increases in power in pretty much all activities involving getting from A to B on the flat or on static machines.
The speed increase is approx 1.5%, so the power increase is approximately 3 times this. I don't think the relationship is exact, but it's a useful rule of thumb.
Whilst one may not focus on power in running (I assume this is only because the power meter companies haven't worked out how to fit them into running shoes) if you're going faster than before then all other things equal (technique, weight, track, kit etc.) then you're outputting more power. And we know from cycling that a 5% improvement is power in your late 20s is hard to explain!
All other things are not equal though are they. Technique/efficiency has a far greater influence in running than it does in cycling. A 30 second improvement over 10km is little more than one second per 400m lap which does not sound unreasonable.0 -
You're forgetting that she used to train in Albuquerque. Putting that through a cycling translator it means that she was training in Tenerife.
0 -
And then I bet you went out and showed him you could handle it by doing a bang on performance - which is what he wanted all along. That's probably why he's a coach.Have you seen Paula's husband? I mean I wouldn't put anything past that mug.
Oi. I knew him a bit back in the day and whilst a difficult (miserable) type a lot of the time I don't think he'd go down that route. A lot of people who know him well would agree. I could be completely wrong of course.
I was once asked to help pace him to 800m of a 1500m when he was coming back from injury - the pace required wasn't super-quick but he still asked point blank if I could handle it. git ;-)
I did, he didn't ;-) You could be right but I think it was just GL being rude in that case. Especially as it was HIS coach who asked me, knowing my G Thomas like selfless reliability....
You didnt run into a telegraph pole, did you
0 -
So, thus far, the summary of the evidence is:
1. They're all at it
2. There's a rumour that there's a rumour that her name is on the list
3. She's fast
4. Her hubby looks dodgy.
in those immortal lines:
"The evidence before the court is incontrivertible
there's no need for the jury to retire"
You forgot the bit about her eyes, Bomp0 -
And then I bet you went out and showed him you could handle it by doing a bang on performance - which is what he wanted all along. That's probably why he's a coach.Have you seen Paula's husband? I mean I wouldn't put anything past that mug.
Oi. I knew him a bit back in the day and whilst a difficult (miserable) type a lot of the time I don't think he'd go down that route. A lot of people who know him well would agree. I could be completely wrong of course.
I was once asked to help pace him to 800m of a 1500m when he was coming back from injury - the pace required wasn't super-quick but he still asked point blank if I could handle it. git ;-)
I did, he didn't ;-) You could be right but I think it was just GL being rude in that case. Especially as it was HIS coach who asked me, knowing my G Thomas like selfless reliability....
Hang on, hang on.
Here is the link.
You have met her hubby in a race. You also have G Thomas selfless reliability. G knows Dave Brailsford who had a coffee with David Millar in continental Europe ahead of the 2004 Olympics, just at the time that Paula was running her best times.
Doper!0 -
All other things are not equal though are they. Technique/efficiency has a far greater influence in running than it does in cycling. A 30 second improvement over 10km is little more than one second per 400m lap which does not sound unreasonable.
Point taken, but 1s per lap is equivalent to 0.25s per 100m. If someone improved from 10.1s to 9.85s in the 100m, tongues would be wagging.
Likewise dropping from 45.5 to 44.5 over the 400m converts you from a second round loser to a finalist/medal contender and a Clinic favourite!
Such improvements don't sound much but they are actually very significant indeed and hard to come by.0 -
The 10k is a different matter. In the 1999 WCs and the 2000 OGs she ran with the same tactics in the same race situation - go as fast as possible to try and burn off the fast finishers. In both these races she clocked 30:27, which seems like a decent estimate of the fastest she was capable of aged 25/26, as she didn't win and presumably didn't coast home.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683608#p19683608]Wallace and Gromit[/url] wrote:Not that I have any particular suspicion myself but it's probably because she went from also ran to world beater relatively late in her career, setting records that haven't been touched in the decade since- she has four of the five fastest women's marathon times in history.
In the 2002 European Champs, victory was never really in doubt given the quality of the field but she again ran as fast as she could from the off and clocked 30:01.
So if one is being cynical, one could ask if a 26s improvement over 10k is likely aged 28, given that she'd already explored the boundaries of how fast she could run in several major championship finals. By my reckoning, this is approximately 4%-5% more power, all other things being equal. Which is a lot at that age.[/quote]
Could air pressure, wind conditions, altitude etc etc etc not account for that 26s?
Look at Wiggins hour record, it's widely accepted he could have added another km if the air pressure was lower that day.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683608#p19683608]Wallace and Gromit[/url] wrote:The problem with this theory is that it relies on your incredibly simplistic understanding of distance running tactics. You are assuming that she was running at 'personal best' pace in both. That there is only one way to front run. This is just not true.
There was only ever one way that PR was going to win in those 10k finals in 1999-2001 and that was to run as fast as she could for as long as she could to try and run the sprint finish out of her rivals.
It's obviously an assumption, but it seems more reasonable than to assume she was holding back for a sprint finish as I doubt PR's 800m PB would be enough to trouble her rivals over the last two laps off a restrained pace in a 10k.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683796#p19683796]Wallace and Gromit[/url] wrote:All other things are not equal though are they. Technique/efficiency has a far greater influence in running than it does in cycling. A 30 second improvement over 10km is little more than one second per 400m lap which does not sound unreasonable.
Point taken, but 1s per lap is equivalent to 0.25s per 100m. If someone improved from 10.1s to 9.85s in the 100m, tongues would be wagging.
Likewise dropping from 45.5 to 44.5 over the 400m converts you from a second round loser to a finalist/medal contender and a Clinic favourite!
Such improvements don't sound much but they are actually very significant indeed and hard to come by.
10.1s to 9.85s for 100m is a 2.5% increase in speed
45.5 to 44.5 over the 400m is a 2.2% increase in speed
30:27 to 30:03 for a 10000m is a 1.3% increase in speed.
You are comparing apples and oranges, and that's not even considering that the 100m and 400m are sprint events that rely on anaerobic energy mechanisms whereas the 10000m is an aerobic endurance event.0 -
People run a lot less track 10ks than the sprinters do 100m or 400m. Prob only 1 or 2 a season. Length of the race also means lots more variables to impact final time.
Add in that as Rich has pointed out, people may not always being going into races (especially champs) with a plan to run flat out, different conditions (I can't imagine Seville 99 (heat) or Edmonton 01 (altitude)) were ideal conditions. Contrast to Munich '02 - she goes in knowing she's not going to lose, it's raining but that's probably an advantage from temperature / air quality view point, and she can really go for it without holding back. A bit like her marathons - mentally much better in a time trial situation than a race. Like a reverse Andy Schleck.0 -
Could air pressure, wind conditions, altitude etc etc etc not account for that 26s?
Maybe. Munich - scene of PR's 10k PB - is not noted as a fast location, though.0 -
The data for those that which to interpret.
5,000 10,000
2005 15:16.3 30:42.7
2004 14:29.1 30:17.1
2003
2002 14:31.4 30:01.1
2001 14:32.4 30:55.8
2000 14:44.4 30:27.0
1999 14:43.5 30:27.1
1998 14:51.3 30:48.6
1997 14:45.5
1996 14:46.8
1995 14:49.3
1994
1993
1992 16:16.80 -
The Sunday Times article pointed to a major British star (who we now know to be Radcliffe) whose blood values consistently spiked around the time of major events. When they approached her for an explanation she either threatened legal action or obtained an injunction to silence the Times. To me the BBC interview looks like her preparing her position (ie she is using the " I know what the evidence says but I didn't do it" defence we all know from 90% of cycling busts) in advance of her name being revealedCannondale Supersix / CAAD9 / Boardman 9.0 / Benotto 30000
-
A good little primer, one of the authors being the estimable David Epstein
Worth a read. Especially for some people.
http://www.propublica.org/article/speed-bumps-why-its-so-hard-to-catch-cheaters-in-track-and-field
(samples are now stored for 10 years for retro-testing, not 8 - but I've already set off my pedant klaxon)0 -
The Sunday Times article pointed to a major British star (who we now know to be Radcliffe) whose blood values consistently spiked around the time of major events. When they approached her for an explanation she either threatened legal action or obtained an injunction to silence the Times. To me the BBC interview looks like her preparing her position (ie she is using the " I know what the evidence says but I didn't do it" defence we all know from 90% of cycling busts) in advance of her name being revealed
Now that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.0 -
Or, on the other hand, the Sunday Times needed a British angle* to spice their story with. Someone has some suspect values which could be due many factors, doping amongst them. But it's not something they could possibly defend in court, so they keep it vague and let the imagination of social media do the rest. With the added bonus that social media will always decide that it is the most famous person. The public come to the story for the British angle then stay for the speculation.The Sunday Times article pointed to a major British star (who we now know to be Radcliffe) whose blood values consistently spiked around the time of major events. When they approached her for an explanation she either threatened legal action or obtained an injunction to silence the Times. To me the BBC interview looks like her preparing her position (ie she is using the " I know what the evidence says but I didn't do it" defence we all know from 90% of cycling busts) in advance of her name being revealed
* For example you sometimes see headlines like 'Briton feared to be amongst 50,000 killed in Bangladeshi flood'Twitter: @RichN950 -
Or, on the other hand, the Sunday Times needed a British angle* to spice their story with. Someone has some suspect values which could be due many factors, doping amongst them. But it's not something they could possibly defend in court, so they keep it vague and let the imagination of social media do the rest. With the added bonus that social media will always decide that it is the most famous person. The public come to the story for the British angle then stay for the speculation.The Sunday Times article pointed to a major British star (who we now know to be Radcliffe) whose blood values consistently spiked around the time of major events. When they approached her for an explanation she either threatened legal action or obtained an injunction to silence the Times. To me the BBC interview looks like her preparing her position (ie she is using the " I know what the evidence says but I didn't do it" defence we all know from 90% of cycling busts) in advance of her name being revealed
* For example you sometimes see headlines like 'Briton feared to be amongst 50,000 killed in Bangladeshi flood'
Not sure they 'needed' a British angle, there was a British name on the suspicious list.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683854#p19683854]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:A good little primer, one of the authors being the estimable David Epstein
Worth a read. Especially for some people.
http://www.propublica.org/article/speed-bumps-why-its-so-hard-to-catch-cheaters-in-track-and-field
(samples are now stored for 10 years for retro-testing, not 8 - but I've already set off my pedant klaxon)
Interesting read. Supports the things that Conte was quoted as saying upthread. I remain the cynic!0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683854#p19683854]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:A good little primer, one of the authors being the estimable David Epstein
Worth a read. Especially for some people.
http://www.propublica.org/article/speed-bumps-why-its-so-hard-to-catch-cheaters-in-track-and-field
(samples are now stored for 10 years for retro-testing, not 8 - but I've already set off my pedant klaxon)
Interesting read. Supports the things that Conte was quoted as saying upthread. I remain the cynic!
A little more tempered than Shifty Victor, I think, Bean
A number of AD tools, none of which are infallible - or rather, their deployment isn't fallible - but did anyone really think they can catch every cheat? Cos that's fools thinking.
More money does need to be put into anti-doping - the budgets are pathetically small in the great scheme of things. WADA needs more powers at their disposal, IOC needs to be more prepared to ban entire nations for periods of time, certain countries athletes need to be banned from competition unless they can be easily accessible 365 days a year for OOC testing...
Ultimately some will always cheat. Till the world ends.0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683873#p19683873]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683854#p19683854]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:A good little primer, one of the authors being the estimable David Epstein
Worth a read. Especially for some people.
http://www.propublica.org/article/speed-bumps-why-its-so-hard-to-catch-cheaters-in-track-and-field
(samples are now stored for 10 years for retro-testing, not 8 - but I've already set off my pedant klaxon)
Interesting read. Supports the things that Conte was quoted as saying upthread. I remain the cynic!
A little more tempered than Shifty Victor, I think, Bean
A number of AD tools, none of which are infallible - or rather, their deployment isn't fallible - but did anyone really think they can catch every cheat? Cos that's fools thinking.
More money does need to be put into anti-doping - the budgets are pathetically small in the great scheme of things. WADA needs more powers at their disposal, IOC needs to be more prepared to ban entire nations for periods of time, certain countries athletes need to be banned from competition unless they can be easily accessible 365 days a year for OOC testing...
Ultimately some will always cheat. Till the world ends.
Maybe it's Victor Conte 2.
:roll:0 -
I've obviously missed a lot here. I thought the GBR Female was someone who has had issues before, and then threatened to run for another country if the BOA didn't ignore it's rule about picking athletes who had had a previous violation?It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0
-
Joel, Conte is a mix of self-promotion and self-aggrandisement, with some kernels of truth thrown in
He's a little more bearable than Vayer, but they have much in common
Get @dimspace to tell you about Conte's VADA shizz, at some point0 -
People run a lot less track 10ks than the sprinters do 100m or 400m. Prob only 1 or 2 a season. Length of the race also means lots more variables to impact final time.
Add in that as Rich has pointed out, people may not always being going into races (especially champs) with a plan to run flat out, different conditions (I can't imagine Seville 99 (heat) or Edmonton 01 (altitude)) were ideal conditions. Contrast to Munich '02 - she goes in knowing she's not going to lose, it's raining but that's probably an advantage from temperature / air quality view point, and she can really go for it without holding back. A bit like her marathons - mentally much better in a time trial situation than a race. Like a reverse Andy Schleck.
Fair points, though I didn't previously refer to Edmonton '01, as that wasn't one of PR's fastest races. (Though worth noting that according to Google, Munich is only 170m lower than Edmonton @ 500m above sea level - I never knew it was so high.)
There are obviously a lot more variables potentially at play in a 10k track race than in shorter races, but 10k races involving PR were never really tactical from her viewpoint. For her rivals there were more tactical considerations as they needed to time their final moves correctly.
Even if there were subtle tactical variations thrown in by PR in 99 and 00, would they be worth anything like 20+ seconds? And why would she tactically run slower than rivals who are already faster sprinters than her?
There may be some mileage in the performs better without pressure (she wouldn't be the first to not be able to turn it on when it mattered) though she was incentivised by some massive WR bonuses in the Marathon, which must have provided some pressure of its own.
I'm just a natural cynic I guess. And I must stress, not really bothered either way. The subject of who might be doping is one of interest to me, but the only aspect of doping really bothers me is the concept of granting leniency to dopers in exchange for info that will bust their suppliers. Justin Gatlin could have been banned for life for his second doping offence in 2006. Instead, he cooperated with USADA to get an 8 year ban, which he got further reduced to 4 years due to further cooperation. If his cooperation resulted in his suppliers being taken down then it is not immediately obvious! (Or it's easy to find new suppliers.) I'm not sure this advances the anti-doping cause. (I suspect USADA really wanted to bust Trevor Graham and Gatlin got lucky by being able to dish the dirt on him.)0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683939#p19683939]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Joel, Conte is a mix of self-promotion and self-aggrandisement, with some kernels of truth thrown in
He's a little more bearable than Vayer, but they have much in common
Get @dimspace to tell you about Conte's VADA shizz, at some point
I know Richmond Racer 2.00 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19683939#p19683939]Richmond Racer 2[/url] wrote:Joel, Conte is a mix of self-promotion and self-aggrandisement, with some kernels of truth thrown in
He's a little more bearable than Vayer, but they have much in common
Get @dimspace to tell you about Conte's VADA shizz, at some point
I know Richmond Racer 2.0
Then you know that the Victor Conte 2 reboot is still a shifty piece0
