Doping in Athletics...
Comments
-
Michael Johnson is and always will be one of the legends of athletics. His knowledgeable punditry is beyond his undoubtedly high BBC paycheck. I will always think of it as one of the greatest BBC coups getting him onto their payroll. He has approached punditry with the same level of professionalism as his athletic career and as someone who remembers his athletic successes I pity those who only know of him through his commentating role. He had a unique style and the results stood the test of time.
Sorry but I think I am too much of a Johnson fan sometimes.
I personally no longer take too much interest in 100/200m races these days. That saddens me as a fan of athletics but I do not take pleasure in sprint disciplines these days.
Ennis-Hill has done well and she continues to have the combination of genetic ability and mental/psychological ability to get back into the position she was in 2012. Long may she coin it in with Santander!!
0 -
Ennis-Hill has done well and she continues to have the combination of genetic ability and mental/psychological ability to get back into the position she was in 2012. Long may she coin it in with Santander!!
Yeah, and she hasn't got a stupid double-barrelled name like Katerina Johnson-Thompson
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
I do wonder if there is a place or climb called Ennis Hill and whether anyone has gone up it? I think her name is the first I've seen that could be a place name, or at least the first I can recall like that.Ennis-Hill has done well and she continues to have the combination of genetic ability and mental/psychological ability to get back into the position she was in 2012. Long may she coin it in with Santander!!
Yeah, and she hasn't got a stupid double-barrelled name like Katerina Johnson-Thompson0 -
It was getting confusing when Michael 'Johnson' and Daley 'Thomson' were discussing her failure.Ennis-Hill has done well and she continues to have the combination of genetic ability and mental/psychological ability to get back into the position she was in 2012. Long may she coin it in with Santander!!
Yeah, and she hasn't got a stupid double-barrelled name like Katerina Johnson-ThompsonPinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
I do wonder if there is a place or climb called Ennis Hill and whether anyone has gone up it? I think her name is the first I've seen that could be a place name, or at least the first I can recall like that.Ennis-Hill has done well and she continues to have the combination of genetic ability and mental/psychological ability to get back into the position she was in 2012. Long may she coin it in with Santander!!
Yeah, and she hasn't got a stupid double-barrelled name like Katerina Johnson-Thompson
I'm pretty sure someone's gone up Ennis Hill (sorry, couldn't resist :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: )
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/aug/23/jessica-ennis-hill-beijing
Someone's very impressed by her. Makes you wonder how she's done it it's so remarkable like this journo. Oh dear, is that casting aspersions?0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/aug/23/jessica-ennis-hill-beijing
Someone's very impressed by her. Makes you wonder how she's done it it's so remarkable like this journo. Oh dear, is that casting aspersions?
Is that because she is woman ?0 -
I think it's because she's got back to gold medal in the world's 13 months after giving birth. I think the birth thing is amazing enough but I wonder how long "experts" think it should take to get back to the top for someone with Ennis-Hill's obvious natural ability? I think I read or heard something about only 3 women have gone from world champion to new mother and back to world champion. Or something like that. Basically she's in a small group to have done something like that and they were in the endurance events not one that has everything.from strength, speed, technical excellence and various actions like twisting that requires a bit more.
Ho hum! She's got gold and that's damn good no matter what.0 -
i ve teenage daughter who is into sport, first xc running and then cycling, it is unbelievably hard for a female to maintain an interest in sport, let alone get to be good, there is attitude of the sport its self, then the apathy of the public and the way society view women and their roles in society.
so, Enis really is abnormal, that she has the financial means to over come the physical trauma of birth plus the mental strength and physical ability to get back to the top, should be applauded - so not really sure why she gets mentioned in a doping thread? her name has not been linked to anything in that respect, just the normal childish school boy remarks ref her name.0 -
How dopey was it for Molly Huddle to ease up before the line and lose a medal?0
-
She must be absolutely gutted. All those years of training to get yourself in a position to win a medal in an African dominated discipline and to blow it by not running two more meters to the line. She won't forget that in a hurry.How dopey was it for Molly Huddle to ease up before the line and lose a medal?Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
Another fan here of the legend that is Michael Johnson. Forthright and informative. Class act on the track and in the studio.
Darren Campbell may disagree though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics_2004/athletics/3600462.stm0 -
I have been saying this for 2 years and I will say it again: USADA have spent millions in pursuing a retired athlete, essentially for personal vendetta, de facto neglecting vital funds to fight doping in athletics. At the time I did say that while Armstrong was no longer a threat to the sport, Gatlin was running faster than when he won the olympics in 2004 as a doped athlete and nobody had a word to say about it. It took the media two years to see what I saw at the time... as they were too busy to find a scapegoat in an old retired man, as a pointless exercise.
It is depressing to see how doping is dealt with... they are still looking at samples collected 10 years ago, instead of investing to offer better testing to the current athletes, who will probably be disqualified in 10 years time...
patheticleft the forum March 20230 -
Are you saying they spent a lot to expose Armstrong as a vendetta? Sorry but I see it as money well spent. IIRC he was not fully retired and was looking at entering other sports to compete at a high level, triathlon IIRC. Also I seem to think that LA was a lightning rod for world cycling to get it's act together. Not money wasted in my opinion but you may differ.
USADA is still involved in research along with WADA and other anti-doping national bodies. It is not all about USADA but it is their role to pursue their own cheating athletes.
Also, I can think of valid reasons to go after historical doping. One is some retired athletes go into coaching, do you really want cheats passing on their tricks to the next generation? Is it not better to find the evidence and kick them out of the sport completely?
Technology being applied to past samples is not a bad idea if they can actually take action against cheats retrospectively. If they find something that could not be detected 10 years ago but is banned now they probably could only take action if the substance was on the banned list 10 years back. Of course they can only find things by testing and not all they find is actionable. This is a circle, why bother testing because you can't take retrospective action but by testing you might find something actionable restrospectively.0 -
Are you saying they spent a lot to expose Armstrong as a vendetta?
I am saying exactly that.
Acting retrospectively is part of the reason the sport cannot move forward. It's never worked... as a strategy, removing golds and laurels and inflicting penalties to semi-retired athletes has never deterred anyone from doping. They have to come to terms with the fact that it simply doesn't work.
They have to start asking themselves what works? Is it education? Is it more rigorous testing? Whatever that is, that's where the money and effort should go.left the forum March 20230 -
But what about athletes going on to coach? Do you think there is no merit in preventing those who have doped or cheated from being involved in coaching the next generation? if nothing else the suspicion could be passed on to the younger athlete they are coaching. I mean the accusations against Farah's coach has had an effect on the image and integrity of Farah too. Smear or condemnation by association. That is before you even consider that the retired doper may be teaching the next generation how to get away with it!!
Perhaps that is not likely but there should be some way to eliminate the cheats from taking a role in the sport despite being retired. Just my opinion as I see this more than just removing laurels from someone, which is difficult to do fairly after some time has passed. It does have some deterrent value too in that athletes know that retirement is not a way out of facing their guilt. You could easily retire clean and without the retrospective investigation/testing have a lucrative second career in the sport. Natural justice if nothing else should stop that. In the real world a lot probably escape without any consequence of a career of doping.0 -
Its not all about the Armstrong.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
So do we assume drugs don't work now Gatlin has lost to Bolt twice or that they do and Bolt is just better at hiding it than Gatlin?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0
-
But what about athletes going on to coach? Do you think there is no merit in preventing those who have doped or cheated from being involved in coaching the next generation? if nothing else the suspicion could be passed on to the younger athlete they are coaching. I mean the accusations against Farah's coach has had an effect on the image and integrity of Farah too. Smear or condemnation by association. That is before you even consider that the retired doper may be teaching the next generation how to get away with it!!
Perhaps that is not likely but there should be some way to eliminate the cheats from taking a role in the sport despite being retired. Just my opinion as I see this more than just removing laurels from someone, which is difficult to do fairly after some time has passed. It does have some deterrent value too in that athletes know that retirement is not a way out of facing their guilt. You could easily retire clean and without the retrospective investigation/testing have a lucrative second career in the sport. Natural justice if nothing else should stop that. In the real world a lot probably escape without any consequence of a career of doping.
You think it's a deterrent, but it's not a deterrent... this is the problem.
If we remove all the doped cyclists from coaching roles, there won't be any more coaching roles taken by former PRO cyclists. A former doper is not necessarily a doping instigator. I don't think people like Riis are the main problem in the sport.
Salazar never tested positive, even retrospectivelyleft the forum March 20230 -
So do we assume drugs don't work now Gatlin has lost to Bolt twice or that they do and Bolt is just better at hiding it than Gatlin?
Bolt was a phenomenal athlete at any level... since he was a teenager. When he was 18 he was forecasted to become the best sprinter. It doesn't take a trained eye to see that Bolt body is that of an athlete who trains and Gatlin's body is that of a hormone doped athleteleft the forum March 20230 -
Now Linford Christie's was a physique born of an athlete who trains.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0
-
You could hardly call exposing arguably the biggest fraud in sporting history "a vendetta." It's their job and boosted the USADA's profile a fair bit.I have been saying this for 2 years and I will say it again: USADA have spent millions in pursuing a retired athlete, essentially for personal vendetta, de facto neglecting vital funds to fight doping in athletics. At the time I did say that while Armstrong was no longer a threat to the sport, Gatlin was running faster than when he won the olympics in 2004 as a doped athlete and nobody had a word to say about it. It took the media two years to see what I saw at the time... as they were too busy to find a scapegoat in an old retired man, as a pointless exercise.
It is depressing to see how doping is dealt with... they are still looking at samples collected 10 years ago, instead of investing to offer better testing to the current athletes, who will probably be disqualified in 10 years time...
patheticPinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
I not sure you can specifically say a certain body shape is that of a doper since there are so many variations in humankind. I can think of someone I used to know who had a natural musculature that you would think was that of a doper and probably looked more so than Gatlin. Not that she would have liked me to say that. Yes she was female but it was in her genes to have a highly muscled physique. She has also represented GB in an international sport of which I have played against her and can say she is one powerful individual for any gender. Fast, powerful, quick reactions, good coordination and a quick brain too.0
-
I not sure you can specifically say a certain body shape is that of a doper since there are so many variations in humankind. I can think of someone I used to know who had a natural musculature that you would think was that of a doper and probably looked more so than Gatlin. Not that she would have liked me to say that. Yes she was female but it was in her genes to have a highly muscled physique. She has also represented GB in an international sport of which I have played against her and can say she is one powerful individual for any gender. Fast, powerful, quick reactions, good coordination and a quick brain too.
Ben Johnson, Maurice Green, Justin Gatlin, Asafa Powell, Dwain Chambers, Yohan Blake... all bodies built with great help from steroids and you can tell by the abnormal body proportions... some have been caught, others haven't.
Compare with Fankie Fredricks, Carl Lewis and Usain Bolt... bodies with normal proportionsleft the forum March 20230 -
Now Linford Christie's was a physique born of an athlete who trains.
... who ended his career with a doping ban...
that didn't stop him from getting into coaching, which I have no problem at all with.
Problem with you Brits is that you get easily outraged and lose focus on the real issue... typical example is the all palaver around Alistair Cook... if he is the best player around but a bit of a character and controversial, why should he be prevented from being England captain and winning the Ashes with a crap team?left the forum March 20230 -
Carl Lewis?Compare with Fankie Fredricks, Carl Lewis and Usain Bolt... bodies with normal proportions
Not the cleanest example to give.
"Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later."The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You missed the sarcasm, you don't normally get a body like Christie without illegal assistance but I agree with the other posts that you can't tell just by body shapeNow Linford Christie's was a physique born of an athlete who trains.
... who ended his career with a doping ban...
that didn't stop him from getting into coaching, which I have no problem at all with.
Problem with you Brits is that you get easily outraged and lose focus on the real issue... typical example is the all palaver around Alistair Cook... if he is the best player around but a bit of a character and controversial, why should he be prevented from being England captain and winning the Ashes with a crap team?
Check this monster out, Harry Aikines-Aryeetey and he's pants, if he's cheating he's doing something seriously wrong.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
Carl Lewis?Compare with Fankie Fredricks, Carl Lewis and Usain Bolt... bodies with normal proportions
Not the cleanest example to give.
"Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of "hundreds" of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
"There were hundreds of people getting off," he said. "Everyone was treated the same."
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later."
Nobody is 100% clean, but one thing is taking drugs and another thing is building a body with steroids... Carl Lewis was an extraordinary athlete, just like Usain Bolt is. Justin Gatlin without drugs would have never made the US trails or even the athletics team at college... that is the difference. Ben Johnson was just a pantomime, a bit of a freak elephant man you go to see at the Circusleft the forum March 20230 -
The problem in a nutshell.Nobody is 100% clean,..The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The problem in a nutshell.Nobody is 100% clean,..
Yes and no... nobody in sport is 100% clean... not even your hero Froome... the rules are simply too strict and the competition too fierce. I think the rules should be eased on drugs like salbutamol and amphetamines, which are commonly used by many people and have basically zero doping effect. Hormones and stuff should be the real target and lifetime bans should apply for those.left the forum March 20230
