Doping in Athletics...
Comments
-
Any grey area leads to fuzzy boundaries and people pushing those boundaries.
I favour a zero exception rule.
Well, zero except prescription drugs that have zero performance enhancing effects. I guess some will find a way to use them but at least the effects will be minimised.
I do favour life bans for the serious stuff.
I have at no time said Froome is any way a hero of mine.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 -
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 Circus
Carl Lewis was suspected of taking human growth hormone (HGH) which is a a much more serious and potentially deadly hormone than simple anabolics - HGH is almost impossible to detect alsoRaleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon0 -
Any grey area leads to fuzzy boundaries and people pushing those boundaries.
I favour a zero exception rule.
Well, zero except prescription drugs that have zero performance enhancing effects. I guess some will find a way to use them but at least the effects will be minimised.
I do favour life bans for the serious stuff.
I have at no time said Froome is any way a hero of mine.
The long list ban is not working... and people get prescriptions, exceptions and all sort of stuff... I don't see why an athlete should avoid medications that Joe average can get easily.
Short list the drugs and derivatives that really affect races results and develop better testing methodologies for those only. Life bans and happy days
Fewer bans, but life bans, that's my motto...left the forum March 20230 -
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 Circus
Carl Lewis was suspected of taking human growth hormone (HGH) which is a a much more serious and potentially deadly hormone than simple anabolics - HGH is almost impossible to detect also
Suspicions don't go anywhere without facts though...left the forum March 20230 -
Getting closer to a consensus. More than I can say for the sports authorities, and I am not only referring to athletics.Any grey area leads to fuzzy boundaries and people pushing those boundaries.
I favour a zero exception rule.
Well, zero except prescription drugs that have zero performance enhancing effects. I guess some will find a way to use them but at least the effects will be minimised.
I do favour life bans for the serious stuff.
I have at no time said Froome is any way a hero of mine.
The long list ban is not working... and people get prescriptions, exceptions and all sort of stuff... I don't see why an athlete should avoid medications that Joe average can get easily.
Cheating. That's why.
Short list the drugs and derivatives that really affect races results and develop better testing methodologies for those only. Life bans and happy days
We agree.
Fewer bans, but life bans, that's my motto...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 either have no doping regulations or you do have some. As nobody is advocating no regulation (on this thread) it's irrelevant exactly where you draw the arbitrary line, you have to have an enforcement methodology. Moving the line a few drugs one way or another is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things. The long list is like tax law. You start out with a simple principle defined which ultimately evolves into an ever more complex raft of legislation to close the loopholes and avoidance tactics people employ. Forget about utopian ideals of a simple system. One doesn't exist (other than unrestricted doping).
As for Gatlin, having now understood his first drugs ban, a lot of the press is a bit unfair (in comparison to other athletes). He's still a doper from his second ban but so were half the field in the 100m. Ritalin (which led to his 1st ban, he'd taken throughout his youth) did not build a dopers physique.
Gatlin=pantomime villain whilst no mention of Christine O's missed tests. A bit chalk and cheese. And no, I'm not arguing they are the same gravity but one is derided with no context given whilst the second is ignored because of the context (and nationality). I'd argue Gatlins failure to declare his medical use of Ritalin when he started college athletics is probably a more honestly naive action of a young man who has no prior exposure to dope testing than Christine O being fully immersed in the testing system and failing to meet the requirements.0 -
You either have no doping regulations or you do have some. As nobody is advocating no regulation (on this thread) it's irrelevant exactly where you draw the arbitrary line, you have to have an enforcement methodology. Moving the line a few drugs one way or another is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things. The long list is like tax law. You start out with a simple principle defined which ultimately evolves into an ever more complex raft of legislation to close the loopholes and avoidance tactics people employ. Forget about utopian ideals of a simple system. One doesn't exist (other than unrestricted doping).
As for Gatlin, having now understood his first drugs ban, a lot of the press is a bit unfair (in comparison to other athletes). He's still a doper from his second ban but so were half the field in the 100m. Ritalin (which led to his 1st ban, he'd taken throughout his youth) did not build a dopers physique.
Gatlin=pantomime villain whilst no mention of Christine O's missed tests. A bit chalk and cheese. And no, I'm not arguing they are the same gravity but one is derided with no context given whilst the second is ignored because of the context (and nationality). I'd argue Gatlins failure to declare his medical use of Ritalin when he started college athletics is probably a more honestly naive action of a young man who has no prior exposure to dope testing than Christine O being fully immersed in the testing system and failing to meet the requirements.
I think the problem people are rightly having with Gatlin is that it is hard to believe that a 33 years old athlete runs faster than when he won olympic gold 11 years ago as a doper. How is that possible? Had Armstrong come back in 2009 stronger than when at his best 5-10 years earlier as a doper, the world would have been ouraged, rightly... but he wasn't.
You have to accept physical decline as an inevitable fact of life, which can only be reversed by abuse of drugs or other methodologies. Nobody believes Gatlin is clean, that is the issue... it's not about his past, the shadow is on his present.
Bolt is 4 years younger and in decline... he is not as fast as he was 5-7 years ago... he can no longer run 9.58 and 19.19.
As for reducing the number of banned substances... tests cost money, if you reduce the number of tests you save money that can be spent on improving methodologies.
It's not as simple as throwing some urine in a gas chromatograph and getting a profile of which molecules are there... these days everything is more complex and specific substances have to be searched with specific tests... it all involves time and money. Cutting costs by avoiding tests for the trivial substances would lead to better results in my opinion. Fewer bans that need to be challenged in court and cause ridicule... Contador could not possibly have eaten contaminated meat, said the judge, but Rogers found with the same substance could... is it not ridiculous? Is this justice by any standard? Is this doing any favour to the sport?left the forum March 20230 -
When Ben Johnson beat Carl Lewis in that infamous sprint:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SKlNUbyhwA
I was over the moon. I couldn't stand the mouthy self righteous, arrogant Lewis. I despised him even more when Johnson got banned and Lewis mouthed off about how 'clean' he was. At the time, I wished he was caught for something to shut him and the over exuberant, over zealous American press up.
So it is so ironic that the man they put on a pedestal (in contrast to the man that got mugged from all angles) was doping but his records will stand and Johnson's won't. Hardly fair.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
You either have no doping regulations or you do have some. As nobody is advocating no regulation (on this thread) it's irrelevant exactly where you draw the arbitrary line, you have to have an enforcement methodology. Moving the line a few drugs one way or another is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things. The long list is like tax law. You start out with a simple principle defined which ultimately evolves into an ever more complex raft of legislation to close the loopholes and avoidance tactics people employ. Forget about utopian ideals of a simple system. One doesn't exist (other than unrestricted doping).
As for Gatlin, having now understood his first drugs ban, a lot of the press is a bit unfair (in comparison to other athletes). He's still a doper from his second ban but so were half the field in the 100m. Ritalin (which led to his 1st ban, he'd taken throughout his youth) did not build a dopers physique.
Gatlin=pantomime villain whilst no mention of Christine O's missed tests. A bit chalk and cheese. And no, I'm not arguing they are the same gravity but one is derided with no context given whilst the second is ignored because of the context (and nationality). I'd argue Gatlins failure to declare his medical use of Ritalin when he started college athletics is probably a more honestly naive action of a young man who has no prior exposure to dope testing than Christine O being fully immersed in the testing system and failing to meet the requirements.
I think the problem people are rightly having with Gatlin is that it is hard to believe that a 33 years old athlete runs faster than when he won olympic gold 11 years ago as a doper. How is that possible? Had Armstrong come back in 2009 stronger than when at his best 5-10 years earlier as a doper, the world would have been ouraged, rightly... but he wasn't.
You have to accept physical decline as an inevitable fact of life, which can only be reversed by abuse of drugs or other methodologies. Nobody believes Gatlin is clean, that is the issue... it's not about his past, the shadow is on his present.
Bolt is 4 years younger and in decline... he is not as fast as he was 5-7 years ago... he can no longer run 9.58 and 19.19.
As for reducing the number of banned substances... tests cost money, if you reduce the number of tests you save money that can be spent on improving methodologies.
It's not as simple as throwing some urine in a gas chromatograph and getting a profile of which molecules are there... these days everything is more complex and specific substances have to be searched with specific tests... it all involves time and money. Cutting costs by avoiding tests for the trivial substances would lead to better results in my opinion. Fewer bans that need to be challenged in court and cause ridicule... Contador could not possibly have eaten contaminated meat, said the judge, but Rogers found with the same substance could... is it not ridiculous? Is this justice by any standard? Is this doing any favour to the sport?
I think the long list is so long due to all the making agents etc. and the need to protect athletes from competitors overusing otherwise legitimately used drugs e.g. Salbutomol. If we accept Salbutomol is a commonly used drug so no longer test for it, people will obviously start taking doses equivalent to 200 inhaler puffs.
As for decline of athletes, Linford Christie reached his peak very late in his career. I'd be very disappointed if any sprinter in their early 30's couldn't out perform their 22 year old self. Power is definitely something that comes with maturity. Bolts decline so early is surely one of, or a combination of both injury and socio-economic factors. I.e. He no longer works so hard due to his superior talent and the fact he is a made man. Contrast to Chris Hoy who worked obscenely hard in a sprint sport as he was under immense competitive threat. Bolt simply doesn't have that. Not saying he doesn't train extremely hard but where's your motivation to go that extra bit.0 -
Hard to say about Linford Christie, as he was doped... he might well have found the "good drugs" later in life/career.
A sprinter peaks in his early to late 20s... the best Bolt was 23, the best Lewis was 23 too. Interestingly even Jesse Owens peaked at 23, although the war and might have stolen him further medals and glory, Michael Johnson peaked at 29, Edwin Moses won his first gold at 21, did his record at 28 and was finally beaten at 31. Jim Hines peaked at 22, Tommie Smith at 24. Gatlin should be well past his bestleft the forum March 20230 -
Bolts decline so early is surely one of, or a combination of both injury and socio-economic factors. I.e. He no longer works so hard due to his superior talent and the fact he is a made man. Contrast to Chris Hoy who worked obscenely hard in a sprint sport as he was under immense competitive threat. Bolt simply doesn't have that. Not saying he doesn't train extremely hard but where's your motivation to go that extra bit.
Although both sprint athletes the cumulative effects of training impacts must surely 'age' a runner faster than a sprint cyclist.
Also bike sprinting is more aerobic and/or anerobic than pure 10 second 100m sprinting which is pure power and technique ,a 100m sprinter could hold their breath for 9.5 seconds
Raleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon0 -
I agree with your supposition regarding Christie but then that's the problem with this whole discussion. There is no clean frame of reference whatever point any of us try to make. Hasn't the entire 88' 100 metre cohort been proven to have doped at some point.Hard to say about Linford Christie, as he was doped... he might well have found the "good drugs" later in life/career.
A sprinter peaks in his early to late 20s... the best Bolt was 23, the best Lewis was 23 too. Interestingly even Jesse Owens peaked at 23, although the war and might have stolen him further medals and glory, Michael Johnson peaked at 29, Edwin Moses won his first gold at 21, did his record at 28 and was finally beaten at 31. Jim Hines peaked at 22, Tommie Smith at 24. Gatlin should be well past his best
As for age and performance, I am not going to make a passionate argument as I'll come up light on facts but my recollection is the likes of Powell, Fredrick's (?), Gatlin, Boldon were / are competing well at quite advanced stages in their career. But I have no idea of their peaks.
Stu-bin, accept your points about cycle sprint vs running sprint but the context was more about the level of competition. Hoy had to give everything of himself to win. Bolt hasn't. How close can you come to your absolute limit when you don't need to?
I'm no elite athlete so my frame of reference is irrelevant but I know I give more of myself in disciplines where am less competitive. If I was the best in the world at something and had achieved all, I'd keep doing it but can't imagine I could everything of myself. That depth that you can only find when training or racing against someone who's just that little bit better than you.0 -
So good he even juiced after retirement.Hard to say about Linford Christie, as he was doped... he might well have found the "good drugs" later in life/career.
This is the bit I found odd. If he was a doper and had managed to get away with it (even the ginseng tea issue from 1988) then why on earth would he risk it all after he retired.
Very very odd indeed. Sadly for me (loved watching a Brit beat the Americans finally) it casts enough of a shadow that I don't class him alongside great the true greats of British athletics. With Greg Rutherford entering the "grand slam" group at this year's Worlds it is a bit of a shame to see the great list of Thompson, Edwards & Gunnell tainted by the black mark of Christie's career.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Christie is one of those cases of "if everybody thinks you are doped... " I clearly recall at the time outside the UK everybody was pretty much convinced he was doped... his body was not right, his age was not right... but obviously just as we Italians didn't want to believe Pantani was doped, Brits didn't want to believe Christie was doped...
So, how about Mo... when the dust settles he seems to have got away with it... is it because he is really clean or it's a time bomb ready to explode again?left the forum March 20230 -
Yes. Probably. Or maybe not.So, how about Mo... when the dust settles he seems to have got away with it... is it because he is really clean or it's a time bomb ready to explode again?0 -
So, how about Mo... when the dust settles he seems to have got away with it... is it because he is really clean or it's a time bomb ready to explode again?
I think he has handled it quite badly, can't be nice being accused of stuff but he really didn't come across well off the back of it.
I'm not sure if he is clean or not but won't lose too much sleep over it.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Christie was never a darling of the British public with his seemingly frosty and arrogant demeanour. Rumours of doping plagued his career and the timing of his failed test was more of a surprise than the fail itself.Christie is one of those cases of "if everybody thinks you are doped... " I clearly recall at the time outside the UK everybody was pretty much convinced he was doped... his body was not right, his age was not right... but obviously just as we Italians didn't want to believe Pantani was doped, Brits didn't want to believe Christie was doped...
So, how about Mo... when the dust settles he seems to have got away with it... is it because he is really clean or it's a time bomb ready to explode again?
However I also enjoyed Christie sticking it too the Americans
The way he'd strut around without his vest on before and after a race intimidating his opponents "This is what I've got" staring anyone down who dared to look in his direction, making everyone wait while he settled last in his blocks. Imposing his will on faster opponents, unnerving them just enough to grab a win. Great theatre Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
The media handle it all really badly though with such black and white thinking.
Bolt = good, Gatlin = bad. Mo wins and what is the response? 'That's how to silence your critics after such a hard few months etc...'
Well no, not really, if you are doping and your winning, you're a cheat that has won. Winning just proves you're a winner. As the accusation / rumour is that you're winning through cheating, winning proves nothing and won't silence your critics.
Or the other classic. 'this is what sport needs, a clean winner'. How can you be so sure? Outside of outspoken doping critics such as Bassons or Radcliffe, I'd be very reticent to assume any individual is clean.
I like Mo and Bolt and am not for one second saying they have doped. But, I've been following cycling long enough to be prepared for anything to come out. Mo appears to have a dodgy coach and that does sound alarm bells. Jamaica's sprinting prowess does make you wonder but conversely, somebody has to win. Winning of itself should not make you a victim of unfounded doping speculation.
I sure as hell don't make role models of sports people though. I enjoy watching their pursuits but, they're just normal folk with unbalanced lives. I think Christie just couldn't accept the decline. Plenty of athletes do struggle to come to terms with a whole new way of life.
This is the most recent person to totally inspire me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Dekker
The film Maidentrip just amazed me. What a truly incredible young lady.0 -
Lets not forget Ellen Macarthur but that's OT and these sort of people probably take amphetamines to stay awake/alert.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Lets not forget Ellen Macarthur but that's OT and these sort of people probably take amphetamines to stay awake/alert.
She's an obvious one, not for anything she did sailing but because she put in the fastest "Star in a Reasonably Priced Car" with barely any driving experience. Doper f' shizzal.Trail fun - Transition Bandit
Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
Allround - Cotic Solaris0 -
The media handle it all really badly though with such black and white thinking.
Bolt = good, Gatlin = bad. Mo wins and what is the response? 'That's how to silence your critics after such a hard few months etc...'
Well no, not really, if you are doping and your winning, you're a cheat that has won. Winning just proves you're a winner. As the accusation / rumour is that you're winning through cheating, winning proves nothing and won't silence your critics.
Or the other classic. 'this is what sport needs, a clean winner'. How can you be so sure? Outside of outspoken doping critics such as Bassons or Radcliffe, I'd be very reticent to assume any individual is clean.
I like Mo and Bolt and am not for one second saying they have doped. But, I've been following cycling long enough to be prepared for anything to come out. Mo appears to have a dodgy coach and that does sound alarm bells. Jamaica's sprinting prowess does make you wonder but conversely, somebody has to win. Winning of itself should not make you a victim of unfounded doping speculation.
I sure as hell don't make role models of sports people though. I enjoy watching their pursuits but, they're just normal folk with unbalanced lives. I think Christie just couldn't accept the decline. Plenty of athletes do struggle to come to terms with a whole new way of life.
This is the most recent person to totally inspire me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Dekker
The film Maidentrip just amazed me. What a truly incredible young lady.
Radcliffe? That remains to be seen.
It was interesting that in the end of IAAF WC end credits the other day, Michael Johnson was narrating and the phrase was along the lines of '...if Bolt is the saviour...'.
IMO very very few of the top athletes are clean, akin to cycling of 10 years ago (to a lesser degree obviously).
Mo will be found out, you don't train in Kenya, and with Salazar if you are clean. His interviews on the subject were very shifty too.0 -
I'm sorry but this is a typical example of illogical thinking. There would certainly seem to be reasons why dopers would want to train in Kenya, but there are also other reasons to train in Kenya. There are other reasons to train with Salazar. There are even other reasons to be shifty in interviews.Mo will be found out, you don't train in Kenya, and with Salazar if you are clean. His interviews on the subject were very shifty too.
Sadly it seems that suspicion does have to be high, but at what level does suspicion tip over into certainty? There isn't anything like enough evidence for that.0 -
Radcliffe? That remains to be seen.
Go on then... do share? At least let me know what is the basis of your suspicion?
Outspoken critic of PED's from the outset. Getting herself into trouble in the stands at events. A very elaborate pre-ordained ruse to deflect controversy on her part don't you think? Particularly good foresight to use this distraction technique given that it's many years later that athletics has come under close scrutiny.
Like I say, I wouldn't bet on any athlete in any sport being clean because I'm not a betting man. If I had to, Paula would be near the top of the list I'd bet on.0 -
Radcliffe? That remains to be seen.
Go on then... do share? At least let me know what is the basis of your suspicion?
Outspoken critic of PED's from the outset. Getting herself into trouble in the stands at events. A very elaborate pre-ordained ruse to deflect controversy on her part don't you think? Particularly good foresight to use this distraction technique given that it's many years later that athletics has come under close scrutiny.
Like I say, I wouldn't bet on any athlete in any sport being clean because I'm not a betting man. If I had to, Paula would be near the top of the list I'd bet on.
I would have agreed with the above until the other week when she said
"I'm not releasing the data from my biological passport as people won't understand it".
I guess the exact opposite would be true............. They would understand it too well!!!!
'0 -
Radcliffe? That remains to be seen.
Go on then... do share? At least let me know what is the basis of your suspicion?
Outspoken critic of PED's from the outset. Getting herself into trouble in the stands at events. A very elaborate pre-ordained ruse to deflect controversy on her part don't you think? Particularly good foresight to use this distraction technique given that it's many years later that athletics has come under close scrutiny.
Like I say, I wouldn't bet on any athlete in any sport being clean because I'm not a betting man. If I had to, Paula would be near the top of the list I'd bet on.
just to play devil's advocate, her record is over 3 minutes faster than anyone else has ever run a marathon and that is over 2:15. Chris Froome won the Tour def France by 72 seconds and that was after almost 85 hours. People claim Froome was doping, why not Paula?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Radcliffe? That remains to be seen.
Go on then... do share? At least let me know what is the basis of your suspicion?
Outspoken critic of PED's from the outset. Getting herself into trouble in the stands at events. A very elaborate pre-ordained ruse to deflect controversy on her part don't you think? Particularly good foresight to use this distraction technique given that it's many years later that athletics has come under close scrutiny.
Like I say, I wouldn't bet on any athlete in any sport being clean because I'm not a betting man. If I had to, Paula would be near the top of the list I'd bet on.
I would have agreed with the above until the other week when she said
"I'm not releasing the data from my biological passport as people won't understand it".
I guess the exact opposite would be true............. They would understand it too well!!!!
'
I'm with her on that though, looking at blood tests in isolation can make people more suspicious rather than less even for clean athletes. Illness, how much training they had done in the lead up to the test, temperature, what they had eaten etc etc these can all affect resultswww.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Well I wouldn't understand the passport and doubt most on here would. If information can be misunderstood or even manipulated to cast doubt on her then what is the upside on her releasing this data? Damned if you do, damned if you do. Not publishing is no cause for accusations unless you have some evidence that already indicates doping. Do share if that's the case.0
-
Is it too much to hope that someone with both integrity and expertise in the anti-doping authorities has looked at her BP? If so, then why should us ill-informed, inexpert general publicers expect to get any useful clues from it that they don't?
Radcliffe? That remains to be seen.
Go on then... do share? At least let me know what is the basis of your suspicion?
Outspoken critic of PED's from the outset. Getting herself into trouble in the stands at events. A very elaborate pre-ordained ruse to deflect controversy on her part don't you think? Particularly good foresight to use this distraction technique given that it's many years later that athletics has come under close scrutiny.
Like I say, I wouldn't bet on any athlete in any sport being clean because I'm not a betting man. If I had to, Paula would be near the top of the list I'd bet on.
I would have agreed with the above until the other week when she said
"I'm not releasing the data from my biological passport as people won't understand it".
I guess the exact opposite would be true............. They would understand it too well!!!!
'
I'm with her on that though, looking at blood tests in isolation can make people more suspicious rather than less even for clean athletes. Illness, how much training they had done in the lead up to the test, temperature, what they had eaten etc etc these can all affect results0 -
Nairobi is at altitude plus the fact that there would be bucket loads of runners who could pace set.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Radcliffe? That remains to be seen.
Go on then... do share? At least let me know what is the basis of your suspicion?
Outspoken critic of PED's from the outset. Getting herself into trouble in the stands at events. A very elaborate pre-ordained ruse to deflect controversy on her part don't you think? Particularly good foresight to use this distraction technique given that it's many years later that athletics has come under close scrutiny.
Like I say, I wouldn't bet on any athlete in any sport being clean because I'm not a betting man. If I had to, Paula would be near the top of the list I'd bet on.
just to play devil's advocate, her record is over 3 minutes faster than anyone else has ever run a marathon and that is over 2:15. Chris Froome won the Tour def France by 72 seconds and that was after almost 85 hours. People claim Froome was doping, why not Paula?
People can claim anybody was doping. I also have a major problem with the winning must equal doping mentality. In todays climate, we'll always wonder, but winning is of itself not justification for what happened to Froome.
As for Paula, yes, an impressive time. She came to marathon at exactly the right stage in her career and hit is just right without lots of big (marathon) races in her before her peak. Compare that to the primary protagonists in marathon running who have pounded seriously high mileage for years as the best route to escape a life of poverty.
Solosuperia, aware of her position on publishing data. TBH, after Froome affair this year and the likes of people like Vayer making up pseudo science, I agree with her viewpoint. This is actually an about turn for her from 3 years previously. I believe any athlete is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position on this topic. Her position suggests nothing other than she always gets asked due to her widely stated position on doping.
Who else has gone on record so publicly as against doping at the height of their career?
To the nay sayers, please explain your take on that? Makes her sociopathic in her scheming if that position was to deflect attention.
Seriously, come up with something at least vaguely damning before casting aspersions.0
