Sun Yingjie fails doping test


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Postby slowcoach » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:34 am

Jon wrote:
slowcoach wrote:So if improving within a couple of months is a bannable offence...
Incorrect (Remember, that comment of mine was tongue-in-cheek and wasn't meant to be taken literally).


Fair enough. Didn't seem like that at the time.
slowcoach
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Powell » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:53 am

Jon wrote:Either way, even if Paula was in the shape of her life (2:15/30), I still strongly doubt she'd be able to put together a 2:21/31:00 performance within the space of two days. She's said on many occasions that the day after a marathon, her body is completely beat up and aching, etc, and she just does very light work.


After a 2:15, certainly she would be beat up. But assuming she was in 2:15 shape and only ran a 2:20 to conserve energy for the next day, wouldn't you say it would be a different story?
Powell
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Postby Powell » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:59 am

Jon wrote:Either way, even if Paula was in the shape of her life (2:15/30), I still strongly doubt she'd be able to put together a 2:21/31:00 performance within the space of two days. She's said on many occasions that the day after a marathon, her body is completely beat up and aching, etc, and she just does very light work.


After a 2:15, certainly she would be beat up. But assuming she was in 2:15 shape and only ran a 2:20 to conserve energy for the next day, wouldn't you say it would be a different story?
Powell
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:06 am

as a long distance runner for over 40 years i think 26 x 1 mile in 5:25 with no rest in between would take most of the starch out of even the great paula's legs. paula would normally go out for an easy 5 mile jog-run before a championship 10,000 and the 26 x 5:25 would be quite a differant story.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Jon » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:41 pm

Powell wrote:After a 2:15, certainly she would be beat up. But assuming she was in 2:15 shape and only ran a 2:20 to conserve energy for the next day, wouldn't you say it would be a different story?


Whether you run a 2:15 or a 2:20, your body is still going to be beaten up! The body would have gone through 26.2 miles of quick-paced miles either way.
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Andrea_T » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:33 am

Jon, I have to agree with slowcoach, you really must think about what you post, now you're the office junior for AW. You represent that magazine, so any tabloid comments like those on Sun should be carefully considered before being posted. I also think you have a conflict of interest here: you did, afterall, design Radcliffe's site, so you're probably not the most objective when it comes to 'our Paula'.

If one woman can run 29:3 for 10k and another woman 2:15 for the marathon, is it so unreal that another woman can run 31:0 & 2:21 within just over 1 day? Doped or not, Sun did actually run those times, so it shows the human body can do it, regardless of what assistance it may have had. I doubt we'd be even debating 2:21/31:0 if it were Paula that had done it, especially you Jon.

It wasnt so long ago that we'd have scoffed at a woman running 2:15 for the marathon...
Andrea_T
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby Jon » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:55 am

Andrea_T wrote:Jon, I have to agree with slowcoach
Translation: "I have to disagree with Jon, because that's what I do"

Andrea_T wrote:you really must think about what you post, now you're the office junior for AW.
Very funny, snide comment. It's 'staff writer', thank you.

Andrea_T wrote:you did, afterall, design Radcliffe's site, so you're probably not the most objective when it comes to 'our Paula'.
Perhaps. Or then again, it could also mean that I'm better informed when it comes to Paula. For example: have you, Slowcoach or Powell read both of her books? Cover to cover? Do you ever let your admiration for HD come in the way of being objective?

Andrea_T wrote:is it so unreal that another woman can run 31:0 & 2:21 within just over 1 day?
I don't know, is it? It's difficult to tell because such a feat has never been done before that I know of.

Andrea_T wrote:I doubt we'd be even debating 2:21/31:0 if it were Paula that had done it
Oh, I can guarantee that people would be talking about it, whoever had done it.

From what many world class marathoners (and Paula herself) have said in the past is that running a marathon completely beats up your body and the most you can do in the days after is very gentle work. Just like many 400m runners have said, whether you run 48 seconds or 51, it's still going to hurt. Likewise, whether someone runs a 2:15 or 2:21, their body would still have taken a hammering.

Taking into account what Paula herself has said about feeling battered the day after a marathon, do you really think she'd be able to put together a 2:21/31 performance, one day after the other?
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Andrea_T » Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:33 am

Oh, jesus, he's read Paula's bio cover to cover :shock: Do you realise how silly that comment makes you look? Impress me with some snippets of info from secret interviews, not a biography that we've all read! ( Quite an interesting read it was too, but it's hardly a definitive account on long distance training)

You dont get it. Being a fan of a particular athlete is not a bad thing and can often mean you're more informed that others. The issue here is that you have a professional relationship with Paula, you designed her website, therefore that goes beyond just being a fan. You are far less likely to be objective than someone with no commercial relationship with her.

I also was agreeing with Slowcoach because, guess what, I agree with him. Dont flatter yourself that I go out of my way to attack you! You are employed by the UK's biggest athletics magazine, therefore you should demonstrate a level of professionalism and thought when writing in public forums.
Andrea_T
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby Jon » Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:45 am

Andrea_T wrote:Oh, jesus, he's read Paula's bio cover to cover :shock: Do you realise how silly that comment makes you look?
You've missed the point completely. I didn't mean that just because I've read the book I've become a Paula expert. I meant that I (and anyone else who has read the book) am more likely to know about the things that Paula has said about her training than someone who hasn't read her book. Quite a simple concept, really.

Andrea_T wrote:You are far less likely to be objective than someone with no commercial relationship with her.
And what subjective things exactly have I posted on this thread about Paula? I've merely repeated what she has said herself about how she feels after a marathon.

Andrea_T wrote:Dont flatter yourself that I go out of my way to attack you!
So why all the fake aliases on the IAAF forum and this one, Steve?
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:46 am

Andrea_T wrote:Oh, jesus, he's read Paula's bio cover to cover :shock: Do you realise how silly that comment makes you look?


I don't get that either. :? I think it just means he's read her book.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Jon » Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:24 am

tafnut wrote:
Jon wrote:cover to cover

I don't get that either. :? I think it just means he's read her book.


Quite a common phrase on these shores:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22book+ ... o+cover%22

107,000 results

:wink:
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:39 am

Oops - the misunderstandings grow - I DO know what 'cover-to-cover' means, I did NOT understand Andrea's criticism. Why does reading a book c-to-c make someone look silly? It would look sillier if he (Jon) had NOT read it and purported to know about her.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby slowcoach » Thu Oct 27, 2005 6:33 am

Jon wrote:For example: have you, Slowcoach or Powell read both of her books? Cover to cover? Do you ever let your admiration for HD come in the way of being objective?


No, I haven't. If I did, would I believe everything therein? No.

Jon, Do you ever let your admiration for PR come in the way of being objective?
slowcoach
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Jon » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:04 am

slowcoach wrote:Jon, Do you ever let your admiration for PR come in the way of being objective?
Sometimes, perhaps I might. But I can't see where I'm being objective on this thread. All I've said about Paula on here is that, according to what she has said about her state the day after a marathon, I don't think she'd be able to pull off a 2:21/31 2-day double.

Now, does anyone disagree with that? If not, let's move on.

slowcoach wrote:No, I haven't. If I did, would I believe everything therein? No.
If anything, that quote shows that you yourself are being subjective. Without even picking up her book, you'd approach it with the mindset of "I'm not going to believe everything she says" – you're letting your dislike of her get in the way of being objective.
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby slowcoach » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:23 am

Jon wrote:If anything, that quote shows that you yourself are being subjective. Without even picking up her book, you'd approach it with the mindset of "I'm not going to believe everything she says" – you're letting your dislike of her get in the way of being objective.


How could I declare anything else about a book I haven't read?
I always approach a book with an open mind. But the probability of everything one says about themselves being true is virtually 0.
slowcoach
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:29 am

even if it was the other way around 31:00-2:20, which is far easier, it would be hard to believe
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Andrea_T » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:46 am

tafnut wrote:Oops - the misunderstandings grow - I DO know what 'cover-to-cover' means, I did NOT understand Andrea's criticism. Why does reading a book c-to-c make someone look silly? It would look sillier if he (Jon) had NOT read it and purported to know about her.


You dont get it tafnut? :roll:

Jon is effectively employed by Paula, therefore he simply cannot be objective because of his relationship with her. His defence that reading her biography means infact he may just be better informed and actually objective I found silly and almost absurd.

You cannot quote the reading of your employers biography as just being better informed and not subjective, it's ridiculous.
Andrea_T
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby tafnut » Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:54 am

Jon was enamored with PR's running LONG before he became her 'employee'. As a big fan of hers, of course he would have read the book. He is also under no obligation, even as a professional journalist, to be 'objective' about her talent. NO ONE can be 'objective' in that sense - it's ALL opinion - and he has had, has now, and will continue to have great admiration of her (can anyone blame him?). I still don't understand what the issue is here, and why Jon's mentioning of the book makes him look stupid. This is NOT an attack on you - I simply don't see that he was out of line.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby Andrea_T » Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:08 am

tafnut wrote:Jon was enamored with PR's running LONG before he became her 'employee'. As a big fan of hers, of course he would have read the book. He is also under no obligation, even as a professional journalist, to be 'objective' about her talent. NO ONE can be 'objective' in that sense - it's ALL opinion - and he has had, has now, and will continue to have great admiration of her (can anyone blame him?). I still don't understand what the issue is here, and why Jon's mentioning of the book makes him look stupid. This is NOT an attack on you - I simply don't see that he was out of line.


No issue, other than you not seeing why I found the book thing silly and me not seeing why you cant see it! :?
(I would add though, that obligation or not, a journalist with any sense would not criticise their employer in public, but rather stick up for them! :wink: )

Maybe we should move on from this now.

BTW, I greatly admire Paula too.
Andrea_T
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby Daisy » Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:23 am

Jon wrote:
slowcoach wrote:Jon, Do you ever let your admiration for PR come in the way of being objective?


Sometimes, perhaps I might. But I can't see where I'm being objective on this thread.


Jon, that's what they've been saying all along! :wink:
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Bob R » Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:37 am

Re: the liklihood/probability of Sun's double: not very far at all behind her in both races was Zhou Chunxiu, who after a 2:21:11 marathon bounced back for a 31:09.03 in the 10,000m. As the runner-up in both, presumably she was tested as well. Judging from the quick announcement on Sun, we can also presume that Zhou's tests didn't come back positive. All things being equal, I suppose one can make the argument that Zhou showed that such a double is certainly possible.
Bob R
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:55 am

Bob R wrote:Re: the liklihood/probability of Sun's double: not very far at all behind her in both races was Zhou Chunxiu, who after a 2:21:11 marathon bounced back for a 31:09.03 in the 10,000m. As the runner-up in both, presumably she was tested as well. Judging from the quick announcement on Sun, we can also presume that Zhou's tests didn't come back positive. All things being equal, I suppose one can make the argument that Zhou showed that such a double is certainly possible.


Good point. i dont know the anwser. its truely amazing if "real" :!:

if someone can run a 2:21 and be fresh enough the next day to run a little over 31:00 it suggest a p.r. in each event on its own, allout, much, much faster. does it not? i would argue 2:17 at least. ZHOU came in secound. suggesting should could not go any faster. so if we agree she ran a allout marathon, no. 1 why wasnt she faster than 2:21? and no.2 she should easily be able to run 29:30 if she's running 31:00 after a allout marathon.

somethings fishy here, dont ya think?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Jon » Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:58 am

Daisy wrote:
Jon wrote:
slowcoach wrote:Jon, Do you ever let your admiration for PR come in the way of being objective?


Sometimes, perhaps I might. But I can't see where I'm being objective on this thread.


Jon, that's what they've been saying all along! :wink:


Lol, obviously, I meant to say 'subjective' there!


But Steve – can you tell me where, on this thread, have I been subjective re: Paula? As I keep reiterating, all I've said is that, based on the things she has stated, I strongly doubt she would be capable of a 31min 10km the day after a fast marathon. Now show me – where is the subjectivity there? And seeing as no-one is disagreeing about that fact, then yes, let's move on.

Re: the book, as I explained a couple posts ago, it's a simple concept – someone who has read Paula's book would be more informed than someone who hasn't. Where's the stupidity there?
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Andrea_T » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:52 am

Jon wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Jon wrote:
slowcoach wrote:Jon, Do you ever let your admiration for PR come in the way of being objective?


Sometimes, perhaps I might. But I can't see where I'm being objective on this thread.


Jon, that's what they've been saying all along! :wink:


Lol, obviously, I meant to say 'subjective' there!


But Steve – can you tell me where, on this thread, have I been subjective re: Paula? As I keep reiterating, all I've said is that, based on the things she has stated, I strongly doubt she would be capable of a 31min 10km the day after a fast marathon. Now show me – where is the subjectivity there? And seeing as no-one is disagreeing about that fact, then yes, let's move on.

Re: the book, as I explained a couple posts ago, it's a simple concept – someone who has read Paula's book would be more informed than someone who hasn't. Where's the stupidity there?


Jon, we've moved on from that now, but it was you quoting reading her bio in answer to me saying you couldnt be subjective that was stupid. Geddit? No? So let's move on then!
Andrea_T
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby Jon » Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:41 am

Andrea_T wrote:Jon, we've moved on from that now, but it was you quoting reading her bio in answer to me saying you couldnt be subjective that was stupid. Geddit? No? So let's move on then!


My mention of her bio was not in response to the subjectivity debate – it was in relation to knowing what she has said in the past. It was YOU who picked me up wrong, and have dug yourself a big whole, making yourself look stupid.

But of course you don't go out of your way to attack me... :roll:
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Andrea_T » Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:18 am

Jon wrote:My mention of her bio was not in response to the subjectivity debate – it was in relation to knowing what she has said in the past. It was YOU who picked me up wrong, and have dug yourself a big whole, making yourself look stupid.


Er, excuse me? The conversation went as follows:
Andrea_T wrote:
you did, afterall, design Radcliffe's site, so you're probably not the most objective when it comes to 'our Paula'.
Jon wrote: Perhaps. Or then again, it could also mean that I'm better informed when it comes to Paula. For example: have you, Slowcoach or Powell read both of her books? Cover to cover?

You specifically brought up reading her book in answer to me saying you were not subjective. Read the posts and get it right son.

I suggest you move on from this.
Andrea_T
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Royal Britannia

Postby 26mi235 » Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:29 am

Andrea_T wrote:
Jon wrote:My mention of her bio was not in response to the subjectivity debate – it was in relation to knowing what she has said in the past. It was YOU who picked me up wrong, and have dug yourself a big whole, making yourself look stupid.


Er, excuse me? The conversation went as follows:
Andrea_T wrote:
you did, afterall, design Radcliffe's site, so you're probably not the most objective when it comes to 'our Paula'.
Jon wrote: Perhaps. Or then again, it could also mean that I'm better informed when it comes to Paula. For example: have you, Slowcoach or Powell read both of her books? Cover to cover?

You specifically brought up reading her book in answer to me saying you were not subjective. Read the posts and get it right son.

I suggest you move on from this.


Not that we need more people to weigh in here, but Jon's intepretation is not invalid. He is saying that an alternative to the issue of whether he is objective or not is that if they read the bio they would be more informed and then they would be in a better position to ascertain a number of things about Paula. The only flaw I can see in this is if you thing that the bio is purely propaganda and has nothing to do with whether it accurately portrays her history (propaganda being a much higher bar tahn subjective, as in every "fact" is questionable because it is all a fairy tale).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16324
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Jon » Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:50 am

Andrea_T wrote:The conversation went as follows:
Andrea_T wrote:
you did, afterall, design Radcliffe's site, so you're probably not the most objective when it comes to 'our Paula'.
Jon wrote: Perhaps. Or then again, it could also mean that I'm better informed when it comes to Paula. For example: have you, Slowcoach or Powell read both of her books? Cover to cover?

You specifically brought up reading her book in answer to me saying you were not subjective. Read the posts and get it right son.

I suggest you move on from this.


EXACTLY – see the "also" in my post. Makes all the difference, as it adds another separate point.

I'm glad that others can see what I mean.
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:59 am

OK, time for Jon and Andrea T to take their pissing match offline.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby mojo » Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:00 am

Wow what a mountain out of a molehill!

All Jon is really saying is that Paula says her body is beat up after running a marathon. We can imply from that that she would have difficulty running a world class3K the next day.

Whether Jon is objective or subjective about Paula is irrelevant- though I see no subjectivity on his part.

If we can't take the athlete's word about how they feel whose are we suppose to believe? :roll: :roll:
The rest of the nitpicking is just ridiculous.
mojo
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: at the finish line freezing my butt off

Postby slowcoach » Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:18 am

Jon wrote:... have dug yourself a big whole, making yourself look stupid.


A big whole what?
slowcoach
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mojo » Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:22 am

See my last line slowcoach. :roll: :roll:
mojo
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: at the finish line freezing my butt off

Postby slowcoach » Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:47 am

Sorry Mojo, your post doesn't mention what it was.

(It was merely a swipe at Jonno's nitpicking over the misplaced Athletics' hyphen debacle. Oops, there goes another one.)
slowcoach
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

arm movement

Postby basehead617 » Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:45 pm

i'm late to the earlier discussion but i have found that in competition-intensity runs beyond 800m, i perform much better with minimal arm movement, straight trunk, hips tucked under, and a kind of relaxed mechanical leg turnover with minimal 'up and down' motion. in fact, when first beginning to run mile-and-up distances, my times went down considerably due to these changes after having rather stalled previously -- i do believe there is something to the saving of energy from unnecessary arm movements. Especially for someone like myself who is rather large of build in the arms/upper torso (at 6' 190) , where the weight is significant (unlike say, your average Kenyan).

In the sprints, I found arm strength and 'pumping' of the arms to assist in the racing, to the point of being a necessity to attain maximum speeds.

i am not surprised that a completely relaxed arm style may work for the mechanics of some runners, however awkward it may look..
basehead617
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: arm movement

Postby bad hammy » Tue Nov 01, 2005 8:58 pm

basehead617 wrote:i'm late to the earlier discussion . . .

There is something I like about that turn of phrase.

As for your discussion about arm movement, I have always been under the assumption that, for distance runners, pretty much whatever feels relaxed and natural is best. Assuming that the dead-arms-hanging-down look feels natural and relaxed, all the power to you (and her). But it looks baaaaad . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Powell » Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:26 am

Sun's B sample has now been confirmed as positive.
Powell
 
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Postby bad hammy » Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:59 am

bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:57 am

I'm heartbroken.............NOT.

:D :!: :) :arrow: :shock: :wink: :idea: :D
kuha
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:51 am

so.............

if you want to replace your usual light jog with a 26 miles at 5:25 per mile before a big 10,000 race you apparently need a little help. yeah, ok i got it! :wink:
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby SQUACKEE » Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:59 am

interesting that tergat ran 5 mins. slower than his best in the marathon but complained he was sore. shouldnt he be able to run a min. slower than his best for 10,000 the day after? come on tergat show us a 27:29 :roll:
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest