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 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: 16323
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: 9017
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

Postby Bob R » Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:45 am

From article linked to from front page -

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/18/content_504321.htm

Apparently Sun >was< doped by someone else.
Bob R
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:09 am

Hands up everyone who believes that.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby 26mi235 » Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:42 am

To qoute someone from the beginning of the story, this seems too scripted.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby EPelle » Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:48 am

Is someone willing to compile a list of excuses provided by athletes who tested positive - beginning with Dieter Baumann (who subsequently offered a reward for info on who tainted his toothpaste)?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:57 am

Oh please. The old Narozilenko excuse. I don't think anyone is going to fall for that again.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:26 am

Flumpy wrote:Oh please. The old Narozilenko excuse. I don't think anyone is going to fall for that again.

Hopefully not... Baumann:s story released 00.01.12.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby kuha » Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:37 am

MJD wrote:Hands up everyone who believes that.


Given the subject in question here, I find this hilarious! My hat's off to MJD for his sly sense of humor...

And, no, my hands are not up...
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Postby gh » Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:13 pm

Important to note that the IAAF suspended Naroz. anyway, despite her ex-husband's "confession."
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby mump boy » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:21 am

gh wrote:Important to note that the IAAF suspended Naroz. anyway, despite her ex-husband's "confession."



and then they re-instated her under the unusual circumsatances rule

i seem to remember LaVonna Martin using the same excuse. her coach put them in her supplemants. and she escaped a ban.
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Postby Kobayashi » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:39 am

MJD wrote:Hands up everyone who believes that.


Why would we not believe it? Do you have any additional information, or do you just think all Chinese are liars? Since you are many thousands of miles away from China and have offered only a sarcastic rhetorical question, I guess we should assume the latter.
Kobayashi
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Kobayashi » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:47 am

mump boy wrote:
gh wrote:Important to note that the IAAF suspended Naroz. anyway, despite her ex-husband's "confession."


and then they re-instated her under the unusual circumsatances rule.


And quite right too! Does anyone really think we should ban people who have drugs put into their body against their knowledge?

Remember that the burden of proof is on the athlete to show that the drugs entered their system without their knowledge and the authorities are not naive - it's not enough to simply not ask what is in a pill or drink, for example - we are talking about people who have had food and drink maliciously spiked!

I am bemused as to how people who so distrust athletes can ever enjoy the sport.
Kobayashi
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:49 am

Kobayashi wrote:do you just think all Chinese are liars?

I think that is a bit broad. How about "do you think all athletes who get a positive drugs test are liars?".

This is true in academics too. I have caught students cheating red handed but they go into their "I deny it, I deny it, I deny it, your word against mine", mode. Not to mention that they ALWAYS have an excuse. They learn it from professional athletes and professional politicians. It is todays culture. Big buisness will become even more corrupt in the future if this is what i am seeing in the class room. Same for sports.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Kobayashi » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:52 am

Of course they all deny it and the majority are banned anyway. We are talking about a very few who not just deny it but offer a specific excuse, which they must then *proove* to the authorities.

Thus, to disbelieve Sun Yingjie here is to claim that *all* those involved - her, the guy who confessed and a bunch of officials - are part of a conspiracy. There is no reason to suppose this from thousands of miles away except racism.
Kobayashi
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:54 am

Kobayashi wrote:There is no reason to suppose this from thousands of miles away except racism.

I beg to differ. This is just the pattern that we see for all athletes that get caught. Cynical yes, racism no.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:58 am

Kobayashi wrote:I am bemused as to how people who so distrust athletes can ever enjoy the sport.

And this is going to be a big problem in the future. In the last issue of T&FN there was a long time subscriber who wrote about the reasons he was not going to renew his subscription. Basically it was because he no longer enjoyed the sport since he did not know who was clean and could not enjoy the great performances anymore. This is a big problem for tracks popularity.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Kobayashi » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:04 am

Daisy wrote:This is just the pattern that we see for all athletes that get caught. Cynical yes, racism no.


No, it's not. The 'pattern' is that athlete gets caught and denies ever having taken any drugs ever. We all laugh at such denials.

This is different. She has PROVEN that she did not knowingly take in drugs. She isn't just claiming it, she's produced proof and convinced the authorities. She hasn't denied that the drugs were there, or claimed some odd medical history. This also explains how she passed another test a few days earlier.

False positives are a really big deal. We should be *really* sympathetic to anyone forced to go through such an ordeal. I know someone who was once falsely accused of rape - their accuser was actually prosecuted for wasting police time but this didn't stop the 'no smoke without fire' bastards from driving him out of town.

So, I ask again - what reason does anyone have to doubt this story? Cynicism won't wash - this is not the normal pattern of denial. We have nothing but the linked report to go on. Eliminate all other reasons and we are left with: Chinese are all cheating bastards and an official conspiracy is just what we expect from them. Racism, in other words.
Kobayashi
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:12 am

Kobayashi wrote:Chinese are all cheating bastards and an official conspiracy is just what we expect from them. Racism, in other words.

I think you are putting words into peoples mouths here. Bauman got the same treatment. This is justified cynicism. I'm really surprised you see it as racism, that had never crossed my mind reading this thread.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby marknhj » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:17 am

Racism? You would have got the same LOL response had it been an athlete from Britain, Ireland, USA or anywhere else caught. The excuses these drug cheats come up with are hilarious. And do we have reason to believe China has a bit of history in the juicing arena? Duh...
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Kobayashi » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:18 am

IT'S NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE SHE'S NOT JUST *CLAIMING* TAMPERING, SHE'S *PROVEN* IT!

Jeez. Sorry to shout, I just seem to be having trouble getting my point across. Had Baumann produced good evidence (which seems to mean someone confessing) then we'd not have laughed at him.

This is *not* a normal case, it's a case of an athlete *proving* that they have been falsely accused. To disbelieve this one muct argue that the person who 'fessed up and the authorities are in on the conspiracy. What possible reason is there to believe this?
Kobayashi
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:19 am

Kobayashi wrote:So, I ask again - what reason does anyone have to doubt this story? Cynicism won't wash - this is not the normal pattern of denial. We have nothing but the linked report to go on. Eliminate all other reasons and we are left with: Chinese are all cheating bastards and an official conspiracy is just what we expect from them. Racism, in other words.

You are way off base here - racism has zip to do with it. No one believed the drug-in-toothpaste story a few years back either. Cynicism is the natural response to any 'they spiked my stuff' story, period.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest