Two Preliminary Positives: Stambolova and Veneva


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 gh » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:28 am

bennyg wrote:Anybody who does not believe that the Rumanians and Bulgarians have been cheating for the last few decades, also believes in the toooth fairy.


Yes, and those of every other nation on the planet. Period.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby George P. » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:37 am

gh wrote:
bennyg wrote:Anybody who does not believe that the Rumanians and Bulgarians have been cheating for the last few decades, also believes in the toooth fairy.


Yes, and those of every other nation on the planet. Period.

Then, are we supposed to sit back and enjoy this scandalous state of affairs?
George P.
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:47 am

No, it was simply my way of not allowing anybody to tar a whole nation without any evidence. I should just have yanked the offending post.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby eldrick » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:56 am

just a jokey post ( i hope gh sees the funny side ), but whenever i had to type stambolova, i always initially instinctively typed strombalova, before correcting it
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby gh » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:58 am

Not Stanozolova?
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby eldrick » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:01 pm

i'm just a lova
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:09 pm

Atanvarno wrote:
26mi235 wrote:It is not yet clear if this action is for today for for the duration of the Tour.


As of today it's no coverage until Sinkewitz' B-sample is tested. If that comes back positive, no more coverage at all.
And the first news commentators are saying that the same standards should be applied to other sports .


So, we will not talk about the fact that the German stations pulled coverage of the Tour today? The news was announced, not leaked, by parties that had authority to announce the test result. It is not a rumor. The "B" might never be tested, although I think that it will in this case, as Sinkewitz professes absolute surprise.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby gh » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:11 pm

German TV coverage of a cycling race not particularly germane to a track & field current events forum.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Atanvarno » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:14 pm

gh wrote:German TV coverage of a cycling race not particularly germane to a track & field current events forum.


Read my second paragraph. With three athletics positives this week alone it could become a t&f current events topic sooner than we like it.
Atanvarno
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Germany

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:15 pm

gh wrote:German TV coverage of a cycling race not particularly germane to a track & field current events forum.


And if they will not broadcast the Berlin meet? Like it or not, cycling is the sport with probably the greatest degree of similarity with T&F
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Postby eldrick » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:41 pm

i'd have thought swimming, but it is quite surprising lack of of +ves in that in the past few years...?!
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby mark » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:02 pm

I don't have any concerns about Romanian athletes. I find that their big names compete a lot on the international circuit and are consistent. When there have been doping incidents; Iagar, Beclea, Melinte we heard about them and there were suspensions. Physically I have found only one of their major female athletes "questionable" and the developemnt curves of their biggest names have tended to be reasonable. Romania have also not had disordinate success in the heavy throws.
Admittedly another nation beginning with B does tend to raise my heckles but thats another story....
mark
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Canada

Postby mump boy » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:07 pm

mark wrote:I don't have any concerns about Romanian athletes. I find that their big names compete a lot on the international circuit and are consistent. When there have been doping incidents; Iagar, Beclea, Melinte we heard about them and there were suspensions. Physically I have found only one of their major female athletes "questionable" and the developemnt curves of their biggest names have tended to be reasonable. Romania have also not had disordinate success in the heavy throws.
Admittedly another nation beginning with B does tend to raise my heckles but thats another story....


i completely agree

i don't hink suspisions about these 2 were purely based on thier nationality but more to do with excessive improvement and subsequent injury from one and lack of competition from another
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Postby Flumpy » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:20 pm

Pego wrote:
Flumpy wrote:I'm all for targetted testing. They should do more of it, especially for the likes of these two obvious cheats.


It leaves me speechless how people determine that somebody is "obvious" anything.


Being an obsessive athletics fan it is often 'obvious' who the drug cheats are.

I can't remember the last time i was remotely surprised by a drug positive because most of the time those caught have been 'obviously' doped.

Is anyone surprised by these two?

Of course not, because they were 'OBVIOUS'!!!

It's not that hard to understand.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:25 pm

Atanvarno wrote:Read my second paragraph. With three athletics positives this week alone it could become a t&f current events topic sooner than we like it.


There's no athletics on TV anyway so we don't have anything to worry about :P
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby nevetsllim » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:30 pm

mark wrote:I don't have any concerns about Romanian athletes. I find that their big names compete a lot on the international circuit and are consistent. When there have been doping incidents; Iagar, Beclea, Melinte we heard about them and there were suspensions. Physically I have found only one of their major female athletes "questionable" and the developemnt curves of their biggest names have tended to be reasonable. Romania have also not had disordinate success in the heavy throws.
Admittedly another nation beginning with B does tend to raise my heckles but thats another story....


When did Melinte and Iagar fail drug tests?
nevetsllim
 
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:54 am

Postby nevetsllim » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:32 pm

Sorry, I just realised you were talking about Mihaela Melinte, which Iagar are you talking about, out of curiousity?
nevetsllim
 
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:54 am

Postby eldrick » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:39 pm

Flumpy wrote:I can't remember the last time i was remotely surprised by a drug positive because most of the time those caught have been 'obviously' doped.

Is anyone surprised by these two?

Of course not, because they were 'OBVIOUS'!!!

It's not that hard to understand.


c'mon flumps

are you saying that you thought gatlin was a doper when he ran 10.08ajr/19.86 as a college boy ?

when he turned pro, he won golds, got new coach & his 100 time went to 9.77wr, but his 200 went to 20.01 ?

that struck me as tilting his speed-endurance curve in favor of the 100 & giving up on 200 times
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Pego » Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:56 pm

Flumpy wrote:
Pego wrote:
Flumpy wrote:I'm all for targetted testing. They should do more of it, especially for the likes of these two obvious cheats.


It leaves me speechless how people determine that somebody is "obvious" anything.


Being an obsessive athletics fan it is often 'obvious' who the drug cheats are.

I can't remember the last time i was remotely surprised by a drug positive because most of the time those caught have been 'obviously' doped.

Is anyone surprised by these two?

Of course not, because they were 'OBVIOUS'!!!

It's not that hard to understand.


When women started being tested for Barr bodies, a lot of things were "obvious" to a lot of people. The Press sisters, Irena Kirszenstein were "obvious". Guess what? They passed and Irena got married, had a child (what better proof she is a real female?).
The ones that flunked the test (Schchelkanova, Klobukowska) struck everybody as "pretty girls", nobody would predict it.

I may not be surprised, because after Gatlin, hardly anything can surprise me anymore, but to me nobody, absolutely nobody is obvious.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:03 pm

Pego, therein is the challenge: we:re not on the playing field with these people. When other athletes freeze you out and begin making comments, that should be at least cause to stop and ascertain why they may be doing so.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby El Toro » Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:04 pm

So when the IAAF does a no-advance-notice, out-of-competition test in Canada, does that make it NANOOC of the North?
El Toro
 
Posts: 903
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby andyjgt » Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:07 pm

mark wrote:I don't have any concerns about Romanian athletes. I find that their big names compete a lot on the international circuit and are consistent. When there have been doping incidents; Iagar, Beclea, Melinte we heard about them and there were suspensions. Physically I have found only one of their major female athletes "questionable" and the developemnt curves of their biggest names have tended to be reasonable. Romania have also not had disordinate success in the heavy throws.
Admittedly another nation beginning with B does tend to raise my heckles but thats another story....


I'm not sure how suspect Romanians are, they are/were more female-dominated than ANY other country, even in Soviet times (the GDR had a VERY good male team...), but other countries (notably Bulgaria) have a MORE female-dominated team than in the old days...
Croatia seem slightly iffy to me, since this small country is suddenly a power in the throws... and some runner who ran 2:21 in the WY (in Debrecen!), despite having a PB of 2:12, improves last year to 2 flat (2:11 - 2:06 -2:04 - 2:00 none of which were regularly run in that year), while never promising such an improvement beforehand.
andyjgt
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Deepest Polynesia

Postby Tristan » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:06 pm

Pego wrote:When women started being tested for Barr bodies, a lot of things were "obvious" to a lot of people. The Press sisters, Irena Kirszenstein were "obvious". Guess what? They passed and Irena got married, had a child (what better proof she is a real female?).
The ones that flunked the test (Schchelkanova, Klobukowska) struck everybody as "pretty girls", nobody would predict it.
I may not be surprised, because after Gatlin, hardly anything can surprise me anymore, but to me nobody, absolutely nobody is obvious.


why bring up unfortunate klobukowska? i mean, are you saying she was a "cheat?"
Tristan
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:48 am

Postby gh » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:16 pm

El Toro wrote:So when the IAAF does a no-advance-notice, out-of-competition test in Canada, does that make it NANOOC of the North?


that is very good!
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:54 pm

Bergqvist finally at ease -- after 10 years of suspicion:

Kajsa Bergqvist blev både lättad och glad när hon fick reda på att konkurrenten Venelina Veneva åkt fast för dopning med testosteron.

-Jag har misstänkt henne i nästan tio års tid, säger Bergqvist till TT.

-Så som hon har lagt upp sina säsonger och plötsligt dykt upp på mästerskap har jag fattat att det varit något skumt. Att hon äntligen är fast är en oerhörd lättnad men man hade hoppats att det hade skett tidigare, säger Kajsa Bergqvist.

TV4
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Pego » Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:55 am

Tristan wrote:
Pego wrote:When women started being tested for Barr bodies, a lot of things were "obvious" to a lot of people. The Press sisters, Irena Kirszenstein were "obvious". Guess what? They passed and Irena got married, had a child (what better proof she is a real female?).
The ones that flunked the test (Schchelkanova, Klobukowska) struck everybody as "pretty girls", nobody would predict it.
I may not be surprised, because after Gatlin, hardly anything can surprise me anymore, but to me nobody, absolutely nobody is obvious.


why bring up unfortunate klobukowska? i mean, are you saying she was a "cheat?"


I am with you. If you re-read the exchange, I am saying that to say something is "obvious", it usually isn't.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby Pego » Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:01 am

EPelle wrote:Pego, therein is the challenge: we:re not on the playing field with these people. When other athletes freeze you out and begin making comments, that should be at least cause to stop and ascertain why they may be doing so.


I agree. That's what the testing is for. We have seen many accusations thrown at people based on a little more than suppositions. It was suggested for comparison that criminal investigation also does not require "absolute" proof. It is true, but SOME physical evidence is generally required (or, it should be).
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:09 am

Good, we:re both in agreement!

Swedish newspapers have the Budapest tests as targeted ones, with Stambolova and Veneva both out-of-competition tested at the same place at the same time away from home. Veneva failed her other test in Sofia. One theory is that an informant tipped testers on the 24/7/365 IAAF informant line which athletes are able to call in order to leave tips.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby marknhj » Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:51 am

EPelle wrote:Bergqvist finally at ease -- after 10 years of suspicion:

Kajsa Bergqvist blev både lättad och glad när hon fick reda på att konkurrenten Venelina Veneva åkt fast för dopning med testosteron.

-Jag har misstänkt henne i nästan tio års tid, säger Bergqvist till TT.

-Så som hon har lagt upp sina säsonger och plötsligt dykt upp på mästerskap har jag fattat att det varit något skumt. Att hon äntligen är fast är en oerhörd lättnad men man hade hoppats att det hade skett tidigare, säger Kajsa Bergqvist.

TV4


Translation please!
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:30 am

Kajsa became both relieved and glad when she learned that rival Venelina Veneva was caught for doping with testosterone.

"I have suspected her for almost 10 years time," says Bergqvist to TT.

"As [the way] she has set up her seasons and suddenly appeared at championships, I have understood that there was something shady. That she has finally gotten caught is an unbelievable relief, but one had hoped that it could have occured earlier," says Kajsa Bergqvist.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:44 am

eldrick wrote:
Flumpy wrote:c'mon flumps

are you saying that you thought gatlin was a doper when he ran 10.08ajr/19.86 as a college boy ?

when he turned pro, he won golds, got new coach & his 100 time went to 9.77wr, but his 200 went to 20.01 ?

that struck me as tilting his speed-endurance curve in favor of the 100 & giving up on 200 times


I thought Gatlin was a doper the minute he hooked up with Trevor Graham.

Absolutely no surprises there at all.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:53 am

EPelle wrote:
Kajsa became both relieved and glad when she learned that rival Venelina Veneva was caught for doping with testosterone.

"I have suspected her for almost 10 years time," says Bergqvist to TT.

"As [the way] she has set up her seasons and suddenly appeared at championships, I have understood that there was something shady. That she has finally gotten caught is an unbelievable relief, but one had hoped that it could have occured earlier," says Kajsa Bergqvist.


I think we can safely say that Kasja speaks for us all there.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:43 am

Flumpy wrote:
eldrick wrote:c'mon flumps

are you saying that you thought gatlin was a doper when he ran 10.08ajr/19.86 as a college boy ?

when he turned pro, he won golds, got new coach & his 100 time went to 9.77wr, but his 200 went to 20.01 ?

that struck me as tilting his speed-endurance curve in favor of the 100 & giving up on 200 times

I thought Gatlin was a doper the minute he hooked up with Trevor Graham.

Absolutely no surprises there at all.


well, trevor managed to get him to win a 200 title, but flushed his 200 times down the drain
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby eldrick » Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:49 am

Flumpy wrote:
EPelle wrote:
Kajsa became both relieved and glad when she learned that rival Venelina Veneva was caught for doping with testosterone.

"I have suspected her for almost 10 years time," says Bergqvist to TT.

"As [the way] she has set up her seasons and suddenly appeared at championships, I have understood that there was something shady. That she has finally gotten caught is an unbelievable relief, but one had hoped that it could have occured earlier," says Kajsa Bergqvist.


I think we can safely say that Kasja speaks for us all there.


if she'd been doping consistently for many years you woud have at least expected a sustained high-level of performance for a good few years - like ben johnson running 9.95 from '85 onwards ( which was low-altitude wr at the time ) to 9.79 in '88

steroids are supposed to give you a sustained residual effect ( some people argue 2y bans are too short as steroid improvements may last longer than this ) - which is not consistent with jumping 1.90+ in early season & 2.00++ later on - you'd have expected her to have hardly ever dipped under 2.00 if she'd been doping for years
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby Flumpy » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:03 am

eldrick wrote:if she'd been doping consistently for many years you woud have at least expected a sustained high-level of performance for a good few years - like ben johnson running 9.95 from '85 onwards ( which was low-altitude wr at the time ) to 9.79 in '88

steroids are supposed to give you a sustained residual effect ( some people argue 2y bans are too short as steroid improvements may last longer than this ) - which is not consistent with jumping 1.90+ in early season & 2.00++ later on - you'd have expected her to have hardly ever dipped under 2.00 if she'd been doping for years


Don't be ridiculous. In a technical event like the HJ there are all kinds of reasons that you might not the results you want whether you are doped or not.

Anyway it's not just performances that make some cheats obvious.

http://delivery.viewimages.com/xv/71631 ... BBC6742ACA

I rest my case.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:27 am

it doesn't explain why most every year her early season started out crap & then improved, unless she made a point of being technically crap each & every early season

assuming that wasn't the case & she tried hard technically every year from the start, i'd have expected at least some improved progression year upon year even from the start if on steroids long term :

1.90 - one year
1.92 - the next
1.94 - the next after
1.96 - following, etc...

steroids make you bigger & stronger for a long time & even if she had technical issues each early season, you'd still expect a derisory 1.90 when she 1st started off, to be a good few cm higher a few years on the drugs with similar technical deficiencies
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby nevetsllim » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:21 pm

Veneva jumped 2.03m in May last year, 1.98m at the beginning of June in 2005 (5th in the world), 2.01m in early June in 2004, 2.04m (WL) in early June in 2001, 2.01m in early June again in 2000 plus a world-leading leap of 2.03m in May 1998 so that completely rubbishes your argument.
nevetsllim
 
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:54 am

Postby eldrick » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:45 pm

it wasn't me who originally stated that she started off each season as crap & then miraculously got better at culmination - that was 2nd hand info

your stats show she didn't have early-season technical problems & she was generally excellent when she competed

she even seemed similar in abilty between '98 - '06, which is not the expected steroid gradual improvement progression
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby jla » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:45 pm

eldrick wrote:it doesn't explain why most every year her early season started out crap & then improved, unless she made a point of being technically crap each & every early season


No, the typical Veneva season was not "starting out crap & then improve". Rather the opposite:

It was jumping great heights early in the summer in non-major meets close to home (Bulgaria or Greece) and almost no competition at all during the month or so leading up to the major championships. She was usually conspicuously absent from the major GP/GL-meets during the main part of the season where all the other top jumpers competed against each other.

Out of her fourteen 2.00+ outdoor meets between 1998 and 2006 seven were in Greece and two in Bulgaria. All these nine meets were between 23 May and 6 June! (Of the remaining five 2.00+ meets three came in August 2006.)

It is inevitable that a consistent competitive pattern like that during a career stretching over a decade raises questions, especially among the other world class high jumpers.

That she - until the 2006 Europeans - always failed to reproduce anything even close to her early season form at the championships was also contributing to the suspicions.
jla
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby pela2 » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:50 pm

Veneva's all +=1.98 competitions outdoors

2.04 1 Kalamáta 02.06.2001
2.04 1 Zürich 18.08.2006
2.03 1 Kalámai 23.05.1998
2.03 1 Filothei 31.05.2006
2.03 2 Göteborg 11.08.2006
2.01 1 Kalámai 04.06.2000
2.01 1 Rieti 07.09.2003
2.01 1 Plovdiv 06.06.2004
2.00 1 Filothei 31.05.2000
2.00 1 Sofia 27.05.2001
2.00 1 Athínai 30.05.2001
2.00 1 Saint-Denis 06.07.2001
2.00 1 Kalamáta 03.06.2006
2.00 1 Rieti 27.08.2006
1.98 1 Saint-Denis 04.06.1998
1.98 4 Saint-Denis 31.08.2003
1.98 4= Bruxelles 05.09.2003
1.98 1 Istanbul 04.06.2005
1.98 2 Bruxelles 25.08.2006
1.98 3 Zagreb 31.08.2006
1.98 3 Stuttgart 09.09.2006
pela2
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: N 58°18.76' E 12°16.28'

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest