Marion to plead guilty to doping!

[eldrick]

i've never been too sure about doping with 100h

after all, back in bad ole days, they probably only took steroids ( nothing else i can think of apart from some gowth hormone which does same job as steroids ) to make them "stronger" & "quicker" on the flat

however, i doubt they coud still break 11s with those, whereas a gail had "natural" 10.7 ability ( "basic" )/was pretty damn strong ( see those legs ) & she coudn't break 12.3 ( ok not the greatest technique, but good enough to have won some globals over the stix )!

i can't see steroids "improving" technique, so i think to run 12.2, they musta had far superior technique than the later athletes & that has to be put down more to superior talent ( technique-wise ) + coaching, than drugs

bottom line : i don't think it's an automatic choice that hat those 12.2 gals were all on drugs

[Mats Nilsson]

the time-frame mentioned was referring to you, not linford

Ok Eldrick, that was understood. My interactions with athletes around him in the GB national team occurred in 1995 and onwards, thus, 7-8 years after the 1988 final. He was still running mate. Regardless, it is naive to think he was clean...and it was naive to think that Marion was clean after her husband was caught for roids as well. Thus, just like Tafnut [astute Marion defender] had his USA-goggles on back then you have your GB goggles on right now.

EDIT: I am sure that the hypocritical Swedes had their Swedish goggles on when Ludmila Enqvist won gold in Atlanta. It is quite normal to be patriotic, but it is another thing being naive to the point of stupidity.

Nobody has suggested that Linford was clean throughout his career. It's something that we can't be certain about. The only point being made here is that his retirement positive made no sense and generally assumed to have come from tainted supplements rather than blatant cheating.

As for your Enquist remarks they're just weird. I don't think she was ever particularly accepted by the Swedish public and when she failed a test for the 2nd time she was completely ostracised. There is probably nowhere in the world more anti drug than Sweden. In what way are they hypocrites?

Flumpy, I would have came out as a preaching and judgmental person unless I would have added in an introspective comment [I am a Swede]. I was trying to be nice to Eldrick. Anyhow, people in general were semi-happy when Ludmila won 1996 no doubts [have you ever a Scandinavian being more than semi-happy?] . Some people in the Swedish track family hated her no matter what she did so I guess you are correct [she was never entirely accepted]. In general, Joe Schmoe probably appreciated her more than her fellow team mates. The thing is...after her Olympic gold people sort of forgot that she actually had tested positive once in her career previously. Now she was a celebrated Swede all of a sudden. I find this ironic a little bit hypocritical particularly considering our strict stance against doping [we are all Arne Ljungqvist clones ]. It was also interesting to see that the same people that celebrated her achievements completely turned on her and basically forced her out of the country once she was caught doing drugs after her track career. For God's sake...she had already tested positive previously in her career. Why did they accept her in the first place? Simple answer: She was a good athlete that would bring glory to the nation. So are we more hypocritical than North Americans in general? That smiley should answer your question, but there are always exceptions. Most of my life her in the States I have indeed been surrounded with A+ individuals. I have no complaints.

So no Flumpy, it was not a weird remark.

[marknhj]

i've never been too sure about doping with 100h

Eldy. You consistently baffle me with your comments about drugs. PEDs can significantly improve performance in every single event. Without question. Period. It's a sport that is still riddled with drug takers at the elite level, and, most probably at many levels beneath. It has been for decades and will likely remain so into the near future and beyond. Watch and enjoy knowing that, or give up and watch tiddlywinks. But please stop defending these frigin' cheats.

[bad hammy]

Sunday edition: zero stories about MJ . . .

But on Tuesday we get an editiorial and an editorial cartoon:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... DSM76Q.DTL


Tom Meyers of the SF Chronicle 10-9-07

[eldrick]

mark

i was being event specific when mentioning drugs with the 100h

even if those 12.2 gals were stuffed to the gills with 'roids, they were probably 0.3s slower over the flat than gail, but managed to be ~ 0.2s faster than her over the stix when she was at her fastest on the flat ( early '90s )

i can only see a vastly superior technique achieving that ( & gail's wasn't bad ) & i'm not aware of any drug back then or know, which improves your technique

i'm just saying the case for drug improvement in this event is not cut-&-dried ( same may apply to 110h, where wr has moved on from 12.92 to 12.88 in nearly 20y & if you adjust for lausanne's 500m+ altitude, there's no improvement at all )

[marknhj]

Sunday edition: zero stories about MJ . . .

But on Tuesday we get an editiorial and an editorial cartoon:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... DSM76Q.DTL


Tom Meyers of the SF Chronicle 10-9-07

And Jay Leno mentioned Jones last night; said something like she called the USC football team at halftime and offered them her steroids that she no longer needed....

[Jon]

i was being event specific when mentioning drugs with the 100h

Which is what is so baffling. It's not like all the drug cheats are shared across all the other events, while everyone who competes in the 110H is clean. Engqvist, Damu Cherry, Larry Wade, Tony Dees, Mark McKoy, Svetla Dimitrova, etc - they all produced their best performances while on the juice, so I think that's enough proof.

The sprint hurdles combines both technique and speed. Drugs won't help much with the former, but it can help HEAPS with the latter.

I shall await your customary contrary reply with yawning breath...

[Flumpy]

Flumpy, I would have came out as a preaching and judgmental person unless I would have added in an introspective comment [I am a Swede]. I was trying to be nice to Eldrick. Anyhow, people in general were semi-happy when Ludmila won 1996 no doubts [have you ever a Scandinavian being more than semi-happy?] . Some people in the Swedish track family hated her no matter what she did so I guess you are correct [she was never entirely accepted]. In general, Joe Schmoe probably appreciated her more than her fellow team mates. The thing is...after her Olympic gold people sort of forgot that she actually had tested positive once in her career previously. Now she was a celebrated Swede all of a sudden. I find this ironic a little bit hypocritical particularly considering our strict stance against doping [we are all Arne Ljungqvist clones ]. It was also interesting to see that the same people that celebrated her achievements completely turned on her and basically forced her out of the country once she was caught doing drugs after her track career. For God's sake...she had already tested positive previously in her career. Why did they accept her in the first place? Simple answer: She was a good athlete that would bring glory to the nation. So are we more hypocritical than North Americans in general? That smiley should answer your question, but there are always exceptions. Most of my life her in the States I have indeed been surrounded with A+ individuals. I have no complaints.

So no Flumpy, it was not a weird remark.

Sorry I thought you were just slaagging off Swedes and after GB Sweden are my favourite team so I got a bit offended.

[mump boy]

i'm a little bit with eldy

ludmilla enquist had the best tecnique i can remember. of course drugs can help your spead but they can't help your trail leg.

[Andrea_T]

But they can help you practice your trail leg again and again and again and again and again and again...

[croflash]

Lauryn Williams has posted some thoughts about Marion Jones in her blog:

http://wcsnblogs.com/track-and-field/laurynwilliams

[mump boy]

But they can help you practice your trail leg again and again and again and again and again and again...

true but i have a feeling some people don't bother practicing at all.

[paddyb]

Anyhow, there is only one person that I can see that was absolutely clean in the 1988 Olympic final and it wasn't Linford.

I'd love to know what evidence there is that allows you to come to the conclusion that there was one person in that final that was absolutely clean? Impossible to know.

So your evidence would be...

they had a steady and gradual improvement over the years? (guess what - so can people on PED's)

they were gracious in defeat (actually Marion and the like can come across very gracious when they feel like it)

they were an all-round good guy (well guess again - PED users can be good guys too. Gatlin was probably a nice guy before he was so evil and took some pills - being facetious in case you don;t know my tone!)

Oh ... and of course - it's because they declared to the world that they were clean - well you name someone who has been busted who never publically stated they were clean. Of course they say they are clean. They have too. It would be a bit of dead giveaway if they said... "well actually I don't have an opinion on whether you should take drugs or not!"

The simple fact is that no-one can ever know who is taking what - because we know that drug tests don't catch anyone. Not even some spouses would know if their husbands/wives are on something, considering the dozens of supplements everyone takes. They could totally be in teh dark.

[Jon]

i'm a little bit with eldy

ludmilla enquist had the best tecnique i can remember. of course drugs can help your spead but they can't help your trail leg.

And I agree with the technique point, too.

But there have been loads of hurdlers throughout the years with awesome technique and no speed - and that only gets you so far. Engqvist needed speed to bring her down to the 12.2 level (she already had the technique) and she could gain that extra edge by taking drugs.

[Andrea_T]

Lauryn Williams has posted some thoughts about Marion Jones in her blog:

http://wcsnblogs.com/track-and-field/laurynwilliams

What a great blog! Wish I'd been aware of that sooner, some interesting entries. Thanks!

[jazzcyclist]

Does anyone know the details of the ultimatim that the Feds gave to MJ?

[eldrick]

i'm a little bit with eldy

ludmilla enquist had the best tecnique i can remember. of course drugs can help your spead but they can't help your trail leg.

And I agree with the technique point, too.

But there have been loads of hurdlers throughout the years with awesome technique and no speed - and that only gets you so far. Engqvist needed speed to bring her down to the 12.2 level (she already had the technique) and she could gain that extra edge by taking drugs.

i'd esimate drug improvement in the event is small

now, with flat-sprinting, virtually all the strength gain from drugs goes into increased speed & for a rough estimate, i'd wager no more than ~0.3s ( i think the max improvement a natural 11.0 gal is likely to get to with them is maybe 10.7 ( & for those who don't believe that marion wasn't at least a natural 11.0 gal, needs their head examining )

now, with hurdles, it's speed + technique

at best, drugs have a small effect on latter,but still all the speed increase

how much improvement to ascribe ?

i'd say 1/2 to 2/3 of that of a flat sprinter's improvement of 0.3s

for donkey with her 12.21, that woud mean something like

12.21 + ( 1/2 of 0.3s to 2/3 of 0.3s ) = ~ 12.36 - 12.41 naturally

for nazy, with her 12.26, = ~ 12.41 - 12.46 naturally

that is immense natural talent & couda won every recent global except '04

[eldrick]

Does anyone know the details of the ultimatim that the Feds gave to MJ?

jazzy, i think there is little chance of us ever finding out :

- if they admit they only got the confession thru exerting pressure of the lock-tight check-fraud charge, the confession has little validity ( marion woud probably have given them the colonel's recipe for his fry-mix if it woud save her 4y+ in jail ) & they look mugs

- if marion comes out on oprah or in her book, & says she said whatever the feds wanted her to say ( in view of above ) & that the confession was bogus & she never took drugs, then she is saying the admission to balco perjury was a lie & therefore a further perjury , that woud mean more jail time

logically, i just can't see us ever getting disclosures

[RMc]

i've never been too sure about doping with 100h

Eldy. You consistently baffle me with your comments about drugs. PEDs can significantly improve performance in every single event. Without question. Period. It's a sport that is still riddled with drug takers at the elite level, and, most probably at many levels beneath. It has been for decades and will likely remain so into the near future and beyond. Watch and enjoy knowing that, or give up and watch tiddlywinks. But please stop defending these frigin' cheats.

As I've posted earlier (you can search for it in the archives), I've looked at historic performances statistically in several ways, and you can see (1) that periodic improvement "bursts" have been the norm in the sport for decades, even before PEDs were common or even known and (2) that the increased drug testing vigilance appears to have had a significant impact as measured through performance decreases in notable events in the late 80's and early '90s.

Obviously, the sport is not clean. But on the other hand, it is probably cleaner than it was 20 years ago based on the evidence we have from indirect evidence.

[Mennisco]

never mind.

[Mennisco]

Sunday edition: zero stories about MJ . . .

But on Tuesday we get an editiorial and an editorial cartoon:

That is TFHilarious, thank you Hamster!!



I am so glad they opened the hollow deck agin, as I can post a bit and not feel like I have blown my sobriety.

[Mats Nilsson]

Anyhow, there is only one person that I can see that was absolutely clean in the 1988 Olympic final and it wasn't Linford.

I'd love to know what evidence there is that allows you to come to the conclusion that there was one person in that final that was absolutely clean? Impossible to know.

A) Inside information perhaps? If that answer does not satisfy you go ahead and read some speculations on http://www.mid-day.com/sports/internati ... /77731.htm
B) Common sense. Sprint is the dirtiest event in track and field followed by shot-put, hammer and discus. Unless I am way off base I remember Linford being "caught" with "pseudo?"-ephedrine in his urine during the games. We all know what happened to Ben. Why were some of the Santa Monica sprinters always wearing braces you think? Dennis Mitchell was caught later with testosterone. Desai Williams was implicated as being apart of the same doping ring as Johnson, but denies...just like you said...why wouldn't he? Ray Stewart apparently tested positive earlier during the season (hearsay?) and "pulled out" of the race. Da Silva was probably clean along with the most deserving gold medallist Calvin Smith.

So I guess I was wrong...perhaps 2 people were clean (?) in my humble opinion. Speculations I know. Of course I cannot be 100% sure, but I think there is enough circumstances supporting my conclusion (The lowest P-value you see being used in medical science for significance is 0.001. Even science is not 100% sure, yet we tend to take these scientific findings as absolute truths). Let's leave it like that. It is quite annoying that people are so naive though. I think it has something to do with national pride as well. The US is just as bad as Russia when it comes to hiding or ignoring their most embarrassing secrets. Sweden would never publicly admit that our athletes are probably just as dirty as the Finnish athletes [I actually don't believe so either ]. It is not good for public policy I guess. Dick Pound is the best thing that could have happened to the North-American continent. The sport will be cleaned out.

[paddyb]

A) Inside information perhaps? If that answer does not satisfy you go ahead and read some speculations on

Da Silva was probably clean along with the most deserving gold medallist Calvin Smith.

you can have all the inside information you want - unless you are with someone 24 hours a day you can never tell if they are 100% clean.

What makes you think Da Silva and Smith were clean? Because they said so...???? because they are good guys? becuase they were consistent???? That is not enough evidence..

[Mats Nilsson]

never mind me either...

[Mats Nilsson]

What makes you think Da Silva and Smith were clean? Because they said so...???? because they are good guys? becuase they were consistent???? That is not enough evidence..

No I can't be 100% sure....and the sun may run out of hydrogen tomorrow and pigs [excluding cops] may fly. I am not making these assumptions based on how nice Calvin is/was as a person mate. All people that are involved in track are usually darn friendly and I think you know that. In my experience, drug-users are generally very courteous and I think they are not morally inferior to someone who is using medication to improve their sexual performance. So no...you can't draw any major conclusions just based on personalities. They are usually not sociopathic, criminal or violent, which would have made it easier to pick them out in a line up [in addition to their obvious improved physique]. Take a look at Calvin's body...T.I.N.Y. Add his persona to the mix and the likelihood of him using anabolic steroids are slim next to nothing. It would be like accusing Carolina Kluft of roiding.

[eldrick]

Take a look at Calvin's body...T.I.N.Y. Add his persona to the mix and the likelihood of him using anabolic steroids are slim next to nothing. It would be like accusing Carolina Kluft of roiding.

you know well enough that appearance is no basis of deciding drug-use : the ddr women sprinters weren't big - the philosophy behind their regime was to strengthen up with drugs, but not add bulk up

a "tiny" athlete coud be just applying same principles - get 10 - 20% stronger with drugs, but restrict protein intake to keep weight constant

[paddyb]

Take a look at Calvin's body...T.I.N.Y. Add his persona to the mix and the likelihood of him using anabolic steroids are slim next to nothing. It would be like accusing Carolina Kluft of roiding.

you know well enough that appearance is no basis of deciding drug-use : the ddr women sprinters weren't big - the philosophy behind their regime was to strengthen up with drugs, but not add bulk up

a "tiny" athlete coud be just applying same principles - get 10 - 20% stronger with drugs, but restrict protein intake to keep weight constant

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks eldrick.

[Mats Nilsson]

Take a look at Calvin's body...T.I.N.Y. Add his persona to the mix and the likelihood of him using anabolic steroids are slim next to nothing. It would be like accusing Carolina Kluft of roiding.

you know well enough that appearance is no basis of deciding drug-use : the ddr women sprinters weren't big - the philosophy behind their regime was to strengthen up with drugs, but not add bulk up

a "tiny" athlete coud be just applying same principles - get 10 - 20% stronger with drugs, but restrict protein intake to keep weight constant

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks eldrick.

Eldrick, you are playing devil's advocate. On one hand you are arguing that steroids don't "really work" [THG in other threads for example] on the other hand you say that you get 10-20% stronger. A strong lean sprinter will always be faster than his twin brother [who decided not to use roids] and is relatively weak but just as lean. Make up your mind will you.

Either way...in general people that use roids are bigger, stronger, and faster. Only vegetarians and people who want to reduce their acid/base ratio [renal stone prone people for example] cut protein intake. If you don't have the amino acids mate...you cannot build either strength or muscle [they are kind of dependent upon another for long-term adaptations wouldn't you think ).

[eldrick]

mats

i said nothing about steroids not working, but them having different efficacy :

a) stanzolol/turinabol/etc - dynamite anabolic effect ( i'm sure you'll get your 20% strength improvement there with no added bulk ) - full agonists

b) THG - moderate anabolic effect ( iirc, gestrinone is a partial agonist & hydrogenating it was to make it undetectable - it won't make it a full agonist ( the hydrogenation occurs at the other end of the molecule from the "anabolic receptor insertion" part ) ) - no matter what dose you take of a partial agonist, you won't get the anabolic effect of a decent dose of the above

c) growth hormone is not an anabolic steroid - it's not a steroid, but an anabolic polypeptide with no steroid structure - it has anabolic effects, but not anywhere as effective as a) ( imo )

anecdotally from reading on the web, i'd rate their anabolic effect of a) far greater than the other 2 ( which of the other 2 has better anabolic effects, i have no idea - little data to go on )

as for your protein-restriction, i assume you mean it has to be restricted in chronic renal failure in order to reduce urea production

[MattMarriott]

Since my thread with the end of the story was deleted from trackandfieldnews.com, here a link to other sites where you still can read it:
http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/show ... p?t=185209
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3449
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72214
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.ph ... did=204163

[tafnut]

here a link to other sites where you still can read it:

This is too good to pass up - from one of the links MattM provides:

IAAF to Consider Investigating Sprinter Jones (campaign to destroy natural sport continues) Washington Post, Page D10 ^ | December 4, 2004

[bolding and underlining provided by me to emphasize the terrible unfairness of the Illuminati hounding poor Marion. ]