She displayed her natural abilities the year she waddled a 55 second 400.
lovetorun wrote:This thread is going all over the place (which is typical) but I'd really like to know if anyone else thinks Marion could have been world class without PED's.
Feel free to step in between eldy and Epelle before we have a hundred back-and-forths here . . .
? My only responses on this page have been directly to gh.
That's how I read Epelle's responses too. He very admirably hasn't engaged the troll who's arse-achingly, heroin-junkie desperate to drag him into a pointless debate so as to get a fix from the adrenaline rush of trying to prove his is biggest. In fact, the poster in question will even get a perverse thrill from me describing said poster like this.
Said poster is becoming more and more desperate and I'm worried he'll implode for lack of a fix and to be honest, it's sucking the enjoyment and life out of too many threads at the moment.
gh wrote:And she concentrated more on basketball than track and broke her foot twice, so a lack of track progress not entirely surprising.
The broken foot is also very significant though because injuries can be a big factor in turning to PEDs and a way of justifying it to oneself.
I agree with you gh that it is unlikely that she was doping as a teenager.
Some of these cases seem to support my biased opinion which is that the PEDs help but not all that much (Chambers, Jones) and that their performance enhancing effects probably have more to do with injury prevention and recovery then anything else. They help you train hard but not smart.
lovetorun wrote:This thread is going all over the place (which is typical) but I'd really like to know if anyone else thinks Marion could have been world class without PED's.
I think she could have been.
She was already world class in high school. She ran 11.17 and 22.86 as a 15-year-old. One of the great sprint prodigies of all-time. (And no, I don't believe for a minute she was doping then and continued on for a dozen years at it.)
I believe both Daisy and gh....and feel that the whole Marion Jones saga is tragic since she could have been really good with no PED abuse.
CookyMonzta wrote:Didn't Ben confess? I thought I heard either him or Charlie Francis confessing to having put him on a drug program that went as far back as 1981. Certainly, the effects kicked in at around 1985, when he ran 9.98.
i've never heard of steroids taking 4y to work !?
how about he got an advantage within weeks of taking them - evidence being in '92 when he started taking them again & started running real quick in short period of time
There's more than one kind of drug, and Charlie was undoubtedly using more than one kind of drug on Ben. My guess is that the drugs he was using in 1981-84 didn't produce the desired effect; so in '85 he most likely put him on something more efficient, or more potent. I imagine stanozolol is more powerful than mere artificial testosterone, yes? He didn't break 10.00 until 1985. In fact, he was having trouble breaking 10.10. He had to have been using something stronger in '85 than what he was using in '81-84.
lonewolf wrote:We can speculate all we want but the bottom line is, only Marion knows when she started doping and she ain't telling.
We don't need her to tell. Common sense tells all anyone needs to know in this case. PUH-LEEEEZE!! What is truly shocking is that there are still people around naive and bored enough to speculate whether Marion's nonsense about being clean in 97 is not bullshit.
Given the lively discussion we have been having here, one must conclude that the issue here is far more complex than to simply paint it with a broad brush, as you are attempting to do. But then again since you are a newbie here I wouldn't expect you to understand right away.
No doubt many of us here are suspicious of her 1997-99 seasons, but we just don't have a smoking gun related to those years. We only have Sydney 2000, Conte's charts and his statement that she joined his cadre in mid-August, 2000, and her EPO A-test in 2006, for which the last 6 years of her career (starting with Sydney) were scrubbed from the record books.
CookyMonzta wrote:I imagine stanozolol is more powerful than mere artificial testosterone, yes? He didn't break 10.00 until 1985. In fact, he was having trouble breaking 10.10. He had to have been using something stronger in '85 than what he was using in '81-84.
no
testo is a full agonist like stanozolol - little difference in efficacy or potency
all that is likely is a dose increase, which is likely when you see the way he got run over after leading the '84 race to 60m - his dosing regime was only keeping him strong for 60m, not 100m, so increased dose or frequency is likely
& back then, there wasn't the vast cocktail available today - 4 or 5 steroids were about it, little else
AthleticsInBritain wrote: He very admirably hasn't engaged the troll who's arse-achingly, heroin-junkie desperate to drag him into a pointless debate so as to get a fix...
where's the fly-swatter ?
hmmm... i know these scousers are famous for their love of skag along with their famous collection of hubcaps & satnavs
the obssession with smack is worrying - it's frying whatever paucity of neuronal capacity existed pre-addiction - i suggest you inquire into your local methadone programmes...
btw, you coud have a use - i'm in the market for a top of the range tomtom, price negotiable
CookyMonzta wrote:There's more than one kind of drug, and Charlie was undoubtedly using more than one kind of drug on Ben. My guess is that the drugs he was using in 1981-84 didn't produce the desired effect; so in '85 he most likely put him on something more efficient, or more potent. I imagine stanozolol is more powerful than mere artificial testosterone, yes? He didn't break 10.00 until 1985. In fact, he was having trouble breaking 10.10. He had to have been using something stronger in '85 than what he was using in '81-84.
How about he simply developed with age and experience? He was just 23 in 1985.
Also, you're making it sound like he was no good before then, while he was already an Olympic medalist in LA.
AthleticsInBritain wrote:I don't know. It's really not nice to think about the possibility of a 15 year old doping is it? But then, I'm sure there have been cases of 14 and 15 year olds doping in other sports - i.e. gymnastics and swimming, so why not athletics?
Not sure why anyone would be surprised at the possibility that a HS athlete would use PEDs. It may not be widespread but there's probably enough usage to eliminate the surprise. In Jones' case, while I think too many are attempting to nail down a clear answer...for which there certainly never will be one....two facts are known and they are that she was at least tangentally involved in an incident in HS and as an adult athlete was involved in a major scandal and was associated with multiple violators. So to dismiss the fact that she may have used PEDs at any time during here career, as at least one poster is attempting to do, is pretty odd to me.
CookyMonzta wrote:Given the lively discussion we have been having here, one must conclude that the issue here is far more complex than to simply paint it with a broad brush, as you are attempting to do. But then again since you are a newbie here I wouldn't expect you to understand right away.
No doubt many of us here are suspicious of her 1997-99 seasons, but we just don't have a smoking gun related to those years. We only have Sydney 2000,
I believe you are enjoying making what is obvious to many here - a ridiculous progression in next to no time after a long and unspectacular hiatus - into something "complex" and therefore good for a debate. When all we have is Marion Jones' word on the issue, and a lot of evidence in the form of unbelievable results, followed by a request to believe that she then became less impressive after taking drugs, I salute you for wishing to believe she might have been telling the truth. I'll vote for intuition after a very long time watching the sport, newbie or not.
