|
|
Marion to plead guilty to doping!
Yes, Eldrick. What are the chances that Linford actually was clean in his earlier days. None. zip, but I understand...speculation.
careful now linford is greatest athlete we produced in last 20y - a legend in our country if you honestly believe that he wanted to dope up at age ~ 38y to run an ~ 6.65i ( he was more a gardener by then than coach ) when he'd got all the golds & in some people's eyes the "real" wr of 9.87 in '93 ( King's 9.86 actual wr was on an acknowledged illegal track ), then you need to re-examine your thought-processes...
I know what kind of a person Linford is Eldrick. You forget that I was an athlete once as well. Anyhow, there is only one person that I can see that was absolutely clean in the 1988 Olympic final and it wasn't Linford. Yet, speculations, speculations, speculations....Backley is and was more succesful than Linford ever was by the way.
People don't CHANGE their basic personality traits in a 7-8 year period. Last edited by Mats Nilsson on Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flumpy and MJ
Flump asked:
"...Did you actually read his post. Not only was he referring to the late 90's early '00 crop of sprinters but specifically mentioned the fact that we have no reason to suspect AF and SR..." Yes I did, that's why I named others BCB
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?
I'm not sure what was happening in '96 but a Swedish friend has mentioned to me that most Swedes are urging kallur towards breaking LN's NR (12.47).
LN clean? No way. 12.26 PB - and she ran another race that day as well (in Sevilla I think, 1992) that was also sub 12.30!
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
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.
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.
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
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 )
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....
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... 
Sorry I thought you were just slaagging off Swedes and after GB Sweden are my favourite team so I got a bit offended.
Lauryn Williams has posted some thoughts about Marion Jones in her blog:
http://wcsnblogs.com/track-and-field/laurynwilliams
true but i have a feeling some people don't bother practicing at all.
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...
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.
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.
What a great blog! Wish I'd been aware of that sooner, some interesting entries. Thanks!
Does anyone know the details of the ultimatim that the Feds gave to MJ?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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..
never mind me either...
Last edited by Mats Nilsson on Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
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.
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests |
|
