Doping in other sports

[Citius]

There's still a huge difference between people 'naively' believing that Lance was innocent without 'proof' when there was actually welter of compelling circumstantial evidence around, and the lack of evidence that there is re Radcliffe.

Oh, I dunno. She took 3:22 out of her own marathon WR - that was twelve years ago, and nobody has been able to get to within three minutes of it since - not the Kenyans, not the Ethiopians, not even Radcliffe herself. That certainly stands out to me..

 

[rich p]

Oh, I dunno. She took 3:22 out of her own marathon WR - that was twelve years ago, and nobody has been able to get to within three minutes of it since - not the Kenyans, not the Ethiopians, not even Radcliffe herself. That certainly stands out to me..

Evidence, dear boy, evidence; not 'she ran fast so must be doped'.
Armstrong had a dodgy TUE, Betsy Andreu's hearsay, Equipe's retrospective epo tests et al.
Chalk and cheese.

 

[HF2300]

I know I'm being naive but I can't believe it. To be honest, I won't believe it until there's proof. But I know how naive I'm being.

Stay naïve, you can enjoy the racing much more that way! I find it a bit depressing that, as soon as there's the merest whiff of a hint of suspicion, people start pointing fingers. People do improve. People do make radical changes - new coaches, new training methods, and so on.

Outstanding performances, or outstanding athletes, are by definition outliers on the curve. One-off performances are just that. She took 3:22 off her record means nothing - her performances jumped by 3:22 and kept getting better might. My feeling is the time to point fingers is when you start getting a consistent pattern of questionable results, or accumulating evidence suggesting unethical behaviour, or both; as has happened with the many cyclists and other athletes who have subsequently been caught.

 

[Citius]

Evidence, dear boy, evidence; not 'she ran fast so must be doped'.
Armstrong had a dodgy TUE, Betsy Andreu's hearsay, Equipe's retrospective epo tests et al.
Chalk and cheese.

I agree it's not evidence. But it is an anomaly. And I've never seen a credible explanation for it.

 

[totallyfixed]

The IAAF, much like the UCI does itself no favours in not doing a lot more to tackle doping and being more open about it. Should samples that have been kept from athletes in the past be tested? Yes of course, otherwise why keep them, the real travesty is those clean athletes who were denied a medal / place in the history books. I was appalled when watching the BBC coverage of The World Athletic Championships to see on more than one occasion the list of previous quickest times in various events included known dopers, they should have been wiped from the records.
We feel strongly about this because it also goes on in the amateur ranks where there is very little testing.

 

[Crackle]

I agree it's not evidence. But it is an anomaly. And I've never seen a credible explanation for it.

I can't find the link now but if I do I'll post it. But there is research which says that the optimum marathon time for human physiology has not yet been reached. I think it was a Guardian article about Kenyan running and I may have posted it in this very thread but the point is, that an exceptional time is just that. Unless something else comes out I remain passive about Radcliffe, though as Paulb said, it always surprised me she could never produce it in the olympics.

 

[smutchin]

Evidence, dear boy, evidence; not 'she ran fast so must be doped'.

If I were an anti-doping investigator, I would certainly consider that 2003 performance a red flag and put her under much closer scrutiny - we know from cycling that some dopers have been caught this way.

But it seems from recent stories that the anti-doping authorities in athletics would rather believe in miracles.

I'm not making any accusations about Radcliffe though - I admit I don't follow athletics closely enough to be able to make an informed judgement about her WR marathon time. (Likewise Usain Bolt in the 100m, though the fact that he has consistently beaten known dopers does concern me.)

 

[rich p]

If I were an anti-doping investigator, I would certainly consider that 2003 performance a red flag and put her under much closer scrutiny - we know from cycling that some dopers have been caught this way.

But it seems from recent stories that the anti-doping authorities in athletics would rather believe in miracles.

I'm not making any accusations about Radcliffe though - I admit I don't follow athletics closely enough to be able to make an informed judgement about her WR marathon time. (Likewise Usain Bolt in the 100m, though the fact that he has consistently beaten known dopers does concern me.)

I can see why people are suspicious of Radcliffe but I'm convinced that she was clean. She did pretty well up to 10km on the track. gold at the European Cup and Champs. She won the World X Country champs twice etc etc. She was no failure.
She found that she was being outkicked by Kenyans on the track and went to live and train harder at Font Romeu and Colorado. Lost weight and found that marathons were her ideal distance much like Wiggins did.
Similar to Wiggins too, she was very outspoken about doping and some particular dopers. It is one of the most compelling things about her and Brad - it would be a weird strategy to buck the omerta if you were doping. Surely you'd keep a low profile rather than make yourself such a hostage to fortune.

 

[Citius]

People were convinced Lance was clean..

 

[smutchin]

Similar to Wiggins too, she was very outspoken about doping and some particular dopers. It is one of the most compelling things about her and Brad - it would be a weird strategy to buck the omerta if you were doping. Surely you'd keep a low profile rather than make yourself such a hostage to fortune.

I didn't know that but you're right, it is a point in her favour. The strongly vocal anti-doping stance is one of the reasons I've always had faith in Wiggins.

 

[rich p]

I didn't know that but you're right, it is a point in her favour. The strongly vocal anti-doping stance is one of the reasons I've always had faith in Wiggins.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2001/world_athletics/1483621.stm

"We just thought that the girls in the race shouldn't have to make the protest," said Radcliffe, who has worn a red ribbon on her vest during races to symbolise her support for compulsory blood-testing of athletes.

 

[Citius]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/34204775

The lady doth protest too much, methinks...

 

[Legs]

It does seem strange to be so opposed to exposing her 'private' data. If you've got nothing to hide....?

 

[smutchin]

It does seem strange to be so opposed to exposing her 'private' data.

How opposed are you to exposing your private bank account details? If you don't agree to share them, I'll take that as proof that you're involved in money laundering and tax fraud.

 

[Citius]

How opposed are you to exposing your private bank account details? If you don't agree to share them, I'll take that as proof that you're involved in money laundering and tax fraud.

If I was actually accused of fraud, I would be happy to share them (to the appropriate authorities).