Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Panarama - Allan Wells - Drugs
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Age 28 to 32 - what sort of improvement would you expect?
I would be surprised if it was none.
Just because he's improved means nothing,
Ok ok. He isn't on drugs.
...but as for Radcliffe!
Placing higher means nothing if you are just running basically the same times against a weaker field. It just shows that world records are what matter in terms of last fe achievement kudos and championship titles are just dick measuring on one day in time.
Radcliffe was clean. But that Chinese woman who got near to radcliffes time, now she must have been full of roids because no woman can run that fast. Oh no wait..:
I'd like to know the basis of how some of you claim to know what is feasible and what isn't in distance running.
🙂
Sudden improvements? World records no one can get near? Things like that.
Much of running is deceptive, though not always about drugs. I mean, look at how in one race, Mo appeared to be jogging. It looked like an easy pace. It was 5 minute miling!
I've mentioned it before on here. I met Mo (He was working in the Sweatshop) and at his suggestion tried out the pair of racers he'd sold me, on the in house treadmill.
After accidentally putting the machine up to top speed (I survived) Mo commended me on my speed. Bearing in mind my 200m pb is 28:85 we are talking deception.
Yes, I have deceptive speed. I look fast, but I'm not!
🙂
That's pretty cool. Despite all my comments, I do really hope he's innocent. He seems like a nice guy.
Cmon now Ric, you're selling yourself short! At 28 seconds, you're only 7 or 8 seconds off being world class!
Did Mo give you the Mobot at the time?
No, but the racket he was making, along with his mates as they cheered on my efforts, got them a visit from the manager.
We were all in a side room away from the main shop, and as the door was pushed open everything fell silent.
I'm now standing on a stationary treadmill, and the manager coldly asks "What's going on?", he looks at me and notices I'm a customer; that puzzled him. Even more when I spoke up and said, "Oh, nothing, everythings fine".
He closed the door on a now silent room and wandered off I guess thinking he'd imagined it, after all, what's a customer got to do with his staff?
Needless to say after a suitable period, there was a bout of stified conspiratory laughter.
🙂
Were they Karrimor trainers Ric?
How did you know it was Farah? Did you know of him at the time?
Salazar due to come out with his response today?
Surely if he was dodgy he would have 2 sets of records, like a tax dodging businessman? Or he'd be creating anew set of records?
I guess this kind of speculation is why witches were only found innocent if they drowned. The man is now ruined regardless of whether the facts prove innocence or not.
agreed...the biggest thing for him to answer IMO is the form where testosterone was listed agasint Rupp. I can only assume he has some evidence that says the original form was an error and shows the corrected form from back in the day with a signed declaration from the doctor.
but as you say i think largely no-one really cares now...people have made their minds up and if he did provide the above evidence the doubters would just say ....well he would say that wouldnt he.
Presumably the is supposed to clear the 'smoking gun' bit about his association with a censured doper, though I'm not sure what it does about the rest of the innuendo and mudslinging around Nike Oregon Project.
Clearly there are plenty of folks who want that to be true and arent especially bothered about hard facts.
nayan - good point...makes sense if he can prove he wasnt slaney's lead coach too
He'll need to do a bit better than that!
There are lots of different strands to this though.
Specific claims against Salazar that he needs to answer.
1) The testosterone prescription
2) Encouraging athletes to misuse TUE to gain an advantage.
3) Testosterone for his heart complaint.
4) His son testing testosterone cream by massage.
5) His association with Slaney - as above it will be good if this can be cleared from the list by testimony from her.
Some of these he has already answered just when you put them altogether they sound a bit wishy washy.
But then there are the wider issues that need sorted out and discussed openly so that athletics (and possibly all sport) can move on.
1) Use of TUE - how can this be policed? Does it need policed? How widely used are TUE across all the athletes and do NOP athletes have any higher % of TUE than other athletes?
2) Micro dosing - how can this be policed? Does it need policed? What are WADA doing about it? What can they do about it?
3) Drug testing around the world and different standards in different countries - this is clearly a massively flawed system and needs sorted out.
4) I'd also include length of bans in this review as Justin Gatlin is currently making a mockery of the athletics world in one of its premier events.
The sad thing is that the majority of casual fans either don't care or are happy to turn a blind eye.
I was talking recently to someone who has been to several athletics meetings as a spectator (Olympics, Diamond League, Commonwealth Games), but doesn't really follow the sport in the media, and as such had no idea that Gatlin was a convicted cheat. They weren't really that bothered tbh. Same is true of the majority who happily applaud trackside when the athletes are announced, despite many having served bans (I know as I regularly go to athletics meetings), simply because they are unaware, or are not particularly interested in that side of things.
Companies like Nike take commercial decisions, not moral ones. They are quite happy to sponsor the likes of Gatlin, so long as the uproar is confined to small groups of hardened enthusiasts, rather than the mass market of casual fans, joggers and gym goers who will continue to buy their products. They want to be associated with winners, virtually regardless of how they got there.
It would take a Lance Armstrong style bust of the NOP for Nike to consider any damage to their brand. But it looks like it's really only a case of bending the rules to the breaking point, and perhaps occasionally overstepping the line. Whatever's going on, it's not the same as the Ben Johnson type of rampant drugging up.
I was quite an athletics buff once, and in those days I knew my runners.
Farah was a good junior at the time.
Our meeting went thus:
Farah "Good morning sir, can I help you?"
Me "Yes, I'm after a pair of race shoes. (A short pause) You're Mo Farah aren't you?"
Farah
. (looks of incredulity from his colleagues).
Had the impression it was the first occasion he'd been recognised by a stranger.
🙂
if you are caught drugged up you should get a 10 yr ban from competitive athletics.
sponsors should also make it clear to their athletes that if you are banned from athletics on a drugs offence then we will sue you to get all the money we have paid plus extra for damages to brand.
currently a 2yr ban seems a weak deterant particularly that you can have a hamstring injury and miss a full yr of the sport.
Strong bans and the thought of losing all your money will make some think harder about doping
Dean - sponsors can only do that if they make it clear in the athlete contracts when they sign up, that any subsequent earnings are repayable in the event of a positive test. I expect that some companies are doing this now, but many agents would probably insist that such clauses were removed in case of "contamination" or such.
Sponsors are paying for the athlete's image and publicity which is what they get. The companies that sponsored Armstrong did tremendously well out of him and the publicity he got them. When they started saying after the revelations, that he had damaged their brand and they wanted repayments, it was opportunism at best, and utter tosh at worst. No decent lawyer could convincingly say that Armstrong damaged the brand of US Postal Service, in that they were worse off for his sponsorship rather than better off.
I wouldn't mind associating the postal service with performance enhancing drugs, it gets the mail out quicker.
Imagine if drugs were legalized - you'd have athletes sponsored by Pfizer and AstraZeneca.
I wonder if Nike regrets this particular campaign of theirs ... (this is a genuine ad of theirs)
They may as well legalise them...bit of a farce anyway. Some stimulants legal, some illegal etc etc.