Impressive - Martin Fagan

mithril

paddybarry wrote: »

He now deserves a second chance. I hope he goes on and achieve great things.

Seemed a very likeable guy and got a warm reception in Terenure today.
However, the article is very soft and does not deal with any of the points raised by Paul Kimmage and others who have made a convincing case that he has told a pack of lies about the circumstances in which he took drugs. Not sure he deserves a second chance in these circumstances.

adrian522

Yeah that article is poor, comes across as O'Riordan is a close friend or something?

wrstan

Indeed Fagan thinks one of the reasons he can perhaps go with this decision to run again is that he doesn’t feel he stole anything from anybody, or even cost them a place on any team.

I can't quite believe I just read that!

LacticAthlete

Great Article from Ian, asks all the right questions, deals with all the issues and paints Fagan in the light he should be painted.....

is what i would say if i was Fagan.

Ian should be hauled over the coals for this, disgraceful!!


Also...

"From there, after both declaring our relative lack of fitness, like all runners do, we start out on a few slow loops around UCD, repeatedly asking each other if the pace is okay."

No Ian, just no.

Krusty_Clown

career_move wrote: »

It seems a bit patronising or something - ya we'll let you play with us but in a different part of the yard sort of thing He obviously trains as hard or harder than anyone else why shouldn't he get the plaudits and rewards for being the best on the day?

I know what you mean, but I don't think patronising is the right word. Maybe 'discrimination' is a better fit. And yes, it would be a form of discrimination (discrimination can be both positive and negative) that would allow him to play in the same playground, without affecting the results of those who opted not to cheat; those who train equally as hard, but don't take the perceived short-cuts. I'm all for forgiveness (not that he wants my forgiveness!) and actually would have no problem toeing the line in a race with him (for however brief a period that was), but the idea of him taking prize-money over those who have achieved their success without cheating just doesn't sit well with me. I'd imagine it doesn't entirely sit well with Martin either. I wouldn't think he's in it for the money (there's not a lot to go around), but to try and regain some self-respect.

robinph

If he's able to be running that pace and out sprinting someone else to the line then he should have been running as a 26 minute pace maker for the other guys.

thirstywork2

rom wrote: »

Back on the scene is not doing a 10k where 6 people break 40 mins. FFS parkrun is more competitive than that. Is he allowed do fun runs or sponsored walks? Come back to me when he enters a competitive race.

Would you call today a competitive race?

thirstywork2

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I know what you mean, but I don't think patronising is the right word. Maybe 'discrimination' is a better fit. And yes, it would be a form of discrimination (discrimination can be both positive and negative) that would allow him to play in the same playground, without affecting the results of those who opted not to cheat; those who train equally as hard, but don't take the perceived short-cuts. I'm all for forgiveness (not that he wants my forgiveness!) and actually would have no problem toeing the line in a race with him (for however brief a period that was), but the idea of him taking prize-money over those who have achieved their success without cheating just doesn't sit well with me. I'd imagine it doesn't entirely sit well with Martin either. I wouldn't think he's in it for the money (there's not a lot to go around), but to try and regain some self-respect.

Not sure about today's race but all the races Martin has ran so far he has given back the money and not accepted a cent.
Yes he will try regain respect but some people won't forgive him and that is their right to.
Mistakes made and a big one but Martin is a likeable guy and im glad to see him back racing(again I have my opinion like anyone)
I remember two years ago a customer came into me and was from Westmeath and I asked her about her training ect.She told me a guy called Martin was coaching a large group of first time marathon runners in the town.Turns out it was Martin and doing this free just to see others enjoy the thrill of their first marathon.
He did not kill anyone but cheated and for me it's time to move on.

nerraw1111

thirstywork2 wrote: »

Not sure about today's race but all the races Martin has ran so far he has given back the money and not accepted a cent.
Yes he will try regain respect but some people won't forgive him and that is their right to.
Mistakes made and a big one but Martin is a likeable guy and im glad to see him back racing(again I have my opinion like anyone)
I remember two years ago a customer came into me and was from Westmeath and I asked her about her training ect.She told me a guy called Martin was coaching a large group of first time marathon runners in the town.Turns out it was Martin and doing this free just to see others enjoy the thrill of their first marathon.
He did not kill anyone but cheated and for me it's time to move on.

Sure Armstrong had Livestrong. Anecdotes are just that. Feck all to do with doping and cheating. Nice stories but doesn't change anything. Not referring to anyone in particular. Cycling is littered with nice guys who doped.

ultrapercy

rovers_runner wrote: »

Why does mental illness serve as an excuse or reason even for breaking the rules in what was not a life or death situation. He was blessed with talent for a sport and chose to cheat to gain an advantage over his competition. IMHO it should be one strike and you are out, enter for fun if you like but never have the right to compete again.

He knowingly took the risk and has ruined his reputation and the faith people put in athlethes in general.

It's a sad day for any race organizer when a drug cheat turns up and wins against honest people. I feel very sorry for sportsworld and their race which has history.[/Q

if every aspect of life operated a one strike policy there wouldnt be any life. In my experience the people who demand the highest standards very seldom set them. Its great to preach from on high but you if you do you have to live there.

wrstan

Ciaran O'Lionaird has been very active on the Twitter box for the last 8 hours on this!

Here's one:

If I could dish a punishment to drug cheats, they would have to perpetually run the 3rd lap of a 1500, for eternity!!

average_runner

wrstan wrote: »

Ciaran O'Lionaird has been very active on the Twitter box for the last 8 hours on this!

Here's one:

He should just really concentrate on his own career, seems more interesting in moaning than anything else

robinph

ultrapercy wrote: »

if every aspect of life operated a one strike policy there wouldnt be any life. In my experience the people who demand the highest standards very seldom set them. Its great to preach from on high but you if you do you have to live there.

But society has different standard that we expect from each other in different situations and you can't compare the standards we expect from people in one situation to another. Athletes have a very short times period in which they can be competitively active. Up and coming athletes have to be 100% aware that there is no second chance, you do it right the first time and there is no second bite at it.

If you still want to be involved in the sport after getting caught then it must be as setting an example to others, coaching type roles or something, but there is no reason to be letting drugs cheats back into the sport competitively. If you really want to give something back to the sport after doing wrong then focus on making sure that other people don't make the same mistakes as you.




If Fagan is giving back the prizes then that is great, if he's being the rabbit for other runners to chase then that is great. If he ends up taking prizes from others, or claiming a championship place/ win above someone else then that is not fine.

MrCreosote

The facts are simple:
-cheated
-caught
-accepted and served the punishment
-now allowed to compete again

Whether or not he should compete is immaterial. Any one else's opinion on it doesn't matter. If he wants to then he can, simple as that.

The whole lifetime ban for a first offense is a load of rubbish too- it just brings black-and-white opinions to a situation where right and wrong aren't as clearly defined as people seem to think.

adrian522

MrCreosote wrote: »

The facts are simple:
-cheated
-caught
-accepted and served the punishment
-now allowed to compete again

Whether or not he should compete is immaterial. Any one else's opinion on it doesn't matter. If he wants to then he can, simple as that.

The whole lifetime ban for a first offense is a load of rubbish too- it just brings black-and-white opinions to a situation where right and wrong aren't as clearly defined as people seem to think.

It would seem pretty easy to define right and wrong where EPO use is concerned.

robinph

MrCreosote wrote: »

The facts are simple:
-cheated
-caught
-accepted and served the punishment
-now allowed to compete again

Agreed.

MrCreosote wrote: »

Whether or not he should compete is immaterial. Any one else's opinion on it doesn't matter.

Well this bit is the point at which people have an opinion and is the material point that people care about. Either we want to have a clean drug free sport, or we don't. By allowing people to have a second chance to compete again it is saying that we can't be bothered to actually do anything really about drug cheats.

MrCreosote wrote: »

If he wants to then he can, simple as that.

The whole lifetime ban for a first offense is a load of rubbish too- it just brings black-and-white opinions to a situation where right and wrong aren't as clearly defined as people seem to think.

It is simple though, don't cheat.







If what others have said about how he is behaving now he is back running is correct then I don't have a problem with that as it sounds like he is following a pretty good morally sound attitude in what he is doing. I do have a problem with the bans handed out from the governing bodies not being more severe though. There is absolutely no reason at all to be giving people a second chance in sport for this kind of offence.

MrCreosote

robinph wrote: »

Well this bit is the point at which people have an opinion and is the material point that people care about. Either we want to have a clean drug free sport, or we don't. By allowing people to have a second chance to compete again it is saying that we can't be bothered to actually do anything really about drug cheats.


It is simple though, don't cheat.


If what others have said about how he is behaving now he is back running is correct then I don't have a problem with that as it sounds like he is following a pretty good morally sound attitude in what he is doing. I do have a problem with the bans handed out from the governing bodies not being more severe though. There is absolutely no reason at all to be giving people a second chance in sport for this kind of offence.

I phrased it poorly above- of course everyone is going to have an opinion, it's just that our opinions have no bearing on this specific case. He can compete, whether we like it or not. And if he qualifies for a major championships ahead of other athletes, he should be picked.

I agree with you about the current sanctions imposed in athletics being too light- Tyson Gay's for example is laughable, but no amount of disproportionate punishment or saying "kids, don't do drugs" is going to get sport doping-free. Let's face it, the best that can be hoped for is a levelling of the playing field so that clean athletes can at least compete. The much maligned cycling is the sport that has gone the furthest towards this. They've achieved this with slightly heftier sanctions, better testing and a gradual culture change in the sport. Is it totally clean? Of course not, but it's the leading sport in a brave new cleaner world.

MrCreosote

adrian522 wrote: »

It would seem pretty easy to define right and wrong where EPO use is concerned.

You might see a devious chancer injecting purely just to con some hard-working noble athletes out of their winnings, but I see a lonely, homesick, depressed runner, who has just lost his sponsorship deal, plagued by injury and staring down the barrel of 15 years of his life wasted, taking a risk on getting a single result to keep his fading dream alive.

If you can be judge, jury and executioner in that circumstance then be my guest.

adrian522

It's still easy to tell right from wrong in this instance. Under no circumstances can you argue that taking EPO is ever the right decision.

johnruns

MrCreosote wrote: »

, but I see a lonely, homesick, depressed runner, who has just lost his sponsorship deal, plagued by injury and staring down the barrel of 15 years of his life wasted, taking a risk on getting a single result to keep his fading dream alive.

Do you seriously believe that.

robinph

MrCreosote wrote: »

You might see a devious chancer injecting purely just to con some hard-working noble athletes out of their winnings, but I see a lonely, homesick, depressed runner, who has just lost his sponsorship deal, plagued by injury and staring down the barrel of 15 years of his life wasted, taking a risk on getting a single result to keep his fading dream alive.

If you can be judge, jury and executioner in that circumstance then be my guest.

An unfortunate set of circumstances, but we have to be harsh in the sentence/ opinion that we as fans of the sport hand out in every case or the next person coming through will see it as a potential option to take as well. The option he took of trying to cheat has to be completely removed as an option in the mind of the next person in that situation, and you don't do that by only handing out short term bans and then letting people back in and asking them nicely to please don't cheat again.

pconn062

average_runner wrote: »

He should just really concentrate on his own career, seems more interesting in moaning than anything else

Bullshit, he's a professional athlete who might end up competing against Fagan someday, he has more right to comment on it than the rest of us.

wrstan

MrCreosote wrote: »

The facts are simple:
-cheated
-caught
-accepted and served the punishment
-now allowed to compete again

Whether or not he should compete is immaterial. Any one else's opinion on it doesn't matter. If he wants to then he can, simple as that.

I agree them's the rules.

I just don't like those rules!

There are many, arguments as to whether he is morally right or wrong in what he is doing by competing again, making amends, taking or not taking winnings, whether there were mitigating circumstances to him taking EPO etc. etc. They are all pretty subjective though and I have little interest in those discussions.

He is fully entitled to compete again and there's no evidence, that I am aware of, to suggest that he is not operating within the rules in making a comeback.

I just don't like those rules.

nerraw1111

Kimmage and Ian O'Riordan debate the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rprq69TWE8E

average_runner

pconn062 wrote: »

Bullshit, he's a professional athlete who might end up competing against Fagan someday, he has more right to comment on it than the rest of us.

So what, Once Fagan is clean that day it doesn't matter.

tomdempsey200

average_runner wrote: »

So what, Once Fagan is clean that day it doesn't matter.

the performance gain from doping and increased training load lasts after doping stops

imo Fagan is just a headline
He's operating within the rules and I don't have a problem with that
the problem is the anti doping system

I hope Tyson gay had some good info for his reduced ban otherwise it's a joke

if he takes down a load more with him he cam come back after 3 months and I wouldn't have a problem with it

clear thinking

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Kimmage and Ian O'Riordan debate the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rprq69TWE8E

That's endemic of the poor journalism in general in this country.

Even accountants have healthier scepticism than O'Riordan.

My take on Fagan is that he cheated and deserves all the criticism he gets. Generating any goodwill will take a lot more than one of his mates spoofing for him in the irish times.

Obviously rules are rules so he can probably enter races, but people having a pop at him are justified especially as lots of running fans bought into his progress and had it shoved back in their faces.

In saying that, if you watch most elite international events my view is that 80% of competitors are cheats, in any and all sports - refer back to healthy scepticism.

desertcircus

adrian522 wrote: »

It's still easy to tell right from wrong in this instance. Under no circumstances can you argue that taking EPO is ever the right decision.

If you're certain that every athlete ahead of you is on EPO and your insistence on racing clean is jeopardising your ability to earn enough to support yourself and your family? David Millar said he ended up using EPO because he got sick of crossing the line and hearing "well, at least you were the fastest clean rider." There's a huge difference between Millar and Armstrong, and it makes zero sense for a disciplinary system to treat them exactly the same.

Lots of things in sports are wrong and unfair. Very few carry a lifetime ban.

TRR

Whatever people's opinions are on this matter I don't think Martin Fagan is doing himself any favors doing interviews with Ian O'Riordan like this. The first interview that came out when the story broke two years ago was a joke. The softly softly approach that obviously riled Kimmage was farcical. At the time I couldn't understand why O'Riordan hadn't asked to see copies of his credit card statements. If the EPO purchase was a one off there wouldn't be others on it. Of course he could have got it earlier from an alternative source but at least it would have been something getting close to investigative journalism!

thewolf_ie

I really like this guy after listening and reading up on him. He made a mistake when in a dark place. I support him and wish him well.

drquirky

TBH I agree w/ TRR on the silliness of the IOR stuff and think Fagan has not answered the tough questions on a lot of this .

That said the self righteous/ sanctimonious d-baggery around this story is 10x worse than anything Fagan did or didn't do.

theboyblunder

drquirky wrote: »

That said the self righteous/ sanctimonious d-baggery around this story is 10x worse than anything Fagan did or didn't do.

hahahaha. well said.

First off - I dont like that he hasnt answered questions - and I dont buy the unsupported 'just the once' argument.

However, I cant understand the how harsh some people are about this and other cases. If youve poured your life into athletics (coaching kids or adults, organising events etc), or competed at the highest level and been robbed by a drugs cheat, then yeah I wont judge you holding on to the grudge, I think youre entitled.

If youre a average joe/josephine jogging around the roads of ireland like myself in search of PBs in your spare time, I take the indignation, the urge to punish and keep a humiliated man down, with a large pinch of salt.

Jog on - vote for lucinda creightons party when it gets going and pray that you or yours never make a big mistake in life.

clear thinking

theboyblunder wrote: »

hahahaha. well said.

First off - I dont like that he hasnt answered questions - and I dont buy the unsupported 'just the once' argument.

However, I cant understand the how harsh some people are about this and other cases. If youve poured your life into athletics (coaching kids or adults, organising events etc), or competed at the highest level and been robbed by a drugs cheat, then yeah I wont judge you holding on to the grudge, I think youre entitled.

If youre a average joe/josephine jogging around the roads of ireland like myself in search of PBs in your spare time, I take the indignation, the urge to punish and keep a humiliated man down, with a large pinch of salt.

Jog on - vote for lucinda creightons party when it gets going and pray that you or yours never make a big mistake in life.

Nothing wrong with a mistake if you step up with full admission of guilt. It's not in Irish culture to do that, Fagan is no different to the norm in that regard.

Many non-elite plodders doped up on EPO and other assorted angel dust would be able to compete at elite level. Lots of 2.25 marathon guys could have 2.15s, lots of 2.18s could have 2.08s so no need for pinches of salt at all.

Many regulars here know athletes who were or are on the fringes of elite times and what it means to them to see someone they beat or compete with suddenly step up as a result of cheating. That's why the indignation is justified.

MrCreosote

clear thinking wrote: »

That's why the indignation is justified.

The indignation is understandable, but hardly justified- at the very least it's misdirected. People are focussing it on a person who is as much a victim in all of this as the clean athletes. Since the positive test he has been open and transparent, served his punishment with good grace and struggled through a return to the sport he loves, despite the begrudgers.

Better for people's indignation to be turned against the governing bodies- if people have a problem with the length of the sentence, it's their fault not the athlete. And I'd have more questions about their forcing of athletes into a purely results-driven 4 year cycle with minimal help and support, and no long-term security. If you want to create a doping culture, it seems to me to be one of the best ways of doing it.

RandyMann

On a tangent and if it hasn't been mentioned already... I was thinking that maybe it would be a good idea on a more worldwide stage-
Instead of a lifetime ban just let drug cheats compete in their own races with other drug cheats and never race with the clean athletes..
The only problem may be that the "clean race competitors" may dwindle over time.
I wonder what races would attract more attention from the public with a morbid curiosity?

RandyMann

I'd say leave him be, he was caught and he did his time. He still has to live with the embarrassment for the rest of his days too.

johnruns

MrCreosote wrote: »

. People are focussing it on a person who is as much a victim in all of this as the clean athletes. Since the positive test he has been open and transparent,

What complete and utter bullsh1t

RandyMann

johnruns wrote: »

MrCreosote wrote: »

. People are focussing it on a person who is as much a victim in all of this as the clean athletes. Since the positive test he has been open and transparent,

What complete and utter bullsh1t

why is it bull****?

MrCreosote

johnruns wrote: »

What complete and utter bullsh1t

You've got evidence he hasn't been then? If so, I'd love to see it.

If not, then best to keep your unfounded speculation to yourself. At least I've got something to back up my opinion.

tomdempsey200

RandyMann wrote: »

Instead of a lifetime ban just let drug cheats compete in their own races with other drug cheats and never race with the clean athletes..

Good idea

Lets call it the Olympic games

drquirky

clear thinking wrote: »

Many non-elite plodders doped up on EPO and other assorted angel dust would be able to compete at elite level. Lots of 2.25 marathon guys could have 2.15s, lots of 2.18s could have 2.08s so no need for pinches of salt at all.

IMO that shows a pretty limited understanding of the potential benefits of EPO...

A 2:18 to a 2:08 ? Show me one example of that lol

tomdempsey200

drquirky wrote: »

IMO that shows a pretty limited understanding of the potential benefits of EPO...

A 2:18 to a 2:08 ? Show me one example of that lol

more like a couple of minutes at the sharp end

less performance enhancement for elite
than sub-elite

drquirky

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

more like a couple of minutes at the sharp end

less performance enhancement for elite
than sub-elite

Yup more like say 2:05- 2:03 even less with the kind of micro dosing common now. As Team Sky in cycling would call it, "marginal gains"

corny

theboyblunder wrote: »

hahahaha. well said.

First off - I dont like that he hasnt answered questions - and I dont buy the unsupported 'just the once' argument.

However, I cant understand the how harsh some people are about this and other cases. If youve poured your life into athletics (coaching kids or adults, organising events etc), or competed at the highest level and been robbed by a drugs cheat, then yeah I wont judge you holding on to the grudge, I think youre entitled.

If youre a average joe/josephine jogging around the roads of ireland like myself in search of PBs in your spare time, I take the indignation, the urge to punish and keep a humiliated man down, with a large pinch of salt.

Jog on - vote for lucinda creightons party when it gets going and pray that you or yours never make a big mistake in life.

Funny thing indignation. Works both ways if you ask me.

For what its worth I think you can take a dim view without being emotionally compromised.

PVincent

For the complete idiots amongst us about epo and any of the other stuff that they take to enhance performance, will someone in black and white just give me a short explanation of what the benefits are of taking this stuff, because i am of the opinion that shag all of us understand what they are. Do they make you run faster , or do they enable you to train harder. If I took them , a 3.20 marathon runner, what would I gain , or is the benefit more applicable to elites , who can train better and longer, and have the natural talent already.

theboyblunder

PVincent wrote: »

For the complete idiots amongst us about epo and any of the other stuff that they take to enhance performance, will someone in black and white just give me a short explanation of what the benefits are of taking this stuff, because i am of the opinion that shag all of us understand what they are. Do they make you run faster , or do they enable you to train harder. If I took them , a 3.20 marathon runner, what would I gain , or is the benefit more applicable to elites , who can train better and longer, and have the natural talent already.

theres no iditots in bros pearse peter EPO is a natural signalling molecule which indirectly controlls red blood cell production in the bone marrow. More red blood cells means greater oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, leading to enhanced performance, particularly in endurance sports. Super elites already have highly developed aerobic systems, and benefit less than others. Even among elites, epo has more of an effect on athletes with naturally relatively low haematocrit (red blood cell count as a percentage of blood by volume) than those with naturally high haematocrit. On someone like me id say the effect would be bloody spectacular

You also cant keep increasing your haematocrit to improve performance. Eventually you get treacle for blood and all those horror stories of young cyclists getting up in the middle of the night to go on a stationary bike to avoid a heart attack.

PVincent

I always think it would be a very useful experiment to take a couple of athletes like say you and me , and conduct a few tests after a dose of the stuff. Mind you finding someone willing to sacrifice their body for the experiment might be more difficult than we think.

tomdempsey200

PVincent wrote: »

I always think it would be a very useful experiment to take a couple of athletes like say you and me , and conduct a few tests after a dose of the stuff. Mind you finding someone willing to sacrifice their body for the experiment might be more difficult than we think.

already been done
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/mobile/?articleID=2000104769&story_title=Drugs%20on%20the%20Track:What%20researchers%20have%20discovered%20among%20local%20runners/lifestyle/

johnruns

MrCreosote wrote: »

You've got evidence he hasn't been then? If so, I'd love to see it.

If not, then best to keep your unfounded speculation to yourself. At least I've got something to back up my opinion.

So how is drugs cheat as much a victim as a clean athlete?

desertcircus

If you think that only outright cynical cheats engage in doping, then that means accepting that sports as a whole is a uniquely attractive environment for awful people and that purely by being an elite athlete, someone can be identified as having a significant chance of being a total **** - if the personalities lead the doping, then the personalities have to be, by and large, horrible, and the people at the top of the table are massively more likely to be complete jerks than randomers pulled in off the street. If that's what you believe, then fine, but I don't. To advocate automatic life bans for dopers is to declare that a team leader in cycling who bullies a domestique into using EPO isn't any more guilty than the domestique - not to mention that an automatic life ban instantly removes any and all incentives for cooperation with investigations. Doping isn't a black and white issue; it's a thorny, awkward problem, and pretending the solution is straightforward does nobody any favours.