Mark English - "If Martin Fagan really loves the sport, he shouldn’t compete again."

RunRoryRun

http://www.the42.ie/mark-english-doping-gaa-soccer-rugby-2101073-May2015/

One of the strategies he mentions is making previous dopers wear orange bibs in races after their return to essentially shame race directors into not extending invites to them....

What do you think?

NetwerkErrer

RunRoryRun wrote: »

http://www.the42.ie/mark-english-doping-gaa-soccer-rugby-2101073-May2015/

One of the strategies he mentions is making previous dopers wear orange bibs in races after their return to essentially shame race directors into not extending invites to them....

What do you think?

I think the topic of Martin Fagan has grinded to dust and Mark English's comments don't add any value to an already tiresome debate. Orange bibs!? he's lost the plot, Hardly adresses anything. The man has done his time, nobody can force him to do anything more. If he wants to run, he can run and that's the story plain and simple. People may not like it but that's the way it is.

The decision is in the hands of the RD and not the IAAF after a ban is served.

rom

That sounds a bit like something that happened in Nazi German.

walshb

It's the constant hounding of an athlete that has served his ban that is more worrying that the original ban!

RunRoryRun

rom wrote: »

That sounds a bit like something that happened in Nazi German.

I was thinking the same thing! :eek:

johnruns

Delighted he said it hopefully more top athletes will follow suit.

frankeee

I think it's great for someone like Mark English to give his opinion. It would be so easy for him to just sit on the fence. There's not many athletes in this country that are famous (for the right reasons) outside of athletic circles so for one of them to put his feelings on the record can only be positive IMHO.

youngrun

strong words from English and one can understand why. but doesnt and wont make any difference and sometimes opinions like the orange bibs really should be kept to yourself.

Fagan served the ban and can run again and can be picked for championships as the Chambers case proved, and is certainly good enough to .

youngrun

frankeee wrote: »

I think it's great for someone like Mark English to give his opinion. It would be so easy for him to just sit on the fence. There's not many athletes in this country that are famous (for the right reasons) outside of athletic circles so for one of them to put his feelings on the record can only be positive IMHO.

How is this a positive view left me with a fairly negative outlook on it all really. after reading it ...:(

frankeee

youngrun wrote: »

How is this a positive view left me with a fairly negative outlook on it all really. after reading it ...:(

Look at cycling - it was the refusal of the top guys to spit in the soup that allowed the sport to end up where it is/was. When people like Mark speak out it highlights that they are not all the same (of course they could be lying, but that's a different issue).Out of curiosity do you also think Radcliffe holding up the "EPO cheats out" was a negative?

The orange bibs is a bit extreme, but gain it's his opinion and he's as entitled to that as anyone else is to disagree with it.

Drug use in Sport is negative - athletes speaking out against dopers/former dopers isnt in my opinion

j0hn1

Did many of ye read the actual article?

He didn't come up with the idea of the orange bib, he was retelling a suggestion that someone else came up with. He made a 4 line comment of Martin Fagan, which reads like a response to a probe from the interviewer. Certainly not banging on about Fagan. All his points relating to athletics would appear to be valid (in my non-expert opinion) Everything (except perhaps the soccer & rugby stuff) he says is true, without vendetta, and on the money

He probably would have been better off not commenting on GAA, soccer or rugby, but the interviewer does appear to have drawn him into the GAA comment.

Fair play to Mark English for speaking his mind, much better than the silence. And what he says is true, bans should be for life but that may not work legally.

average_runner

The orange color bibs was mentioned before or the they have a small kit logo on their top but the clean athletes have a proper big logo, but its not viable.

In short, IAAF needs the drug cheats, otherwise the 100m's would be very boring and it kills me to say that.

Jamaica does feck all testing, so are all the athletes banned from there, IAAF tested the Jamaican athletes very little also, Bolt went thru a whole season where he was not competing without getting tested, he admitted that!!!

frankeee

j0hn1 wrote: »

Did many of ye read the actual article?

He didn't come up with the idea of the orange bib, he was retelling a suggestion that someone else came up with.
He made a 4 line comment of Martin Fagan, which reads like a response to a probe from the interviewer. Certainly not banging on about Fagan.
All his points relating to athletics would appear to be valid (in my non-expert opinion)
Everything (except perhaps the soccer & rugby stuff) he says is true, without vendetta, and on the money


He probably would have been better off not commenting on GAA, soccer or rugby, but the interviewer does appear to have drawn him into the GAA comment.

Fair play to Mark English for speaking his mind, much better than the silence. And what he says is true, bans should be for life but that may not work legally.

He said he thought it was a good idea

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

In short, IAAF needs the drug cheats, otherwise the 100m's would be very boring and it kills me to say that.

Sorry, that's ridiculous, and a very pessimistic and defeatist attitude. It implies that you believe that fast sprinting is not humanly possible without drugs? Does that mean that every WR holder was, or had to be a PED user?

ThisRegard

average_runner wrote: »

In short, IAAF needs the drug cheats, otherwise the 100m's would be very boring and it kills me to say that.

Well I don't watch the 100 metres at all because I have no confidence in any of the competitors at top level.

PaulieC

average_runner wrote: »

In short, IAAF needs the drug cheats, otherwise the 100m's would be very boring and it kills me to say that.

The 100m's would be maybe a second slower, but at least the contestants were running on talent and hard work and not PEDs.

Chivito550

j0hn1 wrote: »

Did many of ye read the actual article?

He didn't come up with the idea of the orange bib, he was retelling a suggestion that someone else came up with. He made a 4 line comment of Martin Fagan, which reads like a response to a probe from the interviewer. Certainly not banging on about Fagan. All his points relating to athletics would appear to be valid (in my non-expert opinion) Everything (except perhaps the soccer & rugby stuff) he says is true, without vendetta, and on the money

He probably would have been better off not commenting on GAA, soccer or rugby, but the interviewer does appear to have drawn him into the GAA comment.

Fair play to Mark English for speaking his mind, much better than the silence. And what he says is true, bans should be for life but that may not work legally.

The soccer and rugby stuff is very much true. Lot of people burying their heads in the sand, and will never question the size of rugby players these days, or footballers running around at the end of extra time like its the 2nd minute of the game. And don't get me started on 6 hour tennis matches with 50 stroke rally's in the 5th set.

frankeee

ThisRegard wrote: »

Well I don't watch the 100 metres at all because I have no confidence in any of the competitors at top level.

Compared to other distances/disciplines ? I dunno, I know what your saying but other distances just dont create the headlines the same as the likes of Gatlin. I'm not sure they're any cleaner. EG if Nike were sponsoring Rashid Ramzi it probably would get a small mention and nothing more

Chivito550

PaulieC wrote: »

The 100m's would be maybe a second slower, but at least the contestants were running on talent and hard work and not PEDs.

1 second??? You really don't understand sprinting if you think that. I assume you mean a tenth of a second. Sure the Irish record is 10.18.

frankeee

Chivito550 wrote: »

The soccer and rugby stuff is very much true. Lot of people burying their heads in the sand, and will never question the size of rugby players these days, or footballers running around at the end of extra time like its the 2nd minute of the game. And don't get me started on 6 hour tennis matches with 50 stroke rally's in the 5th set.

Could n't agree more. When non athletics friends ask me do I think is athlete X on drugs, I typically reply "about as likely as rugby player Y" which generally doesn't go down too well

Pherekydes

PaulieC wrote: »

The 100m's would be maybe a second slower, but at least the contestants were running on talent and hard work and not PEDs.

10.6? Harold Abrahams ran that in 1924.

ThisRegard

frankeee wrote: »

Compared to other distances/disciplines ? I dunno, I know what your saying but other distances just dont create the headlines the same as the likes of Gatlin. I'm not sure they're any cleaner. EG if Nike were sponsoring Rashid Ramzi it probably would get a small mention and nothing more

Yeah, I'm not naive about longer distances but sprinters have more a history with doping. And IMO, they tend to be dicks which never helps.

Pherekydes wrote: »

10.6? Harold Abrahams ran that in 1924.

Probably with the aid of coke back then ! (a joke)

PaulieC

Chivito550 wrote: »

1 second??? You really don't understand sprinting if you think that. I assume you mean a tenth of a second. Sure the Irish record is 10.18.

Pherekydes wrote: »

10.6? Harold Abrahams ran that in 1924.

alright lads, calm down. I was just refuting the point that the 100 would be less exciting without PEDs.

WalshB, I'd include your reply in here too only you deleted it

walshb

I cannot for the life of me get behind the fact that the WR for 100 metres would be 10.5 or so if only clean athletes ran. That is dismissing every single great sprinter who ever ran faster times. Drigs help, no doubt, but there are humans out there who are extraordinary and who are honest and clean and still the best.

walshb

PaulieC wrote: »

alright lads, calm down. I was just refuting the point that the 100 wouldn't be any less exciting without PEDs.

WalshB, I'd include your reply in here too only you deleted it

Thanks, I realized it was a dumb reply. You can disregard my post above as well.:)

my friend

rom wrote: »

That sounds a bit like something that happened in Nazi German.

Godwin @ post 3

You're a champ!

frankeee

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not naive about longer distances but sprinters have more a history with doping. And IMO, they tend to be dicks which never helps.

That they do While I'm definitely more of a distance fan myself, I was in the stadium when Bolt ran 9.58 and it has to go down as one of the most special sporting occasions I've ever witnessed.

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

Sorry, that's ridiculous, and a very pessimistic and defeatist attitude. It implies that you believe that fast sprinting is not humanly possible without drugs? Does that mean that every WR holder was, or had to be a PED user?

No i believe the drug cheats pushes the other runners to new levels in 100m

But then again how many clean WR in 100m over the last 20 years?

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

The soccer and rugby stuff is very much true. Lot of people burying their heads in the sand, and will never question the size of rugby players these days, or footballers running around at the end of extra time like its the 2nd minute of the game. And don't get me started on 6 hour tennis matches with 50 stroke rally's in the 5th set.

Ah now are you talking about a certain country that starts with 'S' and causes alot of pain.

Last euro champs was the perfect scenario, out on their feet against Portugal and fresh as anything against Italy!!!

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

No i believe the drug cheats pushes the other runners to new levels in 100m

But then again how many clean WR in 100m over the last 20 years?

I believe Bolt's to be clean. I understand the Jamaican issue. I can see the point here.

If the drugs cheats push the others to new levels then are you saying that some of the others are clean?

Chivito550

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not naive about longer distances but sprinters have more a history with doping. And IMO, they tend to be dicks which never helps.



Probably with the aid of coke back then ! (a joke)

You are joking right? Distance running is just as tainted by drug use, if not more. What about the flying finns of the 70s and 80s, Ma's Army in the 90s, who's records remain untouchable, the Soviets such as Olga Kasinkina, the Romanians of that time, Mary Decker, the women's 1500m from 2012 where first, second and fourth were filthy, all the Turks in general, Olga Yegerova who was caught twice (same as Gatlin) but got off on a technicality. What about all the medals that Sonia has lost out on during her career due to cheats. What about the crisis in Kenya right now, or Shobukhova. What about the EPO era in the 90s, where athletes who are still considered legends took down the WR by as much in 5 years as was done in the previous 25. I know this is pretty much a distance board, but a dose of reality wouldn't go astray. They are both as dirty as each other.

average_runner

Is there any WR out there that we think is clean?

TFBubendorfer

<MOD>May I just remind everyone that doping speculation is against boards rules and therefore VERBOTEN</MOD>

And while we're at it, don't mention the war :rolleyes:

ThisRegard

Chivito550 wrote: »

You are joking right? Distance running is just as tainted by drug use, if not more.

No, not joking. I never said it was clean, but you still had to go back 40, 30, 20 years ago in your argument.

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

I believe Bolt's to be clean. I understand the Jamaican issue. I can see the point here.

If the drugs cheats push the others to new levels then are you saying that some of the others are clean?

I do think some are clean and i really hope Bolt is. I think Bolt is the kind of guy that says feck ye all, i just try beat the cheats with my talent and that drives him on.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

Is there any WR out there that we think is clean?

I think many are. If we cannot think or believe that to be true then what's the point of the sport at all?

The world is gone way OTT on their pessimistic attitude to sports achievements. There are plenty of sincere and honest competing athletes in all sports, and many who are huge success too. Even Greg LeMond said that it was possible to race to the top levels whilst being clean. He proved it.

I would say-think that more men's record's are clean than women's.

ThisRegard

walshb wrote: »

I think many are. If we cannot think or believe that to be true then what's the point of the sport at all.

Entertainment with an unhealthy dose of cynicism ?

Owen_S

PaulieC wrote: »

The 100m's would be maybe a second slower, but at least the contestants were running on talent and hard work and not PEDs.

You might need to read up on PEDs - they enable people to work harder, as the increased protein synthesis decreases recovery time. People on PEDs can train harder and more frequently than non-enhanced counterparts.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

I do think some are clean and i really hope Bolt is. I think Bolt is the kind of guy that says feck ye all, i just try beat the cheats with my talent and that drives him on.

Bolt for me is clean. I cannot know for certain, but when you take it all on-board there is just something very natural and believable about him. He is also a damn talented man. Freak of nature. He was a stand out athlete for many years.

walshb

Owen_S wrote: »

You might need to read up on PEDs - they enable people to work harder, as the increased protein synthesis decreases recovery time. People on PEDs can train harder and more frequently than non-enhanced counterparts.

You haven't mentioned that in allowing the athlete to train harder and longer and recover faster that this allows them to improve their times and performances. That is what PaulieC is alluding to I believe.

PaulieC

Owen_S wrote: »

You might need to read up on PEDs - they enable people to work harder, as the increased protein synthesis decreases recovery time. People on PEDs can train harder and more frequently than non-enhanced counterparts.

Jesus, everyone is on fine pedantic form here today.

I will restate my point:

The 100 metres might be a touch slower, but it would not be any less exciting if it comprised only those who were not using banned substances to enhance their performance.

robinph

Gatlin has now lost his 4x100 silver from London 2012:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/32731015

Unfortunately, he lost it by association with Gay rather than his own misdemeanour's which should have stopped him even turning up in London in the first place. But it's still something.

Chivito550

ThisRegard wrote: »

No, not joking. I never said it was clean, but you still had to go back 40, 30, 20 years ago in your argument.

What part of the 2012 women's 1500m final, Kenyan crisis or Shobukhova do you not understand? I was in the stadium the night those Turks claimed 1-2, and Tomashova came 4th. People talk about Seoul 88 bring the dirtiest race in history, well this was just as bad. It just doesn't make the headlines because sprinting generally has better personalities, tend to speak English, and is of more interest to the man on the street.

And if people want to go back as far as 88 as they tend to always do when discussing drugs, then let's do it for distance running too.

walshb

I would have thought that distance running was every bit as dirty as sprinting. Particularly the middle distance runners. I still believe that the current men's records at these distances to be clean.

Shelflife

The problem with allowing dopers to return after relatively short suspensions is that you are basically giving dopers an insurance policy.

Take a 20yr old athlete, he can dope away secure in the knowledge that if he's caught he will be back again in 2 yrs. it's worth the risk.

If it was a lifetime suspension then it denies them this fallback position.

Personally wouldn't be happy seeing a doper represent me in the green of Ireland.

How many careers have been lost through clean athletes giving up as they thought they weren't good enough when finishing second to an athlete that was doping ?

Retrospective medal giving while the results may change in the record books doesn't account for the joy and sense of achievement that they missed out on at that time, not to mention the commercial side that they missed out on.

Once caught that should be it. I'd hate to line up beside a doper who had consistently beaten me into 2nd place through cheating.

j0hn1

Chivito550 wrote: »

The soccer and rugby stuff is very much true. Lot of people burying their heads in the sand, and will never question the size of rugby players these days, or footballers running around at the end of extra time like its the 2nd minute of the game. And don't get me started on 6 hour tennis matches with 50 stroke rally's in the 5th set.

I don't disagree, what I meant was it may have been wiser for him to stay away from casting aspersions on other sports, as in doing so he may have undermined his valid points relating to his own sport.

ThisRegard

Chivito550 wrote: »

What part of the 2012 women's 1500m final, Kenyan crisis or Shobukhova do you not understand? I was in the stadium the night those Turks claimed 1-2, and Tomashova came 4th. People talk about Seoul 88 bring the dirtiest race in history, well this was just as bad. It just doesn't make the headlines because sprinting generally has better personalities, tend to speak English, and is of more interest to the man on the street.

And if people want to go back as far as 88 as they tend to always do when discussing drugs, then let's do it for distance running too.

It's almost as if I'm directly accusing you.

PaulieC

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's almost as if I'm directly accusing you.

track fairies stick together...

Oregano_State

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's almost as if I'm directly accusing you.

You haven't responded directly to any of his points. Taking pot-shots like this doesn't add anything to the discussion.

spurscormac

Back to the article, I thought this was pretty funny about accidentally taking tainted supplements...

MarkEnglish wrote:

You just need to be sure that the company you’re getting it from is reliable and that all their products are drug tested… You’re responsible for what goes into your body at the end of the day — every athlete knows that. You just need to choose what products you’re taking very wisely.

Of course it’s unfortunate for those that don’t know what they’re taking… Okay, you might be innocent, but you’ve failed the stupidity test, so I don’t think you should really be in the sport.

Djoucer

This is/was the problem with cycling and omerta. If you spoke out, YOU were ostracised rather than the dopers.

Interesting to note the first few posts of this thread immediately criticise English for even answering a question that was obviously asked of him.

This is the entire amount of words English devoted to the Fagan issue:

“If I were him, I would just not compete in the sport again for the sake of it. If Martin Fagan really loves the sport, he shouldn’t compete again.”

That's it. That's all he said re Fagan.

He doesn't criticise him, he doesn't judge him. He simply states, if he was in Fagan's shoes, he wouldn't complete for the good of the sport as a whole.

The Fagan issue is many things, but it's definitely not tiresome.

The very fact that he has served his time and is back running means his past will never go away. It can't and it shouldn't.

It's great to see an Irish athlete speak so openly about it and put forward his feelings on doping.

At the end of the day, people like Fagan are damaging his sport and he's entitled to give his views on the matter.