Alberto Salazar banned for 4 years

Ceepo

whatcanidonow wrote: »

She needs to improve her new pb by 5 or 6 seconds. She should ask Hassan and her coach how to do that.

Clean up her diet and apply herself more.. hard work and maturity dont you know 😉😉😉

whatcanidonow

Ceepo wrote: »

Clean up her diet and apply herself more.. hard work and maturity dont you know ������

:pac:

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

Yeah but Ciara doesn't train at NOP

Well, it wouldn’t be sport if they all were equal...

She can find those gains and seconds elsewhere..

At least she thinks she can, and that’s positive..

Sub 4 is there for her..

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

Well, it wouldn’t be sport if they all were equal...

She can find those gains and seconds elsewhere..

At least she thinks she can, and that’s positive..

Sub 4 is there for her..

Simple really once the hunger and desire is there!!!

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

Simple really once the hunger and desire is there!!!

I'd add in a wee bit mote than this...

STB.

echat wrote: »

I thought Ciara Mageean ran very well in the qualifying and final, more confident in herself. She has a problem though when you consider had she started the 10000m with 1500m to go, she would not have won it! Shows us just how much Sifan has improved.

Sonia O Sullivan 1992 Sheffield 4:12:14 Gold

Ciara Mageean 2019 Doha 4:00:15 10th

Sign of the times.

walshb

STB. wrote: »

Sonia O Sullivan 1992 Sheffield 4:12:14 Gold

Ciara Mageean 2019 Doha 4:00:15 10th

Sign of the times.

You questioning Ciara now? Or Sonia, and her 3.58 from years ago!!! Her being more a 3 and 5 k specialist!

Or is it a case that only a time like Ciara’s is believable

Or didn’t you ever hear of both fast and slow races, and improvements through the decades...?

STB.

walshb wrote: »

You questioning Ciara now? Or Sonia, and her 3.58 from years ago!!! Her being more a 3 and 5 k specialist!

Or is it a case that only a time like Ciara’s is believable

Or didn’t you ever hear of both fast and slow races, and improvements through the decades...?

I was responding to someone who said that Ciara Mageean ran very well in the qualifying and final. She certainly did and she is not being given enough credit, especially by RTE.

She ran 12 seconds faster than someone who won a gold in 1992. That person was Sonia O'Sullivan and that's how competitive it has now become. And by the way Sonia wasn't a 3 or 5k specialist in 1992.

Don't be so fast to jump in with your size 12's before reading the response and the quote first.

Pherekydes

STB. wrote: »

Sonia O Sullivan 1992 Sheffield 4:12:14 Gold

Ciara Mageean 2019 Doha 4:00:15 10th

Sign of the times.

Sonia's 1992 win was in a tactical race at the World Student Games.

walshb

STB. wrote: »

I was responding to someone who said that Ciara Mageean ran very well in the qualifying and final. She certainly did and she is not being given enough credit, especially by RTE.

She ran 12 seconds faster than someone who won a gold in 1992. That person was Sonia O'Sullivan and that's how competitive it has now become. And by the way Sonia wasn't a 3 or 5k specialist in 1992.

Don't be so fast to jump in with your size 12's before reading the response and the quote first.

I knew exactly what you were saying.

I was just throwing out questions. That’s why I put the question marks...

So, are you aware that from time to time slow and fast races happen?

Sonia in 1992 was a slow race...

Had Ciara ran a 3.58 last night would you have been suspicious?

STB.

walshb wrote: »

Had Ciara ran a 3.58 last night would you have been suspicious?

She didn't though. She ran a PB and faster time than Sonia when she won Gold at 22 at 1500. That's how good Ciara's PB is. It could easily be forgotten given the winner did a 3:51 without breaking sweat, 7 days after running and winning a 10000.

If I was looking for dopers, they wouldn't be out the back.

Are dopers now dragging clean athletes to faster times or are they depriving clean athletes of medals ? Your call.

walshb

STB. wrote: »

She didn't though. She ran a PB and faster time than Sonia when she won Gold at 22 at 1500. That's how good Ciara's PB is. It could easily be forgotten given the winner did a 3:51 without breaking sweat, 7 days after running and winning a 10000.

If I was looking for dopers, they wouldn't be out the back.

Are dopers now dragging clean athletes to faster times or are they depriving clean athletes of medals ? Your call.

This 7 days after winning a ten k is a crock of Sh1t..

Were you expecting her to be at home recovering?

It’s one 10 k...big deal..With several days rest..

You seem to have really low expectations of these elite athletes, either that or you have no clue about what is possible...

The ten k probably helps her more than anything..

STB.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Sonia's 1992 win was in a tactical race at the World Student Games.

Don't try and belittle the result as being one of no consequence.


Sonia had Qu Yunxia behind her. She was already a World Junior champion at 1500 and set a world record the following year in Beijing that stood for 22 years.

skyblue46

walshb wrote: »

I knew exactly what you were saying.

I was just throwing out questions. That’s why I put the question marks...

So, are you aware that from time to time slow and fast races happen?

Sonia in 1992 was a slow race...

Had Ciara ran a 3.58 last night would you have been suspicious?

Can I just throw out a question to you please...or to be more accurate can we play a little role playing game? I'm just baffled by your stance, one which has no suspicions over any performance except Flo Jo.

Imagine you were offered a job by WADA, USADA and the IAAF to help them solve the doping problem. They admit that the testing process is useless against modern dopers. It's accepted by them that it's a huge problem. They need someone to look at facts and figures to make a best case for doping against athletes before they then target these athletes for closer inspection. You think that not hearing a doorbell isn't suspicious, nor are off scores, being trained by a cheat, improving substantially mid career, breaking records set by known dopers or outlier performances. What would you be looking at in place of all the above to find the dopers?

whatcanidonow

skyblue46 wrote: »

Can I just throw out a question to you please...or to be more accurate can we play a little role playing game? I'm just baffled by your stance, one which has no suspicions over any performance except Flo Jo.

Imagine you were offered a job by WADA, USADA and the IAAF to help them solve the doping problem. They admit that the testing process is useless against modern dopers. It's accepted by them that it's a huge problem. They need someone to look at facts and figures to make a best case for doping against athletes before they then target these athletes for closer inspection. You think that not hearing a doorbell isn't suspicious, nor are off scores, being trained by a cheat, improving substantially mid career, breaking records set by known dopers or outlier performances. What would you be looking at in place of all the above to find the dopers?

Stop entertaining him.

STB.

walshb wrote: »

This 7 days after winning a ten k is a crock of Sh1t..

Were you expecting her to be at home recovering?

It’s one 10 k...big deal..With several days rest..

You seem to have really low expectations of these elite athletes, either that or you have no clue about what is possible...

The ten k probably helps her more than anything..

I already knew you were an armchair crank from reading your previous posts.

This just confirms it. You can believe what you want fanboy. Other contending athletes are already asking questions.

nannerby

ppl plz stop responding to a known troll.

walshb

STB. wrote: »

I already knew you were an armchair crank from reading your previous posts.

This just confirms it. You can believe what you want fanboy. Other contending athletes are already asking questions.

You’re the crank. Giving out about any of these great times that these great athletes run...

skyblue46

whatcanidonow wrote: »

Stop entertaining him.

nannerby wrote: »

ppl plz stop responding to a known troll.

Sorry can't help myself....I'm out

nannerby

skyblue46 wrote: »

Sorry can't help myself....I'm out

if ppl put him on ignore we can actually have a proper discussion.

walshb

skyblue46 wrote: »

Sorry can't help myself....I'm out

Be yourself....

Don’t feel the need to pander to the sheep...

I like ya!

whatcanidonow

walshb wrote: »

Be yourself....

Don’t feel the need to pander to the sheep...

I like ya!

"keep feeding me, pleaseeeeee"

walshb

whatcanidonow wrote: »

"keep feeding me, pleaseeeeee"

Same for you. Stand up and be counted!

Be an awful silly thread if we ALL believed that they were cheaters...

whatcanidonow

walshb wrote: »

Same for you. Stand up and be counted!

*puts walshb on ignore*

skyblue46

nannerby wrote: »

if ppl put him on ignore we can actually have a proper discussion.

I never knew that was an option but I just did it. I feel liberated :pac:

walshb

skyblue46 wrote: »

I never knew that was an option but I just did it. I feel liberated :pac:

Let’s see how long you last...like a fad diet!!

nannerby

skyblue46 wrote: »

I never knew that was an option but I just did it. I feel liberated :pac:

now if others don't quote him it would be great )))

Pherekydes

STB. wrote: »

Don't try and belittle the result as being one of no consequence.


Sonia had Qu Yunxia behind her. She was already a World Junior champion at 1500 and set a world record the following year in Beijing that stood for 22 years.

I'm not belittling the result. You implied somehow that the races were comparable. Sonia herself was a 4:01 runner in 1992. It was a tactical race.

STB.

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm not belittling the result. You implied somehow that the races were comparable. Sonia herself was a 4:01 runner in 1992. It was a tactical race.

Except the Gold she won at Sheffield in 4:12 was in 1991 (not 1992 as orginally stated).

She didnt start putting in the sub 4's until 1993.

1992 4:01.23 Zürich (SUI) 19 AUG 1992
1990 4:11.20 Wrexham (GBR) 28 JUL 1990

walshb

And still that 4 mins 12 in 1991 was just a slow tactical race from a still young and up and coming maturing athlete...

Ceepo

thetimes.co.uk/article/paula-radcliffe-in-twitter-spat-with-lance-armstrong-whistleblower-tgb2997tg

Paula (print it and i'll sue) Radcliffe in a spat with Betsy Andreu on twitter,


Paula Radcliffe
✔
@paulajradcliffe
· Oct 1, 2019
Replying to @kenem @danroan
Not at all. Would just prefer to see greater investment in catching and removing cheating athletes from our sport as well as the systems behind them.


betsy andreu
@betsyandreu
Have you ever tried to quash any journalist's story about you with regards to PEDs Mrs. Radcliffe? Catching cheats is very difficult especially when the rich and powerful ones threaten financial ruin via lawsuits when the journalists plan to reveal the truth they've uncovered.

Paula Radcliffe
✔
@paulajradcliffe
· Oct 3, 2019
Replying to @betsyandreu and 2 others
I did say that.l was in a distressed state of shock at what they were threatening. I truly admired Walsh’s & your fight that exposed Lance for the bully and fraud he was. Now they were going to run a false, damaging story and I knew I was completely innocent.


betsy andreu
@betsyandreu
Thank you for answering at least this truthfully. I was always told you were the female version of Armstrong. Thanks for confirming.

Side note,
I did think this was a strange statement from Paula considering the USADA investigation was going on for 4 years,
"We talk about how much money has gone into (this investigation)...i think USADA were maybe trying to regain face after the Coleman fiasco.."
Wonder what the US Anti-Doping Agency will make of Paula Radcliffe's take on their successful pursuit of the banned Alberto Salazar"
I did think this was a strange statement considering the usada investigation had being going on for 4 years.. I cant see it having anything to do with Coleman.

walshb

Owl Betsy sounds like a real sour pants!

Ceepo

walshb wrote: »

Owl Betsy sounds like a real sour pants!

Similar to what Lance said!!

Torsevt

She fought against transparency because it suited her agenda of keeping her data under wraps.

Other British athletes were releasing data but she fought to oppose it and got UKA on her side when transparency is what the sport needs

PatrickSmithUS

It should be revealed what companies are sponsoring the former athletes commenting on all events.



The level of analysis from the BBC is shocking.

Marty Xavier

What a disappointment Paula Radcliffe has turned out to be. Remember her sitting in the stands with her poster objecting to the Russian athletes in Canada was it?
Now all this, I gave her the benefit of the doubt but deep down I knew , that she is most likely a dope cheat and so is Mo Farah too.

walshb

Marty Xavier wrote: »

What a disappointment Paula Radcliffe has turned out to be. Remember her sitting in the stands with her poster objecting to the Russian athletes in Canada was it?
Now all this, I gave her the benefit of the doubt but deep down I knew , that she is most likely a dope cheat and so is Mo Farah too.

I really doubt Paula is a cheat, but here she is juts lacking real solid consistency due to vested interest and conflicts; the usual human psyche that affects every walk of life...

robinph

Torsevt wrote: »

She fought against transparency because it suited her agenda of keeping her data under wraps.

Other British athletes were releasing data but she fought to oppose it and got UKA on her side when transparency is what the sport needs

The blood test data for everyone should be listed publicly, even if they just started off with listing who and when each person was tested and then gradually add to the information that gets released about test values.

Why not just dump it all in one go though and release everything? Well it would be a significant change to privacy for athletes and what people know about them compared to whenever the various tests were taken and making a massive dump of all data for everyone going back forever I think would create more problems than it solves for a lot of people and it would need to be phased in.

I would have absolutely no problem with my data being public if it were in amongst a shed load of other peoples being made public. I would absolutely not want my blood data being made public on it's own though as it will show all sorts of being generally crappy at managing my life and that is nobody elses business but my own (although I'd actually be relatively open about my blood data crappyness if anyone cared to ask). All of the data would need to have context around it as well. I have more blood test taken than the vast majority of people on here, but without context someone looking at my results for the last few years would wonder why I was briefly cured of one condition a few years ago (I think I also aged by 10 years and changed gender) but they refuse to remove that data from my records.

Mine is a set of numbers for something completely different, but if a series of numbers such as mine were released without context or explanation around them then people would jump on completely the wrong thing, that is nothing to do with them and means something completely different to what they think it means.

Yes, the data about athletes needs to be made more public, but this is something that needs to happen over time (as short a time as possible of course) and managed so that the public and the athletes know what it all means and the systems are in place to explain what needs explaining. That won't come from having a massive data dump of old test results taken under different regulations and expectations.

Torsevt

Marty Xavier wrote: »

What a disappointment Paula Radcliffe has turned out to be. Remember her sitting in the stands with her poster objecting to the Russian athletes in Canada was it?
Now all this, I gave her the benefit of the doubt but deep down I knew , that she is most likely a dope cheat and so is Mo Farah too.

I remember back to 92 when when won the world jr xc, so disappointing when the sh1t hit the fan and it turned out she was all talk

Sinbad_NI

Better piece from the beeb yesterday... without Radcliffe and Cram thank goodness (they've been talking rubbish for years).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49951671

is_that_so

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Better piece from the been yesterday... without Radcliffe and Cram thank goodness (they've been talking rubbish for years).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49951671

It is better but she should have held her fire on commenting on others, a lot of which is a projection of her own feelings about it.

Sinbad_NI

is_that_so wrote: »

It is better but she should have held her fire on commenting on others, a lot of which is a projection of her own feelings about it.

I'm glad she commented as she did. Just closed the book on her in my mind and removed the slightest thoughts of her being clean.

Ceepo

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Better piece from the beeb yesterday... without Radcliffe and Cram thank goodness (they've been talking rubbish for years).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49951671

ON Mo Farah,
"He split with Salazar in 2017, which was the same year the coach was first charged by Usada, but the Briton insists he was not aware of the doping charges at the time." SERIOUSLY he didn't know about the charges when he left, USADA investigated Salazer's for 2 years '15 to '17, the Joe soap runner's like ourselves, the general public knew about the charges, it was public knowledge at the time.. Coming out now and saying that he has "no tolerance for anyone who breaks the rules or crosses a line". is paying lip service. Especially when it is considered my many that Salazar is still coaching him, and that Lough is a front.

walshb

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Better piece from the beeb yesterday... without Radcliffe and Cram thank goodness (they've been talking rubbish for years).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49951671

Reading up on all this, there certainly seems to be wiggle room all over the place; no surprise with the whole mess that is PEDs in sport....

Also, how can this Goucher lass know some athletes didn't do anything wrong? Was she with them 24/7?

is_that_so

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

I'm glad she commented as she did. Just closed the book on her in my mind and removed the slightest thoughts of her being clean.

Hassan? Sounds like you didn't need much convincing if the views of a clearly still traumatised individual sways you.

is_that_so

Ceepo wrote: »

ON Mo Farah,
"He split with Salazar in 2017, which was the same year the coach was first charged by Usada, but the Briton insists he was not aware of the doping charges at the time." SERIOUSLY he didn't know about the charges when he left, USADA investigated Salazer's for 2 years '15 to '17, the Joe soap runner's like ourselves, the general public knew about the charges, it was public knowledge at the time.. Coming out now and saying that he has "no tolerance for anyone who breaks the rules or crosses a line". is paying lip service. Especially when it is considered my many that Salazar is still coaching him, and that Lough is a front.

Salazar is the only one who's been banned for now. Sure people will have their opinions about others but that doesn't make it true. I'm in the not sure about Farah camp. The inevitable secretive nature of all of these teams invites instant suspicion.

whatcanidonow

Marty Xavier wrote: »

What a disappointment Paula Radcliffe has turned out to be. Remember her sitting in the stands with her poster objecting to the Russian athletes in Canada was it?
Now all this, I gave her the benefit of the doubt but deep down I knew , that she is most likely a dope cheat and so is Mo Farah too.

Interestingly, that protest from Radcliffe was soon before her times started improving dramatically. If you can't beat them, join them?

Ceepo

is_that_so wrote: »

Salazar is the only one who's been banned for now. Sure people will have their opinions about others but that doesn't make it true. I'm in the not sure about Farah camp. The inevitable secretive nature of all of these teams invites instant suspicion.

Yes Salazar is the only one to be banned..
But for Mo to come out and say he wasn't aware of the charges the were been brought against Salazar in incredible.
Some people dont believe Mo didn't hear the doorbell. Some dont believe he wasnt clean. If he is to have any creditably at all, he should treat the public with some respect. Pretty sure he feels that some of public dont respect him. But that's life.. telling people he didnt know is BS..

walshb

Ceepo wrote: »

Some people dont believe Mo didn't hear the doorbell. Some dont believe he wasnt clean. .

"Some don't believe he wasn't clean?" Is this right, or did you mean to say some don't believe that he is clean?

walshb

Nike and their CEO seem to be quite adamant that Salazar is clean and not a cheat. They have obviously conducted a thorough enough investigation here...huge corporate brand...

This one is far from cut and dried!