Some things are just too obvious!!!

First topic message reminder :

Olympics shot put: Nadzeya Ostapchuk stripped of gold medal


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19242736
Somethings were just too obvious! Was to me - as I'm sure it was to the many millions more around the world

She could've at least made an effort on the day to look her best and make it appear less obvious.

You got to laugh at Brett Morse's comments

And the fact that he had to apologise - only for us all to find that he was bang on! [ Though he might've been more diplomatic ].

Finally, sad that Valerie Adams had to win her Gold like that - but at least Ostapchuk got caught, and the right person gets to be called the Olympic champion

Super D Boon wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:You're embarrassing yourself now guys.

It's the problem when people who have very little knowledge of a sport try to get opinionated, particularly on subjects that could be controversial.

We all know about Az. He's just a parody figure really, nobody takes a word he says seriously anymore.

He also disses the majority race of the country he lives in ie. "anglo saxons". I'd hate myself if I lived in Jamaica and claimed all Jamaicans were cheats yet Euro athletes are symbols of virtue and are all clean.

Who is being dismissive? If you want to read it that way it simply shows your own insecurities.

english_osprey wrote:Do you know what boys?

I'm afraid that I'm made a simple schoolboy error.
I've made the rash assumption that Victor Conte the man at the centre of the BALCO scandal and chemist to the stars, and Dick Pound who is a former IOC vice-president, lawyer and president of WADA would know more about the current drug scene than you intellectual titans.
What a fool I've been!
I know accept that your brilliant wit, multitude of factual evidence and deep, deep knowledge make it almost impossible to argue my case. You can be certain that the IAAF hierarchy once they read this forum will be beating a path to your respective doors rather than deal with those (what I now realise)sad imposters messrs Pound and Conte!

Good. So where did they get their figures from?

Super D Boon wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:That is pretty idiotic.

He went as low as 70%?

DJ is it really THAT bad?

Damn it! Bring back Allan Wells and Silvio Leonard. The guys clocked 100m in 10.25 seconds with Wells winning by photo. Not so much juice around back then. 10.25 is definitely believable.

Roids have been around since the 1960s. During the 1970s the authorities knew little about it and testing was not very useful or good. Athletes were free to do what they wanted and many did. Donna Hartley's voice changed and she got into female body building after her athletics career was over. Another US based brit 400m runner got busted in the early 80s when testing became more professional. To claim that there was not much juice back then is 100% wrong. In fact its probably cleaner now than back then.

azania wrote:

Super D Boon wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:That is pretty idiotic.

He went as low as 70%?

DJ is it really THAT bad?

Damn it! Bring back Allan Wells and Silvio Leonard. The guys clocked 100m in 10.25 seconds with Wells winning by photo. Not so much juice around back then. 10.25 is definitely believable.

Roids have been around since the 1960s. During the 1970s the authorities knew little about it and testing was not very useful or good. Athletes were free to do what they wanted and many did. Donna Hartley's voice changed and she got into female body building after her athletics career was over. Another US based brit 400m runner got busted in the early 80s when testing became more professional. To claim that there was not much juice back then is 100% wrong. In fact its probably cleaner now than back then.

Juice was around but hardly anyone used it compared to now unless they were on some foced steroid induced programme. They generally came in tablet form and were offered to athletes with comparably few athletes wishing to take them as the health risks associated were generally unknown. The Eastern bloc athletes were pretty much well known to be roided up even at the time but none of it was uncovered until the fall of the Iron Curtain. But so many of those souped up athletes became shells of people after they retired when they lost their usefulness. Take for example the roided up swimmer who beat Sharon Davies at the 1980s Olympics developed a male like torso and a man's voice and was subsequently unable to conceive I believe. She pretty much had all her natural female aspects destroyed by PED use.

These days the knowledge on the side effects is pretty well known you have expert pharmacists like Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection. To say it's cleaner now when an athlete can take something that won;t show up in tests is ludicrous and shows you up to be naiive. I can't beleive that any more than half the athletes in the Olympic sprints were clean. When you have former Heads of anti doping bodies and experts saying as much I think it's a huge leap of faith to think otherwise.

Hardly anyone used it? Are you serious? It was rife then. The problem then also is that the testers were far behind the juicers. Now the tersters are marginally behind the juicers (imo). Also the issue of steroids and sports is out in the open. Many were shocked when Johnson was nabbed. Those who follow the sports were not. In the late 1970s it was more of a case of who wasn't taking it. Wells for me wa sone of those I looked at with scepticism. Along with another scottish sprinter at the same time whose name excapes me.

That swimmer who beat Davies went all the way and is now a transgender.

It is very naive to think that the eastern bloc nations were the most active in roid abuse. There was a saying that US athletes took aling with their marketing agents, masking agents. Arguably the US had better drugs anyway.

My point is that they were all at it in the 1970s and 80s. I argue it is much cleaner now because of the testing which is better than ever and the randomness of many testing. To say for example that cycling is cleaner now than athletics is false. This is because the bodies will share technology on drugs and their variance.

Conte claims a lot after the BALCO episode. But he is short on evidence. In short his claims are as random as testing.

Do you think FloJo would get away with it now? I dont.

I'lla dd that if Johnson had taken his roids a week earlier, he would have been clean and holding onto his medal. Now he would be subject to randon testing all year round and his chances of getting away with it would be minimal or lowered.

Also ironically, FloJo retired as soon as random testing was introduced. Any ideas why or coincidental?

"These days the knowledge on the side effects is pretty well known you have expert pharmacists like Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection. To say it's cleaner now when an athlete can take something that won;t show up in tests is ludicrous and shows you up to be naiive. I can't beleive that any more than half the athletes in the Olympic sprints were clean. When you have former Heads of anti doping bodies and experts saying as much I think it's a huge leap of faith to think otherwise."

Well put and undeniably true


"Good. So where did they get their figures from?."
I laughed for quite a while. Where do you think? I'll give you a clue - it's in the paragraph above. If you're stuck I'll underline the relevant bits for you.

Azania ? Maybe my memory is fading but I don't remember Donna Hartley getting into any trouble over drugs ? Remember her winning in the Commonwealths , and relay medal in Moscow , but thought she just retired after that . I know she got into body building later so rather moved away from my sphere of interest...I checked on Wiki and can't see any reference : are you sure you have the right person ?

But yes I agree there were plenty of drugs around then , though as now , I think a lot of people fling figures around without any real basis but their own guesswork.
These days I'd say both the testing and the ingenuity of the drug creators has improved so the battle goes on...who is actually winning at any time is something no-one can really know for sure so I guess it depends on the view each individual wants to take.
Not that you or I can do anything about it anyway...

english_osprey wrote:"These days the knowledge on the side effects is pretty well known you have expert pharmacists like Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection. To say it's cleaner now when an athlete can take something that won;t show up in tests is ludicrous and shows you up to be naiive. I can't beleive that any more than half the athletes in the Olympic sprints were clean. When you have former Heads of anti doping bodies and experts saying as much I think it's a huge leap of faith to think otherwise."

Well put and undeniably true


"Good. So where did they get their figures from?."
I laughed for quite a while. Where do you think? I'll give you a clue - it's in the paragraph above. If you're stuck I'll underline the relevant bits for you.

I assume that they tested all the athletes and come up with that figure. If not its guesswork.

alfie wrote:Azania ? Maybe my memory is fading but I don't remember Donna Hartley getting into any trouble over drugs ? Remember her winning in the Commonwealths , and relay medal in Moscow , but thought she just retired after that . I know she got into body building later so rather moved away from my sphere of interest...I checked on Wiki and can't see any reference : are you sure you have the right person ?

But yes I agree there were plenty of drugs around then , though as now , I think a lot of people fling figures around without any real basis but their own guesswork.
These days I'd say both the testing and the ingenuity of the drug creators has improved so the battle goes on...who is actually winning at any time is something no-one can really know for sure so I guess it depends on the view each individual wants to take.
Not that you or I can do anything about it anyway...

I'm sure its on google. She even admitted using it in a TV interview. She's into body building and openly admitted to taking roids.

Now the juicers have got smarter as have the testers. Then the testing was a joke and more were on it. Of course figures are guesswork until they are caught. Conte is guessing also. If a top runner was on drugs, a whistle blower would have outed him or at least a whispering campaign would have strated. There is nothing on the Jamaicans other the jealous rants of disgruntled posters on a sports forum who put 2 and 2 together and come up with a simultaneous equation to get to 5.

"These days the knowledge on the side effects is pretty well known you have expert pharmacists like Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection. To say it's cleaner now when an athlete can take something that won;t show up in tests is ludicrous and shows you up to be naiive. I can't beleive that any more than half the athletes in the Olympic sprints were clean. When you have former Heads of anti doping bodies and experts saying as much I think it's a huge leap of faith to think otherwise."

I'm showing you this again because you possibly didn't have time to read it first time around. I've underlined a couple of phrases for your benefit
First take careful note of the terms ludicrous and naiive
Second the Conte and Heridia line (look up those names on wiki if necessary).
Third the careful juxtaposition of the terms 'heads of anti-doping bodies' and 'experts'.

With the greatest respect to you I would rather believe their educated, agenda-free guesswork than your own knowledge-free variety.

english_osprey wrote:"These days the knowledge on the side effects is pretty well known you have expert pharmacists like Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection. To say it's cleaner now when an athlete can take something that won;t show up in tests is ludicrous and shows you up to be naiive. I can't beleive that any more than half the athletes in the Olympic sprints were clean. When you have former Heads of anti doping bodies and experts saying as much I think it's a huge leap of faith to think otherwise."

I'm showing you this again because you possibly didn't have time to read it first time around. I've underlined a couple of phrases for your benefit
First take careful note of the terms ludicrous and naiive
Second the Conte and Heridia line (look up those names on wiki if necessary).
Third the careful juxtaposition of the terms 'heads of anti-doping bodies' and 'experts'.

With the greatest respect to you I would rather believe their educated, agenda-free guesswork than your own knowledge-free variety.

So they came to their conclusions as to how many are on PEDs by guessing. Thanks for clearing it up.

educated guessing my good friend

Do you think FloJo would get away with it now? I dont..
---------------

I've always thought the naysayers were a bit unfair on FloJo. She never failed a test (okay neither did Armstong!) but the fact the timekeepers screwed up her time in the US trials didn't help. There's no way she ran 10.49 yet the record still stood, thus adding to the doubts about her status as a clean athlete. I think I read that FloJo's technique was changed which caused the remarkable turnaround in sprint times before 88, not any unfair advantages. When she died her widower demanded they take out the remaining urine in her body and test it to prove she was innocent but sadly there wasn't enough left in her body to perform the test.

As for the swimmer who beat Sharon Davies there is a theory that she'd taken so many PEDs that it pretty much turned her into a man by stature and by voice, it took away her fertility so it's hardly surprising she decided she might as well go the full hog and become a man.

"I've always thought the naysayers were a bit unfair on FloJo. She never failed a test"

Oh COME ON!!!!!!

I just applauded your last post and now you bring this?

No other woman has run under 10.60 in the intervening 25 years never mind threatening her record!
I heard that in reality it was a very strong wind-assist as well as the obvious pharmaceutical aids

Flo Jo was never tested out of competition.

She announced her retirement literally days after the IAAF announced the plans to start testing out of competition the following year.

Boon

The dead giveaway for FloJo is not her remarkable improvement, but the complete change in her body structure and even more importantly, the change in her voice. She developed a deeper voice.

In the mid 1980s she was a good runner always coming in there or thereabouts. 4th and 3rd at a push. But she was very attractive so always got a look in.

But in 1988 everything changed. She developed a Barry White voice and some incredible muscles. It may be that she trained damned hard, but to almost change to a very masculine physique is very debeatable.

EO - her time is irrelevant and dodgy not because of PED but because of a probable faulty wind guage.

english_osprey wrote:"I've always thought the naysayers were a bit unfair on FloJo. She never failed a test"

Oh COME ON!!!!!!

I just applauded your last post and now you bring this?

No other woman has run under 10.60 in the intervening 25 years never mind threatening her record!
I heard that in reality it was a very strong wind-assist as well as the obvious pharmaceutical aids

Yeah I know, I blow hot and cold like that.

But seriously then. If FloJo is burned for it why not Bolt? Afterall he beat the World Record first of all with 9.72 having barely ran the 100m competitively and beat his own record in Beijing by pretty much messing around some 10 metres before the line and we're meant to believe that he is clean?

With Azania he'll post doubt on FloJo for an incredible turn around in performances but then reckon that the Jamicans are 100% clean for performing feats that are equally astonishing! Besides I never said that Flo Jo was clean I just said it was unfair given that someone like Bolt is by and large regarded as a sublime talent no questions asked.

Super D Boon wrote:

english_osprey wrote:"I've always thought the naysayers were a bit unfair on FloJo. She never failed a test"

Oh COME ON!!!!!!

I just applauded your last post and now you bring this?

No other woman has run under 10.60 in the intervening 25 years never mind threatening her record!
I heard that in reality it was a very strong wind-assist as well as the obvious pharmaceutical aids

Yeah I know, I blow hot and cold like that.

But seriously then. If FloJo is burned for it why not Bolt? Afterall he beat the World Record first of all with 9.72 having barely ran the 100m competitively and beat his own record in Beijing by pretty much messing around some 10 metres before the line and we're meant to believe that he is clean?

With Azania he'll post doubt on FloJo for an incredible turn around in performances but then reckon that the Jamicans are 100% clean for performing feats that are equally astonishing! Besides I never said that Flo Jo was clean I just said it was unfair given that someone like Bolt is by and large regarded as a sublime talent no questions asked.

I am not doubting FloJo because of her improvement. I am doubting her because of the transformation of her body down to her voice. yes her improvement is remarkable. Probably coincidental.

Bolt has always been a talent. Yes he hardly ran the 100m. But the speed was always there and he's shown it. Plus he has been tested many times and never looked like failing. Of all sprinters he is the one who I can safely say is 100% clean. Powell also. He needs some bottle and not a bottle of juice.

Yeah but the whole body and voice thing wouldn't be a factor on a male athlete would it? Certainly not the voice anyway.

As for Bolt I agree, or at least I'd like to agree that he's just a fine talent no juice involved. It's the other Jamaicans I'm not so sure about.

Marion Jones was tested many times and 'never looked like failing', Lance Armstrong was tested many times and 'never looked like failing'.

We all know that passing drug tests is no indication of an athlete being clean. It doesn't mean he's dirty of course, but I can't understand how anyone can keep a straight face while using the 'passed XX number of drug tests' argument for an athlete's innocence.

You
"Plus he has been tested many times and never looked like failing"

Reality
"Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection."

You
"Plus he has been tested many times and never looked like failing"

Reality
"Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection."

You
"Plus he has been tested many times and never looked like failing"

Reality
"Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection."


Any clearer?

english_osprey wrote:
You
"Plus he has been tested many times and never looked like failing"

Reality
"Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection."

You
"Plus he has been tested many times and never looked like failing"

Reality
"Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection."

You
"Plus he has been tested many times and never looked like failing"

Reality
"Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection."


Any clearer?

Conte and Heredia are (acknowledged) experts on the art of doping. However they're not necessarily without an agenda - if everyone's doping, then their guilt is diluted by association. So Conte's assertions may or may not be true. In addition, he's not worked in athletics for several years - how "in touch" is he?

Also, as far as I could establish a couple of weeks back, the ONLY evidence in the public (online) domain of Heredia working with Bolt etc comes from statements by Conte, or people quoting him. (Note, if someone can find another independent reliable source I'll happily acknowledge it). I did find evidence that Heredia was working with a pro-boxer (who's name I've forgotten) last year. It is also possible that Heredia has gone straight - he was an expert on the legal substances like creatine as well as illegal ones.

Note, I'm not saying that everyone is, or no-one is doping (quite frankly I don't know) - only that I don't particularly trust Conte et al to tell the truth.

Conte was at the Olympics working as an 'anti doping expert'.

Saying they don't trust Conte is like all the people who decried any comment made by Landis or Hamilton about Armstrong.

They did bad things so therefore nothing they say is credible. Turns out Landis and Hamilton were telling the truth.

djlovesyou wrote:Conte was at the Olympics working as an 'anti doping expert'.

Saying they don't trust Conte is like all the people who decried any comment made by Landis or Hamilton about Armstrong.

They did bad things so therefore nothing they say is credible. Turns out Landis and Hamilton were telling the truth.

I didn't say he was lying either - just that he may have his own agenda. And certainly his Twitter feed is pretty much exclusively devoted to pushing the "everyone's doping, particularly the Jamaicans" message. I'm always hesitant to trust a fanatic. Of any stripe/race/religion/creed

His main issue is that the IAAF don't use the CIR test to test for synthetic testosterone.

I'm always concerned as to why this test isn't used.

Hi kiwi

Good point. I would only ask you what agenda Conte has? What's in it for him to claim ped abuse is rife? I can't see what he would gain neccessarily.


Also I wasn't suggesting that Conte and Heredia were conclusively correct. I was trying to point out to one of my fellow posters that never failing a test is proof of cleanliness is utter nonsense because

"Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection."

The point being that none of Conte's athletes were ever caught by routine tests. Were they clean then? Obviously not.
But if Conte could prepare 'undetectable' peds don't you think that his pharmaceutical heirs can do it at least as well?

I'm with dj on the CIR tests

If I were a cynical man I would suggest it's because the IAAF are corrupt,morally bankrupt, and in particular scared of what they might uncover.

english_osprey wrote:Hi kiwi

Good point. I would only ask you what agenda Conte has? What's in it for him to claim ped abuse is rife? I can't see what he would gain neccessarily.


Also I wasn't suggesting that Conte and Heredia were conclusively correct. I was trying to point out to one of my fellow posters that never failing a test is proof of cleanliness is utter nonsense because

"Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection."

The point being that none of Conte's athletes were ever caught by routine tests. Were they clean then? Obviously not.
But if Conte could prepare 'undetectable' peds don't you think that his pharmaceutical heirs can do it at least as well?

I agree with you on the not caught/caught stuff. But as I said earlier, a possible motive goes as follows:
Conte has been caught doping. If he can persuade the world that everyone's doping then morally he can say "I was just doing what everyone else does" which would put him no longer beyond the pale.

It's only a possibility mind you. My sceptcism marker kicks in anytime someone goes above and beyond to convince me of something

djlovesyou wrote:Conte was at the Olympics working as an 'anti doping expert'.

Saying they don't trust Conte is like all the people who decried any comment made by Landis or Hamilton about Armstrong.

They did bad things so therefore nothing they say is credible. Turns out Landis and Hamilton were telling the truth.

Conte was working as a anti-doping expert during the last Olympics ? For who? USADA rejected his offers and I've never heard anything about him being hired by WADA (he's a former convicted felon). Secondly Conte isn't really a doping expert, but a self-proclaimed doping expert. Yes, he is the former owner of BALCO, however, he isn't a chemist (but a former musician) didn't designed any drugs but he hired chemists who did so. He was the man who was connecting athletes and real doping experts. I think he's a little bit "overrated".
Lastly, Conte has created a new nutritional supplements company, if he want to stay under the spotlights and advertise his new company, he needs to get attention and he's obviously trying to get it. Not that I'm totally dismissing what he says, that might be true I'm not naive, however one should be careful of not taking every he says for gospel truth...

He was being an advocate for VADA.

djlovesyou wrote:He was being an advocate for VADA.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't VADA related to MMA & Pro-Boxing ? Didn't know they had anything to do with the Olympics.

"The dead giveaway for FloJo is not her remarkable improvement, but the complete change in her body structure and even more importantly, the change in her voice. She developed a deeper voice"

"But in 1988 everything changed. She developed a Barry White voice and some incredible muscles. It may be that she trained damned hard, but to almost change to a very masculine physique is very debeatable."

"EO - her time is irrelevant and dodgy not because of PED but because of a probable faulty wind guage "

"I am not doubting FloJo because of her improvement. I am doubting her because of the transformation of her body down to her voice. yes her improvement is remarkable. Probably coincidental"

WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
seriously, what point are you trying to make?

english_osprey wrote:"The dead giveaway for FloJo is not her remarkable improvement, but the complete change in her body structure and even more importantly, the change in her voice. She developed a deeper voice"

"But in 1988 everything changed. She developed a Barry White voice and some incredible muscles. It may be that she trained damned hard, but to almost change to a very masculine physique is very debeatable."

"EO - her time is irrelevant and dodgy not because of PED but because of a probable faulty wind guage "

"I am not doubting FloJo because of her improvement. I am doubting her because of the transformation of her body down to her voice. yes her improvement is remarkable. Probably coincidental"

WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
seriously, what point are you trying to make?

Must everything be spelt out to you?

Anyway, I'm still waiting for the evidence from Conte.

english_osprey wrote:I'm with dj on the CIR tests

If I were a cynical man I would suggest it's because the IAAF are corrupt,morally bankrupt, and in particular scared of what they might uncover.

Of course.

Super D Boon wrote:Yeah but the whole body and voice thing wouldn't be a factor on a male athlete would it? Certainly not the voice anyway.

As for Bolt I agree, or at least I'd like to agree that he's just a fine talent no juice involved. It's the other Jamaicans I'm not so sure about.

Why not?

please spell it out - if you can

is conte sending evidence directly to you? what sort of evidence?

please spell it out - if you can

is conte sending evidence directly to you? what sort of evidence?

english_osprey wrote:Hi kiwi

Good point. I would only ask you what agenda Conte has? What's in it for him to claim ped abuse is rife? I can't see what he would gain neccessarily.


Also I wasn't suggesting that Conte and Heredia were conclusively correct. I was trying to point out to one of my fellow posters that never failing a test is proof of cleanliness is utter nonsense because

"Conte and Heredia who know exactly how to alter the compostion of PEDs so they can avoid detection."

The point being that none of Conte's athletes were ever caught by routine tests. Were they clean then? Obviously not.
But if Conte could prepare 'undetectable' peds don't you think that his pharmaceutical heirs can do it at least as well?

That's obviously because you don't want to see what in it for him to make such wild and extravagant claims. You apply extremely wide lateral thinking when it comes to Jamaicans but remain strangely compliant and unquestioning when it comes to Conte. Any ideas why?

english_osprey wrote:please spell it out - if you can

is conte sending evidence directly to you? what sort of evidence?

To be blunt, FloJo was on something not permitted which changed her body structure and voice.

Conte seemed to have sent something to you. He made a claim and you believe him. Now I ask you for the evidence and you come back with jack......again.

Conte is making things up. 100% of home trained Jamaican sprinters are clean. I get my figures from the same place Conte gets his. Prove me wrong.

"To be blunt, FloJo was on something not permitted which changed her body structure and voice"

but then you say
"EO - her time is irrelevant and dodgy not because of PED but because of a probable faulty wind guage"

was she or was she not doing peds? just yes or no is fine

azania wrote:

english_osprey wrote:please spell it out - if you can

is conte sending evidence directly to you? what sort of evidence?

To be blunt, FloJo was on something not permitted which changed her body structure and voice.

Conte seemed to have sent something to you. He made a claim and you believe him. Now I ask you for the evidence and you come back with jack......again.

Conte is making things up. 100% of home trained Jamaican sprinters are clean. I get my figures from the same place Conte gets his. Prove me wrong.

Well done Az, so you and Conte are both plucking guestimates out of the air.

How about everyone taking a deep breath and discussing civilly.

this is how conte gets his figures
at the end of the financial year he makes a note of all these athletes who have sent him or Heredia money for drugs

"In April 2008, the New York Times reported that Greene had paid Mexican discus thrower Angel Guillermo Heredia $10,000, which Heredia claimed was in payment for performance enhancing drugs. Greene admitted meeting Heredia and making the payment, but claimed it was common for him to pay for "stuff" for other members of his training group"

He then checks these names against the world top 20 rankings. Lets say there are 12 names from the top 20. He then divides that number, 12 by the number in the worlds top 20, ie 20.

12/20x100= 60%

Perhaps that's how it was done? The man who owns BALCO may well have a list of customers names and adresses don't you think?

Perhaps you know better? I'm sure you think you do.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

azania wrote:

english_osprey wrote:please spell it out - if you can

is conte sending evidence directly to you? what sort of evidence?

To be blunt, FloJo was on something not permitted which changed her body structure and voice.

Conte seemed to have sent something to you. He made a claim and you believe him. Now I ask you for the evidence and you come back with jack......again.

Conte is making things up. 100% of home trained Jamaican sprinters are clean. I get my figures from the same place Conte gets his. Prove me wrong.

Well done Az, so you and Conte are both plucking guestimates out of the air.

How about everyone taking a deep breath and discussing civilly.

Yep I ma guessing. Just like Conte. Any fool can make wild claims without evidence and some will call it an educated guess.

english_osprey wrote:this is how conte gets his figures
at the end of the financial year he makes a note of all these athletes who have sent him or Heredia money for drugs

"In April 2008, the New York Times reported that Greene had paid Mexican discus thrower Angel Guillermo Heredia $10,000, which Heredia claimed was in payment for performance enhancing drugs. Greene admitted meeting Heredia and making the payment, but claimed it was common for him to pay for "stuff" for other members of his training group"

He then checks these names against the world top 20 rankings. Lets say there are 12 names from the top 20. He then divides that number, 12 by the number in the worlds top 20, ie 20.

12/20x100= 60%

Perhaps that's how it was done? The man who owns BALCO may well have a list of customers names and adresses don't you think?

Perhaps you know better? I'm sure you think you do.

Its 2012 now.

Perhaps? Now you are guessing.

english_osprey wrote:
"To be blunt, FloJo was on something not permitted which changed her body structure and voice"

but then you say
"EO - her time is irrelevant and dodgy not because of PED but because of a probable faulty wind guage"

was she or was she not doing peds? just yes or no is fine

If I say yes it would be libel. That is against board rules to make claims without proof.

azania wrote:

english_osprey wrote:
"To be blunt, FloJo was on something not permitted which changed her body structure and voice"

but then you say
"EO - her time is irrelevant and dodgy not because of PED but because of a probable faulty wind guage"

was she or was she not doing peds? just yes or no is fine

If I say yes it would be libel. That is against board rules to make claims without proof.

I'm pretty sure it's not libel if the person concerned is dead.

Messageboard comments come under slander anyway generally, I believe that's been the precedent.

The person who is slandered has to prove that the comments do them actual damage or loss of earnings in a trade.

Also, a public figure has to prove that the comments were made with actual malice and that the comments made were known to be false by the person making them. Also, a fair defence is that the statement was a view a reasonable person could have.

All in all, generally you can fire away with PED accusations and insinuations without fear of legal action, particularly in obvious cases like Flo-Jo. But in reality, any athlete is fair game, as long as you don't make stuff up regarding specific facts. (even then they have to prove that they are actually damaged by such claims, which would be unlikely on a messageboard such as this.)

Imagine I am Usain Bolt, Blake, Powell or any of the other high profile Jamaican athlete's chemist.

Its highliy like that I would be European or American. Because of the technological know to develop an undectable PED.

So here I am A European or an American Chemist. I am in it to make money - so i decided to sell it to the Jamaicans.

Why not sell it to athletes from my own country?. I am sure to get a better price?. Why sell it to the Jamaicans and alllow them to dominate and beat athletes from my own country. This doesnt make patriotic or economic sense.

Notice that most if not all the athletes caught up in the BALCO scandal was from USA and other developed nation.


To suggest that Jamaica's success is due to some sort of national PED programme is foolish and runs counter to rational resoning. I am not saying that the odd athletes will not Dope (Steve Mullings anyone? )

But look at where Steve Mullings trained. In the USA, he was Tyson Gay Training partner. does that mean that Gay is at it?

Who caught Mullings. The Jamaica anti-doping system. What was the result. Lifetime ban by the jamaican authorities.

The Jamaican auhtorities are fully aware that the world eyes are on them and would be foolish to condone or encourage doping. Too much is at stake.


My only concern about the Jamaican athletes. Bolt including is:

That as Jamaican , we like to drink herbal tea. I can remember growing up in rural Jamaica , there were about 20 or so wild growing plant species that we would use to make tea.

I dont know what these plant species contain. My advice to them will be to dont drink these herbal team. Never can tell what it contains.