Steve Mullings

Does anyone else find it wierd that hes all of a sudden managed to knock over 2 tenths of a second of his PB at the age of 28? Maybe its just me and the cynical attitude ive develop because so many top sprinters have took PEDs in the past but was just wondering what other people thought.

He failed a drugs tested in 2004 and served a 2 year suspension. So I guess there will always be some suspiscion around him.

........... or Mo Farah 42secs off his PB

Yes he has had a ban in the past but it is how you perceive it. I thought that Mo changing to Salazar was a good thing. Not all coaches are the same. Some coaches can spot the smallest of details which can give immense improvement. Also a perception in whether an athlete is working hard enough. An athlete along with their coach may think so. Other coaches have other opinions.

You just never know why. Unfortunately for sprinters, especially with those with a past, people often lean towards the dark side

Thanks for the info, i didnt know he had already failed a test. that just raises my suspicions! although im a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty so until he actually fails one i will just accept that hes clean.

billiethezwerg wrote:........... or Mo Farah 42secs off his PB

Yes he has had a ban in the past but it is how you perceive it. I thought that Mo changing to Salazar was a good thing. Not all coaches are the same. Some coaches can spot the smallest of details which can give immense improvement. Also a perception in whether an athlete is working hard enough. An athlete along with their coach may think so. Other coaches have other opinions.

You just never know why. Unfortunately for sprinters, especially with those with a past, people often lean towards the dark side

I know there is every possibility hes just worked alot harder and is now reaping the rewards...although as the 100m is the headline event it is the one people are most inclined to focus on in terms of athletes taking PEDs.

While I agree with the sentiments regarding automatic suspicion of sprinters over other events, it is more likely that a long-distance runner will produce these enormous revisions of PB's.

A tweak to weekly mileage can produce vast improvements, someone like Mo will run a 10,000 less often than a sprinter runs 100m, so less opportunities to run fast, and where the top-end of distance running relies so much on good pacing to produce the fast times, there are even less chances to go fast as we see so much bad pacing. When all these aspects are working together well, like in Eugene last week, we see these major breaktrhoughs. Mo was far from the only PB in that race, just the most overdue one.

I wasn't questioning Mo's performance just pointing out how large improvements in perfromance suspicion is heavily weighted towards sprinters, especially with history, unless you are a female chinese runner of course who only turns up for a couple of races then disappears.

Also trying to be positive on athletes performances and how improvements can be made with the smallest of changes, whether traing or coach - As shown with Mo the smallest of changes can accumulate to larger improvements over longer distances.

I try to stay away from the issue

I dont think Mo is a very good comparison for Mullings for reason BigJon pointed out, maybe Jeter or Dunn would be better examples as they have both done very similar things to Mullings in the latter end of their careers!

Jeter is a very good example as its a similar situation. Has she ever been accused/caught taking PEDs though?

Besides being colloquially referred to as Carmelita Cheater, I don't think she has anything on her besides being a late blossomer both in performance and stature.

While I have some slight suspicions with regards to Jeter, it must be said that she was out for years with injury after a useful early career so her improvement may just be through being clear of that, although she has had quite a noticeable body change but it's all speculation.

I love her technique though!

You see it is happening already ... "Jeter is a very good example as its a similar situation. Has she ever been accused/caught taking PEDs though?."

Thing is in the early nineties the perception was that sprinters peaked late 20s into 30s. Many peoples perceptions have changed as more younger athletes (very early 20s) are going faster and now people are questioning when so called older athletes go faster.

Let's not go down the road of pointing fingers and supposition. Just enjoy the competition and performances who ever they are.

If the worse happens it won't be something new although disappointing.

billiethezwerg wrote:You see it is happening already ... "Jeter is a very good example as its a similar situation. Has she ever been accused/caught taking PEDs though?."

Thing is in the early nineties the perception was that sprinters peaked late 20s into 30s. Many peoples perceptions have changed as more younger athletes (very early 20s) are going faster and now people are questioning when so called older athletes go faster.

Let's not go down the road of pointing fingers and supposition. Just enjoy the competition and performances who ever they are.

If the worse happens it won't be something new although disappointing.

There is a difference from someone peaking in there late 20's but via gradual progression of knocking say 5 hundredths of a year, to someone who all of a sudden at 28 jus knocks over 2 tenths of!

Let me add, by the way, that Steve Mullings has been training with Tyson Gay.

I suppose that could account for alot of the improvement. Was it Simeon Williamson who was training with Bolt not so long ago?

Simeon is still training there as far as I know.

As far as i know simeon started the season with a 10.8 or something along those lines, you have any idea when he will be racing again or has he made any comments regarding what sort of shape he was in? If it hadnt been for that injury I was confident of him going sub 10 seconds

He's down for both UK Diamond League meets. I hope he can get his sharpness back. On his day, our most exciting sprinter to emerge for years

Actually, Simeon ran 10.91 secs into a -2.4m/sec headwind midway last month in Kingston, Jamaica. Now, that's nothing to set the world on fire but he's an outrageously *chuckle* traditional slow starter and can sweep through the gears into form when it matters.

Note that his first race in 2009 was 10.78+ en route to 150m (-0.1m/sec) in Manchester around the same time (mid May) and improved to 10.05 into a -1.8m/sec at the UK Trials.

Suppose we will just have to wait and see. How many 100m runners will britain be sending to the World Champs for the individual event, 3?

lfc 91

imo there is only 1 reason why a top class 28 year old sprinter who has been training hard for several years can suddenly knock a relatively huge 2/10 off their pb. Surely that's not brain surgery?

Jeter? As above


billie - the reason why cheats are able to get away with it and damage our sport is partly because reasonable people like you are prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt over and over again. That's not really a criticism it just saddens me to see proven drug takers able to run again and receive money and medals for doing so.



djlove

long time no speak, how you doing?

English_Osprey, the gains of a certain training regime or the efforts of a certain athlete may take various and wide different lengths of time to fall into shape. Many individuals may need more time for things to bed in and start to perform to the standards aimed without necessarily being less talented.

Age also can be relevant because the biological age, which matters more, may be substantially different to the chronological age of an athlete. Some people mature earlier than many, some later.

As essential is what the training/competition age and debt of one might be. If someone like Carmelita Jeter started training/competing relatively later than most it follows that she's going to reach her peak later as well. Of course, most athletes never reach their real peak...

Further, remain injury-free for lengthy spells to keep building on is another fundamental factor in the development of an athlete. Sometimes it may take two, three or even four straight seasons to find out and tweak some thing(s) you're doing wrong.

Let's not haste into suspecting people purely on the grounds of having served a suspension on doping offences or having made some extraordinary or seemingly unlikely breakthrough - though I'll give you that some cases may suck big time at first sight. For me, as long as one trains hard and persists there is always a good chance that one will get that breakthrough sooner or later.

But bear also in mind that there could be people using illegal substances that earn money and medals which are never going to be proven as such, while certain individuals may never even undergo any tests and with the blessings of top governing bodies.

lfc91, Britain will most likely field a full quota of three sprinters in Daegu. So far, there are four currently holding the A standard - Dwain Chambers, James Dasaolu, HAA and MLF.

English,

While I harbour the very same suspicions as you do, in the case of Jeter no allegation has stuck as far as I'm aware so for the sake of the sport I think we have to follow the innocent until proven guilty and hope as many cheats are caught as possible.

Someone like Mullings brings up greater issues: do bans need to be lengthened? The current suspensions are clearly not proving to be a deterrent. We see time and time again that people are willing to risk a rap and two years out first time round knowing, as you point out, that they can still make a successful and lucrative career after the ban.

There is certainly lots to be improved upon for anti-doping agencies and governing bodies, I fear athletics is becoming like cycling of the past where a lot of brushing under carpets will occur, but let's hope it becomes the respected sport for not going down that route

bigjonatkinson wrote:English,

While I harbour the very same suspicions as you do, in the case of Jeter no allegation has stuck as far as I'm aware so for the sake of the sport I think we have to follow the innocent until proven guilty and hope as many cheats are caught as possible.

Completely the opposite I think. The sport is thriving off the fact that the IAAF and a lot of national governing bodies are not really interested in anti-doping on an overall level.

The popularity of the sport is probably riding on them maintaining this status quo. Athletes dope, nobody tests, doped athletes win but appear clean. Everyone's a winner.

english_osprey wrote:lfc 91

imo there is only 1 reason why a top class 28 year old sprinter who has been training hard for several years can suddenly knock a relatively huge 2/10 off their pb. Surely that's not brain surgery?

Jeter? As above


billie - the reason why cheats are able to get away with it and damage our sport is partly because reasonable people like you are prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt over and over again. That's not really a criticism it just saddens me to see proven drug takers able to run again and receive money and medals for doing so.



djlove

long time no speak, how you doing?

For once I agree with you. On the first part. On the second statement totally disagree. Think the reason why athletics is not as popular as it should be is because there are too many people like you who think everyone is cheating. And how does doubting everyone stop them taking PEDs? It is not like because we trust them they are not being tested.

2/10th off his pb would mean he would be doing 8 seconds. He's only taken 0.2 off his pb, which is quite easy and believable considering the changes in his training. I very much doubt he is or has taken ped's. Look at Gay's improvements, anyone training with him will have gotten better. He trains like a dog in heat!

Utter rubbish if you think Mulling is doping. Jeter wouldn't be either, she's not that stupid. Look at what they have to lose. Utter rubbish. Now just stop the horrid rumours- these rumours are the reason the sport is dying. The supposed fans of athletics are the ones that are destroying athletics. The ones that will not forgive and make it such a big issue.

How is it utter rubbish?

He's a proven liar and cheater. I can't imagine how you could have what seems to be 100% faith in the guy.

Too much to lose is a poor excuse too. Having 'too much to lose' hasn't stopped countless dopers in the past, how do you think it's suddenly stopping them now? In fact with the money they can earn, there is actually plenty to gain.

Drugs is absolutely nothing to do with why the sport is struggling, the public perception of athletics is fairly good in terms of doping, especially when you compare it to a sport that has gone medieval on doping in comparison like cycling.

Your whole 0.2 seconds thing was very pedantic.

lsabre - interesting points. agree with the age thing wholeheartedly. unfortunately i would suggest that the physical maturity reasoning tends to disprove rather prove your arguement. I would suggest, just by observation, that athletes from a West African background tend to be more physically developed at a younger age than their white European competitors. To observe this go to any junior meeting in the UK, national young athletes league for example. You will see MASSIVE African-origin children who simply dwarf their rivals. Some times/distances I witnessed last year were just amazing for 12 year olds! I am certainly not suggesting that these children weren't 12. I am mereley pointing out that a) their physical development was outstanding and b) how much growing/development do they have in them?
Look at the Jamaican school champs. Amazing times but, until very recently, where's the development? Previous to Bolt Jamaica's last olympic 100m medal was in 1976! The reason, I believe is that many of the competitors had reached their physical peak while they were still at school.
Look at Marl Lewis-Francis, ran his pb when he was 19. Why? because that's when he was physically at his peak.

And that, in a rambling sort of way, is why I don't really accept your training/development arguement. Not that I can disprove it of course. And I may well be wrong. In a sense I hope I am because like bigjon I feel that athletics is becoming like cycling. More and more problems kept contained and hidden until their is a huge explosion and the sport is irretrievably damaged. It would only take one big name (guess who?) to be proven guilty and it's all over. That's why I'm so anti-drugs

Indeed Athletics only needs to look at the fall in public perception of cycling since they started clamping down more and does anybody want Athletics' reputation destroyed? I'm not saying there are any conspiracies but there is a danger of too lackadaisical an approach to doping.

ryan

2 SECONDS off his pb would mean he was doing 8
if you take your calculator and press '2' then the 'divide' button and then the '1' and '0' and finally the '=' sign I think you'll get 0.2.

Also at the very highest level knocking off 0.2 over 100m is NOT 'quite easy'. Ask around

'Look what they have to lose'
Look what they've gained

yoyo - nice to hear from you again. If you agree with the first part wouldn't the second part just follow on?
Once again, I don't think everybody is cheating. Far from it in fact. Unfotunately it's just most of the major world stars. Especially certain countries and especially certain events

'Completely the opposite I think. The sport is thriving off the fact that the IAAF and a lot of national governing bodies are not really interested in anti-doping on an overall level.
The popularity of the sport is probably riding on them maintaining this status quo. Athletes dope, nobody tests, doped athletes win but appear clean. Everyone's a winner'.
Thanks dj, spot on I think. Not everyone's doping, just the favoured few.

ryan

2 SECONDS off his pb would mean he was doing 8
if you take your calculator and press '2' then the 'divide' button and then the '1' and '0' and finally the '=' sign I think you'll get 0.2.

Also at the very highest level knocking off 0.2 over 100m is NOT 'quite easy'. Ask around

'Look what they have to lose'
Look what they've gained

yoyo - nice to hear from you again. If you agree with the first part wouldn't the second part just follow on?
Once again, I don't think everybody is cheating. Far from it in fact. Unfotunately it's just most of the major world stars. Especially certain countries and especially certain events

'Completely the opposite I think. The sport is thriving off the fact that the IAAF and a lot of national governing bodies are not really interested in anti-doping on an overall level.
The popularity of the sport is probably riding on them maintaining this status quo. Athletes dope, nobody tests, doped athletes win but appear clean. Everyone's a winner'.
Thanks dj, spot on I think. Not everyone's doping, just the favoured few.

unfortunately I tend to side with dj and English here, I say unfortunately because I love watching athletics, but I've become very cynical over the years. Certainly not everyone is on drugs, but when you look at some of the responses to athletes who are caught, and get away with what basically amounts to a slap on the wrist (e.g. a six month ba out of competition) and the statement "Look what they have to lose", well not a lot, really.

I really think it would be easier if responses to doping charges were taken out of the country's governing body's hands completely. The disparity of suspensions really grates me at times.

Trouble is, athletics has seen what happened to cycling when they agknowledged there was a doping problem (well they didn't have much choice really), and they clearly don't want to go through that. Ask yourselves, "how well would athletics survive if Bolt was convicted of taking banned substances?". Unfortunately to me the answer to that question makes it sure it will never happen.

You all sound very very cynical and a bit libelous, wildly throwing accusations around about the people that we look up to. You are supposedly fans of athletics, yet you seem to hate the athletes. Maybe hate is the wrong word. I ask why support it if you feel the way that you've described?

You may as well go and support your local football teams.

This truly is golden generation of athletes, and we must enjoy it, rather than stand back like a bunch of grumpy cynical old men grouching over who's cheating, its not fair, he is running faster, its not fair she is getting bigger. Just because our athletes aren't putting in the work and getting the results that Gay/Mullings/Jeter are getting doesn't mean that they are cheating.

Just stop your moaning and enjoy these times, they are the best they have ever been.

I think your mindless worship is worse than being cynical.

History is on the cynics side I'm afraid. A whole load of people like you howled any time someone suggested Marion Jones might have a few issues. Same with Gatlin and others.

It would be really nice to completely trust every performance, but the cynics are right in the end, more often than not.

I remember laughing at the Jones-Ferrette woman or whatever her name is last year and she broke through with incredible performances. Now she's serving a ban.

History will always be with cynics!!!!!!!!

The future is always with optimists and idealists and realists... you will always be stuck in the past i am afraid for you and anyone that looks up to you or you have any influence over.

You breed mediocrity and discourage success. Any winners you see will be cheats in your eyes. I pity you.

Hey guys, calm down. Please. The whole thread has been drifting way off the topic.

ryan
I most certainly don't hate most athletes.I only have respect for what they put themselves through. However I do hate CHEATING athletes.

What does annoy me is statements like 'Just because our athletes aren't putting in the work and getting the results'. So naive and disrespectful. Have you ever paused to think what enables certain athletes to 'put in the work'? Also, how do you know how hard our athletes do or don't work compared to other countries?

Also
What makes you think that the current crop, apart from Bolt are a golden generation? The womens world record for 100m, 200m, 400m and 800m for example were set in 1988, 1988, 1985 and 1983 respectively. Do you ever read athletics history?

I think it's best that doping talk sticks to certain threads, and I think given the title of this one, it's an ideal place.

You hear a lot of stories.

Then I expect that you should build up a proper discussion over the matter. This will not turn into a new 606 under any circumstances. If not, I'll either move this, or any relative, thread into some sub forum or close it altogether. Thanks

Athletes have been known to peak later in their careers. It is not unheard of. Also injurys can plague athletes careers. A good winter and being injury free can make a huge difference.

english_osprey wrote:ryan
Also
What makes you think that the current crop, apart from Bolt are a golden generation? The womens world record for 100m, 200m, 400m and 800m for example were set in 1988, 1988, 1985 and 1983 respectively. Do you ever read athletics history?

Flo Jo, who did nothing until a major champ then turned up and was the world's greatest ever sprinter.

When she died Michael Johnson was asked about her, never in all my life have I seen a major athlete react with such apathy to the death of a former collegue.

All those records should be reset.

Mullings, a convicted drug cheat, can not be 100% trusted. Thats not a biased/unjustified opinion. Thats logic. Ryan, d'you trust Blonska 100%?? I sure as hell don't.

If these league organisers are inviting Mullings & Gatlin then why Chambers is excluded I'll never know.

That is no true about Flo Jo. She was Olympic silver medallist in LA in 22.04 ahead of Ottey (22.09) and Cathy Cook (22.10), earning a gold in the 4x100m relay, top-ranked 100m runner in the world in 1985, and world silver medallist over 200m in Rome (21.96), claiming again gold with the relay. She was very much around the top tier of world sprinting for four-five seasons before she soared to the top.

ryanbailey wrote:You all sound very very cynical and a bit libelous, wildly throwing accusations around about the people that we look up to. You are supposedly fans of athletics, yet you seem to hate the athletes. Maybe hate is the wrong word. I ask why support it if you feel the way that you've described?

You may as well go and support your local football teams.

This truly is golden generation of athletes, and we must enjoy it, rather than stand back like a bunch of grumpy cynical old men grouching over who's cheating, its not fair, he is running faster, its not fair she is getting bigger. Just because our athletes aren't putting in the work and getting the results that Gay/Mullings/Jeter are getting doesn't mean that they are cheating.

Just stop your moaning and enjoy these times, they are the best they have ever been.

This is a question I have often asked french-oprey. I fail to see how you can enjoy watching the sport if you feel the top stars are cheating.

lsabre wrote:That is no true about Flo Jo. She was Olympic silver medallist in LA in 22.04 ahead of Ottey (22.09) and Cathy Cook (22.10), earning a gold in the 4x100m relay, top-ranked 100m runner in the world in 1985, and world silver medallist over 200m in Rome (21.96), claiming again gold with the relay. She was very much around the top tier of world sprinting for four-five seasons before she soared to the top.

Hmm I think there is a huge difference between running 21.96 and then the next season 21.34 a time that no other athlete can ever dream of coming even remotely close to. Plus retiring as soon as out of competition testing is introduced. I am totally against the cynics but when it comes to Flow Jo I fail to see how anyone can even think she was clean.

jamsie - good point I agree with you


yoyo - and as I have often replied, what makes you think I like watching the elite level of the sport?
I do however watch my son and his team compete up and down the country most summer weekends and train throughout the winter. Does that count as enjoying watching the sport?
Are you going to cheer for Steve Mullings the next time he races?

yoyo - I respect your opinion of course. I know you don't want to believe the evidence of your own eyes due to your love of the sport. Fair enough.

However even you are convinced of FGJ's guilt, and rightly so in my opinion. If we assume that all the stunning womens times from the 80's were ped assisted then it's not a huge leap of faith to assume that the top men were all ped-assists as well? Why wouldn't they be?
If you agree with the above, how is it that all the stunning times set in that period by men have all been recently superceded?
And before you point to red-herrings like training and diet, why in the same period have current womens times not superceded the 80's when they have access to exactly the same methods as the men?

I'm baffled perhaps you or anybody else can help?

eng osp
I think the difference between the men and women you refer to could possibly be because the drugs make a bigger difference to the women. Therefore the men have not had to bridge suh a bige deficit since testing.

i assume the women also have access to the same drugs that all them top men are on too?