Steve Mullings

First topic message reminder :

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.

hey guys this is a good debate going, but please refrain from having a personal pop at each other, tis not needed. Thank you.

I think Dwain's got a pretty nasty stare, i would not like to be on the receiving end. But on the other hand he's also got a huge grin and that isn't too nice either. lol...

But you have to like him, genuine nice guy., gone bad, and come good again. Purely loving the sport and has been working wonders for all those around him. Deserves the second chance that he should be given.

ian_jamsie wrote:

trickstat wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:

trickstat wrote:

ian_jamsie wrote:

You know for well what I meant

Ian

I did not know what you actually meant in your original post for 2 reasons (and I am sure I am not the only one!):

1) I don't know you from Adam.

2) This is an Internet forum so there is no tone of voice or facial expression to guide the 99% or so of people who read or contribute to this board who don't know you or me. The use of emoticons can help with this problem sometimes.

I hope we can let this lie now.

Trick stat please quote in full

"You were being pedantic.

You know for well what I meant and the huge difference these hormones make to muscle production.

Increased testosterone can make women run like men, fact. There is a wide difference in the production of these hormones and it is the main reason for the difference between men and women at the top level."

When you read the whole quote rather than cutting and pasting half a sentance it makes all your points null and void.

Nice Try but

Fail. :P

Ian

Your phrase "you know for well what I meant" surely is referring to your original post that was poorly worded. As I don't know you or your credentials I cannot be expected to know that what you really meant was the much more precise and well-worded comment regarding hormones that you have now given above. I did not give the full quote because it was not relevant to the point I was making.

You quoted half a sentance. That is nasty unpleasant thing to do. It makes a huge difference and is very very rude.

Despite my poorly worded initial statement you would have to be completely thick to not know what I was talking about. You were attempting to be a smart bum.

I will alter my first statement for you.

Men are faster than women on the whole due to hormone production.

Increase a womans testosterone they become stronger and faster. This is the most likely treatment given to the women's world record holders and is the reason why unless a freak appears like semenya they will never be beaten.

Bolt is freak as well. A man that tall with such leg speed is unnatural. That is why few doubt he is the real deal.

I quoted a phrase as that was the only part that was relevant to the point I was making which was that statements made on a forum such as this have to be taken at face value.

I removed the rest for brevity but as that is obviously far ruder than calling someone a pedant or using adolescent American speak such as "fail" I have left them in this time. If you insult people in response to their queries about your posts you should not be surprised if they take umbrage. I have tried very hard not to resort to that level.

You pulled me up first of all, I called you pedantic. (Which you were)

If you had just called me a t***. It would have ended there.

Instead by resorting to the level you did, you went on winding me up. Sometimes name calling just ends things, it is a brilliant tool.

In the snobby environment you probably work in you fail to enjoy the love of a good curse.

I apologise unreservedly for the American humour. I agree such a statement should be punishable by death, however I am clearly as pig headed as you are. I hate to let things lie. If however you can prove my theory on doping wrong, that would do it, or if you agree with the theory say you do and that will end it.

I agree I can be pedantic at times and I do love to have the last word which is tricky if the other person also does!

I'm off work today but where I work, while not actually snobby, is more formal than, for instance, a building site, garage, ad agency or IT department. For a start, I could be in trouble for so much as looking at this forum outside of my lunch break! However, there are muttered curses when the computer systems we use don't do what they're supposed to!

Without a TARDIS I think it's impossible to prove your doping theories wrong but I do believe that most of the existing women's world records are not 'clean' and many of them are virtually unbreakable. Regarding Caster Semenya while I find many of the comments people make about her on forums utterly reprehensible I do have my concerns. Particularly, although her body may not be producing the amount of testosterone it was before, she has been through a puberty in which it appears she has developed a physique that gives her an advantage over her rivals that she shall retain.

ryanbailey wrote:But you have to like him, genuine nice guy., gone bad, and come good again. Purely loving the sport and has been working wonders for all those around him. Deserves the second chance that he should be given.

Truer words have not yet been spoken. Why he isn't in our relay teams is beyond me. This "one eye on London" garbage doesn't sit. They're not had the same four guys in the team since CVC made that statement. Its nonsense.

I can find 6 occasions that there has been a GB men's 4x100m team since the beginning of last season and 9 athletes have run in at least one of them! Appearance totals as follows:

Devonish 5
MLF 4
Pickering 4
Lawal-Balogun 3
Malcolm 3
Baptiste 2
Harry A-A 1
Edgar 1
Ellington 1

Add in other possibilities like Dasaolu, Fifton, Talbot, Fearon, Gilling, Sandeman (!), Bolarinwa etc and it's pretty much anyone's guess who will be in the team in London next year especially given the advancing age of some of those on the list. So it is not as if running Chambers would greatly disrupt the team's preparation. On the other hand it is clear that we ought to be able to make the final in Deagu without him while even with him we cannot live with the Jamaicans and Americans. Whether we need him to beat the best of the rest is probably the more relevant question.

I understand your reasoning, but does Chambers deserve a place above guys who are framing up for the Olympics especially given he has behaved in a manner non of the others have, and cannot compete in the Olympics himself.

Half of those mentioned above won't be in the Olympics.

I can see both sides - is it about winning medals or the moral high ground of rather win clean than not at all - who knows?

I think for the benefit of the sport as a whole then the clean look is an imperative one to present to young people.

My view is that his omission was simply because of the spat with Darren Campbell a few years back when they won a medal (think it was Euro champs 2006) I imagine it was seen to embarrass athletics in this country being in a high-profile event and seen by millions on telly. Note this was chambers running in a relay after his ban and with the knowledge that he wouldn't be at Beijing (although this was before the court case but at the time he was, as he is now, barred from olympics) therefore I dont buy the looking to olympics stuff. It's because the sport in this country got negative press

trickstat wrote:I can find 6 occasions that there has been a GB men's 4x100m team since the beginning of last season and 9 athletes have run in at least one of them! Appearance totals as follows:

Devonish 5
MLF 4
Pickering 4
Lawal-Balogun 3
Malcolm 3
Baptiste 2
Harry A-A 1
Edgar 1
Ellington 1

Add in other possibilities like Dasaolu, Fifton, Talbot, Fearon, Gilling, Sandeman (!), Bolarinwa etc and it's pretty much anyone's guess who will be in the team in London next year especially given the advancing age of some of those on the list. So it is not as if running Chambers would greatly disrupt the team's preparation. On the other hand it is clear that we ought to be able to make the final in Deagu without him while even with him we cannot live with the Jamaicans and Americans. Whether we need him to beat the best of the rest is probably the more relevant question.

Whoops! Add Simeon Williamson to the list of possibles.

To be honest, for me, Dwain Chambers has never been better than OK in relays (remember his poor anchor leg at the 2003 Worlds?) and we are not likely to gain hugely by putting him in the squad. It is not like the alternatives are 10.5 men. Although I do have some sympathy for DC as he gets more negative attention than many other convicted drug users, I do think it would send out a very wrong signal if it was suddenly decided to put him in the relay just because there isn't a settled line-up amongst the remaining athletes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/aug/11/jamaican-sprinter-steve-mullings-positive

Early days on this one but looks like suspicions here are correct!

Apparently he has been caught using a more refined test for masking agents. I understand the authorities are now going to carry out that test on older samples for other athletes, that cleared the previous tests. Possibly more shocks to follow.

Well done to the authorities in Jamaica who have previously been accused of not doing the job, and on occasion being far too lenient.

lfc91 - perhaps you were right along?

"Utter rubbish if you think Mulling is doping." ryanbailey fri 10th june
ryan - perhaps you were wrong all along?

with respect teasoc this was hardly a shock. Fair play to the jamaican testers though. However had they bothered to check this thread they could have got their man weeks earlier.

who's next ryan? Who's next.........................?

So the third and fourth fastest men this year have failed drugs tests:
Fourth fastest man: news story
Third fastest man: news story

What does it all mean?

Nore Staat, good question.

I often wonder when two or more guys get busted (and there may be more) if they really are isolated. Does this mean these guys (if found guilty, I must add) felt they needed to dope to bridge the gap to the top? Are they isolated? Or is it an indicator that most of the top guys are doping and still a step or two ahead of the testers?

There's talk that these are sacrificial lambs to make it look like IAAF are doing something about widespread doping without completely wrecking the image of the sport. This however is getting into conspiracy territory and I dont really allow myself to get carried away with things like that
#

There are certain athletes who are in another league i.e. Bolt, Gay, and Powell. The others just didn't have enough to make up the difference.

Remembering that while we've always had great sprinters, including the few that in any given time would always feature for honours on the finishing line, that never had the Gold, Silver, and Bronze been so clearly sewn up. I mean, you gotta be capable of running 9.7s to guarantee a Bronze ( though it wouldn't necessarily require such a time in an actual final, you still gotta have that in the tank to give yourself the confidence you gotta proper chance ]...

As another poster suggests, is it that some of the athletes under suspicion, if found to be guilty of offences, felt they had to transgress in order to give themselves a shot?! Or is there something more deep-rooted?!

Well done english. i think you should be the one to tell me who else is doping not me tell you... lol.. Who is next?

I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty and all that rubbish.

don't think rodgers is guilty of anything other than the wrong fizzy drink. mullings's sounds a bit more suspicious. has the b sample come back yet though? shouldn't really talk until it has.

It would be interesting to know just how "easy" it is to cheat the system.

For example how long do you have to be taking PEDS for, for it to have an effect?

How easy is it to "cheat" the tests, using various masking agents, blood transfusions?

It seems to me that nowadays the athletes themselves are not necessarily going to have the biochemical knowledge and means to evade the system on their own - there will need to be a support system/network in place, technically knowledgeable coaches with access to high tech biolabs.

Perhaps one needs to focus on the coaches and the labs?

Whereas the "lone" talented athlete would not have a chance to evade the system (?) and is liable to get caught and banned from taking VICs nasal spray or BOOTS cough syrup to combat a cold.

Listening to past athletes however (Floyd Landis, Ben Jonson etc) they indicated that it was all so simple and widespread (in their time).

Nore Staat wrote:It would be interesting to know just how "easy" it is to cheat the system.

For example how long do you have to be taking PEDS for, for it to have an effect?

How easy is it to "cheat" the tests, using various masking agents, blood transfusions?

It seems to me that nowadays the athletes themselves are not necessarily going to have the biochemical knowledge and means to evade the system on their own - there will need to be a support system/network in place, technically knowledgeable coaches with access to high tech biolabs.

Perhaps one needs to focus on the coaches and the labs?

Whereas the "lone" talented athlete would not have a chance to evade the system (?) and is liable to get caught and banned from taking VICs nasal spray or BOOTS cough syrup to combat a cold.

Listening to past athletes however (Floyd Landis, Ben Jonson etc) they indicated that it was all so simple and widespread (in their time).

The test that caught Mullings is a new more refined test of masking agents. So whilst it might have been easy to mask certain steroids in the past it's now going to be more difficult and of course re-testing old samples could throw up lots of interesting results.

United States Olympic Committee to challenge IOC to allow Leshawn Merritt to compete in the 2012 Olympics despite serving a 21 month ban for failing three drugs test for use of steroids during the 2009–2010 winter training period.

Despite failing drugs tests for steriod use he still got to keep his 2008 Olympic gold medals (400m, 4x400m) as well as his 2009 World Championships gold medals (400m, 4x400m). The USOC wants him to have the right to defend his Olympic gold medals.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/27042011/58/merritt-hope-alive-usoc-petitions-cas.html

I have now read elsewhere a defence of why LaShawn Merritt should keep his Olympic and World Championships medals - the fact that he failed drugs tests during the winter of 2009-2010 doesn't mean he was necessarily taking drugs during the spring/summer of 2009 or during 2008.

What I find difficult with this argument is why would someone take drugs during the winter of 2009-2010 after winning the 2008 Olympics and 2009 World Championships clean, and after having achieved a 400m time of 43.75 s (in 2008) clean. Surely a clean runner would not feel the need to suddenly start taking drugs a few months after such success. In total he won 14 gold medals during a period from 2004 to 2009 before failing drugs tests for steroids. For such continuous success it doesn't make sense that he would suddenly start taking steriods.

Nore Stat, solid logic there...

Unless of course he wanted the WR or just a big weener as he claimed.

izzy

"There are certain athletes who are in another league i.e. Bolt, Gay, and Powell. The others just didn't have enough to make up the difference"

With respect to you, how does this statement make any sort of sense? In the context of the current discussion WHY do you think the above mentioned might be in another league? I obviously have no evidence either way, but then neither do you so why just blithley assume that they are so much better than everybody else and at the same time, clean?

ryan

the next athlete that you swear blind is clean, i reckon

Allright all, havent been on in a while but did i call it or did i call it? Knew his improvement was just to much at this stage to be clean. Does this mean both mullings and rodgers wont be competing in daegu?

Absolutely obvious he was cheating, i felt the exact same when Gatlin was winning the Athens Olympics, CHEATS!

Nore Staat wrote:I have now read elsewhere a defence of why LaShawn Merritt should keep his Olympic and World Championships medals - the fact that he failed drugs tests during the winter of 2009-2010 doesn't mean he was necessarily taking drugs during the spring/summer of 2009 or during 2008.

What I find difficult with this argument is why would someone take drugs during the winter of 2009-2010 after winning the 2008 Olympics and 2009 World Championships clean, and after having achieved a 400m time of 43.75 s (in 2008) clean. Surely a clean runner would not feel the need to suddenly start taking drugs a few months after such success. In total he won 14 gold medals during a period from 2004 to 2009 before failing drugs tests for steroids. For such continuous success it doesn't make sense that he would suddenly start taking steriods.

The fact that he chose to take drugs means he loses the benefit of the doubt for any previous achievements. Also if athletes are aware that they will be stripped of any medals won previously if they are subject to a drugs ban then this should serve to act as a further deterrent.

I swear blind that Mo Farah, Usain Bolt, Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay, Lemaitre, Thompson, Pickering, MLF, Dwain Chambers are all clean. lol...

I think Rodgers will be out, and i think re mullings the JAAAAAA are awaiting the B sample result. But at present he's suspended, pending a B result. If the B result is clean, they can re-instate him if they wish - that will be an interesting scenario, i can hear the boos already.

english, do you know Neil Wilson?

Interesting...

Mullings apparently suffers from asthma and furosemide was in the medication that he took in New York when he needed medical help... apparently according to various sources. Unfortunately for him this is a banned chemical and he needs a medical exemption certificate to take. The other thing this chemical does is mask steroids - thus it is a banned substance.

I think everyone on this thread should read this link.

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/Steve-Mullings-story-raises-more-questions-than-answers_9461800#ixzz1VIocWJVs

A fascinating read.

Are you aware that a female athlete that trains with Mullings went to Jamaica ahead of trial and started rumors about what she had heard them talking about in their camp? So Steve went into trials an outcast. She claimed to JAAA and Athletes that she heard the Rumor that Mullings first positive yrs. ago was an actual set up. He took the fall for a bigger athlete because he was an outsider (not training in Jamaica).

Next are you aware that 2 days after National Trials someone close to Steve Mullings was emailed by a member of the racers track club asking if Steve was going to give his spot up so he could go to Worlds Championship. So 2 days after trials this Athlete knew that Mullings “Failed a drug test", 2 days but yet Mullings was not notified until almost 2 months when he wouldn't have enough time to defend himself. I want to know how would an Athlete from Racers obtain information that is to be confidential to JADCO until the Athlete in question is notified.

Are you aware that its heavy rumored that if a Particular Athlete didn’t participate in World 2011 he would be drop from his contract with his Shoe Company so they had to throw Mullings under the bus.

Do you know Jamaica Athletes and coaches hate the fact that Mullings and Tyson Gay are best friends?

I also saw the story trackalerts ran about the schedule hearing for Mullings which he was unaware of seriously they scheduled it 2 days after the deadline. Plus how do you have a hearing without the B sample done?
Are you aware that Mullings was tested before and after national trials and the results were negative showed no abnormal finding?

Just some thing to consider too. lol...

I have read the link. It made me angry.

The point about his name being revealed is a red herring: after any positive test there are always leaks. e.g. Floyd Landis who tried to argue that his name was divulged, hence due process wasn't observed, trial by media etc. He got banned by CAS so there is a case precedent to show that such an argument won't wash. As I say I am yet to hear of a positive which didn't leak before the analysing of the B sample.

The point about the asthma is moot. It is a masking agent and hence banned. Under WADA rules you have complete responsibility for what ends up in your body. The fact that it is the 2nd time he has tested positive means no leniency should be observed.

The final point in the article (about Jadco being apparently harsh on their athletes) perhaps would have had a point, were in not for the fact that Jadco has been unbelievably lenient in its sentencing (e.g. Shelly-anne Fraser). It seems they (jadco) are attempting to walk a tightrope by appearing harsh without harming their national interests. They have failed the "appearing harsh" test in my eyes.

I have no idea what you are trying to suggest with your last post. Some kind of conspiracy? Twice? well that would be unfortunate, but ultimately fairly easy to prove...

B sample positive as well. Seems the end of his career.

Another one bites the dust... how many more???

Well over 10% of all athletes according to a WADA chief.

Well over 10% of all athletes according to a WADA chief.
-------------------

That is a lot less than football, rugby and cycling

I would say Athletics is far worse than cycling.

Cycling had a major problem and they took the PR hit by actually trying to do some effective testing.

The IAAF hasn't bitten the bullet and actually tried to catch anyone yet just in case they snag a couple of huge fish.

They always tend to give the cheats a big heads up if they're planning anything, to give them time to come off it or pull out with mysterious injuries.

In this country athletes are continuely checked randomly.

They get no heads up.

The yanks have a question mark over them.

At least the Americans pay lip service to OOC testing.

If the Yanks have a question mark, that must mean that the Jamaicans have a full stop.

Agree with dj on Athletics vs Cycling. Can you imagine say Fraser getting a 6 month ban for the same in cycling? It would have gone to CAS... There seems to still be some head in sand mentalities around; BALCO could have been the trigger for a real clean-up operation but that moment has gone.