|
IroningMan
5,788 posts
115 months
|
In fairness to Derek he did say he knew it was silly.
Personally I fail to see the point of going after Armstrong - if you want to 'clean up cycling' then it might be an idea to look at those who are at least still competing and build a dope-proof set of rules for them to comply with.
You don.t get a fresh start by tearing-up results from ten years ago.
|
|
|
Robsti
4,530 posts
75 months
|
There would have to be a willingness from the top if you want a clean sport and i'am afraid they don't have the balls for it!
|
|
|
aspender
933 posts
134 months
|
IroningMan said: In fairness to Derek he did say he knew it was silly.
Personally I fail to see the point of going after Armstrong - if you want to 'clean up cycling' then it might be an idea to look at those who are at least still competing and build a dope-proof set of rules for them to comply with.
You don.t get a fresh start by tearing-up results from ten years ago. That is exactly what they are doing. It isn't all about Armstrong. His co-charged are all still in the game...
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,046 posts
117 months
|
DJRC said: Really? Htf do you feel betrayed? Its just a sporting event, no more, no less. Whatsmore you are a fan. A watcher. A nobody. You are utterly irrelvent to the bloke taking part. He isnt doing it to entertain you, frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death and he would never either know or care. How then can he either possibly betray you or you feel betrayed by him? What nonsensical piffle. They are selling something. It is not 'just a sporting event'. I assume by that comment you have never seen the TdF in action. Of course 'I'm' important. I'm the one they are selling to. If I am of absolutely of no consequence to LA then why did he tell lies to me, not to mention him still doing so. The answer - to the rhetorical question - is that the fans, en masse at least - are vital. Of course I (and all the fans) am important to him. I am the market for the sponsors. I go to rugby every weekend in the season. I support the players by cheering them on and just by being there. The fact that there are millions more fans for the TdF does not in any way lower the essential nature of those who stand and stare. If someone tells you they are straight and you believe it, when it turns out that you were cheering a make-beleive of course you feel hard done by. He lied to increase his income. He wants sponsors: sponsors want me. I am important. I've emailed Nike. One email doesn't make any difference but if enough of the fans do so we all become important. We are all customers. Of course I feel cheated. I spend almost every day of three weeks following the TdFs he was in, cheering on LA because he's beaten cancer. And, as someone with a kid in a competative sport where drugs are easy to come by and checks are infrequent, the 'fact' that he'd done it cleanly was a lesson I could put over to my lad. That's why Nike is there, to earn their cut of those who cheer him on. I'm not sure what the nasty death scene was all about. I'll let it go.
|
|
|
dangerousB
509 posts
59 months
|
DJRC said: Derek Smith said: el stovey said: I believed Armstrong was doing it clean in the beginning, there's a great interview with Charlie Rose from a few years ago where he speaks very convincingly about it. I saw he was an exceptional triathlete as a youngster and then believed he won by keeping his lactic acid levels very low through a combination of genetic freakishness and thus being able to spin up the mountains better that all the others. He was also 'very thorough' in his training and I believed he was simply doing it better than the rest.He also concentrated on the tour 100%. So I wasn't that stupid in the early years. I still feel betrayed though. I know it is silly. Whatsmore you are a fan. A watcher. A nobody. You are utterly irrelvent to the bloke taking part. He isnt doing it to entertain you, frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death and he would never either know or care. How then can he either possibly betray you or you feel betrayed by him? What nonsensical piffle. Derek may well be just a fan or just a viewer of the sport, but your next analytical step is a great deal more nonsensical than his feeling of betrayal. With respect to Lance Armstrong, albeit faceless, Derek may well be a nobody, but he's certainly not irrelevant. If he were then I guess you could say the same about every other fan of cycling. If every fan of cycling is irrelevant to its participants, then it's safe to assume that pro cycling doesn't need them. Does that seem a logical progression in thought to you? So if that really is the case, then where is the sport without fans and without anyone watching? Where does its revenue come from? Why would sponsors want to get involved? How do its participants gain fame, acclaim and the trappings that go hand in hand with that? What is the motivation for new talent to get involved if nobody's watching, nobody's interested and ultimately no-one will pay you? Lance Armstrong may not personally know Derek. He may well think him a nobody. He may well get pissed off with having to walk down the street and have Dereks approach him all the time, but they're the reason he is where he is. They're the reason for the sport existing, ultimately the reason he was able to get involved in the first place and who knows, ultimately the reason why he had the best "support network" around him? DJRC said: frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death Why you felt the need to say that is a great deal more nonsensical to me.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,046 posts
117 months
|
dangerousB said: DJRC said: Derek Smith said: el stovey said: I believed Armstrong was doing it clean in the beginning, there's a great interview with Charlie Rose from a few years ago where he speaks very convincingly about it. I saw he was an exceptional triathlete as a youngster and then believed he won by keeping his lactic acid levels very low through a combination of genetic freakishness and thus being able to spin up the mountains better that all the others. He was also 'very thorough' in his training and I believed he was simply doing it better than the rest.He also concentrated on the tour 100%. So I wasn't that stupid in the early years. I still feel betrayed though. I know it is silly. Whatsmore you are a fan. A watcher. A nobody. You are utterly irrelvent to the bloke taking part. He isnt doing it to entertain you, frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death and he would never either know or care. How then can he either possibly betray you or you feel betrayed by him? What nonsensical piffle. Derek may well be just a fan or just a viewer of the sport, but your next analytical step is a great deal more nonsensical than his feeling of betrayal. With respect to Lance Armstrong, albeit faceless, Derek may well be a nobody, but he's certainly not irrelevant. If he were then I guess you could say the same about every other fan of cycling. If every fan of cycling is irrelevant to its participants, then it's safe to assume that pro cycling doesn't need them. Does that seem a logical progression in thought to you? So if that really is the case, then where is the sport without fans and without anyone watching? Where does its revenue come from? Why would sponsors want to get involved? How do its participants gain fame, acclaim and the trappings that go hand in hand with that? What is the motivation for new talent to get involved if nobody's watching, nobody's interested and ultimately no-one will pay you? Lance Armstrong may not personally know Derek. He may well think him a nobody. He may well get pissed off with having to walk down the street and have Dereks approach him all the time, but they're the reason he is where he is. They're the reason for the sport existing, ultimately the reason he was able to get involved in the first place and who knows, ultimately the reason why he had the best "support network" around him? DJRC said: frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death Why you felt the need to say that is a great deal more nonsensical to me. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
DJRC
19,833 posts
105 months
|
Derek Smith said: DJRC said: Really? Htf do you feel betrayed? Its just a sporting event, no more, no less. Whatsmore you are a fan. A watcher. A nobody. You are utterly irrelvent to the bloke taking part. He isnt doing it to entertain you, frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death and he would never either know or care. How then can he either possibly betray you or you feel betrayed by him? What nonsensical piffle. They are selling something. It is not 'just a sporting event'. I assume by that comment you have never seen the TdF in action. Of course 'I'm' important. I'm the one they are selling to. Its gone through my village in France Derek, past my kitchen window. Not to mention the place where I currently live also being part of both the TdF and the TdS. And its their national summer sport. Me thinketh Ive spent a bit more time in the midst of its heartlands community than you. They arent selling anything. This is something I think every *fan* or *enthusiast* should have hammered into their skull time and time again until they realise they either die from the hammer blows or they wise up. You Are Irrelevent The race will happen with or without you. The blokes will race and want to race whether you watch or not. You viewing them is a consequence of them doing what they want to do, they do not do what they do because you want to watch them. I can quite easily state here and now without a shadow of any doubt that the sport could get banned from the Olympics tomorrow, WADA could declare it dead and buried as a viable public spectacle interest sport, doping was too intrinsic, 95% of its sponsor dropped away and it would make not stop anything. The races would still be run. The spectators would still come out to watch and nobody would care. Even if public interest was so low that nobody did, the race would still be run and after the initial scepticism of the first week, by the end of week 3 the streets of Paris would be packed for the race again. The moralising tones of the Anglo-Saxon world could trumpet loud and clear both sides of the Atlantic and try to ban whoever and strip whoever of titles and declare the race and results null and void and exhort ppl not to go and watch it. It would have minimal impact. The TdF isnt some playing fields of Eton British invention, its a French institution and as such frankly its as close as you can get to something pretty f  king invioable in Gallic life. So no Derek, you dont matter a damn.
|
|
|
Digger
5,724 posts
60 months
|
I think someone needs an early night . . .
|
|
|
DJRC
19,833 posts
105 months
|
dangerousB said: DJRC said: Derek Smith said: el stovey said: I believed Armstrong was doing it clean in the beginning, there's a great interview with Charlie Rose from a few years ago where he speaks very convincingly about it. I saw he was an exceptional triathlete as a youngster and then believed he won by keeping his lactic acid levels very low through a combination of genetic freakishness and thus being able to spin up the mountains better that all the others. He was also 'very thorough' in his training and I believed he was simply doing it better than the rest.He also concentrated on the tour 100%. So I wasn't that stupid in the early years. I still feel betrayed though. I know it is silly. Whatsmore you are a fan. A watcher. A nobody. You are utterly irrelvent to the bloke taking part. He isnt doing it to entertain you, frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death and he would never either know or care. How then can he either possibly betray you or you feel betrayed by him? What nonsensical piffle. Derek may well be just a fan or just a viewer of the sport, but your next analytical step is a great deal more nonsensical than his feeling of betrayal. With respect to Lance Armstrong, albeit faceless, Derek may well be a nobody, but he's certainly not irrelevant. If he were then I guess you could say the same about every other fan of cycling. If every fan of cycling is irrelevant to its participants, then it's safe to assume that pro cycling doesn't need them. Does that seem a logical progression in thought to you? So if that really is the case, then where is the sport without fans and without anyone watching? Where does its revenue come from? Why would sponsors want to get involved? How do its participants gain fame, acclaim and the trappings that go hand in hand with that? What is the motivation for new talent to get involved if nobody's watching, nobody's interested and ultimately no-one will pay you? Lance Armstrong may not personally know Derek. He may well think him a nobody. He may well get pissed off with having to walk down the street and have Dereks approach him all the time, but they're the reason he is where he is. They're the reason for the sport existing, ultimately the reason he was able to get involved in the first place and who knows, ultimately the reason why he had the best "support network" around him? DJRC said: frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death Why you felt the need to say that is a great deal more nonsensical to me. Because it is illustrating the personal point of Derek's post. He felt betrayed. Betrayel is personal. Personal implies intimate. As such to illustrate the piffle I emphasised the point. Why would I feel anything about using that phrase? "Derek" is no more than pixels on a screen to me. There is no personal connection there, there is nothing there about him that impinges upon my personal reality, ergo the sentiments expressed are meaningless. The principle applies for what Armstong did or did not do and their impact upon Derek. Derek doesnt exist to Armstrong, just as I do or you dont. As such we cannot be betrayed by him nor he betray us in the first place as he has done nothing intentional for us. Any impact he has had upon our lives is one we choose to impact for ourselves, not one that he partakes in. It is a one way emotional transaction, therefore it is in fact a selfish emotion on our parts to feel he has betrayed us. And yes of course I extend the notion logically to every other fan of cycling. I have previously used the same theory to argue against F1 fans thinking they are in any way important enough to have any kind of say in how the sport is run. Hence, once again I offer you the response of nonsensical piffle.
|
|
|
mcelliott
1,805 posts
50 months
|
DJRC said: Because it is illustrating the personal point of Derek's post. He felt betrayed. Betrayel is personal. Personal implies intimate.
As such to illustrate the piffle I emphasised the point. Why would I feel anything about using that phrase? "Derek" is no more than pixels on a screen to me. There is no personal connection there, there is nothing there about him that impinges upon my personal reality, ergo the sentiments expressed are meaningless. The principle applies for what Armstong did or did not do and their impact upon Derek. Derek doesnt exist to Armstrong, just as I do or you dont. As such we cannot be betrayed by him nor he betray us in the first place as he has done nothing intentional for us. Any impact he has had upon our lives is one we choose to impact for ourselves, not one that he partakes in. It is a one way emotional transaction, therefore it is in fact a selfish emotion on our parts to feel he has betrayed us.
And yes of course I extend the notion logically to every other fan of cycling. I have previously used the same theory to argue against F1 fans thinking they are in any way important enough to have any kind of say in how the sport is run.
Hence, once again I offer you the response of nonsensical piffle. But Derek and I'm sure many others, myself included, at one point put their faith or belief in Armstrong - a very personal thing. You surely don't have to know the individual to put your faith in them, misguided or otherwise. And to have that thrown back in your face it would feel like a betrayal. To me it does anyway. Plus, I'm sure there were points in Armstrong's career when he asked the fans to believe in him - an that his performances were true.
|
|
|
Burrow01
875 posts
61 months
|
DJRC said: Its gone through my village in France Derek, past my kitchen window. Not to mention the place where I currently live also being part of both the TdF and the TdS. And its their national summer sport. Me thinketh Ive spent a bit more time in the midst of its heartlands community than you. They arent selling anything. This is something I think every *fan* or *enthusiast* should have hammered into their skull time and time again until they realise they either die from the hammer blows or they wise up. You Are Irrelevent The race will happen with or without you. The blokes will race and want to race whether you watch or not. You viewing them is a consequence of them doing what they want to do, they do not do what they do because you want to watch them. I can quite easily state here and now without a shadow of any doubt that the sport could get banned from the Olympics tomorrow, WADA could declare it dead and buried as a viable public spectacle interest sport, doping was too intrinsic, 95% of its sponsor dropped away and it would make not stop anything. The races would still be run. The spectators would still come out to watch and nobody would care. Even if public interest was so low that nobody did, the race would still be run and after the initial scepticism of the first week, by the end of week 3 the streets of Paris would be packed for the race again. The moralising tones of the Anglo-Saxon world could trumpet loud and clear both sides of the Atlantic and try to ban whoever and strip whoever of titles and declare the race and results null and void and exhort ppl not to go and watch it. It would have minimal impact. The TdF isnt some playing fields of Eton British invention, its a French institution and as such frankly its as close as you can get to something pretty f king invioable in Gallic life. So no Derek, you dont matter a damn. The race may well go on, but would Lance Armstrong have been paid millions of pounds for his participation and get to fly around in his own jet Whether you like it, the millions of Dereks around the world outside of France, and their money, made it worthwhile for LA to create his comeback miracle kid persona to sell via the media, made it worth the team probably pumping every rider full of drugs, and still makes it impossible for Lance to admit in public what happened - if all the Dereks are nobodies, why does LA not just come clean - he does not care for the public opinion according to you, so why would he be bothered what they think..... I suggest you don't apply for a job in marketing....
|
|
|
Vipers
15,534 posts
97 months
|
Cant be arsed reading all 21 pages but I would have thought drugs test these days is refined enough to be Positive or Negative, taking into account thr repercussions ifmit isnt. 
|
|
|
Andy Zarse
8,049 posts
116 months
|
DJRC said: dangerousB said: DJRC said: Derek Smith said: el stovey said: I believed Armstrong was doing it clean in the beginning, there's a great interview with Charlie Rose from a few years ago where he speaks very convincingly about it. I saw he was an exceptional triathlete as a youngster and then believed he won by keeping his lactic acid levels very low through a combination of genetic freakishness and thus being able to spin up the mountains better that all the others. He was also 'very thorough' in his training and I believed he was simply doing it better than the rest.He also concentrated on the tour 100%. So I wasn't that stupid in the early years. I still feel betrayed though. I know it is silly. Whatsmore you are a fan. A watcher. A nobody. You are utterly irrelvent to the bloke taking part. He isnt doing it to entertain you, frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death and he would never either know or care. How then can he either possibly betray you or you feel betrayed by him? What nonsensical piffle. Derek may well be just a fan or just a viewer of the sport, but your next analytical step is a great deal more nonsensical than his feeling of betrayal. With respect to Lance Armstrong, albeit faceless, Derek may well be a nobody, but he's certainly not irrelevant. If he were then I guess you could say the same about every other fan of cycling. If every fan of cycling is irrelevant to its participants, then it's safe to assume that pro cycling doesn't need them. Does that seem a logical progression in thought to you? So if that really is the case, then where is the sport without fans and without anyone watching? Where does its revenue come from? Why would sponsors want to get involved? How do its participants gain fame, acclaim and the trappings that go hand in hand with that? What is the motivation for new talent to get involved if nobody's watching, nobody's interested and ultimately no-one will pay you? Lance Armstrong may not personally know Derek. He may well think him a nobody. He may well get pissed off with having to walk down the street and have Dereks approach him all the time, but they're the reason he is where he is. They're the reason for the sport existing, ultimately the reason he was able to get involved in the first place and who knows, ultimately the reason why he had the best "support network" around him? DJRC said: frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death Why you felt the need to say that is a great deal more nonsensical to me. Because it is illustrating the personal point of Derek's post. He felt betrayed. Betrayel is personal. Personal implies intimate. As such to illustrate the piffle I emphasised the point. Why would I feel anything about using that phrase? "Derek" is no more than pixels on a screen to me. There is no personal connection there, there is nothing there about him that impinges upon my personal reality, ergo the sentiments expressed are meaningless. The principle applies for what Armstong did or did not do and their impact upon Derek. Derek doesnt exist to Armstrong, just as I do or you dont. As such we cannot be betrayed by him nor he betray us in the first place as he has done nothing intentional for us. Any impact he has had upon our lives is one we choose to impact for ourselves, not one that he partakes in. It is a one way emotional transaction, therefore it is in fact a selfish emotion on our parts to feel he has betrayed us. And yes of course I extend the notion logically to every other fan of cycling. I have previously used the same theory to argue against F1 fans thinking they are in any way important enough to have any kind of say in how the sport is run. Hence, once again I offer you the response of nonsensical piffle. I think you're looking at this the wrong way. If the Derek isn't important to the TdF or LA, then cleatly the TdF and LA are important to Derek. As such a relarionship exists, thus the possibility for feelings of betrayal. BTW I've never felt betrayed by LA; I always thought he was a gobby t t, and have always smelt a rat.
|
|
|
Cavalierfc
25 posts
9 months
|
Lost_BMW said: Mmmm... could be because, along with Bolt, he is the current 'best'; better genetically and physically than the others, combined with a huge appetite for training, and desire and working in a system where the country regards athletics as top priority so is focussed on this sport = participation, practise and top notch coaches from the get go. But as CavalierFC says he's quicker than other cheats and had some unbanned nasal spray left over in his system 3 years back, so he must be cheating.  I love the way people always take the most simplistic view of something and twist it to assume it's spurious. Like it or not, Blake has been banned in the past for PED use - the same product three others were also banned for. I understand that you're wanting hard evidence and multitudes of positive tests in order to confirm guilt - that would be an ideal way of dealing with it. But, as BALCO showed us, drug tests and merely IQ checks now - you've got to be fairly stupid to fail one, and not failing one isn't remotely an indicator of 'being clean'. Non-analytical positives are becoming more common, and the best way to achieve those is to begin looking at unnatural improvement, and move on from there.
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,046 posts
117 months
|
mcelliott said: But Derek and I'm sure many others, myself included, at one point put their faith or belief in Armstrong - a very personal thing. You surely don't have to know the individual to put your faith in them, misguided or otherwise. And to have that thrown back in your face it would feel like a betrayal. To me it does anyway.
Plus, I'm sure there were points in Armstrong's career when he asked the fans to believe in him - an that his performances were true. That's it in a nutshell. Andy Zarse said: BTW I've never felt betrayed by LA; I always thought he was a gobby t t, and have always smelt a rat. I could always cope with the fact that he's not the nicest person in the world, you know, separate the performances from the person. It was accepted wisdom that to be the best in the world you have to be driven and the laid back and pleasant are often the ones at the back. Now I see that the accepted wisdom was that to be the best in the world you have to be drugged up to the eyeballs at least between 11pm and 6am.
|
|
|
Lost_BMW
10,639 posts
45 months
|
Cavalierfc]ost_BMW said: Mmmm... could be because, along with Bolt, he is the current 'best'; better genetically and physically than the others, combined with a huge appetite for training, and desire and working in a system where the country regards athletics as top priority so is focussed on this sport = participation, practise and top notch coaches from the get go. But as CavalierFC says he's quicker than other cheats and had some unbanned nasal spray left over in his system 3 years back, so he must be cheating. /quote] I love the way people always take the most simplistic view of something and twist it to assume it's spurious. Like it or not, Blake has been banned in the past for PED use - the same product three others were also banned for. I understand that you're wanting hard evidence and multitudes of positive tests in order to confirm guilt - that would be an ideal way of dealing with it. But, as BALCO showed us, drug tests and merely IQ checks now - you've got to be fairly stupid to fail one, and not failing one isn't remotely an indicator of 'being clean'. Non-analytical positives are becoming more common, and the best way to achieve those is to begin looking at unnatural improvement, and move on from there. Mmmm... like you haven't taken a simplistic view - to twist - of his being sort of banned (as a caution) for a pretty useless substance 3 years ago and then conflated that with use of performance enhancing drugs just because he can still run fast sans nasal spray. Pot and kettle. You seem to like throwing dirt based on stuff and nonsense, like the fact that runners are faster/have got faster than other/previous athletes. In fact if you did this more publicly I'd not be surprised if someone wouldn't have back at you for slander/libel given your unsubstantiated claims and musings. I bet Blake would love having you push your line in the mainstream media for example. If you're that convinced why not confront him more directly...
|
|
|
Cavalierfc
25 posts
9 months
|
Lost_BMW said: Mmmm... like you haven't taken a simplistic view - to twist - of his being sort of banned (as a caution) for a pretty useless substance 3 years ago and then conflated that with use of performance enhancing drugs just because he can still run fast sans nasal spray. Pot and kettle.
You seem to like throwing dirt based on stuff and nonsense, like the fact that runners are faster/have got faster than other/previous athletes. In fact if you did this more publicly I'd not be surprised if someone wouldn't have back at you for slander/libel given your unsubstantiated claims and musings. I bet Blake would love having you push your line in the mainstream media for example. If you're that convinced why not confront him more directly... Bans aren't given as cautions, that's a spurious argument. He was banned for taking something that was performance enhancing, after his own country appeals the initial verdict that exonerated him. Calling it a 'pretty useless substance' is both absurd and an attempt to belittle the process. As far as doing it publicly? I have, in the past, and I'll do it again in the future. Newsflash: Human performance doesn't improve in leaps and bounds. It never has, and it never will. If you're unaware how simple it is to beat a drug test nowadays, then I'd suggest you get in contact with Marion Jones. Oh, but she didn't fail a drug test either, so I guess her rather extraordinary performances shouldn't be questioned simply because she was 'running faster'. Something for you to note: Never in the history of timed running over a hundred metres did the world record shift by as much in an equivalent period as it did between 2006 and 2010. And that's the complete opposite of what would normally be expected in an ultra-short distance event - the gaps should be getting shorter as records progress.
|
|
|
Lost_BMW
10,639 posts
45 months
|
@ Cavalier
So it's definitive then, Bolt and Blake are doping...
Never mind the changes in training regimes, diet, supplementation, recovery methods, coaching, track design/make up or the possibility that we have a few exceptional, freakish individuals marrying gifts to training approach. The still small - if proportionately more significant - reductions in time over that and an even longer period must be down to drugs. OK if you say so.
I'm not actually sure if Blake and Bolt are taking illegal performance enhancers and wouldn't be surprised (if disappointed) to find sometime down the line that they are. But as I'm not sure I wouldn't throw blanket accusations just because they are better than others.
Excluding the LA/ TdeF aspect there are people who have done amazing superhuman things unbelievably better than the norm or their sporting peers without drugs, in fact way before steroids were even available. If people now saw some of the turn of the century strongmen and the things they could do emerge today, without knowing when they operated, most wouldn't believe it was possible to do it clean, yet they did.
I've been around people in different sports who have used steroids etc. and have used them myself. I'm not suggesting for a moment that they don't give a benefit and know some have made sudden gains in performance as a result (often mapped against a change in focus, determination and diet) but I also know some who have made sudden, unprecedented gains without and some, seemingly close to me in ability, who changed approach or had a changed response to training/diet and could then do naturally what I couldn't on drugs, or more to the point what they had done previously on them too.
I've had periods when I've suddenly broken previous long standing barriers and gone quickly way beyond where I thought I could - without drugs - sometimes for no obvious/known reason. Just my body suddenly responding differently to either the same long term approach/stimulus or some change, even subtle, in training. So 'lurches' in performance at an individual level can occur for many reasons even without external chemical support.
Look more closely at the circumstances/fight/final decision behind Blake's 'ban' - not as clear cut as just a deserved punishment. Also, please let me know what you know about the sporting benefits of that chemical that isn't commonly known - it hardly seems like a miracle drug from the stuff I've been able to find?
I just think you are taking your scepticism and suspicion too far, in fact it hints of an agenda tbh.
|
|
|
Halb
17,860 posts
52 months
|
Cavalierfc said: Something for you to note: Never in the history of timed running over a hundred metres did the world record shift by as much in an equivalent period as it did between 2006 and 2010. And that's the complete opposite of what would normally be expected in an ultra-short distance event - the gaps should be getting shorter as records progress. There is a prehistoric caveman that could run as fast as Bolt, with no shoes, on mud. It is unlikely he was special. Sometimes people come along that are right.
|
|
|
Silver993tt
8,104 posts
108 months
|
Lost_BMW said: @ Cavalier
I just think you are taking your scepticism and suspicion too far, in fact it hints of an agenda tbh. Really? I never would have believed that at all 
|
|
