As I said, most factual judgements are based on probability, not absolute certainty. She meets that test. That is why there are pages discussing it on this thread and there are countless threads positing doping throughout the sport. Yours will be the naive position that the only dopers are those who are caught - when most aren't.
So what you are saying is in your opinion it is probable.
Innocent until proven guilty is not being naive. You're the one accusing, so show us evidence.
Again. 3:50. Not sure why this is so hard to grasp.
Where's your doping limit then. 3.51? 3.53? Seems mad to just have a number in mind and anything else, no matter the context, is doped. May as well not follow the sport if that's the case.
Do you have a doped time for US Collegiates? US High schoolers? If you look at their jumps over the past 5 years then it's a similar story.
Exactly - several on here make up some arbitrary number than no undoped woman is allowed to break. There is no science to it.
Everyone has a different amount of talent. Women dope who run 5:00. There is no time that indicates doping. Extreme leanness is a sign. Extra musculature is a sign. Hull has gotten very lean. Tuohy is very muscular. Hiltz has gotten leaner.
Running the same times as doped Chinese indicates doping.
Lol - actually it's an obvious comment. Where did you get this number from that you have to be doped to run faster than? What is your scientific basis for it?
Not fully focused. Undertrained. Low mileage. Multisport athete. Yada. Yada. Yada. Never changes.
In the other hand, what is she doing differently now 3:50 versus back at pre (3:55). Did she start doing drugs in the last couple months? Seems unlikely…
I asked this same thing.
It is very hard to believe she started doping in the 6 weeks between Pre and the 3.50. There is obviously another reason for the improvement. The only answer I got is she is doping more this year and got the dosage right or the drugs kicked in. It's reallynot a great or particularly believable explanation.
Then there's the theory that someone who spends most of their time training at Wollongong, an hour south of Sydney, with a national body with very little funds and a poorly supported sport generally in her country, has access to all this top scientific data about doping, and is at the forefront of it. Lance Armstrong at US Postal she is most certainly not.
As I said, most factual judgements are based on probability, not absolute certainty. She meets that test. That is why there are pages discussing it on this thread and there are countless threads positing doping throughout the sport. Yours will be the naive position that the only dopers are those who are caught - when most aren't.
So what you are saying is in your opinion it is probable.
Innocent until proven guilty is not being naive. You're the one accusing, so show us evidence.
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal defence to a crime. We aren't discussing that. It isn't relevant to a judgement of fact according to what is likely, probable or even fairly certain.
WADA has put T and F in the same category as cycling, body building and weightlifting for risk of doping. Do you think the best in those sports will be clean? Hull has made an unforeseeable improvement in a year, to record a time that is in the same region as Chinese dopers. Only wilful naivety can argue a standout performance like that will be clean in a sport likened to bodybuilding, weightlifting or cycling.
Everyone has a different amount of talent. Women dope who run 5:00. There is no time that indicates doping. Extreme leanness is a sign. Extra musculature is a sign. Hull has gotten very lean. Tuohy is very muscular. Hiltz has gotten leaner.
Running the same times as doped Chinese indicates doping.
No it doesn't. Read the post you just replied to again, for starters.
In the other hand, what is she doing differently now 3:50 versus back at pre (3:55). Did she start doing drugs in the last couple months? Seems unlikely…
I asked this same thing.
It is very hard to believe she started doping in the 6 weeks between Pre and the 3.50. There is obviously another reason for the improvement. The only answer I got is she is doping more this year and got the dosage right or the drugs kicked in. It's reallynot a great or particularly believable explanation.
Then there's the theory that someone who spends most of their time training at Wollongong, an hour south of Sydney, with a national body with very little funds and a poorly supported sport generally in her country, has access to all this top scientific data about doping, and is at the forefront of it. Lance Armstrong at US Postal she is most certainly not.
You don't have to be Lance Armstrong at US Postal to be a doper. Did you pick Houlihan?
Maybe threw caution and microdosing to the wind in the lead up to the Olympics and went full Leroy Jenkins. Again, not sure what is so complicated. She did not run 3:55 or 3:54. She ran 3:50. Trust me, she sure is doing something. And so long as she does not test positive she wins and gets the windfall.
Oh, ok.
The old "Trust me" argument. You've run out of others now it seems.
You don't have to be Lance Armstrong at US Postal to be a doper. Did you pick Houlihan?
Shelby tested POSITIVE. She's proven guilty. It's rubbish to compare burrito to Jess. You've made your mind up and good for you, but don't pretend that you are the jury and the case is settled.
Still waiting for you to tell us all where is the special 'good' time of women's 1500m running. So we can all cheer for clean athletes to come right up to it, but never faster, thus they 'are a DoPeR'. How boring.
Oh I don't know. Statistical and historical norms. Athletes who have run comparable times. What other suspected doped athletes are running. The idea that people cannot distinguish between say 3:56 and 3:50 and the likelihood that the latter time can be run clean in terms of the entire history of the event is ridiculous. This feigned ignorance is just doping apologia.
You don't have to be Lance Armstrong at US Postal to be a doper. Did you pick Houlihan?
Shelby tested POSITIVE. She's proven guilty. It's rubbish to compare burrito to Jess. You've made your mind up and good for you, but don't pretend that you are the jury and the case is settled.
Still waiting for you to tell us all where is the special 'good' time of women's 1500m running. So we can all cheer for clean athletes to come right up to it, but never faster, thus they 'are a DoPeR'. How boring.
The point isn't that Houlihan was caught but that you didn't suspect her of doping before that. You would have insisted she was clean - till the nandrolone positive. Her times and improvements weren't in the same ball park as Hull's. So care to explain how a clean athlete can improve 7 seconds in a year to match times previously only attainable by doped Chinese world record-holders? Clean is as good as doping?
Ok here's some Chinese dopers in the all time 1500m list. And we can be fairly confident of these because there was inside reports of compulsory doping.
3:56.31, 1997 Dong LIU
3:57.03, 1997 Liu JING
3:57.46, 1993 Linli ZHANG
3:58.64, 1993 Renmei WANG
Now yes, of course there were other Chinese women that were faster. But the point is- it's not black and white. There is no time in this general realm that is yes/no, clean/dirty. A 3:58 can be dirty and a 3:50 can be clean.
What is clear is a positive test. Or someone in the system that whistle-blows.
Everyone has a different amount of talent. Women dope who run 5:00. There is no time that indicates doping. Extreme leanness is a sign. Extra musculature is a sign. Hull has gotten very lean. Tuohy is very muscular. Hiltz has gotten leaner.
Running the same times as doped Chinese indicates doping.
One day someone will sue your pants off your a*se armstrong
We can all speculate and think things and draw conclusions, but tio put it in writing like a keyboard warrior is plain stupid
...and I have never heard you accuse a new zealander...I know you don'ty6 have spiders and snakes, you mean there are no drugs availabler there either?
Hull is number 5 on the all time list. Number 4 is Yunxia Qu (3:50:46). Number 6 is Jiang Bo (3:50:98). Number 7 is Yinglai Lang (3:51:34). Number 8 is the omnipresent Junxia Wang (3:51:92). The rest of the top 10 is the East Africa corp, Hassan and a Soviet era runner, Kazankina. This and the 800m are the dirtiest lists in the sport.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.