Official 2013 Rome Golden Gala Diamond League

Rabbits--both good and bad--make one appreciate the extraordinary character of Ron Clarke, who regularly ran world records sans pace setters, indeed, with little competition. Maybe the most notable of these records was in 1965, when he became the first man ever under 28 minutes, by running 27:39.4, entirely by himself (and not on a Mondo track!).

A Duck wrote:

I said this years ago. As long as the IAAF is not going to issue lifetime bans for first time positives (they should), and as long as they are going to have a "forgiveness" program -- letting athletes back in after their bans -- then it is the IAAF's responsibility along with WADA to make sure these guys and girls who have been banned and come back -- are tested and clean 6 ways to Sunday.

What I do like about Gatlin, is that he is fearless and not afraid to show up and race anyone.

Hopefully the bio passport is doing its job.

I agree. I don't like this blatant labeling of Gatlin on Letsrun as "the drug cheat," rendering him nameless and making a mockery of him. It's a strange backhanded, sideways, and annoyingly childish way to chide someone. I would assume that Gatlin is clean now, because my hope is that the IAAF/WADA is testing him more than anyone. I see his story now as a story of success and actual perseverance. He's a tough guy and he's becoming good for the sport.

He might not be the most inspirational story around, but continuing to call him "the drug cheat" is like continually calling an ex-convict "the robber" or "the manslaughterer" or some other thing like that. There's a reason re-incarceration rates are so high in the United States; it's because people always make sure that those who make mistakes can never move past those mistakes an identify with a more responsible lifestyle. I'd like to see letsrun act more responsibly and not assume that by continuing to call gatlin "the drug cheat" that they are the battered standard-bearers of honest track and field.

he's becoming good for the sport

doesn't pass the giggle test

might be wejo wrote:

According to Wikipedia, Bosse just turned 21 and was 10th in his semi in London. Unless I was French, or I followed the 800 very closely, there is no reason why I would have heard of him.

When he was 20 years old, he got 10th (10th!) in the Olympics, and he really is 20, not "19" like Aman and other Africans who cheat with their age to get sponsorship.

Secondly he got bronze in 2012s European Championship, one of the biggest track and field events there is. One would think a track and field fan would watch that, its certainly far bigger than NCAA or PRE Classic.

Though, why am I expecting something from you, you're most likely just the regular American who only follows American track and field. Not a big surprise though, America have been the leading nation in 800m for years.....or?

And btw, the rabbit was tremendous. I've never seen Scherer do as good a job as Bram did today.

This. A lot this.

I love Letsrun, but the whole "drug cheat Gatlin" thing is stupid. Yeah, Gatlin is a cheater. But so is Bolt. It just turns out that the brojos love Usain Bolt, so they don't give a turd. Same with their other favorite drug cheat: Paula Radcliffe. It's stupid favoritism.

Bleh.

If you really want to confuse the field, as well as the rabbit, ask for an impossible pace from the rabbit, then run a leisurely pace at the front of the peloton. How much of what the rabbit is asked to do is a product of tactical gamesmanship by one or more of the runners?

Caller of BS wrote:

This. A lot this.

I love Letsrun, but the whole "drug cheat Gatlin" thing is stupid. Yeah, Gatlin is a cheater. But so is Bolt. It just turns out that the brojos love Usain Bolt, so they don't give a turd. Same with their other favorite drug cheat: Paula Radcliffe. It's stupid favoritism.

Bleh.

The only "evidence" for doping you have against Radcliffe and Bolt is that they ran really fast.

The way the brojos are treating Gatlin is unfortunate. But you just did the exact same thing, except what you did is worse, because it's unsubstantiated.

Barakus Obama wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Same place as all the 9.7's

As to Dawn M-F Harper, that was a beautiful race.

She's really good, I prefer her hurdling to Lolo.

Is Harper WR material? I don't think so, even if she were flat--but only because the WR is bogus.

Very nice job by her, and by Lolo, too, I must say.

What an.....

By your logic every WR is bogus and nobody have a chance! Whos to say Harpers times aren't bogus as well?

Barakus--

The women's 110m hurdles WR IS bogus. A clean Harper has no chance at the hurdles record, IMO.

But I grant you, if she starts to juice, she might be able to get it, as could any of the top hurdlers.

To see Bolt lose by 1 hundredth of a second and be faster out of the blocks (faster reaction time). Bolt must have been trying his hardest and Usain Bolt LOST fair and square. Can't win them all Usain. Go back to Jamaica and explain what happened to the people of Jamaica.

Think he has been getting serious with his new little video game he was showing off on twitter.

Boarder patroll wrote:

Caller of BS wrote:

This. A lot this.

I love Letsrun, but the whole "drug cheat Gatlin" thing is stupid. Yeah, Gatlin is a cheater. But so is Bolt. It just turns out that the brojos love Usain Bolt, so they don't give a turd. Same with their other favorite drug cheat: Paula Radcliffe. It's stupid favoritism.

Bleh.

The only "evidence" for doping you have against Radcliffe and Bolt is that they ran really fast.

The way the brojos are treating Gatlin is unfortunate. But you just did the exact same thing, except what you did is worse, because it's unsubstantiated.

The Brojo's have said more than once that any eye popping performance that looks unbelievable should be suspect.

1. They've hung out with Paula, so they give her a pass on scrutiny.

2. They've received advertising dollars from Puma, so they give Bolt a pass on scrutiny.

Hopefully they are both clean.

If championship meets are really only what count or what matter to you then why did you try so hard or put so much effort in this race and you lost.

About this "drug cheat Gatlin" stuff...

The thing about drug cheating is that it can come in many forms, one of which is intentional cheating.

That type of conduct is evidence of moral turpitude, but I wouldn't say that it rises to the level of malum in se...but nonetheless, it indicates a capacity of character.

For some things that really are malum in se, like child sexual assault or murder, for our continued safety and for the safety of others we "brand" people according to a demonstrated capacity to be immoral in the extreme.

Nobody here wants anyone convicted of criminal child sexual assault living next door to a home with kids in it.

Does Gatlin's offense rise to the level where it is socially useful to label him in this way, even though the basic offense was not sufficiently egregious to warrant criminal sanctions?

It might, IF the performance-enhancing effect of 'roids is shown to endure for a long time, OR IF it can be shown that convicted drug cheats exhibit a high rate of recidivism, and if there is some type of useful response to the situation, like increased vigilance, or selection of athletes in the event that there is a tie, or limited resources to go around.

I don't think it is socially useful here on letsrun to continually call Gatlin "drug cheat", ESPECIALLY when the guys he is beating are the likes of Rodgers and Bolt.

Instead of the headline "drug cheat Gatlin wins in Rome", you might as well write that "drug cheat Bolt loses in Rome", or "drug cheat Rodgers loses to drug cheats Bolt and Gatlin in Rome".

If you apply it to one, you should apply it equally to all. And don't give me any of the "he never tested positive" rhetoric about Bolt--there is plenty enough circumstantial evidence to prove to many, including myself, that he has used.

So it doesn't seem useful to me, as it doesn't meaningfully differentiate Gatlin from other athletes in the race.

Apart from that, it doesn't meaningfully help interpret his performance, either. This was a race that reflects cleanly-achievable times. Gatlin's time adjusts to 9.98, Bolt's to 9.99 UNLESS it is demonstrated that these 2 performance are attributable to drugs, Gatlin's in particular, then calling him a "drug cheat" doesn't provide any explanatory benefit in interpreting the performance.

Since use of the "drug cheat" moniker doesn't seem to me to have any functional utility WRT this race, the only justification seems to be the meting out of continuing punishment. And you know what? Even though it might not be savory or appealing, I think that's OK. Everybody is affected differently by these things.

Gatlin, Rodgers, and Bolt have all doped, so in my mind they are all "dopers". Whatever.

What I do believe, though, is that for me personally there is less pleasure taken from a race between athletes like these, than there is from one between, say, guys like Lemaitre, Collins, Vicaut, Thompson, etc.

With those other guys, I don't have to suspend disbelief.

In a race with times like these, it's not too hard for me to let bygones be bygones. For me, this is another example of a believable, reasonable race, and I hope that we see more of them.

SG:

I think for the world to work correctly we have to have an innocent until proven guilty outlook.

If you test positive, you are a drug cheat. If you have not tested positive, you should not be called a drug cheat.

Assuming Bolt juices is a little silly - like guessing who will win an academy award. It's fun, but doesn't mean anything.

If a guy tests positive he is a drug cheat. That's how you differentiate among Gay, Bolt and Gatlin.

(this breaks down when you go back in time to pre-testing - I'm only talking the last few years)

People in this thread talk about doping like it's a bad thing.

I, for one, like to see fast performances that seem out of this world. It is good for the sport and more entertaining.

Of course it will never be legalised because the people at USATF and WADA have way too much $$ to make off of it..

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Barakus--

The women's 110m hurdles WR IS bogus. A clean Harper has no chance at the hurdles record, IMO.

But I grant you, if she starts to juice, she might be able to get it, as could any of the top hurdlers.

A clean Harper doesn't exists, therefore your "if she starts to juice" comment doesn't mean anything.

A Duck wrote:

The only "evidence" for doping you have against Radcliffe and Bolt is that they ran really fast.

The way the brojos are treating Gatlin is unfortunate. But you just did the exact same thing, except what you did is worse, because it's unsubstantiated.

The Brojo's have said more than once that any eye popping performance that looks unbelievable should be suspect.

1. They've hung out with Paula, so they give her a pass on scrutiny.

2. They've received advertising dollars from Puma, so they give Bolt a pass on scrutiny.

Hopefully they are both clean.[/quote]

You know what is ridiculous? (Warning: this message will be deleted within a few minutes)

Whats ridiculous is that they continue act so damn childish about Gatlin. Calling him the "drug cheat" everytime. Yes, we know he got caught. We are track fans, we follow the sport and Gatlin is a known name.

But, then you have a certain friend of the Brojos who posts in here frequently, whos admittet to cheating, but what do they call him? Well, you'll have to guess the name for yourself, can't say or else this comment will get deleted, probably will anyway but...

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Nobody here wants anyone convicted of criminal child sexual assault living next door to a home with kids in it.

Americas system of justice is terrible.

If a guy pees in public, he gets labeled sex offender and nobody will want to live next door to him. Who would want a guy who pees outside when hes drunk live next to them eh? What a monster.