/ Salazar banned.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Stuart (aka brt) 01 Oct 2019

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49882757

It's been coming for a while. 

richlan 01 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

It's only a matter of time before athletics comes tumbling down with more doping scandals like cycling did back in the day, even with the Russians exposed like they were it just seems to trundle on regardless with the "nothing to see here" attitude.

cb294 01 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

About time!

subtle 01 Oct 2019
In reply to cb294:

Paula Radcliffe

16
cb294 01 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

Konstanze Klosterhalfen. Burning every ancient German record since joining NOP.

The repeated, sudden transformation from mid elite international level runners to Olympic medal winners is highly suspicious for a training group that uses testosterone creams of course only to check whether they could be to smear their athletes...

Yeah sure, Father Christmas agrees.

CB

Post edited at 17:32
wbo2 01 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:I knew her as a junior,  I knew her as a senior and i dont think so.

And I'm faster than her and was clean. i also  didn't have 1% of her work ethic

bouldery bits 01 Oct 2019
In reply to wbo2:

> I knew her as a junior,  I knew her as a senior and i dont think so.

> And I'm faster than her and was clean. i also  didn't have 1% of her work ethic

You've run a sub 2:15 Marathon?

Crikey! 

Lance's work ethic was well regarded....

Pullhard 01 Oct 2019
In reply to bouldery bits:

How can the coach be ban but not his athletes? Surely they must undergo independent retests

balmybaldwin 01 Oct 2019
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Lance's work ethic was well regarded....

Of course these people are. They are the sort to leave nothing to chance, but then again, that is also a trait of clean athletes

Yanis Nayu 01 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Just seen Paula Radcliffe’s interview on the BBC. Extraordinarily excruciating. She was all over the place, total apologist. It was embarrassing. I’ve long been extremely suspicious about Farah, but this interview has done her no favours at all given the worldwide suspicions about her. 

2
bouldery bits 02 Oct 2019
In reply to Pullhard:

> How can the coach be ban but not his athletes? Surely they must undergo independent retests

Very true!

richlan 02 Oct 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Didn’t see the Radcliffe interview but I’m with you on Farrah, he’s had some strange results, up then down, not starting certain events, I really do hope he’s clean for the sake of all clean UK athletes but all this does make you wonder.

1
Stuart (aka brt) 02 Oct 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Just seen Paula Radcliffe’s interview on the BBC. Extraordinarily excruciating. She was all over the place, total apologist. It was embarrassing. I’ve long been extremely suspicious about Farah, but this interview has done her no favours at all given the worldwide suspicions about her. 

I'll have a look later. Thanks. 

Timmd 02 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

> Paula Radcliffe

If you don't 'know', you don't know enough to judge. Any athlete who gets results is going to be suspected.

1
The New NickB 02 Oct 2019
In reply to richlan:

Why can’t people spell his name correctly, it’s not difficult. 

5
richlan 02 Oct 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Why can’t people spell his name correctly, it’s not difficult. 

Seems like it is. May i take this opportunity to apologise unreservedly to you for any distress i may have caused you by spelling his name incorrectly, i can assure you it will never happen again.

1
bouldery bits 02 Oct 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Why can’t people spell his name correctly, it’s not difficult. 

Why can't people use question marks correctly? It's not difficult. 

1
DaveHK 02 Oct 2019
In reply to richlan:

> Didn’t see the Radcliffe interview 

It's at the bottom of this article: https://www.balls.ie/athletics/paula-radcliffe-alberto-salazar-bbc-418051

It's quite painful to watch, almost like she'd tried to memorise a script but the questions didn't fit the script.

Post edited at 17:57
Roadrunner6 02 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

It makes you wonder how widespread it is, UKA were very close to him and are now trying to distance him. It could be another Lance. I'm not defending him by that, but just people seem to be thinking the sport is clean now, when if anything I think we've only just started to get into this.

aln 02 Oct 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Why can’t people spell his name correctly, it’s not difficult. 

Why can't people put question marks at the end of a sentence, it's not difficult? 😉

2
felt 02 Oct 2019
In reply to aln:

Why can't people not point out something that someone else has already pointed out?

This is a wild thread, eh?

2
Stuart (aka brt) 02 Oct 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> It makes you wonder how widespread it is, UKA were very close to him and are now trying to distance him. It could be another Lance. I'm not defending him by that, but just people seem to be thinking the sport is clean now, when if anything I think we've only just started to get into this.

It's disheartening as someone who loves athletics (and road cycling) and has two young kids who are getting into running. Where to go for role models? I do (can't believe I'm saying this so positively) think that cycling has for the large part, got a grip of it. I'm hoping that this Salazar revelation isn't the tip of some bigger scandal. 

Post edited at 19:15
aln 02 Oct 2019
In reply to felt:

Hoist by my own.... 

Minneconjou Sioux 02 Oct 2019
In reply to felt:

You've missed the point. Re-read both responses

felt 02 Oct 2019
In reply to Minneconjou Sioux:

Whoosh

wbo2 02 Oct 2019
In reply to bouldery bits:5k, 10k, 1/2.    marathon .   True re. Lance but I still doubt it.  I remember  having this conversation in 98, 99 with a group of people who would know and at that time we couldn't think of anyone in the UK running distance who was dodgy.  This was a bit bit post Modahl but was prompted by Mary Slaney getting nicked

bouldery bits 02 Oct 2019
In reply to wbo2:

> 5k, 10k, 1/2.    marathon .   True re. Lance but I still doubt it.  I remember  having this conversation in 98, 99 with a group of people who would know and at that time we couldn't think of anyone in the UK running distance who was dodgy.  This was a bit bit post Modahl but was prompted by Mary Slaney getting nicked

Jeez! That's seriously good going. 

And there's me struggling round the local park run and I can't actually touch my toes. (Not because I'm fat. Short arms. Honest!) 

I'm suspicious of anyone who's winning in elite pro sport to be honest. Like Lance said 'I'm sorry for you who don't believe in miracles'. Pitty me I guess? 

Yanis Nayu 02 Oct 2019
In reply to wbo2:

It’s very hard to comprehend her contortions and deflections on the Salazar case though. 

I don’t think Pharrarh was clean, and I’m less inclined to believe Radcliffe was now either. 

1
The New NickB 03 Oct 2019
In reply to bouldery bits:

It wasn’t a question.

Offwidth 03 Oct 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

A case of Muphry's law. It brings back memories...

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2012/jul/04/if-this-is-a-question

1
bouldery bits 04 Oct 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> It wasn’t a question.

Right.

The sentence started with the word 'why' and asked a question. But obviously you're the expert. 

1
The New NickB 04 Oct 2019
In reply to bouldery bits:

Why wouldn’t you think I am an expert in the intent of my own post.

Don’t answer that, it’s rhetorical.

1
malk 04 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

many on letrun seem to have sympathy for him- just pushing the grey areas (rather like Brailsford/team sky?) Farah gets no mercy..

incredible third fastest ever 400m last night..

Post edited at 12:01
malk 04 Oct 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I don’t think Pharrarh was clean, and I’m less inclined to believe Radcliffe was now either. 

makes you wonder about Cram and Coe..

3
LastBoyScout 04 Oct 2019
In reply to subtle:

> Paula Radcliffe

Interesting exchange on Twitter between Paula and Betsy Andreu:

https://road.cc/content/news/267201-paula-radcliffe-female-version-lance-armstrong-his-nemesis-betsy-andreu-thinks

john arran 04 Oct 2019
In reply to LastBoyScout:

Whatever the history, Radcliffe and others in her situation will never escape the suspicion, which for innocent exceptional athletes must be enormously frustrating. Once allegations have been made there's simply nothing they ever could say that couldn't be interpreted, by those with a desire to do so, as in some way confirming their guilt.

Roadrunner6 04 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> It's disheartening as someone who loves athletics (and road cycling) and has two young kids who are getting into running. Where to go for role models? I do (can't believe I'm saying this so positively) think that cycling has for the large part, got a grip of it. I'm hoping that this Salazar revelation isn't the tip of some bigger scandal. 

Similar.

I love sport but look at US Gymnastics too, that body protected a pedophile working inside with them. Then the drugs in other sports. Concussions in football (American).

I honestly don't know if I'd let my daughter do gymnastics after speaking with other parents and parents who were gymnasts. 

Now we've got drugs in athletics.

But even in soccer back in the 90's we were pushed to take substances. They were clean but that was at the youth level of clubs playing in national leagues. You should be taking X, you taking Y. 16-18 year olds being told to take things. They were legal but I really don't think we should teach young athletes to look for that extra help. For 1 an 18 year old kid is a ball of testosterone anyway. It's guys my age who need help.

I didn't think Salazar would actually be illegally doping, I just thought he would be right at the boundary of legality, questionable TUE's etc. It's shocking for me.

Qwerty2019 04 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

How close do you think we are to the first case in climbing?

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Similar to Maria Sharapova  - banned for two years for taking something which she had been taking for ages -  claimed she did not realise it had been added to the restricted list.

But she was clearly taking it to gain an advantage - not for the medical requirement.

I'm curious as to how many top athletes are taking things which WADA just haven't got around to restricting yet.

Stuart (aka brt) 04 Oct 2019
In reply to Qwerty2019:

> How close do you think we are to the first case in climbing?

Didn't Sharma get done for cannabis use in a bouldering comp? I guess the use of drugs at altitude is grey (or not). I seem to remember some top level (non comp) boulderers hammering some stimulant the name of which eludes me (early 2000's).

Roadrunner6 04 Oct 2019
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

Yes, this is what I think. It's an arms race.

cb294 04 Oct 2019
In reply to Qwerty2019:

I would bet one climber will be caught at next year's Olympics. Probably not one of the favourites, though. As in other sports, only amateurs are caught, with the exception every now and then when new technology is used for retrospective testing. 

CB

DancingOnRock 04 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Yes. His experiments have all been really close to the line. 

I saw something years ago about him doping his son to see how much he could do before it started showing in tests and at what point in time it would start showing. 

Paula Radcliffe has always tested clear. There’s no point in going over the results as the results don’t change over time. All that will happen is she’ll have massive press intrusion for no reason whatsoever. And once they’ve finished with her, they’ll move onto someone else. Possibly someone who really should be concentrating on competing and not concentrating on press intrusion.

Which is really what she’s trying to avoid. 

bouldery bits 04 Oct 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Why wouldn’t you think I am an expert in the intent of my own post.

> Don’t answer that, it’s rhetorical.

 This also needs a question mark. 

This is great! Surely it is deliberate and I'm being mercilessly trolled. Great work mate. 

webbo 04 Oct 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Yes. His experiments have all been really close to the line. 

> I saw something years ago about him doping his son to see how much he could do before it started showing in tests and at what point in time it would start showing. 

> Paula Radcliffe has always tested clear. There’s no point in going over the results as the results don’t change over time. All that will happen is she’ll have massive press intrusion for no reason whatsoever. And once they’ve finished with her, they’ll move onto someone else. Possibly someone who really should be concentrating on competing and not concentrating on press intrusion.

> Which is really what she’s trying to avoid. 

How clear tests did Lance give before being caught by retrospective testing.

DancingOnRock 04 Oct 2019
In reply to webbo:

I’ve no idea. But that’s down to the IAAF whether they retest or not and for what reason. She’s talking about publicising tests that have already been carried out and are clear. 

Stuart (aka brt) 04 Oct 2019
In reply to bouldery bits:

>  This also needs a question mark. 

> This is great! Surely it is deliberate and I'm being mercilessly trolled. Great work mate. 

To be fair, rhetorical questions don't need a question mark. 

bouldery bits 04 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> To be fair, rhetorical questions don't need a question mark. 

Or do they.

webbo 04 Oct 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I’ve no idea. But that’s down to the IAAF whether they retest or not and for what reason. She’s talking about publicising tests that have already been carried out and are clear. 

Lance never failed a test. 

I did hear that lord posh boy ex mp who also is Nike ambassador might not have been so sqeeky clean.

bouldery bits 04 Oct 2019
In reply to webbo:

> I did hear that lord posh boy ex mp who also is Nike ambassador might not have been so sqeeky clean.

That would be hugely embarrassing.

The New NickB 04 Oct 2019
In reply to bouldery bits:

>  This also needs a question mark. 

> This is great! Surely it is deliberate and I'm being mercilessly trolled. Great work mate. 

Kind of, but no it doesn’t need a question mark and I’ve spelled out why it doesn’t. 

Here is a real question. Google it. Does a rhetorical question require a question mark?

1
bouldery bits 04 Oct 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

> Kind of, but no it doesn’t need a question mark and I’ve spelled out why it doesn’t. 

> Here is a real question. Google it. Does a rhetorical question require a question mark?

Is this a rhetorical question.

felt 05 Oct 2019
In reply to malk:

> makes you wonder about Cram and Coe..

As with Paula, all roads lead to Oregon.

Mr Fuller 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

The thing is, everyone defending Farrah is a Nike ambassador. Cram has been very quick to jump on the misdemeanors of some athletes and question them even during commentary, but when Coe, Radcliffe, him and Farrah are all Nike devotees they're going to club together. Radcliffe's husband is now Farrah's coach too. 

I really hope Radcliffe is clean, she was amazing to watch and inspired a lot of people. But her transformation from 'merely' excellent runner to world record holder with a time that no one has got near to, despite a lot of them being known dopers, coupled to her running style which was anything but efficient, means she's not beyond doubt. 

john arran 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Mr Fuller:

> The thing is, everyone defending Farrah is a Nike ambassador. Cram has been very quick to jump on the misdemeanors of some athletes and question them even during commentary, but when Coe, Radcliffe, him and Farah are all Nike devotees they're going to club together. Radcliffe's husband is now Farrah's coach too. 

Excellent piece in the Guardian today making many of those points very well indeed:

 https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/04/sebastian-coe-alberto-salazar-very-british-hypocrisy-athletics

Stuart (aka brt) 05 Oct 2019
In reply to john arran:

I guess the logic has to go that if Salazar is nailed on guilty then there must be a product of his wrongdoing i.e. athletes that doped. For me anyone with association to NOP is dubious based on the really big scandals in cycling. No one just dabbles. It's systematic. 

fred99 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Qwerty2019:

> How close do you think we are to the first case in climbing?


Weren't a number of the people "pushing it" in Yosemite in the 60's/70's stoned a good chunk of the time ?

Recreational drugs they might have been, but still against doping rules.

webbo 05 Oct 2019
In reply to fred99:

> Weren't a number of the people "pushing it" in Yosemite in the 60's/70's stoned a good chunk of the time ?

> Recreational drugs they might have been, but still against doping rules.

They used speed to aid the first one day ascent of the nose. John Long makes a reference to Bridwell having the “ Beans” and I don’t think he meant Heinz.

Folk also used speed in the Alps Alec Mck was given some to help get off the top of one the North faces. He mentions in some article he wrote.

Eric9Points 05 Oct 2019
In reply to webbo:

But of course, there are no rules in climbing thank God.

I did some route behind the Old Dungeon Gill in the pissing rain after 3 1/2 pints of Old Peculiar. Should I have been banned for that?

Mr Fuller 05 Oct 2019
In reply to john arran:

Yep, great article. Coe is as dirty as anyone here - how else does a major athletics champs get help in Doha?! 

fred99 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> But of course, there are no rules in climbing thank God.

There are now - at least for anyone involved in competition climbing.

Be careful with that "secondary smoking" if you're mates with someone on the "wacky baccy".

(At least that was the excuse one snowboarder used).

DancingOnRock 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

No. Alcohol is only prohibited in motorsport, and only then while actually competing. 

DancingOnRock 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

What has he actually been found guilty of? 

‘An independent panel found Salazar and Brown possessed and trafficked a banned performance-enhancing substance and administered or attempted to administer a prohibited method to multiple track and field athletes.

It added that Salazar "tampered and/or attempted to tamper with the doping control process".’

Post edited at 18:50
Robert Durran 05 Oct 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Excellent piece in the Guardian today making many of those points very well indeed:

It seems to me that Coe is simply saying that individual athletes should be considered innocent until proved guilty. Or am I being too charitable to one of my greatest sporting heros?

1
Moley 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Hassan just done very well in the 1500m. And the 10k.

Robert Durran 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Mr Fuller:

> Yep, great article. Coe is as dirty as anyone here - how else does a major athletics champs get help in Doha?!

Why shouldn't the world championships be held in Doha?

Yanis Nayu 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Hassan just won the 1500m in the sixth fastest time in history after winning the 10,000m earlier in the week. I’m not sure that’s a common double. Salazar’s an amazing coach...

1
Moley 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

>  Salazar’s an amazing coach...

He would effing struggle to make me run faster

Andy Hardy 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> But of course, there are no rules in climbing thank God.

> I did some route behind the Old Dungeon Gill in the pissing rain after 3 1/2 pints of Old Peculiar. Should I have been banned for that?

Yes. For drinking halves.

john arran 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

You're right, from a strictly logical and legal viewpoint. But the world is made of shades of grey and we all must make our own assessments as to whether a particular shade is light or dark.

Stuart (aka brt) 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> It seems to me that Coe is simply saying that individual athletes should be considered innocent until proved guilty. Or am I being too charitable to one of my greatest sporting heros?

For me it's murky because for years Paula Radcliffe was the poster girl for anti-dopers. The other night on the BBC during an interview she was a little bit apologist re: Salazar. Conflicted much?

Coe is, to my mind, in the same boat. He should be calling people out on this but is doing the Lance defence of 'athletes haven't failed a test'. 

Stuart (aka brt) 05 Oct 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> What has he actually been found guilty of? 

> ‘An independent panel found Salazar and Brown possessed and trafficked a banned performance-enhancing substance and administered or attempted to administer a prohibited method to multiple track and field athletes.

> It added that Salazar "tampered and/or attempted to tamper with the doping control process".’

His big thing was L-carnitine. It seems he had a doctor on the payroll who was willing to infuse athletes to a higher dosage and in a shorter time frame than is permissable. He's also got form for Testosterone and did something dodgy with his son (using patches smeared on skin to see if anti-doping picked it up). It's in various of the reports. 

Robert Durran 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Hassan just won the 1500m in the sixth fastest time in history after winning the 10,000m earlier in the week. I’m not sure that’s a common double. Salazar’s an amazing coach...

And an interesting comment from Radcliffe on TV saying something along the lines that she had done particularly well given that her coach had been banned midweek.

Robert Durran 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Coe is, to my mind, in the same boat. He should be calling people out on this but is doing the Lance defence of 'athletes haven't failed a test'. 

Calling out athletes who have not failed a test or are otherwise known to have cheated?

Stuart (aka brt) 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

To be clear, Coe should have called out Salazar long ago. It's only in the last few days that he's 'ordered' athletes to sever all links. When was the Panorama documentary? Four years or so ago? He's too close to NOP/Nike. It'd be like Lance being head at UCI.

Unfortunately for athletes and fans alike, there should not be any wriggle room. 

Yanis Nayu 05 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

What has officially come out this week about Salazar has been known about for years, so you have to question athletes who chose to go and train with him. Thyroid medication for athletes with no thyroid problems, infusions of supplements measuring litres where the rules permit 50ml, doctored medical records, lying to athletes about USADA approving practices they didn’t, investigating how much testosterone triggers an adverse finding, coaching Mary Decker who tested positive for testosterone. All the whistleblowers who came forward. Then just with Mo Farah you have his incredible transformation in his mid twenties, the missed drugs tests, his association with the Ethiopian doping coach (Aden?) which he lied about. Sadly, I know what I think about it. The way it’s been discussed by Coe, Cram and Radcliffe is the saddest thing of all to me. So obviously compromised by their associations and financial interests. 

cb294 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

As discussed to death in the various cycling threads, cheating is still cheating even if it is not the athlete doing it but someone in the support team. Not being caught by tests is no evidence at all. 

CB

cb294 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

This, x 1000

CB

Robert Durran 06 Oct 2019
In reply to cb294:

> As discussed to death in the various cycling threads, cheating is still cheating even if it is not the athlete doing it but someone in the support team. Not being caught by tests is no evidence at all. 

Yes, obviously (though I don't follow cycling threads). I agree that all of Salazar's athletes must now be under suspicion, but presumably they should still be presumed innocent until they have been proved to have been involved in his cheating (whether knowingly or not).

DancingOnRock 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes. The problem is that the athletes have to put their trust in their coach and do what he says. If the coach says take these vitamins or these tablets, drink this, eat that; then that’s what you do. 

1
Wanderer100 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Is this not a classic case of "thou with protesth too much!".

Alberto Salazar: 'Angry' Sifan Hassan says 'I am clean' after 1500m World Championships win - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49948731

Rob Parsons 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Or am I being too charitable to one of my greatest sporting heros?

Yes, I think you are.

Robert Durran 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Yes, I think you are.

In that case am I allowed to separate his achievements as as one of the all time great athletes and in pulling off the London Olympics from this stuff?

2
felt 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Why shouldn't the world championships be held in Doha?

The scene just before the women's 100m final:

https://sports.inquirer.net/files/2019/09/empty-doha.jpeg

Rob Parsons 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> In that case am I allowed to separate his achievements as as one of the all time great athletes and in pulling off the London Olympics from this stuff?


You are 'allowed' to do whatever you like in that respect.

But in relation to both his stewardship of the IAAF and his approach to the current matter, it might help if you analyze how you would react if exactly the same approach was taken by somebody you didn't personally admire. Would that change the picture at all?

Robert Durran 06 Oct 2019
In reply to felt:

> The scene just before the women's 100m final:

Yes, I'm aware of the low spectator numbers, but this should maybe be balanced against the case for holding it in a new region for the event. The atmosphere for the men's high jump final seemed fantastic. 

3
Robert Durran 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> But in relation to both his stewardship of the IAAF and his approach to the current matter, it might help if you analyze how you would react if exactly the same approach was taken by somebody you didn't personally admire. Would that change the picture at all?

I think I can probably be objective.

1
felt 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, I'm aware of the low spectator numbers, but this should maybe be balanced against the case for holding it in a new region for the event.

You could hold it in Antarctica, that would be a new region too, and maybe as many would attend.

> The atmosphere for the men's high jump final seemed fantastic. 

Yes, the one event with home interest.

This is what you want: no balmy night, no nice chairs, no state-of-the art trackside lightshow, just torrential rain all day for the chance to see some sodden men in dubious lycra flash past you with little to zero home interest.

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/world-championship-mens-elite-road-race-2019-picture-alex-whitehead-swpixcom.jpg

Robert Durran 06 Oct 2019
In reply to felt:

> You could hold it in Antarctica, that would be a new region too, and maybe as many would attend.

Yes, but there would be no point because there is no potential audience in Antarctica, whereas there is potentially a very large one in the Arab world.

> Yes, the one event with home interest.

Which shows the potential.

3
felt 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I think we'll have to disagree on this one. But hey, thanks for the Horizon Cassini recommend. Just caught it in time!

Rob Naylor 06 Oct 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I did some route behind the Old Dungeon Gill in the pissing rain after 3 1/2 pints of Old Peculiar. Should I have been banned for that?

Yes you should, for murdering a beer's name! If, however, you'd drunk 3 1/2 pints of Old Peculier, that would be a different matter entirely.

1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Then just with Mo Farah you have his incredible transformation in his mid twenties, the missed drugs tests, his association with the Ethiopian doping coach (Aden?) which he lied about. Sadly, I know what I think about it.

But also in his early to mid twenties he went from someone who did athletics to an athlete. He totally changed his lifestyle and approach to his training, he fully committed 100% (he attended the same uni). So although I am not a "he is definitely clean" I am less concerned about this big improvement as he was showing talent when half arsing things and then when he committed he improved. 

2
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, I'm aware of the low spectator numbers, but this should maybe be balanced against the case for holding it in a new region for the event. 

I think there is justification for putting efforts into new areas but I also think that could have been done for another 10 years with promoting the diamond league etc to really build an interest.

The high jump was fab and well attended but the fact that we are commenting  that there was a good atmosphere for 1 event (and to a lesser extent the distance finals) shows how poor the attendance has been in general.

Post edited at 15:44
Rob Parsons 06 Oct 2019
In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):

> I think there is justification for putting efforts into new areas ...

There is no history of athletics events in the Middle East (is there?) And for an obvious reason: it's a slightly hot place to be running around in.

The fact that the current championships are being held in Qatar has nothing to do with 'widening participation' or anything like that - it's just about money.

I imagine that in a few years some other money-grubbing organization like FIFA might suggest that the football World Cup should be held in the same atomically hot location.

Oh - hang on ...

felt 06 Oct 2019
In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):

> I think there is justification for putting efforts into new areas but I also think that could have been done for another 10 years with promoting the diamond league etc to really build an interest.

I think that's right. By all means hold athletics events in Doha, just not the WCs when the audience is not at all assured. It's disrespectful to the athletes at that level to expect them to perform in front of crowds that were for the most part no bigger than a midweek club meet on a rainswept November evening at the old Iffley Road track, albeit without the disco lights. The same can be said re the women's football World Cup. Don't trial VAR at such a high-level competition. 

fred99 07 Oct 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> ...The atmosphere for the men's high jump final seemed fantastic. 

The locals had a favourite for that event, so turned up.

The other events ....

The New NickB 07 Oct 2019
In reply to felt:

> The same can be said re the women's football World Cup. Don't trial VAR at such a high-level competition. 

VAR wasn’t trialed at the Women’s Football World Cup. It had been trialed years earlier, was in use in the German and Italian leagues, Confederation Cup, U20 World Cup and the knock out stages of the Champions League.

felt 07 Oct 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

Thanks, Nick.

Yanis Nayu 07 Oct 2019
In reply to The New NickB:

I think the new (ridiculous) handball rule, in conjunction with VAR, was the problem. 

Roadrunner6 07 Oct 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I think VAR is good. there are still errors but its going the right way. They just need to just re look at obvious mistakes and not make subjective calls too much. Nothing is perfect though.

Look at United arsenal last week, without VAR a ridiculous flag would have stood and arsenal would have had a goal disallowed.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.