zero doping – cero dopaje

Announcement

The Righteous Living in Fear

Filed under: Athletes — Tags: , , , — admin @ 5:13 pm

Some athletes are clean. You can tell. Or can you?

I am sure many people have felt cheated when they pronounc any athlete is clean – to find their world collapse on the front pages of newspapers that “such and such” has been sent home following a doping failure.

I know i have put faith in some who let me down.
For all that I still believe.

I met Diane Modahl, and her personality was such I judge she could never have cheated. She would rather have come seventh in an honest race, than finish first by cheating. That was my opinion then, and it has not changed since – which makes it so much worse, that she was apparent victim of a testing disaster.

I believe in Paula Radcliffe too.

But I wonder whether her vociferously anti doping stance may become her undoing. Who can forget the images of Paula holding a placard at a track race, opposing a drug cheat who had escaped banning just on a technicality

I can think that very stance (and good on Paula for being outspoken) some have a grudge to settle with Paula and thats the trouble. A marathoner is more vulnerable than most.

There are those who would take the chance to spike a drink. With a marathoner there are opportunities. Or long distance cyclists taking drinks from the road.

A meal. A drink even a cup of tea at roadside catering trailer?

I hope for paulas sake those charged with the security
of her drinks and food do not have a bad day.
But she must live in fear of those with a grudge to settle.

She reminds me of the film gladiator: when the identity of maximus is revealed he worries about eating in case his food has been tampered

June 23, 2010

Motive. Means. Opportunity.

Filed under: Athletes — Tags: , , , — admin @ 3:17 pm

Motive. Means. Opportunity.

Sometimes it just does not make sense.
The nandrolone affair caught many athletes off guard.

It begs many awkward questions.

Should athletes take supplements? Are they natural? Does the fact that the body makes a chemical make it OK? Do you still think so with human growth hormone?

There will always be uncertain edges.

And since athletes dont have XRay eyes how can they know what is in a substance, if they buy it over a food counter?

It seems with 20/20 hindisight batches of a supplement taken by many athletes was giving positives for nandrolone. Sadly many otherwise respectable athletes got caught and banned. As for example mark richardson a promising 400m runner.

But let us examine the case of arguably one of britains best athletes.

Linford Christie.
Linford promoted the clean living athlete “pure talent, no additives”
and took part in the infamous Ben Johnston race.

I maybe naieve – but I am on Linford’s side. Who can remember hearing the words “pseudo ephedrine” a cold cure, being an extract discovered in ginseng tea. Those words all sound so chemical that surely they are cheating. Not so by intent, in my opinion.

Can pseudoephedrine really influence performance?

But lets look at this through detectives eyes. A crime needs means and opportunity, catching red handed always helps.

But intent also needs motive.
And it just is not there in the later case.

Christie had retired. He had not competed for many months. He only remained on the testing rota, because he saw he may have to compete for the club. Not for personal glory, and certainly by that time he could not care less whether he won or not.

THEN he was done for nandrolone.

It did not and does not make sense. Sure he may have been positive.
But clearly in this case, he is hardly likely to knowingly cheat just to
compete in a lowly club match.

So logic said he may be guilty of having a drug in his system. But was he guilty of using a substance to enhance performance? I don’t think so. The motive just is not there.

Powered by WordPress