Nwokocha case and related issues

[Atticus]

Your blind patriotism is commendable.

Your antipathy towards the USA is noted with concern for your psychological well-being. We are a deeply flawed nation! And . . . this, being a USA web-site, should be the last place on earth you should want to be.
I'm sure there is a Dutch site that you would be much more comfortable at. Should we help you find it?

[Wiederganger]

It's amusing to see which posters are happy to condemn the whole of the "Eastern Bloc" based on incomplete records from one country, the GDR, yet refuse to believe their home grown stars from the 80s were also doped.
And it's those same posters who happily condemn Russian athletes, or a Naser, but yet cannot accept the atrocious doping culture of the NCAA, and think its perfectly reasonable for a convicted and previously banned doper and trafficker to head up a track team. But no, there is no problem in the NCAA LOL.

Your blind patriotism is commendable.

[gm]

You must have inside information about the Ross and Nwokocha cases. I can't imagine you would issue a condemnation without all the facts.

[aaronk]

Those people were already redundantly identified as "non-US fans".

I see no reason to doubt marks made by NCAA athletes---foreign or USA!
Most of the athletes repeat those marks, or at least come close, which gives veracity to the collegiate marks.
But do I believe there is drug use in the NCAA?
Absolutely!
But in this case, one rotten apple doesn't mean the whole barrel is rotten!
This is---as I said in my initial post here---about the Ross family (Duane & Randolph), and athletes associated with them, meaning the teams at Tennessee and NC A&T!!
And also as I said earlier, I'd recommend that athletes from those two institutions start the transfer process NOW!!

[Atticus]

I always figure the dismissive ones do so because of ignorance or inexperience.

Those people were already redundantly identified as "non-US fans".

[gm]

No, we don't; we just don't care if they do or not. The NCAA has its faults, but running a drug-happy, illegal-shoe-encouraging establishment is not one of them.

I always figure the dismissive ones do so because of ignorance or inexperience.

[Atticus]

and people wonder why many non-US fans disregard or take NCAA performances with a pinch of salt?

No, we don't; we just don't care if they do or not. The NCAA has its faults, but running a drug-happy, illegal-shoe-encouraging establishment is not one of them.

[Wiederganger]

The same way they do at any of the other dozens/hundreds of worldwide competitions that don't certify shoes -- ask for evidence, and if it isn't provided you don't allow those marks for qualifying/ranking.

What hundreds of competitions that "don't certify shoes"? If it's an approved WA meet, the officials check spikes.

I was competing at a UK Masters event recently, and even there they officials checked footwear before every race. And there was a guy in my heat who had illegal shoes: he was allowed to run, but warned that any record set would not be recognised. Alas, he came last, and didn't even make the top 200 in our age group ranking, so that's probably ok...

Different (secretive) drug testing regime, different rules on spikes, colleges employing proven drug cheats who have served bans for taking drugs and trafficking drugs...and people wonder why many non-US fans disregard or take NCAA performances with a pinch of salt? As mentioned earlier, the readiness to employ dopers as Head Coaches is a MASSIVE red flag. I'm pretty gob smacked tbh.

[Vault-emort]

Athletics Australia put out a release that they would be following up this suspension (something about waiting for a B sample test?) as the Australian 4x100m team were 4th at Comm Games.

[gm]

That's one reason why I think ZazaShoya has a point about NCAA performances (not) being eligible for world rankings. It's not just drug testing, either - e.g. a couple of years ago they refused to adopt the international rules on shoes, limiting the thickness of the soles. How is WA supposed to figure out who is or isn't using shoes meeting their standards in collegiate competition?

The same way they do at any of the other dozens/hundreds of worldwide competitions that don't certify shoes -- ask for evidence, and if it isn't provided you don't allow those marks for qualifying/ranking.

[NotDutra5]

That's one reason why I think ZazaShoya has a point about NCAA performances (not) being eligible for world rankings. It's not just drug testing, either - e.g. a couple of years ago they refused to adopt the international rules on shoes, limiting the thickness of the soles. How is WA supposed to figure out who is or isn't using shoes meeting their standards in collegiate competition?

Not clear on which world rankings you're referring to. If it is, for instance, the T&FN rankings on the men's side I think there was one collegiate athlete ranked (Terrance Laird) from 2021. I doubt WA rankings would show more collegiate athletes considering there is even more international competition bias with those rankings.

[Powell]

The NCAA did/does its own testing at championship events. Its refusal to give USADA first crack at an athlete is a major point of contention between the two organizations. Currently the NCAA uses Drug Free Sport International as its vendor for doping tests.

That's one reason why I think ZazaShoya has a point about NCAA performances (not) being eligible for world rankings. It's not just drug testing, either - e.g. a couple of years ago they refused to adopt the international rules on shoes, limiting the thickness of the soles. How is WA supposed to figure out who is or isn't using shoes meeting their standards in collegiate competition?

[DET59]

It is completely inconceivable to me that an education establishment would employ someone as an athletics coach who has been banned for attempted use, possession, and trafficking of PEDs !!

Or a media company under contract with the WA, and/or USATF would have them in the booth commentating...

[Atticus]

This is not a court trial. It's a discussion. Therefore, I will allow.

Merely acceding to the defense's request to clarify the OP's non-objectivity, Your Honor.

[Jacksf]

Allow me to enumerate.
.

1. subjective description
2. Facts not yet in evidence
3. 'Doing their thing' obviously means 'doping'. Again, facts not yet in evidence.
4. Subjective.
5. Subjective
6. Suggests unfair scrutiny on Nigerian athletes. Facts not in evidence.

This is not a court trial. It's a discussion.
Therefore, I will allow.