If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
but with turmoil in world's markets, i was better off spending last few days concentrating all my efforts on making some money - the "send-eldrick-to-bejing-&-i-don't-want-to-pay-for-it" fund - & if mr bernanke says nice things at 1000 hours eastern time today - i'm closing it & i won't need to start other ones for berlin & daegu
Shouldn't you show greater solidarity with your fellow miscreants?
premise doesn't apply - see above
[quote:2h2j8o8p]Did you manage to coach any athletes to any gold medals whilst you were doing time?
does it pay as good as above ?[/quote:2h2j8o8p]
The pay question really shows how little you really know about coaching Eldy.
Believe it or not there are rewards that go far beyond the almighty pound.
deanouk wrote:
I've heard that they are pretty lax in many African nations, and often find it hard to track their runners down when they are not staying in the cities
Eldrick:
i suggest you tell us how many testers are up for the job of arriving at kinshasa airport, then travel the 500 miles to the athletes village located in the deepest congo jungle, on dirt tracks on donkey/mule/rickety bus, fending off lions, tigers, leopards, hyenas, wild dogs, then cross the limpopo on a rickety raft frequently staring at the jaws of ravenous crocodiles & "bad-attitude" hippos, willing to wade thru jungle facing mambas, ebola, malaria, sleeping sickness
It would be very difficult for a US athlete to register a missed test. In the US, if a tester turns up at a location and the athlete isn't there (after saying they would be), then the tester contacts the athlete and arranges to meet up within one hour.
In the UK, if a tester turns up and does not find an athlete at the location they said they would be within one hour, then it goes down as a missed test - no effort is made to contact the athlete. And that makes a BIG difference.
Jon, did you just tell Michael Johnson what to say on BBC2? He almost quoted you word-for-word!
I think Johnson is the best athlete-analyst I have ever heard - he is spot on. Not afraid to criticise his countrymen either. Very, very insightful guy.
He owes Rawlinson and Felix an apology too. They're not gonna get them though.
felix finally cracks 22 on a lightening track with a nice wind - maybe 21.9-basic without wind & another 0.1s for the lightening track - probably about 22-flat basic if run at a rome, brussels, oslo, etc
nice time, but i'd still rate simpson's easing down 22.00 into a wind last year a better mark
as for jana, she seems to win whenever her opposition run rubbish ( why this is, i have no idea ) - in '04, halkia was in almost wr shape & jana, admittedly off-injury didn't figure, then in '05, pecho actually was running somewhat like a wr holder with a 52.9 in the final - jana was injured/pregnant at the time, so didn't run
when she breaks 53, then i'll be a little more impressed, but as of now, she is the slowest global champ the event has seen since '91 & only 2nd one since then never to have cracked 53 ( pivavlova being other one, but seeing as she won og in 53-flat in her 1st ever season, i'd have no problem suggesting she'd have smashed thru 53 if she'd carried on in the event )
jana has had 4y with injury/pregnancy upsetting her plans, but it's time now to prove her worth with some quick times
He owes Rawlinson and Felix an apology too. They're not gonna get them though.
felix finally cracks 22 on a lightening track with a nice wind - maybe 21.9-basic without wind & another 0.1s for the lightening track - probably about 22-flat basic if run at a rome, brussels, oslo, etc
nice time, but i'd still rate simpson's easing down 22.00 into a wind last year a better mark
as for jana, she seems to win whenever her opposition run rubbish ( why this is, i have no idea ) - in '04, halkia was in almost wr shape & jana, admittedly off-injury didn't figure, then in '05, pecho actually was running somewhat like a wr holder with a 52.9 in the final - jana was injured/pregnant at the time, so didn't run
when she breaks 53, then i'll be a little more impressed, but as of now, she is the slowest global champ the event has seen since '91 & only 2nd one since then never to have cracked 53 ( pivavlova being other one, but seeing as she won og in 53-flat in her 1st ever season, i'd have no problem suggesting she'd have smashed thru 53 if she'd carried on in the event )
jana has had 4y with injury/pregnancy upsetting her plans, but it's time now to prove her worth with some quick times
A load of excuses and "what ifs" - that's not like you!
How many on this Forum read Michelle Verroken's article about O in the Sunday Times. She was, till,last year, the head of anti doping for UK Sport.
She knows full well that Christine, who transgessed and paid the penalty, is no drug taker . How do you benefit with endless tests over an 18 months period, with the last one a week before and the next one a week after the missed test.
As Johnson said the American system is not the same because athletes in the USA are allowed to give alternative locations, and the tester can and does phone to ask where are you, if you are not where you are supposed to be..'' Be here in X minutes or you are in trouble.''
No such luck for Christine. she did not benefit from drugs as we know. There are a lot of nervous athletes who have to comply with the onerous system and who are on missed tests and cannot afford any screw ups till 2009 at least.
I like the comment from Arne Lundquvist, late head of the Medical commission of the IAAF or whatever. ''The British have one of the most onerous systems of testing, the only trouble is, they only catch innocent athletes''
Would that be a Sumatran, Bengal or Siberian Tiger? :twisted:
Re: "drug test"
She is back after a ban for a doping offence. [Correct terminology]
Considering Tim Don got off with a 3 month ban, she can consider herself hard done by, especially in view of the number of passed tests. Surely the overall number of tests should be factored in? Consider the scenarios:
A: The testers turned up to test someone 3 times in 18 months and they were absent each time.
B: The testers turned up 57 times and the athlete was absent 3 times?
Is it the same offence? It is according to the rules, but clearly it's not the same thing. Otherwise, all the authorities have to do is turn up 5 times a week every week until the athlete they want [gotten rid of] has three black marks against their name.
Finally, what is the purpose of WADA? To "level the playing field"? Clearly, by allowing the different ISFs and NOCs to set different rules it has signally failed the likes of Ohurougu.
Comment