Running Mania

Pan Am women’s marathon winner caught doping:

http://runningmagazine.ca/pan-am-womens ... ht-doping/

And what about Clara? She has done so much good but ... to accept a secret suspension for something she says she did not do back in the time when maybe less then 10% of professional/ Olympic bikers were not taking something is going to raise questions and doubts. My reaction is not one of shock or even disappointment but a sense of resignation as to the cynical view is correct that to succeed at world class level one needs a boast.

My personal opinion is that if you are near the top of the world in any type of endurance or strength-related event you are cheating. That also goes for the top HR hitters in baseball.

drghfx wrote:My personal opinion is that if you are near the top of the world in any type of endurance or strength-related event you are cheating. That also goes for the top HR hitters in baseball.

Near the top of the world or also near top in your country? Could be more widespread. Arguably as many in the minor leagues as in the majors trying to get an edge. As many B level marathoners doping as in the A list.

Love to believe that Clara was innocent but sadly there may be a lot of these silent sanctions sprinkled among our favourite athletes.

drghfx wrote:My personal opinion is that if you are near the top of the world in any type of endurance or strength-related event you are cheating. That also goes for the top HR hitters in baseball.

This.

I have a coworker who swam in the Olympics (for Canada) and got out of the sport due to the pressure to dope. When the Olympics were on one time, she made the comment that she could enjoy the games for what people could do with there bodies, but in no way could believe that they were clean.

I think Clara's infraction was strange. How did they manage to cover it up? I remember Silken Lauman had an infraction almost identical, and her's was made public.

I LOVE Clara, but I'm thinking that this might not have been the best time in her life, and for an elite athlete to say that they don't know what ephedrine is stretches the imagination just a bit. I do believe it could have been innocent to some degree, but I think we'll hear a lot more about the cover up.

purdy65 wrote:I think Clara's infraction was strange. How did they manage to cover it up? I remember Silken Lauman had an infraction almost identical, and her's was made public.

I LOVE Clara, but I'm thinking that this might not have been the best time in her life, and for an elite athlete to say that they don't know what ephedrine is stretches the imagination just a bit. I do believe it could have been innocent to some degree, but I think we'll hear a lot more about the cover up.

Her actual quote was that she knew what ephedrine was and consciously avoided any cold medications, etc that might have contained ephedrine so she had no idea of how ephedrine could have gotten into her sample.

Her suspension was in the off-season and was never publicized by the cycling federation. She was advised not to talk about it and she didn't until she wrote her memoirs that are now being released.

marymac442 wrote:Her suspension was in the off-season and was never publicized by the cycling federation. She was advised not to talk about it and she didn't until she wrote her memoirs that are now being released.

That's the part that bothers me most - that there was a systematic cover-up of her positive test. How can we trust that anyone is clean when sports governing bodies/federations aren't abiding by the anti-doping guidelines? *cough*UCI*cough*

She clearly says at 8:00 in the interview that she did not know what Ephedrine is. Just that she knew not to take ANYTHING - and she didn't.

i re-watched that part of the interview and realized i've been mispronouncing "ephedrine" all these years!

(yes, she does say she'd never heard of it, which is odd.)

*I* knew what ephedrine as a university athlete - I remember spending an hour in a drug store in Guelph in first year, trying to find something I could take for my miserable cold! (answer...nothing)

deerdree wrote:i re-watched that part of the interview and realized i've been mispronouncing "ephedrine" all these years!

(yes, she does say she'd never heard of it, which is odd.)

How is it pronounced? I say ee-FED-ryn.

La wrote:

deerdree wrote:i re-watched that part of the interview and realized i've been mispronouncing "ephedrine" all these years!

(yes, she does say she'd never heard of it, which is odd.)

How is it pronounced? I say ee-FED-ryn.

http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=ephedrine

the emphasis is on the first syllable, apparently.

eta: Clara uses the second version in that clip.

In the 90s there were some teas that contained ephedrine so it's not unreasonable for her to have taken something that had it in it without her knowing.
The reason it didn't come out publicly like in Silken Laumen's case) was that she didn't win a medal.
Although some people will say "doping is doping" I think there's a big difference between accidental ephedrine doping and the systemic doping that was going on in cycling and other sports.

Jwolf wrote:In the 90s there were some teas that contained ephedrine so it's not unreasonable for her to have taken something that had it in it without her knowing.
The reason it didn't come out publicly like in Silken Laumen's case) was that she didn't win a medal.
Although some people will say "doping is doping" I think there's a big difference between accidental ephedrine doping and the systemic doping that was going on in cycling and other sports.

I agree.

Jwolf wrote:In the 90s there were some teas that contained ephedrine so it's not unreasonable for her to have taken something that had it in it without her knowing.
The reason it didn't come out publicly like in Silken Laumen's case) was that she didn't win a medal.
Although some people will say "doping is doping" I think there's a big difference between accidental ephedrine doping and the systemic doping that was going on in cycling and other sports.

The problem is how can one tell the difference. A couple of years ago I am sure almost everyone would have given her the benefit of the doubt. As we have learned more and more with the curtain being removed from cycling and marathons, etc, I just have a hard time believing someone at that level would first not know what that drug was. And second, "accidentally" taken that through a tea, etc. Even back then, athletes were very aware of anything they ingested and so I find it hard to believe there was any accident. If it was just an accident, why not fight the suspension and ask for special circumstances. The "I did not know what I was taking" or the ignorance defense has been rejected and rightly so.

Plus in this case, a stimulate before a race is no different then "systemic" doping. I am not expert but I would assume the long term use of a stimulate cannot be good for one just the same as taking a steroid the day of a competition is not likely to give one much of a edge that day. And now does one know she was not using it on a systemic basis but this was the only time she was caught? They might have mixed up samples is a sign of desperation.


And from another angle: If I knew I had zero responsibility or accountability for something that I was alleged to have done but there was a minimal slap on the wrist that allowed to carry on, that would not be an issue for me that I would have to share or disclose. Or I would have fought the allegation. People tend to confess to relieve the stress and guilt of their "crime". She had a positive result, she accepted the suspension and could have easily gone to her grave with no one the wiser. So why confess to the result and suspension but not to the act that lead to those two things? From my perspective, she is confessing but in a way where she is attempting to preserve her legacy and reputation and so it leaves a very bad taste.

Having said that, the little black cloud, that bit of tarnish is enough and no need for her to flog herself in the public square wearing a hair shirt.

Well legally the difference is intent.

Also, Clara didn't win anything when she allegedly accidentally doped and she never had a positive test again. Clearly that is different than systemic doping.

Jwolf wrote:Well legally the difference is intent.

So?

I understand the legal difference. I understand the difference between murder and manslaughter. I don't know what that has to do with doping - particularly if you believe (which I do) that the athlete is responsible for everything that goes into their body.

I might be more inclined to agree with you if we didn't have a many-decade experience with athletes avoiding responsibility with bullcrap excuses about how drugs got into their bodies. But these days athletes have nobody to blame but themselves for a zero-tolerance approach.

If a governing body had to prove and infraction AND intent they'd never suspend anyone. The infraction is enough.

But we like Clara Hughes, she is inspirational and she is Canadian. That is the difference.

Please make this bad dream go away. I am putting my pillow over my head and going to sleep.

canalrunner wrote:But we like Clara Hughes, she is inspirational and she is Canadian. That is the difference.

I tend to agree. We loved Silken Laumann, too.

La wrote:

canalrunner wrote:But we like Clara Hughes, she is inspirational and she is Canadian. That is the difference.

I tend to agree. We loved Silken Laumann, too.

And Ben Johnson for 9.79 seconds. Love to hear an explanation of the silent acceptance of the silent sanction. Odd passive acceptance.

What about Paula Radcliffe ??



[url][/http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/athletics/paula-radcliffe-denies-doping-allegations-6404882?ICID=FB_mirror_mainurl]

The NOCs sometimes literally have millions invested in certain athletes and they may actually be promoting their drug taking. Funding and administrators' jobs are on the line based on their athletes' successes. It is easy to see why they would want to cover up any suspensions. In Clara Hughes' case, if it wasn't the off-season she would have "had an injury" to explain her absence from competition.

canalrunner wrote:

La wrote:

canalrunner wrote:But we like Clara Hughes, she is inspirational and she is Canadian. That is the difference.

I tend to agree. We loved Silken Laumann, too.

And Ben Johnson for 9.79 seconds. Love to hear an explanation of the silent acceptance of the silent sanction. Odd passive acceptance.

Till this day, Carl Lewis, has never been tested positive, of those runners at the Start Line of the Final Gold Medal event, if I recall ??

Though, apparently, he had a couple of out-of-season positive results that was brushed under the carpet, if I recall ???

canalrunner wrote:

La wrote:

canalrunner wrote:But we like Clara Hughes, she is inspirational and she is Canadian. That is the difference.

I tend to agree. We loved Silken Laumann, too.

And Ben Johnson for 9.79 seconds. Love to hear an explanation of the silent acceptance of the silent sanction. Odd passive acceptance.

So what we need is a hierarchy of doping. If someone is cute and inspirational, all is forgiven. If someone is inspirational but kind of a dick, we'll support them for a while before turning on them (Armstrong). If someone is a total dick, we don't even need a positive test before turning on them. (Clemens, Bonds).