Off topic - Mark Lewis-Francis

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 09 Aug 2006, 14:32

joice maduaka has just missed out on a medal in the womens 100m - in the post race interview she said "i have only had my coach since march - he's been coaching me over the phone" WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
our athletes are coached by telephone!!! what chance have we got????

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 09 Aug 2006, 16:55

hitman_hatton1 wrote:jomothepure - british athletics is piss poor at the moment. we got the olympics in 6 yrs time and we seriously need to improve, otherwise we face major embarassment.

1 medal at the european championships is pathetic. let's be honest, the euro's are a world away from the world's and olympics.

we need a new crop of talent to emerge badly.

I'm usually pessimistic, but I do see the light at the end of the tunnell.

Some of these athletes are very young in the Europeans and I think they will improves.

Womes 800 metres looks a strong event for the future. I think Tomlinson and Rutherford will be competing against each other for years and years. There are others also.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 09 Aug 2006, 18:27

The lottery was supposed to improve the lot of minority sports like Athletics, but if anything since lottery funding things have gotten worse. Events in which Britain traditionally dominated (in European competition) such as the 100/200 and especially the 400m are now seriosuly lacking. Truth is Britain currently has 1 truly world class track and field athlete, and what promising juniors the nation does produce never seem to be able to step-up (Lewis-Francis being a case in point).
British Athletics should consider the approach taken by the ECB with regards to developing youth via an Australian style academy a few years ago. 6 years isn't that long really.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 09 Aug 2006, 18:31

Taki... wrote:The lottery was supposed to improve the lot of minority sports like Athletics, but if anything since lottery funding things have gotten worse. Events in which Britain traditionally dominated (in European competition) such as the 100/200 and especially the 400m are now seriosuly lacking. Truth is Britain currently has 1 truly world class track and field athlete, and what promising juniors the nation does produce never seem to be able to step-up (Lewis-Francis being a case in point).
British Athletics should consider the approach taken by the ECB with regards to developing youth via an Australian style academy a few years ago. 6 years isn't that long really.

Who is the world class Athlete you are thinking of... Is it Macey?

I think with everyone in top form, Southerton is the 3rd best Heptathlete in the world.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 09 Aug 2006, 19:17

stujones wrote:
Taki... wrote:The lottery was supposed to improve the lot of minority sports like Athletics, but if anything since lottery funding things have gotten worse. Events in which Britain traditionally dominated (in European competition) such as the 100/200 and especially the 400m are now seriosuly lacking. Truth is Britain currently has 1 truly world class track and field athlete, and what promising juniors the nation does produce never seem to be able to step-up (Lewis-Francis being a case in point).
British Athletics should consider the approach taken by the ECB with regards to developing youth via an Australian style academy a few years ago. 6 years isn't that long really.
Who is the world class Athlete you are thinking of... Is it Macey?

I think with everyone in top form, Southerton is the 3rd best Heptathlete in the world.

Southerton flourishes in an event that clearly only has 2 top quality exponents in Kluft and Barber.
I was thinking of Radcliffe, btw.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 10 Aug 2006, 04:44

Loftgroov wrote:
Too many British athletes seem to be surrounded by people telling them how superb they are because they finished 7th in a race, and took 0.02 off their "personal best"....

An American or Aussie would be disgusted with that.

Knocking anything of your PB is very very hard, if there knocking that amount of their PB they are doing their best. If Mark Lewis Francis had been knocking off 0.05sec off his personal best each year he'd be a world record holder now and have the ability to win time and again.

Athletics isn't like boxing you can't be 7th best in the world and proclaim to be the best without facing the other top 6. Also if you were 7th best in the world at any major sport you'd be a superstar.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 10 Aug 2006, 06:07

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Hmm. That looks an interesting book. Hasn't Gatlin just failed a drugs test as well?

Yeah it's a real eye opener. Amazingly, baseball had NO drug testing at all until a couple of years ago.
Bonds, one of the greatest hitters ever seen, was nearing the end of his career at 39, but saw the other game's juicers breaking records all around him, so became a client of BALCO labs and a few weeks later was hitting balls over buildings. From having the lean build of a marathoner, he now looks like a NFL linebacker.

Chambers was being thrashed out of sight by Maurice Green and Tim Montgomery, so moved to California, to sign up with Balco labs and two weeks later was leaving both Green and Tiny Tim in the dust, and breaking European records.

Gatlin isn't mentioned in the book...

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 10 Aug 2006, 08:19

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
Loftgroov wrote:
Too many British athletes seem to be surrounded by people telling them how superb they are because they finished 7th in a race, and took 0.02 off their "personal best"....

An American or Aussie would be disgusted with that.
Knocking anything of your PB is very very hard, if there knocking that amount of their PB they are doing their best. If Mark Lewis Francis had been knocking off 0.05sec off his personal best each year he'd be a world record holder now and have the ability to win time and again.

Athletics isn't like boxing you can't be 7th best in the world and proclaim to be the best without facing the other top 6. Also if you were 7th best in the world at any major sport you'd be a superstar.

I think you’re slightly misinterpreting my point. It isn’t so much the athletes I’m questioning, but more people’s reaction to them and their “achievements”.

Tim Henman is a classic example. He’s only as good as he is, and he can’t help it if he’s a bottler who can’t win the big games – but its this perception all the time from certain quarters that he’s “unlucky” or “unfortunate”, and a really great player. Bollocks is he.

The MAIN THING we should do with regard to athletics is to stop celebrating mediocrity. Stop saying how great it is when Billy Ballbags runs in 7th in the semi-final heat of some race because he made a minor improvement on his personal best. It’s just utterly utterly cringeworthy.

Michael Johnson frequently echoes my sentiments on TV. McEnroe does it on TV too. They KNOW what should be appauled and what shouldn't.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 10 Aug 2006, 14:09

Taki... wrote:
stujones wrote:
Taki... wrote:The lottery was supposed to improve the lot of minority sports like Athletics, but if anything since lottery funding things have gotten worse. Events in which Britain traditionally dominated (in European competition) such as the 100/200 and especially the 400m are now seriosuly lacking. Truth is Britain currently has 1 truly world class track and field athlete, and what promising juniors the nation does produce never seem to be able to step-up (Lewis-Francis being a case in point).
British Athletics should consider the approach taken by the ECB with regards to developing youth via an Australian style academy a few years ago. 6 years isn't that long really.
Who is the world class Athlete you are thinking of... Is it Macey?

I think with everyone in top form, Southerton is the 3rd best Heptathlete in the world.
Southerton flourishes in an event that clearly only has 2 top quality exponents in Kluft and Barber.
I was thinking of Radcliffe, btw.

Very true on the Heptathlon - not much depth. I would definately call a fit Dean Macey world class.... and would Paula of course (actually forgot

)

Twinkle Toes · Post by **Twinkle Toes** » 11 Aug 2006, 07:30

Loftgroov wrote:
I think you’re slightly misinterpreting my point. It isn’t so much the athletes I’m questioning, but more people’s reaction to them and their “achievements”.

Tim Henman is a classic example. He’s only as good as he is, and he can’t help it if he’s a bottler who can’t win the big games – but its this perception all the time from certain quarters that he’s “unlucky” or “unfortunate”, and a really great player. Bollocks is he.

The MAIN THING we should do with regard to athletics is to stop celebrating mediocrity. Stop saying how great it is when Billy Ballbags runs in 7th in the semi-final heat of some race because he made a minor improvement on his personal best. It’s just utterly utterly cringeworthy.

Michael Johnson frequently echoes my sentiments on TV. McEnroe does it on TV too. They KNOW what should be appauled and what shouldn't.

Yeah I agree totally.

No different to boxers surrounding themselves with 'yes' men.

jomothepure · Post by **jomothepure** » 13 Aug 2006, 14:42

Well. Stand aside Hollyoaks omnibus, the 4x100m relay runners are in town.

Any ideas as to the reason behind Campbells comments?

I was under the impression that Campbell had retired (in part) or something, which was why he hadn't been competing in the individual events. But was it the case that he hadn't been selected for the individual competition? I can't claim to know every single race result, but his form hadn't dipped that much not to qualify and/or be selected, surely?

But It's either something like that, OR possibly connected to Chambers and the drugs thing, and Campbell taking a mighty high moral ground in relation to Chambers return.

Otherwise just a simple cat fight amongst the team, with one claiming another is shit/not as good as him or something?

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 13 Aug 2006, 16:28

jomothepure wrote:
But It's either something like that, OR possibly connected to Chambers and the drugs thing, and Campbell taking a mighty high moral ground in relation to Chambers return.

It is that, I heard it on the radio.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 13 Aug 2006, 16:33

jomothepure wrote:Well. Stand aside Hollyoaks omnibus, the 4x100m relay runners are in town.

Any ideas as to the reason behind Campbells comments?

I was under the impression that Campbell had retired (in part) or something, which was why he hadn't been competing in the individual events. But was it the case that he hadn't been selected for the individual competition? I can't claim to know every single race result, but his form hadn't dipped that much not to qualify and/or be selected, surely?

But It's either something like that, OR possibly connected to Chambers and the drugs thing, and Campbell taking a mighty high moral ground in relation to Chambers return.

Otherwise just a simple cat fight amongst the team, with one claiming another is shit/not as good as him or something?

I believe it has something to do with the Chambers selection. Darren has been struggling for fitness/form for a while now and I don't think was a serious contender for the championships individually. Not sure if it is a dedication problem or a fitness problem but he was way off in the AAA's.... can't remember if he was even there?

Chambers will not be allowed to run in a world or Olympic championships due to the British Olympic Association (no other association just us) banning failed athletes for live.... but, although obviously connect, it is seperate from UK athletics which means he is allowed to run in the European's. I think aswell as being angered that he robbed him of a gold in the 2002 relay, I think Darren must be a little angered at his selection - cause he cannot be there (under current rules) for the big ones.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 14 Aug 2006, 05:33

Very strange that the Campbell blow up yesterday was down to the inclusion of Chambers.
Fair enough he disagrees on one hand, as Chamber's drug cheating had cost Campbell & the others the gold medal last time out.

But at the same time, Campbell is upset because his coach Linford Christie is being critisised by other althletes for testing positive....

Seems Darren thinks it's one set of rules for Linford, and another set for everyone else.

And it's unfair the papers refer to Francis having tested positive in the past, but don't mention it was for cannabis....which isn't an ideal drug for breaking world records...unless it's eating mars bars.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 14 Aug 2006, 11:29

Quite true MW, although unlike Chambers - Christie has always denied any wrong doing. Perhaps Campbell believes him, so see nothing hypocrtical in his attitude.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 14 Aug 2006, 11:58

stujones wrote:Quite true MW, although unlike Chambers - Christie has always denied any wrong doing. Perhaps Campbell believes him, so see nothing hypocrtical in his attitude.

Well Christie tested positive at the time 19nor (which converts to Nandrolone and was a popular legal supplement). I would propose 4 scenarios

1. Linford took 19nor without knowing it was illegal

2. He took it knowing it was legal and thought he'd get it out of his sytem fast enough

3. He took a legal supplement that was produced in a lab/factory that made 19nor and some of the 19nor particles got into the supplement he was using.

4. He always juiced and just got caught out as testing improved

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 14 Aug 2006, 12:09

Christie also kept his Olympic bronze medal "promoted" to Silver (after Johnson) despite testing positive for a banned substance (Ging Seng) - folllowing the 200 metres which he finished fourth.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 14 Aug 2006, 12:17

Ginseng is hardly bloody steroids though is it? I mean ok it's on the banned list, but they chose not to ban him over it, so they must have figured it's not really handing much advantage if any.

Christie tested postitive for metabolites of Nandrolone when he was past it anyway, not when he was winning medals.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 14 Aug 2006, 12:28

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ginseng is hardly bloody steroids though is it? I mean ok it's on the banned list, but they chose not to ban him over it, so they must have figured it's not really handing much advantage if any.

Christie tested postitive for metabolites of Nandrolone when he was past it anyway, not when he was winning medals.

Agree, but it wouldn't happen now. Look at the poor Scottish Skier banned over taking Vicks.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 20 Aug 2006, 21:10

former european 400m champ david jenkins went to prison for dishing out drugs to athletes and stated that the sport would one day just have to accept the use of performance enhancers and allow them.

this afternoon i scrolled through the improvements of the womens times in track events since 1934 and there are a few startling times from the east germans from the 1960's and seventies. renate stecher ran 11.0secs
for 100m back in 1971 and couldnt stop breaking the world record until getting it down to 10.8 a few months later.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 21 Aug 2006, 02:36

if you look at the 100 relay team in the euros, we had 2 athletes that are banned from taking part in the Olympics in Bejing, Chambers for steroids and Mark Lewis Francis for Cannabis.

Lewis-Francis is appealing against his ban from the olympics, but i don't hold out much hope of getting a positive outcome for him.

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 21 Aug 2006, 10:03

topper123 wrote:if you look at the 100 relay team in the euros, we had 2 athletes that are banned from taking part in the Olympics in Bejing, Chambers for steroids and Mark Lewis Francis for Cannabis.

Lewis-Francis is appealing against his ban from the olympics, but i don't hold out much hope of getting a positive outcome for him.

At last some good news for Lewis-Francis, his appeal has been sucessfull and he can now compete in future olympics, good news for him and british athletics. Hopefully he can concentrate on getting the most out of career now

dondada · Post by **dondada** » 21 Aug 2006, 10:27

Haven't got time to re-read all this so apologies if it has already been covered.

Now, I've got a lot of time for Darren Campbell but yesterday morning he became the very hypocrite he said he could never become.

One of the reasons he was enraged was not simply the fact that Chambers had cheated with drugs but failed to reveal the people who persuaded him to do it. Campbell, quite rightly, wanted the pushers/bent coaches exposed.

Asked directly by Gary Richardson on Radio Five Live's Sportsweek whether anyone had offered him drugs in the past, Campbell confirmed this was the case.

Asked to name who had offered them to him, he said he didn't want to comment.

What a fecking clown. Put up or shut up.

Taki... · Post by **Taki...** » 21 Aug 2006, 12:21

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Haven't got time to re-read all this so apologies if it has already been covered.

Now, I've got a lot of time for Darren Campbell but yesterday morning he became the very hypocrite he said he could never become.

One of the reasons he was enraged was not simply the fact that Chambers had cheated with drugs but failed to reveal the people who persuaded him to do it. Campbell, quite rightly, wanted the pushers/bent coaches exposed.

Asked directly by Gary Richardson on Radio Five Live's Sportsweek whether anyone had offered him drugs in the past, Campbell confirmed this was the case.

Asked to name who had offered them to him, he said he didn't want to comment.

What a fecking clown. Put up or shut up.

I agree with that. One can't moan about principle and hypocrisy and then not step up to the plate. Drugs make a mockery of all sport and anyone cheating or offering others the opportunity to cheat should be named, shamed and banned for life.
Having said that, Campbell would have been advised that naming anyone without proof (of wrong doing) could and almost certainly would lead to legal action. Which is probably why he chose not to comment (though, of course, this does not mean he shouldn't have spoken out at the time he was offered drugs).

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 21 Aug 2006, 12:28

Yes, this is what occured to me. It's libel if you accuse someone of offering you drugs (it is libel isn't it, or is it defamation, never sure what the distinction is) without being able to back it up.