BoxRec

magwitch wrote: Do you believe that Linford Christie was a cheat, out of interest?

it's not so much a question of belief as one of fact, is it?

magwitch wrote:Gotcha. No, probably not. Do you believe that Linford Christie was a cheat, out of interest?

Pointing fingers isn't the way forward. What you need to do is understand both the physics and biological demands of covering 100m as fast as possible on foot. Once you've done that, read into the history of anabolic steroids in sport and do some chronological cross-referencing with the 100m world record. When you've done that you'll know what you need to know.

^^^ magwitch i think he's basically saying clean human beings don't run sub-10 100's.

Counter-puncher wrote:

magwitch wrote: Do you believe that Linford Christie was a cheat, out of interest?

it's not so much a question of belief as one of fact, is it?

Which brings us full circle to the thread, Christie was pinged for nandrolone.

Sklar wrote:

magwitch wrote:Gotcha. No, probably not. Do you believe that Linford Christie was a cheat, out of interest?

Pointing fingers isn't the way forward. What you need to do is understand both the physics and biological demands of covering 100m as fast as possible on foot. Once you've done that, read into the history of anabolic steroids in sport and do some chronological cross-referencing with the 100m world record. When you've done that you'll know what you need to know.

I love chronological cross-referencing so yeah, I’ll do that, thanks
That was complete nonsense by the way, no offence. Well done for getting the distance part right tho

magwitch wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

magwitch wrote:
Gatlin probably not a great example of “unassailable position” by me, in relation to your post. But if he wins it will be a very strange feeling, and it’s possible. Form tends to be quite important with these sprinters.

No, if he was unassailable (like Carl Lewis was years ago as THE face of Athletics) he'd never have failed those tests.

Gotcha. No, probably not. Do you believe that Linford Christie was a cheat, out of interest?

I think it's VERY likely Christie cheated during his career, he ran his best times over the age of 30, (from memory) which flies in the face of biology (rather like Gatlin, He improved pretty dramatically over a 2-3 year period, going from someone who barely made the finals to Olympic champ.

At 34, Gatlin is still running 9.8 - which suggests to me, he's still at it, just not getting caught doing so.

Interestingly, Bolt hasn't come close to the time he ran in 2009, at the age of 22. His form does suggest that he's already peaked physically. Which is encouraging in gauging whether he's juicing, though of course far from definitive.

The greatest advances in the 100m record are due to track surfaces, blocks, running shoe technology, and the professionalization of sport, by a long way, there's a far bigger pool of competition now than there's ever been in athletics.

A biomechanical expert concluded that Jesse Owens would have been running very comparable times with the aid of starting blocks and rubberised sprung track surfaces, as opposed to cinder, and digging your own holes as starting blocks.

Sklar wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

magwitch wrote: Do you believe that Linford Christie was a cheat, out of interest?

it's not so much a question of belief as one of fact, is it?

Which brings us full circle to the thread, Christie was pinged for nandrolone.

I mean, for a start, I neither pointed the finger at anybody nor offered an opinion or a fact of whether Christie was guilty of an offence or not.
The whole chronology thing is rubbish mate. Are you saying that Christie was advancing the record ahead of its time? He never even held the 100m, nor probably even the Olympic 100m record.

Now I will offer an opinion. I think he was a clean athlete that may have made an innocent mistake later in his career. That just sits better with me. I don’t like to consider that an idol of mine was a fake - altho if he had the choices of cheat in order to compete or b) do any other activity to make a living, I could certainly appreciate the pull of cheating.

magwitch wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

magwitch wrote:
Gatlin probably not a great example of “unassailable position” by me, in relation to your post. But if he wins it will be a very strange feeling, and it’s possible. Form tends to be quite important with these sprinters.

No, if he was unassailable (like Carl Lewis was years ago as THE face of Athletics) he'd never have failed those tests.

Gotcha. No, probably not. Do you believe that Linford Christie was a cheat, out of interest?

Yes, he was caught, didn't you know?

Tomasino wrote:

magwitch wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
No, if he was unassailable (like Carl Lewis was years ago as THE face of Athletics) he'd never have failed those tests.

Gotcha. No, probably not. Do you believe that Linford Christie was a cheat, out of interest?

Yes, he was caught, didn't you know?

That was right at the end of his career, when he was only competing in masters events.

Some of you otherwise intelligent people leave me scratching my head at times. I remember having similar discussions years back along with Deserter most notably where we tried to explain without getting sued that it was a cast iron certainty Lance Armstrong was at it big style. A LOT wouldn't have it.

magwitch wrote:I think he was a clean athlete that may have made an innocent mistake later in his career. That just sits better with me. I don’t like to consider that an idol of mine was a fake

Did you cry when Robbie left Take That?

Sklar wrote:Some of you otherwise intelligent people leave me scratching my head at times. I remember having similar discussions years back along with Deserter most notably where we tried to explain without getting sued that it was a cast iron certainty Lance Armstrong was at it big style. A LOT wouldn't have it.

What are you scratching your head about precisely?

If you mean that sport is rife with drugs, then I agree entirely, it flies in the face of common sense that it would be otherwise.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

magwitch wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
No, if he was unassailable (like Carl Lewis was years ago as THE face of Athletics) he'd never have failed those tests.

Gotcha. No, probably not. Do you believe that Linford Christie was a cheat, out of interest?

I think it's VERY likely Christie cheated during his career, he ran his best times over the age of 30, (from memory) which flies in the face of biology (rather like Gatlin, He improved pretty dramatically over a 2-3 year period, going from someone who barely made the finals to Olympic champ.

At 34, Gatlin is still running 9.8 - which suggests to me, he's still at it, just not getting caught doing so.

Well, no expert on it but he was upgraded to Bronze in 88....or Silver in fact (should he have been upgraded to Gold, perhaps?)....he was probably too young in 84 to make an impact, he won it in ’92 and was regrettably (but probably correctly) flung off the grid in ’96.
During that time he won the World Champs at least once and I would suspect the Europeans and Commonwealths too.....so he hardly came from nowhere in a 2 or a 3yr period...

On the age front, I found it quite unlikely that Bolt came into London on the back of a bad season - a lot of people had Blake to beat him - and in spite of this, he shaved a further 0.01 seconds off his own insanely fast world record.

magwitch wrote:

Sklar wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:
it's not so much a question of belief as one of fact, is it?

Which brings us full circle to the thread, Christie was pinged for nandrolone.

I mean, for a start, I neither pointed the finger at anybody nor offered an opinion or a fact of whether Christie was guilty of an offence or not.
The whole chronology thing is rubbish mate. Are you saying that Christie was advancing the record ahead of its time? He never even held the 100m, nor probably even the Olympic 100m record.

Now I will offer an opinion. I think he was a clean athlete that may have made an innocent mistake later in his career. That just sits better with me. I don’t like to consider that an idol of mine was a fake - altho if he had the choices of cheat in order to compete or b) do any other activity to make a living, I could certainly appreciate the pull of cheating.

Christie ran the fastest time of his career at the age of 32 - that just doesn't happen for clean athletes.

magwitch wrote: I think he was a clean athlete that may have made an innocent mistake later in his career. That just sits better with me. I don’t like to consider that an idol of mine was a fake - .

and therein lies sklar's point

Sklar wrote:

magwitch wrote:I think he was a clean athlete that may have made an innocent mistake later in his career. That just sits better with me. I don’t like to consider that an idol of mine was a fake

Did you cry when Robbie left Take That?

I was never a fan, so no. Gary Barlow was by far the most talented of that little quartet in any case. If it was a quartet..

magwitch wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

magwitch wrote:
Gotcha. No, probably not. Do you believe that Linford Christie was a cheat, out of interest?

I think it's VERY likely Christie cheated during his career, he ran his best times over the age of 30, (from memory) which flies in the face of biology (rather like Gatlin, He improved pretty dramatically over a 2-3 year period, going from someone who barely made the finals to Olympic champ.

At 34, Gatlin is still running 9.8 - which suggests to me, he's still at it, just not getting caught doing so.

Well, no expert on it but he was upgraded to Bronze in 88....or Silver in fact (should he have been upgraded to Gold, perhaps?)....he was probably too young in 84 to make an impact, he won it in ’92 and was regrettably (but probably correctly) flung off the grid in ’96.
During that time he won the World Champs at least once and I would suspect the Europeans and Commonwealths too.....so he hardly came from nowhere in a 2 or a 3yr period...

On the age front, I found it quite unlikely that Bolt came into London on the back of a bad season - a lot of people had Blake to beat him - and in spite of this, he shaved a further 0.01 seconds off his own insanely fast world record.

Bolt ran his world record in Berlin in 2009, he has not gotten close to it since. He was 22 when he ran it, he's 29 now, and appears to be declining, though his best is still better than anybody elses so far.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

magwitch wrote:

Sklar wrote:
Which brings us full circle to the thread, Christie was pinged for nandrolone.

I mean, for a start, I neither pointed the finger at anybody nor offered an opinion or a fact of whether Christie was guilty of an offence or not.
The whole chronology thing is rubbish mate. Are you saying that Christie was advancing the record ahead of its time? He never even held the 100m, nor probably even the Olympic 100m record.

Now I will offer an opinion. I think he was a clean athlete that may have made an innocent mistake later in his career. That just sits better with me. I don’t like to consider that an idol of mine was a fake - altho if he had the choices of cheat in order to compete or b) do any other activity to make a living, I could certainly appreciate the pull of cheating.

Christie ran the fastest time of his career at the age of 32 - that just doesn't happen for clean athletes.

32 is not old. That is a man in his prime who has had many years’ to hone his training, hone his act as well as incorporate the newest and best dietary/ training (and drugs, if you are so inclined) into his job. If you’d said 36 then fair enough but not for 32. Some boxers are only just hitting the world scene at that age, because it took them that long to put it all together.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

magwitch wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
I think it's VERY likely Christie cheated during his career, he ran his best times over the age of 30, (from memory) which flies in the face of biology (rather like Gatlin, He improved pretty dramatically over a 2-3 year period, going from someone who barely made the finals to Olympic champ.

At 34, Gatlin is still running 9.8 - which suggests to me, he's still at it, just not getting caught doing so.

On the age front, I found it quite unlikely that Bolt came into London on the back of a bad season - a lot of people had Blake to beat him - and in spite of this, he shaved a further 0.01 seconds off his own insanely fast world record.

Bolt ran his world record in Berlin in 2009, he has not gotten close to it since. .

lets not let facts get in the way.

Will the hearing definitely be after the fight does anyone know?

Counter-puncher wrote:

magwitch wrote: I think he was a clean athlete that may have made an innocent mistake later in his career. That just sits better with me. I don’t like to consider that an idol of mine was a fake - .

and therein lies sklar's point

After Ben Johnson, do you not think they’d have busted Christie at some point (sooner than when he was a 35yr has been that got done for a nothing substance). I think it fits in also with his bearing over the years.
I appreciate it’s no more scientific than that however.

Terminator666 wrote:Will the hearing definitely be after the fight does anyone know?

What fight?

magwitch wrote:I think it fits in also with his bearing over the years.
.

what, moody, short-tempered, extremely muscular?

magwitch wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

magwitch wrote:
I mean, for a start, I neither pointed the finger at anybody nor offered an opinion or a fact of whether Christie was guilty of an offence or not.
The whole chronology thing is rubbish mate. Are you saying that Christie was advancing the record ahead of its time? He never even held the 100m, nor probably even the Olympic 100m record.

Now I will offer an opinion. I think he was a clean athlete that may have made an innocent mistake later in his career. That just sits better with me. I don’t like to consider that an idol of mine was a fake - altho if he had the choices of cheat in order to compete or b) do any other activity to make a living, I could certainly appreciate the pull of cheating.

Christie ran the fastest time of his career at the age of 32 - that just doesn't happen for clean athletes.

32 is not old. That is a man in his prime who has had many years’ to hone his training, hone his act as well as incorporate the newest and best dietary/ training (and drugs, if you are so inclined) into his job. If you’d said 36 then fair enough but not for 32. Some boxers are only just hitting the world scene at that age, because it took them that long to put it all together.

For a sprinter - it is old. I can't be arsed to do the homework for you, go and look at the ages of 100 meter world record holders and the ages they were at when they set them. There's a big difference between a man in his prime, and an athlete in his prime.

I'll give you another example in another sport, how many grand slams in tennis do you think have been won by men over 30 - even with modern advances in sports science, Roger Federer has managed 1. There's been 19 - 9 of which were under 31.