DAFC.net
Home 09 December 2019 
 Post Message  |  Top of Board  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Twitter Updates  |  Log In   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 
[ please login to use the Like feature ]
 Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: Raymie the Legend  
Date:   Tue 1 Oct 18:51

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/49897090

In my view, it certainly casts a big doubt over him, whether that's fair or not?


Whilst we are at it, the winner of the men's 100M title has missed three drug tests?

WTF is going on?




It's bloody tough being a legend
Ron Atkinson - 1983
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: widtink  
Date:   Tue 1 Oct 19:16

He's not been Mos coach since 2017 and he's won plenty in that time.
However... It's plain to see that athletics does have a BIG problem with doping.



[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Tue 1 Oct 19:20

No guilt by association for me.

Athletics and cycling have been ruined by the cheats.

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: red-star-par  
Date:   Tue 1 Oct 23:16

Farah was certainly a fairly decent runner before he hooked up with Salazar, although not quite troubling the medal positions. Missed a few drugs tests in 2011 just after joining up with him and after that became unstoppable. What a transformation- remarkable
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: shrek par  
Date:   Wed 2 Oct 00:35

It's turned into our scientists v their scientists in both cycling and running. I expect to see some high profile career retirements due to" injury " of Oregon project runners soon. Remember who bankrolls the whole project. Got to put the whoosh in the swoosh and up the marketing punch.

Admin.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: Rastapari  
Date:   Wed 2 Oct 07:14

He's a cheat.

I Hope You're Ok Today....
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Wed 2 Oct 08:15

Mo has been the best 5000 and 10000m runner in an era where the quality has been poor. The world records for these events have not changed since 2005 and 2004.

Mo has never got particularly close to the records.

He has been a decent runner in a poor era for these events. Had he been a drug cheat then he would have been breaking these records. Of course he could have deliberately not broken these records to stay under the radar but I think that's unlikely.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Wed 2 Oct 08:38

Quote:

moviescot, Wed 2 Oct 08:15

Mo has been the best 5000 and 10000m runner in an era where the quality has been poor. The world records for these events have not changed since 2005 and 2004.

Mo has never got particularly close to the records.

He has been a decent runner in a poor era for these events. Had he been a drug cheat then he would have been breaking these records. Of course he could have deliberately not broken these records to stay under the radar but I think that's unlikely.


Is there any evidence that any of these "performance enhancing" drugs actually do that, or is it just that athletes who take them believe they can and therefore perform better? In other words, is it all in the mind. Drugs can't make you run faster than your best.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: Playup_Pompey  
Date:   Wed 2 Oct 09:12

just just set up a second "championship" fo those wishing to drug themselves so they can compete against each other. See how well they get on.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: widtink  
Date:   Wed 2 Oct 09:15

World records would tumble 😂
Would be fun though



[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Wed 2 Oct 11:37

Quote:

GG Riva, Wed 2 Oct 08:38

Quote:

moviescot, Wed 2 Oct 08:15

Mo has been the best 5000 and 10000m runner in an era where the quality has been poor. The world records for these events have not changed since 2005 and 2004.

Mo has never got particularly close to the records.

He has been a decent runner in a poor era for these events. Had he been a drug cheat then he would have been breaking these records. Of course he could have deliberately not broken these records to stay under the radar but I think that's unlikely.


Is there any evidence that any of these "performance enhancing" drugs actually do that, or is it just that athletes who take them believe they can and therefore perform better? In other words, is it all in the mind. Drugs can't make you run faster than your best.


I think the evidence is clear if you look at some of the women's sprint records. A lot of these were set during the East Germany days where half the eastern Europeans were on drugs.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Wed 2 Oct 11:39

Quote:

Playup_Pompey, Wed 2 Oct 09:12

just just set up a second "championship" fo those wishing to drug themselves so they can compete against each other. See how well they get on.


I'd go with that. I think horses in USA are allowed to have some drugs that are banned everywhere else.
Let the humans drug themselves as much as they like and have separate world records.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: Turps  
Date:   Wed 2 Oct 12:46

Was there question marks over Paula Radcliffe? Did anything ever materialise from that?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: widtink  
Date:   Wed 2 Oct 13:12

She retired then was cleared...
Or was cleared then retired...
One or the other



[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: parathletic  
Date:   Thu 3 Oct 13:02

I just had a look and the World Championship athletics has been going since 1983-in that time the men's 100 metres has been run 17 times.As far as I can see there are only 2 winners who haven't had a doping violation(Usain Bolt and Donovan Bailey) It's no wonder every decent performance is scrutinised now.

On another note how poor have the crowds been?-a bit of an embarrassment for the sport.



Post Edited (Thu 03 Oct 15:04)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Thu 3 Oct 13:29

Quote:

parathletic, Thu 3 Oct 13:02

I just had a look and the World Championship athletics has been going since 1983-in that time the men's 100 meters has been run 17 times.As far as I can see there are only 2 winners who haven't had a doping violation(Usain Bolt and Donovan Bailey) It's no wonder every decent performance is scrutinised now.

On another note how poor have the crowds been?-a bit of an embarrassment for the sport.


A bit of an embarrassment for the organisers. Should never have gone to Doha.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: Raymie the Legend  
Date:   Thu 3 Oct 18:53

I'm sure Seb Coe was well looked after.




It's bloody tough being a legend
Ron Atkinson - 1983
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: Raymie the Legend  
Date:   Thu 3 Oct 18:56

Interesting reading, Draw your own conclusions:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Farah




It's bloody tough being a legend
Ron Atkinson - 1983
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: Jbob  
Date:   Thu 3 Oct 19:13

RTL Wiki is about as reliable a source as an orange President.

Bobs of the world unite
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: Mario  
Date:   Fri 4 Oct 08:50

I see Lord Snooty has had a go at Gabby Logan for mentioning the poor attendances at the athletics. He’s such a dick.
Apparently her co host Michael Johnson was heard off camera saying Coe is full of sh*t. Give that man an honorary knighthood!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Fri 4 Oct 10:47

You pick a place with little interest in your sport, you close half the stadium, you get crowds that can't even fill the half. Of course Gabby is correct to mention the attendances.

I think she was also responding to viewers who said they felt there was no atmosphere.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: parathletic  
Date:   Fri 4 Oct 10:54

Did you see the other night when the organisers had obviously told a group to sit next to the BBC studio and make some noise? They were doing so when there were no events going on.The camera panned out and showed them in an almost empty stadium-hilarious.

It's a shame for the athletes though.It must tarnish their victory lap somewhat despite being World Champion.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Fri 4 Oct 11:14

How is the venue for the WAC chosen? Is there a bidding process or is it within someone's gift?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: widtink  
Date:   Fri 4 Oct 11:16

Bulging brown envelopes most likely... Most stuffed envelope wins 🤣



[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh  
Date:   Fri 4 Oct 13:58

Corruption has moved to a new level now.
The days of brown envelopes and handing over piles of money is long gone.
Now everything is done in the open through sponsorship and public/private investment in sports.

No one will ever come out and publicly say "If you let us host this event then we will invest heavily in your sport" but this is clearly understood by all involved.

Interestingly the next World Championships will take place in Salazar's town. Maybe they will offer goody bags of Nike stuff and pharmaceuticals to the athletes as they arrive in the stadium.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: Playup_Pompey  
Date:   Fri 4 Oct 14:06

Massive concerns about the "pumping" of cooler air into the venue as well. Wait until those climate protesters get their fire engine out to Doha

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: Andrew283  
Date:   Fri 4 Oct 15:20

The madness of a drugged up Olympics is something I'd pay to see. Fat Mick from Derby shattering Bolts world record by 1.3s while off his nut on Coke would be a sight to see
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: kelty_par  
Date:   Sat 5 Oct 15:26

"Whilst we are at it, the winner of the men's 100M title has missed three drug tests?"

Not correct. At least one of the offenses was that he failed to inform the anti-doping agency of his exact whereabouts for a short period of time during training. He wasn't scheduled to be tested and so didn't miss a test.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Mon 7 Oct 16:25

Someone close to Mo was on radio Scotland last week when I was driving.
Didn't catch exactly who it was but I wasn't overly shocked when they said "He pushes close to the boundaries of what is permitted but he has never failed a drugs test"
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: widtink  
Date:   Mon 7 Oct 17:06

It's a huge problem... Jings going back more than a few years, even the super clean (or so everybody thought) Carl Lewis was eventually outed as a cheat but because he retired it wasn't persued.
Can't remember the ins and outs but I'm sure someone will.
As eluded to by another poster... They know how much they can take... And they know what to take to mask it...
It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of them are on some type of "enhancement" let's call it lol.
But... Until they get caught... They're not cheating.
Mo has never been caught so isn't a cheat.



[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: BigJPar  
Date:   Mon 7 Oct 21:23

Always thought some of his performance looked a bit "enhanced". Find it hard to believe he wasn't on something, the fact his coach was a drugs chest makes this even more likely.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Mon 7 Oct 22:22

In what way did you find some of his performances enhanced? Because he could run the distance a few seconds faster than the other competitors? I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt seeing as he is denying it. Same way I give Alan Wells the benefit of the doubt as well.

Turn on, Tune in, Drop out.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: EEP  
Date:   Mon 7 Oct 22:51

Why not let them take all these drugs allegedly they are on then there is no problem?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: widtink  
Date:   Mon 7 Oct 23:32

The juiced up Olympics...
It's got a ring to it right enough 🤣



[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: BigJPar  
Date:   Tue 8 Oct 07:16

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Mon 7 Oct 22:22

In what way did you find some of his performances enhanced? Because he could run the distance a few seconds faster than the other competitors? I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt seeing as he is denying it. Same way I give Alan Wells the benefit of the doubt as well.


The fact that his performances improved dramatically in 2011 after he moved to this new coach/ drug dealer. He started destroying guys who previously were running similar speeds to him. Do a bit reading up on the results around that era.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Tue 8 Oct 08:25

Quote:

BigJPar, Tue 8 Oct 07:16

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Mon 7 Oct 22:22

In what way did you find some of his performances enhanced? Because he could run the distance a few seconds faster than the other competitors? I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt seeing as he is denying it. Same way I give Alan Wells the benefit of the doubt as well.


The fact that his performances improved dramatically in 2011 after he moved to this new coach/ drug dealer. He started destroying guys who previously were running similar speeds to him. Do a bit reading up on the results around that era.


Why did this super enhanced athlete not break the 5000 or 10000m records. He was several seconds behind athletes that were running up to 10 years before.
A lot of the athletes he started beating were nearing the end of their career. Mo's era had a lot of very ordinary runners
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: BigJPar  
Date:   Tue 8 Oct 08:43

Quote:

moviescot, Tue 8 Oct 08:25

Quote:

BigJPar, Tue 8 Oct 07:16

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Mon 7 Oct 22:22

In what way did you find some of his performances enhanced? Because he could run the distance a few seconds faster than the other competitors? I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt seeing as he is denying it. Same way I give Alan Wells the benefit of the doubt as well.


The fact that his performances improved dramatically in 2011 after he moved to this new coach/ drug dealer. He started destroying guys who previously were running similar speeds to him. Do a bit reading up on the results around that era.


Why did this super enhanced athlete not break the 5000 or 10000m records. He was several seconds behind athletes that were running up to 10 years before.
A lot of the athletes he started beating were nearing the end of their career. Mo's era had a lot of very ordinary runners



Because the majority of top athletes are/ were on drugs?
Cyclists are all at it as well.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Tue 8 Oct 10:51

Quote:

BigJPar, Tue 8 Oct 08:43

Quote:

moviescot, Tue 8 Oct 08:25

Quote:

BigJPar, Tue 8 Oct 07:16

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Mon 7 Oct 22:22

In what way did you find some of his performances enhanced? Because he could run the distance a few seconds faster than the other competitors? I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt seeing as he is denying it. Same way I give Alan Wells the benefit of the doubt as well.


The fact that his performances improved dramatically in 2011 after he moved to this new coach/ drug dealer. He started destroying guys who previously were running similar speeds to him. Do a bit reading up on the results around that era.


Why did this super enhanced athlete not break the 5000 or 10000m records. He was several seconds behind athletes that were running up to 10 years before.
A lot of the athletes he started beating were nearing the end of their career. Mo's era had a lot of very ordinary runners



Because the majority of top athletes are/ were on drugs?
Cyclists are all at it as well.


But the implication is he was on drugs. Were his drugs just poorer than the rest?

Mo won lots of races at relatively slow times. He was lucky that when he was at his peak there was a very poor pool of opposition.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: BigJPar  
Date:   Tue 8 Oct 12:58

Quote:

moviescot, Tue 8 Oct 10:51

Quote:

BigJPar, Tue 8 Oct 08:43

Quote:

moviescot, Tue 8 Oct 08:25

Quote:

BigJPar, Tue 8 Oct 07:16

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Mon 7 Oct 22:22

In what way did you find some of his performances enhanced? Because he could run the distance a few seconds faster than the other competitors? I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt seeing as he is denying it. Same way I give Alan Wells the benefit of the doubt as well.


The fact that his performances improved dramatically in 2011 after he moved to this new coach/ drug dealer. He started destroying guys who previously were running similar speeds to him. Do a bit reading up on the results around that era.


Why did this super enhanced athlete not break the 5000 or 10000m records. He was several seconds behind athletes that were running up to 10 years before.
A lot of the athletes he started beating were nearing the end of their career. Mo's era had a lot of very ordinary runners



Because the majority of top athletes are/ were on drugs?
Cyclists are all at it as well.


But the implication is he was on drugs. Were his drugs just poorer than the rest?

Mo won lots of races at relatively slow times. He was lucky that when he was at his peak there was a very poor pool of opposition.


Just need to wait till they develop a test to catch him I guess. Cheat
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Tue 8 Oct 13:49

If he had been taking drugs I would have expected him to be breaking world records considering his dominance. He never even got close. He was very lucky to be in these classes of race when the standard was poor.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: DBP  
Date:   Thu 10 Oct 17:34

Quote:

moviescot, Tue 8 Oct 13:49

If he had been taking drugs I would have expected him to be breaking world records considering his dominance. He never even got close. He was very lucky to be in these classes of race when the standard was poor.


Ore maybe he wasn't as good as the drugged up athletes who set those records?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Thu 10 Oct 17:41

Quote:

DBP, Thu 10 Oct 17:34

Quote:

moviescot, Tue 8 Oct 13:49

If he had been taking drugs I would have expected him to be breaking world records considering his dominance. He never even got close. He was very lucky to be in these classes of race when the standard was poor.


Ore maybe he wasn't as good as the drugged up athletes who set those records?


Oh. My drugs are better than your drugs argument. He just wasn't very good in a poor era.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Thu 10 Oct 17:43

But was still better than all the rest of the athletes who I presume you suspect of taking drugs as well.

Turn on, Tune in, Drop out.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: DBP  
Date:   Thu 10 Oct 18:01

No, my drugs are the same but I'm not as good as the folk previously who set better times (but better than the folk around me)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Thu 10 Oct 20:14

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Thu 10 Oct 17:43

But was still better than all the rest of the athletes who I presume you suspect of taking drugs as well.


Actually I suspect most of them are not on drugs.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Thu 10 Oct 20:52

Oh I agree

Turn on, Tune in, Drop out.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: widtink  
Date:   Fri 11 Oct 10:21

Interesting...
Alberto Salazar: Nike Oregon Project closed down after head coach's ban - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/50011044



[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Sir Mo - guilty by association?
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sat 12 Oct 10:14

Quote:

widtink, Mon 7 Oct 17:06

It's a huge problem... Jings going back more than a few years, even the super clean (or so everybody thought) Carl Lewis was eventually outed as a cheat but because he retired it wasn't persued.
Can't remember the ins and outs but I'm sure someone will.
As eluded to by another poster... They know how much they can take... And they know what to take to mask it...
It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of them are on some type of "enhancement" let's call it lol.
But... Until they get caught... They're not cheating.
Mo has never been caught so isn't a cheat.


I remember Carl Lewis making quite a lot of noise and pointing the finger at many of his main rivals, especially Ben Johnson. The implication was that he was the only clean athlete of any consequence.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Top of Board  |  Forum List  |  Threaded View   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 


 Forum List  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.
Security : type 'pars' in the box:
email: