World Athletics Championships 2017

[mrs quoad]

We accidentally caught the marathon. I was surprised by the wide variety of heights / musvularities. If anything was likely to homogenise athletes, I would've expected it to be 26 miles of running.

 

[baldrick]

I always laugh hollowly at the fact I couldn't run one mile at the speed they run 26

 

[butchersapron]

Well. Jeal!

We were 6 rows back from trackside which was brilliant, but even then you could sense that being the other side of the barriers was a completely different experience. It's one of the things I love about volunteering, feeling a part of an event rather than just a spectator.

One of my mum's friends is also volunteering and walked straight past us when leading the athletes out. Gave us a little wave, which I'm pretty sure he's not supposed to do

Grass 'ee up and take his spot.

 

[QueenOfGoths]

I always laugh hollowly at the fact I couldn't run one mile at the speed they run 26

When I went for my run this morning I thought "I shall try to emulate the smooth style of Ayana" winner of yesterday's woman's 10000m. She won in 30m 15seconds. I ran 5k in 32 minutes, looking and feeling like an uncoordinated sweaty mess

Though I have to say watching the athletics has made me enjoy my running more in a way. And appreciate just how fucking hard athletes train!

 

[QueenOfGoths]

I used to be a big fan of Seb Coe, seen as a Yorkshire lad when he was competing even though he wasn't born there. Then he became a Tory twat.

Not sure why I felt the need to post that. Possibly because I'm on my second bottle of Belgian beer on an empty stomach

 

[Sue]

All getting a bit heated on the commentator sofa.

 

[QueenOfGoths]

All getting a bit heated on the commentator sofa.

Interesting discussion though I thought. And I know I am guilty of demonising Gatlin.

 

[Sue]

Interesting discussion though I thought. And I know I am guilty of demonising Gatlin.

Yes, though Steve Cram should've pointed out that most of the others hadn't been caught twice.

(Have to confess I felt a wee bit sorry for Gatlin. World champion and being booed on the podium.)

 

[kabbes]

Fuck it, Gatlin deserves demonising. ALL cheating athletes should be booed, and so much more so if they win. Disincentivise them as much as possible from doing it in the first place.

It can't be overstated just how much Gatlin does not deserve to be there. As far as I am concerned, his medal is stricken from the record.

 

[mrs quoad]

I always laugh hollowly at the fact I couldn't run one mile at the speed they run 26

They were rayt nippy fuckers. I said to the wife, of all events, just imagining bollocksing your life off to become really fucking good st running 26 bloody miles and then, after all that, only being 70th in the world or sth.

Seems to involve more commitment than just e.g. Being shit at the shot putt.

 

[Casual Observer]

That Gatlin sofa debate was a bit odd. Michael Johnson has previously been very critical of Justin Gatlin for historic drug offences. Can't remember him being similarly critical of other athletes. Today he accuses Steve Cram of doing something he's definitely guilty of himself. Also worth pointing out that Cram, maybe not so much at these games but certainly at previous games, has been extensive in highlighting a multitude of athletes who have previously failed drug tests.

Strange also that they also feature an interview with NBC's Ato Boldon on how the US media cover Gatlin. I say strange as Boldon himself failed a drug test which wasn't mentioned.

Blanket lifetime bans for all drug offences is probably taking it too far. Stimulant abuse isn't the same as steroid abuse. Banned stimulants (as found in samples from Blake, Powell etc.) are often found in over the counter cold and flu remedies and may, feasibly, be taken by accident unlike steroids (Ben Johnson, Gatlin etc.) which certainly aren't. Also, as mentioned further up the thread, the list of banned stimulants has changed over the years.

 

[QueenOfGoths]

Oh dear Holly Bradshaw had a bad one then

Having seen that semi-final my husband has decided to put a bet on Omah Mcleod winning the hurdles

 

[Mr Retro]

The debate on drugs on that BBC panel is fundamentally dishonest in my opinion. They're hiding behind the pantomime villain when there is a wider more subtle debate to be had. For example Mo Farah's dodgy coach that naturally doesn't get a mention. If you're going to have the drugs debate, have it in its entirety. Otherwise do what the commentators on the Tour de France do and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[butchersapron]

Three out of three on that panel said the same thing as you. How is that dishonest? And more to the point - they can only call people who have been done drug cheats. Gatlin has been done twice. The 3 minute debate cannot cover everything. The debate was over the right to boo not to cover the whole use of drugs.

Fuck Gatlin btw - however uncomfortable that was for him and viewers (and it was horrible), that is what is required. That's all that spectators can do on their side of the deal.

 

[Casual Observer]

Steve Backley: What does Holly need to do here, Tony?
Toni Minichiello: Get over the bar.
Steve Backley: Thanks for that, Tony.

 

[Maggot]

Fuck it, Gatlin deserves demonising. ALL cheating athletes should be booed, and so much more so if they win. Disincentivise them as much as possible from doing it in the first place.

It can't be overstated just how much Gatlin does not deserve to be there. As far as I am concerned, his medal is stricken from the record.

Did you read the link that Hollis posted earlier?

 

[Lord Camomile]

TWO AND A HALF FUCKING HOURS TO GET HOME

Right, TV, sofa, let's go.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, technically true but Asafa Powell and his colleague were caught out by a supplement whose manufacturers had not revealed it had changed to include a banned substance and they settled with the company. I don't condone cheating and they were ultimately responsible, but I'm more willing to look favourably on him than Gatlin. Maybe a blind spot, but I do think they were unlucky rather than malicious.

Are they ultimately responsible though, in that case? Seems harsh.

Hollis's link earlier does make very interesting reading, and the question of being set up has to be a real one, given how easy it would be to do. Also, the notion of strict liability has always struck me as fundamentally unfair - it assumes people have more control over events than they possibly can have. I'm not declaring Gatlin's innocence or anything, but it does seem that the drug regime is something that it is very easy to fuck up even with the best of intentions.

 

[Mr Retro]

Three out of three on that panel said the same thing as you. How is that dishonest? And more to the point - they can only call people who have been done drug cheats. Gatlin has been done twice. The 3 minute debate cannot cover everything. The debate was over the right to boo not to cover the whole use of drugs.

Fuck Gatlin btw - however uncomfortable that was for him and viewers (and it was horrible), that is what is required. That's all that spectators can do on their side of the deal.

Do you not think there is a wider debate to be had? They can speak about Salazar if they want to and and about his dodgy TUE stuff and if Farah should train with him.

That's the kind of debate I want to hear that panel have. Gatlin is an easy discussion. Fuck him and fuck him if he's booed but the real issue is elsewhere these days in my opinion.

 

[butchersapron]

Are they ultimately responsible though, in that case? Seems harsh.

Hollis's link earlier does make very interesting reading, and the question of being set up has to be a real one, given how easy it would be to do. Also, the notion of strict liability has always struck me as fundamentally unfair - it assumes people have more control over events than they possibly can have. I'm not declaring Gatlin's innocence or anything, but it does seem that the drug regime is something that it is very easy to fuck up even with the best of intentions.

It's a very dishonest piece that quite deliberately seeks to run together three things in order to prove that two are false in order to imply he's thereby clear of the remaining one. That's being caught twice, showing no contrition and not helping doping authorities - when the anger is simply at the first. (And the third strongly ties him up in guilt on the first).

 

[butchersapron]

Do you not think there is a wider debate to be had? They can speak about Salazar if they want to and and about his dodgy TUE stuff and if Farah should train with him.

That's the kind of debate I want to hear that panel have. Gatlin is an easy discussion. Fuck him and fuck him if he's booed but the real issue is elsewhere these days in my opinion.

Of course there is - not there and then though. And that panel said exactly what you said yet you called them dishonest. I don't get it.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Bugger

 

[Mr Retro]

Are they ultimately responsible though, in that case? Seems harsh.

Hollis's link earlier does make very interesting reading, and the question of being set up has to be a real one, given how easy it would be to do. Also, the notion of strict liability has always struck me as fundamentally unfair - it assumes people have more control over events than they possibly can have. I'm not declaring Gatlin's innocence or anything, but it does seem that the drug regime is something that it is very easy to fuck up even with the best of intentions.

That's exactly the excuse the BBC made for Christie when he was done for the second time.

I don't believe for 1 minute athletes are innocently taking banned stimulants.

 

[colacubes]

The debate on drugs on that BBC panel is fundamentally dishonest in my opinion. They're hiding behind the pantomime villain when there is a wider more subtle debate to be had. For example Mo Farah's dodgy coach that naturally doesn't get a mention. If you're going to have the drugs debate, have it in its entirety. Otherwise do what the commentators on the Tour de France do and pretend it doesn't exist.

I wasn't watching this evening, but the debate you propose happened almost exactly at about 10am when I was watching the coverage where coaches, agents and other were talked abour and suggested should be banned as a well as athletes due to their complicity and also their roll in pressuring young athletes.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

The camaraderie of the world-class heptathletes is always a joy.

 

[Mr Retro]

Of course there is - not there and then though. And that panel said exactly what you said yet you called them dishonest. I don't get it.

Apologies if I missed that. Did they say they are only speaking about Gatlin when there is a wider debate more subtle debate that should be had?

With all the time they spend bullshitting about nothing, it would be easy to devote more time to it. But they don't. That's why I say dishonest. They must have spent an hour taking about an average heptathlete over the last 2 days for example.

 

[Lord Camomile]

The camaraderie of the world-class heptathletes is always a joy.

Aye, one of the many reasons I love the event.

 

[colacubes]

Apologies if I missed that. Did they say they are only speaking about Gatlin when there is a wider debate more subtle debate that should be had?

With all the time they spend bullshitting about nothing, it would be easy to devote more time to it. But they don't. That's why I say dishonest. They must have spent an hour taking about an average heptathlete over the last 2 days for example.

They spent at least an hour on it this morning.

 

[Mr Retro]

I wasn't watching this evening, but the debate you propose happened almost exactly at about 10am when I was watching the coverage where coaches, agents and other were talked abour and suggested should be banned as a well as athletes due to their complicity and also their roll in pressuring young athletes.

Thanks I'll look on the iplayer for that.

 

[colacubes]

Thanks I'll look on the iplayer for that.

Do. It was very nuanced and interesting.