Fox334 Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Nice try! But the American doping list is so much longer! Ludmila Engquist was a RUSSIAN when she tested positive for drugs in Athletics. She was not a SWEDE! Partik Lövgren?????? He was on a party when he took cocain. He didn´t take it because he wanted to be better in Athletics! He was also only a reserv to a replay-team and he should problably not have compete in athetics! If you are so angry at my comments about Kersee you should NOT come with stupid comments yourself! Well, they are less Swedes than Americans, aren't they? Oh, and will you just stop being a pain? This is a battle you just won't win... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

DrunkWithBode Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Nice try! But the American doping list is so much longer! Ludmila Engquist was a RUSSIAN when she tested positive for drugs in Athletics. She was not a SWEDE! Partik Lövgren?????? He was on a party when he took cocain. He didn´t take it because he wanted to be better in Athletics! He was also only a reserv to a replay-team and he should problably not have compete in athetics! If you are so angry at my comments about Kersee you should NOT come with stupid comments yourself! Why can't you understand this? The US population is more than 10 TIMES that of Sweden's. So it's only natural that the US has more world class athletes, as well as more world class athletes who cheat. It's simple mathematics; the law of averages. And you are STILL not getting the point. Nearly every country in the world with a respectable sport program has had some of its athletes punished for doping, and that includes both the United States and Sweden. The point is that just because a handful of athletes from a country get caught doping, that DOES NOT give you the right to go around accusing any and every athlete from that country. It is not only irresponisible and unfair, but it's also stupid. If you have any shred of proof, then come out with it. But if you don't, just leave it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guardian Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 August 26th results. Men's Hammer Throw 1. Ivan Tsikhan (Belarus) -> 83.63m (WL) 2. Primož KOZMUS (Slovenia) -> 82.29m 3. Libor Charfreitag (Slovakia) -> 81.60m (SB) Women's 3,000m Steeplechase 1. Yekaterina Volkova (Russia) -> 9:06.57 (CHAMPIONSHIP RECORD) 2. Tatyana Petrova (Russia) -> 9:09.19 (PB) 3. Eunice Jepkorir (Kenya) -> 9:20.09 Men's Triple Jump 1. Nelson ÉVORA (Portugal) -> 17.74m (NR) 2. Jadel GREGÓRIO (Brazil) -> 17.59m 3. Walter Davis (USA) -> 17.33m (SB) Men's 10,000m 1. Kenenisa Bekele (Ethiopia) -> 27:05.90 (SB) 2. Sileshi Sihine (Ethiopia) -> 27:09.03 3. Martin Irungu Mathathi (Kenya) -> 27:12.17 Women's 100m 1. Veronica Campbell (Jamaica) -> 11.01 sec 2. Lauryn Williams (USA) -> 11.01 sec (SB) 3. Carmelita Jeter (USA) -> 11.02 sec (PB) Day 4 (August 27th) medal events here: - Women's Pole Vault - Men's Discus Throw - Women's Long Jump - Men's 3,000m Steeplechase - Women's 800m - Men's 400m Hurdles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Guardian Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 After Day 3 events, here is the updated medal tally. 1. USA -> 2 gold, 2 silver, 3 bronze 2. Ethiopia -> 2 gold, 1 silver 3. Belarus -> 1 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze 4. Russia -> 1 gold, 1 silver 5. Kenya -> 1 gold, 2 bronze 6. Jamaica -> 1 gold, 1 bronze 7. (tie) Ecuador -> 1 gold 7. (tie) New Zealand -> 1 gold 7. (tie) Portugal -> 1 gold 7. (tie) Sweden -> 1 gold 11. (tie) Bahamas -> 1 silver 11. (tie) Brazil -> 1 silver 11. (tie) Qatar -> 1 silver 11. (tie) Slovenia -> 1 silver 11. (tie) Spain -> 1 silver 11. (tie) Turkey -> 1 silver 11. (tie) Ukraine -> 1 silver 18. (tie) Germany -> 1 bronze 18. (tie) Great Britain -> 1 bronze 18. (tie) Slovakia -> 1 bronze 18. (tie) Switzerland -> 1 bronze 18. (tie) Tunisia -> 1 bronze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

DrunkWithBode Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Damn it, I've got to stay away from this thread. Here in the US, they aren't airing the World Championships until later tonight, and I was trying to stay in the dark on the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Lee Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 awww I love this picture I was really pleased to see her win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Filipe_Golias Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Men's Triple Jump1. Nelson ÉVORA (Portugal) -> 17.74m (NR) 2. Jadel GREGÓRIO (Brazil) -> 17.59m 3. Walter Davis (USA) -> 17.33m (SB) Outstanding! I watched it live and saw how euphoric Nélson was after that perfect second jump! Fabulous achievement. Congratulations, Nélson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Lee Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Did anyone see Kelly Sotherton's 2nd attack on Blonska in her interview with the BBC. Sha basically said that all the other Heptathletes know she is a cheat and refuse to support her or congratulate her. I can understand her frustration but I do agree with Michael Johnson when he says that it shouldn't be dominating her thoughts at this time. She should be enjoying her own success. Click on the Top left hand link to see the interview I must also mention the performance of Christine Ohurogu in the 400m. She is back from a ban for failing to attend 3 dope tests. She looks very strong and may take a medal. It is so hard these days to know for sure whether somebody is cheating. They may get stripped of their medla if they are found out but it denies the experience of winning a medal for the clean athletes and cheats the viewing public out of watching fair compeition. I've really been enjoying the coverage so far. The only minor criticism I have is regarding the number of errors that are being made on the scorebaords. Poor Michelle Perrys face when the BBC commentator said that the board was showing DNS for her before the race. LOL I also thought it was bad organisation during the womens 100m photo finish. They kept displaying all sorts of false information before eventually getting it right. Anyway, I was pleased that Campbell got the decision in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Lee Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Outstanding! I watched it live and saw how euphoric Nélson was after that perfect second jump! Fabulous achievement. Congratulations, Nélson! Yes, it was a great win. Well Done Portugal. I am not even sure if Olson would have been able to beat this jump even if he had competed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Filipe_Golias Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Yes, it was a great win. Well Done Portugal.I am not even sure if Olson would have been able to beat this jump even if he had competed. Well, a perfect-shape Olson would be another story His outdoor PB is 17.79m so it would've been a very interesting battle. Anyway, Évora is still on for the long jump, where Naide Gomes has already qualified for the final with the joint-best mark (6.96m). So all in all, we're having steadily consistent performances on the jump events thanks to these two athletes. It really compensates Obikwelu's letdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Filipe_Golias Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Just for the record: this is our 1st gold medal ever in a male event at the W-Chs, the 5th gold overall (raising the total tally up to 15, together with 5 silver and 5 bronze) and 1st gold since Carla Sacramento's 1500m title in Athens 1997. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Filipe_Golias Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 One last post about this victory, just to show this truly great moment - the "Triple Jump King" crowning the new champion. Nelson already stated: "I was long hoping to receive a medal from him [Jonathan Edwards]... I've learned a lot from him, watching his performances (...) When he put the medal around my neck, I thought 'This is beautiful, just beautiful'". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

baron-pierreIV Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 One last post about this victory, just to show this truly great moment - the "Triple Jump King" crowning the new champion. Nelson already stated: "I was long hoping to receive a medal from him [Jonathan Edwards]... I've learned a lot from him, watching his performances (...) When he put the medal around my neck, I thought 'This is beautiful, just beautiful'". Who is Jonathan Edwards? Never heard of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Faster Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Who is Jonathan Edwards? Never heard of him. I really hope you are joking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Lee Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 He's the guy in the picture dummy, the one in the white tracksuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Mortac Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Show the proof - links, WADA results etc. Otherwise stop being a tool. Proof with WADA results? Clearly, anyone stating that Joyner-Kersee was NOT doped without any slight suspicion doesn't know much about sports in the 80s. First off, doping tests in the 80s were extremely primitive and seldom used compared to today. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind, or in most people's minds (if you know at least a bit about sports and the human body), that she was doped. I'm sorry, but anyone that thinks Joyner-Kersee was a clean athlete needs to think again. If she would compete today with her results, she would beat athletes in their specialized fields, and that is with the equipment, know-how and everything else from the 80s that are much improved for today's athletes. Joyner-Kersee "accomplished" this far superior record in the glory days of female doping, and there is not the slightest doubt that she was involved with illegal substances unless you're just being plain ignorant to facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

thatsnotmypuppy Posted August 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Oh, a newbie with an opinion trying to make a stand. How 2002. Heres the thing - you have just spouted the exact same crap. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

DrunkWithBode Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Proof with WADA results? Clearly, anyone stating that Joyner-Kersee was NOT doped without any slight suspicion doesn't know much about sports in the 80s. First off, doping tests in the 80s were extremely primitive and seldom used compared to today. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind, or in most people's minds (if you know at least a bit about sports and the human body), that she was doped.I'm sorry, but anyone that thinks Joyner-Kersee was a clean athlete needs to think again. If she would compete today with her results, she would beat athletes in their specialized fields, and that is with the equipment, know-how and everything else from the 80s that are much improved for today's athletes. Joyner-Kersee "accomplished" this far superior record in the glory days of female doping, and there is not the slightest doubt that she was involved with illegal substances unless you're just being plain ignorant to facts. LOL. What are these "facts" that we're supposedly "being plain ignorant to?" You talk about facts, and yet you didn't provide a single one in that drivel that you just posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

baron-pierreIV Posted August 28, 2007 Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 He's the guy in the picture dummy, the one in the white tracksuit. Nice try, Lee. Nope. I think that's Walter Davis. Jonathan Edwards is SUPPOSED to be the medal-giver but that guy looks Japanese. Anyway, won't make or break my day if I don't know who the real J. Edwards is!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Pillan Posted August 28, 2007 Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 Oh, a newbie with an opinion trying to make a stand. How 2002. Heres the thing - you have just spouted the exact same crap. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. Show the proof. One of the meanless and stupid posts in this forum. Did you not understand???? The doping-tests with that time was very PRIMITIVIE!!!!! Ohh, YES, PRMITIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Both Joyner-Kersee and Griffith-Joyner would not have a chance if they compete today!!!!! They should failed in first best test! Are you so stupid that you think Griffith-Joyner was clean??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Olympian2004 Posted August 28, 2007 Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 One of the meanless and stupid posts in this forum. Did you not understand???? The doping-tests with that time was very PRIMITIVIE!!!!! Ohh, YES, PRMITIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Both Joyner-Kersee and Griffith-Joyner would not have a chance if they compete today!!!!! They should failed in first best test! Are you so stupid that you think Griffith-Joyner was clean??????? Show proof -- otherwise: *plonk* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

DrunkWithBode Posted August 28, 2007 Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 One of the meanless and stupid posts in this forum. Did you not understand???? The doping-tests with that time was very PRIMITIVIE!!!!! Ohh, YES, PRMITIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Both Joyner-Kersee and Griffith-Joyner would not have a chance if they compete today!!!!! They should failed in first best test! Are you so stupid that you think Griffith-Joyner was clean??????? First of all, I don't see where anyone here was debating whether or not Griffith-Joyner was clean. This is about your blind, baseless allegations against Jackie Joyner-Kersee, whose status has absolutely no connection with that of Florence Griffith-Joyner. You must be about 12 years old, considering how poorly you seem to grasp basic logic. The fact that doping tests were more primitive back then does not provide any proof whatsoever that Joyner-Kersee cheated. You are arguing that Jackie's dominance in a period of primitive drug testing means that she was beating drug tests. That is flimsy, child, and plain stupid logic. And your flawed line of reasoning implies that every athlete that dominated in that era was doping. Now once again, either provide some sort of proof or just shut up. You've already revealed yourself to be a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Pillan Posted August 28, 2007 Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 First of all, I don't see where anyone here was debating whether or not Griffith-Joyner was clean. This is about your blind, baseless allegations against Jackie Joyner-Kersee, whose status has absolutely no connection with that of Florence Griffith-Joyner.You must be about 12 years old, considering how poorly you seem to grasp basic logic. The fact that doping tests were more primitive back then does not provide any proof whatsoever that Joyner-Kersee cheated. You are arguing that Jackie's dominance in a period of primitive drug testing means that she was beating drug tests. That is flimsy, child, and plain stupid logic. And your flawed line of reasoning implies that every athlete that dominated in that era was doping. Now once again, either provide some sort of proof or just shut up. You've already revealed yourself to be a fool. The only fools are you, the very naive USA-lovers!!!!!!! And you looks to be very stupid! I wonder who is 12 years old??? You maybe????? Or no you are like a three years old child at my job! Little critic and jesus, you screaming like a little child! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Olympian2004 Posted August 28, 2007 Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 Can we discuss about Osaka 2007 again? Pillan, if you want to continue this senseless scolding about Jackie Joyner-Kersee, do that in a separate topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

micheal_warren Posted August 28, 2007 Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 Can we discuss about Osaka 2007 again? Pillan, if you want to continue this senseless scolding about Jackie Joyner-Kersee, do that in a separate topic. I agree... For new zealand Nick Willis has qualified for the 1500m final tomorrow night after the frenchman was disqualified due to barging through the pack in the home straight. Another good result for new zealand and watch out for nick in the final as a top five finish is a real possibility! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts

## Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.