Re: Re:
Andy262 said:
Fergoose said:
bigcog said:
Bwlch y Groes said:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/17/olympics-hysteria-britain-turned-soviet-team-gb
Interesting article from Simon Jenkins of the Guardian - stops short of accusing Britain of widespread doping but at least it's a sceptical article for once
He his right about the BBC, it is really over the top, it's sickening tbh.
It's unwatchable. Thankfully all their streams on the iplayer appear to use international feeds. I've watched loads of the Olympics but haven't watched any of it live on the BBC as I increasingly consider our state broadcaster to be a propaganda tool. I think they've basically been warned by the Tories that if they don't adopt jingoism and softer coverage of the government then they'll be castrated.
Despite all that I share the Guardian opinion above that the success is likely the result of throwing absurd quantities of money at what are essentially niche sports where there isn't a massive strength in depth in competition. It's notable the the UK hasn't done particularly great at swimming, one of the sports with real international strength in depth. This is despite swimming being a discipline consistently ripe with state sponsored doping controversies (including China and Russia this year).
Completely agree. The BBC has jumped the shark in it's ludicrous cheerleading. I too agree with Simon Jenkins.
Britain's dope is money. At the same time as it buys medals at £5m a throw, our Government cavalry charges the race to the bottom in nearly every other walk of life.
Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of Jason, Laura and the rest. But their success conceals a price that much of the country wilfully fails to see.
Yes, and the British federations (cycling, athletics, rowing, etc) are very good at spending in on things they need: very good (but dodgy as heck) doctors and coaches, hi-tech equipment (includes clothing as well, apparently) and top end doping. Of course, none of us here have undeniable, 100% proof, but all things point that way. The evidence is slowly but surely building to widespread doping. Not saying that's it's government or MI6 involvement per say, but the Brits have learned to play the game very well indeed. Of that there is no doubt. It has nothing to do with nationalism or being jealous or former colonies like Australia being 'jelly' of Britain's success in sports where they haven't been in years past, or sports where the Australians were better at some point or at least very comparable to Brits.
Another thing is population. I usually agree with Benotti in regards to many doping topics here in the Clinic, but population comparisons with East Germany isn't the best marker, and I think it's somewhat moot. Yes, Britain obviously doesn't have the population that the US or China do, and it's what, 1/3 the size (population wise) of Russa? It his however more than three times bigger right now than East Germany ever was. Another thing is, East Germany never really grew much in population because of its 'closed' borders and strict rules which forbade a lot of going in and out. Whereas Britain is one of the most open federations in the world. Look at London. One of the most diverse cities on the planet. My point is, we can certainly point to Britain really getting in on the act in the past couple decades and making a concerted effort in being a powerhouse at the summer Olympics, but not through population.
East Germany was not only good because of doping, but because they too, were organized, they spent a lot of money, and they did a good job of recruiting top talents from various parts of the country. You can dope your talented athletes all you want, but you still need the right training, the right coaches (or at least enough of them), hard work and top athletes pushing each other on a daily or weekly basis. As I said in earlier quotes on this topic, their gymnasium structure/sport schools (hochshule) are still being used in quite a few places in Europe. Of course, those 'places' in all likelihood don't give dish out anabolic steroids to 13-18 year old kids, but there are similarities to structure and planning and how things are run, in general.