Doping In Athletics

[Defiets]

Re: Re:

Schippers had her biggest career progression in 2014, when she shaved off 2.9% of her 200m time. For the 100m it is 2015 with a 1.9% improvement.
Elaine Thompson meanwhile gained almost 7%, and Fraser-Pryce improved 4.7% in the year 2008.

Jamaican athletes aren't pampered by their governments/federations, though. Most of them are at a disadvantage early on in their careers. They get no handouts, nothing. I'd expect much bigger gains once they have the means to hire the best doping docs and trainers.

Schippers has probably been on a closely monitored elite doping program for years. That would explain the more normal rate of progression. Her freakish performances in Beijing certainly seem to suggest that she's doped to the eyeballs.

Nice theory, except that the real situation is more like the other way around.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re: Re:

You didn't apologise for getting it wrong about Schippers three month transformation when I pointed out to you that she ran faster than all of her rivals in 2014 so why would you expect somebody to apologise to you?

All her rivals?

Please remind me how many of them were in a world championship final.

Oh. None.

Gotcha.

Sorry but this makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

P.S.: And even if it is allowed to run a small portion OUTSIDE of a lane (which is an ADVANTAGE if coming full speed out of the curve), the (absurd) rule certainly wasnt meant to have athlets running 100 meters in the wrong lane... That makes no sense whatsoever.
In reality (and the german veteran commentator said this): IAAF does everything to save the show. And if that means breaking rules blatantly, they do it. Bolt & co are the protected golden eggs. Its disgusting.

 

[Defiets]

Re: Re:

Wait so the argument is as follows: "She doesn't dope, because she's talented" rofl

Yesterday in my Dutch newspaper: a story only talking about the doping accusations against her.
Today: "Only known doped athletes were ever faster" <- in the sub-header, plus talk about the accusations in the article.

The same article also plays the jealousy and reverse racism card though. That the vested interests and rival athletes didn't congratulate her. One sentence: "Even though a genetic advantage for black females has never been proven, they themselves feel they are advantaged." Other: "They had lost against a white woman from a modest athletics country." "Mixture of anxiety and frustration."

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re:

P.S.: And even if it is allowed to run a small portion OUTSIDE of a lane (which is an ADVANTAGE if coming full speed out of the curve), the (absurd) rule certainly wasnt meant to have athlets running 100 meters in the wrong lane... That makes no sense whatsoever.
In reality (and the german veteran commentator said this): IAAF does everything to save the show. And if that means breaking rules blatantly, they do it. Bolt & co are the protected golden eggs. Its disgusting.

4. An athlete shall not be disqualified if he
(a) is pushed or forced by another person to step or run outside his
lane or on or inside the kerb or line marking the applicable
border, or
(b) steps or runs outside his lane in the straight, any straight part of
the diversion from the track for the steeplechase water jump or
outside the outer line of his lane on the bend,
with no material advantage thereby being gained and no other athlete
being jostled or obstructed so as to impede his progress.
Note: Material advantage includes improving his position by any
means, including removing himself from a “boxed” position in the
race by having stepped or run inside the inside edge of the track.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Assuming material advantage means normal advantage (speak faster times)...

I further assume you know T&F...

Now tell me that carrying the force of a wider arc, thus keep the speed high when coming out of the curve is no advantage... well, then I am speechless

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Ashton lowered his PB by 0.55s.

Reading the letsrun forum, I've determined that the athletics version of tailwind is a "fast track".

The track is very fast.

Good news: Dibaba will go for the 5k WR. Should be easy. No doubt the quickest women from 800 to 10k.

LOLZ... Yeah, first I ever heard that BS was Tokyo 91. And that King Carl had super-light shoes...

I was there in 91. The track was "fast" but not without a good "program".
What I mean with respect to the "fast track" is that I ran on the track a week later and had set a PR for the 5000 & 10000 back to back days.

 

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

The Hypo-meeting heptathlon finished 31st of May. Her tweet was on the 6th of June.

That is when she decided to focus on the sprint. Not before. I am 100% confident of that now.

Any javelin, shotput or other muscle that is throwing or jumping specific is now slowing her sprint down, correct?

Without entering into a doping debate, but as one coach
to another, I would be hard pressed to identify exactly
which muscles are throwing or jumping specific.

Many, many sprinters from Fanny Blankers-Koen to Carl
Lewis and Bruny Surin were also very good jumpers. As
for throwing muscles, the bench press, for example is
very important in developing the requisite strength for
the all important 'set' position in the starting blocks.

There is a very old saying in athletics 'You run with the
arms, on the legs' and perhaps you remember back in
infancy of modern professional athletics post 1968 in
American indoor meets there was a few male shot
athletes vs female sprinters races over 40-50 yards,
and the shot putters invariably won.

Of course, there is a level of development of certain
or specific muscles which could eventually prove
detrimental to sprinting, but as the heptathlon
includes both the 100m hurdles and the 200m sprint,
very few succesful female multi-eventers go there.

I have seen olympic caliber sprinters lifting all of 60 kilos in the bench. Sure, they where still trying to improve their strenght there, though not for the start but more for overall strenght, still, there is no specific need whatsoever to be strong in the bench. Being strong in the bench as a sprinter simply points to an athlete with an overall high level of fitness. Or, in the case of certain British sprinters, an overall high level of vanity.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Re: Re:

Ashton lowered his PB by 0.55s.

Reading the letsrun forum, I've determined that the athletics version of tailwind is a "fast track".

The track is very fast.

Good news: Dibaba will go for the 5k WR. Should be easy. No doubt the quickest women from 800 to 10k.

LOLZ... Yeah, first I ever heard that BS was Tokyo 91. And that King Carl had super-light shoes...

I was there in 91. The track was "fast" but not without a good "program".
What I mean with respect to the "fast track" is that I ran on the track a week later and had set a PR for the 5000 & 10000 back to back days.

By how much? Like King Carl bettering his PB from a 9.92 to 9.86 (that were big jumps in 100m back then; nowadays its a given ), King Carl jumping around 8.80meters in 5 tries; Powell bettering his PB from 8.66 to 8.95 (almost Beamon like)?

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

The Hypo-meeting heptathlon finished 31st of May. Her tweet was on the 6th of June.

That is when she decided to focus on the sprint. Not before. I am 100% confident of that now.

Any javelin, shotput or other muscle that is throwing or jumping specific is now slowing her sprint down, correct?

Without entering into a doping debate, but as one coach
to another, I would be hard pressed to identify exactly
which muscles are throwing or jumping specific.

Many, many sprinters from Fanny Blankers-Koen to Carl
Lewis and Bruny Surin were also very good jumpers. As
for throwing muscles, the bench press, for example is
very important in developing the requisite strength for
the all important 'set' position in the starting blocks.

There is a very old saying in athletics 'You run with the
arms, on the legs' and perhaps you remember back in
infancy of modern professional athletics post 1968 in
American indoor meets there was a few male shot
athletes vs female sprinters races over 40-50 yards,
and the shot putters invariably won.

Of course, there is a level of development of certain
or specific muscles which could eventually prove
detrimental to sprinting, but as the heptathlon
includes both the 100m hurdles and the 200m sprint,
very few succesful female multi-eventers go there.

I have seen olympic caliber sprinters lifting all of 60 kilos in the bench. Sure, they where still trying to improve their strenght there, though not for the start but more for overall strenght, still, there is no specific need whatsoever to be strong in the bench. Being strong in the bench as a sprinter simply points to an athlete with an overall high level of fitness. Or, in the case of certain British sprinters, an overall high level of vanity.

Famously the king of the free weights in team GB was always Jonathan Edwards. Total beast.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Re: Re:

Schippers had her biggest career progression in 2014, when she shaved off 2.9% of her 200m time. For the 100m it is 2015 with a 1.9% improvement.
Elaine Thompson meanwhile gained almost 7%, and Fraser-Pryce improved 4.7% in the year 2008.

Jamaican athletes aren't pampered by their governments/federations, though. Most of them are at a disadvantage early on in their careers. They get no handouts, nothing. I'd expect much bigger gains once they have the means to hire the best doping docs and trainers.

Schippers has probably been on a closely monitored elite doping program for years. That would explain the more normal rate of progression. Her freakish performances in Beijing certainly seem to suggest that she's doped to the eyeballs.

Nice theory, except that the real situation is more like the other way around.

It's not. It's the reality as far as the Jamaican scene is concerned. The Jamaican federation and government obviously don't care about their athletes doping, but that's another matter entirely (and hardly unusual). Jamaican athletes aren't government sponsored. They get no government handouts.

Schippers, on the other hand, costs the Dutch taxpayer ~125,000 euros per year in salary and training facilities / expenses.

 

[armchairclimber]

The BBC trolling the Clinic http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34089451

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I´d like to have the exact same nerds explain Shelly Fraser and Michael Johnson... Sad fact: Those guys got well paid jobs at universties. I guess all of them cheated their ways up in the ranks like Karl Guttenberg did...

 

[Defiets]

Re: Re:

Schippers had her biggest career progression in 2014, when she shaved off 2.9% of her 200m time. For the 100m it is 2015 with a 1.9% improvement.
Elaine Thompson meanwhile gained almost 7%, and Fraser-Pryce improved 4.7% in the year 2008.

Jamaican athletes aren't pampered by their governments/federations, though. Most of them are at a disadvantage early on in their careers. They get no handouts, nothing. I'd expect much bigger gains once they have the means to hire the best doping docs and trainers.

Schippers has probably been on a closely monitored elite doping program for years. That would explain the more normal rate of progression. Her freakish performances in Beijing certainly seem to suggest that she's doped to the eyeballs.

Nice theory, except that the real situation is more like the other way around.

It's not. It's the reality as far as the Jamaican scene is concerned. The Jamaican federation and government obviously don't care about their athletes doping, but that's another matter entirely (and hardly unusual). Jamaican athletes aren't government sponsored. They get no government handouts.

The Jamaican government invests a lot and does so above their weight. That is a big reason why the likes of Bolt stay in Jamaica unlike their predecessors. Links seem to be handled here as spam but there's a 2010 Daily Telegraph article available.

"Historically, the majority of successful Jamaican athletes have come through the US college system, but things have changed dramatically in the past few years. Bolt's iconic status has been cemented by his decision to remain based on the island, despite being offered several American scholarships. Many in Jamaica say that its facilities, as a result of large-scale investment from the government and local businesses, are as good as any in the world (though this has sparked a debate over whether such a poor country can afford to spend so much on sport when education and health care are so basic)."

The Jamaican government spends some 344 million dollars a year on performance in sports, but recently cutting the anti-drugs agency with 14 million dollar. The government spent 614 million on sports overall. That is quite a lot for a country with 2.7 million citizens (UN census). For a country with 17 million citizens that would relate to more than 2.1 billion government expenses. For a country as the United Kingdom, Italy and France that would mean a government investment of 7.7 billion in programmes geared towards achieving results.

Schippers, on the other hand, costs the Dutch taxpayer ~125,000 euros per year in salary and training facilities / expenses.

Do you have a source for that figure? Only the so called A-sporters receive a stipend, about 450 sporters among both sexes across all available sports. Even so, it doesn't account for the more balanced progression in performances over the course of six years. With the limited resources available before a certain point, one would expect a sudden uptake at some year. The government claims an olympic medal costs 4.4 million in public and private expenses.

 

[armchairclimber]

More to consider http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/34096616

 

[Defiets]

Re:

More to consider http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/34096616

"And as Britain's leading light he has done it alone, without domestiques working for him, without being the kingpin in the three-man squad who have tactics and legs only for one man."

He hasn't done it alone, the link to Oregon as domestique.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

Ashton lowered his PB by 0.55s.

Reading the letsrun forum, I've determined that the athletics version of tailwind is a "fast track".

The track is very fast.

Good news: Dibaba will go for the 5k WR. Should be easy. No doubt the quickest women from 800 to 10k.

There is a good strand on twitter about track technology. Mostly, that there is very little public about it.

I didn't go to the original source, but I believe it was either Dave Epstein or SportsScientists, (actually think it was someone replying to them) that quoted the IAAF technical manual saying there must be at least 35% shock absorption. A track in Amsterdam fell outside of this, according to a tweet...

A lot of good questions were raised, with no way to answer. Things like, How is shock absorption measured? Temperature? How regularly are new tracks tested? How well does that quality maintain over time? Of all of the hubub over the Crow's Nest track, no technical specifications were released, just advertisement-like phrases of "fastest track ever".

Other interesting points were that a change in ground contact time from 95 ms to 94 ms. would result in a couple tenths difference over 200m. On the other hand, a shorter contact time means less time to generate peak force, which matters as runners fatigue.

I've had discussions about good tracks being good for training or for racing, and one factor usually has to do with the hardness: softer tracks for training so you don't ache as much at the end, harder for racing.

It's noticeable, but even worse than a tailwind conversation, not measurable, so not discus-able.



...

Anyone seen this? About 1100m into the 5000m. Real slow, for most of the race, but this is still stupid. I'm glad no media have tried to pass it off as some sort of marginal gain.

 

[BullsFan22]

Let's do a poll. If you had to choose between Bolt and Farah, as to who you think is a doper, which one would you choose. For me it's Farah.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Both

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Funny poll. Its like; what is more likely to happen during a full day: daytime or nighttime...

 

[The Hitch]

Chances they are doping
Both -99.7%
Just Bolt-0.2%
Just Farah-0.1%
Neither- 0%

So to answer the question. Bolt.

 

[Aapjes]

Ok, I'm back.

@ Wiggo

I assume that all sprinters do diversified training. The more explosive the effort, the better balance of muscle you need. Otherwise, you can very easily get injuries when you make a slightly different movement from normal and use your sprint muscles, plus a muscle that you then normally never use. That normally unused muscle then can't cope with the extreme power of the sprint muscles and can tear.

You only have to look at Bolt's arms to see that that he trains his arms as well. No way he gets those arm muscles just by swinging his arms (otherwise marathon runners would have similarly big arm muscles and they don't). It's pretty clear that many athletes (in many sports) diversify their training, which they say so themselves.

Her coach said that most heptathlon events are similar in explosive effort to sprinting. The odd duck out is the 800m run. Here are her results from those Hypo-meetings on the 800m:
2013: 2:19.90 (8th)
2014: 2:08.59 (2nd in heat)
2015: DNS

Judging by these results, you would guess that she was actually sprint training in 2013 and doing Heptathlon training in 2014. Yet a month after that 2013 event, she ran a 2:08.62 on the 800m and got her best result ever on the Heptathlon during a real event (the WC). Of course she didn't suddenly change her training completely in that month between those events. She just didn't try hard at the Hypo-meeting in 2013, for training reasons, surely. That is why these comparisons between these events are so useless. The end results is insignificant and Schippers can have different training goals from one event to the next a year later.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Re: Re:

Do you have a source for that figure? Only the so called A-sporters receive a stipend, about 450 sporters among both sexes across all available sports. Even so, it doesn't account for the more balanced progression in performances over the course of six years. With the limited resources available before a certain point, one would expect a sudden uptake at some year. The government claims an olympic medal costs 4.4 million in public and private expenses.

The source is a Volkskrant article from last year.


Google translated:

[...] The financing of world class athletics comes from NOC * NSF, that funds for this purpose from the Lotto, uses the Ministry of Health and the Partners in Sport. Athletes with an A status such as Schippers received a salary. Furthermore reimbursed all costs: the cost of a trainer, medical and mental care, housing, training courses and all other costs necessary to achieve peak performance. In a period of four years is about half a million euros in a top athlete like Schippers. Maurits Hendriks, Director of Sport of NOC * NSF, is ultimately responsible for all Dutch athletes.

Part of the ambition of NOC * NSF, the Netherlands is a thing of the ten best performing countries at the Olympic Games. It is an ambition that is supported by the government. The vision is that appealing sport performance has a direct influence on the sporting, social and economic climate of our country. A sprint champion is a great showcase for the enterprising Netherlands and a role model and inspiration for young and old. [...]

I don't know when she got the "A status" but Jamile Samuel got it in 2012, so I'm guessing before... Schippers was always seen as a special snowflake. None of the Jamaicans receive a government salary. Fraser-Pryce had to bankroll her own career. I can't find the article atm.

As far as Schippers' progression. Like I said, I'm guessing she's been on a closely monitored doping program for years. Not full *** from the very start. But right now, almost definitely, yeah. The 9.81 (after a "mediocre" start by her own admission) and 19.63 by themselves strongly point to her being doped to the max. That's my starting point. You choose to ignore those super human performances for some reason.

But yeah, if Schippers just manages to beat Flo Jo's 200m record in Rio -- regardless of what Thompson or anyone else does -- that would be consistent with your view of a clean or barely doped athlete. It would be believable because, as of right now, she's on course to do so. I obviously don't subscribe to that line of thinking.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Anyone seen this? About 1100m into the 5000m. Real slow, for most of the race, but this is still stupid. I'm glad no media have tried to pass it off as some sort of marginal gain.

Why would he do that?

 

[Aapjes]

Re: Re:

It's not. It's the reality as far as the Jamaican scene is concerned. The Jamaican federation and government obviously don't care about their athletes doping, but that's another matter entirely (and hardly unusual). Jamaican athletes aren't government sponsored. They get no government handouts.

Schippers, on the other hand, costs the Dutch taxpayer ~125,000 euros per year in salary and training facilities / expenses.

I think you are mixing up different things. Dutch sport stipends are not given to athletes in the beginning of their career. They have to be in the world top 8 in an Olympic sport to achieve 'A status'. This status grants a maximum stipend of 740-2240 euro (depending on age), plus a car or free public transport. They can also have their sport-related costs reimbursed.

Beginning athletes do not get a salary, but do get to use facilities for young athletes. I'm sure that The Netherlands spends more on sports in general, but it is very spread out over different disciplines, even within athletics. In contrast, Jamaica has enormous focus on short distance running. Just look at the medals Jamaica won during the last Olympics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics

12 medals all in running up to 400 meters. Then the Dutch medals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics

20 medals, spread out over many disciplines, none of which in Athletics, let alone running.

So Jamaica puts all their effort in short distance running. Most kids choose it as their sport, runners face a lot of high level competition within their country, can relatively easily find experienced coaches, etc, etc. Dutch talents have to find their own way much more, which is a big disadvantage.

Your point about a lack of government sponsorship is irrelevant if business sponsors see Jamaican athletes as good investments. But even without sponsorship, Jamaican athletes can find top-tier competitions in their own country. Someone like Schippers always need to travel abroad to find real competition. That is much more costly.