imaz52 said:
The idiots that designed a format where it was beneficial to lose matches are the ones who should have been expelled from the games.
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
The idiots that designed a format where it was beneficial to lose matches are the ones who should have been expelled from the games.
imaz52 said:
Was the Cyclist this man?
http://www.london2012.com/athlete/froome-christopher-1176916/
slowspoke said:
No idea, the italian article mentioned there are considerable risks in using a virus carrier. Bilharzia is a parasitic disease, not an virus AFAIK.
Presumably the footballer is Messi as they are talking "primissimo piano" and there's previous but is Froome that famous?
sittingbison said:
Does it have something in common with UCI per chance?
Federations doing dope testing of their own athletes is bogus.
Benotti69 said:
OK, so we have only 4 tests in a year, none out of competition, not all her first places were tested, and inhouse testing by FINA.
Nothing to see here. Move along
Interesting read - interview with John Leonard (Director of US swim coaches association) - he certainly isn't backing off his initial statement and makes some very good points.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympi...ctor-steps-up-chinese-doping-allegations.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/olympi...ctor-steps-up-chinese-doping-allegations.html
AcademyCC said:
I always feels these guys never clean their own houses before demanding others do so.
Some of my thoughts on why Redgrave didn't dope and why doping isn't a problem in rowing. Of course, I can't say that doping doesn't occur in the sport, as it has, but I don't think it is endemic and I don't think that to win you have to dope.
Redgrave was probably only the 'best in the world' for about six or eight years between 1988 and 1996. Of all of Redgrave's performances in Olympics the Barcelona one is the one that really stands out in terms of the manner of victory. Him and Pinsent were moving away from everyone even as they crossed the line. All his other gold medals have been by less than a boat length. 1984: the Eastern Bloc countries were missing due to the boycott. However, Redgrave's crew had beaten them all in regattas during the season. 1988 and 1992 were outstanding performances. 1996: Never in real doubt, but won by less than a length. You can see at this point, aged 34, Redgrave is beginning to struggle. 2000: Redgrave is falling apart at this stage and there were some doubts expressed whether he should be in the crew - stomach problems, diabetes. Beaten at the internal British trials he is not physically one of the best any more. The final is won by a few feet. A good watch is the Gold Fever documentary available on youtube. Also a good watch is Pieces of Eight, a documentary on the NZ eight from the 1980s. Both show the amateurism and dedication of the sport over two decades.
As a result of Redgrave's success he was afforded sponsorship at a level that many others simply did not have. This meant he could train more, recover better at a time when many other Olympic rowers were working jobs. This added to his ability to dominate.
Redgrave has not always been in the 'hardest' boat classes. In terms of pure best of the best, the single scull is that. Redgrave tried but couldn't make it in that boat class. The winner of that event is pretty much the best rowing athlete. What Redgrave's crews did well was to dominate during the Olympiad so that other potential crews which could challenge would tend to look elsewhere in order that they could be more certain of winning a gold. You can see that this Olympics where the NZ pair have been the outstanding crew of the last four years and are now lengths ahead of the rest of the competition. Partly because they are that good, but also because other countries now prioritise other boats as they know they cannot win. I'm sure if every country put out their top pair in the event the margins would be closer, but NZ would still win.
The way rowing has progressed - and to me it seems fairly obvious when watching races from the 80s and the 90s - the standard is higher now. Technically and physically, crews are visibly better prepared. I think dominance of the Redgrave kind would be much harder, say between 1996 and 2012. There's one rower who comes close in that period and that is the Australian Drew Ginn. If not for his chronic back problems which caused him to miss an almost dead cert gold in Sydney he would be going for his fifth gold this year.
Rowing has a way of measuring pure power output over something that roughly resembles the rowing stroke. That is the Concept2 rowing machine. Common in gyms all over the world. It is consistent and accurate. Nothing that Redgrave pushed out on that machine was unbelievable. Nor was it ever the best in the world. His scores were very good, though. This points toward the way that rowing works: it is a skill that requires good physical ability to apply this skill. You see rowers with huge scores on the rowing machine being beaten by those with less power due to the differences in skill. There are rowers with Olympic standard scores on the machine who are no where near national squads. In crew rowing, it's the ability to apply the skill in unity. Part of the skill is moving the boat forward, part is not slowing the boat down in between strokes. Thus there are so many variables that it does not come down to pure power alone.
Doping in rowing has its real history in the DDR. Their system doped everyone and they won a huge proportion of the medals. But it wasn't doping alone that did it. I'd say the real reason they won so much was: superior training science and talent identification. Whilst Britain was out doing high intensity sessions in between working on building sites the East Germans were doing two or three steady state sessions building technique and aerobic ability which is now the standard model for rowing training. They also identified young people with the right physical attributes for rowing. This is what Britain has been doing over the last ten years with good results.
Seeing myself people I have rowed with moving into Olympic squads (in more than one country) and winning gold medals, what I have seen does not suggest anything untoward in their rise to the top. Again, the physical outputs I have seen have been outstanding but not unbelievable. And I've seen the natural talent combined with the training program that gets you to that point. I have no doubt that all British rowers are clean and am confident that all rowing medal winners will be clean. Having been in the British trials system, I can also attest to how heavily the anti doping message is pushed at every occasion. Even when athletes are seen to be using supplements they are often rebuked by the management. Obviously, I can't say 100%, no one can. But, for me, the evidence stacks up so much to point towards a very clean sport with clean superstars.
That ended up being a bit longer than I thought, and I hope it makes sense and adds to the discussion.
Redgrave was probably only the 'best in the world' for about six or eight years between 1988 and 1996. Of all of Redgrave's performances in Olympics the Barcelona one is the one that really stands out in terms of the manner of victory. Him and Pinsent were moving away from everyone even as they crossed the line. All his other gold medals have been by less than a boat length. 1984: the Eastern Bloc countries were missing due to the boycott. However, Redgrave's crew had beaten them all in regattas during the season. 1988 and 1992 were outstanding performances. 1996: Never in real doubt, but won by less than a length. You can see at this point, aged 34, Redgrave is beginning to struggle. 2000: Redgrave is falling apart at this stage and there were some doubts expressed whether he should be in the crew - stomach problems, diabetes. Beaten at the internal British trials he is not physically one of the best any more. The final is won by a few feet. A good watch is the Gold Fever documentary available on youtube. Also a good watch is Pieces of Eight, a documentary on the NZ eight from the 1980s. Both show the amateurism and dedication of the sport over two decades.
As a result of Redgrave's success he was afforded sponsorship at a level that many others simply did not have. This meant he could train more, recover better at a time when many other Olympic rowers were working jobs. This added to his ability to dominate.
Redgrave has not always been in the 'hardest' boat classes. In terms of pure best of the best, the single scull is that. Redgrave tried but couldn't make it in that boat class. The winner of that event is pretty much the best rowing athlete. What Redgrave's crews did well was to dominate during the Olympiad so that other potential crews which could challenge would tend to look elsewhere in order that they could be more certain of winning a gold. You can see that this Olympics where the NZ pair have been the outstanding crew of the last four years and are now lengths ahead of the rest of the competition. Partly because they are that good, but also because other countries now prioritise other boats as they know they cannot win. I'm sure if every country put out their top pair in the event the margins would be closer, but NZ would still win.
The way rowing has progressed - and to me it seems fairly obvious when watching races from the 80s and the 90s - the standard is higher now. Technically and physically, crews are visibly better prepared. I think dominance of the Redgrave kind would be much harder, say between 1996 and 2012. There's one rower who comes close in that period and that is the Australian Drew Ginn. If not for his chronic back problems which caused him to miss an almost dead cert gold in Sydney he would be going for his fifth gold this year.
Rowing has a way of measuring pure power output over something that roughly resembles the rowing stroke. That is the Concept2 rowing machine. Common in gyms all over the world. It is consistent and accurate. Nothing that Redgrave pushed out on that machine was unbelievable. Nor was it ever the best in the world. His scores were very good, though. This points toward the way that rowing works: it is a skill that requires good physical ability to apply this skill. You see rowers with huge scores on the rowing machine being beaten by those with less power due to the differences in skill. There are rowers with Olympic standard scores on the machine who are no where near national squads. In crew rowing, it's the ability to apply the skill in unity. Part of the skill is moving the boat forward, part is not slowing the boat down in between strokes. Thus there are so many variables that it does not come down to pure power alone.
Doping in rowing has its real history in the DDR. Their system doped everyone and they won a huge proportion of the medals. But it wasn't doping alone that did it. I'd say the real reason they won so much was: superior training science and talent identification. Whilst Britain was out doing high intensity sessions in between working on building sites the East Germans were doing two or three steady state sessions building technique and aerobic ability which is now the standard model for rowing training. They also identified young people with the right physical attributes for rowing. This is what Britain has been doing over the last ten years with good results.
Seeing myself people I have rowed with moving into Olympic squads (in more than one country) and winning gold medals, what I have seen does not suggest anything untoward in their rise to the top. Again, the physical outputs I have seen have been outstanding but not unbelievable. And I've seen the natural talent combined with the training program that gets you to that point. I have no doubt that all British rowers are clean and am confident that all rowing medal winners will be clean. Having been in the British trials system, I can also attest to how heavily the anti doping message is pushed at every occasion. Even when athletes are seen to be using supplements they are often rebuked by the management. Obviously, I can't say 100%, no one can. But, for me, the evidence stacks up so much to point towards a very clean sport with clean superstars.
That ended up being a bit longer than I thought, and I hope it makes sense and adds to the discussion.
Exactly. I suppose it makes sense to call someone out when they overdo it, but they shouldn't try to take us for fools. Hers has been he only outstanding performance? My, I thought records were being beaten left and right, as always.Benotti69 said:
hrotha said:
A guy like Phelps winning so much at the same olympics seems right dodgy to me.
I never believe people can consistently perform to the absolute maximum for that amount of time, as we have just seen in a GT.
Benotti69 said:
AcademyCC said:
Yeah, but he aint calling Phelps out is he or did he?
Take USA's doping history, USA cyclists blood doping, Carl Lewis failing tests in the olympic trials, Flo Jo, etc ?
As i said it is dangerous to throw stones in glasshouses.
Benotti69 said:
Yep hes a brave man to be slinging mud with USA history. Its a pity the points didn't come from a neutral source.
Their will always be 'outstanding performances' in all sports, records will always be broken and reasonable % of them clean. Its the nature of human evolution, we will always find ways of getting better at what we do. I hear you scream, yes starts with a 'D' and ends with an 'ing'. I cant accept that every record set or great performance in any aerobic sport has been because of doping. What has to be pointed out when they happen are the anomolys.
AcademyCC said:
the use of doping progresses a lot faster than human evolution does.
so the D-theory rings plausible to me.
we know for a fact that almost all records set in the 70s up to the 90s in athletics, swimming, and such sports, were set with the aid of juice. if athletes were clean now, we'd expect those records to stand for a couple of decennia at least. but no, the records are broken again and again, and that certainly has nothing to do human evolution. man kind doesn't evolve at that rate.
better training facilities? well, what facilities do you need to swim or run 100 meters?
some athletes now look like monsters. is that natural human evolution? doubt it.
sniper said:
I'm glad you asked.
At the start of the 21st century, the provision of 50-metre swimming pools in the United Kingdom was very poor for a developed country.
Few universities possessed 50-metre pools, and there was a marked reluctance on the part of municipal authorities to build new public long-course facilities.
As of 2011, however, a substantial number of pools have either recently opened, or are under development. The successful bid to hold the 2012 Summer Olympics in London has undoubtedly added impetus to the latter.
That's only in the last 10 years! Basically if you were outside London before 2000 access to a 50m pool was extremely limited. You simply cannot compete at even a national level training in a standard 25m pool never mind Olympic level.
Your right athletes that give suspicious performances and look like freaks need to be monitored and investigated.
However the above example of infrastructure is one aspect, in one sport, in one country of how advances are constantly made that are not related to doping. This will 100% guaranteed lead to faster swim times from British swimmers before they get anywhere a competition.
sniper said:
When did these sports turn professional? Sports nutritional development? access to better gym equipment, running shoes etc?
Improved training methods?
I'm not saying this proves people are clean as it certainly doesn't, but to say you only need a track to become good at the 100m is patently not true.
AcademyCC said:
This is wrong, many people have got to national and international level using 25m pools.
the list of 50m pools in the UK is very small but there is little incentive to build them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_long_course_swimming_pools_in_the_United_Kingdom#Olympic_size_pools
hotrats said:
Excellent post. Absolutely bang on the mark. Your experience entirely fits with mine and you obviously know the sport inside out.
A fine example of what you are talking about was Tim Foster. Never did any monster ergo scores (he was around the 5:50-5:55 mark for C2 2000m if memory serves me), but there were few better boat-shifters and so consequently he made the top boat (and won the GB pairs trial that year I think too).
References and insinuations to Redgrave doping and the physiques of the W2- are lazy at best and downright insulting at worst. People who say these things have no knowledge either of rowing in general or of the GB Rowing setup.
Markyboyzx6r said:
I believe Foster had a 5:52 pb. Other scores I know (roughly) of: Tom James, before winning in Beijing, 5:56. Reed and Hodge are around about 5:44, maybe a bit better. Eric Murray and Mahe Drysdale, the Kiwis, are right around the 5:40-5:43 area. Hamish Bond a bit slower. Pinsent and Cracknell pulled 5:42. I think Drew Ginn pb is perhaps just under 5:50. Ondrej Synek is a 5:40 guy. These are all some of the best in the world and there is a definite 'window' of performance. No outliers in the unbelievable direction, but you do get performers on the water who are less powerful. Just as you get ergo performers pulling 5:4x scores and just about being successful at a domestic level.
For reference: 6:00 on a 2k test is 480W, 5:50 is 520W, 5:40 is 570W.
King Boonen said:
Are you trying to tell me that if you train in a 25m pool then go to a competition in a 50m pool it doesn't matter?
Markyboyzx6r said:
Fail.
The history of doping in rowing does not start with the GDR program.
If either of you really knew anything about the history of the sport, you would know that at the turn of the last century, rowing was a professional sport with active gambling.
To imagine that race-fixing and doping did not happen in that era is impossibly naive.
AND THAT GAMBLING TOOK PLACE IN JOLLY OLD BRITAIN.
The demise of the professional era, the two wars, and the fundamental costs (both for courses and equipment) pushed rowing into more obscurity in sport. No money meant no money for doping.
Rowing was probably its cleanest in the 50's.
When it came to the GDR, they focused on those sports with high medal counts where their 'program' could have the biggest impact. Yes, they had good training systems. But, they had an even better doping system.
It is a lot easier to perform well physically when your body is under less stress.
While the Concept 2 analogy is a good one, rowing is a repetitive motion exercise. 220 strokes, all the same. No bobbing, weaving, cutting, pinpoint accuracy, intimidating your opponent. Even today, all boats have to execute a strategy of 'rowing their own race'. Rowing benefits from both cardio capability and muscular strength and fitness. There is no 3-point line, off-balance, buzzer beater, finesse required.
Rowing has become big again, though, and is now a feature Olympic sport. Countries provide cash awards to winning crews. There is money.
More money, means more money for doping. That money, along with basic old human nature, has and will affect the culture.
If some idiot Masters Cat 4 is going to dope their way to try and win a Gran Fondo, somebody will dope in rowing.
If you guys really were Olympic calibre, then I don't believe you if you didn't know at least one person you didn't have some suspicions about.
It isn't possible. Welcome to humanity.
Dave.
Good point re: professional rowing at the turn of the 19th Century. Yes, it was a huge professional enterprise with watermen racing up and down the country for huge cash prizes and much gambling. I'm sure many untoward things happened in JOLLY OLD BRITAIN. I really am not naive in that regard. I just didn't think it was particularly relevant to the discussion of modern rowing as the situations and circumstances are very different. Sure, there is money in rowing now. Perhaps about £40,000 a year if you are one of the best rowers in Britain - the best funded program currently. Hardly the hundreds of thousands/millions available in other sports. For the domestic rower or the national team hopeful it costs money. There is no prize money available.D-Queued said:
The GDR's doping system was unquestionably something which contributed to their success, but they were also so far ahead in every other regard - (non-doping) sports science and talent ID - that their success cannot be put down to doping alone. The British eight in 1976 ran the DDR eight very close for the gold medal and, knowing members of the national squad from that time, can be very certain that the British crew were not doping. World class clean performances against world class dopers are possible.
I'm not quite sure what your point about buzzer beats and 3-point-lines is. Yes, rowing is a very limited, closed-skill sport; 200 odd strokes all the same. BUT, and this was what I thought I was illustrating, this skill is the most important thing. Physicality is not everything. Wind, waves, wash from other crews, psychological advantages, crew cohesion. Variables.
I have never been Olympic calibre. I tried, but was not good enough (or perhaps I didn't dope enough). However I have raced with and trained with people who have been Olympic calibre, are Olympic calibre and have stood on all three steps of the dais. I have never seen anything to suggest I should be suspicious. Doping has never been discussed amongst the squads I've trained in other than in regard to athletes being caught and so on. I have lived and trained day in day out with one guy for two years and saw his physical performances move to Olympic standards. Perhaps he was sneaking off into the garden to inject himself when no one was looking. But I'm certain he was not.
People have doped in rowing. Off the top of my head about 6 years ago a Russian women's quad was disqualified, having won the world championships. But it's very rare. I am actually quite cynical by nature but when I see the evidence I have seen, doping in rowing does not stack up.
I've enjoyed reading this forum for quite a while. At its best I think it offers a fresh perspective on these issues not available elsewhere, given by people who know what they are talking about. That's why I felt I could contribute to this post. Posts on doping in cycling and other sports; I prefer to read the experts' ideas. At its worst, this forum consists of people seeing someone win something and post a 'rolleyes' face and write 'marginal gains lol' and call others naive.
AcademyCC said:
not at all, I'm saying people can reach both national and international level by training in a 25m pool.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram