Official London Olympics Doping thread

[JimmyFingers]

Since when are throwing money at a sport and doping mutually exclusive?

In fact i would argue that they come together. PEDS arent cheap, and going by the very succesful armstrong model they are most effective when used systematically and backed up with large ammounts of dough. to bribe authorities (and its not like the IOC is known for its unwavering honour) and to hire Ferrari like specialists, who can drastically reduce the health risks involved, helping eliminate the greatest reservation an athlete will hold towards doping - his own health.

That doesn't mean countries which throw money at sport are all doping (so that you cant accuse me of saying that because that is not what i am saying), but it certainly does eliminate the idea that throwing money at a sport is a total alternative to doping.

But the comment you make is some statement. As a poster in another thread commented, which i thought was witty, he cannot guarantee that his spouse is clean let alone anyone else.

There are a number of things thing about doping in sports that cycling fans who frequent the clinic have learnt over the years, over fans of other sports.

Most important to this discussion is probably the often overlooked survey of athletes from accross all sports a few years back which asked the question - would you be willing to lose years of your life for an olympic gold, to which over 90% answered yes.

Secondly is the greatly underestimated effect of performance enhancement drugs. Epo according to a Science of Sport article (and this is a drug from the cold war era) can give something like a 10% boost.

Then there is the determination by the sporting hiaarchy at large, to continue to be seen as clean (ie to cover up or avoid any doping scandals). We saw in Puerto for example that only a tiny fraction of dopers get caught.

You add the 3 together and you have a situation where anyone who is willing to take drugs is going to be given a huge advantage, and more often than not, those who want to compete will therefore have to go down the same path.

Now when you see sports where drugs wold have a huge impact, and yet absolutely no one is being caught with them, it is by no means a stretch to say doping is playing a role, and it is not irrational to be suspicious of countries making coordinated advancements accross these sports over a short period of time.

By the way you are not the only poster on here to be commenting from inside Britain. You would be surprised by how many of the posters who have commented in the last few pages are British, rather than the jealous ozzies/ frenchies/ germans, you seem to think they are.

The London that can be found in the top right hand corner of my poster bar for example is not the location of my holiday.

Yes to all of that, it is all a possibility. Better the greater likelihood is that money has enabled UK sport to sponsor and develop and coach talent like never before, without recourse to drugs. There are clean possibilities too, and nothing to condemn them utterly. For all of Sky's dominance in the tour, no analysis of numbers so far point to an unbelieveable physiological performance by its members, just innuendo and assumption.

The only really extraordinary performance by Team GB is on the track, but we are only continuing on our performance from Beijing. 8 golds there in case you forget. We have the form to back this up, in World Cup meets and World Championships.

I guess our successes may be surprising this Olympiad but for me there are expected, us realising our potential. It seems a fair few begrudge that, lazily thinking how could we beat the Africans, or how a white man can win the long jump, or how a young women's pursuit team on state-of-the-art bikes in the best and fastest velodrome ever built beat their own world record 3 times in a row.

Maybe because we're good. Just maybe.

 

[buckle]

I think you got me wrong: A fixed game by definition is a thrown game (like in badminton here) or a game where points/goals/runs are "shaved" to favour one side. The reasons are simple:
a.) Vegas loses big money when Team A beats B, so they have to make sure Team B wins. Done by bribing the refs and/or players.
b.) The mob bet big time money trou "birds" (to prevent suspicion on sportsbooks) on certain teams or players (tennis for example). They have to make sure "their" team wins. Done by bribing the refs and/or players.
c.) Certain teams/players wan´t to prevent a high ranked team in the next round. No need to bribe anyone, just lose baby. Example Gijon 1982 or badminton now.
c.) Governing organization needs certain team/player to advance to next round to gather more revenue. Done by bribing the refs and/or players...
So i think that´s what you mean. Certainly a fixed game between BRA & HON. I just need footage to confirm it. But i am almost sure: When you say 2 reds, the alert bells ring...

I take your point. One issue about Italy in 2006 was that no money was ever needed to bribe referees. It was simply understood that certain teams would advance. The same is true of tonight's game. This might seem incredible but it is undertood that Brazil need to play the latter stages of a tournament to maintain interest for neutrals. Eveyone buys into this including the referees.

 

[The Hitch]

Yes to all of that, it is all a possibility. Better the greater likelihood is that money has enabled UK sport to sponsor and develop and coach talent like never before, without recourse to drugs. There are clean possibilities too, and nothing to condemn them utterly. For all of Sky's dominance in the tour, no analysis of numbers so far point to an unbelieveable physiological performance by its members, just innuendo and assumption.

The only really extraordinary performance by Team GB is on the track, but we are only continuing on our performance from Beijing. 8 golds there in case you forget. We have the form to back this up, in World Cup meets and World Championships.

I guess our successes may be surprising this Olympiad but for me there are expected, us realising our potential. It seems a fair few begrudge that, lazily thinking how could we beat the Africans, or how a white man can win the long jump, or how a young women's pursuit team on state-of-the-art bikes in the best and fastest velodrome ever built beat their own world record 3 times in a row.

Maybe because we're good. Just maybe.

Stop charactarising any opinion you dont agree with as lazy. It is far more lazy to paint everyone who suggest doping is prevalent in sport as being anti british foreigners.


As for The Tour, I dont know why you insist on opening that can of worms here, but since you do, yes a guy who once upon a time said himself that winning time trials by 2 minutes to 5th place is a sure sign of doping, and then claims to no longer be a tt rider but starts winning time trials by 2 minutes to 5th place himself is suspicious. By his own logic,

And numbers differ based on athletes. For Andy Schleck the 2012 tour wattages would not have been special. For 4 guys all of whome have at one point or another ridden a tour de France in the gruppeto (wiggins 06 07, froome 08, Rogers 10, Porte 11 (all excepting froome 08 over the age of 25 as well)) to come out with those numbers is a little bit different.


I also fail to see why the romantiscised hollywood theory of passionate teamtalks and good nutrition are more likely explanations for performances in the 21st century, than drugs with 10% impact on performance.

And again why would they be mutually exclusive. Armstrong trained harder than everyone. He also doped harder than everyone. Those who really want to win leave no stone unturned.

Im also interested what you suggest the motivation for British athletes not to dope would be. Do you think the thought never enters their mind ? Are they scared of getting caught?
Or is it a moral objection?

If 90% of athletes would be willing to lose years of their life to win olympic gold, and the gold means everything to them, why would they not dope?

If you are as sure of your claim that there is no chance any of team gb dope, as you appear to be, you should have an asnwer to that question.

Maybe because we're good. Just maybe.

And what does good mean? Everyone born in the British isles is born with a little bit more talent than people born elsewhere?

Or is it the way we are brought up? What is it that makes people that come from this piece of earth better than those that come from another piece of earth?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I take your point. One issue about Italy in 2006 was that no money was ever needed to bribe referees. It was simply understood that certain teams would advance. The same is true of tonight's game. This might seem incredible but it is undertood that Brazil need to play the latter stages of a tournament to maintain interest for neutrals. Eveyone buys into this including the referees.

Yop. Soccer is rotten to the core. All over the world. It starts with chinas betting cyndicates and ends up in dictator Blatter´s office. It´s yet a little lower than olympics coz (mostly) guys there cheat at least to win. But nothing is worse than losing by intention and/or destroying every effort of paticipants knowingly before the match even takes place.

 

[buckle]

Yop. Soccer is rotten to the core. All over the world. It starts with chinas betting cyndicates and ends up in dictator Blatter´s office. It´s yet a little lower than olympics coz (mostly) guys there cheat at least to win. But nothing is worse than losing by intention and/or destroying every effort of paticipants knowingly before the match even takes place.

Doping is making the situation even worse. Like many, I had assumed that the culture of doping simply didn't exist in soccer. Spain and Barcelona have changed my thinking on that.

 

[Blakeslee]

While watching the poolside interview of the U.S. Women's relay team I still can't get over the astounding size of the shoulders on these women. Athletes or not something just doesn't look right.

I would love to see an investigative journalist look into what has been going on with the U.S. team. Something just doesn't sit right with how dominant the team has been (particularly the women).

 

[BroDeal]

While watching the poolside interview of the U.S. Women's relay team I still can't get over the astounding size of the shoulders on these women. Athletes or not something just doesn't look right.

I would love to see an investigative journalist look into what has been going on with the U.S. team. Something just doesn't sit right with how dominant the team has been (particularly the women).

We grow 'em big in America. All natural. The win at all costs attitude is for lesser nations, like those that would cheat with intentional cycling crashes, bogus rowing equipment failure, illegal cycling equipment, etc.

 

[Ferminal]

Plus there is heaps of money supporting US swimming.

 

[spalco]

Carl Lewis never ever had such abnormal Johnson/Armstrong/Wiggins/Froome-like performance jumps in performance.

And yet Carl Lewis was still fully doped up as well. What's your point?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I'm no long distance running expert but the guy since moving to Salazar has had some progress:
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=gbr/athcode=179892/index.html

Same for his buddy of course:
http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=usa/athcode=196507/index.html

Must be home advantage, for both that is...

 

[the big ring]

Yes to all of that, it is all a possibility. Better the greater likelihood is that money has enabled UK sport to sponsor and develop and coach talent like never before, without recourse to drugs

Do you know anyone who received funding via the lottery?
Do you know how any of the money was spent?

It's a nice blanket to throw on the fires of suspicion but it lacks a certain level of detail that would justify its use in this argument.

I know for a fact that female cyclists were paid via the lottery and it was almost enough to pay monthly rent.

 

[spalco]

I don't remember any suspicion against Canada for their exceptional Olympic success in 2010, and I don't really understand why Britain is treated differently now.

 

[the big ring]

I don't remember any suspicion against Canada for their exceptional Olympic success in 2010, and I don't really understand why Britain is treated differently now.

Winter olympics?

If Hesjedal's team had been Canadian and won 6/21 stages in the same year's TdF and put 2 men on the top steps of the podium they may have come under great scrutiny

 

[Stueyy]

I don't remember any suspicion against Canada for their exceptional Olympic success in 2010, and I don't really understand why Britain is treated differently now.

It's not just GB, it's every suspect performance at the Olympics and nationality has nothing to do with it. But discussing GB performances there are too many suspect performances where they have easily out performed the opposition for it not to be questioned. Brailsford and his management of British cycling to be able to dominate road and track cycling, it's one eyed patriotism to believe that it can be done clean and fairly. Believe me the rest of the world aren't mugs and are really trying their best.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Yes to all of that, it is all a possibility. Better the greater likelihood is that money has enabled UK sport to sponsor and develop and coach talent like never before, without recourse to drugs. There are clean possibilities too, and nothing to condemn them utterly. For all of Sky's dominance in the tour, no analysis of numbers so far point to an unbelieveable physiological performance by its members, just innuendo and assumption.

The only really extraordinary performance by Team GB is on the track, but we are only continuing on our performance from Beijing. 8 golds there in case you forget. We have the form to back this up, in World Cup meets and World Championships.

I guess our successes may be surprising this Olympiad but for me there are expected, us realising our potential. It seems a fair few begrudge that, lazily thinking how could we beat the Africans, or how a white man can win the long jump, or how a young women's pursuit team on state-of-the-art bikes in the best and fastest velodrome ever built beat their own world record 3 times in a row.

Maybe because we're good. Just maybe.

Or maybe it's a combination of both, seeing as talent + medical program has always been the requirement. Some talents will not need the medical program, some medical programs will not need as much talent to be plugged into them. There's a good chance that some are clean and some are not, but telling which is which is like throwing a deck of cards in the air and firing bullets at them unless the performances go Full Riccò.

You mention the Tour and that the performances weren't superhuman. But how does that mean that they weren't doping? Roy Sentjens was positive for EPO at the 2010 Vuelta after two weeks rolling around the grupetto! The sport is cleaner than it was in 1998; even those that are doping can't get away with what they used to get away with, so the performance advantage is less. Therefore, you don't need to dope to Pantani levels to get the same advantage over your opponents that he did.

After all, there are lots of ways to skin a cat.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

And yet Carl Lewis was still fully doped up as well. What's your point?

Instead of reading only the last post just get back a little more... Your post is out of context.

BTW, i highly doubt he (Lewis ) "was fully doped as well". To compare a cough medicine taker with a full out roid program of Dr Francis is a reach. He was running 10.0 at age 20 and improved only 0.07 seconds in the 80s. He even refused to go to high altitude events to get a cheap WR like Calvin Smith (who also looks pretty much nature). Ben Johnson OTOH improved from 10.7 to 9.7. I can´t help you if you can´t see the difference between a once in a century talent and a complete chemical monster. For starters: Look at pictures and footage of both. While Lewis never changed in physics (not even now at age 50+), Johnson went from skinny to alien back to skinny. And of course look at performance jumps...

I further doubt that a non payed amateur athlete could afford a full blown doping program in 1979 while attenting university, and still jumping 8.79 meters. Call me a fanboy or whatever. I can live with it. Almost all got that that naming at least once in the clinic. But i am sure he was the very last true clean(ish) above all superstars...

 

[spalco]

I'm not sure there's much difference ethically beteween doping a lot or only doping a little (and that's generous to Lewis to even say that). Cough sirup, really? Johnson may have had a more beastly physique than Lewis, but you really can't infer level of doping from that with any certainty.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Yes i can. It´s just not the same. Like you can´t compare riders of early 1900s who were adviced to smoke before racing (that´s actually negative doping; i still wonder how they made it trou 400 km stages then) to the high tech blood and epo fighting machines of the 2000s.

 

[Avoriaz]

I am trying to establish that the performance of the British athletes which exceed (other) people's expectation may be down to the natural advantages that performing at home in front of a home crowd affords. This is a widely-acknowledged truth of sport.

Jimmy, to back up your point I have done some analysis of hime country places in the medal tables since 1968. Obviously this won't be perfect due to i) the boycotts of '80 and '84, and ii) the merging of East and West Germany (where for the sake of analysis I only used West Germany to begin with).

Mexico: 15th in the medal table at their home games. Have averaged 40th place since then, with a spike of 17th in 1984 (where, arguably, LA could be considered as near to home as they will get)

(West) Germany: improved from 8th in 1968 to 4th in 1972. Have actually averaged 4th since then, but of course have been a unified Germany since 1992. Actually dropped off slightly since 2000

Canada: this one doesn't work. Since 1968 their worst actual showing was 27th at their home games in 1976

Russia: 1st in Moscow (no USA etc), but actually first at all games they were in from 1972 to 1992. Thereafter they have been Russia as opposed to Soviet Union or CIS. Averaged 4th since 1996

USA: 1st in LA and Atlanta. Prior to LA averaged 2nd

South Korea: 4th in Seoul. Prior to this their best was 10th in 1984, but averaged 23rd. Following Seoul they improved to an average 8th whilst never bettering the home score. Proof of home advantage, and a legacy in sport of hosting the games, arguably

Spain: Prior to Barcelona their average position was 28th. They were 6th in the 1992 medal table. Averaged 22nd thereafter

Australia: 4th in Sydney. previous average was 13th. Average 5th thereafter suggesting strong legacy (excluding current London table as only 19th so far)

Greece: 15th in Athens. Averaged 27th prior to this. Improvements started in 1992. 58th and 50th subsequently

China: 1st in Beijing. Average 10th before this. Currently 2nd in London

Great Britain: Currently 3rd in London. 4th in Beijing. Average of 14th prior to this, including the 36th place in Atlanta


Whilst not definitive proof, the above would suggest that home territory helps in the Olympics, and in many cases provides a legacy for better sporting performance in the future. Oddly Canada the only country to have underperformed at home

 

[sniper]

Jimmy, to back up your point I have done some analysis of hime country places in the medal tables since 1986. Obviously this won't be perfect due to i) the boycotts of '80 and '84, and ii) the merging of East and West Germany (where for the sake of analysis I only used West Germany to begin with).

Mexico: 15th in the medal table at their home games. Have averaged 40th place since then, with a spike of 17th in 1984 (where, arguably, LA could be considered as near to home as they will get)

(West) Germany: improved from 8th in 1968 to 4th in 1972. Have actually averaged 4th since then, but of course have been a unified Germany since 1992. Actually dropped off slightly since 2000

Canada: this one doesn't work. Since 1968 their worst actual showing was 27th at their home games in 1976

Russia: 1st in Moscow (no USA etc), but actually first at all games they were in from 1972 to 1992. Thereafter they have been Russia as opposed to Soviet Union or CIS. Averaged 4th since 1996

USA: 1st in LA and Atlanta. Prior to LA averaged 2nd

South Korea: 4th in Seoul. Prior to this their best was 10th in 1984, but averaged 23rd. Following Seoul they improved to an average 8th whilst never bettering the home score. Proof of home advantage, and a legacy in sport of hosting the games, arguably

Spain: Prior to Barcelona their average position was 28th. They were 6th in the 1992 medal table. Averaged 22nd thereafter

Australia: 4th in Sydney. previous average was 13th. Average 5th thereafter suggesting strong legacy (excluding current London table as only 19th so far)

Greece: 15th in Athens. Averaged 27th prior to this. Improvements started in 1992. 58th and 50th subsequently

China: 1st in Beijing. Average 10th before this. Currently 2nd in London

Great Britain: Currently 3rd in London. 4th in Beijing. Average of 14th prior to this, including the 36th place in Atlanta


Whilst not definitive proof, the above would suggest that home territory helps in the Olympics, and in many cases provides a legacy for better sporting performance in the future. Oddly Canada the only country to have underperformed at home

nice work avoriaz! great stat. and convincing.

we do have to (re)define 'home-advantage', though.
I think it's a correlate of factors which include:
- extra funding, and, as a result:
- better training faclilities in the run up to the games
- better 'programs'

I'm personally still not very convinced that 'additional motivation through home advantage' would in anyway important here, as JimmyFingers claims. Perhaps marginally. But any athlete participating in the games is maximally motivated, especially since there is so much money at stake.

In any case: in all of the above cases it is well possible that there may simply have been a strong increase of doping abuse during home games. After all, who wouldn't want to shine in front of the home crowd? The best 'motiviation' to take that extra pill.

 

[Avoriaz]

In any case: in all of the above cases it is well possible that there may simply have been a strong increase of doping abuse during home games. After all, who wouldn't want to shine in front of the home crowd? The best incentive to take that extra pill.

Definitely possible but harder to prove.

The attached shows doping positives by games and by country. Sadly not by games by country by year.

In the country table we do see Greece, USA, Russia and Spain towards the top. All of whom hosted games during the period under review. Unfortunately I can't tell if the positives correspond to their own games (or indeed if it is the Summer Olympics). We do know that Athens was the "most doped"

http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004420

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Great work avoriaz

I go with sniper here. Maybe (extra)doping played a role. But the real reson is, as he mentioned, the extra funding. If throwning billions in new stadiums etc., then of course throw some more to shine in the medal standings.

Montreal is a mystery. It might be coz those are called the first real steroid games. May they missed this in their preps for their games. But that would give spalco a point in his case against King Carl , since he came up after 1976.

Finally, homefield advantage exists all over the place (lowest in MLB, strongest in soccer), many statisticans looked for why, they still can´t explain it really. But it exists....

 

[Caruut]

Finally, homefield advantage exists all over the place (lowest in MLB, strongest in soccer), many statisticans looked for why, they still can´t explain it really. But it exists....

Well, there's the travelling, staying away from home could be a slight disadvantage. I would say that the differences between MLB an soccer aren't that hard to understand. Baseball is really a series of isolated events where individual players have very little tactical freedom and effort is relatively low.

Soccer on the other hand is more of a continuum. Players have a lot of tactical freedom - if they don't run somewhere they could claim it wasn't because they didn't bother, but because they thought it best not to. Players may well feel a sense of gratitude towards the fans that ultimately pay their wages, and so feel responsible to perform well. I think sports where individuals have tactical freedom and require a lot of effort are the ones in which the home team is going to have the most edge.

That's why I find it a bit difficult believing that there is significant home advantage from the crowd alone for many Olympic sports. Frankly, at an Olympic final an athlete has the chance to achieve greatness wherever they are competing. The motivation to do well should already be there.

Cycling is another sport where I think home advantage can play a big role - riders tend to put in more effort at races close to home. Pozzovivo winning his stage of the Giro, Pinot at the Tour this year and Lars Bak's attacks in Copenhagen are just a few example.

I think the main home advantage during the Olympics is, like you say, excessive funding. That is not to say the money isn't used to buy drugs, but I think it is extra money flowing in rather than athletes going rogue. The news coverage over the last week was pretty mopey until we got our first gold. Since then it has been almost universally positive on an Olympic front - in stark contrast to the seven years preceding. A little extra funding for the athletes goes a long way to making the games more publicly palatable.

 

[Ferminal]

Was half expecting Petrova to do a Froome.

 

[Lanark]

nice work avoriaz! great stat. and convincing.

we do have to (re)define 'home-advantage', though.
I think it's a correlate of factors which include:
- extra funding, and, as a result:
- better training faclilities in the run up to the games
- better 'programs'

I'm personally still not very convinced that 'additional motivation through home advantage' would in anyway important here, as JimmyFingers claims. Perhaps marginally. But any athlete participating in the games is maximally motivated, especially since there is so much money at stake.

In any case: in all of the above cases it is well possible that there may simply have been a strong increase of doping abuse during home games. After all, who wouldn't want to shine in front of the home crowd? The best 'motiviation' to take that extra pill.

I think the extra funding and training facilities have the biggest role. In most of those cases the organiser of the games has a great result, but usually do really good in the next couple of Games as well. That can easily explained by the increased funding for training facilities etc., it's harder to reason that a good doping increase in doping abuse during your own games still pays divdends 8 years later.