Official London Olympics Doping thread

[Frosty]

Oh and i kind of hope this continues as i would love a open top bus parade to celebrate all the golds Britain win ala Canada vancouver 2010, as it would be great to see real athletes get some recognition here, and not just spoilt brat footballers.

Yeah, thats always the best thing about the Olympics for me. Premiership starts in a fortnight's time though so it wont last long this time.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

What's up with long jumping anyway? No money to be won?

And where did all the people who beat the Olympic champion last year go? All 14 of them

Pretty much dead since King Carl, the cough-medicine-only-taker left the scene. The winner jumps got shorter and shorter. From Saladino to Phillips to 8.31 meters. In 2016, a 8.00 jumper will win. But it´s good, he must be clean without a doubt.

 

[roundabout]

Re GB,

Beijing was their second most successful Olympics after 1908, but which one was the third best?

I mean, I can go google it up, but maybe someone knows the answer here?

 

[thehog]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/five_rin...mping_shorter_distances_.html?wpisrc=obinsite

I think the drugs explanation makes the most sense. I mean Florence Griffith-Joyner, Jackie Joyner-Kersee and Galina Chistyakova were clearly drugged up to the brim. It's no coincidence their ancient records still stand.

But I would like Bolt or some of the other Jamaicans at least try the long jump. Maybe they don't get the record, but 8.31? Come on...

8.31 is woeful to win Gold. Seriously it's poor. No way that guy is a doper unless he's a 7.50 at best jumper and jacked.

 

[Mellow Velo]

He was favorite in Britain because he is British

Its not like Bolt coming in as olympic champion, or Rudisha who is the world champion even Ennis as a former world champion.

Farah is a 29 year old who has never won a major title over this distance, and until 2 years ago was pretty much a nobody.

Oh and his totaly unfancied training partner comes 2nd.

Nice.
Bring up clean Jamaican sprinting in to bolster your argument.

Rupp unfancied? The guy has run 26'-48" for the 10,000.

3 golds tonight, but I can't see GB winning any more.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I hope Felix finally gets her 200 m gold medal. She looks shockingly normal for a top tier sprinter (unlike everyone else at that level), so I'm gonna go ahead and just assume she's the cleanest.

That´s why i like her. As said before, she must be a real natural talent like Ashford. All the other bodybuilders running 100-400 are freaks.

 

[roundabout]

Pretty much dead since King Carl, the cough-medicine-only-taker left the scene. The winner jumps got shorter and shorter. From Saladino to Phillips to 8.31 meters. In 2016, a 8.00 jumper will win. But it´s good, he must be clean without a doubt.

Yeah, but the sprints seem to get faster. Sure, a sprinter doesn't necessarily make a great long jumper, but still a decline is puzzling.

No (Ed. less) monetary incentive to dope?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Re GB,

Beijing was their second most successful Olympics after 1908, but which one was the third best?

I mean, I can go google it up, but maybe someone knows the answer here?

Errm, I think it might well be Athens, 2004, but I'm not sure.

 

[spalco]

Yeah, but the sprints seem to get faster. Sure, a sprinter doesn't necessarily make a great long jumper, but still a decline is puzzling.

No (Ed. less) monetary incentive to dope?

Women's sprints aren't getting much faster either, are they?

 

[No_Balls]

But he's always clearly had talent, African-born who has been the man to beat largely for those last two years. My favourite British gold

How good then with someone like Salazar giving that extra "push".

 

[Stueyy]

err, home field advantage? (and I hate to use an Americanism)

Clearly performing on home soil in front of very vocal and passionate support lifts athletes. Listen to that crowd cheer Ennis as she receives her gold and tell me that doesn't drive you forward to greater endeavour?

I find it hard to understand why GB's achievements are so difficult to take: we did finish fourth in the medal table in Beijing, and now many of the same athletes are in front of a home crowd. Plus lottery money has pumped huge amounts of funding into UK sport. But the easier explanation is of course dope, every last man(and women)-jack of them.

I just think that is crazy

Who said they were clean at Beijing. Doping certainly isn't restricted to GB but it certainly appears the cyclists and rowers are over achieving. Perhaps some are clean but realistically there wouldn't be many gold winners that are as you'd need to be beating competitors that are dirty so at this level you need a genetic advantage which I doubt many realistically would have.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

How is a clean white guy going to jump 8.31?

Josef Schwarz for example, 8.35 meters, 42 years ago and not from east germany...

 

[JimmyFingers]

As a youth in my local library I spent an afternoon going through an Olympic history book (this would be in the 1980s) and totting up the medals Britain won, and the one we won the most was the 1948 Olympics. Guess where that was.

 

[mb2612]

Women's sprints aren't getting much faster either, are they?

That was the fastest sprint ever by a country mile, if you sum the times of the eight athletes

 

[JibberJim]

Oh and his totaly unfancied training partner comes 2nd.

Played into his hands with the style of race though - it was slow with surges and Rupp managed to ignore those run a steadier pace and has always had a finish.

The long jump thing is odd though - why are the distances so short at the minute - if there are drugs around which a lot of folk know are undectable for the 100m runners - why aren't there any long jumpers on the same program? Whilst it's not exactly the same event of course, being able to run faster will make you jump longer if you can jump.

 

[The Hitch]

err, home field advantage? (and I hate to use an Americanism)

Clearly performing on home soil in front of very vocal and passionate support lifts athletes. Listen to that crowd cheer Ennis as she receives her gold and tell me that doesn't drive you forward to greater endeavour?

I find it hard to understand why GB's achievements are so difficult to take: we did finish fourth in the medal table in Beijing, and now many of the same athletes are in front of a home crowd. Plus lottery money has pumped huge amounts of funding into UK sport. But the easier explanation is of course dope, every last man(and women)-jack of them.

I just think that is crazy

Difficult to take?

Stop trolling.

Some people here may hate GBs performances, personally, I love nothing more than to see athletes getting some media attention for once and not spoilt brat footballers like the other 206 weeks of every leap year cycle.

Either way you have no idea how people feel about GBs performances, all you know is that they make observations about what they are seeing.

As for home field advantage, its been suggested on here, long before the olympics hit london, that doping has played a part in home nations excelling. We know for sure that the US in 84 were doped to the eyeballs and there was much speculation as to how Spain won about as many medals in BArcelona as in all previous olympics put together, and have managed to continue placing higher in furute games.

and there is a big difference between countries excelling because NEW talents were motivated by the possiblilty of competing in home olympics, and existing athletes suddenly making huge progressions, which is what we find controversial here.

Are we to believe that all these athletes were previously approaching their proffession half assed? No, they always wanted to win. thats what they devote their lives too and they have a very limited career window to make the maximum of their talent. Suddenly improving midway through a career when the games hit home is suspicious.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Nice.
Bring up clean Jamaican sprinting in to bolster your argument.

Rupp unfancied? The guy has run 26'-48" for the 10,000.

3 golds tonight, but I can't see GB winning any more.

On the other hand, there may be a real crest-of-a-wave thing where the big successes of the likes of Ennis and Farah early on spur their teammates on as it gets the crowd into it, rather than if those events were last and the crowd got restless at a lack of home success putting more pressure on those athletes.

 

[roundabout]

Errm, I think it might well be Athens, 2004, but I'm not sure.

You are right. 1984 was boycotted so that doesn't count.

 

[The Hitch]

Played into his hands with the style of race though - it was slow with surges and Rupp managed to ignore those run a steadier pace and has always had a finish.

The long jump thing is odd though - why are the distances so short at the minute - if there are drugs around which a lot of folk know are undectable for the 100m runners - why aren't there any long jumpers on the same program? Whilst it's not exactly the same event of course, being able to run faster will make you jump longer if you can jump.

Drugs dont neccesarily have to be undetectable.

Doping in training to be able to train longer and then going clean into the games itself, is still doping in that it improves your performance.

Then there is the corruption option which many dismiss as conspiracy theory, but which we saw with Armstrong in cycling and repeated cases in tennis as well as possibly Barcelona in football, clearly has a record.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Rupp unfancied? The guy has run 26'-48" for the 10,000.

People seem to be unaware of, or simply ignore form. They saw a British athlete and a white guy beat the Africans, ergo doping. Quod erat demonstratum.

And assuming performance on the basis on ethnicity is a dangerous path to tread.

 

[The Hitch]

Nice.
Bring up clean Jamaican sprinting in to bolster your argument.
.

The discussion was not about drugs but about whether or not Farah deserved to be classed as a favorite before the race.

 

[JibberJim]

Errm, I think it might well be Athens, 2004, but I'm not sure.

Depends how you measure it - in ranking on the table (non US system where golds rank first) it was Athens and Sydney tied but Sydney had more medals. On total medals, the boycotted LA games there were more. Basically '96 Atlanta was a disaster but since then they have steadily improved - funding was increased for all UK Sport via Lottery money which started coming in right around 1996, of course if the money is for better training/talent development/secret bikes/ or just the best doctors doesn't really say much about doping itself.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/five_rin...mping_shorter_distances_.html?wpisrc=obinsite

I think the drugs explanation makes the most sense. I mean Florence Griffith-Joyner, Jackie Joyner-Kersee and Galina Chistyakova were clearly drugged up to the brim. It's no coincidence their ancient records still stand.

But I would like Bolt or some of the other Jamaicans at least try the long jump. Maybe they don't get the record, but 8.31? Come on...

I think they don´t have a arms race there: As long nobody comes out of nowhere (like Ben Johnson did in the 100s), the guys don´t risk getting caught. And it´s very technical (other than running or swimming strict straight on roids). Look at King Carl´s beautiful "air steps" in long jump compared to the jumping of today. It´s a night day difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyThXWLVkkc

 

[roundabout]

People seem to be unaware of, or simply ignore form. They saw a British athlete and a white guy beat the Africans, ergo doping. Quod erat demonstratum.

And assuming performance on the basis on ethnicity is a dangerous path to tread.

Well, it's the first time that a white guy got a medal since 1988. Maybe it was expected, I dunno, but it's still an achievement.

 

[JimmyFingers]

As for home field advantage, its been suggested on here, long before the olympics hit london, that doping has played a part in home nations excelling. We know for sure that the US in 84 were doped to the eyeballs and there was much speculation as to how Spain won about as many medals in BArcelona as in all previous olympics put together, and have managed to continue placing higher in furute games.

and there is a big difference between countries excelling because NEW talents were motivated by the possiblilty of competing in home olympics, and existing athletes suddenly making huge progressions, which is what we find controversial here. Suddenly improving midway through a career when the games hit home is suspicious.

So we are simply guilty because it has happened before. And which athletes are suddenly improving 'midway' through their career? Ennis? The rowers? The cyclists? The sailors? The boxers? The hockey players? The eventing? Aren't the sports we are winning in the ones we are traditionally strong in? We have aproud tradition on the track too. We have the best male triathletes too. I don't understand why you are trying to paint this success as unprecedented.