Official London Olympics Doping thread

[Libertine Seguros]

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

Ben Johnson won two bronzes in the 1984 Olympics (100m and 4x100 relay), won two silvers in those events in the 1982 Commonwealth Games and two golds in them in the 1986 ones, as well as a World Indoor Championship at 60m.

The ridiculous time he pulled in the Seoul final may have been out of nowhere, but him being up at the top of the sport wasn't.

 

[JimmyFingers]

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

As you said, he has had the form for the last two years, he was regarded in this country as a strong contender

 

[The Hitch]

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.

You dont see the clear advantages that hosting a sporting event in the pre globalization age would offer?

Never mind one that came right after the war.

How many countries would have the structure in place to train athletes for years, then send them all the way to London to compete in an event which if they were lucky they had 2 journalists to write about of which the report would come back home a month later.

 

[Stueyy]

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.

That's a fine imperialist view, why the hell aren't GB beating those little yellow peasants as well?

 

[roundabout]

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.

Farah certainly improved a lot in the last 2 years or so. And the track cycling tradition may have only picked up in the last decade.

 

[Frosty]

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

Are most 100 metre runners nowadays more muscular?

 

[JimmyFingers]

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.

Hasn't he run the distance faster? Wasn't it a slow pace overall? I am no student of distance running, but it wasn't a world record, it wasn't an amazingly fast race. We can't just say 'he's white, he can't have done it'

 

[JimmyFingers]

That's a fine imperialist view, why the hell aren't GB beating those little yellow peasants as well?

I'm sorry I don't have a clue what you are saying

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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?

As we know, the more techniqual the event, the less doping effect. That´s why cycling, running, and swimming of course, have such tremendous dope problems. I guess Ben Johnson never ever would have cracked 8.00. He was just chemical. If Bolt would try, he´d give up after one day. Nothing to gain for him there, but humiliation.
-------------------------------
Back to the "white guys (alledegly) can´t jump" issue. Look at skinny Edwards who shattered the triple record. He must have been clean(ish). I mean he looked less than ASchleck...

 

[JimmyFingers]

You dont see the clear advantages that hosting a sporting event in the pre globalization age would offer?

Never mind one that came right after the war.

How many countries would have the structure in place to train athletes for years, then send them all the way to London to compete in an event which if they were lucky they had 2 journalists to write about of which the report would come back home a month later.

So you are saying in sport, performing in front of a home crowd holds no advantage?

 

[The Hitch]

Hasn't he run the distance faster? Wasn't it a slow pace overall? I am no student of distance running, but it wasn't a world record, it wasn't an amazingly fast race. We can't just say 'he's white, he can't have done it'

The fact that it was a slower pace overall does not matter. Even in a slower pace the strongest guys will come to the fore.

This isnt a time trial where rupp posted 27.20 or whatever and no one else could beat it. The time is mostly irrelevant. The previous 24 laps even when run outside world record pace tire everyone out, so the people capable of challenging the world record, are the ones who have the most energy left in them going into the final lap to kick away.

 

[JibberJim]

The fact that it was a slower pace overall does not matter. Even in a slower pace the strongest guys will come to the fore.

You're posting on a cycling forum and you actually believe that? So why isn't contador winning bunch sprints?

 

[sniper]

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.

Generally, I find the British avalange of medals a bit suspect, but I agree the 10km and long jump weren't suspect in any sense.

I definitely assume blooddoping is a sine-qua-non for the 10km.
But as you say that doesn't make the british performance on the 10km particularly suspect, since the guy had been and still was in top form.

The long jump may well have been clean of course.

I thought Ennis' performnance more suspect. PErhaps a bit too dominant.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Farah certainly improved a lot in the last 2 years or so. And the track cycling tradition may have only picked up in the last decade.

So an athlete can't improve over a career, perhaps change his training, nutrition, counselling etc?

Track cyling in the UK started with Boardman, it was identified by the BOA as an area we could win medals and shedloads of money has been pumped into it. We have the best bikes and the athletes we are seeing now are after a long period of development. It's easy to sneer at it but after Beijing no-one should be surprised at it, 8 golds there.

 

[The Hitch]

So you are saying in sport, performing in front of a home crowd holds no advantage?

It can hold an advantage, but at the same time the cheer of the crowd is not going to increase your physical capabilities. It wont give you more red blood cells, it wont make your muscles bigger and it wont improve your lactate threshold. it can help you fight the pain a bit more, but that has only ever really given small advantages,

Take the rower who got 3rd yesterday as an example (not saying anyone there was or was not doping, just a fitting image). The home crowd helped push him through the pain to edge out that bronze medal fight by a whisker. That is where it helps. But they did not help him come close to the guys who were fighting for silver and gold. Why? Because the other guys were simply better physical athletes.

And at the end of the day the fractions more some athletes can get out of themselves in front of a home crowd (and many can do it without a home crowd as well), is peanuts compared to what doping can do.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Generally, I find the British avalange of medals a bit suspect, but I agree the 10km and long jump weren't suspect in any sense.

I definitely assume blooddoping is a sine-qua-non for the 10km.
But as you say that doesn't make the british performance on the 10km particularly suspect, since the guy had been and still was in top form.

The long jump may well have been clean of course.

I thought Ennis' performnance more suspect. PErhaps a bit too dominant.

The medal expectation here was actually greater, no golds in the pool for example. Ennis is the best heptathlete out there, has won worlds although silver most recently, and might have won in 2008 had she been fit.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Are most 100 metre runners nowadays more muscular?

Sure! By a mile (ok, "woman" by lightyears ). Just have a look outside of Bolt, and compare them to Lewis and Calvin Smith....

Still no way Bolt is a 9.58 runner when all guys (pre-doping-heaven 1990/2000s) before him had problems to just shave 0.01 seconds off the 1968 WR. I guess (that´s all i can do) Bolt is max 9.90 natural. Also seen in his sudden jumps in performance from 2007-2008 in 100s and 200s. Carl Lewis never ever had such abnormal Johnson/Armstrong/Wiggins/Froome-like performance jumps in performance.

 

[noddy69]

Can someone give a reasonable explanation to me re swimming. A number of 15 year old girls are smashing times and athletes who have years of training and strength on them. While I certainly dont want to cry doping as I dont know the facts, what is it about swimming that young women seem easily able to overcome physically stronger opponents ? serious question.

 

[JimmyFingers]

And at the end of the day the fractions more some athletes can get out of themselves in front of a home crowd (and many can do it without a home crowd as well), is peanuts compared to what doping can do.

For me here you are trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. You can't quantify how the baying of a home crowd might effect an athlete's performance but hopefully you can conceptualise it. The Olympics are the pinnacle of most athlete's career, a gold something they dream of. An Olympics on home soil? Times that by a thousand, so rare and unlikely it is. Adrenaline, spirit, passion, desire, call it what you want but to deny home advantage is to deny a fundamental truth of sport. Surely I'm not alone in this opinion?

 

[The Hitch]

You're posting on a cycling forum and you actually believe that? So why isn't contador winning bunch sprints?

Because that is cycling and this is running.

The effect slipstream has on people running at 20km/h is like 1% of the effect slipstream has on cyclists going at 50-60km/h.

In fact I think the Contador example can work.

Contador (or schleck or whoever) can be the fastest up a mountain top to bottom.

But he doesnt have to do a mountain in world record pace to win it. He can sit in a group for 15km at a slower pace and go in the last 1km and still drop everyone.

Why. Because as the better climber the previous 15km tired him less.

Same way in a 10 000m race the Bekele of old had the 10 000m record, but in any championship race he would just wait until the last 300 and 200m and still beat everyone. Because, as the best 10 000m runner he was the least tired over the previous 9700 m.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Ben Johnson won two bronzes in the 1984 Olympics (100m and 4x100 relay), won two silvers in those events in the 1982 Commonwealth Games and two golds in them in the 1986 ones, as well as a World Indoor Championship at 60m.

The ridiculous time he pulled in the Seoul final may have been out of nowhere, but him being up at the top of the sport wasn't.

He was beaten by Carl by 0.20 (!!!!) seconds in 1984 & even more in comparing the heats of the 83-WC. Then he improved dramatically at a realitive high age from 1985 on. The Armstrong syndrome. Just unreal. Good he got busted, and now people spit on Carl just b/c of some cough medicine compared to a full blown roid program.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Just to continue my argument for home advantage, simply look at football: any European football team has a favourable record at home. Just a given

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Can someone give a reasonable explanation to me re swimming. A number of 15 year old girls are smashing times and athletes who have years of training and strength on them. While I certainly dont want to cry doping as I dont know the facts, what is it about swimming that young women seem easily able to overcome physically stronger opponents ? serious question.

Why not? It´s obvious and it´s the clinic. So feel free...

 

[sniper]

For me here you are trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. You can't quantify how the baying of a home crowd might effect an athlete's performance but hopefully you can conceptualise it. The Olympics are the pinnacle of most athlete's career, a gold something they dream of. An Olympics on home soil? Times that by a thousand, so rare and unlikely it is. Adrenaline, spirit, passion, desire, call it what you want but to deny home advantage is to deny a fundamental truth of sport. Surely I'm not alone in this opinion?

neither 'form' nor 'home advantage' come close to the benefits of blooddoping at longer distances.

of course, form and home advantages are important marginal gains in a level playing field. but if the field isn't playing level, the clean guy is gonna end at the end of the pack.

 

[The Hitch]

He was tipped for a bronze before the race on Sky Sports News by Jon Ridgeon. I don't think he was totally unfancied.

Ok I underestmiated Rupp and i appologise for that, though i will say that in something like athletics, the performances one has in other compeitions are not worth quite as much as those in the worlds and especially olympic games, when it comes to who will perform in an olympic final.

For me here you are trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. You can't quantify how the baying of a home crowd might effect an athlete's performance but hopefully you can conceptualise it. The Olympics are the pinnacle of most athlete's career, a gold something they dream of. An Olympics on home soil? Times that by a thousand, so rare and unlikely it is. Adrenaline, spirit, passion, desire, call it what you want but to deny home advantage is to deny a fundamental truth of sport. Surely I'm not alone in this opinion?

Yes home advantage is very important.

There you got that out of me.

But I would say that this advantage is weaker in an olympic games where every athlete wants gold desperately.

and i will repeat that home advantage is not going to increase someones physical capabilities and at the end of the day, in the events one has at the olympics, where it ultimately comes down to pushing your body to its absolute limits, those whose thresholds are greater are ultimately going to come out on top whether they think that the the loud uncomprendable noise in their ears is being directed with good wishes towards them or not.