Official London Olympics Doping thread

[roundabout]

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

Thing is, it has always been that way it seems.

 

[Stueyy]

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?

It's more like what measures a home Olympics team will go to to win... So there is your home team advantage.

 

[sniper]

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

this argument fails, at least wjhen we compare doped with clean athelets.

Does Wolverhampton have a better home record than Chelsea? Nope.
A doped football team will always have a better home record than a clean football team.

 

[The Hitch]

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

I dont agree. we look at the facts and form our own opinions. There is a lot we dont know about these athletes that only they can know and a lot that we dont know about the science behind what they do.

My personal opinion is that doping is involved, and I can back that opinion up with arguments based on what i do know about doping and its role in sport taken from articles, previous cases and interviews with people who have been involved in it.

But it is definately going the wrong way about it to say that a performance is doping, end of, if only because engaging in discussions is the best way to learn and strenghen ones own arguments.

 

[JimmyFingers]

this argument fails, at least wjhen we compare doped with clean athelets.

Does Wolverhampton have a better home record than Chelsea? Nope.
A doped football team will always have a better home record than a clean football team.

err, nonsense? I mean if you were to compare a football team's home records against their away records you would find in I'm sure every case it is better. Home advantage, again surely that's not an unacceptable paradigm

 

[The Hitch]

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

If football games were decided on who can do best in a bleep test, or who can lift the largest weight over their shoulders, rather than a mix of physicality, tecnique, tactics and willingness to throw your body into danger, i would suspect that home advantage would be significantly less important.

You are far more likely to be improve your ability of smashing your body into an upcoming striker if the crowds is behind you, and gain confidence to do it again when they cheer you the first time, than you are likely to increase your 100m pb. You are also less liklely to make that pass without a bunch of people shouting "you are a ****er" and booing you when you have the ball.

In athletics everyone hears the same buzzing noise, and your job is to push your body to the limit.

Btw didnt the track cyclists say that when they are in the zone they cant hear anything anyway.

 

[saosinfangirl]

Mo Farah's last 400m pre-Salazar (berlin 5000m) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajn_LeOetPI&feature=player_detailpage#t=244s

Now, he and his training partner faster than Bekele

 

[sniper]

err, nonsense? I mean if you were to compare a football team's home records against their away records you would find in I'm sure every case it is better. Home advantage, again surely that's not an unacceptable paradigm

see my previous post. your argument, though correct and true and all, simply doesn't apply to this discussion.
A clean team may have a better home than away record, but still have a lousy home record compared to another team that dopes.

 

[JimmyFingers]

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.

I think you are trying to stretch the point. Yes there are no quantifiable physical advantages to playing at home but psychologically there must be. The answer simply isn't because of all home teams dope. And there is a concomittant disadvantage to travelling sides: increased nerves, lack of familiarity, hostile crowd.

There are contrasting pressures applied to home and away team, one generally advantageous, one the opposite. Athletes performing well and exceeding expectations on home soil can be explained easily without recourse to nefarious means. And it certainly isn't evidence of it.

 

[sniper]

If football games were decided on who can do best in a bleep test, or who can lift the largest weight over their shoulders, rather than a mix of physicality, tecnique, tactics and willingness to throw your body into danger, i would suspect that home advantage would be significantly less important.

You are far more likely to be improve your ability of smashing your body into an upcoming striker if the crowds is behind you, and gain confidence to do it again when they cheer you the first time, than you are likely to increase your 100m pb. You are also less liklely to make that pass without a bunch of people shouting "you are a ****er" and booing you when you have the ball.

In athletics everyone hears the same buzzing noise, and your job is to push your body to the limit.

Btw didnt the track cyclists say that when they are in the zone they cant hear anything anyway.

it's also the travelling for away games that plays a role in football, as it can cause fatigue prior to the game.

doesn't seem to play a major role at the olympics, since everyone, including the brits, stay in the same village.

 

[JimmyFingers]

see my previous post. your argument, though correct and true and all, simply doesn't apply to this discussion.
A clean team may have a better home than away record, but still have a lousy home record compared to another team that dopes.

So a team that dopes will have a better record generally than a team that doesn't? That is a given. I don't see your point: 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.

You seem to be saying yes sports teams have better home records that away ones, but teams that dope are even better. Please clarify if you actually have a relevant point.

 

[The Hitch]

I think you are trying to stretch the point. Yes there are no quantifiable physical advantages to playing at home but psychologically there must be. The answer simply isn't because of all home teams dope. And there is a concomittant disadvantage to travelling sides: increased nerves, lack of familiarity, hostile crowd.
.

Umm it wasnt me who said the all teams dope thing it was someone else, so i dont know why you direct that at me.

There are contrasting pressures applied to home and away team, one generally advantageous, one the opposite. Athletes performing well and exceeding expectations on home soil can be explained easily without recourse to nefarious means. And it certainly isn't evidence of it

Exactly. In football there are clear distinctions between the cheers the home team gets - when they score/ have the ball/ make a good save etc, and the silence or even booes that the other team gets.

In the olympics, one could see that it could have an effect in 1 on 1 sports say tennis or judo etc.

But in mass start events, everyone hears the same indistinguishable buzz.

Then theres the tecnhique thing. Crowd pressure can rattle you when you have to make that difficult shot/ pass/ backfilp etc. When its just a case of running your lungs out to the point where you are sick, the surroundings are of far smaller importance.

Another point about home and away in football is the travel. The away team has a journey to undertake to get there. In olympics all the athletes arrive long in advance and get used to their surroundings and all that.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Exactly. In football there are clear distinctions between the cheers the home team gets - when they score/ have the ball/ make a good save etc, and the silence or even booes that the other team gets.

In the olympics, one could see that it could have an effect in 1 on 1 sports say tennis or judo etc.

But in mass start events, everyone heres the same indistinguishable buzz.

Another point about home and away in football is the travel. The away team has a journey to undertake to get there. In olympics all the athletes arrive long in advance and get used to their surroundings and all that.

Again stretching points to fit your paradigm. You are assuming athlete response to crowd noise, and trying to establish a rigid relationship between the two. I would say it is something indefinable really, and it is a very flimsy argument. And clearly British athletes are not winning everything, so it isn't a definitive advantage, all-conquering: more like an advantage, a psychological edge that can push a talented athlete to personal bests.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

One of my first memories of athletics was the battle between Carl Lewis and Mike Powell in the Worlds in 91 in Tokyo. Powell broke the world record with a jump of 8.95 and himself and Lewis had many intense battles over the years. That was some rivalry. We will never see jumping like that again in our lifetime.

Yeah, and he (Carl) dominated Powell until this lucky (good) punch. To that date he was unbeaten in 10 years in 65 something long jump events. BTW, he owned Powell after that jump too until his final magic in Atlanta 1996. Thanks god i saw the greatest natural athlete alive in the stadium. I had to buy the ticket for 200 USD from some obscure ukraine black market dealer. Anyway it was worth it. Still thrilling the awesome 80.000 crowd concentrating on the long jump event. Because you are right, we´ll never ever witness clean(ish) superstar athlets again...But hey, i enjoyed the long jump today. It was lousy (performance wise) but surely clean(ish). The 100 m alien race OTOH i´ll soon have forgotten.

Thing is, it has always been that way it seems.

Yeah, sad but true.

I dont agree. we look at the facts and form our own opinions. There is a lot we dont know about these athletes that only they can know and a lot that we dont know about the science behind what they do.

My personal opinion is that doping is involved, and I can back that opinion up with arguments based on what i do know about doping and its role in sport taken from articles, previous cases and interviews with people who have been involved in it.

But it is definately going the wrong way about it to say that a performance is doping, end of, if only because engaging in discussions is the best way to learn and strenghen ones own arguments.

Yes we know a lot. 50% of 100-WR holders since 1988 got caught doping, and the other 50% are highly doubtful thanks to Heredia, Conte, Kelli White´s admission and so on. So we still somehow agree it seems.

 

[JimmyFingers]

From the inside looking out, as a resident of Britain and someone who follows most sport, the GB performance is extremely good, but not unexpected. our strong disciplines are reaping expected rewards, and our most talented athletes are delivering. I wonder if the surprise comes from a dim recognition of Britain's prowess at certain sports, but none of it is out of the blue.

It is a such a lazy assumption to put an entire country's athletic success down to doping. Our sporting traditional is solid, in the Olympics and other sports like rugby and cricket. I suspect there is arrogance on display from other countries comfortable with a pre-concept of British sporting ineptitude, an easy stereotype to apply and form a basis of a easy dismissal of when we get it right.

In the last decade or more we have had a lot of money to throw at sport through the national lottery. That has propelled through the ranks, not doping.

 

[buckle]

I have just seen highlights of Brazil v Honduras in the ridiculous soccer tournament which has attached itself to the modern Olympics. Honduras endured two red cards and a penalty decision. One of the "red cards" was within the first 30 minutes. The second 'yellow' of the second "red card" was a dive. I guess it means another full house to watch Brazil in the semis. If WWIII breaks out next year and I am zapped within the first 30 minutes of hostilities I shall not complain.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I have just seen highlights of Brazil v Honduras in the ridiculous soccer tournament which has attached itself to the modern Olympics. Honduras endured two red cards and a penalty decision. One of the "red cards" was within the first 30 minutes. The second 'yellow' of the second "red card" was a dive. I guess it means another full house to watch Brazil in the semis. If WWIII breaks out next year and I am zapped within the first 30 minutes of hostilities I shall not complain.

So it was fixed?

 

[sniper]

So a team that dopes will have a better record generally than a team that doesn't? That is a given. I don't see your point: 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.

You seem to be saying yes sports teams have better home records that away ones, but teams that dope are even better. Please clarify if you actually have a relevant point.

I agree with hitch that the parallel with football is nice but doesn't really work out.
And never will home advantage cause a clean guy to prevail over a doper.

But ok, granted, it could definitely be an added positive factor in the present olympics, at least for some brittish athletes, and provided the playing field is level.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I have just seen highlights of Brazil v Honduras in the ridiculous soccer tournament which has attached itself to the modern Olympics. Honduras endured two red cards and a penalty decision. One of the "red cards" was within the first 30 minutes. The second 'yellow' of the second "red card" was a dive. I guess it means another full house to watch Brazil in the semis. If WWIII breaks out next year and I am zapped within the first 30 minutes of hostilities I shall not complain.

$hit, can´t find any footage on ARD or ZDF. And youtube i won´t even try, since the IOC basterds block anything anyway. Hope you can provide some offical links. I mean i am sure the game was fixed from what i hear what you say. but i just wanna confirm myself with the next scandal in the "athlets/coaches/refs olympic oath games".

 

[JimmyFingers]

I agree with hitch that the parallel with football is nice but doesn't really work out.
And never will home advantage cause a clean guy to prevail over a doper.

But ok, granted, it could definitely be an added positive factor in the present olympics, at least for some brittish athletes, and provided the playing field is level.

Ok so I need clarity still: you are saying that a doped football team playing away will always beat a clean team playing at home?

Even if that were true, how does it add to this argument? GB are playing at home, where does the model fit?

 

[mb2612]

Ok so I need clarity still: you are saying that a doped football team playing away will always beat a clean team playing at home?

Even if that were true, how does it add to this argument? GB are playing at home, where does the model fit?

Always is a useless word, these things change the odds, but almost never is such a comprehensive way that the result is beyond question.

Home advantage can be a help or hindrance to the athletes depending on their own psychology, but in general I am sure it gives a very minor advantage.

As far as Britains success has gone, the press here hypes up the athletes so much that it is impossible to tell who is a real medal hope and who has had one good result but in reality is nowhere. I was under the impression reading the newspapers that the women's swimming team had multiple gold medal contenders, and in reality delivered two golds from 1 person.

As far as Mo Farah and Rupp goes, they both have improved beyond recognition under the tutelage of Alberto Salazar. I don't know much about him, or if he is doing anything special, but that jumps out to me as something that has to be looked at more closely.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Always is a useless word, these things change the odds, but almost never is such a comprehensive way that the result is beyond question.

Home advantage can be a help or hindrance to the athletes depending on their own psychology, but in general I am sure it gives a very minor advantage.

As far as Britains success has gone, the press here hypes up the athletes so much that it is impossible to tell who is a real medal hope and who has had one good result but in reality is nowhere. I was under the impression reading the newspapers that the women's swimming team had multiple gold medal contenders, and in reality delivered two golds from 1 person.

As far as Mo Farah and Rupp goes, they both have improved beyond recognition under the tutelage of Alberto Salazar. I don't know much about him, or if he is doing anything special, but that jumps out to me as something that has to be looked at more closely.

I was under the impression that Britain has won no golds in the pool, and our best hope Adlington was beaten into bronze in her two events, both of which she achieved gold in in Beijing. The 800m was Ledecky, a 15 year old American. Sooo, what was that about doped athletes winning away?

I joke btw, just joining in the fun.

I know nothing about Rupp, just that someone has mentioned his PB is better than the time he ran tonight. Mo is a successful racer and was a realistic gold medal chance going into this race, no surprise here he won.

I do hate this 'how could he have beaten the Africans' crap though (not you)

 

[buckle]

$hit, can´t find any footage on ARD or ZDF. And youtube i won´t even try, since the IOC basterds block anything anyway. Hope you can provide some offical links. I mean i am sure the game was fixed from what i hear what you say. but i just wanna confirm myself with the next scandal in the "athlets/coaches/refs olympic oath games".

Foxxy - nothing is ever fixed in soccer. There are a series of understandings as the calciopoli scandal of 2006 revealed. The key issue is ticket sales. Unlike Honduras, Brazil can fill a stadium. In 2006, the Italian variant was advertising space sales on games covered by TV stations. In other words, they wanted the most attractive and glamorous fixtures in order to generate bigger revenues. This corruption was presented by the Anglo-Saxon media to their moronic audiences as Mafia inspired corruption straight out of Hollywood. It was nothing of the sort and tonight's "fix" is an example of what was going on in Italy back then and continues to take place in other countries unchecked.

 

[The Hitch]

In the last decade or more we have had a lot of money to throw at sport through the national lottery.That has propelled through the ranks, not doping.

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.

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.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Foxxy - nothing is ever fixed in soccer. There are a series of understandings as the calciopoli scandal of 2006 revealed. The key issue is ticket sales. Unlike Honduras, Brazil can fill a stadium. In 2006, the Italian variant was advertising space sales on games covered by TV stations. In other words, they wanted the most attractive and glamorous fixtures in order to generate bigger revenues. This corruption was presented by the Anglo-Saxon media to their moronic audiences as Mafia inspired corruption straight out of Hollywood. It was nothing of the sort and tonight's "fix" is an example of what was going on in Italy back then and continues to take place in other countries unchecked.

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...