Olympics 2020 (2021): Harder to dope in Japan?

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The 400m hurdles was absolutely nuclear lmao. Will be interesting to see how fast the 400 flat goes.

I don't really get the state sponsored doping fuss. You don't need to be state sponsored if the mighty gods of capitalism fund your training camps and programs. Everyone who visits this forum should know the end result is the same.
I was shocked last night when I saw the event. That was as blatant as it can get. Really bad. What really looks bad is the Norwegian dude killing all the gazelles behind him!!!! LOL. How is that possible. He is smaller as well.
 
I was shocked last night when I saw the event. That was as blatant as it can get. Really bad. What really looks bad is the Norwegian dude killing all the gazelles behind him!!!! LOL. How is that possible. He is smaller as well.
This is the reaction in tweeter. Not good!
 
To be fair I don't think letting her hair grow and dyeing it would have been impossible for her in the 80s just because of PED usage. Also it's not weird that she doesn't have the same amount of muscle mass now. Not that I believe she wasn't fully doped at the time, cause she obviously was.
Never mind her hair (crikes, back then she didn't even shave her armpits or legs, let alone dye her hair), my main point is pointing out the drastic change in physique. Pictures of her post-competitive years are hard to find, but nowadays she looks like what you would expect from an aging, but still fit, woman. Back then, well, let your eyes be the judge.

She apparently does still do some coaching, which tells me she must not have come down with some very ill side effects of doping. Other athletes from that era were not so lucky.
 
Never mind her hair (crikes, back then she didn't even shave her armpits or legs, let alone dye her hair), my main point is pointing out the drastic change in physique. Pictures of her post-competitive years are hard to find, but nowadays she looks like what you would expect from an aging, but still fit, woman. Back then, well, let your eyes be the judge.

She apparently does still do some coaching, which tells me she must not have come down with some very ill side effects of doping. Other athletes from that era were not so lucky.
Sure, but I also think a lot of female athletes these days would look a lot more like men as well, if they cut their hair and stopped using modern beauty products. But of course it was way worse back then.
The throwers/shot putters will obviously always look more like the stereotypical image of a man than a runner will though (at least during competitions).
 
Sure, but I also think a lot of female athletes these days would look a lot more like men as well, if they cut their hair and stopped using modern beauty products. But of course it was way worse back then.
The throwers/shot putters will obviously always look more like the stereotypical image of a man than a runner will though (at least during competitions).
I'm not going to touch the female field athletes because I know very little about those events, but I think I know where you are coming from when it comes to what is generally expected for a modern female (athlete) to look like. (Crikes, they have to have perfect eyebrows too now? What is this world coming to...)

But riddle me this, when you see this body and physique sans the head, what gender do you think it is?

 
Why are you so certain? At the 1984 games the Soviet Union and East Germany state sponsored doping machines didn’t compete. America is obsessed with Baseball, American Football and Basketball. The Olympics is big but a once every 4 years side show.
there is no country that spends more on propaganda than US so that would be quite logical; I mean when cold war was still going on I dont think this is even a question.
 
Last edited:
Jul 14, 2017
18
21
2,580
Another 400m hurdles record smashed. Even the bronze would have been a new WR 2 months ago. Maybe the track is only 380 metres or something.
It looked hilarious, particularly as the run was clearly nothing extraordinary but rather a tight, even race of contestants with a casual 0.43 off the WR. I have no idea as I just can't get behind the logic where you can smash the 400m hurdles times but not the normal track runs. The "miracle shoes" sounds cool but also too naive.
 
Why are you so certain? At the 1984 games the Soviet Union and East Germany state sponsored doping machines didn’t compete. America is obsessed with Baseball, American Football and Basketball. The Olympics is big but a once every 4 years side show.
Other than adding NASCAR to the list of which sports Americans are obsessed with, I agree with this. The Olympics being a sports side show every 4 years I'd agree with also, although I'd include the swim and track Olympic trials to that list. College meets and worlds are rarely paid any attention to.

'84 LA was the USSR and East Germany basically repaying the US boycott of the '90 Moscow games. Thus the '84 Olympics became a ridiculous show in how many medals can the US get compared to medals given out. That record still stands. That's a record that will exceptionally difficult to better.
 
I have no idea as I just can't get behind the logic where you can smash the 400m hurdles times but not the normal track runs. The "miracle shoes" sounds cool but also too naive.
It makes no sense that the 400m hurdles WR has come down 2 seconds since the 400m flat WR was set, but anyone getting within a second of the flat WR has just run a remarkable time.
 
The explanation I understood was that the parameters were set based on them having enough data to make a conclusion re: the 400, 800, and 1500, but not enough data to include the 100 & 200 (yet). But I’m still trying to find a good source on that. Of course, we can surmise from the E. German medical studies about how well girls responded (performance wise) to large dollops of T, that a large amount of additional T will assist performance in virtually every event. Though I don’t know that there have been substantial studies on whether a naturally (endogenous?) high T level in women does the same for performance as T introduced to the system?
I think the studies that have been done about the impact of endogenous high T haven't really supported the IAAF ruling AFAIK. Little doubt adding T helps, but more doubt if high natural levels really helps (considering there are olympic male athletes under the barrier athletics have put in place).
 
It makes no sense that the 400m hurdles WR has come down 2 seconds since the 400m flat WR was set, but anyone getting within a second of the flat WR has just run a remarkable time.
47.6 is a crazy time. Everyone in the semis ran in the 49-50s range. Low 48 won the 2019 WC, but the winner is serving a ban and the runner-up, Miller, ran the 200m, so I don't think she is going to run her PB.

We talked a little about this topic above, but it should also be noted that the 400mH was not an olympic medal event until 1984.
 
surprised elaine thompson has not been mentioned here..winning 100/200m at back
to back olympics really is exceptional

i picture her 2 teamates glum faced after she won 100m....a look of disbelief that reminded me
of jumbo visma guys at last years tdf
Go back a couple of pages and you'll find plenty of mentions (and the same exact parallel with the Jumbo riders).
 
surprised elaine thompson has not been mentioned here..winning 100/200m at back
to back olympics really is exceptional

i picture her 2 teamates glum faced after she won 100m....a look of disbelief that reminded me
of jumbo visma guys at last years tdf

sure thompson is a talent but apart from olympics she's a lot quieter than SAFP...yes there has been injuries but surely these would make bouncing back harder?

Mark L
How this compares to Warholm winning?
I am sure most of them dope but Thompson winning 100 meters surely looks more believable than Warholm winning.
Wardholm winning must have turned on all alarms. IMHO!
 
How this compares to Warholm winning?
I am sure most of them dope but Thompson winning 100 meters surely looks more believable than Warholm winning.
Wardholm winning must have turned on all alarms. IMHO!
Warhol’s winning was not at all a surprise—he was the co-favorite and WR holder. It was the stunning amount of time he lopped off the old record that raised alarms. Though it appears it’s a really fast track surface helping produce WR or near WR (I.e., close to FloJo) times.
 
hm, well its pa personal guess; who do you think spends more on propaganda
Well, mine would also be a guess, as I don't think these are figures that are public! ;) I would expect when it comes to international propaganda apparatus, from a government source, China would be ahead. Not sure about other countries. Russia perhaps as well, considering so much is state-owned or at least state run. Also, not sure what the differences would even be between gross spending, and per capita spending. The latter might reveal even more significant surprises, who knows!

And just so I am 100% clear, I certainly do not think the US is Snow White or even close. Just want to keep the perspective balanced. While the specifics of what drives doping might appear different from country to country, there does seem to be one consistent characteristic, and that is power.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS