Olympics Doping Thread

[Lyon]

As per usual the Brits have success on the track and the same old baseless accusations start.

Like the road team, there's not been slight shred of evidence to warrant the accusations, other than incredible and unprecedented success. Success that is now ongoing for 10+ years.

The Norwegian Skiing Miracle has been ongoing for 20+ years, you Brits are late to the party.

 

[JetSet]

Just take a look at the medal table for swimming. The US has more medals than the 2-6 nations combined. Katie Ledecky just crushed the 800m freestyle. This sort of domination makes the East Germans look like schoolboys/schoolgirls.

America has pretty much dominated Olympic swimming for as long as I can remember and that goes back to 1964 at Tokyo. They have a 300 million population (East Germany had 16 million) and facilities that are second to none. For example The U.K has just 10 Olympic sized swimming pools, there are more than that in Los Angeles alone and I would estimate The US as a whole has several hundred. There was a period when Australia were up there with them but they've just not kept up and they have 57 Olympic sized pools.

Pete

 

[Brullnux]

As per usual the Brits have success on the track and the same old baseless accusations start.

Like the road team, there's not been slight shred of evidence to warrant the accusations, other than incredible and unprecedented success. Success that is now ongoing for 10+ years.

I'd proffer a suggestion that 1) the advent of lottery funding, 2) the building of a national cycling centre and 3) the building of a backroom team who brought innovation to cycling in the late 90s may actually offer some kind of explanation for the latter day success.

Though all in all I get great joy from the collective nashing of teeth at Team GB's success. Long may it reign.

The Russian athletics success went on for a good 40+ years. Oh wait.

 

[bigcog]

As per usual the Brits have success on the track and the same old baseless accusations start.

Like the road team, there's not been slight shred of evidence to warrant the accusations, other than incredible and unprecedented success. Success that is now ongoing for 10+ years.

I'd proffer a suggestion that 1) the advent of lottery funding, 2) the building of a national cycling centre and 3) the building of a backroom team who brought innovation to cycling in the late 90s may actually offer some kind of explanation for the latter day success.

Though all in all I get great joy from the collective nashing of teeth at Team GB's success. Long may it reign.

The Russian athletics success went on for a good 40+ years. Oh wait.

With all due respect, I doubt that the british cycling success of the last decade has been orchestrated at a government level, do you ?

 

[John Deathly]

GB Rowing and GB Cycling - got the funding from national lottery, used it well, more funding flows for the next Olympic cycle. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory every time they win, sometimes money talks. The set ups in Caversham and Manchester are both impressive.

Of course they're going to peak every four years, when else would they peak? Maybe the question is why did the others not peak properly?

 

[sniper]

Re:

GB Rowing and GB Cycling - got the funding from national lottery, used it well, more funding flows for the next Olympic cycle. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory every time they win, sometimes money talks. The set ups in Caversham and Manchester are both impressive.

Of course they're going to peak every four years, when else would they peak? Maybe the question is why did the others not peak properly?

what conspiracy theory?

 

[bigcog]

Re:

GB Rowing and GB Cycling - got the funding from national lottery, used it well, more funding flows for the next Olympic cycle. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory every time they win, sometimes money talks. The set ups in Caversham and Manchester are both impressive.

Of course they're going to peak every four years, when else would they peak? Maybe the question is why did the others not peak properly?

I think part of it is due to other countries seeming to also concentrate on winning at the world championships every year, whereas the UK almost use that as training for the Olympics, for the track at least.

 

[Soggy Chamois]

Re:

GB Rowing and GB Cycling - got the funding from national lottery, used it well, more funding flows for the next Olympic cycle. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory every time they win, sometimes money talks. The set ups in Caversham and Manchester are both impressive.

Of course they're going to peak every four years, when else would they peak? Maybe the question is why did the others not peak properly?

What does peaking properly look like? What are the actual steps involved in that?

 

[BullsFan22]

Perhaps they didn't peak at all? Maybe they actually weren't at their best. Maybe everyone else missed THEIR peak?

 

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

How to explain the plunging team pursuit times? I remember the record getting smashed at the worlds in about '93 - not sure why, but the time always stuck in my head: 4.03something.

Now it's 3.50something. The game of teams pursuit was to find milliseconds. Sub 4 minutes looked basically impossible; like running sub 9 seconds for the 100 metre sprint. The limits of physiology.


By '93 all the aero stuff was already there - aero bars et al. I don't see how technical advances could explain such massive reductions in time. Aero bars etc would explain some big shifts from '80's into '90's.

Still loads of technical+scientifical advancement. Not only in bikes etc but also in the track itself

13 seconds worth? I hadn't considered the track before.

What % of the gains is attributable to external technical advancements do you think?

 

[BullsFan22]

As per usual the Brits have success on the track and the same old baseless accusations start.

Like the road team, there's not been slight shred of evidence to warrant the accusations, other than incredible and unprecedented success. Success that is now ongoing for 10+ years.

I'd proffer a suggestion that 1) the advent of lottery funding, 2) the building of a national cycling centre and 3) the building of a backroom team who brought innovation to cycling in the late 90s may actually offer some kind of explanation for the latter day success.

Though all in all I get great joy from the collective nashing of teeth at Team GB's success. Long may it reign.

The Russian athletics success went on for a good 40+ years. Oh wait.

With all due respect, I doubt that the british cycling success of the last decade has been orchestrated at a government level, do you ?

We don't know if the Russian government involved itself at all and we don't know that the British government did or didn't involve itself in the success of its athletes in the lead up to London and beyond.

 

[The Hegelian]

As per usual the Brits have success on the track and the same old baseless accusations start.

Like the road team, there's not been slight shred of evidence to warrant the accusations, other than incredible and unprecedented success. Success that is now ongoing for 10+ years.

I'd proffer a suggestion that 1) the advent of lottery funding, 2) the building of a national cycling centre and 3) the building of a backroom team who brought innovation to cycling in the late 90s may actually offer some kind of explanation for the latter day success.

Though all in all I get great joy from the collective nashing of teeth at Team GB's success. Long may it reign.

1. So no one else is funded?
2. No one else has a national cycling centre?
3. No one else has a backroom team capable of cognition?

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

GB Rowing and GB Cycling - got the funding from national lottery, used it well, more funding flows for the next Olympic cycle. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory every time they win, sometimes money talks. The set ups in Caversham and Manchester are both impressive.

Of course they're going to peak every four years, when else would they peak? Maybe the question is why did the others not peak properly?

what conspiracy theory?

I was under the impression from your posts that you thought British Cycling and Sky are doped to the gills and are using advanced doping techniques/technology (micro dosing new forms of EPO, genetic doping, GW1516, AICAR), plus hidden motors and also have the UCI in their back pocket. So that would appear to be a number of conspiracies actually. Or do you disagree and now think they are just using asthma inhalers, albeit publicly, which contain some new wonder dopage ?

 

[The Hegelian]

And err, no one else peaks for the Olympics.

Yes, that must be it!

 

[bigcog]

As per usual the Brits have success on the track and the same old baseless accusations start.

Like the road team, there's not been slight shred of evidence to warrant the accusations, other than incredible and unprecedented success. Success that is now ongoing for 10+ years.

I'd proffer a suggestion that 1) the advent of lottery funding, 2) the building of a national cycling centre and 3) the building of a backroom team who brought innovation to cycling in the late 90s may actually offer some kind of explanation for the latter day success.

Though all in all I get great joy from the collective nashing of teeth at Team GB's success. Long may it reign.

The Russian athletics success went on for a good 40+ years. Oh wait.

With all due respect, I doubt that the british cycling success of the last decade has been orchestrated at a government level, do you ?

We don't know if the Russian government involved itself at all and we don't know that the British government did or didn't involve itself in the success of its athletes in the lead up to London and beyond.

The original poster said "The Russian athletics success went on for a good 40+ years. Oh wait", so he was comparing the past and current democratic governments of the UK with the USSR and puppet governments such as the GDR, which we know had doping programmes controlled at the highest levels in the past.

 

[TheSpud]

As per usual the Brits have success on the track and the same old baseless accusations start.

Like the road team, there's not been slight shred of evidence to warrant the accusations, other than incredible and unprecedented success. Success that is now ongoing for 10+ years.

I'd proffer a suggestion that 1) the advent of lottery funding, 2) the building of a national cycling centre and 3) the building of a backroom team who brought innovation to cycling in the late 90s may actually offer some kind of explanation for the latter day success.

Though all in all I get great joy from the collective nashing of teeth at Team GB's success. Long may it reign.

The Russian athletics success went on for a good 40+ years. Oh wait.

With all due respect, I doubt that the british cycling success of the last decade has been orchestrated at a government level, do you ?

We don't know if the Russian government involved itself at all and we don't know that the British government did or didn't involve itself in the success of its athletes in the lead up to London and beyond.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/18/wada-report-russia-sochi-winter-olympics

 

[bigcog]

As per usual the Brits have success on the track and the same old baseless accusations start.

Like the road team, there's not been slight shred of evidence to warrant the accusations, other than incredible and unprecedented success. Success that is now ongoing for 10+ years.

I'd proffer a suggestion that 1) the advent of lottery funding, 2) the building of a national cycling centre and 3) the building of a backroom team who brought innovation to cycling in the late 90s may actually offer some kind of explanation for the latter day success.

Though all in all I get great joy from the collective nashing of teeth at Team GB's success. Long may it reign.

1. So no one else is funded?
2. No one else has a national cycling centre?
3. No one else has a backroom team capable of cognition?

Of course not but the UK didn't have much in the way of any of this until lottery funding started. Hence the big improvement.

 

[BullsFan22]

As per usual the Brits have success on the track and the same old baseless accusations start.

Like the road team, there's not been slight shred of evidence to warrant the accusations, other than incredible and unprecedented success. Success that is now ongoing for 10+ years.

I'd proffer a suggestion that 1) the advent of lottery funding, 2) the building of a national cycling centre and 3) the building of a backroom team who brought innovation to cycling in the late 90s may actually offer some kind of explanation for the latter day success.

Though all in all I get great joy from the collective nashing of teeth at Team GB's success. Long may it reign.

The Russian athletics success went on for a good 40+ years. Oh wait.

With all due respect, I doubt that the british cycling success of the last decade has been orchestrated at a government level, do you ?

We don't know if the Russian government involved itself at all and we don't know that the British government did or didn't involve itself in the success of its athletes in the lead up to London and beyond.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jul/18/wada-report-russia-sochi-winter-olympics

Yeah? A nice political ploy to keep Russia down. It didn't work with the Maidan coup in November 2013, it didn't work with Sochi, it didn't work with the 'Ukrainian invasion' that Victoria Nuland is still trying to convince people of, it didn't work with the Dutch Airliner, it didn't work with Syria...let's try and see if we can move to sports and see if that sticks?

If we want to compare the Russians winning the overall medal table, let's also compare China getting a record number of medals (in their country's history) at home Olympics in 2008, Canada's record number of medals (in their country's history) at home Olympics in 2010, and Great Britain's record number of medals (in their country's history) at home Olympics in 2012. You see where that's going?

 

[Lyon]

As per usual the Brits have success on the track and the same old baseless accusations start.

Like the road team, there's not been slight shred of evidence to warrant the accusations, other than incredible and unprecedented success. Success that is now ongoing for 10+ years.

I'd proffer a suggestion that 1) the advent of lottery funding, 2) the building of a national cycling centre and 3) the building of a backroom team who brought innovation to cycling in the late 90s may actually offer some kind of explanation for the latter day success.

Though all in all I get great joy from the collective nashing of teeth at Team GB's success. Long may it reign.

The Russian athletics success went on for a good 40+ years. Oh wait.

With all due respect, I doubt that the british cycling success of the last decade has been orchestrated at a government level, do you ?

We don't know if the Russian government involved itself at all and we don't know that the British government did or didn't involve itself in the success of its athletes in the lead up to London and beyond.

The original poster said "The Russian athletics success went on for a good 40+ years. Oh wait", so he was comparing the past and current democratic governments of the UK with the USSR and puppet governments such as the GDR, which we know had doping programmes controlled at the highest levels in the past.

What about the comparison with the success of the Norwegian cross-country skiiers? It seems a very apt comparison as the story of the British miracle reads almost like a copy of the earlier Norwegian one, even down to the growing arrogance, pseudo-science and inbreeding.

The talking points among the fans are also remarkably similar. As is the anger when someone from the outside points to some inconvenient truths.

 

[doolols]

And don't forget that success begets success. Gold medals captures the public attention, brings people into the sport, attracts more funding, better coaches, etc etc. Focussing on the olympics brings rewards.

 

[bigcog]

[quote="Lyon"
What about the comparison with the success of the Norwegian cross-country skiiers? It seems a very apt comparison as the story of the British miracle reads almost like a copy of the earlier Norwegian one, even down to the growing arrogance, pseudo-science and inbreeding.[/quote]

Might be but I don't know much about the Norwegian story to be able to compare. Think I read somewhere that some of them supposedly had genetically high levels of haemocrit which sounds suspect. What's the inbreeding aspect ?

 

[Lyon]

[quote="Lyon"
What about the comparison with the success of the Norwegian cross-country skiiers? It seems a very apt comparison as the story of the British miracle reads almost like a copy of the earlier Norwegian one, even down to the growing arrogance, pseudo-science and inbreeding.

Might be but I don't know much about the Norwegian story to be able to compare. Think I read somewhere that some of them supposedly had genetically high levels of haemocrit which sounds suspect. What's the inbreeding aspect ?[/quote]
Which cannot be expected of course. The point is that explanations like 'money for research', 'scientific approach', 'bringing in expertice from other sports', 'focusing on the olympics' etc. has been used to explain similar dominance in a similarily miniscule sport, in a similar buildup to a home olympics, by another nation sometimes winning gold in said sport but never dominating to such an extent.

 

[BullsFan22]

[quote="Lyon"
What about the comparison with the success of the Norwegian cross-country skiiers? It seems a very apt comparison as the story of the British miracle reads almost like a copy of the earlier Norwegian one, even down to the growing arrogance, pseudo-science and inbreeding.

Might be but I don't know much about the Norwegian story to be able to compare. Think I read somewhere that some of them supposedly had genetically high levels of haemocrit which sounds suspect. What's the inbreeding aspect ?

Which cannot be expected of course. The point is that explanations like 'money for research', 'scientific approach', 'bringing in expertice from other sports', 'focusing on the olympics' etc. has been used to explain similar dominance in a similarily miniscule sport, in a similar buildup to a home olympics, by another nation sometimes winning gold in said sport but never dominating to such an extent.[/quote]


But the Norwegians DO dominate in cross country skiing. They've done so since the late 80's, early 90's, effectively after Gunde Svan retired. That incidentally coincided with EPO being ushered into the mainstream in the 80's (Conconi, Donati, Ferrari, the Finns...). The Swedes were nowhere to be found in the 90's, apart from an individual breakthrough at race here or at a race there. And the Russian men as well. Only Prokurorov and Botvinov (before he switched for Austria) had managed to consistently threaten podium spots and fight among the top 10 or so places. The other Russians hardly anything until Ivanov broke through as a young WC skier in the late 90's/early 2000's. The Norwegians just kept dominating. It's funny though, how Muehlegg got popped in 2002. Like Floyd Landis and Ben Johnson before him. He just went way too fast not to be busted. When the Norwegians place 1-2-3 at World's, like they did in 2003 and 2005, ho-hum. They also swept the Albertville 1992 30km. Ho-hum. The Russians sweep a 50km in Sochi aaaaand they are doping!!!

 

[Brullnux]

As per usual the Brits have success on the track and the same old baseless accusations start.

Like the road team, there's not been slight shred of evidence to warrant the accusations, other than incredible and unprecedented success. Success that is now ongoing for 10+ years.

I'd proffer a suggestion that 1) the advent of lottery funding, 2) the building of a national cycling centre and 3) the building of a backroom team who brought innovation to cycling in the late 90s may actually offer some kind of explanation for the latter day success.

Though all in all I get great joy from the collective nashing of teeth at Team GB's success. Long may it reign.

The Russian athletics success went on for a good 40+ years. Oh wait.

With all due respect, I doubt that the british cycling success of the last decade has been orchestrated at a government level, do you ?

We don't know if the Russian government involved itself at all and we don't know that the British government did or didn't involve itself in the success of its athletes in the lead up to London and beyond.

The original poster said "The Russian athletics success went on for a good 40+ years. Oh wait", so he was comparing the past and current democratic governments of the UK with the USSR and puppet governments such as the GDR, which we know had doping programmes controlled at the highest levels in the past.

I really don't believe that the doping is orchestrated at a government level, I really don't think they care at all about what UKADA, British Cycling etc. do. I was challenging the perception that I though had been made that success for 10 years in a row means that it isn't a one off and so is clean. Not that there are government officials involved. It is though government funded. Accidentally, perhaps, but still.

 

[wansteadimp]

Re:

How to explain the plunging team pursuit times? I remember the record getting smashed at the worlds in about '93 - not sure why, but the time always stuck in my head: 4.03something.

Now it's 3.50something. The game of teams pursuit was to find milliseconds. Sub 4 minutes looked basically impossible; like running sub 9 seconds for the 100 metre sprint. The limits of physiology.


By '93 all the aero stuff was already there - aero bars et al. I don't see how technical advances could explain such massive reductions in time. Aero bars etc would explain some big shifts from '80's into '90's.

That leaves us with what? The old sports science chestnut?? Or just: everyone is innately more talented now?? Or somehow funding itself equates to massive shavings off the WR?

If the bold is a prediction I'm grabbing the popcorn!!!