Olympics Doping Thread

[The Hegelian]

Re: Re:

My view is that right athletes/right trainers/right approach/no shortage of money=success.
Sure, drugs might be in the mix.

And that, my friends, is the end of the discussion. It is absolutely the case, and there is no further need for argument It is not denying the use of drugs, but highlights that funding and targeting are major factors.

Can we make value judgements about that though?

I'll make a few: 1. we're watching finance materialised in bodies, not sporting competition. 2. there's absolutely nothing interesting about it - it's the death of sport as sport. 3. the kind of politically generated nationalism at play is very depressing. It's the Eastern Bloc all over again, but this time the capitalist west needs to generate internal unity in a time when everything is fragmented and divided (brexit...). What an impoverished form of pseudo unity.

 

[kwikki]

Problem with that argument is th at Brexit happened 6 weeks ago and was utterly unforeseen. The push for success at the Olympics didn't begin on June 28th.

It's nothing to do with a recent desire unity. It's to do with enormous UK affluence around the millennium that opened up interest in blowing wads of cash on vanity projects.

Nothing wrong in that in itself, the UK has a precarious relationship with the balance between physical activity and an obesity epidemic. Pushing success at sport is just part of an attempt at cultural shift against this.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

My view is that right athletes/right trainers/right approach/no shortage of money=success.
Sure, drugs might be in the mix.

And that, my friends, is the end of the discussion. It is absolutely the case, and there is no further need for argument It is not denying the use of drugs, but highlights that funding and targeting are major factors.

Farah just won his 3rd gold medal. Murray is going to get silver at best. Sky have won 4 of the last 5 TDF's. Are GB outfunding everyone in those sports?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

My view is that right athletes/right trainers/right approach/no shortage of money=success.
Sure, drugs might be in the mix.

And that, my friends, is the end of the discussion. It is absolutely the case, and there is no further need for argument It is not denying the use of drugs, but highlights that funding and targeting are major factors.

Farah just won his 3rd gold medal. Murray is going to get silver at best. Sky have won 4 of the last 5 TDF's. Are GB outfunding everyone in those sports?

TeammGB are just training harder than everyone else, I am sorry Hitch that you don't believe in miracles....... :lol:

 

[kwikki]

My view is that right athletes/right trainers/right approach/no shortage of money=success.
Sure, drugs might be in the mix.

And that, my friends, is the end of the discussion. It is absolutely the case, and there is no further need for argument It is not denying the use of drugs, but highlights that funding and targeting are major factors.

Farah just won his 3rd gold medal. Murray is going to get silver at best. Sky have won 4 of the last 5 TDF's. Are GB outfunding everyone in those sports?

"GB" doesn't fund Team Sky, Sky does. And yes, they out fund all other teams. Murray was funded by his parents. Interestingly he has called for a withdrawal of funding for young players so that they have to fight for success.

But apart from that you are probably spot on with whatever point it was that you were trying to make.

 

[Benotti69]

for tired and worn out excuses from athletes for doping we have a thread

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7170&start=100

<yawn>

 

[movingtarget]

Russia and The 1984 Olympics

http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pgFWq+1dkB9Zeasgyl5kyisqNsV1hchRZ99fJEMjBZWXU6g92ihKV8GjSSKxzqbm5FuBq5OybVa2p09Qt4U3OUp/32OgB9a1JG80D3xDZoD9UYQb+z/4Z3VpGmY2liCPrKlYhFIVDO2IGTSVzpic2PKg==&campaign_id=129&instance_id=80550&segment_id=93620&user_id=12d98412e3bcc0522f6cfbf4c21c54e6&regi_id=42685115

 

[AlbineVespuzzio]

Clearly the americans are not doping in the marathon (women).

A thread "Americans don't dope" should be opened.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Efimova ending her Olympic experience with plenty of sour grapes. At the end of the day, she seems to be taking no responsibility for what happened to her in the past.

"It was like a nightmare," Efimova told USA Today Sports on Saturday night. "This completion [of the program] is a relief because I love racing, but this was more like a war. It was awful. She (King) is young, but she should understand more."

Hyperbole, much?

The 24-year-old Efimova was repeatedly booed in the aquatic center at Rio. She told USA Today Sports that she found it unfair that Russians were singled out for criticism. She also said she may reconsider living and training in Southern California based on her reception.

Tough life, kid....

http://www.espn.com/olympics/swimming/story/_/id/17298729/yulia-efimova-russia-unhappy-lilly-king-united-states-turned-olympics-war

 

[Blakeslee]

It's not a big improvement. It's a totally astonishing shift from being cycling minnows - track and road - to being utterly, utterly dominant, always, almost without a blip, in every big race that really matters. On a world-historical footing, in the last decade, Brits have produced the greatest cyclists ever, full stop. Look at Froome's climbing times + the constantly smashed track records. Champion after champion is unearthed - once in a generation talents have been discovered, across the disciplines, both men's + women's at a rate virtually unseen before.

Well said. Others in this thread keep calling for definitive evidence. There may not be definitive evidence, but there really is no legitimate explanation for what you outlined above.

I can't believe so many posters are willing to buy into the targeting argument. Didn't we see enough of this is road cycling with Lance Armstrong and the Postal Service team?

 

[thehog]

It's not a big improvement. It's a totally astonishing shift from being cycling minnows - track and road - to being utterly, utterly dominant, always, almost without a blip, in every big race that really matters. On a world-historical footing, in the last decade, Brits have produced the greatest cyclists ever, full stop. Look at Froome's climbing times + the constantly smashed track records. Champion after champion is unearthed - once in a generation talents have been discovered, across the disciplines, both men's + women's at a rate virtually unseen before.

Well said. Others in this thread keep calling for definitive evidence. There may not be definitive evidence, but there really is no legitimate explanation for what you outlined above.

I can't believe so many posters are willing to buy into the targeting argument. Didn't we see enough of this is road cycling with Lance Armstrong and the Postal Service team?

Armstrong & team dominated the Tour. Here we have something much bigger. It's the Tour, most one week stages races and most events on the track for men and women.

Impressive.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re:

Efimova ending her Olympic experience with plenty of sour grapes. At the end of the day, she seems to be taking no responsibility for what happened to her in the past.

"It was like a nightmare," Efimova told USA Today Sports on Saturday night. "This completion [of the program] is a relief because I love racing, but this was more like a war. It was awful. She (King) is young, but she should understand more."

Hyperbole, much?

The 24-year-old Efimova was repeatedly booed in the aquatic center at Rio. She told USA Today Sports that she found it unfair that Russians were singled out for criticism. She also said she may reconsider living and training in Southern California based on her reception.

Tough life, kid....


http://www.espn.com/olympics/swimming/story/_/id/17298729/yulia-efimova-russia-unhappy-lilly-king-united-states-turned-olympics-war

Racing against the US swim team that's full of dopers isn't easy. Whether or not the first offense was intentional or not, she was punished for it and served her sentence. The holier-than-though Americans are chomping at the big, as if they've just discovered that doping in swimming happens. I am sure King, Ledecky, and Phelps know all about doping though.

 

[doolols]

I see what started off as a general Olympics doping thread has become yet another Brit-bashing thread. As if there weren't enough of them already.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Track is the lowest hanging fruit at the Olympics. Many medals available, talent pool so shallow it barely qualifies as a paddling pool, no other countries devoting significant resources to it. Quite aside from the issue of drugs - and I am in no way vouching for any athlete's cleanliness - it would be surprising if dominance couldn't be achieved simply by throwing large amounts of money over a prolonged period at a tiny sport nobody else cares about.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Racing against the US swim team that's full of dopers isn't easy. Whether or not the first offense was intentional or not, she was punished for it and served her sentence. The holier-than-though Americans are chomping at the big, as if they've just discovered that doping in swimming happens. I am sure King, Ledecky, and Phelps know all about doping though.

Ehhh? She wasn't racing against any of the USA team in the 200m breaststroke final. King barely made the semis.

The bolded is a total straw man. Accusations have been a part of swimming historically. None of these swimmers are that naive. This might be the first time that they have been asked about it at the Olympics, though.

Like it or not, the facts are that none of King's teammates tested positive or were under investigation while Efimova and 6 others were going to be held out for Russia based on past tests or investigations.

Here is what a Canadian swimmer said about the inclusion of those 7.

"For an athlete that's clean, it's really frustrating for me to see that," Canadian swimmer Ryan Cochrane said. "Once the games are over, that's something we'll all look back on and (wish) was handled better throughout the quadrennial, not just before the Olympics."

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Well, in addition to that, you have the simple fact that for the majority of riders outside of sprint specialists, track is a stepping stone. Obviously in many cases it's the same for the Britons - as shown with Thomas, Kennaugh and so on - but in many cases less so (you wouldn't argue that most countries' track specialists are as integral to their countries' fans' attachment to the sport as the likes of Hoy or Pendleton are for the Britons - that goes for legends of the sport like Sercu even); for riders outside of the absolute elite or the specialist countries, why would you dedicate your life to track only to get stomped to all quarters at all the important championships? Competing in events where you know you have no chance is no fun, whereas on the road there's a much bigger set of variables that enables you to get something out of events you're not truly competitive in, for example stage wins from breakaways, secondary jerseys and so on. For our hypothetical young rider, from (pick a country at random: Austria, that'll do) surely it is much better to do a few Six Days here and there, and then look to compete on the road in the short to mid length time trials, sprints and stage hunting, since there's more money in 5th places on the road than 5th places on the track?

What we have with track cycling is a system which is analogous to the late 70s and early 80s amateur racing scene, after the advent of Open races in the west. In the Eastern Bloc, riders couldn't turn pro except in exceptional circumstances (such as when Lech Piasecki was "traded"), so what you were seeing was the cream of the East German, Soviet, Czech/Slovak and Polish riders coming in to batter French, Italian, West German, Belgian, Dutch espoirs, because the top riders from Western Europe who matched up well against the Olaf Ludwigs and Piotr Ugrumovs of this world would swiftly be picked up by pro teams, while in the "Open" races, these were big targets for the Eastern riders, as one of the few occasions they could compete with the pros, but only warmup races for the professionals, which also affected results (see the 1981 Tour of Luxembourg for an example). You'd also see Eastern 'amateurs' with a decade's experience competing in the Tour de l'Avenir or the Giro delle Regioni, while western amateurs with that much experience were difficult to find as the majority would have quit long before that point if they hadn't progressed enough to turn pro.

When you are winning plenty, there's plenty of reason to stick to what you're doing. Ed Clancy and Laura Trott are now very experienced cyclists who, if they were from, say, Belgium, or Italy, would probably be doing far more international road racing and may not be even competing on the track right now - at least not to the extent that they are. They ride UK domestic calendars, mainly crits and short circuit races, which complements their track skillsets well, whereas if they were on Continental teams in, say, France, or Italy, they'd be doing a wide range of rolling and hilly one-day distance races that might not be as transferable to their track skills, or discover skills as puncheurs or so forth that resulted in a stronger focus on the road. As long as Britain and to a lesser extent Australia bogart so much of the prestige and precious metal on the track, however, there's little reason for their opposition to stick around as long as they have done as track specialists - outside of those specialists in the pure power (sprint/keirin) disciplines for whom transferable skills to the road are fewer than pursuiters or enduro track riders.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

Racing against the US swim team that's full of dopers isn't easy. Whether or not the first offense was intentional or not, she was punished for it and served her sentence. The holier-than-though Americans are chomping at the big, as if they've just discovered that doping in swimming happens. I am sure King, Ledecky, and Phelps know all about doping though.

Ehhh? She wasn't racing against any of the USA team in the 200m breaststroke final. King barely made the semis.

The bolded is a total straw man. Accusations have been a part of swimming historically. None of these swimmers are that naive. This might be the first time that they have been asked about it at the Olympics, though.

Like it or not, the facts are that none of King's teammates tested positive or were under investigation while Efimova and 6 others were going to be held out for Russia based on past tests or investigations.

Here is what a Canadian swimmer said about the inclusion of those 7.

"For an athlete that's clean, it's really frustrating for me to see that," Canadian swimmer Ryan Cochrane said. "Once the games are over, that's something we'll all look back on and (wish) was handled better throughout the quadrennial, not just before the Olympics."

Aaah, that old explanation. "I've been tested over 500 times, never tested positive." Add to the fact that they are beating known dopers, add to the fact that we've seen national organizations sweep aside tons of positive tests in the not too distant past, and that's how we get to that.

To stay with the bolded part, what about the 70 or so Russian track and field athletes that went through extended WADA and WADA approved labs testing before the games in hopes of going to Rio? None of those athletes ever tested positive or have been suspected or rumored to have doped at any point. Should Shubenkov and Isinbayeva have stayed at home, while Merritt (failed three times), Gatlin (failed three times), Gay (twice, I think), etc competed in Rio? If all those guys get medals, golds, will that leave any doubt or 'sour grape' taste in individuals that get beaten by them? What about the evidence that the USOC swept aside hundreds of positive doping tests starting in the 80's all the way up to the early 2000's? Did the USOC and specific US Olympic sports/athletes that were named in Wade Exum's report ever get banned from competing at the following World's or Olympics? No. They were free to compete and at least half of them won medals the World's and Olympics. Carl Lewis failed multiple tests in the summer of 1988, which the USOC and USATF nicely swept under the rug and let him compete. You know what happened next. Ben Johnson was caught just days after winning the 100m and the gold medal went to Lewis. In the subsequent interviews, Lewis was pulling a King, berating and lambasting Johnson and saying that 'he couldn't believe what he was seeing,' and 'how could he have celebrated knowing he cheated...' To this day, almost 30 years on, Lewis and most importantly the USOC and USATF haven't acknowledged that Lewis, among hundreds of others, was doping.

What's to say the same isn't happening with US swimming. Their dominance is even more pronounced than the USATF. It's not as if they were overwhelmed by the East Germans in the 60's, 70's and 80's. They were on even terms, most of the time, beating the Soviets.

Now, I know that you'll say, 'there is no culture of cheating within said US sport(s),' and that 'nothing has been proven,' and 'sour grapes,' and 'it's not state-sponsored and systematic,' and that 'the US has FAR BETTER facilities than anyone else,' and all that other stuff.

The point is, Phelps, King, Ledecky, Franklin and all the top US swimmers who have owned the Olympics aren't aliens. The other teams train hard as well, and they obviously invest time, money and energy in getting the best out of their athletes. It's the same excuse that I hear from the Brits in cycling and Norwegians in skiing.

I hope you don't take it personal, but while Phelps IS talented, is he really clean to do what he's been doing, with hardly much rest and recovery, race after race, with different strokes that require different elements, different muscle use, against racers that generally speaking, specialize and need to peak in what they are good at?

 

[Irondan]

It's not a big improvement. It's a totally astonishing shift from being cycling minnows - track and road - to being utterly, utterly dominant, always, almost without a blip, in every big race that really matters.

Forgetting, for one moment, the hyperbole, how is it that British Cycling is doing this? Are we dopers, and everyone else is clean? Is everyone doping, and we're just doing it better than everyone else?

These wins aren't massive. They're minor increments each time, and we're not blasting the opposition out of the park. We're winning by small margins. So exactly what are we doing that makes us winners, and everyone else losers? Because so many on here are convinced that the whole of British cycling is doped to the gills, and they even have "proof" (because we've improved over a few years). When some of us point to investment in programmes and facilities, others say that those programmes and facilities exist in other countries, too.

So, come on accusers - exactly what is British cycling doing?

It's not just British cycling that people believe are doped to the gills, it's all of cycling..

It's the insistence of the fans of British cycling that their riders are all squeaky clean while beating a world full of dopers that make them targets of ridicule.

 

[wrinklyvet]

It's not a big improvement. It's a totally astonishing shift from being cycling minnows - track and road - to being utterly, utterly dominant, always, almost without a blip, in every big race that really matters.

Forgetting, for one moment, the hyperbole, how is it that British Cycling is doing this? Are we dopers, and everyone else is clean? Is everyone doping, and we're just doing it better than everyone else?

These wins aren't massive. They're minor increments each time, and we're not blasting the opposition out of the park. We're winning by small margins. So exactly what are we doing that makes us winners, and everyone else losers?

Because so many on here are convinced that the whole of British cycling is doped to the gills, and they even have "proof" (because we've improved over a few years). When some of us point to investment in programmes and facilities, others say that those programmes and facilities exist in other countries, too.

So, come on accusers - exactly what is British cycling doing?

It's not just British cycling that people believe are doped to the gills, it's all of cycling..

It's the insistence of the fans of British cycling that their riders are all squeaky clean while beating a world full of dopers that make them targets of ridicule.

This doesn't answer the question in the post above.

He says

These wins aren't massive. They're minor increments each time, and we're not blasting the opposition out of the park. We're winning by small margins. So exactly what are we doing that makes us winners, and everyone else losers?

I hear you say there's a world ful of dopers. In track cycling, the flavour of the moment, what is it that is different about the Brits that enables them to win by small margins? Why assume all nations are doping here? Why assume we are doping better? Despite the ridicule to which you refer, these things can only be inferred on tenuous evidence.

I, for one, don't believe that well trained, equipped drilled and experienced riders of any nation can't beat inferior riders who may be doping. It seems to be assumed that to win is to dope. No, that can't be right. I don't accuse the Aussies, New Zealanders, Danes, Americans or anyone else of doping so why all this attention to the Brits? You must all have thin skins if you think the traditional British air of assurance means you all have to have a go at the old country, treating us less well than anyone else.

If we take silver, is the gold medal winner doping? Is the bronze medal winner who finishes a tiny fraction a second behind doping too? On what basis is this to be inferred? Or is this somehow different and they all get a free pass? if they don't, then why harp on about the Brits for every hour of every day?

Edit - Not you, of course Irondan. I refer to those who seem to make it their business to do so, to the extent that much of this thread duplicates the "Brits don't dope?" thread.

 

[gooner]

O'Reilly wasn't seen by the Irish set up for 8 weeks before the training camp.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rio-2016-olympics/he-embarrassed-us-irish-coach-slams-michael-oreilly-and-reveals-eight-week-absence-34964250.html

 

[Benotti69]

O'Reilly wasn't seen by the Irish set up for 8 weeks before the training camp.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rio-2016-olympics/he-embarrassed-us-irish-coach-slams-michael-oreilly-and-reveals-eight-week-absence-34964250.html

Why did IABA not check on him?

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Aaah, that old explanation. "I've been tested over 500 times, never tested positive." Add to the fact that they are beating known dopers, add to the fact that we've seen national organizations sweep aside tons of positive tests in the not too distant past, and that's how we get to that.

To stay with the bolded part, what about the 70 or so Russian track and field athletes that went through extended WADA and WADA approved labs testing before the games in hopes of going to Rio? None of those athletes ever tested positive or have been suspected or rumored to have doped at any point. Should Shubenkov and Isinbayeva have stayed at home, while Merritt (failed three times), Gatlin (failed three times), Gay (twice, I think), etc competed in Rio? If all those guys get medals, golds, will that leave any doubt or 'sour grape' taste in individuals that get beaten by them? What about the evidence that the USOC swept aside hundreds of positive doping tests starting in the 80's all the way up to the early 2000's? Did the USOC and specific US Olympic sports/athletes that were named in Wade Exum's report ever get banned from competing at the following World's or Olympics? No. They were free to compete and at least half of them won medals the World's and Olympics. Carl Lewis failed multiple tests in the summer of 1988, which the USOC and USATF nicely swept under the rug and let him compete. You know what happened next. Ben Johnson was caught just days after winning the 100m and the gold medal went to Lewis. In the subsequent interviews, Lewis was pulling a King, berating and lambasting Johnson and saying that 'he couldn't believe what he was seeing,' and 'how could he have celebrated knowing he cheated...' To this day, almost 30 years on, Lewis and most importantly the USOC and USATF haven't acknowledged that Lewis, among hundreds of others, was doping.

What's to say the same isn't happening with US swimming. Their dominance is even more pronounced than the USATF. It's not as if they were overwhelmed by the East Germans in the 60's, 70's and 80's. They were on even terms, most of the time, beating the Soviets.

Now, I know that you'll say, 'there is no culture of cheating within said US sport(s),' and that 'nothing has been proven,' and 'sour grapes,' and 'it's not state-sponsored and systematic,' and that 'the US has FAR BETTER facilities than anyone else,' and all that other stuff.

The point is, Phelps, King, Ledecky, Franklin and all the top US swimmers who have owned the Olympics aren't aliens. The other teams train hard as well, and they obviously invest time, money and energy in getting the best out of their athletes. It's the same excuse that I hear from the Brits in cycling and Norwegians in skiing.

I hope you don't take it personal, but while Phelps IS talented, is he really clean to do what he's been doing, with hardly much rest and recovery, race after race, with different strokes that require different elements, different muscle use, against racers that generally speaking, specialize and need to peak in what they are good at?

I have no idea how rife doping is in the pool, but then again neither do you. If you want to suggest that the USOC sweeps all the drug test under the rug, fine by me. I disagree and I am tired of people criticizing anyone who speaks out about doping and criticizing those for not speaking out about doping. It is a catch 22. But being caught for doping puts you in a different category than those that have not. It should be noted that Efimova is swimming slower than her doping period of 2013. Comparing King to Carl Lewis is poor rhetoric. King called Efimova out beforehand, not after.

The exclusion of the track team was political. I don't care one way or another. Any decision would've been 'unfair' to some group. If Gatlin and Merritt gets booed at the track, then so be it. If they get criticized by the other competitors, so be it. I think the main thing that Efimova is upset about is that she didn't win the gold.

Franklin was terrible in the Olympics. The USA also has the university system that catches so many late bloomers like DiRado. Look at Schooling who beat Phelps. Even thought he is from Hong Kong, he swims at the University of Texas. If doping could somehow be magically detected, I still think the USA would be the top nation in the world at swimming. The USA won the same amount of golds as 2012 and the same amount of medals as 2000. Fewer nations contest swimming compared to track, so I don't see your rationale for comparing the results from each.

I never said Phelps was clean. Considering all the trouble he has gotten into outside of the pool, I would not be at all surprised if he had taken PEDs. But you also exaggerate what he is accomplishing. He earned most of his medals with two very similar strokes in Fly and Free. He specializes in butterfly and swims mostly in butterfly. He hasn't been world class in any other stroke since 2008.

 

[TMP402]

I don't know if this has been asked before, but I'd find it very interesting to hear which sports at this Olympics people believe are PED-free. Not counting beta-blockers or anything purely designed to calm the competitors.

 

[TMP402]

I notice Nishikori gets a second wind against Nadal after a very long comfort break.

 

[oronet commander]

Re:

I notice Nishikori gets a second wind against Nadal after a very long comfort break.

I came to post exactly the same: Nishikori took an 11' break after a second set he ended exhausted and now he seems fresh as a rose, as if the match had just started...