Olympics Doping Thread

[Blakeslee]

If anyone is watching, the super heavyweight lifters are not disappointing! 4kg new WR in the snatch, 3 guys all surpassed previous mark, looking EASY! This is some "juicy" stuff! :lol:

I watched the finals today. As ridiculous as weightlifting is where you can bet pretty much everyone is cheating, watching this is still some great dramatic theater.

 

[domination]

If you take swimming out of the equation Team GB are 4 or 5 gold medals clear of the US.

Phenomenal performance from UK Sport.

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

Specific to Cycling, the track has been mentioned multiple times on the NBC streams as being "fast with longer straights".

Anyone with better knowledge than I possess, able to comment on the track layout?

That is a question of mathematics; Can a velodrome track of equal length have desperate sized lengths and curves if each curve is 180c? The answer is no. It’s not possible.

Seriously? You can if the curves are (half) ellipses rather than semi-circles. You might not be able to successfully ride the track, but you could certainly build them with longer or shorter straights.

No, still not possible to do. If the track is to remain the same distance and the curves are 180 degrees, the length of the straights cannot change. If you cut the curve in half (through the cross section of the curve) then the straights will become longer but so will the length of the track.

Per my original statement:

That is a question of mathematics; Can a velodrome track of equal length have desperate sized lengths and curves if each curve is 180c? The answer is no. It’s not possible.

I'm sorry, thehog, but this is incorrect. It's mathematically possible to create tracks that have the same total length (in this case 250 meters), but different corner and straights lengths, even if you were to assume the corners are semicircles (half-circles) (which isn't even required by UCI regulations, see 3.6.067-.068). That the corners have to be 180° matters not, every semicircle is 180°, but the perimeter only depends on the radius (half of the diameter):

with r as the radius:

Perimeter cirle = 2 * pi * r
Permiter semicircle = 1/2 * 2 * pi * r = pi * r

For the proof I'm going to assume the bends are semicircles, not ellipses or other shapes, and the track has to have a total length of 250 meters, as that will reduce the involved variables to one. However, the simple principle will hold for different track lengths and corner shapes.

This is the general shape of a track, with two bend (B1 & B2) and two straights (S1 & S2); as you can see, the straights are parallel, as per UCI regulation:



We know that the length of the track has to be 250m according to UCI regulations for Olympic games and world championships. That means that the total circumference of the track in the diagram above has to be 250m (this 'line' is measured 20 cm above the inner edge of the actual track). This circumference includes the perimeter of two equal semicircles (B1 & B2) and two equal straight lines (S1 & S1).

The formula to calculate the the perimeter of a semicircle is just the formula for the circumference/perimeter of a circle devided by two:

Perimeter semicircle = 1/2 * 2 * pi * r    # With r being the radius

As we have two semicircles, B1 & B2 with an equal radius, the total length of track running through both corners combined is just:

Combined corners B1 + B2 = 2 * (1/2 * 2 * pi * r) = 2 * pi * r
# Two semicircles make a circle...

We also have two straights of length y, so combining them we get:

Total length of straights combined = 2 * y

Adding the straights to the bends we get the total track length:

Total length = Two bends + two straigths = ( 2 * pi * r ) + ( 2 * y )  # Parentheses for seperation

As we know the length of the track has to be 250 meters, we can know calculate the length of the straights as a function of the radius of the bends:

total length = two bends + two straights;
total length - two bends = two straights;
(total length - two bends) / 2) = one straight

or: 

250 = ( 2 * pi * r ) + ( 2 * y )
250 -  2 * pi * r  =  2 * y 
(250 - 2 * pi * r) / 2 = y

So, the length of a single straight is equal to (250 - 2 * pi * r) / 2

---------------------------------------------

UCI regulations state that a category 1 track (mandatory for Olympic Games) have a length of 250 m and a bend radius between 19-25m (See 3.6.095). That means that the longest straigth possible (with the narrowest bends of 19m) is:

(250 - 2 * pi * 19) / 2 =  ~65,31 m

The shortest, with the widest semicircle bend of 25, is:

(250 - 2 * pi * 25) / 2 =  ~46,46 m

Now, the UCI regulations do not specify that the bends have to be semicircles, only that they have to be safe to at least 75km/h. If you make the bends elliptical, it's possible to create even longer straights.

The challenge of designing a "fast" velodrome is thus one of finding the perfect balance between straights and the shape of the bend.

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

Now, the UCI regulations do not specify that the bends have to be semicircles, only that they have to be safe to at least 75km/h. If you make the bends elliptical, it's possible to create even longer straights.

The challenge of designing a "fast" velodrome is thus one of finding the perfect balance between straights and the shape of the bend.

Great explanation, although not sure the bolded would be true. If the corner was an ellipse then surely the shorter radius would still have to be 19m, and the longer radius more than 19m. This would result in a circumference greater than a 19m circle corner surely?

 

[bikenrrd]

Re: Re:

Now, the UCI regulations do not specify that the bends have to be semicircles, only that they have to be safe to at least 75km/h. If you make the bends elliptical, it's possible to create even longer straights.

The challenge of designing a "fast" velodrome is thus one of finding the perfect balance between straights and the shape of the bend.

Excellent post (some real science and mathematics for once in the Clinic), and thanks for doing this. I didn't have the energy! I did realise that it is all down to the radius of the bends, even keeping them as circles. Or the distance across the infield between the straights, which is equal to 2r in Willem's excellent description.

 

[WillemS]

Re: Re:

Now, the UCI regulations do not specify that the bends have to be semicircles, only that they have to be safe to at least 75km/h. If you make the bends elliptical, it's possible to create even longer straights.

The challenge of designing a "fast" velodrome is thus one of finding the perfect balance between straights and the shape of the bend.

Great explanation, although not sure the bolded would be true. If the corner was an ellipse then surely the shorter radius would still have to be 19m, and the longer radius more than 19m. This would result in a circumference greater than a 19m circle corner surely?

Yes, thought of that after I posted it; the regulations do not state anything else about the shape, so I guess the both the radius should be between 19-25m.

 

[simoni]

Re: Re:

Specific to Cycling, the track has been mentioned multiple times on the NBC streams as being "fast with longer straights".

Anyone with better knowledge than I possess, able to comment on the track layout?

That is a question of mathematics; Can a velodrome track of equal length have desperate sized lengths and curves if each curve is 180c? The answer is no. It’s not possible.

Seriously? You can if the curves are (half) ellipses rather than semi-circles. You might not be able to successfully ride the track, but you could certainly build them with longer or shorter straights.

No, still not possible to do. If the track is to remain the same distance and the curves are 180 degrees, the length of the straights cannot change. If you cut the curve in half (through the cross section of the curve) then the straights will become longer but so will the length of the track.

Per my original statement:

That is a question of mathematics; Can a velodrome track of equal length have desperate sized lengths and curves if each curve is 180c? The answer is no. It’s not possible.

I'm sorry, thehog, but this is incorrect. It's mathematically possible to create tracks that have the same total length (in this case 250 meters), but different corner and straights lengths, even if you were to assume the corners are semicircles (half-circles) (which isn't even required by UCI regulations, see 3.6.067-.068). That the corners have to be 180° matters not, every semicircle is 180°, but the perimeter only depends on the radius (half of the diameter):

with r as the radius:

Perimeter cirle = 2 * pi * r
Permiter semicircle = 1/2 * 2 * pi * r = pi * r

For the proof I'm going to assume the bends are semicircles, not ellipses or other shapes, and the track has to have a total length of 250 meters, as that will reduce the involved variables to one. However, the simple principle will hold for different track lengths and corner shapes.

This is the general shape of a track, with two bend (B1 & B2) and two straights (S1 & S2); as you can see, the straights are parallel, as per UCI regulation:



We know that the length of the track has to be 250m according to UCI regulations for Olympic games and world championships. That means that the total circumference of the track in the diagram above has to be 250m (this 'line' is measured 20 cm above the inner edge of the actual track). This circumference includes the perimeter of two equal semicircles (B1 & B2) and two equal straight lines (S1 & S1).

The formula to calculate the the perimeter of a semicircle is just the formula for the circumference/perimeter of a circle devided by two:

Perimeter semicircle = 1/2 * 2 * pi * r    # With r being the radius

As we have two semicircles, B1 & B2 with an equal radius, the total length of track running through both corners combined is just:

Combined corners B1 + B2 = 2 * (1/2 * 2 * pi * r) = 2 * pi * r
# Two semicircles make a circle...

We also have two straights of length y, so combining them we get:

Total length of straights combined = 2 * y

Adding the straights to the bends we get the total track length:

Total length = Two bends + two straigths = ( 2 * pi * r ) + ( 2 * y )  # Parentheses for seperation

As we know the length of the track has to be 250 meters, we can know calculate the length of the straights as a function of the radius of the bends:

total length = two bends + two straights;
total length - two bends = two straights;
(total length - two bends) / 2) = one straight

or: 

250 = ( 2 * pi * r ) + ( 2 * y )
250 -  2 * pi * r  =  2 * y 
(250 - 2 * pi * r) / 2 = y

So, the length of a single straight is equal to (250 - 2 * pi * r) / 2

---------------------------------------------

UCI regulations state that a category 1 track (mandatory for Olympic Games) have a length of 250 m and a bend radius between 19-25m (See 3.6.095). That means that the longest straigth possible (with the narrowest bends of 19m) is:

(250 - 2 * pi * 19) / 2 =  ~65,31 m

The shortest, with the widest semicircle bend of 25, is:

(250 - 2 * pi * 25) / 2 =  ~46,46 m

Now, the UCI regulations do not specify that the bends have to be semicircles, only that they have to be safe to at least 75km/h. If you make the bends elliptical, it's possible to create even longer straights.

The challenge of designing a "fast" velodrome is thus one of finding the perfect balance between straights and the shape of the bend.

So, in short, tighter corners then?!

 

[TheSpud]

Re: Re:

So, in short, tighter corners then?!

Not sure its as simple as that.

The Maths presented above by Willem was very basic (no offence W), what you would need to do here is analyse speed and how it would change based on the curvature, etc. its way too long since I did my Maths A-level to be able to work that one out. We need some help from someone who's analytical mind is being used on a regular basis. Somone like ScienceIsCool, etc.

 

[Bolder]

Re: Re:

Ultimately, Britain may be throwing much more at track cycling than other countries, but that raises the question of what they're spending the money in.

The British government pays for the schooling and housing of young talented track cyclists in Manchester.

This is the key. Track cycling is not a viable career path, so many potentially successful riders give it up out of economic hardship. If you can support a stable of riders who don't have to worry about paying rent, you're creating the conditions for success. Add to that top notch equipment, coaching and the latest training methods and we can see the results.

I"m not quite willing to believe that the British sporting government is engaging in system-wide doping.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Re: Re:

Ultimately, Britain may be throwing much more at track cycling than other countries, but that raises the question of what they're spending the money in.

The British government pays for the schooling and housing of young talented track cyclists in Manchester.

This is the key. Track cycling is not a viable career path, so many potentially successful riders give it up out of economic hardship. If you can support a stable of riders who don't have to worry about paying rent, you're creating the conditions for success. Add to that top notch equipment, coaching and the latest training methods and we can see the results.

I"m not quite willing to believe that the British sporting government is engaging in system-wide doping.

But this doesn't explain why British cyclists don't dominate other events like the World Championships to the same degree. That argument would make sense if it was permanent domination but it isn't. This is the point Meares and Vogel are making - it's not normal for races that are usually quite close in the interim 4 years are suddenly blown wide apart by British dominance when it comes to the Olympics. Peaking is suspicious - it always has been

 

[Tych23]

Re: Re:

...
But this doesn't explain why British cyclists don't dominate other events like the World Championships to the same degree. That argument would make sense if it was permanent domination but it isn't. This is the point Meares and Vogel are making - it's not normal for races that are usually quite close in the interim 4 years are suddenly blown wide apart by British dominance when it comes to the Olympics. Peaking is suspicious - it always has been

The British head coach stated that they stored away the helmets after the Olympics 2012 only to bring them out for ths event. So that explains why the Brits have been nowhere as dominant in the meantime. WC medals are apparently not worthwhile enough to dust of your good equipment ...

 

[IndianCyclist]

does anybody have the statistics of %doping cases/participating athletes for each of the Olympic disciplines? Just want to see which are the sports that have the least/max cases

 

[MatParker117]

Re: Re:

Ultimately, Britain may be throwing much more at track cycling than other countries, but that raises the question of what they're spending the money in.

The British government pays for the schooling and housing of young talented track cyclists in Manchester.

This is the key. Track cycling is not a viable career path, so many potentially successful riders give it up out of economic hardship. If you can support a stable of riders who don't have to worry about paying rent, you're creating the conditions for success. Add to that top notch equipment, coaching and the latest training methods and we can see the results.

I"m not quite willing to believe that the British sporting government is engaging in system-wide doping.

But this doesn't explain why British cyclists don't dominate other events like the World Championships to the same degree. That argument would make sense if it was permanent domination but it isn't. This is the point Meares and Vogel are making - it's not normal for races that are usually quite close in the interim 4 years are suddenly blown wide apart by British dominance when it comes to the Olympics. Peaking is suspicious - it always has been

Funding is allocated based on Olympic medals.

 

[Catwhoorg]

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/laboratories/anti-doping-testing-figures

That has the most recent (2014) WADA report which has the number and type of tests and the %positives.

Lots of information there, the page also links to previous years.

 

[Lyon]

Re: Re:

Ultimately, Britain may be throwing much more at track cycling than other countries, but that raises the question of what they're spending the money in.

The British government pays for the schooling and housing of young talented track cyclists in Manchester.

This is the key. Track cycling is not a viable career path, so many potentially successful riders give it up out of economic hardship. If you can support a stable of riders who don't have to worry about paying rent, you're creating the conditions for success. Add to that top notch equipment, coaching and the latest training methods and we can see the results.

I"m not quite willing to believe that the British sporting government is engaging in system-wide doping.

They are not, just keeping distance and looking the other way when something get's too close for comfort. It's the 'protestant way' and the same thing that happens in Norway with regards to winter sports.

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

Some of the golfers look clean on the whole. In particular, Jordan Speith and Zach Johnson (given their driving lengths) but they didn't come to Rio. The latter has been consistently good throughout his career. Jordan is an amazing putter in the manner which would impress Gary Player.

I'm still not sure what to make of golf. Those are good points about the players you mentioned. On the other hand looking back at things Tiger Woods (who was almost definitely doping) and what I am guessing is a relatively weak testing program, there doesn't seem to be much of a disincentive for players not to dope.

Well Woods had extensive laser eye surgery, so there's that for a start. Also betablockers are probably still widely used. Hardly "athletic" doping, but effective.

Gary Player's complaint was body shape changes and people spending hours at the range without tiring. He was laughed at. I'm a Mickelson fan but he is 100% suspicious.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Peaking is suspicious - it always has been

Is it? I've heard every possible variation claimed as being suspicious, from single peaks to multiple peaks to constant consistency to single year peaks and so on. All of them have, at one time or another, been claimed to point to doping. I have no idea which is but it can't be all of them.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Peaking is suspicious - it always has been

Is it? I've heard every possible variation claimed as being suspicious, from single peaks to multiple peaks to constant consistency to single year peaks and so on. All of them have, at one time or another, been claimed to point to doping. I have no idea which is but it can't be all of them.

Why not?

Armstrong peaked for July.

Wiggins had a season long peak in 2012

Gilbert had a season long peak in 2011.

Prior to Armstrong targetting July, riders had to be in form for most of the season. EPO made that easier.

Prior to 90s riders rode 200 plus days of racing. Had to be in some kind of form to survive that let alone compete

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Peaking is suspicious - it always has been

Is it? I've heard every possible variation claimed as being suspicious, from single peaks to multiple peaks to constant consistency to single year peaks and so on. All of them have, at one time or another, been claimed to point to doping. I have no idea which is but it can't be all of them.

Why not?

Armstrong peaked for July.

Wiggins had a season long peak in 2012

Gilbert had a season long peak in 2011.

Prior to Armstrong targetting July, riders had to be in form for most of the season. EPO made that easier.

Prior to 90s riders rode 200 plus days of racing. Had to be in some kind of form to survive that let alone compete

I mean if you are looking for a performance timeline that specifically points to doping you have to have a reference that doesn't point to doping. If every type of timeline is used as an argument for doping then the timeline is not an indicator. Personally, I think that's the case.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Peaking is suspicious - it always has been

Is it? I've heard every possible variation claimed as being suspicious, from single peaks to multiple peaks to constant consistency to single year peaks and so on. All of them have, at one time or another, been claimed to point to doping. I have no idea which is but it can't be all of them.

Why not?

Armstrong peaked for July.

Wiggins had a season long peak in 2012

Gilbert had a season long peak in 2011.

Prior to Armstrong targetting July, riders had to be in form for most of the season. EPO made that easier.

Prior to 90s riders rode 200 plus days of racing. Had to be in some kind of form to survive that let alone compete

I mean if you are looking for a performance timeline that specifically points to doping you have to have a reference that doesn't point to doping. If every type of timeline is used as an argument for doping then the timeline is not an indicator. Personally, I think that's the case.

Sure but due to ABP, riders need to keep their HcT levels within parameters not to trip ABP, so that might mean a year micro dosing program of epo. Then upping the PEDs prior to competition, which is juicing to a peak.

Or take Teide, doping and organising blood bags for GTs.

The sport is so inherently corrupt that there is no level field for doping, certain teams appear to be able to perform better at certain times of the year. How? Well let your imagination run away and then add some!

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Peaking is suspicious - it always has been

Is it? I've heard every possible variation claimed as being suspicious, from single peaks to multiple peaks to constant consistency to single year peaks and so on. All of them have, at one time or another, been claimed to point to doping. I have no idea which is but it can't be all of them.

Why not?

Armstrong peaked for July.

Wiggins had a season long peak in 2012

Gilbert had a season long peak in 2011.

Prior to Armstrong targetting July, riders had to be in form for most of the season. EPO made that easier.

Prior to 90s riders rode 200 plus days of racing. Had to be in some kind of form to survive that let alone compete

I mean if you are looking for a performance timeline that specifically points to doping you have to have a reference that doesn't point to doping. If every type of timeline is used as an argument for doping then the timeline is not an indicator. Personally, I think that's the case.

Sure but due to ABP, riders need to keep their HcT levels within parameters not to trip ABP, so that might mean a year micro dosing program of epo. Then upping the PEDs prior to competition, which is juicing to a peak.

Or take Teide, doping and organising blood bags for GTs.

The sport is so inherently corrupt that there is no level field for doping, certain teams appear to be able to perform better at certain times of the year. How? Well let your imagination run away and then add some!

This is exactly why I don't think you can draw any conclusions from a performance timeline, it would only confirm a doping schedule once you had the relevant info.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Specific to Cycling, the track has been mentioned multiple times on the NBC streams as being "fast with longer straights".

Anyone with better knowledge than I possess, able to comment on the track layout?

That is a question of mathematics; Can a velodrome track of equal length have desperate sized lengths and curves if each curve is 180c? The answer is no. It’s not possible.

Seriously? You can if the curves are (half) ellipses rather than semi-circles. You might not be able to successfully ride the track, but you could certainly build them with longer or shorter straights.

No, still not possible to do. If the track is to remain the same distance and the curves are 180 degrees, the length of the straights cannot change. If you cut the curve in half (through the cross section of the curve) then the straights will become longer but so will the length of the track.

Per my original statement:

That is a question of mathematics; Can a velodrome track of equal length have desperate sized lengths and curves if each curve is 180c? The answer is no. It’s not possible.

I'm sorry, thehog, but this is incorrect. It's mathematically possible to create tracks that have the same total length (in this case 250 meters), but different corner and straights lengths, even if you were to assume the corners are semicircles (half-circles) (which isn't even required by UCI regulations, see 3.6.067-.068). That the corners have to be 180° matters not, every semicircle is 180°, but the perimeter only depends on the radius (half of the diameter):

with r as the radius:

Perimeter cirle = 2 * pi * r
Permiter semicircle = 1/2 * 2 * pi * r = pi * r

For the proof I'm going to assume the bends are semicircles, not ellipses or other shapes, and the track has to have a total length of 250 meters, as that will reduce the involved variables to one. However, the simple principle will hold for different track lengths and corner shapes.

This is the general shape of a track, with two bend (B1 & B2) and two straights (S1 & S2); as you can see, the straights are parallel, as per UCI regulation:



We know that the length of the track has to be 250m according to UCI regulations for Olympic games and world championships. That means that the total circumference of the track in the diagram above has to be 250m (this 'line' is measured 20 cm above the inner edge of the actual track). This circumference includes the perimeter of two equal semicircles (B1 & B2) and two equal straight lines (S1 & S1).

The formula to calculate the the perimeter of a semicircle is just the formula for the circumference/perimeter of a circle devided by two:

Perimeter semicircle = 1/2 * 2 * pi * r    # With r being the radius

As we have two semicircles, B1 & B2 with an equal radius, the total length of track running through both corners combined is just:

Combined corners B1 + B2 = 2 * (1/2 * 2 * pi * r) = 2 * pi * r
# Two semicircles make a circle...

We also have two straights of length y, so combining them we get:

Total length of straights combined = 2 * y

Adding the straights to the bends we get the total track length:

Total length = Two bends + two straigths = ( 2 * pi * r ) + ( 2 * y )  # Parentheses for seperation

As we know the length of the track has to be 250 meters, we can know calculate the length of the straights as a function of the radius of the bends:

total length = two bends + two straights;
total length - two bends = two straights;
(total length - two bends) / 2) = one straight

or: 

250 = ( 2 * pi * r ) + ( 2 * y )
250 -  2 * pi * r  =  2 * y 
(250 - 2 * pi * r) / 2 = y

So, the length of a single straight is equal to (250 - 2 * pi * r) / 2

---------------------------------------------

UCI regulations state that a category 1 track (mandatory for Olympic Games) have a length of 250 m and a bend radius between 19-25m (See 3.6.095). That means that the longest straigth possible (with the narrowest bends of 19m) is:

(250 - 2 * pi * 19) / 2 =  ~65,31 m

The shortest, with the widest semicircle bend of 25, is:

(250 - 2 * pi * 25) / 2 =  ~46,46 m

Now, the UCI regulations do not specify that the bends have to be semicircles, only that they have to be safe to at least 75km/h. If you make the bends elliptical, it's possible to create even longer straights.

The challenge of designing a "fast" velodrome is thus one of finding the perfect balance between straights and the shape of the bend.

Thanks, just saw this now. I concede, you are correct.

Just one amendment; The safety speed is 110 km/h not 75 km/h which would preclude extra tight bends and longer straights. One would also argue longer straights wouldn't mean faster riding due to the banking on each curve. But perhaps that's for another equation?

All tracks are required to meet local building code standards for safety, as well as specific UCI criteria. Category 1 and 2 tracks face the most stringent criteria, since they will have riders reaching the highest speeds. The width of the track (7-8 metres for Cat 1/2) and radius of the bends must fall within certain parameters to ensure that the track can be ridden safely at speeds of up to 110 km/h. The surface must be consistently smooth over its entirety.

http://www.uci.ch/track/news/article/what-you-should-know-about-velodromes/

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Is it? I've heard every possible variation claimed as being suspicious, from single peaks to multiple peaks to constant consistency to single year peaks and so on. All of them have, at one time or another, been claimed to point to doping. I have no idea which is but it can't be all of them.

Why not?

Armstrong peaked for July.

Wiggins had a season long peak in 2012

Gilbert had a season long peak in 2011.

Prior to Armstrong targetting July, riders had to be in form for most of the season. EPO made that easier.

Prior to 90s riders rode 200 plus days of racing. Had to be in some kind of form to survive that let alone compete

I mean if you are looking for a performance timeline that specifically points to doping you have to have a reference that doesn't point to doping. If every type of timeline is used as an argument for doping then the timeline is not an indicator. Personally, I think that's the case.

Sure but due to ABP, riders need to keep their HcT levels within parameters not to trip ABP, so that might mean a year micro dosing program of epo. Then upping the PEDs prior to competition, which is juicing to a peak.

Or take Teide, doping and organising blood bags for GTs.

The sport is so inherently corrupt that there is no level field for doping, certain teams appear to be able to perform better at certain times of the year. How? Well let your imagination run away and then add some!

This is exactly why I don't think you can draw any conclusions from a performance timeline, it would only confirm a doping schedule once you had the relevant info.

I think performances can point to doping. EG winning a GT or a monument, but a timeline does not give anything conclusive, but the culture of doping in the sport is as prevalent as ever so why look for timelines. Take it as read they are doping.

 

[littlepinky]

So Fajdek, the red hot favourite for the hammer throw, did not make it past qualifying, but the other Pole made it through in surprise first place. Just making this post in case he wins and someone non-Polish notice the obvious. BTW, that other Pole sounds special needs even for our standards, but I hate myself for writing that. It's just that the "Poles don't dope" culture is so unassailable here compared to what you guys complain about at BBC.

 

[Catwhoorg]

AIBA sending judges home, results will stand (and presumably bank accounts monitored ...)

Pat Hickey (Irish OC, and exec board member) arrested for ticket touting, forming a cartel and illicit marketing.

American swimmers Ryan Lochte, Gunnar Bentz, Jack Conger and James Feigen have reportedly been banned from leaving Brazil by a judge (in regards the matter of their "hold-up")


So all in all just another day at the Olympics, look over there at this gold medalist