Olympics Doping Thread

Page 23 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

BullsFan22

Jun 22, 2010
5,017
1,103
20,680
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
BullsFan22 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the nice reply. I'll just reply back to you with a few links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/17/sports/olympics-anti-doping-official-says-us-covered-up.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100883&page=1

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s155405.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/18/athletics.duncanmackay

This article specifically talks about that 100m race in Seoul, and you can actually see that Lewis did talk about Johnson long before Seoul Olympics. I know Johnson didn't fail a test and therefore he didn't serve any suspensions, unlike Efimova, but Lewis, like King, did manage to talk about Johnson and his rise to top. Obviously had Johnson failed a test and served a 16 month (or whatever it was) suspension like Efimova did, and then went to the Olympics, I am sure Lewis would have been quite vocal. Here is the article:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/that-1980s-sports-blog/2013/oct/21/ben-johnson-carl-lewis-dirtiest-race-history

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2015/08/11/more-sports/conte-says-coverup-protected-big-stars-seoul-games/


Richard Pound is quoted a few times. Remember, he was the IOC VP at the time of Ben Johnson/Carl Lewis and that entire 100m debacle. He and the other heads of the IOC knew, that things weren't right, but either played along or didn't have the power. Perhaps the IOC didn't have the power as it does now, but they obviously knew what was going on, but nobody was sanctioned. My guess there was some backdoor deals, potential bribes, and I think in the end nobody wanted more dirty laundry than it had gotten with Johnson. Yes, I obviously don't know, as you say. But given what we now know of the IOC, the IAAF, the Russia debacle, the Kenya debacle, the Jamaica debacle, etc, it's not too far fetched to think that things haven't changed much. It's just that there is more money at stake with more power players. That's what I think anyway. I know this points to potential conspiracy theories, but the protection of top stars, the moneymakers, isn't as shocking anymore when it comes to doping. Nobody wants to see popular athletes get busted and then shamed. Yes, Armstrong was shamed, but not before billions were made through his lies and deceit. A big part of that problem were the UCI, USAC and the corporate sponsor like Nike, Oakley, Trek, and government funded USPS. No, I don't think the government oversaw doping of the USPS team, nor do I think they knew of doping in the team or cycling in general, but since USPS was one of the main sponsors, and they were funded by the government, it means that some of that government money went directly to the team and used for various purposes (i.e, doping).
 
D

djpbaltimore

Jun 9, 2014
3,967
1,836
16,680
Thanks, I'll have to take a look at some of those links. The ESPN 30 for 30 about the Seoul 100m race was one of my favorites in the series. I've said it before, but if King was doping, then she is a massive hypocrite like Carl Lewis was/ is.
 
B

BullsFan22

Jun 22, 2010
5,017
1,103
20,680
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
Thanks, I'll have to take a look at some of those links. The ESPN 30 for 30 about the Seoul 100m race was one of my favorites in the series. I've said it before, but if King was doping, then she is a massive hypocrite like Carl Lewis was/ is.
Click to expand...


No problem on the links. I found them interesting. Until a few years ago, I had no idea of Lewis had positive test(s) as did the others in the final and what the USOC did to cover so many positives and let the dopers compete. All I knew was Johnson getting busted, and the years that followed with track and field and its problems with doping (Marion Jones and that entire BALCO group, Victor Conte, etc).

For sure, the general consensus is that if athlete A tests positive, then he/she is more suspect than athlete B, who never tested positive, or has been sanctioned. There can be little debate about that. However, this is the clinic, after all, and we do our best to dig into the stories, facts, figures, possibilities, suspicious performances, cover ups, bribes, etc. It's too bad that we have to do that, but we do. I still believe that there is much more going on behind the scenes, as I am sure yourself and vast majority of us here also think.
 
The Hegelian

The Hegelian

Jul 6, 2014
1,645
318
11,180
Re:

kwikki said:
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.
Click to expand...

Brexit is the effect not the cause; the cause is a deeply fragmented polis which we are seeing in every industrialised country + many developing ones. Nothing holds anything together anymore. This is the age we live in.

Sovereignty itself has been deeply undermined by the economic forces of globalisation, and so it has strongly reasserted itself in all different kinds of domains. Sport being one of them. This is the story of Rio for me, and it is obviously not just GB.

This is my argument - I think, pretty hard to refute.

UK affluence?? Where? Hasn't there been a lived politics of austerity since '08? You should contemplate why, politically, funding which has been stripped from every other institution, has not been stripped from sport. Saving on health costs is a bit of a stretch, especially when the NHS has been gutted in these times. No, there is something about a Union Jack on display in triumph that is tremendously symbolically important in this time of rupture.
 
The Hegelian

The Hegelian

Jul 6, 2014
1,645
318
11,180
Re:

doolols said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, it is an Olympic doping thread on a cycling forum........in which the Brits have just been imperious, regal, brilliant, triumphant, devastatingly better than all comers.
 
The Hegelian

The Hegelian

Jul 6, 2014
1,645
318
11,180
To speak generally about the Olympics, from a sentimental point of view it reminds me a lot of the '98 Tour De France. Russia was Festina, everyone knows that everyone knows that the whole thing is not believable, the show must go on and so it goes on.
 
TMP402

TMP402

Mar 13, 2015
6,554
256
17,880
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
kwikki said:
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.
Click to expand...

Brexit is the effect not the cause; the cause is a deeply fragmented polis which we are seeing in every industrialised country + many developing ones. Nothing holds anything together anymore. This is the age we live in.

Sovereignty itself has been deeply undermined by the economic forces of globalisation, and so it has strongly reasserted itself in all different kinds of domains. Sport being one of them. This is the story of Rio for me, and it is obviously not just GB.

This is my argument - I think, pretty hard to refute.

UK affluence?? Where? Hasn't there been a lived politics of austerity since '08? You should contemplate why, politically, funding which has been stripped from every other institution, has not been stripped from sport. Saving on health costs is a bit of a stretch, especially when the NHS has been gutted in these times. No, there is something about a Union Jack on display in triumph that is tremendously symbolically important in this time of rupture.
Click to expand...

1. Can you explain how sport shows the reassertion of sovereignty? I'm not catching your drift.

2. The comment you quote said "UK affluence around the millennium" - ie the early 2000s.
 
gooner

gooner

Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
It's meant to be a super fast track. Looking at that semi with Bolt easing up, I wouldn't rule out a 9.65-9.70.
 
luckyboy

luckyboy

May 26, 2009
10,230
579
24,080
Danekova (Bulgarian steeplechaser), who tested positive for CERA, says the only way it could've gotten into her blood is because her doctor gave her glucose, iron, vitamin C and riboxin for the strep throat she had a month before the Olympics - http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Award_CAS_OG_AD_16-04.pdf

16cfdaad0d9428542666b43c13c6fb6c.png


:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom