MarkvW said:
Compare the bodies of today's champion swimmers with the champions of the early '60s. Today's swimmers look much more like NFL lineman.
It's a chemical freak show, cheer-led by NBC.
A lot has changed since the 60's. Sports science was virtually non existent then. The knowledge about diet and how to train properly has significantly changed athletes both in attitude and physique. Spitz was swimming with a porn moustache at the Olympics in '72, in today's environment you'd be hard pressed to find a swimmer with a body hair on them during competition. It's a whole different world in every way, I don't think it all comes down to it being a chemical freak show. It's perfectly reasonable, with the knowledge available now, that we are seeing bigger, stronger athletes.
I know AFL (Australian football) players who have completely different body types than players from other eras, and I know they are not on the juice. Back in the 60's and 70's you'd see players having a smoke at half time and recovery after the match consisted of heading to the closest bar and most had day jobs. Now they are full time athletes.
I'm not naive, I accept that a lot of what I'm seeing across all sports is "assisted" in one way or another. But I'm going to need a lot more proof to label anyone dirty than good results (by good results, I mean a natural progression, not a run of the mill athlete suddenly smashing world records), a big chin and a body type that is considerably different from competitors from 50 years ago.
I don't want to get to the point where every single performance I see I immediately label as dirty... what's the point?