The Olympics and doping

[Hugh Januss]

Sorry to argue, as this is all quite entertaining, but I thought I should pick a nit here.

Yes, there is OOC testing in Canada. I have been one degree of freedom removed from two separate cases in two different sports within the past year(ish).

One was clean.

And, oops, the other was a cyclist I believe.

Darn. Dirtiest sport. Even in Canada, eh.

So, yes, if a doping positive is the definitive discriminator, then Ben apparently must have been a cyclist.

And, if he wasn't, then Shep's BS about his first and only time experience with EPO along with GJ's crap about being too emotionally distraught to show up for doping control, when put together - along with Ryder and Michael and, and... make Ben look like he was in kindergarten playing in a sandbox all by himself.

Certainly, we could characterize him as a non-cycling aberration. Just like Reefer Rob.

As for the entertainment, I would suggest never going so far as to claim that there was no doping in 2010, even if none was detected.

That.just.totally.defies.all.logic.and.evidence.to.the.contrary.

But, please continue!!

Dave.

Of course I was not saying there was none, just saying it's a big country and easy to be unavailable for a day or two (without having to go to a remote Island somewhere). As far as doping in 2010 we all know everyone stopped in 2006 so what are you talking about, eh?

 

[sniper]

concise overview (in german) of the funding received by german wintersport athletes/federations in preparation to the olympics and the bonusses awarded for medals.

http://www.spiegel.de/sport/winters...stet-eine-deutsche-goldmedaille-a-955246.html

interesting detail: in three years (2011-2013), the german speedskaters got 5.7 million funding in total. Result: zero medals.
Pechstein-effect?

 

[D-Queued]

Of course I was not saying there was none, just saying it's a big country and easy to be unavailable for a day or two (without having to go to a remote Island somewhere). As far as doping in 2010 we all know everyone stopped in 2006 so what are you talking about, eh?

Dave.

 

[SundayRider]

More recognition/fame/money/sponsors etc by doing well at a home olympics so incentive to dope (or dope heavily) is increased. Home advantage makes little to no difference in most sports IMO.

 

[martinvickers]

In the Olympics, the host nation is guaranteed an entry in every event. Other nations have to qualify for events via tournaments, etc. So, the "home team" can have their athletes peak for the games while other nations' athletes have to peak for trials, then for the games themselves. In physiology sports (as opposed to team strategy sports) this has a significant effect.

Athletes from host nations have the advantage of training at the venue in which the event will be held. This makes a bigger difference when the venues are varied (i.e. mountains for skiing) than it does for arena sports like track, skating, basketball, etc.

Jet-lag plays a factor when the host nation is half-way around the globe and travel times are compressed.

It would be interesting to see statistics for doping positives to determine if a softer hand is applied to the host nation's athletes. Does anyone have those figures?

I'm not sure it holds entirely. GB in the two year run up to London had barely any 'Olympic' positives at all - one pretty disastrous one in their very small ukrainian-import wrestling pool (disastrous for that sport anyway), one in judo, a handfull in boxing and a lower ranked cyclist, a few athletics dating back to 2010 - but a fair batch of rugby ones, proboxing, for example.

Russia, on the other hand, has been leaking positives like a seive since before the IAAF's in moscow last year. There were literally dozens in the past year; it got to be a running joke between them and Turkey.

I doubt Russia has less money than GB to fund advanced doping or to bribe IOC if it came to it, certainly has the doping experience from communist days, and a lab with historic difficulties at Moscow - and yet, more dopers caught by some margin.

I'm trying to think of a reason for the disparity that doesn't sound like "doping simply must be, or must have been, worse in russia"...and to be honest, I'm struggling.

My own hunch is that a clue is in the rash of GB pro-rugby positives. Big strong types in Russia, and eastern europe, often tend to olympic strength events - in GB, they tend towards rugby, until recently not an olympic code. The strength of non-olympic sports in GB - football to all intents and purposes, rugby union and league, cricket, hell even golf, perhaps skews the figures - not least because these sports would fall, or in rugby and golf, would have fallen, naturally outside the basic WADA raison d'etre - the protection of the IOC from doping scandal.

Not dissimlar, perhaps to the AFC/NRL scandals that have befallen Australia, or the baseball and NFL scandals in US. Doping, perhaps, tend to follow the money. In some sports, for example, perhaps, XC ski-ing or speed skating or Keirin racing, that co-incides to some extent with olympic sport - in others, it doesn't.

So obviouosly, increase funding to olympic sport, you raise the risk of doping finding a nicer niche. But public olympic funding ain't gonna ever match Wazza Rooney's 300K pw, or even some of the 2-3m per year rugby contracts at the really high end. Unless you're a radcliffe or a Farah, in which case the issue is rather more personal.

 

[martinvickers]

More recognition/fame/money/sponsors etc by doing well at a home olympics so incentive to dope (or dope heavily) is increased. Home advantage makes little to no difference in most sports IMO.

Disagree to an extent. It makes a hell of a big difference in certain sports where familiarity with conditions is important if you get a LOT of access, and your opponants don't. Canada made a fetish of it for vancouver. Russia in 4 man bob, GB in canoe slalom are two obvious examples where familiarity made a huge (relative) difference.

A running track's pretty standard; within reason so's a pool. And GB did all right on one, and down right poor on the other. But even there, it's very hard not to think that GB got an advantage in, say, gymnastics, from having already used the O2.

It's particulary noticable, actually, when they WEREN'T given preferential access - Lord's for the archery - MCC would simply not allow any one to practice there - result GB are **** as usual. But they use Eton all the time, and the rowers, especially the women, just took the P. Not one of the three winning doubles was remotely challenged.

it's not everything, by any means, it's not even the main thing - that's funding - but it is something.

 

[proffate]

how hard is it to travel with doping products? Obviously carrying BBs on airplanes isn't easy, but I don't know about other preparations you might use for one-day events. Doping in your back yard is probably easier to do, and easier to do subtly, than dragging your apparatus through customs.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

how hard is it to travel with doping products? Obviously carrying BBs on airplanes isn't easy, but I don't know about other preparations you might use for one-day events. Doping in your back yard is probably easier to do, and easier to do subtly, than dragging your apparatus through customs.

A mobile dope lab:

Seriously though, a very good point.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

But they use Eton all the time, and the rowers, especially the women, just took the P. Not one of the three winning doubles was remotely challenged.

With the women rowers/scullers, both Glover&Stanning and Bebington&Granger were utterly dominant all season. The Olympic regatta was merely confirmation that they were miles better than the rest.

Copeland&Hoskins were a relatively new combination who pulled off a big surprise, but new combinations can take a while to gel and their true potential to be known.

None of the GB crews really overperformed in the OGs vs what they'd shown previously. The most striking thing though, was that no crews really underperformed.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm trying to think of a reason for the disparity that doesn't sound like "doping simply must be, or must have been, worse in russia"...and to be honest, I'm struggling.
l.

Let us help you out then.

What has a doping positive in the last decade meant? Doping? No.It means unadvanced doping programme. Which is why Valverde, Basso, Ullrich, Armstrong on full 100 grand epo programmes tested positive 0 times while South American crit riders are falling like flies.

So doping in Russia could simply be less advanced.

Or Russia doesn't believe it can push forward a deluded immage of itself as some sort of an anti doping haven so they dont cover up tests to do so.

Its strange though to see a "lack of positive tests" argument still being pushed. I thought it would lose appeal after Lance and Marian Jones and Basso etc, but it appears some don't learn from the past.

I'm trying to think of a reason for the disparity that doesn't sound like "doping simply must be, or must have been, worse in russia"...and to be honest, I'm struggling.

Funny thing is when you joined here you tried to troll the clinic by claiming we all discriminate against certain nations.

But here we are, the clinic, accusing Spaniards like Dani Moreno, Brits like Wiggins, Africans like Froome, Americans like Horner, South Americans like Betancur, Russians like Menchov, Belgians like Boonen, Swiss like Cancellara, Italians like Nibali etc etc all of being dopers, same as any other (and none of the above have tested positive apart from Boonen for cocaine)

You meanwhile are explicitly pushing forward the notion that certain countries namely your favourite one are far better than everyone else at anti doping based on extremely flimsy evidence about how they allowed less positives in the run up to their games. And 99% of your posts on here have been dedicated to defending that country and absolutely all its athletes regardless of discipline, from any charges of doping, and whatsmore portraying as idiots and conspiracy theorists anyone who would question a single medal ever won by that specific country.

You need to take a long hard look in the mirror before you accuse anyone of discriminating based on nationality, because from where I am standing you one of the only ones to actually be doing it

 

[martinvickers]

With the women rowers/scullers, both Glover&Stanning and Bebington&Granger were utterly dominant all season. The Olympic regatta was merely confirmation that they were miles better than the rest.

Copeland&Hoskins were a relatively new combination who pulled off a big surprise, but new combinations can take a while to gel and their true potential to be known.

None of the GB crews really overperformed in the OGs vs what they'd shown previously. The most striking thing though, was that no crews really underperformed.

Surely Bebington was long since Watkins by the time she won? Or is that an 'in the know' thing - WE irish were quite happy to let Micheele Smyth use her married name ;-)

 

[martinvickers]

Let us help you out then.

What has a doping positive in the last decade meant? Doping? No.It means unadvanced doping programme. Which is why Valverde, Basso, Ullrich, Armstrong on full 100 grand epo programmes tested positive 0 times while South American crit riders are falling like flies.

So doping in Russia could simply be less advanced.

Really? You're really going to try and push that? Okee-dokee

Or Russia doesn't believe it can push forward a deluded immage of itself as some sort of an anti doping haven so they dont cover up tests to do so.

That's just...bizarre reasoning. It's laughable.

Its strange though to see a "lack of positive tests" argument still being pushed. I thought it would lose appeal after Lance and Marian Jones and Basso etc, but it appears some don't learn from the past.

I'm sorry, but what strawman are you pulling at? I was quite clear that that my hunch is not that there is no doping in GB, but that it tends to happen more in other non-olympic sports because that's where th money in Gb sport is. The published figures tend to back that up. If you don't like that,' tough t!tty to you' as the comedian said.

Funny thing is when you joined here you tried to troll the clinic by claiming we all discriminate against certain nations.

Be careful with your accusations, wee lad.

But here we are, the clinic, accusing Spaniards like Dani Moreno, Brits like Wiggins, Africans like Froome, Americans like Horner, South Americans like Betancur, Russians like Menchov, Belgians like Boonen, Swiss like Cancellara, Italians like Nibali etc etc all of being dopers, same as any other (and none of the above have tested positive apart from Boonen for cocaine)

You meanwhile are explicitly pushing forward the notion that certain countries namely your favourite one are far better than everyone else at anti doping based on extremely flimsy evidence about how they allowed less positives in the run up to their games.

My favourite? Really??

My own national loyalties are pretty obvious, and pretty well known. you can try and lie about them if you want, but it only serves to show your own biases.

And 99% of your posts on here have been dedicated to defending that country and absolutely all its athletes regardless of discipline, from any charges of doping, and whatsmore portraying as idiots and conspiracy theorists anyone who would question a single medal ever won by that specific country.

You need to take a long hard look in the mirror before you accuse anyone of discriminating based on nationality, because from where I am standing you one of the only ones to actually be doing it.

My posts have been, broadly, reactive - I react to the bullsh!t, yours included; the vast majority of that bullsh!t since Armstrong was done has been aimed at one British team of mostly, but not only, British riders. I'm not choosing that topic - the Clinic is.

Of the threads I've actually started, several have actually broken news that makes the Brits look bad, I've criticised Walsh's book, although rather more sensibly than some, and the one pretty obviously 'personal opinion' one was on Irish cycling, not Brits.

As to the last bit, I couldn't give tuppence for how things look from where you're standing. You may like your credibility. I see it for what it is.

 

[Netserk]

Impressive counter arguments...

 

[martinvickers]

Impressive counter arguments...

I'm not going to waste an awful lot of time trying to counter what amounts to a baiting personal attack, Netserk. You can't exactly slice up a puff of smoke. you show it for the bilious cr^p it is, and you move on.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Surely Bebington was long since Watkins by the time she won?

Indeed. Good point. I knew there was Bebington and Watkins involved, but could not remember which was the married one!

Talking of married names, I'm still rather gutted that when ex world triathlon champ Helen Tucker got married to Marc Jenkins she didn't keep both names and become Helen Tucker-Jenkins.

If you've not watched "Grange Hill" then this probably won't mean much...

 

[SundayRider]

Disagree to an extent. It makes a hell of a big difference in certain sports where familiarity with conditions is important if you get a LOT of access, and your opponants don't. Canada made a fetish of it for vancouver. Russia in 4 man bob, GB in canoe slalom are two obvious examples where familiarity made a huge (relative) difference.

A running track's pretty standard; within reason so's a pool. And GB did all right on one, and down right poor on the other. But even there, it's very hard not to think that GB got an advantage in, say, gymnastics, from having already used the O2.

It's particulary noticable, actually, when they WEREN'T given preferential access - Lord's for the archery - MCC would simply not allow any one to practice there - result GB are **** as usual. But they use Eton all the time, and the rowers, especially the women, just took the P. Not one of the three winning doubles was remotely challenged.

it's not everything, by any means, it's not even the main thing - that's funding - but it is something.

Yeah in sports that change courses - skiing for example its an advantage but in many others sports competitors are used to competing in different countries under different circumstances all the time.

 

[martinvickers]

Yeah in sports that change courses - skiing for example its an advantage but in many others sports competitors are used to competing in different countries under different circumstances all the time.

I don't entirely disagree either, but I think it's fair to point out there are some obvious objective advantages, quite aside from something as amorphous as 'home advantage' in terms of home comfort

 

[martinvickers]

Indeed. Good point. I knew there was Bebington and Watkins involved, but could not remember which was the married one!

Talking of married names, I'm still rather gutted that when ex world triathlon champ Helen Tucker got married to Marc Jenkins she didn't keep both names and become Helen Tucker-Jenkins.

If you've not watched "Grange Hill" then this probably won't mean much...

Unfortunately my youthful options were more Bosco and Fortycoats - my folks were not great fans of BBC, but I do get the reference, I think - Todd Carthy?

 

[The Hitch]

Really? You're really going to try and push that? Okee-dokee

I did push the argument. I backed it up with, points. You are dismissing it with nothing.

That's just...bizarre reasoning. It's laughable.

Why is it bizzare? this is a forum, don't just say "its bizarre" as if that proves itself.

I'm sorry, but what strawman are you pulling at? I was quite clear that that my hunch is not that there is no doping in GB, but that it tends to happen more in other non-olympic sports because that's where th money in Gb sport is. The published figures tend to back that up..

to correct you here the published figures tend to back up the fact that there is more money in GB sport, not that there would be less doping because of that. That is a conclusion you have reached your own self and presented as fact and as if you had some backup when you clearly do not.

In fact looking at the US there is far far far far (etcetera) more money in non olympic sports, and yet during the 80's the entire olympic team was doped.

So your conclusion that there is less immediately visable money at the olympic level means less doping falls at the first hurdle.

If you don't like that,' tough t!tty to you' as the comedian said

And as my year 1 English teacher said - P.E.E

POINT - EXAMPLE - EXPLAIN.

Not P.AYIM- Point. Admire yourself in Mirror.

Back up the points, dont just throw around "eh you gonna say that, okee dokee"or, "oh thats bizarre". Explain the points you are making.

My favourite? Really??

My own national loyalties are pretty obvious, and pretty well known. you can try and lie about them if you want, but it only serves to show your own biases.

Im not lying about anything, just pointing out that almost all your posts on here are dedicated to defending Froome, wiggins sky. Even when we moved on to Jonathan Edwards you were aggresively ridiculing us for suggesting having a world record from the heart of epo era could be suggestive of doping.

More importantly here you are explicitly saying Britain has less doping than Russia. I didnt say that you did.

Where you come from or what nation you claim to have bias towards does not interest me. In my mind we live in the 21st century not the mid 14th, and flags should not matter, and anyone who does care about what country people are born in really should leave that at the door when they enter the clinic.

My posts have been, broadly, reactive - I react to the bullsh!t, yours included; the vast majority of that bullsh!t since Armstrong was done has been aimed at one British team of mostly, but not only, British riders. I'm not choosing that topic - the Clinic is.

I don't deny you the right to choose which threads you want to comment on and if you want to avoid all the non sky threads thats fine, but what i dont think is fair is that you accuse people of having nationalistic bias then follow through on that yourself by continually arguing that one country is the best at anti doping.

the vast majority of that bullsh!t since Armstrong was done has been aimed at one British team of mostly, but not only, British riders. I'm not choosing that topic - the Clinic is.

In case you havent noticed, that British team dominated the last 2 TDFs. This is exactly what I am talking about. You come in here and see flags, everywhere. You see people attacking the team that did the first 1-2 in the TDF in the EPO era and for some reason decide that the reason for this must be because they are British and attack us for it.

They are being attacked for their out of this world performances, associations, lies, etc. There's more to this world than just the country someone represents. That doesn't always have to be the reason for why someone defends or criticizes a public figure.

I react to the bullsh!t, yours included;

Funny how you never responded to my post from a few weeks ago where I pointed out to you all the injuries that happen in ever TDF which totally disproved your unresearched assertion that the 2012 TDF was somehow unprescedented in not having all the top GT guys contest the classification.

You just rattled out some second hand insults to others about how my post was below you, and run away.

If you want to revisit that discussion I hope you do but I dont think you will considering 2011, 10, 08 and 06 clearly had just as many if not more gc guys eliminated from compeition as 2012 which you presented as once in a lifetime thing.

I'm not going to waste an awful lot of time trying to counter what amounts to a baiting personal attack

]

I did not personally attack you at all.

 

[Neworld]

Ok,

I'm not going to defend Canada and doping as we've had our share of dopers... latest of which is tooting Ryder. But, to say that Canada in 2010 we buried some positives or had dopers too...well that is circular thought, and approaches teleology. One could say that about every Olympics. Maybe some doped, maybe most didn't, whether it was 2010, 2014....I'll stop there.

Anyway, here is an unsupportive Canadian article about how 'stupid' international hockey players, their coaches, and their National MDs/medical staff are. Read some of the ignorant (predominantly Canadian) comments at the bottom. International Hockey players and ancillary support staff are clearly 20yrs behind cycling.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=444510

Lastly, has anyone ever heard of Silken Laumann? Look her up, what happened and what she missed out on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silken_Laumann

I do not feel sorry of Nicklas Backstrom, he's just ignorant.

NW

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah in sports that change courses - skiing for example its an advantage but in many others sports competitors are used to competing in different countries under different circumstances all the time.

It probably makes some difference but I wonder how much of it is just in your head by feeling like you have a home court advantage and how much is knowing exactly how much you can push in uphills and downhills.

I watched a documentary showing Bjørndalen's preparations for the Olympics. He actually asked the local ski trail maintenance crew to recreate the Sochi biathlon course in his local training terrain.

 

[D-Queued]

Ok,

I'm not going to defend Canada and doping as we've had our share of dopers... latest of which is tooting Ryder. But, to say that Canada in 2010 we buried some positives or had dopers too...well that is circular thought, and approaches teleology. One could say that about every Olympics. Maybe some doped, maybe most didn't, whether it was 2010, 2014....I'll stop there.

Anyway, here is an unsupportive Canadian article about how 'stupid' international hockey players, their coaches, and their National MDs/medical staff are. Read some of the ignorant (predominantly Canadian) comments at the bottom. International Hockey players and ancillary support staff are clearly 20yrs behind cycling.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=444510

Lastly, has anyone ever heard of Silken Laumann? Look her up, what happened and what she missed out on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silken_Laumann

I do not feel sorry of Nicklas Backstrom, he's just ignorant.

NW

Agreed. Either ignorant, or worse. So, he can have the benefit of the doubt.

The use of Nor-, pseudo- and ephedrine has been extensively discussed. Pseudoephedrine is a well-known precursor to Meth production.

From: Medication and Supplement Use by Athletes, Clin Sports Med 24 (2005) 719–738

"...One study using higher doses of pseudoephedrine did show an increase in maximum torque produced in an isometric knee extension, and an increase in peak power during maximal cycle performance [17]. Although the side effects of pseudoephedrine at normal doses are less than those associated with the other sympathomimetics discussed in this article, there should be a concern for cardiovascular and central nervous system (CNS) effects when it is used at higher doses or in combination with other sympathomimetics. In addition, although there are many factors involved in the etiology of heat stroke, one should use caution when using any of the sympathomimetic drugs with intense exercise in extreme conditions. ..."

Athletes at the 'Games have been receiving banned substances lists for over thirty years.

One of the biggest concerns and controversies in '06 Turin involved the Italian anti-doping laws and the prospect of NHL players finding themselves in jail.

Not to know is very (!) ignorant.

The discussion/debate seems to be motivated, at least in part, by spin control.

Dave.

 

[martinvickers]

I did push the argument. I backed it up with, points. You are dismissing it with nothing. [

I'm sorry, with what 'points' did you back up the idea that "russia wasn't that advanced"

Why is it bizzare? this is a forum, don't just say "its bizarre" as if that proves itself.

I'll say what I please, thanks very much. It's bizarre because it's blatently bizarre - that somehow Russia, or any country would go to the trouble of working out its doping reputation, and then decide, ah who cares.

to correct you here the published figures tend to back up the fact that there is more money in GB sport, not that there would be less doping because of that. That is a conclusion you have reached your own self and presented as fact and as if you had some backup when you clearly do not.

Please point to exactly where I said there is less doping in GB sport. There's a good lad.

In fact looking at the US there is far far far far (etcetera) more money in non olympic sports, and yet during the 80's the entire olympic team was doped.

Really? Every single member of every 1980's us olympic team, all several thousand of them, doped? You KNOW this? You have evidence for it?

So your conclusion that there is less immediately visable money at the olympic level means less doping falls at the first hurdle.

That's not the argument I made. Helps if you read without allowing your personal dislike to blind you.

Im not lying about anything, just pointing out that almost all your posts on here are dedicated to defending Froome, wiggins sky. Even when we moved on to Jonathan Edwards you were aggresively ridiculing us for suggesting having a world record from the heart of epo era could be suggestive of doping.

Well, leaving aside wondering how triple jumpers could realistically benefit specifically from EPO, I ridicule where ridicule i called for. And will continue to do so.

More importantly here you are explicitly saying Britain has less doping than Russia. I didnt say that you did.

Could you point out where I said that?

Where you come from or what nation you claim to have bias towards does not interest me. In my mind we live in the 21st century not the mid 14th, and flags should not matter, and anyone who does care about what country people are born in really should leave that at the door when they enter the clinic.

Then why add the quip about my favourite country - you did that, not me.

A point was raised about olympic home advantage - last two olympics to compare? - Russia and GB. Fairly simple. But as soon as GB is mentioned you start foaming at the mouth about bias, and 'favourite countries'. Not me. you.

I then raise the fairly obvious point that I'm known to be Irish, not British, thus cutting your favourite country schtick to tatters, and YOU accuse ME of bringing country into it. Right. Very good. Pull the other one, it plays the Soldior's song.

I don't deny you the right to choose which threads you want to comment on and if you want to avoid all the non sky threads thats fine, but what i dont think is fair is that you accuse people of having nationalistic bias then follow through on that yourself by continually arguing that one country is the best at anti doping.

Again, examples please, so we can deal with each time I've said GB were the best at anti doping.

In case you havent noticed, that British team dominated the last 2 TDFs. This is exactly what I am talking about. You come in here and see flags, everywhere.

Is the irony of this lost on you?

You see people attacking the team that did the first 1-2 in the TDF in the EPO era and for some reason decide that the reason for this must be because they are British and attack us for it. They are being attacked for their out of this world performances, associations, lies, etc. There's more to this world than just the country someone represents. That doesn't always have to be the reason for why someone defends or criticizes a public figure.

Not it doesn't. And it isn't always. But by beelzebub, it sure is sometimes. and I find it really very very odd. Ir's not so much anti-british, as some broad, and frankly odd, anti-anglophone thing. On an anglophone forum. I simply find it peculiar in the extreme.

I did not personally attack you at all.

You accused me of trolling from the beginning, so please, don't lie.

 

[Netserk]

I'm not going to waste an awful lot of time trying to counter what amounts to a baiting personal attack, Netserk. You can't exactly slice up a puff of smoke. you show it for the bilious cr^p it is, and you move on.

Certainly doesn't seem so....

 

[martinvickers]

Certainly doesn't seem so....

I'm sure in Danish that's very profound. In English it's diddly squat squared, so unless you have something useful to add...