Drugs in other sports and the media.

1…103104106108109…217

Comments

  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    Maybe they did a 'Leeds Olympic size swimming pool' with the track and forgot to account for the track equivalent of tiles in a swimming pool.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • Paul 8v
    Paul 8v Posts: 5,458
    It's definitely not big enough as that dutch rider had to go up the advertising boards as there wasn't enough room.
    Road
    MTB
    NEW Cross
    Track/Grass Track/Winter bike
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,579
    Paul 8v wrote:
    It's definitely not big enough as that dutch rider had to go up the advertising boards as there wasn't enough room.
    Think they were talking about the athletics track being short Paul8v after the Ethiopean woman's unbelievable time in the 10k! :D
  • salsiccia1
    salsiccia1 Posts: 3,725
    I think it might have a bump before the finish line:

    _90802196_photo_finish.jpg

    Joao_Vitor_de_Oliveira-large_trans++P11JIz1p9IOWu4bU6XcffCTBgXyxOzV0bR3yr2q7sbg.jpg
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • FocusZing
    FocusZing Posts: 4,373
    o-FINISH-LINE-facebook.jpg

    It reminds me of the finish in the cross skiing at Sochi.
  • Paul 8v
    Paul 8v Posts: 5,458
    Dorset Boy wrote:
    Paul 8v wrote:
    It's definitely not big enough as that dutch rider had to go up the advertising boards as there wasn't enough room.
    Think they were talking about the athletics track being short Paul8v after the Ethiopean woman's unbelievable time in the 10k! :D
    Ah, fair enough!

    That horrible electric Derny thing should definitely receive some dopage after the antics last night. Can't accelerate away as it's limited to 50km/h
    Road
    MTB
    NEW Cross
    Track/Grass Track/Winter bike
  • timoid.
    timoid. Posts: 3,133
    Doping? Old Skool.

    Just buy the judges:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... -in-defeat

    This was the worst one. Uzbek this time, not Russian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... o-olympics

    Disgusting
    It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Justin Gatlin, a two time doper, failed to qualify for the 200m final. How can clean athletes beat a known doper's times?

    (I won't accept answers that suggest that Gatlin ran a crap race in a slow time. All doper's times are at their maximum capacity)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    Via twitter:

    Usain Bolt has 9 of the fastest 30 100m times - the other 21 are from convicted dopers.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Great stat (although doesn't look great).

    Out of interest, what is the next fastest 100m time by a non-doper (excluding extreme suspicion)?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,464
    Doesn't really show much at all though does it? You think how many times a sprinter runs in a season and how closely packed most of those times are. Add in the times improve over the years and Bolt has dominated for most of the last decade whilst those who've come close to him have failed and it's not really a surprise (the top 30 only consists of 6 athletes). It's just another 'that person is winning in a sport where people have doped therefore he must also dope' nonsense.

    Here's the all time list http://www.alltime-athletics.com/m_100ok.htm

    I don't think Maurice Greene was convicted of doping so he seems to be the next quickest clean athlete and we're talking hundredths of seconds here.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    9.79 vs 9.58 is more than few 100ths of a second.

    I'm not saying I think bolt is a doper but it's not like cycling where you can argue about the build up to a particular climb, the race etc., weather, the day, previous and proceeding days etc. The 100m is an all out smashfest like your life depends on it every time.

    If it was the case that Bolt was a doper I'd be extremely disappointed but not extremely surprised.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,464
    I was thinking more of the difference between Greene and the known dopers (1/10th is the biggest gap there and Greene was a decade earlier).
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    True, but as per the nonsense argument, they are all now beaten by a clean runner. I'm not trying to state outright that I think or believe there is anything untowards happening, but it could be suggested that there may be an outside chance.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,464
    There's always an outside chance. Like you I wouldn't be surprised but only in as much as I have come to learn that being convinced anyone is clean is a mistake. However, much like with Froome the suspicion / innuendo is solely based on him being able to being the best when we know some people dope (plus the slightly more compelling argument that many of Jamaica's top sprinters have been caught). If you take the view that anyone being the best at a sport is doping and that you cannot be the best and be clean then you may as well give up watching which was a view I took of cycling from the late 90s to the mid 00s.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Pedant hat on. 9.79 seconds is two tenths plus 1 hundredth of a second faster than 9.58 seconds not "a few hundredths". Just saying it's a factor of 10 more than you said.

    Sorry! Being too pedantic about it because your point is a good one, but it would have niggled at me if I hadn't got it out. I hate being too pedantic.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    You cannot be sure these blue ribbon.events don't have cheats still in them. It's got big benefits to being successful so there's big incentives to make that success happen. Doping/cheating is the shadow that'll be over the sport always. Being the best will bring doubt on you. Being the best for 9 years even more so.
  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    It's widely believed Greene wasn't clean.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Pross - I have re-written a reply about 10 times but I am really struggling to articulate myself today.

    Basically I am confident that cycling is clean for the most part, but as you say, not convinced. There are a handful of riders and teams who seem tainted by association.

    Athletics my view is that they are improving but still not that great, especially for blue riband events. When a 'clean' sprinter can beat a known doper over the same course at the same time, it does raise eyebrows. If Froome and Pantani/Armstrong/whoever went head to head at their peak in a mountain TT (or equivalent which played to both their strengths) and Froome won would you not ask some obvious questions?
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    "No fewer than ninety sprinters have run 100m times below the magical mark of ten seconds. Sadly, no fewer than twenty-four of those ninety have failed a drugs test at some stage in their career. In other words, over 25% of those sprinters that have dipped under the ten second mark have tested positive during their career.

    At the top end of the list, it gets far worse. Thirty sprinters have run sub 9.90 times in their careers. Thirteen of those have now failed drug tests. That works out at over 43% of sprinters sub 9.90 that have a doping record.

    Of the nine fastest men in history, there are only two that have never failed a doping test – Usain Bolt and Maurice Greene. Tyson Gay, Yohan Blake, Asafa Powell, Nesta Carter, Tim Montgomery, Justin Gatlin and Steve Mullings have all tested positive.

    In the face of this, one cannot help but feel somewhat suspicious of Usain Bolt. Do not get me wrong, I am not necessarily implying that Usain Bolt is doping. As much as anyone, I would be heartbroken if it were to come out at some stage that he had been – it would be the final nail in the coffin for sprinting."

    http://www.sportdw.com/2013/07/the-spec ... tween.html

    Sums up my thoughts, and as Dinyull says, Greene may well have been doping (below from the same article).
    Maybe not the heartbroken bit.

    "Excluding the Jamaican, the only man in history to have run sub 9.8 seconds that has not tested positive is Maurice Greene, and there have been plenty of accusations levelled at him since his retirement that he was using performance-enhancing drugs. While nothing has ever been proven, there is rarely smoke without fire."
  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    He was never popped, but there is a paper trail of him buying a lot of different drugs from a former coach. His explanation was that his friends/family were taking him for a ride, spending all of his money behind his back.
  • norvernrob
    norvernrob Posts: 1,448
    I couldn't help but have a look in the Clinic to see what they thought of the GB cycling squad and Olympics in general. As one of them put it, 'some of the golfers look clean' (I have no idea how they decide who's doping based on how they look) :lol::lol:

    As for British Cycling, its a joke and has a bigger doping regime than East Germany did apparently 8)

    I really hope nothing ever comes back on Bolt and that he is clean, as it would really destroy faith in the whole Olympics, not just sprinting.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    Dabber wrote:
    The Clinic, the clinic, the clinic..... who gives a flying f*** what they think.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    coriordan wrote:
    Dabber wrote:
    The Clinic, the clinic, the clinic..... who gives a flying f*** what they think.
    They do!
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,435
    It'd be a little bit embarrassing if GB/BC turned out to be running a team-wide doping programme. Not impossible but you'd think we would have heard more about it by now, especially given how leaky they seem to be.

    Cycling Podcast saying that GB cycling's budget is 30 million pounds per Olympic cycle, whereas some of the other teams are on 2.5m or less. Fairly comfortable with that as an explanation, for now, until maybe we hear otherwise.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,464
    My problem is that if you are a clean athlete you really can't win (literally!), it's the single most depressing legacy of other people doping.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,728
    Pross wrote:
    My problem is that if you are a clean athlete you really can't win (literally!), it's the single most depressing legacy of other people doping.

    This. So much so.

    As for the Clinic, they are entitled to their collective opinion, just as individuals are.
    It's just nice to know that in terms of the GB track team, they are wrong.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • dinyull
    dinyull Posts: 2,979
    Pross wrote:
    My problem is that if you are a clean athlete you really can't win (literally!), it's the single most depressing legacy of other people doping.

    This is why all dopers need life bans and all WR'S need resetting. We're gotten to the point now where there is very little trust because of the past scandals....and most sports are yet to have their cycling moment.
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    I do agree with that and as you say it's a very depressing legacy. I do try not to jump to conclusions, just keep an open mind, but not so much my brain falls out
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,170
    The shame factor needs to be played out more. It's why it's important to always refer to any ban when mentioning any dopers in any reports. As in "coached by Linford Christie, who has served a ban for doping" etc.

Categories