Re: Lance Armstrong and "doping" generally
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:39 pm
The odds were that high because she hadn't decided to run in both races until a week before the games.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://c4countdown.co.uk/
You mean ante-post betting? I suspected you might. Now, tell me who of the other contenders was better for the 800m-1500m double, odds-wise? Maybe Mutola? This isn't just silliness, it's casting aspersions for no reason. No reason at all. What's it all about Stevie boy?Steven M. McCann wrote:The 100/1 is referred to here......news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics_2004/athletics/3609442.stm.
What would you call ante-post, then? For someone who goes on about betting so much, your grasp of it seems a bit shaky.Steven M. McCann wrote:She was 100/1 to win both, before she stepped on the track(if you want to call that ante-post), obviously after she won the 800 the bookies went into a blind panic and slashed her from 16/1 to 1/2 for the 1,500, as the Great British Public wanted to be on her to complete the double (whatever the price).
That's not true at all and my defence of Kelly Holmes has nothing to do with her being British. I was just correcting your lies, nothing more.Steven M. McCann wrote:It seems to me that the general consensus is, that only foreigners cheat and that any amazing performance by a British athlete should never ever be questioned! no matter how suspicious!
We seem to be arguing at cross-purposes, Steven. I didn't deny that she was the oldest whatever to do whatever (not that it's relevant in this case), rather that your "evidence" for her cheating was flimsy at best and easily explainable without recourse to silly conspiracy theories.Steven M. McCann wrote:Correcting my lies? oldest woman to win Olympic 800- TRUE, oldest woman to win Olympic 1,500-TRUE, oldest woman to do 800/1,500 double-TRUE, Bookies offered 100/1 for her to do the double-TRUE.
It's you who doesn't seem to know what ante-post means, in sports betting, it means before any action has taken place, the 1,500 was five days after the 800.
Google.....Kelly coup stuns the bookies
I quite like him too. I also dislike Sebastian Coe a little bit, so that's why part of me wants him to be guilty!JimBentley wrote:I'd love to think not, because he was my favourite athlete of that era bar none. And all the signs say "no"; not only did he have a strikingly different physique to his rivals, he also ran in a very idiosyncratic way. But I couldn't say for sure. Everything in that era was murky. He was sponsored by Nike if I recall and Nike did more for drugs cheating than anyone.Gavin Chipper wrote:For my last post before going to bed, do you think Michael Johnson was a cheat?
Dunno. I'm saying 50:50 and that's only because I like the guy.
They're both oddities though. Ed Moses was the first to rigorously study the event and work out how best to do it (much like Jonathan Edwards did in the triple jump some years later). Kevin Young had the ability to switch between 13 and 12 strides between hurdles, while everyone else was doing 14 or 13.Gavin Chipper wrote:Also Kevin Young came (and set a world record that still stands from 1992) and went pretty quickly in the 400m hurdles. That's another thought - was Ed Moses on drugs?
Ah, I think we're reaching a conclusion here. Your point is that anyone over a certain age (whatever you deem that to be) who wins anything of consequence must be cheating. I don't deny that this happens and have named athletes that I think are actively doing it elsewhere.Steven M. McCann wrote:That's just it Jim, fingers are always getting pointed everywhere, but for some reason Kelly Holmes always seems to get a pass. 34 year olds are always running Personal Bests in Major Finals, happens all the time, it might even happen next week, my mistake Justin Gatlin is only 33.
If he's going to do that, why bother even turning up? Why not get injured beforehand?JimBentley wrote:I like that you bring up Justin Gatlin though. Notwithstanding that he shouldn't be competing anyway, do you really think anything he does in the next week will be taken seriously by anyone (unless he breaks down with a muscle tear or similar early on, which is my personal prediction)?
Because certain interests within athletics want Usain Bolt to win, for two reasons: it would be a peg in the narrative that the sport is clean and would also mitigate their ongoing guilt in covering up the fucking mess they made with Gatlin.Gavin Chipper wrote:If he's going to do that, why bother even turning up? Why not get injured beforehand?JimBentley wrote:I like that you bring up Justin Gatlin though. Notwithstanding that he shouldn't be competing anyway, do you really think anything he does in the next week will be taken seriously by anyone (unless he breaks down with a muscle tear or similar early on, which is my personal prediction)?
I get that they'd want Bolt to win but he could do that without Gatlin getting an injury in the rounds. Does an injury during the competition look more realistic or more satisfying than an injury that would stop him turning up in the first place? Might he not just run in the final but make sure he doesn't win? Or just decide to fuck them over and win anyway - it's not as if he's got a reputation to protect if they later disqualified him. Why should he care about the reputation of the sport? Or maybe if he did that, he'd turn up dead some 20 years later...JimBentley wrote:Because certain interests within athletics want Usain Bolt to win, for two reasons: it would be a peg in the narrative that the sport is clean and would also mitigate their ongoing guilt in covering up the fucking mess they made with Gatlin.Gavin Chipper wrote:If he's going to do that, why bother even turning up? Why not get injured beforehand?JimBentley wrote:I like that you bring up Justin Gatlin though. Notwithstanding that he shouldn't be competing anyway, do you really think anything he does in the next week will be taken seriously by anyone (unless he breaks down with a muscle tear or similar early on, which is my personal prediction)?
Aye, heats tomorrow and semis/final on Sunday I think. Incidentally, I'd also be very surprised if he was to voluntarily take a dive, but I don't think he has a choice. If he wins, it's a farce. The IAAF are already in the shit about covering up positive tests (I expect the blame for this to be deflected onto individual federations through some political chicanery, by the way) and are desperate not to have a twice-caught drugs cheat winning their premier event. But as you point out, he isn't the type to just take a dive, so he'll have to be persuaded.Ian Volante wrote:Gatlin taking a dive? I'd be very surprised, but agree that it would be strongly in the interests of the powers that be. Is the 100m this weekend?
Aye, somewhat unusual early lunge/stumble there - just enough to look realistic, if somewhat different to his usual style!JimBentley wrote:Well, that didn't quite go down the way I thought; he almost overdid the play-acting ragged stumble towards the end but I don't think many will suspect. Yes, I think Lord Coe will be satisfied with this outcome. Jarmila can stay in her box for now.
He did run a poor race, but he only lost by 0.01 seconds, so maybe he was surprised Bolt didn't do better and expected him to have a bigger margin.JimBentley wrote:Well, that didn't quite go down the way I thought; he almost overdid the play-acting ragged stumble towards the end but I don't think many will suspect. Yes, I think Lord Coe will be satisfied with this outcome. Jarmila can stay in her box for now.
Sorry Toby, but that's bullshit. We know - it has been documented endlessly - that Justin Gatlin has been twice caught on drugs charges and served two bans from the sport. The reason I think he should not be allowed back - and this goes for all other definitively-caught cheats by the way, I'm not particularly bashing Gatlin - is because those two periods of heavy steroid/whatever abuse have definitely contributed to his physique (brick shithouse) and that is a continuing advantage in sprinting. So he's served his bans but continues to reap the rewards. It's wrong.Gavin Chipper wrote:He did run a poor race, but he only lost by 0.01 seconds, so maybe he was surprised Bolt didn't do better and expected him to have a bigger margin.JimBentley wrote:Well, that didn't quite go down the way I thought; he almost overdid the play-acting ragged stumble towards the end but I don't think many will suspect. Yes, I think Lord Coe will be satisfied with this outcome. Jarmila can stay in her box for now.
Or maybe he actually tried to win?
Everyone's been saying that it's good for the sport that Bolt won, but I think that's bullshit. We have a sport that allows (rightly or wrongly) someone who has been suspended twice for drugs offences to compete, and it has to be able to deal with the consequences of that. And if requires someone that everyone hates to win to then so be it. It's no good having these rules and then having these two tiers of athletes - ones that it's good if they win and ones that it's bad if they win. Fuck it - a Gatlin win would have given those smug gits (that's everyone supporting Bolt by the way) the kick up the arse they needed.
Yeah, I get your point. I suppose I shouldn't have included everyone supporting Bolt (that was more for comic effect), but I still think it would have been better for Gatlin to win. The fact is they did let him back, and the IAAF need to see the consequences of their actions. I'm sorry if a few fans (electric and hand) would be put out by this, but athletics does have a drugs problem that the IAAF haven't done enough about it, and a Gatlin win might have put more pressure on them to do something about it or generally been a catalyst for positive change. But it certainly would have put their alleged incompetence in the spotlight.JimBentley wrote:Sorry Toby, but that's bullshit. We know - it has been documented endlessly - that Justin Gatlin has been twice caught on drugs charges and served two bans from the sport. The reason I think he should not be allowed back - and this goes for all other definitively-caught cheats by the way, I'm not particularly bashing Gatlin - is because those two periods of heavy steroid/whatever abuse have definitely contributed to his physique (brick shithouse) and that is a continuing advantage in sprinting. So he's served his bans but continues to reap the rewards. It's wrong.
Absolutely, but that's because I automatically assume that everyone is a cheat until proven otherwise. I know with 100% surety that Justin Gatlin has cheated in the past and twice been caught, but I would only suspect Usain Bolt with about 66% surety. Big difference. And he may well prove to be a true freak - he is a good four inches taller than yer average sprinter and has an exceptionally long stride when he gets it right - so I do entertain the possibility that (god forbid) he doesn't cheat at all.Gavin Chipper wrote:Yeah, I get your point. I suppose I shouldn't have included everyone supporting Bolt (that was more for comic effect), but I still think it would have been better for Gatlin to win. The fact is they did let him back, and the IAAF need to see the consequences of their actions. I'm sorry if a few fans (electric and hand) would be put out by this, but athletics does have a drugs problem that the IAAF haven't done enough about it, and a Gatlin win might have put more pressure on them to do something about it or generally been a catalyst for positive change. But it certainly would have put their alleged incompetence in the spotlight.
Also, you yourself have admitted that you think it's very likely that Bolt is a cheat. So is it really good for a sport that the public get what they want even if it's a massive lie? I think that's pretty unhealthy.
I was thinking about his height actually. Like we were saying that Michael Johnson had a weird running style so that's an argument in favour of him being a freak rather than a drugs cheat. But I think it's slightly different with Bolt. There are literally millions of people who are 6ft 5 and almost all of them will never have a career in athletics. But because he is taller than the other sprinters, I think people think it must be his height that gives him his advantage and that deflects some of the drugs accusations.JimBentley wrote:Absolutely, but that's because I automatically assume that everyone is a cheat until proven otherwise. I know with 100% surety that Justin Gatlin has cheated in the past and twice been caught, but I would only suspect Usain Bolt with about 66% surety. Big difference. And he may well prove to be a true freak - he is a good four inches taller than yer average sprinter and has an exceptionally long stride when he gets it right - so I do entertain the possibility that (god forbid) he doesn't cheat at all.Gavin Chipper wrote:Yeah, I get your point. I suppose I shouldn't have included everyone supporting Bolt (that was more for comic effect), but I still think it would have been better for Gatlin to win. The fact is they did let him back, and the IAAF need to see the consequences of their actions. I'm sorry if a few fans (electric and hand) would be put out by this, but athletics does have a drugs problem that the IAAF haven't done enough about it, and a Gatlin win might have put more pressure on them to do something about it or generally been a catalyst for positive change. But it certainly would have put their alleged incompetence in the spotlight.
Also, you yourself have admitted that you think it's very likely that Bolt is a cheat. So is it really good for a sport that the public get what they want even if it's a massive lie? I think that's pretty unhealthy.
That's grasping at straws though. Compare Usain Bolt's physique with Justin Gatlin. It's like looking at a gazelle next to a wildebeest. If you genuinely think that Usain Bolt's greater height has allowed him to exploit steroids more effectively, then I'm afraid you don't know how steroids work.Gavin Chipper wrote:Because most sprinters are shorter, it can be used an argument that excessive height is a disadvantage. But because he is taller than most sprinters, that could be an argument that he is using drugs. Why aren't other really tall people successful in the 100m? It's not like they don't exist. Unlike with Michael Johnson - I haven't seen anyone run like him. So other Michael Johnsons really don't exist - or at least they are rare. Also tall people probably benefit more from building muscle than shorter people because I think it's probably harder for them to have the bulk required for sprinting. So it might be that drugs are more effective on tall runners like Bolt which could explain his success. All speculation of course, but I definitely wouldn't use his height to give him the "freak exemption".
But that's really my secondary point. My primary point is that he doesn't get the freak exemption based on his height.JimBentley wrote:That's grasping at straws though. Compare Usain Bolt's physique with Justin Gatlin. It's like looking at a gazelle next to a wildebeest. If you genuinely think that Usain Bolt's greater height has allowed him to exploit steroids more effectively, then I'm afraid you don't know how steroids work.Gavin Chipper wrote:Because most sprinters are shorter, it can be used an argument that excessive height is a disadvantage. But because he is taller than most sprinters, that could be an argument that he is using drugs. Why aren't other really tall people successful in the 100m? It's not like they don't exist. Unlike with Michael Johnson - I haven't seen anyone run like him. So other Michael Johnsons really don't exist - or at least they are rare. Also tall people probably benefit more from building muscle than shorter people because I think it's probably harder for them to have the bulk required for sprinting. So it might be that drugs are more effective on tall runners like Bolt which could explain his success. All speculation of course, but I definitely wouldn't use his height to give him the "freak exemption".
And that's where you're wrong; he does have a genuinely freakish stride length compared to most other sprinters. That would be reduced with steroids; the extra bulk would mean that he couldn't maintain that stride length. It would make him into another hulking drugs-hoover like Linford Christie. If he is cheating (and the Jamaican federation's drugs testing regime is a bit "peculiar" to say the least), then he's using something else.Gavin Chipper wrote:But that's really my secondary point. My primary point is that he doesn't get the freak exemption based on his height.JimBentley wrote:That's grasping at straws though. Compare Usain Bolt's physique with Justin Gatlin. It's like looking at a gazelle next to a wildebeest. If you genuinely think that Usain Bolt's greater height has allowed him to exploit steroids more effectively, then I'm afraid you don't know how steroids work.Gavin Chipper wrote:Because most sprinters are shorter, it can be used an argument that excessive height is a disadvantage. But because he is taller than most sprinters, that could be an argument that he is using drugs. Why aren't other really tall people successful in the 100m? It's not like they don't exist. Unlike with Michael Johnson - I haven't seen anyone run like him. So other Michael Johnsons really don't exist - or at least they are rare. Also tall people probably benefit more from building muscle than shorter people because I think it's probably harder for them to have the bulk required for sprinting. So it might be that drugs are more effective on tall runners like Bolt which could explain his success. All speculation of course, but I definitely wouldn't use his height to give him the "freak exemption".
But isn't the length due to his height? If Ryan Taylor started sprinting, wouldn't you expect him to have a long stride regardless of how good he was?JimBentley wrote:And that's where you're wrong; he does have a genuinely freakish stride length compared to most other sprinters.
Yes, of course. But what Bolt has done has combine his freakish stride length with a fast cadence, which I think it what makes him different. He doesn't exactly bustle along like an Andre Cason or a Justin Gatlin but his cadence is pretty fast for someone of 6 ft. 7 or whatever.Gavin Chipper wrote:But isn't the length due to his height? If Ryan Taylor started sprinting, wouldn't you expect him to have a long stride regardless of how good he was?JimBentley wrote:And that's where you're wrong; he does have a genuinely freakish stride length compared to most other sprinters.
inc. Tim Montgomery.
For once? I was under the impression we agreed on quite a lot of things.Zarte Siempre wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 10:08 amBut yes, I actually for once find myself in complete agreement with you.
Agreed, it's pretty unlikely to gain any traction. But it's slightly disturbing that there are officials at a high level in European Athletics who would even countenance such a ridiculous proposal.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 2:58 pm By the way, I don't think there's any chance of this happening. I think it's just posturing for whatever reason. It's also just an idea that's come out of European Athletics, and not something that's originated from the IAAF, who would be the arbiters of this.
Oh, there was plenty of suspicion at the time, which was kind of inevitable because during that summer (1995), he absolutely annihilated the old record and that always engenders suspicion. However, once he'd broken 18 metres, other athletes quickly followed, most notably Kenny Harrison, who beat Edwards in the Atlanta Olympics with a jump of 18.16m (ish, that's from memory). Harrison was a very good jumper but hadn't really approached that sort of distance prior to Edwards redefining what could be done in the event.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 2:58 pmActually I was unaware that Jonathan Edwards's record was under any particular suspicion (other than that every record is to some extent). I always assumed that he basically nailed the technical side of what was essentially a soft event and took the low-hanging fruit. People don't go into athletics to become triple jumpers - they're likely to be failed sprinters/long-jumpers.
I often find we're on the same side of a 50/50 divide, but that I don't agree with the specifics. The emphasis was on the "complete agreement" as I have literally nothing further to add really.JimBentley wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 2:49 pmFor once? I was under the impression we agreed on quite a lot of things.Zarte Siempre wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 10:08 amBut yes, I actually for once find myself in complete agreement with you.
Can I have yours then? I've run out.
I'd love to help you out, but since the Psychoactive Substances Act, it's become a hell of a job getting hold of them (for research purposes only, of course). I've made a rod for my own back really; having "researched" so many in the past, I'm now only really interested in novel substances that I've not "researched" before. Luckily I've got a guy in Poland who...aah I've said too much already.
If my memory (backed up by Wikipedia) is correct, Cook's British record was 49.43. This was surpassed by Christine Ohuruogu's 49.41 at the 2013 World Championships in Moscow.JimBentley wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 5:09 pm ...Kathy Cook's 49.40s was set around that time because she was competing against them. It's still the British record and I don't think she was cheating.
Yes, you've got me there. Funnily enough I think I've actually made that identical mistake before and I'm still unsure why. Maybe I get it mixed up with the 22.10 she set in the 200m a couple of days later (or before, I can't remember which way round the events fell now). They were definitely both at the LA Olympics though, I remember that much!Matt Bayfield wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2017 6:15 pmIf my memory (backed up by Wikipedia) is correct, Cook's British record was 49.43. This was surpassed by Christine Ohuruogu's 49.41 at the 2013 World Championships in Moscow.JimBentley wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 5:09 pm ...Kathy Cook's 49.40s was set around that time because she was competing against them. It's still the British record and I don't think she was cheating.
I'm not convinced that it pulled up other people's performances. I mean, other British 400m runners might not have had Koch or Kratochvilova to compete against, but they've still often had plenty of runners faster than them to pull them up. If you're running 51 seconds, I don't see why someone running 47 is going to pull you up any more than someone running 50.5.JimBentley wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 5:09 pm This is actually quite an interesting phenomenon in itself. To return to the women's 400m, when the likes of Marita Koch and Jarmila Kratochvilova (I know, I'm absolutely obsessed with these two in particular*) were posting their drug-assisted times in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it actually pulled up everyone else's performances. Kathy Cook's 49.40s was set around that time because she was competing against them. It's still the British record and I don't think she was cheating. Only Katherine Merry has really come close to approaching it since (and that itself was a couple of decades ago), which is odd in a sport that logically should broadly see continuous improvement.
You're probably right, I tend not to think these things through properly before posting. I think it's just that I've always thought that certain events tend to go through periods of strength, with a number of very good athletes competing at the same time, then the event sort of goes into regression for a while. It gives the impression that the event gets "hot" when somebody gets good, then others follow because of this. But I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples. Basically, I just like talking shite.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2017 6:45 pmI'm not convinced that it pulled up other people's performances. I mean, other British 400m runners might not have had Koch or Kratochvilova to compete against, but they've still often had plenty of runners faster than them to pull them up. If you're running 51 seconds, I don't see why someone running 47 is going to pull you up any more than someone running 50.5.JimBentley wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 5:09 pm This is actually quite an interesting phenomenon in itself. To return to the women's 400m, when the likes of Marita Koch and Jarmila Kratochvilova (I know, I'm absolutely obsessed with these two in particular*) were posting their drug-assisted times in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it actually pulled up everyone else's performances. Kathy Cook's 49.40s was set around that time because she was competing against them. It's still the British record and I don't think she was cheating. Only Katherine Merry has really come close to approaching it since (and that itself was a couple of decades ago), which is odd in a sport that logically should broadly see continuous improvement.
JimBentley wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2017 8:16 pmYou're probably right, I tend not to think these things through properly before posting. I think it's just that I've always thought that certain events tend to go through periods of strength, with a number of very good athletes competing at the same time, then the event sort of goes into regression for a while. It gives the impression that the event gets "hot" when somebody gets good, then others follow because of this. But I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples. Basically, I just like talking shite.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2017 6:45 pmI'm not convinced that it pulled up other people's performances. I mean, other British 400m runners might not have had Koch or Kratochvilova to compete against, but they've still often had plenty of runners faster than them to pull them up. If you're running 51 seconds, I don't see why someone running 47 is going to pull you up any more than someone running 50.5.JimBentley wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 5:09 pm This is actually quite an interesting phenomenon in itself. To return to the women's 400m, when the likes of Marita Koch and Jarmila Kratochvilova (I know, I'm absolutely obsessed with these two in particular*) were posting their drug-assisted times in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it actually pulled up everyone else's performances. Kathy Cook's 49.40s was set around that time because she was competing against them. It's still the British record and I don't think she was cheating. Only Katherine Merry has really come close to approaching it since (and that itself was a couple of decades ago), which is odd in a sport that logically should broadly see continuous improvement.
You're probably right, I tend not to think these things through properly before posting. I think it's just that I've always thought that certain events tend to go through periods of strength, with a number of very good athletes competing at the same time, then the event sort of goes into regression for a while. It gives the impression that the event gets "hot" when somebody gets good, then others follow because of this. But I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples. Basically, I just like talking shite.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2017 6:45 pm
I'm not convinced that it pulled up other people's performances. I mean, other British 400m runners might not have had Koch or Kratochvilova to compete against, but they've still often had plenty of runners faster than them to pull them up. If you're running 51 seconds, I don't see why someone running 47 is going to pull you up any more than someone running 50.5.
Now you say that, I don't think it's necessarily complete rubbish. I'm just not completely convinced by it.JimBentley wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2017 8:17 pmYou're probably right, I tend not to think these things through properly before posting. I think it's just that I've always thought that certain events tend to go through periods of strength, with a number of very good athletes competing at the same time, then the event sort of goes into regression for a while. It gives the impression that the event gets "hot" when somebody gets good, then others follow because of this. But I'm sure there are plenty of counter-examples. Basically, I just like talking shite.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu May 04, 2017 6:45 pm
I'm not convinced that it pulled up other people's performances. I mean, other British 400m runners might not have had Koch or Kratochvilova to compete against, but they've still often had plenty of runners faster than them to pull them up. If you're running 51 seconds, I don't see why someone running 47 is going to pull you up any more than someone running 50.5.
A couple of years late, but it happened. And I do still think it's a good thing that it happened.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Aug 23, 2015 9:27 pmEveryone's been saying that it's good for the sport that Bolt won, but I think that's bullshit. We have a sport that allows (rightly or wrongly) someone who has been suspended twice for drugs offences to compete, and it has to be able to deal with the consequences of that. And if requires someone that everyone hates to win to then so be it. It's no good having these rules and then having these two tiers of athletes - ones that it's good if they win and ones that it's bad if they win. Fuck it - a Gatlin win would have given those smug gits (that's everyone supporting Bolt by the way) the kick up the arse they needed.
Yeah, I don't think it's anything new though. I think it's been discussed before that you could just allow anything, but the women would end up as men, and the men would and up as monsters, and young people wouldn't aspire to be like them. And then it goes further with genetic modification, and what even counts as human. Someone might win a 100m race after being so genetically modified that they are basically a car. But why wait until we can do it by genetic modification? We have cars now. Why not sit in a car, strap yourself in, define the human/car combination as one entity that you identify as, and set a new 100m world record?Mark James wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:39 pm https://www.balls.ie/athletics/doug-logan-378970
Great article this.
I think you just invented drag racing.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:08 pmWhy not sit in a car, strap yourself in, define the human/car combination as one entity that you identify as, and set a new 100m world record?Mark James wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:39 pm https://www.balls.ie/athletics/doug-logan-378970
Great article this.
It's reckoned that the training that elite athletes do actually brings on the asthma.
For most of the past decade, Olympic athletes had to get special permission to take salbutamol (the asthma drug sold in inhalers as Ventolin). That rule changed last year, so that athletes in London can take salbutamol with no restrictions
Also:the most likely explanation for the asthmatic advantage is that the incidence of asthma-like symptoms increases in athletes who have done the most training over the longest period of time, due to environmental stresses. It's actually not surprising, Dr. Koehle points out, that these athletes are also more likely to win medals.
They tested 42 elite cyclists, 10 of whom had "exercise-induced bronchoconstriction" (the correct term for asthma-like symptoms triggered by exercise). Each cyclist performed two 10-kilometre time trials, with or without drugs, in a double-blinded design. The result: no differences in finishing time, even for the asthmatics.
MPs are the last people who should be pontificating about this sort of thing. They have zero expertise on such matters. OK, I realise they have pretty much zero expertise when it comes to anything, but they can at least claim that social and political issues are their remit. Elite sport certainly is not. HOWEVER...I think they've actually come down on the right side this time (probably by accident).Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:48 pm Some interesting stuff today about Bradley Wiggins and his asthma medication.
I do wonder what cheating in a sport has got to do with MPs though. Haven't they got their actual job to do?
Also, if a medication for some illness does have performance-enhancing effects generally, then it should be available to everyone or no-one in the sport. It seems ridiculous that you can gain an advantage by having an illness.
Edit - On the MP thing, they wouldn't get involved with cheating on Apterous would they? Same thing!
But what do you do if someone has a condition and genuinely takes medication for it and not because of any performance-enhancing effects, but then gets an advantage anyway? This is still unfair in my book, which is why I don't think medical exemptions should exist at all - allow everyone or no-one to take the drugs.JimBentley wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:12 pmMPs are the last people who should be pontificating about this sort of thing. They have zero expertise on such matters. OK, I realise they have pretty much zero expertise when it comes to anything, but they can at least claim that social and political issues are their remit. Elite sport certainly is not. HOWEVER...I think they've actually come down on the right side this time (probably by accident).Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:48 pm Some interesting stuff today about Bradley Wiggins and his asthma medication.
I do wonder what cheating in a sport has got to do with MPs though. Haven't they got their actual job to do?
Also, if a medication for some illness does have performance-enhancing effects generally, then it should be available to everyone or no-one in the sport. It seems ridiculous that you can gain an advantage by having an illness.
Edit - On the MP thing, they wouldn't get involved with cheating on Apterous would they? Same thing!
Bradley Wiggins's argument seems to be yes, he took some drugs for his condition (asthma) and in his interview today even admits that they may have had performance-enhancing effects. When he says that it was all within the rules as it fell under a therapeutic use exemption, he's right. But I think what most people are arguing (certainly I am) is that therapeutic use exemptions are a joke, especially when abused to the degree that Team Sky seem to have done. All their athletes were diagnosed with some condition that supposedly needed pharmacological assistance on a purely medicinal level. Yeah, sure. It's just coincidence that all the drugs administered to all their riders happened to be performance-enhancing.
I don't even think it's a grey area, I think it's fairly blatant. If you cheat within the rules, but you're exploiting the rules to allow the cheating, then is it cheating? Yes. It is.
I think you can look as long and hard as you like and will never find a genuine example of that sort of condition. Not one.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:31 pmBut what do you do if someone has a condition and genuinely takes medication for it and not because of any performance-enhancing effects, but then gets an advantage anyway? This is still unfair in my book, which is why I don't think medical exemptions should exist at all - allow everyone or no-one to take the drugs.