Cuba's high jump world record holder Javier Sotomayor tested positive for the anabolic steroid nandrolone at an athletics meeting in Madrid in 2001. How much (if any) did this contribute to his success as a high jumper?
Not born yet. A question that can't be taken seriously until somebody gets back up to 6-10 territory. Nobody has even reached 6-9 in more than a decade. Just another chilling reminder that the IAAF blew it by not coming up with "World REcords for the new millenium."
That would have afforded the chance for a SEMI-logical excuse (other than, "hey, all the women's records of the last 40 years were clearly drug-aided").
The public has a very short memory (especially since most don't like track anyway), as evidenced by instant accewptance of new WRs every time a new model javelin is introduced and the previous years of history are instantly obviated. It owuld have been a cheap trick to those of us on the inside, but would have helped boost the sport's international appeal.
>the IAAF blew it by not coming up with
"World Records for the new millenium." <
Do you think the sport is free from drugs now? Judging from what I read on this and other T&F forums, it seems that an awful lot of people don't think so. As long as that's the case--as long as the sport is not only clean but perceived to be clean--the IAAF should not erase the old records. When the testers finally win the war against the dopers, there will be good cause to celebrate and to wipe the record slate clean.
If you have any evidence whatsoever or anything that even resembles evidence on these 3, please share. I don't think it's fair to slander these athletes strictly because they turned in extraordinary performances!
Regarding MJ, of course there is no evidence that he was dirty. However, there are not many guys who go from a wiry long sprinter in college to a shredded-out sprinter dropping a third of a second off a sprint record that stood for almost 20 years. Again, that doesn't prove anything, but you're naive if you think that a grown man who runs as much as these quarter-milers do can pack on that much muscle without any help. Not to mention the fact that he shattered that record in Atlanta, when finished a stretch of eight sprint races (a total of 2400 meters worth of sprints) with probably the greatest sprint race ever run. Now, I'm not saying that you should take these facts and assume anything, but you also shouldn't assume that a sport like track & field is even remotely clean, especially in the sprints and throws. Those events are so dependant upon physical strength and endurance, that other than powerlifting I can't think of another sport in which an athlete would be helped more by such substances. It's kind of like all the talk about Sammy Sosa and steroids. Has he ever tested positive? No. But he went from a grown adult man who weighed 165 pounds as a rooke to the 225 pound hulk that he is today. Grown men don't add 60 pounds of muscle without help. Not to mention that Sammy's performances went from in the 30 home run range to in the 60 home run range all in the span of a year. It's not evidence, but you would be silly to just assume that because he hasn't tested positive he's not using anything. Just like you'd be silly to assume that because none of his other 76 bats were corked that he never used one before. I know there are lots of idealists out there who will disagree with all that, and to each his own I guess.
MJ was yoked in Atlanta, no doubt about it. He was so buffed and polished he didn't look real. I remember the story going around in 92 that he had been caught, but the IAAF and IOC didn't want an embarrassing scandal before the games, so they told him to "stay clean" - they would monitor him, if he turned up positive again, then out he goes. Supposedly that's where the food poisoning story came from, to explain his slowdown at the 200 and loss of some muscle mass. Don't know if it's the undisputed truth, but the story was told to me by two different coaches from "rival" countries, one in the Caribbean, one of them from Europe. They both swore it was the truth. However, rumors fly around all the time.
Soto? Oh, always thought he was dirty as hell. Talented as hell too. But ... doped to the gills.
Sosa? Of course he was juicing. Bonds? How does a guy 37 gain 45 lbs. in four months (and three hat sizes!) and become a 73 HR's in a season hitter? Not by watching tapes of Ted Williams or reading The Art of Hitting .300 by Charlie Lau. Gaining three hat sizes is due to more than run of the mill steroids, as I'm sure most of you know. It's interesting to look at old baseball games from the 70's, 80's, and even early 90's on ESPN classic and see how many "skinny" players there were in MLB in those days. Weightlifting alone has made a difference, never mind the introduction of steroids, creatine, etc.
On a side note, I am always struck by old pictures and films of middle and long distance runners (Americans that is) from the 1960's. They seem to have lower body fat percentages than a lot of our middle/long distance guys today. Maybe it's from the trend of getting away from brutal sessions of 400's. Just a thought.
I definitely have my suspicions about Sosa and Bonds. Both weighed in the 160-175 range earlier in their careers and now both are over 230..it seems a bit odd. I don't have similar suspicisons about MJ...he ran some good times in college but stayed injured quite a bit. I am starting another post regarding him and possible drug use.
>My original question was can steroids help a high
>jumper jump higher??>>
Steroids can make you (anyone) both stronger and faster. Ergo, they help in every physical activity imaginable.
They also allow you to endure a far higher training load. This last is the key. You don't just take steroids and sit on the couch and wait to pump up; you need to work as hard (or harder) than ever. You just get better results from your work. (put in very simplistic fashion)
CoachKoby, I do not remotely remember the actual %'s, but a few years ago in USA Today or somewhere, there was a squib about some survey of some group of athletes posing a question along the lines of....
" If you could win an Olympic Gold Medal, but the trade off would be that you would die 5 years later, would you do it ? "
A much-larger-than expected percentage said " Yes " !
And you wonder why athletes are willing to take drugs to improve performance ??!!
>CoachKoby, I do not remotely remember the actual
>%'s, but a few years ago in USA Today or
>somewhere, there was a squib about some survey of
>some group of athletes posing a question along
>the lines of....
" If you could win an
>Olympic Gold Medal, but the trade off would be
>that you would die 5 years later, would you do it
A much-larger-than expected percentage
>said " Yes " !
And you wonder why athletes
>are willing to take drugs to improve performance
Yeah, I remember that. Most of the athletes said they'd take the drugs. Either they couldn't think too far ahead, or they figured a "cure" or "antidote" will be developed, ya' think?
>>My original question was can steroids help a
>jumper jump higher??>>
>make you (anyone) both stronger and faster. Ergo,
>they help in every physical activity
They also allow you to endure a
>far higher training load. This last is the key.
>You don't just take steroids and sit on the couch
>and wait to pump up; you need to work as hard
>(or harder) than ever. You just get better
>results from your work. (put in very simplistic
So true. You are able to put your body under incredible stress and almost feel no effects the next day(or very little). Therefore, the "Hard-Easy" training method is no more. It's "Hard-Harder". Training is twice as effectve and intense. Recovery with no muscle fatigue...sounds tempting.
Regarding your comment about Sosa "Has he ever tested positive? No."
He has never been tested. About a year back Sosa told a reporter that he would be the first one to get tested but when a reporter said sure, take a test for me, he freaked out and stopped the interview
>Regarding your comment about Sosa "Has he ever
>tested positive? No."
He has never been tested.
>About a year back Sosa told a reporter that he
>would be the first one to get tested but when a
>reporter said sure, take a test for me, he
>freaked out and stopped the interview
Sosa physically threatened the reporter, Rick Reilly, from SI. Both Sosa and Bonds refused tests after saying they would take them.
Regarding all this drug talk. Isn't it a farce to pretend we can separate athletes nice & neatly into two groups: 1) "drug users" and 2) "clean." It's my understanding that the current drug rules (or at least most of them) DO NOT prohibit the use of certain drugs--they simply put a CEILING on permissable levels. In other words, athletes are foolish if they don't (legally!) "drug" up to the permissable level: that results, theoretically, in our ideal "level playing field." There's an awful lot of ground between "totally clean" and "totally dirty," although I have no doubt that we could come up with examples of both categories. The history of this stuff is very long: (some) athletes in the 1880s were using stimulants of various kinds. I just don't see how "performance enhancement" can be logically talked about as a simple, either-or thing...