Since Baseball, Cycling and Track & Field are the three sports that have objective criteria for measuring progress in the PED war, I decided to take a look at the numbers:
1) Track & Field, sub-11 sprinting in the past decade
This year's world championship is the first in history in which no one broke 11.00s in the women's 100m final.
2) Cycling This year's Tour de France was the slowest in 13 years and almost 3 km/hr slower than the 2005 Tour (Lance's last), which was the fastest in history.
3) Baseball Fewer home runs were hit this year than any year in MLB's 10-year-old 30-team era. There were 4957 home runs (165 per team) hit this year which is 736 (25 per team) less than the 5693 home runs (190 per team) hit in 2000. Furthermore, 165 home runs per team is the fewest since 1995, three years before baseball's last expansion.
jazzcyclist wrote:Since Baseball, Cycling and Track & Field are the three sports that have objective criteria for measuring progress in the PED war, I decided to take a look at the numbers:
1) Track & Field, sub-11 sprinting in the past decade
This year's world championship is the first in history in which no one broke 11.00s in the women's 100m final.
2) Cycling This year's Tour de France was the slowest in 13 years and almost 3 km/hr slower than the 2005 Tour (Lance's last), which was the fastest in history.
3) Baseball Fewer home runs were hit this year than any year in MLB's 10-year-old 30-team era. There were 4957 home runs (165 per team) hit this year which is 736 (25 per team) less than the 5693 home runs (190 per team) hit in 2000. Furthermore, 165 home runs per team is the fewest since 1995, three years before baseball's last expansion.
I really think that we are winning the "drug war" at least in sports. However, is it really worth it considering the amount of money that is being spent on drug tests/analyses each year? Wouldn't the money be more well-spent in developing other areas of these sports [talent development and education perhaps?].
jazzcyclist wrote:3) Baseball Fewer home runs were hit this year than any year in MLB's 10-year-old 30-team era. There were 4957 home runs (165 per team) hit this year which is 736 (25 per team) less than the 5693 home runs (190 per team) hit in 2000. Furthermore, 165 home runs per team is the fewest since 1995, three years before baseball's last expansion.
This may be one of the reasons why baseball refuses to get really serious about doping control. But both the owners and the players would be better off eliminating doping and keeping the HR total where they want it by tinkering with the ball.
Mats Nilsson wrote: is it really worth it considering the amount of money that is being spent on drug tests/analyses each year? Wouldn't the money be more well-spent in developing other areas of these sports [talent development and education perhaps?].
Absolutely not. Even me, the Marks Snob, would rather go back to 60s' levels of performance, than to constantly second-guess every great new breakthrough by an athlete. For all those people who criticize my Marks Snobbery, and say it's all about the competition, they would be happy with 1:47 800s and 13:45 5000s, as long as the race was competitive (or so they said).
There is no way they are winning the war. All of sudden sub 20's are nothing, even sub 19.8's are near nothing. Many of the top sub 20 guys in the past have admitted drug usage(Mennea) or were caught(Lewis). Also why have nearly all the sub 9.8 sprinters been popped? I have noticed a trend where times get slow in a lull type period, where I suspect that new designer steroids are being tested, then times go to a new level, shortly there after(at least on the mens side).
Track fan wrote:There is no way they are winning the war. All of sudden sub 20's are nothing, even sub 19.8's are near nothing. Many of the top sub 20 guys in the past have admitted drug usage(Mennea) or were caught(Lewis). Also why have nearly all the sub 9.8 sprinters been popped? I have noticed a trend where times get slow in a lull type period, where I suspect that new designer steroids are being tested, then times go to a new level, shortly there after(at least on the mens side).
Today's sprinters are concentrating on the 200 more than sprinters of the past. You're really only talking five guys. X-man and Bolt still haven't run sub-10. Dix and Spearmon have only done it once. No comment on the 5th guy. This is just a theory i have, not gospel. Having said that, how do you explain the dearth of sub-11 sprinting among women?
Yes I agree with the specialization. It's akin to why more boxers are staying at cruiserweight. But 19.6 is a freaky time. I think Women have take humongous amounts of steroids to run sub 11. While men to run sub 10 don't. If you look at Wyomia Tyus and compare her body type to any modern sprinters and it's almost laughable. She is the last female sprinter that I am 99.9 percent certain that she didn't injest PED's by the bucketful...
Track fan wrote: Many of the top sub 20 guys in the past have admitted drug usage(Mennea) or were caught(Lewis)
Lewis did not get caught as a drug user. He tested positive for what? Ephedrine? In a dose that wouldn't get him banned today?! He took an herbal medicine for a cold and it had ephedrine in it. I doubt that ephedrine is of any help to a sprinter anyway (unless they have a cold).
Mats Nilsson wrote: is it really worth it considering the amount of money that is being spent on drug tests/analyses each year? Wouldn't the money be more well-spent in developing other areas of these sports [talent development and education perhaps?].
Absolutely not. Even me, the Marks Snob, would rather go back to 60s' levels of performance, than to constantly second-guess every great new breakthrough by an athlete. For all those people who criticize my Marks Snobbery, and say it's all about the competition, they would be happy with 1:47 800s and 13:45 5000s, as long as the race was competitive (or so they said).
We just have to accept that we will always second guess results. I am convinced that if we educate our youngsters about potential side-effects [which are exaggerated in popular media unfortunately] and the founding rules/ethics of our sport, we will be able to curb this problem. Ask yourselves: Why is Sweden succeeding with this? Becasue of a countless number of out-of-competition knock-and-pee tests or the rabid preaching from Arne Ljungqvist? Nope... It has to do with the fact that fair play and ethics is instilled in most of our athletes at a very young age, both in our schools and in the professional clubs. We are winning "the war", but you guys +Greeks+Russians are not since "the-winning-at-all-costs-attitude-even-if-it-means-cheating" prevails. This is why education is important...by parents...by teachers...by coaches.
You are more than likely not going to convince an athlete, who is already hurting his/her body through various extreme training methods [elite training is not healthy], not to use drugs by pointing out all the potential side-effects. This is just common logic. Secondly, you are not going to deter all drug-abusers by performing more knock-and-pee tests either. Most of them are pretty adept in beating the system. From what heard it is pretty simple. However, if you start early enough with educating/instilling an sense of ethics in your youngsters, you will make a difference [altough sports on an equal level is a myth in my opinion anyway]. I guess a multifactorial approach would probably be the best in your case. Ramp up the out of competition testing and start instilling a sense of fair play in your athletes early on.
Mats Nilsson wrote: We are winning "the war", but you guys +Greeks+Russians are not since "the-winning-at-all-costs-attitude-even-if-it-means-cheating" prevails. This is why education is important...by parents...by teachers...by coaches.
.
Does Swedish television have Swedish Idol or Scandinavian Survivor, and/or other pop culture analogues to the WWF, Jerry Springer, and all the other shameless village idiot shows that foster a desperate desire to be "somebody"?
How much Tzatziki can a Greco-Roman wrestler hoover in 5 minutes in front of roaring crowds? Hey now there's a thought...
Mats Nilsson wrote: We are winning "the war", but you guys +Greeks+Russians are not since "the-winning-at-all-costs-attitude-even-if-it-means-cheating" prevails. This is why education is important...by parents...by teachers...by coaches.
.
Does Swedish television have Swedish Idol or Scandinavian Survivor, and/or other pop culture analogues to the WWF, Jerry Springer, and all the other shameless village idiot shows that foster a desperate desire to be "somebody"? How much Tzatziki can a Greco-Roman wrestler hoover in 5 minutes in front of roaring crowds? Hey now there's a thought...
Yes, we do and the point is becoming "somebody" without bending the rules of the game isn't it? Are you blaming pop-culture and laziness for the moral decay of the US? Perhaps you are right...
Mats Nilsson wrote:[ Yes, we do and the point is becoming "somebody" without bending the rules of the game isn't it? Are you blaming pop-culture and laziness for the moral decay of the US? Perhaps you are right...
Blaming laziness for the moral decay of anywhere? We really don't discuss morals here, now do we? Wasn't thinking along those lines, probably works the other way around, any-ho. I just think these "events" are good for teaching people how to make shameless asses of themselves in the pursuit of glory and fame and hence some sense of "self"........at any cost to their dignity. The auditions for Idol are far too painful to watch for half as long as I can tolerate the average commercial.
Yup, those top heavy ladies clearly would have an unfair advantage close to the goal-line in sprints as well.
