pattaya127 Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 Did these 2 denying athletes, IYO, take one or more performance-enhancing products (including illegal health/exhaustion/resistance helpers), knowing full well it should never be brought out as it would damage their career and reputation? "other", bring your comments, undecided "other", try to lean one way or another. Thanks If you don't know who they are, just pass the poll by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinkz Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 Yes to both, guilt by association. Cyclists are the biggest dopers of all and are the tightest-knit and to win five you've got to obviously both have talent but be keeping up with the competition as well. Jones is dirty by the company she keeps. Last Olympics it was the British shotputter banned for life, this time her squeeze is Montgomery, who has admitted to it and came out-of-nowhere to set the 100m record. Benefit of doubt belongs to Barry Bonds, who has also surged, but has always followed a strict physical regimen and hasn't placed the setting of records above all else (he's blase about Aaron's mark). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted July 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 it was the British shotputter banned for life ----------------------------- Not sure who you mean. But if it was her first hubbie, he was american. Yes, her 2 "halves" have been deep in doodoo, so is she, this time, not only by association. She is not at her best, this year. may have to do with her recent motherhood (her butt bit out of shape, I remarked, ever the buttman!), or not playing with fire anymore. generally, sprint performances have lost at least an average of 1/10th of a sec, if not 2, in the 100, these last 2 years, all men, all women. With drugs enhancing endurance and resistance to effort, it gets worse as we go into 200 and 400. barely anyone under 20.20 and 45, so far this year. You used to have this and better by May, previous years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinkz Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Right you are, don't know why I thought the knucklehead CJ Hunter was British. Regarding sub-par performances, however, unfortunately athletics is only a quadrennial event (the payoff of the Olympics) these days. World championships mean nothing and the European summer season merely pays the bills. The top contenders are only holding fitness and not racing and will peak in six weeks for the Games. Americans at a disadvantage as they must qualify at trials in two weeks (just unloaded my tix, held in Sacramento, as was '00, with the featured race of Greene, the defending world's fastest, who may struggle to make team, moving up to 200 to challenge Johnson, the best ever, who accepted to move down from 400 to also double, with both pulling up lame in the turn). Certainly no marquee name this go-around so will be very competitive as speedburners continue to be discouraged to pursue fame and riches in other sports. The distances, however, are posting some impressive times but largely in a vacuum by obscure hard-working performers of various African nationalities as the sons of Ryan, Clarke, Walker, Coe and Ovett would rather grab a sweet and watch the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted July 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 I intend to make the trials in Sacramento this year. That's next week. I beg to differ on Us athletes not having any peak performnances between Olympics. not proven by the facts. I would rather think that the Olympics are imporatnt in that it will set their market value for the next 4 years in Europe, also for advertisers. Then, you have the new names who are not going to wait 3 years to shake up the hierarchy/records (if they can) because they started their career at the top one year after the Olympics. As in Cycling, it's also the constant competing to be on top for maximum buck and marketable (8 guys per track, in big meets, semis with 16 maybe) that calls for taking drugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinkz Posted July 2, 2004 Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 Yes, the athletes peak every year but my point in explaining subpar times this year is because there is only one meet on the calendar --The O's. Gold is golden as it determines appearance fees for the next three years, the only other payoff is in setting world records, a la Bubka. In regards to drugging, there is a cat-and-mouse game with the testers lagging behind the cheaters. Once it was simple yet dangerous steroids (for sprinters and powerpeople) and blood-doping (for cyclists and long distance endurance), now it's gone designer with HGH (increased strength) and EPO (increased oxygen) which has become part of the lexicon but the next generation is probably now in use (with the correct dosage being tinkered and fine-tuned) and thus far undetectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.