We’ll continue to have our eyes covered if we keep believing there are “drug coaches” and “clean coaches” or drug groups and clean groups and it is that clear cut.
well clearly I am wrong about Heike’s GDR days. However, I think any woman who gives birth while still competing you’d find it difficult to say they were doping. If the information I gathered is correct she doped from 17-21 years of age and then it was no more.
Her spying as a stasi member was not about doping and more about defections and anti-state activity.
She’s a cheat, but like so many of East Germans was she or was she not aware, they all used the vitamin excuse including the woman who called them out. Obviously she didn’t have the outward physiological changes many of her teammates had so she was far too young to be aware.
We’ll continue to have our eyes covered if we keep believing there are “drug coaches” and “clean coaches” or drug groups and clean groups and it is that clear cut.
Wow, I agree, but there are drug personalities/psychologies and there are coaches like me who would call out any athlete they knew were doping. The travesty is more athletes are NOT calling other athletes out.
Also, Vince Anderson has had many athletes leave him to go to coaches like Trevor Graham.
As for the topic change of this thread and back to it’s point. Athlete’s who dope have shorter careers.
Here’s my reasoning and opinion. (I don’t think you can find empirically either way)
1. All athletes or most of them start clean.
2. The reason to dope(cheat) comes at the point when they can no longer win or have to win to find satisfaction in participation in the sport. This doesn’t happen until the HS level or collegiate level. However, you’ll find it tough to find a systemic doping regime in collegiate track and field these days, unless the football program and S&C;staff what to supply it to them.
3. If you have to dope to win and can no longer win while doping then why compete any longer.
4. This seems to happen at a neatly convenient time. Age 27-33 for most athletes across the board and not just track athletes. Why??? The effect of anabolic PED’s on connective tissues (muscle,tendon, ligament, fascae, and bone) actually causes some very bad unbalanced physiological consequences with increased force outputs and rate of force development that occur with there consumption. Tendon and Ligaments deteriorate with long term use, while bone and muscle get stronger and harder.
5. After the injuries occur to the tendon and ligament tissues (in some case muscles), the athlete loses performance even with PED usage because the tendons and ligaments no longer replicate like they had even at pre-PED usage levels thus all performance is dictated by the performance of muscle and bone.
6. If you can’t compete to the level of satisfaction that makes you want to compete well then you get out. How can someone who dopes, do it for a long period of time in which it does not produce results for that individual.
7. The examples are out there to justify this reasoning. In American “Sports” were PED’s are used at a very high percentage it seems there is a 5-7 year window maybe 8 years at most were an athlete begins to use PED’s before performance drops significantly. In Baseball, Clemens, Canseco, McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Tejeda, Pettite etc… The longest term of use known and high level of performance was McGwire with Andro and that was about 11 years on an unproven substance although many believe he took something else between 1995-2001, his career was plaqued with injuries. The older athletes needed prescribed playing schedules while continuing to were down to nagging injuries and the younger players fell off the planet. In football, were PED usage is likely the highest in sport, players like Merriman come to mind, but Bill Romanowski seems to be counter intuitive to what I believe. The guys who survive injuries in the NFL by taking corticosteroids not just anabolic steriods. Take corticosteroids before a WADA administered organizations competition and see what happens to you.
As for the topic change of this thread and back to it’s point. Athlete’s who dope have shorter careers.
Here’s my reasoning and opinion. (I don’t think you can find empirically either way)
1. All athletes or most of them start clean.
2. The reason to dope(cheat) comes at the point when they can no longer win or have to win to find satisfaction in participation in the sport. This doesn’t happen until the HS level or collegiate level. However, you’ll find it tough to find a systemic doping regime in collegiate track and field these days, unless the football program and S&C;staff what to supply it to them.
3. If you have to dope to win and can no longer win while doping then why compete any longer.
4. This seems to happen at a neatly convenient time. Age 27-33 for most athletes across the board and not just track athletes. Why??? The effect of anabolic PED’s on connective tissues (muscle,tendon, ligament, fascae, and bone) actually causes some very bad unbalanced physiological consequences with increased force outputs and rate of force development that occur with there consumption. Tendon and Ligaments deteriorate with long term use, while bone and muscle get stronger and harder.
5. After the injuries occur to the tendon and ligament tissues (in some case muscles), the athlete loses performance even with PED usage because the tendons and ligaments no longer replicate like they had even at pre-PED usage levels thus all performance is dictated by the performance of muscle and bone.
6. If you can’t compete to the level of satisfaction that makes you want to compete well then you get out. How can someone who dopes, do it for a long period of time in which it does not produce results for that individual.
1. What do you mean by start? Start competing at all? Talking middle school or younger level or do you mean start taking it seriously?
2. What about people who win (at whatever level) and decide to use anyway? From D1 athletes I’ve talked to, I’m not so sure your position on the systemic doping is really correct, though it may certainly be less formal (not necessarily the coaches playing the role, but other athletes/assistants/whatever).
3. Well then I guess everyone that runs the 100m/200m is going to quit because there is no hope for them to beat Bolt, right?
4. Plenty of athletes, clean and not, have their careers limited/shortened/ended by connective tissue injuries. It is almost inevitable, over a long enough time, when pushing the human body to such extremes. When Mo had his motorcycle accident, I don’t think you can say the damage caused do his bones and ligaments in that leg were hurt because of PEDs or it was convenient for him to get into a wreck. The same goes for many others. I saw plenty of connective tissue injuries each year in high school and college track—it just happens.
5. This would be true for everyone though.
6. This doesn’t make sense. It is obviously going to produce some results, maybe not the best possible results. Do you really think it is only the winners that are cheating? I am not so extreme as to believe EVERY athlete or even every winner is cheating, but I think a lot more are than many want to believe. If people only kept competing because they truly believed they would be the greatest, we’d have a very small population of athletes. There are entire divisions of athletics where the people have no chance of winning, yet continue to compete, and in some cases, probably continue to dope as well.
As for the topic change of this thread and back to it’s point. Athlete’s who dope have shorter careers.
Here’s my reasoning and opinion. (I don’t think you can find empirically either way)
1. All athletes or most of them start clean.
2. The reason to dope(cheat) comes at the point when they can no longer win or have to win to find satisfaction in participation in the sport. This doesn’t happen until the HS level or collegiate level. However, you’ll find it tough to find a systemic doping regime in collegiate track and field these days, unless the football program and S&C;staff what to supply it to them.
3. If you have to dope to win and can no longer win while doping then why compete any longer.
4. This seems to happen at a neatly convenient time. Age 27-33 for most athletes across the board and not just track athletes. Why??? The effect of anabolic PED’s on connective tissues (muscle,tendon, ligament, fascae, and bone) actually causes some very bad unbalanced physiological consequences with increased force outputs and rate of force development that occur with there consumption. Tendon and Ligaments deteriorate with long term use, while bone and muscle get stronger and harder.
5. After the injuries occur to the tendon and ligament tissues (in some case muscles), the athlete loses performance even with PED usage because the tendons and ligaments no longer replicate like they had even at pre-PED usage levels thus all performance is dictated by the performance of muscle and bone.
6. If you can’t compete to the level of satisfaction that makes you want to compete well then you get out. How can someone who dopes, do it for a long period of time in which it does not produce results for that individual.
1. What do you mean by start? Start competing at all? Talking middle school or younger level or do you mean start taking it seriously?
2. What about people who win (at whatever level) and decide to use anyway? From D1 athletes I’ve talked to, I’m not so sure your position on the systemic doping is really correct, though it may certainly be less formal (not necessarily the coaches playing the role, but other athletes/assistants/whatever).
3. Well then I guess everyone that runs the 100m/200m is going to quit because there is no hope for them to beat Bolt, right?
4. Plenty of athletes, clean and not, have their careers limited/shortened/ended by connective tissue injuries. It is almost inevitable, over a long enough time, when pushing the human body to such extremes. When Mo had his motorcycle accident, I don’t think you can say the damage caused do his bones and ligaments in that leg were hurt because of PEDs or it was convenient for him to get into a wreck. The same goes for many others. I saw plenty of connective tissue injuries each year in high school and college track—it just happens.
5. This would be true for everyone though.
6. This doesn’t make sense. It is obviously going to produce some results, maybe not the best possible results. Do you really think it is only the winners that are cheating? I am not so extreme as to believe EVERY athlete or even every winner is cheating, but I think a lot more are than many want to believe. If people only kept competing because they truly believed they would be the greatest, we’d have a very small population of athletes. There are entire divisions of athletics where the people have no chance of winning, yet continue to compete, and in some cases, probably continue to dope as well.
1. Whenever they start competing in a sport.
2. I think you’ll find if people can win without taking them no matter the level they won’t take them until they have to face that decision or they base the decision on breaking a record. Like I said, it’s not systemic a track coaching staff at the collegiate level would need on the order of 10K per year per athlete to make a difference. You are much more likely to see this type of support and systemic doping in friends of the program (alumni and post-collegians) in collegiate athletics and with little knowledge of the coaching staff.
3. Bolt doesn’t run every 100/200m race and it’s about money too. You have to produce results to make money and you need money to get the PED’s.
4. This is true, but under most circumstances athletes who have a progressive training protocol last a long time and produce consistent results and have limited injuries especially if their coach has the philosophy that a hurt athlete is an athlete who should not compete. However, younger athletes can come back stronger from a previous connective tissue injury, after long term anabolic PED use this is not possible, because the tissue loses it’s elasticity due to calcification.
5. Like I stated in #4, younger athletes don’t have a problem with this if they are still developmental. They can return stronger. So it’s not true for everyone. Obviously if a young person suffers catastrophic injuries to tendons or ligaments they will be compromised, but we are talking all injuries to these connective tissues in general.
6. There are not many sports where athletes use PED’s in an amateur status as compared to their professional counterparts unless their psychological state of mind is they need the PED’s to be able to compete. It’s a zero sum game. If you don’t believe you need them you will not use them, if you believe you do need them you will use them. We could even add the ethical and moral arguments still have the same outcomes. The desire to compete at a certain level of competence is the overriding factor in determining use of PEDs. Secondary is cost-benefit determination. Those 2 factors alone make PED usage rarer at levels that are not professional in nature.
2. I think you’ll find if people can win without taking them no matter the level they won’t take them until they have to face that decision or they base the decision on breaking a record. Like I said, it’s not systemic a track coaching staff at the collegiate level would need on the order of 10K per year per athlete to make a difference. You are much more likely to see this type of support and systemic doping in friends of the program (alumni and post-collegians) in collegiate athletics and with little knowledge of the coaching staff.
3. Bolt doesn’t run every 100/200m race and it’s about money too. You have to produce results to make money and you need money to get the PED’s.
4. This is true, but under most circumstances athletes who have a progressive training protocol last a long time and produce consistent results and have limited injuries especially if their coach has the philosophy that a hurt athlete is an athlete who should not compete. However, younger athletes can come back stronger from a previous connective tissue injury, after long term anabolic PED use this is not possible, because the tissue loses it’s elasticity due to calcification.
5. Like I stated in #4, younger athletes don’t have a problem with this if they are still developmental. They can return stronger. So it’s not true for everyone. Obviously if a young person suffers catastrophic injuries to tendons or ligaments they will be compromised, but we are talking all injuries to these connective tissues in general.
6. There are not many sports where athletes use PED’s in an amateur status as compared to their professional counterparts unless their psychological state of mind is they need the PED’s to be able to compete. It’s a zero sum game. If you don’t believe you need them you will not use them, if you believe you do need them you will use them. We could even add the ethical and moral arguments still have the same outcomes. The desire to compete at a certain level of competence is the overriding factor in determining use of PEDs. Secondary is cost-benefit determination. Those 2 factors alone make PED usage rarer at levels that are not professional in nature.
1. That’s pretty broad then.
2. I don’t think that is the case in every event. Sadly, unless we get another 2003 World Champs where people win running 10.0x, I don’t think you’re ever going to see a lifetime clean men’s 100m champ, shotput, etc. $10k per athlete? Gimme a break now. People don’t need to run Tim Montgomery drug plans to get benefits and judging by the fact there are Olympians that still test positive for stanzolol and dianabol, I doubt everyone is using the sophistication you speak of.
3. Unless Bolt, Powell, and Gay are injured or don’t show up, nobody has proven to really have any chance of beating them in a one off race or winning a championship against the three of them, so that doesn’t mean much either unless you want to keep broadening your definition of “winning.“ There are guys that make decent money running 10.2s or even slower depending on the country, so that makes a pretty large group of potential dopers.
4. Stop with the nonsense. Acting like every connective tissue injury to older athletes is because of PED use is ridiculous. Hell, my uncle blew his achilles playing volleyball—pretty sure Uncle Todd wasn’t roiding up for a family volleyball game. Injuries happen and we’re talking about people trying to push the limits of the human body if we’re discussing WRs or medals. Even the coaches we consider the greatest here have had a number of athletes at varying levels have catastrophic injuries.
5. Rarer doesn’t mean they’re eliminated and don’t exist in some form. Give me a break man—look at life. People lie/cheat/steal in varying aspects at varying levels, even if it’s only for a minor benefit. Some people don’t leave $.50 for the bagel they take out of the break room at their office, some people embezzle millions of dollars, some people vandalize mailboxes and some people are part of mass murders—life isn’t as clear cut as you want to make it out to be in this respect and attempting to gain an advantage in some way exists EVERYWHERE.
Also, isn’t the budget for some of the top programs on the order of millions are year? I could have sworn a read an article where UT’s budget was over $2m/year for track…
I’ll agree with Dan that the effects of anabolics should lead to enhancements in muscular strength that may outpace tendon strength BUT I will also say this is not borne out in your theory. Can you give specific examples of known (as in tested or proven ala Tim) dopers who had abbreviated careers due to injury?
I’ll agree with Dan that the effects of anabolics should lead to enhancements in muscular strength that may outpace tendon strength BUT I will also say this is not borne out in your theory. Can you give specific examples of known (as in tested or proven ala Tim) dopers who had abbreviated careers due to injury?
I don’t think you’ll find many in track and field who will admit to long term use (5+ years) of PEDs. Therefore it becomes hard to quantify. Looking at the problems of some of the athletes eastern bloc countries would be the best place to start and how many of their athletes had short careers and subsequent problems later on. You know we won’t have specific examples and Johnson use which began in 1988
specifically addresses the long term steroid usage issue.
Other factors leading to tendon rupture include local steroid
injections, use of anabolic steroids, and history of chronic
tendinitis. These predisposing conditions cause tendon
degeneration by altering collagen synthesis or strength, causing
sclerosis and fibrosis in the tendon, fatty degeneration,
necrosis, or calcification.
Some of these conditions are at odds with the opinion of the reviews.
My opinion is most athletes after suffering injuries when involved with long-term AAS use have characterized tendon ruptures as muscle pulls and/or ligament injuries and the subsequent performance decrements ensued and thus their retirement from the sport unless they wanted to continue to use AAS and deal with persistent injuries throughout the rest of their career.
Don’t have time for a full response but Johnson is documented to have started doping in 1981 and didn’t appear to be slowing down in performance improvements in 88.
Don’t have time for a full response but Johnson is documented to have started doping in 1981 and didn’t appear to be slowing down in performance improvements in 88.
At most that was a 7 year interval and not outside of the 5-8 year window I proposed that fit most athletes (doping or not). Johnson’s performances in 1992 another 4 years later were not that good and his ultimate suspension for life in 1993 suggest he still used them when competitive. He runs 10.2 at his fastest with a 1.25m/s tailwind during his comeback at age 31. He goes from 9.79s juiced to 10.2s juiced, yes I know there is a 4 year window there making it 11 years, but after a year in training and competition from 1991-1992 the best he did was 10.2s and he was still juiced??? He still has 3 years less wear and tear on his body. He still breaks down in the 8th competitive year of doping.
Someone referenced Boo in another thread discussing how the body will find homeostasis with training. This I believe to be true in most instances. However, with training and doping occurring constantly and chronically the body will never find homeostasis because the endocrine response and its feedback loops are interfered with. The result is a body that degenerates over time instead of the opposite intended responses.
