planetf1.com

It is currently Thu May 25, 2017 11:57 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:37 pm
Posts: 542
I've just read this article. What a bunch of sore losers! :x

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... am-gbs-tr/ :thumbdown:

_________________
You just need to be accepted for who you are and be proud of who you are and that is what I'm trying to do.
Lewis Hamilton


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Yeah, though IMO it's a shame that he is still allowed to compete. Should have been banned for life.

No that's way too harsh. The first positive test was for Ritalin while he was in college and the NCAA actually determined that he had a valid prescription and did not take it to enhance performance. The second one was weird. It was for steroids but it wasn't at a major meet. It was just some no-name meet out in the middle of nowhere.

Anyway, he served a 4 year suspension during the prime of his career and missed the 2008 Olympics. I think that's punishment enough. I have been impressed by Gatlin in recent years. To win silver at 34 years of age in the 100 meters is an amazing fete. He's the oldest medalist in the history of the event.


I don't. He and Tyson Gay can stay gone, as far as I'm concerned. Deliberately taking steroids is not a mistake. Getting caught was the mistake. Draconian punishments are never popular, and I get why, but I have slowly come around to the idea that such punishments would solve a lot of problems, both in and out of sport.

He swears up and down it wasn't a deliberate use of the substance (testosterone) and that he doesn't know how it got into his system at a time when he really had nothing to gain from taking anything. Of course all athletes who get popped for performance enhancers have some kind of excuse but there is a possibility that he's telling the truth.

That's why Draconian punishments are not popular. In general, they are not fair nor are they just. More importantly, the 4 year ban was the punishment that was agreed upon by calculated thought and deliberation. When we have rules on the books as well as penalties for breaking those rules, we should adhere to them rather than ignoring them out of some misguided, self-righteous, moralistic crusade. When someone has suffered the consequences of violating a rule, they should then be permitted to resume their lives and their careers without constantly having to pay for something they already paid for!


So then you think Ray Rice's original, meager 2-game suspension for beating his wife unconscious in an elevator was correct because it was, as Goodell himself said at the time, in line with NFL policy? Just because a punishment is in the books doesn't mean it is a strong punishment.

The punishment has to, by definition (and to be effective in any way), act as a deterrent. That drugs are still a huge problem in sports means the punishments are not strong enough.

Actually there was no domestic violence policy at that time. The 2 game suspension was a judgement call (poor judgement).

A better example would be the Adrian Peterson incident. That was after the 6 game suspension was implemented as part of the new domestic violence policy for a first domestic violence offense. Instead of suspending him 6 games, they chose to suspend him for the rest of the season and I think that was wrong. Why make a policy if you don't adhere to it at all? You can't allow emotions and PR pressure to dictate the way you penalize infractions. You have to have a dispassionate, objective standard. Now if you think 6 games was a lenient penalty for such a serious offense in the first place (which I happen to think) that's a separate issue but you can't move the goal posts in the middle of the game.

Also the idea that a behavior can be eliminated merely by imposing a harsh penalty is patently false. If you kill someone, you can get either life in prison or the death penalty and yet people are still murdered every day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1793
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
The punishment has to, by definition (and to be effective in any way), act as a deterrent. That drugs are still a huge problem in sports means the punishments are not strong enough.


The problem with the Olympic drugs bans is that the IOC doesn't take a tough stance on drugs bans, but defers it to the national athletic associations.
The British Olympic Association used to have a blanket Olympic ban on athletes that failed drugs tests until 2007 when Christine Ohuruogu got a doping ban. The BOA banned her for competing with Team GB at the Olympics, which she then took to the Court for Arbitration of Sport claiming it was unfair because the IOC don't enforce Olympic bans for doping violations, so some athletes who had served doping bans had gone on to compete at Olympic Games, and they agreed and ruled it unenforceable.
The IOC also baulked at a complete ban of Russian athletes in the wake of the state sponsored doping scandal, claiming it wouldn't be fair to the Russians that were not doping and left it to individual sporting associations to ban athletes. Which is ridiculous given that they have no way to test Russian athletes and make sure that they are WADA compliant.
It also doesn't help itself when countries that aren't in compliance with WADA anti doping rules are allowed to compete at Olympic Games. Russia, Spain and Ethiopia currently are non-compliant, and Jamaica had never been WADA compliant until 2013 after they were threatened with expulsion from the World Championship and Olympic Games.
That being said, WADA bans are also far, far too lenient. They run this system called Whereabouts, where athletes have to block off an hour every day where they will be available to be drug tested out of competition. The athletes pick the times, and are supposed to pick times when they are free for an hour so drug testers can take blood and urine samples. And yet, they are allowed to miss 3 before they get a ban. While not testing positive for drugs, it can be used to dodge drug testers until certain drugs don't show up in blood or urine.
Despite this, in the last year, Lizzie Armitstead turned her phone off during her Whereabouts hour which she'd picked at 6am to, according to her 'not disturb her sleeping room mate' (who happens to be an athlete as well and knows the system). Mo Farah missed a Whereabouts hour just before London 2012, claiming that he couldn't hear the drugs testers ringing on his doorbell for an hour because he was asleep
Both excuses were deemed fine on appeal, so neither got a drugs ban. To me, a failure to take a drugs test should be an immediate failure, like it was when Rio Ferdinand missed one. Otherwise, you can just turn off your phone and your doorbell coming up to a competition, and dope yourself up to the eyeballs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1793
aice wrote:
I've just read this article. What a bunch of sore losers! :x

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... am-gbs-tr/ :thumbdown:


She has a point though. A huge disparity between World Champs and Olympic performance raises questions. Winning nothing at the Worlds and then winning a medal in pretty much every Olympic cycling event is weird. If Michael Phelps swam at the Worlds like Eric Moussambani and then got 9 Olympic golds, or Usain Bolt ran 10.44 in the 100m at the Worlds and then 9.63 at the Olympics, we'd be asking questions of them too.
It might just be that they don't care about the World Champs (lets be real, no one remembers that Kim Collins won the 100m at the WC in 2003, but they remember Gatlin in Athens in 2004), or there might be something more sinister going on, but it's certainly curious.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
huggybear wrote:
aice wrote:
I've just read this article. What a bunch of sore losers! :x

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... am-gbs-tr/ :thumbdown:


She has a point though. A huge disparity between World Champs and Olympic performance raises questions. Winning nothing at the Worlds and then winning a medal in pretty much every Olympic cycling event is weird. If Michael Phelps swam at the Worlds like Eric Moussambani and then got 9 Olympic golds, or Usain Bolt ran 10.44 in the 100m at the Worlds and then 9.63 at the Olympics, we'd be asking questions of them too.
It might just be that they don't care about the World Champs (lets be real, no one remembers that Kim Collins won the 100m at the WC in 2003, but they remember Gatlin in Athens in 2004), or there might be something more sinister going on, but it's certainly curious.

I have to agree. All of these athletes compete against each other regularly so they are used to each other's relative level of performance. It must be jarring for athletes who were nowhere a year ago to all of a sudden dominate the competition right in time for the Olympic games.

In general, I often wonder whether it's cynicism or common sense to assume that most top level athletes are doping on some level...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
huggybear wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
The punishment has to, by definition (and to be effective in any way), act as a deterrent. That drugs are still a huge problem in sports means the punishments are not strong enough.


The problem with the Olympic drugs bans is that the IOC doesn't take a tough stance on drugs bans, but defers it to the national athletic associations.
The British Olympic Association used to have a blanket Olympic ban on athletes that failed drugs tests until 2007 when Christine Ohuruogu got a doping ban. The BOA banned her for competing with Team GB at the Olympics, which she then took to the Court for Arbitration of Sport claiming it was unfair because the IOC don't enforce Olympic bans for doping violations, so some athletes who had served doping bans had gone on to compete at Olympic Games, and they agreed and ruled it unenforceable.
The IOC also baulked at a complete ban of Russian athletes in the wake of the state sponsored doping scandal, claiming it wouldn't be fair to the Russians that were not doping and left it to individual sporting associations to ban athletes. Which is ridiculous given that they have no way to test Russian athletes and make sure that they are WADA compliant.
It also doesn't help itself when countries that aren't in compliance with WADA anti doping rules are allowed to compete at Olympic Games. Russia, Spain and Ethiopia currently are non-compliant, and Jamaica had never been WADA compliant until 2013 after they were threatened with expulsion from the World Championship and Olympic Games.
That being said, WADA bans are also far, far too lenient. They run this system called Whereabouts, where athletes have to block off an hour every day where they will be available to be drug tested out of competition. The athletes pick the times, and are supposed to pick times when they are free for an hour so drug testers can take blood and urine samples. And yet, they are allowed to miss 3 before they get a ban. While not testing positive for drugs, it can be used to dodge drug testers until certain drugs don't show up in blood or urine.
Despite this, in the last year, Lizzie Armitstead turned her phone off during her Whereabouts hour which she'd picked at 6am to, according to her 'not disturb her sleeping room mate' (who happens to be an athlete as well and knows the system). Mo Farah missed a Whereabouts hour just before London 2012, claiming that he couldn't hear the drugs testers ringing on his doorbell for an hour because he was asleep
Both excuses were deemed fine on appeal, so neither got a drugs ban. To me, a failure to take a drugs test should be an immediate failure, like it was when Rio Ferdinand missed one. Otherwise, you can just turn off your phone and your doorbell coming up to a competition, and dope yourself up to the eyeballs.

I'd point out that Rio Ferdinand basically was suspended for one season. The suspensions in athletics are far more severe. The bottom line is that it's impossible to ensure that no one in a competition is on banned substances. The costs associated with testing every single competitor with enough frequency to ensure that there is no cheating are prohibitive. I do agree, in principal, that failure to show up for a drug test should be considered the equivalent of a failed test but there are actually legitimate reasons someone might not be reachable. Is there any hour of the day in which you will always be reachable 365 days a year? I know there isn't for me.

To go a step further, I actually think we are not able to have an intelligent conversation in the world today when it comes to performance enhancing substances. We're stuck in a mindset that is outdated. There's a sort of dogma that says all performance enhancing substances are bad and it's actually not accurate anymore. Back in the 70s athletes were taking drugs that were dangerous and bad for their health. A lot of those substances were intended for race horses!

Today, there are substances designed at high-end laboratories that are intended for human beings and even customized for the specific athlete. These substances; if taken in the correct doses under the supervision of a medical professional, are not harmful to the people who take them. In other words, an intelligent conversation should begin with the question, "should these substances be banned?" I'm not saying they should or shouldn't but the conversation needs to evolve.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3507
sandman1347 wrote:
huggybear wrote:
aice wrote:
I've just read this article. What a bunch of sore losers! :x

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... am-gbs-tr/ :thumbdown:


She has a point though. A huge disparity between World Champs and Olympic performance raises questions. Winning nothing at the Worlds and then winning a medal in pretty much every Olympic cycling event is weird. If Michael Phelps swam at the Worlds like Eric Moussambani and then got 9 Olympic golds, or Usain Bolt ran 10.44 in the 100m at the Worlds and then 9.63 at the Olympics, we'd be asking questions of them too.
It might just be that they don't care about the World Champs (lets be real, no one remembers that Kim Collins won the 100m at the WC in 2003, but they remember Gatlin in Athens in 2004), or there might be something more sinister going on, but it's certainly curious.

I have to agree. All of these athletes compete against each other regularly so they are used to each other's relative level of performance. It must be jarring for athletes who were nowhere a year ago to all of a sudden dominate the competition right in time for the Olympic games.

In general, I often wonder whether it's cynicism or common sense to assume that most top level athletes are doping on some level...


Team GB completely admit that they use the World Champs in Olympic year as part of the build up to the Olympics. They simply weren't peaking then.

Just like Froome often doesn't peak until the Dauphine race, the last hilly stage race prior to the Tour de France.

No athlete can perform at 100% all year, they back it off and slowly build. The World Champs simply happen too early in the year when there's an Olympics.

Other nations could do the same, but choose not to.

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1793
sandman1347 wrote:
I'd point out that Rio Ferdinand basically was suspended for one season. The suspensions in athletics are far more severe. The bottom line is that it's impossible to ensure that no one in a competition is on banned substances. The costs associated with testing every single competitor with enough frequency to ensure that there is no cheating are prohibitive. I do agree, in principal, that failure to show up for a drug test should be considered the equivalent of a failed test but there are actually legitimate reasons someone might not be reachable. Is there any hour of the day in which you will always be reachable 365 days a year? I know there isn't for me.


The bans for athletics vary. WADA standard for failing a doping test is supposed to be 4 years, but both Asafa Powell and Yohan Blake failed tests for prohibited stimulants and got less 9 months combined.
Also in terms of the whereabouts system, it's specifically designed so that the athletes can choose and plan around their blocked off hours so they are not unreachable at those hours. I wouldn't be available if I hadn't planned it out, but if I'd been told by my employers I needed to be somewhere at a specific time or I'd lose my professional reputation and livelihood, I'd make it a point of being available.

Quote:
To go a step further, I actually think we are not able to have an intelligent conversation in the world today when it comes to performance enhancing substances. We're stuck in a mindset that is outdated. There's a sort of dogma that says all performance enhancing substances are bad and it's actually not accurate anymore. Back in the 70s athletes were taking drugs that were dangerous and bad for their health. A lot of those substances were intended for race horses!

Today, there are substances designed at high-end laboratories that are intended for human beings and even customized for the specific athlete. These substances; if taken in the correct doses under the supervision of a medical professional, are not harmful to the people who take them. In other words, an intelligent conversation should begin with the question, "should these substances be banned?" I'm not saying they should or shouldn't but the conversation needs to evolve.


The substances mostly abused for performance enhancement are anabolic steriods and EPO. Your body already produces anabolic steroids to build muscle. All the taking of steroids does is reduce the amount of work needed to build the muscle to the same degree.
Similarly, with EPO and other drugs that increase red blood cell count (and thus more oxygen getting to muscles), you can achieve the same effect by training at altitude, or in a reduced oxygen environment. There is no real reason to take performance enhancing drugs except to shortcut the amount of work you need to put in to get to a higher level of performance, relative to clean athletes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
huggybear wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I'd point out that Rio Ferdinand basically was suspended for one season. The suspensions in athletics are far more severe. The bottom line is that it's impossible to ensure that no one in a competition is on banned substances. The costs associated with testing every single competitor with enough frequency to ensure that there is no cheating are prohibitive. I do agree, in principal, that failure to show up for a drug test should be considered the equivalent of a failed test but there are actually legitimate reasons someone might not be reachable. Is there any hour of the day in which you will always be reachable 365 days a year? I know there isn't for me.


The bans for athletics vary. WADA standard for failing a doping test is supposed to be 4 years, but both Asafa Powell and Yohan Blake failed tests for prohibited stimulants and got less 9 months combined.
Also in terms of the whereabouts system, it's specifically designed so that the athletes can choose and plan around their blocked off hours so they are not unreachable at those hours. I wouldn't be available if I hadn't planned it out, but if I'd been told by my employers I needed to be somewhere at a specific time or I'd lose my professional reputation and livelihood, I'd make it a point of being available.

Quote:
To go a step further, I actually think we are not able to have an intelligent conversation in the world today when it comes to performance enhancing substances. We're stuck in a mindset that is outdated. There's a sort of dogma that says all performance enhancing substances are bad and it's actually not accurate anymore. Back in the 70s athletes were taking drugs that were dangerous and bad for their health. A lot of those substances were intended for race horses!

Today, there are substances designed at high-end laboratories that are intended for human beings and even customized for the specific athlete. These substances; if taken in the correct doses under the supervision of a medical professional, are not harmful to the people who take them. In other words, an intelligent conversation should begin with the question, "should these substances be banned?" I'm not saying they should or shouldn't but the conversation needs to evolve.


The substances mostly abused for performance enhancement are anabolic steriods and EPO. Your body already produces anabolic steroids to build muscle. All the taking of steroids does is reduce the amount of work needed to build the muscle to the same degree.
Similarly, with EPO and other drugs that increase red blood cell count (and thus more oxygen getting to muscles), you can achieve the same effect by training at altitude, or in a reduced oxygen environment. There is no real reason to take performance enhancing drugs except to shortcut the amount of work you need to put in to get to a higher level of performance, relative to clean athletes.

I agree with that to a large extent but even athletes who are willing to do the work would benefit from taking these substances. You've also left out stimulants; which have become immensely popular because of how quickly they metabolize and the way that they improve alertness, energy and aggressiveness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:37 pm
Posts: 542
Asphalt_World wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
huggybear wrote:
aice wrote:
I've just read this article. What a bunch of sore losers! :x

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... am-gbs-tr/ :thumbdown:


She has a point though. A huge disparity between World Champs and Olympic performance raises questions. Winning nothing at the Worlds and then winning a medal in pretty much every Olympic cycling event is weird. If Michael Phelps swam at the Worlds like Eric Moussambani and then got 9 Olympic golds, or Usain Bolt ran 10.44 in the 100m at the Worlds and then 9.63 at the Olympics, we'd be asking questions of them too.
It might just be that they don't care about the World Champs (lets be real, no one remembers that Kim Collins won the 100m at the WC in 2003, but they remember Gatlin in Athens in 2004), or there might be something more sinister going on, but it's certainly curious.

I have to agree. All of these athletes compete against each other regularly so they are used to each other's relative level of performance. It must be jarring for athletes who were nowhere a year ago to all of a sudden dominate the competition right in time for the Olympic games.

In general, I often wonder whether it's cynicism or common sense to assume that most top level athletes are doping on some level...


Team GB completely admit that they use the World Champs in Olympic year as part of the build up to the Olympics. They simply weren't peaking then.

Just like Froome often doesn't peak until the Dauphine race, the last hilly stage race prior to the Tour de France.

No athlete can perform at 100% all year, they back it off and slowly build. The World Champs simply happen too early in the year when there's an Olympics.

Other nations could do the same, but choose not to.


Absolutely.


It's no secret that Team GB priortise the Olympics over the World Championships. Chris Boardman even stated as such during recent commentary. It’s difficult to efficiently prepare for both the World Championships & then Olympics so soon afterwards. Unlike some other nations, Team GB simply choose to concentrate on and aim for the Olympics. They use the WC’s to see where they are at relative to the competition and if necessary, use the intervening period to work on any weaknesses. Speaking of the WC.s, before his departure, Shane Sutton said the following:
“We will come out and see exactly where we’re at, and we’ll see if we are behind or ahead. Normally, if we are good at the worlds, then we have delivered at the Olympics. So, touch wood, we will be good. But if not, one of things we have always been notorious for is the good ‘periodisation’, the work that we do between the worlds and the Games. And believe me, we are going through every nook and cranny to try to make those Games as successful as they can be.”

Sutton described it as perfecting the art of peaking at the right time for the Olympics.

It's also worth noting that British cycling is very well funded, meaning British athletes can dedicate themselves full-time to their training, while having access to the best equipment, coaches, sports science available. In contrast, the Australian's, spend a fraction in comparison.

Personally, i think British cycling's head coach Iain Dyer was spot on when he said rival teams, such as the Aussies, should take a good hard look at their own poor Olympic performances before they start pointing the finger at Team GB..."If you look at some of the times that have been done here (in Rio), some of the other teams simply haven’t shown up. That’s the bottom line. Some of the people here are not even performing at the level of the World Championships.'" . He's got a point.

_________________
You just need to be accepted for who you are and be proud of who you are and that is what I'm trying to do.
Lewis Hamilton


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
aice wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
huggybear wrote:
aice wrote:
I've just read this article. What a bunch of sore losers! :x

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08 ... am-gbs-tr/ :thumbdown:


She has a point though. A huge disparity between World Champs and Olympic performance raises questions. Winning nothing at the Worlds and then winning a medal in pretty much every Olympic cycling event is weird. If Michael Phelps swam at the Worlds like Eric Moussambani and then got 9 Olympic golds, or Usain Bolt ran 10.44 in the 100m at the Worlds and then 9.63 at the Olympics, we'd be asking questions of them too.
It might just be that they don't care about the World Champs (lets be real, no one remembers that Kim Collins won the 100m at the WC in 2003, but they remember Gatlin in Athens in 2004), or there might be something more sinister going on, but it's certainly curious.

I have to agree. All of these athletes compete against each other regularly so they are used to each other's relative level of performance. It must be jarring for athletes who were nowhere a year ago to all of a sudden dominate the competition right in time for the Olympic games.

In general, I often wonder whether it's cynicism or common sense to assume that most top level athletes are doping on some level...


Team GB completely admit that they use the World Champs in Olympic year as part of the build up to the Olympics. They simply weren't peaking then.

Just like Froome often doesn't peak until the Dauphine race, the last hilly stage race prior to the Tour de France.

No athlete can perform at 100% all year, they back it off and slowly build. The World Champs simply happen too early in the year when there's an Olympics.

Other nations could do the same, but choose not to.


Absolutely.


It's no secret that Team GB priortise the Olympics over the World Championships. Chris Boardman even stated as such during recent commentary. It’s difficult to efficiently prepare for both the World Championships & then Olympics so soon afterwards. Unlike some other nations, Team GB simply choose to concentrate on and aim for the Olympics. They use the WC’s to see where they are at relative to the competition and if necessary, use the intervening period to work on any weaknesses. Speaking of the WC.s, before his departure, Shane Sutton said the following:
“We will come out and see exactly where we’re at, and we’ll see if we are behind or ahead. Normally, if we are good at the worlds, then we have delivered at the Olympics. So, touch wood, we will be good. But if not, one of things we have always been notorious for is the good ‘periodisation’, the work that we do between the worlds and the Games. And believe me, we are going through every nook and cranny to try to make those Games as successful as they can be.”

Sutton described it as perfecting the art of peaking at the right time for the Olympics.

It's also worth noting that British cycling is very well funded, meaning British athletes can dedicate themselves full-time to their training, while having access to the best equipment, coaches, sports science available. In contrast, the Australian's, spend a fraction in comparison.

Personally, i think British cycling's head coach Iain Dyer was spot on when he said rival teams, such as the Aussies, should take a good hard look at their own poor Olympic performances before they start pointing the finger at Team GB..."If you look at some of the times that have been done here (in Rio), some of the other teams simply haven’t shown up. That’s the bottom line. Some of the people here are not even performing at the level of the World Championships.'" . He's got a point.

You've sold me! In truth GB were quite good in the championships anyway. Just not like this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 11:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1793
sandman1347 wrote:
I agree with that to a large extent but even athletes who are willing to do the work would benefit from taking these substances. You've also left out stimulants; which have become immensely popular because of how quickly they metabolize and the way that they improve alertness, energy and aggressiveness.


They have quite a few side effects. Anabolic steroids increase the risk of liver failure, and heart attacks. EPO causes heart attacks and strokes as a side effect.
Stimulants are a little bit different because not all of them are banned. It's common practice for athletes to take caffeine supplements before their races to make them more alert. However, even caffeine is dangerous if taken in large amounts. Red Bull can give you an irregular heartbeat temporarily because of the level of caffeine in it.
I also feel that deregulating them either opens drug abuse up to anyone who wants to be an athlete, or requires only registered athletes to be allowed them, which creates an elite that has a monopoly on performance and thus prize money and endorsements.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
huggybear wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I agree with that to a large extent but even athletes who are willing to do the work would benefit from taking these substances. You've also left out stimulants; which have become immensely popular because of how quickly they metabolize and the way that they improve alertness, energy and aggressiveness.


They have quite a few side effects. Anabolic steroids increase the risk of liver failure, and heart attacks. EPO causes heart attacks and strokes as a side effect.
Stimulants are a little bit different because not all of them are banned. It's common practice for athletes to take caffeine supplements before their races to make them more alert. However, even caffeine is dangerous if taken in large amounts. Red Bull can give you an irregular heartbeat temporarily because of the level of caffeine in it.
I also feel that deregulating them either opens drug abuse up to anyone who wants to be an athlete, or requires only registered athletes to be allowed them, which creates an elite that has a monopoly on performance and thus prize money and endorsements.

Totally agree but I'd add that a big part of the side effects that you've listed are tied to the dosage and not the substance in and of itself. Many substances like human growth hormone and even testosterone can be used at small dosages to provide benefits without the severe adverse side-effects. Of course modest doses would also not provide the massive boost in performance that many athletes are looking for.

It's a slippery slope to allow these substances, I agree and you certainly don't want to create and environment where you need to use drugs in order to be competitive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 4877
sandman1347 wrote:
huggybear wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I agree with that to a large extent but even athletes who are willing to do the work would benefit from taking these substances. You've also left out stimulants; which have become immensely popular because of how quickly they metabolize and the way that they improve alertness, energy and aggressiveness.


They have quite a few side effects. Anabolic steroids increase the risk of liver failure, and heart attacks. EPO causes heart attacks and strokes as a side effect.
Stimulants are a little bit different because not all of them are banned. It's common practice for athletes to take caffeine supplements before their races to make them more alert. However, even caffeine is dangerous if taken in large amounts. Red Bull can give you an irregular heartbeat temporarily because of the level of caffeine in it.
I also feel that deregulating them either opens drug abuse up to anyone who wants to be an athlete, or requires only registered athletes to be allowed them, which creates an elite that has a monopoly on performance and thus prize money and endorsements.

Totally agree but I'd add that a big part of the side effects that you've listed are tied to the dosage and not the substance in and of itself. Many substances like human growth hormone and even testosterone can be used at small dosages to provide benefits without the severe adverse side-effects. Of course modest doses would also not provide the massive boost in performance that many athletes are looking for.

It's a slippery slope to allow these substances, I agree and you certainly don't want to create and environment where you need to use drugs in order to be competitive.

I think a strong argument against anabolic steroid's is simply to look at professional wrestling and how many die young due to steroid use and also addiction to pain killers when continuing to train as a result of injury. Brock Lesner had another steroid related illness a few years back which led to him losing his UFC championship and also stop working for WWE as well.

These are extreme case and in no way relate to how professional athletes use the same drugs in training, who don't have as much demand on their bodies as pro wrestlers, but the side affects are still the same and the drugs should be banned for the athletes own safety, let alone any competitive advantage they may gain.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
This story about Ryan Lochte and other US swimmers and the alleged robbery keeps getting more and more embarrassing. It seems now like the story was a total fabrication. Their conduct is totally disgraceful if things are as they now seem and I think they should face substantial consequences.


video of the encounter
http://g1.globo.com/rio-de-janeiro/olim ... canos.html
news story
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/sport ... sault.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 4877
sandman1347 wrote:
This story about Ryan Lochte and other US swimmers and the alleged robbery keeps getting more and more embarrassing. It seems now like the story was a total fabrication. Their conduct is totally disgraceful if things are as they now seem and I think they should face substantial consequences.


video of the encounter
http://g1.globo.com/rio-de-janeiro/olim ... canos.html
news story
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/sport ... sault.html

If that video at the petrol station is supposed to be the same time they were held at gunpoint, there's some fairly massive differences there.

I think they do owe the petrol station, the police, Rio, Barzil and all of the U.S. an apology. I think the the organising committee's comment are laughable - they came here, they represented their country, let the the kids have some fun (not exact quotes, read the nytimes article above for that). Yes, they did represent their country in the pool, but they are also representing their country the entire time they are in Rio. What they have shown is that it is obviously ok in America to tell blatant lies and drastically elaborate events to the extent that it costs police a lot of time, give an exaggeratedly bad impression of a foreign city and country, then that's it ok to run away and hide if you get found out about it.

Luckily, most people would know that this is not acceptable or typical of America or American's, but they've done a pretty good job of making America look stupid to the rest of the world here.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
minchy wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
This story about Ryan Lochte and other US swimmers and the alleged robbery keeps getting more and more embarrassing. It seems now like the story was a total fabrication. Their conduct is totally disgraceful if things are as they now seem and I think they should face substantial consequences.


video of the encounter
http://g1.globo.com/rio-de-janeiro/olim ... canos.html
news story
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/sport ... sault.html

If that video at the petrol station is supposed to be the same time they were held at gunpoint, there's some fairly massive differences there.

I think they do owe the petrol station, the police, Rio, Barzil and all of the U.S. an apology. I think the the organising committee's comment are laughable - they came here, they represented their country, let the the kids have some fun (not exact quotes, read the nytimes article above for that). Yes, they did represent their country in the pool, but they are also representing their country the entire time they are in Rio. What they have shown is that it is obviously ok in America to tell blatant lies and drastically elaborate events to the extent that it costs police a lot of time, give an exaggeratedly bad impression of a foreign city and country, then that's it ok to run away and hide if you get found out about it.

Luckily, most people would know that this is not acceptable or typical of America or American's, but they've done a pretty good job of making America look stupid to the rest of the world here.

I'm an American and I can tell you that, while this is extremely embarrassing, it is unfortunately not so atypical of the behavior of a lot of young men when they go to Latin American countries. A lot of these guys are entitled and they basically think that they can act like they're on spring break when they go abroad to these nations. They are disrespectful to the locals (especially women) and they don't have respect for the authority structures.

The worst part of this is the implicit fact that they thought they would get away with this. They thought everyone would be willing to believe that Brazil is just full of criminals and corruption and that their story wouldn't be questioned. Brazil has it's problems but I'm glad these guys didn't get away with this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 4877
We have similar on the UK with rowdy kids heading off to Mediterranean islands to get hammered for a week!

But surely you'd think that entitled kids on spring break and professional athletes representing their country were 2 different things?

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 4877
On a lighter note, the Brownlee brothers did it again in the triathlon! 1 medal better this time round with a gold and silver.

Being second to the U.S. in the medals table is pretty amazing for the UK. All that money a load of us spent gambling on the lottery (not me though) has paid off in national pride through investment in sport!

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1793
minchy wrote:
We have similar on the UK with rowdy kids heading off to Mediterranean islands to get hammered for a week!

But surely you'd think that entitled kids on spring break and professional athletes representing their country were 2 different things?


You would think with USOC being so concerned about the image of Team USA that they banned athletes from wearing anything other than Nike clothing while on team duty because Nike are their official sponsors, they'll throw the book at them for bringing the integrity of their Olympic team into question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1135
Location: Los Angeles, California
sandman1347 wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
So then you think Ray Rice's original, meager 2-game suspension for beating his wife unconscious in an elevator was correct because it was, as Goodell himself said at the time, in line with NFL policy? Just because a punishment is in the books doesn't mean it is a strong punishment.

The punishment has to, by definition (and to be effective in any way), act as a deterrent. That drugs are still a huge problem in sports means the punishments are not strong enough.

Actually there was no domestic violence policy at that time. The 2 game suspension was a judgement call (poor judgement).

A better example would be the Adrian Peterson incident. That was after the 6 game suspension was implemented as part of the new domestic violence policy for a first domestic violence offense. Instead of suspending him 6 games, they chose to suspend him for the rest of the season and I think that was wrong. Why make a policy if you don't adhere to it at all? You can't allow emotions and PR pressure to dictate the way you penalize infractions. You have to have a dispassionate, objective standard. Now if you think 6 games was a lenient penalty for such a serious offense in the first place (which I happen to think) that's a separate issue but you can't move the goal posts in the middle of the game.

Also the idea that a behavior can be eliminated merely by imposing a harsh penalty is patently false. If you kill someone, you can get either life in prison or the death penalty and yet people are still murdered every day.



But there is always the NFL's personal conduct policy, which Rice violated, and got a weak punishment for doing so. The later punishment on Rice was closer to appropriate (still not strong enough IMO). I don't agree with Goodell changing the punishment once he decided it. The punishment should be strong from the start so that such a thing doesn't need to happen.

The Peterson situation is the same. The original punishment was not enough, and I don't like that Goodell again changed the punishment after he had already handed a punishment out. The punishment should have been strong from the start. Besides, it's better to get criticized for coming down too hard than being too soft.

Cheating in sport and murdering are not at all on the same level, so that point is irrelevant. Besides, if the max penalty for murder was 5-10 years, the murder rate would increase.

I think this is going the way of the discussion you had with Blake (as in this could go on forever and ever! :lol: ), so I will walk away and let you have the last word if you wish.

_________________
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
So then you think Ray Rice's original, meager 2-game suspension for beating his wife unconscious in an elevator was correct because it was, as Goodell himself said at the time, in line with NFL policy? Just because a punishment is in the books doesn't mean it is a strong punishment.

The punishment has to, by definition (and to be effective in any way), act as a deterrent. That drugs are still a huge problem in sports means the punishments are not strong enough.

Actually there was no domestic violence policy at that time. The 2 game suspension was a judgement call (poor judgement).

A better example would be the Adrian Peterson incident. That was after the 6 game suspension was implemented as part of the new domestic violence policy for a first domestic violence offense. Instead of suspending him 6 games, they chose to suspend him for the rest of the season and I think that was wrong. Why make a policy if you don't adhere to it at all? You can't allow emotions and PR pressure to dictate the way you penalize infractions. You have to have a dispassionate, objective standard. Now if you think 6 games was a lenient penalty for such a serious offense in the first place (which I happen to think) that's a separate issue but you can't move the goal posts in the middle of the game.

Also the idea that a behavior can be eliminated merely by imposing a harsh penalty is patently false. If you kill someone, you can get either life in prison or the death penalty and yet people are still murdered every day.



But there is always the NFL's personal conduct policy, which Rice violated, and got a weak punishment for doing so. The later punishment on Rice was closer to appropriate (still not strong enough IMO). I don't agree with Goodell changing the punishment once he decided it. The punishment should be strong from the start so that such a thing doesn't need to happen.

The Peterson situation is the same. The original punishment was not enough, and I don't like that Goodell again changed the punishment after he had already handed a punishment out. The punishment should have been strong from the start. Besides, it's better to get criticized for coming down too hard than being too soft.

Cheating in sport and murdering are not at all on the same level, so that point is irrelevant. Besides, if the max penalty for murder was 5-10 years, the murder rate would increase.

I think this is going the way of the discussion you had with Blake (as in this could go on forever and ever! :lol: ), so I will walk away and let you have the last word if you wish.

Last word! Now we're done :-P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 8609
Location: Ireland
minchy wrote:
Luckily, most people would know that this is not acceptable or typical of America or American's, but they've done a pretty good job of making America look stupid to the rest of the world here.

A large proportion of Americans have already done that

Image
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/candidates/donald-trump

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1793
Slightly controversially, after the USA Women's 4x100 team were disqualified for dropping the baton, they appealed saying that Brazil committed a lane violation and impeded them, so they were allowed to rerun the 4x100m by themselves and went into the final as a fastest loser.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: Nebraska, USA
What controversy? The other runner impeded the American baton handoff in the American's lane. I think the DQ of the other team is pretty straight-forward. The reason they gave the Americans a chance to qualify again is because the race is run in lanes and there are only the set amount of lanes available.

Actually, i am rather impressed with their time as they had no one to push them or that they could get a relative idea of the exact status at any given point. Note that thgey had to run in their original assigned lane and order.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: Nebraska, USA
Mcdo.... did you really have to post a picture of that a$$?

It is so irritating seeing him ....

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 4877
What confuses me with the official's decision in the women's 4x100m was that USA were allowed to re-run the race. Brazil deserved the dq for leaving their lane, but I would have thought that that would be it. Accidents happen in races and unfortunately if you're on the receiving end of it, tough!

Are we now going to have to re run any race where a competitor is impeded by another?

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
I believe the do-over is unprecedented. I actually didn't know that they could do that and certainly have never seen that (and I have seen collisions between teams).

I'm glad they got it though. I feel bad enough for Felix with the way she lost in the 400. This would just be too cruel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 7:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: Nebraska, USA
In the report i heard last night they said the rerun is clear in the rules. It is just a rare situation where a runner goes out of their lane at the worst possible time. If there us a means in place to allow for the it, especially in the Olympics, then why not? The team was not given the place in the final, they still had to earn it with a time faster than the 8th qualifying team.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 2:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1793
Blake wrote:
What controversy? The other runner impeded the American baton handoff in the American's lane. I think the DQ of the other team is pretty straight-forward. The reason they gave the Americans a chance to qualify again is because the race is run in lanes and there are only the set amount of lanes available.

Actually, i am rather impressed with their time as they had no one to push them or that they could get a relative idea of the exact status at any given point. Note that thgey had to run in their original assigned lane and order.



The controversy is that the Brazilian athlete impeded Allyson Felix in the acceleration zone, not in the changeover zone, and Felix didn't drop the baton. She threw it at English Gardener completely of her own volition with it under her complete control because she couldn't stretch the changeover zone out of frustration. That's a completely different violation that Felix created that had nothing to do with the Brazilian team. Brazil should have been DQed, and so should the USA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 2:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5412
Location: Nebraska, USA
I disagree.... the whole exchange is a rythym and the initial contact disrupted it, and it took place within the US lane. You agree that Brazil should have been DQ'd, then why would the victim be DQ's as well.

As for the controversy, in large part there hasn't been much of a controversy... some rumblings, but not too much. And now that the finals have been run, there will be less. However, if DQs makes one feel better, the men were DQ's in their place.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:59 pm
Posts: 1634
Anyone find out why the GB mens relay were DQ'd? when it happened last night no one could see anything on the replays that would be a DQ... other than it allowed the Brazil team into the final instead of GB...(cynical hat firmly on head).

_________________
the loon previously known as dr lee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 4877
SDLRob wrote:
Anyone find out why the GB mens relay were DQ'd? when it happened last night no one could see anything on the replays that would be a DQ... other than it allowed the Brazil team into the final instead of GB...(cynical hat firmly on head).

Out of the hand over box before completing the hand over in both the 4x100m and the 4x400m relay's. Same as France in the women's 4x100m.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 5:59 pm
Posts: 1634
which change over?

_________________
the loon previously known as dr lee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
US men's sprinting is really in a rough state. The Jamaican's have completely taken over and our team can't seem to get their act together. Something always seems to go wrong.

Anyway, with Bolt hanging up his sneakers (and cape), 2020 is open season. De Grasse of Canada looks to be the favorite right now but it will be interesting to see who fills that void.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1793
Blake wrote:
I disagree.... the whole exchange is a rythym and the initial contact disrupted it, and it took place within the US lane. You agree that Brazil should have been DQ'd, then why would the victim be DQ's as well.

As for the controversy, in large part there hasn't been much of a controversy... some rumblings, but not too much. And now that the finals have been run, there will be less. However, if DQs makes one feel better, the men were DQ's in their place.
;)


The thing about it was that they didn't make a clean changeover and blame being outside the zone on Brazil, they messed up the changeover completely.
Normally by IAAF standards, you don't get a do-over if you break the rules, you either get disqualified or you don't. If someone runs into your lane and causes you to run into another lane, you both get disqualified regardless. That's the issue, not whether Brazil impeded them. IAAF apparently making it up as they go along.

@SDLRob, GB and India got disqualified because of rule 170.19 according to the IAAF which says:

IAAF wrote:
19. For the final takeover in the Medley Relay and in the 4x400m,
4x800m and 4x1500m races, athletes are not permitted to begin
running outside their takeover zones, and shall start within this zone.
If an athlete does not follow this Rule, his team shall be disqualified


GB got disqualified because Matt Hudson-Smith wasn't in the changeover zone when Martyn Rooney started running, which is ridiculous because the rule that was cited doesn't mention that, and it doesn't mention the baton position either. They were well inside the changeover zone when the baton pass actually happened.
I think the fact that between Gabby Logan, Michael Johnson, Denise Lewis and Paula Radcliffe there were four ex athletes looking at a super slo-mo video multiple times, and they could see nothing wrong speaks volumes as to how tight a decision it was.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1793
sandman1347 wrote:
US men's sprinting is really in a rough state. The Jamaican's have completely taken over and our team can't seem to get their act together. Something always seems to go wrong.

Anyway, with Bolt hanging up his sneakers (and cape), 2020 is open season. De Grasse of Canada looks to be the favorite right now but it will be interesting to see who fills that void.


Jamaica's team looks so poor post Bolt though. By 2020, Yohan Blake and Nickel Ashmeade will be 30, Asafa Powell will be 36, Bolt 34, Nesta Carter 34 and coming off a four year drugs ban.
For the US, Trayvon Bromell will be 25 and Marvin Bracy 26 and both coming into their prime. Team GB will have Adam Gemili and Zharnel Hughes 26 and 25 too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3679
huggybear wrote:
@SDLRob, GB and India got disqualified because of rule 170.19 according to the IAAF which says:

IAAF wrote:
19. For the final takeover in the Medley Relay and in the 4x400m,
4x800m and 4x1500m races, athletes are not permitted to begin
running outside their takeover zones, and shall start within this zone.
If an athlete does not follow this Rule, his team shall be disqualified


GB got disqualified because Matt Hudson-Smith wasn't in the changeover zone when Martyn Rooney started running, which is ridiculous because the rule that was cited doesn't mention that, and it doesn't mention the baton position either. They were well inside the changeover zone when the baton pass actually happened.
I think the fact that between Gabby Logan, Michael Johnson, Denise Lewis and Paula Radcliffe there were four ex athletes looking at a super slo-mo video multiple times, and they could see nothing wrong speaks volumes as to how tight a decision it was.

Some of these officials just can't wait to get the ruler out and rap someone on the knuckles. You have to be careful with some of these people. In fact officiating tends to attract that type of person; someone who just can't wait to ruin somebody's day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:14 am
Posts: 1934
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
The Olympic curse is finally over.

After many World Cup titles, and Confederations Cups, finally - An Olympic Gold Medal for Brazil after a penalty shoot-out.

And a US runner ends the 108 year old drought in the 1500 Meters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2640
Got to be Sir Mo after this performance, the double double. Some all time great distance runners never achieved that. Take a bow Mo Farah, you legend.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group