Are advances in athletic performance merely an artefact of technology?

1) Not all steroid usage was designed to increase bulk. Even by 1968, we'd had years to work with them to balance out formulas.

2) One really, really has to believe in the myth of Carl Lewis to question whether he used PED's considering the evidence against him and the climate of the sport. There's ample evidence he used and positive tests were covered up. We can speculate as to exactly what he used (as "steroids" is commonly used as a blanket term), but regardless, I'm convinced he used banned PED's. Carl himself doesn't even deny it anymore. He tested positive 3 times leading in to the 1988 Seoul games and shouldn't have even been allowed to compete under the international laws of the time.

3) First-hand testimony. Steroids were lightly used by 1960, widespread by the 64 games in strength events, and by 68, it had become widespread in track and field. The question of efficacy or ethics didn't come into the equation. It was all about which combination yielded the desired results. That's it. The moral parameters we're putting on today didn't exist in 1968. Thus, neither did the stigma of using. Among athletes, steroids became a blanket term to describe all the PED's that weren't amphetamines (speed). If ****tail A wasn't yielding the desired results, the answer wasn't to swear them off altogether; it was to give ****tail B a shot.

Dr. Tom Waddell was a U.S. decathlete for those games, and from his firsthand account estimates that at least 1/3 of the entire U.S. track and field team was using for those games at a single training camp alone (at Lake Tahoe prior to the games). Harold Connolly, a gold medalist in the 1956 games (hammer throw) testified before congress that he "knew any number of athletes in the 1968 games that had so much scar tissue and puncture wounds on their backside, it was difficult to find a fresh spot to give them a new shot". He admitted he'd been hooked by the time the 1964 games hit.


To really put it in perspective: steroids weren't even on the IOC's banned substance list for the 1968 games.

 

1. I know this but most do give a more muscular look all the same.

2. Lewis got caught doing ephedrine and similar stimulants. This was covered up. I've never seen anything saying he got caught for any steroid testing such as test/epitest ratios. Given he was getting near his best ever Long Jumps at such a young age it means he didn't really improve that much.

3. I assume you're talking mainly about speed and other stimulants? This seems like interesting reading though if you have any links I'd fancy a read :good

 

1. True.

2.The Lewis tests were for stimulants, but I'm wary that we shoehorned his tests under that so as to fall under the inadvertent use exemption (doing so allowed him to complete). Unfortunately, there's no way to know one way or the other. Figuring out the exact substances is just speculation at this point, even if it's not entirely baseless.

3. No, these were straight on steroids being talked about. I mainly study steroids/PED's in football, but come across Olympic stuff along the way. I highly recommend reading "Doped" by Daniel Rosen if you're interested in the subject and looking for a good primer. That's also where I found the quotes in my post from.

http://www.amazon.com/Dope-History-Performance-Enhancement-Nineteenth/dp/0313345201/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402533614&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=sports+doped+history

Enjoy! :thumbsup

 

Because of wt classes, I suspect that PED's effect on boxing is much harder to figure.

Also, the fact is that steroids help aid recovery so you can work HARDER, not be lazy. Taking them doesn't put on strength, it allows you to train harder and recover faster. Still cant be lazy.

 

Yes Snow man taking them DOES put on strength! This is undeniable. You get a Female to male *** change & you put on muscle even if you are just tying your shoes. Now to maximize strength of course you need to work out hard! But whatever level of training (& all top athletes are working varying degrees of hard at least) it not only lets you work harder & reciver faster, but makes things easier to do. And with a few times MORE testosterone coursing through your system, you will synthesize muscle, more total than your genetic potential if you keep going, & faster.

It is cheating, corrupting sports horribly, & stealing money, fame & dreams from honest competitors.

Rock, you said efficacy does not come into the picture, I think you are thinking of a different word. All you say shows efficacy, not ethics, was the question.

So by '68 they did have easy ways to increase strength absent getting bulky?

I would say the STEROID evidence against Lewis was not at all inconclusive based upon what you submitted. Except if like Mark Mac-Liar in baseball (in front of Congress) if he refises to deny it anymore that is very suggestive.

But I cannot fault athletes who took something that was not banned & not commonly regarded as cheating. Apropos of 1968. Also I see no evidence against Beamon.

 

1) First and foremost, let me say that it's a shame that your ideal of how sports should be isn't how they are in the real world. The more I dig, the more I find that steroids/PEDs aren't for cheaters looking for an edge, but have become a cost of doing business and have been that way for decades.

The first thing I had to do going in to it was ignore my own personal ethics/morals for the sake of letting what I found speak for itself without being tainted by my personal judgments. Nevertheless, I've been jaded as a sports fan as a result. It can be tough to swallow.

2) I said "the question of efficacy" because, by 1968, people weren't asking if steroids worked. They assumed they did based on the results they'd seen and having come from trusted sources (Dianabol was created by the physician for the U.S. weightlifting team). Which exact blend worked for their needs was the important matter.

3) There were ways to increase strength without being bulky- the first of which is simply taking a lower dosage, which still yields benefits without making the user more massive. Without access to the full list of what we'd developed, I can't say exactly what list of alternate substances besides Dianabol were at our disposal. Still, while a bulky body is a sign, that by no means limits the users to people with a bulky body.

4) It's conjecture of me to believe Lewis was using steroids, but it's not blind conjecture. Perhaps he wasn't. When as many signs point to "yes" as they do in Carl's case, I'm inclined to think that's what was going on. If the distinction between STEROIDS and other PED's mean that much to you, I will clarify my answer to say that I believe HGH was his PED of choice, but that he likely employed a stack of substances like the others typically did/do.

I still strongly believe we listed him as testing positive for banned stimulants (3 times, mind you) because that way, he could participate because of the "inadvertent use" clause......which we also did for other Olympic athletes.

5) You won't see evidence against Beamon or any other individual 1968 athlete as steroids weren't banned, no test was available, and our coaches were giving them to our athletes. If you'd like to believe Beamon wasn't using, that's perfectly fine. I simply believe it's more likely he went with the program.

 

I found that article about weight lifting I mentioned earlier. It was from 2001.
http://www.dynamic-eleiko.com/sportivny/library/farticles006.html

I'll have to summarize some parts since it says not to reproduce any part of the article.

1.A doctor Medvedyev did a study on the rate of improvement in weight lifting records and found the most improvement occurred in the late sixties to early seventies and early to late eighties.

2.Since most modern training methods and changes in technique had been established prior to these periods doping was the only significant change and possible reason for the rapid improvement.

3.The article says that total volume of lifts was up 40% in the 80s.

4.The records improved by about 21% between the mid-sixties and the late 80s, compared to other sports where improvement was maxed at 9%.

5. Drugs in the 60s: Dianabol; Nerabol, Durabolin, Winstrol, Stanazolol, Nerabolin
Drugs in the 80s: Testoterone, Testosterone - Proprionate, Growth Hormone

6.Testing goes up, winning records goes down.

 

1) One factor the TED talk cites is people of varied body types migrating to (and being accepted in) those sports that tend to favor their body types.
Which brights up a question: is there a 'boxing' body type? It would be an interesting topic to study in a quantified way. It seems to me that boxing body types can be quite varied. If boxing does not strongly favor an unusual body type, one of the pronounced factors of improved performance in many sports would not be present in boxing.

2) I was actually pretty surprised that biomechanicians thought that, with a modern track , Jesse Owens, on his filmed performance, would have done the 100m with in a stride of Bolt. This makes me ask: if (probable) modern training and nutrition for track athletes has improved over Owens time: what if Owens had come along in our time, making use of the opportunities of development in our time in proportion as he had done so with the opportunities of our own time? Or vice versa, Bolt in Owens day? Can we say with confidence who would have prevailed in short races?

 

My only point was, and remains, that it is not "lazy" athletes who use. You still have to train. "tying your shoes" wont do much. To decide someone is lazy because they take PEDs is wrong. Many times it is the guys who bust their arse and cant get over that hump who take them. To generalize everyone as lazy is not accurate.

I teach and coach in HS. many kids have the same belief that steroids just magically make you bigger. No.