Chinese - cheating dopers or fair & fabulous freaks of nature?

First topic message reminder :

Simple really, given some extraordinary results in the pool and China's already seedy record on matters of doping and generally respecting fair competition, do you think some of their athletes are currently doped up or not?

mystiroakey wrote:The USA have big issues with china. But what do they expect - with money , drive, the genetic motivation they clearly have and the massive population its just a logical outcome that they will keep getting the most medals for a long time to come!

Goes much deeper than that oakey

Last year Obama announced that the Pacific fleet will take pre eminence over Nato as the percieved power shift has moved form the western to the eatsern hemisphere. While China's economy currently suffers from a drop in manufacturing demand, the Chinese will be the world superpower by 2050; only excessive military spending per capita keeps the usa on top of the world. China is building aircarft carriers. US knows China will be a competing military power within our lifetime and they are nervous.

Carl Lewis, Flo-Jo, Jackie-joyner kersie, Calvin Smith, Maurice Greene, Tim Montgomery, Marion Jones, Justin Gatlin..

These are just some of the high profile American names that have FAILED drug tests.

In Lewis's case THREE in one year - the Olympic year of 1988. Yet he is still painted as a victim of another drug cheat - Ben Johnson.

These are some of the biggest names in athletics who happened to get caught - it makes you wonder how systematic doping must be amongst American athletes.

Remember the baseball fiasco? Has anyone seen faster, stronger, fitter?

TopHat perhaps you can start a poll on whether we think American athletes are clean, after all it seems like they have a culture of steroid use amongst their athletes both at the amateur and professional level.



emancipator

And the US thought they could cling on to the Olympics?

"You may be the world super power China, but we can swim better!"

As far as I can tell, the whole of America is to blame for this coach saying what he did, and all Chinese athletes are cheats.

Nothing like generalisation.

Didn't the US change the goal posts on there medal table last time and show that they won it by virtue of more medals rather than more golds!

Nay Bother wrote:As far as I can tell, the whole of America is to blame for this coach saying what he did, and all Chinese athletes are cheats.

Nothing like generalisation.

Only a drug cheat would say such a thing.

Phelps has won 19 medals...very disturbing, must be a doper

It's interesting that the Chinese team are getting so much support on here. I appreciate all the 'innocent before guilt' stuff, so you can't really go about making accusations like the US coach did. But given China's recent record of systematic and unapologetic doping, particularly in the pool, you cans see how it's pretty easy to treat a number of their performances with a raised eyebrow or two. It wasn't just rogue individuals or training groups, it was NGB supported.

I'm always worried when certain teams are relatively quiet for three years and then explode in Olympic year. Maybe it's just great peaking, but I don't know.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

GG wrote:16 year old female beating Lochte's final 50 metres. Not sure that's even biologically possible? How can her muscles develop the power of a 30 year old man? I smell a rat...

It is easily possible, biologically. At her age, the body grows faster and stronger than at any stage other than infancy. With the right conditioning, diet and technical training it should not be considered impossible

How does any of that make it 'biologically possible' for a not fully developed girl to better a 27 year old man??

I have not seen one arena where strength and endurance are so fundamental where women out perform men. It just doesn't happen. That's to take nothing away from female competitors, they're still phenomenal, but take someone like Paula Radcliffe - unbelievabley brilliant but even her world record (blasting every other female competitor ever out the water) is still a long way off the men's WR.

Then obviously you don't look hard enough.

I might ask what your qualifications in specialist areas within the field of biology are so I can adequately reply to you at a level you may understand.

Your Paula Radcliffe comparison is invidious because Radcliffe is a mature woman and a comparable male competitor is.... er... a mature man. These cannot be compared to adolescent / late adolescent females who are at a different developmental stage.

How much do you know about specific hormones such as Growth Hormone, Thyroxine, Insulin and Corticosteroids, all of which influence growth rate, or Leptin (which alters body composition). Parathyroid Hormone and 1.25 Dihydroxy-Vitamin D and Calcitonin, all of which affect skeletal mineralisation also dip into the mix. Shall I go on..?

These and other factors will be relevant in assessing the rate at which an indivdual's rate of acceleration in physical performance will be affected during adolescence. Obviously I don't have access to the athlete's medical records or I could go into more specific detail on her personally, but you can either tell me your qualifications so we can discuss the issue as fellow biologists and professionals, or you can take my word for it.

Her performance was within the range of a conditioned, professional athlete of her age and potential stage of maturation.

Comparisons with mature persons are fallacious.


.

One of the greatest deterrents to doping was the IOC's amended policy from (I think) three years ago when they acquired the technology to retain urine samples in testable condition for 8 years.

This means that both A and B samples can be re-tested every time a technological advance becomes available.

OK.... let me explain: there are two main types of test. The purpose of "workplace drug testing" is to determine whether an individual has used any particular substance over a period of days or possibly months prior to specimen collection.

The second kind, forensic testing, is focused more on whether an individual may have been affected by a drug substance at the time of a particular event.

These are very specific tests which can be carried out in two stages. The first is a simple screening process which will establish an athlete's "base line". This is a very simple process and can be done outside of competition or training periods. Later, a urine sample can be checked and not only the presence of drugs tested for, but also the presence of indicators which would reveal a marked difference in the base line levels established in the screening test.

Of course,variations can occur naturally over a period of time, but during the career of an athlete, a patient history will be built up which, in the case of a "clean" athlete would be predictable within a certain range, marked variations would arouse suspicion which could lead to more detailed investigation.

This is one means whereby the use of masking agents can be obviated. A test may not detect the substance, but there is a strong likelihood that it will leave a footprint that specialist sport forensic chemists and biologists can go after.

As our understanding increases about how and where different drugs act in the body, drug testing may turn towards the measurement of endogenous markers within the body, for example, the monitoring of advanced anabolic steroids and steroidal binding sites rather than the drugs themselves.

The 8 year storage time is proof against the cheating athlete staying "one jump ahead" of the testing protocols. A drugs cheat may, indeed, get one step ahead, but it had better be a loooooong step because advances in procedures such as the miniaturisation of electronics and microfluidics occur all the time and every time an advance is made, samples are re-tested.

What is undetectable today, can be found tomorrow.

And athletes know it.

.

djlovesyou wrote:It's interesting that the Chinese team are getting so much support on here. I appreciate all the 'innocent before guilt' stuff, so you can't really go about making accusations like the US coach did. But given China's recent record of systematic and unapologetic doping, particularly in the pool, you cans see how it's pretty easy to treat a number of their performances with a raised eyebrow or two. It wasn't just rogue individuals or training groups, it was NGB supported.

I'm always worried when certain teams are relatively quiet for three years and then explode in Olympic year. Maybe it's just great peaking, but I don't know.

you may be right but there is a big diff between raising eyebrows and making slanderous allegations sans evidence....that coach must have known shortly after he said it what a foolish thing it was to comment but the damage was done and the story was written, hence that girl's medal will forever be questioned. One almost hope she is a doper now she has been accused of it. Shameful self righteousness by the USA which discards due process and reminds me of their respect for the United Nations...i.e. they have none

Yep. Think that's right. It's pretty pathetic for the American coach to have made the comments that he did, he should know much better.

The fact that he may well be correct in his suspicions, I suppose, is beside the point.

djlovesyou wrote:Yep. Think that's right. It's pretty pathetic for the American coach to have made the comments that he did, he should know much better.

The fact that he may well be correct in his suspicions, I suppose, is beside the point.

Ye's A and B sample have both been analysed and no presence of banned substances has been established. Her sample will, of course, be subject to the 8 year rule (see my post above).

This should really draw a line under the whole sorry, sordid business.

Incidentally, Ye won again tonight. The US camp has been rather quiet.

.

The whole 'keep the samples for 8 years' and 'doping is a high risk strategy' are simply soundbites from the anti-doping authorities. The samples from cheats are never tainted in competition because that's not when they're taking them.

Those who are taking drugs are doing so well outside of competition time - I don't know why people seem to believe that doping in sport is a case of taking something the night before the event and automatically doing a great performance.

Doping in power events like this tends to be done as an aid to training. Anti doping out of competition in many sports is very weak - particularly in countries that have limited interest in catching their own athletes. The international governing bodies of sports like swimming and athletics are spread too thin to do much more than pay lip service to out of competition testing and hope that talking big scares people out of trying to cheat.

Sadly, talking big scares nobody these days.

For what it's worth, I'm not actually accusing anything.

My point is more that I don't accept that anti-doping in most sports is remotely effective and that passing drug tests is not really any sort of proof of innocence. Also, just because these agencies talk big about how great the testing is, doesn't mean it actually works.

Sad, but true.

she's clean. just yankee sour grapes on display again

djlovesyou wrote:For what it's worth, I'm not actually accusing anything.

My point is more that I don't accept that anti-doping in most sports is remotely effective and that passing drug tests is not really any sort of proof of innocence. Also, just because these agencies talk big about how great the testing is, doesn't mean it actually works.

Sad, but true.

You say "Sad, but true". On what evidence do you base that judgement..?

Have you read my post above regarding testing processes..? How do you refute their effectiveness..? I would be interested to read your scientific and technical analysis of how these testing procedures are ineffective.

djlovesyou wrote:The whole 'keep the samples for 8 years' and 'doping is a high risk strategy' are simply soundbites from the anti-doping authorities. The samples from cheats are never tainted in competition because that's not when they're taking them.

Those who are taking drugs are doing so well outside of competition time - I don't know why people seem to believe that doping in sport is a case of taking something the night before the event and automatically doing a great performance.

Doping in power events like this tends to be done as an aid to training. Anti doping out of competition in many sports is very weak - particularly in countries that have limited interest in catching their own athletes. The international governing bodies of sports like swimming and athletics are spread too thin to do much more than pay lip service to out of competition testing and hope that talking big scares people out of trying to cheat.

Sadly, talking big scares nobody these days.

I'm sorry to tell you this my friend, but you are sooooooooooo far wide of the mark that you're on another planet.

Can I ask you please, what is your experience, qualification and inside knowledge that enables you to make that judgement..?

I can tell you that testing does take place outside of competition time, and it is rigorous and thorough. You may recall the case of Rio Ferdinand who, in 2003, failed to take a drugs test when testers arrived at Manchester United's training ground for 'surprise' testing, and was banned for 8 months.

I wrote a lengthy post above giving an outline of some of the procedures in place to test for doping. Please explain in detail how you refute that, or can we assume you are simply talking out of hand with no actual knowledge about anything..?

The link gives a list of those persons caught taking drugs in sport. It is incomplete and is being added to all the time. Note, Athletics is not included in this listing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport

Interestingly, you will find that on that lengthy list, the number of cases of Chinese found guiilty of drugs abuse in sport is 10. The number of Americans is 138.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

The Chinese have poured lots of money into athletics to try and prove superiority, hardly the first nation coming to the peak of world politics to do so.

And we've got a drugs cheat doing our running

This sounds like sour grapes coming from the Americans.

I mean, they really wanted an American winner so N-B-C could have a tiny reason for delaying showing it all until their prime time......

But remembers - its only medals that count in the USA, in their medal table they count total medals, not gold-silver-bronze.

Jennifer1984 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

GG wrote:16 year old female beating Lochte's final 50 metres. Not sure that's even biologically possible? How can her muscles develop the power of a 30 year old man? I smell a rat...

It is easily possible, biologically. At her age, the body grows faster and stronger than at any stage other than infancy. With the right conditioning, diet and technical training it should not be considered impossible

How does any of that make it 'biologically possible' for a not fully developed girl to better a 27 year old man??

I have not seen one arena where strength and endurance are so fundamental where women out perform men. It just doesn't happen. That's to take nothing away from female competitors, they're still phenomenal, but take someone like Paula Radcliffe - unbelievabley brilliant but even her world record (blasting every other female competitor ever out the water) is still a long way off the men's WR.

Then obviously you don't look hard enough.

I might ask what your qualifications in specialist areas within the field of biology are so I can adequately reply to you at a level you may understand.

Your Paula Radcliffe comparison is invidious because Radcliffe is a mature woman and a comparable male competitor is.... er... a mature man. These cannot be compared to adolescent / late adolescent females who are at a different developmental stage.

How much do you know about specific hormones such as Growth Hormone, Thyroxine, Insulin and Corticosteroids, all of which influence growth rate, or Leptin (which alters body composition). Parathyroid Hormone and 1.25 Dihydroxy-Vitamin D and Calcitonin, all of which affect skeletal mineralisation also dip into the mix. Shall I go on..?

These and other factors will be relevant in assessing the rate at which an indivdual's rate of acceleration in physical performance will be affected during adolescence. Obviously I don't have access to the athlete's medical records or I could go into more specific detail on her personally, but you can either tell me your qualifications so we can discuss the issue as fellow biologists and professionals, or you can take my word for it.

Her performance was within the range of a conditioned, professional athlete of her age and potential stage of maturation.

Comparisons with mature persons are fallacious.

Well look for me then, give me some examples maybe?

Apologies if not studying biology past A-level has burdened me with such a level of ignorance that I am incapable of fully comprehending your post, but again I see nothing in it that supports your contention.

You can bang on about adolescent female development and throw out big long "look at me, aren't I clever" words all you want. If what you are saying refutes my point, then why are all swimming world records held by men in their 20s not girls in their mid to late teens?

Maybe you've got caught up in showing off and missed the point. I appreciate I may well be wrong to be suspicious of how much time the Chinese athlete shaved off her PB (due to the points you've raised above) and that it appears conclusive now that Lochte took his foot off the gas appreciably, however I was challenging your point over girls outperforming men. Thus far you've provided no evidence that they can or have.

Jennifer1984 wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:The whole 'keep the samples for 8 years' and 'doping is a high risk strategy' are simply soundbites from the anti-doping authorities. The samples from cheats are never tainted in competition because that's not when they're taking them.

Those who are taking drugs are doing so well outside of competition time - I don't know why people seem to believe that doping in sport is a case of taking something the night before the event and automatically doing a great performance.

Doping in power events like this tends to be done as an aid to training. Anti doping out of competition in many sports is very weak - particularly in countries that have limited interest in catching their own athletes. The international governing bodies of sports like swimming and athletics are spread too thin to do much more than pay lip service to out of competition testing and hope that talking big scares people out of trying to cheat.

Sadly, talking big scares nobody these days.

I'm sorry to tell you this my friend, but you are sooooooooooo far wide of the mark that you're on another planet.

Can I ask you please, what is your experience, qualification and inside knowledge that enables you to make that judgement..?

I can tell you that testing does take place outside of competition time, and it is rigorous and thorough. You may recall the case of Rio Ferdinand who, in 2003, failed to take a drugs test when testers arrived at Manchester United's training ground for 'surprise' testing, and was banned for 8 months.

I wrote a lengthy post above giving an outline of some of the procedures in place to test for doping. Please explain in detail how you refute that, or can we assume you are simply talking out of hand with no actual knowledge about anything..?

The link gives a list of those persons caught taking drugs in sport. It is incomplete and is being added to all the time. Note, Athletics is not included in this listing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport

Interestingly, you will find that on that lengthy list, the number of cases of Chinese found guiilty of drugs abuse in sport is 10. The number of Americans is 138.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Why do you feel the need to be so condescending in your posts and questions people's rights to form an opinion unless that are qualified to some kind of extraordinary level in a particular field?

Your posts suggest a scientific background but your posting above from wikipedia demonstrates and distinct lack of statistical rigour. A long list of drugs cheats with only 10 Chinese on it. Oh, well, we must conclude that the Chinese hardly cheat at all/have been caught then whereas the Americans make up the majority. Yet you note yourself that the list excludes athletics. What sports are the Chinese known for outside of athletics? The Americans have more people involved in more mainstream sports which are rigourously tested by ADAs and thus would be expected to dominate such a list. That list proves very little at all.

or the Lithuanian lass? Some people have very short memories.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:The whole 'keep the samples for 8 years' and 'doping is a high risk strategy' are simply soundbites from the anti-doping authorities. The samples from cheats are never tainted in competition because that's not when they're taking them.

Those who are taking drugs are doing so well outside of competition time - I don't know why people seem to believe that doping in sport is a case of taking something the night before the event and automatically doing a great performance.

Doping in power events like this tends to be done as an aid to training. Anti doping out of competition in many sports is very weak - particularly in countries that have limited interest in catching their own athletes. The international governing bodies of sports like swimming and athletics are spread too thin to do much more than pay lip service to out of competition testing and hope that talking big scares people out of trying to cheat.

Sadly, talking big scares nobody these days.

I'm sorry to tell you this my friend, but you are sooooooooooo far wide of the mark that you're on another planet.

Can I ask you please, what is your experience, qualification and inside knowledge that enables you to make that judgement..?

I can tell you that testing does take place outside of competition time, and it is rigorous and thorough. You may recall the case of Rio Ferdinand who, in 2003, failed to take a drugs test when testers arrived at Manchester United's training ground for 'surprise' testing, and was banned for 8 months.

I wrote a lengthy post above giving an outline of some of the procedures in place to test for doping. Please explain in detail how you refute that, or can we assume you are simply talking out of hand with no actual knowledge about anything..?

The link gives a list of those persons caught taking drugs in sport. It is incomplete and is being added to all the time. Note, Athletics is not included in this listing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport

Interestingly, you will find that on that lengthy list, the number of cases of Chinese found guiilty of drugs abuse in sport is 10. The number of Americans is 138.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Why do you feel the need to be so condescending in your posts and questions people's rights to form an opinion unless that are qualified to some kind of extraordinary level in a particular field?

Your posts suggest a scientific background but your posting above from wikipedia demonstrates and distinct lack of statistical rigour. A long list of drugs cheats with only 10 Chinese on it. Oh, well, we must conclude that the Chinese hardly cheat at all/have been caught then whereas the Americans make up the majority. Yet you note yourself that the list excludes athletics. What sports are the Chinese known for outside of athletics? The Americans have more people involved in more mainstream sports which are rigourously tested by ADAs and thus would be expected to dominate such a list. That list proves very little at all.

Not being funny but your accusations were made on the notion of China being morally and politically corrupt which really was shallow in attempts to discredit a sporting performance. It bears absolutely no relevance to the performance an athlete puts in. The person in question has won world and national championships and in that time frame has not tested positive for a banned substance. You ask what sports are the Chinese renowned for and are quite fond of ping pong and martial arts. If we talk nationalised sports then yes America very much outweigh China because of American Football, Baseball, Basketball, Ice Hockey. The flip side is that the United Kingdom for example have sports like Cricket, Darts, Snooker, Soccer, Rugby which are not what I would call globally popular sports and yet do not dominate athletic sports like America or China do. Essentially the reason larger countries perform well across a range of sports is based on population, technology, culture and demographical advantages. Yes the big flaw here is India have a large population in the billions and yet are not dominant in any forms of athletics, but this could be explained by culture and technology. I haven't been to India and cannot quote on the culture and technological elements that impact sport in that country. China are not so restricted by technology or culture and with a population of 1.3 billion it is not surprising that they can produce top class athletes even in the wake of past doping offences.

are you comparing the scale of ping pong and martial arts to football/soccer etc??

if you added up all the athletes in the world regularly tested for doping the largest proportion would come from the most popular/widely played sports i.e. football, golf, rugby, the American tri-fector.

Are you suggesting that USA are a powerhouse in the world of soccer compared with China? China like America have a soccer league filled with past best players and players not to standards of the counterparts in Europe.

Tennis and golf for me would have a larger portion of participants tested from a demographic perspective as they have respresentatives from all continents.

USA are well far ahead of China in 'soccer'. Miles ahead.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Are you suggesting that USA are a powerhouse in the world of soccer compared with China? China like America have a soccer league filled with past best players and players not to standards of the counterparts in Europe.

Tennis and golf for me would have a larger portion of participants tested from a demographic perspective as they have respresentatives from all continents.

No. I am saying that sports China are prevelant in make a small proportion of all sports played worldwide (at a level sufficient to require regular dope testing) in terms of numbers of people playing them. Golf and soccer are worldwide sports, baseball basketball and american football are not but are played but sufficiently high numbers still to outweigh the number of professional (or equivalent) Chinese ping pong players. Or swimmers. Or competitive martial artists. Etc.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Are you suggesting that USA are a powerhouse in the world of soccer compared with China? China like America have a soccer league filled with past best players and players not to standards of the counterparts in Europe.

Tennis and golf for me would have a larger portion of participants tested from a demographic perspective as they have respresentatives from all continents.

No. I am saying that sports China are prevelant in make a small proportion of all sports played worldwide (at a level sufficient to require regular dope testing) in terms of numbers of people playing them. Golf and soccer are worldwide sports, baseball basketball and american football are not but are played but sufficiently high numbers still to outweigh the number of professional (or equivalent) Chinese ping pong players. Or swimmers. Or competitive martial artists. Etc.

The crux of the matter here is a 16 year old swimmer who won gold in dominant fashion. Like I stated she was national and world champion.

If China started winning gold in areas like track and field and soccer, I would then raise my eyebrows.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Why do you feel the need to be so condescending in your posts and questions people's rights to form an opinion unless that are qualified to some kind of extraordinary level in a particular field?

Your posts suggest a scientific background but your posting above from wikipedia demonstrates and distinct lack of statistical rigour. A long list of drugs cheats with only 10 Chinese on it. Oh, well, we must conclude that the Chinese hardly cheat at all/have been caught then whereas the Americans make up the majority. Yet you note yourself that the list excludes athletics. What sports are the Chinese known for outside of athletics? The Americans have more people involved in more mainstream sports which are rigourously tested by ADAs and thus would be expected to dominate such a list. That list proves very little at all.

The scientific knowledge that was shown by this poster was essentially a copy paste job, or at least a rewritten piece which was essentially a few more big talking soundbites from anti-doping agencies. (It sounds even more credible when big scientific terms are thrown in).

Between 1990 and 1998, 28 Chinese swimmers tested positive and the head coach at the time has since admitted a team-wide, full scale doping programme. In 1998, enough HGH was found by customs in Australia being carried by one of the swimmers to easily dope the entire team. A Chinese swimmer actually tested positive just prior to these games and was dropped by the team.

Their saving grace this time is that they're starting to show a bit of form in men's swimming, but again, it's still the female power events that they seem to excel most. That's never a good sign.

Having a bad history doesn't mean anything is going on now, of course, but as I've said, it's not really being that cynical if you fear the worse.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

If China started winning gold in areas like track and field and soccer, I would then raise my eyebrows.

They already have that hurdler guy, a couple of high/long jumpers and the odd 20km and 50km 'walkers'... so hang onto your seat!

djlovesyou wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Why do you feel the need to be so condescending in your posts and questions people's rights to form an opinion unless that are qualified to some kind of extraordinary level in a particular field?

Your posts suggest a scientific background but your posting above from wikipedia demonstrates and distinct lack of statistical rigour. A long list of drugs cheats with only 10 Chinese on it. Oh, well, we must conclude that the Chinese hardly cheat at all/have been caught then whereas the Americans make up the majority. Yet you note yourself that the list excludes athletics. What sports are the Chinese known for outside of athletics? The Americans have more people involved in more mainstream sports which are rigourously tested by ADAs and thus would be expected to dominate such a list. That list proves very little at all.

The scientific knowledge that was shown by this poster was essentially a copy paste job, or at least a rewritten piece which was essentially a few more big talking soundbites from anti-doping agencies. (It sounds even more credible when big scientific terms are thrown in).

Between 1990 and 1998, 28 Chinese swimmers tested positive and the head coach at the time has since admitted a team-wide, full scale doping programme. In 1998, enough HGH was found by customs in Australia being carried by one of the swimmers to easily dope the entire team. A Chinese swimmer actually tested positive just prior to these games and was dropped by the team.

Their saving grace this time is that they're starting to show a bit of form in men's swimming, but again, it's still the female power events that they seem to excel most. That's never a good sign.

Having a bad history doesn't mean anything is going on now, of course, but as I've said, it's not really being that cynical if you fear the worse.

I don't question your right to have an opinion, I merely ask you to state your reasons for coming to your conclusions and qualify them. That isn't unreasonable seeing that you clearly stated your "opinion" as if it was established fact.

I challenge you to refute any of the statements I have made, that you disparagingly call "Soundbites".

An uneducated, biased opinion based on nothing more than some sort of personal axe to grind is the worst kind of "opinion"..... in MY opinion.

If you are merely making an uninformed opinion, please be man enough to say so rather than presenting yourself as some sort of know it all when your knowledge of the subject at hand is clearly lacking.



.


.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Why do you feel the need to be so condescending in your posts and questions people's rights to form an opinion unless that are qualified to some kind of extraordinary level in a particular field?

Your posts suggest a scientific background but your posting above from wikipedia demonstrates and distinct lack of statistical rigour. A long list of drugs cheats with only 10 Chinese on it. Oh, well, we must conclude that the Chinese hardly cheat at all/have been caught then whereas the Americans make up the majority. Yet you note yourself that the list excludes athletics. What sports are the Chinese known for outside of athletics? The Americans have more people involved in more mainstream sports which are rigourously tested by ADAs and thus would be expected to dominate such a list. That list proves very little at all.

The list was illustrative and was intended to show the individual to whom I responded that a significant number of individuals had, despite his assertion to the contrary, been caught and that drugs testing is effective.

Yes, I do have a scientific background but as a forensic biologist with a specialism in molecular genetics I'm not actually involved in sport science. However, as a sport enthusiast I have followed papers that are published for peer review in professional journals. I am not an expert of any kind and don't claim to be, but I do think I have a somewhat more informed opinion to offer.

If you wish, I could flood the board with all sorts of statistics but that would be over egging the pudding. I felt that I provided enough evidence to support my point.

The problem with this kind of discussion is that individuals will often make bold statements of "fact" without taking any trouble to research their posts or establish any kind of factual basis to what they say. My challenge to him was intended to prompt him to think a little before making a fool of himself.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion. That is not in dispute. But an opinion is exactly that. It is not established fact unless supported by evidence.

Uninformed opinion, stated as fact is the worst kind of ignorance.


.

.

But you didn't even know that the whole Chinese swimming team was systematically doped during the 90s.

That's pretty uninformed, I'm sure you would agree.

djlovesyou wrote:But you didn't even know that the whole Chinese swimming team was systematically doped during the 90s.

That's pretty uninformed, I'm sure you would agree.

Not at all. I considered that fact had already been established. I didn't need to repeat it.

.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Its a bit rich for the Americans to point fingers when they're not exactly clean themselves.

Also why no questions about the Lithuanian girl at 15 who won a gold? Both are phenomenal talents and should be praised.

"Interestingly, you will find that on that lengthy list, the number of cases of Chinese found guiilty of drugs abuse in sport is 10."

Surely you wouldn't have said this if you knew about the 28 swimmers alone in the 90s. (not counting the rest of the team, that the coaches have since admitted doping.)

Have you heard of Ma's Army by the way?

djlovesyou wrote:"Interestingly, you will find that on that lengthy list, the number of cases of Chinese found guiilty of drugs abuse in sport is 10."

Surely you wouldn't have said this if you knew about the 28 swimmers alone in the 90s. (not counting the rest of the team, that the coaches have since admitted doping.)

Have you heard of Ma's Army by the way?

You make presumptions about what I know and what I don't know without having the faintest clue what I'm talking about.

This is getting tiresome now. You seem desperate to keep this unseemly bicker going by behaving like a recalcitrant schoolboy who has had his peashooter taken away.

The point of my comment was to highlight the difference between the number of Chinese who have been caught doping and the number of Americans.... specifically according to that list precisely because it was an American coach who had made the allegation in the first place.

Now, I can see you are desperate to salvage some face in this matter, but I'm not going to indulge you indefinitely. Responding to your petulance is becoming quite onerous and I'd much rather watch GB try to win a gold medal in the 200 metres breastroke.

I think you need to grow up and call it a day on this one.

My original points still stand. I don't accept that there is an effective 'bio-passport' scheme in any sports besides cycling (even then, it's not that effective) and particularly in nations that don't carry out their own OOC testing and obviously won't be 100% free in letting in anti-doping authorities into their country in order to carry out tests.

You already admitted you have zero knowledge about sport science, very little knowledge of the sports in question and limited knowledge about drug testing procedure (Your assertion that the Chinese swimmer has passed her A and B test demonstrate this).

Jennifer1984 Today at 6:33 pm

djlovesyou wrote:"Interestingly, you will find that on that lengthy list, the number of cases of Chinese found guiilty of drugs abuse in sport is 10."

Surely you wouldn't have said this if you knew about the 28 swimmers alone in the 90s. (not counting the rest of the team, that the coaches have since admitted doping.)

Have you heard of Ma's Army by the way?





You make presumptions about what I know and what I don't know without having the faintest clue what I'm talking about.

This is getting tiresome now. You seem desperate to keep this unseemly bicker going by behaving like a recalcitrant schoolboy who has had his peashooter taken away.

The point of my comment was to highlight the difference between the number of Chinese who have been caught doping and the number of Americans.... specifically according to that list precisely because it was an American coach who had made the allegation in the first place.

Now, I can see you are desperate to salvage some face in this matter, but I'm not going to indulge you indefinitely. Responding to your petulance is becoming quite onerous and I'd much rather watch GB try to win a gold medal in the 200 metres breastroke.

I think you need to grow up and call it a day on this one.

While sophisticated new methods are being developed to test for EPO and Human Growth Hormone, they are expensive and require refrigerated blood samples to be carried for sometimes thousands of miles to the labs capable of carrying out the tests. Wada is concerned the cost is preventing many countries carrying out as many tests for blood doping as they should be.

It is feared that of the 258,000 tests conducted annually, as few as 2% include the blood tests that can detect the use of Human Growth Hormone. In 2010 there were just 36 positives – a total Wada regarded as "disappointing". Across sport, there are fears that one in 10 athletes is attempting to cheat but of those only one in five is being caught.

"We think the annual statistics show that maybe between 1% and 2% of athletes who are tested are cheating. By conducting these research projects, the results of which will be made known later this year, we think those numbers are more into double digits," said Howman earlier this year. "That's a concern. If more than 10% of the athletes in the world are being tempted to take a shortcut via taking prohibited substances then we've got an issue that is not being confronted as well as it should be."

The above is an extract from The Guardian with regards to WADA and more specifically out of competition testing.

Now Jennifer whilst I can understand your point about America having been caught on a more regular basis and that they shouldn't be throwing around accusations given their record, I also think you have to take into consideration other aspects when it comes to looking at the history of both countries etc.

America have always been at the forefront of Sport and it is a position which they have wanted to always maintain, especially at the Olympics. It is a position which adds something to the weight of being the myth that is 'strongest country' in the World.

Due to the importance played on their sporting standing Athletes from the country have for a long time done all they can i.e. used doping, to stay at the top of their sports. Now obviously (and I certainly hope so) those who do are still in the minority however the simple fact remains that when athletes are at the top of a sport some will do all they can to stay there.

If you look at the trend in the past twenty years the amount of Chinese athletes testing positive has increased hugely (im sure I can find an article somewhere showing this but your capable with a quick search on google)...

Now this actually falls in line with the increases that China as a Country has put on sport in the last twenty years...again I raise the point of sport being an essential element of a countries wish to show their 'Power' to the world. As China have become a rival for that mythical title to the USA in terms of economy, military, technology etc so has their wish to overtake them in the Sporting sense...now the big big issue with this is that in some of the cases which Chinese athletes have failed doping tests it has been highlighted that Athletes have been doping because it is advocated and possible even promoted by people in control of the sports.

Whilst it is certainly plausable that the Women in question could have done what she has off the back of hard work, natural biological changes etc their is bound to be doubt in alot of people's minds because of the huge changes to her PB and the history of the doping cases brought against Chinese athletes in the last 20 years, of which a major amount have been in Swimming and actually also in Weightlifting...2 Sports which they have begun dominating in recent times.

I always stand on the line of caution, and in that manner the American coach should have done the same rather than announce his feelings. However their are question marks that need to be raised and it doesn't just go for the Chinese swimmer it goes for everyone. The simple fact that whilst WADA is doing a heck of alot to eradicate doping within sport their are many international federations who are not providing enough support or for that matter testing of their own to keep on top of things. Again sadly enough it is again an accusation which can, and rightly is, pointed at China.

Yet another sensible post from owen - I think though that the accusation for thats exactly what it was by the american coach was a deliberate malicious smear on the girl. He gave an example which he knew to be false and misleading because the american was coasting at the end of a very easy run and the girl was blasting her best as possible and had already won earlier this year. The questions might be asked (and I know you arent referring to this particular instance) but there was never anything controversial about it until both he (and balding it must be said) opened their mouths..

To be fair, Balding was only pointing out that questions will be asked, and questions were asked.

I know I, and probably millions of others, when it first happened were slightly sceptical.

I think given the massive increase in doping cases in the past twenty years it is now only natural to question great feats of sporting triumph. It is a sad reflection but the evidence suggests that people have the right to be sceptical .

I mean I still take everything Bolt does with a pinch of salt, I try not to because it does tinge what he has done but as I said given the amounts of time the best, especially 100m athletes, have gone on to be found guilty it's is natural human behaviour to doubt.

With regards to the coach, I am in agreement with you both their was no need to come out and say it in the public manner he did, although for me it was worse given the timing of his decision to do so but as Shah alluded to, I think it was done so to smear and perhaps even put pressure on the young girl given she still had races to partake in...

As I said the sad fact of the matter is that because sport and more importantly the Olympics is an opportunity to show a countries power, we will see the american's making more & more accusations be it direct or indirect because they have been usurped by the Chinese...

The thing is that when you are at the top you are more reluctant to really look at things without rose tinted glasses and you are certainly less eager to really look deep into possible issues for fear of being 'found out/realising the worse'...

As I mentioned the Chinese are one of the international federations who have been condoned on a number of occasions for not doing enough either individually or to support WADA in their attempts to stamp out doping.....but when America was at the top of the sport/olympics especially in the mid 80's to mid 90's they were equally reluctant to carry out stringent testing or support the IOC in their battle against doping.

Oh and ShahenshahG thanks for the praise

Crimey that is a fair point..but a niggling suspicion in the back of your head is different from it being at the front of your mind when its mentioned openly like that - imagine someone had said something like that about bolt. Should she be found to be doping in the first instance then you can say yeah I thought there was something dodgy about that and no harm done but she goes through her whole career without a shred of evidence then whenever it is metioned the controversy and accusations will accompany it. Then the rather idiotic no smoke without fire caveat is added 5-10 years down the line when her dedication brought it all.

Just spiteful from the American and unprofessional at the very least from balding.

A thread from a guy humourously lamenting the flat chestedness of some of the swimmers/beach volleyballers was removed , assumingly for being "sexist", yet a thread with this IMO "racist" title remains......................

Strange..................if there is a particular suspicion on a particular swimmer, name her/him and investigate. Tarring all with the same brush is lazy & arrogant............

Jennifer1984 wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:But you didn't even know that the whole Chinese swimming team was systematically doped during the 90s.

That's pretty uninformed, I'm sure you would agree.

Not at all. I considered that fact had already been established. I didn't need to repeat it.

.

With all due respect Jennifer, nothing you have posted (from my brief flick through again this morning) suggests you acknowledged the point as fact.

Demonstrated, in part, by the posting of a statistically insignifcant list of doping cases which only supported the argument you were trying to make by way of being massively biased.

John Cregan wrote:A thread from a guy humourously lamenting the flat chestedness of some of the swimmers/beach volleyballers was removed , assumingly for being "sexist", yet a thread with this IMO "racist" title remains......................

Strange..................if there is a particular suspicion on a particular swimmer, name her/him and investigate. Tarring all with the same brush is lazy & arrogant............

Bit rich from someone trying to excuse racism (re John Terry) on another thread. The thread was designed to focus on a hot discussion point of the moment at the Olympics, not just to poke fun or be racist (or sexist/demeaning as I'm guessing [your?] flat-chestedness thread was). Apologies if you found the alliteration in the title intimidating.

Getting back to the title of this thread, if a British Gold Medalist eg Bradley Wiggins is not a "doper", he must be a "fair & faboulous freak of nature"?.................there's a billion people in China..........don't think it's a surprise when they produce results like these...........