The Dew Drop Inn Virtual Games of the XXX Olympiad Pub, Stratford

First topic message reminder :

The Dew Drop Inn Virtual Games of the XXX Olympiad Pub, a place where you can come in for a sly beverage and discuss whatever's on your mind, or just eavesdrop on the regulars if you fancy a break from all the rugby chat.

This week the pub has set up in the heart of the Olympic Precinct at Stratford, where we can watch the world's greatest athletes do their thing and strut their stuff during the best Modern Olympics Games ever.

"Citius, Altius, Fortius" has been the motto for the modern Olympic Games since their beginning in 1896 - and let's hope it stays that way.

The only rule in this pub is one of mutual respect for everyone in it, oh and no tampering with the pictures of Jessica Ennis, Kieran Behan, Oscar Pistorius, Bradley Wiggins, Leryn Franco, Michelle Jenneke, Victoria Pendleton, Aaron Cruden, Katie Taylor, Misty May, Usain Bolt, Mo Farah, Krisztián Berki (on that horsey thingy) and the the Winner of the Gold Medal at Wimbledon - Andy Murray.




Last Pawb: https://www.606v2.com/t33138p1000-the-dew-drop-inn-virtual-games-of-the-xxx-olympiad-pub-london

Munsty I found the documentary intersting but pretty disturbing, not altogether different from Hitlers aryan race idea. Cleary it is an interesting theory but the evidence is pretty tenious.

Mick basically the idea is the slave traders picked the physically strongest people from over africa. The ones that survived the boat trips were the best of the best. The slave owners forced the strongest men to 'breed' with the strongest women to produce offspring. Africa is a very diverse place genetically so the slave trade brought these deverse range of people together. Unnatural selection was the term used.

Apparantly the most aggressive slaves were dumped of at Jamaica, and then the US whereas the lazier ones ended up in Europe, hence the british sprinters are rubbish.

I'd imagine there is some merit in some of this but I really doubt that the previlence of african american and jamaican athletes has been so significantly influenced by this.

I think genetics is a big part but so is culture, facilites etc.

Exactly right, Notch. It was the wrong time and place for them to have shown the film.

Maybe so, but that might be the only time a lot of people ever get to hear about a lot of that stuff, because they certainly wouldn't watch a documentary on BBC3.

rodders wrote:Munsty I found the documentary intersting but pretty disturbing, not altogether different from Hitlers aryan race idea. Cleary it is an interesting theory but the evidence is pretty tenious.

Mick basically the idea is the slave traders picked the physically strongest people from over africa. The ones that survived the boat trips were the best of the best. The slave owners forced the strongest men to 'breed' with the strongest women to produce offspring. Africa is a very diverse place genetically so the slave trade brought these deverse range of people together. Unnatural selection was the term used.

Apparantly the most aggressive slaves were dumped of at Jamaica, and then the US whereas the lazier ones ended up in Europe, hence the british sprinters are rubbish.

I'd imagine there is some merit in some of this but I really doubt that the previlence of african american and jamaican athletes has been so significantly influenced by this.

I think genetics is a big part but so is culture, facilites etc.

A big +1 to the 2nd bolded point.

As to the 1st one, many of the slave owners weren't that scientific in their approach - slave foremen frequently got their choice of women (and the foremen were largely appointed on merit), after the scum owners had taken their own pick. The US myth of the slave-owning southern "gentleman" (who were generally of Anglo/Scots/Irish/Amerindian descent) is largely just that.

And the traders weren't quite picking the strongest Africans - they were picking the strongest Africans that were captured

Kiwireddevil wrote:And the traders weren't quite picking the strongest Africans - they were picking the strongest Africans that were captured

That's a great point.

On the topic, this wasn't the first cringeworthy moment this year. Did anyone see when Alan Wells was on a few days ago?

With Michael Johnson beside him he said something like he was especially proud to be the last white man to win the 100m.... Johnson looked pretty shocked to be honest, sandwiched between Wells and McEnroe.

Horrible moment.

What a stupid thing to say! You'd think he'd have the humility to know that he only won gold in 1980 because the States boycotted the Moscow Games!

I had wondered to about the claim of the forced breeding programs. Not saying this didn't happen but the science around genetics obviously wasn't what it was today.

Would god fearing cotton farmers really have had the nous back then to get the physically most impressive slaves to produce offspring with the most fertile women in the knowledge that there abilities would be passed on?

You can put the best ram on the best ewe and get a runt. Genetics doesn't follow easy logic.

rodders wrote:I had wondered to about the claim of the forced breeding programs. Not saying this didn't happen but the science around genetics obviously wasn't what it was today.

Would god fearing cotton farmers really have had the nous back then to get the physically most impressive slaves to produce offspring with the most fertile women in the knowledge that there abilities would be passed on?

Well it is almost impossible for us to try think like they did back then but it is a simple logic that if you put a big man with a big woman you'll get a big child and I'm only guessing that would be what they would have thought back then.

Only guess work though.

Glas a du wrote:You can put the best ram on the best ewe and get a runt. Genetics doesn't follow easy logic.

+1

Got to love farmers logic

Glas a du wrote:You can put the best ram on the best ewe and get a runt.

That's what happened with me.

rodders wrote:I had wondered to about the claim of the forced breeding programs. Not saying this didn't happen but the science around genetics obviously wasn't what it was today.

Would god fearing cotton farmers really have had the nous back then to get the physically most impressive slaves to produce offspring with the most fertile women in the knowledge that there abilities would be passed on?

Highly doubtful that they believed in evolution for starters.

Fair points. I just think it's one of these theories that is more based on idiology than scientific based evidence.

I'm not saying that the slave trade had no influence on what we see today in many sports but my view is that the documentary was overstating the significance based on the personal view of the presenter (Johnson), who has emotive reasons for believing the theory.

Well one thing the slave trade did do to athletics, because of it, Jamaica are now the powerhouse of sprinting and that wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the human trafficking.

It probably wouldn't have happened if Angel Heradez, who was involved in supplying half of US sport (including the sprinters) with HGH and undetectable designer drugs, wasn't now working as a strength and conditoning coach for the Jamaican sprint team..specifically Usain Bolt.

Thats another debate though.

eirebilly wrote:

Glas a du wrote:You can put the best ram on the best ewe and get a runt. Genetics doesn't follow easy logic.

+1

Got to love farmers logic

True. It's worth noting that a lot of the westward expansion of the US in the early 1800s was driven by pressure from politically powerful wealthy Georgians. The slave plantations in Georgia (the US state, not the country ) were uneconomic on a cropping basis, so they relied on sales of bred slaves to newly opened up territories to keep the bailiffs from the door.

What ultimately killed off slavery in the US was competition - slave-free states in the Northern US were far more entrepreneurial and quicker to industrialise, as free settlers were more willing to migrate to states where they weren't competing with slaves for work. That industrialisation was the key to the North winning the Civil War - McCormack reapers replaced men on Northern farms, who then joined the army, supplied by northern railroads

So what you are all saying is that The Jamaicans and all the black American athletes who have won sprinting golds all owe the Dutch a huge thanks?

rodders wrote:It probably wouldn't have happened if Angel Heradez, who was involved in supplying half of US sport (including the sprinters) with HGH and undetectable designer drugs, wasn't now working as a strength and conditoning coach for the Jamaican sprint team..specifically Usain Bolt.

Thats another debate though.

You really don't believe he has done all this legally do you? (said in the lightest tone possible)

Glas a du wrote:You can put the best ram on the best ewe and get a runt. Genetics doesn't follow easy logic.

Tell that to the punters who pay Coolmore Stud around €50k for one of their mares to spend 5 mins with one of their sires!

Sin é wrote:

Glas a du wrote:You can put the best ram on the best ewe and get a runt. Genetics doesn't follow easy logic.

Tell that to the punters who pay Coolmore Stud around €50k for one of their mares to spend 5 mins with one of their sires!

5 minutes is a bit long, it's more like 30 seconds. And for a top stallion the price can be as high as £200k (I spent some time working with Sheik Mohammed of Dubai's stud's customer database in may last job).

Question. Do thoroughbred horses actually sh@g eachother? Or is it all scientific, jerk off, turkey baster business?

I’m considering becoming a Buddhist and I’m trying to figure out what I’d like to be reincarnated as…

MBTGOG wrote:

rodders wrote:It probably wouldn't have happened if Angel Heradez, who was involved in supplying half of US sport (including the sprinters) with HGH and undetectable designer drugs, wasn't now working as a strength and conditoning coach for the Jamaican sprint team..specifically Usain Bolt.

Thats another debate though.

You really don't believe he has done all this legally do you? (said in the lightest tone possible)

If you mean Bolt then, I believe he's done 'it' using the same degree of legality, or thereabouts, as pretty much everyone else over the past few decades.

Certainly I'm not accusing anyone individually, it's just my opinion based on anecdotal evidence of how things are done in many sports at elite, and sometimes semi elite level.

Sheik Mohammed is robbing everyone!

Coolmore seem to keep the covering fees a bit lower. Top is US dollars 85K for Giant's Causeway (based in US).

Well I'm going to leave it here but I do think that without any real evidence, you are being incredibly unfair on a man and slandering his reputation.

I'd say most athletes are on something it's unfair to single out one though.

Spoiler:

[spoiler]


Fresh Prince and Jazzy kicking it old school

Sin é wrote:Sheik Mohammed is robbing everyone!

Coolmore seem to keep the covering fees a bit lower. Top is US dollars 85K for Giant's Causeway (based in US).

Fees may have dropped a bit over the past couple of years given global financial conditions, I'm sure I remember seeing Coolmore with a 6-figure stallion listed in the stud book 3 or 4 years back.

(actually, I think from memory I should have said $ not £s a couple of posts back).

Sheik Mohammed may well be charging a premium, Darleys mainly exists to breed winners for Godolphin (his racing stable) so he might be limiting competition.

Pete C (aka Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Sin é wrote:Sheik Mohammed is robbing everyone!

Coolmore seem to keep the covering fees a bit lower. Top is US dollars 85K for Giant's Causeway (based in US).

Fees may have dropped a bit over the past couple of years given global financial conditions, I'm sure I remember seeing Coolmore with a 6-figure stallion listed in the stud book 3 or 4 years back.

(actually, I think from memory I should have said $ not £s a couple of posts back).

Sheik Mohammed may well be charging a premium, Darleys mainly exists to breed winners for Godolphin (his racing stable) so he might be limiting competition.

Coolmore did - Sadlier's Well (although retired for a while) his passing away last year made the 9 o'clock news! Coolmore must really urine off Sheik Mohammed!

I'm not singling out Bolt. However Bolts strength trainer is Angel Heradez who was the BALCO whistleblower and was involved in supplying Marion Jones, Tim Mongomery etc.

Justin Gatland and Dwayne Chambers have be banned for failing drugs tests, in Gatlands case twice.

Both are over 30, Gatland is running faster than ever and Chambers isn't far off despite being 33.

Now this begs the question as to why they took drugs in the first place if they can run just as fast or even faster whilst clean? Or maybe they aren't acutally clean at all?

If the latter is true then you wonder why aren't these guys faster than everyone else? PEDs give a huge advantage, hence they are illegal. So if they are juicing then it stands to reason that so are their rivals.

The BALCO scandal showed that many of the top athletes, across multiple sports where taking undetectable PEDs and HGH. The drugs testers would never have caught them if they hadn't been tipped off. Conte maybe be lying but he went in to great detail as to how they supplied the PEDs and how they beat the testers.

You would expect then that if the cheats where caught times would get slower...but they haven't, they've got quicker and quicker. This is especially true for Jamaica who have one of the laxist drugs testing programmes in the world. By contrast Britain who have the strictest can't get anyone under 10 sec.

Also many athletes have failed tests in other sports where the penalties are less severe or even non-existant. Vitali Klichsko, Shane Mosley, RJJ, Evander Holifield etc. in boxing. Lots of baseball players, RL players, NFL ... we don't hear about it because some sports just brush it off. Some sports are 'open' about it like MMA and Bodybuilding.

Does any of this prove anything? Nope. But it does cast suspicion as to how widespread the use of PEDs is in elite sport and that suspicion unfortunately needs to be focused at the top athletes in the sports that would benefit the most from certain PEDs.

Balco case destroyed baseball really, as for the NFL being open on durgs. Right and wrong. They do tests and several athletes get suspended every year for being hopped up on something or other. First offence is around 3 months .Second a year, you get suspended for regular drugs or PED. A lot of guys were suspended for using "Star Caps" a while back. Are there drugs in the NFL some, a lot of guys are just phenomenal athletes really and due to their long offseason can put in a lot of work. There are some guys on drugs there are in every sport.

Baseball is trying to change it's image but it is still rife from what I have seen. The likes of Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds are legends of the psort and both were caught for drugs as was a current star Alex Rodriguez (on his contract alone, the highest paid sportstar in USA). Baseball was rife with the stuff but it is on its way somewhat to clearing it. There are still problems in it though, with so many games guys are juicing up in some way or another.

rodders wrote:Justin Gatland and Dwayne Chambers have be banned for failing drugs tests, in Gatlands case twice.

Both are over 30, Gatland is running faster than ever and Chambers isn't far off despite being 33.

Now this begs the question as to why they took drugs in the first place if they can run just as fast or even faster whilst clean? Or maybe they aren't acutally clean at all?

Rodders, a quick answer to this. Often people see the use of PED's to be a short term success thing when its actually not. Whilst under the influence of PED's, these athletes develope themselves incredibly more than they would have naturally. This does not leave once the PED's have left the body and said individual is clean, hense the faster times now. This has always been my concern with allowing these athletes back.

As for Bolt, i would seriously doubt that he has taken any PED's in his life because he has always been the fastest in his age group and was being touted as a future world champion from a very young age

I think Rodders' point Bill, is that yes these guys are talented but are doing it to give them a "top up"


Just to add to the baseball thing, they are certainly doing a kind of take no prisoners attitude to it. 1st ban is 50 games (1/3rd of a season), 2nd is 100, 3rd is lifetime.

I was actually refeering to rodders pquestion about why they certain athletes are performing better now (over 30) without the use of PED's if they were this good all along and would have naturally developed.

Morning all, tfif!! And the rugby season begins tomorrow with Glos hammering Leinster

Mickado wrote:Question. Do thoroughbred horses actually sh@g eachother? Or is it all scientific, jerk off, turkey baster business?

I’m considering becoming a Buddhist and I’m trying to figure out what I’d like to be reincarnated as…

The aim in Buddhism is to attain enlightenment and the extinguishing of the self so that you escape the cycle of death and rebirth. Existence is suffering and to be reborn and reborn for eternity is a form of hell.

Just saying.

Billy I'm not an expert, but the results of PED use are not known to be long term i.e. when the athlete stops the gains will decline quite quickly hence athlete employ scientists to time there dosage just right around their events to make sure they get maximum gains but aren't caught.

HGH is undetectable but people get caught when they show suspicious differences between their testosterone levels from one test to the next and one method to avoid this is to use drugs which keep them at a constant high.

If a known PED user can supposedly perform as well or better without PEDs then a cynical sole like myself would be asking a few questions there.....

Thomond wrote:I think Rodders' point Bill, is that yes these guys are talented but are doing it to give them a "top up"


Just to add to the baseball thing, they are certainly doing a kind of take no prisoners attitude to it. 1st ban is 50 games (1/3rd of a season), 2nd is 100, 3rd is lifetime.

Well not really when you consider some sports ban people on their first time being caught for two years.

eirebilly wrote:
As for Bolt, i would seriously doubt that he has taken any PED's in his life because he has always been the fastest in his age group and was being touted as a future world champion from a very young age

That is true but so was Dwayne Chambers.

At underage levels you aren't competing against other PED users. Everyone is clean, unless you are talking US collegate level. Elite level is different. If you can run sub 10 sec you won't even make a final these days.

Look I don't want to focus on Bolt. His freakish mechanical advantage is the main reason for his amazing ability beyond his peers. I don't want to detract from the fact hes maybe the best athlete ever and that isn't because of PEDs.

Munsty, compared to what it was it is a massive change, look up things on baseball and drugs it's fascinating. Hate the sport but the dtories are interesting. A lot of guys were on 1 or 2 bans prior to that ruling os it has seen a decline in the stuff being used.

rodders wrote:Billy I'm not an expert, but the results of PED use are not known to be long term i.e. when the athlete stops the gains will decline quite quickly hence athlete employ scientists to time there dosage just right around their events to make sure they get maximum gains but aren't caught.

HGH is undetectable but people get caught when they show suspicious differences between their testosterone levels from one test to the next and one method to avoid this is to use drugs which keep them at a constant high.

If a known PED user can supposedly perform as well or better without PEDs then a cynical sole like myself would be asking a few questions there.....

There is the short term advantage but that is only because muscles in the body are developed at a staggering rate which is why these athletes become more powerfull. Its this (muscle development) that stays with the athletes once the PED's have been removed, as long as said athlete continues their traing regime. They gain a short term advantage but also a long term advantage.

Have you evidence about that Billy?

Anabolic steroids rebuild muscle faster and thus allow you to train for longer and harder. The elevated testerone levels help produce muscle more than natural.

Once you stop using your testorone level eventually return to normal, as do the advantages.

As far as I'm aware there is no long term benefits caused by PEDs. That is why they are taken in cycles. Even EPO and altitude related benefits are short term.

Once you stop, your performance and ability to train at the same level, volume and intensity drops too, and quite quickly.

I would say athletes are clean in competition now. In competition.

Most of the hard training they would do would use PEDs for recovery. So they can train harder, longer and that benefits their times when it comes to competition. Even if they aren't doping during the Olympics or other tournaments.

rodders wrote:Have you evidence about that Billy?

Anabolic steroids rebuild muscle faster and thus allow you to train for longer and harder. The elevated testerone levels help produce muscle more than natural.

Once you stop using your testorone level eventually return to normal, as do the advantages.

As far as I'm aware there is no long term benefits caused by PEDs. That is why they are taken in cycles. Even EPO and altitude related benefits are short term.

Once you stop, your performance and ability to train at the same level, volume and intensity drops too, and quite quickly.

No evidence of this rodders, just going by several documentaries i have seen on it here in Holland and what former professional athletes (confessed PED users) here in Holland have said. They said that they were mainly used to aid in the building of the muscles and creation of power before stopping months in advance of competitions so that they were clean. So the long term effects were what they were going for.

Yes but thats not being clean Notch. The drugs are out of their system, or masking agents are used, but the effects are primed.

WADA(?) do out off competition testing only for the top 50 athletes in any sport and if Victor Conte is to believed there are inside men who tip off the top athletes when there are tests.

Apparantly they test Jamaica more than anywhere else because they are so concerned about the Jamaican athletics federations lack fo ability to carry out testing.

You can't say for sure anyone is taking PEDs unless they are caught but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there to suggest many are.

Billy that is short term effects. Months. Athletes doing cycles of drugs and making sure they are out of their systems before competing.

I'm talking about people like Gatland who can run a PB years after being caught. That is totally different.

I think Heradia who did that interview is trying to cover his skin in some ways by saying they're all doing it, are athletes on drugs? Possibly, but Heradia's testimony shouldn't have much to do with that.


It's Gatlin Rodders. Warren's not full recovered yet, maybe for the World's next year he may be in with a shot.

rodders wrote:Billy that is short term effects. Months. Athletes doing cycles of drugs and making sure they are out of their systems before competing.

I'm talking about people like Gatland who can run a PB years after being caught. That is totally different.

I dont think you understand what i mean. They are done to build muscles quickly, once that has been done they have a development advantage over others.

Gatlin used them, got an advantage, was caught but then continued to train and not let the benefits of the PED's deteriorate. Thus his speed, in my eyes, can still be attributed to the use of PED's several years ago.

appologies Warren.

Here's more food for thought:

The 100m champions of the 1988, 1992, 2004 have failed drugs tests (Johnson, Christie, Gatlin).
The 100m silver medalist of 1988, 2000 have failed drugs tests (Lewis, Mongomery).

Thats just the men and not counting the World Championships. See a pattern emerging?

eirebilly wrote:

rodders wrote:Billy that is short term effects. Months. Athletes doing cycles of drugs and making sure they are out of their systems before competing.

I'm talking about people like Gatland who can run a PB years after being caught. That is totally different.

I dont think you understand what i mean. They are done to build muscles quickly, once that has been done they have a development advantage over others.

Gatlin used them, got an advantage, was caught but then continued to train and not let the benefits of the PED's deteriorate. Thus his speed, in my eyes, can still be attributed to the use of PED's several years ago.

No I do understand what you mean but I think you are wrong. Steroids cause elevated testosterone which allows you to recover quicker and builds muscle quicker. This is not a permanant change and once you stop so does the advantages.

The examples you cite are guys who stop months before competition, this is so they don't get caught but still within a frame of time when you feel the benefits of the extra training your were able to perform.

There is no evidence of long term benefits of steroids. Your muscles will decline once you are not able to perform the same training.

Ok then rodders. I am wrong