hitmanhearn
     10 Aug 16 20:15   

Not having Seb Coe. 


I was at Loughborough in the early 80's doing Sports Science, when Coe was taking all before him.

The numbers he was recording in physiological test were off the scale, as was the volume and intensity of exercise he was doing.

Now of course, some will say that was the reason he was better than everyone else - outlying genetics, plus hard-work, plus the best Sports Science and training facilities (at the time) he could get.

Others would say he could only train that hard because he had some sort of uber-drug that no one was aware of, masked at the time and over all the years since. No proof of course, just belief and, well, he had to be hadn't he?

Needless to say which camp I'm in......

What you have to understand, particularly when dealing with track and field, is that outliers do exist.

The example of Bob Beamon was brought up earlier - his world record stood for two decades. So he must have been a cheat? It was well known at the time that Beamon's talent could see him smash the world record to bits, and it came to pass. Everything - run-up, wind, take-off. He jumps 8.90. And it wasn't like nobody approached that record - the Armenian Robert Emmiyan later jumped 8.86, and he was but a hanger. Lewis got close, and even after he and Powell broke the record, the Cuban Pedroso is acknowledged to have jumped way beyond 9m, albeit with an illegal jump. And one should also bear in mind that JC Owens set a long-jump record in 1936 that stood for 25 years.   

Coe's record over 800m, and even more so his 1000m record of 2.12.18 - his 800m split for that run was 1:44:56 - again stood for a couple of decades. As Roger says above, Coe's physiological advantages made the times he ran possible - he was an awesome, once-in-a-lifetime athlete. There is a very good article online by a chap called Frank Horwill about Coe, which one might read in order to get some idea about his natural brilliance. He was no cheat.

And Usain Bolt. This guy is a freak, not a cheat. Even the greatest of his contemporaries will take 41 strides to run 100m. Bolt takes 36. The only real surprise is that sometimes his dominance is measured in mere centimetres.

As for Paula. It is beyond sick that anyone could think she was a cheat. A fact not perhaps widely understood about the women's marathon is that it is a relatively new event, and that the potential for improvement in times is commensurately greater just because of that. More importantly, one should realise that Radcliffe had always shown the potential to be a great marathon runner. She would be done for toe in International 10ks every time, invariably as it turned out by dopers. All her training, her physiology, was there for her to set new landmarks the further she went.

Of course people cheat, of course they do. I like to think I've been obsessed with Track and Field for long enough to know who's cheating and who isn't. Ultimately though, the cheats make fools of us all. The bottom line is you can think what you like about the probity of any given athlete, foreign or British, but you can never be sure.

*50 years

so these people are clean but we agree there are drug cheats out there,so we,re asked to believe that those taking the drugs to try and catch up with the world record holders cant get even close to them for 20 years,i,m signed in as a doubter

The opposite position -- that all the medallists are drug cheats, every single one of them, sounds equally unlikely, if not absurd.

I was gutted to learn that Carl Lewis was a drug cheat.  I love athletics and had always looked up to him as the greatest, especially as he was supposed to be a vegan like myself.  It certainly made me wonder whether that's not true either.  I guess it was the same for cycling enthusiasts with the Lance Armstrong revelations.

The most worrying aspect, though, was how the American authorities allegedly hushed everything up.  How can one not have suspicions?

It is a crime that Calvin Smith, who never failed a drug test of any kind, does now own an Olympic Gold Medal. I don't suppose it's much comfort to him that I believe he should have one.

There are many others in the same position, of course, Jed.  Sharron Davies instantly springs to mind.

The prime example for me was Kathy Smallwood. Beaten by drug cheat after drug cheat.

Indurain, in addition to being an exceptional athlete, was also a doper of course.  Arkle, I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to

so all the new training methods,diets,sports science allowed drug cheats and non cheats to smash the rest of the world records in coes era but because of his abnormal body his stood alone,although he lost olympic finals run 10 secs slower than his wr,believe it if you wish , i,m a cynic and off course before he was outed by a team mate the exact things you say about indurain were spouted out by armstrongs supporters,even suggesting drugs taken for his cancer were a help

That's nonsense degs.

According to the University of Ferrara

Francesco Conconi was a lead figure in sports science at this university. The IOC and CONI funded his research into a test for EPO. He told them he was using amateur riders as test subjects. Only when his offices were raided, did they find out he was actually using professional athletes and he was using the money received from the IOC and CONI to buy the EPO which he was selling onto the athletes whilst also advising them how they could avoid detection