| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Xoronius
Germany6362 Posts
On August 22 2016 03:32 two_sheds wrote: Shame for the best team in handball history, but today Denmark was better. Gratz Denmark! Is this about this iteration of the team or about France in general? Because I'd take France ~2008-2011 over France 2016 at any time. | ||
|
fLyiNgDroNe
Belgium4009 Posts
http://www.bbc.com/sport/disability-sport/37165427 | ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
On August 24 2016 00:36 fLyiNgDroNe wrote: this is so sad. Imagine those 267 people with disabilities. http://www.bbc.com/sport/disability-sport/37165427 Indeed it is... its really harsh on those who are clean. Now, is it too much of a tinfoil hat to be inclined to believe that USA has some sort of an advanced doping scheme that today's tests are unable to detect? The amount of medals USA wins every Olympics is so far from the rest of the world (except for China and Russia) that I always question myself about it. I'm fairly sure USA has the best support for the olympians, top notch tech to help them improve and whatnot, but still... USA seems so overly overpowered that it makes me rise a red flag. | ||
|
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
Remember, there are no unannounced drug tests in the US on principle! Just like Brazil shut down all its test labors 2 month before the Olympics due to 'staff shortage'. And don't start to look into UK cyclist, it's fishy as hell how they transform from mediocre barely top10 into champions just for certain weeks every 4 years... | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6213 Posts
On August 24 2016 09:20 fabiano wrote: Indeed it is... its really harsh on those who are clean. Now, is it too much of a tinfoil hat to be inclined to believe that USA has some sort of an advanced doping scheme that today's tests are unable to detect? The amount of medals USA wins every Olympics is so far from the rest of the world (except for China and Russia) that I always question myself about it. I'm fairly sure USA has the best support for the olympians, top notch tech to help them improve and whatnot, but still... USA seems so overly overpowered that it makes me rise a red flag. DOping yes, state sponsored I doubt it. Amount of medals won is heavily correlated with total GDP so Russia is the outlier here not the US. If you add the whole EU together you get about the same GDP but more medals than the US. | ||
|
Garbels
Austria653 Posts
On August 24 2016 10:34 lord_nibbler wrote: Of course the US athletes are roided up to the limit. To assume otherwise is utterly naive. Remember, there are no unannounced drug tests in the US on principle! Just like Brazil shut down all its test labors 2 month before the Olympics due to 'staff shortage'. And don't start to look into UK cyclist, it's fishy as hell how they transform from mediocre barely top10 into champions just for certain weeks every 4 years... Source on that? Seems like BS. | ||
|
two_sheds
Croatia104 Posts
On August 23 2016 19:53 Xoronius wrote: Is this about this iteration of the team or about France in general? Because I'd take France ~2008-2011 over France 2016 at any time. It's about France in Karabatić era in general. I would take the team with Gille, Dinart and Fernandez over any other too. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On August 24 2016 12:05 DannyJ wrote: I'm sure tons of olympians from everywhere are being naughty. I don't however think most nations (worth caring about) are so overtly state sponsoring the cheating like Russia is. Institutional doping is imo very present in many of the top nations at the Olympics. State doping, though, is probably much rarer. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
Among the rich nations, the US is unique in how large our population is. We have 5x the population of the UK, for example, and 2x the medals. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
It's unlikely that the west, especially the US has some fancy doping technologies, given how it's impossible to hold almost any steroid and precursor for research purposes even, let alone personal use, USADA is also by far the strictest national anti-doping agency. From my research, and peers I've talked to that competed in some international competitions like wrestling, steroid use is very common, and also, it's not overly complex to create an effective regimen, certainly not something you need a doctor with 20 years of experience for, rather self-interest and some researching ability. All 20-30 common steroids are almost identical to testosterone minus the extra methyl group for oral ingestion so they don't get ruined by your liver, have a removed methyl elsewhere (or a saturated bond in another location in the A ring) in other places to ensure the steroid doesn't turn into testosterone, etc. And testosterone ingested is the same as your natural testosterone minus adding a long ester to it, which is done to lengthen its half-life in your body. If you do some research here, your drug regimen can easily be as effective as a professional athletes. If you look on WADA, under S1 they have 40-50 steroids, which almost all will be familiar to a chemistry savvy bodybuilder, there aren't some fancy drugs that only the professionals know about. Besides those 40-50 synthetic steroids, the remainder of the list bans every substance than can metabolize into testosterone, so naturally there's a lot of them, as your liver can break down a lot of stuff. S2 are things that mess with your pituitary gland, which is usually a no-no, but this includes the two common and very expensive hormones HCG and HGH, and notable in the cycling world, EPO's - though they did this the manual way, and not synthetic. The pituitary gland pretty much controls the balance of everything in your body, if there's any place that top-end doping is going on in sports, it's probably here, though the effects are very minor relative to steroids. S3 is dedicated to asthma medication. Most commonly clenbuterol in cyclists (seems like one is caught every year lol), to relax the muscles to the lungs, and open up airways, and hence improve metabolism by improving oxygen exchange. Minor benefit, but this drug is very well known and used in against the clock endurance sports. S4 provides no real performance benefits, it's just AI's and SERM's, which work by inhibiting the enzyme that breaks testosterone into estrogen, or deactivating the receptors themselves, and hence you wont get man breasts and those undesirable effects there, more of a damage control mechanism. S5 is diuretics and masking agents. Diuretics are actually not that effective in losing water weight, especially in the olympics where the weigh ins are a couple hours before the competition, and they'll lower your performance. Either way, they can be used, main purpose is to quickly flush your system, and get drugs out of your system. No performance enhancement benefit either. S6 are stimulants, so not steroids, think extreme coffee and recreational drugs. These are very effective in putting you into a mental state where you think you can overcome any obstacle. Doesn't increase the capability of your body, but it allows you to push yourself to the limit and stay there much better. S7 are narcotics, so all abusable drugs that are not stimulants, so usually no reason you'd take these unless it was for some pain-killer type reason in a fight or with a superficial injury, though there's better options. Here you have morphine, heroin, oxycodone, etc. But hey, they're illegal, so they are in the list too. S8 smoke weed er'day. S9 are the fight or flight hormones, glucocorticoids, these provide no long term benefits, but are in certain situations effective in dealing with acute injuries, and giving that adrenaline pump to deal with them. And that's really all there is to it, besides the legal things like good nutrition, and effective vitamin and mineral levels, macronutrient balance, good mix of amino acids, etc. The big benefit areas have been exhausted, and now the research is on the small gains and how to better mask higher doses. All I'm trying to say is it doesn't require dozens of biologists and chemists to make an effective performance enhancing drug regimen work. Realistically, athletes in almost every country are using illegal or grey area performance enhancers, and this is something that will never go away. Science is great, but can make some human activities quite unfortunate. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-countries-medal-in-the-sports-that-people-care-about/ For example, the various equestrian events like dressage require more money than athletic ability. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 24 2016 16:30 RvB wrote: DOping yes, state sponsored I doubt it. Amount of medals won is heavily correlated with total GDP so Russia is the outlier here not the US. If you add the whole EU together you get about the same GDP but more medals than the US. One of the funniest things I've ever seen was the EU acting like it had topped the medal tables by adding up the totals of all member states. I'd love to see what the US would achieve if it was able to field 20x more athletes. On August 25 2016 04:42 andrewlt wrote: What the UK did is not very surprising, honestly. It's not the result of some secret doping regimen or anything. They simply threw more money at some of the more obscure sports. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-countries-medal-in-the-sports-that-people-care-about/ For example, the various equestrian events like dressage require more money than athletic ability. No doubt it's about money - but which sports, exactly, are obscure? Equine events are probably the least affected by government funding, because they're practiced by hugely wealthy private individuals, and that has always been the case. If you came to my area and called rowing 'obscure' it would be something like me going to your area and saying that baseball is obscure. Because baseball is obscure here. Same for volleyball and basketball. It's kind of the point of the Olympics that different nations have different cultures with different strengths, like Jamaica in the sprinting, Fiji in the rugby or Ethiopia/Kenya in long distance running. It's neither fair nor accurate to say that we targeted sports without proper competition, nor that the achievement is 'not surprising' when it is the first time a host country has gone on to improve their medal count. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
It also shows the reason why basketball is still in the Olympics even with US dominance in the sport. It's the 5th most watched sport worldwide during the London Olympics. And I'm sure it's not just US viewers driving that. Personally, I haven't witnessed many Americans who care that much about Olympic basketball so there's a lot of non-US viewership driving those numbers. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 25 2016 07:38 andrewlt wrote: If you look at the article, they define "sports that people care about" by the IOC's report about worldwide TV viewing hours during the 2012 London Olympics. So their definition of obscure sports are the ones people around the world watched less on TV. It also shows the reason why basketball is still in the Olympics even with US dominance in the sport. It's the 5th most watched sport worldwide during the London Olympics. And I'm sure it's not just US viewers driving that. Personally, I haven't witnessed many Americans who care that much about Olympic basketball so there's a lot of non-US viewership driving those numbers. It's a great example of why journalists should stay away from numbers. You could probably fit all of the televised rowing events into a single football game and yet they measure their popularity by how many hours are watched. By this metric Usain Bolt is probably average at best, because his most important event lasts less than 10s. He needs 540x more viewers to match the 'popularity' of a football match. To put that into perspective, we got around 9 million viewers for the women's hockey final. It is a safe bet that Brazil's football/volleyball matches got over 10 million viewers. So for UB to be as popular as a Brazilian football match he needs at least 5.4bn viewers. Probably more viewers than there are people with TVs. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 25 2016 08:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Well whatever your opinion of how the Olympics there is one definite loser. NBC. Twelve Billion dollars in marketing, coverage, online streams, sponsors, and purchasing rights... and less people watched than the 2012 games. Online as well as on TV. Do they have advertising? How frequent? | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16711 Posts
http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/17385530/hope-solo-suspended-six-months-us-soccer | ||
Shellshock
United States97276 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
