So I assume the women and men of the 80s used steroids. Now the women of today can't touch those records, but the men's records have been largely improved. Why is this? Is doping less of an advantage for men?
So I assume the women and men of the 80s used steroids. Now the women of today can't touch those records, but the men's records have been largely improved. Why is this? Is doping less of an advantage for men?
Because the effect of testosterone (and similar anabolic androgens) is significantly larger for women than for men. Theoretically, that’s because in women, you’re adding something to nothing, whereas in men, it’s less effective to add some to a lot.
XrunnerX wrote:
Because the effect of testosterone (and similar anabolic androgens) is significantly larger for women than for men. Theoretically, that’s because in women, you’re adding something to nothing, whereas in men, it’s less effective to add some to a lot.
This is pretty much correct, I would say that most of male WRs (from 100m-10k) used EPO whereas women need that plus the 1980s steroids to break the old records and now it is very hard with the blood passport.
XrunnerX wrote:
Because the effect of testosterone (and similar anabolic androgens) is significantly larger for women than for men. Theoretically, that’s because in women, you’re adding something to nothing, whereas in men, it’s less effective to add some to a lot.
I think the East German research that was discovered after the wall fell backs that up strongly - the drugs they had were a lot more effective for women than for men.
Werner Franke's excellent research on the subject can be found here:
http://www.clinchem.org/content/43/7/1262.longQuoting the abstract:
Special emphasis was placed on administering androgens to women and adolescent girls because this practice proved to be particularly effective for sports performance.
I interpret that to mean that not only were the drugs more effective for women and girls, female athletes were also given more of them.
While not all the long-standing records are held by East Germans, given the Cold War climate at the time I see little reason to believe that the Soviets, Czechs, Bulgarians and yes Americans who still hold the world records in those events were doing the same. If Americans don't want to believe that they had a state run doping program in the 80s that's fine, but it's easy to believe that the US authorities were prepared to turn a blind eye to doping if they could if it meant they could get one up over the communists.
I'm sure regular visitors to this site know this, but it's worth repeating. Every women's record for an individual flat track event of 800m or less was set in the 1980s, as is the record for every field event women competed in at the Olympics back then, and the heptathlon. Four records were set in 1988, which just happens to be first Olympics since 1976 when both the US and the Eastern Bloc were competing (therefore the first big opportunity to for each side to prove their superiority), and the time when doping screening started to get serious.
The only exception is the 100m hurdles - which was finally broken (by 0.01s) this year. Guess when the previous 100m hurdles was set? 1988. By someone from the Eastern Bloc.
What a coincidence it is too that the two longest standing men's outdoor records happen to be in power events - the discus (East German, 1986) and shot (American, 1990).
DoesntAdd wrote:
So I assume the women and men of the 80s used steroids. Now the women of today can't touch those records, but the men's records have been largely improved. Why is this? Is doping less of an advantage for men?
In simple terms, certain drugs can nearly turn women into men. Drugs are less successful into turning men into animals. That's not the whole story, but it's close enough to answer your question, I hope.
This is why there were lots of USSR, Czech, Bulgarian, etc. female athletes at the top of the running world but few men from the same countries. However, their men did excel at the heavy throws.
Thats because whatever Flo Jo, the Chinese and the East Europeans/ Soviets during those eras were on, had a much more pronounced effect on the female body than it did on the male body/physiology and so female performance benefited more than male performances did.
The men are more determined.
Because turtle fungus, or whatever it was, doesn't work on men