You presume there was widespread doping. There seems to be a lot in the power events (throwing and sprints), mainly by the East European countries who were under state doping regimes. There was also a lot of evidence that these nations doped their female athletes. But if there was widespread doping in western nations of their middle distance runners, then why were they so far behind their East European peers in terms of time? The UK women’s records in 1980 were around 1:59 and 4:04, when the WR were 1:53 and 3:52. I think it’s pretty obvious the WR times were doped, but I would argue that what the British girls were running were clean; if they were doped too then the gap wouldn’t be so huge. We see a similar chasm in performance between the two in almost all Women’s events. There is a similar gap between UK men and US men in the sprints and in the field events. In fact the only events where the UK were at the top end of the world list were in middle and distance events. This is not that surprising for those who followed T&F at this time, because they would be fully aware of the great harrier tradition of club running and X country competitions.
You have absolutely no proof that Coe, Ovett, Cram were doping. There is not a shred of evidence, unless you can put forward some? Anyone can post anonymously on a message board and clam so and so doped as if it were a fact. It may be your opinion that a specific athlete doped, but unless you can offer some tangible proof, it is nothing more than rumour mongering!
it would seem highly unusual and unexplainable that just a few middle distance UK men doped at a time when all their fellow countrymen and women clearly didn’t!
Do you think Cruz doped to run 1:41.77? Or Koskei when he ran 1:42.28? Or Kipketer when he ran 1:41.11? Or Korir when he ran 1:42.02?
The clean British middle distance runners dominated the doped up East Europeans, that's what you want to tell us?
Most of your friends here think that Koskei, Kipketer and Korir doped (but are indifferent for Cruz, since he seems to be mainly "white").
Middle and distance...
No. You clearly didn't understand the point I was making! I don't think many elite middle distance men from any national background doped, except perhaps the odd East European at championships held behind the Iron Curtain. There were a couple of cases of Finns and Italians trying blood doping in the longer distance events, but that doesn't prove Viren, for example, blood doped, and there is no case of a middle distance athlete trying the technique in the 70's. It is conceivable that the GDR and USSR were that much better in almost all other events than say the UK (who clearly didn't have any sort of state sponsored doping set up), especially on the women's side, because they doped in all events, with the exception of their middle distance and long distance men. As a result, the UK and in general Western Europe, could not compete with the GDR and USSR in any of the women's events and in most of the power events on the men's side. This would suggest that the quite substantial gap in ability/performance (at this time) must be largely down the the Communist countries using drugs of some description. I am not naive to think no athlete in Western Europe was taking peds, but it was certainly not systemic. The only events where there was general parity in performance were in men's middle and distance events. I would suggest that this is because these events were much less effected by peds. They (GDR/ USSR) must have looked into it (drugging their middle distance men) and discovered (or believed) that steroids had a minimal effect on performance in those events (as opposed to women, where there would be a very real effect) for men and thus it wasn't worth pursuing a carefully controlled drug programme. However, it should be remembered that on 2 occasions GDR athletes either beat both Coe and Ovett in a championship final (Beyer in 78 European 800m), or else came very close to doing so: - Straub in 80 Olympic 1500m. Stats show that in both cases, rather than Coe and Ovett running below par, it was a case of both Beyer and Straub running way beyond any form they had previously displayed or were to show again. Also, I don't think it is just a mere coincidence that on both occasions the championships were held behind the Iron Curtain and thus the drug testing would have been carried out by those countries too: and we all know what Russian drug testers are capable of! That is the suspicious aspect of those races, not the form displayed by Coe and Ovett, that was in keeping with their general form and ability displayed over many seasons, but head and shoulder improvements by individuals that are from countries that we now know had state sponsored drug schemes. The only other option, which is even more implausible, is that none of the UK women or male athletes in the power events doped, shown by the fact they were clearly not competitive with their East European peers, but the UK middle distance athletes did dope, because they had discovered what the scientists in Germany and Russia did not, (that drugs improved performance markedly) and they managed to dope far more effectively and efficiently than their East European rivals. Of course the middle distance men were not allowed to share this with their female team-mates or those being trounced by the GDR and the USSR in other events. This seems a highly unlikely scenario. There has to be someone at the top of the pile and it's not as if other athletes since have not come close to the times set by Coe, Ovett, Cram, Moorcroft, etc. Indeed all have had their best times beaten, even if by a small margin. Let us then compare their marks (now beaten but still impressive) to those performances by East Europeans in the same era, that haven't been sniffed at! Koch - 47.60 Kratochvilova - 1:53.28 Galina CHISTYAKOVA - 7.52m Lisovskaya - 22.63m REINSCH - 76.80m SCHULT - 74.08m Sedykh - 86.74m These are the records clearly set on drugs. There are also some pretty dodgy records set by US athletes as well, that still have not been bettered. I mean Flo Jo's and Joyner-Kersee's records are as blatantly doped as any set by East European athletes at the time. JJK is 259 points ahead of the next best in the Heptathlon!
You presume there was widespread doping. There seems to be a lot in the power events (throwing and sprints), mainly by the East European countries who were under state doping regimes. There was also a lot of evidence that these nations doped their female athletes. But if there was widespread doping in western nations of their middle distance runners, then why were they so far behind their East European peers in terms of time? The UK women’s records in 1980 were around 1:59 and 4:04, when the WR were 1:53 and 3:52. I think it’s pretty obvious the WR times were doped, but I would argue that what the British girls were running were clean; if they were doped too then the gap wouldn’t be so huge. We see a similar chasm in performance between the two in almost all Women’s events. There is a similar gap between UK men and US men in the sprints and in the field events. In fact the only events where the UK were at the top end of the world list were in middle and distance events. This is not that surprising for those who followed T&F at this time, because they would be fully aware of the great harrier tradition of club running and X country competitions.
You have absolutely no proof that Coe, Ovett, Cram were doping. There is not a shred of evidence, unless you can put forward some? Anyone can post anonymously on a message board and clam so and so doped as if it were a fact. It may be your opinion that a specific athlete doped, but unless you can offer some tangible proof, it is nothing more than rumour mongering!
it would seem highly unusual and unexplainable that just a few middle distance UK men doped at a time when all their fellow countrymen and women clearly didn’t!
Do you think Cruz doped to run 1:41.77? Or Koskei when he ran 1:42.28? Or Kipketer when he ran 1:41.11? Or Korir when he ran 1:42.02?
The clean British middle distance runners dominated the doped up East Europeans, that's what you want to tell us?
Most of your friends here think that Koskei, Kipketer and Korir doped (but are indifferent for Cruz, since he seems to be mainly "white").
Middle and distance...
They didn't dominate them. Beyer beat Coe and Ovett in Prague, Straub beat Ovett (and Cram) in Moscow, Peter-Herald beat Cram in Seoul. Obviously they were far less talented, but doped out of their minds (especially behind the Iron Curtain) they presented a real challenge.
Russia has been confirmed state doping for years, yet Morocco and Kenya still dominated them at every distance. How is that? What follows from your logic?
The first major championships to have a anti-doping lab in place was Helsinki in 83. Interestingly in those championships, the East Germans totally flopped in the men's middle-distance, with no finalists in either the 800 or 1500. Aouita, of course, surprisingly flopped, and was lucky to win bronze after coming into the championships as the favorite.
The first major championships to have a anti-doping lab in place was Helsinki in 83. Interestingly in those championships, the East Germans totally flopped in the men's middle-distance, with no finalists in either the 800 or 1500.
Wrong as always.
In the mens middle and long distances they had one participant in every event (apart from 10000 and Marathon):
They didn't dominate them. Beyer beat Coe and Ovett in Prague, Straub beat Ovett (and Cram) in Moscow, Peter-Herald beat Cram in Seoul. Obviously they were far less talented, but doped out of their minds (especially behind the Iron Curtain) they presented a real challenge.
Obviously less talented? LOL. Hard to say who was more talented and who was more doped. That we were clean used to be our propaganda in the 70s and 80s, but now? You are still pretending that? Come on, those were all lies back then.
Remember who the first caught Olympic Gold medalist was, for example.
The first major championships to have a anti-doping lab in place was Helsinki in 83. Interestingly in those championships, the East Germans totally flopped in the men's middle-distance, with no finalists in either the 800 or 1500.
Wrong as always.
In the mens middle and long distances they had one participant in every event (apart from 10000 and Marathon):
800m: missed the final by 15/100
1500m: 7th
5000m: silver
10000m: silver and bronze
Marathon: bronze
steeple: 11th
So a lot of countries dominated them in middle-distance?
They didn't dominate them. Beyer beat Coe and Ovett in Prague, Straub beat Ovett (and Cram) in Moscow, Peter-Herald beat Cram in Seoul. Obviously they were far less talented, but doped out of their minds (especially behind the Iron Curtain) they presented a real challenge.
Obviously less talented? LOL. Hard to say who was more talented and who was more doped. That we were clean used to be our propaganda in the 70s and 80s, but now? You are still pretending that? Come on, those were all lies back then.
Remember who the first caught Olympic Gold medalist was, for example.
East Germany had a population of something like 18 million (I'm not bothering to Google it before one of the aspies here corrects me). Their doping program was entirely about finishing top of the medal table. They did that by hot housing, doping (from 12 years old or even younger) thousands of athletes in dozens of sports. In the 80's Coe and Ovett were probably among the dozen or so talented athletes (as in sportsmen) in the country. Arguably, Ovett was the most talented athlete (as in sportsmen - boxers, cricketers, rugby players, swimmers etc) that Britain has ever produced.
Pretty sure Beyer, Straub etc were not even in the top 100 or maybe 1000 talented of the 18 million East Germans. That they managed to compete with Coe and Ovett and Cram was because they were doped out of their minds.
Obviously less talented? LOL. Hard to say who was more talented and who was more doped. That we were clean used to be our propaganda in the 70s and 80s, but now? You are still pretending that? Come on, those were all lies back then.
Remember who the first caught Olympic Gold medalist was, for example.
Pretty sure Beyer, Straub etc were not even in the top 100 or maybe 1000 talented of the 18 million East Germans.
An average talented East German could compete with the most talented GB ever has had. So the really talented East Germans easily regularly would have beaten Ovett.
Pretty sure Beyer, Straub etc were not even in the top 100 or maybe 1000 talented of the 18 million East Germans.
An average talented East German could compete with the most talented GB ever has had. So the really talented East Germans easily regularly would have beaten Ovett.
An average talented East German could compete with the most talented GB ever has had. So the really talented East Germans easily regularly would have beaten Ovett.
Yes, because the Brits weren't doping you clown.
- The No 1000 East German (16.5 million) from a given year could compete with the most talented Brit (60+ million) in history.
- The really talented East Germans easily would have beaten all the Brits
- doping gives almost no benefit in the mens 800
How is it possible that East Germans are so extremely more talented than Brits?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.