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!
They doped in all events apart from the middle distances? For sure with the exception of the occasions where they beat Coe and/or Ovett?
The GDR ended with NRs of 1:43.84 and 3:33.2. But in Moscow 80 they all were 3:28 athletes? Because it was behind the iron curtain? Makes sense.
Beyer later came much closer to his Prague time than Ovett. This while winning a unpaced national championships (but in a competitive race).
I don't question that those still standing records (all?) were achieved with doping. But the main reason why nobody is coming close to the - for example - womens shot put marks of this era is that no women is doing the event really professional. Come on, these overwight German 19m throwers are just not exceptionell athletes. They win medals because the event is dead.
The West German Claudia Losch has thrown 22.19 in 1987. Was she clean?
Ryan Crouser clearly is on another level now then the best East Europeans have been in the 80s.
The next fastest GDR 400m runner behind Koch ran 49.30, just ordinary compared to Koch. Doping is not the only explanation for some special marks.
Coe's 800m mark clearly is on a par with the best marks ever achieved. If the quality of some performances is the main reason to be sceptical, we have to be sceptical of Coe as well.
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 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?
What do you know about the "talent" of "Peter-Herald"? He was far less talented than your heroes? The statement is obviously nonsense, but why do you think so? Jens-Peter Herold was a fantastic runner who maintained his class even after 1990 (different to most of the GDR athletes).
Coe, Cram and Ovett at their best were well ahead of the best East Europeans from the 1980s. What follows from your logic?
Britain - the only major athletics nation to run slower during the EPO era.
Britain - their most successful event the 800m, which is the event that appears least affected by doping benefits.
LetsRun trolls - I told y'all that the Brits were dirty!
* Amphetamines would improve 800m performance.
* HgH & steroids would improve 800m performance.
* Any endurance booster such as blood doping or drugs like EPO would improve 800m performance.
Have you seen women 1976 Olympics 800m semi-finals?
I don't have Beyond Reasonable Doubt evidence for Brits using P.E.D.s from any era, that does not mean Brits ever were clean.
A moot point in the discussion regarding male middle distance runners. Of course women 800m runners from Eastern Europe took drugs, as they had a huge effect on women, who have very low levels of natural testosterone. But this would be the case in all events for women!
As I pointed out earlier, by 1980 there were dozens of Russian and East European women running in the 1:53 - 1:57 range, 2 of whom were thankfully caught and banned in 79. The UK record was 1:59 and only 1 British woman had broken 2:00min. That is a pretty reliable reflection that UK women (the fastest 1500m Brit was 4:01.53 and before that the UK record was 4:04) in the middle distances were not doping. Moreover, if the men were doping in order for them to be the best in the world, then why on earth would they not encourage their women to do the same?
As for EPO, it didn't exist in 1980, nor did synthetic HGH.
"Doping with GH likely began in the early 1980s and became more prevalent with the advent of recombinant technology well before any scientific evidence of benefit." The Use and Abuse of Growth Hormone in Sports Richard I G Holt, Ken K Y Ho.
Male 800m runners were doping heavily in the 1980s. No question about it. Cruz and Coe both would be dominating the world today. Both very talented and likely very doped.
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!
They doped in all events apart from the middle distances? For sure with the exception of the occasions where they beat Coe and/or Ovett?
The GDR ended with NRs of 1:43.84 and 3:33.2. But in Moscow 80 they all were 3:28 athletes? Because it was behind the iron curtain? Makes sense.
Beyer later came much closer to his Prague time than Ovett. This while winning a unpaced national championships (but in a competitive race).
I don't question that those still standing records (all?) were achieved with doping. But the main reason why nobody is coming close to the - for example - womens shot put marks of this era is that no women is doing the event really professional. Come on, these overwight German 19m throwers are just not exceptionell athletes. They win medals because the event is dead.
The West German Claudia Losch has thrown 22.19 in 1987. Was she clean?
Ryan Crouser clearly is on another level now then the best East Europeans have been in the 80s.
The next fastest GDR 400m runner behind Koch ran 49.30, just ordinary compared to Koch. Doping is not the only explanation for some special marks.
Coe's 800m mark clearly is on a par with the best marks ever achieved. If the quality of some performances is the main reason to be sceptical, we have to be sceptical of Coe as well.
No, Sabine Busch ran 49.24 in '84, in Germany.
It wasn't just the GDR anyway, there were several sub 49 secs performances from those behind the Iron curtain in the '80's.
* Any endurance booster such as blood doping or drugs like EPO would improve 800m performance.
Have you seen women 1976 Olympics 800m semi-finals?
I don't have Beyond Reasonable Doubt evidence for Brits using P.E.D.s from any era, that does not mean Brits ever were clean.
A moot point in the discussion regarding male middle distance runners. Of course women 800m runners from Eastern Europe took drugs, as they had a huge effect on women, who have very low levels of natural testosterone. But this would be the case in all events for women!
As I pointed out earlier, by 1980 there were dozens of Russian and East European women running in the 1:53 - 1:57 range, 2 of whom were thankfully caught and banned in 79. The UK record was 1:59 and only 1 British woman had broken 2:00min. That is a pretty reliable reflection that UK women (the fastest 1500m Brit was 4:01.53 and before that the UK record was 4:04) in the middle distances were not doping. Moreover, if the men were doping in order for them to be the best in the world, then why on earth would they not encourage their women to do the same?
As for EPO, it didn't exist in 1980, nor did synthetic HGH.
"Doping with GH likely began in the early 1980s and became more prevalent with the advent of recombinant technology well before any scientific evidence of benefit." The Use and Abuse of Growth Hormone in Sports Richard I G Holt, Ken K Y Ho.
Of course many know the saying: HgH & steroids can improve male performances but HgH and steroids can turn women into men. THAT DOES NOT MEAN HGH AND STEROIDS DO NOT AID MALE PERFORMANCE AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN Brit 800M RUNNERS FROM LATE 1970'S THROUGH 1980'S WERE CLEAN. Maybe to you, S. Coe sprinting 56.xx 400m as a 14 year old is impressive. The way that little man could lift weights by 1980's and his improvement to 46.xx 400m by age 22, I am very suspicious of his HGH & steroid use just like the lady 800m runners from 1976. I do not have the evidence to convict but I doubt he was clean.
Male 800m runners were doping heavily in the 1980s. No question about it. Cruz and Coe both would be dominating the world today. Both very talented and likely very doped.
Lol. You contradict yourself! You state they 'were doped heavily', and then hedge your bets by writing that Coe & Cruz 'likely very doped.'
Well that just goes to show that you have merely an opinion and offer no evidence whatsoever that either actually doped. There is no more evidence that male 800m runners were doping in the 80's compared to any of the decades before or after it.
Male 800m runners were doping heavily in the 1980s. No question about it. Cruz and Coe both would be dominating the world today. Both very talented and likely very doped.
Lol. You contradict yourself! You state they 'were doped heavily', and then hedge your bets by writing that Coe & Cruz 'likely very doped.'
Well that just goes to show that you have merely an opinion and offer no evidence whatsoever that either actually doped. There is no more evidence that male 800m runners were doping in the 80's compared to any of the decades before or after it.
You really are that stupid? Please read what I wrote. The first assertion had to do with male 800 runners, as a refutation of your inane assertion that there is something special about male 800m runners that makes them clean. The second assertion was about 2 runners who were so good that they are among the best ever roughly 40 years later. Of course they both were in the likely cheating category. Get real.
They doped in all events apart from the middle distances? For sure with the exception of the occasions where they beat Coe and/or Ovett?
The GDR ended with NRs of 1:43.84 and 3:33.2. But in Moscow 80 they all were 3:28 athletes? Because it was behind the iron curtain? Makes sense.
Beyer later came much closer to his Prague time than Ovett. This while winning a unpaced national championships (but in a competitive race).
I don't question that those still standing records (all?) were achieved with doping. But the main reason why nobody is coming close to the - for example - womens shot put marks of this era is that no women is doing the event really professional. Come on, these overwight German 19m throwers are just not exceptionell athletes. They win medals because the event is dead.
The West German Claudia Losch has thrown 22.19 in 1987. Was she clean?
Ryan Crouser clearly is on another level now then the best East Europeans have been in the 80s.
The next fastest GDR 400m runner behind Koch ran 49.30, just ordinary compared to Koch. Doping is not the only explanation for some special marks.
Coe's 800m mark clearly is on a par with the best marks ever achieved. If the quality of some performances is the main reason to be sceptical, we have to be sceptical of Coe as well.
No, Sabine Busch ran 49.24 in '84, in Germany.
It wasn't just the GDR anyway, there were several sub 49 secs performances from those behind the Iron curtain in the '80's.
Was Fatima Whitbread doping? Tessa Sanderson? Ria Stalman? Many West Germans? All the top sprinters? JJK? Mary Decker? And so on.
Later Kelly Holmes? Ellen van Langen? Paula Radcliffe? Linford Christie?
I don't accuse anybody to have doped, but the idea that doping in the 70s, 80s was just a East European affair is just laughable. In West Germany doping undoubtedly was heavily involved, but for sure it was not a state organized thing like it was in the GDR.
Was there doping also in Great Britain? For sure. Anyone who wants to made it look differently makes himself looking like a fool.
Male 800m runners were doping heavily in the 1980s. No question about it. Cruz and Coe both would be dominating the world today. Both very talented and likely very doped.
Lol. You contradict yourself! You state they 'were doped heavily', and then hedge your bets by writing that Coe & Cruz 'likely very doped.'
Well that just goes to show that you have merely an opinion and offer no evidence whatsoever that either actually doped. There is no more evidence that male 800m runners were doping in the 80's compared to any of the decades before or after it.
The evidence isn't necessarily of specific runners but is our awareness that doping in sports and in track was increasing from the 1970's. (Before then it was mainly in the field events and power sports). We know it was systemic in the E Bloc by the '70's so can we assume that athletes in the West were prepared to concede defeat or that some chose to do what they could to compete? Certainly doping was evident in the sprints in the '80's (steroids), so it shows that athletes were prepared to use what they could to succeed. Why should md and distance runners have had a different attitude? The question becomes, what was available then that was known to work for those events?
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.