Sports technology

[axn]

Originally Posted by R. Gerbicz

If you think that *walking* a world record on 100m's without doping is possible then you are an idiot. He lead by 5 metres at the 80 metres when he started celebrated himself, this means if he only keep that distance would result him 9.39 sec, because the second's time was 9.89 sec (and to run 5 metres is about 10*5/100=0.5 sec). So beating the world record by 0.33 sec. that would be very suspect, because that is an improvement by 3 percentage, and Usain Bolt knows this.

At 13m/s _top_ speed (I think that is an underestimate), 5 meters will be run in .38 sec. That makes it 9.51s.

[davieddy]

GB are currently punching over their weight in the
medals table. Notably in cycling.

Anyone else share my view that almost all the events
in track cycling are ludicrously comical in design?

e.g. stand stills in "sprinting".

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by davieddy

Anyone else share my view that almost all the events in track cycling are ludicrously comical in design?

e.g. stand stills in "sprinting".

I thought that they were supposed to be races.

[R. Gerbicz]

20.09 sec. was Usain Bolt's time in the qualification round in 200m, now walking on the last 60 metres.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by R. Gerbicz

Have you read the interview by the great doping dealer Angel Heredia in Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,571031,00.html
It appeared on many Hungarian sites (probably it appeared also in English). It starts with:
"Will you see the Beijing's 100m's final?
Sure. But we won't see clean winner. There won't be clean competitor.
Among the 8 runner?
Yes, all of them will using drugs."

I admit it is possible, and that unfortunately in this age of "better living through chemistry", all outstanding performances are automatically suspect. Imagine the screams of "he doped!!!" which would arise today if someone bettered the long jump record in as stunning a fashion as Bob Beamon did back in 1968. [And despite the theory that "it was the altitude", a basic aerodynamic analysis shows that reduced wind resistance etc. - mainly in the running phase, interestingly enough - was responsible for at best half the bettering of the previous mark.]

So answer me this - do you believe Beamon was a doper? If not, then you admit the possibility of a "singular event" in sports - the perfect run/jump/throw/swim - although one would by definition expect it to be rare. Similar holds for the rare "perfect athlete", but there are examples of such going back as long as humans have told stories. In Bolt's case, if most of the field had run similarly fast your thesis would hold more water. It's right to be suspicious these days, but I still refuse to pass judgment in the absence of any proof, or even credible suspicions [besides the "too fast to be believable" variety - that's an opinion, not a credible suspicion in the legal sense].

[retina]

With all the suspicion about "doping" and chemically enhanced performances, are there ordinary everyday foods/potions/substances that an athlete can take (either deliberately or unknowingly) that enhance performance?

I've heard that caffeine taken just before an event can improve times if it is above the normal dosage that a person takes on an ordinary day. So maybe an athlete can abstain from caffeine in their normal routine and only take some just before a race. It would seem impossible to test and prove anything, since probably almost all the other competitors also have similar amounts of caffeine in their system during the race.

[R. Gerbicz]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

So answer me this - do you believe Beamon was a doper?

We can not say that there was no risk because the first doping tests on olympics introduced on the same olympic (1968), but I think he used drugs.
His best jump was 833cm before the games, and in 1968 he jumped 890cm, beating the world record by 55 cm so by 6%. Is his technique is improved? OK, suppose that, but that isn't answer the fact, why his all jumps was less than 850cm after the games.

Originally Posted by ewmayer

In Bolt's case, if most of the field had run similarly fast your thesis would hold more water. It's right to be suspicious these days, but I still refuse to pass judgment in the absence of any proof, or even credible suspicions

Bolt is clever, he won't break world records by 6 percentage.
Note also that WADA stores the tests for 8 years. So he can fail in 2016.

[R. Gerbicz]

Originally Posted by retina

With all the suspicion about "doping" and chemically enhanced performances, are there ordinary everyday foods/potions/substances that an athlete can take (either deliberately or unknowingly) that enhance performance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_..._Olympic_Games

[retina]

Originally Posted by R. Gerbicz

Bolt is clever, he won't break world records by 6 percentage.
Note also that WADA stores the tests for 8 years. So he can fail in 2016.

I don't see how not breaking a record by 6% will help. The current thinking of many (as evidenced in this thread also) is that "if you win there is a good chance you have been doping". So no matter how much Bolt decides is an acceptable margin of victory he will still be suspected.

It I was bolt (which I am nowhere to being even close) I would simply run as fast as I could and get the best record possible. If I ran a 9.5s for 100m then so be it. I'm likely to get tested anyhow, even if I run a 9.69s, so how does the margin of victory change anything?

[R. Gerbicz]

Originally Posted by retina

So no matter how much Bolt decides is an acceptable margin of victory he will still be suspected.

Have you seen his run? I'm just don't believe that walking a world record without doping is possible. I also think that running under 10sec. is possible without drugs. There are also too many many record breakers failed on 100m, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_r...100_metres_men

On the Hungarian National TV in the 100m's final of women run the reporter said:
"The world record is 20 years old, probably nobody will ever break this. And holds by Florence Griffith Joyner, died at the age of 28, probably she paid this of using drugs. Who knows?"

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Imagine the screams of "he doped!!!" which would arise today if someone bettered the long jump record in as stunning a fashion as Bob Beamon did back in 1968. [And despite the theory that "it was the altitude", a basic aerodynamic analysis shows that reduced wind resistance etc. - mainly in the running phase, interestingly enough - was responsible for at best half the bettering of the previous mark.]

So answer me this - do you believe Beamon was a doper? If not, then you admit the possibility of a "singular event" in sports - the perfect run/jump/throw/swim - although one would by definition expect it to be rare.

A few months after Beamon's record jump, Scientific American magazine had an article analyzing the various factors: (a) Mexico City's high altitude which meant lower gravity and lower air density, (b) lower air density in turn meant faster sprint running and longer jumping, (c) the slight tail wind, and so on. It concluded that after subtracting the environmental factors, the remaining jump distance was reasonably within Beamon's previously-demonstrated ability when he made what was an almost-perfect jump in regard to his technique.

- - - -

Originally Posted by R. Gerbicz

His best jump was 833cm before the games, and in 1968 he jumped 890cm, beating the world record by 55 cm so by 6%. Is his technique is improved?

Video of Beamon's jump showed that he executed practically perfect jumping technique on that attempt, enough to account for the 25 cm that were not due to the high altitude and slight tail wind. For example, his takeoff was about as close to the foul line without going over as anyone could possibly do.

Originally Posted by R. Gerbicz

OK, suppose that, but that isn't answer the fact, why his all jumps was less than 850cm after the games.

Simple: Beamon never again jumped at such high altitude in such thin air.