Open SC National Championships 2006 [Archive]

Linny

14-07-2006, 09:55 PM

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Steve
I don't think there is one this year - certainly selection for the European Short Course this year is based on the LC team for next years worlds, so no specific SC trials needed.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Sorry if I'm being blonde here Steve but could you write this in laymans, ta.Starting with the basics, just for you Blob -

SC = Short Course = a competition swum in a pool of length 25m
LC = Long Course = a competition swum in a pool length 50m

Steve's quote then becomes -
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Steve
I don't think there is one this year - certainly selection for the European Short Course this year is based on the Long Course team for next years worlds, so no specific Short Course trials needed.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I believe that Steve then assumed that you had read the previous posts so were aware of the specific references to specific meets and then attempts to rationalise why an Open Short Course National Championships may be considered unnecessary. Thus Steve's quote then becomes -

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Steve
I don't think there is an Open Short Course National Championships for 2006 - certainly selection for the European Short Course Championships this year is based on the Long Course team for the World Championships in 2007, so no specific Short Course trials are needed.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Is that enough? This (http://www.sportcentric.com/vmgmt/vfilemgmt/page/filedownload/1,8202,5026-49221-108570-0-file,00.pdf) might help for reference.

Could be wrong of course. :)

NotVeryFast

14-07-2006, 10:05 PM

So are we saying that the only reason any domestic national competitions are ever held is for the purpose of trials to select for international competitions?

And in any case, why would you use an LC meet to select for an SC meet? Have they not noticed that the LC and SC world records are not always held by the same person, i.e. some people are better at SC and some are better at LC? If we want to do the best we can at an SC meet we need to select based on SC performances.

Linny

14-07-2006, 10:18 PM

So are we saying that the only reason any domestic national competitions are ever held is for the purpose of trials to select for international competitions?No but that is the primary purpose. I have referred Blob to this (http://www.sportcentric.com/vmgmt/vfilemgmt/page/filedownload/1,8202,5026-49221-99288-0-file,00.pdf) document already and it is very clear. For ease of reference here is a small exerpt from it.The primary purpose of staging British Swimming events is to provide a selection opportunity for elite athletes.And in any case, why would you use an LC meet to select for an SC meet?Because short course is irrelevant. Where have you been? Pay attention NVF!Managed to open the link. All makes sense now. Select a SC team from LC results, I'm soooooooooo blonde.Not selecting a short course team Blob, having a LC team practice in a SC pool. And you did ask for layman's so that is what I gave you.

Footnote - Linny doesn't actually necessarily believe or agree with the above she is merely repeating British Swimming doctrine whilst crying because Nicky (life is so unfair, I'm supposed to be rich and I'm only middle class) has been evicted.:cry:

NotVeryFast

14-07-2006, 10:37 PM

The primary purpose of staging British Swimming events is to provide a selection opportunity for elite athletes.
That's really quite entertaining. I'm not sure why we bother with World Championships when the inter-planetary swimming scene is non-existent, so there is surely no need for us to select swimmers to represent our planet.

Queen Bee

14-07-2006, 10:53 PM

Hi Guys.
I think I have opened a can of worms here and can't really work out what everyone is on about??? Can we keep it simple?

If I have got it right in a country of about 60 million Poms UK Swimming cant get its act together to run a SC National Championship every year because SC is NOT RELEVANT? And you guys use LC meets to select teams for SC meets? Or are you kidding me?

Then someone says
''The primary purpose of staging British Swimming events is to provide a selection opportunity for elite athletes.''

Well how can you select them when you don't run the meets?
Puzzled bigtime.
Queen Bee.
PS Blob there is nothing wrong with being blond!

NotVeryFast

14-07-2006, 11:20 PM

If I have got it right in a country of about 60 million Poms UK Swimming cant get its act together to run a SC National Championship every year because SC is NOT RELEVANT? And you guys use LC meets to select teams for SC meets? Or are you kidding me?
I think I'm starting to "get" it, so might be able to explain...

British Swimming only really cares about the major international LC meets. So this year, all they really care about is the Commonwealth Games and the European Long Course. Meets that aren't major international LC meets are only useful for either practice or selection. It all follows from that.

Pete

14-07-2006, 11:49 PM

It is very confusing! As is the ASA. Is there another country which does as yet, not have a World Champs qualifying competition? If we are talking about ASA's, do the swimmers know that? If European team can use their times at European Champs, what happens to the relay swimmers? Do they miss out because they went 2, 3, or 4 in the relays?

lane4

15-07-2006, 01:36 AM

Is there another country which does as yet, not have a World Champs qualifying competition? If we are talking about ASA's, do the swimmers know that?
Hopefully, all GB swimmers in with a chance of World selection will know by now that we are having a dual World trials consisting of the European Champs, and the ASA Nationals, which are being held at the same time as each other. If the swimmers don't know, their coaches certainly should and have informed their charges accordingly.

If European team can use their times at European Champs, what happens to the relay swimmers? Do they miss out because they went 2, 3, or 4 in the relays?
No, they will get an opportunity to record an official time for 100 or 200 free in a formal time trial whilst out in Budapest. These times will be ranked alongside times recorded in individual events proper in Budapest and Sheffield and the team selected accordingly. GB will be sending all 6 relays to the Worlds in 2007 as it forms the main qualifing route for a country to ensure its relay can take part in the 2008 Olympics.

The reason for no GB short course nationals is probably three fold: 1) no interest in short course meets at the elite end of the sport, 2) not holding one saves the ASA/British Swimming a lot of time, money and effort, and 3) hardly any of those who are in a position to argue the case for a SC Nationals are willing to do so to the higher authorities.

Taxiandbank

15-07-2006, 05:20 AM

Real reason is that the funding from UK sport is not dependant on results from any SC events. So why bother with them? Will the World SC Champs in Manchester be a total non-event?

Pete

15-07-2006, 09:11 AM

Hopefully, all GB swimmers in with a chance of World selection will know by now that we are having a dual World trials consisting of the European Champs, and the ASA Nationals, which are being held at the same time as each other. If the swimmers don't know, their coaches certainly should and have informed their charges accordingly.
Thanks Lane4! I was made aware of it a few months ago but only through members at this site. I wonder whether clubs were actually officially informed of this by the ASA; or the channels of communication to me broke down with changes in committee at my club.

Linny

15-07-2006, 10:04 AM

we are having a dual World trials consisting of the European Champs, and the ASA Nationals, which are being held at the same time as each other.And an extra itty little bit so David Davies can qualify in December and then fill the anticipated 1500 space. ;)
No, they will get an opportunity to record an official time for 100 or 200 free in a formal time trial whilst out in Budapest. These times will be ranked alongside times recorded in individual events proper in Budapest and Sheffield and the team selected accordingly. That is distinctly different from what the selection policy says Only under exceptional circumstances, and at the discretion of the National Performance Director and Head Coach, will swimmers be offered the opportunity to record a time at these Time Trials.but then I guess not having the required 4,5 or 6 swimmers for a relay team from the trials because they weren't swimming in individual events cos they were only picked for a relay might be exceptional circumstances. :)

Oh lane4 while you're on keeping us all right, any idea how is Liam Tancock gonna swim in Budapest and Sheffield?

Steve

16-07-2006, 08:44 PM

Blimey! I didn't realise I would open up such a large can of worms! I was only using that selection policy as evidence to support the fact that there wasn't a short course nationals this year - I think it's a stupid idea.

Queen Bee

17-07-2006, 08:55 PM

Hi Guys
Ok
Just so I have got this right.
You don't have short course nationals any more (ever?) because

1) no interest in short course meets at the elite end of the sport.

No interest from elite swimmers(!!!) or coaches?
Lets look what we do, hope this works http://www.swimming.org.au/Events%20,-a-,%20Records/Meets%20,-a-,%20Results.aspx?year=2006 Telstra Australian Short Course every single year. Simple.

2) not holding one saves the ASA/British Swimming a lot of time, money and effort.

Well they might as well hold no meets at all then. Sorry beginners question here but what is the difference between ASA and British Swimming? Are ASA the English bit, found this in one of their documents ''Vision by 2009. 90% of the GB (swimming) team comprising of English athletes.''

3) hardly any of those who are in a position to argue the case for a SC Nationals are willing to do so to the higher authorities.''

Why? Surely it's totally obvious you must have them every year. No case to argue.

So the most important meet you have each year is the LC Nationals..and it is on the same time as the European Championships??? 51 other weeks to choose from guys. Europeans then Nationals two weeks later. Easy. Jeez. So none of your best swimmers will be at the Nationals but the ones that are there will be swimming against those in Budapest who will also be swimming against relay swimmers doing time trials for their individual events. How can that be remotely fair depending on what events are when in terms of rest and some will know what times they have to beat and some won't. And most swimmers swim best against the best opposition. Nuts. Who thought this up? Surely BillieBoy can't take all the blame.
Queen Bee

lane4

17-07-2006, 10:08 PM

Surely it's totally obvious you must have them every year. No case to argue.
Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Well said.

H2o

18-07-2006, 11:14 AM

Wow ..... Queen Bee you truly are !!:king:

So well put.....

I am now one of your biggest fans.

:love: :love: :love:
xxxx

Gina

19-07-2006, 12:24 PM

It's tricky. Do you put the LC Nationals and Youth Nationals at another time so it doesn't clash with ELC? Or do you snub the ELC so the top swimmers can do LCs?

I know for a fact that if you move the Youth Nationals you will get uproar from parents. But I'm happy because this year I should final in atleast one event and get second swims in a lot of the others.

I'd love there to be a SC nats this year as I know I'd have lots more events to pick from, but there's not one and I'm focusing all my attention on LC swimming and not faffing around with too much breaststroke and backstroke!!!

NotVeryFast

19-07-2006, 01:20 PM

I know for a fact that if you move the Youth Nationals you will get uproar from parents.
Is this because it's age on day, so changing the date would change the age groups people are in?

Taxiandbank

19-07-2006, 05:04 PM

Is this because it's age on day, so changing the date would change the age groups people are in?
No. Because it varies by a couple of days each year anyway. Wouldn't be a problem if we went back to age at end of year!

NotVeryFast

19-07-2006, 05:24 PM

No. Because it varies by a couple of days each year anyway. Wouldn't be a problem if we went back to age at end of year!
So what is the reason why there would have been an uproar if the LC Nationals had been scheduled for shortly after the Euro LC?

Linny

19-07-2006, 05:42 PM

So what is the reason why there would have been an uproar if the LC Nationals had been scheduled for shortly after the Euro LC?Family issues! People plan their Summer holidays around them when it may be the only time of year where swimming does not dictate everything about a family's life for a few, maybe only two, short weeks. There are only 5 1/2 weeks of school Summer holidays in England this year (7 in Scotland but there you go it usually rains for 6 of them although not this year :) ) so any other activities, be they family get togethers, foreign trips or whatever have to be squeezed into the rest and everyone wants to do them then! When you have offspring, you have to plan well in advance.

Taxiandbank

19-07-2006, 05:51 PM

So what is the reason why there would have been an uproar if the LC Nationals had been scheduled for shortly after the Euro LC?
There wouldn't have been an uproar from the youth swimmers. Presumably the uproar would have eminated from the level of people who were expected to come back to GB SC champs before the closing of the Athens Olympics.

Why aren't the ASA/Youth/Age Group champs fixed each year. You could then fix a GB SC champs and run a trials meet (instead of the GB LC) 8 or 16 weeks out from the Europeans/Commies/Olympics?
TandB

Queen Bee

20-07-2006, 11:02 PM

Hi Guys
I am still trying to get my head round this - loads of private messages. There were no SC Nationals last year either? Is this correct? Seems you guys don't value SC swimmers or sprinters very much either???

Agree with Taxiandbank below. With 52 weeks to choose from not that hard to organise a Youth and Open LC (or trials or whatever you want to call it) and an SC Champs every year. And why are you guys always on about 2012 in the papers? Our focus is on now, the 2007 FINA World Championships in Melbourne and the Beijing Olympics in 2008. Also I am hearing terrible tales about many good swimmers over here getting hardly any funding. What is happening to all the money? We are 'lucky' I guess as we have Telstra as our principal sponsors and now Novatel have come on board with accomodation for both swimmers and their families as required when travelling to meets. Really it's not luck though. Your British Swimming admin seem to just depend on your Lottery money-and if I understand correctly you could be the best short course swimmer in the world, say really good at starts and turns, and you would get nothing if a bit slow on long course??? Oh and while I'm at it you guys have hardly any competitions over here. Why no Grand Prix circuit? We have the Telstar Grand Prix series and we have just done the Mare Nostrum tour and a USA tour which gave over 50 of us great competition experience.
QB

There wouldn't have been an uproar from the youth swimmers. Presumably the uproar would have eminated from the level of people who were expected to come back to GB SC champs before the closing of the Athens Olympics.

Why aren't the ASA/Youth/Age Group champs fixed each year. You could then fix a GB SC champs and run a trials meet (instead of the GB LC) 8 or 16 weeks out from the Europeans/Commies/Olympics?
TandB

Pete

21-07-2006, 12:15 AM

Seems you guys don't value SC swimmers or sprinters very much either???

Also I am hearing terrible tales about many good swimmers over here getting hardly any funding. What is happening to all the money? We are 'lucky' I guess as we have Telstra as our principal sponsors and now Novatel have come on board with accomodation for both swimmers and their families as required when travelling to meets. Really it's not luck though. Your British Swimming admin seem to just depend on your Lottery money-and if I understand correctly you could be the best short course swimmer in the world, say really good at starts and turns, and you would get nothing if a bit slow on long course??? Oh and while I'm at it you guys have hardly any competitions over here. Why no Grand Prix circuit? We have the Telstar Grand Prix series and we have just done the Mare Nostrum tour and a USA tour which gave over 50 of us great competition experience.
QB
QB you are quite right. I coach a swimmer who is a sprinter and is ranked very high at ASA's in two weeks time and he gets zero funding. I coach him for nothing. I am sure that is not a unique situation. It is no good just funding swimmers who have made the criteria. You need to fund the swimmers who have the potential. Then they might get the opportunities to break through.

Gina

21-07-2006, 07:59 AM

I think we really fall short when it comes to sponsorship as QB pointed out. I know swimming is more popular in the US and Oz but still, the only sponsorship I can think of is Cheesestrings and that is for Age Groupers! If there are any other (apart from the lottery) can you point them out for me.

If we had more sponsorship like the Australians then it would make swimming a lot easier for everyone and it might encourage swimmers 18 and over to carry on. A big factor in swimming is money and I'm paying for everything including hotel costs which start at £300 (minimum) for Nationals. I know a swimmer who is 16 and she has a 12 yr old sister and they are both going to nationals and doing multiple events. What this means is their parents have to pay for almost 2 weeks of stay at a hotel in Sheffield. That's almost a grand.

People ask me where I'm off to on holiday and I reply 'Does Sheffield count? I could save money and go abroad but I am sticking to Sheffield!'

Gina

21-07-2006, 08:08 AM

I was thinking the parents would cause an uproar because ...

1. The age on day debate

2. Maybe they wouldn't be able to take their kids on holiday when they wanted

3. I thought of others but can't remember at this moment in time as I'm busy at work!!!

Katie

21-07-2006, 08:44 AM

There is quite a lot of sponsorship about, but it does seem to go to the same people every time. These people have obviously earned funding/sponsorship as they've performed when they need to, but surely it would be a good idea to share it out a bit?!

In response to the SC Nationals thing, I'm sure this is very selfish of me, but I am quite glad there isn't one because I really want a holiday and some time at home! :)

Phil Tanner

21-07-2006, 08:56 AM

I don't see how our only full-time coach could take a thoroughly deserved decent holiday if SC nationals followed on some time in August. It's only four weeks from the end of youths until the new season starts and there will be loads of preparation for that. God knows how tiring it must be if you work split shifts year round with five very early mornings.

lane4

21-07-2006, 09:01 AM

You need to fund the swimmers who have the potential. Then they might get the opportunities to break through.
To be fair, for many years after the lottery money started coming on stream, British Swimming funded vast numbers of swimmers who were at the international level or had the potential to break through. However, this yielded very little in terms of world and Olympic long course medal results. Far too many international swimmers stayed on funding for way too long, spending a lot of their funding on CDs and Playstation games because they had too much of it (many still lived at their parents home), and carried on swimming but without making any improvements in personal best times.

Lottery funding allowed many swimmers to stop jobs or education and train full time but yet many were subsequently slower than when they combined swimming with education/work.

Similarly, there were cases where funding allowed some swimmers to move from training in amongst public swimmers in 25 m and 25 yard pools into full time swimming at a 50m facility but again, times recorded at international meets were regularly slower than previous.

In short, British Swimming wasted a huge amount of money on funding swimmers who never delivered, and were never going to deliver on the world stage.

Now though, individual athlete funding is much more focused - and is almost entirely controlled by UK Sport not British Swimming. UK Sport have dictated to British Swimming (and all other Olympic sports) the maximum number of swimmers that can be funded and the criteria for that funding. It is important to be clear that British Swimming gets all its performance funding from UK Sport, and UK Sport is extremely clear that they are ONLY interested in medals at the Olympic Games and World LC Champs.

Queen Bee

24-07-2006, 09:16 PM

Hi Guys
Lane 4 - I cannot believe this post. You must be a coach! It is typical for a coach to blame the swimmers when they don't do well and take all the credit when they succeed. 'Normal' people spend money on CD's and Playstation games - and presumably the swimmers you refer to live at home because they cannot afford a mortgage over here.

OK assuming your facts are correct you are saying that in the past swimmers have underachieved because they are idle - or is it that the coaches you have over here are simply not good enough to motivate & enable your swimmers to maximise their potential? How many world class swimming coaches are based in UK? None that I know of. If there are some I have missed tell me. Some have just struck it lucky with having the good fortune to coach world class swimmers. Sorry.

OK if all focus is on Olympics and Long Course World Champs no wonder you are in a state! UK Sport will be disappointed I guess. If you want to win bigtime in sport these days you have to take drugs. To believe otherwise is naive. Believe me I know.
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13559903/
QB

To be fair, for many years after the lottery money started coming on stream, British Swimming funded vast numbers of swimmers who were at the international level or had the potential to break through. However, this yielded very little in terms of world and Olympic long course medal results. Far too many international swimmers stayed on funding for way too long, spending a lot of their funding on CDs and Playstation games because they had too much of it (many still lived at their parents home), and carried on swimming but without making any improvements in personal best times.

Lottery funding allowed many swimmers to stop jobs or education and train full time but yet many were subsequently slower than when they combined swimming with education/work.

Similarly, there were cases where funding allowed some swimmers to move from training in amongst public swimmers in 25 m and 25 yard pools into full time swimming at a 50m facility but again, times recorded at international meets were regularly slower than previous.

In short, British Swimming wasted a huge amount of money on funding swimmers who never delivered, and were never going to deliver on the world stage.

Now though, individual athlete funding is much more focused - and is almost entirely controlled by UK Sport not British Swimming. UK Sport have dictated to British Swimming (and all other Olympic sports) the maximum number of swimmers that can be funded and the criteria for that funding. It is important to be clear that British Swimming gets all its performance funding from UK Sport, and UK Sport is extremely clear that they are ONLY interested in medals at the Olympic Games and World LC Champs.

Steve

24-07-2006, 09:21 PM

How many world class swimming coaches are based in UK? None that I know of. If there are some I have missed tell me

Don Talbot?

Queen Bee

24-07-2006, 09:54 PM

Don Talbot?

Jeez. You kidding us?

'Ming the Merciless' as we used to call him. He is BillieBoy's old boss over here now? (or still back in Oz?) on a jolly. They are both laughing all the way to the bank.
Shane has him taped.
http://www.swimnews.com/News/displayStory.jhtml?id=4535

QB

Steve

24-07-2006, 10:11 PM

Jeez. You kidding us?

'Ming the Merciless' as we used to call him. He is BillieBoy's old boss over here now? (or still back in Oz?) on a jolly. They are both laughing all the way to the bank.
Shane has him taped.
http://www.swimnews.com/News/displayStory.jhtml?id=4535

QB
So which Australian coaches do you consider to be world class?

lane4

24-07-2006, 10:32 PM

Lane 4 - You must be a coach! Indeed I am! Well done! And you sound like an ex-swimmer.

...that in the past swimmers have underachieved because they are idle I don't recall using the word "idle" or labelling the swimmers in that way at all. Did you mis-read my post?

...or is it that the coaches you have over here are simply not good enough to motivate & enable your swimmers to maximise their potential? It is without doubt that some British coaches did not and do not coach well enough. It is also without doubt that the same can be said for some Australian coaches.

How many world class swimming coaches are based in UK? None that I know of. If there are some I have missed tell me. I will give you Ian Turner, Dave Calleja, Terry Denison, Chris Martin, Dave Haller and Sean Kelly as a starter - all have coached Olympic champions/medalists at some point in the past 20 years. If you dispute that these and other coaches are not world class, it is only fair that you back this up with your reasons why please?

Some have just struck it lucky with having the good fortune to coach world class swimmers. Sorry. Please name who you are referring to here? Of course some coaches do get lucky when a super talented swimmer walks through the door of their programme but I suspect we could find coaches all over the world in that boat, not just the UK.

OK if all focus is on Olympics and Long Course World Champs no wonder you are in a state! UK Sport will be disappointed I guess. I totally agree that UK Sport have got their priorities all wrong and that they are driving several sports in the wrong direction.

If you want to win bigtime in sport these days you have to take drugs. To believe otherwise is naive. I am sure a great many successful elite sportsmen and women get to the top through drug use. As you say, to think otherwise is naive in the extreme. However, I do not believe that every single winner at the elite level is on drugs. There are some clean winners out there too, even if it is only a few.

Believe me I know. How do you know? Did you take performance enhancing drugs yourself? Administer them? Cover up their use? Please fill us in...

NotVeryFast

24-07-2006, 11:25 PM

I am sure a great many successful elite sportsmen and women get to the top through drug use. As you say, to think otherwise is naive in the extreme. However, I do not believe that every single winner at the elite level is on drugs. There are some clean winners out there too, even if it is only a few.
I find this a bit contradictory, though. We know from the data the GDR collected on their athletes that banned subtances can deliver huge strength improvements. If I recall correctly, female shot putters were achieving at least 30% greater distance with steroid use. If there were a great many elite competitors using drugs, I don't see how clean competitors could get close to them.

So given the size of the improvement that can be gained from banned substances, it's hard to see how a situation can exist other than nobody at the top using them, or everyone at the top using them.

lane4

25-07-2006, 01:20 AM

So given the size of the improvement that can be gained from banned substances, it's hard to see how a situation can exist other than nobody at the top using them, or everyone at the top using them.

Because you cannot get to the top on drugs alone. It is very possible that many of the East Germans may have won anyway had they been clean. It is without doubt that they also had the most scientifically advanced training methods of the time. They combined this with great facilities, fantastic coaching, and a system of national sports schools which took the most talented kids from across the country and trained them for international success from a very young age. Success was almost inevitable regardless of the drugs. The drugs perhaps just increased the depth of the success across lots of sports and elevated the performances to levels never thought of before.

Its also important to point out that drugs will aid some athletes more than others. Where some improved performance by 30% the same drug may not necessarily affect everyone in the same way. Some people have higher natural levels of testosterone than others, so taking testosterone to aid performance will likely give most benefit to those who lack it naturally. And that's exactly what happened. The East Germans gave testosterone (and other drugs) to women and they improved markedly (some even turned into men!), but they had nowhere near the same extent of success with male athletes, who obviously have much more natural testosterone anyway. That's on a grand general scale, but the same principle will hold to a smaller extent with all types of drugs in all athletes depending on their own natural phsyiological make-ups.

Pretty much everyone realises now that professional cycling is rotten to the core with performance enhancing drugs. It has been for a long time. It has been covered up so much and rarely talked about by all those within it. But if Virenque, Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Mancebo and David Millar all used drugs then it surely seems likely that Lance Armstrong did as well? If not, how did he win 7 tours in a row? Yet many people refuse to believe or accept that he was on drugs, and whenever it is alleged that he was, he denies it emphatically and the charges are never proven. But in cycling it is now proven that a large proportion of the top riders are on drugs so in NVF's theory, Lance must have been too right? Or was he just more talented/hard working than the rest of the field, most of whom we know for a fact were drugged up?

NotVeryFast

25-07-2006, 09:05 AM

But in cycling it is now proven that a large proportion of the top riders are on drugs so in NVF's theory, Lance must have been too right? Or was he just more talented/hard working than the rest of the field, most of whom we know for a fact were drugged up?
So the question is, how much can cycling performance be improved by using drugs, and is it conceivable that someone can be sufficiently better purely by talent and hard work to more than make up for the disadvantage of not using drugs?

Consider Ian Thorpe, say, who has/had a significant performance margin over other people for 400 free. Looking at him, I can believe that if none of them use drugs, he may well be that much better than everyone else. But quite a few people have done 3:46 ish, say, so roughly 3% slower than Thorpe. Do we believe that drug use couldn't deliver the necessary 3% performance improvement for one of these swimmers to close the gap to Thorpe? We have to either believe that, or believe that none of them have used drugs, or that they've all already used drugs, or that the ones who have used drugs just happen to be the ones that were already so much worse that the drugs only made them roughly equally as good as everyone else.

Queen Bee

30-07-2006, 07:17 AM

Hi Guys
Lane 4. You deserve a full reply when more time (buzzing off to Ponds Forge in the next day or so) but confirm I am an ex-competitive swimmer from Oz over here for a month or two. Meanwhile

OK if all focus is on Olympics and Long Course World Champs no wonder you are in a state! UK Sport will be disappointed I guess. If you want to win bigtime in sport these days you have to take drugs. To believe otherwise is naive. Believe me I know.

See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13559903/

and now the Tour de France winner Floyd Landis has failed a test and vanished. Funny how he cracked in Stage 16 and failed a test following 'A dramatic solo win' on Stage 17. Quel surprise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/5221122.stm

and also World and Olympic 100 metres champion Gatlin as well failed by his own country's anti-Doping Agency. Ouch. That is unusual.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/5227956.stm

The sad thing is that firstly almost always the athletes deny guilt (though of course in these two cases guilt is not yet proved) and secondly their doctors and coaches rarely get struck off as they should.

In the old days the top guys always got away with it but looks like the blow in the bag boys are winning at last. Some interesting countries at the Europeans -I wonder if any swimmers will get a pink slip?

QB

NotVeryFast

30-07-2006, 09:12 AM

I came across this article, which suggests that over 50% of competitors at the Seoul Olympics were using drugs:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-8219/1/3

Another worrying statistic - it says:
"In 1993, the Canadian Centre for Drug Free Sport estimated that 83,000 schoolchildren between the ages of 11-18 had used androgenic anabolic steroids in the preceding 12 months."

I read that the GDR found, from their extensive data on steroid use, that the first usage of steroids causes a permanent change in the athlete, giving them a performance boost of around 10% for the rest of their life. So even if those 83,000 11-18 year olds never use drugs again, they have already acquired a prohibited advantage for the rest of their lives.