2017 World Athletics Championships (August 4-13, New York City)

Adam King6 said:...politics plays a role too, so maybe Russians get demonized while Americans, the Chinese, or someone else gets a bit of a pass.

Poor demonized Russians and those wicked Americans. I mean, why shouldn't I say it? Their USADA-approved lab was apparently run by former intelligence agents who were swapping out urine samples in the middle of the night. I guess there's no need to make them out to be villains.

Is there anything more soul-crushing in all of sports than taking silver in a marathon? 🤣

cosmicraven27 said:Poor old demonized Russians and those evil Americans. As if I wouldn't hear about it—their USADA-approved lab was run by former KGB agents who were supposedly swapping out urine samples in the middle of the night. No need to go full Satanist on them.

I’m with you regarding the Russians, I just think things aren't exactly looking great on the other side either.

bluebison47 said:Is there anything worse in sports than taking silver in a marathon? 🤣

Yeah, fourth place. I honestly feel so bad for that Briton.

slystag4 said:Smith didn't pull it off. Such a shame.

That's what happens when you spend two months planning how to skip 5'45", only to realize you've got about ten minutes to prep for a different height once you actually do it.☕

Adam King6 said:Exactly.
I remember talking to a top American champion back in the day—who’s since been banned for life, if I recall correctly—and he told me basically the same thing... everyone is playing with something, it's just a matter of whether you get caught...
Times have changed, though, and technology has moved so fast that most of it can be hidden easily, plus there's always the political angle where Russians get demonized while Americans or the Chinese might be getting a pass elsewhere... but the core issue remains, you aren't reaching that elite level without some kind of supplements, whether they're technically legal or not...

That's pretty much it, and honestly, that's my main gripe with the whole doping situation... there are just too many gray areas and inconsistencies...
It's obvious that people get caught and try to cover their tracks, but I always think about that young gymnast from Romania who got suspended over some basic nasal spray for a cold... okay, maybe she was shady, but the mere fact that a simple nasal spray could trigger a ban shows how broken the system is...

The reason I say "pretty much" is because there's also a massive amount of permitted chemistry out there... and seriously, it's everywhere, everyone uses it. I have an example even more high-profile than yours, involving two of the greatest American athletes of all time; I actually know someone in their inner circle personally... they were absolutely wrecking themselves with chemicals...

Permitted stuff.

But let's be real, nobody hits those kinds of numbers eating nothing but salads and lean protein, despite what the US media loves to claim about our athletes...

Then you have all these other things that make zero sense. If I remember right, that Sandrin prep is allowed during training but banned during competition... either a substance gives an "artificial" advantage or it doesn't, so why the distinction... there are clearly so many different interests at play here that whoever has more clout or money can justify their "medication," while something else stays banned... unless, of course, we're talking about the blatant cheating that everyone knows is wrong...

bluebison47 said:Is there anything more heartbreaking in sports than taking silver in a marathon? 🤣

Well, I suppose finishing fourth in a marathon is its own special kind of misery... 😁

lonebadger6 said:That’s somewhat accurate, which I guess is my main issue with doping. There seem to be so many gray areas and inconsistencies.
It's obvious that those caught are often dodging the truth, but I always think about that young gymnast from Romania who got suspended just for using nasal drops for a cold. Sure, she might be telling the truth, or maybe she isn't, but the mere fact that a single drop could trigger a positive test suggests the system is a bit flawed.

When I say "somewhat," I also mean there is a massive amount of allowed chemistry out there. Honestly, everyone uses it. I have an example similar to yours, but much more high-profile involving two of the greatest American athletes ever; I actually know someone from their inner circle. They rely heavily on chemicals. Allowed ones.

But obviously, nobody reaches the top level on nothing but cheese and onions, no matter how much the media likes to claim our athletes are just naturally gifted.

That all makes sense, and anyone following sports closely knows that the money involved today is so huge that people will fight for victory by any means necessary. But honestly, if someone has been caught and sanctioned twice already, they shouldn't be in these competitions. Gatlin's first penalty was for amphetamines, where he claimed during his appeal that it was a prescription for "attention deficit disorder"—that made-up condition that the American pharmaceutical industry makes billions off of by targeting children. I mean, Gatlin, a grown man, claiming he has attention deficit disorder like he's in preschool? It seems unlikely. He strikes me as a real fraud and quite unscrupulous, regardless of the fact that he is naturally fast. A total liar. If they could strip Armstrong of everything, then they can certainly do the same to him.

lonebadger6 said:So... fourth place in the marathon. I mean, that's what we're talking about, right? Just sitting there, right on the edge of the podium, staring at it. Fourth. It’s a strange spot to be in, I suppose. Not quite a victory, not exactly a failure either, just... existing in that awkward middle ground. Maybe it counts for something? Or maybe it's just a polite way of saying you weren't quite fast enough. I can't quite decide. It's all very nebulous, really. 😁

George Ward7 I suppose... if one were to even consider what was said... it seems... well, I guess you could say that...
Ima... fourth place. Honestly, I’m just... I don't know, I feel bad for the Briton. It's just such a shame, really. Maybe if things had gone differently, maybe, but yeah. Just feels wrong.

I mean, I honestly don't know how much comfort that silver medal is actually going to provide... you spent two grueling hours out there on the course, and yet, that first place spot—the one you deserved—just slipped through your fingers by a mere minute and change. It’s just... well, it's brutal, I guess. Maybe. 🤷

I get where you're coming from, and honestly, that bitter feeling probably isn't going away anytime soon, though I can't help but think finishing fourth is actually a much harder pill to swallow... A medal is still a medal, so maybe take some comfort in 😁

It’s honestly better to miss first place by a minute than to miss it by a mere second. 😁
The Briton was clearly gunning for a personal best, which isn't really what you see often at meets like this.

On another note, the marathoner Yuki Kawauchi took 9th place with a time of 2:12:19. You can read more about him here: link

lonebadger6 said:That’s somewhat accurate, which is my main issue with doping. There are just so many ambiguities and inconsistencies.
It seems obvious that everyone caught is playing games, but I always think about that young gymnast from Romania who was suspended just for using nasal spray for a cold. Sure, she claims she's innocent, maybe she's shady, but the fact that a single dose of nasal spray could trigger a positive test suggests the system isn't quite right.

And when I say "somewhat," I mean there is also a massive amount of permitted chemistry out there. And honestly, it’s used by everyone, quite extensively. I have an example similar to yours, though much more high-profile—two of the greatest American athletes ever. I actually know someone from their inner circle personally. They absolutely rely on chemical assistance.

Permitted.

But let’s be real, nobody reaches elite levels eating nothing but salads and toast, despite how American media likes to portray our athletes.

Plus, there are plenty of other things that don't make sense. If I recall correctly, that Sandrin supplement is allowed during training but banned during competition. It’s either something that provides an "artificial" advantage or it doesn't. There seem to be so many conflicting interests involved where whoever has more money can afford certain "medicines," while others are restricted. Of course, that’s ignoring the blatant cheating cases.

I agree. Permitted chemistry is just part of the sport and the training process; it's available to every athlete. I guess they can use whatever they want, as long as it stays within the rules.

The problem with deciding what is allowed and what isn't—which often leads to innocent athletes getting screwed over (like that Romanian gymnast, Andree Răducan)—is that the rules aren't even uniform. The pseudoephedrine she tested positive for might be okay with the gymnastics federation, but not with the Olympic Committee. Gymnasts know it doesn't really help them, but since it might help in another sport, the Olympic committee keeps it banned across the board. In the end, they stripped her of her medal just to make a point about how serious anti-doping is, especially since the crackdown intensified in the late 90s following the fall of the Eastern Bloc. That’s true even though the ruling stated that a) she wasn't at fault, but her doctor was, and b) that stimulant gave her absolutely no competitive advantage.

But then, when Gatlin gets caught with testosterone or Efimov with steroids, it's clearly a targeted use of illegal substances. If we were talking about true justice, they would face lifetime bans rather than returning after a few years to be celebrated for their "successful comeback" and supposedly being clean. Especially since most major doping cases don't just offer a quick boost; they physically alter the body, providing advantages for years after the usage has stopped.

What exactly constitutes "allowed" chemistry to you guys? I don't even follow what that's supposed to mean...

If you look at "Breakfast of Champions," there's an example where they were giving 12-year-old little swimmers things like Anavar, Winstrol, and other absolute garbage. Just imagine—kids that young, completely unaware, taking stuff just because their moronic coaches tell them to, all so they can make it to the top level.

Ben Johnson claims there isn't a single person on this planet who could run sub-10 without steroids. He argued that 10.20 was that impossible, imaginary threshold that he and maybe Carl Lewis could hit naturally back in the day. He says the first time he took Winstrol, he broke that 10-second barrier like it was nothing. Imagine there’s something out there that pushes you to the next level in your sport, and you know everyone else is using it too. It's a no-brainer that you'll take it. Realistically, whoever does it first would have been successful regardless, they just wouldn't have had these results. That applies to pretty much every sport. Look, one guy like Ademi gets caught with Winstrol, and the guy wasn't even the best player on his team, let alone anything more significant. So how can anyone honestly believe that the psychopaths at teams like Barcelona or Real Madrid aren't on something?

Daniel Booth37 said:Now, let’s try to be a little realistic here for a moment. Even if we choose to overlook the fact that Gatlin was caught twice using performance enhancers—let's just pretend everyone is clean and focus strictly on the clock—the numbers tell a story. Bolt ran a 9.95 yesterday, which honestly stands as his worst performance in a 100m final to date. It wasn't just a bad run; it was a significant outlier, being a full 14 hundredths of a second slower than his next worst time. Just last year, during that relatively lackluster showing in Rio, he clocked a 9.81. Meanwhile, Gatlin took gold with a 9.92, a time that, under normal circumstances, would probably have Bolt already starting his victory lap by the time you crossed the finish line. If we're looking at this head-to-head defeat, the responsibility lies entirely with Bolt for showing up feeling half-prepared, especially considering he didn't even really need to compete after what happened in Rio. He likely pulled in millions from sponsors, and perhaps even some under-the-table incentives from the organizers just to ensure he made an appearance.

I completely agree with this sentiment. It isn't so much that Gatlin put up an incredible time as it is that Bolt simply had a terrible race. In my eyes, this was actually a worse outing for him than that incident six years ago when he was disqualified for a false start. That being said, none of this takes away from everything he has contributed to the world of track and field over the last decade or so.

rowdyorca92 said:What do you guys consider "allowed" chemistry? I'm not quite sure what that's supposed to mean...

In "Breakfast of Champions," there's a part where they mention giving things like Anavar or Winstrol to twelve-year-old swimmers. Just imagine—if kids that age are taking stuff without even knowing it just because of some clueless coaches, it’s probably no surprise the elite athletes aren't clean.

Ben Johnson claims that nobody in the world could run under 10 seconds without steroids. He suggested 10.20 was basically that impossible, imaginary limit that he and maybe Carl Lewis were hitting back then. He said the first time he took Winstrol, he broke that 10-second barrier effortlessly. Imagine if there's something that can push you to the next level in your sport, and you know everyone else is using it too... It seems like a no-brainer to join in. Honestly, whoever was first would have been great regardless, but their results would just be weaker. That goes for pretty much any sport. For instance, one player like Ademi gets caught with Winstrol, and he wasn't even a star player for his club. So, how can we assume those psychos at teams like Real Madrid or Barcelona aren't on something too?

"Chemistry" that isn't on the list of
prohibited substances for your specific sport. There are plenty of those; creatine is probably the most famous example.

Why one thing is allowed while another isn't is a whole different conversation—there's obviously a lot of lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry involved. But the bottom line is, if it’s not on the banned list, you aren't doing anything unfair. If it is, you are. Period.

Now, doping kids without them knowing is just wrong, which is why I mostly focus my criticism on places like Russia or China, where it's widely known that these things have been happening systematically for years. Those people should be crucified immediately.

Do you really think that because one guy like Ademi got caught—someone nobody really cares about—that players from the big clubs haven't been caught by now? It feels like everyone might be on something. Those who are actually using it often end up getting caught (I think Guardiola dealt with steroid issues once upon a time). Also, soccer is viewed much more leniently than track and field. In track, physical performance is everything, whereas in soccer, you can have the strongest, most doped body ever and still be a total disaster. If you ask me, the penalty for doping in soccer should be a minimum life suspension. Though, realistically, it probably wouldn't happen because of certain legal loopholes.

cosmicraven27 said:I suppose why one thing gets the green light while another stays banned is a whole other conversation, especially when you consider how much lobbying goes on within the pharmaceutical industry. But at the end of the day, if it isn't on the prohibited list, you aren't doing anything dishonest. Conversely, if you use something that is listed, then you are. It’s really as simple as that.

It is pretty interesting, though, how World Athletics seems to update their lists of permitted and banned substances every single year. You see things that were perfectly fine one year suddenly become banned the next, only to potentially be cleared again later. The actual substances aren't changing, just the policy surrounding them, and I can't help but wonder why that keeps happening...

Why does this Briton Dixon train in one style of shorts but switch to another for the actual marathon? 🤣

Take a look at this question from the reporter, right around the five-minute mark, which apparently left Usain Bolt looking completely bewildered.



I suppose one has to wonder... is it actually acceptable to ask questions like that???

What a little troublemaker 🤣 if you actually dared to ask my dad a question like that, he’d chase you down like a stray cat.

The game could be absolutely electric today

I’m seriously expecting a total brawl out there, maybe even a penalty kick if things get heated enough