Adarq.org
Sport Specific Training Discussion => 400m Sprinting or Shorter => Topic started by: Mikey on July 15, 2013, 03:35:02 am
-
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/sprint-stars-tyson-gay-asafa-powell-fail-drug-tests/story-e6frg7mf-1226679422309
Really disappointed more than anything.
-
Jamaican sprint star Powell, a former 100m world record holder, confirmed that he had tested positive for a banned stimulant at his country's national trials for Moscow.
This is kinda soft isn't it? It's like being banned from drinking coffee or something.
-
Jamaican sprint star Powell, a former 100m world record holder, confirmed that he had tested positive for a banned stimulant at his country's national trials for Moscow.
This is kinda soft isn't it? It's like being banned from drinking coffee or something.
This link has a more comprehensive explanation-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/10178657/Athletics-in-drug-crisis-after-sprint-stars-Tyson-Gay-and-Asafa-Powell-test-positive-for-banned-substances.html
Oxilofrine (also known as methylsynephrine, hydroxyephrine, oxyephrine, and 4-HMP) is a stimulant drug[1] is an amphetamine chemically related to ephedrine and to synephrine. The stimulant was probably being used as a masking agent to cover up steroids or whatever. Yohan Blake got caught testing positive to a stimulant a few years back. I've got no doubt that he's on something 2. Powell and Gay are kind of the last people that I would suspect of being positive though. Like Tyson Gay seemed like such a respectable athlete when you watch his videos or see articles about him in his campaigns for clean sport but I guess that was just a front.
-
Everybody takes steroids in sprinting just as in biking (like Tour de France). It's just a matter of how well you mask it and if you're caught or not. What's so "shocking" about this?
-
Oxilofrine (also known as methylsynephrine, hydroxyephrine, oxyephrine, and 4-HMP) is a stimulant drug[1] is an amphetamine chemically related to ephedrine and to synephrine. The stimulant was probably being used as a masking agent to cover up steroids or whatever.
No. Oxilofrine is not a masking agent. Entropy is right, this is a really soft positive test and it's a product of an overzealous testing protocol. Oxilofrine exists only because supplement companies keep switching to new stimulants after that repeatedly get banned (ephedrine, synephrine, etc.) Yohan was popped for taking Jacked 3d. C'mon, people on the forum probably take that stuff.... That's not to say he's not on a lot more out of competition.... BUT the positive tests returned by the testers are very often complete BS.
Everybody takes steroids in sprinting just as in biking (like Tour de France). It's just a matter of how well you mask it and if you're caught or not. What's so "shocking" about this?
That's not a fair comparison. Doping is in cycling but not in male sprinting. You simply can't compete without blood doping; the same isn't true in sprinting. Drugs help some sprinters but a lot of athletes who were on drugs will admit that they were skeptical about whether or not they actually helped them perform. A lot of athletes take them because they look for any edge they can get; but then again a lot of athletes wear funny bracelets and magnetized necklaces looking for a boost as well. While testing isn't near perfect; drug testing today is WAY more strict than 25 years ago. If drugs were required in sprinting then the records 1988 and prior would be better than the records 1998-present (I'm allowing a ten year period for implementation of changes)...
However the sprint records 1988 and prior in the 1,2,4,8 are [ 9.92, 19.72A, 43.28, 141,1 ]. Since 1998 men have ran [ 9.58, 19.19 43.18, 140.9 ]. Improvement across the board. The same statistics for women show [ 10.49, 21.34, 47.60, 153.2 ] and [ 10.64, 21.69, 48.89, 155.1 ]. Clearly they have gotten worse since the advent of drug testing. Thus, you can't make the argument that faster tracks, better shoes, more technology, etc have improved male times in spite of drug testing because the women have all those advantages too. The simple fact is that drugs are required in womens sprinting. That's not to say that any particular female is on drugs, but just that if one has access to androgens she will have a clear advantage over another and the other will be required to use drugs to compete.
I understand fans like Raptor are disillusioned with the idea of a clean athlete... But you have to understand that athletes use anything they can get their hands on whether it helps or not. The bottom line is your favorite cyclist is surely doping. You favorite male sprinter and basketball player probably are too.... but they don't have to!
I for one hate USADA more than anything. They show up at your door at any hour of the day and treat you like an animal. The are run by a bunch of doctors who really don't understand athletics and have this really condescending attitude but probably all got on adderall to get through medical school; and they punish our athletes more than most national testing programs. Since most tested athletes are not stupid enough now to take useful known drugs if they are tested USADA has instead decided to expand the list of banned substances to pretty much everything you can imagine so they can get more positive tests. They need positive tests to argue for more money (ie. they need to make the argument that drugs are a problem) so they end of ruining careers of our athletes who took sampled some drink at GNC.
I don't really understand the point of testing your own athletes. I get that the NBA might conduct drug tests. They do this to make sure it's fair between the teams. But the Miami Heat don't need to drug test extra. Why put their team at a disadvantage? Similarily let WADA do the testing at the Olympics or if they can afford it let them do out-of-competition testing if they want. But why should we spend money to bring athletes on our team down?
Thanks for ruining the world championships. Not what track and field needed. More money to the testers, less to the sport. They are no better than cops with speed traps.
-
Tyson gay AND ASAFA POWELL got positive result from the drug tests, I bet justin gatlin is doing covering up his usage.
Its only time before usain bolt is caught as well.
But they still have the B sample. even so gay said he is pulling out. what a dissapointment.
So this could have been found in his training supplement's like protein shake, but not actual PED's.
Now who else has a chance of winning the IAAF besides Usain bolt or Yohan Blake.
:uhhhfacepalm:
-
Tyson gay AND ASAFA POWELL got positive result from the drug tests, I bet justin gatlin is doing covering up his usage.
Its only time before usain bolt is caught as well.
Unless you know something about Bolt that we don't know.... That's a really irresponsible comment. This is obviously is not a heavily trafficked place but you would be surprised how badly you can hurt someone's reputation when you make unfounded claims about them.
-
oh come on, it's not like seifullah is the first person to make that comment about bolt. practically every article i've seen on this has some version of, "what about usain bolt, hmmmmm?"
i agree with you though that USADA and WADA are going overboard with this shit.
-
I don't know about you but for me... in this athletic world... everybody is guilty until proven innocent. It's just naive people that think otherwise.
-
SMH. Seems from what Tyson is saying he knows exactly what happened and isn't happy about it. Whether that means it was intentional or not we'll never now.
It is interesting that I'd test positive because I've taken something like Jacked as a pre-workout boost on days when Im bleh lol
-
I didn't claim anything, but it can be any time soon before USADA and WADA do the same with bolt.
I don't know much about bolt so won't claim he is using PED's, this was the same with gay and powell.
USADA and WADA are ruining the reputation of the sprinters. Now gay is out of the world championship.
-
I agree with that. I think they overemphasize "soft" stuff like coffeine and stuff like that which is kinda weaksauce. To be honest, I am pro-PED. Just legalize them and be done with them.
-
Yeah as to the effectiveness of drugs I have limited knowledge and can't really comment since I've never taken steroids or even taken any pre-workout supps. From anecdotal evidence and from what I've read online it seems that steroids can take up to .2 seconds off a 100m for a male but with females they can take up to .4 seconds off a 100m time. I guess it also depends on how the person reacts. Like there are some people that can take steroids and just blow up because their body uses them really efficiently. A perfect example of this theory is Kevin Levrone. Than on the other hand you have people that don't react well to them (most top natural bodybuilders).
Mark Kerr was a pro MMA fighter think he was like a world champ or some shit but here is his opinion on steroids.
"I would never tell anyone to do steroids, would never promote it. But they do work. They give you strength and especially help in the ability to recover between fights. Steroids help an athlete from missing too many days of training. That is the biggest plus." he says matter-of-fact. "But it's not the easy way as some people perceive. They are not going to make you more talented. Realistically, if you were like me with natural talent and aptitude, it will help. Conversely, steroids alone won't make you snap, unless it's already within your nature."
Kerr doesn't want sympathy or clemency for steroid users, but feels a better understanding of the "reality" of the drug is needed as to what it can and cannot do for an athlete.
"Steroids will not make you crazy if the tendency isn't there already just as they won't make you a great athlete if you aren't already. Here's what they will do. If you run the 40 (yards) in 4.6, you can get it down to 4.4. If you bench 400 you can increase that to 450. If you have a vertical (jump) of 36 (inches) you might get to 40. But you have to be great to be greater, it's not as magical as many perceive."
-
Kinda offtopic but not sure which thread to post in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yipZlPl6_sc
NBA celebs discussing PEDs in sport, starts around 11:48. Such a dumb discussion, like most of these debates you have the pragmatic side and the hardline anti drug one.
On one hand I can't imagine someone squeaky clean like Jeremy Lin taking PEDs. But how the hell is he so quick compared to all the other players out there. He's big and strong as well for his height and weight and something tells me it's not from doing squats and oats. In fact i doubt any NBA player has time for that stuff, so its prob just genetics plus drugs giving elite performances we enjoy today.
-
I agree with that. I think they overemphasize "soft" stuff like coffeine and stuff like that which is kinda weaksauce. To be honest, I am pro-PED. Just legalize them and be done with them.
see world's strongest man. level the playing field and watch 150kg+ men move very heavy things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnQoWTrWZi0
-
There is so much broscience when it comes to steroids. Also I feel like a lot of people who haven't reached a high-level of competition just really don't appreciate greatness. People can be really really really good at something without there being some chemical explanation. To some extent I agree with Kingfish and Raptor; allowing an avenue for athletes to compete untested would make things a lot cleaner. On the other hand I think each sport should be able to make the rules as it chooses; the IAAF changed it so you don't get a false start in the sprints anymore, if they want to enforce a rule that you have to test positive for substance X before racing, fine by me. What bothers me is any political pressure or testing groups which try to force sports to adhere to their rules, these groups profit when there are positive tests which is a huge conflict of interest.
From anecdotal evidence and from what I've read online it seems that steroids can take up to .2 seconds off a 100m for a male but with females they can take up to .4 seconds off a 100m time. I guess it also depends on how the person reacts. Like there are some people that can take steroids and just blow up because their body uses them really efficiently. A perfect example of this theory is Kevin Levrone. Than on the other hand you have people that don't react well to them (most top natural bodybuilders).
"Steroids will not make you crazy if the tendency isn't there already just as they won't make you a great athlete if you aren't already. Here's what they will do. If you run the 40 (yards) in 4.6, you can get it down to 4.4. If you bench 400 you can increase that to 450. If you have a vertical (jump) of 36 (inches) you might get to 40. But you have to be great to be greater, it's not as magical as many perceive."
Numbers like this are seriously hardcore examples of broscience. Steroids do one thing. They tip the scale for your body in favor of building muscle tissue. THAT IS IT. They don't make you faster by 0.2 seconds or lift 50 more pounds or jump higher... They do nothing of the sort. IF (and its a big if) what you need is to change the environment to build more muscle tissue, then steroids will help immensely. Otherwise they will do nothing or possibly even hurt your performance. Most male sprinters are not losing because they need to build more muscle; short sprints always come down to MaxV which is primarily a function of tendon elasticity, motor control, and the ability of the body to relax in the reach phase. Steroids do nothing here.
Also, don't forget you can put your body in an anabolic environment without adding androgens. The formula is simple. Eat more and lift more. Your body will build more muscle. It will also put on fat. That's why natural powerlifters are incredibly fat. Fred Hatfield (the only man with a legit 1000lb squat) admitted that he used steroids because he "didn't want to have to get too fat". The problem is even worse for the women. Look at the heavyweight female oly lifters. They are like 50% fat. The fewer androgens you have the less willing your body will be to build or maintain muscle unless it's in extreme positive energy balance. That's why athletes who don't have to fit into a weight class share stories where they are somewhat skeptical about the benefits of steroids. Throwers often claim they don't help: http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=joyce/080804
The bottom line is if your goal is adding as much muscle tissue as possible with zero fat you need steroids. Thus, the only sport where steroids are completely required is bodybuilding. Additionally pure strength sports which impose weight-class limits will be hard to compete in without steroids. If your a male sprinter who lacks muscle mass and can't put on any muscle while doing the system work required of a sprinter, then they might help you. The biggest post-steroids performance gain was probably Tim Montgomery who was always extremely weak and just too small to accelerate... I don't think Walter Dix's problem is that he needs more muscle tissue... Of course for women.... well most all of them fall into the Tim Montgomery category as far as steroids are concerned.
It's really a common misconception to think that because an elite athlete does something that it helps. Elite athletes are HIGHLY superstitious and competitive. Justin Gatlin uses cryotherapy, wears oxygen boots after training, wears special hologram bracelets that he thinks make him stronger, he drinks special alkaline ionized water, and he used an androgen cream that his trainer thought wouldn't cause a positive test. With the exception of the cream, all the other things have NO clear evidence that they work or are BS pseudo-science. Yet he isn't taking any chances. He uses everything he can and thinks it all works. Did the cream help him? Maybe. But probably not.
On one hand I can't imagine someone squeaky clean like Jeremy Lin taking PEDs. But how the hell is he so quick compared to all the other players out there. He's big and strong as well for his height and weight and something tells me it's not from doing squats and oats. In fact i doubt any NBA player has time for that stuff, so its prob just genetics plus drugs giving elite performances we enjoy today.
Seriously? You can't believe Jeremy Lin is clean? You think his quickness is so otherworldly it has to be from drugs? Newsflash. Jeremy Lin isn't an amazing athlete. Neither is Chris Paul. On any test of athleticism (eg. short sprint, short shuttle, vertical jump, weight lifts, etc) they don't display any amazing ability. But they are really really really good at basketball. Have you ever played with a NBA level player? They are ridiculously good. If you just play pickup basketball with a decent D1 player you will be shocked. With the type of defense that's played in pickup basketball they can just walk down the court and make a 3-pointer from the college line pretty much every time. Seriously they shoot like 80% unguarded. The players who don't even make the NBA are ridiculously good at handling the ball, shooting, etc. Jeremy Lin's technical ability is absolutely ridiculous. Your right that he doesn't get his quickness from squats but it's not from drugs either, it's from genetics and an absolutely ridiculous amount of time spent training at their sport.
For the most part team sports with long seasons don't have much of a problem with drugs. There just isn't time for a elite NBA player to use steroids. The are pretty much player basketball year round; the increased incidence of injury from steroids alone and the hard of time off to such a technical sport makes them not worth it alone.
*** The bottom line is elite male athletes in most dynamic sports are not usually the ones who lacked the ability to put on sufficient muscle. So unless muscle or muscle/fat ratio is absolutely paramount to performance, it's easy to overstate the benefit they provide. The real benefit is more likely to women in dynamic sports or those whose genetics leave them lacking sufficient muscle. Raptor would probably benefit the most from steroids. The one caveat is that this post was about steroids. Of course there are other PEDs. Stimulants have a modest but real benefit to training performance and other drugs have real benefits to endurance sports. There are rumors of drugs which would just drastically change sports performance all around, eg. locally injectible ATP. However, I think these are mostly rumors but if possible we should be on guard for the first 40 second 400m performance.
-
^^^ +4,000,000
-
Amen! Having played with some very good D1 players I can attest to the truth in Todddays statement. Their SKILLS are just off the charts, the athleticism isn't for the most part. Sure there are a few freak athletes but having a 40" svj won't make you an allstar. Having a deadly j and tight handles will.
-
Best example: James white.
(http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/9827/jwhiteld0.jpg)
I chose him from tdub, jusfly, aut etc because he jumps just as high, but he is 6'7'' and he is a profesional basketball player, trying to get a chance in the NBA from 2006 that he was drafted.
Second example:
http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=All&sort2=DESC&draft=&pos=&source=All&sort=10
NBA draft measurements of ALL time, sorted by SVJ ( i think it has measurements form 1998 and on , whatever ).
Be amazed, there is only one person that got 40'' ( DJ Stephens this year ), while the majority is below 30'', by a ratio 2:1 ( !!! ). Yep, 2 out of 3 NBA drafts can't hit a 30'' SVJ.
Not saying something new here, just making more clear what kind of basketball beasts those guys are!
-
He still has a bent arm there, nowhere near full extension. If he were to fully extend his arm there and also dislocate his shoulder really well then he'd touch the top of the backboard.
-
Best example: James white.
I chose him from tdub, jusfly, aut etc because he jumps just as high, but he is 6'7'' and he is a profesional basketball player, trying to get a chance in the NBA from 2006 that he was drafted.
Not saying something new here, just making more clear what kind of basketball beasts those guys are!
Wow AMAZING photo and great example vag. Probably one of the taller ridiculous athletes to still struggle to get a spot. And the thing is it's not like he is "bad" skill wise. I'm certain he would still really impress at more than athleticism; he averaged 23 pts a game in the d-league and shot 35% from behind the three point line. So to recap; he is tall enough, ridiculously athletic enough (far more than necessary), and he is ridiculous skilled. But still not skilled enough. NBA basketball players have the unfortunate problem of playing against great defenders which really makes it hard to appreciate just how great they are at their game. The failures of guys really great players drive the point home pretty well though.
About James White, I wonder if their is some truth to his athleticism being less useful because he jumps off one foot? I made the point in the beast thread that when height is factored in as an athletic attribute their is a level you can reach where you will get a starting job in the NBA no matter your skill level (eg DeAndre Jordan @ 7 feet, Strong, Fast, Can Jump ). I wonder where the magic point is to where you won't get picked up just on athleticism. I personally know moderately athletic and highly skilled guys who are in the 6'5'' range who haven't came close to getting a shot..... Where's the sweet spot, if your 6'9 and have athletic ability will you get a spot no matter what? If James White was 6'7 but jumped off two feet and was a little stronger could he carve out a rebounding, spot shooting, hybrid role based on his ability? I don't know but I do know the D-League really hurts some of these guys. Before the D-League you might get an NBA contract coming out of school if you were tall, strong, fast, etc and they would hope you developed. Now they can put you in the d-league and see if you can develop the technical skill.... If you don't then you never cash a big check.
-
Best example: James white.
I chose him from tdub, jusfly, aut etc because he jumps just as high, but he is 6'7'' and he is a profesional basketball player, trying to get a chance in the NBA from 2006 that he was drafted.
Not saying something new here, just making more clear what kind of basketball beasts those guys are!
Wow AMAZING photo and great example vag. Probably one of the taller ridiculous athletes to still struggle to get a spot. And the thing is it's not like he is "bad" skill wise. I'm certain he would still really impress at more than athleticism; he averaged 23 pts a game in the d-league and shot 35% from behind the three point line. So to recap; he is tall enough, ridiculously athletic enough (far more than necessary), and he is ridiculous skilled. But still not skilled enough. NBA basketball players have the unfortunate problem of playing against great defenders which really makes it hard to appreciate just how great they are at their game. The failures of guys really great players drive the point home pretty well though.
About James White, I wonder if their is some truth to his athleticism being less useful because he jumps off one foot? I made the point in the beast thread that when height is factored in as an athletic attribute their is a level you can reach where you will get a starting job in the NBA no matter your skill level (eg DeAndre Jordan @ 7 feet, Strong, Fast, Can Jump ). I wonder where the magic point is to where you won't get picked up just on athleticism. I personally know moderately athletic and highly skilled guys who are in the 6'5'' range who haven't came close to getting a shot..... Where's the sweet spot, if your 6'9 and have athletic ability will you get a spot no matter what? If James White was 6'7 but jumped off two feet and was a little stronger could he carve out a rebounding, spot shooting, hybrid role based on his ability? I don't know but I do know the D-League really hurts some of these guys. Before the D-League you might get an NBA contract coming out of school if you were tall, strong, fast, etc and they would hope you developed. Now they can put you in the d-league and see if you can develop the technical skill.... If you don't then you never cash a big check.
If you're good enough to play D-league you're probs good enough to go off to Europe and make big bucks. The majority of the players in the D-league are just sacrificing the money of international leagues for the exposure of trying to achieve their NBA dream. Basketball can take you all throughout the world if you're good enough.
Also with the point your making about James White and the 6'5 dudes. I think the term you're looking for is 'tweener'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweener_(basketball)
Either way it's better to be a tweener than a short coz basketball is a tall man's game.