Athletics...

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Athletics...

Postby [XAP]Bob » 3 May 2017, 12:32pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39789773

Seems a bit harsh to me.

Looking at the Long Jump record, it's stood for 26 years, but it only betters the previous record by 5cm (a fraction of a percent), and that had stood for 23 years...
Maybe there is a just a fundamental limit to how far people can hurl themselves without significant aids...

There are probably some individual records that are questionable - but when you are considering deleting an uncontested record which has been *nearly* equalled in recent years then I think something is terribly wrong...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Geoff.D
Posts: 1959
Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 9:20pm

Re: Athletics...

Postby Geoff.D » 4 May 2017, 10:12am

[XAP]Bob wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39789773

Seems a bit harsh to me.


I agree.

This is just one of the many debates that arise in a number of contexts, not just sport. It's essentially a debate of ethics versus realities. if the "authorities" draw a line which defines the ethical standards, how do you manage the situation when some people (invariable) step over the line for their advantage.

In the past there have been other sporting situations that have caused the same sort of conflict -
- the illegal payments to players during the amateur era (eg to tennis and rugby union players)
- the introduction of recumbents in road racing in France
- the use of sponsorship and overt advertising of sponsors names
- (a long time ago) the situation where southern rugby teams were typically made up of self employed men who could take time out and the northern teams represented industrial employers but were not allowed time out (to play and train).

In each of these situations the dilemma was solved by either a rules change by the authorities or a breakaway faction set up its own body -
- professionalism was allowed
- the recumbent world has its own world championships and record system
- sponsorship and advertising was allowed (with certain restrictions)
- the northern rugby clubs set up their own rugby "Union" which ultimately gave birth to the game of Rugby League.

Should these historical patterns be replicated in this situation, we could either have a new set of rules (which is essentially what is being proposed, but unfortunately being applied in retrospect) or a breakaway, parallel athletics federation which allows drug taking (athletes would choose which federation to ply their trade under, and so to for sponsors/public).

Moral dilemmas in either scenario.
Last edited by Geoff.D on 4 May 2017, 10:36am, edited 1 time in total.

fishfright
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Feb 2014, 11:18am

Re: Athletics...

Postby fishfright » 4 May 2017, 10:17am

If they do this I will totally believe all athletes are now 100% clean /s

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 11409
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Athletics...

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 4 May 2017, 10:28am

Hi,
The media reported yesterday but as per usual I could not grasp what they were on about, probably my poor education.

On the other side the real breaking news is -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39802636
"The Duke of Edinburgh is retiring from royal duties this autumn, Buckingham Palace has announced. "

Aparently I heard said this morning " Lists will have to be re-written"................. :?
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

Psamathe
Posts: 11242
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Athletics...

Postby Psamathe » 4 May 2017, 10:46am

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:....
On the other side the real breaking news is -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39802636
"The Duke of Edinburgh is retiring from royal duties this autumn, Buckingham Palace has announced. "

Aparently I heard said this morning " Lists will have to be re-written"................. :?

Unless you are a Sun reader .... (so much for "Fake News" and the Murdoch's being "fit and proper ...").

Ian

Psamathe
Posts: 11242
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Athletics...

Postby Psamathe » 4 May 2017, 10:55am

[XAP]Bob wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39789773

Seems a bit harsh to me.
.......

I've been seeing and reading about this and think either it has been poorly reported or it is too complex to report properly (or I've missed the better reports). It does sound harsh but I think a lot must depend on the criteria used to keep or discard world records. The linked BBC article says on this "If the move is approved, world records would only be recognised if they can stand up to strict new criteria.". But it all comes down to how strict? Do people think it was right that Lance Armstrong be stripped of awards he got even for races where he has not directly confessed to using doping? There are a couple of examples of record holders in the article but have they been told that their records would not stand the proposed scrutiny or just that the details would need examining/checking.

I wonder how much of it and how fair it is comes to "the devil (or not) is in the detail".

Ian

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 11409
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Athletics...

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 4 May 2017, 11:21am

Hi,
Psamathe wrote:
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:....
On the other side the real breaking news is -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39802636
"The Duke of Edinburgh is retiring from royal duties this autumn, Buckingham Palace has announced. "

Aparently I heard said this morning " Lists will have to be re-written"................. :?

Unless you are a Sun reader .... (so much for "Fake News" and the Murdoch's being "fit and proper ...").

Ian

You must be :lol:
I had to be prompted by you :wink:
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Athletics...

Postby [XAP]Bob » 4 May 2017, 2:05pm

Psamathe wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/39789773

Seems a bit harsh to me.
.......

I've been seeing and reading about this and think either it has been poorly reported or it is too complex to report properly (or I've missed the better reports). It does sound harsh but I think a lot must depend on the criteria used to keep or discard world records. The linked BBC article says on this "If the move is approved, world records would only be recognised if they can stand up to strict new criteria.". But it all comes down to how strict? Do people think it was right that Lance Armstrong be stripped of awards he got even for races where he has not directly confessed to using doping? There are a couple of examples of record holders in the article but have they been told that their records would not stand the proposed scrutiny or just that the details would need examining/checking.

I wonder how much of it and how fair it is comes to "the devil (or not) is in the detail".

Ian


I don't necessarily object to the removal of records by people who were found (at some point) to have been taking performance enhancing drugs (although given the complexity of enforcement and TUEs etc nowadays...)

But there are records that are uncontested - no-one has ever said that the athletes who produced them were on drugs...
And they're being disregarded because? The system wasn't around in those days to keep samples for ten years?!

That's just bonkers.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Geoff.D
Posts: 1959
Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 9:20pm

Re: Athletics...

Postby Geoff.D » 4 May 2017, 3:05pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:But there are records that are uncontested - no-one has ever said that the athletes who produced them were on drugs...
And they're being disregarded because? The system wasn't around in those days to keep samples for ten years?!

That's just bonkers.


+1

A consequence of taking this proposed approach is that, in order to combat more and more sophisticated drug cheating, the authorities will continually need a more robust, sophisticated system. By this precedence, they will then have to apply the standards retrospectively again. And again and again, at further upgradings of the drug detection system.

No athlete who holds a world record will be ever confident that his/her record will be acknowledged in the future, whether he/she is clean or not. All records will be subject to the caveat "only valid with reference to the testing standards applied at the time".

Tangled Metal
Posts: 6460
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Athletics...

Postby Tangled Metal » 4 May 2017, 4:14pm

Interesting thing I looked into. Mike Powell the current men's long jump record holder has said he'll go to court over this. In the article the journalist said his was a sport of minute improvements and the last two record holders held it for 20 odd years each. The idea being that each improvement was very small and wasn't beaten for a long time implies it's a safer bet the holders were clean, being just an athlete that's so much better than existing that comes along one every generation.

Partly true. Powell jumped 5cm but Beamon jumped 55cm further than the previous holder the year before, both at altitude. The current holder was not at altitude.

With this example I'd certainly question the previous holder due to the huge rise in distance that happened a year after the last record holder. IIRC there were a few broken long jump records over the years 1966-68. It might just be a case that a period of intense competition from a few very good athletes led to one stepping up with something special. I think these athletes are not like us there is that bit extra that makes for their competitive edge.

Basically I would tend to believe certain records like long jump where it could he argued that without a technical development in technique or training the athletes could be very close to human limit. Long held records with small increases. Perhaps ones which are close to existing performances in big competitions. If the current crop can't get close to a record then I'd question.

I personally think there should be an open review of each record. Look for unusual patterns in the holder's performance before and after. Compare with contemporaries and if a long held record the modem athletes too. Unusual patterns that can't be explained then perhaps decide on voiding that record. I'm sure there's some way to calculate probabilities of cheating.

Jonathon Edwards record in the triple jump was a big improvement on previous record IIRC. He was consistently getting good results in big competitions and close to the record leading up to it. He also broke it again a few times and continued getting close. Later on others came along and met him at the same level. I doubt his record and his successor is suspect.

I'm sure the experts know more about who has given n suspect performances. Certainly I remember a British distance runner turned commentator making comments about a Chinese runner who was smashing the record or being so much improved over the rest of the quality field. IIRC he described it as disgusting and the officials should do something about it. That athlete disappeared from the scene afterwards, possibly after some steps were taken to improve the anti-doping process.

Pick on suspect records not all records before a certain date.