undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmedium_burrito5y ago0 comments

It's hard to assume anything else. If you are not cheating, you are not trying hard enough to win.

If you look at a chart of when EPO became available, and all those good knowledgeable DDR sport med docs became available on the free market, there's this discontinuous drop in world records fro pretty much all endurance sports.

Notice the discontinuity around 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10,000_metres_world_record_pro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5000_metres_world_record_progr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_record_progression_1500_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France_records_and_sta...

You'll see similar changes with the introduction of synthetic testosterone in weight lifting records, and the physical appearance of the top bodybuilders.

EDIT: And this ignores "mechanical" doping in cycling- where you stick an electric motor on the bike. We've suspected it for a while at the pro ranks, and got confirmation when a small fry got nabbed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femke_Van_den_Driessche

0 comments

10 comments · 4 top-level

DoofusOfDeath5y ago· 3 in thread

> If you are not cheating, you are not trying hard enough to win.

I wonder if we're using different definitions of "win" here. To my way of thinking, if a person has cheated, they didn't win, regardless of what the official judges conclude.

(Apologies if I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make.)

medium_burritoOP5y ago

To paraphrase the only real rule in another famous sport: "The winning player shall be the first player that wins."

If you are the top of any sport, there's money, fame, groupies, etc. There's a real incentive to do it.

Moreover, the audience wants to see superhumans and world records broken. To paraphrase Futurama about women's basketball "good fundamentals, but can't dunk". The governing bodies of all pro sports look the other way.

gowld5y ago

OK, but then almost no professional or Olympic athlete has won anything in the past 30 years.

DoofusOfDeath5y ago

> OK, but then almost no professional or Olympic athlete has won anything in the past 30 years.

I don't know what fraction of those athletes cheated. But I consider my definition of "win" to be reasonable regardless of how many competitors cheat.

This reminds me of a famous quote[0]:

> When Abraham Lincoln was asked by a prosecuting attorney, “How many legs does a sheep have?” He replied, “Four.” The attorney then asked, “If you called a sheep’s tail a leg, how many legs would he have?” Lincoln replied, “Four. Merely because you call a sheep’s tail a leg does not make it one.”

[0] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/11/15/legs/#:~:text=When%...

1 more reply

alasdair_5y ago· 2 in thread

That mechanical doping suspension was interesting to learn about. The rider wasn’t caught with a motorized bike, instead the bike was found in their pit and (supposedly) didn’t belong to the rider but due to the rules the rider was treated as if it was their bike.

chillwaves5y ago

Sounds like she was caught with a motorized bike.

> Van den Driessche had been taking part in the inaugural under 23 women’s event, which was won by Britain’s Evie Richards. The Belgian and European under 23 champion had gone in as a pre-race favourite but did not feature at the front. She was eventually forced off her bike on the final lap when she was struck by mechanical problems and ended up walking with her bike.

> Van den Driessche’s bike was taken for inspection along with several other bikes after the race. It quickly became apparent that something was wrong with her bike and news of the discovery quickly spread; however it is only this Sunday morning that they revealed their discovery. It gives Van den Driessche the dubious honour of being the first rider to be discovered to be using a motor. Incidentally, Van den Driessche’s brother Niels is currently suspended for doping.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-confirms-motorised-dopi...

michaelt5y ago

According to [1] it was literally the bike she rode the race on.

Her claim is the motorised bike belonged to a friend, was handed to her in error, and she rode the race on it without using the motor as she didn't know it was there.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/bike-investigated-technologi...

AtlasBarfed5y ago· 1 in thread

With the carbon fiber shoes, there is now essentially mechanical, uh, "assistance" in running.

Improvement of equipment is always a massive gray area. Cycling (aside from electric motors) has aerodynamic bikes, wind tunnel access. XC skiing has environmentally bad teflon wax. Swimming, theoretically the most naked/equipment-less sport, has sharkskin suits and buoyancy aids.

There are other advantages like expensive altitude tents.

medium_burritoOP5y ago

Wax and aerodynamic equipment certainly make a difference, but a bucket of fresh Amgen red blood cells is even better- and for cycling at least, works uphill, whereas aero doesn't matter under 18mph.

opportune5y ago

Well at least in bodybuilding they are open about and silently condone PED usage rather than making it a game of who can do the most without getting caught. It does make it so that you need to be doing very large amount of PEDs to even have a chance at winning Mr Olympia though.

I don’t feel qualified to remark on other sports but based on casual observation of the opinions of bodybuilding fans or even wrestling fans/people into Hollywood, it seems most regular people are very ignorant about PED usage as a phenomenon.

There are limits to the rate that you can pack on muscle mass or how much you can maintain at a low body fat percentage which are telltale signs of PED use (not that I judge it, but just to temper my own expectations). I think many people’s ignorance of these signs are fueling body dysmorphia and insecurity. It’s better if people are aware of how common PED usage is in bodybuilding, Hollywood, and “instagram bodybuilders”

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

10 comments · 4 top-level

DoofusOfDeath5y ago· 3 in thread

> If you are not cheating, you are not trying hard enough to win.

I wonder if we're using different definitions of "win" here. To my way of thinking, if a person has cheated, they didn't win, regardless of what the official judges conclude.

(Apologies if I'm misunderstanding the point you're trying to make.)

medium_burritoOP5y ago

To paraphrase the only real rule in another famous sport: "The winning player shall be the first player that wins."

If you are the top of any sport, there's money, fame, groupies, etc. There's a real incentive to do it.

gowld5y ago

OK, but then almost no professional or Olympic athlete has won anything in the past 30 years.

DoofusOfDeath5y ago

> OK, but then almost no professional or Olympic athlete has won anything in the past 30 years.

I don't know what fraction of those athletes cheated. But I consider my definition of "win" to be reasonable regardless of how many competitors cheat.

This reminds me of a famous quote[0]:

[0] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/11/15/legs/#:~:text=When%...

1 more reply

alasdair_5y ago· 2 in thread

chillwaves5y ago

Sounds like she was caught with a motorized bike.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-confirms-motorised-dopi...

michaelt5y ago

According to [1] it was literally the bike she rode the race on.

Her claim is the motorised bike belonged to a friend, was handed to her in error, and she rode the race on it without using the motor as she didn't know it was there.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/bike-investigated-technologi...

AtlasBarfed5y ago· 1 in thread

With the carbon fiber shoes, there is now essentially mechanical, uh, "assistance" in running.

There are other advantages like expensive altitude tents.

medium_burritoOP5y ago

Wax and aerodynamic equipment certainly make a difference, but a bucket of fresh Amgen red blood cells is even better- and for cycling at least, works uphill, whereas aero doesn't matter under 18mph.

opportune5y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse