Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Women's shot and discus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Women's shot and discus

    As a distance fan, I don't really do a lot of research in these events. I know a little bit about some of the US stars and some of the all-time list leaders. And I know that in the last 10+/- years quality standards have had to be redefined.

    What I didn't realize, until looking at Peter Larsson's lists, was how MUCH they had been redefined.

    Like no all-time top 50 disc performances since 93 and no top 150 since 90. Like only 1 of the top 300 (including ancilliary) since 93 ... or something like that.

    Obviously, I know what it has a lot to do with, but I guess I'm still astounded.

    I guess I want to believe that there should be NATURALLY big, strong women out there who can throw 70m unaided. Maybe not 250 feet, but surely more 225+.

    With the shot, why shouldn't the biggest, strongest girls throw 21m/68 ft.? I know we've had US list revisions with a little more consistency over the years, and we have good younguns like Laura G. ... and also some of the best women may be doing other sports or no sports at all. I mean, shoot, it seems like I see big women walking around all the time that could throw at least 60 feet with some training, surely a few who could do 68.

    What do some of you experts in these events think? I don't necessarily want to hear how drug testing or the fall of the Eastern Bloc programs have changed the sport, but whether or not girls can be developed, CLEANLY, to what were the old world-class standards ... at least 21-21.50 in the shot and 70-72m in the disc ... or something like that.

    Opinions???

  • #2
    Re: Women's shot and discus

    Great questions ... PLEASE copy and paste your post on the RING ... I would love to here what they say.

    http://www.web-ster.com/kcarr/dischat.html

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Women's shot and discus

      bump

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Women's shot and discus

        bump ... what?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Women's shot and discus

          bumping up the thread so more people can see it and reply to it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Women's shot and discus

            I'll cover your bump and raise you...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Women's shot and discus

              From a post i made on the historical side of the board back in June, relative to what roids might be worth. This from the London Telegraph:

              << In one captured Stasi file written by the Sports Medical Service Deputy Director Manfred Hoppner (March 3, 1977), a man to whom Dr Arbeit reported, Hoppner states: "The positive value of anabolic steroids for the development of a top performance is undoubted.

              "Here are a few examples. . . Performances could be improved with the support of these drugs within four years as follows: Shot putt (men) 2.5-4 metres; Shot putt (women) 4.5-5m; Discus throw (men) 10-12m; Discus throw (women) 11-20m; Javelin throw (women) 8-15m, 400m (women) 4-5sec; 800m (women) 5-10sec, 1500m (women) 7-10 sec." Dr Arbeit was a throwing coach for the East German Federation from 1982-88.>>

              Comment


              • #8
                Steriods and Improvements

                from the RING ...

                Ken Sprague 16:46 PST, 08/27/2003
                Re: Hunter, "How much do drugs help, even after the suspension is served? "

                You've posed an interesting question that goes to the heart of drug use and reinstatement (if caught).

                I can give you an anecdotal-based opinion derived from my personal drug use (steroids) and my observation of/interaction with several thousand steroid users when I owned the original Golds Gym. The users came from all power sports, and, of course, bodybuilding. [I do not believe there is any on-point research that clearly dissects the issues regarding later benefits from steroid use.]

                First, there is no question that steroids help build muscle and power during the interval the steroids are being ingested. There are two reasons; (1) the well known anabolic properties that enhance the rate of recovery, allowing more minutes in the gym per unit of time and more intensity in training. (2) There is an undeniable psychological stimulus---a greater psychic drive. In short, the physical and mental aspects combine in a feedback loop---the athlete gets stronger, he trains harder, gets even stronger, trains even harder, ... It's impossible to tabulate the relative contribution of the physical and mental components of the loop. [I was a "hard-gainer" who gained 28 pounds in bodyweight and ~150 pounds on my Olympic total (3 lifts at that time)in 30 days on just three-5mg dianabol tablets per day.]

                Now the issue: how much of the gains attributable to steroids remain after the athlete goes cold turkey? I can only put it this way: I doubt that I would be as strong as I am today---30-40 years after taking steroids---had I not taken steroids. There is no question that Arnold, a training partner, would be as "big" today had he not taken steroids back in the 60s and 70s.

                Hence, from these anecdotal recollections, steroids impact size and strength as long as 30 and 40 years later. That being the case, a mere six month lag between steroid-supplemented-training and "clean" competition would produce a substantial [and unfair] competitive advantage.

                NOTE: When I took steroids, they were legal and prescribed by my family physician. They were part-and-parcel of bodybuilding and lifting---there was neither a stigma nor a competitive advantage attached to ingestion. Incidentally, I knew numerous Olympic T&F athletes who trained on steroids during that era---and I'm certain (having known thousaunds of users, I can spot the symptoms as easily as spotting eye color)that the US throwers of today that I've met do not take steroids.

                In talking to young athletes, I make the point that steroids are literally a federal crime---and only a fool would risk the slammer for quick muscle gains, since the near-equivalent can be had through hard work.

                Of course, today there is a moral line that should not be crossed: it's cheating to use steroids. My POV is that users should be barred from competition for life---particularly given my POV that steroids provide a benefit far beyond the actual steroid-supported training.

                Ken Sprague

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Steriods and Improvements

                  What I would like to ask to one of the older and wiser athletes(I am only 16) is: When an athlete tests positive for a banned substance(nandrolone, steroids,testosterone etc) shouldn't a hair test be taken. This is far more accurate than urine testing, but alot more expensive. This should clear up any doubts on whether an athlete is guilty, so they could be banned for life. I find it hard to believe the weak testing and banning processes in place at the moment. Mihknevich is obviously a giant(2.02, 120 kg) but a lot of his strength probably was built up using the illegal substances he took. It almost depresses me as a young thrower who puts 16m at 16years old, as one wonders how you will ever be a 21m thrower if you stayed clean. Just looking how much protein powder did for me(1kg of muscle a week for a month still going) steroids must do an absolute monster job, so it is unfair for a banned athlete to come back. But, all athletes must stay away from steroids, they are illegal.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X