National, World + Olympic Qualifying Standards

stockshares

I'm reading the book Speed Trap by Charlie Francis (who was Ben Johnson's coach).

He said that that qualifying standards set by governing bodies can't be met without drugs.

Quote

"Nobody needs to enhance or encourage drug use. You (the gov body) just set the time standards and see who comes to the table. The testimony at the Dubin Inquiry is clear: no one knew of any example of a shot putter who ever threw 20 meters clean. The standard for getting on the Canadian Olympic team in 1988 was 20.50!"

Does anyone know what the qualifying standards are for Irish athletes to enter National, World and Olympic events? Ive looked through Irishathletics.ie but couldnt find them.

I would like to compare these standards against previous world records that were obtained by athletes either known or thought to have used Peds.

Thank you

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058311768/national-world-olympic-qualifying-standards

The most recent WC Qualifying Standards

It is worth noting that Francis made these claims to justify doping his athletes. There are many athletes who have achieved and surpassed those levels while operating cleanly due to changes in training methodology, advancements in nutrition and recovery methods, development of technology (track surface and shoe tech)

It is very easy to claim all running faster than X are doping but in truth its a lazy argument with no level of nuance to it whatsoever

stockshares

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121056162#Comment_121056162

Thanks very much for the chart, it's very helpful.

I realise Francis could be using the qualifying standards to justify doping but a lot of what he says makes sense.

At the time the book was written he estimated doping(Dianabol) would give you a 1 metre advantage.

Its asking a lot to believe that changes in diet and training methodology would improve times to the same extent.

When you consider that East German sprinters like Marita Koch in the 1980s had teams of sports scientists behind them, researching every methodology + technique possible using the nations pool of athletes.

What more diet + training knowledge is there to learn?

Many sprinters still use Francis's training system today.

Im not trying to be provocative but I am sceptical of recent results in the World Championships. It was uplifting to see the improvements being made but it got me thinking how the results compared to achievements by known dopers.

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121056734#Comment_121056734

It's a fair question to ask but I don't believe its as unlikely to attribute progression to non PED advancements

In terms of sports science there have been huge advances in the past 40 years. For starters we have a better understanding of things like static stretching vs dynamic, the role of inflammation on recovery, a complete 180 on the role of ice baths, the development of aqua running, Alter G treadmills, even the likes of compression boots being part of the daily routine all aiding recovery to the point where a Charlie Francis heavy volume training approach is actually possible to absorb for mere mortals*

What used to require performance enhancing drugs in order to aid recovery to the point can now be done by means of natural interventions. As for track technology there have been major albeit subtle advancements Even look in the past decade you can see how much has come on (and why you see big improvements at championship level

https://worldathletics.org/competitions/olympic-games/news/mondo-ws-ty4-track-tokyo-olympics

stockshares

That's an eye opener , I wasn't aware recovery methods had advanced so much .

Whats the best source for info on the recovery methods you mentioned? I'm interested especially in inflammation and stretching cos Ive been having numerous niggly problems with my joints.

I thought the tracks would be a factor in world records but I overlooked their importance when comparing current times against historical.

Regarding tracks:

In the book Francis recalled the first session his squad had with Gerard Mach(former Polish head of Track) who had been recruited by Canadian Sport before the Montreal Olympics.

Quote "The track was Gras stex, a reddish tar that is decent enough in dry weather, though not equal to the more modern Tartan, a synthetic rubber surface. But the track had been freshly coated, and on this moist Toronto spring day you could see pools of oil collecting on the surface. When we tried to get into a set position, our fingers slid uncontrollably. "This is garbage," Gerard snapped. "Where is the nearest Tartan track?" We advised him that it was in Winnipeg, 1,500 miles away. "My God!" said the new coach. "There are 100 Tartan tracks in Africa-we have six in Warsaw alone. Never mind we will go to Font Romeau in the French Pyrenees-they have a fantastic training centre at 7,000 feet. You're a rich country; we'll all go for six weeks. Then everything will be fine."

Mach couldn't understand that you couldn't snap your fingers and arrange camps like that in the West. The Eastern Bloc at that time had such resources that it's a wonder anyone from outside it won any comps.

If you compare those old tracks to the one you posted above imagine the doping going on back then. Some records from back then still stand.

Another thing I just realised when looking into records is that two times can look very close on paper but they hide the actual difference between them.

For example in the times below there is a difference of 1 metre between first and second. It could take years of training to make up that difference.

100metres race

1st 10:00

2nd 10:10

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121057812#Comment_121057812

There is an ever increasing body of literature if you look on the likes of Pubmed or NCBI databases regarding studies.

Here is a decent article on the matter

https://thesportjournal.org/article/the-r-i-c-e-protocol-is-a-myth-a-review-and-recommendations/

As for stretching similarly the body of scientific information available. You can use any basic sports therapy education study list as most will contain elements on stretching specifically around static, active and developmental stretching or the biology around neuromuscular junction and golgi tendon mechanisms as a decent starting point.

I am not attributing all improvements simply down to advancements however there is still a doping culture but I think need to look at things as multifaceted when discussing peformances