DOPING and GENETIC POTENTIAL

You don't know what you're talking about!

Laymen love to attribute the results of Olympic athletes to doping and there is no doubt that many athletes are using drugs that are not detected by doping tests. However, it is simplistic to claim that a weightlifting athlete or sprinter is using steroids. Steroids are drugs that are easy to detect by doping tests and even when an athlete uses out of season, their performance tends to decline after use, so any experienced athlete and trainer knows that oscillating the dose of steroids is not a smart thing, because during games olympics what you want is that the athlete's training period coincides with his maximum performance and this occurs after the use of steroids is impossible. I trained a lot of natural time, before using steroids, and one thing is for sure, my strength was more stable and kept me with a more stable performance than after I used steroids. I can even say that in general it was stronger, although I recognize that strength increases with the use of steroids, especially with the periodization of training and diet.

Even more misleading is to attribute the physique of gymnasts and weightlifting athletes to the use of steroids. It doesn't make any sense. There is a great genetic variability among the population, so some people can reach differentiated physicists, just like Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, Simone Biles, are athletes with very different performances, and this is because they compete with athletes that are already considered the elite of the sporting world. Attributing the performance of these athletes to the use of prohibited substances is simplistic, because the use of drugs is very varied among athletes and it is expected that athletes with a potential above the average will win athletes who are doped.

An important point is to consider how much a drug actually improves an athlete's performance? Apparently, this is unlikely to exceed ~ 1% (I'm guessing here based on historical results). If you see a 77kg athlete lifting 175kg at the start (Lu Xiaojun) it is very difficult to believe that this athlete is not using any drugs, but which drugs are capable of increasing the athlete's strength and are not detectable in doping? And if the athlete is using any substance, what% q did the drug contribute to him reaching that mark? If he lifted 160-170 kg without taking anything, lay people would also doubt it, pseudo-drug experts would not have a different opinion. They have no idea how much training and genetic potential are the real difference for the top athlete. I'm not saying that athletes don't use drugs, just that this stupid simplification that doesn't make any sense.

To be clearer, let's look at the 100 meters and its historical marks. Anabolic steroids were only synthesized from 1935 and use in sports, apparently from historical data, only started in the early 1950s (Soviet weightlifters). Even if you don't believe us, let's look at the brands:

Without doping control:

Charlie Paddock- 10.4 s (1921)
Ralph Metcalfe- 10.3 s (1934)
Jesse Owens- 10.2 s (1936)
Armin Hary- 10 s (1960)
doping control started at the 1968 Olympics:
Jim Hines- 9.95 s (1968)
Carl Lewis- 9.93 s (1988)
Ben Johnson- 9.79 s (1988) - fell on doping
Asafa Powell- 9.77s (2005)
Tyson Gay- 9.69s (2009)
Usain Bolt- 9.58s (2009)

It is important to remember that these marks are records and not results that happen frequently (considering the most recent results of each season), because obviously today elite athletes already run below 10 s. Reflect, if they use drugs, what% improvement can be attributed to the drug?
It is common to doping in athletics, involving great athletes. however, the Usain Bolt myth was never caught up in doping. I am not saying that he does not use anything, but to what extent can his marks be attributed to the use of some substance? It is good to remember that before 1968 there was no control and even so the athletes were running over 10 seconds. In other words, with tighter control over time, athletes also improved performance. Ben Johnson broke a record in 1988, but was using stanozolol. Today it is more difficult to use this type of steroid before competitions, but Tim Montgomery had his record canceled in 2002 and Justin Gatlin in 2006. Both for the use of testosterone. Tyson Gay fell into doping in 2013. As we can see, doping is common in this sport, but it was to be expected that in the past it was much easier to run faster without doping control. Were they new drugs? Maybe so, but as we see some athletes continue to use steroids.

It is more common for laypersons to attribute the use of steroids to weightlifters and gymnasts, because some of these athletes have different physiques and absurd strength. However, the specificity of the training and the genetic potential are the real differential. If you compare the physique of these athletes you will notice that there are many differences. I do not know to what extent the use of drugs is widespread in these sports, but they are not the ones that explain the difference in the physique of these athletes. How much they contribute to increasing the strength of weightlifters is difficult to say, but anyone who understands drugs and training knows that to get the most out of the athlete in a competition the two things need to be in harmony. When there is doping control this is not easy, so when you look at an athlete and attribute your results to drugs you don't really know what you're talking about, it's just a layman speculating. I prefer to believe that sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. Not least because no drugs explain phenomena like Owens, Phelps, Biles, Bolt, Armstrong, Ronnie Coleman or this Chinese in the picture.

Leave a comment