With Tiger Woods dominating golf on a level never seen, Valentino Rossi doing the same in MotoGP racing, Ricky Charmichael doing the same both in Supercross and Outdoor Motocross and Lance Armstrong winning his forth consecutive Tour de France are we in an era of super atheletes or is the competition not as good as it used to be?

http://www.industrypages.com/...dustry_News_1394.stm

http://www.industrypages.com/...dustry_News_1396.stm

http://www.industrypages.com/...dustry_News_1360.stm

Well with golf I don't think it's a case of poor competition, I think Tiger is just naturally more gifted but also works harder. The others are cottening on now though and going to the gym to improve their fitness and monitoring their diet etc....Tiger isn't "totally" invincible though as seen by his 10 over par 81 at the British Open...hehe

Yes, I agree.

But it seems that there is an aire of the super athelete about in numerous venues.

The motorcycle racing ones for example, Valentino Rossi has just flat dominated this year with 9 pole positions and 9 wins out of 10 races (maybe it is 10 out of 11 now). And RC has gone 18 straight moto wins with 9 race wins (beating Bob Hannahs' record of 8 which has stood for somewhere around 10 years or more.

As per Tiger, well you saw what happened the last time he had a little dip in his play. He broke so many records the following year that they all thought he was the devil incarnate! LOL

I was trying to think of another and the sport slipped my mind but I just remembered....Michael Schumacher and Formula 1 racing.

What always amazes me, is that world records are still being broken left right and center... are humans that much different every four years (olympics) that they can out do themselves?

Like that aussie who now holds 17 world records in the swimming pool, now there is an example of a super athelete!


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

Ian Thorpe
Cheers,
Michael Bray

The new records usually lie exponentially compared to the other ones. We did a study in my Statistics class and we estimated around what year records will no longer be broken by 1 or more seconds. I forget what year that was.. but it was like.. 2032 or something. But yea.. what I mean by expenentially is that the decrease in time keeps getting smaller and smaller as newer records come in. If it was constant.. the record continue to be beaten until someone could swim a mile in under -1 seconds.. which we _should_ all know is.. just.. impossible. Unless... you can really do something and save a second of time while doing it.

--
jsu

Thats his name... how could I forget a fellow Ian!


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

Strength and endurance records will continue to fall year after year based upon the quality of training, food products, supplements, etc... advancing at the same time.

10 years ago you had to take steroids to get big. Now you don't and the products are safe. So as products advance so will records fall.

On another note, equipment technology such as golf clubs, etc... also play a big part in the crushing of standing records.

So its not as much the human element, but the external thins such as food and methods of training and so on.

Though, have you noticed how people seem to be getting taller (and fatter in a lot of cases). I wonder what impact the 20th century has had on human evolution.


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

People can make steroids that are harder to detect now. I am sure a very significant of athletes in the olympics etc use steriods and get away with it.
Cheers,
Michael Bray

Its a tough "game" for the atheletes. A competitor could have undetected drugs in them, while they were disqualified for having a common steriod you get from a peice of steak found in their blood.


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

I think the commitees should drop all "legal" drugs and stimulants from the lists and let the person make the choices.

>>
I think the commitees should drop all "legal" drugs and stimulants from the lists and let the person make the choices.
<<

That would just make a mockery of all sports if they are known to alter performance

I think the commitees are currently doing just that. They are not fair and even handed in their approach as seen in numerous Olympiads iver the years.

Legal drugs are legal. How can a committee state that one drug/supplement is OK to use and another not when you can but them over the counter or at your local muscle shop without a prescription?

You can buy them over the counter because they must be safe.....there is no law against altering your performance in daily life, but that is totally different if you know you are going to be taking part in sporting competitions.

But that is the point. What makes something safe and legal for use anywhere except these certain sporting events?

Football and Baseball came out and said " We do not like the use of steriods" but they did not ban any of them with the exception of Illegal drugs.

Aminos, Protiens, even topical steriod stimulators along with creatine when taken help you body create testosterone. But they do not contain it.

>>
What makes something safe and legal for use anywhere except these certain sporting events?
<<

Thats what I just said above...there is nothing wrong with altering your performance for your day to day life...hell thats what caffeine does...but if you are taking part in a sporting event then you shouldn't be taking something that gives you the edge over competitors.

It's the difference in performance that is the issue, not the safety.

So the rule should be based upon those who choose to not use them?

If everyone used them would it still be an issue?

>>
So the rule should be based upon those who choose to not use them?
<<

How do you mean?

>>
If everyone used them would it still be an issue?
<<

It should be as they can affect people in different ways I guess, so it would still be unfair. Just like a 20 stone bloke could probably drink 10 pints of beer and an 8 stone weakling could probably only manage about 3.

If no drugs are taken then its fair (as it is left up to nature...or maybe nature isn't fair either)...damn life's a bitch.

These rules committees spend more time looking at supplements then virtually anything else. But I guess one thing about legal vs. not really stands out. In some countries some drugs may be legal that are not in others. So basing it on legality would not work. So really all that they can do is either ban them all or allow them all.

So from that standpoint it makes sense.

But, the real question is why, during times when these drugs were not banned, did we not see records that would never get broke? Maybe because the difference in performance is subtle enough to be covered by human evolution over a given time.

I personally use supplements, topical steriods and aminos without any issues whatsoever. But I am also never going out for an Olympic game so who cares! LOL