Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:29:00 -0500 From: "edndana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: t-and-f: Track v other sports
> I disagree. I think that many people believe that the current testing > procedure has greatly reduced the amount of drug usage. Obviously, the > only way to settle this would be an empirical survey of fan attitudes about > different sports. As I've written on this list, the historic performance > data are consistent with the imposition of drug testing in the 1980s > creating a significant deterrent that has shown in the events most aided by > performance enhancing drugs.
And also consistent with EPO being invented and untestable for over a decade. And I should note that improvements in the walks have been just as significant as in the other endurance events - this despite a rule change in the early 1990's that made things more restrictive (although in practice it didn't require slower technique, it just made it easier for the judges to see infractions).
- - Ed Parrot
Why haven't women's distance event marks improved then? If you look at women's marks for the 1500m, the average top 10 mark has essentially been static since 1978, according to Malmo's favorite web site:
http://digilander.libero.it/rzocca/
The 800 has actually gotten slower in that time. I think the averages for the 3000m also would show little improvement, based on the data in Quercetani's history. (The 5k and 10k don't have long enough histories to make a good trend analysis.) Given that women would probably gain even more from EPO use than men, this seems to be inconsistent with as widespread use of EPO as claimed.
As for walk rules, I think the controversy in Sidney demonstrates that the rule changes have had little effect. It's just too easy to improve one's time by cheating a little bit more. I think it would be instructive to do a video comparison of elite walkers' techniques over time, say the last 2 decades.
Richard McCann
