The Winter Olympics

[HBP]

Have you gone to a mall lately. I hate to tell you they aren't trying to appeal to middle aged men, they are going after the kids. Try watching an X Games, these guys equate the Olympics as equal or just below the X-Games. I hate to tell you more of the X-Games events are going to be in the Olympics and the only way to make room is to get rid of some of the other sports.

I love shooting and I wish it was on TV but they are never going to show a bunch of guys standing still punching holes in paper. You have to honestly step back and take a look at the entertainment value, rather than bad mouthing other popular sports maybe we should learn something from them.

Richard, my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek! I have been to the mall lately, and that's possibly why I struggle to take these guys & girls seriously! (more tongue-in-cheek)

What I can't understand is that if the Winter Olympics has allowed snowboarding in, why do we not see skateboarding and rollerblading in the Summer Olympics? Or are they just around the corner?

I agree, shooting is static . . . but . . . take a look at how the archery (just as static) was filmed and commentated on in Athens, and look at how they handle individual inline speed skating (one man skating all on his own). It can be injected with appeal if a) filmed correctly, and b) commentated on informatively.

Can we learn from snowboarding? . . . Yes, I'm sure we can in time (it's too soon to tell right now). More importantly, what can we learn from them? Certainly their "cool", "hip", or whatever, attitude is finding more appeal than the more focussed, technical and businessline approach of formal shooting.

If clothing and looks are going to prove to be vital to tv audiences then possibly the shooting sports need to consider shedding the regulated jackets, gloves, heavy pants, and headgear . . . just have the athlete and their rifle/pistol . . . and allow fashion to dictate the dress code?

Maybe we should look into a relay style of event like the archers?

A biathlon type of event? Cycling & rifle shooting over short 10km or long 30km courses?

[Guest]

As far as I know, the archers dislike their new style event vehemently. And changing shooting to a biathlon type event will merely alienate all of us with old injuries inflicted from other sports already. And it's interesting to note that while a majority of youngsters are into the whole 'hip' and 'cool' thang, that majority is not nearly as big as most people, including the media, think. Unless things have changed in the two years since I left 6th Form. So we need to just corner the rest of the market and we'll be OK. And come on, we've got guns, should be easy enough. Well maybe not, but I occasionally use the "I can hit something the size of your shirt button at 50m pretty much every time" line, and it seems to impress people.

[Richard H]

As far as I know, the archers dislike their new style event vehemently. And changing shooting to a biathlon type event will merely alienate all of us with old injuries inflicted from other sports already. And it's interesting to note that while a majority of youngsters are into the whole 'hip' and 'cool' thang, that majority is not nearly as big as most people, including the media, think. Unless things have changed in the two years since I left 6th Form. So we need to just corner the rest of the market and we'll be OK. And come on, we've got guns, should be easy enough. Well maybe not, but I occasionally use the "I can hit something the size of your shirt button at 50m pretty much every time" line, and it seems to impress people.

So the jist of your post is that Shooting should remain the same so old injured men have a sport. That should be very appealing to television audiences. As for the popularity, there are two things to look at those that actually participate in the sport (small # but way bigger than shooting in NA) and those that dress and adopt the lifestyle (huge number).

As for the Biathalon idea, there already is Biathalon and how popular is that (in NA)?

An earlier poster talked mentioned the Summer Games and skateboarding and roller blading, Yes I predict skateboarding and roller blading will be in the Summer Games but the only way to do that is get rid of some other sports, and which sports do you think that might include?

[Richard H]

Bill,

The rules are the rules. It is the policy of IOC and WADA and thus USOC and USADA that the athlete is responsible for anything they put in or on their body.
Being prescribed by a doctor cannot be an excuse.

A number of years ago a shooter, whose father was a doctor, had gotten a prescription for a beta blocker. Normally used to control high blood pressure, it has a side benefit for shooters and other athletes who need to remain calm. The shooter was quite successful when he was using the drug. In the opinion of the sports governing body, it can enhance performance. It is now banned.

How can you determine if any drug was prescribed innocently or with some nefarious intent? Thus any use is banned.

It is the athlete's responsibility to know and follow the rules.

What about the US skeleton racer who was taking Propecia for thinning hair? It was allowed in 2004 and previous years but was banned starting in 2005. He tested positive at a race in Canada in November last year. USADA determined that he did it without the intent to mask some other drug use. Propecia (or finesteride) is clearly listed as a masking agent. He admitted he made a mistake by not checking the list. USADA was going to slap him on the wrist by having him forfeit the result in November and admonish him, (normally the penalty for first offense is 2 years) but WADA appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). CAS gave him a one year suspension (WADA wanted the full two years). This was resolved just last week. It ruined his Olympics.

Does it sound fair? Probably not, but as coaches we must respect the rules. Not doing so, sends the message that it is may be ok to cheat if we claim ignorance or try to shift responsibility.

The bottom line is doping is against the spirit of fair competition and the athlete is ultimately responsible for what is in their body.

Follow the rules yes, respect them I disagree. The rules are just getting out of hand. Subsatnces are banned even though there is no proof that they provide any adavantage to either that sport or the training required for that sport. The vast majority of products banned are masking agents. There was a really good article in Outside magazine about doping, one of the top scientist basically said its a race that regulators are destined to lose, with the new techniques in genetics and bio-engineering they will never be able to keep up or detect cheats. This whole drug free thing is a farce.

The rules basically say that atheletes can't be trusted and they are cheats.

As for fair competition, what is fair competition? When they develop a new fabric for swim suits and only one country has it, is that fair? New sail boat technology and only one country has it, is that fair? Athletes that live at altitude have a distinct advantage, is that fair? Is it fair that some countries basically have full time athletes and other countries they have to work for a living therefore can train as much, is that fair. Is it fair that an athlete with a heart condition can't take the best medication because its on a banned list, even though it would only make him healthy. Enhancing performance through drugs is probably one of the fair things as at least the vast majority of countries have access to pharmacuticals. This whole FAIRNESS thing is really nice but is not or has never been true when you look at things at a certain level in sport and competition.

[Richard Newman]

Richard H. says the rules assume that athletes are cheats. Unfortunately, there are enough (1 is too many) who do cheat that the rest must tolerate the complex rules of drug use and testing. It is indeed a race with the testing agencies on the short end. Drug developers know what the tests can and cannot do. The anti-doping agencies don't know what the developers are coming up with. Elite level competition in any sport is a VERY high pressure situation. It isn't only that money is involved, it is the ego and self esteem of the athlete as well that is involved. Insecure people with low self esteem don't win world class events. While doping occurs in almost every country, insome countries - the old Soviet bloc, recently China - sports are a political weapon which adds to the athlete's pressure, and on occasion results in governmental demands for performance enhancement drug use. For them, the concept of fair competition doesn't exist. Winning is the only thing that matters. Sadly, while our anti-doping measures are far from perfect, they are necessary. If you don't compete by the rules, what is left?? By the way, have you noticed that Summer Biathlon (running and shooting) is beginning to become more popular in the U.S? Maybe some day that too will be an Olympic sport.
Richard Newman

[Richard H]

Richard H. says the rules assume that athletes are cheats. Unfortunately, there are enough (1 is too many) who do cheat that the rest must tolerate the complex rules of drug use and testing. It is indeed a race with the testing agencies on the short end. Drug developers know what the tests can and cannot do. The anti-doping agencies don't know what the developers are coming up with. Elite level competition in any sport is a VERY high pressure situation. It isn't only that money is involved, it is the ego and self esteem of the athlete as well that is involved. Insecure people with low self esteem don't win world class events. While doping occurs in almost every country, insome countries - the old Soviet bloc, recently China - sports are a political weapon which adds to the athlete's pressure, and on occasion results in governmental demands for performance enhancement drug use. For them, the concept of fair competition doesn't exist. Winning is the only thing that matters. Sadly, while our anti-doping measures are far from perfect, they are necessary. If you don't compete by the rules, what is left?? By the way, have you noticed that Summer Biathlon (running and shooting) is beginning to become more popular in the U.S? Maybe some day that too will be an Olympic sport.
Richard Newman

There is that word again "fair", what's fair and who decides it, competition always has an element of unfairness, unless you are talking about the feel good stuff they do with little kids where everyone is a winner and gets a trophy.

You say the measures are far from perfect and are necessary and I suggest that is and understatment and why are they necessary what would happen if they weren't there?

[Richard Newman]

Richard H.asks three questions re my post. What is "fair"?; Who decides this? and What would happen if we didn't do drug testing (or otherwise enforce rules)? WEll.......
First, "fair" is one of those words whose meaning can vary with the user, called in the linguistics trade "linguistic variables". So what is needed is an operational definition to fit the situation. In sports this is basically "competing within the rules". Thats why we have referees, umpires, judges, etc. They aren't perfect, but they are better than the alternative. If we ignore performance enhancing drugs we don't identify the best shooter, we award the prize to the most drug enhanced person - who might not even be in the top 100 without drugs.
Second, who decides? That's why we have governing bodies. For Olympic shooting, its the ISSF and the IOC. You may not always like or agree with the rules, but if you want to compete, you have to follow those rules.
Third is the most interesting. What happens if we don't do drug testing or have rules. Well, we do have experience with some of that. Remember competitive bodybuilding? Use of steroids and other drugs got to the point where they actually separated the competition into two divisions - the drug free and "other" categories. In any sport, to identify the best in the sport, we can't allow artificial performance enhancement. If we do, it becomes a competition for the best warped medicine, not the sport. Also remember that many drugs can in the long - and sometimes - short run severely or fatally damage the user. Drop the rules?? Well the result can be interesting, but they aren't a measure of the athlete's performance. Why don't we permit delibierate interference with other competitors, do away with gun and trigger weight limits, allow unlimited time and high power scopes using two handed grips in free pistol? If we do we will have a technology race having little to do with human capability. And in the long run, I think what we all really want is competition among athletes.
Richard Newman

[Mike McDaniel]

I think the real issue is what constitutes a performance-enhancing drug FOR SHOOTING.

The current drug list is focused on steroids and blood doping. A healthy young participant in a strength or speed-focused sport has no legitimate need for steroids. But a middle-aged shooter may well have health problems that require medications that trigger the drug tests.

If the drugs confer an advantage, they should be banned. But the list of banned substances should be tailored to the sport. For shooting, steroids and amphetamines should not be banned, just limited to prescription use only. But barbituates and alcohol should be verboten.

And with the overall aging of the population, there may be more of an audience (and participant base) for sports that are friendly to older competitors than people think.

[Richard H]

Richard H.asks three questions re my post. What is "fair"?; Who decides this? and What would happen if we didn't do drug testing (or otherwise enforce rules)? WEll.......
First, "fair" is one of those words whose meaning can vary with the user, called in the linguistics trade "linguistic variables". So what is needed is an operational definition to fit the situation. In sports this is basically "competing within the rules". Thats why we have referees, umpires, judges, etc. They aren't perfect, but they are better than the alternative. If we ignore performance enhancing drugs we don't identify the best shooter, we award the prize to the most drug enhanced person - who might not even be in the top 100 without drugs.
Second, who decides? That's why we have governing bodies. For Olympic shooting, its the ISSF and the IOC. You may not always like or agree with the rules, but if you want to compete, you have to follow those rules.
Third is the most interesting. What happens if we don't do drug testing or have rules. Well, we do have experience with some of that. Remember competitive bodybuilding? Use of steroids and other drugs got to the point where they actually separated the competition into two divisions - the drug free and "other" categories. In any sport, to identify the best in the sport, we can't allow artificial performance enhancement. If we do, it becomes a competition for the best warped medicine, not the sport. Also remember that many drugs can in the long - and sometimes - short run severely or fatally damage the user. Drop the rules?? Well the result can be interesting, but they aren't a measure of the athlete's performance. Why don't we permit delibierate interference with other competitors, do away with gun and trigger weight limits, allow unlimited time and high power scopes using two handed grips in free pistol? If we do we will have a technology race having little to do with human capability. And in the long run, I think what we all really want is competition among athletes.
Richard Newman

The things you state are easily identified of as not being "fair" because they directly have an influence on the outcome. The vast majority of drugs on the list are masking agents and not performance enhancing. Due to the short comings of the testing, people are denied the use of the best medicines to treat illness or injury if they want to compete.

If we want to test the true ability of the athlete why don't we just use pooled equipment for any equipment based sport. In shooting there would be a big box of pistols or rifles and you'd just get a random gun.

By the way I never stated to get rid of all the rules the discussion was about drug testing. Good try in mudding the waters by dragging absurdity into it. Is the Luger going to die from his Propcia?

Also as for the protection of the athlete again this is the big brother mantra that we are too stupid to make our own decisions. Many of the sports that people participate in are also dangerous so using protection as a valid excuse maybe those sports shouldn't be allowed.

Who cares who's the best, this is another media invention. I hate the daily medal count and it's talked about like it actually matters. If you do your best that should be all that matters and you know if you did it clean. Now we are back at the root of the problem that being the media and the money, as long as there is money there will be cheating. Do you have any idea how much money goes into trying (mostly in vain) to catch the cheats. Don't you think that money could be tter utilized to fund sport at the athelete level?

On NBC I watch the interviewer tear into the girl who finished 2nd in the Snowboard Cross. I couldn't beleive the jerk, so she screwed up, she seems to have gotten over it. Sport has become a venue for a bunch of coach potatos to live vicarioulsy through the athlete and when they don't perform to their expectations they think they have the right to be offended.

As for the governing bodies of sport, for the most part they are nothing but big bureaucracies that exist for themselves. Start at the top, The IOC a bunch of people who like to take free trips and bribes and kick-backs. Most governing bodies do not represent the athletes. The ISU (skating) ban the French judge that cheated at the Salt Lake games for 3 years, the wistle blower recieved a lifetime ban for trying to start another governing body. So who are they there for the athlete, I say no it looks like they want to protect themselves more. Yes the people who run them could be voted out and be replaced by athletes but then the athlete wouldn't have time to be athletes. The other problem is even if the athletes ruled the governing bodies, power corrupts. I believe they all start out with good intentions but like politicans are caught up in the machine which is the sports business.

[Marcus]

Richard H has read or obviously subscribes to the view point of David Owen in his article that appeared in last weekends Financial Times.

http://www.trebach.com/drugwar/ChemicallyEnhanced.html

If you take the time to read it, you will see many of the same arguments that Richard H has made in his posts above.

It is a viewpoint that, in my opinion, cheapens human life. The value of the life of the athlete is lessened in Mr Owens and presumably in Richard H's view of the world of sport since they fail to see the further consequences of their proposition.
Essentially, if the drug prohibition is lifted and athletes begin using drugs to improve performance, wannabes will think if they can do it, so can I and then, of course the follow-on, if a little is good a lot must be better! The view also includes that an athlete is only good for one thing, performing at a high level, and any method (especially pharmaceutical) is justified. What a narrow view! I suppose Richard H and Mr Owen will gladly provide the health care for all the athletes who become afflicted with the various maladies that result from overdoses of the steroids that they will use along with all those (legal) masking agents and don't forget to add a few beta-blockers to keep calm while winning the gold!

I had been thinking about this for a couple of days now. About how to express my point of view, when I found a response to Mr Owen by Dr Michael Pollak, of McGill University, in Montreal, Canada. I copied his response verbatim.


"Sir, David Owen's discussion ("Chemically enhanced", FT Magazine, February 11/12) of Julian Savulescu's views on performance-enhancing drugs ignores key public health issues.

It is true that more and more drugs that can be used to enhance performance are becoming available. Many of them, used in the way a minority of athletes currently do, are either known to be dangerous or have unknown toxicity profiles.

Any relaxation of restrictions on doping by professional athletes would send a message to the much larger population of amateur athletes (and to their drug dealers) that performance- enhancing drugs are fair game.

It is naive in the extreme to believe that athletes or their suppliers will distinguish between "safe" and dangerous drugs.

A doctor who would prescribe growth hormones and anabolic steroids to a child would be guilty of malpractice and one must assume that Mr Savulescu's bizarre view that he would be unconcerned if his child took these suggests that child protection authorities should pay him a visit. Mr Owen seems impressed that performance-enhancing drugs can contribute to the "spectacle" of sport and enjoyed witnessing Ben Johnson's stanazol-enhanced performance.

On the other hand, he is concerned that procedures for supplying urine samples represent "striking indignities". Many would disagree with both of these points but the key issue has nothing to do with spectacles or indignities; rather it has to do with the disease and deaths that will result from widespread abuse of drugs by amateur athletes if a relaxed attitude becomes commonplace.

As a physician, I would suggest that those who feel doping restrictions should be relaxed begin with racing horses, where they would at least not be endangering human lives. But even here, many would submit that the spectacle would not be improved, corruption would increase and the public interest would not be served."

Michael Pollak,

McGill University,

Montreal, Canada

I could not say it any better.

Marcus Raab

[Nicole Hamilton]

Richard H has read or obviously subscribes to the view point of David Owen in his article that appeared in last weekends Financial Times.

I don't think that's at all obvious but I can appreciate that if you'd like to discredit his argument, it helps if you can make us believe Richard's views are indistinguishable from those in the article you've cited. It's an old and not very honest debate trick called the strawman: If you can't rebut your opponent's argument, claim he said something different that you can rebut.

[Richard Newman]

Richard H. asks "Who cares who is best?" My answer is every competitor does - or why is he/she competing? Yes, medal counts are media hype, and some interviewers have the grace of a pig rooting in mud, but these are not the sports or athletic competition, they are irrelevant attempts to keep ratings high. I don't know about you, but when I enter a competition, I want to do two things - beat my best previous performance and win the event. I compete against myself and the other competitors. Yes, to me it DOES matter who is best. Given my basic mediocre skill and advanced age, I rarely win physical competition (I don't usually enter an age group "seniors" class, I compete in open class - and usually get my butt whipped. But hope springs eternal, or I would just quit.
Richard Newman

[Nicole Hamilton]

Richard H. asks "Who cares who is best?" My answer is every competitor does - or why is he/she competing?

I concede Richard's comment was sufficiently ambiguous that it might be taken that way, but I doubt that's what he actually meant. I trust Richard will correct me if I'm wrong, but I took his remark to mean that merely winning an event doesn't mean someone's "the best," it simply means they won that event that particular day. On another day, perhaps someone else will win. But the way the media spins it, once someone's been annointed "the best," you'd think everyone else ought to go home and pick a new sport.

I suspect you and Richard are far more in agreement than you think.

[Richard H]

Marcus, I had actually never heard or read the David Owen article, so I can't directly speak to his article. I have formed my opinions while observing and reading the work of many sports psychologists, atheletes and those actually involved in the drug testing bureaucracies.

Every truely great performance is tainted by the question of drugs and testing negative after the performance does not remove that stigma, all that it means is that they didn't get caught. Athletes give up a lot, what do the actually get in return for submiting themselves to the highly evasive drug testing regime. Do they get a level playing field? No. Do I truley beleive that all drugs should be allowed? No. I truely beleive that the system that we have now is next to useless and like gun control only really hurts the innocent.

The problem with the drug testing regime and saying that it provides protection for athletes is that it takes the wild assumption that there are fewer athletes doing drugs now that there is testing than before there was testing. I beleive that this arguement is wrong, and the testing regime points to that conclusion the rates of positives is constant. The cheating athletes just get better at hiding it. Athletes have free will, there are many things that we could do, but don't, the thought that just because performance enhancing drugs are not ban an athlete would take them is actually insulting. I for one knowing the side effects of most performance enhancing drugs wouldn't take one, but I don't like the fact that if I want to compete I have to worry about taking drugs for a theraputic reason that have no performance enhancing qualities to my chosen sport.

Mr. Newman, there are 2 main orientations, one being task mastery orientation and the other being ego orientation. The vast majority of amateur athletes which really have no extrinsic motivators are task mastery oriented, with a little ego orientation (its always nice to win but not a prime motivator). Most truely ego oriented people retire early from the sport as soon as they can no longer win or face difficulty.

Now would I take performance enhancing drugs or council someone to in the shooting sports NO. As I said before the only real motivators in the shooting sport are intrinsic in nature, there really is nothing to gain in shooting by using performance enhancing drugs unless it is to work to an athletes ego (ie you're not going to get rich). I can see the extrinsic motivators for many sports which with good performances the amateur althete can cash in on such as athletics, figure skating, and professional sports. With the money involved in those sports I still stand by my original supposition that the drug testing is a farce and is a failure. Look at all the really big drug scandals the vast majority of them were broken by peolpe blowing wistles no the testing.

Before anyone says anything I am well aware that different sports in different areas have different extrinsic value, for the most part my references are to North America ( I know some shooters in Europe can actually make a living).

Just an aside I really do enjoy this conversation its much more mentally stimulating, I appreciate the thoughful comments from both sides and the fact that it hasn't deteriorated into name calling. Like most moral issues people are very entrenched and I doubt very many will move much. But what really is the best air pistol? ;)

[X Man]

I am glad that the Biathelon is still a recognized event. I was elated to hear that in Germany, it is the most widely televised sports event! I live in Texas, on the Gulf Coast, so snow is merely a fantasy. BUT, several years ago, I heard that Summer Biathelon was making inroads. I hope it continues to do so, as I hope all shooting sports do.

On another note, I understand the IOC has worked for a number of years, to have rifle removed from the summer Olympics. This is the same committee that has approved Ping Pong and Synchronized Swimming as an Olympic event. What a shame.

[Pradeep5]

You couldn't make up the stuff going on with the Austrian team if you tried:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/o ... ml?cnn=yes

"VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The banned Austrian ski coach at the center of a doping investigation at the Turin Olympics crashed his car into a police roadblock Sunday evening after leading authorities on a bizarre chase.

Walter Mayer was slightly injured in the accident, in which he struck an unoccupied police car set up as an impromptu barrier in the town of Paternion in the southwestern province of Carinthia, about 15 miles from the Italian frontier and some 250 miles from Turin, police said. He was taken into protective custody.

Mayer was returning to his native Austria just hours after Italian authorities searched Austria's biathlon and cross-country team quarters for banned substances. Police acted on a tipoff that Mayer -- who was accused of blood doping at the 2002 Olympics while he was Austria's Nordic team coach -- was with the team.

Italian police seized blood analysis equipment during the raids, as well as syringes, vials of distilled water, asthma medication and other substances, the national news agency ANSA reported, quoting unidentified investigative sources. One Austrian athlete threw a bag out of a window containing needles and medicines, and Mayer apparently left the scene in a minivan, ANSA said."

[Richard H]

I found a link to the Outside magazine article regarding drug testing, some might find it interesting reading.

http://outside.away.com/outside/feature ... rts-1.html

[jrmcdaniel]

As I suggested in a previous posting -- shoot in spandex to increase viewership.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/20/adid ... owersuits/

Best,

Joe

[F. Paul in Denver]

Interesting Joe - I wonder if the Adidas suit might end up being banned in Olympic competitions at some point. I can certainly see some very compelling arguments to do so.

F. Paul in Denver

[fpfiglia]

In fact this Adidas invention reminds me of a story someone told me about a world class (perhaps Russian) shooter who rigged up a leather jacket so that when leaned way back in his shooting stance, he was able to use his non shooting hand to pull down on the jacket which created some support for his extended shooting arm.

Can anyone provide greater details on this interesting story or is it just an urban legend?

I'm not sure I see a distinction between a shooter's illegal use of support and the benefits provided by the Adidas suit.

Hey - maybe Adidas can develop a shooters suit where the shooter could raise and lower his shooting arm several times to pump up resistance\ rigidity in the arm portion of the suit. Once sufficiently rigid, we could then start our final raise and release the shot while our shooting arm remains rock steady. [:))

F. Paul in Denver