Olympics 2024 - discussion thread

Lethe

Captain
So... Swimming has concluded (unless you count open water, which is not even advisable in a place like Paris) and the US has 8 gold to China's 2. In Tokyo, it was 11 to China's 3. So an 8 medal margin went to 6... and last time, at least on the surface, there wasn't foul play. This time, we got these results through sleep deprivation sabotage.

But beyond that, we should communicate with WADA that this is clear cheating by denying Chinese athletes sleep so they should 1. test the teams equally, not China 6x more 2. they can test our athletes before we enter a sleeping room that is free of drugs then seal the room but they must allow at least 8-9 hours of undisturbed sleep every day. These demands are so reasonable that if made public, they cannot refuse or they will look unreasonable to the whole (non-Anglo) world.

Is there information available to support allegations of elevated testing rates and/or unusually disruptive testing procedures for Chinese athletes during or in immediate proximity to the Olympic competition period? The much discussed ratio of 21 tests per Chinese swimmer, 4-6x the rate of testing for swimmers from other nations, actually refers to testing conducted over the 199 days from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the latter responsible for 238 of the 668 tests (37.5%) administered to 32 Chinese swimmers, an average of ~7.5 tests per swimmer over the period, reflecting China's own unusually rigorous testing practices. That is not to discount that World Aquatics is also testing Chinese swimmers at greatly elevated rates or to deny that this is worthy of scrutiny. It would be surprising if elevated pre-competition testing rates for Chinese swimmers did not carry through into the Olympic competition period itself, but nonetheless one should not confuse data from the pre-competition period with the games themselves.
 
Last edited:

Randomuser

Senior Member
Registered Member
I don't expect gold from this. But there's a very important match in my view that will happen in a few hours. In Greco Roman wrestling at the highest weight class, there's a guy named Meng Lingzhe. He is up against some cuban merc named Acosta who represents Chile but is already passed his prime. If he wins this, he will get into finals and face the legendary cuban Mijain Lopez, the most decorated Olympic Gold medal Greco Roman wrestler of all time.

I then completely expect him to get his ass kicked. BUT everyone says Chinese are small and weak. So why then do they have a silver medalist in the highest weight class of Greco Roman wrestling? Something most countries can only dream of. And if he does somehow beat Lopez, this for me is even more important than Pan Zhanle.

But of course he must beat the Acosta first. Plz don't fuck this up. The guy is way lower ranked. Yet many times we have been disappointed so far...
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
India is quite strong in field hockey right?
No. That's Cricket, which is not an Olympic sport.
If China could expand into soccer, that would be much better for the audiences. Also, they need more medals in judo, fencing, and rowing.
That's way easier said than done. Soccer is super competitive. There are much much easier ways to get a gold medal than working on soccer starting at China's current level.
Any dirty tactics from India?
Yeah, they shot with thier armpits open and everyone on their left and right almost died.
Is there information available to support allegations of elevated testing rates and/or unusually disruptive testing procedures for Chinese athletes during or in immediate proximity to the Olympic competition period? The much discussed ratio of 21 tests per Chinese swimmer, 4-6x the rate of testing for swimmers from other nations, actually refers to testing conducted over the 199 days from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the latter responsible for 238 of the 668 tests (37.5%) administered to 32 Chinese swimmers, an average of ~7.5 tests per swimmer over the period, reflecting China's own unusually rigorous testing practices. That is not to discount that World Aquatics is also testing Chinese swimmers at greatly elevated rates or to deny that this is worthy of scrutiny. It would be surprising if elevated pre-competition testing rates for Chinese swimmers did not carry through into the Olympic competition period itself, but nonetheless one should not confuse data from the pre-competition period with the games themselves.
If they want piss in a cup, they can have every piss team China ever takes. They can test it, drown in it, drink it, or sell it to some lonely Japanese housewives on eBay, whatever. The most important thing is not to disturb our sleep or training within the last week leading up to competition.
 

Lethe

Captain
The most important thing is not to disturb our sleep or training within the last week leading up to competition.

Right. But the testing figures that have been widely cited as excessive and unfair translate to an average of 1 test per Chinese swimmer every 9.5 days, with the data ending more than a week before the commencement of competition. Indeed, the end date of the World Aquatics data coincides with the opening of the Olympic village and the handover of jurisdiction for testing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The ITA is certainly conducting testing during the Olympic games and currently lists
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
as having been provisionally suspended to date, but to my knowledge there is no public data about the frequency of testing, let alone on a per-athlete/discipline/country basis.

I am not arguing that Chinese swimmers are not being subjected to elevated testing regimes, when they clearly have been by World Aquatics, and this is more likely than not to have continued under the ITA. Nor do I deny that excessive testing regimes can be disruptive to athlete preparation and recovery. My point is that the testing data that has been publicly discussed (21 tests per swimmer, 4-6x the rate of swimmers from other nations) does not actually support the contention that China's swimmers have been subjected to unfair and disruptive testing practices during or immediately prior to the Olympic games, because (in order of priority) the period covered by the data in question does not actually coincide with the Olympic games, the rate of testing over the six-month period covered by the data, while certainly greatly exceeding that for swimmers from other nations, is not obviously disruptive, and because a significant fraction of those tests were actually conducted by China's own authorities. Hence I am trying to discover if there is any other information that supports this narrative.
 
Last edited:

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Right. But the testing figures that have been widely cited as excessive and unfair translate to an average of 1 test per Chinese swimmer every 9.5 days, with the data ending more than a week before the commencement of competition. Indeed, the end date of the World Aquatics data coincides with the handover of jurisdiction for Olympic testing
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The ITA is certainly conducting testing during the Olympic games and currently lists
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
as having been provisionally suspended to date, but to my knowledge there is no public data about the frequency of testing, let alone on a per-athlete/discipline/country basis.

I am not arguing that Chinese swimmers are not being subjected to elevated testing regimes, when they clearly have been by World Aquatics, and this is more likely than not to have continued under the ITA. Nor do I deny that excessive testing regimes can be disruptive to athlete preparation and recovery. My point is that the testing data that has been publicly discussed (21 tests per swimmer, 4-6x the rate of swimmers from other nations) does not actually support the contention that China's swimmers have been subjected to unfair and disruptive testing practices during or immediately prior to the Olympic games, because (in order of priority) the period covered by the data in question does not actually coincide with the Olympic games, the rate of testing over the six-month period covered by the data, while certainly greatly exceeding that for swimmers from other nations, is not obviously disruptive, and because a significant fraction of those tests were actually conducted by China's own authorities. Hence I am trying to discover if there is any other information that supports this narrative.
Wait, you didn't see the interviews with the Chinese swimmers when they were talking about being tested at the Olympics being woken up at 5am, kept up past midnight? Or did we all misunderstand and they meant that happened like a month ago? I don't think it's the latter but if it is, then I'd feel a lot less pissed at the US cheating.
 
Last edited:

daifo

Captain
Registered Member
How do you spend 1.5 billion cleaning up failing to clean up a river?

If i remember correctly, I think the city water drains were going into the sewage system which overflowed / leaked into the river. It is unlikely they fixed/found all of those points of leaks. Its a river going thru many cities, so garbage will also be added thru out from the upstream.
 

Quickie

Colonel
Is there information available to support allegations of elevated testing rates and/or unusually disruptive testing procedures for Chinese athletes during or in immediate proximity to the Olympic competition period? The much discussed ratio of 21 tests per Chinese swimmer, 4-6x the rate of testing for swimmers from other nations, actually refers to testing conducted over the 199 days from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the latter responsible for 238 of the 668 tests (37.5%) administered to 32 Chinese swimmers, an average of ~7.5 tests per swimmer over the period, reflecting China's own unusually rigorous testing practices. That is not to discount that World Aquatics is also testing Chinese swimmers at greatly elevated rates or to deny that this is worthy of scrutiny. It would be surprising if elevated pre-competition testing rates for Chinese swimmers did not carry through into the Olympic competition period itself, but nonetheless one should not confuse data from the pre-competition period with the games themselves.

What gets to me is they don't say the trimetazidine drug is an in-competition drug and not the out-of-competition drug that unfairly improves the physical attributes of the athlete through shortcuts.

Using the drug during out-of-competition training would be like wearing an oxygen mask to improve performance through less exertion to the body when the point of training is to stress the body as much as possible to improve the athlete's physical attributes. What would happen if the athletes suddenly stopped wearing the oxygen mask when they finally came to compete in the actual competition?
 
Top