Dara just one the national title in the 100M Freestyle in 54.4 at the ripe old age of 40. Simply Incredible. :applaud: :woot:
If that's not inspiring I don't know what is.
I didn't say it wasn't possible. I am just trying to explain why some of us are skeptical. It has been implied that we are drawing conclusions on the basis of a few pictures.
Unfortunately, it it not at all clear (from published studies) that training slows the rate of decline in these parameters.
And she also swims the 100.
I understand the skepticism but my point is it is really pointless to debate. There are two pieces of evidence in support of doping (that I've heard here):
-- the performances are not possible without enhancement
-- she looks too muscular
I think the second is weak; none of the physical declines you mention seem to prohibit greater muscular development. As for the first, well it is impossible to prove a negative. The times are what they are: one either believes they are possible without PEDs or one doesn't.
My first reaction was skepticism too, but accounts of her training made it seem plausible to me. To be honest, I think half the people here are half-hoping to be convinced that the performances aren't really that unbelievable...
-- she looks too muscular
I think the second is weak; none of the physical declines you mention seem to prohibit greater muscular development.
Chris, speaking for myself and John I can tell you that we have never said any such thing. The point of the photos of Dara over her career and part of our doubts have to do not with being muscular, but of the major tranformational shifts in her physique.
Remember, we are not talking about an out of shape 40 year old housewife making a masters comeback here....Dara NEVER let herself get out of shape at any time that she had stopped competing....true she wasn't logging major swimming yardage but trust me...she was FIT.
Take it as just a coincedence but in her 2000 comeback she happened to be training with Quick in the Bay Area along with Jenny (AVD wasn't in that group but was also massive physically)...and it just so happens that there were loose associations with all of them and Balco...
Granted testimony/records are sealed....something many has voiced very loudly there objections to. Also remember that this was the time that the clear/cream were in heavy use and were undetectable..and also when Bonds seemed to have the same type of transformation (size/bulk) and later was busted.
Fast forward to the new "build" of Dara...far more lean and ripped....much more like Inge...and for some strange reason the same type of effect associated with HGH...which there is no reliable test for.
And by the way...dropping 2 seconds in the 50 is astronomical. I can't tell you of a single sprinter who was in decent shape and swam that race....then trained hard for a year and swam it again that dropped 2 seconds...Anthony even went 19 high in one of his first comeback meets after playing guitar in NY for a few years and no way was he training anything like Dara.
So....do I have doubts?...yes. Am I willing to "convict"?....no way. I just hope we see far more intensive testing and development of baseline bios on top tier athletes that will allow testers to detect changes that may indicate a new designer drug not yet on the radar.
The difference between this and Torres' situation is that there is no evidence whatsoever against DT other than the performances themselves and a few pictures, all of which I think is pretty weak. So for me DT gets the benefit of the doubt, just as any other athlete would.
Your argument is flawed in a number of respects. Nowadays, athletic performances are viewed with suspicion because of the pervasiveness of performance enhancing drugs in sport. In other words, it becomes more and more difficult to give an athlete "the benefit of the doubt." Second, her performances need to be viewed in the proper context--personal bests (and an American record at that) in a 40 year old woman. It is well known that maximum heart rate declines with age. VO2max declines by 10% per decade. Pulmonary function declines. Cardiac output declines as a function of heart rate and stroke volume. Studies have not shown that training alters this. This is why some of us have a problem accepting these results as being clean.
Do you really think anyone swimming a fifty or one hundred race are going to check their heart rates. Would they say to themselves oh my heart rate is beating too fast? Next race I will swim slower so my heart does not beat that fast.
How important is V02-max in the 50 free, a race that lasts twenty odd seconds and in which some swimmers breath only once or not at all?
That is just one parameter affected by the aging process. Interestingly, studies have shown that women see a greater decline in their performance in shorter races, which is in contrast to men.
Do you really think anyone swimming a fifty or one hundred race are going to check their heart rates. Would they say to themselves oh my heart rate is beating too fast? Next race I will swim slower so my heart does not beat that fast.
Cardiac output is the product of heart rate and stroke volume. Your maximum heart rate declines with age, as does stroke volume, so your cardiac output declines as well.
Gull is it possible that there could be exceptions to that statement or is that a definite for every living sole. At what age exactly does this happen. Should we say it is impossible to be faster at age 40 then 39? Maybe at 40 she has better technique then she had when she was 39? May be she changed her swim wear?
I have seen some pretty unique athletes over 40 years of age.
