Superiority of Eastern Bloc Training Methods?

February 28, 2001

> Rajinder Johal wrote,

>

> >>>I've read on numerous occasions both here and elsewhere of the

> superior training methods of athletes from the former Eastern bloc

> countries as being the primary reason for the success of their

> athletes. If this is truly so how does one explain the relative lack

> of success achieved by these athletes since the collapse of the

> former communist regimes. In particular, the successes of East

> Germany, and the USSR have never been replicated across a range of

> sports in the 1990's, in particular, athletics. Since the training

> methods have presumably remained constant does this not represent an

> argument in favour of the fact that it was a systematic program of

> doping in those countries which was the primary reason for their

> success, rather than superior training methods?<<<

>

> Quite the contrary. I think the reason is the rest of the world are

now

> using the methods developed by the Soviets. In the age of

communication

> there are no secrets.

>

> The Russians do very well in many sports still, as do the other

countries

> which formed the Soviet bloc. The economic chaos since the collapse

of

> communism has not helped their athletic endeavours.

>

> But if you look throughout the world now Russian coaches and

Bulgarian

> coaches are everywhere. Right here in Saskatoon two of a good

friends boys

> are coached in gymnastics by a former Russian junior champion.

>

> As well people like Mel Siff have studied the methods and educated

those

> who listen about the best of the former Soviet methods. I myself

use many

> training methods developed by the Soviets for my sport of

powerlifting.

I'm not for a moment decrying the training methods of the old

communist countries, but rather trying to place them in their true

perspective as a useful adjunct, even maybe a slight improvement on

western training methods. However, I have to respond to some points

made through this thread.

a) , you comment on the widespread availability of Soviet

training methods, yet it is by no means the case that everyone, or

even most, use the Soviet " system " . Most successful franchises in

professional sports don't for instance even in sports with a premium

on power such as football, and rugby (' consultancy work with

the Packers and Patriots notwithstanding). In your own sport of

powerlifting, its most illustrious competitors, guys like Coan, and

Kazmaeir stuck with traditional periodization models, did they not?

Furthermore, it is hardly the case that the export of soviet methods

has led to the west catching up, instead everyone's standards have

fallen, the east's more so. A cursory glance at the number of

longstanding records in athletics set by former eastern bloc athletes

which are now unattainable by anyone, whether they be trained using

eastern or western methods provides ample evidence as to the extent

those athletes depended on drugs. That isn't to say western athletes

were paragons of virtue, but they lacked the expert advice and long

off-seasons when no testing took place that eastern athletes enjoyed.

It is also hardly the case that they enjoyed unqualified success even

whilst being backed by state sponsored drug programmes. Witness the

consistently poor performance of eastern bloc soccer teams, be they

clubs or countries. If their methods were truly unequivocally

superior, as opposed to being a marginal improvement on western

methods, why did their teams fare so poorly in their countries' most

popular sport?

I would also question any system whose athletes enjoyed such brief

careers as was frequently the case, and point out that whilst the

eastern bloc contributed valuable information on physical training

their athletes consistently seemed to lack a certain degree of mental

fortitude, will to win, especially in soccer.

Dr.Siff, you argued that the collapse of the entire support

structure has played a significant role in the relatively poor

sporting record of those countries since 1989 (although that doesn't

account for why East Germany went from a world power to making no

difference on German performance post 1989, since presumably Germany

has an excellent supporting structure for its athletes, everything

bar a systemised doping programme). However, if as you assert the

whole issue of drugs has been overplayed and that western athletes of

the time used if anything, even more drugs, how do you account for

the physical appearance of all those eastern bloc female swimmers,

and track and field competitors? Certainly, I cannot recall a

significant number of western female athletes displaying anywhere

near the masculine characteristics of those from the east.

Your point about anabolic drugs not being OTC surely is beside the

point. When western athletes used these drugs they were usually

applied in an ad hoc manner with little expert guidance, whereas in

the east they had state appointed experts supervising their doping

schedule in a precise manner so whether they could buy them OTC is

beside the point as they had them handed on a plate.

I contend that it is this loss of support that is the primary reason

for their athletes subsequent lack of success compared both to

western athletes and their own former standards.

Rajinder Johal

London,UK

March 1, 2001

> Furthermore, it is hardly the case that the export of soviet

methods

> has led to the west catching up, instead everyone's standards have

> fallen, the east's more so. A cursory glance at the number of

> longstanding records in athletics set by former eastern bloc

athletes

> which are now unattainable by anyone, whether they be trained using

> eastern or western methods provides ample evidence as to the extent

> those athletes depended on drugs.

Which " unattainable " records would these be? Aside from the women's

400m and 800m, no other athletics record is in communist East-

European hands. In men's athletics, there are no records older than

1990.

> That isn't to say western athletes

> were paragons of virtue, but they lacked the expert advice and long

> off-seasons when no testing took place that eastern athletes

enjoyed.

> It is also hardly the case that they enjoyed unqualified success

even

> whilst being backed by state sponsored drug programmes. Witness the

> consistently poor performance of eastern bloc soccer teams, be they

> clubs or countries. If their methods were truly unequivocally

> superior, as opposed to being a marginal improvement on western

> methods, why did their teams fare so poorly in their countries'

most

> popular sport?

Nonsense. The national teams of Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria

and Russia (or the old USSR), and their club teams (Dynamo Kiev,

Steaua Bucharest, Spartak Moscow, etc) were, and still are, regular

guests at the FIFA World Cup, Champion's League, and European

Championships. Russia played in the finals of the 1988 European

Championships (where they lost to the Netherlands). Croatia placed

third in the 1996 European championships. They remain formidable

teams today, even with the constant outflux of players to richer

Western clubs.

> I would also question any system whose athletes enjoyed such brief

> careers as was frequently the case, and point out that whilst the

> eastern bloc contributed valuable information on physical training

> their athletes consistently seemed to lack a certain degree of

mental

> fortitude, will to win, especially in soccer.

Again nonsense. Why do you think the East Bloc nations were so famous

(or notorious) for their sporting performances? Take a look at every

Olympic medals table from 1950 to 1990 and the order is almost

invariably

1. US (or USSR)

2. USSR (or US)

3. DDR

with other East Bloc countries performing disproportionately well,

given their population size and economic status. Now tell me, does

this display a consistent lack of mental fortitude, and will to win.

Heike Drechsler, Astrid Kumbernuss, Marita Koch, Katrin Krabbe,

speedskater Gunda Niemann, Sergei Bubka, Jarmila Kratochvilova (who

was 32 when she set her 800m world record), Miklos Nemeth,

weightlifters Anatoly Bondarchuk, eyev, Leonid Taranenko, ei

Medvedyev, Leonid Zhabotinsky.

What do they all have in common? They dominated their sport

completely, had an iron will to win, and had careers spanning 10 to

20 years. Some are still active today.

> Dr.Siff, you argued that the collapse of the entire support

> structure has played a significant role in the relatively poor

> sporting record of those countries since 1989 (although that

doesn't

> account for why East Germany went from a world power to making no

> difference on German performance post 1989, since presumably

Germany

> has an excellent supporting structure for its athletes, everything

> bar a systemised doping programme).

Germany does not have an " excellent supporting structure " for

athletics that anywhere approaches the old East German structure.

Modern Germany does not have

- a Statewide compulsory sport program for all school-age children

- physical aptitude and selection tests on school-age children

- State built trainings facilities

- State built sport academies

- State privileges and incentives for athletes

- State sponsorship of athletics events

- achieving sporting success as a high national priority.

Modern German sports is built on a recreational base, where people

are (voluntarily) members of various recreational sports clubs, and a

smaller professional layer which derives its income from commercial

sponsorship.

> However, if as you assert the

> whole issue of drugs has been overplayed and that western athletes

of

> the time used if anything, even more drugs, how do you account for

> the physical appearance of all those eastern bloc female swimmers,

> and track and field competitors? Certainly, I cannot recall a

> significant number of western female athletes displaying anywhere

> near the masculine characteristics of those from the east.

This is subjective. The cliche of bearded Bulgarian female

shotputters has been done to death. The classic Slavic female form as

percieved by the West has never been flattering anyway: short, dumpy

and mustachioed. Ridicule is easy.

Katrin Krabbe was caught doping, yet had a brief but succesful career

as a model. Merlene Ottey has been called the " Queen of Sprints " , but

tested positive for nandrolon. The (unproven) rumours surrounding

glamorous sprinters Joyner-Griffith and Devers are legion.

The point? Appearances prove little either way.

> Your point about anabolic drugs not being OTC surely is beside the

> point. When western athletes used these drugs they were usually

> applied in an ad hoc manner with little expert guidance, whereas in

> the east they had state appointed experts supervising their doping

> schedule in a precise manner so whether they could buy them OTC is

> beside the point as they had them handed on a plate.

> I contend that it is this loss of support that is the primary

reason

> for their athletes subsequent lack of success compared both to

> western athletes and their own former standards.

This is the problem. When West Germany re-united with East Germany

they took the courageous, and neccessary step, of exposing all the

dark corners of the former DDR to the daylight of publicity. The

investigations were thorough, the trials sobering, the results

revealing.

This has had the unfortunate consequence that East Germans (and by

extension, East Bloc athletes) have become worldwide scapegoats,

while the rest of the world revels in innocence. The East German

system was thoroughly dismantled; the rest of the world carried on as

usual.

If you think that the East Bloc results were due to doping, and that

Western athletes never doped, then consider this:

There have been more Western athletes CAUGHT doping than Eastern.

Randy . C.J. Hunter. Butch Reynolds. Linford Christie. Dennis

. Merlene Ottey. Dieter Baumann. Olapade Adeniken. Ben

. Tiedke. Diane Modahl. Mark . Doug .

The list goes on and on. Now the fact that East Bloc athletes were

never CAUGHT does not mean they did not use dope. In the '60s, '70s

and '80s there was much less drug-testing than in the '90s. BUT, the

same thing goes for Western athletes -- the fact that they were never

caught does not mean they never used drugs.

And the rash of drug suspensions in the '90s is revealing: not only

in athletics, but in other sports as well -- like the '98 Tour de

France, which has led to several convictions. Do you think Western

athletes all suddenly started using drugs in the '90s after being

clean for decades? Or is better drug testing simply revealing what

has been the case all along: elite athletes, of all nations, have

been using ergogenic substances for decades?

-- Elliot Oti, The Netherlands

March 2, 2001

First Post to the group so here goes . . .

oti@... wrote

<Which " unattainable " records would these be? Aside from the women's

400m and 800m, no other athletics record is in communist East-

European hands. In men's athletics, there are no records older than 1990.>

That comment is not strictly correct. The following world records are still

held by Eastern Bloc athletes.

Mens DT: Jurgen Schult (GDR) 74.08, Norbrandenberg 1986

Womens DT: le Reniech (GDR) 76.80, 1988

Womens SP: Natalya Lisovskaya (USSR) 22.63m, 1988 (I think)

Mens HT: Yuri Sedekh (USSR) 86.74m Stuttgart 30/08/86

In the case of the mens discus event it took almost ten years before another man

threw over 70m ( Washington, USA). However until the incredible throw of

Vergilius Alekna (LIT) of 73.88 prior to the Sydney Olympics no one had been

close to the world record. Indeed most of the longest male throwers at world

level are reaching the standards of the former world record of 71.14m by

Wolfgang Schmidt (GDR)

Most of the best female throwers in the world are 8 meters adrift of the womens

Discus world record. The same can be said for the mens Hammer where throws of

82 - 84m are becoming a real rarity.

My personal views on the subject are that to say that the full superiority of

Eastern Block athletes was based purely upon performance enhancing drugs does

not seem sensible.

Personal conversations I have had with coaches who visited East Germany before

and after the wall came down was that there was a meticulous talent

identification system, with well researched training methodologies developed for

each individual event. Facilities were provided along with every other need

that an athlete may have. Align this with high quality coaching, which is of

enormous value in the throwing events, and you had a outstanding support base to

begin with. Adding the use of drugs on top of such a program could be likened

to the icing on the cake. My limited understanding of anabolic steroids and

their effect on sporting performance is that the drugs by themselves would not

have near the effect without the training (If I've got this wrong, I'm happy to

have my opinion changed

Ed Griss

Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

March 2, 2001

oti@... wrote:

> Germany does not have an " excellent supporting structure " for

> athletics that anywhere approaches the old East German structure.

>

> Modern Germany does not have

> - a Statewide compulsory sport program for all school-age children

> - physical aptitude and selection tests on school-age children

> - State built trainings facilities

> - State built sport academies

> - State privileges and incentives for athletes

> - State sponsorship of athletics events

> - achieving sporting success as a high national priority.

>

> Modern German sports is built on a recreational base, where people

> are (voluntarily) members of various recreational sports clubs, and

> a smaller professional layer which derives its income from

> commercial sponsorship.

I often wonder why " free " countries with compulsory state-run schools

don't do any physical aptitude screening. It doesn't seem hard at

all to do some vertical leap tests, etc. and make a few simple

suggestions.

Most kids don't understand that athletic talent isn't a

one-dimensional variable, so a bad sporting experience can turn them

off of all sports.

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________

March 2, 2001

oti@... wrote:

> If you think that the East Bloc results were due to doping, and

> that Western athletes never doped, then consider this:

>

> There have been more Western athletes CAUGHT doping than Eastern.

Obviously Western athletes have doped and still do dope, but East

Germany isn't villified for no reason.

One big reason East German athletes didn't get caught was because

their extensive drug programs involved pre-screening for drugs before

getting sent off to the Olympics. Individual athletes didn't take

their chances at getting caught, because the team simply didn't send

them if they tested positive ahead of time.

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________

March 3, 2001

> Obviously Western athletes have doped and still do dope, but East

> Germany isn't villified for no reason.

>

> One big reason East German athletes didn't get caught was because

> their extensive drug programs involved pre-screening for drugs

before

> getting sent off to the Olympics. Individual athletes didn't take

> their chances at getting caught, because the team simply didn't send

> them if they tested positive ahead of time.

That's not the point I was trying to make. The structural nature of

the East German system is common knowledge. What I personally find

irritating is the assumption that *only* East Germans were guilty of

this.

Case in point. In 1998 the Tour De France was disrupted by a series

of shocking doping scandals. At the time it looked like the

reputation of professional cycling was destroyed for good. Several

investigations, trials, and confessions later, it is apparent that

systematic doping has been ubiquitous in professional cycling for

decades. This despite the fact that cycling, next to athletics and

swimming, probably carries out more doping tests than any other

sport. Willy Voet, the Belgian soigneur of the Festina team who was

arrested (and convicted) by the French justice, revealed how cyclists

on his team had been systematically using dope for years. There were

buses with curtained windows during competitions, for massages and

physiotherapy, where cyclists stocked up on EPO. Tests were carried

out on cyclists by friendly doctors, to determine if their

hematocrite values were within the accepted norm for EPO drug tests.

Blood thinners were injected regularly. All with the knowledge,

support, and sanction of the team managers. (When first caught,

cyclist Virenque tearfully swore on his sainted mother's

grave that he was innocent. Two years and one sober confession later,

we now know otherwise).

Sound familiar? Maybe the fact that cycling is a primarily European

pursuit means that this did not get much attention in the US, but the

Tour of '98 revealed that professional cycling was rotten to the

core. (It's all been cleaned up now, the ICU assures us).

The point is, when an East German sets a mark, it's considered to be

all doping. When a Western athlete exceeds that mark, he or she does

it " clean " . Marita Koch and Heike Drechsler ran sub 11.00, but that

was only because they were masculine druggies. Florence Joyner-

Griffith broke 10.50, but she did it without the aid of performance

enhancing substances. No-one asks, if the East Bloc performances were

solely ascribable to dope, then why doesn't it seem to work as well

for Western athletes?

In other words, there are two kinds of human beings: inferior East

Bloc types, lacking in spirit and will-power, and drugged to the

gills in order to compensate for their physical shortcomings; and

Western athletes: clean with few exceptions, naturally physically

stronger, and possessing an iron will to win.

Hyperbole, of course, but you get my point.

I'm not making excuses for the East Germans, nor am I particularly

interested in preserving their reputation. It's just a consequence of

the general mudslinging so common nowadays, and so irritatingly

omnipresent at the Sydney Olympics: " Our guys are clean, and their

guys are doped; if we didn't win it was because THEY cheated, and if

we did win it was because WE were naturally better " .

-- Elliott Oti, The Netherlands

March 3, 2001

> I have to disagree. As far as the champions league goes, anyone can

> qualify providing they win their own domestic league so

qualification

> itself is no great achievement. My analysis applied to performances

> at the top level. The simple fact is that only one east european

team

> has ever won the champions league (formerly European Cup) in over

40

> yrs. That is hardly a proud record compared to the number of east

> european clubs.

Will power and doping have nothing to do with the success of clubs in

the Champion's League.

Money has everything to do with it.

Look at the winners of the Champions League over the past 10 years.

You will see names like Barcelona, Manchester United, and Real Madrid.

Clubs with budgets many times in excess of anything East European

clubs could ever put up.

When was the last time an impoverished Western soccer club won the

Champion's League?

The correlation between club wealth and success in club tournaments

is blindingly obvious, yet you choose to believe

that " grit " , " willpower " , and " sheltered lives " makes the difference

between success and failure.

Tell me, which English football club has the highest income? And

which is champion? I see.

> Undoubtedly all the above played a role in the success of the GDR.

I

> never claimed that drugs were the sole reason for the success of

> their athletes.

Yes you did. I quote:

" it was a systematic program of

doping in those countries which was the primary reason for their

success, rather than superior training methods "

In other words, it was the dope that did it.

> You can obfuscate as much as you wish but you seem to be arguing

two

> different things. On the one hand you applaud Germany for exposing

> the drug programme of the GDR and on the other you defend their

> athletes despite the fact that virtually all of them have admitted

> copious drug use.

I fail to see where you get this idea from. I have stated repeatedly,

that the East Germans used doping regularly. I refute (1) the naive

idea they were the only ones doping (2) the silly idea that

appearance is a fool-proof method of deciding that Easterners dope

and Westerners don't [by giving you counter examples], and (3) the

idea that sporting success is primarily determined by doping.

> I never said that. To reiterate whilst both groups had access to

> drugs the former had the advantage of long off seasons when they

> never competed and the backing of state appointed experts in drug

> usage. Obviously, there training programmes, medical supprot etc

were

> helpful but an analysis of their performance before and since 1989

> leads one to the undeniable conclusion that copious drug use was

the

> PRIMARY reason for their success.

Is that so?

The success of East Bloc athletes before 1989 was PRIMARILY due to

drugs? What, they all stopped taking drugs since then? The Bulgarian

weightlifters caught doping in Sydney and stripped of their medals

were framed?

So you think East Europeans have stopped taking performance enhancing

drugs, and that is why they perform so badly.

Not the economic collapse of the East Bloc nations. Not the shutting

down of sports facilities. Not the exodus of talented athletes to the

West. Not the lack of funding and support for indigenous athletes.

Not the loss of funds for scientific study into sports physiology.

No, they've just stopped taking ergogenic substances. Well I've got

news for you. They haven't. Let me turn it around. Explain why,

despite the fact that there is evidence that doping in the East Bloc

is as common as ever, East Bloc athletes do not perform as well as

they used to.

> As for , he is another example of an athlete unable to

> approach anywhere near his best once caught (twice). The same

applies

> for who without his crutch was seen to be nothing great.

Is that so?

" without his crutch was seen to be nothing great. "

It wouldn't be the fact that he was out of active competition for

three years that led to his loss of form, would it?

For your information, after his " nothing great " performance in

the '92 Olympic Games (last in the semi finals), Ben was

tested positive again for abnormal testosterone levels. A third test

carried out later at his own insistence also returned positive. He

still had his crutch. He had never abandoned his crutch.

And he, like you, and like many others, had made the big mistake of

assuming that that crutch is all-important.

And that is what I have been trying to say all along.

-- Elliott Oti, The Netherlands

March 3, 2001

Elliott replied,

>

>> As for , he is another example of an athlete unable to

>> approach anywhere near his best once caught (twice). The same

>applies

>> for who without his crutch was seen to be nothing great.

>

>Is that so?

>

> " without his crutch was seen to be nothing great. "

>

>It wouldn't be the fact that he was out of active competition for

>three years that led to his loss of form, would it?

>

>For your information, after his " nothing great " performance in

>the '92 Olympic Games (last in the semi finals), Ben was

>tested positive again for abnormal testosterone levels. A third test

>carried out later at his own insistence also returned positive. He

>still had his crutch. He had never abandoned his crutch.

>

>And he, like you, and like many others, had made the big mistake of

>assuming that that crutch is all-important.

>

>And that is what I have been trying to say all along.

Ben is quoted as saying something along the lines that without the

juice he couldn't break 10 seconds. As you point out, the fact that he

really believed that led to his crutch.

The mind is a key issue here. I personally think Ben's belief made it true.

He couldn't, because he set that limit on himself. Perhaps with a different

mindset Ben could have been a great drug-free athlete. But it is certainly

a pervasive belief in our culture today that athletic excellence is only

achieved through drug use. Which is really, really sad. The clean athletes

are tarred with the same brush as thiose who cheat.

March 3, 2001

Even drug users have to put in the training time and effort. AAS allow one

to train harder and/or more frequently. Athletes lack heart and will for

wanting to be the best??? Competing and ultimately winning is the point of

sporting competition.