We are left to wonder what might have been?

Photograph Quiz:

Photo no. 131:- Although this photo was taken in 1957, what was so special in the world of athletics about the company who organised these particular sports? The same company ground was used when the historical event was staged? What was it? Where was it? What product did the company produce?

Dear Blog,

              The find of the body of King Richard 111 has interesting implications for athletics  and the athletes who have taken or have used performance enhancing drugs [or have not]. If you bluff someone and they fall for your set up, are you ever sure that they have actually fallen into your trap or is the intended victim clever enough to perform a double bluff on you. And how would you know whether they were duped or they are now trying to suck you into your own deception? And then do you go along with the double bluff pretending innocence … and so on and so forth … “…to spring a trap and not the trap to be sprung for sure is more than thou intended Lord.” Now with King Richard, a facial reconstruction has taken place, which must be a mega bluff surely? How are we to know how accurate such an assumption about his feature is? Will we ever know whether the image is a close resemblance? Of course we won’t… or will we?

              Now consider those who have taken performance enhancing drugs in athletics. From the 70s and 80s when drug testing was either non-existent, in its infancy or the participants were all complicit in deception, athletes of that era will never admit guilt for obvious reasons, not least because of their present standing within or without the sport. So they are left with the dilemma as to what effect chemical assistance played in their success or failure. They will never know. Similarly the testers are unable to gauge the effect of drugs on actual performance because how do you perform an acceptable double blind test on athletes within the acceptable parameters of high performance level within today’s rules on drugs? If groups of volunteers from a reasonably fit section of the population are used to gauge efficacy, it is not to say that the same conclusions would be draw from a very fit athlete. Some time ago I had a medical problem and had to go for a series of hospital tests to form a prognosis. When all the tests were completed, the conclusion was that no medical help might be offered as I fell into such a high percentile of the population that there was not enough information to offer a comparison! So it is with the drug takers. Where do known comparisons exist for performances posted? How can the observer say what would have happened if the athlete had not taken a particular drug or not stayed at altitude for a given length of time or not slept every night in a simulator tent? Like life, what if we had turned right instead of left at some juncture? And also we are left to speculate about what satisfaction the awards and accolades gained through deception have brought the miscreant. Does their gold medal sitting on the mantle shelf actually glitter with guilt? Or does it glitter with gilt?

                   Must stop as I am off to polish my medals.

                                           Colin