https://theins.press/en/inv/290235 - Lost in translation: How Russia’s new elite hit squad was compromised by an idiotic lapse in tradecraft
https://theins.press/en/inv/287837 - The mob’s humanitarian backdoor: Ramzan Kadyrov’s mafia connections reach deep into German critical infrastructure
I always wonder about Navalny - why did he go back to Russia? Did he really believe that he could do some kind of Nelson Mandela thing? Or that the Russian people would flock to his cause? I believe that the man was an idealist, I don't think you expose yourself to that much danger without being an idealist at least on some level or thinking that the possible personal rewards make the danger worth it, and I don't get the sense from Navalny that he was after personal rewards primarily. But with his experience in Russian politics, I feel like he should have known that the chance that his return to Russia would bring about any serious political change was extremely small. Not returning to Russia would have hurt his chances of causing political change as well, since that would have made him seem like just an agent of the Western powers. But returning to Russia at the cost of his life also did not accomplish political change.
I think you just have to accept that he was built different from someone like you. I think it's kind of a form of disrespect to say "why would someone do that?" We know exactly why he did it, he had a level of passion you don't. It's okay for you to not be passionate about anything on the level of giving up your life, but you shouldn't act like that doesn't exist or is an odd weird thing you're could never understand
I know it exists. I'm asking why he went on an extremely dangerous mission that had very little chance of success instead of using his energy on something that would have been more likely to achieve success, or on something that would have been equally unlikely to achieve success but at least would not have been extremely dangerous.
Navalny saw exile as a betrayal of both his country and his ideas and convictions. I think he mentioned that an opposition that is staying outside of Russia would lose moral legitimacy in the eyes of Russians too, or something similar.
You are absolutely ignorant both of him and his circle, and then his supporters. Him and his circle were and are collaborating with the enemies of the Russian people (not the state, the people itself), many of them because of a deep hatred they have towards this people.
Most of their supporters are ignorant (though they themselves do not think so), frustrated, and violent young people, which your country hopes to use as one of the ingredients to start a civil war inside Russia.
So, brushing away your propaganda about "idealists" and like, this is more or less the bare truth (which you will probably call "Russian ptopaganda", ignoring history, evidence, and common sense).
Your point doesn't come across here? And doesn't seem to have any direct reactions to the comment above. Any proof or source for your claims would help. Also no reason to be rude.
I've wondered the same. A look at his contemporary media quotes gives maybe a hint. From Navalny: "It is difficult for me to understand exactly what is going on in [Putin's] mind. [...] 20 years of power would spoil anyone and make them crazy. He thinks he can do whatever he wants."
If this quote is genuine, as opposed to wistful, it suggests Navalny's evaluation of Russia was that Putin couldn't, in fact, do whatever he wanted there. As best I can tell, such an evaluation would have been pretty damn close to completely inaccurate.
The choice to return to Russia as a catastrophically-failed gamble based on that premise is what makes the most sense to me.
He was sure that his western puppeteers would make it impossible to treat him the way you treat your opponents. And he was an uscrupulous adventurer, not an "idealist". 2+2=4, here is your "mystery" solved.
If he was an unscrupulous adventurer who was sure that his Western support would prevent him from being killed, then that leads to two questions:
1. Why exactly would he have been so sure that his Western support would prevent him from being killed? The Russian elite is not exactly made up of people who are squeamish about killing, and the risk to the elite from killing him would have been small.
2. Why not just stay in the West and do the unscrupulous adventuring from there? Sure, maybe the Western backers would not have quite as much use for you that way, but you'd still have a lot of influence and a cushy life.
Why he was sure? Since Putin and his circle, contrary to what your propaganda tries to picture, are acting rationally based on the information they have (which may be outdated or incorrect), just as your country, though the means they have are very much inferior to yours. Apparently at some point the perceived risk from Navalny outweighed potential punitive western measures.
Why not just "stay in the west"? And why hadn't Arafat stayed in Tunis and went to the west bank to be then poisoned there by the Mossad? (As the late Uri Avneri claimed)
Closer to the Russian reality, why hadn't Lenin stayed in Switzerland? And what was the end of prince Kurbskiy who tried to oppose Ivan "the terrible" from Poland?
I'm not claiming that Putin is acting irrationally, at least not any more irrationally than other leaders - after all, politicians are still human.
My question is why Navalny would have believed that it would not be rational for Putin to kill him.
Lenin entered Russia at a more advantageous moment than Navalny did. The February Revolution had already happened. The government was new. Navalny, in contrast, entered a Russia in which the government was stable and had been around for a long time.
He returned to Russia, as I just checked, in January 2021. The sanctions were already working, rouble was devaluating, the country was perceived to bow to western pressure, Ukraine was steadily preparing to enter Donbass and eventually take Crimea (yes, I know your media did not tell you that, but this was the end goal they had in mind, with western support of course). What is so stable about this situation?
You don't need to assume that I've been brainwashed by Western propaganda. I generally distrust both the Western and the Russian mainstream narratives about geopolitics.
Actually, a lot would change. Each one of the Ukrainian lives destroyed is a whole life destroyed. A damaged car is a setback for a family. There are whole cities and villages razed in Ukraine, fields polluted or rigged with explosives. Countless lives lost; each person's story and potential ended by some Russian's "command-following" drone or missile strike.
No, Russia isn't the only one, but _is_ a cause of a lot of suffering and resources wasted.
I am considering the absolute impact on those affected, which is the most relevant for this discussion. Millions are not "a few". And it's absolutely unnecessary, the aggressor has always been in the position to pull back and leave (or not attack at all). Everyone but _a few_ war profiteers suffers from war, because it requires hours of work (weapons) diverted towards destroying other hours of work (cars, houses, infrastructure), occupying workers' time by ordering them to kill future workers, all of which could go towards increasing production instead of decreasing it, which does affect global markets and thus people globally.
Had? Ukraine still has the option to capitulate and give up its territory, what kind of argument is that? Separatists who take up arms are a fair target, they are the ones violently changing the status quo. When both sides kill civilians in a war started by one side, that side's further escalation is not at all justified by "killing ppl of donbass", so let's not manipulatively paint a "both sides" picture as if there isn't a huge difference
ah, here comes whataboutism. And you are correct. It would be great if russia didn't destroy Afghanistan and Syria.
Also, equating conflicts is a very shallow and inadequate manipulation tool. For example, russians razed dozens of cities in Ukraine, establish torture and rape chambers, use rape, torture, execution of POW as policy today.
"all wars are bad" doesn't mean that whatever russia does is way worse.
Sport fan clowns always say you have to separate politics from the Olympics. Well guess what my own country is sponsoring athletes because the whole fucking show is just a way for countries to show off. Not sure what we are showing off to be honest- although I did clap for the nice Somali ex refugee lady who is now a professional athlete.
1. How stupid do you have to be to believe that a three-letter agency from any country isn't capable of delivering a lethal dose of poison to eliminate its target?
2. To this day, it remains unclear who actually slightly poisoned Navalny and to what end.
3. As of last week, we have an on-camera confession [2] from Leonid Volkov of Navalny's FBK [1], in which he states that it is very disappointing that USAID funding is no longer available. The videos are in Russian, but you should at least care and be capable of translating them with AI. If not, don't even bother raising your propagandized, brainwashed takes.
I have nothing to say about the OP-linked site other than that it is a trashcan of lies.
I don't condone doping in tested sports, but I think there needs to be recognition that preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.
Here is what I mean:
Suppose that two men are born, with identical brains, but very different bodies. Both of them have a single desire: to be the fastest sprinter in the world.
- Clinically deficient values of Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1. Prone to musculoskeletal injuries, possibly connective tissue disorders.
If these two men live an identical life, and put the same amount of effort into training, the second man still has no hope of making it to the Olympics.
Even doping would only be able to correct for hormonal deficiencies, not the genome-level disadvantages for power performance compared to the other athlete.
A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
> A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
That's what the Olympics is. The men's 100m final pits against each other the fastest 8 men who are in their physical prime, full of fast twitch muscles, with West African descent. With some minor noise.
If you want to watch people from other genotype buckets run 10-50% slower, you can watch the women's event or the Paralympics or, like, the All-Vietnam U-16 event. It seems churlish to complain that not every bucket is on TV at a convenient time for you.
No, the olympics are a doping competition, and a meta-competition of “who is better at not getting detected.”
In general, the statement “if they got a medal, they cheated” is true so much of the time that it becomes a sensible default assumption. And it sucks for the few that didn’t cheat.
So the olympic games do pit near-identical competitors against each other.
> The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
So? The olympic games should be the pinnacle of human performance (fed by their nation's interests). Of course it is lotteries all the way from the genetics, to what country you're born in, right to the national lottery putting money in to sports.
Your alternatives are either a proliferation of categories or random people assembling every four years to roll dice to determine the winner. Neither is exciting.
> preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.
Genetics are necessary to a point, and are not at all sufficient.
Any follower of a sport knows of athletes with incredible genetic blessings who accomplish little or nothing because they lack the hard work, discipline, focus, skill, emotional management, teamwork, etc. to succeed. And that sample omits far more athletes whose non-genetic limitations caused them to drop out or fail out before making it to the level where public is aware of them.
At the same time, the GOATs (greatest of all time) in many sports were not particularly blessed genetically, relative to other top atheletes:
* Football / soccer: Lionel Messi: 5'7", ~160 lbs., and had growth hormone deficiency [0], and is small, and not particularly fast or strong. "Messi’s “software” is what often gives him a head-start on those who physically should have the better of him." If you're interested, this article describes it in some detail: [1]
* American football: Tom Brady was notoriously unathletic, setting records for poor performance in the NFL's scouting 'combine' where draft prospects are compared in standardized tests. Also didn't have a strong throwing arm.
* Basketball is an exception: Michael Jordan was supremely athletic.
* Baseball: Babe Ruth was overweight, not known to be particularly fast or athletic, and played a position for relatively poor athletes who could hit: right field (gets the fewest plays, usually doesn't require more than running to a spot and throwing).
* Hockey: Wayne Gretzky was relatively small, not very fast, didn't have a hard shot.
* Tennis? Boxing? Cricket? Rugby?
These people are far more athletic than ordinary people, of course; I'm comparing them to other professionals in their sports.
What's the point of this post? You're missing the forest for the trees. It's like saying racing is driver against driver, not driver and car against driver and car. Motivation has NEVER made up for physical fitness, never will, and never should. The olympics are about the human body first.
I don't see the Olympics as a particularly "fair" sport in the first place, in the sense of "fair" meaning "without favoritism" because physical capability is a vast spectrum.
Sure, adults should be able to take PEDs if they want to. But there's no reason to allow doping cheaters to enter sanctioned competitive events. It's no different from forcing all competitors to follow equipment rules. Like for the discus throw everyone has to use the same weight. Or for bike racing you can't install a motor.
Would you think it a poor dynamic if a company offered to pay people a good salary simply to be heavy sustained drinkers, but only for some limited amount of time? I'd say the problem is that the Moloch attractor tends to undermine this lofty ideal of "freedom of choice".
At least that produces tangible value for the rest of us this way.
Current idea of sports is that athletes wreck themselves for mere performance value (and money to the people who set it up, with a bit trickling down to athletes for enabling it all). As far as I understand, nothing they directly do is otherwise reusable to anyone else.
I’d rather watch a live commercial for human enhancement industries. At least that’s something that eventually becomes available to everyone.
FSB's Second Service are also the ones who deal with the internet shitshow now.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/04/16/report-fsb-unit-linked-...
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/04/15/russian-websites-b...
More scary articles I think:
https://theins.press/en/inv/290235 - Lost in translation: How Russia’s new elite hit squad was compromised by an idiotic lapse in tradecraft https://theins.press/en/inv/287837 - The mob’s humanitarian backdoor: Ramzan Kadyrov’s mafia connections reach deep into German critical infrastructure
I always wonder about Navalny - why did he go back to Russia? Did he really believe that he could do some kind of Nelson Mandela thing? Or that the Russian people would flock to his cause? I believe that the man was an idealist, I don't think you expose yourself to that much danger without being an idealist at least on some level or thinking that the possible personal rewards make the danger worth it, and I don't get the sense from Navalny that he was after personal rewards primarily. But with his experience in Russian politics, I feel like he should have known that the chance that his return to Russia would bring about any serious political change was extremely small. Not returning to Russia would have hurt his chances of causing political change as well, since that would have made him seem like just an agent of the Western powers. But returning to Russia at the cost of his life also did not accomplish political change.
I think you just have to accept that he was built different from someone like you. I think it's kind of a form of disrespect to say "why would someone do that?" We know exactly why he did it, he had a level of passion you don't. It's okay for you to not be passionate about anything on the level of giving up your life, but you shouldn't act like that doesn't exist or is an odd weird thing you're could never understand
I know it exists. I'm asking why he went on an extremely dangerous mission that had very little chance of success instead of using his energy on something that would have been more likely to achieve success, or on something that would have been equally unlikely to achieve success but at least would not have been extremely dangerous.
Navalny saw exile as a betrayal of both his country and his ideas and convictions. I think he mentioned that an opposition that is staying outside of Russia would lose moral legitimacy in the eyes of Russians too, or something similar.
That seems plausible to me.
I think that unfortunately for him, his support inside Russia was probably never high enough to seriously challenge the existing leadership.
You are absolutely ignorant both of him and his circle, and then his supporters. Him and his circle were and are collaborating with the enemies of the Russian people (not the state, the people itself), many of them because of a deep hatred they have towards this people.
Most of their supporters are ignorant (though they themselves do not think so), frustrated, and violent young people, which your country hopes to use as one of the ingredients to start a civil war inside Russia.
So, brushing away your propaganda about "idealists" and like, this is more or less the bare truth (which you will probably call "Russian ptopaganda", ignoring history, evidence, and common sense).
Your point doesn't come across here? And doesn't seem to have any direct reactions to the comment above. Any proof or source for your claims would help. Also no reason to be rude.
I've wondered the same. A look at his contemporary media quotes gives maybe a hint. From Navalny: "It is difficult for me to understand exactly what is going on in [Putin's] mind. [...] 20 years of power would spoil anyone and make them crazy. He thinks he can do whatever he wants."
If this quote is genuine, as opposed to wistful, it suggests Navalny's evaluation of Russia was that Putin couldn't, in fact, do whatever he wanted there. As best I can tell, such an evaluation would have been pretty damn close to completely inaccurate.
The choice to return to Russia as a catastrophically-failed gamble based on that premise is what makes the most sense to me.
He was sure that his western puppeteers would make it impossible to treat him the way you treat your opponents. And he was an uscrupulous adventurer, not an "idealist". 2+2=4, here is your "mystery" solved.
If he was an unscrupulous adventurer who was sure that his Western support would prevent him from being killed, then that leads to two questions:
1. Why exactly would he have been so sure that his Western support would prevent him from being killed? The Russian elite is not exactly made up of people who are squeamish about killing, and the risk to the elite from killing him would have been small.
2. Why not just stay in the West and do the unscrupulous adventuring from there? Sure, maybe the Western backers would not have quite as much use for you that way, but you'd still have a lot of influence and a cushy life.
Why he was sure? Since Putin and his circle, contrary to what your propaganda tries to picture, are acting rationally based on the information they have (which may be outdated or incorrect), just as your country, though the means they have are very much inferior to yours. Apparently at some point the perceived risk from Navalny outweighed potential punitive western measures.
Why not just "stay in the west"? And why hadn't Arafat stayed in Tunis and went to the west bank to be then poisoned there by the Mossad? (As the late Uri Avneri claimed)
Closer to the Russian reality, why hadn't Lenin stayed in Switzerland? And what was the end of prince Kurbskiy who tried to oppose Ivan "the terrible" from Poland?
I'm not claiming that Putin is acting irrationally, at least not any more irrationally than other leaders - after all, politicians are still human.
My question is why Navalny would have believed that it would not be rational for Putin to kill him.
Lenin entered Russia at a more advantageous moment than Navalny did. The February Revolution had already happened. The government was new. Navalny, in contrast, entered a Russia in which the government was stable and had been around for a long time.
He returned to Russia, as I just checked, in January 2021. The sanctions were already working, rouble was devaluating, the country was perceived to bow to western pressure, Ukraine was steadily preparing to enter Donbass and eventually take Crimea (yes, I know your media did not tell you that, but this was the end goal they had in mind, with western support of course). What is so stable about this situation?
That seems like a possible answer.
You don't need to assume that I've been brainwashed by Western propaganda. I generally distrust both the Western and the Russian mainstream narratives about geopolitics.
First there was Nemtsov, then there was Navlany. Wonder who's next.
Funny thing is, if 1999 went differently Lukashenka actually had a shot at being in the Kremlin today.
Imagine if all Russians put their energy into making world a better place, instead of killing their neighbours, raping, stealing and corrupting. Sad.
s/Russians/humans/. Absolutely nothing special about Russians here.
The killing the neighbours thing seems a bit more prevalent there than other developed countries.
I can play this game too.
Imagine if all Americans put their energy into making world a better place, instead of killing their neighbours, raping, stealing and corrupting. Sad.
The west is secretly in love with this malevolence, that's why.
Yup, they call it 'mysterious russian soul', while it just a blatant disregard to human life
hm, not much would change. - we'd still see palestine destroyed - iran bombed - iraq bombed - lybia bombed - afganistan bombed - lebanon bombed
Imagine if all countries would put their energy into building peace and prosperity. That would make a difference.
Actually, a lot would change. Each one of the Ukrainian lives destroyed is a whole life destroyed. A damaged car is a setback for a family. There are whole cities and villages razed in Ukraine, fields polluted or rigged with explosives. Countless lives lost; each person's story and potential ended by some Russian's "command-following" drone or missile strike.
No, Russia isn't the only one, but _is_ a cause of a lot of suffering and resources wasted.
A lot would change for a few, not for the 8b people on this planet.
I am considering the absolute impact on those affected, which is the most relevant for this discussion. Millions are not "a few". And it's absolutely unnecessary, the aggressor has always been in the position to pull back and leave (or not attack at all). Everyone but _a few_ war profiteers suffers from war, because it requires hours of work (weapons) diverted towards destroying other hours of work (cars, houses, infrastructure), occupying workers' time by ordering them to kill future workers, all of which could go towards increasing production instead of decreasing it, which does affect global markets and thus people globally.
Both sides had the option to de-escalate. All Ukraine needed to do is to implement Minks agreements instead of killing ppl of donbass.
Had? Ukraine still has the option to capitulate and give up its territory, what kind of argument is that? Separatists who take up arms are a fair target, they are the ones violently changing the status quo. When both sides kill civilians in a war started by one side, that side's further escalation is not at all justified by "killing ppl of donbass", so let's not manipulatively paint a "both sides" picture as if there isn't a huge difference
ah, here comes whataboutism. And you are correct. It would be great if russia didn't destroy Afghanistan and Syria.
Also, equating conflicts is a very shallow and inadequate manipulation tool. For example, russians razed dozens of cities in Ukraine, establish torture and rape chambers, use rape, torture, execution of POW as policy today.
"all wars are bad" doesn't mean that whatever russia does is way worse.
Just pointing out that nothing would change. And you are obviously fixated on Russia. May be broaden your perspective.
only things you point out are russian propaganda points.
that you need to broaden your perspective? Russian propaganda said that about you?
How listening to same disingenuous false propaganda points would broaden anyone perspective? False equivalency between conflicts remain false
Or maybe Westerners stop lying that much.
That is a quintessential part of russia through the history of that country. Conquer, oppress, loot. Medieval imperialism brought to modern age.
Sport fan clowns always say you have to separate politics from the Olympics. Well guess what my own country is sponsoring athletes because the whole fucking show is just a way for countries to show off. Not sure what we are showing off to be honest- although I did clap for the nice Somali ex refugee lady who is now a professional athlete.
How it is hacker news now?
Christo does excellent investigative journalism, his curiosity is well aligned with many of the people on this site.
1. How stupid do you have to be to believe that a three-letter agency from any country isn't capable of delivering a lethal dose of poison to eliminate its target?
2. To this day, it remains unclear who actually slightly poisoned Navalny and to what end.
3. As of last week, we have an on-camera confession [2] from Leonid Volkov of Navalny's FBK [1], in which he states that it is very disappointing that USAID funding is no longer available. The videos are in Russian, but you should at least care and be capable of translating them with AI. If not, don't even bother raising your propagandized, brainwashed takes.
I have nothing to say about the OP-linked site other than that it is a trashcan of lies.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Volkov_(politician) [2] https://www.jpg.wtf/c54omx.mp4
You don't need 3 letter agencies.
Billionaires and Tech Executives from CA do it all time too.
Heck one even threatened to eliminate me because I was working on competing ad tech low latency system. I was much younger back then completely shook.
I don't condone doping in tested sports, but I think there needs to be recognition that preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.
Here is what I mean:
Suppose that two men are born, with identical brains, but very different bodies. Both of them have a single desire: to be the fastest sprinter in the world.
Man A)
- Predominantly fast-twitch muscle fiber composition
- Possesses ACTN3 RX genotype [0]
- Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1 levels at the very upper end of reference range
Man B)
- Predominantly slow-twitch muscle fiber composition
- Possesses ACTN3 XX genotype
- Clinically deficient values of Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1. Prone to musculoskeletal injuries, possibly connective tissue disorders.
If these two men live an identical life, and put the same amount of effort into training, the second man still has no hope of making it to the Olympics.
Even doping would only be able to correct for hormonal deficiencies, not the genome-level disadvantages for power performance compared to the other athlete.
A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
[0]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11014841/
> A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
That's what the Olympics is. The men's 100m final pits against each other the fastest 8 men who are in their physical prime, full of fast twitch muscles, with West African descent. With some minor noise.
If you want to watch people from other genotype buckets run 10-50% slower, you can watch the women's event or the Paralympics or, like, the All-Vietnam U-16 event. It seems churlish to complain that not every bucket is on TV at a convenient time for you.
Olympics are literally a showcase of the genetic lottery. We can have Testtube Olympics alongside Special Olympics if there is sufficient interest.
No, the olympics are a doping competition, and a meta-competition of “who is better at not getting detected.”
In general, the statement “if they got a medal, they cheated” is true so much of the time that it becomes a sensible default assumption. And it sucks for the few that didn’t cheat.
1988 All-Drug Olympics (SNL Weekend Update sketch)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdG-iTilWU
It’s best of competition, not everybody at the same time on finish line equity gathering.
So the olympic games do pit near-identical competitors against each other.
> The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
So? The olympic games should be the pinnacle of human performance (fed by their nation's interests). Of course it is lotteries all the way from the genetics, to what country you're born in, right to the national lottery putting money in to sports.
Your alternatives are either a proliferation of categories or random people assembling every four years to roll dice to determine the winner. Neither is exciting.
There's no inherent reason that the second man couldn't make it to the Olympics in the air pistol event.
> preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.
Genetics are necessary to a point, and are not at all sufficient.
Any follower of a sport knows of athletes with incredible genetic blessings who accomplish little or nothing because they lack the hard work, discipline, focus, skill, emotional management, teamwork, etc. to succeed. And that sample omits far more athletes whose non-genetic limitations caused them to drop out or fail out before making it to the level where public is aware of them.
At the same time, the GOATs (greatest of all time) in many sports were not particularly blessed genetically, relative to other top atheletes:
* Football / soccer: Lionel Messi: 5'7", ~160 lbs., and had growth hormone deficiency [0], and is small, and not particularly fast or strong. "Messi’s “software” is what often gives him a head-start on those who physically should have the better of him." If you're interested, this article describes it in some detail: [1]
* American football: Tom Brady was notoriously unathletic, setting records for poor performance in the NFL's scouting 'combine' where draft prospects are compared in standardized tests. Also didn't have a strong throwing arm.
* Basketball is an exception: Michael Jordan was supremely athletic.
* Baseball: Babe Ruth was overweight, not known to be particularly fast or athletic, and played a position for relatively poor athletes who could hit: right field (gets the fewest plays, usually doesn't require more than running to a spot and throwing).
* Hockey: Wayne Gretzky was relatively small, not very fast, didn't have a hard shot.
* Tennis? Boxing? Cricket? Rugby?
These people are far more athletic than ordinary people, of course; I'm comparing them to other professionals in their sports.
[0] Wikipedia
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4008225/2022/12/16/lionel-m...
Most sports are a genetic lottery showcase regardless of how many drugs you take.
What's the point of this post? You're missing the forest for the trees. It's like saying racing is driver against driver, not driver and car against driver and car. Motivation has NEVER made up for physical fitness, never will, and never should. The olympics are about the human body first.
Yeah so athletes with more money and better access to doping products win instead.
Hard pass.
Also will encourage athletes to give themselves long term health issues for short term performance gains.
I'm of the "your body, your choice" mind
To me the decision to take PED's doesn't feel different than being an alcoholic or having an abortion.
I wouldn't recommend anyone become an alcoholic, but it's their life and people ought to have the freedom of choice.
I’m not sure kids in competitive sports will be able to make an informed decision without any pressure.
Sure, adults should be able to take PEDs if they want to. But there's no reason to allow doping cheaters to enter sanctioned competitive events. It's no different from forcing all competitors to follow equipment rules. Like for the discus throw everyone has to use the same weight. Or for bike racing you can't install a motor.
Would you think it a poor dynamic if a company offered to pay people a good salary simply to be heavy sustained drinkers, but only for some limited amount of time? I'd say the problem is that the Moloch attractor tends to undermine this lofty ideal of "freedom of choice".
At least that produces tangible value for the rest of us this way.
Current idea of sports is that athletes wreck themselves for mere performance value (and money to the people who set it up, with a bit trickling down to athletes for enabling it all). As far as I understand, nothing they directly do is otherwise reusable to anyone else.
I’d rather watch a live commercial for human enhancement industries. At least that’s something that eventually becomes available to everyone.