Fairness

[Lance Foster]

Fairness in weightlifting contests is primarily ensured through standardized rules, equipment, and judging criteria. Scientific evidence supporting fairness in weightlifting competitions typically revolves around these key factors:

Standardized Equipment: Weightlifting competitions mandate the use of standardized equipment, including barbells, plates, and platforms, to ensure consistency and fairness across competitors. Scientific studies may analyze the properties and specifications of this equipment to verify their conformity to established standards and their impact on performance.

Judging Criteria: Weightlifting events adhere to specific judging criteria, such as proper technique, range of motion, and completion of lifts. Scientific research may focus on biomechanical analyses of these criteria to determine objective measures of performance and adherence to standards.

Drug Testing: Anti-doping measures play a crucial role in ensuring fairness in weightlifting competitions. Scientific evidence may include studies on the effectiveness of drug testing protocols and the physiological effects of performance-enhancing substances on strength and muscle development.

Biomechanical Analysis: Researchers often conduct biomechanical analyses of weightlifting techniques to understand optimal mechanics and factors influencing performance. This information contributes to the development of standardized techniques and coaching methodologies aimed at promoting fairness and safety in competition.

Statistical Analysis: Statistical methods may be employed to analyze competition data and assess factors influencing performance variability among competitors. This could include factors such as body weight, height, age, and training experience, which may affect fairness in competition outcomes.

Overall, scientific evidence supporting fairness in weightlifting contests encompasses various aspects, including equipment standards, judging criteria, anti-doping measures, biomechanical analyses, and statistical assessments of competition data.

Regarding concerns expressed about the USAWA’s use of the Lynch formula, it would be this lay scientist’s opinion that those with a so called scientific approach would be more than capable of operationallizing a valid formula to replace the Lynch formula.

The Gloved One

[Sanjiv Gupta]

I really enjoyed reading Dan Wagman’s rebuttal. It just goes to show how easy it is to misinterpret information and make misleading statements based on that misinterpretation.

The discussion of fairness is certainly a valid one, but I do not think it is an inhibitor to the USAWA’s ability to move and grow in a positive fashion.

Standardized Equipment – We do not weigh plates prior to competition like other sanctioning bodies. This is OK.

Judging Criteria – I think the judging is quite clear, but some continuing education may be necessary, especially with all of the new lifts introduced since some judges have been certified. Also someone officiating USAWA lifts for decades will be better than an official like myself who is newly certified without experience officiating in other federations.

Drug Testing – Well said, but difficult to perform.

Biomechanical Analysis – Very interesting point that I would like to explore further. My fabrication of a neck harness and watching a youtube video is not a “fair” comparison to a coached, trained athlete.

Statistical Analysis – This is a real can of worms to which we can add hand size, gender, ad infinitum

In regards to the Lynch formula and Age Correction, I have been reviewing the USAWA record list and the practices of other sports sanctioning bodies and hope to present a case in the next few months for an alternative, imperfect formula that still does not truly contest maximum muscular strength.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Sanjiv Gupta.

[ClintPoore]

Interesting debate gentlemen.
I would like to respond to a few of the points.

Drug Testing as performed with a minimum random 10 percent testing in competition is MALARKEY!
USA Powerlifting releases their drug testing results online & in 2023 preformed over 3,100 drug tests. Of the 3,100 drug tests there were 19 failure. That is less than 1 percent of people failed the drug test, Is that effective??? Absolutely not, when I was a USA Powerlifting Kentucky State Chair and required to administer drug tests, I had ZERO failures. 10 percent random testing does NOT work. WADA now does a monitoring type of program based on Athlete performance, no local level testing, only at the National Level unless an OMT(Out of Meet Test) is warranted. Drug Testing can be effective but needs to implemented as a deterrent and when requested. There are several other issues with drug testing that need to be addressed, but I digress for now on this topic.

The Lynch Formula! As someone who’s competed in over a dozen different strength organizations in Powerlifting, Strongman, Highland Games, Bodybuilding and Weightlifting, the Lynch Formula is as good a formula to measure strength as I have seen. The only thing that baffles me is why the 1.00 point is set at 75 KG/165 lbs. Honestly, it seems to me it should be at least at 85 KG maybe even 90 KG for the 1.00 setting in the Lynch Formula. In my experience, its as good a formula as I have ever seen or used. Remember, the grass isn’t always greener on the other side.

Standardized Equipment is an interesting topic. I have many calibrated plates in BUFFVILLE GYM and I also have some uncalibrated, but it would be easy to weigh any of them if that was a requirement for a National or World Record. Purchasing calibrated plates is very expensive and would be a major problem for getting more USAWA meets, since many are held in personal gyms. I really don’t want us to require calibrated plates.

Everything else is best discussed over food & drink!

BE STRONG!
Clint Poore

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by ClintPoore.
• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by ClintPoore.

[LEDAIG HEAVY ATHLETICS]

Test

[Author]

Posts