Skip to main content

Is Putin Flying Too Close to the Sun?

 


    There was not a specific scene that got to me; however, there is something I found alarming.  The fact that athletes were doping, in general, doesn't surprise me (I feel like athletes get caught for that all the time), but the fact that 100% of the Russian athletes in the 2014 Olympics (in Russia) were doping, and the fact that this doping of the athletes was led by Putin (well, it came down the chain of command, but the people leading the program were essentially hired by Putin), did really get to me.  It just left me dumbfounded, and I'm not sure why; I don't think there's really anyway else for me to describe how or why this blew my mind, but it did.

    What most surprised me was the extreme lengths the Russians went to in order to get their athletes to be able to dope during the 2014 Olympics in Sochi and pass the drug tests.  Like, the containers being used to hold the urine were specifically made so that in order to open them, the lids had to be broken off; the head Moscow WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) scientist (Grigory) didn't even know how the KGB got the tubes open, but they did open them without breaking, and they were able to swap the dirty urine (urine with drugs in it) with clean urine (urine without drugs in it).  This also just completely dumbfounded me; I just couldn't imagine the leader of a country, who already probably has enough on his plate, spending time on finding ways to get his Olympic athletes to dope and pass drug tests for the Olympics.

    I don't really have any questions left after watching the documentary, but I do think it would be really cool to have knowledge and be able to apply it in real life situations.  Like, Grigory went to school for this, and got a job almost right out of college, then he went to jail and Putin rescued him from jail because he had a job for him (the doping and anti-doping position in Moscow's WADA lab), and he knew what he was doing so well to the point where he was able to help athletes dope until a certain point before competition, to remain undetected, and then gave them stuff to take in order to mask the fact that some drugs might still be in their system. Like, I love religions so much, and I love learning about them, but I can't find a way to apply that to what I want to do!  it just baffles me.

    We should avoid putting research in our summaries for multiple reasons.  One of these reasons is that we could end up with information in our brains that wasn't shown in the documentary.  Another reason for not including research in the summary could be because it is then easier to include unnecessary information; oftentimes in a summary, the writer wants to be a bit broader and not go into so much detail. These are just a few reasons to not include outside research in a summary.

Here is a link to the movie on Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/search?q=icarus&jbv=80168079    

Comments

  1. Casey Aikman11:49 PM

    I remember watching Icarus with my dad a couple years ago, and feeling the same way about it. I've known for a long time that Russians athletes are more likely to use PEDs than others, but I didn't know that it was provided by the state before watching Icarus. In the US, there are definitely some groups trying to get athletes doped without detection, but I'm fairly certain that there is no one in the state system doing it. PEDs are basically state-sanctioned in Russia. In the US, we have USADA, which is a pretty thorough organization that drug tests all highly competitive athletes. I can't imagine a group like USADA actively doping athletes while using its name as a cover up, like Russia did.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Andy Pham3:50 PM

    I found that it was extremely surprising that 100% of Russian athletes were doping in the 2014 Olympics. One reason I thought Putin ordered the command is to glorify and make it look like Russia is the best country in the world, like doing it for political propaganda.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Three Paragraphs

Three paragraphs.  Three.  Paragraphs.  Who am I?  Who?  Am?  I?  You want me to tell you who I am in a minimum of three paragraphs.  Is it possible for me to tell you who I am in a maximum of three paragraphs?  Can I even try and sum up to you who I am in one sentence?  In a paragraph?  I can try.  I am a body and a soul.  I have a brain, along with logic and reason.  I like to read.  I am a wrestler.  I am a child of God.  I am Catholic.  I am a swimmer.  I am blonde.  I am five feet and four-and-a-quarter inches tall.  I wear a size nine and a half women’s shoe and a seven in men’s.  I know my men’s size because up until 2021, there were no wrestling shoes that ran in women’s sizes.  I am an advocate for the sanctioning of women’s wrestling as a high school sport, especially in, but not limited to, Iowa.  I am a girl from Iowa that does what she loves.  I am a girl who drives around, blasting her KLOVE for all to hear.  I am a girl who goes to weekday masses.   Three paragraphs.  I
7 comments
Read more

Flowers

Flowers are gorgeous, And they should be treated right. I felt gorgeous, too. When someone says to Treat something right, they mean that It should be taken Very good care of. Flowers should have the backs of Other flowers, and  Make sure they're okay. A rose should help a daisy If a human tries To trample on her And destroy what makes her safe. Humans can be harsh. When a rose does not Have the back of a daisy, The daisy can be Hurt in a way that She can never fully heal From, and that's tragic. The rose did her best To save the daisy, but she Slipped up for a split Second, and the man Was able to inflict pain To the daisy that She may never come To fully heal. The daisy Does not blame the rose. It is sad flowers Are required to have each Others' backs to stay Safe from men when they Are in such a public place, But that is the case.
2 comments
Read more

Update on My Research Process

    I have been working on my  research for this research paper, and I have found three sources.  I have one .edu source and two scholarly articles for sources.  One of these scholarly articles is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the other is an original research paper (I believe it was an anthropological study).     In the past, I have taken the approach of a politician almost, and that has caused me to take quotes out of context and use them to my advantage.  While this does create a paper with evidence, it also creates an argument that isn't solid.  I will not be doing this for this paper because I am actually writing about something I care about.  I am not a politician that constantly takes someone else's words and uses them out of context to benefit myself; the only time I have ever done it is in one research paper in high school.   I have found overwhelming support for many of my claims,--I plan to discuss both ends of the spectrum throughout the whole paper,
4 comments
Read more