this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
184 points (99.5% liked)
HistoryPhotos
1286 readers
386 users here now
HistoryPhotos is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
- No genocide or atrocity denialism.
- Photos MUST be at LEAST 10 years old, and ideally over 20. We appreciate that we are living through events which will become history, but this is ultimately not a comm for news or current affairs, but events which have occurred some time in the past.
Related Communities:
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !historymusic@quokk.au
- !historygallery@quokk.au
- !historymemes@piefed.social
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They thought it "opened up the lungs."
If you want more insight into early 20th century sports, check out this account of the first modern Olympic marathon.
I never thought about it before reading the article you posted, but WTF?
Holding the first modern games in Athens is obvious.
Going to Paris next makes sense; it's one of the most prominent cities in the world (and was possibly even more so in 1900).
But St. Louis, Missouri?!
I'm reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1904_Summer_Olympics to figure out how the fuck it happened, and yep, the story is pretty stupid.
Pierre de Coubertin invented modern Olympic Games, that's why Paris was 2nd on the list.
But even if he hadn't, Paris would've been a reasonable choice. St. Louis, not so much.
They injected literal rat poison as doping back then
The idea was to warm the lungs before entering the cold maountains, but it was really about the stimulant effect of nicotine.