'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

unkymo

No

New episode of South Park next week;

Episode #13 "A Scause for Applause "
"Rocked by the recent news of drug use by a beloved icon, the world is left feeling lost and betrayed. The boys, join with the rest of the nation, and remove their yellow wristbands. Everyone is on board, except for Stan, who just can’t seem to cut off his bracelet."

A preview clip;

http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/clips/rwb062/we-all-got-duped

kumate_champ07

MPFG wrote: »

My point was about 'off the ball' and balanced coverage when it comes to drugs in sport...I thought Maradona was one of the best footballers ever but (mayeb because) he was excused alot becasue of his talent (hough he was not the only drug user in football)

As for his 'recreational' drug use and no cheating behaviour here is an extract from a BBC report on Maradonna and how he was banned from football during his carrer for drug use and references his shady criminal links



"Maradona played the best football of his career between joining Napoli and leading Argentina to World Cup triumph in 1986.

He was feted as a god by the tifosi as he inspired Napoli to two titles and Uefa Cup success, and the adoration blinded him as he became embroiled in vice and corruption scandals.

He became inextricably linked to Naples' own crime syndicates and it is said that in the seething southern Italian city, the Camorra and cocaine did for Maradona.

After leading Argentina to the World Cup in 1986, the time-bomb ticked away under him.

After a controversial Italia 90, a positive dope test in 1991 not only triggered a 15-month ban but hinted why at times during the World Cup, Maradona played not so much like a man possessed but like a man deranged.

He returned and arrested his slide by getting his act together to play in the 1994 World Cup in the USA.

Suspicions of flakiness were turned into confirmations of near lunacy by another positive test that saw him thrown out of the tournament, officially for use of ephedrine, probably just one ingredient in a witches' brew of drugs coursing through him."

he had a habit of getting high and eating junk food, the ephedrine would have been for weight loss.

ozzy jr

No

Having just looked at that youtube Late Late Show clip, I'd love to see Stephen Roche, David Walsh and Pat Kenny sit down again and have a 30 minute chat, now that the general public knows a lot more about doping, masking etc.

wonderfullife

No

ozzy jr wrote: »

Having just looked at that youtube Late Late Show clip, I'd love to see Stephen Roche, David Walsh and Pat Kenny sit down again and have a 30 minute chat, now that the general public knows a lot more about doping, masking etc.

it's interesting to note that the so-called expert doctor in the audience defending Roche got his facts fairly wrong, synthetic EPO was available in europe in 1987 contrary to his assertions.

Also, looking back, Roches defences such as - "why would i take PED's during training?" are almost laughable.

There's 1 very simple fact of life, evolution and sport - almost uniform across all sports - and that is athletes get stronger and faster each generation. As diets, coaching, facilities, equipment, training, nutrition, etc etc improve athletes get faster and better. Yet this years TdF Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome rode far slower with a much lower power output in watts to the tours of the Armstrong era.

On a trend basis, almost all sports follow this fact:

Tennis - Average Serve Speeds progressively faster over time. Now something like 45 of the top 50 fastest ever recorded serves are from the past decade.

Golf - Average drive length increased decade by decade.

Football - Average distance covered around the pitch increased progressively.

This applies to mostly all sports. The difference between those sports and cycling is you rarely, if ever, come across a massive statistical imbalance.

1903 TdF - average speed 25.67 km/ph
2012 TdF - average speed 39.83 km/ph

Yet in cycling the general trend towards faster, stronger, higher sees a huge imbalance in the 1987-2009 periods. Where the rate of improvement sky rocketed then plummeted.

The average speed of any grand tour will be affected by the total distance and crucially the terrain, of course, but when you add together average speed and power output in watts, it's more than telling that the riders of the 2012 Tour have seemingly become the first sport to go backwards against the tide of evolution. Even despite all the advantages they have on the Armstrong generation and before, with better bikes, better training programmes, dieting, nutrition etc they don't come close to the power output or average speeds.

It just baffles me that the likes of Roches winning tour can produce an average speed of 36.645 km/ph over a distance 800km longer than the 2012 tour and on a course that contained a time trial up Mont Ventoux, climbs up l'alpe D'Huez, the Galibier, Madeleine, plus at least 4 tough climbs in the Pyrenees, yet Wiggins and the rest of them can only produce 39 km/ph over easier courses and less distance with slightly worse power-to-weight ratios on better bikes.

Either the cyclists these days are just pure muck or they are actually at least trying to race clean. Or of course the previous eras were doped to the eyeballs including some of our own cyclists :cool:

M three

^^
Good post. <snip>

corny

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

it's interesting to note that the so-called expert doctor in the audience defending Roche got his facts fairly wrong, synthetic EPO was available in europe in 1987 contrary to his assertions.

Also, looking back, Roches defences such as - "why would i take PED's during training?" are almost laughable.

There's 1 very simple fact of life, evolution and sport - almost uniform across all sports - and that is athletes get stronger and faster each generation. As diets, coaching, facilities, equipment, training, nutrition, etc etc improve athletes get faster and better. Yet this years TdF Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome rode far slower with a much lower power output in watts to the tours of the Armstrong era.

On a trend basis, almost all sports follow this fact:

Tennis - Average Serve Speeds progressively faster over time. Now something like 45 of the top 50 fastest ever recorded serves are from the past decade.

Golf - Average drive length increased decade by decade.

Football - Average distance covered around the pitch increased progressively.

This applies to mostly all sports. The difference between those sports and cycling is you rarely, if ever, come across a massive statistical imbalance.

1903 TdF - average speed 25.67 km/ph
2012 TdF - average speed 39.83 km/ph

Yet in cycling the general trend towards faster, stronger, higher sees a huge imbalance in the 1987-2009 periods. Where the rate of improvement sky rocketed then plummeted.

The average speed of any grand tour will be affected by the total distance and crucially the terrain, of course, but when you add together average speed and power output in watts, it's more than telling that the riders of the 2012 Tour have seemingly become the first sport to go backwards against the tide of evolution. Even despite all the advantages they have on the Armstrong generation and before, with better bikes, better training programmes, dieting, nutrition etc they don't come close to the power output or average speeds.

It just baffles me that the likes of Roches winning tour can produce an average speed of 36.645 km/ph over a distance 800km longer than the 2012 tour and on a course that contained a time trial up Mont Ventoux, climbs up l'alpe D'Huez, the Galibier, Madeleine, plus at least 4 tough climbs in the Pyrenees, yet Wiggins and the rest of them can only produce 39 km/ph over easier courses and less distance with slightly worse power-to-weight ratios on better bikes.

Either the cyclists these days are just pure muck or they are actually at least trying to race clean. Or of course the previous eras were doped to the eyeballs including some of our own cyclists :cool:

You can't infer that tbh. It could easily be the case that a team could deliberately tap out a slower, more human, rhythm in order to avoid suspicion. If you control the pace for the majority of the race....

M three

corny wrote: »

You can't infer that tbh. It could easily be the case that a team could deliberately tap out a slower, more human, rhythm in order to avoid suspicion. If you control the pace for the majority of the race....

That doesnt make sense.
Then whats the point in doping if they're just going to restrict themselves to their "natural" pace?

corny

No

M three wrote: »

That doesnt make sense.
Then whats the point in doping if they're just going to restrict themselves to their "natural" pace?

Might not be natural for them and you won't weaken half as quick as someone on the very edge to keep up.

Beasty

No

M three wrote: »

^^
Good post. <snip>

No doping speculation - next one will be getting a card

Thanks

Beasty

hardCopy

No

Wiggins moved up to third in 2009 TdF

I guess he never did race Lance.

buffalo

No

Meanwhile... in other spots:

ANDY Murray has called for more out-of-competition doping tests to be carried out in tennis.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/murray-more-drug-testing-required-in-tennis-3277755.html

Chuckk

Just on the all sports progress trend:
The long jump

Interesting final paragraph:

In 2004, Dick Pound, at the time the president of the World Anti-Doping Agency, told the New York Times that records in track and field were no longer being broken because “there were a lot of doped-up performances out there.” If that’s the case, perhaps the state of the long jump isn’t that remarkable. Rather, it’s amazing that records are broken so frequently in other track events.

ednwireland

buffalo wrote: »

Meanwhile... in other spots:

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/murray-more-drug-testing-required-in-tennis-3277755.html

"The one thing I would say with a sport like cycling is it's purely physical, there's very little skill involved in the Tour de France.

"It is the power, how many watts you're producing, whereas with tennis you can't learn the skill by taking a drug.

"I think tennis at the top level has been pretty clean compared to most sports. But that isn't to say more can't be done to make 100 per cent sure there are no issues."

Nwm2

No

ednwireland wrote: »

In terms of motor skills, absolutely true surely? Shut up legs and turn the pedals.

Chips Lovell

No

I'd like to put him on a bike and ask him to chase the peloton down some Pyrennean descent

Wibbs

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

it's interesting to note that the so-called expert doctor in the audience defending Roche got his facts fairly wrong, synthetic EPO was available in europe in 1987 contrary to his assertions.

In tiny experimental/preproduction amounts. It was only approved in 1991 and produced in any quantities after that time. It's possible some small quantities of synthetic EPO was available to athletes before that date, but pretty unlikely. If blood doping was going on in the 80's it would have been much more likely to be blood storage and transfusion. The US olympic team had used this in 1984, before it was banned.

There's 1 very simple fact of life, evolution and sport - almost uniform across all sports - and that is athletes get stronger and faster each generation. As diets, coaching, facilities, equipment, training, nutrition, etc etc improve athletes get faster and better. Yet this years TdF Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome rode far slower with a much lower power output in watts to the tours of the Armstrong era.

+1 it's fishier than a Tokyo market. I'm personally well dubious of results from the grand tours from about 91/92 onwards.

On a trend basis, almost all sports follow this fact:

Tennis - Average Serve Speeds progressively faster over time. Now something like 45 of the top 50 fastest ever recorded serves are from the past decade.

Golf - Average drive length increased decade by decade.

Football - Average distance covered around the pitch increased progressively.

With the exception of football(though old stylee leather balls would slow down a game) the increases have a lot to do with technology as well as technique and training. Carbon fibre rackets/clubs will transfer the power of the player far better than wood.

The average speed of any grand tour will be affected by the total distance and crucially the terrain, of course, but when you add together average speed and power output in watts, it's more than telling that the riders of the 2012 Tour have seemingly become the first sport to go backwards against the tide of evolution. Even despite all the advantages they have on the Armstrong generation and before, with better bikes, better training programmes, dieting, nutrition etc they don't come close to the power output or average speeds.

Yep though the better bikes part is debatable. It shouldn't have that much of an effect. I'll try and dig up a link to an experiment I read on this. Well concerning weight and bikes. They got a time triallist to cycle a course(can't recall the distance) then got him to do the same course only this time with an extra 25 pounds(11 kilos in new money) added around the bike and the difference in time between the two runs was only something like 40 seconds. Aerodynamics would come into it, but less so on a grand tour style bike I'd reckon. A grand tour style bike in eddy merckx' time would weigh around 8.5 kgs(drop a kilo for an out and out TT bike of the time). So around a kilo difference between one of those bikes and a bike in the mid to late 90's. Certainly not enough to explain the huge diffs in speeds and output on equipment alone. Armstrong got that part right "it's not(so much) about the bike". Or at least less than weight weenies and equipment fetishists* may think

Either the cyclists these days are just pure muck or they are actually at least trying to race clean. Or of course the previous eras were doped to the eyeballs including some of our own cyclists :cool:

Maybe, maybe not. Other things can come into play. One example would be the quality of the field at any one time. Take say the early 80's. You could have a lineup for a TdF that included Greg Lemond, Bernard Hinault, Stephen Roche, Sean Kelly, Joop Zoetemelk, Laurent Fignon etc Any one of whom could be in contention or cause serious upset. How might a Wiggins fare against a lineup like that? I'm not so sure he'd win IMHO. Actually more than not so sure. Against a merckx or an anquetil? Game over man. So it's possible for one generation to have less top class guys than another, but I take your point.

Nwm2 wrote: »

In terms of motor skills, absolutely true surely? Shut up legs and turn the pedals.

Try cycling in a fast moving club level bunch, never mind a pro peloton and then get back to me. It takes a lot of practice, skill and balls. As Vladimir Kurtains notes, try going down a French alp doing 60-70 mph on tyres 20 mm across and not dying. Not easy at all.





* I'm proud to stand up and count myself as an equipment fetishist in any pursuit I enjoy. Some of my fly fishing gear looks like it came from NASA and fly fishing guys can make cycling guys seem like luddites

Tombo2001

Wibbs wrote: »

With the exception of football(though old stylee leather balls would slow down a game) the increases have a lot to do with technology as well as technique and training. Carbon fibre rackets/clubs will transfer the power of the player far better than wood.

Possibly another reason for the increase in performance is to with the widening of the population bases participating in the sport.

What I mean is, in the 1950s say, when Ronnie Delaney won the olympic 1500m....it was basically the common wealth games......Irish, Brits, Aussia, Kiwis.....in the race.

Nowadays the population spread is far wider.....all those countries still participate. But instead of making up 90% of the field, they make up 10% of the field.

The tour hasnt done that though, to any great extent......how many black athletes have ever completed the tour. So it doesnt in my view have that natural progression in times that derives from moving from a European to a Global sport.

brandon_flowers

No

Back on topic with a bang

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUJcrkY2U-0

Beasty

No

I've deleted a couple of posts. Speculating about people doping in other sports is no different than similar speculation about cyclists. Don't do it.

Thanks

Beasty

mcgratheoin

No

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'd mention here Sonia O'Sullivan......I'd be fairly confident she was a clean athlete. One of the best this country has produced.

The women who beat her in many of her key races, most notably the Sydney olympics when Sonia won silver, would be ones who have questions to answer.

Yep, Sonia's 8:24:61 in '94 should most likely have been a world record - the only times faster at that point were run over 2 days at that infamous Beijing meet in 1993.

I wouldn't be throwing much in Szabo's direction to be fair to her. She was an outspoken critic of drug users in the sport - she threatened to boycott the 5000 in 2001 over Yegerova being allowed to run and she was sued by Szekely over calling her a "druggie".

el tel

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I'd like to put him on a bike and ask him to chase the peloton down some Pyrennean descent

Everyone freewheeling of course, to remove the element of Wattage :pac:

wonderfullife

No

whilst i accept what Murray meant, it would be similar to saying there is no skill in tennis all they do is run around and hit the ball back.....i.e. it is a gross over-simplification.

If Novak hits a vicious top spin crosscourt shot, Andy has a split second to decide a) do i chase that down b) can i make it if i do and c) if i reach the ball what will i do with it? In cycling when someone goes off the front, especially in a mountain stage, the choices are identical a) do i chase it down? b) do i have it in my legs to chase it down and c) if i do chase it down, do i sit or attack when i reach the break?

Also skill comes in many forms. 100 guys pedalling at the exact same speed on a twisty flat course won't all reach the finish line at same time. Skill can take the form of who takes the best line into corners, who has the most aerodynamic body positioning, who has the best balance to carry speed into bends etc

It's a combination of athleticism and ability to harness the equipment. In both sports. Ability to handle the bike and ability to control the racket to execute the shots you want.

mcgratheoin

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

It's a combination of athleticism and ability to harness the equipment. In both sports. Ability to handle the bike and ability to control the racket to execute the shots you want.

Very true, however the major difference between a club level cyclist and a professional cyclist is almost all based on the pro having much higher levels of athleticism and physical abililty. The difference between a club level tennis player and a pro is probably more like 50% athleticism/physical ability and 50% increased skill.

Lumen

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Very true, however the major difference between a club level cyclist and a professional cyclist is almost all based on the pro having much higher levels of athleticism and physical abililty

Kelly & Harmon were talking about this during the Tour this year. Apparently there are a bunch of riders who have got to Pro Tour/World Tour/whatever it's called and been freaked about by how terrifying the experience is, particularly the bunch sprints. And that's starting from from lower level pro racing, not local club races.

Sprinting aside, what really brings it home to me is seeing team cars being unable to keep up with the riders on a wet descent at 80kph or whatever. Have you tried cornering in the wet on any road, flat or downhill, at the same speed as a car or even motorbike on the limit? I have, and it ended badly.

ballygowan1

No

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Yep, Sonia's 8:24:61 in '94 should most likely have been a world record - the only times faster at that point were run over 2 days at that infamous Beijing meet in 1993.

I wouldn't be throwing much in Szabo's direction to be fair to her. She was an outspoken critic of drug users in the sport - she threatened to boycott the 5000 in 2001 over Yegerova being allowed to run and she was sued by Szekely over calling her a "druggie".

Guess you missed this then?

Where have you been living?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/3031535.stm

Nwm2

No

Wibbs wrote: »

Try cycling in a fast moving club level bunch, never mind a pro peloton and then get back to me. It takes a lot of practice, skill and balls. As Vladimir Kurtains notes, try going down a French alp doing 60-70 mph on tyres 20 mm across and not dying. Not easy at all.

LOL at thinking I've not done fast club rides. Condescend much?

Soccer, football, hurling, golf, martial arts - all of which I've spent years at, and all of which take more skill that cycling, some far far more. Wasn't it Joe Friel who said cycling ranked 2-3 out of 10 for technique/skill?

I love cycling, my favorite sport, and I train and race it. Pro cycling may be the toughest sport out there, but let's not pretend that it is primarily a skill-based sport unlike others.

Raam

No

Nwm2 wrote: »

but let's not pretend that it is primarily a skill-based sport unlike others.

Also depends on the form of cycling. Try keeping up with Robin Seymour as he goes around corners in CX. Fitness being equal, a skilled crosser will destroy a non-skilled crosser. Cycling skills are a lot more subtle than other sports.

mcgratheoin

No

Lumen wrote: »

Kelly & Harmon were talking about this during the Tour this year. Apparently there are a bunch of riders who have got to Pro Tour/World Tour/whatever it's called and been freaked about by how terrifying the experience is, particularly the bunch sprints. And that's starting from from lower level pro racing, not local club races.

Sprinting aside, what really brings it home to me is seeing team cars being unable to keep up with the riders on a wet descent at 80kph or whatever. Have you tried cornering in the wet on any road, flat or downhill, at the same speed as a car or even motorbike on the limit? I have, and it ended badly.

I know where you're coming from, that's why I said almost. My point would be that if you put an average club rider on the TT course from the forthcoming TdF, he'd lose a lot more time (comparatively speaking) on the uphill bits than the downhill bits.
It's not as if anyone here is suggesting that cycling doesn't require skill, it's just a recognition that it's a mainly physical test. Clearly it's not as purely physical as running, nor as purely skilful as darts, but the original point here is that it's so close to the purely physical side of the sporting spectrum that PED have a comparitively greater influence than on some other sports.

Lumen

mcgratheoin wrote: »

but the original point here is that it's so close to the purely physical side of the sporting spectrum that PED have a comparitively greater influence than on some other sports.

If you're saying "in cycling the difference between winning and losing can be down to physical strength and stamina, and therefore the outcomes can be largely swayed by the use of PEDs, but that's not the case in (say) ball sports" then I still disagree.

Have you seen the way Andy Murray wins tennis matches the last couple of years? He grinds his opponents down until they physically collapse after about three sets.

The differences are amplified by the commentators. For instance, the BBC tennis commentary focuses endlessly on the mental states of the players, as if they can will their way to victory. Even when discussing training and preparation, they will focus on how "Murray has put a lot of effort into his gym programme over the winter", as if he wasn't training hard previously then just copped on and put on 5kg of muscle. Total rubbish.

edit: and don't get me started on the "entourage" mode of profession tennis playing. We all know what "superior organisation and preparation" means in cycling terms.

LeoD

As a cyclist and fan of cycle racing, I would agree with Andy Murray. Apart from tactical nous, what skills exactly did Bradley Wiggins display to win the Tour? That doesn't diminish his achievement in any way but there is no comparison between the two when it comes to the skillset required to be successful at each sport.