|Yet another drug scandal... suprise suprise||PODIUMBOUNDdotCA|
Sep 21, 2002 11:18 AM
|Well this year has had a couple drug scandals between Tammy Thomas and now talk of Rumsas who finished third in the tour being doped.
Heres the article that states... suprise suprise, "It's a nagging question that reveals the obvious limits of drug testing in cycling and all other sports."
|Um, did you mean to include a link? (nm)||OffTheBack|
Sep 21, 2002 12:34 PM
|Heres the link||PODIUMBOUNDdotCA|
Sep 21, 2002 12:37 PM
|Ya, check out September's Cycle Sport Magazine...||Spunout|
Sep 21, 2002 1:51 PM
|Alexi Grewal faces the issue, says that they're all on the juice.
Same issue, in the article "Armstrong vs. Lemond" David Walsh incurrs that the whole peleton is doped today. They quote the watt output of the tour riders, peaking in '98 (then a bid drug bust). But, since then it has been steadily rising(more drugs). This is a very compelling article, for instance how Armstrong rode a 54km/h TT where Indurain (the greatest cleanest ever) did it in 48.6km/h. Hmmm.
Hinault and Lemond ride the Alpe d'Huez in 48 minutes was a great feat, yet Armstrong rides it in 38. Who's on the juice?
Get the mag, read the articles, you be the judge.
Sep 21, 2002 3:50 PM
|But doesnt Lemond still hold the fastest ITT in Tour history?|
|Re: Lemond's TT||Spunout|
Sep 21, 2002 4:44 PM
|From the article, although true that Lemond had the fastest ITT, that was for a 24.5 km effort. Lance did .6km/h slower over 58km!
The authors definitely stir things up, citing alot of other stories which I'd better not paraphrase here!
|Lance wouldn't risk his rep...||lancezneighbor|
Sep 22, 2002 2:20 PM
|After Lance won the first tour he was a legend in America. Even though to cyclists his legend depends on the number of tour wins to the average american he is a hero for winning one time and anymore than that doesn't really matter. There is no way he would risk his health, "hero" status, or even his marketing appeal by taking a chance with drugs. His financial compensation is beyond his cycling victories, his marketing appeal for most of the U.S. is his comeback from cancer.|
Sep 21, 2002 4:28 PM
|Is the greatest cleanest ever your own personal opinion or was that in the article? Last I remember Lance has never tested positive for anything. How is Indurain any cleaner than Lance?|
Sep 21, 2002 5:18 PM
|But look at how easy it is to mask drugs... if the people who get caught are only the tip of the iceberg just think of that for a second.
Trust me I like to think Armstrong is clean so I do... training techniques and equipment have come light years so of course the Tour will get faster but who knows.
|That argument is garbage....||Niwot|
Sep 21, 2002 6:55 PM
|Athletes have been steadily improving over the previous "generation" for over 50 years. A new world record was set last week in the 100-meter dash. From your argument, you probably think the new record holder must be on drugs just because he is 0.20 seconds faster (9.79 vs. 9.99 sec) than the record holder of 20 years ago. But wait... if the record holder from 1982 was 0.20 sec faster than the record holder from 1962, then obviously the '82 record holder was on drugs, too! Right?
As for LA's time on L'Alpe d'Huez, sure he is a lot faster than LeMond or Hinault. But a lot of other riders in today's peloton are as well, though their times aren't quite as good as Armstrong's, just as a lot of sprinters today are faster in the 100 meter dash than the record holders from 20 years ago.
Training techniques are better today and the best riders are much more diligent about training than the best riders of 20 years ago. The equipment is vastly better in road racing than it was in 1982, let alone in Merckx's heyday. There are so many factors, and there is no way you can point to a generational improvement in performance and say that the improvement *must* be due to performance-enhancing drugs.
|One guy at my LBS used to be sponsored by Cannondale.||Leisure|
Sep 21, 2002 11:10 PM
|He wasn't even necessarily pro-level, but even he was provided a low-oxygen tent to sleep in to stimulate hemoglobin/RBC production. Who knows what the pros are doing. What they probably know now about the metabolic dynamics involved in developing strength and endurance would make even the eighties look archaic.|
|Maybe, maybe not...||Wayne|
Sep 23, 2002 3:20 AM
|Personally I think it's hard to compare times in cycling because technology, couse and wind conditions can drastically affect times in a TT or even a mountain climb. That being said world record distance running times (which are more comparable across courses, conditions, etc.) have been steadily dropping for decades at a pretty constant slope. Oddly enough right around the time EPO became available the slope of that line steepened and has remained so. Funny how most of those great Kenyan runners go and live and train in Italy and Germany with sports docs.|
|Fun with numbers.||U of A racer|
Sep 21, 2002 6:57 PM
|The cool thing about numbers like watts and Alpe d'Huez times is that you can twist them into what ever you want. Indurain tested positive the same number of times that Armstrong has. I can only assume that people think he's clean cause he never tested positive.
On Alpe D'Huez, Hinault and Lemond were together and not attacking one another. They were way ahead of the field, holding hands, chatting, and in no great hurry to reach the top. For Armstrong, it was basically an all-out time trial. The time differences were indicative of the race situations.
These reporters are using elapse time as absolute proof of dope. If it is, I can play the numbers game to prove that nobody has doped since Merckx. The "standard bike" hour record of Merckx still holds up today. That must mean that Merckx was doped and todays riders aren't.
|the weight alone of the 2000 bikes vs 80's makes a difference nm||VO2_max|
Sep 22, 2002 12:22 PM