For a moment, let's assume they're all doping



Mansmind

New Member
Aug 3, 2004
822
2
0
Under that assumption, what kind of performance do you think we would see if they were not?

For instance, an average speed of 23mph in the TDF would be how much lower?
 
A great hyprothetical question. This forum has influenced your mindset a little bit eh?

No pun intended.

Still it is a challenge to answer because the TDF has been run w/o drugs. Each year the drugs and techniques improve and so too do performances.

When EPO came into being---and more and more riders adopted it, the average speed in the TDF when up dramactically, versus the baby steps that other steroids produced.

Today the TDF is run at nearly 43 kph (over three weeks loaded with climbing and time trials)

In the time trials only the GC leaders go flat out as it is pointless for the rest (although the rest must still finish within a reasonable time gap to stay in the race)

My guess, if you had experienced Masters racers who were not permitted to use medical treatment of any kind--they would ride as a group for 90% of the event, racing only the last hour of each day.

The average speed would be closer to 33 kph.

That's my guess.





Mansmind said:
Under that assumption, what kind of performance do you think we would see if they were not?

For instance, an average speed of 23mph in the TDF would be how much lower?
 
Flyer said:
A great hyprothetical question. This forum has influenced your mindset a little bit eh?

No pun intended.

Still it is a challenge to answer because the TDF has been run w/o drugs. Each year the drugs and techniques improve and so too do performances.

When EPO came into being---and more and more riders adopted it, the average speed in the TDF when up dramactically, versus the baby steps that other steroids produced.

Today the TDF is run at nearly 43 kph (over three weeks loaded with climbing and time trials)

In the time trials only the GC leaders go flat out as it is pointless for the rest (although the rest must still finish within a reasonable time gap to stay in the race)

My guess, if you had experienced Masters racers who were not permitted to use medical treatment of any kind--they would ride as a group for 90% of the event, racing only the last hour of each day.

The average speed would be closer to 33 kph.

That's my guess.

It would be fair to say it has raised my awareness of the issue, yes. I've stated as much before...using different words perhaps. Although I find it hard to believe the 100% number, there have been quite a few admissions, etc. in just recent weeks, so I think it's fair to say there seems to be a significant percentage of it in the pros.

In thinking about it, and I would agree that it's the performance demands that create the situation (regardless of percentage), I began to speculate on how much performance is really "lost" as a result of not doping.

For instance, I've been around "dopers" in different sports, and while (in the case of steroids) it's easy to see the affects because they bulk up very quickly. At the same time, I've witnessed that the bulking up doesn't necessarily come along with the same gains in strength. I've known those that although very big, were actually very weak given their size.

I realize the application is very different, but I wonder if the same things doesn't hold true in cycling. In other words, why dope to get what turns out to be very little gain? I've seen figures that doping gets you as little as 2% gain in performance, and as much as 10%. Even using the 10% number...big deal.

The difference between 43kph and 33kph while huge from a win/loss perspective, wouldn't make it any less fun to watch. Also, that sounds like a fairly large decrease in performance, more than what I've seen as a potential increase by doping. Doesn't matter though, it doesn't change the value of the question or the answer.

If the riders are truly "forced" to dope, I don't see why they don't just get together and basically go on strike. Granted I'm sure there are those that actually want to do it, but how long would a race having 10 riders last?

As for solving the issue, I think you're correct that testing won't solve it. It will take pressure from other directions. The value in the testing is that however infrequent it may be (frequent recently), the ones caught bring the issue to the surface. Over time that would certainly get the publics interest.

On the other hand, and here's where I have a problem with the 100% figure. I personally would hate to be the person that ended a rider's career without some definitive proof. It's like sentencing someone to a lifetime in jail for murder, when they're innocent. THAT, has happened before.

For someone actually found guilty however, like Tyler for instance... forget a suspension, ban him for life. That's another way to possibly curtail some of this, or bring it more to the surface. The risk and consequences would be much greater.


Anyway, getting back to the orginal topic, I don't think the sport..or the money involved in it would suffer from a average speed difference of 10 kph. Of course that's just my opinion.

John
 
I agree too.

I think 'unmedicated racing' is more exciting to watch than today's televised pharma-science.

Insofaras, making the drugs work---trauma and anemia medicine do require serious skill---as the results of 'overdosing' can be fatal. Getting your meds right, is the key to both success and mortality.

The PDM team looked quite unhealthy with high fevers during the 1991 TDF.

Chris Horner's new boss, Mauro Gianetti nearly died on May 8, 1998 at his home Tour of Romandie, overdosing on PFC and having his organs shut down, one by one.

This is another reason why corrupt doctirs like Lance's Michele Ferrari or Tyler's Luigi Cecchini or DiLuca's Carlo Santuccione or Indurain's Conconi collect big fees to supervise the medication routines.

Pedal stroke analysis is not what Lance's requires.



Mansmind said:
It would be fair to say it has raised my awareness of the issue, yes. I've stated as much before...using different words perhaps. Although I find it hard to believe the 100% number, there have been quite a few admissions, etc. in just recent weeks, so I think it's fair to say there seems to be a significant percentage of it in the pros.

In thinking about it, and I would agree that it's the performance demands that create the situation (regardless of percentage), I began to speculate on how much performance is really "lost" as a result of not doping.

For instance, I've been around "dopers" in different sports, and while (in the case of steroids) it's easy to see the affects because they bulk up very quickly. At the same time, I've witnessed that the bulking up doesn't necessarily come along with the same gains in strength. I've known those that although very big, were actually very weak given their size.

I realize the application is very different, but I wonder if the same things doesn't hold true in cycling. In other words, why dope to get what turns out to be very little gain? I've seen figures that doping gets you as little as 2% gain in performance, and as much as 10%. Even using the 10% number...big deal.

The difference between 43kph and 33kph while huge from a win/loss perspective, wouldn't make it any less fun to watch. Also, that sounds like a fairly large decrease in performance, more than what I've seen as a potential increase by doping. Doesn't matter though, it doesn't change the value of the question or the answer.

If the riders are truly "forced" to dope, I don't see why they don't just get together and basically go on strike. Granted I'm sure there are those that actually want to do it, but how long would a race having 10 riders last?

As for solving the issue, I think you're correct that testing won't solve it. It will take pressure from other directions. The value in the testing is that however infrequent it may be (frequent recently), the ones caught bring the issue to the surface. Over time that would certainly get the publics interest.

On the other hand, and here's where I have a problem with the 100% figure. I personally would hate to be the person that ended a rider's career without some definitive proof. It's like sentencing someone to a lifetime in jail for murder, when they're innocent. THAT, has happened before.

For someone actually found guilty however, like Tyler for instance... forget a suspension, ban him for life. That's another way to possibly curtail some of this, or bring it more to the surface. The risk and consequences would be much greater.


Anyway, getting back to the orginal topic, I don't think the sport..or the money involved in it would suffer from a average speed difference of 10 kph. Of course that's just my opinion.

John
 
You expect anything that House types to work?

get real.

Besides, Hein Verbruggen has already weighed in on this question many times.

He claims that if fans want a TDF at 43 kph, doping is a requirement. At 28-29 kph, organic is possible.

That is the UCI President's opinion. He ought to know, ya think?

Read Lance Armstrong's former teamate's sad story at the Junior National Team;

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/04/10/60II/main284958.shtml



Mansmind said:
link doesn't work? Is there another way to see it?

Thanks,

John
 
Mansmind said:
link doesn't work? Is there another way to see it?

Thanks,

John
Interesting, the address is correct, but it won't work. Go to google and search "tour de france avaerage speed graph" and it will be the first link.

You will see that once again Flyer has lied to make his case.
 
Or house lied to defend trauma and anemia doping, directly contradicting, Hein Verbruggen, Eddie Plankaert and Greg Lemond.

You're a real valuable source of misinformation and false denials.

Your motives are suspect, unless your on Big Pharma payroll. Keep at it, more EPO/ anemia dopers get exposed with each passing day.

You got a lotta fairytales to write.


House said:
Interesting, the address is correct, but it won't work. Go to google and search "tour de france avaerage speed graph" and it will be the first link.

You will see that once again Flyer has lied to make his case.
 
House said:
Interesting, the address is correct, but it won't work. Go to google and search "tour de france avaerage speed graph" and it will be the first link.

You will see that once again Flyer has lied to make his case.
Thanks, interesting information.

It appears that the average speed started rising significantly at around the same time the stage length got significantly shorter, as well as the total length of the race getting shorter.

Granted, as a trend the speed has increased at a greater rate than the other two measurements have decreased.

Also, the average speed seems to have leveled off between the years of 1959 and 1983, then started rising again. I wonder how much of the speed increase since then is due to technological advancement? I also wonder how much of it is due to just better knowledge and techniques in training?

It is my understanding that doping supposedly has occured throughout the history of the race, so that component would be somewhat constant with the exception of also understanding more about doping in recent years.

Overall, it would be hard to make a case that the increase in speed is just due to doping.

On the other hand, it doesn't change the original question I had, which is if there weren't any doping going on, how much lower would those speeds be? I know that's an impossible question to answer accurately.

If you assume that the doping is constant and widely spread, and you subscribe to the thought that it would yield an average of 10% improvement...I'm still not sure the average speeds would be that much less. If you use generated power as a measurement, a 10% power increase really doesn't give you that much more speed on a bike, at least in the range of speeds we're talking about. For me personally, it takes more than a 10% increase in power to ride at 25 mph vs. 24 mph.

From a competitive point of view, that's a very large difference over the length of a race, but from an entertainment point of view I'm not sure it would make that much difference. In fact I'm sure it wouldn't, even at double the decrease.

That's a lot of "assuming", but if EVERYONE is doping it's a level playing field again (or relatively so). Yes, I suppose some people would have access to better drugs than others, but if you look at performance overall, there is very little difference in any of the riders. Winning a race of that length by a margin of 7 minutes total is not that significant of a performance increase. Even 1 hour would be less than a 10% variance in performance, which would include a large majority of the group.

Seems to me that since there are valid health risks associated with the drug use, everyone would just stop. You get the same level playing field, and not THAT much difference in overall performance.

Just thinking out loud.

John
 
Mansmind said:
Seems to me that since there are valid health risks associated with the drug use, everyone would just stop. You get the same level playing field, and not THAT much difference in overall performance.

Just thinking out loud.

John
Super complex problem and there are twists and turns everywhere.
Paranoia among competitors and things of this nature.
Obsessive behavior.
Money.

I hate to say it, but if cyclist are like some other top athletes in other sports that I have met they don't have much going for them outside of their sport. Many of them skipped college and didn't focus much while in high school. Their whole life is banked on making it as an athlete. So it's not just making big money it is also about not having to work a regular job like most of us. That being said you do what you have to do to get sponsorship and put food on the table.

An athlete can get paranoid. I have many (outside cycling) that believe that everyone is using (and perhaps its not paranoia, but the truth) so they believe they must use as well just to place.

As far as testing goes. My understanding about testing is that the equipment used to test for banned substances pick up a pattern for each particular drug. A good chemist can slightly change a molecule within the drug and it becomes harder or undetectible until that pattern is also setup for the testing equipment. These are the designer drugs. To my knowledge there is not a reliable test for THG at this moment. The test for THG may only detect 50% of those using within the field of competitors. Some will get caught and some will not. There are a number of other drugs that cannot be detected.

As far as risk.
During my time of use I did not see health risks as a factor. I don't think most competitors will see this as an issue, but each has a line that they will draw and not cross. For me it was insulin. I considered GH, but I couldn't afford GH along with anabolics. However, I was not going to cross the line with insulin. Weird how these limits vary from person to person. Think of how many people smoke, but yet they know the risks of heart disease and lung cancer. Knowing the risks doesn't stop the population from smoking or banning tobacco.

So from the athlete perception I doubt they are really concerned.
They are focused on winning.

Level playing field? Sort of
Drugs react to each person differently based on receptors.
During my use I responded to anabolics better than some and yet there were many of my friends that responded above average to anabolics.
Receptors/genetics combined with serious nutrition and training govern the outcome.

Just helping you think outloud :)
 
The creation of EPO by Amgen Corporation represents a major boost to recovery, base training and sustainable power output. Nandrolone, testosterone/clomid, stimulants and insulin/glucose feeds would not be more effective. Of course why not do all-of-the-above for maximum gain?

This then startup firm was working for the poultry industry on growth hormones to make chickens grow FASTER (more profit for chicken farmers) when they stumbled onto EPO in 1984.

Tests on humans followed soon and amazing results and deaths found their way into the pro peloton in the 1980s. EPO is now a $10 Billion Dollar business, annually. From ZERO to $10 Billion in 20 years.

Eddy Plankaert, a road sprinter and early adoptor used EPO with great success and later (10 years in retirement) admitted that is was a minimum performance boost of 12-15%. Massively great.

Level playing field, no. The dead riders were helpful only for finding the upper limits of hct and how thinners (Asaflow) or vasodilators (Viagra) can be used to offest the high blood pressure at rest.

The best witchcraft combined with the best drugs are the key.

Greg Lemond swears the 1991 TDF was EPO driven to excess. We already know the entire PDM overdosed that very year.

The cycling records are as meaningful as the rider's medical charts, which we do not have access to.




Mansmind said:
Thanks, interesting information.

It appears that the average speed started rising significantly at around the same time the stage length got significantly shorter, as well as the total length of the race getting shorter.

Granted, as a trend the speed has increased at a greater rate than the other two measurements have decreased.

Also, the average speed seems to have leveled off between the years of 1959 and 1983, then started rising again. I wonder how much of the speed increase since then is due to technological advancement? I also wonder how much of it is due to just better knowledge and techniques in training?

It is my understanding that doping supposedly has occured throughout the history of the race, so that component would be somewhat constant with the exception of also understanding more about doping in recent years.

Overall, it would be hard to make a case that the increase in speed is just due to doping.

On the other hand, it doesn't change the original question I had, which is if there weren't any doping going on, how much lower would those speeds be? I know that's an impossible question to answer accurately.

If you assume that the doping is constant and widely spread, and you subscribe to the thought that it would yield an average of 10% improvement...I'm still not sure the average speeds would be that much less. If you use generated power as a measurement, a 10% power increase really doesn't give you that much more speed on a bike, at least in the range of speeds we're talking about. For me personally, it takes more than a 10% increase in power to ride at 25 mph vs. 24 mph.

From a competitive point of view, that's a very large difference over the length of a race, but from an entertainment point of view I'm not sure it would make that much difference. In fact I'm sure it wouldn't, even at double the decrease.

That's a lot of "assuming", but if EVERYONE is doping it's a level playing field again (or relatively so). Yes, I suppose some people would have access to better drugs than others, but if you look at performance overall, there is very little difference in any of the riders. Winning a race of that length by a margin of 7 minutes total is not that significant of a performance increase. Even 1 hour would be less than a 10% variance in performance, which would include a large majority of the group.

Seems to me that since there are valid health risks associated with the drug use, everyone would just stop. You get the same level playing field, and not THAT much difference in overall performance.

Just thinking out loud.

John
 
In any sport, training, conditioning, diet, a winning drive and discipline all become habits. Winning, success and validation become habit forming too.

Imagine the attitude of someone whose life was defined by sport, super competitive, who very nearly died and was brought back to life using these drugs and methods? Think they would limit their intake?

Logging 750 mile base training rides for professional road cyclists are exhausting (40 hours of riding) and require more than a 'work ethic'. It requires medical attention.

Then the intensity phase loaded on top of these heavy 'base block builds'.

Obsessive, compulsive, selfish and jealously guarded becomes the attitude. Add synthetic hormones into the mix, and pituitary and renal function spikes and rolling hormone cycles can evoke anger, rage, depression, and paranoia.

Adding in female hormones can help chop some of the high testosterone effects and help stabilize mood.

But again, it is different for each person and where they are at in the doping schedule.

These are some of the consequences of seeking maximum performance.



Felt_Rider said:
Super complex problem and there are twists and turns everywhere.
Paranoia among competitors and things of this nature.
Obsessive behavior.
Money.

I hate to say it, but if cyclist are like some other top athletes in other sports that I have met they don't have much going for them outside of their sport. Many of them skipped college and didn't focus much while in high school. Their whole life is banked on making it as an athlete. So it's not just making big money it is also about not having to work a regular job like most of us. That being said you do what you have to do to get sponsorship and put food on the table.

An athlete can get paranoid. I have many (outside cycling) that believe that everyone is using (and perhaps its not paranoia, but the truth) so they believe they must use as well just to place.

As far as testing goes. My understanding about testing is that the equipment used to test for banned substances pick up a pattern for each particular drug. A good chemist can slightly change a molecule within the drug and it becomes harder or undetectible until that pattern is also setup for the testing equipment. These are the designer drugs. To my knowledge there is not a reliable test for THG at this moment. The test for THG may only detect 50% of those using within the field of competitors. Some will get caught and some will not. There are a number of other drugs that cannot be detected.

As far as risk.
During my time of use I did not see health risks as a factor. I don't think most competitors will see this as an issue, but each has a line that they will draw and not cross. For me it was insulin. I considered GH, but I couldn't afford GH along with anabolics. However, I was not going to cross the line with insulin. Weird how these limits vary from person to person. Think of how many people smoke, but yet they know the risks of heart disease and lung cancer. Knowing the risks doesn't stop the population from smoking or banning tobacco.

So from the athlete perception I doubt they are really concerned.
They are focused on winning.

Level playing field? Sort of
Drugs react to each person differently based on receptors.
During my use I responded to anabolics better than some and yet there were many of my friends that responded above average to anabolics.
Receptors/genetics combined with serious nutrition and training govern the outcome.

Just helping you think outloud :)
 
Flyer said:
The average speed would be closer to 33 kph.

That's my guess.
That's funny. I used to average more than that on 100+ mile rides in rolling terrain undoped and I sucked. Validates my suspicion that people want to think that nobody would better than them at anything if it weren't for ____________(fill in the excuse blank).

I assume the vast majority are all doped but also that it doesn't do as much as people think. I would like to do a study where the participants were given EPO and then told they were being switched to vitamins mid study when in reality there were still on the same drugs. I bet their performance would fall off dramatically, in some to below baseline levels.
 
It also validates my theory of the importance of fairytales for both children and adults alike. Fantacy has a place in a modern society.

These drugs do work, else they would not be a standardized practice.


mises said:
That's funny. I used to average more than that on 100+ mile rides in rolling terrain undoped and I sucked. Validates my suspicion that people want to think that nobody would better than them at anything if it weren't for ____________(fill in the excuse blank).

I assume the vast majority are all doped but also that it doesn't do as much as people think. I would like to do a study where the participants were given EPO and then told they were being switched to vitamins mid study when in reality there were still on the same drugs. I bet their performance would fall off dramatically, in some to below baseline levels.
 
mises said:
I assume the vast majority are all doped but also that it doesn't do as much as people think. I would like to do a study where the participants were given EPO and then told they were being switched to vitamins mid study when in reality there were still on the same drugs. I bet their performance would fall off dramatically, in some to below baseline levels.
The crazy part about this is that those who are able to make it to the pro level of any sport can make it without drugs.

Take the worst cyclist in the pro ranks. If he/she were absolutely drug-free they would still destroy me even if I had a year of using drugs and specialized training and they only had a few months getting into shape drug-free.
They are genetically inclined for cycling and I am not.
I cannot change my genetics and drugs will not change my genetics.
However, when pro athletes are all very similar in genetics and abilities a 3% gain from drugs can be just enought to place first.

Why do people use drugs?

Some athlete use both recreational and SED (sports enhancing drugs) because they are idiots. They have incredible genetics, skills and abilities in that particular sporting event that are above normal even with minimal training. They use drugs because their lifestyle is loose/wild and they do not take training as seriously as they should and then try to make up the slack in poor shape by using drugs to accelerate getting into shape.

Some athletes take training very seriously 24 hours a day. Everything is done correctly as best possible, but their obsession to win exceeds all other principles and winning is the only important factor in their life.

Some athletes get caught up being convinced/exploited by their coach, publicist, friends or sponsors to use SED order to get into the limelight. The athlete gets into the limelight everyone associated gets into the limelight and yet they all carry the same risk if the athlete gets caught. Either very beneficial or very damaging.

Of course those who are using are hoping for the typical results which are faster recovery and anti catabolic factors.

There can be other reasons, but for the gain to risk factor I am surprised that there is not a closed door meeting among professional athletes and decide to all go clean as a vow. The risk goes away and now sponsors live without sweating the possibility of some bad breaking news. But the problem goes back to human character of selfishness and greed.

I can let you into another little secret from my past.
Back in the day I had to sell steroids in order to keep the connections to getting steroids. Most of what was passed on to the unknowing was counterfeit. Sometimes I even had a problem distiquishing what was real and what was fake and I am positive I was duped more than once. So yes for some what they are using is pure placebo or in other words just a vial or ampule of vegetable oil. (Not proud to admit that fact, but it was part of the nasty little game)
 
......my last post may not be across the board factual as I am not a sports psychologist, but it is based on experience and real life observation up close and personal.
 
An outstanding post.

People can generally accept financial fraud easier than sporting fraud (doping, fixing outcomes).

I don't know why exactly other than sports seem to be an 'escape' and a 'fantacy dream world' where only fairness, goodness and Corinthean values rule.

In the real world, fueled by money, greed, getting an edge, keeping secrets, using deception as a tactic, and out-and-out lying are commonplace in most businesses. Due diligence and professional skepticism would never be needed if everyone were honest and competent or absent conflicts of interest.

Folks can deny it all they want to, but rules and ethics are broken daily in all professions. Some worse than others.

Pro Sports are a business too---and it is not exempt from the harshness of 'situational ethics'.






Felt_Rider said:
......my last post may not be across the board factual as I am not a sports psychologist, but it is based on experience and real life observation up close and personal.
 

Similar threads