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.
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
link doesn't work? Is there another way to see it?House said:Once again we catch Flyer lying to try to make his point. Go to this link and look for the "dramatic" increase in speeds.
www.experienceplus.com/tour_de_france_graphs.htm
Just another case of Flyer fudging things to make his case.
Mansmind said:link doesn't work? Is there another way to see it?
Thanks,
John
House said:Once again we catch Flyer lying to try to make his point. Go to this link and look for the "dramatic" increase in speeds.
www.experienceplus.com/tour_de_france_graphs.htm
Just another case of Flyer fudging things to make his case.
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.Mansmind said:link doesn't work? Is there another way to see it?
Thanks,
John
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.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.
Super complex problem and there are twists and turns everywhere.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
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
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
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).Flyer said:The average speed would be closer to 33 kph.
That's my guess.
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.
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.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.
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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.