Iban Mayo

[grampi]

Why should Hamilton, and a few OP riders suffer, when Contador wins the Tour. And Menchov wins Vuelta, and T Dekker is nowhere to be found on those lists.

Come on, this is not fair.

<this was not an overt reply to Heroes, just a continuing dialogue>

and same for basso, ulle, jaksche..
Have you heard about bode millers new one? he says legalizating everything would be only fair solution...I think hes right.

 

[thunder]

and same for basso, ulle, jaksche..
Have you heard about bode millers new one? he says legalizating everything would be only fair solution...I think hes right.

but then the riders like Armstrong will win. The ones with better resources. And the guys like Joe Papp will kill themselves.

That is still not a solution. It is a practical option, but it creates its own headaches, as it will stimulate behaviour right down the chain to the grass roots in youth participation.

Doping requires doctors and resources, even if it is legal. Junior athletes cannot bear that financial burden, corners will be cut. It is the slippery slope.

And then there is the moot point that the natural talents like Boogerd and Ullrich and Mocoutie, may lose all their edge, and the new paragidm, talent becomes a function of "the best responder" to dope.

Ofcourse, practially, that is what the system is closer to now.

 

[cyclingheroes]

Again a good post. Its a very difficult subject. The question is can we close Pandora's box again? For the next generations we have to but with the people who are governing the sport at the moment it seems to be almost impossible.

New people have to come forward, new ideas, new teams, new concepts.

but then the riders like Armstrong will win. The ones with better resources. And the guys like Joe Papp will kill themselves.

That is still not a solution. It is a practical option, but it creates its own headaches, as it will stimulate behaviour right down the chain to the grass roots in youth participation.

Doping requires doctors and resources, even if it is legal. Junior athletes cannot bear that financial burden, corners will be cut. It is the slippery slope.

And then there is the moot point that the natural talents like Boogerd and Ullrich and Mocoutie, may lose all their edge, and the new paragidm, talent becomes a function of "the best responder" to dope.

Ofcourse, practially, that is what the system is closer to now.

 

[italiano]

I agree, UCI is part of the problem but less so today than yesterday.

UCI is part of the problem because it’s weak from infighting with everyone claiming the same anti doping goals …WADA, ASO, some national feds (take FERC.with Mayo and OP confrontation). Everyone manipulates the system to their own petty political need while shouting populist slogans. Another reason UCI is ineffective is that they can’t force a Belga lab to buy the same equipment and to run all procedures exactly the same way they do it in France. It’s WADA’s job. But even WADA can’t do much because the labs respond to nationally-based pressures and budgetary realities. It’s a mess all around. The mess was exploited by most riders for too long. Now is not the time to cry. If you doped and got caught, you need to face the music.

 

[Crankyfeet]

The whole anti-doping effort has to be funded by some world body that answers to the fans and the participants, not the sporting spectacle promoters. The promoters don't mind the steroided Hulk Hogan's winning, its just that the pesky police (Festina and OP) get involved and spoil the party by exposing them.

Proper anti-doping requires large funding to be done properly. Unfortunately for much less funding you can do a so-so job, but spin it lke you are doing a great job. And the temptation is always there to let the positives off, because continually catching cheats perpetuates the appearance that the problem is still pervasive and that the controls are ineffective.

 

[thunder]

Again a good post. Its a very difficult subject. The question is can we close Pandora's box again? For the next generations we have to but with the people who are governing the sport at the moment it seems to be almost impossible.

New people have to come forward, new ideas, new teams, new concepts.

if you legalise doping, you are gonna **** up alot of female athletes too. They will go haywire. Any female athletes wanna be champions AND have kids. Forget about it.

 

[Crankyfeet]

I agree, for what my opinion's worth, that doping has to be fought. It seems an almost insurmountable problem to keep testing technology ahead of doping technology, but allowing doping will eventually lead to new drugs that come on the market that enable someone to dominate a sport for a few years and then die. If this drug were available today, many top athletes were prepared to take it according to a survey some years ago. And this is just an extreme example of the problems that would eventuate. At what point would you be comfortable about your child going onto his needed drug program as a top sportsman?

There are some followers of sports who don't care if they are watching doped freaks compete. But true sports lovers will only want to watch a sport or participate if it is an unaided test. To achieve that, much more money needs to be devoted to anti-doping controls and tests in all sports. And draconian punishments need to be administered to all those in collaboration (doctors, managers etc.), not just the athletes. At the moment, the athletes are considered the pariahs, when they know full well that doping was almost condoned only a few years ago. Unfortunately this stance by the UCI is necessary in the UCI's eyes because to admit that they allowed doping, would end the sport the next day most likely.

Cycling IMHO has always been a natural sport that attracts medical science. In effect it is very controlled and confined in its test of athletes. No matter how we all like to see the strategies and tactics play out in a good race, the winner nearly always comes down to he who can rotate the same pedals in the same circle for the longest time at the highest watts (with the weight coming into the climbing calculation). I've played some serious sport over the last 20 odd years, and in the short space of recently taking up cycling, I have learned enormous amounts about my body's ability to sustain certain levels of power and heart-rate for measurable periods before lactate build-up or glycogen depletion begin to affect performance. I never knew this beforehand. Cycling is all about the efficient use of your body. Drugs and their effects can be simply measured. The pedalling motion is almost the same for everyone. It is a sport of body science.

There needs to be a change in culture. In golf, it is very easy for a cheat to get away with cheating. But the integrity of golf professionals and their respect for the sport is so great, that cheating is very rare. Even when big money is at stake, it is not uncommon for a golfer to report himself for a rules infraction and consequent penalty, even though only he would know about it, and it will cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Cycling needs to change from the "whatever we can get away with" culture to a culture of peer integrity. Unfortunately only massive investments of money into testing and control will likely get it to that stage.

I apologize for the length of this post for anyone who got this far.

 

[thunder]

I agree, for what my opinion's worth, that doping has to be fought. It seems an almost insurmountable problem to keep testing technology ahead of doping technology, but allowing doping will eventually lead to new drugs that come on the market that enable someone to dominate a sport for a few years and then die. If this drug were available today, many top athletes were prepared to take it according to a survey some years ago. And this is just an extreme example of the problems that would eventuate. At what point would you be comfortable about your child going onto his needed drug program as a top sportsman?

There are some followers of sports who don't care if they are watching doped freaks compete. But true sports lovers will only want to watch a sport or participate if it is an unaided test. To achieve that, much more money needs to be devoted to anti-doping controls and tests in all sports. And draconian punishments need to be administered to all those in collaboration (doctors, managers etc.), not just the athletes. At the moment, the athletes are considered the pariahs, when they know full well that doping was almost condoned only a few years ago. Unfortunately this stance by the UCI is necessary in the UCI's eyes because to admit that they allowed doping, would end the sport the next day most likely.

Cycling IMHO has always been a natural sport that attracts medical science. In effect it is very controlled and confined in its test of athletes. No matter how we all like to see the strategies and tactics play out in a good race, the winner nearly always comes down to he who can rotate the same pedals in the same circle for the longest time at the highest watts (with the weight coming into the climbing calculation). I've played some serious sport over the last 20 odd years, and in the short space of recently taking up cycling, I have learned enormous amounts about my body's ability to sustain certain levels of power and heart-rate for measurable periods before lactate build-up or glycogen depletion begin to affect performance. I never knew this beforehand. Cycling is all about the efficient use of your body. Drugs and their effects can be simply measured. The pedalling motion is almost the same for everyone. It is a sport of body science.

There needs to be a change in culture. In golf, it is very easy for a cheat to get away with cheating. But the integrity of golf professionals and their respect for the sport is so great, that cheating is very rare. Even when big money is at stake, it is not uncommon for a golfer to report himself for a rules infraction and consequent penalty, even though only he would know about it, and it will cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Cycling needs to change from the "whatever we can get away with" culture to a culture of peer integrity. Unfortunately only massive investments of money into testing and control will likely get it to that stage.

I apologize for the length of this post for anyone who got this far.

doping is SO easy to control for the GTs.

Anyone heard of Keirin? They quarantine the riders in dorms in Japan for the duration of the carnivals, so they cannot rig the races for betting. They need to do that for tennis and cricket.

But GT racing, 21 days. 21 days of racing, consecutive days racing, ignoring the rest days.

Now, all they need to do is assign security, and make sure that the docs do not dole out 20 injections per stage. Simple.

If you think they can get to them, just quarantine all GC candidates in one hotel.

GT riding is decided on 2 things, prep doping in the 2 months leading up to peak form, and recovery doping during the Tour.

Prep doping, every GC rider will need to be tested 30 times in the 2 months leading up to the tour, absolutely no missed tests. Every rider has longitutinal tests, and a blood volume test on the same day as other candidates, so no disadvantage.

Simple. You mitigate the advantage. Get a winner who is clean. The you remove the Red Queen effect, aka the arms race. You have a winner who is clean, then there is the impetus, for everyone else to ride clean.

So, you seed the top 20 GT contendors, and watch them like a hawk. Test them 30 times in the 2 months before the Tour. Quarantine them during the tour.

Problem solved.

Where is the political will?

 

[Crankyfeet]

doping is SO easy to control for the GTs.

Anyone heard of Keirin? They quarantine the riders in dorms in Japan for the duration of the carnivals, so they cannot rig the races for betting. They need to do that for tennis and cricket.

But GT racing, 21 days. 21 days of racing, consecutive days racing, ignoring the rest days.

Now, all they need to do is assign security, and make sure that the docs do not dole out 20 injections per stage. Simple.

If you think they can get to them, just quarantine all GC candidates in one hotel.

GT riding is decided on 2 things, prep doping in the 2 months leading up to peak form, and recovery doping during the Tour.

Prep doping, every GC rider will need to be tested 30 times in the 2 months leading up to the tour, absolutely no missed tests. Every rider has longitutinal tests, and a blood volume test on the same day as other candidates, so no disadvantage.

Simple. You mitigate the advantage. Get a winner who is clean. The you remove the Red Queen effect, aka the arms race. You have a winner who is clean, then there is the impetus, for everyone else to ride clean.

So, you seed the top 20 GT contendors, and watch them like a hawk. Test them 30 times in the 2 months before the Tour. Quarantine them during the tour.

Problem solved.

Where is the political will?

Very good suggestions...but who pays for it? Its not just about political will IMO. Its about the cost of implementing the controls (once implemented the public would expect no less). A cost that bears little in short term returns (though will be needed to pull the sport out of a long-term mess). Where does the money come from? Who has to sacrifice to pay for it?

Second thing is if you effectively quarantine the top 20 riders, then the next 20 do well, or better than they would have otherwise, assuming they are able to dope. So then you do the top 50, and so on.

I am with you on all of this. It is where every sport is headed. It will come about when the public lose interest in the sport because they have no confidence in the doping controls. It has already begun in cycling.

But it still doesn't stop them from using natural drugs such as insulin that they have no way of testing for at present.

 

[thunder]

Very good suggestions...but who pays for it? Its not just about political will IMO. Its about the cost of implementing the controls (once implemented the public would expect no less). A cost that bears little in short term returns (though will be needed to pull the sport out of a long-term mess). Where does the money come from? Who has to sacrifice to pay for it?

Second thing is if you effectively quarantine the top 20 riders, then the next 20 do well, or better than they would have otherwise, assuming they are able to dope. So then you do the top 50, and so on.

I am with you on all of this. It is where every sport is headed. It will come about when the public lose interest in the sport because they have no confidence in the doping controls. It has already begun in cycling.

But it still doesn't stop them from using natural drugs such as insulin that they have no way of testing for at present.

I am working on that.

I do have a solution.

There is an obvious economic argument.

Doping is a classic market failure. The externalised cost, runs about the same as the actual revenue.

That is, there would be double the amount of money in pro cycling, if it was clean. It has the worst reputation, and rightly so, among all pro sports, and this is not about comparison. If the sport is clean, it is inconsequential that there are no stadia for ticket sales. This sport have a potent business model. It needs to rectify its skelotons tho.


So, there is ALOT of potential, alot of latent revenue to be had. The sport clean, would be lucrative. It is easy for Bettini to talk about the media, and about cycling being its own worst enemy with bad PR.

NO, its the FRICKEN doping you ****ing smurf! Stop doping. Then the rivers of gold will flow.

The Tour de France should instigate strict controls. Testing the top 10, every stage, as well as watching them with secutiry attaches. It might set them back half a million per annum, to do the pre testing, and then control the green and polka dot contendors.

But it would pay it back it spades. A simple investment. They have to be prepared to take the hits, take the inevitable damage to their brand as they pick off dopers in positive controls. They need those positives, they need to assert a new model. No more cover-ups, no more only testing 3 per stage. That is BS. Test them all on multiple stages, 200, and for EPO, it might cost 200 grand, but you make a statement. You start to deliver the ultimatum. Ride clean, or dont ride, or get dq'ed. They will learn. Doping is a rational decision. You only dope if you get away with it.

80% of hormones. BS. Stop that. Teams which show that, arbitrarily dq them. Dont let them start. Create ambiguous by-laws, about respecting principles. Any teams not respecting these fuzzy principles, tell em to frick off. Blood manipulation. They dont get a start. Check the blood before the first selective stage. No good testing blood before an 8 km prologue which will creat a time gap of 10 secs between contendors. Test them before, baseline their crits and parameters, then test them before the first selective stage, the tt or the fits mtn top finish.

Come on Prudhomme, you owe us this.

The Tour is ALL THAT MATTERS, commercially speaking. Yes, the Italians owe most and are loyal to the Giro, and the lowlanders are classics riders. But, if the Tour did not exist, most teams business models, are undermined, and are no longer viable. Every team will be a continental squad.

So, that gives the Tour, unprecedented sway. And as I already explained, using the Keirin track cycling model, you quarantine the riders, or watch them, so they cannot dope. Simple. It is simple.

If doping is to be stopped, or mitigated, or rendered impotent. The Tour will be the germane actor. Everyone else will be bystanders.

Depending on how the federations follow suit, the one-day events could clean themselves up also. But this is unique to GT's. Remove the dope, you get a clean winner.

 

[Crankyfeet]

I think you're onto something. The authorities are trying to get to a clean sport by using bandaids and taking shortcuts. Everybody wants the other person to take the lead (and the expense) on anti-doping measures. But if spectators of the sport knew tomorrow that doping was near impossible, the money would start to flow back in. The problem is there may be a few years of lag between the extra investment in control measures, and the extra revenue.

The other thing is ASO really don't give a fark about doping. Before the Festina bust, they would have been happy to have every cyclist competing as doped up monkeys, and the public to believe in the illusion that the peleton was clean. But the Festina affair toppled that apple-cart. Because they lost control of being able to spin the lie, without the risk that outside authorities wouldn't catch them with their pants down.

But you're right about ASO being the ones who should step up to the plate and take the lead. Not only because the TdF is the face of pro cycling to most of the world, but also because this is the event with enough revenue to justify the expense.

Your Japanese Kieran example is interesting. The reason for that level of quarantine is because of the huge sums of gambling money at risk, and peoples' lack of trust for each other. The quarantine is more to barricade cyclists from communicating with outside influences though...to prevent rigging of races.

With regard the cyclists, their motivations are to do as well as they can and to win. That's what they go to sleep each night dreaming about. Like you say, as long as they can get away with advantages of doping, they will do it unfortunately. Its human nature. Asking them to go clean by just appealing to their honor and to the good of cycling isn't going to cut it on an individual level. It has to get militant. It has to get to the stage where doping is impossible or not worth the risk.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Prudhomme was able to institute rock solid controls and an impregnable quarantine of competitors. I wonder how the teams would respond. Maybe some cyclists would be worried at how they would be able to cope again having to recover on their own. And it wouldn't be much fun essentially being in jail for three weeks, let alone being available for dope tests that interupt training every other day in the month or two leading up to the event.

It would be refreshing to watch. The TdF would go back to being a battle between the rider and the course, as much as the other riders. And the expressions on the faces would tell you how much pain the riders were sacrificing during the race. At the moment it seems almost like a 21 day training camp at times.

But the best feeling would be that when you saw a great human feat to win a race, you would know that it was totally the cyclist, and not some medical feat or a covert blood smuggling operation, that won the race.

 

[grampi]

but then the riders like Armstrong will win. The ones with better resources. And the guys like Joe Papp will kill themselves.

That is still not a solution. It is a practical option, but it creates its own headaches, as it will stimulate behaviour right down the chain to the grass roots in youth participation.

Doping requires doctors and resources, even if it is legal. Junior athletes cannot bear that financial burden, corners will be cut. It is the slippery slope.

And then there is the moot point that the natural talents like Boogerd and Ullrich and Mocoutie, may lose all their edge, and the new paragidm, talent becomes a function of "the best responder" to dope.

Ofcourse, practially, that is what the system is closer to now.

You have good points, but at the end everythings depends on money. Your great ideas about testing cannot be realized, because ASO, UCI.. are only interested in making as much money as possible and with your approach zhey would end with empty pockets or even worse.
I really see no way out of this - protected spanish( Italians arent a lot better) teams will never change their dirty altitude, no way dirty Bruyneel gives up his winning formula..., which leaves no options but to dope for Schleks, Gardemman&co. Also be sure Schlecks will never catch Contador, not because of lack of talent( Andy is as talented as Ulle), but his medical support will remain on lower level. Wasnt that endless cat(Armstrong) and mouse(Ullrich&Basso) game enough? Bruyneel will make another one for you if picture doesnt dramatically change.

And I belive talents like Mocoutie, Casar are in worst situation right now, if things remain the same top French talent will never finish less than half hour behind Bruyneels machines. If you allow French to dope, they would still be behind ( worse doctors, dop connections..), but the difference would be 10min maybe, so they could at least fight for top 5 in TDF.

 

[limerickman]

Slightly off topic - but here is a pertinent article from David Walsh in todays Times newspaper :


December 23, 2007

Stuck records

A report claims that no world records will be set after 2060. Could this be the year athletics shakes off its dodgy past?

September 1988 was Florence Griffith-Joyner’s month to leave us the memories. With her flowing stride, painted fingernails and outrageous running suits, she was the star turn at the Seoul Olympics. The gold medals she won in the 100m, 200m and sprint relay were merely confirmation of what was so wonderfully obvious in the performance. Flo-Jo, as she was affectionately known, was the fastest, most graceful woman athlete we had ever seen.

Earlier in the summer she had run an extraordinary 10.49sec for the 100m at the US Olympic trials in Indianapolis. Not so much a world record as a time that looked imperiously down on every other time in the event. Then at Seoul came a performance even more mind-boggling. In the quarter-final of the 200m, Flo-Jo cruised clear of the opposition and when qualification for the next round was assured, she decelerated. It wasn’t an abrupt slowing down but a gradual easing back on the throttle. Most favourites do the same when running heats. The difference was that her time in that quarter-final was a world record. Flo-Jo remains the world record-holder at 100m and 200m. There were suspicions that she must have taken drugs, but, at the time, little evidence that she did.

Her death in 1998 was reported by her husband, Al Joyner, and when Orange County deputy coroner Leslie Meader began her investigation, she found Flo-Jo lying in a bedroom of the couple’s house on Bluejay Street in Mission Viejo, California. The 38-year-old Griffith-Joyner was lying face-down into the pillow. Her arms were bent at the elbows, with the hands near the shoulders; one of the trademark fingernails was broken. Another would break during fingerprinting.

The coroner found that Griffith-Joyner suffocated during a severe epileptic seizure. Some experts cast doubt on this, saying that death through asphyxiation was an extremely unlikely complication after an epileptic seizure. Speculation that her death was somehow connected to her athletic career and possible steroid abuse continued long after the coroner’s office concluded its investigation.


Kristina Rebelo, a journalist who covered the coroner’s investigation and continued to ask questions about Griffith-Joyner, spoke to two doctors who admitted giving banned drugs to the athlete. She also spoke to a woman at a gymnasium who said she had given human growth hormone to Griffith-Joyner. Many fans refuse to believe the evidence that points to doping.

The likelihood is that as long as athletics exist, so the name of Florence Griffith-Joyner will endure. According to a study conducted at France’s biomedical and epidemiological institute of sport (Irmes), which analysed 3,260 world records going back to the first modern Olympics in 1896, humans have reached their physiological limits, and after the year 2060, there will be no more world records.

Jean-Francois Toussaint, head of Irmes, says: “We could see there was a common pattern for all the events we analysed and that our mathematical model is able to predict the development of world records. It is extremely accurate when correlated to world record values throughout the Olympic era.” Based on its analyses, Toussaint’s team predicts that in most of the quantifiable Olympic sports, the era of world records is drawing to a close. “We started our study in 1896, when we estimate people were operating at 75% of their physiological capacity. We are now at 99%. When we say there will be no more world records after 2060, it should not be forgotten that in about half of the events, there will be no world records after 2027.”

Athletics is the sport in which world records will first become set in stone. Then weightlifting. They will be followed by sports more affected by technique and technology, such as swimming and rowing.

Many people believe some of today’s athletic records will never be broken.

Griffith-Joyner’s time for the 100m remains untouched. Only one other woman has run under 10.7sec. That was Marion Jones, who has since confessed to doping; her time no longer counts. That leaves Christine Arron’s 10.73sec as the second fastest of all time, but the 0.24sec, difference between her time and the world record is a lifetime in sprint racing.

“When you apply our model to the records,” says Toussaint, “you will end up with records that are logical and ones that are illogical. Some that are coherent and some records that are epidemiological deadends. The women’s 100m record is an example of an epidemiological deadend.” Is the scientist saying that there is nowhere for this record to go because it already represents a female sprinter competing beyond her physiological limits? Something she achieved through doping? “You may suspect doping, and you may be right, but these records have their own logic,” he responds. “We have to believe them because they were measured in numerical terms. Griffith-Joyner ran the 100m in 10.49sec, that is exactly what she did, a woman from our own species. The next question may be, ‘How did she do it?’ We analyse all these causes and see if these conditions can be repeated. And it seems they cannot be any more.”

Toussaint prefers to see the bigger picture: “The creation of world records is very related to the external environment. We see precisely the impact of world wars, a time when world records were much less numerous. After the second world war, there was a very important increase in the number of world records. Then, after the Mexico Games in 1968, there is a constant decline in the number of world records. Doping was a big factor in the sport in the 1970s, but that coincided with a time when mankind was starting to reach his limits anyway. It should also be said that doping has always been part of the landscape, not only in the 20th century, but back in the ancient Olympics. And its presence doesn’t change the global pattern at all.”

A simple question remains to be resolved: how should we react to Griffith-Joyner’s place in the record books? Every time there is an Olympic or world championship final, the women’s 100m world champion will glance up at the electronic screen to review her run and check on her time. At the top of the screen, in small writing, will be Flo-Jo’s 10.49.

Should it be seen as a reminder of the sport’s troubled past or as the summit of female athleticism? John Hoberman, head of Germanic studies at the University of Texas, has devoted much time to understanding the question of doping in sport. He has read what has been written about the French study and admits to being impressed by the amount of data the team analysed. He agrees with the overall conclusion that there will be few world records in the future. “The Age of Exhaustion has already set in,” he says.

Hoberman’s reservation about scientific studies and the contribution of intellectuals to sporting questions is that they often don’t understand the extent and the impact of doping; consequently, they underestimate its influence. “I would question using Florence Griffith-Joyner’s 10.49sec as a valid data point. And there is no doubt that doping has allowed athletes to perform beyond their natural physiological capacities. Three of the five men who have run under 9.80sec in the 100m [Ben Johnson, Tim Montgomery, Justin Gatlin] have tested positive for anabolic steroids. Look at the all-time performance list in the shot put – it’s virtually wall-to-wall dopers at the top.”

World records were once considered the crown jewels of sport, especially in athletics and Olympic sport. From Roger Bannister to Sebastian Coe, generations of British sports followers were nurtured on world-class performances by the country’s middle-distance runners. When Bob Beamon smashed the world long jump record by almost 2ft at the 1968 Olympics, those who witnessed the feat had a memory that could never be forgotten.

Beamon nearly missed the final, fouling on his first two jumps in qualifying before getting through on his last attempt. For the next day’s final, the Welsh athlete Lynn Davies was one of the favourites. Beamon was fourth to jump. After the first three jumpers had fouled, he stood on the runway, muttering over and over to himself, “Don’t foul, don’t foul.” He was a sub-10sec athlete for 100 yards, and when he hit the take-off board, he seemed to fly into orbit. Observers estimated that he sailed 5½ to 6ft into the air, and he hit the sand so hard, he bounded straight back up and landed outside the pit.

“That’s over 28ft,” said American long-jumper Ralph Boston to Davies. “On his first jump,” replied Davies, “it can’t be.”

They moved closer to the pit to get a better view as officials slid the marker of the measuring device down its rail to the point where Beamon’s back foot had landed. Before it got there, the marker slid off its rail. It didn’t go that far. Turning to Beamon, the nearest official said, “Fantastic, fantastic.” An old-style steel tape was called for and the distance was measured twice before the result was flashed up on the electronic scoreboard. “8.90m”, which was 29ft 2½in, shattering Boston’s old mark of 27ft 4Çin.

The new world record-holder didn’t understand metric measurements and asked Boston how he had done. “Bob,” said his teammate, “you’ve jumped over 29ft.” “What do I do now?” asked Beamon. He took one more jump, which was almost 3ft short of his first, then passed on his remaining four opportunities. Davies was beaten before he started. “I can’t go on,” he said to Boston, “What is the point? We’ll all look silly.” The record went from 27 to 29ft, and a further 12 years would pass before any athlete managed to produce a 28ft jump.

Beamon’s jump may have been the most glorious feat in Olympic history. It was certainly sport’s greatest world record. There weren’t any suspicions about Beamon, and all the evidence pointed to one moment of almost freakish brilliance – that second when a great athlete produces a performance that defies rational explanation. But it is also a performance from the past that will not be repeated, because man no longer has the capacity to improve by that amount.

With the widespread doping of the past 3½ decades, records have been set that puzzled as much as thrilled, that led to questions rather than celebrations. Sport has picked up the tab for its inability to deal with doping. “Doped record-holders have devalued the world record list,” says Hoberman. “In athletics, the IAAF hasn’t lifted a finger to do anything about it.”

Removing tainted records from the books is not straightforward. More than two years ago, the former East German sprinter Ines Geipel asked that her name be removed from the list of four athletes who had set the German club record for the 4 x 100m. Geipel was part of the SC Motor Jena team that set the record in 1984, and as she and her fellow athletes had been part of the GDR’s state-sponsored doping programme, she did not want to be associated with the record.

Having her name deleted from the list was much more complicated than it might have been, and Geipel suffered criticism from her former teammates because of her renunciation of the record. Eventually her name was removed but the record remains, a national 4 x 100m record that is credited to three athletes. Now, according to Toussaint and his Irmes team, the problem of world records is about to fade away.

After spending so much time on the records of Olympic and world champions, Toussaint knows what kind of sport he prefers. “There is that very nice image from the 800m at the Highland Games in Scotland last summer. I loved the race, with the rain and four athletes, and the way they were running for the pleasure of running. It is a very nice image of sport, of people competing for the fun, for the physical expression of just running round a field.”





Beaten at last ...

PIETRO MENEA, MEN’S 200m In 1979 the Italian set a best for the distance of 19.72sec. He was the last white athlete to hold a sprint record. Despite the subsequent efforts of Carl Lewis, a steroid-boosted Ben Johnson, Frankie Fredericks and other leading runners, it was not until June 1996 that the record was broken, when Michael Johnson ran 19.66sec. He then lowered the mark to 19.32sec at the Atlanta Olympics five weeks later. No sprinter has come close to matching that

SEBASTIAN COE, MEN’S 800m In July 1997 the Kenyan-turned-Dane Wilson Kipketer equalled Coe’s 800m record of 1min 41.73sec, set in Florence in 1981. The next month he beat the time twice, bringing the record down by more than half a second. Coe described Kipketer’s run as ‘phenomenal’. The Briton had also set a world 1,000m record in Oslo in 1981. That was not beaten until 1999, when Kenyan Noah Ngeny took more than a quarter of a second off the mark

BOB BEAMON, MEN’S LONG JUMP Defending Olympic champion Lynn Davies told Beamon that he had ‘destroyed this event’ after his 8.90m record at the Mexico Games in 1968. It was 55cm longer than the previous best. Twenty-three years later, at the world championships in Tokyo, American Mike Powell beat that mark by 5cm, with silver medallist Carl Lewis also surpassing Beamon’s jump that night

... but still going

JANET EVANS, 800M FREESTYLE The longest held current record in the pool was set by Evans in 1989. She also held 400m and 1500m records, lasting 18 and 19 years respectively.

How they fell
First record - Now

100m
Men 10.6 (1912) 9.74
Women 11.7 (1934) 10.49

200m
Men 20.6 (1951) 19.32
Women 24.1 (1932) 21.34

400m
Men 47.8 (1900) 43.18
Women 57.0 (1957) 47.60

800m
Men 1:52.8 (1908) 1:41.11
Women 2:16.8 (1928) 1:53.28

1500m
Men 3:56.8 (1912) 3:26.00
Women 5:18.4 (1927) 3:50.46

5000m
Men 15:01.2 (1908) 12:37.35
Women 15:41.4 (1977) 14:16.63

10000m
Men 31:02.4 (1904) 26:17.53
Women 32:17.19 (1981) 29:31.78

 

[thunder]

I think you're onto something. The authorities are trying to get to a clean sport by using bandaids and taking shortcuts. Everybody wants the other person to take the lead (and the expense) on anti-doping measures. But if spectators of the sport knew tomorrow that doping was near impossible, the money would start to flow back in. The problem is there may be a few years of lag between the extra investment in control measures, and the extra revenue.

The other thing is ASO really don't give a fark about doping. Before the Festina bust, they would have been happy to have every cyclist competing as doped up monkeys, and the public to believe in the illusion that the peleton was clean. But the Festina affair toppled that apple-cart. Because they lost control of being able to spin the lie, without the risk that outside authorities wouldn't catch them with their pants down.

But you're right about ASO being the ones who should step up to the plate and take the lead. Not only because the TdF is the face of pro cycling to most of the world, but also because this is the event with enough revenue to justify the expense.

Your Japanese Kieran example is interesting. The reason for that level of quarantine is because of the huge sums of gambling money at risk, and peoples' lack of trust for each other. The quarantine is more to barricade cyclists from communicating with outside influences though...to prevent rigging of races.

With regard the cyclists, their motivations are to do as well as they can and to win. That's what they go to sleep each night dreaming about. Like you say, as long as they can get away with advantages of doping, they will do it unfortunately. Its human nature. Asking them to go clean by just appealing to their honor and to the good of cycling isn't going to cut it on an individual level. It has to get militant. It has to get to the stage where doping is impossible or not worth the risk.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Prudhomme was able to institute rock solid controls and an impregnable quarantine of competitors. I wonder how the teams would respond. Maybe some cyclists would be worried at how they would be able to cope again having to recover on their own. And it wouldn't be much fun essentially being in jail for three weeks, let alone being available for dope tests that interupt training every other day in the month or two leading up to the event.

It would be refreshing to watch. The TdF would go back to being a battle between the rider and the course, as much as the other riders. And the expressions on the faces would tell you how much pain the riders were sacrificing during the race. At the moment it seems almost like a 21 day training camp at times.

But the best feeling would be that when you saw a great human feat to win a race, you would know that it was totally the cyclist, and not some medical feat or a covert blood smuggling operation, that won the race.

I know why the quarantine exists. The purpose is different, but my point was, there is a precedent for harsh measures and a quarantine. The French liberals cannot appeal to fascist or Orwellian tendencies if you have an example. If you did it without any precedent, it would be more difficult.

I dont think riders want to dope, if they know everyone else is doping. I think most dope, not because of advantage, but because of neutralising disadvantage. If that is truly the case, then you will get a majority constituency supporting anti-doping measures. It will only be those riders that know their performances are underpinned by their doping programs who should protest.

Who wants to spend 10 thousand Euros a year, on the cheapest plan. Who wants to spend 80 thousand a year. Who wants juniors doping. I dont think anyone wants them doping. Time for a solution folks.

 

[thunder]

You have good points, but at the end everythings depends on money. Your great ideas about testing cannot be realized, because ASO, UCI.. are only interested in making as much money as possible and with your approach zhey would end with empty pockets or even worse.
I really see no way out of this - protected spanish( Italians arent a lot better) teams will never change their dirty altitude, no way dirty Bruyneel gives up his winning formula..., which leaves no options but to dope for Schleks, Gardemman&co. Also be sure Schlecks will never catch Contador, not because of lack of talent( Andy is as talented as Ulle), but his medical support will remain on lower level. Wasnt that endless cat(Armstrong) and mouse(Ullrich&Basso) game enough? Bruyneel will make another one for you if picture doesnt dramatically change.

And I belive talents like Mocoutie, Casar are in worst situation right now, if things remain the same top French talent will never finish less than half hour behind Bruyneels machines. If you allow French to dope, they would still be behind ( worse doctors, dop connections..), but the difference would be 10min maybe, so they could at least fight for top 5 in TDF.

no, actually, Andy Schleck is not that talented. Look at his junior records.

Velits brothers, Kreuzigger, Walker, all out performed him.

He only became good on dope at CSC. Yes, ask Simoni. Simoni said "so much for the new generation" at the Giro in repsonse to Schleck. Schleck is not as talented as Ullrich. Far from it. It was only the insulin and the blood transfusions he got at the Giro that made him "go fast".

Alot of juniors outperformed him under age.

And, he had one onlder brother, Frank, who was riding on De Nardi in about 2001, and his dad was a pro, so he would have had high calibre training, since about 12, higher calibre than other juniors.

 

[Crankyfeet]

no, actually, Andy Schleck is not that talented. Look at his junior records.

Velits brothers, Kreuzigger, Walker, all out performed him.

He only became good on dope at CSC. Yes, ask Simoni. Simoni said "so much for the new generation" at the Giro in repsonse to Schleck. Schleck is not as talented as Ullrich. Far from it. It was only the insulin and the blood transfusions he got at the Giro that made him "go fast".

Alot of juniors outperformed him under age.

And, he had one onlder brother, Frank, who was riding on De Nardi in about 2001, and his dad was a pro, so he would have had high calibre training, since about 12, higher calibre than other juniors.

I'm not disagreeing with you about Schleck and the effects doping had on his performances and career, but I noticed a heavy reliance in your argument on junior performances as a gauge of how good athletes are in comparison to other athletes later on. I disagree with junior comparisons as being translative through your whole career. Some guys don't fully mature in terms of muscle mass until they're 26-27. If you take an Australian example, look at the National Under 19 cricket team, then see where those players are 5-7 years later. Usually only a couple of them have reached a similar relative level as mature adults. Some guys are fully developed at 18 yrs old. Others, like myself for example, were tall and lithe, but didn't fill out until 23-24. IMO, junior talent relative to other juniors is indicative, but far too overvalued, due to different physical maturity growth rates.

As an example, Matty Hayden didn't even make the Queensland Under 19 cricket team (unless I'm mistaken ), but he made the Queensland senior team two years later and by the time he was 22, he was a world class player. Imagine someone saying he was really over-rated as a 25 year old because so and so player was much better than him when they were 18.

 

[thunder]

I'm not disagreeing with you about Schleck and the effects doping had on his performances and career, but I noticed a heavy reliance in your argument on junior performances as a gauge of how good athletes are in comparison to other athletes later on. I disagree with junior comparisons as being translative through your whole career. Some guys don't fully mature in terms of muscle mass until they're 26-27. If you take an Australian example, look at the National Under 19 cricket team, then see where those players are 5-7 years later. Usually only a couple of them have reached a similar relative level as mature adults. Some guys are fully developed at 18 yrs old. Others, like myself for example, were tall and lithe, but didn't fill out until 23-24. IMO, junior talent relative to other juniors is indicative, but far too overvalued, due to different physical maturity growth rates.

As an example, Matty Hayden couldn't even make the Queensland Under 19 cricket team, but by the time he was 22, he was a world beater. Imagine someone saying he was really over-rated as a 25 year old because so and so player was much better than him when they were 18.

nope, you misread my point. My point was grampi said schleck was a talent, I am saying he went from being in the top tier of the juniors, to being elite in seniors.

Ofcourse, there are preturnatural talents that have a development curve ahead of any. In the old Eastern Bloc they trained their kids to near death so ofcourse they were ahead of the curve.

Schleck, he had an older brother riding as a stagiare or on a contract with De Nardi, and his father was a pro. You think Schleck did not have advanced development at the earlist stage possibile for his physiology. Ofcourse he maxed out his talent. His development might still have been hindered by his personal physiology.

I do not know of Alessandro Ballan until two years ago, I am not sure he had much of an espoir career. Certainly, I agree with your point.

You misread my point.

 

[Crankyfeet]

nope, you misread my point. My point was grampi said schleck was a talent, I am saying he went from being in the top tier of the juniors, to being elite in seniors.

Ofcourse, there are preturnatural talents that have a development curve ahead of any. In the old Eastern Bloc they trained their kids to near death so ofcourse they were ahead of the curve.

Schleck, he had an older brother riding as a stagiare or on a contract with De Nardi, and his father was a pro. You think Schleck did not have advanced development at the earlist stage possibile for his physiology. Ofcourse he maxed out his talent. His development might still have been hindered by his personal physiology.

I do not know of Alessandro Ballan until two years ago, I am not sure he had much of an espoir career. Certainly, I agree with your point.

You misread my point.

No..I think I got your point. I read your point as exactly what you said in the bold type above. My point in response was that Andy Scleck could quite easily develop into a better rider just by natural development, after leaving the juniors. My example was Matthew Hayden not even being in the top tier of junior cricketers at age 17-18, but by 22 he was world class. My point is that someone can markedly develop as an athlete in the ages 19-25, by natural development. And it is not just unusual stories. Most of my fellow same-aged Queensland Under 19 representative cricketers were struggling to play in their first team at club level 3-5 years later. There are some exceptions like Ian Healy and Craig McDermott.

I am not talking about whether they are maxed out or not on training at an earlier age, as in the Schleck example. I am talking about the rankings of athletes when they are 18 means very little if you rank the same athletes when they are 27. And it has nothing to do with drugs or training. It is just varying physical development rates IMO. Although in the cricket and rugby examples I used, psychology/attitude also was a big factor.

Look at college sports in the US. Or just look at cycling for example. Even at the ripe age of 25, in the TdF, it is rare for a white jersey to follow through and become a yellow jersey later. These guys are the best Under 25 riders in the world.

I don't think it is totally due to drugs. Because I know in my experience, most of the good junior athletes in cricket and rugby that I played with were caught up to and lapped by the time everyone got to 26 years old. There are some exceptions of course. But the landscape changes drastically IMHO.

But this is just my opinion. And it doesn't mitigate the possibility that Andy Schleck is just a product of CSC medical science. But cycling is a poor gauge anyway. Because performances are all over the place, from event to event, for a lot of riders, because of doping.

 

[thunder]

No..I think I got your point. I read your point as exactly what you said in the bold type above. My point in response was that Andy Scleck could quite easily develop into a better rider just by natural development, after leaving the juniors. My example was Matthew Hayden not even being in the top tier of junior cricketers at age 17-18, but by 22 he was world class. My point is that someone can markedly develop as an athlete in the ages 19-25, by natural development. And it is not just unusual stories. Most of my fellow same-aged Queensland Under 19 representative cricketers were struggling to play in their first team at club level 3-5 years later. There are some exceptions like Ian Healy and Craig McDermott.

I am not talking about whether they are maxed out or not on training at an earlier age, as in the Schleck example. I am talking about the rankings of athletes when they are 18 means very little if you rank the same athletes when they are 27. And it has nothing to do with drugs or training. It is just varying physical development rates IMO. Although in the cricket and rugby examples I used, psychology/attitude also was a big factor.

Look at college sports in the US. Or just look at cycling for example. Even at the ripe age of 25, in the TdF, it is rare for a white jersey to follow through and become a yellow jersey later. These guys are the best Under 25 riders in the world.

I don't think it is totally due to drugs. Because I know in my experience, most of the good junior athletes in cricket and rugby that I played with were caught up to and lapped by the time everyone got to 26 years old. There are some exceptions of course. But the landscape changes drastically IMHO.

But this is just my opinion. And it doesn't mitigate the possibility that Andy Schleck is just a product of CSC medical science. But cycling is a poor gauge anyway. Because performances are all over the place, from event to event, for a lot of riders, because of doping.

yes there are precocious talents that evolve, and some evolve just out of the junior ranks, everyone had differing stages of development. But Schleck was about as good as the Velits twins, perhaps not as strong as Walker.

See his development. Amazing. His brother was similar. Mediocre talent in espoirs, never gets a follow up contract in Italy with De Nardi or another team, within 3 years on CSC he is a world beater.

I don't know, but I smell something fisheee, and it ain't delayed development.

 

[Crankyfeet]

Bumpy Wumpy