Landis admits doping, points finger at LA - Please read Mod Warning post 1

Lumen

rockman15 wrote: »

you are missing my point. if you sanction a peleton to gear up as much as they wanted and ran a race, then made them do the same race again without the doping, the first doped race would end quicker. but you'll find the individual gaps on the GC would most likely stay the same. Im prepared to accept possible differences on the upper and lower ends of the GC but for your riders stuck in the middle theres no effect on their overall success. They just screw themselves over health wise, loose a lot of cash from their wallets and increase their chances of getting fired, loosing their license and publicly humilated and discredited.

Equally statistically speaking sports isnt the greatest universe to conduct this experiement but the general objective of what im trying to get across here is: you can only get ahead when you have a competitive advantage over all the other riders. If everyone discovers your secret advantage it no longer becomes an advantage, in fact its then a standard.

No, I really don't understand the point you're making.

The middle of the GC is inconsequential. That's domestique territory. Domestiques need to be as strong as possible to help their jersey contenders. So whatever your role in a team is, doping increases the chances of fulfilling your contract.

rockman15

RobFowl wrote: »

Interesting points but unfortunately factually incorrect.
There has been lots of research on this and EPO especially makes you go faster but affects different people to different extents.
The obvious on being Bjarne Riis an average pro at best who dominated the tour as a direct result of doping.

i accept that EPO makes you faster. Unreservedly so. If everyone takes EPO the race ends quicker. Nobody gains as they all perform on a higher level. So the only resulting difference is the natural strengths of each rider. The advantage is undermined because everyone has the advantage.

As I said earlier: yes doping will effect riders differently, but if every single rider at the start line is at it only succeeds in making the race finish quicker. I am not talking about the chemical reactions, biochemistry or medicinal benefits/consequences here. Im only speculating on the math and statistics of this.

Chips Lovell

rockman15 wrote: »

Im only speculating on the math and statistics of this.

I think that's the problem here.

rockman15

Lumen wrote: »

No, I really don't understand the point you're making.

The middle of the GC is inconsequential. That's domestique territory. Domestiques need to be as strong as possible to help their jersey contenders. So whatever your role in a team is, doping increases the chances of fulfilling your contract.

Ok so what if all my domestiques are doping, but so are the domestiques of the other teams. All we've done is increased the speed of the race. im no further ahead of my competitors now. The chemicals advantage is negated so all my team are left with is the training we've done and our tactics.

buzzingnoise

I've heard this said so many times but if Lance is stripped of his tour wins (not going to happen by the way) Jan Ulrich becomes the greatest rider of the modern era.
I'm guessing somewhere right now there's a pudgy german guy bashing lance on some Internet forums!!

mcgratheoin

rockman15 wrote: »

So the only resulting difference is the natural strengths of each rider.

This is emphatically NOT the case, unless you are including in the "natural strengths of each rider" a tendency to benefit more from EPO usage.
The race will indeed be faster all around, however it is completely erroneous to say that the cyclists that will finish at the head of the peloton with EPO usage will be the same riders that would win without EPO. If you are going to persist with this argument, can you please begin giving sources to back it up.

Junior

rockman15 wrote: »

Ok so what if all my domestiques are doping, but so are the domestiques of the other teams. All we've done is increased the speed of the race. im no further ahead of my competitors now. The chemicals advantage is negated so all my team are left with is the training we've done and our tactics.

That's also assuming everyone can afford the following

1 - The same dope
2 - The same level of medical care

It also assumes no one goes above a certain level, so if you take one pill whats stopping me from taking two.

Lumen

rockman15 wrote: »

Ok so what if all my domestiques are doping, but so are the domestiques of the other teams. All we've done is increased the speed of the race. im no further ahead of my competitors now. The chemicals advantage is negated so all my team are left with is the training we've done and our tactics.

No. As stated several times, doping affects different riders differently, as does the organisation of the doping programmes, and organisation is mostly about money. Where is the level playing field?

Even small effects make big differences at the limit, regardless of who you are. Having a boosted team around a GC contender makes an enormous difference, which is why there are (or used to be) doping programmes for entire teams.

Chips Lovell

rockman15 wrote: »

Ok so what if all my domestiques are doping, but so are the domestiques of the other teams. All we've done is increased the speed of the race. im no further ahead of my competitors now. The chemicals advantage is negated so all my team are left with is the training we've done and our tactics.

I'll try put it in very simple terms.

Rider A has a natural HCT of 39 per cent. Rider B has a natural HCT of 45 per cent. If both use EPO to jack it up to 50 per cent, do you really think that they'll both see an equal improvement in performance?

Or rider A decides its an acceptable risk to race at a HCT of 60 per cent. Rider B thinks its unsafe to go beyond 50. Do you still think the time gaps will be the same than if they weren't doping?

Hungrycol

rockman15 wrote: »

Ok so what if all my domestiques are doping, but so are the domestiques of the other teams. All we've done is increased the speed of the race. im no further ahead of my competitors now. The chemicals advantage is negated so all my team are left with is the training we've done and our tactics.

Your domestiques may be able to absorb the EPO better into their system making them perform better that your competitors domestiques giving you a faster team. Of course you assume your competitor team is not doping because of their teams anti-doping controls and if your team is then you have the advantage

Is Taylor due to release a book shortly?! He could have piggy backed on Landis's claims to give it much more credibility but now they both look like sore losers in need of publicity cash!

TinyExplosions

I think I can see where Rockman15's thinking is coming from, in that doping affects riders differently, but so does their own natural performance, so if everyone dopes, you will still have differences in strength and recovery, but they are roughly analogous to the natural differences in each riders body anyway, leading to a net increase of zero.

Having said that, he's still wrong!

Hungrycol

rockman15 wrote: »

If everyone discovers your secret advantage it no longer becomes an advantage, in fact its then a standard.

Off Topic:

I love this sentense. This is what bugs me about the term "Best Practice" that's gets bandied about in business. If everyone's doing "Best Practice" then it's not longer "Best" is it? If everyone's doing it it becomes "Medocre Practice"?! :P

rockman15

exactlly my point. it leads to an endless cycle of trying to out drug the next teamuntil they are all dead! utterly futile.

@mcgratheoin: i obviously dont have references. this is simply an hypothesis and what would occur in a given scenario with admitedly limited application to a real world circumstance. Like all good academics!! What im trying to communicate (in a poor fashion, which i apologise for) is the futility of doping. At the end of the day nobody benefits. Doping only succeeds in inflating times, distances or watts. Still though the concept of running a freely-doped race and totally clean race would be interesting to explore. At the very least we would have a comparrison of results, and I'd include rider welfare in that too. The long term effects of these drug cocktails afaik is still unknown, other than its not good for you!

I'll leave this alone now. Sorry for going off on a tangent!

RobFowl

Compare Riis (who doped) versus Bo Hamburger (who also doped)
At the start of their careers they were similar yet Bo did relatively little on EPO while Riis won Amstel Gold and the Tour.

Lumen

rockman15 wrote: »

Still though the concept of running a freely-doped race and totally clean race would be interesting to explore.

I think we have half of that data already.

rockman15

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I think I can see where Rockman15's thinking is coming from, in that doping affects riders differently, but so does their own natural performance, so if everyone dopes, you will still have differences in strength and recovery, but they are roughly analogous to the natural differences in each riders body anyway, leading to a net increase of zero.

Having said that, he's still wrong!

Yeah thats pretty much it!

Except I shudder to think about the risk assessment a team puts into the doping strategy. Where does the line get drawn? Death or victory? Unfortunatly, depending on your rider only 1 will come first.

ROK ON

rockman15 wrote: »

Yeah thats pretty much it!

Except I shudder to think about the risk assessment a team puts into the doping strategy. Where does the line get drawn? Death or victory? Unfortunatly, depending on your rider only 1 will come first.

In most risk vs reward tradeoffs the human mind completely downplays the risk until it actually materialises. Then the fear receptors kick in.

rockman15

ROK ON wrote: »

In most risk vs reward tradeoffs the human mind completely downplays the risk until it actually materialises. Then the fear receptors kick in.

Good point, well made. Reactionary strategies of combatting doping are largely whats employed.

Bar the out of contest testing, does anyone know if are there any suggestions of a preemptive method of control?

petethedrummer

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

exactly, which is why I would continue to support the charity even if it was proven he doped

You should look up his charity and find out exactly what it does... It does NOT fund cancer research, it funds cancer 'awareness'. BIG difference. You'd be better off giving your money to the Marie Keating foundation. But I suppose they don't have nice wristbands and catchy 'hope rides again' slogans.

The line is also blurred between Livestrong.com (for profit) and Livestrong.org (for charity).

And on the subject of doping, the playing field would not be level if one athlete could afford to pay for an exclusive contract with the world's leading doping doctor. And have sufficient clout to have positive test suppressed or have a back dated TUE accepted as an explanation for a failed test. Or could move to Spain when OOC testing becomes more invasive in France. Or lead a team rich enough to have all the riders doped up to drive the peloton up mountains. These are all hypotheticals but if one man could have all that he'd probably win a few TDFs.

TinyExplosions

petethedrummer wrote: »

These are all hypotheticals but if one man could have all that he'd probably win a few TDFs.

I'd say only about 7 or so...

Undercover Elephant

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "statistical" and "average benefit gained for the individual" but the "level playing field" idea doesn't stack up from a scientific perspective. Doping affects different individuals to a very different degree.

Additionally, the effectiveness of a doping programme in a sport with anti-doping meaures is as much about the organisational aspects as the physiological ones, and those have nothing to do with individual talent.

And then there's the moral considerations about the inability of genuinely clean riders to compete, and the health effects, and...and....and.

It's wrong.

All this is absolutely true.

And yet, I remember watching Richard Virenque on his day-long breakaway to Morzine in 2003. I had done the previous day's stage (Nevers to Lyon) that morning and was knackered - and I was in a car. It was extraordinary to watch. It was magnificent. And I couldn't have cared less whether he had been taking every banned substance on the planet. Neither could most of the crowd.

So I can't work out whether, deep down, I want to take the moral highground and support the fine Athenian idea of the emergence of talent combined with effort. Or just to see someone cycling really really fast.

RobFowl

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

All this is absolutely true.

And yet, I remember watching Richard Virenque on his day-long breakaway to Morzine in 2003. I had done the previous day's stage (Nevers to Lyon) that morning and was knackered - and I was in a car. It was extraordinary to watch. It was magnificent. And I couldn't have cared less whether he had been taking every banned substance on the planet. Neither could most of the crowd.

So I can't work out whether, deep down, I want to take the moral highground and support the fine Athenian idea of the emergence of talent combined with effort. Or just to see someone cycling really really fast.

I care deeply.
Too many of may memories of cycling are now in my view worthless.
VIrenque's performances to me are like those of Hulk Hogan. Entertaining but meaningless and not true sport.

xz

"I picked my head up during an interval and saw an enormous ostrich zigzagging in the road. I swung wide to get by - and just as I did he started chasing me. These guys can motor. I had to sprint to drop him." -- Tyler Hamilton

Clear admission of drug taking

xz

found an "incomplete" list of doping cases dating back to 1886 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling, some interesting cases listed

RobFowl

xz wrote: »

found an "incomplete" list of doping cases dating back to 1886 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling, some interesting cases listed

Love this quote .....
1930

The acceptance of drug-taking in the Tour de France was so complete by 1930 that the rule book, distributed by Henri Desgrange, reminded riders that drugs would not be provided by the organisers.[20]

Hail 2 Da Thief

xz wrote: »

found an "incomplete" list of doping cases dating back to 1886 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling, some interesting cases listed

Kelly was positive after Paris–Brussels in 1984 and that came as a surprise because he used the urine of a mechanic. But the mechanic was using banned substances himself because he had to work long hours at night and needed the lift to stay awake.

HaHa, never knew that! What a bizzare way to get busted!

xz

RobFowl wrote: »

Love this quote .....
1930

The acceptance of drug-taking in the Tour de France was so complete by 1930 that the rule book, distributed by Henri Desgrange, reminded riders that drugs would not be provided by the organisers.[20]

That one got me laughing too

xz

The point I would like to make about this, is Eff the witch hunt on LA, Guilty or Not, and we may never find the truth either way, just look at some of the names throughout the History of the sport that have been found out as "cheats", for want of a better word, and a lot of these, to this day are regarded as "Legends". How many Victories did these Legends win whilst souped up that they never found out about, at the end of the day, LA will go down as Legend in the sport on the back of his 7 TDF victories, whether we like it or not.

GT_TDI_150

there is doubt about all the greats! all seem to have an excuse, wrong inhaler, samples lost, samples handled incorrectly, ... B samples defrosted incorrectly ...

1969

• Eddy Merckx of Belgium tested positive for the stimulant Reactivan at Savona during the 1969 Giro d'Italia, after leading the race through 16 stages. Merckx was found positive at doping control and expelled from the Giro. Merckx steadfastly denied the charges. The controversy began to swirl when his test results were not handled in the ordinary manner. The positive doping control was released to the press before all parties (Merckx and team officials) involved were notified.[47]

Diarmuid

xz wrote: »

LA will go down as Legend in the sport on the back of his 7 TDF victories, whether we like it or not.

I think the next few years may prove you wrong.