Mark Cavendish Interview

pk88

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20049387

What do people think of the above? Iv showed my non cycling friends this interview who like a lot of people now are complete experts on cycling due to the Lance affair, and automatically there reaction is "Bu%&£*!t. There all cheats and nothing has changed in the sport in the last 7 - 10 years.

Whats the boards community think?

death1234567

I think that Mark Cavendish is an arrogant twat.

ROK ON

I am not sure how true that statement made in the headline is, but I certainly think that it is plausible.

Cycling is exposing it's doping problem so it looks outlandish when compared to other sports. But could it be the case that other sports are ignoring a problem.

This type of analysis is legion and tends to miss the point. It is akin to looking a the amount of mortgage loans in default in a country and then refusing to lend becaus poor decisions have been made historically.

I am of the opinion that pro sport is not sport but entertainment. The more money is a factor the more cheating will occur. That is opinion, I can't prove this.

I do think that so many other sports have their heads stuck in the sand regarding doping.

SWL

I agree with him, given the money involved in European football you would be naive to believe doping doesn't go on.

Zidane used to get a blood transfusion in Switzerland during the season and everybody said he was looking after his health a cyclist does it and they get aban.

Cycling has had its problems, it’s been forced reluctantly to address them plenty of other sports are just as bad. Also has any other sport respectively stripped an athlete of a world or Olympic title after they retired?

The only admission I recall it the Finnish athlete who bet Eamon Coughlan to the bronze medal at the 1980 Olympics he later admitted to blood doping and still kept the medal.

colm_gti

ROK ON wrote: »

I am not sure how true that statement made in the headline is, but I certainly think that it is plausible.

Cycling is exposing it's doping problem so it looks outlandish when compared to other sports. But could it be the case that other sports are ignoring a problem.

This type of analysis is legion and tends to miss the point. It is akin to looking a the amount of mortgage loans in default in a country and then refusing to lend becaus poor decisions have been made historically.

I am of the opinion that pro sport is not sport but entertainment. The more money is a factor the more cheating will occur. That is opinion, I can't prove this.

I do think that so many other sports have their heads stuck in the sand regarding doping.

Agree 100%. Anyone who thinks doping doesn't exist in other pro sports needs to open their eyes...

tfrancer

death1234567 wrote: »

I think that Mark Cavendish is an arrogant twat.

Yes, but he is the best sprinter in the world whereas you are, and always will be, a nobody.

buffalo

tfrancer wrote: »

Yes, but he is the best sprinter in the world whereas you are, and always will be, a nobody.

Ah here, leave it out. Round here we like to be known as Freds, not nobodies.

Hungrycol

SWL wrote: »

I agree with him, given the money involved in European football you would benaive to believe doping doesn't go on.

I dunno, run around for 90 mins requires blood doping? And they're not even running for the full 90 mins. :rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

Can we keep it civil please

@ death1234567 & tfrancer: Any more of this carry on and I'll issue cards.

ThisRegard

It's not blood doping they do, it has to be cortisone due the amount of times they seem to fall over and hurt themselves.

Helps them recover quicker from what seem like horrific injuries judging by their reactions to their falls.

Maybe it's the cortisone that causes these inner ear inbalances ?

CramCycle

SWL wrote: »

I agree with him, given the money involved in European football you would be naive to believe doping doesn't go on. Zidane used to get a blood transfusion in Switzerland during the season and everybody said he was looking after his health a cyclist does it and they get a ban.

I know that a few premiership players use blood transfusions, where they have been spun down to extract a specific subset of cells and/or nutrients in the blood, the theory being it will improve healing/recovery time.

The specific example that springs to mind is Drogba using it two summers ago to aid recovery to his knee. The argument from the Chelsea doctors is that it was to aid recovery and therefore not doping.

Wibbs

CramCycle wrote: »

The specific example that springs to mind is Drogba using it two summers ago to aid recovery to his knee. The argument from the Chelsea doctors is that it was to aid recovery and therefore not doping.

In which case should pro cyclists not be allowed cortisone/painkillers etc? Personally speaking I'd say yes.

CramCycle

Wibbs wrote: »

In which case should pro cyclists not be allowed cortisone/painkillers etc? Personally speaking I'd say yes.

I meant it was their reason, personally if someone is in pain, they should be allowed pain killers but if they are in pain to the point they need pain killers, then they shouldn't be competing at that point so I'd disagree.

Pain killers are used alot in endurance sports I'd imagine, to enable competitors to go the distance and the best they can manage, pain would be a natural response, it tells your body to stop, that you may not be fit for it either at that time or at that pace.

By taking pain killers when they are not needed, you are giving yourself an edge over those in the peloton who would on any other day be equal to your abilities. How would you decide? Simple solution, if you take them, don't compete while your taking them.

Flandria

Anyone that thinks that 'mainstream' sports like football, rugby and tennis isn't riddled with PEDs right to the highest level is, frankly, delusional.

desertcircus

Flandria wrote: »

Anyone that thinks that 'mainstream' sports like football, rugby and tennis isn't riddled with PEDs right to the highest level is, frankly, delusional.

I wouldn't be so sure. A single rider on EPO in an otherwise clean field would absolutely destroy the competition; a single footballer on nandrolone could easily play whole games without ever doing anything different to how they'd have done it clean. Doping is most likely where its benefits are most direct: in team-based field sports where outright power output isn't the determinant of success, doping carries very limited benefits and huge penalties.

Lumen

desertcircus wrote: »

in team-based field sports where outright power output isn't the determinant of success, doping carries very limited benefits and huge penalties.

I dunno about that. Field sports involve repetitive recovery from anaerobic efforts, and you need oxygen for that.

As for "huge penalties", is that a joke?

nak

desertcircus wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. A single rider on EPO in an otherwise clean field would absolutely destroy the competition; a single footballer on nandrolone could easily play whole games without ever doing anything different to how they'd have done it clean. Doping is most likely where its benefits are most direct: in team-based field sports where outright power output isn't the determinant of success, doping carries very limited benefits and huge penalties.[/Quote

That's what people said about baseball, turned out steroid use was rife.

HGH use at Barcelona to treat injuries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-CW4UeOdDc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

desertcircus

Anaerobic recovery time isn't nearly as critical for football or rugby, though. Pierre Spies would beat Richie McCaw in just about any test of athletic ability - straight sprint, benchpress, or recovery time - but even his own mother wouldn't claim him to come close to McCaw as a rugby player. And Spies could mainline EPO and steroids all he wanted without ever overtaking him. Same with football - the original Ronaldo was two stone overweight for half of his career but still outplayed nearly everyone he met. As for baseball, smashing a ball as far as you can sounds like a pretty pure power test.

Flandria

desertcircus wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. A single rider on EPO in an otherwise clean field would absolutely destroy the competition; a single footballer on nandrolone could easily play whole games without ever doing anything different to how they'd have done it clean. Doping is most likely where its benefits are most direct: in team-based field sports where outright power output isn't the determinant of success, doping carries very limited benefits and huge penalties.

http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1834&Itemid=74

http://www.khelnama.com/120928/football/european-league-2012/italian-serie/previews/doping-raises-its-head-juventus-take-champions-roma

http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/showthread.php?t=62180

Was the final piece of the Barcelona jigsaw Guardiola's recruitment of his old team doctor, Segura, at Brescia?

I think you may have got very limited and huge the wrong way round in your post...;)

dogsears

desertcircus wrote: »

As for baseball, smashing a ball as far as you can sounds like a pretty pure power test.

Really?

Check out Mark McGwire - http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607,
A-Rod - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/02/09/arod.admits/
Barry Bonds - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/16/us-usa-bonds-steroids-idUSTRE7BF1PM20111216

Would they have done this if they didn't think they were getting an edge?

Of course abuse is prevalent in other sports.

desertcircus

dogsears wrote: »

Really?

Check out Mark McGwire - http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607,
A-Rod - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/02/09/arod.admits/
Barry Bonds - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/16/us-usa-bonds-steroids-idUSTRE7BF1PM20111216

Would they have done this if they didn't think they were getting an edge?

Of course abuse is prevalent in other sports.

That was exactly the point I was making. A straight power test is an incredibly obvious field where doping will reap dividends. In football or rugby, where straight power tests are comparatively rare and low-stakes, the benefit of doping is heavily blunted: there are better ways of getting a competitive advantage (practising lineout calls, setpiece free-kicks, video analysis of future opponents) and there's not even anything resembling a guarantee that doping will push you up the ladder.

I'll admit to being less sure about the question of recovery from injuries, but in terms of performance enhancement, I don't think they offer a whole lot in certain sports. If you had a steroid that gave you all the physical attributes and fitness measurements of Alberto Contador, you'd be a serious contender for GC. If you had one that gave you the same for Cristiano Ronaldo or Richie McCaw, you'd barely be a fifty-fifty bet to make it as a professional.

SWL

desertcircus wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure. A single rider on EPO in an otherwise clean field would absolutely destroy the competition; a single footballer on nandrolone could easily play whole games without ever doing anything different to how they'd have done it clean. Doping is most likely where its benefits are most direct: in team-based field sports where outright power output isn't the determinant of success, doping carries very limited benefits and huge penalties.

Two footballers with similar skill and talent, one dopes the other does not, against the best players in the world who do think will provide a greater return for the team playing two competitive matches a week for 8 months of the year, while increasing his earning capacity to a few thousands per week.

As you know using EPO or other PED you recover faster, can run further for a given effort so the possibility of beating your man to the ball increases, it doesn't matter how much skill you have you need the ball to use it, PED will help you get to the ball.

There are rumours that some Spanish players have hct over 50% and Eufemiano Fuentes who said that Spain would be stripped of its World Cup if he spilled the beans also had household names in Spanish football on his books, all this info has been swept under the carpet and everybody points the finger at cycling.

leftism

The effect of doping in different sports is always an interesting debate.

My 2c on it are that drug abuse is prevalent in all sports, however the performance benefit is not equal amongst all sports. The difficulty is trying to quantify the performance benefit, depending on the sport and the particular drugs they're using. There are a number of factors that must be considered when trying to figure out the actual performance benefit.

1) Number of competitors: In an individual sport, like running, swimming, or weightlifting the performance benefit of any drug use is probably very high. In a team sport, if one team-member is doping it would be a reasonable assumption to divide the performance benefit by the number of players on the team. Conversely, if the whole team is doping, the performance benefit could actually be multiplied by some factor, compared to individual sports. Example, US Postal's systematic doping programme most likely gave them an insurmountable advantage in the Tour. Another example would be the alleged systematic doping of the USSR soccer team in the 50's.

2) Components of performance in each sport: The performance components in each sport are very different. I tend to use a 5xS rule when categorizing performance components; Speed, stamina, strength, skill, strategy. So for a sport where stamina is a very large component, EPO or blood doping would most likely have a significant performance benefit. Same for steroids in a sport where strength or speed is crucial (weightlifting being the obvious example). Again we get into grey areas when talking about sports where several components are key to performance. Take rugby for example, where strength and skill are big components. Would steroid use have a big impact on the final score? Possibly, if the entire front row are juiced up to the gills, that could be worth a lot in a game. But if their back line are a bunch of donkeys, it might not win them the game (Italy spring to mind; awesome pack, useless elsewhere).

In my opinion, skill is the great leveler! It is a neurological phenomenon, the sensory and motor cortex working in perfect harmony to accomplish a task. To my knowledge there are currently no drugs that can automatically improve skill level. No substitute for practice. Any sport that requires a high level of skill, will attenuate much of the advantage that ergogenics might have. In other words, all the doping in the world won't allow you to do what Lionel Messi does.

Actually, baseball is an interesting anomaly. While skill is a big component, i rate strength as being much more of a performance component. All the players have to field and hit during the game, and both tasks are significantly improved by increasing strength. Thus the strength of a player's arm can fundamentally alter the result in a game. And yet up until recently, the American public largely ignored doping in baseball... Even now, there is a lack of appetite to completely expose how prevalent steroid abuse is/was in baseball. I think this says more about the public perception of doping in sport over here than anything else.

Anyways, going back to my original point, doping is definitely prevalent in all sports. Its not that the media and wider public ignore doping in sports like soccer. Its just that deep down, we're all aware that it doesn't have the same effect as in a sport like running or cycling. IMO, the more skill required in a sport, the less impact drugs should have on the final outcome.

nak

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/three-more-north-korea-players-fail-drug-test-190723333.html

If female football teams are doping when there is a lot less money in the game; I would say there must be some perceived benefit.

Doping is sadly present in every sport; even less athletic pursuits like golf etc. It just seems to be that if it's a cyclist, it's headline news. A few athletes have had Olympic medals taken off them in recent years, but these stories are not big news for some reason.

corny

Cav may have a point but the thing he doesn't seem to get is that the ramifications of his argument are for others (other sports) to consider. People in cycling should limit themselves to the problems within their own sport not launch a crusade to share the blame. He'd be a fool if he thinks cycling has done all it can to flush out the cheats, let it be the previous generation or indeed his generation. Most of them are actively engaged in a cover up at the minute.

On his point though..... anyone who doesn't find the fact that a certain Spanish league team have used the same 13 or 14 players for 60 or 70 games a season, pressure the ball like none before them all while most of them are 5 foot 6 and 10 stone suspicious is living in a dream world.

12 sprocket

leftism wrote: »

The effect of doping in different sports is always an interesting debate.

My 2c on it are that drug abuse is prevalent in all sports, however the performance benefit is not equal amongst all sports. The difficulty is trying to quantify the performance benefit, depending on the sport and the particular drugs they're using. There are a number of factors that must be considered when trying to figure out the actual performance benefit.

1) Number of competitors: In an individual sport, like running, swimming, or weightlifting the performance benefit of any drug use is probably very high. In a team sport, if one team-member is doping it would be a reasonable assumption to divide the performance benefit by the number of players on the team. Conversely, if the whole team is doping, the performance benefit could actually be multiplied by some factor, compared to individual sports. Example, US Postal's systematic doping programme most likely gave them an insurmountable advantage in the Tour. Another example would be the alleged systematic doping of the USSR soccer team in the 50's.

2) Components of performance in each sport: The performance components in each sport are very different. I tend to use a 5xS rule when categorizing performance components; Speed, stamina, strength, skill, strategy. So for a sport where stamina is a very large component, EPO or blood doping would most likely have a significant performance benefit. Same for steroids in a sport where strength or speed is crucial (weightlifting being the obvious example). Again we get into grey areas when talking about sports where several components are key to performance. Take rugby for example, where strength and skill are big components. Would steroid use have a big impact on the final score? Possibly, if the entire front row are juiced up to the gills, that could be worth a lot in a game. But if their back line are a bunch of donkeys, it might not win them the game (Italy spring to mind; awesome pack, useless elsewhere).

In my opinion, skill is the great leveler! It is a neurological phenomenon, the sensory and motor cortex working in perfect harmony to accomplish a task. To my knowledge there are currently no drugs that can automatically improve skill level. No substitute for practice. Any sport that requires a high level of skill, will attenuate much of the advantage that ergogenics might have. In other words, all the doping in the world won't allow you to do what Lionel Messi does.

Actually, baseball is an interesting anomaly. While skill is a big component, i rate strength as being much more of a performance component. All the players have to field and hit during the game, and both tasks are significantly improved by increasing strength. Thus the strength of a player's arm can fundamentally alter the result in a game. And yet up until recently, the American public largely ignored doping in baseball... Even now, there is a lack of appetite to completely expose how prevalent steroid abuse is/was in baseball. I think this says more about the public perception of doping in sport over here than anything else.

Anyways, going back to my original point, doping is definitely prevalent in all sports. Its not that the media and wider public ignore doping in sports like soccer. Its just that deep down, we're all aware that it doesn't have the same effect as in a sport like running or cycling. IMO, the more skill required in a sport, the less impact drugs should have on the final outcome.

THat may not be so true, for example statistics say that there are more goals scored in the latter part of soccer matches, so presumably part of the reason for that, is the difference in fatigue levels of players, so more endurance can allow players to utilise their skills for longer.. so doping will be effective for soccer players

leftism

12 sprocket wrote: »

[/B]
THat may not be so true, for example statistics say that there are more goals scored in the latter part of soccer matches, so presumably part of the reason for that, is the difference in fatigue levels of players, so more endurance can allow players to utilise their skills for longer.. so doping will be effective for soccer players

I'm not saying its NOT effective, i'm just saying it has less of an impact on the results than in other sports.

Also, your assumption is based on an entire team doping, not just 1 or 2 players.

If an entire team artificially improved their aerobic capacity (via blood doping or EPO) then i have no doubt over the course of a season, many results would be different. As i said, a systematic doping programme for a team probably multiplies the effect compared to individual athletes. Hence some of the questions being raised about Spanish football clubs of late.

P.S- I did some work with professional soccer players a few years back and my experience is that most of them would rather chop off an arm than improve their endurance through an intensive aerobic programme. The usual response is "hows this gonna make me score a volley from the 18 yard line?"

P.P.S- In direct contradiction to my previous comment, the fittest guy i ever worked with was a former professional soccer player (so there's always exceptions to the rule).

CramCycle

desertcircus wrote: »

Anaerobic recovery time isn't nearly as critical for football or rugby, though.

Really? Position dependent presumably,

petethedrummer

Anyone wanna see a Footballer receive a transfusion?

Scroll down this thread.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=19126

Flandria

petethedrummer wrote: »

Anyone wanna see a Footballer receive a transfusion?

Scroll down this thread.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=19126

He could get a huge penalty for that;)

petethedrummer

leftism wrote: »

Anyways, going back to my original point, doping is definitely prevalent in all sports. Its not that the media and wider public ignore doping in sports like soccer.

They willfully ignore it. Newstalk for example. I get alot of texts read out on Newstalk but they never ever ever read out a text when it relates to football and doping. No problem when it's doping in cycling. No problem when it's not even a sports related text. Doping in Football? No chance.