Wiggo

princeofpounds

Great post Generali.

What you say about Armstrong is unfortunately correct; he may have passed all the tests he took at the time, but the fact is that the tests at the time would not pick up all forms of doping (and even now they don't I would imagine).

Most neutral cycling fans think that there is a good chance that Armstrong was doping. His power-to-weight ratios were off the scale compared to modern races, in fact the whole peloton has slowed down noticeably, which is probably the best indication that cycling is much cleaner now. It has been interesting to see that a few middle-of-the-pack riders who are now at the tail end of their careers have gradually become more competitive, like Tommy Voeckler. That's probably an indication that they were playing more clean than most.

Of course Lance could have been an anomaly; they do exist in nature, and so I would never say he was a doper unless the evidence showed it.

However, I am confused about why the USADA is pursuing this case now, and so adamantly. I have a suspicion that there are individuals there who have always felt they had unfinished business with Armstrong, convinced he was doping but never able to catch him.

You are probably right on rugby unfortunately, even though I am a big fan. There is certainly a subculture of its use amongst juvenile players, an MP's son was recently busted in that respect. It may not go that far, again it's probably used to 'get big' on the off-season more than juice up for a match. Certainly not all the players are on it, some simply don't show the figure. But some are suspect. I'm not sure about football, don't know much about it.

Oh, and with the Olympics, plenty of national anti doping agencies are not properly independent of their government, sure lots of stuff goes on.

Loughton_Monkey

It was many years ago that I learned, on Radio I believe, that a huge number of athletes were "at it". This was based upon the lethargy by which the testing authorities could keep up with the 'new' drugs.

Developing a test for a 'known' substance [let alone unknown ones] is a non trivial task. So it was one of those situations where [I'm guessing] 500 hopefuls regularly take new drug X. They wait until whispers tell them that someone is 'onto' them and developing a test. So 450 come off it - and on to something newer. The other 50 take the risk, until one poor sod happens to win a race and gets 'done'.

By this time, the majority are happy on their even newer drug......

purch

Generali wrote: »

At the time Lance Armstrong was riding, pretty much everyone was doping. If the playing field is level I have no problem.

One of the accusations against Alberto Contador by Greg LeMond after his incredible climb of Mt Verbier in the 2009 Tour was that he would have required an aerobic capacity of nearly 100 to have accomplished it in the time he managed. I can't argue with the math as I have no idea how they calculate this stuff, but what seems to be forgotten is that Andy Schleck was only 40 odd seconds behind him, Nibali 63 seconds, Frank Schleck and one Mr Wiggo 66 seconds in arrears, which means they would all have required aerobic capacity of superhuman levels, impossible without using banned substances.

http://www.bikeradar.com/racing/racestage/report/96th-tour-de-france-stage-15-560/

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

What is clean exactly? Ok, there are some drugs that are banned because it's unfair but what about the facilities that are available to some but not others? If you ever find yourself in Canberra check out the Australian Institute of Sport and then tell me that an athlete or gymnast from Syria, Venezuela or Mozambique has a fair shake against an Aussie competitor.

Running sprinters are routinely doping IMO; if they weren't how could they be running faster than the East Germans in the 1980s?

Soccer players too: those guys are hardly tested. No blood passports for them yet the midfielders are running almost twice as far as they used to in a game a couple of decades ago.

Brilliant post Gen, so please excuse me for shortening to three paragraphs.

In terms of the first para, they won't have a fair shake against a range of sports, but that's why clever nations focus on what they are good at. Jamaica focuses on chucking out sprinters, while Kenya and Ethiopia focus on long distance runners. With that focus, the scant resources that do exist can be focused on those sports only. Now European athletes go to the facilities in Kenya to do distance running training. For the recent Olympic Marathon in London, the announcer stated that Kenya had 180 runners meeting the A standard to race. IIRC Britain had at least 1 B standard runner in its team of 3.

With regard to the sprinters, I'm saddened that the US doping authorities know what was happening with the sprinters there in the 1980s but isn't releasing the results. Why start on Armstrong without looking at the sprints? Forget the East Germans for a moment and look at Flo Jo: her world record at 100m was 10.49 secs in 1988. No women, even now, gets close to that. The second fastest woman in the world, who is running now with over 20 years of additional technology and faster tracks is Carmelita Jeter at 10.64 secs. The men are running faster than Ben Johnson's time in Seoul, but I am ever hopeful that Bolt is just a freak of nature - you only have to look at him to know he is different to any other sprinter - that his ability is not down to anything else. Going forward, I'm hoping the London Olympics warning that samples will continue to be tested for 8 years will help clean up sport and that same rationale will be used in future games.

Finally down to football. Yes they should be tested, however 20-30 years ago there was little conditioning training to get into the sport, little awareness of diet and worse still - many players smoked! I've heard good things about Paul Merson's autobiography re that period, though whether I can get you to read a book about an Arsenal player is a different matter:D.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

Finally down to football. Yes they should be tested, however 20-30 years ago there was little conditioning training to get into the sport, little awareness of diet and worse still - many players smoked! I've heard good things about Paul Merson's autobiography re that period, though whether I can get you to read a book about an Arsenal player is a different matter:D.

I agree with all of what you write vivatifosi but I have a problem with this attitude that people have about soccer being drug free:

1. It clearly isn't: Stam tested positive, Ferdinand exited via a window to avoid being tested.
2. The FA refuse to allow the UKADA to test soccer players in a dispute that has been going on for almost 5 years.
3. Footballers testing positive for clenbuterol(sp?) have been allowed to carry on playing with no sanction at FIFA-run tournaments. That's the drug that Contador was banned for a positive test.
4. The US Women's goalie tested positive for a diuretic that is often used to mask other drug use. There was no sanction.
5. If you want to see how seriously the FA take their drug testing program, the link to it is here:
http://www.thefa.com/GetIntoFootball/Health%20Specialists%20and%20Medics/TestingProgrammes.aspx (SFW)

chewmylegoff

princeofpounds wrote: »

However, I am confused about why the USADA is pursuing this case now, and so adamantly. I have a suspicion that there are individuals there who have always felt they had unfinished business with Armstrong, convinced he was doping but never able to catch him.

i have no knowledge of the USADA and how it works, but i do have regular contact with some of the other parts of the US regulatory and criminal system. It seems to me that they way they are set up is that they staff themselves with young, ambitious lawyers who are looking to make a name for themselves with a "career case" - win that and it's a passport to a massive salary in the private sector. so they're all out to make a name for themselves, and what better way to get an outcome against 7 x tour de france winner.

not that i am suggesting that they are making the evidence up, but i suspect the case will be personal for the people who are doing it, in that they will have a 'career stake' in the outcome. thus they will be motivated to win in a way that is not really present in UK prosecutors, perhaps because we have a split system whereby the barrister gets the credit rather than the instructing solicitor (who also tends to only be engaged after the investigation has been done, in contrast to the US where the lawyer tends to be running the whole process, from the start of the investigation to the imposition of the sanction)?

this is a relatively new development in the US, as far as i understand at least, as places like the SEC effectively have 2 different kinds of staff, (i) ambitious people looking to make a name for themselves and (ii) the old school of wasters who have been there for 25 years and probably haven't done a full day's work in that entire period.

unfortunately most of the staff in these sort of functions in the UK are type (ii), although some UK agencies have got a lot better in recent years.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

I agree with all of what you write vivatifosi but I have a problem with this attitude that people have about soccer being drug free:

1. It clearly isn't: Stam tested positive, Ferdinand exited via a window to avoid being tested.
2. The FA refuse to allow the UKADA to test soccer players in a dispute that has been going on for almost 5 years.
3. Footballers testing positive for clenbuterol(sp?) have been allowed to carry on playing with no sanction at FIFA-run tournaments. That's the drug that Contador was banned for a positive test.
4. The US Women's goalie tested positive for a diuretic that is often used to mask other drug use. There was no sanction.
5. If you want to see how seriously the FA take their drug testing program, the link to it is here:
http://www.thefa.com/GetIntoFootball/Health%20Specialists%20and%20Medics/TestingProgrammes.aspx (SFW)

personally, i reckon the reason that ferdinand missed that drug test is more likely to be because he was taking recreational drugs, probably cocaine, than anything performance enhancing. i'm surprised more footballers done get done for coke, frankly. probably because the testing regime is lax.

Kennyboy66

purch wrote: »

One of the accusations against Alberto Contador by Greg LeMond after his incredible climb of Mt Verbier in the 2009 Tour was that he would have required an aerobic capacity of nearly 100 to have accomplished it in the time he managed. I can't argue with the math as I have no idea how they calculate this stuff, but what seems to be forgotten is that Andy Schleck was only 40 odd seconds behind him, Nibali 63 seconds, Frank Schleck and one Mr Wiggo 66 seconds in arrears, which means they would all have required aerobic capacity of superhuman levels, impossible without using banned substances.

http://www.bikeradar.com/racing/racestage/report/96th-tour-de-france-stage-15-560/

At the risk of sounding like one of the deluded who still think Armstrong didn't dope, here are a few things about Verbier 2009 to put it into context.

1) The climb had never been done before in the Tour. Therefore there are no comparable times to compare with. The other well know climbs have a long history and it is easier to compare times.

2) Its a Cat 1 climb rather than a HC climb such as Alpe d'Huez, Tourmalet, Ventoux. It is both shorter and less steep than those.
It is roughly 9km at a gradient of 7.5%.

Mont Ventoux is 22km with the same average gradient, however this masks the fact that the first 6km are relatively gentle before hitting 9% gradient.

3) There was only one other Cat 2 on that stage. A finish in Alpe d'Huez (non time trial) will often include other HC climbs such as Col du Galibier

4) Contador attacked from approx 5.5km from the finish, taking probably 13 minutes (my estimate). Wiggins lost 66 seconds, ie he was 7-8% slower than Contador up the last 5.5km

I'd struggle to use the final point as a stick to beat Wiggins up with - particularly when in the days of Pantani / Armstrong they were climbing with a higher power output for roughly 3 times the length of time.

Nothing would surprise me about pro-cycling, but everything about the 2012 tour looked cleaner than any other tour since probably the mid 1980's.

Kennyboy66

princeofpounds wrote: »

However, I am confused about why the USADA is pursuing this case now, and so adamantly. I have a suspicion that there are individuals there who have always felt they had unfinished business with Armstrong, convinced he was doping but never able to catch him.

.

More likely because it was US Postal that Armstrong rode for.

The US approach to drugs prior to 1990 was "anything goes".
Many of their own athletes tested positive and the results were supressed.
There was no testing (and in fact no banned substances) in Baseball until 2001 - even then, you would need 4 positive tests to get a 1 year ban.
American football was a little better, although clearly steriod use was endemic.

I think the US change of attitude emerged when it became clear that PED use was not limited to pro sportsmen but was fairly widespread in high school football teams.

The US also has a history of aggressively going for the top people rather than just catching a few no marks that no one has heard about (the European approach).

The Marion Jones case illustrates why Armstrong quit - she also never tested positive but didn't stop her going to prison (for perjury).

I think that USADA have said they will release its evidence in the next few weeks which will be great - I'd like to see the UCI in the dock as well, as the whole culture of cycling was corrupted.

Generali

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Mont Ventoux is 22km with the same average gradient, however this masks the fact that the first 6km are relatively gentle before hitting 9% gradient.

You almost manage to make it sound easy! Bloody mountain felt like it was killing me. The name Ventoux is about right too: the wind on the final couple of kms of climb was a nightmare.