Tripleshot Cycling

4827north wrote:I guess the part that we all loathe about him is that he 'just won't admit it'.

Nope. His immoral behaviour; in cycling, in life, and under the guise of helping cancer is what bugs me.

What benefit would it do for cycling or humanity for Lance to admit he doped?

Same as Marion Jones. Remove the doubt for the fanboys. Reduce the chances of it happening again.

They cheated for one reason - a reason that David Millar pointedly said... Fear. Fear that if he didn't cheat, his career would be over. If/when LA 'confesses' likely is that fear is the same reason.

That would help. Show that the UCI was negligent, if not worse. Time to take anything anti-doping away from the sport federations. But he still didn't have to be as enthusiastic a bully as he was.

Oddly enough, according to studies (sorry, I don't have my resources in front of me), the 'performance enhancements' that these elite level athletes use does very little to improve their 'edge'. Maybe 2 to 3% at best.

That's a lot. But the evidence is the oxygen vector doping (hemassist, epo, blood transfusions) give even more. Up to 15% http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/06 ... ok-at.html

edit: found a better one: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11 ... e-who.html

And the main finding was that EPO use improved time to exhaustion by an enormous 54% within 4 weeks!

What does boost their 'edge' is the confidence that is restored since now the playing field is re-levelled; now they 'have a shot'. No fear. Only guilt.

So if I cheat on my taxes, it takes away my fear and that's ok?

Do you think David Millar would have confessed if he hadn't been caught?

No, but he was a lot less enthusiastic about promoting it, denying it, and forcing others to do it. And he's made a real effort to encourage dope free sport. Can you see Lance doing that?

the witch hunt

It's not a witch hunt if it really is a bad witch.

just because I ride a Trek, or heck even wear a yellow band on my wrist, doesn't mean I am an LA disciple.

Got it. Being a TS'r speaks louder than trek labels anyway.

a creature we created... a hero we wanted

Bigger truth here than we generally acknowledge

Let's talk trash about that little shit for a bit. But leave the Schlecks alone, and leave Motor powered Fabian alone. And Jens Voigt. They're sacred.

You forgot this

Lister Farrar wrote: But it still doesn't bother you? What if one of your kids turns out to be a good bike racer, makes it all the way to the protour, then gets told to dope? By a guy like Lance.

How about knowing that the international federation didn't even do the most basic things to limit it? (never mind the cutting edge testing).

Sure it bothers me, and I wish it were different, but at the same time I'm not willing to lose sleep over it. It's no different than performance altering practices in any pro sport, and it's not worth it to me to be overly bothered by something I'm essentially powerless to change. Life is too short. That's why I take pro-tour performances (even our local home grown pro heros) with a grain of salt. There's just no way I'm willing to believe 100% in their reality.

I think the best you can do is try to nurture enough self confidence in your kids that they do not feel the need to win at a sport to feel validated or good about themselves. I think we invest WAY too much celebrity into sporting figures, and the "work" they did to get there in no way justifies the pay or the status they get. Sorry, five to six hours a day on a bike on a tropical island is not "hard work" or "sacrifice". Not even close. I would much rather nurture a love of being active, fit and healthy in my kids than encourage "performance" as an end. If they love cycling, so be it, but I want them to love the SPORT, and the pursuit of personal improvements, not the competition. Modelling a strong value in hard work and honest athletic performances to my kids goes further in taking away the power pro sports entertainment has to encourage rampant drug use in their athletes in the future, as it helps change what the future consumers of "sports entertainment" want to see. Consumer preference and dollar signs would do more to change the sport from the top end than trying to preach anti-doping integrity to anyone in positions of power now.

My kids will know going in what pro sports are all about, and unless there is a big change from the way it is now, I wouldn't encourage them trying to reach elite levels of any sport. It is a bit saddening, but it is reality.

All that being said. Even though I know the speeds they are travelling exceed natural human limits, I still enjoy watching the races. There is still a lot of positive human drama and spirit there to take away from it, regardless of the performance enhancements. The athletes who are there are big boys and girls, and at some point they made the choices they made to be there, because their parents never taught them that integrity is more important than winning.

Well said Josh.

Josh.E wrote: Sure it bothers me, and I wish it were different, but at the same time I'm not willing to lose sleep over it. It's no different than performance altering practices in any pro sport, and it's not worth it to me to be overly bothered by something I'm essentially powerless to change. Life is too short.

Good stuff about preparing kids. Gets harder the closer they get to doing well.

Re changing things, it's not as difficult as it looks. The UCI president is decided by the national federation delegates who attend the congress every four years where elections are held. All 171 countries get a vote, but not all go or vote. (Edit: Only 42 (!) vote, see source below) A reformist anti-doping German woman almost beat Pat McQuaid in 2005 despite VerDRUGgen rigging the game heavily in his favour, including giving him a paid UCI job and lobbying for him directly. http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/uci-ej ... -complaint

edit: better link: http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2 ... _schenk05a

edit: sorry she didn't run, she was on the UCI mgt committee and took her complaints public, and shook the election up tho)

CCA is even simpler. Each province gets three delegates and three votes. But for president (and because it costs money to send delegates so 1 person often votes for all three) they usually vote the same way. Get six provinces to agree on a new president, you can change the regime pretty quickly.

In 2003- or 2004, the incumbent president was soft on the Jeanson doping rumours, and weak on directing the office staff. A simple phone campaign in support of the Quebec federation president, an active antidoping advocate who had refused Jeason a Qc license because of her missed tests, got him elected. He was also a doctor and Tour de France official, including doping control. He went on to push for chaperoned tests, and conducted the first Protour chaperoned tests at the first Tour of California. The introduction of chaperoned tests at the Tour in 2007 then caught several pros. That was real change from about 15 phone calls.

So, it's quite conceiveable that a few dozen CCA members could prod the CCA president into leading a campaign among sympathetic countries at the UCI. Or replace him.

I don't think these guys (yeah they're all men) get much direct email. Both the CCA president and UCI president wrote back when I wrote. Let me know, and I'll give you their email addresses.

This is a great discussion! One thing that I keep in mind when I watch these amazing athletes fly on their bikes is this:

1. Blood doping, as an example attributes to, at best, a 4% gain in performance.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Blood-Doping- ... &id=160863


Even if you remove say 5% gain in their performance, that arguably everyone in the peloton has artificially added, these pros are still phenomenal. In other words, the marginal gains are kind of pointless, and it would be the ideal if they all just didn't bother.

The 2010 Tour winner 39.585 km/h. Let's say that is 5% faster than if they weren't doping, then an adjusted average speed would be: 37.70 km/h.

We have to go all the way back to the year 1989 to see a slower average speed than that! Hmm....coincidence? Certainly technology and training technique attribute to some of the gains, but...

IT depends on what a 5% increase in "performance" means. 5% increase in what exactly? If it's just a 5% increase in sustained power output, that would be one thing, but if it is in fact a 5% increase in average speed over the entire tour, that's fairly significant.

The energy that needs to be expended is to overcome is wind resistance, as the net elevation change over the entire tour is not very much. A 5% increase in overall average speed corresponds to an athlete needing a 15.7% increase in average power output, as power to overcome wind resistance is proportional to the cube of the velocity.

Climbing, however, that same athlete capable of maintaining 15.7% higher average power will be able to climb essentially 15.7% more vertical meters per unit time, as during that time wind resistance is not the significant limiting factor. Having that much of an advantage climbing is where tours are won or lost.


I, for one, would much rather see real human performances climbing those hills, complete with the drama of possible off days, or huge come from behind wins that would be likely over a 21 day race.

them's fightin' words, huh?.....

truly fascinating. the guy is either actually innocent, or a total sociopath who figures he's going to beat the federal investigation

jeremy wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/2 ... 12222.html

You lost me at Huffington Post... The definitive analysis of the case is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmu1CZEN6Yk - warning, warning, warning, contains profanity.

breaking (lunch time) news
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/ ... ays_157185

How do you get a 1-year suspension for a 2-year offense? Ridonculous. Looking forward to the explanation.

Obviously when the head of the UCI is caught in the middle between his old loyalties, and his new golden boy/cash cow, and you happen to be the new golden boy/cash cow.

Just a wild coincidence that contador got nailed after parting ways with lance/johan?

--Kind of like how Roberto Heras and Iban Mayo were toast within a year-2 after their departures from Postal and Landis and Hamilton soon there afte.

And the fog this morning? Lance's did that too?

JohnT wrote:And the fog this morning? Lance's did that too?

You have to at least admit there are more than a few unlikely coincidences.

• No postal/disco riders caught while with the team, lots caught after they leave.
  Verbruggen's last term finishes (in controversy) in 2005, Armstrong retires in 2005.
  The Armstrong 'donation' to the UCI after one of the tell-all books comes out
  Armstrong and Verbruggen linked in story about a bid to buy the Tour de France.
  Astana has high profile positives (Vinokourov, Kashechkin) before Bruyneel (former postal ds)becomes DS, Armstrong joins, none after
  Armstrong falters as WADA takes control of anti-doping from UCI at the Tour

Some required reading. There's probably more current stuff out there, but I don't really follow this saga that closely any more:


Former USPS/Disco employees who have made allegations:

Prentis Steffan
Tyler Hamilton
Floyd landis
Frankie/betsy Andreu
Jon Vaughters talking to Frankie Andreu over IM:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
Ron Jongen
Mike Anderson
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... .google.ca


Other USPS/Disco riders caught for doping after leaving:

Padrnos
Heras
Beltran
Leipheimer on gerolsteiner

Other:

Michael Ashenden on lance 99 tour positive results for EPO:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

Stephanie McIlvain on being in the room when armstrong admits doping to doctors:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/15 ... g-20100916

OK, the list seems to long to be a coincidence. But 'seems' is the key. We need a 'control' to compare it to. A no-Lance control. If we looked at three other teams (say Festina, Deutsche Telekom, Rabobank) and collected the same data (accusations, prior and post positive test), would USPS still appear unusual? Maybe it would, but without those data it's difficult to know. Let's assume (a big one) that there are a few clean riders in the Pro Tour. Could any of them currently be on a team that hasn't had several riders test positive after they left that team? I doubt it. If having no riders (or even less than four riders) test positive in the two years after they left your team was a requirement for your innocence, everyone is guilty. If USPS was very strict with its drug policy, the pattern we observe (positive tests before and after but not during) is exactly what you'd expect. I am not saying that's what's going on, but it is easy to make any observation fit the hypothesis if you want it to. The best evidence for a drug-laden team would be positive test while you in the team, not the opposite.

Maybe USPS and Lance have all the power the world seems to attribute to them (hence my joke about the fog), but that's one hell of a strong organization - I think we can all agree that he trains like a mad man - imagine doing that and being a dictator on the side.

JT

JohnT wrote: ... I think we can all agree that he trains like a mad man - imagine doing that and being a dictator on the side. ...

I dont have to imagine that MUUUAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA

JohnT wrote: If having no riders (or even less than four riders) test positive in the two years after they left your team was a requirement for your innocence, everyone is guilty.

BINGO

JohnT wrote: - I think we can all agree that he trains like a mad man

You don't believe his competitors did too?


If you compared USPS to any of those teams as a 'control' in all the terms you mentioned, you probably wouldn't see much of a difference. Those teams are also known to be dirty.