Time to dust off the cobwebs. There’s a blog around here, I think. Ah, yes, there it is.
So it’s been a couple of months since I inhabited this space, and wouldn’t you know, the world of sports has kept on keeping on. Lots of stories out there, especially around doping and cycling. Like when is there ever not?
A few weeks back, Matt C posted a link to an interesting article about a report that took a look at riders’ times up one of the most storied climbs in the Tour de France — l’Alpe d’Huez. This year, the riders get to climb l’Alpe d’Huez twice. In the same day. With a wicked descent in between. That’ll make for a very interesting stage.
The gist of the article, for those who didn’t read it, is that one can get an idea as to who doped based on the power generated during their ascents of this climb. There may be more than a morsel of truth to that hypothesis, but as William Schart pointed out in a comment, exactly where do we draw the line and say one performance is normal and the other not? It reminds me of a controversy that arose in about 1959, or so.
A doctor (sorry, I forget his name right now) suggested that every runner who had broken the four-minute mile must have been using some drug (amphetamines were the drug of choice back then) in order to achieve what he contended was impossible. His reasoning was that because no one had even come close to achieving that milestone (pun intended) when he was young, and because it was generally accepted as a limit of human performance, that any performance beyond that mark was tainted.
Except, it wasn’t. Roger Bannister (now Sir Roger…) had used an innovative technique to achieve his record-breaking run. Interval training. Something we take for granted as just one tool in an athlete’s training tool chest these days, but a relatively new idea back then. Bannister used this method, as he was in medical school at the time, and needed to be efficient in his training. Quality over quantity, if you will. And it worked.
Oh, and interesting bit of fallout from the scandal in 1959 was one of the very first studies that looked at the performance benefit of using amphetamines in swimming, running and one other sport that slips my mind right now (I think it was shot put). So, while it may be useful to look at and compare rider’s performances up a given climb, we need to keep in mind that the limits of human performance aren’t exactly cut and dried.
Meanwhile, Jan Ullrich finally admitted to doping during his career. Somewhere I read that he claims that he only used blood doping (the old-fashioned kind, not EPO). Wish I still had the link to that. Maybe that’s true, maybe not. Given the era he raced in, I find it a bit of a stretch, but on the other hand, traditional blood doping was less detectable than EPO, which meant he ran less of a risk of being caught by the anti-doping authorities. So it’s possible he’s being truthful.
ESPN.com gives us the following quote, however:
“Almost everyone took performance-enhancing substances then. I took nothing that the others didn’t also take,” he was quoted as saying. “For me, fraud starts when I gain an advantage. That wasn’t the case. I wanted to ensure equality of opportunities.
Kind of leaves open the possibility he took drugs, no? “Took nothing that the others didn’t also take”? Sounds like he was doing more than just the occasional topping up of his blood to me.
And the Tour wouldn’t be the Tour is there weren’t some sort of controversy involving Lance Armstrong shortly before it started, would it? This time, it’s an interview where Armstrong appeared to say that it’s impossible to win the Tour without doping. An article in Le Monde, quoted by The Telegraph and others, apparently said this:
“The Tour de France? No. Impossible to win without doping because the Tour is an endurance event where oxygen is decisive.
“To take one example, EPO (erythropoetin) will not help a sprinter to win a 100m but it will be decisive for a 10,000m runner. It’s obvious.”
Later, according to The Telegraph, Armstrong tweeted that his remarks were taken out of context, and that he meant it was impossible during his time, but he hoped that it was now possible for riders to win clean. From Armstrong’s twitter feed, we get:
Appreciated the opp 2 speak 2 @StephaneMandard from @lemondefr however didn’t appreciate the twisting of my words. Sorry for the confusion.
The Telegraph reports that Armstrong also tweeted this:
“99-05. I was clear with @StephaneMandard on this,” Armstrong wrote, referring to the Le Monde journalist.
“Today? I have no idea. I’m hopeful it’s possible (to win without drugs).”
But looking at what currently appears on Twitter, I don’t see that particular quote. Might be the vagaries of how the service works. Or maybe it was directed to a specific individual. Or maybe it was deleted. Not sure. Is it possible to win the Tour without doping? Hard to say. The prize money, glory, and fame certainly would make it tempting to cheat to win. But maybe after so many years of scandal, the riders are beginning to see doping as a risk too big to take.
One thing we can say for sure. Whether or not doping is still endemic within the professional peloton, there will probably be a few riders caught by the time the Tour finishes in Paris three weeks hence. It happened during the Giro d’Italia. It will probably happen at the Tour, too.
Doping will never completely vanish from sports, of course. But maybe we’re seeing a change in attitude among the athletes as to whether most are willing to take the risk. Time, as always, will tell.
I think it’s in here somewhere. But don’t expect this article to stay available for more than a couple of days.
http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2013/06/28/lance-armstrong-le-tour-de-france-impossible-de-gagner-sans-dopage_3438046_3242.html
It still believe it’s possible for athletes to be doping and not get caught…the biological passport seems a step in the right direction, but I’m guessing that the ‘cheaters’ are still a step or 3 ahead of the police, and always will be. But does that mean I won’t be enjoying this years Tour? I think not. Will I be overly suspicious if anybody looks ‘too good’? Probably so (not that it matters…suspicions mean nothing without proof).
Quite honestly I think it’s sad to see the record-books continually being re-written LONG after the fact. I firmly believe that the ‘winners’ in all era’s were using whatever was available at the time to give them whatever edge is available. Sometimes it’s been ‘legal’ (or not yet illegal) and some not. Doesn’t change the fact that the ‘winners’ beat the rest who were all doing the same things (just my opinion of course…but Jan even says it’s so). After all, Big Mig has his 5 wins, Riis (who has admitted doping) kept his…same w/ Pantani (just to name a few). Call me crazy, but I think Floyds, Alberto’s and yes, he who shall not be named should all have their wins restored to the books, and just use the * by it (such as w/ Barry Bonds Home Run record). But then again, who gets to decide what other years (other than the ones we absolutly positively know about) would also have an * by them?
Good to have you back Rant…it’s been a while!
What exactly LA said and meant is perhaps a question. However, if no one is doping, it certainly is possible to win the Tour without doping. The winner may not be as fast, but if no one is doping, than unless everybody abandons before the end, someone will win.
The “I didn’t do anything different from anybody else” argument may have a bit of a point, at some time. But the problem is it just tends to perpetuate the problem. Some riders dope, so other riders feel they have to dope to get the results they want and so on. And then people are reluctant to stop doping, because they are afraid they won’t be competitive, so everything continues.
Is cycling today clean. Or at least cleaner than during the Armstrong era? Who knows? I have seen some argue that times are not as good in recent years and this is a sign things are cleaner now. Perhaps, but it also may be just a sign that today’s crop of riders is not quite as good as the past, or even perhaps that riders are holding back a bit, seeing that riders who turn in impressive performances are likely to get labeled as a doper, and perhaps draw extra scrutiny from the authorities.
After Armstrong we are going to be skeptical of the argument that a rider passed all his doping tests. Are the tests any better today? I don’t know. The bio passport system may be a step in the right direction, but it has that pesky problem that there is no. Right line demarcation between clean and dirty. We saw that while Armstrong was officially declared clean during his comeback, some “experts” saw what they held was evidence of doping in his reported values. This is complicated by questions of whether we want to set a high value and possibly let some dopers pass in order to be more sure that clean riders are not the victims a false positives; or do we set a low value, with the idea that the fact that some riders may be the victim of a false positive is just the price to pay in order to get the dopers?
After watching Saturday’s stage (the first mountain stage) where Froome and Porte (and most of Team Sky) flat-out demolished the rest of the world’s best riders, I have to admit that I was thinking “no way”.
It’s sad that I feel that way, but recent years and disclosures have taught me that if it seems to good to be true, it probably is. They rode like they were from another planet. So yes, I am skeptical. I did feel a bit better after watching Sunday’s stage, where the entire team (for a change) showed the more realistic devastation after their previous days outpouring of energy. But then at the end Froome was still able to overcome everything and not lose ANY time. So the skeptic in me says that was all done on purpose (to quiet the skeptics, show they are ‘human’)…let everybody go, and claw back the time over the remaining mountains of the day.
I HATE it that I feel this way…don’t know what to believe anymore, what is real. Watching Contador, Schleck, Evans, Valverde, Rodrigiuez suffer GREATLY while Froome destroys them all at least lets me believe THEY are clean and real.
@ William…I agree…if we could somehow KNOW that nobody was doping then nobody would be able to use that as an excuse as to why they did…but that perfect world doesn’t exist, maybe it never has. Once one guy starts, then the chain reaction has begun until it’s the new normal (pretty much the entire EPO generation falls under that category). If no one was doping I think we’d see a lot more ‘bad days’ and whoever had the least bad days would ultimately be the winner. Just a few years ago it seemed like there were pretty much ‘no’ bad days…
What are everybody’s thoughts on this years race thus far? Am I way off base being so skeptical about Froome? Obviously I’m quite Jaded, and the “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me” quote keeps coming back to my thoughts. How can we believe a great accomplishment is ‘clean’ anymore?
I’ve been checking in on the results, but that’s about it, so I am in no position to draw any conclusions. But then I am also rather indisposed to draw conclusions about whether or not an individual, team, or even the whole peloton is clean or not. There are just too am y variables. Ay one end we have our old friend Joe Papp, who doped to the gills but never amounted to much. And I am sure there have been clean riders who have put up some pretty good times, although naming a clean rider is a risky business. Lemond? A lot of people seem to think he was clean, but who knows for sure.
And if there are dirty riders, it will tend to fuel the treadmill: so and so is doping, so while I should be able to beat him, I can’t so I have to dope.
Just when you think you’ve heard everything — hey, drugs testing in the caravane publicitaire. No, seriously. Here, courtesty of Google Translate, in all its felicitous awkwardness:
Q: Legend has it that the caravan of the location of all the excess, you do massive orgies in the evening. What is it?
A: The caravan Cochonou is quite small, it is not more than thirty, so it’s more an atmosphere of friends, have dinner, drink a beer and go. In some trailers where they are more than a hundred, it may be a little orgy. But now there are random alcohol testing in the morning, and the limit is 0. Two guys have been permanently excluded from the caravan this year. The evening arrival in Paris, there is a party with all the people of the caravan. There’s going to be a huge chug.
http://tourdefrance.blog.lemonde.fr/2013/07/08/on-nous-traite-de-cochonnes-mais-cest-plutot-sympa/
Here’s an interesting take on the steroid era in MLB:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9467333/john-rocker-says-steroids-peds-made-better-game
I am sure that some people would say the same about the LA era in cycling. But I don’t agree. What makes a sport exciting and entertaining is competition, not the absolute performance.
Auto racing fans think their choosen sport is exciting because of the high speeds. But was the Indy 500 any less exciting when the speeds were around 100 or 125?
We enjoy cycling and marvel at the speeds top riders acheive. Runners do the same, even though the speeds a runner can produce are much slower than a cyclist over a comparable distance. And swimmers are still slower, but plenty of people found Phelps’ performances exciting.
I’m not sure I agree William…I think part of the alure of professional sports (for the vieweres) is to see the athletes giving performances that are beyond what us mere mortals are capable of…it gives the ‘ooh’ and ‘ahhh’ to the spectators. Seeing super-human feats is what elevates the athlets to ‘hero’ status.
In the past the doping was overlooked or even openly acknowledged as part of the ‘game’ in many sports (and I do mean the PAST, not the recent EPO era, but well before that).
Yes swimmers are slow (as compared to cycling and running), but as an ex-swimmer, I can tell you that watching Phelps fly thru the water was indeed watching a super-human performing feats that were beyond amazing (same goes for WAY back, when we were all watchig Mark Spitz win all those gold medals).
Not too many people would ‘pay’ to watch a cat-5 race, but the competition is still there…they are just infinently slower than the cat-1’s and pro’s. Or for that matter, take any group ride…I guarantee you there is huge competition going on, but not a lot of interest from anybody other than the riders themselves.
Pro sports is a spectacle…entertainment…that’s where the money is. If there’s nothing new to be seen then there’s not much entertainment and there won’t be much if any money thrown it’s way. EVERYTHING revolves around the mighty dollar (or euro, etc etc). Sponsors want to see WINNERS which promotes their product, making their investment worthwhile. They don’t really want to know the details…”just win baby” is the unwritten motto.
And the ultimate in this progression of superhuman feats sponsored by the might dollar? Redbull…just look at their sponsored athletes and the things they do. Jumping out of a balloon at 106,000′, flying their bikes over insane gap jumps on the side of a mountain in Utah, doing crazy flips and such, all quite death defying. THAT is sports entertainment…and how about the X games? Winter AND Summer? Does anybody REALLY want to know what it takes for these guys and gals do to be able to perform their sport at that level? I’m thinking no. We just want to see the next utterly insane yet awesome event. We are working/slaving our lives away and need a distraction…and that’s what pro sports is all about.
Just my 2 cents worth. Now I’ll go watch Froome climb the next HC mountain like he’s on a friggin harley, demolishing the rest of the best riders in the world. Viva le Tour!
I can see your point Matt, but I think there is a bit of difference between wanting to see the highest level of a particular sport, i.e., the pros vs amateurs, DI vs. lower divisions, etc. A big event, like the Super Bowl, World Series, FA Cup, World Cup, Olympics, etc., etc., may not feature any recording setting performances, but still can be quite exciting to watch. In fact, Super Bowls often turn out to be rather a dud of a game, but still have high attendance and viewership because of the importance of the game.
People watch a sport either in person or on TV, because they are interested in the sport, interested in a team or individual, and perhaps because the event has some importance. I can guarantee that more people show up for conference games than the non-conference games.
Well, Froome turned in another impressive ride yesterday. A sign of doping or just of his athletic prowess? Who knows?
This is one problem with doping: we don’t know if a good performance is clean or not, unless it turns up that the athlete in question is shown to or confesses to have doped. There is really no way to “prove” that one is clean.
I hear you on the Froome thing William. Watched him decimate the peleton on the way up Ventoux last night. Andy dropped off with FOURTEEN k left in the 20k climb (that was quite sad)! Cadel, Rodriguez, and almost all the rest of the GC hopeful’s not too long after that. Only
Alberto hung in there, and even he was dropped like a bad habit further up the climb.
IF he is clean, then WOW WOW WOW, he IS the man…that was a MOST impressive win!
But how on earth do we know and believe?
That’s the rub Matt. After what was revealed in the Armstrong case, we know that the tests can provide a least false negatives. Hopeful, the apparent connivance of people in WADA and it’s subordinate organizations allowing people to evade tests has been dealt with, but if so, no one is saying anything about it. And hopefully, better testing procedures in place now might detect things that got thru during the LA era. I’m sure WADA would like us to think so. But again, we are now conditioned to be skeptical of negative test results. And it is hard torove a negative.
Out of curiosity, does anyone have any idea how Froome’s time up the Ventoux compares with other epic climbs on this mountain? Did he destroy the competition because he is superman, or is he a mortal and the competition just not that good this year?
An editorial from ESPN on the same subject:
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9479344/froome-sight-skeptical-eyes
Another victory for Froome, although for only 4 seconds. But he had a big enough lead he could have laid back a bit, come in a little behind the others and still be wearing yellow.
So what sort of statement could he be making here? Is it thumbing his nose at us: “I dare you to prove I’m doping because I don’t think you can catch me at it.”? Or is it a case of “I’m clean and know it, so I don’t care what you think, I’m going to show I’m the dominant rider this year.”?