Before I launch into the bulk of this post, congratulations to Carlos Sastre of Team CSC-Saxo Bank for his win at the 2008 Tour. Sastre won in style, with his attack up l’Alpe d’Huez leaving his main rival, Cadel Evans, gasping for breath and wondering what the heck just happened. While many thought that Evans would surely reclaim the yellow jersey on the Tour’s penultimate day by trouncing Sastre in the final time trial, Sastre proved the doubters wrong.
Riding smoothly and confidently, Sastre limited his losses to Evans, holding on to the yellow jersey with 1 minute and 5 seconds separating the two when the time trial came to a close. Evans, by contrast, appeared to be struggling for much of the time trial (as much as Versus showed, anyway). Clearly, the hard work he’d had to put in, coupled with the beatings that Team CSC administered to him on a near daily basis during the final week, finally took its toll. Still, for the great Aussie hope, there’s always next year.
Carlos Sastre deserves to get the full enjoyment of his hard-won victory over the coming year.
And now for something completely different…
Feeding The Beast
With the Tour de France just completed, and the Beijing Olympics less than two weeks away, it’s almost inevitable that doping stories will fill the sports pages of newspapers and magazines, and fill space on various news and sports websites. Not to mention the blogosphere. There have already been four “positive” test results from the Tour. Will any more cases emerge from the Tour in the coming days, as testing on the final samples wraps up? Or maybe I should say, “How many more cases …”? With the Olympics just around the corner, Jacques Rogge says to expect more positive test results in Beijing than in Athens four years ago.
Even before the first athletes start their events in Beijing, doping stories related to the Olympics have already begun. An American swimmer, Jessica Hardy, tested positive for clenbuterol at the beginning of July. And today we find out that Danish mountain biker Peter Riis Andersen recently tested positive for EPO. Hardy claims to have been surprised by last week’s news, not knowing how the substance found its way into her system. Tainted supplements have been offered as one possibility. On the other hand, the Danish cyclist admits to having used EPO.
“All I could think about was that I had to raise my level for the Games,” [Andersen] told reporters. “I could feel it in my body that it was working. I think it’s cowardly to cheat in sport, but it’s even more cowardly not to admit it.”
Give Andersen credit for admitting his mistake. Too bad he didn’t think about that before he used the blood-boosting drug. Similarly, Dmitri Fofonov, the fourth rider to test positive at the Tour, admits to having purchased a product over the Internet and failing to notify team doctors. He said he purchased heptaminol to deal with muscle cramps. By not talking to Credit Agricole’s team doctors, he violated team policy. Worse, he put himself at risk for a doping violation.
But in both Andersen’s and Fofonov’s cases, the athletes have accepted responsibility for what they did. The truth about the others is murkier, though certain conclusions would be easy to draw. No word, yet, on whether any of the B samples for those riders has confirmed his A sample results. So, while the announcements of the initial positive results are damning, what we still don’t know is whether the riders will actually have to face prosecution for doping violations.
While it’s hard to know what’s what with the Jessica Hardy story, one thing definitely puzzles me. Last week, when her test results started filtering out to the media, it became clear pretty quickly that both the A and B sample test results were under discussion, not just the A sample results. This, in part, explains why it took a bit more than two weeks before news of her positive result broke out into the open. That being the case, someone must have requested the B sample test. How can we be sure of that? Because when an A sample comes back “non-negative” the athlete has two options: admit to using the drug in question or request a B sample analysis and hope that it contradicts the original result.
So, I’m a bit mystified by Hardy’s apparent surprise at the news of her positive test. Surely she knew that the A sample’s results didn’t look so good. Perhaps she was surprised by the B sample confirming the A? Hardy’s story could come to a quick end, if the arbitration panels can be assembled quickly enough to decide her case before her events at the Beijing Olympics begin. It may not be quick enough. And, because of what’s happened, at least one swimmer (Tara Kirk) feels unfairly deprived of her shot at the Beijing Games.
It’s certainly a valid approach to find the so-called “human interest” stories and interview Tara Kirk or any other swimmer affected by Hardy’s test results. And I can understand Kirk’s disappointment at missing the cut by 0.01 seconds, only to have the waters muddied by a positive doping test. But Hardy is due here day in court, so to speak. And to be fair to Hardy, any changes to the roster shouldn’t be made until after that day comes. What if she were to be cleared of the accusations? (I realize that with strict liability and all, that’s a big “what if.”) To remove Jessica Hardy from a spot she’d rightfully earned would be unfair, too.
All of these stories – whether we’re talking about Manuel Beltrán, Moisès Dueñas Nevado, Ricardo Riccò, Dmitri Fofonov, Jessica Hardy or Peter Riis Andersen – keep doping in sports on the front burner of the news. And as long as that happens, many fans (even casual fans) will take a dim view of certain athletes, certain coaches, certain teams and certain sports. That, to me, is inevitable. Carlos Sastre, the Tour’s winner, at the press conference following Saturday’s time trial was questioned as to how or why the public should believe any cyclists are clean.
“I believe in clean cycling because I am clean,” Sastre said. “I know all the sacrifices I have made. In the world, there are cheats and there always will be cheats. There are also people who know how to sacrifice and who know how to do the work in a clean way. In our generation and in our society, we cannot eliminate the cheaters, we can only fight hard to reduce them.”
Sastre’s words speak volumes. Cheaters will always exist in every aspect of life – sports, professional, personal, you name it. And, we will never eliminate the cheaters completely. So, while it would be great if no doping stories ever happened again due to the efforts of those enforcing the anti-doping rules, it’s highly unlikely to happen.
Which means, too, that there will always be stories about doping in sports. Someone somewhere will find a way to beat the system. But only for so long. Eventually the cheats get caught. And once they do, for better or worse, it will make the news.
Last week, when I was being interviewed for an upcoming radio appearance on the NPR show Lake Effect, host/executive producer Mitch Teich asked me how I could watch sports knowing what I do about doping and the history of doping. Interesting question, that. Here’s the thing: Drugs won’t turn an average athlete into a Tour de France winner. They might give an elite athlete that little boost to do better than his/her opponents, but it still takes hard work, the right training, and so forth. Sometimes, one has to sit back and look at the events and just admire the sheer athleticism involved. Yes, some of it happens through doping or other forms of cheating.
But the achievements are still remarkable. And sports these days is mostly about entertainment. Will I be less entertained knowing that some of those performances aren’t 100% natural? Perhaps.
Ultimately, doping is about cheating. And there are cheaters everywhere. Why is it that stories about cheating in sports draw more attention than other forms of cheating? Consider cheating in business. If a company can manipulate the market for a product or service, they can pretty much pillage our pocketbooks and get away with it. Cheating in politics could put people in power who don’t have our best interests at heart.
The great big media beast craves sensationalism. Sensational stories sell. And doping stories are nothing if not sensational. So every so often — like during the Tour and during the Olympics — the sporting world needs to offer up a sacrifice to feed the beast. Some of those “sacrifices” are self-inflicted and some not. Sometimes, people make Faustian bargains to achieve sporting greatness. Sometimes, they head down to the crossroads to make a deal — just to make a living. Sometimes, faulty tests finger athletes who may well be clean. And sometimes, athletes are punished for using the wrong products. Products that have been contaminated with some banned substance. Products that a trainer has handed off and said, “trust me, this is safe.”
Too often, however, we forget that these sporting stars are real people with real families and real feelings and real problems in their own lives. But the beast doesn’t care. As long as there are new stories to keep it fed.
Don’t forget, Hardy’s positive is sandwiched between two negatives. Her case sounds a bit similar to a certain cyclist who has been off the radar of late since the decision (finally) came in.
LuckyLab,
True. Interestingly, some journalist quoted Howard Jacobs as saying he couldn’t think of a situation like that before Hardy’s. Hmm. Let me think. Tour. de. France. 2006. Some guy originally from Pennsylvania. I certainly hear some (cow)bells ringing… 🙂
From what I have heard, and I will admit I haven’t been following the Hardy case closely, she has at least mentioned the idea of tainted supplements as the possible source. This sort of indicates some degree of acceptance of the test results. But such a claim has the chance of s cold spheroid in a hot place of flying, strict liability and all. Has there been any indication of what strategy she and Jacobs intend to follow in contesting this?
William,
Not yet, as far as the strategy goes. Last comment I heard from Jacobs was that they were looking at the evidence and trying to figure it all out. If it’s a tainted supplement, I don’t see how she’s going to escape some sort of ban. Even if it’s just a slap on the wrist. I really wonder if this will be able to play out quickly enough for Hardy to be able to have an answer one way or the other before the qualifying for her events starts in Beijing.
Well, let’s see . . . that Penn guy in 2006, the AAF was announced in August 2006, first hearing was held May 2007, final (so far) hearing in March 2008. Nope, I think as far as the Os are concerned, Hardy is screwed one way or another. Maybe deservedly so, maybe not.
This is mainly just a test. As I said on TBV I had problems posting. Mostly, I think it was just one of those days as everything else was going wrong as well.
Especially after all the Floyd stuff I’m finding that I enjoy the spectacle of sports even with the hints of doping. There always have been cheaters and there always will be. I remember watching Pantani in amazement and I still enjoy his climbs even though it seems he had some assistance. I would like to see the athletes make informed and healthy choices though. And it often seems that there is a bit of arbitrary decisions on what tech is allowed and what isn’t.
Ken S
Ken,
Looks like the tested passed with flying colors.
I still find that I can enjoy watching the efforts of the pros, even though some of them are probably getting a bit of an “unnatural” boost. There’s still a level of athleticism, determination and sheer will power that drives these guys to do incredible things. Things I’ll never be able to do, and never could do even when I was in peak condition.
That said, I think that a program like ACE’s and perhaps Damsgaard’s, too, can help establish a culture where athletes make healthier choices. You’re right. The decisions about what technology is allowed and what isn’t do seem to be capricious at times. The whole hubbub over Speedo’s LZR swimsuit is a good example of the “techno-doping” debate. If all manufacturers had suits like that, what’s the chance that it would have been an issue?
I kind of am opposed to the whole techno swimsuit idea. At least in cycling, you have the trickle-down theory that developments on racing bikes today show up tomorrow on the recreational and utilitarian bikes us mortals use. And for sure, today I have a bike with a 9-speed FW, triple CW, clip-in pedals, and integrated brake handle shifters. When I started cycling, I had a true 10-speed, friction shifters on the down tube, and toeclips and straps. May not necessarily be faster than my 1960s bikes, but sure is more convenient in many ways. And that electronic cyclo-computer makes it easy to tell how fast your going and how far you rode. In the 1960s, speed was by estimate or average computed by hand from time and distance, and the distance was laboriously added up from milage indicated on AAA maps (I actually used an abacus and slide rule for all these calculations!). But can Speedo claim a similar trickle down?
Give me a break! What they are hoping is that gold medals will be won and records set by swimmers wearing this LZR thing, and some poor schmuck who plans on entering the Show-me games next year will go out and buy a regular Speedo suit because of it.
But will those records have any meaning? Were they or will they be set because the swimmer was better than in the past, or because of a faster suit? When Eddie Mercyx set his hour record, while his track bike was rather light, it otherwise was not too much different than the second-hand Paramount I owned at the time. Heck, for maybe $500 or so, I could have probably tricked out that Paramount to where it was as light and had the same speed potential as Eddie’s bike. Well, one big difference: the engine.
I’m not a total Luddite, but I do think there should be limits. We started to get away from those limits in the 1980s, look at what the US team used in some events in the 84 Olympics. We still are sort of far out there, look at the TT bikes used in the TdF today, and then look in the 60s, when they used the same bike they did in the rest of the Tour. OK, maybe lighter wheels, and certainly the tires, and one of those corncob single tooth FW, but otherwise, just a normal road bike. You could probably go down to your LBS and pick up a bike pretty much the same as the pros were using, and for less that $300.
Would the TdF still be interesting and exciting if riders were forced to use bikes similar to those of, say, the 1960s? I’d think so. In the 60s, one year the Paris-Tours was run under rules making derailleurs illegal. Riders had to dismount, loosen up their rear wheel, and move the chain to shift gears, just like in the old days. Result: one of the fastest, if not the fastest (my memory is a bit hazy) classics to that date.
Well, I have gone on at length here. Just an old man ranting about how thing were back in my day, I guess. Thanks for the opportunity to vent.
William,
That’s what RYHO is here for. A place to discuss topics like doping in sports (it started out with broader ambitions, to tell the truth, but kind of morphed into what it is). For the techno stuff, my feeling is that if everyone has equal access to the technology then it’s a different discussion than if only one select group of people has access. Imagine the TdF today where all but one team contests the race on the same bikes for every event, like back in the day. And imagine that other team has the latest, greatest techno-unobtanium bikes known to man. That would not be a fair match-up, assuming that the relative fitness and abilities amongst the teams was similar. The cyclists with the techno/aero advantage would kill the others during the time trial stages, and perhaps on the mountain stages, too, with their impossibly light bikes. LeMond won in 89 because he had something on his time trial bike that Laurent Fignon didn’t: aero bars. It was legal to use them, and Fignon could have used them if he’d wanted to. If he had, I wonder if LeMond would have won. A part of me suspects not. Technology won the 89 Tour as much as Greg LeMond did, in a sense.
So, with that said, if all the swimmers at the Olympics have access to the Speedo LZR or equivalent, and if they all use such suits, then I think it’s a fair match-up. If not, then they shouldn’t be allowed. The LZR appears to have too much of an advantage over other, more “traditional” swimsuits.
Will these $500-plus swimsuits trickle down to the lower echelons of the sport? I suspect not. I have a hunch that the “trickle down” will be like you said: people will go out an buy Speedo-branded products, rather than Arena or TYR.
You raise a very good point. When sports start to depend on technology, how do we judge athletes from one era to the other. Feats the buck out of me.
Apres Tour…. Ricco is facing CONI today. So probably the B sample has already been tested.
I suppose that is the first “meeting”, CONI would presente the charges against Ricco, and request explanations.
Jean,
Strangely, given the amount of press Riccò’s A sample results received, there’s been no announcement as to whether or not the B sample tests have been completed or run, or what the results were. I’d almost expect a news story, if only for the relevant officials involved to say, “See, we were right. He is a no-good cheat.”
Riccò’s appearance before CONI was scheduled sometime last week, as I recall. And Piepoli appeared before them
tomorrowyesterday. It sounded then like both meetings are fact-finding types of meetings, not full-blown disciplinary hearings.I’d like to think that in Riccò’s case CONI had all the results before them and that they will be determining how to proceed. But I’m not entirely certain that’s the case. As for Piepoli, I haven’t heard of any actual test results for him, so I’m not sure what CONI is going to do about him.
About UCI…
Some people have suggested to copy FIFA/UEFA role…
The proposal would be to have UCI running world chanpionship, and the ECU running the European cycling race like TDF, GIRO or VUELTA, and the same in other continents.
That could open more opportunities to save appeareance of some stupid management.
Ricco has admitted to have taken EPO…but in Italia . He didn’t requested the counter analysis of B sample.
Maybe he seems more to follow Millar’s way than the usual denial.
Raw translation:
http://www.google.com/translate?u=http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2008/20080730_142633_ricco-a-avoue_Dev.html&hl=fr&ie=UTF8&sl=fr&tl=en
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2008/20080730_142633_ricco-a-avoue_Dev.html
Jean,
Thanks for the link. That explains quite a bit. If Riccò was tested numerous times, and only came up positive on one or two, then this new test isn’t so accurate at picking up those who are cheating. That’s worrisome on it’s own, as it leads to the conclusion that others could be getting away with it — or thinking they can, only to get caught later on. Not to mention any possible side effects that taking the medication could have. Especially if it’s not done under a doctor’s supervision. Makes me think of the incident that left Joe Papp in the hospital with a massive hematoma.
Rant,
When the urine is taken is very important for EPO test because EPO affects the intern EPO production. On the example diagramm we have show, sometimes it’s not possible to discern (enough in consideration with WADA standard) human EPO from rEPO, but 2 days later it’s probably possible because there is less human EPO…
There is probably other reasons but that could be some explanations for the multiple Ricco’s testings.
We can add the necessity to increase knowledge of CERA effects along the time, and to optimise the targeting window after a false negative.
Rant, William, I think that the Speedo swimsuit thing is not much of an issue. If there’s an athlete out there whose swimming federation can’t afford to buy him or her the $500 swimsuit, then how is that federation going to afford to fly him or her to China?
Jean C, I doubt that the powers in cycling are going to be moved by Ricco’s “confession”. Ricco appears to be arguing that he only took EPO because he didn’t think he’d be riding in the Tour de France. However, if I remember correctly, Ricco pushed his team hard to be included in the Tour.
Also, is Ricco arguing that he did NOT take EPO for this year’s Giro? Is he offering to give up his second place finish and his white jersey for best young rider?
Also, Ricco’s critique of the test that caught him (for not returning 10 of 10 positive results) is not likely to win him any friends at the ADAs.
Probably the bigger question at this moment (for Ricco, at least) is: what do the French police think of Ricco’s confession?
The swimsuit-bike technology issue has some interesting parallels and differences. I admit I know a little more about the swiming side of things than I do about the bike side of things. I also know that as an engineer if I really wanted to sit down with a pencil and a paper and several hours of time, I could do the fluid calculations necessary to come up with the correct answers. I’m attempting to remain as non-technical as possible below, so scientists and engineers forgive me for some liberties I’m about to take.
Both sports are very concerned with drag. In swimming the athletes have to cut through incompressible fluid, water. In cycling the athletes have to cut through the compressible fluid, air. However, if you adjust the conditions (velocity, viscosity, and density) so that both fluids have matching Reynolds numbers, the fluid flow will behave very similarly. Because they are both fluids they do have behaviors in common. This is why, except for the wings for lift, there are a lot of similarities between the shape of an airplane and the shape of a submarine.
The skin friction coefficient, helps calculate exactly how much extra drag is being created by the fluid running across the surface of the moving object. This is NOT the same thing as the drag created by the shape of the object. This is a contributing factor to the amount of energy needed for propulsion forward. Obviously a lot more energy is needed to propel oneself through water, compared to the energy needed to propel oneself through air on a bicycle.
In air, with cars and airplanes because of how fast they are moving, this skin friction coefficent is a much larger percentage of the overall energy expended, than it is in water (this may seem counter intuitive, but because the water is so more viscous, the direct force of the “push” of your hand against the water takes loads more energy than the “scraping” of the water over your skin).
With your ordinary joe, riding an average bike at normal person non-competitive speeds, the skin friction coefficient doesn’t matter a whit. It does matter in a golf ball at the speeds a golf ball, which is partially why they dimple it, but a golf ball is an order of magnitude smaller than a human.
Skin friction coefficients are even an extremely small percentage of the overall energy expended, going up a mountain on a bicycle, because it takes so much work to get up the dang mountain and the overall velocity is slower, the amount of work to overcome the skin friction is negligible by comparison. An aero position when descending changes the shape of the object and reduces drag, but it doesn’t really change the skin friction coefficient, since the rider is wearing the same jersey both uphill and downhill.
Shaving one’s legs, does actually change the skin friction coefficient. Both swimmers and cyclists shave legs, but I’ve heard cyclists say that shaving helps with road rash as often as I’ve heard them say that it helps with drag. You don’t see many cyclists shaving their back for sure. Shaving gives a swimmer far more advantage as far as energy efficiency, than it gives a cyclist. Even for a bicycle you have to be traveling at very fast speeds, like time trials or velodrome events before this skin friction coefficent really starts to matter. Thats why you are seeing the dimpled helmets and the micro-dimpled skinsuits now.
But, even if you are a decent amateur competitive cyclist, you probably aren’t travelling at the speeds where the skin friction coefficent really make a difference to your race. Changing your aero position which changes your shape cutting through the air, will make a heck of a lot more difference, than spending a fortune on a dimpled jersey or helmet, because it is what the pros are using.
However, going out and buying that dimpled cycling jersey, if you really want it, is still more energy efficent for a decent amateur cyclist, than buying one of these new swimsuits is for your decent amateur swimmer. (There’s your rationalization if you want it *grin*) Because the overall speed of swimming is so much slower, you have to be capable of swimming within 2-3 seconds of world record speed (a second is worth a lot more in swimming than cycling for obvious reasons) before it is ever worth putting one on. Once you get to that speed, it makes a measurable difference, but before that speed, as long as you have shaved down, it can be mathematically proven that it *doesn’t* matter at all.
In light of this information, it makes that whole line between performance enhancing equipment and performance enhancing drugs even more interesting. There used to be an unproven consensus that the drugs might turn you from a top 20 contender to a top 5 contender, but that you’d have to be at a certain non-drugged level to be a top 20 man regardless. (Sastre is being held as “proof” of this fact.)
In swimming, you have to be swimming at super elite speeds before a swimsuit makes a difference, but if everyone else isn’t wearing the same suit, it could turn you from the top 10 to medalling. On the other hand in swimming it is immediately obvious what brand of suit somebody is wearing, so you can tell how level the playing field is.
I don’t know where this discussion ends up. Starting from this point you can take it a bunch of different directions, and draw lots of different parralells or contrasts. But, I thought I’d throw it out there to see if anyone else wants to chew on the ideas.
Larry, Mr. Ricco is about to find out just how serious his acts were. He has confessed fully to taking what should be seen as a deliberate, malicious, and as you point out, criminal act. He is trying to apologize, and seek forgiveness and healing.
None will be forthcoming.
Many, many entities and individuals have been harmed, and the damages are significant. I can see a forthcoming string of lawsuits against Ricco. While he may not have any assets to encumber, hjudgments are good for 10 years and can be renewed. I can see teammates suing and winning, waiting for Ricco to earn something in the future. I wonder what the terms of his S-D contract were. What insurance or indemnification provisions were provided?
The cycling team is to continue under Scott/American Beef. Did the team know of the doping, or should they have known? If either, they may independently liable, even if Ricco tries to defend them by saying he acted alone. The Omerta works both ways.
ASO will likely not rest until he is in jail.
He is so screwed.
Bannaoj:
Interesting analysis. I some ways it sort of parallels some of what I had thought about some of these things: might benefit an elite athlete and be of marginal if any use to a duffer. I mean, what real difference does it make if I shave a few seconds off my time for some event?
I’ve got a pair of clip-on aero-bars in my garage. I have considered putting them on at times, but since my only competition is private TTs on training rides, trying to beat my previous best, why? Any improvement in time would probably only be due to the aero benefit, not to improved conditioning.
eightzero,
I forgot about the Mexican company called American Beef (I wonder if they use `roids in that beef? For the riders’ sakes, I hope not …) being a co-sponsor. I suspect you’re right. Ricco is in a whole world of hurt, and it’s not going to get any better anytime soon.
Jean,
I realize that with a urine test the window is only a relatively short period of time. But I thought I’d heard that the CERA test had a wider window than the regular test. So that leaves the question: If that’s true, how did the other tests miss his doping activity? (We can explore that in the next post, which I’ll be posting in a bit.)
Larry,
Perhaps Ricco’s fans will forgive him, but I’d agree, the powers that be aren’t in a forgiving mood right now.
bannaoj,
Great analysis. Back when I swam in high school, I knew people who used Vaseline in an attempt to cut their resistance through the water. I don’t know if it ever worked, but they sure thought it did. Which begs the question these days, should Vaseline be a banned substance? 😉
I don’t think the Vaseline makes any difference except psychologically. It’s the same thing as the suit, you have to be capable of achieving near Olympic speeds, before it will make a difference. I believe the use of Vaseline is actually a holdover, from before wetsuits, when the endurance swimmers would grease up in an attempt to hold body heat while they were swimming long cold open water swims.
As far as any actual rules go, I’m not sure. I know that sunscreen and moisturizer seems to always have been allowed at the lower level meets. Since chlorine dries your skin out, we’d go through moisturizer by the gallon it seemed. I prowled around the USA Swimming site and can’t immediately find rules relating to external substances on the swimmer’s body. I’ll have to ask my dad or my brother.
In the interest of fair disclosure, I should probably reveal my swimming connections. My father who has always been a bicycling afficianado (growing up, our Christmas tree was entirely covered in bicycling ornaments and their entire house still has a bicycle decorative motif) has been a swim coach for at least 15 years. He started coaching while I was club swimming. He didn’t actually coach me, but he coached both my brothers, and has coached several other kids in addition to my brothers, to the upper eschelons of Southern California Swimming. My youngest brother was good enough to compete with olympians, but made a choice, that he didn’t want to put in the hours of training it would have taken to actually try for the olympics. So he’s an L.A. County Lifeguard instead. He graduated #1 in his lifeguarding class, with relative ease.
The team that Dad coached for originally, was poor because many of the people in the area could not have afforded high membership costs. It was run on a shoestring budget, and much of the time Dad coached, he was volunteering. I know he gets paid a token salary now, but it isn’t much relatively speaking. There was always an element “culture shock” when I would go to the elite meets at places like the Rose Bowl Aquatics center to cheer for my brothers and realize how wealthy the background was of most of the other kids there.
Dad is also an engineer, and as a result, he has voraciously studied hydrodynamics with relation to swimming technique. Although my father’s name isn’t one of the “instantly recognizable” ones like Dave Salo, his obsesrvations and work have been mentioned in several swimming publications. While my father is my primary source for fluid dynamics He watched Le Tour this year far more than in the previous years it has been on Versus, because he was interested the heart rate information, but doesn’t follow cycling as closely as I do. With the Landis case, disregarding even the actual science, white out on laboratory documents is something that we both think is appalling and should have caused Landis case to be thrown out.
btw, Rant, I did realize you were joking above, but I’ve heard other people take your joke seriously. 🙂
Here’s a bit from USA swimming on the analysis of that suit. http://www.usaswimming.org/USASWeb/ViewMiscArticle.aspx?TabId=59&Alias=Rainbow&Lang=en&mid=437&ItemId=337
They are analyzing it, combining the “shape” aspect and the “skin” aspect, and are using controlled conditions where elite swimmers are towed along at a constant speed. Here’s the thing, their “slow” speed is still an 32 second 50m freestyle, which is a pretty fast clip. They don’t have any data for anything any slower, and the data is taken from elite swimmers, who also have much better form than your average hobby swimmer. Your average hobby swimmer is not going to have the form to achieve anywhere near the laminar flow that an elite athlete can.
bannaoj,
Thanks for the analysis and for the link.Most appreciated. I never really believed that the old Vaseline trick worked. Probably only worked for people at the elite level, if at all. And my times in long-distance events (500 and up) were never good enough to approach anything that approached elite levels. One of my teammates, however, was good enough to race at that level. The fact that he had gills seemed to help. (I’m kidding …)
I haven’t seen those others who took my joke seriously, but perhaps that’s because I no longer lurk in certain forums. 🙂