2004 TDF

Posted by: Mike in PA, USA on 28 January 2004

Not sure if this has been addressed here yet, but I would be curious to know what others expect. Personally, I would like to see Millar NOT get his chain fouled in the prologue, and would also like to see Tyler Hamilton NOT break his collarbone. Not sure if I would want Armstrong to win 6 in a row simply because of the amazing feat that it is, or see him beaten because perhaps it is due.

-Mike
Posted on: 28 January 2004 by Tim Jones
On one hand it's hard not to cheer for Armstrong when he does one of those eyeballs-out climbs and drops everyone. But equally his persona is starting to get on my tits - which is why I want to see Jan win this year.

Patrick - you may as well ask the same of many other sports. That's not necessarily a good reason for not enjoying them, either as a participant or as a spectator.

Unless you prefer to live by your presumptions, of course.

Tim
Posted on: 28 January 2004 by Dan M
Patrick - drugs or no drugs the amount of effort, ability to endure pain, and self-sacrifice that pro cyclists endure is second to none. THe idea that skill and endeavour can be replaced by drugs is just silly. Pumping an average Joe with EPO ain't going to get him up mount Ventoux as fast as even a lowly domestique.

What would I like to see? -- the best man winning. I'm hoping for a healthy race, with no major pack splitting crashes giving some team a several minute lead. This one should be decided in the mountains. If they arrive in shape, Tyler and Jan should give Lance a real test. Bring on the L'Alpe d'Huez TT!

Dan
Posted on: 28 January 2004 by Dan M
quote:
...but maybe you have different standards to me.

Yep, the presumption of innocence. I honestly believe Lance doesn't take illegal performance enhancing drugs. I also believe he is a true inspiration to many dealing with cancer (and so has more to lose than most should he be found abusing). I also think Tyler showed immense courage last year; continuuing with a broken colar bone and even winning a stage. You may think I'm naive in this, perhaps I am. I guess eventually the truth will come out.

cheers,

Dan
Posted on: 28 January 2004 by Tim Jones
It's partly the feeling that everyone's going to gang up on him this year (and not just Telekom) that might make me root for LA on the Alpe.

Those Giants are horrible. Apparently Pinarello are still spitting feathers...

Tim
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by Tim Danaher
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Jones:

Those Giants are horrible. Apparently Pinarello are still spitting feathers...

Tim


I couldn't agree more...and that new kit...call the style police!

Anyway, anyone want to comment on the likely effect of Heras? OK, he'll lose in the flat TT's (sorry THE flat TT) but without the burden of his support role to Armstrong, he could make life difficult enough for Tex that Hamilton, Ullrich et al have a chance to really work him over. Think how many riders Armstrong will have to cover this year. The mountain TT could really work in Heras' favour this year, given the job he did on Nozal in the Vuelta.

Also, I love Lance's well-publicized comment that "Ullrich is the favourite this year", thereby deflecting a bit of pressure and concentrating media attention on his biggest rival -- seven months before the race starts!

Whatever you think about Tex (and yes, he's getting on my tits as well), he's a very astute character.

Cheers,

Tim
_____________________________

Os nid Campagnolo yw hi, dyw hi ddim yn werth ei marcho...
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by Tim Jones
Patrick -

I can't help feeling that yours is a slightly self-fulfilling prophecy:

drugs are everywhere in sport, they're all at it;

I refuse to watch any sport where people cheat;

I won't watch or participate in any sport;

let's all us 'true sport lovers' just sit around watching "I'm a Celebrity..."

BTW - you're entirely wrong about pro cycling "condoning the use of EPO." IIRC the EPO test involves counting the number of red (or is it white?) blood cells, otherwise known as the haematocrit level - a measure of how effectively the blood moves oxygen around. Problem is cyclists train very, very hard to have naturally high haematocrit levels. Hence the 'thresholds' I think you are talking about. That's not 'condoning'. It's trying to find a way around a very sensitive problem.

Tim
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by Tim Jones
We seem to be shifting from "some cyclists in the past have used drugs so they may all be cheating, so it's a dirty sport which I don't want to watch", to "Lance has refused to condemn Dr Ferrari."

I've no idea what Dr Ferrari's past contains or why LA takes the attitude to him that he does. But the whole point is that it's entirely unfair to paint a whole sport (the sport I happen to love watching and taking part in) with the same brush - just as it would be wholely unfair of me to say that because some marathon runners cheat, dope, etc, that sport is full of cheats so isn't worth watching.

Can you see what I mean?

PS Paula is a Goddess. She trains in Richmond Park sometimes and I have (be still my heart!) traded friendly nods with her while training on a Sunday morning.

Tim
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
The issue of EPO and blood doping deserves some clarification. The proportion of red blood cells to fluid in the blood is the haematocrit(HcT). It rises (slightly) with dehydration, and more significantly in situations where red cell production is increased (like high altitude). It rises a lot if you use EPO, or, even better, transfuse some red cells (best of all your own previously stored) back into yourself. Red cells carry oxygen, rises in numbers will improve aerobic capacity and performance at endurance events such as cycling/distance running etc.

The cycling rules reflect the fact that blood doping of the latter type is almost impossible to detect unless you are actually caught doing it. Synthetic EPO is also very hard to detect, but I believe the manufacturers have now added a chemical 'tag' which makes it possible. A haematocrit level is set by the sport above which a rider may not compete-ostensibly this is meant to be a surrogate measure for dehydration, but in reality it says-'go ahead and cheat but not beyond this level'. Very high haemtocrits cause all sorts of nasty complications like stroke or emboli-riders have died from blood doping effects. Almost all TdF riders come very close to the Hct cutoff every day, several are suspended each year for exceeding it (until it drops back down and then can rejoin the tour).

Stefano and others may have an interesting view on this I hope.

FWIW I think could be argued that if athletes could use any/all drugs or methods (but had to publicise all that they took) most of the current dodges would be kicked out as they do not actually help performance at all and what is left could at least be done overtly and therefore more safely. Maybe.

We could also judge the relative merits of an athlete who achieves great results by dint of dedication and training vs one who acheived the same with the help of pharmaceuticals. Which might also be interesting. Maybe.

The history of sport is littered with examples of high level and high profile doping cases which have been sponsored/ignored/whitewashed by their respective national sporting bodies. That includes the UK by the way.

Bruce
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:

Paula Radcliffe: London (and other) marathon winner, world record holder, best British (male or female) marathon runner, and who has taken a very public stand against drug cheats in her sport?


what a load of shit you're talking Patrick. How does her very public stand against drug cheats prove that she's not one herself???? Just how does she manage to be SOOOO much better than everyone else? I seem to recall Carl Lewis also taking a very public stand against drug cheats...
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Hey Pa,
I was amazed to see in the states you've gotta coupla long ditance bike races that make the TDF look like a picnic ride to Southend on Sea ? Great stuff.

Cheers, Fritz Von Psychologyisrepairinbikesinnit Wink

LA for a record win, and I like the way the US breaks recreational drugs (Sports Scandals) and performance enhancing (Cheating) drugs into two catorgories & fines accordingly, makes sense to me Mate.
go ++++++++

Piss² Lance Armstrong is a credit to Human Endurance & Courage, and I rate him Big Style²
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by ErikL
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
Americans seem to be so lax about drugs in sport


Well, GW discussed performance-enhancing drugs in his State of The Union address last week. That's significant in a speech typically dedicated to the most crucial issues facing our country and aired on all major television networks nationwide.

quote:
US Olympic Atheletics trials, (positive results covered up), Baseball, US football (rampant steriod abuse...


Interestingly, baseball not football has the most serious problem (as rampant as your Premier League, but the NFL and NBA have recreational drug use more on par with the Premier League). Also, one thing folks outside the US might not understand is the significant leverage player unions have in negotiating test and punishment programs. And they don't want anything tested or banned.

Realistically, the science behind drugs will advance faster than that behind the testing, and the lure of the almighty dollar in American sports (and those abroad) won't change one bit. The only cure as I see it (and if I really cared) is to stop placing grown men and women who play games for a living on pedestals and stop supporting them so the carrot disappears. That, or Super Bowls between teams of those Sony and Honda robots. Big Grin

Finally... On Lance, I couldn't care less if he doesn't speak out against drug use. He's an athlete/entertainer, not a PR wench.

[This message was edited by Ludwig on THURSDAY 29 January 2004 at 22:45.]
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by ErikL
Oh, I'd like to see Hamilton and Armstrong battle to the finish this year. Wink
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
Originally posted by Emeritus:

Perhaps by training harder and wanting it more than anyone else, even the cheats. Just because Carl Lewis was SOOOO much better than the rest and was subsequently found to be a cheat should not impugn Paula's reputation.




you've missed my point and that wasn't that Lewis was so much better than his opposition - he wasn't - but that he was outspoke about cheats in the sport despite being one himself. And right there's the problem, you just have no way of know what anybody is taking. If we're going to start presuming that all athletes are guilty because of what they may or may not say then we might as well give up hope now.
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by Dan M
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:
Oh, I'd like to see Hamilton and Armstrong battle to the finish this year. Wink

Nice attempt to pull this one back on track...

I'll be cheering for Tyler but don't have high hopes -- WTF is Phonak?

And what are Telekom thinking trading Pinarellos for Giants? You can't thow a Giant nearly as far as a Pinarello Big Grin

-Dan
Posted on: 29 January 2004 by Tim Jones
Patrick -

David Walsh has been conducting a vendetta against Armstrong for years. If you base your views of cycling on what he writes, it's no wonder you're so opinionated and poorly informed.

PS Do you participate in any sport? Save professional grumpy old manhood, obviously.

Tim
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by Rockingdoc
can anyone tell me what TV channel is doing the coverage?
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by Dobbin
Eurosport I presume??
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Scott:
If, on the other hand, you want to roll in the dirt - gouging, biting, screaming and kicking - then I'm your man.

Oh, I see. Wink
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
I have this image of Mel Gibson, face painted blue, charging across a field.

Bruce
Posted on: 30 January 2004 by Tim Jones
...full of EPO and HGH, in a US Postal jersey.
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
Stefano is right that chronic hard training at se level does tend to reduce haematocrit (and total red cell mass which is another issue entirely) but short term dehydration causes it to rise. The physiology is very complex and many issues come into play which may move haematocrit in either direction over short/long term.

That said the TdF limit of 50 is one that is rarely breached in physiological conditions in healthy adults. The fact that the recorded haematocrit of all TdF riders remains remarkably constant throughout the Tour is well reported and the idea that some manipulation creates this is hard to avoid.

I was unaware that 'tagging' of recombinant EPO (and HGH) had been refused.

We should be clear that the effect of blood doping on performance is small, these people are astonishing athletes already. It could of course be argued that it is not cheating if everybody does it too. Maybe.

Bruce
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by John C
There's absolutely no chance of tagging recombinant EPO. Recent cases of red cell aplasia with some formulations have seen to that.

John

p.s. My own speculative feeling is that the benefits of EPO are compensation for Hct reduction in extreme training and other effects such as inducing angiogenesis (blood vessel growth) in skeletal muscle.
Posted on: 31 January 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
I take your points. Used 'correctly' an athlete could use EPO to correct a low haematocrit into the physiological range as the higher values may cause hyperviscosity issues anyway. Failing the TdF limit is probably counterproductive in performance terms.

All this rather suggests that with decent research we may actually debunk theories behind a lot of drug use and perhaps realise they are not always benficial to performance.

An example of sorts-in the British Journal Sports Medicine this month is a study suggesting that the extended aero position bloved of time-triallers has 'costs' in terms of reduced ventilation that (in non-elite individuals at least) may easily negate the aerodynamic advantage.

Bruce
Posted on: 02 February 2004 by John C
Stefano yes it is very easy to insert a tag in a recombinant molecule however it is very likely to affect the structure and function of the molecule adversely. Recently some patients with kidney failure have developed severe red cell aplasia (failure to form red blood cells) after treatment with EPO. One consequence of this will be a reluctance on the part of drug companies to try to fidlle with EPO. There is a longer acting modified form erythropoietin already in fact (ARANESP).
The patent on EPO runs out soon so it will be much cheaper and more available.

Ofcourse EPO is already old hat and gene cheats are the next big thing.


gene doping

John