Tour de France '04
Posted by: ErikL on 03 July 2004
Go Tyler, go!
I hope the Spaniards on Phonak can help him through the mountains, and that he avoids another broken clavicle. Plus he's 34 and I get the feeling it's now or never!
I'm tired of Armstrong and Ullrich, but if Hamilton can't do it I'd be amused to see Ullrich as Armstrong's little wench yet again.
I hope the Spaniards on Phonak can help him through the mountains, and that he avoids another broken clavicle. Plus he's 34 and I get the feeling it's now or never!
I'm tired of Armstrong and Ullrich, but if Hamilton can't do it I'd be amused to see Ullrich as Armstrong's little wench yet again.
Posted on: 29 July 2004 by Former member
quote:
My own cycling career has currently been derailed by a strained lower back
?
How?
My own cycling career was officially ended until NEXT YEAR following a session at the Hand Rehab Clinic today. Next fucking year. I am extremely grumpy.
ag
Posted on: 29 July 2004 by Dan M
ag,
Obviously they have no appreciation for your extreme lifestyle. Next year seems a bit over the top - what the hell did you do to that finger?
Dan
Obviously they have no appreciation for your extreme lifestyle. Next year seems a bit over the top - what the hell did you do to that finger?
Dan
Posted on: 29 July 2004 by matthewr
It's a bit of a mystery. I went out for a 2 or 3 hourse of "messing around in the park" on Monday evening -- bit of dirt jumping, some attempted bunnyhops (they are getting quite big now), some chick impressing, etc.
Nothing I hadn't done before, but next morning I could barely move and spent most of the day in fear of dropping anything important enough to require me to bend down.
Matthew
PS My commiserations once again Alex.
Nothing I hadn't done before, but next morning I could barely move and spent most of the day in fear of dropping anything important enough to require me to bend down.
Matthew
PS My commiserations once again Alex.
Posted on: 29 July 2004 by Former member
quote:
My own cycling career was officially ended until NEXT YEAR
Sorry to hear that Alex. Things may not be quite as bad as they seem. I broke my arm a few years ago quite badly. The initial predictions from the Doctors were very pessimistic. (Never play sport again etc). I managed to get a lot of the use back although the process was quite painful.
Of course I don't know all your details, so if I am speaking out of turn please forgive me.
Matt
[This message was edited by Matthew Brownnutt on Thu 29 July 2004 at 17:35.]
Posted on: 29 July 2004 by Former member
Dan
My extreme lifestyle now consists of one handed typing, online shopping and televised cricket. It's hardly Johnny Knoxville territory
Apparently I have:
- snapped the ligament that hold my middle section of the finger to the first section.
- got a double avulsion (sp?) fracture of the finger where the other ligament came away from the knuckle and yanked a slither of bone away.
- destroyed my volar plate (I've no idea what this is, but apparently it's not a good thing to have destroyed and is the thing that the Ortho Consultant was most perturbed by).
Having had a week of unstrapped (but very sore) freedom, my hand has been put back into a splint and will remain so for at least 4-6 weeks and then the proper rehab can begin. The sexy nursey type told me that 3 months of rehab should see my hand return to full strength. And then it's December, and only Steve G cycles in December
On the plus side, my hip isn't fractured, which is a bonus.
ag
PS - Matt B/Matthew R - Thanks.
My extreme lifestyle now consists of one handed typing, online shopping and televised cricket. It's hardly Johnny Knoxville territory
Apparently I have:
- snapped the ligament that hold my middle section of the finger to the first section.
- got a double avulsion (sp?) fracture of the finger where the other ligament came away from the knuckle and yanked a slither of bone away.
- destroyed my volar plate (I've no idea what this is, but apparently it's not a good thing to have destroyed and is the thing that the Ortho Consultant was most perturbed by).
Having had a week of unstrapped (but very sore) freedom, my hand has been put back into a splint and will remain so for at least 4-6 weeks and then the proper rehab can begin. The sexy nursey type told me that 3 months of rehab should see my hand return to full strength. And then it's December, and only Steve G cycles in December
On the plus side, my hip isn't fractured, which is a bonus.
ag
PS - Matt B/Matthew R - Thanks.
Posted on: 29 July 2004 by Dan M
ag,
I'm wincing just reading that list. I hope the rehab goes well, and you'll soon be sailing effortlessly over those Inner London speed bumps.
Dan
I'm wincing just reading that list. I hope the rehab goes well, and you'll soon be sailing effortlessly over those Inner London speed bumps.
Dan
Posted on: 29 July 2004 by Bhoyo
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
It's a bit of a mystery.
It's called "getting old." Something that's very much on my mind having turned 49 yesterday.
Blimey - the house was just swiped by lightning and the CD player started playing Elis Regina all on its own.
I'd better shut everything down for a while.
Davie
Posted on: 29 July 2004 by Mekon
Alex
I am truly gutted for you. I hope at least the next bout of rehab goes well.
Ian
I am truly gutted for you. I hope at least the next bout of rehab goes well.
Ian
Posted on: 29 July 2004 by ErikL
quote:
Originally posted by alexgerrard:
My extreme lifestyle now consists of one handed typing, online shopping and televised cricket.
Sounds dreadful. Maybe it's a good time to catch up on some of the "quirky" films from that other thread? Or learning another language? Taking singing lessons? Hmmm... I'll get back to you...
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Former member
quote:Naturally I bow to your clearly superior intellect, Nigel (I obviously really have offended your religion!)
"Nigel's tried to make the question about me" ....
To labour the point, because you obviously are not the sharpest tool in the box
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Former member
quote:I'm inclinded to agree with you, but I think the distinction is that one (inflamation)is an "injury", whilst the other (exhaustion) is a natural condition.
So Cortisone to reduce inflamtion that is preventing you training/playing is "legitimate medication" but EPO to boost your red blood cells so you can continue training when "exhausted" is "performance enhancing"? Morally it seems to be splitting hairs to say the lesat.
IMV the key qualifications for legitimacy should be:
- no long term medical side effects
- transparency so there is a level playing field.
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
Patrick
Theoretically tempting qualifications, but not practical.
Drugs that are unsafe in the short term (like amphetamine) are just as much an issue as those with long term sequelae. The long term effects of drugs are poorly understood anyway. Long term effects of extreme exercise may not be entirely 'healthy' in some ways either.
Transparency would only be possible with perfect testing procedures which detect all agents at all times. Never going to happen when the dopers have more resources (and motivation) than the testers.
The list of banned substances is long and contains agents which are medically pretty safem and probably harm performance but which may represent a risk to other competitors (alcohol, marijuana etc).
Bruce
Theoretically tempting qualifications, but not practical.
Drugs that are unsafe in the short term (like amphetamine) are just as much an issue as those with long term sequelae. The long term effects of drugs are poorly understood anyway. Long term effects of extreme exercise may not be entirely 'healthy' in some ways either.
Transparency would only be possible with perfect testing procedures which detect all agents at all times. Never going to happen when the dopers have more resources (and motivation) than the testers.
The list of banned substances is long and contains agents which are medically pretty safem and probably harm performance but which may represent a risk to other competitors (alcohol, marijuana etc).
Bruce
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Former member
I'd sort-of assumed that the short-term damage ones are probably illegal (in a national sense) anyway - but I take your point about it being complicated.
By transparency, I only meant that peple should declare all medication, whether legal or not. One assumes that the cheats wouldn't declare the illegal stuff; that's always going to be down to the testers! It's good that they are retaining samples to test in future years when testing techniques improve, but I guess that introduces a whole new set of problems with contamination and deterioration. Diane Modal springs to mind ...
It's reassuring to read your point about 'extreme exercise' - I guess Alex is a case in point? Made me cringe reading it (was alcohol involved?). Hope you mend fast and strong, Alex!
By transparency, I only meant that peple should declare all medication, whether legal or not. One assumes that the cheats wouldn't declare the illegal stuff; that's always going to be down to the testers! It's good that they are retaining samples to test in future years when testing techniques improve, but I guess that introduces a whole new set of problems with contamination and deterioration. Diane Modal springs to mind ...
It's reassuring to read your point about 'extreme exercise' - I guess Alex is a case in point? Made me cringe reading it (was alcohol involved?). Hope you mend fast and strong, Alex!
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Former member
quote:So is coffee socially unacceptable for footballers these days?
The unfounded and almost certainly untrue and potetnially libellous rumours about Rio are that he likes the odd line of Finest Colombian
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Former member
Thanks Patrick - no alcohol involved as I am teetotal nowadays (3 and a half years).
ag
ag
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Mike in PA, USA
Following is a letter that one of my teammates in sending to the editors of VeloNews. Perhaps it will be published. Either way, I would be interested in hearing reactions here.
-Mike
=====================================
Dear VN Editors:
Why did the peloton thank Lance for chasing down Simeoni? The answer
gets to the heart of the doping problem:
---> The problem is structural - Riders are blamed, but management goes
unscathed
With doping, only the riders pay - with health problems, sometimes with
their life, or, if caught, by being ostracized within their sport. The
rider caught doping is personally devastated and publicly demonized,
stripped of his integrity, and called a "cheater". The general public
needs to understand that the riders do not want doping. They hate it.
Right now, they are the only ones who suffer as a result of it. But so
far they have been powerless to change things. Since biomedical
technology offers the chance to improve performance, the bar is raised
and everyone who is a contender must do it to compete on an equal basis
with all the rest.
(Lance may indeed be clean, in that the combination of clearly superior
genes (he has always been a freak of nature in athletics) along with
altitude tents may give him an equal footing with those using EPO, HGH,
Steroids, and blood boosting. Saying there is no way he found a legal
way to compete against a peleton full of EPO and HGH-juiced riders may
be assuming too much. We must be careful not to point fingers and name
names, as we could be wrong in certain cases. But everyone who is an
insider knows the majority of the peleton is juiced, and has been since
Greg lost that fateful TT to Big Mig in 1991 by several minutes.)
The heart of the problem is that while riders pay dearly, UCI, team,
and
race management pay no significant price for doping. They continue to
be motivated to find ways to win at all costs and to keep the status
quo. Management pays no real price because if a rider is caught,
everyone points fingers at the rider, denies their own culpability,
"cleans things up", gets a new rider, cranks up the PR machine, and
moves on. In the current system, the persons most responsible for the
problem are paying little to no price.
---> The real story behind Simeoni
Which brings us back to the Armstrong/Simeoni story, and why the
peleton
was thanking Lance for his actions. Simeoni is offering himself up as
a
witness in a doping trial. He is "telling all", yet he is not even
implicating himself. If he had the bravery to tell his own personal
story, then he would be doing the right thing. To bring others down
while admitting no role himself is cowardly. And that is why he is
hated in the peloton. That is why Lance was thanked by the peloton.
---> If management were held responsible
Who has the best chance of catching cheaters and really cleaning up the
sport? Of course the ones closest to the riders - the medical support
team, team management, and race management. They are the ones who know
the riders best. They know if riders are cheating, indeed, they often
force it on the riders. If the riders went unpunished, but management
were held responsible, then management would do everything within their
power to prevent doping. THEY would conduct drug tests. THEY would
find ways to make sure riders are clean. They would go from being the
root of the problem to being the heart of the solution.
---> How can this change be accomplished?
Change in the industry's structure is obviously never going to come
from
the myopic ageing has-beens at the UCI. These are strong words, but
let's face it - these men who control so much have done nothing good
for
cycling in allowing the Festina debacle, the reduction of Marco Pantani
to a hopeless drug addict, and so many more sad situations to continue
to plague the sport year after year. Neither can law enforcement make
the changes needed. Team and race management have demonstrated
complicity. The only way to fix the doping problem is to affect real
change in the structure of the industry - and the only remaining choice
is the voice not being heard, that of the riders collectively.
---> The riders need to form a collective bargaining organization for
pro cycling.
Riders need to tip the power balance to a more equitable state. A
riders union would have the power to speak out about the current
inequity in how doping is "managed". They would have the power to hold
team and race management accountable for the doping problem everyone in
the peloton knows they are causing. [As a second point supporting the
idea of a pro riders union, it is clear something must be done to make
TdF sprint stages safer]
-Mike
=====================================
Dear VN Editors:
Why did the peloton thank Lance for chasing down Simeoni? The answer
gets to the heart of the doping problem:
---> The problem is structural - Riders are blamed, but management goes
unscathed
With doping, only the riders pay - with health problems, sometimes with
their life, or, if caught, by being ostracized within their sport. The
rider caught doping is personally devastated and publicly demonized,
stripped of his integrity, and called a "cheater". The general public
needs to understand that the riders do not want doping. They hate it.
Right now, they are the only ones who suffer as a result of it. But so
far they have been powerless to change things. Since biomedical
technology offers the chance to improve performance, the bar is raised
and everyone who is a contender must do it to compete on an equal basis
with all the rest.
(Lance may indeed be clean, in that the combination of clearly superior
genes (he has always been a freak of nature in athletics) along with
altitude tents may give him an equal footing with those using EPO, HGH,
Steroids, and blood boosting. Saying there is no way he found a legal
way to compete against a peleton full of EPO and HGH-juiced riders may
be assuming too much. We must be careful not to point fingers and name
names, as we could be wrong in certain cases. But everyone who is an
insider knows the majority of the peleton is juiced, and has been since
Greg lost that fateful TT to Big Mig in 1991 by several minutes.)
The heart of the problem is that while riders pay dearly, UCI, team,
and
race management pay no significant price for doping. They continue to
be motivated to find ways to win at all costs and to keep the status
quo. Management pays no real price because if a rider is caught,
everyone points fingers at the rider, denies their own culpability,
"cleans things up", gets a new rider, cranks up the PR machine, and
moves on. In the current system, the persons most responsible for the
problem are paying little to no price.
---> The real story behind Simeoni
Which brings us back to the Armstrong/Simeoni story, and why the
peleton
was thanking Lance for his actions. Simeoni is offering himself up as
a
witness in a doping trial. He is "telling all", yet he is not even
implicating himself. If he had the bravery to tell his own personal
story, then he would be doing the right thing. To bring others down
while admitting no role himself is cowardly. And that is why he is
hated in the peloton. That is why Lance was thanked by the peloton.
---> If management were held responsible
Who has the best chance of catching cheaters and really cleaning up the
sport? Of course the ones closest to the riders - the medical support
team, team management, and race management. They are the ones who know
the riders best. They know if riders are cheating, indeed, they often
force it on the riders. If the riders went unpunished, but management
were held responsible, then management would do everything within their
power to prevent doping. THEY would conduct drug tests. THEY would
find ways to make sure riders are clean. They would go from being the
root of the problem to being the heart of the solution.
---> How can this change be accomplished?
Change in the industry's structure is obviously never going to come
from
the myopic ageing has-beens at the UCI. These are strong words, but
let's face it - these men who control so much have done nothing good
for
cycling in allowing the Festina debacle, the reduction of Marco Pantani
to a hopeless drug addict, and so many more sad situations to continue
to plague the sport year after year. Neither can law enforcement make
the changes needed. Team and race management have demonstrated
complicity. The only way to fix the doping problem is to affect real
change in the structure of the industry - and the only remaining choice
is the voice not being heard, that of the riders collectively.
---> The riders need to form a collective bargaining organization for
pro cycling.
Riders need to tip the power balance to a more equitable state. A
riders union would have the power to speak out about the current
inequity in how doping is "managed". They would have the power to hold
team and race management accountable for the doping problem everyone in
the peloton knows they are causing. [As a second point supporting the
idea of a pro riders union, it is clear something must be done to make
TdF sprint stages safer]
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Nigel Cavendish
Mike
I am not sure what your colleague's opinion is on Lance Armstrong. Is he saying that he does cheat by taking illegal drugs or not "Lance may indeed be clean"?
Again, any cogent evidence that he is a cheat?
cheers
Nigel
I am not sure what your colleague's opinion is on Lance Armstrong. Is he saying that he does cheat by taking illegal drugs or not "Lance may indeed be clean"?
Again, any cogent evidence that he is a cheat?
cheers
Nigel
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Mike in PA, USA
Nigel,
I think the issue at hand is that drug use is rampant in the pro peleton. Whether Lance is or is not using does not take away from his achievements given that most of the peleton is doping (probably the sad truth). Lance and his team are solely focussed on getting Mr. Armstrong to Paris is yellow. No other team has the same type of focus or mission to that extent.
-Mike
I think the issue at hand is that drug use is rampant in the pro peleton. Whether Lance is or is not using does not take away from his achievements given that most of the peleton is doping (probably the sad truth). Lance and his team are solely focussed on getting Mr. Armstrong to Paris is yellow. No other team has the same type of focus or mission to that extent.
-Mike
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Mike in PA, USA
Then again...
If you were the six-time winner of the TDF, and the object of "hero worship" by cycling enthusiasts, cancer patients, and the general populace, and you were using performance enhancing drugs...
Would YOU admit to it?
-M
If you were the six-time winner of the TDF, and the object of "hero worship" by cycling enthusiasts, cancer patients, and the general populace, and you were using performance enhancing drugs...
Would YOU admit to it?
-M
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Former member
In this week's Cycling Weekly, Nicole Cooke said that she thought that a hefty fine and a six-month ban for the team, and I think she was talking about it in a strict liability sense, would bring about positive changes. I thought this made a lot of sense (draconian, perhaps, but a serious issue needs serious solutions), but I would be interested to know what everyone thinks.
If only half of what is in Paul Kimmage's excellent book Rough Ride is true, then the teams, at present, really are the organ grinders and if the sport hopes to deal with this issue, then this is surely the first port of call.
Helen
If only half of what is in Paul Kimmage's excellent book Rough Ride is true, then the teams, at present, really are the organ grinders and if the sport hopes to deal with this issue, then this is surely the first port of call.
Helen
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Nigel Cavendish
What then of the former 5 times winners? Guilty too, without proof, trial?
cheers
Nigel
cheers
Nigel
Posted on: 30 July 2004 by Mike in PA, USA
The point of my initial post was that it is only the riders who are suffering. If team managent was fined, they would not be encouraging use of banned substances, they would be policing it. It would be in a team's best interest to ensure their athletes are clean.
Posted on: 31 July 2004 by Former member
Nigel, you really don't get it, do you?
Please show us all just what a smart cookie you really are and explain how (for example) there was no hard evidence against Millar (never tested positive, denied all accusations, threatened legal action etc etc) .... and then someone 'suddenly' found two used EPO syringes in his apartment? Was he clean up to the point when they found the syringes, or had he always been doping?
There is no hard evidence in respect of Armstrong either, but given the prevalence of drug abuse within the TdeF, and the fact the Lance can easily beat them all (including on several hard days in succession), even you must understand why some of us are so skeptical. The French in particular, just cannot understand how Armstrong couldn't climb, got cancer, and suddenly became a brilliant climber.
It's a good point you've raised Mike - what about also punishing the whole team if one rider tests positive or fails the haemocrit test? Part of the pressure to dope falls on the domestiques who have to protect their team leader and get him to the head of the race - and they can't do that when they're knackered. If Armstrong risked loosing the race 'cos one of his teammates had doped, there would be huge pressure either to not-dope, or for the whole team to have state-of-the-art doping. If it was the latter perhaps it would be easier to crack?
Please show us all just what a smart cookie you really are and explain how (for example) there was no hard evidence against Millar (never tested positive, denied all accusations, threatened legal action etc etc) .... and then someone 'suddenly' found two used EPO syringes in his apartment? Was he clean up to the point when they found the syringes, or had he always been doping?
There is no hard evidence in respect of Armstrong either, but given the prevalence of drug abuse within the TdeF, and the fact the Lance can easily beat them all (including on several hard days in succession), even you must understand why some of us are so skeptical. The French in particular, just cannot understand how Armstrong couldn't climb, got cancer, and suddenly became a brilliant climber.
It's a good point you've raised Mike - what about also punishing the whole team if one rider tests positive or fails the haemocrit test? Part of the pressure to dope falls on the domestiques who have to protect their team leader and get him to the head of the race - and they can't do that when they're knackered. If Armstrong risked loosing the race 'cos one of his teammates had doped, there would be huge pressure either to not-dope, or for the whole team to have state-of-the-art doping. If it was the latter perhaps it would be easier to crack?
Posted on: 31 July 2004 by John Sheridan
quote:
There is no hard evidence in respect of Armstrong either, but given the prevalence of drug abuse within the TdeF, and the fact the Lance can easily beat them all (including on several hard days in succession), even you must understand why some of us are so skeptical. The French in particular, just cannot understand how Armstrong couldn't climb, got cancer, and suddenly became a brilliant climber.
I don't understand why you keep singling out Lance - doping goes all the way back to the very first Tour. Even if you don't want to believe that, have you heard of Tom Simpson. Oh no, another one of those 'american' brits. What about Mercx, he seemed to be able to beat everyone easily. Never tested positive as far as I know - and you don't seem to be pointing the finger at him for not speaking out against drugs.
As for 'suddenly' being able to climb, if you lost most of you muscle mass due to cancer and had the chance to rebuild it (as well as changing your style) for climbing you'd probably make a good climber too.
Final question: if the current peloton are all so obviously drugged, why did nobody manage to beat, or even come close to, Pantani's (really obviously drugged) record up Alpe D'Huez. After all, Pantani set that time after riding a long stage. This year all they had to do was ride the mountain on special extra-light bikes with fast tyres and aerodynamic skinsuits.
Posted on: 31 July 2004 by Former member
quote:Of course I've heard of Tommy Simpson - in those days people didn't seem to appreciate the dangers of drugs, but I tend to try and concentrate on the present and the future, as one can't seem to change the past.
I don't understand why you keep singling out Lance - doping goes all the way back to the very first Tour. Even if you don't want to believe that, have you heard of Tom Simpson. Oh no, another one of those 'american' brits. What about Mercx, he seemed to be able to beat everyone easily. Never tested positive as far as I know - and you don't seem to be pointing the finger at him for not speaking out against drugs.
I don't know why they didn't beat Pantani's record, but I don know that speeds in the tour haven't dropped even following the 'clean-up' of a few years ago. Some are surely due to improved training methods, but Flo-Jo's and some of the Chinese female swimmers records have still to be beaten by 'clean' atheletes.
It would be great if one of the previous 'Champions' were to talk frankly about drugs, but I guess that they don't want to detract from the glory of their achievements. In any event, I suspect doping technology has moved on somewhat since they days of Merckx and Hinault, so I don't know how much it would help.