Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
dangerousB said:
DJRC said:
Derek Smith said:
el stovey said:
I believed Armstrong was doing it clean in the beginning, there's a great interview with Charlie Rose from a few years ago where he speaks very convincingly about it. I saw he was an exceptional triathlete as a youngster and then believed he won by keeping his lactic acid levels very low through a combination of genetic freakishness and thus being able to spin up the mountains better that all the others. He was also 'very thorough' in his training and I believed he was simply doing it better than the rest.He also concentrated on the tour 100%.
So I wasn't that stupid in the early years. I still feel betrayed though. I know it is silly.With respect to Lance Armstrong, albeit faceless, Derek may well be a nobody, but he's certainly not irrelevant. If he were then I guess you could say the same about every other fan of cycling.
If every fan of cycling is irrelevant to its participants, then it's safe to assume that pro cycling doesn't need them. Does that seem a logical progression in thought to you?
So if that really is the case, then where is the sport without fans and without anyone watching? Where does its revenue come from? Why would sponsors want to get involved? How do its participants gain fame, acclaim and the trappings that go hand in hand with that? What is the motivation for new talent to get involved if nobody's watching, nobody's interested and ultimately no-one will pay you?
Lance Armstrong may not personally know Derek. He may well think him a nobody. He may well get pissed off with having to walk down the street and have Dereks approach him all the time, but they're the reason he is where he is. They're the reason for the sport existing, ultimately the reason he was able to get involved in the first place and who knows, ultimately the reason why he had the best "support network" around him?
DJRC said:
frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death
Why you felt the need to say that is a great deal more nonsensical to me.As such to illustrate the piffle I emphasised the point. Why would I feel anything about using that phrase? "Derek" is no more than pixels on a screen to me. There is no personal connection there, there is nothing there about him that impinges upon my personal reality, ergo the sentiments expressed are meaningless. The principle applies for what Armstong did or did not do and their impact upon Derek. Derek doesnt exist to Armstrong, just as I do or you dont. As such we cannot be betrayed by him nor he betray us in the first place as he has done nothing intentional for us. Any impact he has had upon our lives is one we choose to impact for ourselves, not one that he partakes in. It is a one way emotional transaction, therefore it is in fact a selfish emotion on our parts to feel he has betrayed us.
And yes of course I extend the notion logically to every other fan of cycling. I have previously used the same theory to argue against F1 fans thinking they are in any way important enough to have any kind of say in how the sport is run.
Hence, once again I offer you the response of nonsensical piffle.
DJRC said:
Because it is illustrating the personal point of Derek's post. He felt betrayed. Betrayel is personal. Personal implies intimate.
As such to illustrate the piffle I emphasised the point. Why would I feel anything about using that phrase? "Derek" is no more than pixels on a screen to me. There is no personal connection there, there is nothing there about him that impinges upon my personal reality, ergo the sentiments expressed are meaningless. The principle applies for what Armstong did or did not do and their impact upon Derek. Derek doesnt exist to Armstrong, just as I do or you dont. As such we cannot be betrayed by him nor he betray us in the first place as he has done nothing intentional for us. Any impact he has had upon our lives is one we choose to impact for ourselves, not one that he partakes in. It is a one way emotional transaction, therefore it is in fact a selfish emotion on our parts to feel he has betrayed us.
And yes of course I extend the notion logically to every other fan of cycling. I have previously used the same theory to argue against F1 fans thinking they are in any way important enough to have any kind of say in how the sport is run.
Hence, once again I offer you the response of nonsensical piffle.
But Derek and I'm sure many others, myself included, at one point put their faith or belief in Armstrong - a very personal thing. You surely don't have to know the individual to put your faith in them, misguided or otherwise. And to have that thrown back in your face it would feel like a betrayal. To me it does anyway.As such to illustrate the piffle I emphasised the point. Why would I feel anything about using that phrase? "Derek" is no more than pixels on a screen to me. There is no personal connection there, there is nothing there about him that impinges upon my personal reality, ergo the sentiments expressed are meaningless. The principle applies for what Armstong did or did not do and their impact upon Derek. Derek doesnt exist to Armstrong, just as I do or you dont. As such we cannot be betrayed by him nor he betray us in the first place as he has done nothing intentional for us. Any impact he has had upon our lives is one we choose to impact for ourselves, not one that he partakes in. It is a one way emotional transaction, therefore it is in fact a selfish emotion on our parts to feel he has betrayed us.
And yes of course I extend the notion logically to every other fan of cycling. I have previously used the same theory to argue against F1 fans thinking they are in any way important enough to have any kind of say in how the sport is run.
Hence, once again I offer you the response of nonsensical piffle.
Plus, I'm sure there were points in Armstrong's career when he asked the fans to believe in him - an that his performances were true.
Edited by mcelliott on Tuesday 4th September 22:22
DJRC said:
Its gone through my village in France Derek, past my kitchen window. Not to mention the place where I currently live also being part of both the TdF and the TdS. And its their national summer sport. Me thinketh Ive spent a bit more time in the midst of its heartlands community than you.
They arent selling anything. This is something I think every *fan* or *enthusiast* should have hammered into their skull time and time again until they realise they either die from the hammer blows or they wise up.
You
Are
Irrelevent
The race will happen with or without you. The blokes will race and want to race whether you watch or not. You viewing them is a consequence of them doing what they want to do, they do not do what they do because you want to watch them.
I can quite easily state here and now without a shadow of any doubt that the sport could get banned from the Olympics tomorrow, WADA could declare it dead and buried as a viable public spectacle interest sport, doping was too intrinsic, 95% of its sponsor dropped away and it would make not stop anything. The races would still be run. The spectators would still come out to watch and nobody would care. Even if public interest was so low that nobody did, the race would still be run and after the initial scepticism of the first week, by the end of week 3 the streets of Paris would be packed for the race again. The moralising tones of the Anglo-Saxon world could trumpet loud and clear both sides of the Atlantic and try to ban whoever and strip whoever of titles and declare the race and results null and void and exhort ppl not to go and watch it.
It would have minimal impact.
The TdF isnt some playing fields of Eton British invention, its a French institution and as such frankly its as close as you can get to something pretty f
king invioable in Gallic life. So no Derek, you dont matter a damn.
The race may well go on, but would Lance Armstrong have been paid millions of pounds for his participation and get to fly around in his own jetThey arent selling anything. This is something I think every *fan* or *enthusiast* should have hammered into their skull time and time again until they realise they either die from the hammer blows or they wise up.
You
Are
Irrelevent
The race will happen with or without you. The blokes will race and want to race whether you watch or not. You viewing them is a consequence of them doing what they want to do, they do not do what they do because you want to watch them.
I can quite easily state here and now without a shadow of any doubt that the sport could get banned from the Olympics tomorrow, WADA could declare it dead and buried as a viable public spectacle interest sport, doping was too intrinsic, 95% of its sponsor dropped away and it would make not stop anything. The races would still be run. The spectators would still come out to watch and nobody would care. Even if public interest was so low that nobody did, the race would still be run and after the initial scepticism of the first week, by the end of week 3 the streets of Paris would be packed for the race again. The moralising tones of the Anglo-Saxon world could trumpet loud and clear both sides of the Atlantic and try to ban whoever and strip whoever of titles and declare the race and results null and void and exhort ppl not to go and watch it.
It would have minimal impact.
The TdF isnt some playing fields of Eton British invention, its a French institution and as such frankly its as close as you can get to something pretty f
king invioable in Gallic life. So no Derek, you dont matter a damn.Whether you like it, the millions of Dereks around the world outside of France, and their money, made it worthwhile for LA to create his comeback miracle kid persona to sell via the media, made it worth the team probably pumping every rider full of drugs, and still makes it impossible for Lance to admit in public what happened - if all the Dereks are nobodies, why does LA not just come clean - he does not care for the public opinion according to you, so why would he be bothered what they think.....
I suggest you don't apply for a job in marketing....
DJRC said:
dangerousB said:
DJRC said:
Derek Smith said:
el stovey said:
I believed Armstrong was doing it clean in the beginning, there's a great interview with Charlie Rose from a few years ago where he speaks very convincingly about it. I saw he was an exceptional triathlete as a youngster and then believed he won by keeping his lactic acid levels very low through a combination of genetic freakishness and thus being able to spin up the mountains better that all the others. He was also 'very thorough' in his training and I believed he was simply doing it better than the rest.He also concentrated on the tour 100%.
So I wasn't that stupid in the early years. I still feel betrayed though. I know it is silly.With respect to Lance Armstrong, albeit faceless, Derek may well be a nobody, but he's certainly not irrelevant. If he were then I guess you could say the same about every other fan of cycling.
If every fan of cycling is irrelevant to its participants, then it's safe to assume that pro cycling doesn't need them. Does that seem a logical progression in thought to you?
So if that really is the case, then where is the sport without fans and without anyone watching? Where does its revenue come from? Why would sponsors want to get involved? How do its participants gain fame, acclaim and the trappings that go hand in hand with that? What is the motivation for new talent to get involved if nobody's watching, nobody's interested and ultimately no-one will pay you?
Lance Armstrong may not personally know Derek. He may well think him a nobody. He may well get pissed off with having to walk down the street and have Dereks approach him all the time, but they're the reason he is where he is. They're the reason for the sport existing, ultimately the reason he was able to get involved in the first place and who knows, ultimately the reason why he had the best "support network" around him?
DJRC said:
frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death
Why you felt the need to say that is a great deal more nonsensical to me.As such to illustrate the piffle I emphasised the point. Why would I feel anything about using that phrase? "Derek" is no more than pixels on a screen to me. There is no personal connection there, there is nothing there about him that impinges upon my personal reality, ergo the sentiments expressed are meaningless. The principle applies for what Armstong did or did not do and their impact upon Derek. Derek doesnt exist to Armstrong, just as I do or you dont. As such we cannot be betrayed by him nor he betray us in the first place as he has done nothing intentional for us. Any impact he has had upon our lives is one we choose to impact for ourselves, not one that he partakes in. It is a one way emotional transaction, therefore it is in fact a selfish emotion on our parts to feel he has betrayed us.
And yes of course I extend the notion logically to every other fan of cycling. I have previously used the same theory to argue against F1 fans thinking they are in any way important enough to have any kind of say in how the sport is run.
Hence, once again I offer you the response of nonsensical piffle.
BTW I've never felt betrayed by LA; I always thought he was a gobby t
t, and have always smelt a rat.Lost_BMW said:
Mmmm... could be because, along with Bolt, he is the current 'best'; better genetically and physically than the others, combined with a huge appetite for training, and desire and working in a system where the country regards athletics as top priority so is focussed on this sport = participation, practise and top notch coaches from the get go.
But as CavalierFC says he's quicker than other cheats and had some unbanned nasal spray left over in his system 3 years back, so he must be cheating.
I love the way people always take the most simplistic view of something and twist it to assume it's spurious.But as CavalierFC says he's quicker than other cheats and had some unbanned nasal spray left over in his system 3 years back, so he must be cheating.
Like it or not, Blake has been banned in the past for PED use - the same product three others were also banned for. I understand that you're wanting hard evidence and multitudes of positive tests in order to confirm guilt - that would be an ideal way of dealing with it. But, as BALCO showed us, drug tests and merely IQ checks now - you've got to be fairly stupid to fail one, and not failing one isn't remotely an indicator of 'being clean'. Non-analytical positives are becoming more common, and the best way to achieve those is to begin looking at unnatural improvement, and move on from there.
Edited by Cavalierfc on Wednesday 5th September 10:26
mcelliott said:
But Derek and I'm sure many others, myself included, at one point put their faith or belief in Armstrong - a very personal thing. You surely don't have to know the individual to put your faith in them, misguided or otherwise. And to have that thrown back in your face it would feel like a betrayal. To me it does anyway.
Plus, I'm sure there were points in Armstrong's career when he asked the fans to believe in him - an that his performances were true.
That's it in a nutshell.Plus, I'm sure there were points in Armstrong's career when he asked the fans to believe in him - an that his performances were true.
Andy Zarse said:
BTW I've never felt betrayed by LA; I always thought he was a gobby tt, and have always smelt a rat.
I could always cope with the fact that he's not the nicest person in the world, you know, separate the performances from the person. It was accepted wisdom that to be the best in the world you have to be driven and the laid back and pleasant are often the ones at the back. Now I see that the accepted wisdom was that to be the best in the world you have to be drugged up to the eyeballs at least between 11pm and 6am.t, and have always smelt a rat.
Cavalierfc]ost_BMW said:
Mmmm... could be because, along with Bolt, he is the current 'best'; better genetically and physically than the others, combined with a huge appetite for training, and desire and working in a system where the country regards athletics as top priority so is focussed on this sport = participation, practise and top notch coaches from the get go.
But as CavalierFC says he's quicker than other cheats and had some unbanned nasal spray left over in his system 3 years back, so he must be cheating./quote]
I love the way people always take the most simplistic view of something and twist it to assume it's spurious.
Like it or not, Blake has been banned in the past for PED use - the same product three others were also banned for. I understand that you're wanting hard evidence and multitudes of positive tests in order to confirm guilt - that would be an ideal way of dealing with it. But, as BALCO showed us, drug tests and merely IQ checks now - you've got to be fairly stupid to fail one, and not failing one isn't remotely an indicator of 'being clean'. Non-analytical positives are becoming more common, and the best way to achieve those is to begin looking at unnatural improvement, and move on from there.
Mmmm... like you haven't taken a simplistic view - to twist - of his being sort of banned (as a caution) for a pretty useless substance 3 years ago and then conflated that with use of performance enhancing drugs just because he can still run fast sans nasal spray. Pot and kettle.But as CavalierFC says he's quicker than other cheats and had some unbanned nasal spray left over in his system 3 years back, so he must be cheating.
/quote]I love the way people always take the most simplistic view of something and twist it to assume it's spurious.
Like it or not, Blake has been banned in the past for PED use - the same product three others were also banned for. I understand that you're wanting hard evidence and multitudes of positive tests in order to confirm guilt - that would be an ideal way of dealing with it. But, as BALCO showed us, drug tests and merely IQ checks now - you've got to be fairly stupid to fail one, and not failing one isn't remotely an indicator of 'being clean'. Non-analytical positives are becoming more common, and the best way to achieve those is to begin looking at unnatural improvement, and move on from there.
You seem to like throwing dirt based on stuff and nonsense, like the fact that runners are faster/have got faster than other/previous athletes. In fact if you did this more publicly I'd not be surprised if someone wouldn't have back at you for slander/libel given your unsubstantiated claims and musings. I bet Blake would love having you push your line in the mainstream media for example. If you're that convinced why not confront him more directly...
Lost_BMW said:
Mmmm... like you haven't taken a simplistic view - to twist - of his being sort of banned (as a caution) for a pretty useless substance 3 years ago and then conflated that with use of performance enhancing drugs just because he can still run fast sans nasal spray. Pot and kettle.
You seem to like throwing dirt based on stuff and nonsense, like the fact that runners are faster/have got faster than other/previous athletes. In fact if you did this more publicly I'd not be surprised if someone wouldn't have back at you for slander/libel given your unsubstantiated claims and musings. I bet Blake would love having you push your line in the mainstream media for example. If you're that convinced why not confront him more directly...
Bans aren't given as cautions, that's a spurious argument. He was banned for taking something that was performance enhancing, after his own country appeals the initial verdict that exonerated him. Calling it a 'pretty useless substance' is both absurd and an attempt to belittle the process.You seem to like throwing dirt based on stuff and nonsense, like the fact that runners are faster/have got faster than other/previous athletes. In fact if you did this more publicly I'd not be surprised if someone wouldn't have back at you for slander/libel given your unsubstantiated claims and musings. I bet Blake would love having you push your line in the mainstream media for example. If you're that convinced why not confront him more directly...
As far as doing it publicly? I have, in the past, and I'll do it again in the future.
Newsflash: Human performance doesn't improve in leaps and bounds. It never has, and it never will. If you're unaware how simple it is to beat a drug test nowadays, then I'd suggest you get in contact with Marion Jones.
Oh, but she didn't fail a drug test either, so I guess her rather extraordinary performances shouldn't be questioned simply because she was 'running faster'.
Something for you to note: Never in the history of timed running over a hundred metres did the world record shift by as much in an equivalent period as it did between 2006 and 2010. And that's the complete opposite of what would normally be expected in an ultra-short distance event - the gaps should be getting shorter as records progress.
@ Cavalier
So it's definitive then, Bolt and Blake are doping...
Never mind the changes in training regimes, diet, supplementation, recovery methods, coaching, track design/make up or the possibility that we have a few exceptional, freakish individuals marrying gifts to training approach. The still small - if proportionately more significant - reductions in time over that and an even longer period must be down to drugs. OK if you say so.
I'm not actually sure if Blake and Bolt are taking illegal performance enhancers and wouldn't be surprised (if disappointed) to find sometime down the line that they are. But as I'm not sure I wouldn't throw blanket accusations just because they are better than others.
Excluding the LA/ TdeF aspect there are people who have done amazing superhuman things unbelievably better than the norm or their sporting peers without drugs, in fact way before steroids were even available. If people now saw some of the turn of the century strongmen and the things they could do emerge today, without knowing when they operated, most wouldn't believe it was possible to do it clean, yet they did.
I've been around people in different sports who have used steroids etc. and have used them myself. I'm not suggesting for a moment that they don't give a benefit and know some have made sudden gains in performance as a result (often mapped against a change in focus, determination and diet) but I also know some who have made sudden, unprecedented gains without and some, seemingly close to me in ability, who changed approach or had a changed response to training/diet and could then do naturally what I couldn't on drugs, or more to the point what they had done previously on them too.
I've had periods when I've suddenly broken previous long standing barriers and gone quickly way beyond where I thought I could - without drugs - sometimes for no obvious/known reason. Just my body suddenly responding differently to either the same long term approach/stimulus or some change, even subtle, in training. So 'lurches' in performance at an individual level can occur for many reasons even without external chemical support.
Look more closely at the circumstances/fight/final decision behind Blake's 'ban' - not as clear cut as just a deserved punishment. Also, please let me know what you know about the sporting benefits of that chemical that isn't commonly known - it hardly seems like a miracle drug from the stuff I've been able to find?
I just think you are taking your scepticism and suspicion too far, in fact it hints of an agenda tbh.
So it's definitive then, Bolt and Blake are doping...
Never mind the changes in training regimes, diet, supplementation, recovery methods, coaching, track design/make up or the possibility that we have a few exceptional, freakish individuals marrying gifts to training approach. The still small - if proportionately more significant - reductions in time over that and an even longer period must be down to drugs. OK if you say so.
I'm not actually sure if Blake and Bolt are taking illegal performance enhancers and wouldn't be surprised (if disappointed) to find sometime down the line that they are. But as I'm not sure I wouldn't throw blanket accusations just because they are better than others.
Excluding the LA/ TdeF aspect there are people who have done amazing superhuman things unbelievably better than the norm or their sporting peers without drugs, in fact way before steroids were even available. If people now saw some of the turn of the century strongmen and the things they could do emerge today, without knowing when they operated, most wouldn't believe it was possible to do it clean, yet they did.
I've been around people in different sports who have used steroids etc. and have used them myself. I'm not suggesting for a moment that they don't give a benefit and know some have made sudden gains in performance as a result (often mapped against a change in focus, determination and diet) but I also know some who have made sudden, unprecedented gains without and some, seemingly close to me in ability, who changed approach or had a changed response to training/diet and could then do naturally what I couldn't on drugs, or more to the point what they had done previously on them too.
I've had periods when I've suddenly broken previous long standing barriers and gone quickly way beyond where I thought I could - without drugs - sometimes for no obvious/known reason. Just my body suddenly responding differently to either the same long term approach/stimulus or some change, even subtle, in training. So 'lurches' in performance at an individual level can occur for many reasons even without external chemical support.
Look more closely at the circumstances/fight/final decision behind Blake's 'ban' - not as clear cut as just a deserved punishment. Also, please let me know what you know about the sporting benefits of that chemical that isn't commonly known - it hardly seems like a miracle drug from the stuff I've been able to find?
I just think you are taking your scepticism and suspicion too far, in fact it hints of an agenda tbh.
Cavalierfc said:
Something for you to note: Never in the history of timed running over a hundred metres did the world record shift by as much in an equivalent period as it did between 2006 and 2010. And that's the complete opposite of what would normally be expected in an ultra-short distance event - the gaps should be getting shorter as records progress.
There is a prehistoric caveman that could run as fast as Bolt, with no shoes, on mud. It is unlikely he was special.Sometimes people come along that are right.
Cavalierfc said:
Bans aren't given as cautions, that's a spurious argument. He was banned for taking something that was performance enhancing, after his own country appeals the initial verdict that exonerated him. Calling it a 'pretty useless substance' is both absurd and an attempt to belittle the process.
As far as doing it publicly? I have, in the past, and I'll do it again in the future.
I didn't mean as a caution - I meant, as reported, that his board took a cautious approach to avoid possible, worse, future outcomes given pressure on them from outside. The substance he took (however - nasal decongestant as claimed or recreational?) was not on the banned list!As far as doing it publicly? I have, in the past, and I'll do it again in the future.
Cavalierfc said:
Lost_BMW said:
Mmmm... like you haven't taken a simplistic view - to twist - of his being sort of banned (as a caution) for a pretty useless substance 3 years ago and then conflated that with use of performance enhancing drugs just because he can still run fast sans nasal spray. Pot and kettle.
You seem to like throwing dirt based on stuff and nonsense, like the fact that runners are faster/have got faster than other/previous athletes. In fact if you did this more publicly I'd not be surprised if someone wouldn't have back at you for slander/libel given your unsubstantiated claims and musings. I bet Blake would love having you push your line in the mainstream media for example. If you're that convinced why not confront him more directly...
Bans aren't given as cautions, that's a spurious argument. He was banned for taking something that was performance enhancing, after his own country appeals the initial verdict that exonerated him. Calling it a 'pretty useless substance' is both absurd and an attempt to belittle the process.You seem to like throwing dirt based on stuff and nonsense, like the fact that runners are faster/have got faster than other/previous athletes. In fact if you did this more publicly I'd not be surprised if someone wouldn't have back at you for slander/libel given your unsubstantiated claims and musings. I bet Blake would love having you push your line in the mainstream media for example. If you're that convinced why not confront him more directly...
As far as doing it publicly? I have, in the past, and I'll do it again in the future.
Newsflash: Human performance doesn't improve in leaps and bounds. It never has, and it never will. If you're unaware how simple it is to beat a drug test nowadays, then I'd suggest you get in contact with Marion Jones.
Oh, but she didn't fail a drug test either, so I guess her rather extraordinary performances shouldn't be questioned simply because she was 'running faster'.
Something for you to note: Never in the history of timed running over a hundred metres did the world record shift by as much in an equivalent period as it did between 2006 and 2010. And that's the complete opposite of what would normally be expected in an ultra-short distance event - the gaps should be getting shorter as records progress.
There has also been a massive improvement across the world in terms of early years talent spotting, which presents a bigger pool of people from which to find the next record breaker. I forget who said it now, but there's a motorsport adage that goes something like, "The fastest F1 driver has never even driven a car" or something like that.
Whilst drugs can and do offer a performance advantage, the S&T of clean sporting performance has also moved on massively in the last 20 years - probably more so than in any other period in sporting history. Motion analysis tech, bio-telemetry, diet, etc., etc. technology now costs so little that it has democratised the technology.
All of this means unprecedented leaps in performance with or without the drugs.
Continuing the slightly off topic element of recent posts, I personally have experienced significant performance improvements through what at the time seemed a tiny change...
I rowed as a schoolboy. I'm not the right shape or physique, nor was my school one of the big rowing schools.
We did pretty good at U14 and U15, then the school hired a new coach. He had learnt a fair amount of leading edge sports psychology theory, which he applied to us in a very subtle manner. We were doing the same training, in the same way, but how he spoke to us was slightly different. It came across as just being a different comms style. We didn't lose a single race that year.
In rowing, there's a yearly Anglo-French regatta. We trialled for the GB regatta squad at Nottingham. We were a coxed four, which should have been circa 30ish seconds slower than the coxless boats, due to it being a straight course and the cox being essentially dead weight. We smashed every coxless boat by 15 seconds...
All he did was have an individual chat with us. Later we found he'd said different things to each of us, but the theme was the same - this is your chance, this is what you need to do. He set a vision.
Small differences can add up to monumental gains.
Going back to Bolt - isn't there a school of thought that he races the wrong distance, and that if Jamaica cared more about 400/800m then he'd not only raise the bar as much as he has in the 100m, but much, much further. My belief is he is exceptional for our times, and a product of his environment.
I rowed as a schoolboy. I'm not the right shape or physique, nor was my school one of the big rowing schools.
We did pretty good at U14 and U15, then the school hired a new coach. He had learnt a fair amount of leading edge sports psychology theory, which he applied to us in a very subtle manner. We were doing the same training, in the same way, but how he spoke to us was slightly different. It came across as just being a different comms style. We didn't lose a single race that year.
In rowing, there's a yearly Anglo-French regatta. We trialled for the GB regatta squad at Nottingham. We were a coxed four, which should have been circa 30ish seconds slower than the coxless boats, due to it being a straight course and the cox being essentially dead weight. We smashed every coxless boat by 15 seconds...
All he did was have an individual chat with us. Later we found he'd said different things to each of us, but the theme was the same - this is your chance, this is what you need to do. He set a vision.
Small differences can add up to monumental gains.
Going back to Bolt - isn't there a school of thought that he races the wrong distance, and that if Jamaica cared more about 400/800m then he'd not only raise the bar as much as he has in the 100m, but much, much further. My belief is he is exceptional for our times, and a product of his environment.
Lost_BMW said:
@ Cavalier
So it's definitive then, Bolt and Blake are doping...
Never mind the changes in training regimes, diet, supplementation, recovery methods, coaching, track design/make up or the possibility that we have a few exceptional, freakish individuals marrying gifts to training approach. The still small - if proportionately more significant - reductions in time over that and an even longer period must be down to drugs. OK if you say so.
This is the same red herring as "trains harder". It assumes that everyone wasn't doing the utmost with the technology they had available to maximise their performance. Are you suggesting that, prior to 2005, runners were just showing up and running, or doing all of the above? Again note: Small gains equal small incremental differences in time. Unless you're suggesting that suddenly a ridiculous amount of gains were miraculously discovered that people weren't aware of.So it's definitive then, Bolt and Blake are doping...
Never mind the changes in training regimes, diet, supplementation, recovery methods, coaching, track design/make up or the possibility that we have a few exceptional, freakish individuals marrying gifts to training approach. The still small - if proportionately more significant - reductions in time over that and an even longer period must be down to drugs. OK if you say so.
Here's another little newsflash: The 2012 Olympic running track was the exact same type as that used in Barcelona in 1992. Now, there's undoubtedly been small advances in that 20 years in kinetics and diet. The way they run though, hasn't changed, one iota, and isn't any different to Joe Average. The speed with which Usain Bolt moves his legs through the air is no different to the speed with which I do. That hasn't changed since recorded times for the 100m became available, and will likely never change. The science of sprinting proves that.
Perhaps swimming is an unfair comparison though. Perhaps something like javelin, where rules governing the design of the javelin have remained unchanged now since 1991? Surely those athletes have made improvements in both their running and throwing ability with the aid of sports science in 21 years? The answer to that is: Sure they have. But the World Record hasn't changed since 1996, and in this year's Olympics, the Gold Medallist would have won silver over 50 years ago, in the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne. Perhaps there's just not a once-in-a generation athlete available for that sport, and they're regressing to the point where diet and training aren't improving at all.
Lost_BMW said:
I'm not actually sure if Blake and Bolt are taking illegal performance enhancers and wouldn't be surprised (if disappointed) to find sometime down the line that they are. But as I'm not sure I wouldn't throw blanket accusations just because they are better than others.
There's always going to be someone better than others. That's why we hand out medals. But the key starting point with anything suspicious is how much better. The answer to that is significantly better. Here's a little paragraph that can explain that:Since 2008, Bolt has taken a jackhammer to the 100-meter world record, lopping off a whopping .14 seconds. That might not sound like a huge chunk of time until you consider it's twice as much as any other sprinter has shaved off the world record since the advent of electronic scoring.
Twice as much as any other person in (accurately recorded) history. Twice as much. That's a hell of a gap. Normally you'd expect marginal improvement at that level, even for someone breaking records in amazing fashion. But for one individual to do that?
Lost_BMW said:
Excluding the LA/ TdeF aspect there are people who have done amazing superhuman things unbelievably better than the norm or their sporting peers without drugs, in fact way before steroids were even available.
"Superhuman"? That's an entirely opinionated measurement. What I will say is this: You probably can't show me a history of time reduction or speed increase (which isn't mechanical), in any sport. like that which we've seen from 2006-2010 in the 100m achieved naturally. Even in technical events like swimming, where with things like CFD you'd expect to see the greatest differences in recent history the gaps between records are shrinking relatively in comparison - Ye Shiwen's recent headlining swim broke the record by less than 1%.Put another way: Technological differences and dieting improvements into account, think about this. Would the greatest improvement in those things have been made between:
2005-2009 where 0.19 was taken off the men's 100m WR?
or
1968-2005 where the same time gap was taken? Or, to be fair, even if you want to take away the benefits of altitude in 68, the 22 years it took to take 0.17 from Calvin Smith's WR in 1983?
I know what has made a significant change in that time - and it's not track surfaces. It's pharmaceuticals, as BALCO and other instances have taught us.
Lost_BMW said:
I've been around people in different sports who have used steroids etc. and have used them myself. I'm not suggesting for a moment that they don't give a benefit and know some have made sudden gains in performance as a result (often mapped against a change in focus, determination and diet) but I also know some who have made sudden, unprecedented gains without and some, seemingly close to me in ability, who changed approach or had a changed response to training/diet and could then do naturally what I couldn't on drugs, or more to the point what they had done previously on them too.
There's a sizable difference between improvement relative to random individuals of questionable performance, and performance relative to the greatest in recorded history. Your anecdotal evidence literally means nothing in comparison to sport at the elite level, where variables in performance and changes in approach are subject to far fewer random events.Lost_BMW said:
I just think you are taking your scepticism and suspicion too far, in fact it hints of an agenda tbh.
Yea, who'd have thought suspecting the athletes showing the greatest level of improvement, from an obscure island country in terms of population, with a far smaller net spend on athletics than most other countries, would be unusual? But I'd love for you to tell me what that red herring is. A secret agenda? I'm all ears.Edited by Cavalierfc on Wednesday 5th September 15:37
Usain bolt moves his legs no faster than you do?
eh?
Sprinting is about Strength, Speed (cadence), Stride Length with Stamina and Start important too.
Kim Collins has ridiculous fast cadence, bolt doesn't but has a 7 foot stride length...
Ed Moses? Unbeaten over 40 odd races, had a huge stride length and stamina and strenth, didn't have cadence - oh sorry he must have been doping too...
eh?
Sprinting is about Strength, Speed (cadence), Stride Length with Stamina and Start important too.
Kim Collins has ridiculous fast cadence, bolt doesn't but has a 7 foot stride length...
Ed Moses? Unbeaten over 40 odd races, had a huge stride length and stamina and strenth, didn't have cadence - oh sorry he must have been doping too...
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff