Lance Armstrong vs. USADA

[Lost_BMW]

Cavalierfc said:

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? don't be silly, some athletes do make more of their training and approach than others; happens all the time in all sports; working their hardest (utmost) does not mean they are necessarily getting the same benefits and positive impact of others. 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.

Here's another little newsflash: The 2012 Olympic running track was the exact same type as that used in Barcelona in 1992. So track and conditions equally fast, despite comments of pundits? 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. Really? That hasn't changed since recorded times for the 100m became available, and will likely never change. The science of sprinting proves that. Please do quote more on that - having seen and read several articles/clips about the analysis of gait etc. that coaches use I'd be surprised if that were 100% the case.

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. which is not to say that he hasn't shown a more sizeable/rapid improvement in speed because he's better than anyone else; changes in time, performance and ability are not linear, the argument is flawed.

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? proportionately, over a sub 10 second time it may well seem significant but it is still a very small amount of time - a c. 1.5% improvement - and represents a fairly short distance. Who is to say that his greater height, stride length, natural ability, technique et cetera, all combined, couldn't produce that. Again, gains are not linear so your argument is specious.

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. This actually made me laugh out loud, given the opinion you've proffered, repeatedly! 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 but you have next to no 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. Variables, not just events; stated on what basis? Also, does not discount the idea that people can make sizeable and intermittent gains with and without drugs.

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? didn't say secret, you're pretty much out there!I'm all ears. No I think you're all mouth actually, over to... I'm done with you, thanks. I hope Bolt and Blake's lawyers see this thread.

Edited by Cavalierfc on Wednesday 5th September 15:37

[dangerousB]

Derek Smith 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.

Whatsmore you are a fan. A watcher. A nobody. You are utterly irrelvent to the bloke taking part. He isnt doing it to entertain you, frankly you could died a lonely, horrifically painful death and he would never either know or care. How then can he either possibly betray you or you feel betrayed by him? What nonsensical piffle.

Derek may well be just a fan or just a viewer of the sport, but your next analytical step is a great deal more nonsensical than his feeling of betrayal.

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.

Thanks for that.

You're welcome fella.

DJRC's initial comment strongly suggested that certainly with respect to sport, he's clueless and on the personal level that he seems so fond of referring to, he's a high scorer on the autistic spectrum.

Not a great platform to air an opinion about issues with regards sport or people . . . shame really, there's some great posts and links in this thread, it's a pity to have to read his bilge and unnecessary, inane, personal attack.

[Disastrous]

Cavalierfc said:

Nonsense

Sorry, you lost me at the point where you said Bolt's legs move no faster than yours or anyone else's.

How exactly does he move faster then??

[Cavalierfc]

Nom de ploom said:

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...

My suggestion for you would be to do a little research. No sprinter moves his legs through the air than any other human being is capable of at peak speed - even though that speed may be significantly slower. Where sprinters make up all their time is in contact time with the ground. They are not one and the same.

http://sciencebasedrunning.com/2011/07/dave/

[Cavalierfc]

Anyway, this is being dragged hideously off-topic, and as I said before, I really didn't want to get into individual discussion, but my intention was merely to open people's eyes a bit. Consequently I'll now stop posting. Thanks for the debate.

[HFLagos]

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 fking invioable in Gallic life. So no Derek, you dont matter a damn.

Stop being an idiot DJRC. I recall your rather cringing post when Dean Richards was involved in bloodgate. You felt humiliated.

[London424]

So who's going to buy Hamilton's book? I'd like to get the insight into all the background but feel a bit dirty myself knowing he is profiting from all of it.

[Nom de ploom]

Has Matt Rendell said anything about this subject?

unless I've missed something in the thread - apols.

He wrote the Pantani book and A Significant Other about Hugo Pena which I've read about the centenary tour. I don't recall he mentions doping once in that book, although it is part tdf history and part real life accounts of the 2003 tour...

any links?

[DJRC]

HFLagos said:

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 fking invioable in Gallic life. So no Derek, you dont matter a damn.

Stop being an idiot DJRC. I recall your rather cringing post when Dean Richards was involved in bloodgate. You felt humiliated.

I realised I was being an irrelvent idiot as I rarely if ever contribute to the sport these days, Im just a watcher. So I got over it and carried on with normal life.

[anonymous-user]

London424 said:

So who's going to buy Hamilton's book? I'd like to get the insight into all the background but feel a bit dirty myself knowing he is profiting from all of it.

Why not? It's not like Armstrong hasn't made money from doping is it?

[JuniorD]

A lot of names being named today! If anyone questioned why go after Lance, this is just one good reason of many. Perhaps now that the kingpin is outed we will hear more of the truth about the rest of them.

[Potatoes]

Cavalierfc said:

Anyway, this is being dragged hideously off-topic, and as I said before, I really didn't want to get into individual discussion, but my intention was merely to open people's eyes a bit. Consequently I'll now stop posting. Thanks for the debate.

I really appreciated your input Cavalier, thanks for putting the information in front of me, very interesting.

[anonymous-user]

Cavalierfc said:

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?

How many world class sprinters as tall as Bolt have there been? Blake I can understand the suspicion because he is built like a normal sprinter, but there is nobody else to compare Bolt with as normally people that tall can't sprint.

[Lost_BMW]

Disastrous said:

Cavalierfc said:

Nonsense

Sorry, you lost me at the point where you said Bolt's legs move no faster than yours or anyone else's.

How exactly does he move faster then??

Drugs, silly!

[Derek Smith]

HFLagos said:

. . . when Dean Richards was involved in bloodgate.

Don't! Quins is 'my' team. A friend plays for them.

London424 said:

So who's going to buy Hamilton's book? I'd like to get the insight into all the background but feel a bit dirty myself knowing he is profiting from all of it.

I see your point. However, my wife is buying it for me so it sort of leaves me in the clear.

Further, there does seem to be an element of making a clean breast of it in interviews, a sort of starting with a clean slate.

[London424]

Looks like the UCI are getting a bit impatient.

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=840975...

[anonymous-user]

You get the impression the USADA wanted a confession and when it wasnt forthcoming from Lance, they have had to go back and re-visit their evidence which I suspect isnt as strong as the UCI are expecting it to be....

[Disastrous]

Assuming he's guilty, which it sadly sounds like, he's played this an absolute blinder. This will, IMO, allow enough doubt to surround the issue that it will be impossible to be sure.

Politics next for him??

[telecat]

As I said at the start "Put up or Shut Up!!". And it looks like USADA are expecting us to believe them without producing the evidence. It looks like Armstrong realised that fighting them just gave the USADA credence.

[Silver993tt]

Disastrous said:

Assuming he's guilty, which it sadly sounds like, he's played this an absolute blinder. This will, IMO, allow enough doubt to surround the issue that it will be impossible to be sure.

Politics next for him??

He's totally innocent until there is concrete evidence proving otherwise, which there clearly isn't. The USDA's actions confirm this as they can't provide anything that will prove any illegal activities to a court of law. I'm sure that LA will follow all of this with a string of law suits to many that have been accusing him without any factual evidence that will stand up in a court of law and I'm sure that will include many members of the public who have been slandering his name by using media channels such as this.

Edited by Silver993tt on Saturday 22 September 19:43