tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915222980782433094.post8331534828904118383..comments2024-03-15T03:34:26.390-07:00Comments on Alan Couzens: Is Doping A Necessary Evil?Alan Couzenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123240819644335101noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915222980782433094.post-7887953753931787502012-07-23T14:13:41.771-07:002012-07-23T14:13:41.771-07:00Hey Nicolas,
I get your perspective & recogniz...Hey Nicolas,<br />I get your perspective & recognize the circumstantial 'evidence' that might point towards a rider of that level doping.<br /> <br />I'm not sure what Tyler & Floyd et al. have to gain from naming Lance. Their accusations are certainly worthy of consideration/investigation but banning/premature conviction…?<br /><br />With an average test rate in the latter stages of his career (the highest performance period) of ~2 unannounced tests per month, how does one pull off a successful doping operation? Considering RBC’s have a half life of ~55 days, the math doesn’t add up for me.<br /> <br />The only physical evidence that I know of is the B sample from 99 and, while I’m not generally supportive of folks arguing against evidence through mishandling, it’s hard to ignore in this case – 6 years post &, as Vrijman concluded the samples were simply not anonymous, they were numbered in accordance with finish place!<br /> <br />While I hope for the sake of the sport that Lance is innocent, that’s not my dog in this fight. My biggest problem is with the assumption that x level of performance = doping. Doping is a short cut and, to be certain, allows some folks to jump ahead to a fitness level that they don’t deserve. However, I don’t see it as setting a firm performance ceiling. In the same way that Phelps was beating folks with superior suits and the same way that we are starting to see swimming WR’s from the suit era attacked, it is not impossible for a (very special) non-assisted athlete with superior preparation to beat the assisted. <br /><br />Was this Lance? The circumstantial evidence for this is also compelling. At 16, he was going head to head with the guy who would become the greatest triathlete in history – Mark Allen. So his genetics/training response is likely pretty unique. USPS were one of the first cycling teams to focus the season on a single goal – complete with things that were, up to that point, unheard of such as course reconnaissance! While other teams were busy filling their calendars with as much racing as possible to ‘toughen up the riders’ while simultaneously keeping the sponsors happy, Lance was methodically training for one event. What is this singular focus worth? What does an athlete lose with a (traditional) ad-hoc program of ‘racing themselves fit’ with event after event including multiple stage races? Heck, what is a power meter worth? How many athlete were training with power in the late 90’s/early 00’s?<br /><br />Do these items account for the relative benefit of a 50 vs 45 difference in Haematocrit? Maybe yes, maybe no but at the very least we would have to concede that, given Lance did things a little differently, it is a possibility. For this reason, despite the negative side of the circumstantial evidence, I’ll continue to remain an optimist, continue to believe in the pure value of hard, intelligent work in sport & I’ll wait for some hard evidence to surface before convicting in my own mind. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />ACAlan Couzenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07123240819644335101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915222980782433094.post-6710966065379238882012-07-23T05:28:13.680-07:002012-07-23T05:28:13.680-07:00Hey Alan,
I agree that talking of impossibility i...Hey Alan,<br /><br />I agree that talking of impossibility is not the right way to approach it. However, it seems very very unlikely at some point that a performance is not doping-enhanced anymore. Judging by VAM data such as the Alpe d'Huez climb times that SOS quote the difference between the "high doping" (late 90s, early 2000s) and the "more likely to be clean times (more recently) are very significant (by the looks of things about 2min) and Armstrong went another minute faster. As I mentioned I find the size of the difference staggering, making me less convinced of it being possible.<br /><br />Regarding your point that he trained smarter: what evidence do we have for this? Yes, there is a lot of folklore around how his cancer transformed him from a heavy powerful rider into a much leaner, more efficient rider, but this was debunked quite convincingly by a sports scientist whose name I forget. He showed that the claim of progression in power and power to weight from before to after the cancer was based on very poor measurement.<br /><br />The fact that he hasn't tested positive is not surprising in my view: Armstrong was extremely professional in his preparation and, if this included doping, I would have expected that this meant taking necessary precautions. There were, however, suspicious incidents such as when he denied access to doping testers after a ride in his comeback preparations.<br /><br />In the end we all get swayed in our argumentation by what we believe. I don't particularly like or hate Armstrong (probably a bit more of a dislike because of some bullying he has shown), but it seems to me that the majority of people put on blinders and argue the direction "oh I would really like to believe that he was clean so I will accept all circumstantial evidence in his favor and deny all circumstantial evidence against him, however overwhelming one might seem." <br /><br />I am looking at the situation (vast superiority over people who already had a strong performance boost from PEDs; huge leap in performance after a debilitating disease that in all likelihood should have huge negative performance consequences; highly consistent testimony from multiple parties, including very loyal friends (Hamilton, Hincapie); tests identified retroactively as positive but unusable for legal reasons, close association with "doping pope" etc.) and find very little on the plus side (didn't fail tests officially - but then Ullrich didn't either wrt to Puerto).<br /><br />I equally believe Ullrich was doped, Pantani, etc, etc. C'est la vie...Nicolashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16249825483748292474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915222980782433094.post-11237632720135600352012-07-19T08:07:07.592-07:002012-07-19T08:07:07.592-07:00Hey Nicolas,
Fair points all.
The primary asser...Hey Nicolas,<br /><br />Fair points all. <br /><br />The primary assertion that I wanted to rebut was that a certain level of performance is impossible without doping which seems to be where the science of sport guys are heading. <br /><br />I, like you, recognize the draw to doping in a professional sport like cycling and realize that as long as there is a decent amount of money to be made (& a large gap in that money between team leader & domestique), there will be folks who compromise their ethics. I just hope that we continue to root these folks out in the lab rather than a) in the court of public opinion or even worse, b) via 'experts' deeming their performance physiologically impossible. <br /><br />1. Regarding recency of doping: Very true, doping, as a whole, has been around for a long time & was no doubt more rampant before the mid-60's when it was outlawed. I guess I draw a bit of a distinction between stimulants/recovery aids & methods to increase O2 transport (i.e. EPO & Blood transfusion), which are more recent & presumably what the Science of Sport guys are talking about when they set non-doping limits on O2 uptake. <br /><br />2. Doping in other sports: Sounds as though XC skiing may not be the best example :-) What about East African runners? Despite being head and shoulders above the field (& with performance levels indicative of similar O2 demand), Geb was not subject to the same suspicion as Lance. Again, not saying Lance didn't dope & not discounting that cycling has a long history of doping, just that high levels of performance alone don't 'prove' doping. <br /><br />3. Is what I have a problem with. Without question, Lance trained differently, dare I say more intelligently, than the traditional means of preparation for Tour racing. He had been training at a high level for his entire life. Is it not at least possible that the x% difference between Lance & the rest of the field came from differences in preparation as from drugs? To be frank, based on what I have seen, the training programs of some cyclists even at the highest level are ad-hoc, poorly organized & leave a lot to be desired.<br /><br />4) True but what of the circumstantial evidence that points to innocence? The years of negative tests. I find it hard to believe that he was doping to any level that had a significant impact on performance over all of those years and yet never had a true positive? Think about the number of tests both domestic & international. The best that they could come up with was 1 highly suspect 99 sample? He certainly wasn't at his best in 99.<br /><br />Given the history of doping in cycling & the confirmed doping of his peers, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if some hard evidence of Lance doping did surface. However, I would suggest that we don't write the guy off purely on the basis of him being very good.<br /><br />In the same way that the 'scientists' who deemed the 4min mile a physiological impossibility wound up looking a little silly, the SOS guys have a dose of humility heading their way when some guy comes out of nowhere & rides up Alpe D'Huez at 7W/kg. <br /><br />I look on the notion of 'physiological impossibilities' more sceptically than just about anything else :-)<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />ACAlan Couzenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07123240819644335101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7915222980782433094.post-80777890774493318682012-07-19T01:26:30.794-07:002012-07-19T01:26:30.794-07:00I guess I'm more of a cynic and skeptic, but u...I guess I'm more of a cynic and skeptic, but unfortunately I'm much more pessimistic about doping than you are. I agree that it looks like the peleton has become cleaner over the past few years, judging by lower VAMs, lower average speeds (purely subjective impression) and higher number of crashes, which would indicate tired riders. However, there are a few points that point me to a more skeptical view, especially with regards to the past:<br /><br />1) Doping being a relatively recent phenomenon: from your article I got the impression that you suggest that doping is relatively recent as a phenomenon. I would say quite the contrary: Tom Simpson dropped dead on the Ventoux in 1967 whilst on amphetamines. Eddy Merckx was apparently tested positive three times. Laurent Fignon, before passing away from cancer, blamed his health problems on his extensive doping. So I think doping has been around for a long time rather than being a more recent phenomenon.<br /><br />2) Lack of incentive to dope in cross country skiing: unfortunately that sport also has a rich history of doping: Johan Mühlegg in Salt Lake city was a spectacular case; the whole Finnish team got caught a few years back as did the Austrian team (own-blood transfusions). One mustn't forget that in Scandinavia cross country champions are heroes and that olympic sports mean medals and thus another incentive to dope. Bjorn Daehlie, for example, has a successful high-end clothing company these days - so the sport is not completely without money. Even in ultra running Dean Karnazes seems to have had commercial success.<br /><br />3) In cycling almost every tour winner of the last decade or two has been found doping at some point. If we accept that doping has a big effect on performance and someone beats those - in all likelihood doped - riders easily, then the performance becomes even less plausible.<br /><br />4) There is so much circumstantial evidence surrounding so many riders that cannot be used legally but that gives paints a consistent pictures (Hamilton 04, Armstrong retests, etc), the chance of those unlikely performances being a freak of nature or very very good training just seems less and less likely.<br /><br />I would like to believe that sports are clean, but my senses tell me that it's not the case. Sad, I know.Nicolashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16249825483748292474noreply@blogger.com