A question about doping in the UK

[horsinabout]

Don't forget to ask about UKSI wheels

I think this might be an interesting line of discussion. The equipment used by BC? Is it in line with UCI regulation? or are they sailing close to the wind? Or are we looking at an unfair advantage with equipment - you might say technical doping?

Affordable wise I guess many people won't be able to afford it?

I also think the equipment used by BC will be objectifiable and measurable as to what improvement their equipment makes to an objective measurable performance. Otherwise I would suggest the tens of thousands of £££££ spent on development and wind tunal testing was a waste of public money.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Didn't Angus look after Brian (Lance sacked me because I wouldn't dope) Smith.

Of that, I have no idea.

Familiar with Angus only through seeing him hang about various Track World Champs and World Cups in late 80s early 90s - all Continental European stuff. Don't know anything about his action in the UK, although I'm sure the older UK posters here would have some idea...

 

[JimmyFingers]

As I have already stated on this thread that I believe 1997 was a true amature era. Once the WCPP got underway, the 200m times began to tumble. And have kept on tumbeling until the present day.


Now we are back to the hypothisis posited in my letter to Dave 'sir-lance-a-lot' Brailsford. How has BC improved the sprint times since 1997 by one whole second or a stagering, ten bike lengths. I used this example because it is a very objective improvement measure, and represents improvement in pure power or speed endurance or mechanical assistance or all three in combination.

So your question is how a well funded, professional track team can improve 1 second on an amateur time set 16 years ago? Really?

16 years is an epoch in modern sport. Firstly there have been huge technical advances in the bikes themselves. The materials have changed, the stiffness and lightness improved, and the aerodynamics. The suits the riders wear, the helmets they wear, all are more advanced and enable the rider to shave hundreths and even tenths of seconds off their time.

This is a basic truth. It would be difficult to quantify without a control i.e. the same rider using the two sets of equipment in the same velodrome and comparing times but we should be able to agree anecdotally a modern track bike like the ones used by BC today would give a marked advantage over one used by an amateur 16 years ago.

Then there's the velodromes. Quality of wood, angle of banking, length of track and these days air density, i.e. the combination of temperature and humidity all will affect times produced. The London velodrome is regarded as the fastest track in the world, given the quality of then track itself and the fact to get into it you literally have to go through an airlock, because the atmosphere is controlled inside. Again we would need a control to quantify the improvement it affords but again anecdotally you should be able to agree advances in the velodrome itself will confer some advantage.

And you are also comparing an amateur time with professional ones. Amateur riders have to work so will only be able to train infrequently, and may have irregular access to facilities. Unless they are very wealthy, they will be unlikely have access to the very best kit, unlike an elite BC rider, and given there is a 16 year time gap, a logical conclusion is that elite sportsmen of today have much greater time to train on better facilities and using far superior equipment.

I see nothing wrong with a 1 second improvement in 16 years over an amateur time. It is just lazy speculation to try to imply drugs have a role.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I think this might be an interesting line of discussion. The equipment used by BC? Is it in line with UCI regulation? or are they sailing close to the wind? Or are we looking at an unfair advantage with equipment - you might say technical doping?

Affordable wise I guess many people won't be able to afford it?

I also think the equipment used by BC will be objectifiable and measurable as to what improvement their equipment makes to an objective measurable performance. Otherwise I would suggest the tens of thousands of £££££ spent on development and wind tunal testing was a waste of public money.

This isn't Keirin racing, some luddite way of freezing bike development in time to create a fallacious even playing field. BC make no secret of the research and funding that has gone into their technical research and bike development. It has often been heralded as one of the cornerstones of the BC's success on the track. Indeed the money BC have been able to spend in general is one of the reasons they are so successful. Technical doping, financial doping, if you want to tar it with some element of unfair advantage you can, but it is the nature of sport in general that funding and equipment confer significant advantages.

The British bikes are considered the lightest and stiffest there is, and certainly help the riders significantly. And before you start bleating about the difficulty or cost of buying one, the German track team have the same agreement with their bike manufacturers I believe.

And I think you mean quantifiable not objectifiable

 

[ultimobici]

The example I gave of the men's 1997 record was achieved by a City of Edinburgh rider, namely Craig Maclean with his NR 200m record of 10.6. Soon after 1997 the WCPP was formed and the CofE riders including Hoy and Maclean formed the mainstay of sprinting for the WCPP and the National sprint team.

As I have already stated on this thread that I believe 1997 was a true amature era. Once the WCPP got underway, the 200m times began to tumble. And have kept on tumbeling until the present day.

The article interview by EA "if only I new then what I know now" implies that he should have been more dedicated or regimented in his training like the old East German's were.

Well I can tell you now just because 1997 was an amature era, the C of E sprinters were as commited and disciplined to their sprint training as any East German I have witnessed. Also dedicated were the TP quartet, as being mentioned here being slower than CB on his own over 4km pursuit.

So the idea that the start of an elite program suddenly kicks everyones lazy ar*e into gear and shows them how to train properly is a falsehood, and does not wash with me at all.

Now we are back to the hypothisis posited in my letter to Dave 'sir-lance-a-lot' Brailsford. How has BC improved the sprint times since 1997 by one whole second or a stagering, ten bike lengths. I used this example because it is a very objective improvement measure, and represents improvement in pure power or speed endurance or mechanical assistance or all three in combination.

Thank you for taking an interest.

So the legitimate changes that the introduction of lottery funding permitted didn't make a blind bit of difference? Pull the other one. Up until then an athlete had to choose between living on charity from family and friends as well as any personal sponsorship they could source or combine their sporting aspirations with a full-time job.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

So your question is how a well funded, professional track team can improve 1 second on an amateur time set 16 years ago? Really?

16 years is an epoch in modern sport. Firstly there have been huge technical advances in the bikes themselves. The materials have changed, the stiffness and lightness improved, and the aerodynamics. The suits the riders wear, the helmets they wear, all are more advanced and enable the rider to shave hundreths and even tenths of seconds off their time.

This is a basic truth. It would be difficult to quantify without a control i.e. the same rider using the two sets of equipment in the same velodrome and comparing times but we should be able to agree anecdotally a modern track bike like the ones used by BC today would give a marked advantage over one used by an amateur 16 years ago.

Then there's the velodromes. Quality of wood, angle of banking, length of track and these days air density, i.e. the combination of temperature and humidity all will affect times produced. The London velodrome is regarded as the fastest track in the world, given the quality of then track itself and the fact to get into it you literally have to go through an airlock, because the atmosphere is controlled inside. Again we would need a control to quantify the improvement it affords but again anecdotally you should be able to agree advances in the velodrome itself will confer some advantage.

And you are also comparing an amateur time with professional ones. Amateur riders have to work so will only be able to train infrequently, and may have irregular access to facilities. Unless they are very wealthy, they will be unlikely have access to the very best kit, unlike an elite BC rider, and given there is a 16 year time gap, a logical conclusion is that elite sportsmen of today have much greater time to train on better facilities and using far superior equipment.

I see nothing wrong with a 1 second improvement in 16 years over an amateur time. It is just lazy speculation to try to imply drugs have a role.

I have a hard time thinking that many top tier trackies are clean but, that being said, your assesment is totally accurate. Tracks and equipment do make a massive difference in such a controled environment (eg: pure indoor time trial).

 

[horsinabout]

In the intersets of not being misinterpreted, I invite you to read my letter to DB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKRLW3TkWHA

Dear Sir Dave Brailsford,

I hope you can take a moment from your busy schedule to read through this public forum thread, where I have expressed concerns regarding the improvements made to the British track team and Sky team performances, given that we are now in an era of elite cycling.

As you state in the above video, we now have tangible measures that doping exists in the production of elite performances in sport.

On the subject of tangible measures, may I raise a question regarding your own marginal gains initiative, that of tangible and measurable evidence from you to explain the improvement in British track sprint cycling in particular.

The objective example I gave on this forum is quoted above, where I compared and contrasted the one second improvement from the 1997 men's British National 200m times 10.7 (now 9.7) and the women's times 11.7 (now 10.7).

The question is how have GB sprint 200m times improved by one whole second from 1997 to the present day?

This is a period of fifteen years, which is how long the GB elite program has now been in existence.

Please take a moment to reference the photo below of the Olympic men's sprint final in Barcelona, with photo finish timings. From this we can clearly see that each of the black lines running vertically represents 1/100th sec and that one whole bike length equates to just under 10 of the black lines, so a bike length of 1/10th sec is a significant advance in distance gain for such a short distanced event.

The improvements you have now made in my comparisons are ten times this distance - to equate to one whole second. So that is approximately ten bike lengths. On a 250m track this means that 1997 record man is ten bike lengths behind 2012 record man, when crossing the finish line.

To put this into layman's terms 1997 record man has had a dicking of a life time. Or to put it more succinctly he has been comprehensively beaten by the present day National record holder.

As I stated above, my comparison (10.7 to 9.7) is objectified further by both men's records having been done on double discs on a new state of the art indoor 250m velodrome.

My hypothesis, is that generously, marginal gains may have amounted to a half of a second. I invite you to disprove this hypothesis and leaves you to give tangible and objective measures of how the other half second has been attained.

Yours sincerely

horsinabout

 

[JimmyFingers]

I have a hard time thinking that many top tier trackies are clean but, that being said, your assesment is totally accurate. Tracks and equipment do make a massive difference in such a controled environment (eg: pure indoor time trial).

That's my point. Using a 16 year time gap as the basis of an hypothesis of doping is in itself is far too simplistic. Given the improvements in training, science and equipment athletes should continue to improve naturally over time. There may come a time when we see a plateau in natural human ability,the odd phenom aside, but at the moment it continues to improve in all disciplines. It comes down to opinion how much of it is owed to those factors or the use of drugs.

Without quantifiable data comparing the two eras, the argument holds no water beyond being a nice soundbite.

 

[JimmyFingers]

As I stated above, my comparison (10.7 to 9.7) is objectified further by both men's records having been done on double discs on a new state of the art indoor 250m velodrome.

State of the art when? 1997 and 2012/2013? Double discs? So the same wheelset exactly, or one from 1997 and 2012/13? What about the frame? Alloy in 1997 probably, carbon now. What about the skin suits? The helmets? THe cranks? The gearing?

I guarantee one bike will give a significant advantage over the other, and likely the velodrome too. Don't believe me? Then how come the pro-peloton aren't all rolling around on steel. How come they are using electronic shifting?

Bike technology influences speed. While track bikes are relatively simple beasts compared to a road bike, there are constant improvements that afford advantages, from year to year and certainly over 15. It is an area that a huge amount of money is poured, both by BC and every bike manufacturer.

Double discs, really?

 

[King Boonen]

I can't decide if half of this thread is comedy genius or moronic...

 

[ultimobici]

In the intersets of not being misinterpreted, I invite you to read my letter to DB.

Up until the National Lottery monies were made available, those athletes were true amateurs. The lottery funding allowed riders to effectively live for their sport without the distraction of financial worries. They didn't have to rely on the generosity of companies like the one I work for to be able to race full-time. They didn't have to compromise their training by having to work full-time. They didn't have to dodge the DHSS.

You mentioned the DDR earlier. Part of the reason the DDR & USSR were so successful was, without doubt, the "program", but a major part was identifying talent early on and then allowing the athletes to be athletes only. They had jobs in name only. Effectively they were professionals in a time when the Olympic ideal of amateur sport was still held to be the norm.

But don't let logic get in the way, eh?

 

[ultimobici]

State of the art when? 1997 and 2012/2013? Double discs? So the same wheelset exactly, or one from 1997 and 2012/13? What about the frame? Alloy in 1997 probably, carbon now. What about the skin suits? The helmets? THe cranks? The gearing?

I guarantee one bike will give a significant advantage over the other, and likely the velodrome too. Don't believe me? Then how come the pro-peloton aren't all rolling around on steel. How come they are using electronic shifting?

Bike technology influences speed. While track bikes are relatively simple beasts compared to a road bike, there are constant improvements that afford advantages, from year to year and certainly over 15. It is an area that a huge amount of money is poured, both by BC and every bike manufacturer.

Double discs, really?

Funny!

I'll have to take a pic of the 1998 WC Pursuit Champion's frame for him. Steel, round tubes, no concessions to aerodynamics at all. Didn't hold Bradley back any!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Fausto Coppi - Track Regular
Jacques Anquetil - Track Regular
Ercole Baldini - Track Regular
Roger Rivière - Track Regular
Roger Rivière- Track Regular
Ferdi Bracke - Track Regular
Ole Ritter - Track Regular
Eddy Merckx - Track Regular
Francesco Moser - Track Regular
Chris Boardman - Track Regular
Graeme Obree - Track Regular
Miguel Indurain - Track Novice
Tony Rominger - Track Novice

You see the pattern. Neither Rominger, nor Indurain had a track pedigree of any sort. I remember Rominger in particular being referred to as a novice.

Yes, now I see your pattern, all Conconi/Ferrari clients. My bad.

 

[noddy69]

Up until the National Lottery monies were made available, those athletes were true amateurs. The lottery funding allowed riders to effectively live for their sport without the distraction of financial worries. They didn't have to rely on the generosity of companies like the one I work for to be able to race full-time. They didn't have to compromise their training by having to work full-time. They didn't have to dodge the DHSS.

You mentioned the DDR earlier. Part of the reason the DDR & USSR were so successful was, without doubt, the "program", but a major part was identifying talent early on and then allowing the athletes to be athletes only. They had jobs in name only. Effectively they were professionals in a time when the Olympic ideal of amateur sport was still held to be the norm.

But don't let logic get in the way, eh?

Right so really the doping didnt have to happen then ?

The only reason they were so successful was the mass doping of athletes.If Being full time athletes alone would have done it they would not have had to dope. As for having jobs, it was communism, their jobs were being athletes for the good of the country much like china is doing now.
Cold war ethics meant they doped to beat other full time athletes. Can you guess where they were from

 

[ultimobici]

Right so really the doping didnt have to happen then ?

The only reason they were so successful was the mass doping of athletes.If Being full time athletes alone would have done it they would not have had to dope. As for having jobs, it was communism, their jobs were being athletes for the good of the country much like china is doing now.
Cold war ethics meant they doped to beat other full time athletes. Can you guess where they were from

The main reason was the dope. However the BCF at the time did not pay riders to race, fact. There was a term Dole Pro or DHSS Pro during the 80's in the UK. Most international riders of that era into the 90's were either working full-time. Ask Darryl Webster how it was, he was there. Apparently he got the loan of a car and £100 a week, from which he paid all his travel costs to races. Hardly a Soviet Bloc type set up.

 

[bobbins]

The main reason was the dope. However the BCF at the time did not pay riders to race, fact. There was a term Dole Pro or DHSS Pro during the 80's in the UK. Most international riders of that era into the 90's were either working full-time. Ask Darryl Webster how it was, he was there. Apparently he got the loan of a car and £100 a week, from which he paid all his travel costs to races. Hardly a Soviet Bloc type set up.

Careful, last time I mentioned Daryl Webster in a post I got banned for a month!

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You also have oddities like teenage girls achieving 200m times (low 11s range) that are several tenths faster than the senior women's record from the mid 90s and even faster than Queen Vic's first British record in 2002. So when do you think these teenage girls started doping then? Or maybe there are other factors for the increased performance levels in the last 15 years.

Horse,

Apologies for quotinig my own post, but here are some specific performances about which I'd welcome your comments. In particularly, do you think Anna Blyth and Becky James were doping to achieve their junior performances and if so, when do you think they started doping?

For the senior British women, the flying 200m performance levels have improved a lot. Interesting performances are as follows:

1993 - Wendy Everson - Moscow (big bankings; worth a tenth or two) - 11.891

Sep 95 - Everson - Bogata (altitude) - 11.651

Aug 02 - Queen Vic - Sea level - 11.473

Mar 06 - Queen Vic - Sea level - 11.275

Anna Blyth was born in May 1988. Aged 18 yrs 7 months, she clocks 11.260 in Moscow, 0.6s faster than the senior record before WCPP on the same track.

Also in Moscow in Aug 2009, Becky James, then aged 17 years 8 months, clocked 11.093.

So we have two juniors clocking 0.6s and 0.8s faster than the pre WCPP senior record, fortunately, all recorded in the Moscow velodrome with its favourable big bankings, so the times can be readily compared. By your logic, a 1s improvement for the men over the same period can only be explained by doping.

If we apply this logic to our two junior ladies, then one can only conclude that they were most likely doping, aged 18 and 17 respectively. How likely is this, do you think? I'm not saying women don't dope, but teenage girls are probably the least likely demographic group to be indulging in PEDs, one would think.

There's also not even a hint of a suggestion that these two were indulging in PEDs other than by some folk on the internet who clearly have too much time on their hands, and certainly nothing remotely close to even circumstantial evidence.

So, I repeat the main question: Were these two junior ladies doping?

 

[peterst6906]

So, I repeat the main question: Were these two junior ladies doping?

And not only those two. There are many junior performances readily available in results on federation website that demonstrate the same progression over the past decade (and more); and even with younger riders when you look at the junior men.

The question can be extended to - are all juniors doping, even down as young as U15 riders?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

And not only those two. There are many junior performances readily available in results on federation website that demonstrate the same progression over the past decade (and more); and even with younger riders when you look at the junior men.

Time was limited for research. Anna Blyth and Becky James have both held the junior flying 200m record, so their performance data was easy to get hold of, and interesting as they were so much faster than the senior performances of the mid 90s.

Shame that Anna Blyth never "kicked on" into the senior ranks.

 

[Hawkwood]

In the intersets of not being misinterpreted, I invite you to read my letter to DB.

You could have asked Dave why the British men's record you keep citing of 10.7 seconds was only 0.1 of a second faster than the women's world record at that time! And despite all of the advances Victoria Pendleton has still only gone 0.1 faster than that.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I would trust Brailsford treats the Horse's letter with the same incredulity it has received here

 

[Northern rider]

Have you heard back from Dr Evil yet horsie ?

 

[BroDeal]

I guarantee one bike will give a significant advantage over the other, and likely the velodrome too. Don't believe me? Then how come the pro-peloton aren't all rolling around on steel. How come they are using electronic shifting?

It is hard to believe that anyone can make an argument this stupid. The pros are paid to use what bike companies want to sell, which is what makes them the most money.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I guarantee one bike will give a significant advantage over the other, and likely the velodrome too.

Yeah. Ok. You know Armstrong and others from the EPO era used this excuse to ridiculous heights, right? Moser's hour record required EPO to accomplish it, like whole end of his career.

Don't believe me? Then how come the pro-peloton aren't all rolling around on steel. How come they are using electronic shifting?

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,

 

[horsinabout]

Horse,


Anna Blyth was born in May 1988. Aged 18 yrs 7 months, she clocks 11.260 in Moscow, 0.6s faster than the senior record before WCPP on the same track.

Also in Moscow in Aug 2009, Becky James, then aged 17 years 8 months, clocked 11.093.

If we apply this logic to our two junior ladies, then one can only conclude that they were most likely doping, aged 18 and 17 respectivelyow likely is this, do you think? I'm not saying women don't dope, but teenage girls are probably the least likely demographic group to be indulging in PEDs, one would think.

There's also not even a hint of a suggestion that these two were indulging in PEDs other than by some folk on the internet who clearly have too much time on their hands, and certainly nothing remotely close to even circumstantial evidence.

So, I repeat the main question: Were these two junior ladies doping?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/14/nicole-cooke-retirement-statement

Dr Evil "horsey" here, with some bad diagnostics.

Teenage girls get put on dope programs FACT. Read Nicole Cooke's "cri du cœur" retirement speech on Geneviene Jeanson where it states, "She never tested positive", "she was a National Icon". "and had been put on an extensive doping program since she was 16. "The story only came to out because of quality investigative journalism"

Don't shoot the messenger, as stating facts.

Does this mean Anna Blyth was doping? No, but your suggestion that doping teenagers is less likely is not factually.

Do I think that doping teeagers is wrong? Hell yes.

Back to disproving my hypothesis please!