Brits don't dope?

[The Hitch]

Sure thing.

My standard for green 'unquestionable' is pretty high. Like take to a judge high.

Imo Greene is red. He got caught paying money to conte and memo is on record publicly saying he doped him. Doesn't get more clear than that.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Thanks Hitch.

By my scheme that's a firm green. Changed my sheet.
(Red is specifically for those who have been given bans)

Any others you could provide info for that I may have overlooked ?




(Needless to say this sheet was created after seeing so many of the tour top 10 sheets of similar design)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Thanks Hitch.

By my scheme that's a firm green. Changed my sheet.
(Red is specifically for those who have been given bans)

Any others you could provide info for that I may have overlooked ?




(Needless to say this sheet was created after seeing so many of the tour top 10 sheets of similar design)

I think the other guys from Carl Lewis training group shall be green. I could be wrong, but I think at least another one got tested/linked to doping before 88.

Bolt is at least green (isn´t he linked to a doper coach and Herreida?)...
Further green by nature I´d say: Circumstancial evidence (unbelievable times by any measure, performance explosion unseen before, non-tested in Jamaica, etc.)

 

[neineinei]

Powell wasn't aquitted, he had the ban reduced to six months.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Imo Greene is red. He got caught paying money to conte and memo is on record publicly saying he doped him. Doesn't get more clear than that.

Memo testified under oath that he supplied Greene with a cocktail of PED's, doesn't get much more clear cut than that. No response from Greene.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sure thing.

My standard for green 'unquestionable' is pretty high. Like take to a judge high.

Love your work. Would be interesting to see the times these guys ran in the same graph; can't visualise how you'd do that graphically though.

It's not really relevant to the doping discussion, but is the 1996 winner Bailey the same Bailey coming 5th in 2012? (Lazy Q I realise, could look it up).

16 years is a long time between drinks, and a mighty impressive result if so.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Marathoners vo2 max is pretty irrelevent. Certainly not relevent in training. It is already not very useful for cycling, and marathoners do not red line multiple times with attacks.

Running economy is much more related to performance, as the paper suggests. Training does not change vo2 in any meaningful way[/]. Altitude can, and so does weight loss and gain. EPO does as well. I don't know how much to expect with each. I have some teammates numbers for altitude, but everyone is different.

Thanks for the in depth review. It doesnt sound useful for anything one way or the other.

I don't know if I agree 100% with your take that a Marathoners Vo2 is pretty irrelevant.

But I'm not a training guru for others.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Love your work. Would be interesting to see the times these guys ran in the same graph; can't visualise how you'd do that graphically though.

It's not really relevant to the doping discussion, but is the 1996 winner Bailey the same Bailey coming 5th in 2012? (Lazy Q I realise, could look it up).

16 years is a long time between drinks, and a mighty impressive result if so.

No 1996 Donovan Bailey from Canada
2012 Ryan Bailey from USA

Interesting challange on the visualisation. I'll have to think about it.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Powell wasn't aquitted, he had the ban reduced to six months.

I blame shoddy reporting from another source.
That cited him acquitted by CAS rather than 6 month (time served).

Thanks.

 

[del1962]

Sure thing.

My standard for green 'unquestionable' is pretty high. Like take to a judge high.

Obvioulsy it proves nothing, but it would be interesting to have the times on the graph, as other than Lewis, none of the 1980 & 84 runners have times would have finished ahead of any of the 16 Bejing semi finalists

 

[blackcat]

They call it the "dismal" science.

Is is easy being a racist or do you have to work at it?

its hard work peter

 

[The Hitch]

I blame shoddy reporting from another source.
That cited him acquitted by CAS rather than 6 month (time served).

Thanks.

Feels awkward defending someone I think is doping but iirc the drug Blake tested p for was not on the banned list at the time. He got like a 3 month ban. In any case he should be a lesser colour than powel who had a worse drug and a longer ban.

 

[bewildered]

She turned off her stopwatch in training and did an extra four hours.

Link?

 

[blackcat]

Link?

ask Dawg and l'il Ritchie

 

[bewildered]

are we seriously debating how any person can be 3 mins better than everyone else? and when the next best is Kenyan in the EPO (Kenyan/3mins better) era of running? It's not as obvious as it is in cycling but still, you should be 10 years schooled in this

 

[blackcat]

no, its not as obvious. its more obvious.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

are we seriously debating how any person can be 3 mins better than everyone else? and when the next best is Kenyan in the EPO (Kenyan/3mins better) era of running? It's not as obvious as it is in cycling but still, you should be 10 years schooled in this

Seriously, do you know nothing about shoe technology and the leaps and bounds made in the past 6 years in terms of shoe lace aerodynamics?

Not to mention the roads are faster.

And don't even get me started on aerodynamic sunglasses.


Or something.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I don't know if I agree 100% with your take that a Marathoners Vo2 is pretty irrelevant.

But I'm not a training guru for others.

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?m=1

I encourage everyone to read it. A good explanation of why finding Froome's/Anyones value is pointless (the discussion should be on the promises made, and the misinformation...)

Much of it comes from the way it is measured. Much of it comes from individual variances. Finally, as a single scientific parameter, it is inappropriately used as a proxy for performance, which comes from countless pieces.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?m=1

I encourage everyone to read it. A good explanation of why finding Froome's/Anyones value is pointless (the discussion should be on the promises made, and the misinformation...)

Much of it comes from the way it is measured. Much of it comes from individual variances. Finally, as a single scientific parameter, it is inappropriately used as a proxy for performance, which comes from countless pieces.

IMO it's a useful piece of a larger puzzle. Dismissing it out of hand is as unhelpful as counting on it solely as proof of anything.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?m=1

I encourage everyone to read it. A good explanation of why finding Froome's/Anyones value is pointless (the discussion should be on the promises made, and the misinformation...)

He also cites Jones' study, based on Paula Radcliffe.

You know, if your athletes are doping at the elite level, is it any wonder their numbers don't make sense, or align with VO2max ~~ performance?. Not to dismiss this guy's article out of hand, but it does make me wonder....

If I read other exhortations to ignore various performance metrics based on Coyle's paper of Lance Armstrong I'd be saying similar things.

 

[thehog]

Link?

I think it was in this book...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?m=1

And I realise it's a dangerous prejudice, but I really struggle with people who mess up their theres. :-(

 

[Granville57]

And I realise it's a dangerous prejudice, but I really struggle with people who mess up their theres. :-(

Jeezus. You're right. All other valid info aside, that piece reads like a spot-the-error quiz.

WTF? I realize that the article is several years old, but the misuse is so rampant throughout that it almost seems deliberate. It really does represent one of the more egregious examples of linguistic butchery that I've come across in what is an otherwise intellectual offering. Odd.

Anyway, back to the regularly scheduled program...

 

[TheSpud]

I blame shoddy reporting from another source.
That cited him acquitted by CAS rather than 6 month (time served).

Thanks.

For completeness i would have kept Johnson in for 88. He did 'win' the race, he just happened to then fail a drugs test that day rather than months / years later. Anyway the on the day failure was due to a spiked drink ...

 

[Catwhoorg]

Love your work. Would be interesting to see the times these guys ran in the same graph; can't visualise how you'd do that graphically though.

That's sorting by time for all the finalists 1980-2012.
Same colour code as before.

Obviously the two red outliers are folks who pulled up during the race (one groin, one hamstring IIRC).

Doesn't really show a lot.

(By the way if any mod wants to carve this discussion out to a different/more relevant thread feel free to do so)