Doped World Records on the shelf?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The difference between the current world record and just 5 years ago, is the same as the difference between the record from.5 years ago and 38 years before.that. If we use benefit of the doubt for that because no one is going to risk any scandal hit the most marketable person in the history of sport, then we wlould also have to use benefit of the doubt for a 34 minute alpe, if that was suddenly ridden.next year.
 
Paco_P said:
Looking at this neutrally, I see far more reason to suspect Rudisha than to suspect Bolt, and that's even given a baseline hypothesis that all 100m finalists are doping. What Rudisha does is to me more impressive than what Bolt does.
But Rudisha might well be a once-in-a-lifetime talent. Merckx did impressive things, too. You have to bring talent into the equation.

a) great performances, due to raw talent and no dope (Jesse Owens)
b) great performances with "limited" talent, mostly due to a lot of doping (Ben Johnson)
c) great performances due to raw talent and some dope, but nothing extraordinary (Javier Sotomayor)
d) great performances due to a lot of talent AND a lot of (innovative) doping (well, who knows?)

I think everybody will agree Bolt and Rudisha are no (b), most will agree Bolt is no (a) either. But even when assuming they're both doped, it's impossible to say whether they're on some state-of-the-art program or not.
 
The Hitch said:
The difference between the current world record and just 5 years ago, is the same as the difference between the record from.5 years ago and 38 years before.that. If we use benefit of the doubt for that because no one is going to risk any scandal hit the most marketable person in the history of sport, then we wlould also have to use benefit of the doubt for a 34 minute alpe, if that was suddenly ridden.next year.
Yes, you should, although it might be counterintuitive. Using your flawed logic, Bob Beamon should be considered the greatest cheater of all time. Beat the record by 55 cm! If not for that single Mike Powell jump, his record would still stand! Who will ever jump 9.45 m?
 
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
Sylvester said:
But Rudisha might well be a once-in-a-lifetime talent. Merckx did impressive things, too. You have to bring talent into the equation.

a) great performances, due to raw talent and no dope (Jesse Owens)
b) great performances with "limited" talent, mostly due to a lot of doping (Ben Johnson)
c) great performances due to raw talent and some dope, but nothing extraordinary (Javier Sotomayor)
d) great performances due to a lot of talent AND a lot of (innovative) doping (well, who knows?)

I think everybody will agree Bolt and Rudisha are no (b), most will agree Bolt is no (a) either. But even when assuming they're both doped, it's impossible to say whether they're on some state-of-the-art program or not.
I saw Rudisha's coach being interviewed on Eurosport.He sounded like a complete idiot , so I can't believe he is on any sophisticated ped program.
 
Sylvester said:
Yes, you should, although it might be counterintuitive. Using your flawed logic, Bob Beamon should be considered the greatest cheater of all time. Beat the record by 55 cm! If not for that single Mike Powell jump, his record would still stand! Who will ever jump 9.45 m?
The guys who Bob Beamon beat by 55cm were not doped to the eybealls.

The guys whose world records Bolt is making a mockery of are Tim Mongomery, Maurice Greene, Ben Johnson, Justin Gatlin, Carl Lewis.

It would be different if Bolt came in and run 9.80 thrashing a record from the 60s than him coming in and running 9.59 against the doping hall of fame.
 
Jul 15, 2010
47
0
0
A real interesting website is http://www.alltime-athletics.com.

Take the women's shot as an example, the longest effort in the last 10 years (ignoring Ostapchuk) comes in at 185th place around 1.4m off the world record!

Seb Coe's 800m record set 31 years ago has only been beaten by two athletes and equaled by one other.

Wang Junxia's 10km record is still the best by over 20s 19 years after it was set and at the time took 40s off the existing record.
 
I don't think you can discount the Coe/Ovett rivalry as a driving force in getting him (and Ovett) to the various middle distance records in that era.

Training, aggressive use of pacemakers, meticulously planned events just for the purposes of getting a record attempt.

It was a fascinating era in British sport.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Does the number of athletics records that are twenty years old or more have any thing to tell us about doping in cycling?

It would appear that many of those records we can now say with a good deal of confidence were dope fuelled. So this suggests doping isn't as powerful as it was or isn't as widespread or combination of both.
When we look at cycling track records are still falling and average speeds in GC,s and single day events went up substantially when EPO became common place in the 90,s onwards.
A lot of this is put down to technical developments with the bikes ,faster tracks and improved training methods.
There is no doubt a certain amount of truth with all three of these assertions.
However I suspect there's also a degree of kidology going on. Athletics surely hasn't stood still in training method improvements and understanding( ?) yet progress in breaking world records is very slow to non existent in many events . Moscow track , the fastest indoor tack in the world when built hasn't become "slow". Bike technology does not, in my view, account for the % increase in speed either. Anyone remember Romingers hour record bike?


Some 80% of the resistance a rider faces is air, the technical changes to the bikes are only a very small % improvement in cutting through that and most were achieved by the early 90,s.
I saw some research on the part that bikes had played ( cant find it at mo, maybe someone else here can?) in to higher road speeds in road races and its conclusion was that it could not account for the increase in speed.
I'm left unable to conclude anything else other than doping in cycling is as widespread as its ever been.
 
Jul 13, 2012
263
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
I saw some research on the part that bikes had played ( cant find it at mo, maybe someone else here can?) in to higher road speeds in road races and its conclusion was that it could not account for the increase in speed.
I'm left unable to conclude anything else other than doping in cycling is as widespread as its ever been.
Would you make a strong argument that much of this huge investment in tech, which initially came via Armstrongs set-up is a much touted veil directly designed to distract attention away from whats really going on??
 
RichWalk said:
Would you make a strong argument that much of this huge investment in tech, which initially came via Armstrongs set-up is a much touted veil directly designed to distract attention away from whats really going on??
Or, that he didn't really need them... since he found the cheaper, faster, more effective option.

However, the wind tunnel testing and product development was sound, and did underscore material benefits from things like the 2nd generation Giro TT helmet (now banned) and the Swift Suit (not for sale to anyone) among others.

(The impact of Disc wheels & aerobars should not be discounted. Also, wind tunnel results have demonstrated that standard round tube bike frames - such as Moser's - are not as disadvantageous as they might appear to the human eye.)

Dave.
 
Just what proportion of the air resistance for a rider in a good aero position is the bike responsible for anyway ?

I am sure the rider is a great part, I'm just not sure of the amount.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
RichWalk said:
Would you make a strong argument that much of this huge investment in tech, which initially came via Armstrongs set-up is a much touted veil directly designed to distract attention away from whats really going on??
Well no one could argue it doesn't work in achieving that goal could they?
And clearly manufacturers are more than happy to enjoy the hype and sell product.
I'm not suggesting equipment has made no difference only that its been exaggerated.
Chris Boardman,s "athletes" hour record is an interesting one. Granted it was at the end of his career and possibly not at his very best but the increase in distance over Merckx was tiny and though designed to be a " like for like" record did have physical aero advantages of pedals, overshoes , helmet and rims , indoor track and one would presume a far better understanding of training preparation for such a ride.

Despite that he topped Merckx by just 10 m (32.8 ft) - an improvement of 0.02%.
I find it interesting that apart from Ondřej Sosenka ( discredited due to subsequent positives ) no one seems interested in going for the Athletes record. With all the so called improvements in training methodology and understanding surely the likes of Wiggo would be adding at least a couple of kilometre? ...or perhaps it more the case that the sham might become a bit to obvious?
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
sheenyp said:
Also Boardman paced his effort far better than Merckx who started at a suicidal pace!
Yup, I forgot that..he broke the 10km @ 20km records on the way!

Here,s the bike for comparison.

 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
I always wondered :
is blood doping a factor to have or to sustain a better aero position for a long period?
 
Aug 16, 2012
275
0
0
I would think all athletics world records come from PED use. Maybe Rudisha is clean but that could be wishful-thinking.
 
Jul 10, 2009
129
0
0
Centurion said:
Former Czechoslovakian athlete Jarmila Kratochvílová holds the World Record for the women's 800 metres. Her time of 1:53.28 was set in 1983. This record has stood for 29 Years. The longest standing individual record in track and field athletics.
I was at Helsinki World Championships 1983 watching Kratochvílová running and the crowd cheering "Jarmo, Jarmo" (a traditional finnish man's name). That was hilarious :D
 
Jul 10, 2009
129
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
Some 80% of the resistance a rider faces is air, the technical changes to the bikes are only a very small % improvement in cutting through that and most were achieved by the early 90,s.
I saw some research on the part that bikes had played ( cant find it at mo, maybe someone else here can?) in to higher road speeds in road races and its conclusion was that it could not account for the increase in speed.
I'm left unable to conclude anything else other than doping in cycling is as widespread as its ever been.
And 80% of that air resistance comes from the rider. That's where the real improvements in wind tunnel are made.
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
Sylvester said:
a) great performances, due to raw talent and no dope (Jesse Owens)
b) great performances with "limited" talent, mostly due to a lot of doping (Ben Johnson)
c) great performances due to raw talent and some dope, but nothing extraordinary (Javier Sotomayor)
d) great performances due to a lot of talent AND a lot of (innovative) doping (well, who knows?)

I think everybody will agree Bolt and Rudisha are no (b), most will agree Bolt is no (a) either. But even when assuming they're both doped, it's impossible to say whether they're on some state-of-the-art program or not.
In defense of Ben Johnson he clearly he had a load of natural talent. He was fast even when he was lazy and training poorly, and possessed an exceptional start that even defied the technology of the time (charged with false starts even though video evidence showed they were not). In 1984 he was not doped (even his arch rival Carl Lewis said that Ben Johnson was only the changed and doped up runner from 1986 onward), yet you can see a very much less-muscled Ben Johnson running to a bronze medal in the 100m final at the 1984 Olympics. He was a naturally gifted sprinter who doped to reach the top step, and to achieve in his spectacular world record performances, and so he must surely be in category "d".

I also think it is not useful to try to determine whether someone is doping "a lot" or "nothing extraordinary". Athletes either dope or they don't, and with natural talent being on a gradient, doping merely changes one's position on the gradient of performance.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
_frost said:
And 80% of that air resistance comes from the rider. That's where the real improvements in wind tunnel are made.
Agreed and for about a decade if not longer many of the worlds top riders have spent time in them so I don't think they qualify as much as a gain as they might initially have done.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
Sylvester said:
But Rudisha might well be a once-in-a-lifetime talent.

I think everybody will agree Bolt and Rudisha are no (b), most will agree Bolt is no (a) either. But even when assuming they're both doped, it's impossible to say whether they're on some state-of-the-art program or not.
I'd love to think Rudisha is clean. I enjoy watching him run. However, I really don't see why Bolt is any more suspicious than Rudisha - or, said a different way, - why Rudisha is any less suspicious than Bolt. Bolt also exhibited a lot of talent at an early age. Bolt clearly has some phyical aspects unusual in his discipline. Both come from national programs which in the current moment appear to be rife with doping. Why is it so obvious one is a big doper and the other is a natural talent?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
the delgados The Clinic 19
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS