Is doping already more important than talent?

[Anonymous]

I think the question I ask myself is

a) can you win without doping
b) can you win without talent

im no closer to having an answer.

 

[VeloFidelis]

...ran across this little bit earlier to-nite and thought you might want to see it...from a Jock Boyer interview at Pezcycling...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEZ: The Worlds, Goodwood, England, 1982, I was there, you were worth a medal but Greg Lemond decided otherwise.
JB: He chased me down coming into the finish – he told me later that he didn’t want to see any American other then himself winning.

Greg won the Tour three times; there’s so much more he could do for cycling but he can be so negative – I don’t think he’s a happy person.

This is Jonathon Boyers' opinion.

Athlete's opinions of each other don't tend to be gracious or unbiased unless someone has died...and interviews can cut both ways. I have heard Greg say some less than kind things about his former team mate's ego, and his dubious skills as a translator. I am not sure that Jock (Hey, is that your daughter?) Boyer's opinion on anything is a standard for reliability.

 

[BotanyBay]

What we've got today, is top talent that also dopes.

Armstrong was a top talent that was willing to throw his life away in search of the most powerful methods of doping.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

What we've got today, is top talent that also dopes.

Armstrong was a top talent that was willing to throw his life away in search of the most powerful methods of doping.

I think you mean he was willing to risk throwing his life away to be champion.

This attitude is typical among top athletes. Research indicates that most of them would be willing to take a pill that they knew would kill them within a year, if it would first make them champion of their sport.

 

[BotanyBay]

I think you mean he was willing to risk throwing his life away to be champion.

No, I was deliberate in my choosing of words, because such a choice on the part of an athlete (in my view) brings on such consequences. At least eventually. Perhaps more than once. I think he already threw his life away once, and was very fortunate to get it back. Sad that he went right back to doing it again.

 

[biokemguy]

Schleck/Contador

A Schleck-Contador duel where only one of them is clean would show that doping makes the difference.

I'm guessing that most here would agree that these two are nearly even in the natural talent category.

I'd like to see all the money being wasted on lawyers in the Contador case be funneled to testing him regularly enough (weekly out of competition and daily in competition) next season to ensure that he's clean.
Then we could see how important doping is at the pointy end of the peloton.

 

[jimbob_in_co]

Research indicates that most of them would be willing to take a pill that they knew would kill them within a year, if it would first make them champion of their sport.

I hope they didn't spend a great deal of money on that research. All they had to so was read one of the many tellings, or re-tellings of the story of Doctor Faustus.

 

[The Hitch]

A Schleck-Contador duel where only one of them is clean would show that doping makes the difference.

I'm guessing that most here would agree that these two are nearly even in the natural talent category.

I'd like to see all the money being wasted on lawyers in the Contador case be funneled to testing him regularly enough (weekly out of competition and daily in competition) next season to ensure that he's clean.
Then we could see how important doping is at the pointy end of the peloton.

I have no idea what it would look like if they were both clean but i know from what weve seen i certainatly dont see Schleck and Contador as equal.

Schleck has come 2nd in a grand tour thrice and only once was it close. Many others have podiumed multiple gts.

Contador is the greatest rider of his generation, one of the greatest athletes of his generation and already at the age of 28 one of the top cyclists of all time.

If your looking just at this year, Schleck played only the Tour, Contador won Paris Nice even though he was facing a Caisse one two, Castilla Leon, Algarve, podiumed Criterium and Flech, and won Alpe d huez.

And after all that he won the tour. though i was cheering for Schleck, Alberto lost as much time through other people crashing on the cobbles as andy did no the chain so it evened itself out. He was equal in the mountains and better in the tts.

So al and andy equal? I personally dont see it that way.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I have no idea what it would look like if they were both clean but i know from what weve seen i certainatly dont see Schleck and Contador as equal.

Schleck has come 2nd in a grand tour thrice and only once was it close. Many others have podiumed multiple gts.

Contador is the greatest rider of his generation, one of the greatest athletes of his generation and already at the age of 28 one of the top cyclists of all time.

If your looking just at this year, Schleck played only the Tour, Contador won Paris Nice even though he was facing a Caisse one two, Castilla Leon, Algarve, podiumed Criterium and Flech, and won Alpe d huez.

And after all that he won the tour. though i was cheering for Schleck, Alberto lost as much time through other people crashing on the cobbles as andy did no the chain so it evened itself out. He was equal in the mountains and better in the tts.

So al and andy equal? I personally dont see it that way.

But isn't it possible that the Spaniards have some doping tricks up their sleeves that they don't disclose to others? I can't imagine that the Luxembourgers have the same experience in this area as do the Spaniards. Everything we learned from Floyd is what he knew first-hand about the teams he was on. He apparently knew very little if anything about the details of what others are doing. I suspect Andy is mostly in the dark about others too.

I mean, if the argument about Armstrong's doping being unfair rests on the premise that he had methodologies available to him that were not available to others, and that goes a long way towards explaining his 7 wins, then why can't something similar also explain the apparent "natural" difference between AC and AS?

Also, isn't it possible that AC simply reacts better to doping?

Frankly, I have no idea. Just asking.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

So al and andy equal? I personally dont see it that way.

But isn't it possible that the Spaniards have some doping tricks up their sleeves that they don't disclose to others?

I mean, if the argument about Armstrong's doping being unfair rests on the premise that he had methodologies available to him that were not available to others, and that goes a long way towards explaining his 7 wins, then why can't something similar also explain the apparent "natural" difference between AC and AS?

Also, isn't it possible that AC simply reacts better to doping?

Frankly, I have no idea. Just asking.

Well, based their palmeres the nod has to go to AC. But 95 points out there is room for doubt. To add to what 95 said, AC may not just react better to doping for performance and recovery, he may have it more dialed in for optimal benefit.

 

[hfer07]

I mean, if the argument about Armstrong's doping being unfair rests on the premise that he had methodologies available to him that were not available to others, and that goes a long way towards explaining his 7 wins, then why can't something similar also explain the apparent "natural" difference between AC and AS?
Also, isn't it possible that AC simply reacts better to doping?

Talent is a quality inherent to the Athlete, regardless any doping regiment. AS & AC, as well as many other great riders before the EPO era, like Hinault, Lemond, Merckx, etc. have demonstrated those unique abilities since very young age.
fast forward-bear in mind the following results:
Andy Schleck @ 22 y.o = 2nd overall Giro d'italia.
Alberto Contador @ 25 y.o. =Winner Paris-Nice & Tour de France.

 

[Jukebox]

My vote was to the hypothetical regular Joe scenario, in which no matter what you did to him he will never be a pro, much less a prolific winner. Equally abstract is the implication in the question that we are considering the doping of today, tomorrow and the next million tomorrows. It is impossible to predict what medical technology will bring but I still have a hard time believing that an average athlete could be transformed into a top tier pro by science alone.

In response to the question of whether doping or talent is more important within the confines of the 0.001% of the elite pro ranks I would say that the answer is definitely maybe. Within the super elite of say the top 10 finishers at a grand tour, an event generally long enough to sort out luck and reward the fittest and best racers I would say that yes, if they were all clean, then the 10th placed finisher began doping and the event was re run he would win. From what I have learned about doping the effect is not only increased strength and endurance, but also better recovery - obviously important in grand tours.

The other factor to consider is muscle makeup. A sprinter will always be better at sprinting than say, climbing and vice versa. If in a hypothetically fully clean peloton doping up Cavendish and having him train for the overall classification will probably not produce a win, regardless of the outside help he receives.

So, I guess my answer is based on the circumstance. At the top end of a specific field a doper will beat a clean guy as long as they are of similar natural ability. I do not know the maximum delta of talent, though. But, I do not think that it is possible to change a person's natural physiology to the point that you could make a punchy sprinter into a great time trialist.

There you go Hitch, you have successfully goaded me into a reply I've actually put thought into for the first time on this forum.

 

[The Hitch]

There you go Hitch, you have successfully goaded me into a reply I've actually put thought into for the first time on this forum.

And as a result you have put forward a very good post. If thats true you are not half bad at this thinking thing

 

[Paco_P]

Would there be Nobel Prize winners without coffee?

 

[Berzin]

Doping is more important than talent.

When I say this, people automatically assume that I mean you can take a Cat 3 flounder and turn him into the next Pantani.

No, that's not what I'm saying. You need talent to be noticed for special consideration and to have pro teams look at you, but many talented riders would not have as extensive a palmares if it weren't for the drugs.

My point is the whole premise is ridiculous, because unless you've doped and understand what type of changes are possible, how ones' limits can be pushed back, what barriers can be broken under a good doping program then the question should be "what is possible under a doping regimen for a talented rider"?

Because the ones who achieve success early on are the ones who the best teams with the best doctors are looking at. It is the potential-driven component that drives doping, and it costs money. If you have potential to do well as as a classics rider or a grand tour specialist, the doping doors will open for you. If you are just pack jelly, they will remain closed.

 

[Mr.38%]

Responsiveness to and tolerance of doping substances/prohibited methods is a talent.

 

[Cloxxki]

Responsiveness to and tolerance of doping substances/prohibited methods is a talent.

Resistance to the temptations of spoon-fed doping regimes is a rare talent.
Ability to lie on one's medical status is a very common talent.

The question might be posed more specifically.
Once arrived to the pro ranks, doping is more important than the variety in talent available. If you're down 10% in time on the top clean competitor in a time trial, you should't expect to be paid for riding a bike. Unless your name is Fuzzy, and you were born from a loving couple of brown bears.
10% off the clean pace, and open to dope? Well, anything is possible then, especially uphill.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Biane Riis provides a perfect example of why doping has become more important than talent.
While tallented to a leval I dont think any one here believes he was TDF winning talent.
EPO and whatever else he took changed that. Not talent.

 

[hrotha]

Doping is more important than talent.

When I say this, people automatically assume that I mean you can take a Cat 3 flounder and turn him into the next Pantani.

No, that's not what I'm saying. You need talent to be noticed for special consideration and to have pro teams look at you, but many talented riders would not have as extensive a palmares if it weren't for the drugs.

My point is the whole premise is ridiculous, because unless you've doped and understand what type of changes are possible, how ones' limits can be pushed back, what barriers can be broken under a good doping program then the question should be "what is possible under a doping regimen for a talented rider"?

Because the ones who achieve success early on are the ones who the best teams with the best doctors are looking at. It is the potential-driven component that drives doping, and it costs money. If you have potential to do well as as a classics rider or a grand tour specialist, the doping doors will open for you. If you are just pack jelly, they will remain closed.

A good example of this would be Jörg Jaksche. He came with the front group in a tough Paris-Nice stage at 20-21, clean. Stanga asked him what he was on. Jaksche said he hadn't taken anything. Intrigued, Stanga measured his hematocrit and found it to be naturally low, after which he got him on the program, convinced that he had hit jackpot. Good results while clean as a young rider + naturally low hematocrit = potentially a huge star with a boosted hematocrit, not to mention the other PEDs.

Jaksche seems to have been somewhat reluctant to dope, not because of any moral issues but due to his fear of getting caught, so if he had gone for an all-out Dufaux-at-Romandie-like program god knows what he could have won.

 

[Berzin]

Biane Riis provides a perfect example of why doping has become more important than talent.
While tallented to a leval I dont think any one here believes he was TDF winning talent.
EPO and whatever else he took changed that. Not talent.

Riis isn't the only one who you can say this about, though he is one of the best examples.

Rominger (I don't understand why no one ever mentions him), a late bloomer who became a multiple grand tour winner in his 30's. How does that happen?

Jalabert went from sprinter to world's number one rider and held that position for quite a long time. Again, how? Talent?

I don't think so. I'm seriously surprised these guys aren't dead.

 

[stainlessguy1]

Answer Contador is unbeatable if he is on fuel.Absolutly.

What if the race were just downhill , is he still unbeatable . I mean he is unbeatable uphill while on fuel , but what about downhill . Ahem bets are my 220lbs plus and my olde steel frame with me old sturmey archer rear hub will roll past him like a Rhino . lol

 

[Hawkwood]

Riis isn't the only one who you can say this about, though he is one of the best examples.

Rominger (I don't understand why no one ever mentions him), a late bloomer who became a multiple grand tour winner in his 30's. How does that happen?

It's always interested me that Rominger was a good mate of British sprinter Linford Christie, can't imagine what they had in common...

 

[Boeing]

This observation/explanation from Hitch is so brilliant I though it deserved it's own thread:


forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=397792&postcount=27

So, are we at that point where doping has become more important than talent, or is talent still more important?

only the talented will dope. Dope