Is doping already more important than talent?

[Anonymous]

I believe the two exist in separate paradigms.

It takes exceptional talent to make it to the European Pro peloton. The same goes to the domestic circuit, though they are a notch below. To ride your bike professionally requires physiological parameters and drive few have. It isn't any more or less important. It is the first requirement. There may be a few people who would not be capable of riding as a pro without doping, but those people really are at the a$$ end regardless.

To dope is the requirement to be competitive for people with the talent. I truly believe that we would be cheering the same people if the peloton were dope free for the most part. I do believe there are people who respond better to doping, or are more financially capable of affording superior programs who might not win as much dope free, but as a whole, I still believe many of the same people would win races. There would be fewer multiple winners because of the fatigue factor that doping helps to overcome, but it would still be the same people up front.

 

[The Hitch]

What I feel I know for sure, is that whether it is gene therapy or the innovation of some uber PED. It will somehow make itself available to all the most talented riders.

The poll does not delineate availability.

So are you saying that you feel talent is more important because ultimately everyone dopes, cancelling eachother out, meaning that talent becomes the defining factor?

I agree that all the top guys dope, but that is not this discussion is about.

This thread and poll have spawned out of a discussion about whether Sastre is clean or not.

The hypothetical situation we are looking at is NOT one where everyone is doping
The Hypothetical situation we are looking at is where some riders ARE doping and some riders ARENT.

The question being will the talent of the ones who arent be sufficient to offset the doping of the ones who are.

To say that "talent will ALWAYS be superior to doping" is to say that clean riders will always be able to compete with doped riders, because doping does not give too big a boost, and more importantly NEVER WILL.

My question is how can anyone possibly say with any confidence that doping NEVER WILL become the defining factor. How does anyone know that science wont have much of an advancement in this field?

 

[Anonymous]

You do know that "scientific theory" means something very different than "theory" in normal use...right?

There is a competing theory on the gravity thing though: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html

 

[The Hitch]

I believe the two exist in separate paradigms.

It takes exceptional talent to make it to the European Pro peloton. The same goes to the domestic circuit, though they are a notch below. To ride your bike professionally requires physiological parameters and drive few have. It isn't any more or less important. It is the first requirement. There may be a few people who would not be capable of riding as a pro without doping, but those people really are at the a$$ end regardless.

To dope is the requirement to be competitive for people with the talent. I truly believe that we would be cheering the same people if the peloton were dope free for the most part. I do believe there are people who respond better to doping, or are more financially capable of affording superior programs who might not win as much dope free, but as a whole, I still believe many of the same people would win races. There would be fewer multiple winners because of the fatigue factor that doping helps to overcome, but it would still be the same people up front.

Well i think there is a misunderstanding in the question seeing as i agree with everything you say but voted completely differently.

I think like the previous poster i responded to, you are looking at a peloton where doping is rife, and then asking yourself the question -is talent important? the answer is obviously yes, because if everyone is doing it, it to some extent cancels eachother out, leaving talent as the defining factor.

And what i think the question is actually asking for us to do is to look at a (hypothetical) peloton where doping is NOT rife and ask yourself the question - is talent important? Does a (hypothetically) CLEAN Sastre or Evans have enough talent to compete with a DOPED Contador? I suspect i know what your answer is to that (its no isnt it ) in which case talent is NOT as important as doping, would you not agree?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I find the premise "doping is superior to talent" to be poorly defined. Do you mean by that, anyone with dope can beat anyone without? Then the answer is obviously no. Do you mean that, say half the population could, by doping, be as good as or better than the elite without dope? Still the answer is no. There is some %, maybe 10, or 5, or 1, or even less, but I don't think what that percentage is is very important.

I think one of the facts of life that muddles this question is that talent exists on a spectrum. There is the elite in any sport, but there are also highly talented athletes who are much better than the mean of the population, less talented who are somewhat above the mean, and so on. In contrast, the effects of doping are likely not on a spectrum. Given a particular program, the increase in performance is much less variable. Yes, there may be high and low responders, and perhaps dope provides less of a % increase in performance the more highly talented naturally one is. But at the end of the day, the amount of performance enhancement possible from the best doping practices of any given era exists within a relatively narrow range, whereas there is an enormous range of natural talent, extending from those far below average to those far above.

So doping is only going to allow an athlete to jump part way through this range. If he's at the bottom of the talent pile, it might not even make him mediocre. If he's average, it will make him somewhat above average. I think one has to be well above average (using current doping technology) to challenge the elite. Others may argue over where we draw lines here, but the general point should be clear. Doping provides a boost; how far that boost takes you depends in large part where you start from, and the starting range is so vast that talent at the top will always be well above the possibilities of doping for most.

But none of this is really very relevant, IMO. The point is that within the elite, doping makes a major difference (see, e.g., Science of Sport discussions on EPO). Whether you call this "better than talent" or "not as good as talent" doesn't matter. Beginning at a certain talent level, dopers are definitely going to outstrip all challengers who are not doping.

I presumed the "baseline" for talent was enough to be in the peloton in the first place. So, for those in the peloton, which is more important... having more talent than the others or having a better program?

 

[VeloFidelis]

I believe the two exist in separate paradigms.

It takes exceptional talent to make it to the European Pro peloton. The same goes to the domestic circuit, though they are a notch below. To ride your bike professionally requires physiological parameters and drive few have. It isn't any more or less important. It is the first requirement. There may be a few people who would not be capable of riding as a pro without doping, but those people really are at the a$$ end regardless.

To dope is the requirement to be competitive for people with the talent. I truly believe that we would be cheering the same people if the peloton were dope free for the most part. I do believe there are people who respond better to doping, or are more financially capable of affording superior programs who might not win as much dope free, but as a whole, I still believe many of the same people would win races. There would be fewer multiple winners because of the fatigue factor that doping helps to overcome, but it would still be the same people up front.

At the risk of promoting Chaos on a global scale. I agree with you on all points here.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Well i think there is a misunderstanding in the question seeing as i agree with everything you say but voted completely differently.

I think like the previous poster i responded to, you are looking at a peloton where doping is rife, and then asking yourself the question -is talent important? the answer is obviously yes, because if everyone is doing it, it to some extent cancels eachother out, leaving talent as the defining factor.

And what i think the question is actually asking for us to do is to look at a (hypothetical) peloton where doping is NOT rife and ask yourself the question - is talent important? Does a (hypothetically) CLEAN Sastre or Evans have enough talent to compete with a DOPED Contador? I suspect i know what your answer is to that (its no isnt it ) in which case talent is NOT as important as doping, would you not agree?

Exactly.

I mean, what's the point in interpreting a question such that what it's asking is absurd?

Forget Sastre. Can an obvious ubertalent like Ullrich, Contador or even Armstrong win or even be competitive on GC without doping? Or can doping make a champion out of someone who could otherwise just be a domestique? That's what's at issue here, of course. Not, as you say Hitch, whether your neighbor on EPO could beat a clean pro rider.

 

[Anonymous]

Well i think there is a misunderstanding in the question seeing as i agree with everything you say but voted completely differently.

I think like the previous poster i responded to, you are looking at a peloton where doping is rife, and then asking yourself the question -is talent important? the answer is obviously yes, because if everyone is doing it, it to some extent cancels eachother out, leaving talent as the defining factor.

And what i think the question is actually asking for us to do is to look at a (hypothetical) peloton where doping is NOT rife and ask yourself the question - is talent important? Does a (hypothetically) CLEAN Sastre or Evans have enough talent to compete with a DOPED Contador? I suspect i know what your answer is to that (its no isnt it ) in which case talent is NOT as important as doping, would you not agree?

I read the question as you intimated in the first part of your post. Assessing it on the level you are reading it would then lead me to the same conclusion you present, talent is not as important. There is no way a clean rider will beat a doped one, and there is no way in my mind that the sharp end of the peloton contains riders who are clean.

 

[flicker]

We will find out the answer to this question when contador and Thomas Dekker return from their vacations.

 

[Escarabajo]

I voted other.

Both are very important. To win you need both. I don't see the answer that I want. Without talent you can not make it. Without the dope, you can not win a GT. Maybe classics (If you are a huge talent) but not GT's.

I am still skeptical that the huge clean talents by itself are getting closer to a GT win. Latest positives and doping news show us otherwise.

 

[Anonymous]

At the risk of promoting Chaos on a global scale. I agree with you on all points here.

Somewhere in the world, a kitten was sacrificed...

 

[The Hitch]

Exactly.

I mean, what's the point in interpreting a question such that what it's asking is absurd?

Forget Sastre. Can an obvious ubertalent like Ullrich, Contador or even Armstrong win or even be competitive on GC without doping? .

That is i think the main debate about doping atm. And this is my opinions:

There is no way a clean rider will beat a doped one, and there is no way in my mind that the sharp end of the peloton contains riders who are clean.

Id like to know how many people here share this opinion. Its an interesting debate and we have a lot of evidence we can point to.

Its our side against their side. I like our side

 

[Darryl Webster]

Doping has long been more important than talent at the very top.
While tallent has been there at the very top it has long been the case that the dopers take the lions share of the spoils. So while tallent could put you in the contenders the odds were stacked against you still.
Only in the last 20 odd years has doping reached a leval were mediocre tallent can be propelled to top shelf.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Doping has long been more important than talent at the very top.

Long been... no kidding.

The following answers were from Fausto Coppi who won the Giro and the Tour in the 40s and early 50s:

Question: Do cyclists take la bomba (amphetamine)?
Answer: Yes, and those who claim otherwise, it's not worth talking to them about cycling.
Question: And you, did you take la bomba?
Answer: Yes. Whenever it was necessary.
Question: And when was it necessary?
Answer: Almost all the time!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fausto_Coppi#Drugs

 

[The Hitch]

Doping has long been more important than talent at the very top.
While tallent has been there at the very top it has long been the case that the dopers take the lions share of the spoils. So while tallent could put you in the contenders the odds were stacked against you still.
Only in the last 20 odd years has doping reached a leval were mediocre tallent can be propelled to top shelf.

Good. We have a former pro and Leonard Cohen fan on our side. Someone who has LIVED the cycling life and seen first hand what goes on rather than argue that doping isnt that important because that wouldnt be nice (im delliberately being provocative to try and get some arguments out of you "talent will always be more important" types).

And as i told ninety5rpm, my admiration for Coppi goes up when i see that interview. And it is VERY important to this discussion.

 

[Anonymous]

Exactly.

I mean, what's the point in interpreting a question such that what it's asking is absurd?

Forget Sastre. Can an obvious ubertalent like Ullrich, Contador or even Armstrong win or even be competitive on GC without doping? Or can doping make a champion out of someone who could otherwise just be a domestique? That's what's at issue here, of course. Not, as you say Hitch, whether your neighbor on EPO could beat a clean pro rider.

Why not just write a better question?

 

[VeloFidelis]

Well i think there is a misunderstanding in the question seeing as i agree with everything you say but voted completely differently.

I think like the previous poster i responded to, you are looking at a peloton where doping is rife, and then asking yourself the question -is talent important? the answer is obviously yes, because if everyone is doing it, it to some extent cancels eachother out, leaving talent as the defining factor.

And what i think the question is actually asking for us to do is to look at a (hypothetical) peloton where doping is NOT rife and ask yourself the question - is talent important? Does a (hypothetically) CLEAN Sastre or Evans have enough talent to compete with a DOPED Contador? I suspect i know what your answer is to that (its no isnt it ) in which case talent is NOT as important as doping, would you not agree?

I understand your interpretation of the question, but I don't see that is how it was posed by the OP.

But OK... since we are dealing with hypothetical, let's really complicate things. If a Pro rider avails himself of a new technology (Gene therapy, PED, other...) and it is not yet a banned substance or practice... Is he cheating?

These athletes are genetically selected. You can't become a stand out professional cyclists through force of will. No more than you can any sport at the highest levels. You have to be genetically "inclined" to be a member of this talent pool. Within this talent pool you have bell curves of talent for each cycling discipline. If a rider excels in one discipline and trains exclusively there at the expense of another, and obtains superior results... is he cheating?

Fitness at the highest levels of all sport is about applied science, especially in cycling. Whether it is about legal training methods, new technology in equipment, diet, psychology... and yes, illegal training methods. I believe that the very impressive levels of science and technology involved with preparing the most talented riders is something well beyond our grasp. And legal or not, all things that produce results are very quickly adopted by lesser talented teams and individuals.

There is a check and balance in rules and testing as applied by governing bodies of the sport, but they will never get ahead of developing technology. Their role is regulatory, and reactive. Human nature and the nature of competition will always keep the competitor looking for and advantage. It is ingrained in our DNA.

There is nothing "fair" about a field of athletes competing without drugs. Tangible differences in physiology, anatomy, preparation, equipment, and desire always make the playing field uneven. We as fans do not watch because we are expecting a fair competition. We watch either to see an upset happen, or the dominate athlete prevail.

Is there parity at the top levels of cycling? Does doping trump talent? I think no more than other advantages in equipment and preparation both legal and not. The levels of difference are razor thin to begin with, but the same riders consistently rise to the top. I believe that any secret sauce in preparation does not remain a secret for long, and that in the end, if luck is not the determining factor, then talent usually is.

 

[flicker]

Long been... no kidding.

The following answers were from Fausto Coppi who won the Giro and the Tour in the 40s and early 50s:



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fausto_Coppi#Drugs

Breakthrough, please don't spoil Mr. LeMonds' XMAS with this info.

 

[D-Queued]

Breakthrough, please don't spoil Mr. LeMonds' XMAS with this info.

Desperate, much?

I would imagine that with the WSJ article yesterday, the news of Floyd's wire, and the upcoming SI, that dear old Greg is having his best Christmas in years.

Dave.

 

[TubularBills]

I understand your interpretation of the question, but I don't see that is how it was posed by the OP.

But OK... since we are dealing with hypothetical, let's really complicate things. If a Pro rider avails himself of a new technology (Gene therapy, PED, other...) and it is not yet a banned substance or practice... Is he cheating?

These athletes are genetically selected. You can't become a stand out professional cyclists through force of will. No more than you can any sport at the highest levels. You have to be genetically "inclined" to be a member of this talent pool. Within this talent pool you have bell curves of talent for each cycling discipline. If a rider excels in one discipline and trains exclusively there at the expense of another, and obtains superior results... is he cheating?

Fitness at the highest levels of all sport is about applied science, especially in cycling. Whether it is about legal training methods, new technology in equipment, diet, psychology... and yes, illegal training methods. I believe that the very impressive levels of science and technology involved with preparing the most talented riders is something well beyond our grasp. And legal or not, all things that produce results are very quickly adopted by lesser talented teams and individuals.

There is a check and balance in rules and testing as applied by governing bodies of the sport, but they will never get ahead of developing technology. Their role is regulatory, and reactive. Human nature and the nature of competition will always keep the competitor looking for and advantage. It is ingrained in our DNA.

There is nothing "fair" about a field of athletes competing without drugs. Tangible differences in physiology, anatomy, preparation, equipment, and desire always make the playing field uneven. We as fans do not watch because we are expecting a fair competition. We watch either to see an upset happen, or the dominate athlete prevail.

Is there parity at the top levels of cycling? Does doping trump talent? I think no more than other advantages in equipment and preparation both legal and not. The levels of difference are razor thin to begin with, but the same riders consistently rise to the top. I believe that any secret sauce in preparation does not remain a secret for long, and that in the end, if luck is not the determining factor, then talent usually is.

+1

With three additions:

1.) As a team sport, a moderate talent could excel over more talented opponents by virtue of the support of an equally moderate but systemically doped team.

2.) Even amongst talented elite riders the efficacy of the doping on personal physiology seems variable. e.g. Jan vs. Lance

3.) Between two equally talented and doped elite riders, the one who can afford the better or more comprehensive doping system wins.

Therefore, doping is more important than talent in the context of GT's and/or when any race is reduced to a selection of doped riders.

 

[Roland Rat]

Doping became more important than talent as soon as they started changing their blood chemistry, for GTs. I still believe you can win classics/one day races clean.

 

[Escarabajo]

Good. We have a former pro and Leonard Cohen fan on our side. Someone who has LIVED the cycling life and seen first hand what goes on rather than argue that doping isnt that important because that wouldnt be nice (im delliberately being provocative to try and get some arguments out of you "talent will always be more important" types).

And as i told ninety5rpm, my admiration for Coppi goes up when i see that interview. And it is VERY important to this discussion.

Before 1990 you know that talent was more important, right?

So Coppi thought in his mind that the doping was making him so strong when in reality he had a lot of talent. In order for him to loose you have to find another rider with equally the same talent so the amphetamines made the difference. I start to question if the Placebo effect was more important at some point than the effect from the drugs that they were taking.

 

[flicker]

Desperate, much?

I would imagine that with the WSJ article yesterday, the news of Floyd's wire, and the upcoming SI, that dear old Greg is having his best Christmas in years.

Dave.

...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.

 

[flicker]

the competition Coppi had with Gino Bartali. Italian tifosi (fans) divided into coppiani and bartaliani. Bartali's rivalry with Coppi divided Italy.[20] Bartali, conservative, religious, was venerated in the rural, agrarian south, while Coppi, more worldly, secular, innovative in diet and training, was hero of the industrial north. The writer Curzio Malaparte said:

Bartali belongs to those who believe in tradition... he is a metaphysical man protected by the saints. Coppi has nobody in heaven to take care of him. His manager, his masseur, have no wings. He is alone, alone on a bicycle... Bartali prays while he is pedalling: the rational Cartesian and sceptical Coppi is filled with doubts, believes only in his body, his motor. wikipedia

Both riders rode against each other, passianate in their sport, rivals to the death. One doped one didn't.

 

[flicker]

the competition Coppi had with Gino Bartali. Italian tifosi (fans) divided into coppiani and bartaliani. Bartali's rivalry with Coppi divided Italy.[20] Bartali, conservative, religious, was venerated in the rural, agrarian south, while Coppi, more worldly, secular, innovative in diet and training, was hero of the industrial north. The writer Curzio Malaparte said:

Bartali belongs to those who believe in tradition... he is a metaphysical man protected by the saints. Coppi has nobody in heaven to take care of him. His manager, his masseur, have no wings. He is alone, alone on a bicycle... Bartali prays while he is pedalling: the rational Cartesian and sceptical Coppi is filled with doubts, believes only in his body, his motor. wikipedia

Both riders rode against each other, passianate in their sport, rivals to the death. One doped one didn't.

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

I wish I could have seen this guy race, he could have smoked Pantani, Ricco or Millar.