Look harder?FoxxyBrown1111 said:Thanks for the link, but i couldn´t find anything life expectancy related.![]()
2.4.3
Look harder?FoxxyBrown1111 said:Thanks for the link, but i couldn´t find anything life expectancy related.![]()
I'm going to suggest you fetch a step-ladder as the point here seems to have gone waaaaay over your head. Based on a few well publicised cases people have a belief that X happens. However, when you look at empirical evidence, you actually find that Y is happening, not X. Lesson? A few well publicised cases don't mean much.therhodeo said:Just a small list posted above.
The report was referenced for citing De Mondenard's study, which it did as follows:FoxxyBrown1111 said:2.4. ff. is about testing, detecting, ethics... yet nothing about life expectancy.
2.4.3. Empirical data
Even though the link with doping has not been established, it is known that the life expectancy of those who have take part in the Tour de France is lower than average. A study conducted by Jean-Pierre de Mondenard shows that cyclists between 1960 and 1990 had a higher death rate than that of the general population for the younger age brackets (25-34 years and 34-45 years). The most common cause of death was vascular problems.
Coppi died of Malaria. Fignon of cancer and Pantani of overdosing & Simpson of doping. The causes of death are so different that it is difficult to build a correlation. If the comparison is made between cyclists and general population dying of old age then a pattern can be determined otherwise it becomes erroneous.Plus, of course, we've got the litany of names: Fausto Coppi (dead at 40), Gastone Nencini (dead at 49), Hugo Koblet (dead at 39), Tom Simpson (dead at 29), Roger Rivière (dead at 40), Louison Bobet (dead at 58), Jacques Anquetil (dead at 53), Luis Ocaña (dead at 48), Marco Pantani (dead at 34), and Laurent Fignon (dead at 50).
Can´t you just link the De Mondenard study? Thanks in advance.fmk_RoI said:The report was referenced for citing De Mondenard's study, which it did as follows:
You asked for the EU report, not De Mondenard.FoxxyBrown1111 said:Can´t you just link the De Mondenard study? Thanks in advance.The other link isn´t compatible with what you quote...
![]()
What I said originally:IndianCyclist said:Coppi died of Malaria. Fignon of cancer and Pantani of overdosing & Simpson of doping. The causes of death are so different that it is difficult to build a correlation. If the comparison is made between cyclists and general population dying of old age then a pattern can be determined otherwise it becomes erroneous.
I do think De Mondenard's 1990s study gave life to the lie that Tour vets die early. [...] Plus, of course, we've got the litany of names
I'd go further. I'd say the larger corrolation with suicide is actually more significant, as in a number of other sports such as, oddly, cricket.fmk_RoI said:I'm going to suggest you fetch a step-ladder as the point here seems to have gone waaaaay over your head. Based on a few well publicised cases people have a belief that X happens. However, when you look at empirical evidence, you actually find that Y is happening, not X. Lesson? A few well publicised cases don't mean much.
Yes, I posted a list of famous riders who died early (and early is the operative word - in that list I would only call Simpson and maybe Pantani "young"). But how many of those deaths have been definitively linked to doping during their pro career? Not all that many, actually. Probably as many as can definitively be linked to death by suicide and death by "natural" causes.
Is that sports, fame or riches that "causes" that?martinvickers said:I'd go further. I'd say the larger corrolation with suicide is actually more significant, as in a number of other sports such as, oddly, cricket.
Don't know, but on the issue of mortality rates, it's 100%. There are more dead cyclists than living ones....Izzy eviel said:How many GT cyclists have lived past 100?
Waiting for the opinion on if all these cyclists dope and they live longer, why is doping any different than holding onto a car, cheating on bike equipment, knocking an opponent off the road or any number of unsporting things done in sport?peterst6906 said:Don't know, but on the issue of mortality rates, it's 100%. There are more dead cyclists than living ones....
Sorry, I'll lock myself away again.
To live past 100, you are basically talking about riders who started a GT prior to WWII (taking 25 as the average age for riding your first Tour). With the early riders it's hard to know. For a lot of them we don't even have their date of birth, let alone their date of death. Someone could sit down and do the math, using the available info from MdC or CA, and they would in all likelihood find riders who lived past 100. But they would also have many gaps, where they wouldn't know either or both of the relevant dates.Izzy eviel said:How many GT cyclists have lived past 100?
To do a "proper" comparison of what? Pro cyclists with people who do regular but not excessive exercise and have a healthy diet?del1962 said:To do a proper comparison, you would have to compare pro cyclists with somone who takes regular but not excessive exercise though and had a healthy diet.
Inmates at Auschwitz have passed 100, but how many test cricketers would be in the sample of able to pass 100, I think about 700 people have played for England, but the numbers born prior to 1913 would be a vary small sample size.Izzy eviel said:How many GT cyclists have lived past 100?
I know in cricket, no test player has ever passed 100. It'd be interesting to see a comparison.
Unsurprisingly, that statement is great for the roses: Norman Gordon (SA) topped the ton and is still not out.Izzy eviel said:I know in cricket, no test player has ever passed 100. It'd be interesting to see a comparison.
He didn't retire at 24 and he had so many comebacks its hard to tell if his blood was artificially thickened at the point he had the blood clot which led to his death.fmk_RoI said:But EPO will not "cause" an embolism a decade after your retirement.
Not that odd perhaps. Cycling and cricket both involve guys spending a long time with the team on the road and not much time at home. As such, the team can represent a kind of family. Then, when retirement occurs, its not just the cheering crowd and centre of the action that they miss but also the personal/social side. That's a theory anyway.martinvickers said:I'd go further. I'd say the larger corrolation with suicide is actually more significant, as in a number of other sports such as, oddly, cricket.