I didn't slow down until I hit 51. The strongest drug i took was caffeine and haven't stopped takeing that. I did vo2 max test in my 20s,30s, and late 40s and max dropped all of 2 points in 25 years. I think that the best guys in your area will always be the best guys in your area until they get OLD like me. I know what you are saying but I find it hard to believe that the guys that always win are taking drugs. Most couldn't afford it
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I agree entirely. Its training, do it and you can hold it much longer than has been thought. Cycling is heart, lungs, quads and weight. Not a lot to focus on really, and not a lot of injuries; train and you're results will not change much over the years. This is why Chris Horner can be chugging up TDF hills with the best in the World at almost 40, and yet in amateur masters races we question a 40 yr old who wins, yet he would not hold a candle to a Pro, bizarre case of double standards. In most other sports there is a lot more breaks down as we approach 40 and hence results break down with it.
Berzin said:
I think it depends on how you define "maintained the same speed." For instance, I set my lifetime 40km TT PR last year at age 49. That might sound kind of odd until you take into account that I've gone from being a three time elite district TT champ and course record holder in my 20's and 30's to now being 1:30 behind the best guys in the district. Lots of changes to equipment, position, etc. have made me faster in mph than I was, but on a Watts/kg basis I am slower.
Another thing is that having raced in this district for over 25 years I know some of these races inside out. I've got a pretty well developed tactical sense so that even in P/1/2 races I often find myself in the break and placing well. I see the race developing better than a younger stronger guy who's been racing for only 2 or 3 years.
Put me in a situation where I have to go REALLY hard for 5 minutes up a climb and I'm porked. Put me in a situation where I only have to go pretty hard and there is a chance I can hang long enough to make the selection and then use experience to get a decent result.
Example. The Leesville Gap RR. The last two years in the P/1/2 group I've made the front group over the big climb. That climb is about 15' long and climbs close to 1500'. Knowing that race, I know where to get myself into the top 3 and the last two years all I had to do was hang on long enough for the group to get down to around 4-5 guys. At that point, the stronger guys don't try to split it up any further because there are still 40 miles to go with no significant obstacles and it would be counter productive to make the group too small or try to solo. In fact this year and last year I asked the guys to ease up a couple of times and they did. Why wouldn't they? They know I'm strong enough. They know I'll work. And they know that they'll beat me in the end.
It's a win, win situation for them. Am I one of the 5 strongest P/1/2 racers in Nor Cal? Hell no! But, I'm fairly strong and WAY more experienced than most P/1/2's and in the right situation I can use that to my advantage.On the other hand if I was to do say, Redlands I would get utterly shelled in something like the Sunset road race and a fair amount of the guys who I occasionally beat locally would do well. Because you can't out smart 5.5-6.0 W/kg in a hard race like that.
My point being, as you know bike racing is about a lot more than pure, brute strength, it is about tactics and team work. When I was young I had a big bag full of strong and a pretty empty bag of tactics and smarts. My bag of strong is not as full any more, but proportionately, my bag of tactics is overflowing and sometimes makes up for not being as strong. I can only imagine that this is a common story with older guys around the country. So looking at the final results of the race doesn't necessarily tell you in descending order how strong the riders are. Not at all.
Kevin
Really?Berzin said:
I'm 47 and set all time best TT power to weight ratio this year at the World Cup and an all time PB on our local TT course. Ansd winning races I used to grovel in when younger. Oh, and I had a lower leg amputation in 2007 as well. Therefore really I must be doping according to you.
Perhaps these last 5-6 years I have been training better than I ever did before?
Occam's razor.
Alex Simmons-No offense to you personally, but I don't buy your precept and never will.
In all other sports, be they of the contact or non-contact variety, by an athlete's mid-late 30's they're pretty much done.
But cycling seems to be quite the physiological anomaly, in that the participants keep getting faster, stronger and younger as they get older.
Hard work, dedication and dieting seems pretty useless in say, football, basketball and hockey in prolonging a player's career past a certain point.
Not so in cycling, where the terms "gifted" and "genetic freak" get tossed around like a salad to describe suspect performances at suspect ages.
I'll tell you this-many more people play basketball than ride road bikes, and it is a much more heterogeneous sport. I've played for years, from streetball in the 'hood to college. I've played with all types of cats, really good ballers from D-I programs and high-ranking high schools and junior colleges.
I can think of maybe three guys during those twenty-plus years who qualified as truly genetically gifted, or "freakish" in talent. THREE. And out of those three there was one who was better than the rest. Anyone who played with this guy or watched him play will tell you the same thing.
I cannot imagine why it would be any different in cycling, but apparently it is. Strange how we have so many physiologically and genetically gifted North American riders who never seem to make it big in Europe as youngsters, and only start doing well when they've aged out of the pro scene, but are such startling talents in the Master's category. Just seems a bit too weird...
In all other sports, be they of the contact or non-contact variety, by an athlete's mid-late 30's they're pretty much done.
But cycling seems to be quite the physiological anomaly, in that the participants keep getting faster, stronger and younger as they get older.
Hard work, dedication and dieting seems pretty useless in say, football, basketball and hockey in prolonging a player's career past a certain point.
Not so in cycling, where the terms "gifted" and "genetic freak" get tossed around like a salad to describe suspect performances at suspect ages.
I'll tell you this-many more people play basketball than ride road bikes, and it is a much more heterogeneous sport. I've played for years, from streetball in the 'hood to college. I've played with all types of cats, really good ballers from D-I programs and high-ranking high schools and junior colleges.
I can think of maybe three guys during those twenty-plus years who qualified as truly genetically gifted, or "freakish" in talent. THREE. And out of those three there was one who was better than the rest. Anyone who played with this guy or watched him play will tell you the same thing.
I cannot imagine why it would be any different in cycling, but apparently it is. Strange how we have so many physiologically and genetically gifted North American riders who never seem to make it big in Europe as youngsters, and only start doing well when they've aged out of the pro scene, but are such startling talents in the Master's category. Just seems a bit too weird...
Berzin said:
None of those sports have drafting or tactics like cycling does. In Basketball, if you lose a couple of steps you'll never get in another fast break. If a receiver slows down he will be easy to cover, etc. Not to mention Football and basketball beat your body up pretty good over the years. My 50 year old eyes would not be up to the task of hitting a major league fast ball or curve ball by any means. Not that they ever were... Not to mention the reflexes required to get the bat around in time to hit that ball. If I actually saw it...
On the other hand, if I'm in a race with Ben Jaque Maynes and he attacks the group, I can start near the front and drift back a bit while still staying in contact. There is a place for me to hide. For a while at least. I don't need to match his accelleration. I can give up a bit and still be there.
Back to my Leesville Gap example. In 2010 the lead group was Max Jenkins, Nate English, Phil Mooney, Evan Huffman and myself. Max and Nate had Evan and I on the ropes. Me more than Evan. Phil and Evan were team mates so Phil didn't push it. They eased off for me and we made it over the top together. The last 15 miles (of 60) is downhill or flat. I had decided to take my chances in the sprint even though it's not my forte. But there were a series of attacks, then a lull. It was instinctual for me to go and I did with about 5-6 miles to go. I got away alone and then Phill joined me a mile or so later. He was killing me and after one attack I called uncle and we finished together with him winning. Tactics. Now fast forward to an uphill TT on Mt Diablo 10km long. Nate took close to 2 minutes out of me. Stength. Then another event on Diablo. Mass start, 10.8 miles, 3000+ feet of climbing. Nate and Max took 4 minutes out of me (44' vs 48') and they weren't going all out, more tactical against each other. Stength. District TT, Phill took more than a minute out of me in 40km with a cracked rib. Stength.
My point being, if you looked at the Leesville results you'd get one idea, but if you looked at the two Diablo results or the District TT you would get a more accurate reflection of our relative strengths. That should be fairly obvious. I mean, you didn't think that Mark Cavendish was stronger than Cadel Evans because Cav won more stages in the Tour did you?
Kevin
nslckevin said:
Thanks genius. We get it. The strongest guy doesn't always win a bike race. I think that the most of us figured that out the first time we raced.
spetsa said:
No, I don't think that most of the people here do. Otherwise people would be able to look beyond the result on paper and not say stupid stuff like it's impossible for an old guy to do well against young riders because, well, he's old. Or if they do well, then they "must be on drugs".
I know that there are some really experienced racers here. Far more than myself, and raced at a higher level than I did. Frankly, I'm not sure who is and who isn't, but I'm also pretty sure that there are a bunch of guys who did a couple of cat 5 races, but watch the Tour on TV and think that they know ALL about bike racing. I also think that there are a bunch of guys who raced 15-20 years ago and their knowledge stops from when they quit. They are the equal of the french team directors that won't let you turn on the A/C in the summer because the chill will make you sick.
Kevin
Berzin said:
Could a possibility be that Cycling isn't a load bearing sport and does not have repetitive collsions or high reliance upon instant changes of direction or split second reaction times (generally).
Athletes in ball sports in particular burn out in their early 30s because the majority of them are carrying multiple recontructions just to keep playing. A cyclist only really encounters this from crash damage and its the minority that get injured that badly. Cyclists do have to deal with accelerations etc but they don't need to do 180 degree turns with their bodies in strange positions, taking impacts when they do.
Another thing to think about is that the age of uptake of a sport has a bit of an effect, I think. Someone who started riding at 10yrs old is probably bored of it by 35. But what about someone who takes it up at 35? It will certainly take a few years of training to get their level up to something reasonable, but in a lot of cases, these guys have their lives sorted out enough to have the time to get the training in.
One thing I know is that some of the fastest guys I race against are well into their 40s - they are generally semi-retired and are doing upwards of 700km per week. Given that I get to do less than 300 a week is there any surprise that they smash me? They cannot sprint but they can ride and ride and ride...
Masters racing is also about Genetics and I don't just mean someone who was gifted in their 20's being always more genetically gifted than others. People age at different rates. 50 is about the age where unfortunately many people get seriously sick with cancer etc.
Some people are fortunate to not get sick. I don't take any medication of any kind, and have only had 2 days off sick in my life. (Touch wood). I am finding that as I get older I am getting better and better against people my own age. Also my job forces me to have periods of rest which is both therapeutic for body and mind, so I never get into a burnt out / totally fatigued state.
As a person with virtually no sprint ability I come into my own when the distance / time increases and always seem to be in better shape than most around me after 4+ hours of riding.
Of course increasing training hours / quality of training / losing 10kg etc etc is always going to make huge differences in your results.
Take the 3 disciplines of Triathlon (which collectively is massively harder than most cyclists admit to). If I were to dive into the pool with Ian Thorpe I would not be able to keep up with him for even 1 metre. If I sprinted alongside Haile Gebrselassie I might just be able to keep up with him for 300 metres. But in cycling I can race at 40-55 kmh, which means that provided the road was relatively flat and I was protected I could possibly ride in a pro peleton for an hour or more. What other sport can you do that in?
The drafting and non-weight bearing effect of cycling are huge. Add in the bike technology, and even without PED's you get faster and faster Masters cycling.
Some people are fortunate to not get sick. I don't take any medication of any kind, and have only had 2 days off sick in my life. (Touch wood). I am finding that as I get older I am getting better and better against people my own age. Also my job forces me to have periods of rest which is both therapeutic for body and mind, so I never get into a burnt out / totally fatigued state.
As a person with virtually no sprint ability I come into my own when the distance / time increases and always seem to be in better shape than most around me after 4+ hours of riding.
Of course increasing training hours / quality of training / losing 10kg etc etc is always going to make huge differences in your results.
Take the 3 disciplines of Triathlon (which collectively is massively harder than most cyclists admit to). If I were to dive into the pool with Ian Thorpe I would not be able to keep up with him for even 1 metre. If I sprinted alongside Haile Gebrselassie I might just be able to keep up with him for 300 metres. But in cycling I can race at 40-55 kmh, which means that provided the road was relatively flat and I was protected I could possibly ride in a pro peleton for an hour or more. What other sport can you do that in?
The drafting and non-weight bearing effect of cycling are huge. Add in the bike technology, and even without PED's you get faster and faster Masters cycling.
Life cycles are important too. I started racing in my teens, had jobs which enabled me to stay fit and didn't interfere with training. I was modestly successful. I married in my late thirties, started a family and now have a job that makes it hard to train. These days I race mainly to keep in satisfactory shape. I haven't won a race for about four years and last year I was DNF in most of the open elite races I entered.
When I race in the masters category, I race against men whose children have already left home or are divorced and have nothing better to do but train. I also race against men who have made good money and now let others run their business. They have top end equipment and time to train and channel their competitiveness into their sport. Many though, are not tactically astute and many are strong but have poor technique. At this level I am competitive but by far from being the best.
On the other hand, I know a pharmacist who tells me that some of these masters riders are on testosterone - which I do consider to be cheating.
When I race in the masters category, I race against men whose children have already left home or are divorced and have nothing better to do but train. I also race against men who have made good money and now let others run their business. They have top end equipment and time to train and channel their competitiveness into their sport. Many though, are not tactically astute and many are strong but have poor technique. At this level I am competitive but by far from being the best.
On the other hand, I know a pharmacist who tells me that some of these masters riders are on testosterone - which I do consider to be cheating.
Firstly:Berzin said:
I have never mentioned "gifted" or "genetic freak". Indeed just the opposite. I know the power outputs of the top masters riders. Despite all the stuff bandied about, they are not at Pro Tour levels. Which is why they don't race Pro Tour and are not freaks.
In cycling, the physiological performance of top masters men is roughly equivalent to the top elite women.
Secondly:
As others have said, cycling is not like many other sports due to the unique combination of the physics of cycling and its physiological demands. Rowing comes to mind as having some similar qualities of primarily aerobic endurance, no weight bearing on the legs and low forces/impact, although rowing events are more akin to track endurance events (like pursuit) and have proportionally higher anaerobic demands (than road racing).
Thirdly:
Of course as one ages beyond about 35, our athletic *potential* begins to decline (at a rate that's pretty well established), however as has been pointed out, many do not have the opportunity to realise their potential earlier in life, and so while their potential when older may be less than it was when younger, they now have the opportunity to train so that they can perform far closer to their potential than they did when younger.
That alone can and does account for most going better as they get older.
It would seem that I am an example of that. My training and racing in my 30s was no where near as disciplined or focused as it was in my 40s. My performances in my 40s are far better than they were in my 30s. And I managed with excellent training to reclaim and even better my performances after an amputation in my mid 40s!
This is me with a bit of leg missing (and a "freakish" threshold power of 4.2W/kg) winning an open A grade Masters event this year, including with former Pro riders:
Of course riding across to the break and having your team mates keep the rest under control always helps...
So the consensus is that a rider can keep improving well into his 40's, 50's and 60's, despite the fact that natural testosterone and growth hormone levels, among other physiological factors, decrease with age. That is absolutely unbelievable.
If this is the case, then please explain to me why the anti-aging industry is absolutely booming and who exactly is it that's driving this market.
I'll answer that for you-it's the same yuppies who some of you guys are racing against.
I would love to see some physiological profiles to back up some of the clearly ludicrous claims being made in the last couple of posts.
If this is the case, then please explain to me why the anti-aging industry is absolutely booming and who exactly is it that's driving this market.
I'll answer that for you-it's the same yuppies who some of you guys are racing against.
I would love to see some physiological profiles to back up some of the clearly ludicrous claims being made in the last couple of posts.
Berzin said:
Berzin, you appear to be deliberately ignoring the prefacing comments from Alex, Kevin & others - That they had not been able to train to the max of their capabilities during their 20's & 30's, but once in their 40's and 50's they have been able to do so.
I am positive that had they not been chasing shiela's, drinking with mates, trying to build a business, having children, keeping a marriage together, etc, they would have been MUCH better in their 20's and 30's than they are now.
Given that they now have the dedication and time to give to the training, and the discipline to do it well, then they deserve and get their successes.
YES, there are those riders who do not put in the hours of training, but rely on the pharmacy to get them fit and across the line first, they deserve all your venom and hatred.
I have a similar experience to Alex, et al, having been tied up with a family and what-not when younger, I didn't have the opportunity to train & perform at my best.
However lately I have been able to train much better, and my performaces (in training, at least) are FAR better than anything I have done in my racing as a younger person.
I am now 51, and have been riding better times in ITT's (my preferred discipline) over 20 & 40km in the past 3 years than EVER BEFORE, and getting better - and NO, I don't use illegal PED's, high-grade espresso coffee is the worst I will ever go.
I do not believe that anybody in this thread is claiming that there is no doping, or that that cyclists will continue to improve through their 40's, 50's and 60's IF THEY HAVE THE SAME TRAINING REGIME AS IN THEIR 20's OR 30's!!!
They are consistently saying that they have maintained or improved their performaces BECAUSE they have MORE TIME & MORE DISCIPLINE which equals BETTER PERFORMANCE.
GreasyMonkey said:
You can believe this if you want to, but to me it's hogwash.
What you seem to be saying is the natural aging process doesn't affect cyclists heading into their 40's and beyond. They just keep getting better and better even as their endocrine levels decrease.
And it's true because...
1) These riders now have more time to train and eat better than when they were in their 20's.
2) Cycling, being a non-contact sport, makes a rider immune to the natural aging process.
By the way, I have no venom to spew. I just don't believe anything you guys are saying as to why Master's racers year in and year out go faster and faster.
Berzin said:
No, you are not reading what I say....
I am saying that GIVEN ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL AT 20 years Vs 40 years, then an individual's performance will decrease, HOWEVER, the decline in natural capacity to recover & perform up to approx 50 years is LESS or EQUAL than some person's training load, dedication, and tactical nous in reading a race (draughting, co-operative working, etc), or having the discipline to suffer more as they are more mature, etc.
In the situations that have been presented by Kevin, Martin318s, Alex & myself are ones where the situation was NOT EQUAL in terms of training time, load, knowledge, discipline, etc from when these persons were in their 20's Vs their 40's, hence these persons have experienced an improvment in their personal performances, NOT their physiological capability (which has declined, as you have stated).
The non-contact/low-impact nature of cycling is a benefit as it does not place such high demands on the body for the recovery/re-building of cellular structures, thus allowing riders to be competitive for more years than in full-contact/high-impact sports.
Berzin said:
I can't decide if you have a reading comprehension problem, if you're deliberately ignoring what people are saying, or if you are an idiot.
For starters, define "faster and faster". What is your evidence? Are you looking at TT times? Something else?
As for myself, I WAS better in my 20's. I raced in the 1988 Olympic road trials and the 1996 Olympic track trials. In neither case though did I get close to qualifying for the games.
Here is one thing I KNOW. Compared to the best riders in Nor Cal I AM slower than when I was in my 20's. example,
1989 52:19 at the district TT, 1st, course record
Early '90s (I was about 30-31) 50:57, 1st, course record
2010 50:11 new PR, but 1:21 behind the new course record set that day.
Bikes are faster, wheels are faster, the road was repaved in late 2009. In absolute speed I am faster than when I was in my 20's, but that is all due to technological advances. Bikes, wheels, helmets, position, etc. Physically I am slower otherwise there is no reason I wouldn't have done a 48:50 or close to it also.
Here is one thing that I "think". I "think" that my training is of much higher quality than it was when I was young. I "think" that I am closer to my current limits than when I was in my 20's. I "think" though that my limits are lower at 50 than when I was in my 20's. I "think" that time trialing is an acquired taste and the turnout does not reflect the full strength of a district's riders. I also "think" that time trialing is probably a riders best bet for being competitive with younger riders as they age. Better mind set, experience, can afford better equipment, not hindered by the losses in absolute strength as one ages, etc.
I "think" that you have an idea that you want to believe and you will just ignore anything that counters it.
Kevin
nslckevin said:
I "think" you are correct on most counts. Motivation has alot to do with commitment level and you have clearly maintained or increased your focus. Young guys, pros included; take time to find their limits unless they attract enough attention to have lab rat level training analysis by the right coach at the right time. Very few competitors get that opportunity so many stellar talents likely exhaust their efforts imitating what they "think" they are capable of rather than exploiting their best strengths. Once that is realized if the rider is smart enough he/she can apply the appropriate tactics; a point you had made earlier. Again, most riders including pros seldom have all of that experience merge at the same time motivation is at it's peak.
The reality is PED's compensate for those shortfalls all too often.
I was at the 1988 Olympic Trials. I went there on 100 miles per week of training. When I was racing as a senior cat 2, I had 2 little girls and had started a business. I quit racing in 1990 and didn't start again until 1995. A racer from California moved to New England and joined our team. He taught me how to train. I went from riding 100 miles per week as a senior to 300+ miles per week as a Master. The results proved that the training worked.
I still have the picture of my daughter and I after I finished the 40 km TT that was on the front page of the Spokane newspaper. I was paired with Richard Mcclung in the 50 km and I had trouble holding his wheel after I had beaten him by 2 minutes in the 40 km. Training is important!
I still have the picture of my daughter and I after I finished the 40 km TT that was on the front page of the Spokane newspaper. I was paired with Richard Mcclung in the 50 km and I had trouble holding his wheel after I had beaten him by 2 minutes in the 40 km. Training is important!
gobuck said:
Jeez, you're in my 'hood! I started in '89 at Master's age and marveled at how poorly everyone trained in Seattle; having a running background to compare to cycling. The club scene was very rigid and the status quo maintained their regional stature by dictating pace on mass (and requisite) training rides. Another guy started racing at the same time that also wasn't constrained by the club scene: Glen Bunselmeyer. He routinely rode huge miles and soon the local hierarchy changed. Glen doesn't race anymore due to a competition injury and it's the loss of the sport. He was a catalyst for much improvement and good attitude which is also important.
This thread has nearly 3,000 views yet only a couple people have answered Kevin’s questions directly. I’ll give my opinions below after some comments and examples.
I’ve been racing my bike off and on for 36 years, having started at 14. I was able to reach nearly the same fitness level in my mid-to-late 40s as I had in my 20s and 30s, which was adequate to be on the occasional podium in P/1/2 road races. My training was better and more focused, which mostly offset any physiological degradation from aging. It’s a simple fact.
But there are much better examples. Without identifying them by name, two of the perennially best masters riders here in California have done remarkably well at the elite amateur natz RR when in their mid-to-late 40s, in one case winning the race, and the other guy more recently got the bronze. I have no doubt they are both totally clean, and USADA testing supports that opinion. These guys are examples of what is possible as an older racer. The thing is, however, that neither one of them is as strong and fit as they were when they were younger. They’ve done well to minimize the degradation of aging, but it’s still there. One of them cranks out 300+ miles a week, just like he has done for the last 25 years. The other is truly a genetically gifted athlete who also happens to be one of the smartest riders around (and is a former teammate of Kevin's!) You don’t need to look too hard to find more examples of riders doing very well into their 40s… former Olympians Eric Wohlberg and Jame Carney show what’s possible with good hard training.
So, suggesting that a person racing successfully into their 40s is a sign of doping is ridiculous.
Here are my opinions re Kevin’s questions:
- I have raced in California off and on for a long time, not so much the last 2-3 years.
- I think perhaps a couple percent of the regular top 10-20 placers in Masters races use PEDs deliberately. I do not think it’s necessarily correlated with top placings however, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that some of the dopers rarely place.
- I think very few masters women dope, certainly less than the men. I do think you’d be more likely to find a masters woman doping for track racing than for road.
- I doubt there is much difference in PED use across 35+, 45+, and 55+ groups, but I might be naïve about the anti-aging dopers.
Sorry for my lengthy, first-ever post in CN forums, but what brings me out of lurking is a real disgust of how willing people are to anonymously accuse other riders of doping based on nothing more than innuendo, or because said rider does well in races. It's gotten to be a pretty nasty environment and that's unfortunate.
Mark Fennell
I’ve been racing my bike off and on for 36 years, having started at 14. I was able to reach nearly the same fitness level in my mid-to-late 40s as I had in my 20s and 30s, which was adequate to be on the occasional podium in P/1/2 road races. My training was better and more focused, which mostly offset any physiological degradation from aging. It’s a simple fact.
But there are much better examples. Without identifying them by name, two of the perennially best masters riders here in California have done remarkably well at the elite amateur natz RR when in their mid-to-late 40s, in one case winning the race, and the other guy more recently got the bronze. I have no doubt they are both totally clean, and USADA testing supports that opinion. These guys are examples of what is possible as an older racer. The thing is, however, that neither one of them is as strong and fit as they were when they were younger. They’ve done well to minimize the degradation of aging, but it’s still there. One of them cranks out 300+ miles a week, just like he has done for the last 25 years. The other is truly a genetically gifted athlete who also happens to be one of the smartest riders around (and is a former teammate of Kevin's!) You don’t need to look too hard to find more examples of riders doing very well into their 40s… former Olympians Eric Wohlberg and Jame Carney show what’s possible with good hard training.
So, suggesting that a person racing successfully into their 40s is a sign of doping is ridiculous.
Here are my opinions re Kevin’s questions:
- I have raced in California off and on for a long time, not so much the last 2-3 years.
- I think perhaps a couple percent of the regular top 10-20 placers in Masters races use PEDs deliberately. I do not think it’s necessarily correlated with top placings however, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that some of the dopers rarely place.
- I think very few masters women dope, certainly less than the men. I do think you’d be more likely to find a masters woman doping for track racing than for road.
- I doubt there is much difference in PED use across 35+, 45+, and 55+ groups, but I might be naïve about the anti-aging dopers.
Sorry for my lengthy, first-ever post in CN forums, but what brings me out of lurking is a real disgust of how willing people are to anonymously accuse other riders of doping based on nothing more than innuendo, or because said rider does well in races. It's gotten to be a pretty nasty environment and that's unfortunate.
Mark Fennell
Master's Track
I've been mulling over the question of quantifying a doping population since this thread was started. Here's a first try. It needs more work though.
We know there is a very high threshold for a positive and we know there are a huge number of false negatives. The phrase "never tested positive" has been sufficiently debunked by now. (See Marion Jones)
So far in 2011, two master's racers that were at Track Nationals and won a discipline have been processed. A Master's field at Track nationals is about 20 riders. I think it is reasonable that at least 2 of most fields of about 20 riders below the age of 50 is doping. The above 50 race fields are too small. Accounting for the high threshold for a positive and the large number of false negatives, at minimum 10% of most Master's Track Nationals field is doping. 2011 is not even over yet!
And then there's the other 98% that won't go to nationals regardless of the discipline. This population is being mixed up with the Nationals attending population in some replies. The non-Nationals attending riders is a very difficult population to test. No conclusions being drawn for that group.
Road results are not as easily sorted because some riders that should be categorized as Master's are actually riding Pro. I have yet to work road disciplines out. A fund to pay for broad, surprise testing at a few big regional road events would be a great way to collect data.
I've been mulling over the question of quantifying a doping population since this thread was started. Here's a first try. It needs more work though.
We know there is a very high threshold for a positive and we know there are a huge number of false negatives. The phrase "never tested positive" has been sufficiently debunked by now. (See Marion Jones)
So far in 2011, two master's racers that were at Track Nationals and won a discipline have been processed. A Master's field at Track nationals is about 20 riders. I think it is reasonable that at least 2 of most fields of about 20 riders below the age of 50 is doping. The above 50 race fields are too small. Accounting for the high threshold for a positive and the large number of false negatives, at minimum 10% of most Master's Track Nationals field is doping. 2011 is not even over yet!
And then there's the other 98% that won't go to nationals regardless of the discipline. This population is being mixed up with the Nationals attending population in some replies. The non-Nationals attending riders is a very difficult population to test. No conclusions being drawn for that group.
Road results are not as easily sorted because some riders that should be categorized as Master's are actually riding Pro. I have yet to work road disciplines out. A fund to pay for broad, surprise testing at a few big regional road events would be a great way to collect data.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Latest posts
-
Teams & Riders General topic for riders who don't deserve their own thread (yet)- Latest: Armchair cyclist
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram