Iban Mayo

Originally Posted by thunder

I dont think riders want to dope, if they know everyone else is doping. I think most dope, not because of advantage, but because of neutralising disadvantage. If that is truly the case, then you will get a majority constituency supporting anti-doping measures. It will only be those riders that know their performances are underpinned by their doping programs who should protest.

Who wants to spend 10 thousand Euros a year, on the cheapest plan. Who wants to spend 80 thousand a year. Who wants juniors doping. I dont think anyone wants them doping. Time for a solution folks.

Originally Posted by TheDarkLord

I am not sure I agree with this though. Was there not some study where athletes were interviewed on whether they would take some drug if it guaranteed a gold medal in Olympics even if it meant major long term health problems, and a significant number answered that they would take that drug? I agree that many do dope because everyone else does, but there will also be riders who dope just to get the yellow jersey.

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

I used that same survey earlier on to explain the dangers of doping...but I think thunder's point was that the environment of doping is so pervasive in cycling, that pros are mostly doping so that they are not at a disadvantage. Though its possible in the future...I don't think the scenario you illustrated above, presents itself currently in cycling.

A similar analogy would be corporate technology. Most companies spend on IT to stay with the competition, not usually to gain an advantage. Mainly because IT and developments in technology are so pervasive in the marketplace. This is similar to doping technology and its adoption in cycling.

Originally Posted by TheDarkLord

What I wonder is whether cycling is really that different from other sports in terms of doping. Didn't Victor Conte estimate that about 50% of the athletes (or was it just the winners?) in the Sydney Olympics were doped? I think it is just that cycling is one sport where doping is in the spotlight rather than in the sidelines. I do understand thunder's point - I was just saying that even if most pros don't dope, it is possible that some will still dope (irrespective of health consequences for example) purely for fame and glory.

Originally Posted by thunder

I think in T&F, especially male T&F it is nearly as rife, at the Olympic final level. Olympic finals, would not find many clean I would think.

The only sport I think that would eclipse cycling is weightlifting.

NFL would be not far behind cycling. But many positions not on line of scrimmage, it might not be necessary. Yes, aiding, but not necessary. I doubt many linebackers or linesmen are clean.

MLB, lag a little behind NFL, but not by much.

NHL and NBA, further behind, but not clean.

Spanish soccer, doped thru the eyeballs like NFL. Spanish tennis, a bit further behind, but you can bet Nadal was on Fuentes list.

Agentinean tennis, like the best nightclubs in Miami, those guys do more amphetamines than a small nation.

Track cycling. See road cycling.

Swimming, probably on a level about where NHL, NBA is. Cleaner than most other sports mentioned, but still dirty. Olympic finals, very dirty.

Originally Posted by italiano

Athletics and cross country skiing are at least as bad as bici.

I find it very interesting that historical mortality among pro cyclists seems higher than in other sports and general popolazion. May be drugs, may be hard life, may be bici sport is too difficult. Scores of champones did not live to their 60s.

Originally Posted by thunder

x-country skiiers do not have GT's.

Originally Posted by confusedfan

Well, they're trying to start something like a GT - think the first time was last year, but it's 8 days of racing in 10 days total so more like a non-GT stage race ...

Originally Posted by thunder

I thought a doctor was gonna correct me re:large hearts. Then I saw it was only "confused fan" replying.

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

Yeah...what is exactly the theory or empirical evidence behind large hearts being a problem in more sedentary old age, thunder?

I don't need to be thinking while I'm doing miles and keeping fit that I am making my heart larger and shortening my life.

Is it just a problem for those that have taken supplemental steroids through their athletic life?

Originally Posted by 9.8mps2

To oversimplify a bit, the hypertrophy resulting from either aerobic or anaerobic training are non pathologic and reversible . Anaerobic excercise may allow ventricular remodeling and result in stiff ventricles . But by far ,most pathologic hypertrophy is that resulting from chronic hypertension . The greatest prevention for hypertension is excercise .
Perhaps these riders you mention were predisposed to hypertension , and in the post racing sedentary change it manifested itself.
Maybe they suffered from coronary artery disease / infarctions at a youngish age . MI's are bad news for 50 ish year olds as they lack the collateral arterial developement found in older bulls.
It is interesting . Do you have any morbidity or mortality figures on these ex champs ? Did heart failure or coronary artery disease kill them ? cancer ? Drunken automobile mishaps ? Jealous husbands ?

Originally Posted by 9.8mps2

Perhaps these riders you mention were predisposed to hypertension , and in the post racing sedentary change it manifested itself.
Maybe they suffered from coronary artery disease / infarctions at a youngish age

Originally Posted by italiano

Athletics and cross country skiing are at least as bad as bici.

I find it very interesting that historical mortality among pro cyclists seems higher than in other sports and general popolazion. May be drugs, may be hard life, may be bici sport is too difficult. Scores of champones did not live to their 60s.