blue_nose

You have to remember that these guys (and maybe even Versus as whole) have their livelihood dependent on the pro peleton. If the Tour implodes, they probably loose their primary source of income. Much like everyone else, they are fed up and want a sport they can be proud of.

40 Cent

4+mph avg. increase over a 3-week stage race is a big difference. Just look at the hour record: Merckx' '72 record on steel (49.431 km) v. Sosenka's '05 ride on carbon (49.7 km). A little faster, sure, but...

Laggard

Oh yes, some of it is technology. Like most performance improvements in any sport, most of it seems to be improved training methods. The 100 yard sprint is mostly neutral from an equipment point of view but look at the world record now verses 50 years ago.

The point has been made that the speed of the modern tdf and the overall increase in difficulty has really put most riders on the rivet so to say. Combine this with the ever increasing prestige of the TDF and you get a lot of riders desperate enough to try anything.

Uncle Ted

Let's put 34kmph vs. 41 kmph in perspective here. 7 kmph doesn't sound like much but if you run some power estimates (admittedly on flats so not too precise and also assuming solo efforts) it comes to 325 watts vs. 200 watts. Sure high tech gear will make you more efficient, but not THAT much more efficient. Supposing that both the power calculator i'm using is off and that the effect of hills on these calculations will significantly skew the numbers (which it will) that is still plausibly thought to be too much of a difference to chalk up to technological improvements in gear and training over the last 30 years.

genec

Heck yeah he's dominant... all the big name riders have left the tour... through one scandal or another.

At this rate, the 2008 tour will be made up of some high school kids.

julian

So, after all those years and all those bike improvements are you any faster?
7 pounds on a bike if you are around 150 pounds would mean a 4 percent weight difference if your old bike weighed 24 pounds and your new one weighs 17 pounds. Now do the pros have bikes that are that much lighter than 1974? Also they didn't wear helmets so they probably saved weight there and they did wear wind cheating lycra back then too.
To discount that doping is rampant and has been since the early 90's is just putting your head in the sand.
I tend to side more with Al on the issue than the other commentators. For Phil Bob and Paul to be shocked is beyond me. I think they were more shocked they were caught than the fact that they were doping.
You really can't blame the riders though, since it is the way they make money and the culture of doping pretty much let them get away with it.
They need to come up with a better system though to keep this from destroying the race and competitive road cycling.
If I ran the TDF I would:
1.Test riders before the race
2. Get rid of team doctors
3. Everyone eats in the same mess hall
4. Rooms are check every day
5. They have a rest day before the last day of the tour where they test all winners
6. Anyone who doesn't pass gets tossed
7. The podium places are given on the final day
8. They destroy all samples and say
See you next year!

Simoni

He'd probably punch you in the face...

boyze

For most of the race only the front few dudes are putting out that much power. Many riders on this forum could easily get pulled along in the middle of a 169 rider peleton on a flat stage at 25 mph without a synthetic juice IV

HardyWeinberg

I was thinking it's so clearly the same family of lies (to others) and denial (to self) you see in other addictions.

Simoni

First, if you read the post you'd see that what was said was you can't totally dismiss equipment. I didn't say it was all equipment. Since I was racing in Europe during the period you mention, I know full well what I was riding. Note my mention of the involvement of the medical profession. "Better cycling through chemistry."

Second, the frame was a CAAD7. Even the original Six/13, the frame I rode after, that is obsolete.

Steel and titanium and the rest are not in the Pro Tour peloton. I can't even think, off the top of my head (other than a System Six) a Pro tour frame that has aluminum in it.

Helmet Head

I wouldn't. A typical pro athlete would.

A survey of pro athletes a few years ago showed that a large number ( a majority if I remember correctly ) said they were willing to take something if it made them a champion in their sport, even if they knew it would kill them within two years. The drive to win in these guys is incomprehensible to us mere mortals.

roadwarrior

In 1954 Roger Bannister ran the mile in 3.59.4

In 1999 Hicham El Gerrouj ran it in 3.43.13

Since 1975, the record has dropped six seconds (1975-1999 or 24 years)

Lots of things have changed in lots of sports. Not much for the better. Listening to Sportscenter on XM, the first 4 or 5 stories were all legal or cheating related.

Microcosm of society. Whatever it take to get ahead, get promoted, win, or feel good...as long as you don't get caught.

Pretty sad.

Layback

Yeah, and Barry Bonds deserves fame and fortune.

skinny

I think watching Evgeni Berzin perform in a Grand Tour was argument enough that the increases were primarily "better living through chemistry"

Umm, neither of those frames is obsolete. I won't even go into the frames in the protour that have aluminum in them, but here is a protour frame made of steel that was used last year. Notice the wheels. There are others, but I haven't the time.

The equipment changes in the last thirty years are not so significant as to account for the unprecedented rapid increase in performance. Lemond was right. When modern PEDs hit the scene, riders who couldn't hold his wheel were riding away from him and setting unprecedented record times in races.

San Rensho 

The commentary today sounded like a witch hunt, or Alice in Wonderland justice, "Sentence first, trial later, off with his head!" The fervor that every commentator exhibited in clamoring to prove that he is the most anti-doping commmentator was disgusting. Every single one assumes that Rasmussen is guilty of doping, yet Rasmussen has not tested positive for ANYTHING. He missed several urine drops in the off season, but he has not tested positive.

Reminds me of the Mc Carthy era where just mere innuendo made you guilty and then there was no way to prove your innocence. I almost gagged when Bob Rolle said that Rasmussen shouldn't complain that the yellow had been snatched from him because he was the one who "snatched" the yellow from all the adoring, hopeful fans by doping. Wake up Bob, he has never tested positive, how do you prove he doped.

And of course, after the fact, all the commentators can conclusively explain what happened in the past, "Oh, well the doping explains why he did so well in this stage or that stage, since Rasmussen is not known for his time trialing abilities." Well you know, all four of the commentators should stick to the very difficult task of predicting events that happened in the past, because they sure can't pick who is going to win any particular stage.

The anti doping hysteria has gone too far, and it is pathetic, although understandable, that the media has jumped on the bandwagon instead of exercising some independent judgement.

gmason

Your subtle way of accusing LA of doping?

San Rensho 

Your selective examples completely distort the time differences, as the yearly times var widely.

I'll take two examples that completely contradict your examples. In 1960, the average speed was 37 kph, in 2000 it was 38 kph. While there has been a steady increase in speed over time, it is not as great as you make it out to be and has only gone up approximately 5 kph since the middle of the 1950s, from about 35 kph to around 40 kph.

And by the way, the money has always been in the tour and doping has always been a huge part of the tour. In the first years of the tour, the dope of choice was strychnine and cognac. Doping has gotten different in the 90s, but I dare say that amphetamine/alcohol combinations during the race, which was the dope of choice in the 60s, was more effective than doping today.

boyze

Actually about the same. However, I suspect my 55 year old quads and significantly lower weekly mileage have more to do with my present speed than the equipment improvements.

Very true. But a 4% reduction saves almost 2 minutes on Alpe d' Huez for the same world class effort.

yup. Double butted 531 steel was pretty much the frame of choice. Recall the 13 lb weight minimum now in force.

most racing helmets are in the 8-10oz range. Lycra didn't hit the circuit until the early 80's. Wool was the preferred choice prior to lycra.

wasn't discounting the influence of juicing, but simply pointing out the fact that bikes and associated equipment and training knowledge has change significantly in the last 30 years

genec

Add to that a parallel testing lab... so the testing is not done in just one place. While it is the Tour d'France... it is also an international event. So pick a country that does not have riders in the Tour and ask them to do independent testing.

Helmet Head

There is a code of silence with regard to the widespread prevalence of pro cycling doping within the pro cycling industry, Al broke that code, and that made the others uncomfortable.

But, I too was surprised at Phil's comments, for they were broaching breaking the code too.

Yet still, even with Al, there is this sense that they are trying to convey that there are only a few bad apples here and there, but it's not widespread. Note that they only concede as much as they absolutely must, given what even the ignorant now know, because conceding any less would be farcical. Al might have gone a bit further, but if you ask me, it's all farcical at this point.

merlinextraligh

yeah, but they've been subject to enhancing substances as well

merlinextraligh

I believe Liggett has an ownership interest in World Cycling Productions (that sells the Videos of TDF), and at any rate Phil and Paul are heavily invested in Pro cycling.

Trautwig has a 3 week gig, and does lots of other sports.

skinny

So why aren't the riders using this today? Why aren't we seeing positive tests for these substances?

Curiouser and curiouser.

gmason

The death of Tom Simpson forty years ago directly as a result might be one.

merlinextraligh

Or that it had little real benefit, certainly compared to EPO.


And one death wouldn't stop an effective doping method. Tens, if not hundreds of cyclists have died from EPO use.