Tour de France Rest Day News

[JR]

I don't understand steriod use in golf. Many of them look like they've never seen a gym, and although Tiger is fit I wouldn't consider him top athlete from a physical standpoint.

Taking the bait, and FWIW...

Stanford's former weight-room supervisor told golf coach Wally Goodwin that "pound for pound, Tiger's one of the strongest athletes on campus." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/gol...es/tiger/fire/

[HarmsWay]

Wasn't it Tiger Woods who got laser surgery on his eyes to make them better than 20/20? If so, I'd say that's an even worse message to sends to kids than short term steroid use.

Bob

PS. Another positive:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/othe...ng/6915683.stm

[JR]

Wasn't it Tiger Woods who got laser surgery on his eyes to make them better than 20/20?

A slight mis-statement of the facts. Tiger was legally blind without corrective lenses. His contacts were bugging him. He got Lasik. When you get lasik they have some flexibility as to what the resulting visual acuity will be.

After I had radial karetotemy, my right eye was 20/19, my left was something different (skewed for reading). Sadly, it didn't help my golf game.

JR

[HarmsWay]

Yeah sorry, I should have checked that one myself. I stand corrected. If Tiger was legally blind prior to sugery that's a completely different story.

Bob

[Kristofor]

Wasn't it Tiger Woods who got laser surgery on his eyes to make them better than 20/20? If so, I'd say that's an even worse message to sends to kids than short term steroid use.

If I could have elective surgery to have high acquity vision and hearing, burn calories at a variable rate to always stay the perfect weight, and monitor blood chemestry in real time to zap free radicals, trans-fats, carcinogens, and other nasties that sounds pretty appealing if the risks were low enough...

Most of the banned substances mimic existing natural compounds or their effects. They're only banned because a) they have negative health implications in some cases, and b) it sets up an unfair competition. IMO only reason a) has merit, case b) is just like some teams having recovery busses with better technology and more amenities than others.

Take two people with different genetic backgrounds and subject them to the identical training regiment and one will probably surpass the other because their body naturally processes oxygen faster, or clears toxins better or whatnot. What if you could modify the function of the second person's body to process oxygen just as efficiently? Is that cheating because he/she has less fit parents if the end result is that their bodies have the same physical capabilities and the competition comes down to a mental one?

If one person naturally produces a higher load of red blood cells what does it mean to "cheat" if you're taking EPO to match that level? Should it be like horse jockeys where there's a set weight and riders can go natural or dope to hit that level?

[HarmsWay]

if the risks were low enough

That's the key phrase I think. Name a substance or procedure that will give an advantage and I bet there's a risk. Obviously any surgery has risks that will be unacceptable to some (even laser eye surgery). EPO has huge risks associated with it. I agree the risk part is what should be considered when talking about a ban. I'm not sure what risks are associated with super charging with your own blood - other than unnecessary needles in your veins. How can they test for that?

What if you could modify the function of the second person's body to process oxygen just as efficiently? Is that cheating because he/she has less fit parents if the end result is that their bodies have the same physical capabilities and the competition comes down to a mental one?

First of all bodies, bodies are different. If X needs to cheat to match Y's natural ability and we allow that, then surely Y will have cause to cheat as well. Vicious circle.

Bob

[prlundberg]

Take two people with different genetic backgrounds and subject them to the identical training regiment and one will probably surpass the other because their body naturally processes oxygen faster, or clears toxins better or whatnot. What if you could modify the function of the second person's body to process oxygen just as efficiently? Is that cheating because he/she has less fit parents if the end result is that their bodies have the same physical capabilities and the competition comes down to a mental one?

Well, I think that's the main issue here. Since with many substances they really can't tell what is natural levels and what is not, they set their standards on the high side.

What this does is gives people without great genetics an opportunty to try to get as close to the maximum allowed levels possible without going over.

The problem of course is people will do anything possible to get to the maximum without going over. If you are not artificially pushing the allowed limits, you may not be competitive.

Perhaps somebody with more expertise on the subject could explain that better than me.

[JR]

The problem of course is people will do anything possible to get to the maximum without going over. If you are not artificially pushing the allowed limits, you may not be competitive.

Your point is well taken. Two cases in point:

1. Hematocrit level is tested as an indicator of potential blood doping. If you're above 50% you're put on "health leave". After failing the hematocrit test, the more expensive and time-consuming tests for EPO or blood doping can be done.

2. Testosterone is first tested as a testosterone:epitestosterone ratio test. If you exceed 4:1 your urine is then tested for exogenous testosterone. This is what tripped up Floyd Landis last year.

This also begs the question as to why marijuana is on the banned list. I don't know the sport in which performance is enhanced by being high!

JR

[LarryG]

Adding to what JR and Phil said, many of the various doping tests used in cycling produce results that are akin to those from a breathalyzer test. If someone has a BAC of 0.08% or higher, he's driving drunk. If he's at 0.079%, he's sober -- under the law. The line dividing drunk and sober is somewhat arbitrary, and one line certainly does not fit all, but it has to be drawn somewhere.

IOW, and as badly as I hate to say it ... what we're seeing with these riders failing drug tests are not indications that there are a few riders in the pro peloton who are doping. What we're seeing is that there are a few riders who are doping beyond the limits of what they can do and still pass the tests.

[prlundberg]

Taking the bait, and FWIW...

Stanford's former weight-room supervisor told golf coach Wally Goodwin that "pound for pound, Tiger's one of the strongest athletes on campus." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/gol...es/tiger/fire/

Interesting, I may have been off on that.

But, I stand by my opinion that golfers in general are not elite athletes, so steroid use is unecessary.

[JR]

And now, just to completely bolix things up, the leader is thrown out of the race by his own team!

http://www.velonews.com/tour2007/det...s/12944.0.html

[HarmsWay]

Beat ya to it in the doping thread. As much as Rasmussen was my TDF hero the past three years, this is what the sport needs. It's going to be ugly for awhile though. Sigh.

Bob

[HarmsWay]

What we're seeing is that there are a few riders who are doping beyond the limits of what they can do and still pass the tests.

This sub-thread reminds of an Olympic athlete some time ago that tested positive for caffein. The athlete was defending himself in the press insisting he merely drinks srong coffee. Then the testers went to the press to talk about their trigger limits. It turned out he would have had to drink about 60 cups of strong coffee prior to his event to reach the level tested.

I agree with Larry comment though.

Bob

[TheRic]

The thing you have to keep in mind (not right, not wrong, just a fact) the same thing that drives most of these athletes to compete is the same that drives them to cheat (bend the rules as much as possible).

As Larry said they are getting caught because they are pushing the limit. In NASCAR the driver gets 5 MPH over the speed on driving in the pit area before they fine them. Seems like every race someone gets caught. That means they are already pushing it, until they get caught.

When you drive down the road do you go 55 MPH (in a 55 MPH zone) not 1 mph over??!!! If you see yourself going 56 MPH do you slow down??!!! HECK NO!!!! We all have some competitiveness in us. We always try to improve ourselves, in one thing or another. Even in woodworking we talk / think about how we can do it better. The ones that don't try to better themselves normally don't go far.

Once you near the top (in whatever you are doing) it gets harder and tougher to go further / be better than the next person. Therefore you start to lean toward bending the rules a little, then a little more, and a little more (all the time justifying it one way or another), until finally you are cheating/over the limit.