I've said this before here on ST, but the elephant in the room that no one ever mentions...big pharma has their hands in cycling, not just in sponsorship of races and teams, but the athletes use their products. Certainly there is no outright intentional correlation here.
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [Archy]
[ In reply to ]
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [LoriT]
[ In reply to ]
LoriT wrote:
I've said this before here on ST, but the elephant in the room that no one ever mentions...big pharma has their hands in cycling, not just in sponsorship of races and teams, but the athletes use their products. Certainly there is no outright intentional correlation here.I think big pharma is much more interested in rigging cholesterol studies and testosterone studies which set thresholds lower and lower and lower so that more and more and more people need to go on their drugs....that's where the volume revenue is....there are only so many cyclists to push performance enhancing drugs on. What you really want to do is pay "marquis" researchers to come up with study outcomes that result in thresholds that the bulk of the population falls above...then you push statins and T therapy to literally everyone under the sun. This is where the real money is.
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [Fat_Ironman]
[ In reply to ]
Fat_Ironman wrote:
ya really dont think Cycling is clean in 2014.................http://www.businessinsider.com/...-the-olympics-2014-2Read an article awhile ago that had some parts that may be of interest here...
Quote:
See this huge dip in the chart below – that’s when Men’s 100m times got way faster, which is coincidentally when IGF-1 and other undetectable peptides became widely available online:
Quote:
Examine yearly performances for most sports, and you can plot a course that mirrors drug use. When a test was developed to detect EPO, we saw endurance athletes taking longer to complete their races. When out of season testing started in the Olympics, we saw reduced performances at the very next Olympic Games. Guess what happened in 1989? The Olympics started testing for PEDs in the offseason.
Last edited by:
---noob---: Apr 25, 14 18:58
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [devashish_paul]
[ In reply to ]
Yeah, this idea that big pharma is looking to a niche sport like cycling to generate revenue is laughable. I'm not defending the industry, because they certainly have their issues, but a few hundred professionals and a number of amateurs ranging in the thousands on blood boosters isn't where they are looking for a revenue stream.
Portside Athletics Blog
Portside Athletics Blog
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [---noob---]
[ In reply to ]
Did some digging and figured this would be of more interest to ST...
In Figure 2, the moving average and the spline indicate the beginning of an effect in 1991. According to the more fluctuating spline, the end was in 1996, which basically has the same mean as the local minimum of 1997. Besides, the spline has two local maxima between 2001 and 2002 and also between 2007 and 2008. These peaks occurred due to the large steps from 2000 to 2001 and 2006 to 2007 with increasing averages, but both have been reversed. However, the moving average basically shows stagnation after its local minimum around 2000.
EPO entered the American market in 1989[19] and resulted in the start of EPO use for performance-enhancing means in the late 1980s.[16] Testing for the abuse of EPO began in 2000.[18] In 2003, pharmaceutical testing with a drug called CERA, a third-generation erythropoietin stimulating agent, was launched.[20] It was first authorized for the European Union in 2007. Simultaneously, WADA released a new technical document concerning EPO testing in April 2007 (TD 2007). Lasne et al. declared that, from a technical point of view, CERA could be detected with this method.[21] In addition, Roche, the manufacturer of CERA, provided WADA with informa- tion concerning testing for CERA.[22]
The significant development (p = 0.000) from 1991 to 1996 can be described as the EPO effect with the large effect size of 1.925.
The introduction of EPO testing in 2000 led to significant increases in running times with p = 0.004 and has an effect size of 0.708. With CERA entering clinical trials the effect of testing was significantly (p = 0.003) reverted in the following years with an almost equal effect size of 0.696. The release of the WADA document in 2007 and the fear of a completely new test, which was introduced in 2008,[23] is accompanied by another signifi- cant (p = 0.016) increase from 2006 to 2007 with an effect size of 0.576. But again, the effect was reversed in the following years. Furthermore, the moving average does not show signifi- cant testing related changes.
Source - A quantitative approach for assessing significant improvements in elite sprint performance: Has IGF-1 entered the arena?
Simon Ernst and Perikles Simon
http://romanoroberts.com.mx/...014/01/IGFSprint.pdf
Quote:
EPO In Figure 2, the moving average and the spline indicate the beginning of an effect in 1991. According to the more fluctuating spline, the end was in 1996, which basically has the same mean as the local minimum of 1997. Besides, the spline has two local maxima between 2001 and 2002 and also between 2007 and 2008. These peaks occurred due to the large steps from 2000 to 2001 and 2006 to 2007 with increasing averages, but both have been reversed. However, the moving average basically shows stagnation after its local minimum around 2000.
EPO entered the American market in 1989[19] and resulted in the start of EPO use for performance-enhancing means in the late 1980s.[16] Testing for the abuse of EPO began in 2000.[18] In 2003, pharmaceutical testing with a drug called CERA, a third-generation erythropoietin stimulating agent, was launched.[20] It was first authorized for the European Union in 2007. Simultaneously, WADA released a new technical document concerning EPO testing in April 2007 (TD 2007). Lasne et al. declared that, from a technical point of view, CERA could be detected with this method.[21] In addition, Roche, the manufacturer of CERA, provided WADA with informa- tion concerning testing for CERA.[22]
The significant development (p = 0.000) from 1991 to 1996 can be described as the EPO effect with the large effect size of 1.925.
The introduction of EPO testing in 2000 led to significant increases in running times with p = 0.004 and has an effect size of 0.708. With CERA entering clinical trials the effect of testing was significantly (p = 0.003) reverted in the following years with an almost equal effect size of 0.696. The release of the WADA document in 2007 and the fear of a completely new test, which was introduced in 2008,[23] is accompanied by another signifi- cant (p = 0.016) increase from 2006 to 2007 with an effect size of 0.576. But again, the effect was reversed in the following years. Furthermore, the moving average does not show signifi- cant testing related changes.
Source - A quantitative approach for assessing significant improvements in elite sprint performance: Has IGF-1 entered the arena?
Simon Ernst and Perikles Simon
http://romanoroberts.com.mx/...014/01/IGFSprint.pdf
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [Archy]
[ In reply to ]
Archy wrote:
I think he's paid enough. The ones who should be in jail , if anyone should be, are the people in power who allowed this environment to exist in the first place. Lance didn't invent this. Ha funny, I just heard him say ' I didn't write the script' as I was writing this.
That's the truth isn't it. The money men wrote the script.
Hah. Well, what I found really funny in all of this, is that reading the discussion about the making of the video, the outside journalist mentions that it was Lance that came up with the idea of the "Hey, I didn't write the script". Hah! So he _did_ write the script, and in the process managed the utterly amazing feat of getting caught lying in an instructional video for changing a flat tyre. Chapeau...
--
When I channel my hate to productive, I don't find it hard to impress
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [Rappstar]
[ In reply to ]
Quote:
I think he's paid enough. The ones who should be in jail , if anyone should be, are the people in power who allowed this environment to exist in the first
place.
Absolutely. The catch 22 that every rider of that era was put in was simple: dope or compete for the lanterne rouge; as put so beautifully about the cyclist in the cubicle.
They all handled it differently, and it's clear that a lot of the top riders came out with some sort of psychological damage. Tyler Hamilton and Marco Pantani spring immediately to mind as the most glaring examples, but I think that Lance absolutely CONVINCED himself that if what he was doing was acknowledged (with a wink) from the highest ranks of the UCI, then in fact he wasn't cheating.
You can asterisk the record book as you like, put a big fat disclaimer at the bottom - "These victories occurred during a known period of extensive PED use" - but don't try to wipe them away.
Finally as a matter of interest - I wonder what the world's militaries have taken away from all of this. I would wager that at a certain level the elite military operatives are running higher octane.
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [Archy]
[ In reply to ]
I was only commenting on his actions within the sport specifically.
Perjury is something else again, however for the USDOJ and Landis to sue for monies paid to Postal is a joke.
USPS, nike, trek et al, all got a far greater return on their money than probably any other sponsors in the history of cycling.
Perjury is something else again, however for the USDOJ and Landis to sue for monies paid to Postal is a joke.
USPS, nike, trek et al, all got a far greater return on their money than probably any other sponsors in the history of cycling.
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [benjpi]
[ In reply to ]
i think it's the obligation of each title who writes or publishes about lance to write to its own audience. the NY Times has been by far the most prolific publisher of lance articles and while juliet macur has done a great job i think the NYT in general has fared less well as an editor and arbiter of what it publishes. i thought will saletin's anti-lance editorial was shameful and i've been working on a draft to send to the NYT in response.
outside has a slightly better informed readership than the NYT, and it has its own responsibilities to its readers. velo news, slowtwitch, we have a different standard. i think it's appropriate to remind readers of the NYT that lance raced in an era where you either doped or you lost. it would be inappropriate to let its readers think that lance was an aberration - that he doped in an otherwise mostly clean peloton.
but slowtwitch readers know this. the very best, truest thing we can say is that lance and everyone else who doped robbed everyone associated with that sport of a generation of transparently fair and clean sport. if it could be proven that lance would have won many, most or all of his tours if everyone were clean, that is a minor point. if all cyclists dope; if all politicians are corrupt; if all big businessmen cheat wildly on their taxes; if all big industry pollutes; if all big retail sells goods made with child and slave labor; the ubiquity of the sin doesn't absolve the sinner.
i don't think readers of THIS site can afford themselves the luxury of treating cycling as would the casual observer, who has the luxury of the blithe and glib well, everybody was doing it. we have more at stake. we have a bigger investment. we have more of a gatekeeper responsibility, if we expect to still have an investment in cycling and triathlon in 10 or 20 years. everybody has a standard and a set of best practices - race organizers, anti-doping agencies, manufacturers, the endemic media, and the athletes. everybody has to do his best. unless you're willing to allow manufacturers to sell you bikes that break, and race organizers to put on events that will kill you, because everybody is doing it and cutting corners is the only way to earn a living, then you can't allow athletes to use that same reasoning.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
outside has a slightly better informed readership than the NYT, and it has its own responsibilities to its readers. velo news, slowtwitch, we have a different standard. i think it's appropriate to remind readers of the NYT that lance raced in an era where you either doped or you lost. it would be inappropriate to let its readers think that lance was an aberration - that he doped in an otherwise mostly clean peloton.
but slowtwitch readers know this. the very best, truest thing we can say is that lance and everyone else who doped robbed everyone associated with that sport of a generation of transparently fair and clean sport. if it could be proven that lance would have won many, most or all of his tours if everyone were clean, that is a minor point. if all cyclists dope; if all politicians are corrupt; if all big businessmen cheat wildly on their taxes; if all big industry pollutes; if all big retail sells goods made with child and slave labor; the ubiquity of the sin doesn't absolve the sinner.
i don't think readers of THIS site can afford themselves the luxury of treating cycling as would the casual observer, who has the luxury of the blithe and glib well, everybody was doing it. we have more at stake. we have a bigger investment. we have more of a gatekeeper responsibility, if we expect to still have an investment in cycling and triathlon in 10 or 20 years. everybody has a standard and a set of best practices - race organizers, anti-doping agencies, manufacturers, the endemic media, and the athletes. everybody has to do his best. unless you're willing to allow manufacturers to sell you bikes that break, and race organizers to put on events that will kill you, because everybody is doing it and cutting corners is the only way to earn a living, then you can't allow athletes to use that same reasoning.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [devashish_paul]
[ In reply to ]
devashish_paul wrote:
LoriT wrote:
I've said this before here on ST, but the elephant in the room that no one ever mentions...big pharma has their hands in cycling, not just in sponsorship of races and teams, but the athletes use their products. Certainly there is no outright intentional correlation here.I think big pharma is much more interested in rigging cholesterol studies and testosterone studies which set thresholds lower and lower and lower so that more and more and more people need to go on their drugs....that's where the volume revenue is....there are only so many cyclists to push performance enhancing drugs on. What you really want to do is pay "marquis" researchers to come up with study outcomes that result in thresholds that the bulk of the population falls above...then you push statins and T therapy to literally everyone under the sun. This is where the real money is.
Statin therapy has just gone through an additional push to the masses as the standard for prescribing were recently changed. I don't argue with your point...but I don't think that big pharma is limited in their desire for market shares. I can only speculate (and that is all I am doing) is that there is a desire to control the black (gray) market as well. Perhaps some others here can compare this to the abuse of pharmaceutical narcotics--even when prescribed unscrupulously, but legally. Off label prescriptions are allowed within some variance I suppose, with regard to EPO. Docs do get kick backs, although many may not want to admit their vacations/trainings/conferences are pre-paid etc. What I don't understand is why USA Cycling or the UCI would allow Amgen to sponsor a race or any number of European teams sponsored by pharmaceutical companies? If nothing else it is inappropriate in the context of the environment. I think if they were serious, they would look a little closer at the atmosphere, sources, and money trails. So where DID the lovely Italian doctor get his EPO for all these non-cancer patients? I am sure it was the real product, and not diluted....so likely it was from the pharmaceutical company, some way.
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [Slowman]
[ In reply to ]
Dan, chapeau.
Re: Lance Talks to Outside [Rappstar]
[ In reply to ]
Rappstar wrote:
We've probably never heard of the guy who would have won the TdF is cycling had not been a culture of drugs. He may not even ride a bike anymore. Maybe he does, and he's the guy who owns a whole bunch of Strava climbs around his home. Maybe he doesn't, because he's still pissed.Gilles Delion. Got bullied out of the sport because he refused to dope. Tried to talk about it, but his reputation was destroyed in the media by none other than Mr Verbruggen. Major talent, team forced him to train as much as others who were EPO doping, and he got burned out.
Just a short note of apology - I reposted this in a separate thread having failed to notice that you'd beaten me to it by several days. Sorry about that.