As a relative tri newbie, curious if the course has always been accurate in Kona - are we comparing apples to apples? Seems these days course distances are all over the place, thus the question.

I'd add Marino Vanhoenacker in there as well, might never have won Kona but he definitely animated the race!

Edit: just saw someone else already mentioned him

I love Marino, but sorry, if Marino gets on there, then for sure Zack is there and we need Wolfgang on there and while we are at it Lionel gets added as he has a second place in the 4th fastest time in history

in my opinion, the old course, which was in use in 89, was harder. the run course had 2 early hills, 1 late bike hill, all in the keahou area (when the bike finished at the kona surf hotel).

then there was the OLD old kona course. which was longer. which monty can tell you about. and slower. he can tell you about the "weigh stations."

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

yeah, Lionels 8.04 is maybe underrated - especially for someone not known as a swimming or running threat

The biggest factor in the race hasn't even been mentioned. That would be the weather. A hot windy Kona defines Ironman.

jurgen would be all over a hot, windy day. the windier the better, in fact.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

That would significantly skew this list. Proper testing was non-existent for a long time. Not that it is perfect now (easy enough to cheat still) but at least its not the wild west that it was.

Several other factors -- different weather conditions could play to some athletes on this list compared to others.

Also, do we assume that each of these competitors has the perfect race day with an absolutely peak/perfect training build-up?

Scott, Allen, and Macca, I think, were the best tacticians. Van Lierde may have been the most outstanding physically at his peak.

I assume athletes today have as much access as they can get away with for EPO and blood bags. In 1989, most did not even know about those options even if they wanted to cheat (because if they could the entire peloton would be on it and they were not).

In 1989, I'd hazard to guess that the Kona top 10 would have no clue where to look for any of this. Heck even Lemond and Fignon where "caught flat footed" when the rest of the peloton got on the full on blood boosting programs form 1991 onwards and they both retired. In 1989, both those guys were winning the Tour de France. In 1985, Francesco Moser was working with Dr. Conconi for his world hour record. I don't know if he was working with Conconi for the 1984 Giro when Moser beat Fignon, but at the 1984 LA Olympics, the US Olympic cycling squad was largely blood doped from what we know today. Did all of that filter to the Kona top 10 by 1989. I don't think so when even protour cyclists were slow at the "adoption".....the drugs in 1989 where more like the drugs that Fignon and Pedro Delgado were on. No blood vector drugs from what I have read.

Even in 1994, you can watch Lance getting smoked by Indurain in this Tour de France ITT. It's a joke. Lance looks like a schoolboy delivering newspapers....Indurain looks like an alien on a bike drop shipped into the tour de france from another planet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGPGm38wt5g


Go to 3:00 in this video to watch what Indurain does to Lance and that's Lance we're talking about.

Lance probably thought, “Um, I’ll have whatever he’s having. Thanks.”

That would significantly skew this list. Proper testing was non-existent for a long time.//

And you know this how exactly?? I was actually there from the late 70's to early 90's, so I have a pretty good idea of what was going on, just want to know how you make this blanket statement, and from what knowledge you arrived at it??

I certainly appreciate and get that you were there and have far more first hand knowledge of those people and the environment. My post is merely from my personal experience in sport with drug testing during the earlier portion of this century and family experience from a few professional sportsmen and women in my family from the 80s through my brother's accident which forced him out of sport in the past 6 years. I've talked to my mum and dad about what it was like for them and what they saw. Putting the bio passport aside since it wasn't available for so long (and is still manipulable), drug testing was lacking everywhere in sport and was always behind the times. Whether it was transfusions, EPO usage, steroids or plenty of other things the fact that testing for these items was not yet possible or lacking necessary resources and programs in place fostered environments where those who wanted to use did use. I don't know those athletes personally, but at any high level sport I think it is head in the sand mentality to think that a nice sample size of those athletes didn't dope. This is not exclusive to triathlon, footie, track and field, American football, basketball, swimming or anything else. Its reality and I'm not pointing fingers at particulars on that list.

Do you really believe all of these people are clean? Genuinely I am curious. Nice people dope. Assholes dope. All sorts of people dope. Also, tons of amazing athletes don't!

Triathlon is not a uniquely clean sport. None are. I'd like to think that most of us play fairly and I do believe that, but there is a group that does not.

I digress, I like the list and this is a fun thought experiment.

Again Monty, I certainly appreciate your experience and insights because I was not there. Cheers.

Ok then, I can give you some history as to just the sport of professional triathlon. Yes, a lot of other sports did little to no testing, and it was mostly in competition. In triathlon we the pro athletes instituted our own testing, through what is now USAT. This was mid 80's, I think 84 or so. This included out of competition testing too, which was pretty new back then. You got a UPS letter and had 48 hours to get to a collection facility.

Now as the efficacy of the tests, who knows. But there was no EPO back then, and I doubt any triathletes were even aware it existed until about 94 or so. So the drugs we tested for were the ones known at the time, testerone, steroids, and amphetemines. Blood doping was legal up to about 85 or so, and yes the testing for that was pretty tough, as it was peoples own blood. But once again, I only knew of it in cycling, as it was institutionalized with the national team, not something one could just go and do on a whim.

So I would say that during that time period, testing was as good as it gets, but not to say that many of those athletes that crossed over to the 90's decade did not finally succumb. By then there was a lot of interaction with pro cyclists, and they of course had the secret sauce, how to use and get it, and how well it worked. And later on the testing became less and less, and more directed at the ITU type athletes. So for a brief while in the 90's there was a free for all if people chose at ironman events..

I know one year in the latter 80's I got tested 6 or 7 times, twice out of competition, which is pretty much in line with what happens today. I even got tested once at a local marathon in 93 that I used as a training race, so running at least was catching up too. Unfortunately track and field was a lot like cycling, institutionalized and lots of money going to how to beat testers...We just did not have those institutions back then, so a few lone wolf dopers no doubt that got away with it if they were paying attention...

Thank you for the thoughtful reply and insights. I wasn't aware of the self-imposed out of competition testing which is very cool IMO.

Agreed about no EPO in the 80s, but post 91 is when it popped up initially and then exploded in the following years. We all know how that went.

Anyway, enough derailing on my part. Back to the initial thread.


If there were no trains and honest to goodness non-drafting I think a healthy in form Frodeno takes anyone and everyone.