What is vector doping?
You are insulting the majority of gifted and hard working athletes that arenât cheating. You think Frodeno, Ryf, LCB, Iden, Wilde, Yee, Beugrand etc all are doping? Get the fuck out of here.
First, I didnââŹâ˘t say all of them were doping. I said I felt sorry for the ones who werenââŹâ˘t and are getting beat by those who are. I did say it looks like there are more cheaters than non-cheaters.
Second, Tomas Rodriguez Hernandez isnââŹâ˘t really a ââŹĹno nameââŹÂ. In his last ten events (counting TX, and mostly all 70.3s), heââŹâ˘s finished in the top 10 seven times and won 3, counting TX. So, not exactly a ââŹĹno nameââŹÂ.
Third, if the common thought is that a drug test is really an IQ test, then clearly IââŹâ˘m not the only one that thinks there are a lot of cheaters. And if the ââŹĹIQ testââŹÂ is true, then one might argue NOT doping is also failing an IQ test.
Fourth, I never said anything about work ethic (or talent). No doping is going to make up for a lack of ethics in training or a lack of talent.
You said the top 5% of finishers are doping, so unless you believe the likes of Frodo, LCB, Ryf, Iden and our recent Olympics champs etc are all on the gear then it was just a stupid comment. And your last comment is just strange, drugs will absolutely make up for a lack of talent, thatâs why some people take themâŚ
Sadly I do believe that Frodo, LCB, Ryf, Iden, Blum and a whole host of others use(d) PEDs against the rules. Do they train hard? Hell yeah. Do they have insane discipline? Hell yeah. Do they make huge sacrifices? Hell yeah. Are they blessed with talent? Hell yeah. And on and on and on. I canât prove factually any of them use PEDs, but that doesnât mean I canât use common sense and question performances that deviate from the norm.
Lance NEVER failed a formal drug test⌠and he was basically pissing lava. The dopers are ALWAYS ahead of the testers.
I also know that incentives also drive behavior. My brother-in-law was encouraged to use âgearâ in the off-season as a minor league pitcher to improve his speed by 3-4 mph. Sometimes that is the difference between pitching AA ball and MLB. Also, one of my colleagues played linebacker at ND and he talks about most of the defense being âon stuffâ. Maybe I am jaded, but seeing outeageous human feats just makes me wonder what type of help that athlete is getting from modern science (Pogi⌠I am kooking at you).
Sorry but this just shows your ignorance, no offence. I know age groupers who have jobs, train 12-20 hours a week and go low 9âs and definitely are not on gear. And yet you think a genetic outlier (which is what elite athletes are) with constant hard dedicated training from a young age canât achieve what these professional guys are doing? Geez even Mark Allen has been saying for years the modern guys should be FASTER than what they are.
Spend any time around junior sports, athletics etc and you will see there are just some kids naturally light years ahead of everyone else. And no matter what all the other kids do they will never be in the same category. These special kids arenât on gear, they are just gifted.
Unfortunately when people grow to adults and their fragile egos canât accept everyone isnât born equal and they have to resort to the PEDs as a cop outâŚ
I know there are very fast natural athletes
what I had not realised since starting another sport was how endemic TRT and other PEDâs are in the >40âs and how none of them view them as PEDâs. They literally do not think they are using them as PEDâs, they believe they are using them just to bring their levels up to the natural levels they should be - yes, its a cognitive dissonance, yes its cheating but I do not know a single person that is on gear and competes in other sports where it is banned that views it like that.
Considering these facts:
- EPO microdosing appears to be non-detectable within (probably much less than) 20 hours
- Any of the official doping agencies are running a complete mess of âout-of-contestâ testing programs for long-distance triathlon, flimsy and unstructured at best.
- The combined effect of Pt. 1 & Pt. 2 is that basically nobody gets caught, obviously. You really need to screw up to get caught.
In the case of Chartier, it is a well-known rumour in the Girona community, that somebody snitched him.
Assuming the points above are real, then âignoranceâ is believing that everybody is clean.
What is vector doping?
things that affect blood and oxygen intake etc aint it?
What is vector doping?
Oxygen vector doping: Itâs things like EPO and transfusions that increase your ability to use O2 (vs. other PEDs like anabolics).
Considering these facts:
- EPO microdosing appears to be non-detectable within (probably much less than) 20 hours
- Any of the official doping agencies are running a complete mess of âout-of-contestâ testing programs for long-distance triathlon, flimsy and unstructured at best.
- The combined effect of Pt. 1 & Pt. 2 is that basically nobody gets caught, obviously. You really need to screw up to get caught.
In the case of Chartier, it is a well-known rumour in the Girona community, that somebody snitched him.
Assuming the points above are real, then âignoranceâ is believing that everybody is clean.
I donât believe everyone is clean, but I certainly donât believe it is an rampant as some like to carry on hysterically about.
As for EPO even when on full dose itâs only providing around 5% improvement, micro dosing would hardly seem worth the trouble or risk.
5% is massive. Most top-level sporting events are won by far less than that.
Considering these facts:
- EPO microdosing appears to be non-detectable within (probably much less than) 20 hours
- Any of the official doping agencies are running a complete mess of âout-of-contestâ testing programs for long-distance triathlon, flimsy and unstructured at best.
- The combined effect of Pt. 1 & Pt. 2 is that basically nobody gets caught, obviously. You really need to screw up to get caught.
In the case of Chartier, it is a well-known rumour in the Girona community, that somebody snitched him.
Assuming the points above are real, then âignoranceâ is believing that everybody is clean.
I donât believe everyone is clean, but I certainly donât believe it is an rampant as some like to carry on hysterically about.
As for EPO even when on full dose itâs only providing around 5% improvement, micro dosing would hardly seem worth the trouble or risk.
5% at would take you from an 8h Ironman (can we say that MOP/BOP pro-level today?) to an 7h36m Ironman, which would get you a win at most Ironman races (unless Ditlev or Laidlow shows up)
.
5% is massive. Additionally, sample of 1 but Lance claimed the EPO was giving him roughly 10% (450W â 500W up the Col de la Madone).
i think itâs also important to recognize that doping is often to enhance actual in-sport performance (usually vector doping, for triathlon), but itâs also for recovery. things like testosterone/anabolics/growth hormone. in this case itâs not about jacking up your VO2 max, itâs about recovering from that sore knee or pulled muscle a lot faster, or absorbing that tough track session and being ready to go again tomorrow. thatâs also priceless to an elite athlete.
The food contamination defense sounds so ridiculous, he just happened to have some contaminated eggs or something right before an out of this world performance. Right.
The best part about the food contamination defense is, if itâs true, itâs the perfect way to dope. Have some backyard chickens. Dope them like crazy. Eat their eggs. Win Kona.
Would that even be against the rules? If thatâs against the rules, so is eating contaminated food.
The doped food test, at best, just means he was not nefarious. But he still competed with an illegal substance in his body and should suffer the penalty.
Athletes are responsible for whatâs in their body, so yes, itâs against the rules. Most likely the penalty for contaminated food is less than for outright doping, but youâre still in the wrong.
Considering these facts:
- EPO microdosing appears to be non-detectable within (probably much less than) 20 hours
- Any of the official doping agencies are running a complete mess of âout-of-contestâ testing programs for long-distance triathlon, flimsy and unstructured at best.
- The combined effect of Pt. 1 & Pt. 2 is that basically nobody gets caught, obviously. You really need to screw up to get caught.
In the case of Chartier, it is a well-known rumour in the Girona community, that somebody snitched him.
Assuming the points above are real, then âignoranceâ is believing that everybody is clean.
I donât believe everyone is clean, but I certainly donât believe it is an rampant as some like to carry on hysterically about.
As for EPO even when on full dose itâs only providing around 5% improvement, micro dosing would hardly seem worth the trouble or risk.
Like you I donââŹâ˘t believe doping doesnââŹâ˘t exist but I would also like to believe it isnââŹâ˘t prevalent. I think it very much depends on circumstances, country and racing situation. A lot of athletes stay within NGB protocol after switching up and are subject to random unannounced testing just like all the ITU athletes. However, there are some who donââŹâ˘t and are rarely tested. It is a constant complaint from some of the pros. One excellent point of the T100 series participation is controlled by NGBs and you seek entry through them. I assume this means you have to be in the testing pool, which can only be a good thing.
There are some athletes in the LD races who are never tested except for when they race. I suspect the ability to dope is higher amongst this group.
If anyone doesnââŹâ˘t think doping exists at AG level, something like 13% of responders to an anonymous survey admitted to doping. Think it might have been in Germany but donââŹâ˘t want to tarnish any race individually.
That infamous study in Germany treated coffee as doping. One to forget.
A lot of athletes stay within NGB protocol after switching up and are subject to random unannounced testing just like all the ITU athletes. However, there are some who donââŹâ˘t and are rarely tested. It is a constant complaint from some of the pros. One excellent point of the T100 series participation is controlled by NGBs and you seek entry through them. I assume this means you have to be in the testing pool, which can only be a good thing.
There are some athletes in the LD races who are never tested except for when they race. I suspect the ability to dope is higher amongst this group.Some athletes stay within NGB protocol after switching up (so remain in an RTP)
One excellent point of the T100 series participation is controlled by NGBs and you seek entry through them. I assume this means you have to be in the testing pool.
Not really: the NGBs have zero control of who gets T100 wildcards. Your assumption errs: wildcards do not have to be in an RTP, but I think theyâre put in one (if not in an RTP already) after 3 T100 races (applies to very few).
There are some athletes in the LD races who are never tested except for when they race. I suspect the ability to dope is higher amongst this group. Vast majority of Pro athletes do not get tested even when they race. Podium does, and at T100 all 20+20 do. So, in the ânever testedâ cohort, itâs not âability to dopeâ which is higher, itâs deterrence and likelihood of being caught which is lower.
Rodriguezâ bike and run in Texas were exceptional and a step above his previous form. Same with Chartier in Dallas. But when we see a step change performance perhaps we ought to just flag it as such. If thatâs followed by DNSs and the like, thatâs a marker thatâs worth flagging up, with no accusation attached.
What other âstep changeâ results have we seen over the last two years and of those, are many followed by poor performances or DNSs? Or is naming just too toxic: I have no wish to witch hunt though: just deter.
Are there other coaches like Rodriguezâs that have had more than one athlete caught? Presumably they can be identified by those on here with knowledge.
I read this article on the subject with interest. Mentions Chartier, etc. 4.1% improvement in elite triathletes.
Try telling no. 4 and beyond in this photo, that 4.1% is nothing 
(not saying any of these athletes are on the juice, BTW)
5% is massive. Additionally, sample of 1 but Lance claimed the EPO was giving him roughly 10% (450W â 500W up the Col de la Madone).
I think there is a level of naivety about both amateurs and proâs with respect to doping.
There are sub-sets of the population that do not view TRT and other options as doping so much as âlevelling hormone imbalancesâ
there are grown adults who would dope for a slot / medal and to think otherwise is naive.
5% is a massive improvement
https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/drug-test/
from 2003 - the drugs and protocols have only got better
I think there is a level of naivety about both amateurs and proâs with respect to doping.
There are sub-sets of the population that do not view TRT and other options as doping so much as âlevelling hormone imbalancesâ
there are grown adults who would dope for a slot / medal and to think otherwise is naive.
5% is a massive improvement
https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/drug-test/
from 2003 - the drugs and protocols have only got better
thatâs the exact link i share just about every time this conversation comes up. for my money itâs a must-read for middle-aged endurance athletes looking to understand this issue.
A 4% improvement in power will raise bike speed by less than 2% (at the speeds that PROs are riding). The speed boost on the run will be bigger (closer to 4% I imagine, air resistance playing a minor role). No idea about the swim.
This is both a lot and not a lot. Saving 4-5 minutes in an IM bike and 6 minutes on the run could take you from 5th to 1st or from 3rd to 3rd. Iâm leaning towards âa lotâ for the worldâs top 10 and ânot a lotâ for people ranked in the mid double digits.
If you comment outrage, you can be suspected of doing it yourself⌠right??
The Lance Method