| |
Main
Date: 05 Nov 2007 00:23:45
From:
Subject: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
Interesting that the marathon records for both men and women show no
"blip" at the onset of the EPO era (which I take to have started
around 1990, shortly after it became commercially available):
http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/
In contrast, the men's cycling hour record, to pick one arbitrary
measure, shot up during the mid-90s, as did lots of other measures of
top-level pro cyclists' performance. Any theories out there about the
absence of a similar phenomenon in marathon running? (I'm a bit
surprised to have not encountered any discussions about this on the
web--maybe I missed them in the archives?)--Shayana Kadidal
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 02:55:15
From:
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
On Nov 8, 7:30 pm, Keith <nos...@nospam.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:15:33 -0800, shayana.kadi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Nov 4, 11:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> <shayana.kadi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > In contrast, the men's cycling hour record, to pick one arbitrary
> >> > measure, shot up during the mid-90s, as did lots of other measures of
> >> > top-level pro cyclists' performance. ...--ShayanaKadidal
>
> >> The reason that the record took a big jump in the 90's wasn't because of EPO
> >> but because they were making ever more distance between the record setter's
> >> super-aero bike and equipment and a real bicycle.
>
> >> Do you subscribe to the idea that the 80+ mph streamliner record reflects
> >> doping?
>
> >Perhaps the hour record was a poorly-chosen example. Surely ascent
> >times up the major climbs have improved as well -- in the various
> >informal lists of top times up alpe d'huez I haven't found one
> >pre-1990 time cracking the top 20. (Or do you believe better spandex
> >and lighter bikes are entirely responsible for that?)
>
> Interesting, where is that top 20 ?
>
> >Whatever one's knee-jerk reaction to posts about doping is, I'm amazed
> >you don't think it's an interesting question to ask "why does the
> >marathon show no such effect in the same span of years that various
> >other endurance performances improved."
There are a few different lists out there, and I suspect none are
entirely complete, but one with a good explanatory note is on
Wikipedia for Alpe D'Huez: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_D%27Huez#Fastest_Alpe_d.27Huez_ascents
In the same vein, BTW, Benjo's links are definitely worth clicking on
for other long distance running times, which did improve greatly.
(Sorry to sound snippy re: "knee jerk" -- long week at work. Actually,
long 6 years.)--Shayana Kadidal
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 06:50:33
From:
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
On Nov 5, 10:15 pm, shayana.kadi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Perhaps the hour record was a poorly-chosen example. Surely ascent
> times up the major climbs have improved as well -- in the various
> informal lists of top times up alpe d'huez I haven't found one
> pre-1990 time cracking the top 20. (Or do you believe better spandex
> and lighter bikes are entirely responsible for that?)
Do you really believe that there hasn't been a technologic evolution
in bicycles? Or more importantly, that training methods and honed team
tactics haven't made a huge difference in climbing times?
Are you suggesting that it was drugs that caused the peloton to ride
so hard for the first part of the rides until the pure climbers are
exhausted and can't ride away from the GC contenders was somehow
unimportant?
> Whatever one's knee-jerk reaction to posts about doping is, I'm amazed
> you don't think it's an interesting question to ask "why does the
> marathon show no such effect in the same span of years that various
> other endurance performances improved."
My reaction was hardly "knee-jerk" and such a question looks a great
deal more like a claim that marathon runners don't use drugs. I happen
to know that is entirely incorrect. Marathons don't test like cycling
does. The fact is that what it shows is that marathon runners were
using drugs a much longer time OR that drugs don't have the impact on
such racing as has been declared.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 05:42:05
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
On Nov 5, 11:15 pm, shayana.kadi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 4, 11:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > <shayana.kadi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > In contrast, the men's cycling hour record, to pick one arbitrary
> > > measure, shot up during the mid-90s, as did lots of other measures of
> > > top-level pro cyclists' performance. ...--Shayana Kadidal
> > The reason that the record took a big jump in the 90's wasn't because of EPO
> > but because they were making ever more distance between the record setter's
> > super-aero bike and equipment and a real bicycle.
>
> > Do you subscribe to the idea that the 80+ mph streamliner record reflects
> > doping?
>
> Perhaps the hour record was a poorly-chosen example. Surely ascent
> times up the major climbs have improved as well -- in the various
> informal lists of top times up alpe d'huez I haven't found one
> pre-1990 time cracking the top 20. (Or do you believe better spandex
> and lighter bikes are entirely responsible for that?)
>
> Whatever one's knee-jerk reaction to posts about doping is, I'm amazed
> you don't think it's an interesting question to ask "why does the
> marathon show no such effect in the same span of years that various
> other endurance performances improved."
I'm not so sure that any of the reactions to your question were 'knee
jerk'. I know mine wasn't. As for why marathon times didn't improve
as much during the early years of EPO use as cycling times, you also
have to consider that there isn't really a technology component to
running AND perhaps marathon times have come closer to their ultimate
limits due to other physical factors that aren't affected by EPO use.
Chain is only as strong as its weakest link, right? Who cares if you
could further maximize your oxygen-carrying capacity if some other
body function limits your speed anyway?
S.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 22:15:33
From:
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
On Nov 4, 11:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <shayana.kadi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > In contrast, the men's cycling hour record, to pick one arbitrary
> > measure, shot up during the mid-90s, as did lots of other measures of
> > top-level pro cyclists' performance. ...--Shayana Kadidal
> The reason that the record took a big jump in the 90's wasn't because of EPO
> but because they were making ever more distance between the record setter's
> super-aero bike and equipment and a real bicycle.
>
> Do you subscribe to the idea that the 80+ mph streamliner record reflects
> doping?
Perhaps the hour record was a poorly-chosen example. Surely ascent
times up the major climbs have improved as well -- in the various
informal lists of top times up alpe d'huez I haven't found one
pre-1990 time cracking the top 20. (Or do you believe better spandex
and lighter bikes are entirely responsible for that?)
Whatever one's knee-jerk reaction to posts about doping is, I'm amazed
you don't think it's an interesting question to ask "why does the
marathon show no such effect in the same span of years that various
other endurance performances improved."
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 01:30:14
From: Keith
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:15:33 -0800, shayana.kadidal@gmail.com wrote:
>On Nov 4, 11:00 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <shayana.kadi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > In contrast, the men's cycling hour record, to pick one arbitrary
>> > measure, shot up during the mid-90s, as did lots of other measures of
>> > top-level pro cyclists' performance. ...--Shayana Kadidal
>
>> The reason that the record took a big jump in the 90's wasn't because of EPO
>> but because they were making ever more distance between the record setter's
>> super-aero bike and equipment and a real bicycle.
>>
>> Do you subscribe to the idea that the 80+ mph streamliner record reflects
>> doping?
>
>Perhaps the hour record was a poorly-chosen example. Surely ascent
>times up the major climbs have improved as well -- in the various
>informal lists of top times up alpe d'huez I haven't found one
>pre-1990 time cracking the top 20. (Or do you believe better spandex
>and lighter bikes are entirely responsible for that?)
Interesting, where is that top 20 ?
>Whatever one's knee-jerk reaction to posts about doping is, I'm amazed
>you don't think it's an interesting question to ask "why does the
>marathon show no such effect in the same span of years that various
>other endurance performances improved."
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 14:14:15
From:
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
On Nov 5, 8:12 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
>
> Look at how effective the Omerta has been in the cycling community. As
> prevalent as doping has been, until David Milar, it just wasn't admitted or
> talked about by the cyclists. LIttle cracks in the dam here & there, but it
> existed for years as something widely done and effectively denied.
Err, I suppose that's why Anquetil said that racing without drugs
wasn't nearly as much fun as doing it with drugs.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 20:40:30
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
<cyclintom@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1194300855.263474.219430@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 5, 8:12 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Look at how effective the Omerta has been in the cycling community. As
>> prevalent as doping has been, until David Milar, it just wasn't admitted
>> or
>> talked about by the cyclists. LIttle cracks in the dam here & there, but
>> it
>> existed for years as something widely done and effectively denied.
>
> Err, I suppose that's why Anquetil said that racing without drugs
> wasn't nearly as much fun as doing it with drugs.
Was doping illegal then?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 21:43:53
From: xzzy
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
oddly, the woman's graph you refer to flattens about when epo hit the
street. then several years later times got faster. men's times appear to
improve at an orderly decreasing rate. what. it is significant that epo was
developed in 1984 in boulder, co and got into cycling shortly thereafter.
maybe news traveled slowly between cycling and running back then.
<shayana.kadidal@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1194222225.236492.61380@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting that the marathon records for both men and women show no
> "blip" at the onset of the EPO era (which I take to have started
> around 1990, shortly after it became commercially available):
>
> http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/
>
> In contrast, the men's cycling hour record, to pick one arbitrary
> measure, shot up during the mid-90s, as did lots of other measures of
> top-level pro cyclists' performance. Any theories out there about the
> absence of a similar phenomenon in marathon running? (I'm a bit
> surprised to have not encountered any discussions about this on the
> web--maybe I missed them in the archives?)--Shayana Kadidal
>
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 19:55:19
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
xzzy wrote:
> oddly, the woman's graph you refer to flattens about when epo hit the
> street. then several years later times got faster. men's times appear to
> improve at an orderly decreasing rate. what. it is significant that epo was
> developed in 1984 in boulder, co and got into cycling shortly thereafter.
> maybe news traveled slowly between cycling and running back then.
----------
Maybe because cheating isn't part of the
character of the sport. There has been
very little cheating in marathons, a
couple incidents, like Ruiz in Boston,
and just recently Madrazo in Berlin, but
cheating isn't what marathons are all
about. Now in cycling, cheating IS the
sport, and it probably goes back to the
very first bike race. If you aren't
cheating or trying to cheat, than you
ain't a real cyclist.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 08:12:16
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
"Crescentius Vespasianus" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:13itgn4ojpga856@corp.supernews.com...
> xzzy wrote:
>> oddly, the woman's graph you refer to flattens about when epo hit the
>> street. then several years later times got faster. men's times appear
>> to improve at an orderly decreasing rate. what. it is significant that
>> epo was developed in 1984 in boulder, co and got into cycling shortly
>> thereafter. maybe news traveled slowly between cycling and running back
>> then.
> ----------
> Maybe because cheating isn't part of the character of the sport. There
> has been very little cheating in marathons, a couple incidents, like Ruiz
> in Boston, and just recently Madrazo in Berlin, but cheating isn't what
> marathons are all about. Now in cycling, cheating IS the sport, and it
> probably goes back to the very first bike race. If you aren't cheating or
> trying to cheat, than you ain't a real cyclist.
Why do you assume cheating isn't part of the world of marathon distance
running? Without appropriate controls, an outsider wouldn't know that doping
is as prevalent in cycling as it has become. Do they perform
out-of-competiton testing of marathon runners? Are we to assume they can run
their tailes off in training, a process that would destroy a normal body,
without any help? Could be true. But one could have made the same
assumptions about cyclists.
Look at how effective the Omerta has been in the cycling community. As
prevalent as doping has been, until David Milar, it just wasn't admitted or
talked about by the cyclists. LIttle cracks in the dam here & there, but it
existed for years as something widely done and effectively denied.
The cracks in the dam may already be obvious. The fact that many events (and
sometimes runners themselves) hire, often at great expense, rabbits to pace
them... pacers who simply drop out of the event when their job is done,
likely not having to under any controls whatsoever... if they aren't subject
to testing, then I'd look there first.
How sad that I can suggest such a thing based on no direct evidence of
doping whatsoever, in a sport I know so little about. And yet, based upon
what I can extrapolate from a sport I *do* know something about, make a
plausible claim.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 14:31:25
From: Jim Boyer
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message
news:FhHXi.2448$RR6.342@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> The cracks in the dam may already be obvious. The fact that many events
> (and sometimes runners themselves) hire, often at great expense, rabbits
> to pace them... pacers who simply drop out of the event when their job is
> done, likely not having to under any controls whatsoever... if they aren't
> subject to testing, then I'd look there first.
>
> How sad that I can suggest such a thing based on no direct evidence of
> doping whatsoever, in a sport I know so little about. And yet, based upon
> what I can extrapolate from a sport I *do* know something about, make a
> plausible claim.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
You're probably not extrapolating too much. I've heard reports that
perfomance enhancing drugs are used in golf. It's naieve to think that the
drugs are only taken to get stronger or get bigger. It's also for endurance
and most importantly, recovery. Most competitions are won during training in
most sports. A pro golfer hits thousands of balls a day during practice. If
some performance enhancing drug gives the extra stamina to help you hit 100,
200 more balls during a practice session it could just give you the edge you
need to beat a competitior. And it only takes one stroke to win a
tournament.
jb
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 20:00:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
<shayana.kadidal@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1194222225.236492.61380@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting that the marathon records for both men and women show no
> "blip" at the onset of the EPO era (which I take to have started
> around 1990, shortly after it became commercially available):
>
> http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/
>
> In contrast, the men's cycling hour record, to pick one arbitrary
> measure, shot up during the mid-90s, as did lots of other measures of
> top-level pro cyclists' performance. Any theories out there about the
> absence of a similar phenomenon in marathon running? (I'm a bit
> surprised to have not encountered any discussions about this on the
> web--maybe I missed them in the archives?)--Shayana Kadidal
Before the mid-90's no one would even attempt to better Eddy Merckx's hour
record set in the 1970's. Then Francisco Moser made a WAY outlandish aero
bike and set a new record in '84 or so which was accepted by the UCI because
Moser was a popular Italian racer.
The reason that the record took a big jump in the 90's wasn't because of EPO
but because they were making ever more distance between the record setter's
super-aero bike and equipment and a real bicycle.
Do you subscribe to the idea that the 80+ mph streamliner record reflects
doping?
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 17:58:21
From: Scott
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
On Nov 4, 5:23 pm, shayana.kadi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Interesting that the marathon records for both men and women show no
> "blip" at the onset of the EPO era (which I take to have started
> around 1990, shortly after it became commercially available):
>
> http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/
>
> In contrast, the men's cycling hour record, to pick one arbitrary
> measure, shot up during the mid-90s, as did lots of other measures of
> top-level pro cyclists' performance. Any theories out there about the
> absence of a similar phenomenon in marathon running? (I'm a bit
> surprised to have not encountered any discussions about this on the
> web--maybe I missed them in the archives?)--Shayana Kadidal
The improvements in the Hour record throughout the 90s which you've
attributed to EPO were more likely due primarily to improvements in
aerodynamics and positioning. Once the UCI took aerodynamics out of
the equation and went back to the 'athlete's' hour standard, the
argueably best time trialist of the decade beat Merckx's record by
what, 10 meters or so?
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 18:57:02
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
Scott wrote:
> On Nov 4, 5:23 pm, shayana.kadi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Interesting that the marathon records for both men and women show no
>> "blip" at the onset of the EPO era (which I take to have started
>> around 1990, shortly after it became commercially available):
>>
>> http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/
>>
>> In contrast, the men's cycling hour record, to pick one arbitrary
>> measure, shot up during the mid-90s, as did lots of other measures of
>> top-level pro cyclists' performance. Any theories out there about the
>> absence of a similar phenomenon in marathon running? (I'm a bit
>> surprised to have not encountered any discussions about this on the
>> web--maybe I missed them in the archives?)--Shayana Kadidal
>
> The improvements in the Hour record throughout the 90s which you've
> attributed to EPO were more likely due primarily to improvements in
> aerodynamics and positioning. Once the UCI took aerodynamics out of
> the equation and went back to the 'athlete's' hour standard, the
> argueably best time trialist of the decade beat Merckx's record by
> what, 10 meters or so?
>
You're missing one essential RBR Fact: EPO is magic.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 00:44:00
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Why didn't marathon record times advance during early EPO era?
|
On Nov 4, 5:23 pm, shayana.kadi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Interesting that the marathon records for both men and women show no
> "blip" at the onset of the EPO era (which I take to have started
> around 1990, shortly after it became commercially available):
>
> http://www.marathonguide.com/history/records/
>
> In contrast, the men's cycling hour record, to pick one arbitrary
> measure, shot up during the mid-90s, as did lots of other measures of
> top-level pro cyclists' performance. Any theories out there about the
> absence of a similar phenomenon in marathon running? (I'm a bit
> surprised to have not encountered any discussions about this on the
> web--maybe I missed them in the archives?)--Shayana Kadidal
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/f70e914593e5f40e/49c8879089eebf2f#49c8879089eebf2f
and the plot:
http://www.ucolick.org/~bjw/misc/rbr/running.wrprog.png
This is track records, not the marathon. There is an
clear 1990s signature in the long distance events. I think
it might be hard to see such a signature in the
marathon because a top runner runs relatively fewer
times per year and the time is dependent on course and
conditions; also the presence of pace-setters. I'd
guess that the stars have to line up just right to set
a new record, regardless of the athlete's condition.
But that's a guess.
Ben
|
|
