Alberto Contador Tests Positive at the Tour de France

Hi Citizen--

I'm not talking about one monolithic probability curve of all 100m performances.

I'm talking about the variability WITHIN A SLICE. It is well-known that 100m historical progression is basically asymptotic, meaning that the difference between a new record and an old record becomes progressively smaller, takes progressively longer, or some combination of both.

An asymptote is a particular value. The space between an actual performance and that asymptotic value narrows, as the value is approached. Historically runners have been approaching that value, meaning that there is progressively less and less room for their performances to vary, especially if an historical cohort is used.

I know there are obvious problems with this approach, including problems with the data set.

Especially, many doped performances are likely to be included in the calculations.

Also, there are different ways of calculating the asymptotic value.

The margin of Bolt's records is what evidences him as not only a cheat, but as the greatest cheat of all time, I believe, in the 100m.

I believe that distinction goes to Michael Johnson in the 200m.

All of this is purely speculative, of course, and is thrown out only to stimulate discussion.

In the 100m there was a plateauing at around 9.90, when Lewis lowered it by 0.04 to 9.86.

There was another plateauing around 9.84, when Greene lowered it by 0.05 to 9.79

Then there was a plateauing around 9.77, when along comes Bolt and blows it away by, in short succession, 0.05, 0.08, and a laughable 0.19--and, the 0.19 blowing-away would have come earlier instead of the 0.08 blowing-away if he hadn't eased up in Beijing.

The real performance limit is low 9.8's, and if you care to believe that Greene, Montgomery, Johnson, Gatlin, Powell, and now Carter are/were all clean, then high 9.7's.

Contador was a visible joke this year, as well. Contador KNEW that he would beat Schleck.

Schleck was maxxed-out, Contador wasn't, not by FAR.

There was no athletic drama, nobody else even had a chance, and THAT was the dead give-away. The only possibility of drama was from mechanical/meteorological/divine/administrative/traffic sources, not the athletes themselves.

'The real performance limit is low 9.8's,'

Who says can you prove it? Of course that does not mean faster runners are not doping! Its a 50/50 shot. But consider this the average healthy young male can run about 13/14 seconds. Who says 1 in 10 million does not have the ability to run sub 9.8

'and if you care to believe that Greene, Montgomery, Johnson, Gatlin, Powell, and now Carter are/were all clean, then high 9.7's.' GATLIN clean! That muppet!

Its like our very own CO (400m). At first looks plausible; who has not changed there plans 3 times in a year (then the tester shows up at the scheduled time & your'e not there). Now hang on what are the chances that the 3 times you change your plans happen to be the exact days the testers show up. Not much. Come on she was at it, probably hardly ever where she was supposed to be - check out the performance once the drugs effect started to wear off

Now to Contador. Probably 90% of dopers never fail a test. Now one is caught & they are innocent! You would have to be very gullible to believe that cock & 'bull' story. Its funny how these drugs showing up in tests just happen to be performace enhancing. Check out his wiki profile (they are quite careful about slander) he's been dodging the bullet for a while

I don't know if this article has been discussed. Sounds like they can detect if there is plastic from the bag that holds the blood for a transfusion:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5846/German-journalist-claims-UCI-denied-Alberto-Contador-positive-test-says-rider-may-have-received-transfusions.aspx

Studies have shown reduced cardiovascular performance with Clen, so I can see why you'd want to keep the doses small.

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Dec;34(12):1976-85

Take any sport be it cycling, running, baseball, football, basketball. You LOVE this sport. You want to succeed at this sport. You're pretty top notch, you make the European circuit spitting out your 13:30 5k or 9.9 or whatever. Time and time again it becomes painfully obvious that those ahead of you are using drugs.

This sport, like cycling, is very top heavy with the $$$$. You either make nothing plus a shoe deal or you make a good living. Think about it....the last man on an NBA team is still pretty damn wealthy. Even the 450th player in the NBA makes 500k-1mil. What does the 450th best distance runner make? Nothing.

So what if I make it possible for you to drop down into the money with a few mostly undectable drugs? As long as you are smart and don't get too greedy you should be able to pass every drug test you'll ever take. The smart ones NEVER get caught red handed. So what's your price? $100K? $500k? $1mil? If you don't use you'll always be a nobody barely scrumming the lower end European races. If you use maybe you'll win or at least place high enough to get a better contract. So again I ask...what is your price?

Alan

I have a cycling friend at work. He says that he and his fellow bikers are calling AC Albuterol Contadope now.

'You LOVE this sport'

That's like saying its ok to cheat on your wife you love - as long as she does not find out

Enough athletes get caught that its not just the dummies who get caught. Of course a lot cheat & never get caught

If I got that close to international class I would be confident I could go the rest of the way. Take distance running if I was running 13:30 I would go train in an EA training camp for as long as it took to go go the rest of the way

The balance is all wrong in terms of punishment though because as you say its a risk worth taking for some people