From the Wall Street Journal:
Amgen plans to cut staff by up to 14%, slash capital expenses by $1.9 billion and close some production facilities in an effort to offset sinking sales of anemia drug Aranesp.
Heh.
Archive for the 'bike racing' Category
15
Aug
07
Drug Testing Hits Home for Amgen
The penalty system for people caught doping focuses on the results: someone takes drugs, tests positive and gets punished. I’m all for paying the price for one’s actions. At the same time, VeloNews has an insightful piece about what drives some people to take drugs in the first place- i.e. when faced with the same competitive pressures why does one person turn to drugs while another doesn’t?
According to the author, a competitive bike racer/psychology major/ER physician/DMV Advisory Board drunk-driver oversight panel member, mental health issues may have a lot to do with it, and in fact there is a correlation between performance-enhancing drug use, recreational drug use and mental health problems.
It’s a fascinating thought, though I wonder where it leads. Should mental health screening be part of the athlete profile that teams like CSC, T-Mobile and Slipstream are using? If so, should any “abnormalities” be considered a predisposition to dope?
Hard questions. Physiological profiling sounds invasive enough; mental health screening seems over-the-top. On the other hand, if it could help level the playing field and possibly even prevent someone like a Frank Vandenbroucke from hurting himself, maybe it would be worth it. I’m not sure I buy it, but maybe.
I read two insightful articles recently on ideas to address the pernicious problem of drugs in cycling.
Joe Lindsey, a writer at Bicycling, penned a response on the Freakonomics blog to the question of “why not just legalize it?” Joe points out that different drugs are approved for different uses (i.e. human/nonhuman) in different countries, so the definition of “legal” isn’t totally clear. Essentially the “legalize it” approach just moves the line in the sand, but doesn’t get rid of it.
If that’s the case, a friend of Fat Cyclist offers another idea, which boils down to a comprehensive physiological “baseline” monitoring system of all cyclists from an early age, combined with reducing the severity of penalties. I think the idea is that in combination, these procedures would give authorities an individualized picture of each athlete. Testing would be sensitive to each individual rather than based on group averages. Better knowledge allows for more accurate positives, and shorter, more frequent(?) suspensions are sufficiently disruptive to discourage doping without turning into drawn-out legal battles.
That’s the theory, anyway. I wonder if the former idea is feasible. Anyone who came in to the sport late- Katie Compton for example- would have no background data and would be something of a maverick- harder to test with the same degree of accuracy. On a larger scale, the plan would require extensive national testing programs. Countries that couldn’t afford that would be at an even greater disadvantage than they currently are.
The latter idea has some appealing aspects. Athlete drug-sanctioning procedures need to be short-fused. The athletes themselves have only a few years to be highly competitive. If they are facing a two year (or more) ban regardless, it may seem worthwhile to spend the time fighting their sanction in the hope of getting it reduced. Regular two week suspensions would merely put them out of action- and out of the sponsor/team’s good graces. Do it enough, and especially with the background data on your physiological profile, and you’ll be out of a job pretty soon.
I note that this still allows athletes to step right to the line (of testing positive) and get dinged only if they step over. This seems to say that the race is to find better masking agents- essentially the same situation as today. I guess that’s what the physiological baselines are for, and without them it seems like the only advantage is to avoid Floyd Landis/Tyler Hamilton-style epic legal battles.
In the end, I guess I’m not convinced that the profiling is feasible, and without it the sanctions seem to nibble at a corner of the problem without taking even a full bite out.
I’ve seen so many people quoted saying that the number of positive drug tests proves that the testing environment is working. No it doesn’t. It proves that some people are getting caught. The fact that my neighbor gets arrested doesn’t mean I’m not a thief too, though.
Bad analogy. Fat Cyclist says it much better, and with irony.
25
Jul
07
And a Gem from Vino
Here’s one of the best answers I’ve seen to the question of “whose blood did you use?” From cyclingnews.com:
Vinokourov did manage a joke about his situation. “I heard that I made a transfusion with my father’s blood,” Vinokourov said. “That’s absurd, I can tell you that with his blood, I would have tested positive for vodka.”
Ha! With that, I think I’m done talking about Vino. For now.
On the heels of my last post I learn that Vinokourov was ejected from the Tour de France for doping with someone else’s blood. <sigh> I can’t even get angry about these things any more.
It’s incredibly stupid to dope, then win the stage. The stage winner always gets tested, so what was he thinking? Same thing as Floyd and Tyler, I suppose.
I now officially believe that all of the major contenders in any race all taking drugs, and a high percentage of everyone else too. So what am I going to do about it . . . not a lot. I still love the spectacle. It’s not like I’m going to stop following bike racing.
Even if he did inject someone else’s blood I still admire Vino’s style. The fact that his attacks were juiced doesn’t make me happy, but there it is.
So do I still like Rasmussen too? I do not. Can’t say why that is, though. I guess I like a liar less than a cheat. Sad when bike racing comes down to parsing thoughts like these. <sigh>
23
Jul
07
Vinokourov is the Man
60 stitches. Finished an Alpine stage in tears. Attacked the peloton on the run-in to a sprint finish with no hope of winning- just to show everyone he’s still in the race. Comes back to crush everyone in the time trial and maybe even get back into contention, then loses 30 minutes in the Pyrenees the next day. With his podium dream in tatters, does he give up? Pack it in? Hide at the back and save his energy for the Vuelta?
No, he attacks. What a stud.
23
Jul
07
Andy Hampsten is Mr. 80%
The New York Times ran an article last week about cycling fitness. The basic premise, I think, was that compared to running, people can be fit and competent without being young and rail-thin. Fair enough, I suppose.
What really caught my attention was the quote from Andy Hampsten. He retired from pro cycling in 1996, I think. Apparently he’s still found ways to put in the miles, though. In the article he is quoted saying that he is still 80% as fit as he was in his pro days.
Damn. I bet if I was 80% as fast as Andy’s 80% I’d still be flying.
Also, the article mentions a road in Tuscany with 187 switchbacks. Whoa. Gotta put that on my list to check out someday.
I love Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen. They get things wrong, they say the wrong names, they get overexcited about nothing, sure, but they add great color to bike racing.
I do *not*, however, rely on them for pronunciation guides, particularly in French. To wit, they refer continually to the final mountaintop climb on today’s stage of the Tour de France, the Plateau de Beille, as thought it is one of the United Arab Emirates, i.e. Dubai. They’ve done it for years in fact.
I’m pretty sure they’re wrong and it is pronounced like “duh Bay”. Then again, what do I know? I sure don’t speak French.
*Update: I’m watching now and Paul Sherwen just said it my way. Good work, Paul!
So Rasmussen’s subject to doping accusation from two sides and uncorks the best time trial of his life by a factor of about a zillion. Meanwhile Vino’ has a miracle comeback and crushes all but one rider by two minutes or more in the time trial. Seem suspicious? That’s what I think too.
Other riders had lackluster rides. Does that mean they’re tired? Having a bad day? Or are they just the ones that aren’t on drugs?
The problem- one of the problems anyway- is that drugs have been endemic in bike racing basically since the beginning, so there’s no good basis for comparison. There’s just no way to know what causes someone to win and someone else to finish just off the podium.
A couple days ago I thought it would have been really cool to see Rasmussen somehow hang onto the yellow and polka-dot jerseys all the way to Paris. Now I just don’t know. . . Actuall, I do know. I hope he bombs.
Next problem- who else to root for? Vino’s got such an aggressive attitude it’s hard not to get excited about him, but I wouldn’t put money on him being clean. Maybe Evans, maybe Sastre or Leipheimer? Not very inspiring choices. <sigh>
