Where are you?

Osteopenia and cycling

You read about this quite often. Most recently Pam Hinton wrote this is Cyclingnews.com:

We recently completed a study comparing bone density of adult male cyclists to that of runners and triathletes. Our subjects were competitive at the regional level, ranging in age from 18-60 years. The cyclists, as a group, had lower bone density of the whole body, leg, and spine compared to the runners and triathletes. Additionally, a greater percentage had osteopenia, i.e., bone mineral density less than one standard deviation below the mean for young adult males. The two groups of athletes did not differ in age, body composition, training load or diet. My point is that low bone mineral density among cyclists is probably much more prevalent than we know.

This is not the only such study to report that cyclists as a group have a lower average bone density. Now the question is why? Firstly you'd imagine that higher-impact sports would naturally require and acquire higher bone densities - indeed you could probably guess that cyclists as a group would be one step above swimmers and well below runners on this 'impact' scale. Now I'm not sure this has been verified, but you'd certainly imagine specialist swimmers to be 'worse-off' in that respect. So why do we not read of swimmers and osteopenia? Perhaps we don't read the right reports? Or is there another factor at play here, perhaps something to do with which body types are attracted to each sport? Remember that a swimmer's mass is supported by water, so hydrodynamics and technique is probably a bigger factor than outright mass.

OK, so here's my theory: cycling actually selects for low-density bone mass. If you looked at cyclists as sub-groups I'm imagine you'd see some pretty low figures for climbers and much higher numbers for TTers and sprinters (but still less than runners). Of course any gym work would assist the sprinters keep the bone mass up, but that aside you'd expect power-to-weight ratios to select for skinny, low-bone-mass riders against the heavier guys. Why? Simply because mass that doesn't propel you forward drags you backward. So the bigger, heavier guy must lose weight in order to be competitive with the lightly framed guy or girl, or they will simply change sports. Look at cyclists in general. They aren't built like football players, are they?

So when it comes to testing cyclists as a group of course bike riders will have lower average bone mass - it's an advantage to them! Now it's also an advantage for runners, but moreso for road endurance runners. (Although the impact alone will keep that density level up rather than down.) When you mix it up with triathletes you get a range of specialities (swimmers, runners and cyclists, or combinations thereof) and thus body shapes that even out the ratios a bit. Whereas with cyclists, especially road cyclists, it comes down to low mass almost all the time. Or you just get dropped. It's not as though you can make up time on your swim or run leg, eh?

Conclusion? It's not one thing. Yes, it's a low-impact sport, so by all means do your cross-training and jumps and take calcium plus vitamin D. But don't imagine that cyclists will become heavily built, with denser bones. In fact lightly built people gravitate towards cycling because they have an advantage. We are stacking the sport with osteopenics - because they go faster! Or at least that's my (untested) theory. And I - a long-term cyclist - am osteopenic, too!

John Sunde holds back

Well not much. I haven't been to Heffron Park for 9 years or so - and haven't raced the Tuesday night group handicap for even longer - but John Sunde in today's Cyclingnews paints a melodramatic picture of cycling at its timid worst in his latest Tuesday race report. If you raced, don't read it. You may have been busting a gut, doing your best.. but not in John's eyes. You were hiding at the back. You may have been the organising club... geeeze, why bother, eh? Now John's right, of course - some riders do hide in bunches. And handicaps are not usually won by hiding. But these group handicaps lend themselves to this sort of thing, don't they? When have they been different? Some riders bide their time, hoping that the bunch gets up and that they can launch their blistering sprint to win overall. Maybe more riders are doing that now, as John attests, but I wasn't there to see. Maybe John raced on Tuesday and didn't get a place. Maybe because he has swapped clubs (a while ago now, sure) and joined St George - also the winner's club, btw - he now has an axe to grind about his old club. Maybe he just wants more people to come and have ago. What do you reckon? For myself group handicaps are either a complete joke - you may as well have scratch races - or are flat-out dangerous when faster bunches swallow up slower bunches to form massive packs (on a tight circuit!). Yes, you do improve your skills - if you survive. Anyway, it's certainly entertaining to read!

LeMond on doping

Greg LeMond's on-bike career was famously shortened by accidental gunshot wounds sustained whilst hunting. However it wasn't just the shotgun pellets that he still carries in his body that foreshortened his racing career. He has also spoken openly about that period in the peleton when guys who he previously had more than the measure of suddenly flew past, as if they no longer felt their pedals. By which he means to say he rode through that transition period, when EPO was just coming into vogue. He saw - or assumed he saw - how it boosted a rider's abilities far beyond 'normal' and how easily influenced some riders were to indulge in the practice. He's a strong supporter of WADA and a critic of what he has seen to be lax action by the UCI. Cyclingnews has a report on his recent speech to a WADA board meeting. Whilst LeMond has not made many friends from some of his comments, as time goes on and the doping scandals continue there's more than a hint that Greg may not be as embittered or extreme in his views as some may suppose. Although he has (reportedly) said some pretty extreme things in the recent past!

World Cup results

Good result for NSW and Central Coast rider Phil Thuaux in the IP at the World Cup track meet in Sydney:

Men's Individual pursuit final

3-4 final
1   Phil Thuaux (Australia)             4.28.234 (53.684 km/h)
   Jens Mouris (Netherlands)           4.30.655 (53.204 km/h)

Can't beat Anna Meares and her new 500m WR though, can you?

Catchup on some news

Where do I start? CN has reported that Tyler Hamilton has signed (maybe at Tinkoff?) and expects to race in 2007. CN also reports that Riis has laid down the law on doing at CSC. And it's been widely reported that Aussie rider and stair-climber Paul Crake has broken some vertebrae in NZ. And the FRF boys are racing in Hainan with Josh Marden taking a stage. Did I mention Basso went to Discovery?

Ullrich back in training, Armstrong case dropped

Cyclingnews has reported that Jan Ullrich is back in training. He has no licence to race - having given his Swiss licence back. The Swiss don't want to proceed with his case and have suggested that the Spanish cycling body, if anyone, should take it up. After all, they started it. It remains that Ullrich has no positive result against his name, just the allegation of involvement backed up by alleged documentation about transactions and third-party conversations implicating him in the practice of doping. Jan has stated firmly that he is innocent.

Basso of course has been cleared and has no current charge to answer, but is out of CSC anyway, by mutual agreement. Again, no positive result but a seeming taint on his name. I think the Spanish case rested on the name of Basso's dog, didn't it? He may race with a non-ProTour team to avoid ... well to avoid complications. He again is emphatic about his innocence.

CN also reports that the Armstrong case has been dropped. That was the French case built on allegations made in the book LA Confidentiel, les secrets de Lance Armstrong, co-written by sportswriter David Walsh and former L'Equipe cycling writer Pierre Ballester. Insufficient evidence, apparently. The book sold well, though.

Pez reports that David Millar and his old Cofidis teammates are attending a French court with regard to the Cofidis doping scandal of a few years back. The judge has telegraphed that he considers the riders to be the victims as much as perpetrators. It's EPO related and hinges on a physio's evidence.

I could go on... and on. What to make of it? Well overall we have the seemingly 'factual' positives of Landis and Hamilton et al balanced against the implications of suggestions by various witnesses, in some cases backed up by documentation and other evidence of varying degrees of verifiability. Whilst we can (perhaps!) more easily accept the positive findings of labs - even when we can't understand why Landis (for example) would have used such an inappropriate substance - it's even harder to stomach these seemingly vague as yet untested allegations that have put riders and their careers on hold.

Let's not forget that Basso, Ullrich and all of the riders that remain tainted by the as yet unproven pre-Tour allegations have had their careers either put on hold or their earning power seriously diminished. I wouldn't like that to happen to me in my working life - it's unfair and inequitable for starters. The quicker it's resolved the better - but don't hold your breath.

DNA testing for cyclists - and other athletes

OK, we know (or it's been reported) that Bettini doesn't like the idea and that Valverde is against it. Cunego says wait and close Operacion Puerto first, whilst saying it's a delicate issue. But the UCI is likely to press on anyway. It's DNA testing folks.

Why do it, anyway? Why attempt (they can say no and face the consequences, apparently) to get DNA samples from every pro rider? From where I sit the DNA samples constitute - firstly - a better way to label samples, so we get one step away from allegations of tampered-with samples, altered labels, switched samples and simple mistakes. Of course it's not foolproof but it's better than what we have (so goes the argument).

Secondly - assuming we get appropriate samples, ie including mitochondrial DNA - it gives us the opportunity to monitor the genetic performance enhancement that is bound to come - sooner rather than later.

This has got to be a step forward for fairness and correctness in process, surely? So why would an athlete say no?

• Firstly, privacy. It's their DNA after all and it remains a very personal 'invasion' in many minds. It's the map of your genetic heritage for starters. It's like handing over your passport, your tax files and the password to your email accounts plus your entire family tree. To a body you may not entirely trust. You don't do it at the drop of a hat, do you?
  

• Secondly, fear of another sort of 'labelling'. Criminals are asked for DNA samples, not the general public. So in some people's minds it is tantamount to saying that the althlete is already guilty - or very likely to be.

• Thirdly, mistrust of 'the system'. Arguably neither the UCI nor WADA have shown themselves to be on the side of professional cyclists. If your livelihood was at stake, would you blithely agree to whatever was asked? Given the doubts raised about false positive testing, unless and until such doubts are erased - and trust rebuilt - we are only adding another potential flaw to a flawed system. Worse, DNA 'confirmation' of a positive test, when in fact the DNA test may at best only 'prove' the existence of a certain DNA signature, may lend weight to what could in fact be a false positive. It looks and sounds very scientific, so it may persuade some to believe more readily of the "guilt" of those tested.

• Lastly - although I'm sure we'll think of more reasons with the passage of time - they (the athletes) may actually have something to hide.

So what could we do to assuage some fears and remove the doubts?

Perhaps we need to distance the DNA testing -if not all testing - from the UCI itself and place the responsibility of taking and securely keeping all DNA sampling with a new trusted 3rd party. Whatever form that body may take it can't be allied with the UCI, WADA or any of the labs that do the testing. It needs to be a neutral body and clearly seen to be be so.

We also need to do some effective communication, not just with the riders or athletes in other sports but with the community in general. And get the heat out of the situation. And build trust between all parties. Which may mean no more grandstanding by politicians or frenzied over-reaction by the press. It may also mean that protocols are religiously followed by all parties - with no "leaks", no shortcuts in the system that muddy the waters with unnecessary side issues of unfair treatment.

Hmmmm. Sounds like a tall order to me. Do we have the resolve to do it?

Drugs in cycling - Landis et al

It just seems to go on an on, this business of drugs in sport. As I've said before, I feel for Floyd Landis as he had reached his goal only to have it snatched away moments later. I felt similar - but angrier - about Marco Pantani when he was cruelly robbed of the Giro on the last stage (let alone how I felt when 'the accusers' finally did him in; whatever the truth of the matter, he clearly felt persecuted). And I feel sympathy for all who stand accused of drug cheating. Yet my sympathy is balanced by a recognition that the law is the law and that we must play by all of the rules, not just some of them.

So when I exceed the speed limit in my car - something I rarely do by the way as it raises the accident risk exponentially (and if you think otherwise you are not thinking it through) - I recognise that I am breaking a law and may be punished for my actions. Rule of law aside, it's also unfair to the community; to risk those around me by my self-motivated actions alone. And it's unfair to simply pass the drivers who are not speeding as it is the vehicular equivalent of 'queue-jumping'. Why would you think it's OK to queue-jump in a car? No matter how you look at it, it's cheating the system and putting everyone else down. You could take an economist's view and say that you are prepared to wear the marginal economic cost of the speeding ticket in order to achieve some competitive advantage, but only a small percentage of speeders are caught, so the marginal cost is inequitably applied. Which is to say it's an imperfect market and - alas - simply cheating again.

Similarly if we do take our chances and take performance enhancing drugs we are not just breaking the law but putting others in jeopardy (by modelling poor behaviour to young riders) and taking an unfair advantage over those who respect 'the law'. It becomes an ethical question. Do I behave ethically and fairly to all, or do I act alone to take an advantage over others?

None of which helps us decide any of the outstanding cases. If we are to have a controlled situation then we need to control every participant equally and fairly. It means taking blood and perhaps tissue samples from everyone and keeping them throughout our careers - amateur as well as pro. It may mean taking a DNA sample as a signature by which we can verify exactly whose sample we are testing. Indeed, given the possibilities of genetic performance manipulation a DNA sample will become essential in the near future. If we don't do that then we risk the current farce continuing - or escalating - despite what others may argue. Not just in cycling but in every sport. The alternative? Let the whole issue drop and change the rules to embrace the cheats.

More of my drug-related ramblings here. (Drug-related but not drug-induced, though.)

Felt F1C carbon bike review

Ok, I have a Felt in my stable. It's a 2003 model - all aluminium, bar the forks. It's light (around 7.8kg equipped with Mavic clinchers) and fast - well it feels fast to slow old me! In comparison with my 1990 Look KG76 it's a shade lighter and far, far stiffer. Around my test loop the Felt is quick but bouncy - it fairly leaps off the potholes. Whereas the Look tends to absorb the impacts better (feeling more like my old 1985 Colnago Mexico). If I am riding 100-200km I'd choose the Look. For a crit, the Felt.

So that's the background. Now here's a CN review of a bike I've seen and enjoyed looking at... the Felt F1C. It's carbon, all over. It's tempting, but in a more utilitarian way than the latest Looks or Orbeas. It's just a neat, fast, fairly traditional machine at a good price. I'd have one!

Trackie Chris Hoy rides L'Alpe D'Huez

And says that once is enough. Excellent interview by RCUK for both track newbies and regulars.. Chris Hoy covers his training and race preparation as well as the Etape up L'Alpe.

Drugs in sport - again

And again. Can't seem to escape this one. Now the authors of LA Confidentiel are at it again. Like a dog with a bone. LA replies (via CN):Armstrong, who, despite having retired from the sport, continues to find himself defending his reputation, said "I raced clean. I won clean. I am the most tested athlete in the history of sports. I have defended myself and won every court case to prove I was clean. Yet another French book with baseless, sensational and rejected allegations will not overcome the truth."

Meanwhile, I remember ex-Pro Jonathan Vaughters writing in (I think) ProCycling mag about 5 years ago, calculating LA's assault on L'Alpe D'Huez and expressing great surprise at the phenomenal power output required. More recently we have this exchange (reported again in Cyclingnews.com) between Jonathan and Frankie Andreu about rumoured drug abuse in Armstrong's team. It's all hearsay, all gossip, as Jonathan says several times to emphasise the point.

Fascinating, if a bit bleak and cheerless when you think about it.

I want one

Power readings without fitting hassles? Without high cost as well? Hmmmm. Check out iBike Pro. I'm thinking about it. Looks really easy to install. Just screw it on like a bike computer, with a wheel sensor as well. Then weigh yourself and your bike. Add that data plus altitude if known, and do some flat road tests to calibrate the thing and... bingo!

From most expensive to cheapest, your power measurement options (as I understand them) are now:

1. Power measured off the cranks (most expensive, and you are stuck with it on that bike unless you want to do some major component-swapping - but surely the most accurate way to do it)
2. Or from the rear wheel with a hub-embedded accelerometer (slightly easier to swap from bike to bike)
3. Or by measuring chain tension (using optical sensors), a bit fiddly but cheaper
4. Or by calculating power from base data (speed, resistance, altitude, temperature and angle of climb)
   

Take your pick! The calculating (vs measuring) options are certainly cheaper but rely upon the accuracy of the inputs - and some of that relies upon you. The ibike Pro works like that, as does the HAC4, although the iBike seems to do it continuously whereas I understand the HAC4 only calculates power on climbs. Feel free to comment!

Crono des Nations

Some late season results... McGee 3 minutes off the pace in a 48km TT - not unexpected. And Kathy Watt just ahead of Jeannie Longo...amazing. None of them winners this time around but fascinating anyway. CN report here.

And the winner was Gerrans, again

I watched it live on Aussie TV and it was good, very good. It went all the way to the last sprint which McEwen won, of course, with Gerrans 3rd to clinch victory. (CN report here.) It was 90minutes worth watching. If only I was that fit!

Floyd Landis releases his case files

You want to read some interesting case notes? Well Floyd has put 'em out there on the web! It's nice to see such transparency. I certainly feel for the guy if he's innocent, and it's certainly been badly handled all round... but if he is just making a PR splash in the hope of twisting public opinion... well, anyway, let's presume he thinks openness is best. I suspect we'd like to see many riders, both past and present, open up on the truth, too.

The SunTour hots up

It's all coming to a close - and it's sooo close. There are probably 4 riders with a red-hot chance of winning overall and just 6 seconds to play with the bonus sprints will be hard-fought. Cyclingnews reviews yesterday's TT here.

The Who record Pictures of Lily - not exactly bike racing is it?

It's 1967 folks and The Who are recording Pictures of Lily... well I like it anyway!!!

Cervelo's video site

I don't usually do plugs but I am impressed by Cervelo's video web sites. The bikes are nice, too, but I don't have one - I own an aluminium Felt, a 16-year old Look carbon and a Saronni/Colnago track bike instead. So I'm not biased towards Cervelo in any way, other than they seem to be nice people ;-)

From their newsletter - check that out too:



The Tour may be over, but the new videos keep on pouring in at cervelo.tv. There are three new videos from the Deutschland Tour in the Team CSC section (and we really recommend Stage 6 if you want to see some tenacious climbing efforts by Jens Voigt, who will bend but won’t break). There are also some more videos in the Cycling 101 section, including clips about where Team CSC’s mechanics, soigneurs and team directors spend their time.



Aside from the regular clips on cervelo.tv, there are loads of new videos in the Ventoux.tv section as well. Dave Zabriskie, Levi Leipheimer, Carlos Sastre and Fränk Schleck attempt to draw their first bikes, the final DZ music video is up, and there is a new Testing music clip. And last (and probably also least), there is a clip of Team CSC’s team building coach B.S. Christiansen getting in trouble.

World Champs, Goulburn etc etc

Better mention a few things.. like Olympic champ Bettini now World champ as well. And Jongewaard wins the Goulburn in awful conditions. It was 34degrees with winds gusting around 100kmh - from in front and to the side. It wasn't pretty. Reports from Cyclingnews.