General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34 Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 4
 
 
2017-08-01 9:11 AM
in reply to: Baowolf

User image

Veteran
2297
2000100100252525
Great White North
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Maybe regular 20 somethings... current or former jr elites that are still fit, no. These guys are putting 3-6 minutes on stronger age groupers in a draft legal sprint. Half of it on the run.

Long course is different. Easier for the older guys to keep up.


2017-08-01 9:28 AM
in reply to: simpsonbo

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34

Originally posted by simpsonbo Maybe regular 20 somethings... current or former jr elites that are still fit, no. These guys are putting 3-6 minutes on stronger age groupers in a draft legal sprint. Half of it on the run. Long course is different. Easier for the older guys to keep up.

Bo's got it right.  In a sprint these kids will crush a field in a local race (and you don't even see 20% of these kids bothering with AG races).....and the 3-6 minutes is not an exaggeration.  It's also on the money that the longer the race is the more it starts to even out.......but not a lot anymore.  There are 18-20 year olds putting down 1:55-2:00 Olys now......but most of them aren't allowed by their coaches to race that distance yet.....so it's coming.  I guess time will tell if these kids stay in and become monster AG'ers after they run out their U23 status (and don't get to the international level), but for sure, the Jr. programs in many, many countries has spawned some very fast racers.

Just being around the youth and Jr programs in the US for 5 years I saw quite a few changes, with 16-17 year olds who show promise now getting the opportunity to race internationally.  These kids have been to Canada, Mexico, Hungary, France, Germany, etc.  And the difference between those kids and the ones just behind them is pretty small.  USAT really has done a great job with the Jr. programs and I know Canada is the same.

I remember back in the 80's you never saw kids at a triathlon.  The standard line back then was that they weren't old enough to have the kind of endurance needed for a triathlon.  Then they started to tap into kids who had been swimming competitively since they were 7 and 8 years old.  Those kids built huge engines and, for the ones who also had some run talent, triathlon was just sitting there waiting for them.

2017-08-01 9:39 AM
in reply to: McFuzz

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Originally posted by McFuzz

At the pointy end, the decline in age-related performance is pretty low.  

Look past M35-39, and there's barely a difference in M40-44 and M45-49.  

Often the decline in physical ability (endurance sports) is more than offset by experience and better race strategy.  



I agree, I really don't see much of a drop in competitiveness until late 60's. In my area, the top times in my AG (55-59) are going to only 5-7 mins behind the overall winner in sprints. One thing that may have to do with this is the decline in fast-twitch muscle is more prominent as we age than slow-twitch muscle. Thomas also makes a great point about the amount of time it takes to really build an aerobic base.
2017-08-01 9:45 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Originally posted by 3mar

Originally posted by dmiller5

thats interesting, around me the top 10 guys routinely have 5+ guys aged 20-29




I think the disparity is due to small sample size more than anything. I wouldn't look for correlations on any races of less than 1,000.

Go to the IM branded, or other big name races (whatever's left) and you can see how things pan out by age a lot more consistently.


Jeez 3mar, how may 1000+ competitor sprint races have you ever been to? Even olys are rarely of that size.
2017-08-01 9:54 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by McFuzz

At the pointy end, the decline in age-related performance is pretty low.  

Look past M35-39, and there's barely a difference in M40-44 and M45-49.  

Often the decline in physical ability (endurance sports) is more than offset by experience and better race strategy.  

I agree, I really don't see much of a drop in competitiveness until late 60's. In my area, the top times in my AG (55-59) are going to only 5-7 mins behind the overall winner in sprints. One thing that may have to do with this is the decline in fast-twitch muscle is more prominent as we age than slow-twitch muscle. Thomas also makes a great point about the amount of time it takes to really build an aerobic base.

I'll open the worm can.......how many of those 45-60 yo racers are on some type of supplement that is banned?  I know I could get testosterone supplements from my doctor any time I decide I want to....and I know I'll never be tested in an AG race, the same as everybody else knows that.  That's just the the tip of the iceberg for performance enhancing drugs because it's so easy to get.  My guess is that at the pointy end of racers at those ages it's quite prevalent. 

Having been to AG nationals and world championship races and seen some of the old guys........nah, I don't buy the idea that they are even mostly clean.



Edited by Left Brain 2017-08-01 9:54 AM
2017-08-01 10:45 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by McFuzz

At the pointy end, the decline in age-related performance is pretty low.  

Look past M35-39, and there's barely a difference in M40-44 and M45-49.  

Often the decline in physical ability (endurance sports) is more than offset by experience and better race strategy.  

I agree, I really don't see much of a drop in competitiveness until late 60's. In my area, the top times in my AG (55-59) are going to only 5-7 mins behind the overall winner in sprints. One thing that may have to do with this is the decline in fast-twitch muscle is more prominent as we age than slow-twitch muscle. Thomas also makes a great point about the amount of time it takes to really build an aerobic base.

I'll open the worm can.......how many of those 45-60 yo racers are on some type of supplement that is banned?  I know I could get testosterone supplements from my doctor any time I decide I want to....and I know I'll never be tested in an AG race, the same as everybody else knows that.  That's just the the tip of the iceberg for performance enhancing drugs because it's so easy to get.  My guess is that at the pointy end of racers at those ages it's quite prevalent. 

Having been to AG nationals and world championship races and seen some of the old guys........nah, I don't buy the idea that they are even mostly clean.




Oh man...did you really go there!! Well this thread is about to go to looooooong. lol

I'll throw in my two cents - for me it's just like drafting; it used to bother me, but now, whatever. The field is what it is. If you want to do something as stupid as doping as an amateur then go for it. I'm personally in it for the data and to see what I'm capable of. Any form of cheating would ruin that. I think any of it is totally dumb and pointless - drafting, course cutting, doping...pick your poison.


2017-08-01 10:49 AM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34

Originally posted by 3mar
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by McFuzz

At the pointy end, the decline in age-related performance is pretty low.  

Look past M35-39, and there's barely a difference in M40-44 and M45-49.  

Often the decline in physical ability (endurance sports) is more than offset by experience and better race strategy.  

I agree, I really don't see much of a drop in competitiveness until late 60's. In my area, the top times in my AG (55-59) are going to only 5-7 mins behind the overall winner in sprints. One thing that may have to do with this is the decline in fast-twitch muscle is more prominent as we age than slow-twitch muscle. Thomas also makes a great point about the amount of time it takes to really build an aerobic base.

I'll open the worm can.......how many of those 45-60 yo racers are on some type of supplement that is banned?  I know I could get testosterone supplements from my doctor any time I decide I want to....and I know I'll never be tested in an AG race, the same as everybody else knows that.  That's just the the tip of the iceberg for performance enhancing drugs because it's so easy to get.  My guess is that at the pointy end of racers at those ages it's quite prevalent. 

Having been to AG nationals and world championship races and seen some of the old guys........nah, I don't buy the idea that they are even mostly clean.

Oh man...did you really go there!! Well this thread is about to go to looooooong. lol I'll throw in my two cents - for me it's just like drafting; it used to bother me, but now, whatever. The field is what it is. If you want to do something as stupid as doping as an amateur then go for it. I'm personally in it for the data and to see what I'm capable of. Any form of cheating would ruin that. I think any of it is totally dumb and pointless - drafting, course cutting, doping...pick your poison.

Oh, I'm not carrying a torch, I couldn't care less.  Unfortunately, however, it has to be included in any discussion of people who race at the pointy end of AG triathlon.

2017-08-01 11:39 AM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Do you really think it's that prevalent? I look at the gap between me and the guys in the front of my AG and the difference doesn't seem totally insurmountable with enough work. I was just over a minute behind the guy who one my AG (and came in 3rd OA) at IM Ohio out of T2 on Sunday...it was the run that spread that gap wide open. That's something that I've known for a while that I need to work on...A LOT.

Point is; as a guy with no natural ability and only a swimming background (technically I "ran" a year of track in high school but was laughed off the team) to be close enough to at least see the front, I can't imagine that it's that prevalent. Otherwise that gap would have to be a lot bigger. Now, I'm not saying the gap between me and the fast guys is small; I'm a million miles away in terms of running compared to them, but the point is, I honestly believe that with a lot of honest work I can at least etch away at it. If the front was littered with a bunch of guys all jacked up on PEDs, I can't imagine that would be the case. Especially if you mixed in guys with actual natural ability and PEDs. Of course, maybe I'm just deluding myself in thinking I can make those gains on the run.
2017-08-01 12:27 PM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34

I don't know how much you are deluding yourself or not with regard to improving your run.......but on the other issue, yeah, you're deluding yourself if you don't think AG triathlon is full of PED users.....both knowingly and unknowingly.  Google "Doping in age group triathlon" and enjoy a couple days worth of reading. 

2017-08-01 1:50 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34

I'm with LB.  I've had open conversations with athletes that tell me T-supplements are fine because their doctor prescribed them.  its all over the place.  Most of them are deluding themselves into saying they aren't cheating.

2017-08-01 2:04 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
959
5001001001001002525
Greenwood, South Carolina
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Originally posted by Left Brain

I don't know how much you are deluding yourself or not with regard to improving your run.......but on the other issue, yeah, you're deluding yourself if you don't think AG triathlon is full of PED users.....both knowingly and unknowingly.  Google "Doping in age group triathlon" and enjoy a couple days worth of reading. 




I guess in the deluding myself boat.

The only thing I ever taken is CoQ10. I usually finish in the top 3 in my age group on the short races. Finishing in top 3 wouldn't be the same if I had to use PEDs. I would quit racing if it came to that.

I have friends that finish in top 3 overall and I would be surprised if they did any PEDs. They train like crazy and been racing for 20 years. But this is based on the area I live in. I can't speak for everyone or other areas of the country.


2017-08-01 2:21 PM
in reply to: GODAWGS

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
I guess when I think "pointy end" of AG triathlon, I'm thinking KQ level. Not necessarily podium at local events. That's not meant to sound elitist, because I'm not in that group either.
2017-08-01 2:59 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34

A few years ago I sat with a couple of 65-70 year old guys in Edmonton, at AG worlds, after they got done with their race, and had a few beers. (actually, they sat with me, as my wife and I had a table and they were looking for a place to land....neither from the US) As you might imagine I'll talk to anyone, any time, everywhere.......and I have no problem bringing up any topic. I've interviewed thousands of people in my career, and I know people pretty well having dealt with all manner of them for 30 years. 

They both used PED's.......no question in my mind....and they didn't care.(and I didn't either, and no, I never asked them outright)  For them it was a way to turn back the clock and enhance their life.  They both laughed out loud when I asked them if anyone they knew had ever been tested for PED's in a national or world AG event. One guy almost spit his beer out laughing when he said, "they're going to test 60 and 70 year old guys?? We're all taking some kind of medicine to keep us going".

I think the truth is, especially if looked at with a strict adherence, AG triathlon is absolutely full of people who use PED's.  The most heavily medicated society in the history of mankind has not skipped triathlon as a reason to use meds and supplements.....no way.  Throw in the gigantic egos and over the top type A folks that the sport attracts and you'd have to be crazy to believe it wasn't all over the sport IMO.

And don't look for USAT to start testing AG'ers more some day.  Why in the world would they do that?

 



Edited by Left Brain 2017-08-01 3:15 PM
2017-08-01 3:42 PM
in reply to: 0


1660
10005001002525
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34

I'm with 3mar with this one. The AG speeds are simply too slow overall for a 'large' number of people to be doping enough to make a difference.

 

If anything, as I age up into the later years, it feels for sure that people are "doping down" as more and more fast people either stop racing or slow down so much that they're no longer keeping up!

 

I def wouldn't blame any of my lack of performance relative to my peers by doping - if they're doping, they're clearly not doing a good enough job of it. (And I'm also not a KQ-level athlete.)

 

In contrast, I look at the staggeringly fast speeds thrown up by the up and coming youngsters in tri and can't help but thinking "WOW - I don't even think I'd come close to those times even with full-out doping!" (And I know they're clean.)



Edited by yazmaster 2017-08-01 3:43 PM
2017-08-01 3:59 PM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Originally posted by yazmaster

if they're doping, they're clearly not doing a good enough job of it.




EXACTLY. I finished 42nd out of 1,800 on Sunday and I'm no rock star. If doping is as prevalent as LB says, they aren't getting very good dope LOL.
2017-08-01 5:08 PM
in reply to: 3mar

User image


1680
1000500100252525
Denver, Colorado
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Originally posted by 3mar

Originally posted by yazmaster

if they're doping, they're clearly not doing a good enough job of it.




EXACTLY. I finished 42nd out of 1,800 on Sunday and I'm no rock star. If doping is as prevalent as LB says, they aren't getting very good dope LOL.


LOL


2017-08-01 5:30 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
I think you guys are getting off on a tangent here. IMHO Lefty was principally talking about 45-60 AGers taking testosterone. Any number of reasons that a reputable MD would prescribe testosterone, some medical, some largely vanity (ie, we have all seen the guy in his 50's or 60's with a six pack and a bikini babe on his arm). Of course if you happen to have prostate cancer then you are likely pouring gas on that fire. I can see medical levels of testosterone being a PED and may be common among top AGers, but we are far from Barry Bonds here.

Edited by Oysterboy 2017-08-01 5:31 PM
2017-08-01 5:35 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Master
8169
5000200010001002525
Eugene, Oregon
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Yep....In the past year, two of the top women in the world in my AG have been busted. One for "exogenous testosterone" (I would assume that's testosterone in your system that's not your own natural hormones); one for letting the air out of a competitor's tires in transition. Nice. I guess it does show that once in a while they do test people, and there is video surveillance of bikes at some events. But I'm sure for every one that gets caught, there are dozens who don't. For the record, I have never been tested at an IM event, including the one where I qualified for Worlds and Worlds itself. I have also never talked to anyone else who was tested, or seen age-groupers called or pulled for testing. Many of the women I know in my AG take crazy amounts of supplements--probably "legal", but expensive and of questionable health benefit or even safety. I take what I always have as an adult--daily multivitamin, iron, and calcium.

In the end, as an amateur athlete (yes, I'm calling myself and other competitive age groupers athletes--we have the commitment and put in the training, even if we lack the talent or life situation to get the pointy end or turn pro), we're all in this for our own satisfaction. I do the best I can do with what I've got "endogenously", and I'm happy if I know I did the best I could. There is little to no $ (prizes or sponsorship) for "older" men and women competing in AG, even at the highest level (if you qualify for Worlds Championships, you still pay your own way there, and it's actually more expensive than many other IM events). If someone feels they need to "enhance" their body or performance, at risk to their overall long-term health, that is their problem. No, it's not fair that I might be competing against women who might be "chemically enhanced" (and I'm sure I am, even in some local events), but I haven't noticed that other areas of life are all that fair either.
2017-08-01 5:45 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Veteran
1677
1000500100252525
Houston, Texas
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34

Originally posted by Oysterboy I think you guys are getting off on a tangent here. IMHO Lefty was principally talking about 45-60 AGers taking testosterone. Any number of reasons that a reputable MD would prescribe testosterone, some medical, some largely vanity (ie, we have all seen the guy in his 50's or 60's with a six pack and a bikini babe on his arm). Of course if you happen to have prostate cancer then you are likely pouring gas on that fire. I can see medical levels of testosterone being a PED and may be common among top AGers, but we are far from Barry Bonds here.

I actually think there are probably a lot of people "doping" in those age groups, but not necessarily doing it to win.  As you noted, vanity is a contributor and I've heard (mostly seen in writing) people say things like, "Well, it's not like I'm winning anyways, so it doesn't really matter if I take testosterone."  Sure, it's doping....but they're not the ones taking the WC slots.

I like to think that everyone who beats me is clean and that they beat me simply because they worked harder, have been at it longer, or are simply more talented than I am.  And I'm with Omar....if they're doping and beating me by only "small" amounts, then they're sure taking a lot of risk for not a lot of reward.  That said, I don't actually know how potent PED's are....are they going to take me from a 4:50 HIM'er to a 4:20 HIM'er?  Or are we talking 4:50 to 4:45?  Cause you're still not winning at 4:45!

2017-08-01 6:19 PM
in reply to: Hot Runner

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Originally posted by Hot Runner

Yep....In the past year, two of the top women in the world in my AG have been busted. One for "exogenous testosterone" (I would assume that's testosterone in your system that's not your own natural hormones); one for letting the air out of a competitor's tires in transition.


Let's not forget the course cutters

Anyone willing to cheat to that extent, by doping, sabotage, course cutting.....all the same pieces of .....

BTW, did you notice how it's the women :-) Just kidding.
2017-08-01 6:28 PM
in reply to: ligersandtions

User image


1502
1000500
Katy, Texas
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Originally posted by ligersandtions

Originally posted by Oysterboy I think you guys are getting off on a tangent here. IMHO Lefty was principally talking about 45-60 AGers taking testosterone. Any number of reasons that a reputable MD would prescribe testosterone, some medical, some largely vanity (ie, we have all seen the guy in his 50's or 60's with a six pack and a bikini babe on his arm). Of course if you happen to have prostate cancer then you are likely pouring gas on that fire. I can see medical levels of testosterone being a PED and may be common among top AGers, but we are far from Barry Bonds here.

I actually think there are probably a lot of people "doping" in those age groups, but not necessarily doing it to win.  As you noted, vanity is a contributor and I've heard (mostly seen in writing) people say things like, "Well, it's not like I'm winning anyways, so it doesn't really matter if I take testosterone."  Sure, it's doping....but they're not the ones taking the WC slots.

I like to think that everyone who beats me is clean and that they beat me simply because they worked harder, have been at it longer, or are simply more talented than I am.  And I'm with Omar....if they're doping and beating me by only "small" amounts, then they're sure taking a lot of risk for not a lot of reward.  That said, I don't actually know how potent PED's are....are they going to take me from a 4:50 HIM'er to a 4:20 HIM'er?  Or are we talking 4:50 to 4:45?  Cause you're still not winning at 4:45!




That's the thing. It's either not that common, or not that effective. All of the dudes who podiumed on Sunday were KQers and I was 8 minutes off 5th. Again; I couldn't have even thought about D1 in swimming, and I couldn't even stay on the track team in high school...like couldn't even be the slowest guy, they just stopped putting me in races, and started sending me off to do runs by myself through neighborhoods while everyone else was on the track, until I finally got the hint and quit. Now you take all the ex D1 athletes and track stars, people with actual genetic gifts, and those with just more dedication, and that easily fills the gap in front a guy like me. No need to look at doping.


2017-08-01 6:31 PM
in reply to: marcag

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34

Hot Runner - to your point....I don't think anyone (ok, almost anyone) in AG racing uses PED's for prize money, especially in the over 40 crowd.  This is purely ego driven. 45-60 year old folks who do triathlon don't need money.....they need to be able to say they are still winning.

2017-08-01 6:35 PM
in reply to: 3mar

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34

Originally posted by 3mar
Originally posted by ligersandtions

Originally posted by Oysterboy I think you guys are getting off on a tangent here. IMHO Lefty was principally talking about 45-60 AGers taking testosterone. Any number of reasons that a reputable MD would prescribe testosterone, some medical, some largely vanity (ie, we have all seen the guy in his 50's or 60's with a six pack and a bikini babe on his arm). Of course if you happen to have prostate cancer then you are likely pouring gas on that fire. I can see medical levels of testosterone being a PED and may be common among top AGers, but we are far from Barry Bonds here.

I actually think there are probably a lot of people "doping" in those age groups, but not necessarily doing it to win.  As you noted, vanity is a contributor and I've heard (mostly seen in writing) people say things like, "Well, it's not like I'm winning anyways, so it doesn't really matter if I take testosterone."  Sure, it's doping....but they're not the ones taking the WC slots.

I like to think that everyone who beats me is clean and that they beat me simply because they worked harder, have been at it longer, or are simply more talented than I am.  And I'm with Omar....if they're doping and beating me by only "small" amounts, then they're sure taking a lot of risk for not a lot of reward.  That said, I don't actually know how potent PED's are....are they going to take me from a 4:50 HIM'er to a 4:20 HIM'er?  Or are we talking 4:50 to 4:45?  Cause you're still not winning at 4:45!

That's the thing. It's either not that common, or not that effective. All of the dudes who podiumed on Sunday were KQers and I was 8 minutes off 5th. Again; I couldn't have even thought about D1 in swimming, and I couldn't even stay on the track team in high school...like couldn't even be the slowest guy, they just stopped putting me in races, and started sending me off to do runs by myself through neighborhoods while everyone else was on the track, until I finally got the hint and quit. Now you take all the ex D1 athletes and track stars, people with actual genetic gifts, and those with just more dedication, and that easily fills the gap in front a guy like me. No need to look at doping.

Dude - KQ is plenty of reason for some folks to cheat.  Spend some time googling......it's probably close to common.  I read an article to day about an IM in Europe where it was theorized that 20% used PED's.  I don't doubt it for a minute.  I can go back and find the article......but if you make me do that I'm going to put this laptop in the dishwasher.  LOL

2017-08-01 6:50 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by 3mar
Originally posted by ligersandtions

Originally posted by Oysterboy I think you guys are getting off on a tangent here. IMHO Lefty was principally talking about 45-60 AGers taking testosterone. Any number of reasons that a reputable MD would prescribe testosterone, some medical, some largely vanity (ie, we have all seen the guy in his 50's or 60's with a six pack and a bikini babe on his arm). Of course if you happen to have prostate cancer then you are likely pouring gas on that fire. I can see medical levels of testosterone being a PED and may be common among top AGers, but we are far from Barry Bonds here.

I actually think there are probably a lot of people "doping" in those age groups, but not necessarily doing it to win.  As you noted, vanity is a contributor and I've heard (mostly seen in writing) people say things like, "Well, it's not like I'm winning anyways, so it doesn't really matter if I take testosterone."  Sure, it's doping....but they're not the ones taking the WC slots.

I like to think that everyone who beats me is clean and that they beat me simply because they worked harder, have been at it longer, or are simply more talented than I am.  And I'm with Omar....if they're doping and beating me by only "small" amounts, then they're sure taking a lot of risk for not a lot of reward.  That said, I don't actually know how potent PED's are....are they going to take me from a 4:50 HIM'er to a 4:20 HIM'er?  Or are we talking 4:50 to 4:45?  Cause you're still not winning at 4:45!

That's the thing. It's either not that common, or not that effective. All of the dudes who podiumed on Sunday were KQers and I was 8 minutes off 5th. Again; I couldn't have even thought about D1 in swimming, and I couldn't even stay on the track team in high school...like couldn't even be the slowest guy, they just stopped putting me in races, and started sending me off to do runs by myself through neighborhoods while everyone else was on the track, until I finally got the hint and quit. Now you take all the ex D1 athletes and track stars, people with actual genetic gifts, and those with just more dedication, and that easily fills the gap in front a guy like me. No need to look at doping.

Dude - KQ is plenty of reason for some folks to cheat.  Spend some time googling......it's probably close to common.  I read an article to day about an IM in Europe where it was theorized that 20% used PED's.  I don't doubt it for a minute.  I can go back and find the article......but if you make me do that I'm going to put this laptop in the dishwasher.  LOL




http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.00...
2017-08-01 6:54 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34

Yep, that's not the article I read, but it was the Frankfurt European Championship that was referenced....and that's just the folks who voluntarily admit it. 



Edited by Left Brain 2017-08-01 6:55 PM
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Why is 35-39 AG for men so tough compared to 20-24 and 25-29 and 30-34 Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 4
 
 
RELATED POSTS

30 second gains

Started by DaniD
Views: 517 Posts: 2

2017-05-29 10:35 PM JoelO

11th Annual Buzzards Bay Watershed Ride: 100, 75 and 35 mile courses

Started by BuzzardsBayCoalition
Views: 393 Posts: 1

2017-04-04 10:17 AM BuzzardsBayCoalition

20 min test - Higher FTP but lower LTHR?

Started by roserc
Views: 1762 Posts: 16

2016-10-06 7:50 AM brigby1

20 minute bike test for FTP

Started by jmagnyc
Views: 1994 Posts: 5

2016-10-31 11:18 AM trener

Anyone used Don Fink's 30 week intermediate program? Pages: 1 2 3

Started by Triceratops
Views: 36036 Posts: 74

2016-12-27 7:30 PM kloofyroland