Doping Thread

[RussellEbertHandball]

Thought Ferrari said that 6.7 was the "magic number" required to win the TDF?

6.7 was the magic number Ferrari set up for Armstrong.

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/lance-armstrong-the-end/

Michele Ferrari, Armstrong’s old coach and one of the six defendants in the USADA action, is on the record as talking about the Texan being able to express a sustained power output of 6.7 watts per kilogram of body weight when he was winning the Tour.
The late Aldo Sassi, who was respected as one of the best cycling coaches and whose reputation was spotless, concluded that a sustained 6.2 watts per kilo was probably the limit of human achievement under normal physiological conditions. Unpredictable variables, such as length of effort, would skew the numbers a little, but figures above 6 are freakish – the absolute limit of human achievement. 6.0 would win a Grand Tour these days (Sassi was quoted in the New York Times as saying that in the 2009 Giro, only one rider – Denis Menchov – got above six). 6.7 is impossible. It’s over 11 per cent more than 6.0, in an elite area of performance where the margins between riders are impossibly thin. It would be the equivalent of a long jumper jumping 9.93 metres (Mike Powell’s world record is 8.95 metres, and that was a pretty freakish jump).
http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/lance-armstrong-the-end/

Posted this at post#240 of this thread.

From sports scientist article in 2009

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-weapon-against.html

A limit to performance? Cycling may be an easier ask...

Therefore, this graph, or any other, does not constitute proof that athletes doped. What is does do is help us to understand performance better - is it possible that we can draw a dotted line on the graph to indicate where performance ends and doping MIGHT begin? Probably not (at least for now), but that is where this is headed. For cycling, I believe it is easier, and when you look at the climbing power outputs of Tour de France champions (shown again below), and then ask what the implications of riding at 6 W/kg are for the physiology, then I believe it is feasible to say that riding at a relative power output above about 6 W/kg for longer than 30 minutes raises doubts over physiological credibility (particularly when this is repeated day after day).

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-weapon-against.html

 

[Cole Dammett]

It's super sus how Froome keeps looking down at his power meter every couple of seconds. He knew what he was doing, he just didn't want to pull back.

Can someone please explain to me the connection between power meters on the bikes and doping? Is the suggestion that they are being used to keep themselves in achievable natural levels?

 

[sblack]

Can someone please explain to me the connection between power meters on the bikes and doping? Is the suggestion that they are being used to keep themselves in achievable natural levels?

The power metes will have the wattage output they are currently riding at. Gives them an indication of what they need to ride at/what they are capable of riding at, and then they base their race structure around those figures. When you see w/kg (watts per kilogram) figures, like above in REH's post, they are usually an estimation of the power output, seeing as most figures aren't released to the public.

During training, they will push themselves and figure out their max output potential over various distances, and then form a model around their physical max, and then model their racing plans on these. From what we've seen with Froome, he seems to be based around a 25km potential, and I think there have been reports from Tenneriffe saying that Sky focus around 25km intervals. They will constantly check their power metes during races to make sure they don't over-race before their meant to.

This is basic knowledge, someone like Freakie will have more knowledge due to being an elite athlete and has first hand knowledge

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Can someone please explain to me the connection between power meters on the bikes and doping? Is the suggestion that they are being used to keep themselves in achievable natural levels?

Yep. Basically if you can average high 6's or 7 watts/kg then you are achieving something that isn't normal. It isn't evidence like a positive test, but its circumstantial. so if you are smart you keep it around 6.0 to 6.3.

But it could also be used as measuring device. Bit like a stop watch for a marathon runner will time himself over 5km intervals. So nothing sinister when used like that.

A 6.7 - 7.0 reading over a half hour up hill ride is like someone who runs 10.x seconds for 100m, then starts running 8.9 seconds 18 months later. Its suspect.

Haematocrit is the percentage of red blood cells in blood. The rest is plasma. WADA has set a level of less than 50%. So if your natural levels are say 43, then micro dosing EPO will get it to 48. If you take a whole lot of readings well before a grand tour and you record in the 42-44 range, but just before and during a grand tour its at 48, then that indicates something is suss even though no positive tests occur.

 

[bing181]

My god, so much misinformation.

Training using a Powermeter is something that has come up in the last 5 years or so, and mainly on the back of the work of two guys, Hunter Allen and Andy Coggan, who literally wrote the book on training and racing with a power meter (published in 2006).

If anyone really wants to know what this is about, get hold of the book. It's also worth reading some of Hunter Allen's comments on the figures being produced.

Suffice to say, that much of what's currently being thrown around is either BS, or a misreading (and misunderstanding) of the figures and what they mean.

Riders carry power meters in races more than anything, so that the power data can be collected and analysed afterwards. Cadel - and he's not the only one - is known to tape over the display on his SRM meter. Using power is more than anything about being able to micro-manage training sessions, and plan training over a whole season (for example).

 

[sblack]

bing181

Do you believe we have reached a point in physiological development that clean performances have reached and essentially surpassed the tainted performances of no less than 10 years ago?

 

[The Falcon Strike]

In other doping news Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell have been busted. Bloody athletics and their cheating ways...

Seems to me Tyson hinted at an "essendon" style doping scenario and has copped his whack.

Basically trusted a doctor/SS and they cocked up and he doped.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

bing181

Do you believe we have reached a point in physiological development that clean performances have reached and essentially surpassed the tainted performances of no less than 10 years ago?

No one has got near flo Jo in 25 years, not even confirmed drug cheats.

So outgunning a drug mule like Armstrong? Yeah.... Nah

 

[sblack]

No one has got near flo Jo in 25 years, not even confirmed drug cheats.

So outgunning a drug mule like Armstrong? Yeah.... Nah

Doping for women is well known to be much more effective though.

But let the Sky fanboy respond

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

No one has got near flo Jo in 25 years, not even confirmed drug cheats.

So outgunning a drug mule like Armstrong? Yeah.... Nah

From the http://www.sportsscientists.com website. He had a long article about cycling the other day but used athletics as an example of comparing doped performances to "clean" ones.

He did the original graph in 2009 but updated it about 10 days ago

When will clean performances surpass doped performances?

Will clean cycling performances ever match those of the doped generation of the 90s & 2000s? And when? Let's look at progression, doping effects and realistic expectations.
Yesterday David Brailsford gave an interview about the release of power data to the public. In it, he said the following:

"At some point in time, people have to accept that performances are going to move forward. If we always hold back, and say, here is some data from people who were doping, then if we draw a line, we can then deduce that anyone crossing that line must also be doping. Well, that’s false. They do not have to be doping, because the whole human race moves forward. At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past."​

That's an interesting statement to analyze, so some quick thoughts on it.

.....

The example of Track and Field athletics
So, the question is, in response to Brailsford's statement that "At some point in time, clean performances will surpass the doped performances in the past.", is when do we expect this?
If the effect of technology and commercial factors is considered negligible (I know, it's not, but bear with me for the example), then we can get some insight from track and field athletes.
I drew up the table below in 2009 to compare male and female athletes. It shows the current world record, the age of that record, and also the gap between the best performance over the last four years and the world record.

It's pretty clear that women athletes deserve some sympathy - the world records are simply out of reach. Driven by rampant doping in the 1980s, most of those records have been pushed so far beyond the reach of physiology, technology and commercial factors that they are simply untouchable.
The men's side is a little different - the average age of records is 12 compared to 21 years, but that's skewed by those men's field events, which drive the average up. So, what is interesting is that doping happened for BOTH men and women in the 1980s, but the women's times have survived, not the men's.
That is a function of physiology, because it reveals that doping pushed women's performances outside of the normal curve.....
What this shows is that doping has moved the top performances, the world records, into a space that now lies between men and women, and the passage of time, plus technology, plus physiology, plus financial incentives, has not been sufficient to help the best women close that gap. In other words, the magnitude of doping improvements is greater than physiology, technology and commercial factors combined.
It may yet happen that the women are able to close that gap, but it's been 30 years and counting. In some events, the gap is narrowing (the 100m hurdles seems imminent, for example), but for the rest, the 1 to 2% differences you see in the table seem, for this generation, anyway, insurmountable.
Cycling's case
Let's now go back to cycling, and ask when Brailsford's prediction might be borne out.
.......
Therefore, remove doping and performance should drop back to where it was 30 years before, assuming no impact of technology. This means the times we saw in 2010 would be comparable to those of the 1980s. I think that is a reasonable assumption when you now factor in bike technology, and then begin to compare times of the late 80s and early 90s to what we have seen since the biological passport was introduced.
Therefore, it would seem reasonable to suggest that 20 to 30 years would be required to bridge the "doping gap" and return to the 37 minute ascents.
........
When will clean performances surpass doped performances?

 

[bing181]

bing181
Do you believe we have reached a point in physiological development that clean performances have reached and essentially surpassed the tainted performances of no less than 10 years ago?

Physiological development aside, the huge advances in technology alone give current riders a huge advantage over riders from 10 years ago. Throw in improvements in sports science in everything from nutrition to biomechanics, plus the huge leap forward that training with power provides, and it's only a matter of time before those records start falling.

Mick Rodgers has been around, and knows Sky from the inside:

Rogers: “I think road cycling has gone in a completely different direction and that’s being led by Sky at the moment.”

What sort of things are you talking about? We saw obvious changes: the trainers for you to cool down on at the finish, the training camps at Tenerife… but not all of it is new. What’s the key difference?

Rogers: “My general feels are that Sky took all this SRM data and actually put it into a package that they could use. They started learning exactly what was necessary to win any type of race. They had the data and they started basing the training off that.

“For years we’ve all been collecting data. But I think 95 per cent of the teams are just looking at the data and going, ‘That looks great. There are a bunch of pretty squiggly lines on the screen…’ but no one really interpreted what it meant.

“Sky really studied it all and took it down to a granular level. They broke down every element and reverse engineered it and really understood what was necessary to do to win this race or to be the level that’s required to be a good domestique or what level you have to be to pull in the last week of the Tour… they know it and no other team does with the data what they have done."

 

[alfy!]

Froome answers a doping question.

"I just think it's quite sad that we're sitting here the day after the biggest victory of my life ... quite a historic win, talking about doping," Froome said. "Here I am basically being accused of being a cheat and a liar and that's not cool."

Froome batted away any comparison to Armstrong, saying: "To compare me with Lance, I mean, Lance cheated. I'm not cheating. End of story."

A mini-industry is springing up of observers attempting to guesstimate and analyze how much power Froome might be generating on his bike, and then taking a stab at judging from that data whether he is clean. Team Sky manager Dave Brailsford called this "the latest craze."

"Every day we get asked the same question and I can assure you that we are thinking very, very hard about the optimal way of proving to you guys that we're not doping," Brailsford said.
He suggested the World Anti-Doping Agency could help by appointing an expert who could pore over every facet of Froome's preparations for the Tour he's now leading by more than four minutes, with just six stages left to the finish in Paris.

This expert "can have everything that we've got. They can come and live with us, they can have all of our information, they can see all of our data, they can have access to every single training file," as well Sky riders' blood readings, weight and power data, he said.

"The whole thing and someone sits there and pieces it all together and says, 'Well, yes or no,"' he said. The WADA-sanctioned expert "could tell the world and you whether they think this is credible or not."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/tour-d...lunteers-to-prove-he-s-riding-clean-1.1367360

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Doping for women is well known to be much more effective though.

But let the Sky fanboy respond

True - but Marion Jones doped and didn't get near either. My point was, the level of doping in cycling was so extreme, it's not just a matter of overcoming a stimulant here or there. It's a right royal cocktail they have to overcome.

Ultimately flo jo faced her own justice.

 

[ben_1301]

My point was, the level of doping in cycling was so extreme, it's not just a matter of overcoming a stimulant here or there. It's a right royal cocktail they have to overcome.

I think this is what's so off putting about what Froome's doing, guys like Riis, pantani, Armstrong and co weren't just on a bit of gear. It was a free for all, 60point hematocrit, multiple bloodbags, hgh, test. Basically anything that would make them go faster, now Froome's just about matching it clean.....

 

[seanoff]

Froome answers a doping question.





http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/tour-d...lunteers-to-prove-he-s-riding-clean-1.1367360

Except people have asked, directly, and been told to depart whilst fornicating. Not idiots, proper PhD level sport scientists.

Paul Kimmage the journo was invited to attend their training camp, and then not.

Sky entered the sport declaring they'd be transperent, they have been anything but. They have employed doctors with a doping past, after declaring they would do no such thing.

They get no benefit of the doubt.

He is riding as fast or faster than guys who were doped to the eyballs and much faster than modelling predicts. He is doing this after showing nothing really for the early part of his career. At best a capable domestique.

I'd love to believe he was clean. But i watched ax3 and ventoux. 30 yrs of following this has shown me one thing. If it looks unbelievable, it, in all probability, is.

 

[Belnakor]

Froome answers a doping question.





http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/tour-d...lunteers-to-prove-he-s-riding-clean-1.1367360

yet they won't release Froome's data to the public. what a joke.

 

[ben_1301]

Riccardo Ricco: "Finalmente il ciclismo ha trovato un corridore pulito che batte tutti i record di corridori dopati"
"Finally cycling has found a clean rider who can beat all the doping records."

 

[Port01]

Mick Rodgers has been around, and knows Sky from the inside:

Mick Rogers is almost certainly been a high level doper at stages of his career as well! You don't become a triple world TT champion during the Armstrong era without help. I know of course aussies don't dope, unless they get caught, then it is their mums diet pills.

Currently, I'd look at the top 10 and be surprised if any of them are clean. Froome is certainly another level higher. Without waiting for Wiggins he would have won every MTF in the last 2 editions as well as second in every TT. He is either doping or one of the greatest endurance athletes of all time. All of which no-one had any idea about till 21 months ago when he went from pack fodder and about to have his contract cancelled by sky to second in the vuelta (again would have won if he wasn't waiting for Wiggins). Sky (or his own medico) found something that he responds to in a massive way, probably in a last ditch attempt to have a decent career.

 

[Selective Retention]

Mick Rogers is almost certainly been a high level doper at stages of his career as well! You don't become a triple world TT champion during the Armstrong era without help. I know of course aussies don't dope, unless they get caught, then it is their mums diet pills.

I had a mate at school whose dad was a semi pro in Europe so have been a once a year cycling fan for 10 years or so.

As a casual fan the Rogers example is the one that makes me the most sceptical of Wiggins and Froome.

As you said, Rogers was a triple TT world champion. Then he goes to a well resourced team in T-Mobile and strips weight to climb better. From then on he has disappointed at TTs at GTs (for a triple world champion) yet Wiggins and Froome dropped nothing on the TTs and are beating/matching the TT specialists in Cancellara and Martin when they went through the same transformation to improve their climbing.

 

[Belnakor]

Mick Rogers is almost certainly been a high level doper at stages of his career as well! You don't become a triple world TT champion during the Armstrong era without help. I know of course aussies don't dope, unless they get caught, then it is their mums diet pills.

Rogers was very high in the suspicious list for the 2010 TDF, smoke, fire etc.

 

[bing181]

yet they won't release Froome's data to the public. what a joke.

It's not a joke, and it wouldn't even reveal anything we don't know anyway. I know Cat. D amateur racers who won't release their power data, even to friends. No-one puts their power data in the public domain. Laurence Ten Dam is putting his TDF info up on Strava ... minus the power data. Though he has a simple method for ensuring no-one gets his power data: he doesn't collect any.

 

[Papa Juggs]

It really looks like Froome did whatever he could to revive his career and was willing to be a test subject.

Froome is either the equal of Lance clean or he is cheating. One side is heavily favoured in that equation.

 

[RU486]

It really looks like Froome did whatever he could to revive his career and was willing to be a test subject.

Froome is either the equal of Lance clean or he is cheating. One side is heavily favoured in that equation.

What every his on, no way anyone else in the peleton is on the same stuff.

I still think he has a TUE which manipulates his blood values thus the ABP cannot legally be used against him and he has free reign to blood dope.

 

[Belnakor]

What every his on, no way anyone else in the peleton is on the same stuff.

I still think he has a TUE which manipulates his blood values thus the ABP cannot legally be used against him and he has free reign to blood dope.

reckon your on the money.

He has to take "medication" which causes spikes in his blood values, thus he is allowed to be over 50%

 

[alfy!]

What every his on, no way anyone else in the peleton is on the same stuff.

I don't get this reasoning or guess work. Sure, have a go at Froome and others for being on illegal drugs, but to say he's the on different stuff to everyone else? That's ridiculous.