First EPO users in the peloton? - Page 33 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #321  
Old 04-27-12, 22:19
Digger Digger is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler'sTwin View Post
It's interesting to note that Greg performed much better in TT's than in mountain stages in -91. He was the second best TT'er in the race and lost no more than 56 seconds to Indurain over 130 km (73km+57km).

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1991.html
This merely backs up the point...EPO allowed big riders like Indurain power up climbs which they wouldn't have been able to do, to that level, previously. Not for one second am I suggesting Miguel didn't have a big engine. But it's a fact that a certain build of riders responded better to EPO than others.
__________________
Doping died with Lance.
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 04-27-12, 22:31
mewmewmew13's Avatar
mewmewmew13 mewmewmew13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: co
Posts: 4,929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisE View Post
If you want to show where I wrote he took EPO then knock yourself out. Take your time. You just stated in the other thread about not understanding English so maybe things are just getting screwed up in babelfish for you here.

If you want you can do a search on this forum and the other main one out there. I have been posting since about 2000 on these forums ie when they came about, and before that on rec.bicycle.racing under just the name "chris". I do not know if you can search usenet. Have fun with your search and good luck....you will need it because I have never written such a thing.

I only stated people that point out that EPO could have been around when he was still winning would catch some grief. You yourself upthread pushed back against this. Personally I don't think he took EPO, and that is why he fell back. Care to attack me for that opinion?

You carpet bomb me with a bunch of personal BS you know nothing about, and only I and a couple of others on here know what a fool you are because I don't care to spread my personal background on an internet forum. So you just keep right on thinking that I only got into cycling when LA came around and I am clueless about GL. I will have my own personal laugh at your expense.

Now with that, I really am gone from here before mewmew has an orgasm about me being back in this thread. I could shoot holes all in doc's "miracle drug" post vs just calling it EPO but I refuse to do that. I will just run along now and get me another beer, I mean "alcoholic beverage".
All on the forum know your 'turtle' style anyway...no biggie.
Announce you are leaving after firing some insults and blows...watch a while and then come back for some more retorts.

...the other part of the sentence you give yourself too much credit
__________________
craig walsh always with us
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 04-27-12, 22:34
Tyler'sTwin Tyler'sTwin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Vaughters
From an o2 uptake standpoint the percentage gain is about half of the increase in total hemoglobin mass. So, in modern day where the bio-passport would prevent any huge jumps in Hb, say you increased from 14g/dl to 15g/dl (this all assumes that plasma volume is totally stable, which is a very big assumption and almost impossible...but anyway..)..This would bring about a total Hb increase of 6.7%, so the o2 carrying capacity increase and corresponding power increase would be about half of that, so 3.35%. Of course, in 1996, you could go from 14g/dl to 19g/dl quite easily, yielding a power increase of more like 13%! There is some diminishing return after about 16g/dl however because the red cells become so crowded they can no longer deliver oxygen as efficiently, so maybe "only" 10%.

Ok, so there's the clinical math. One thing not taken into consideration into this is that Hb is a protein that would, in theory, serve as a lactate buffer. So, there is also some undetermined anearobic advantage in addition to just the o2 carrying increase. In a race where repeated anearobic efforts are required and recovery from those efforts are required, over and over, there will be some culmulative advantage as well.

Also, an old Finnish study (if you can find it) found that athletes with higher Vo2 maxes benefitted less from EPO use than those who started with lower Vo2 maxes. The more talented athlete were (generally) benefitting less. Another observation of that study was that ectomorphic body types showed less increase than mesomorphic types. So, the variables on the exact advantage are endless and vary person to person (A BIG counterpoint to the argument that just letting everyone dope is fair). I read this study in about 1995 and haven't seen it anywhere since, so i cant find a link, sorry...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Conte explaining why sprinters use EPO
What people fail to understand is that by increasing production of red blood cells you are transporting more oxygen to the muscles and you are also removing carbon dioxide, ammonia and lactic acid, all the byproducts of exercise.
I think the bolded could explain why EPO might make more of a difference in a mountain stage than in a TT.

The last paragraph in JV's post is also quite interesting.

Last edited by Tyler'sTwin; 04-27-12 at 22:44.
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 04-28-12, 08:03
Digger Digger is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
...and while checking the numbers on that you provided I found that Charly Mottet, a man reputed to be squeaky clean, beat LeMond by about 5:30 min...so it wasn't just a drug addled mob that beat him up it was also some non drug addled folks too...must have been the early onset of his later mitochondrial problems...

Cheers

blutto
Anyone who has read my stuff will know I don't believe Lemond took EPO. However I will concede this above. I don't actually think his disimprovement in results wa completely down to EPO and I think he's being disengenuous if he is saying it is. Certainly it played a large part, but for various reasons, be it the above, or whatever, I believe there were other factors.
__________________
Doping died with Lance.
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 04-28-12, 08:07
Fearless Greg Lemond's Avatar
Fearless Greg Lemond Fearless Greg Lemond is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
...and while checking the numbers on that you provided I found that Charly Mottet, a man reputed to be squeaky clean, beat LeMond by about 5:30 min...so it wasn't just a drug addled mob that beat him up it was also some non drug addled folks too...must have been the early onset of his later mitochondrial problems...

Cheers

blutto
Charley Mottet was in fact quite a good rider who used to have traditionally one bad day. When u take a closer look to the 1991 results u will see his main advantage he took on Lemond was in a breakaway where Lemond lost 7 minutes to the little Frenchy. The little Frenchy was no threat for the GC since he lost 6 minuten in the first TT. That's how Mottet got up till fourth, like that Spaniard winning the Tour in 2006.

Nevertheless Mottet was a great character! He truly deserved to win at least one GT in my opinion, for me he has won two.

Lemond had one breakdown day in 1991, the one to Morzine where he lost 8 minutes to the leaders. Hell, he even finished behind guys like Jalabert.

Last edited by Fearless Greg Lemond; 04-28-12 at 08:17.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 04-28-12, 12:38
ChrisE's Avatar
ChrisE ChrisE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mewmewmew13 View Post
All on the forum know your 'turtle' style anyway...no biggie.
Announce you are leaving after firing some insults and blows...watch a while and then come back for some more retorts.

...the other part of the sentence you give yourself too much credit
Well, when somebody is having a meltdown and erroneously claims that I wrote something, then I will come back and set the record straight.
__________________
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 04-28-12, 12:51
Gregga Gregga is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 242
Default

Actually, i'm not a pro-GL troll , Gregga is my grandfather first name.
I live in France and was a teen when LeMond won the Tour, I saw him in the Alps when he took the jersey in 86 and 89, I was a true fan of him. That should be a reason for what I try to understand who was a cheater an who was not twenty years ago.

Reading your discussions, I think as many that everything started in 1990, very few doubts about Chiappucci or Alcala or Bugno and Indurain. 1988 or 1989 ? Well, a few surprising cases like Rooks, suddenly climbing, Theunisse as well, PDM of course...
1991, no doubt at all, but clean riders like Mottet could still win, same in 1992, Delion won a tour stage, but in 1993, EPO was so widely used that one could not win without it (by the way, Festina started EPO in july 1993, that's in W.Voet book).
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 04-28-12, 16:00
Cloxxki Cloxxki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler'sTwin View Post
I think the bolded could explain why EPO might make more of a difference in a mountain stage than in a TT.

The last paragraph in JV's post is also quite interesting.
On a steep hill, 10% more power gets you ~10% more speed. In a TT, the advantage is half, of less. Air resistance ramps up by the 3rd ower of speed, or some say exponentially. Means going twice the speed costs 4-8x more power. Up a hill, going twice as fast takes 2x more power, as air speed hardly is a factor, and fighting gravity is takes proportionate power for vertical speed.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 04-28-12, 16:18
ChrisE's Avatar
ChrisE ChrisE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloxxki View Post
On a steep hill, 10% more power gets you ~10% more speed. In a TT, the advantage is half, of less. Air resistance ramps up by the 3rd ower of speed, or some say exponentially. Means going twice the speed costs 4-8x more power. Up a hill, going twice as fast takes 2x more power, as air speed hardly is a factor, and fighting gravity is takes proportionate power for vertical speed.
Actually, air resistance increase is determined by comparing the square of the velocity. For example, you double the speed you have 4 times more wind resistance.
__________________
"He called me a baboon, he thinks I'm his wife." - Al Czervik
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 04-29-12, 12:25
Cloxxki Cloxxki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisE View Post
Actually, air resistance increase is determined by comparing the square of the velocity. For example, you double the speed you have 4 times more wind resistance.
Unfortunately, this is not as I have come to know aerodynamics in reality.
Cars are a good indicator. All car makers want to claim a high top speed for their car. Especially sports car makers will go to length to make their cars aerodynamic, to achieve high top speeds.
A low-cost 100bhp sports car (or small family car) will be content to reach 200kph/120mph. Name one that does <100bhp and >200kph.
Now, what's the least power you've seen on a car reaching bouble, 400kph (240mph)? I will just state that this just doesn't happen under 800bhp. Or I'd like to see one example. Seriously, those 800+bhp cars are very aerodynamic to get 360+kph. And you'll agree that while rolling resistance at 200kph is a small factor compared to air drag, it's in fact closer to proportionate to speed. With increased power, and speeds, the rolling resistance become increasingly less significant, and air drag rules pretty much the whole game.
100>800bhp to not quite double top speed. That's 3rd power, or worse.
The Bugatti Veyron I believe tells very precisely how much power it is using. It could be used to make a reliable power to speed graph for that particular vehicle.
On a bike, you'd need to figure out a flat road, no wind, 100W velocity and then see what power it takes to double that velocity eed. My hunch is you'll see 25kph for 100W, maybe a bit more. Good luck getting a good reading at 50kph (solo). 400W will not cut it unless you're really tiny. For me (real tall and not skinny) 50kph is well above my (best shape) VO2max of 500+W.
To get rolling resistance out even more, ride 150W and take velocity. Then see what seed you get for 600W. Can you get double velocity?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:37.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.