• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

5% , were can that be got back?

Jun 12, 2010
1,083
0
0
I`ve asked this question elswhere and it never gets a reply.

As im understanding the science of moderrn doping practices a 5% gain is a conservative figure for improvement. I`f anyone disagrees im happy to hear why.
Assuming theres a degree of concenses on this figure I pose the question , especialy to those who believe there are major genuine GT contenders that are clean, how is that possible?
I dont believe 5% is a gain any clean rider can overcome.
 
Sep 30, 2010
191
0
8,830
I think the drugs help your recovery more than they help you go fast. Drugs allow you to race and recover at a inhuman level day after day. I am not saying that they don't help you go faster.
 
May 20, 2010
854
0
0
But drugs also help you train harder without the fatigue. I think that is where the major benefit lies now.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,083
0
0
Cobblestones said:
I think that sums it up neatly.

Therefore, your question is merely a rhetorical one.
In a sence yes it is..but boy is the silence deafening from the believers that the sport is cleaning up!:D
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
Clarification

gobuck said:
I think the drugs help your recovery more than they help you go fast. Drugs allow you to race and recover at a inhuman level day after day. I am not saying that they don't help you go faster.
PED's are a the means to an end.

I'd like to point out even if the number is smaller than 5%, even 1% or less, we're talking about the *last* x% in human performance among the fastest riders in the world. It's not like the easy improvements from couch potato to weekend warrior.

I know the times at the Tour de France are an artifice, but add 1% to Pharmador's finish time and see how far down that puts a rider. That's a powerful reason to dope.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
It varies per rider. If you look at output and climbing times it is closer 10-13% for a 90's-00' program (Pre-WADA, Biopassport)

Studies on EPO show wide ranges with some seeing over 20% gain and the average being 13%. For Pro Riders the benefit would be less but there still would be riders who see a greater return.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
It can be made up by working harder than your competition, using a higher cadence, reconnoitering all the climbs, losing weight, and having your own jet.;)
 
Sep 30, 2010
191
0
8,830
Is there proof that Merckx didn't blood dope? Lassie Verrin blood doped to win the 5000 and 10000 meter races at the 72 olympics, so there was blood doping during Merckx's career.
 
Nov 20, 2010
176
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
It can be made up by working harder than your competition, using a higher cadence, reconnoitering all the climbs, losing weight, and having your own jet.;)
The jet comes after those other things.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,499
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
I`ve asked this question elswhere and it never gets a reply.

As im understanding the science of moderrn doping practices a 5% gain is a conservative figure for improvement. I`f anyone disagrees im happy to hear why.
Assuming theres a degree of concenses on this figure I pose the question , especialy to those who believe there are major genuine GT contenders that are clean, how is that possible?
I dont believe 5% is a gain any clean rider can overcome.
If as some believe, a GT all so ran can turn himself into a multiple Tour winner with dope, then a genuine GT talent should be able to get close without the dope.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
andy1234 said:
If as some believe, a GT all so ran can turn himself into a multiple Tour winner with dope, then a genuine GT talent should be able to get close without the dope.
You are under the misguided assumption that all respond the same to dope. This is not the case.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
In a sence yes it is..but boy is the silence deafening from the believers that the sport is cleaning up!:D
Then again, I prefer their deafening silence over frantic spin (at high cadence if you get my drift).
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,108
0
0
andy1234 said:
If as some believe, a GT all so ran can turn himself into a multiple Tour winner with dope, then a genuine GT talent should be able to get close without the dope.
Not really.

To the original question, I don't think that 5% is completely insurmountable. I don't think that most riders are operating within 95% of their natural ability. Add in that there's a variation in talent, and I really don't think it's impossible for a clean rider to equal the performance of a doped rider in a short event.

The problem is that the difference is probably not 5% at the end of a 3 week stage race. It's hard to really know what it is, since finding a large sample of non-doped grand tour riders and testing them isn't exactly easy. My guess however is that it's much more than 5%.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,083
0
0
131313 said:
Not really.

To the original question, I don't think that 5% is completely insurmountable. I don't think that most riders are operating within 95% of their natural ability. Add in that there's a variation in talent, and I really don't think it's impossible for a clean rider to equal the performance of a doped rider in a short event.

The problem is that the difference is probably not 5% at the end of a 3 week stage race. It's hard to really know what it is, since finding a large sample of non-doped grand tour riders and testing them isn't exactly easy. My guess however is that it's much more than 5%.
While I`d agree many riders might not be operating at 95% of there physiological limit the reasons for that are complex and many have a problem with the self discipline of living like a monk. Even at pro leval theres huge varience in that discipline. That I`d class as natural variation.
Another important facter is there personal goals/ via there team commitments. We`ve all seen times were top domestiques have apeared every bit as strong as there team leaders but there sacrifice means were never quite sure just how good they realy are.
I deliberatly chose 5% as a figure because its the lowest estimation I could find after all factors are woven in and to my understanding still a huge insurmountable gain . To understand why it`s insurmountable its because the estimated natural variation in capacity of two elite contenders in any chosen discipline is in the order of 1..2% at most.
One point im picking up on is the false belief that 5% isnt significant in shorter events.
Ask any elite spinter or persuiter what they`d give to have any extra 5% naturaly!
Beter still ask Usain Bolt. :D
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
I know the times at the Tour de France are an artifice, but add 1% to Pharmador's finish time and see how far down that puts a rider. That's a powerful reason to dope.
90% of the time they're sitting in the peloton with everyone else. So adding 1% of the full 90 hours is a fallacy.

The GC riders only race full on for a maximum of eight hours. So at worst he drops to 5th.

(And +1% power doesn't equate to +1% speed)
 
Feb 21, 2010
1,006
0
0
For many riders, the dope is a crutch, a shortcut to fitness lopping off the attention paid to diet and weight. For many riders, dope is the last item to "bridge" them to the higher levels, when all the diet, weight and controllable items have been minded. For many riders, the dope response is very great, leading many to think it is all they need, pushing them into a "crutch" reliance cycle. For others, the doping response is not so great, so they load up on more and more, exposing them to higher levels of risk in mis-managing their routines, thus scuttling their training, and thus less prepared for events than otherwise.

It is not a fitness fix-all, where a little EPO and HGH lets you train into the dark and ride past previous limits. It has plenty of downsides, too.

As to gains, a top level rider can ALWAYS improve, 1-4% on power/threshold, without dope, for peaks and targets. It is what makes training and racing so hard. Shortcutting this difficulty, so that those gains level out and become the norm, you see less delta between ceiling and base, more steady performances over time, depending on how the riders' body handles the stress.

For the big events, adding the externally stored blood is the big advantage, providing a sweeping change in capacity and recovery. What once was hard, is not as hard, and the recovery is less pronounced. Extra blood also has downsides, water weight gain, stress on overall system trying to figure out where the extra 300-800cc's came from, and starts flushing right away.

The doping is a big, big advantage, accentuated by having a precision program to maximize the upsides and minimize the risks and reactions of the body. Tuning this can take lots of money and time, more than most riders have, and certainly more knowledge than 99.9% of pros can possess. This is where the Dr.'s come in. This is Ferrari's business, Del moral, Marti, Fuentes, etc, etc.
 
Apr 19, 2010
1,499
0
0
Race Radio said:
You are under the misguided assumption that all respond the same to dope. This is not the case.
You can tell all that from one sentence? Wow, you're good.

So what you are saying is that a GT natural can not challenge a super responding also ran?

EDIT: BTW, as per normal, you probably saw my statement as suppprt for you know who. It wasn't. It was a statement that a genuine natural talent can still compete against overperforming dopers.
 
Mar 17, 2009
94
0
0
Mambo95 said:
90% of the time they're sitting in the peloton with everyone else. So adding 1% of the full 90 hours is a fallacy.

The GC riders only race full on for a maximum of eight hours. So at worst he drops to 5th.

(And +1% power doesn't equate to +1% speed)
Absolutely correct! This is the only sensible piece of info I have seen written here and why am I not surprised it took so many posts before someone pointed this out?

To bad many (most) on this site for whatever reason seem quite incapable of rational and logical thought.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,083
0
0
WD-40. said:
Absolutely correct! This is the only sensible piece of info I have seen written here and why am I not surprised it took so many posts before someone pointed this out?

To bad many (most) on this site for whatever reason seem quite incapable of rational and logical thought.
Of course theres siting in the peloton, and preserving a greater portion of there effort by that said 5%.
It`s when they hit the mountains and TT`s were it becomes visable but that doesnt mean the benifits arn`t being used sat in the peloton.

So hows the rational logic stacking up? :rolleyes:
 
Jan 18, 2010
245
0
0
and shifting properly

90% of the time they're sitting in the peloton with everyone else. So adding 1% of the full 90 hours is a fallacy.

The GC riders only race full on for a maximum of eight hours. So at worst he drops to 5th.

(And +1% power doesn't equate to +1% speed)
+1

A 5% increase in power output could be lost by poor racing tactics or not shifting properly ;)

Not to go too far off topic, but perhaps this is part of the motivation for the radio ban.
Science as practiced by WADA can't catch the dopers, so they'll muck up the racing tactics instead...but these issues could/should be discussed in other threads.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS