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

5% , were can that be got back?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 21, 2010
1,006
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.
You are trying to make something with hundreds of variables into something linear and deductive. If these racers all rode stationary bikes in a lab, they could get a linear, scientific determination.

Racing takes place on the road. The strongest rider does not always win, surely we all acknowledge that, and as such the best dope does not always win.

Coming up with a formula as to how it works is really not going to transfer to the racing.
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,199
0
0
Well, a look at the shortly resurrected Thomas Frei thread will indicate that at least one (currently former) pro-rider believes that not only will he be able to match his own doped times, but that he aims to do so in order to go back to the peloton and compete cleanly. Either is plenty naive - or lying through his teeth.

Anyone can make their own judgment call on that...

FWIW I've spoken to a former rider, who does know about the less beautiful part of the sport, who personally thinks the major part of the peloton is clean, but that the top riders dope - mainly based on the higher risk/difficulty/cost of effective programs nowadays. I don't think that sounds far out...

In the end I love "benefit of the doubt" as a concept, but definitely analyse the wording of riders and others when commenting on doping. Some are clearly hiding something, others not so much in my view.
I feel a lot has changed since the mid to late nineties and to now, especially since retirement 1.0 (or was that 2.0?) 5 years ago. The tone and wording from many riders and DS's is a lot more outspoken and anti doping than previously. To me that says the problem is less than before and headed in the right direction.

I know this'll put me up for a good beating in this thread, but since it's virtual I think I'll survive - Deep down I'm a good person and completely "tranquil" :)

As for 5% (or whatever it may be, because I think we all agree there are good and bad responders) - Maybe most good responders come from the less naturally gifted riders? Maybe most dopers tend to grow less professional in other aspects as they rely more and more on the juice?

Also there are many factors going into deciding who the winner is - the "5%-doping-increase-decides-the-winner" theory only holds water if the assumption is made on an "all else equal" basis. That simply doesn't exist...

I guy like Riis definitely used doped in an effective manner back in his day, but he also used something else that very few did: He was keen to innovate in other areas and worked hard to train more effectively, not harder, as his (mainly german) colleagues did on Telekom. Maybe the French riders and teams doped less in the nineties compared to others, but there are also accounts of how they were blatantly blind to other ideas such as proper nutrition. Scientific approach can be other things than doping and although Sky might look silly when they rely on fragile weather reports for deciding when Wiggins does his TT, teams like Sky, HTC and Saxo definitely do a lot of stuff that other teams could learn a thing or two from.

I'm not saying the peloton is cleaner than white, but I'm happy to think it's cleaner than what it gets credit for. Also happy to reiterate there's other factors than doping involved.

Basically you could pose the "how can you beat a 5% increase?" question on other areas that not everybody does or does as well as some...
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,199
0
0
Colm.Murphy said:
You are trying to make something with hundreds of variables into something linear and deductive. If these racers all rode stationary bikes in a lab, they could get a linear, scientific determination.

Racing takes place on the road. The strongest rider does not always win, surely we all acknowledge that, and as such the best dope does not always win.

Coming up with a formula as to how it works is really not going to transfer to the racing.
See, that's what I meant - you just used a heck of a lot fewer words - thanks!
 
Oct 25, 2010
2,965
2
0
biokemguy said:
+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.
Or too many lucky boy burgers

 
Dec 3, 2010
2
0
0
Here's a theory I've been kicking around in my pea-brain lately: doping in endurance sports like cycling has more of an impact because the sport has less skill (note I didn't say any) portions to even out the advantages gained. So, for example, in basketball you need to dribble well, have a good sense of timing etc etc -- lots of areas where brute force isn't going to help you.

So, to tie back to the OP's question, perhaps the way to make up the 5% is to introduce more areas in cycling where skills are important. Example: ban race radios so that having a good "feel" for the race is important.

Like I said, I only have a pea-brain so go easy on me :)
 
Mar 17, 2009
94
0
0
Colm.Murphy said:
You are trying to make something with hundreds of variables into something linear and deductive.
No I am not, why would you say that I am as I clearly have not. :confused:

Please nobody put words in the mouths of others. Seriously I hate it. :(
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
JPM London said:
Well, a look at the shortly resurrected Thomas Frei thread will indicate that at least one (currently former) pro-rider believes that not only will he be able to match his own doped times, but that he aims to do so in order to go back to the peloton and compete cleanly. Either is plenty naive - or lying through his teeth.

Anyone can make their own judgment call on that...

FWIW I've spoken to a former rider, who does know about the less beautiful part of the sport, who personally thinks the major part of the peloton is clean, but that the top riders dope - mainly based on the higher risk/difficulty/cost of effective programs nowadays. I don't think that sounds far out...

In the end I love "benefit of the doubt" as a concept, but definitely analyse the wording of riders and others when commenting on doping. Some are clearly hiding something, others not so much in my view.
I feel a lot has changed since the mid to late nineties and to now, especially since retirement 1.0 (or was that 2.0?) 5 years ago. The tone and wording from many riders and DS's is a lot more outspoken and anti doping than previously. To me that says the problem is less than before and headed in the right direction.

I know this'll put me up for a good beating in this thread, but since it's virtual I think I'll survive - Deep down I'm a good person and completely "tranquil" :)
Then how come they keep catching so many non top riders?
I would like to agree with your theory, but every time I try I get smacked again.
 
Mar 17, 2009
94
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
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:
It's fine, and what you have just said regarding sitting in and mountains is quite reasonable. I can agree with that.
 
Power gains.

Here is some info on power gains.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

Here is my take on an increase 5% performance on doping:
................................1st week...............2nd week..............3 rd week
.............................._________............_________.........____________
Start:
Dirty Rider .......................................................................Dirty Rider
6.0-6.2 watts/kg.............................................................6.0-6.2 watts/kg
Good numbers with dope

Clean Rider.........................................................................Clean Rider
6.2-6.4 watts/kg...............................................................5.8-6 watts/kg
Very Talented Rider
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Let's say EPO/transusions increases your VO2Max by 5%, appetite suppressants or Clen decreases your body weight by 4%, and anabolics and insulin allow you to increase training volume by 20%, what's the gain then? How much do you gain when the artificial increase in VO2Max allows you to do the first five hours of a stage at a lower level of exertion so that you reach the final climb fresher than the competition? There are a whole matrix of effects that might collectively raise performance beyond the increase from any one drug.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
BotanyBay said:
They wouldn't do it if it didn't work.
Lots of people take homeopathic medicine and claim it works. It doesn't though. The takers just believe it does.
 
Apr 8, 2010
1,237
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.
5% of what?
 
Aug 4, 2009
175
0
0
The (statistical) significance of 5% could be determined by a multivariate analysis of the variations between all riders of all possible factors that determine "winning." To the extent these factors can be measured, one then assigns a uniform method of quantifying each ("a number".) What makes a uniform method is where the difference between say "1" and "2" reflects the same impact of that variable (standard deviation of that variable as measured in all riders) as the difference between "1" and "2" reflects in each of the remaining variables (the standard deviation of each of the remaining variable as measured in all riders.) MY opinion is that the so-called "5%" despite being a number may not reflect a significant difference statistically. I would love the opportunity to do a truly independent rigorous statistical analysis to determine if my opinion (or "hypothesis") is supported by the facts when balanced by dispassionate rigour. If this were "true" then the doping debate is simply histrionics.

dp,
Montagna lunga Colorado USA
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,199
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Then how come they keep catching so many non top riders?
I would like to agree with your theory, but every time I try I get smacked again.
Actually quite interesting...
Has anyone (tried to) compiled a list of doping positives with regards to looking at level raced at and relative position within that group and compared to number of racers in total and so on? (however we define the variables)

It's a bit difficult, I know, not least because many busts are outside of actual testing but by police and other authorities.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,235
0
0
Although I never doped, I would say several percent can certainly won back, by finding out which legal supplements work for a rider. It's personal. Gains can be significant, but take more trying than the epo/transfusion blunt axe.

Lots of riders have a lower threshold to dope, and that to dig into the books and web literature to find out how they can improve their performance in non-doping ways. Beats living a lie, and being eventually exposed dishonorably.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Then how come they keep catching so many non top riders?
I would like to agree with your theory, but every time I try I get smacked again.
There have been several people on this forum who have claimed that everyone's doping and you have to dope just to finish a GT. The 'they all dope' claim.

Well, the doctors selling the dope say exactly the same thing - because they're just interested in selling product. So the riders buy, just to protect their jobs.

It's most likely nonsense, but it's an attitude that persists, is perpetuated by dope dealers and alleged anti-doping crusaders alike (how can they both be wrong), so some suckers keep buying the product. It's a damaging point of view.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,010
0
0
Mr.38% said:
Or simply by being more effective watt by watt as proven by independent scientistologies.
I've heard that the last 10 TdF winners were all closet Scientologists...

L Ron Hubbard has the best stuff, he makes Ferrari look like a chump.
 
Mambo95 said:
There have been several people on this forum who have claimed that everyone's doping and you have to dope just to finish a GT. The 'they all dope' claim.
No you dont have to dope just to finish a gt. Thats absurd.

And "they all dope" doesnt mean domestiques dope. It doesnt mean the grupetto dopes. It just means to compete for a gt, to stick with all the other epo fuelled monsters in the mountains, day in day out, you have to dope.

They all dope is a theory that says all the top guys dope. The contenders dope.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
The Hitch said:
No you dont have to dope just to finish a gt. Thats absurd.

And "they all dope" doesnt mean domestiques dope. It doesnt mean the grupetto dopes. It just means to compete for a gt, to stick with all the other epo fuelled monsters in the mountains, day in day out, you have to dope.

They all dope is a theory that says all the top guys dope. The contenders dope.
I think it's an absurd position too. But some posters on here say 'they all dope'. Including yourself at post #31 in this thread: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=436962#post436962

"I think everyone is doping, and i strongly oppose the sport of scape goating" - that was posted by you yesterday. What has made you change your mind?

Absurd is as absurd does, eh?
 
As to the OP's question, Joe Papp said that modern doping gives 10-15% boost, up to 20% adding everything (including recovery) collectively. And he was fairly certain of this, having trained with a power meter quite extensively.

I personally don't think there's much less doping today, than the period Joe speaks of some five years ago.

I also don't believe everyone dopes. I do think it's a majority, some more than others, but "everyone", no. Clean riders finish GT's. They may not compete for GC, but they are there.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
As to the OP's question, Joe Papp said that modern doping gives 10-15% boost, up to 20% adding everything (including recovery) collectively. And he was fairly certain of this, having trained with a power meter quite extensively.
Yeah, but let's not forget Joe Papp was a drug dealer, not a scientist. Just like those guys who say that this pill will give you an incredible high. Of course, he'll say that. He was selling it. He made himself believe it (true or not).
 
Mambo95 said:
I think it's an absurd position too. But some posters on here say 'they all dope'. Including yourself at post #31 in this thread: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=436962#post436962

"I think everyone is doping, and i strongly oppose the sport of scape goating" - that was posted by you yesterday. What has made you change your mind?

Absurd is as absurd does, eh?
You know better than this.

I just said that everybody dopes means JUST THE GC CONTENDERS, and you come out with a previous quote of mine, acting as if in that case, the term "everybody" must mean something different. :rolleyes:

Dont think that because the post you showed was written yesterday it is somehow outside the rule

Also in a thread of yours, from a few weeks ago, you asked who do we believe is clean, and i told you that i believe the gruppeto is clean and gave an example of a good rider who i thought was clean. So you should know by now that i dont believe that absolutely every pro cyclist in the peloton is doping.


The term everybody dopes isnt meant to be used 100% literaly. You know that as you dont take me saying "everybody dopes" as meaning "every single person, cyclist or non cyclist in the world dopes".

You presumably assume i mean "every cyclist dopes". And i can understand that. I aknowledge that in this internet speak i am not making 100% accurate to what degree the term "everybody" should be understood. I mean the contenders in a grand tour. the guys going for the overall. In that breed of cyclist i believe all of them are doping, and several others agree.


But hopefully now youll know ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS