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

5% , were can that be got back?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 11, 2010
740
0
0
JPM London said:
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.
What it gets credit for in the clinic. Don't conflate the overly cynical opinion of the clinic with that of cycling's general fan base.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
The Hitch said:
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:
Everybody means everybody (in cycling). If you mean just the GC contenders, then say that.

Sweeping generalisations are part of the problem I was highlighting amongst some posters.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Well,that interview was AFTER his career both as a racer, and "dealer" was over, and he had testified about it in federal court.
Maybe. But it doesn't mean he stopped believing his own advertising.

I don't know why people lap up every word he says but condemns every cyclist with a slight link to doping. He's worse than Armstrong to my mind. The very core of the problem.
 
Mambo95 said:
Maybe. But it doesn't mean he stopped believing his own advertising.

I don't know why people lap up every word he says but condemns every cyclist with a slight link to doping. He's worse than Armstrong to my mind. The very core of the problem.
Regardless of selling and using drugs, he's got the experience to make him a much better source than you, me and most others here throwing a random "5%" up. If someone wants to introduce an even better source into the thread they are welcome to do so.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,310
0
0
Ferminal said:
Regardless of selling and using drugs, he's got the experience to make him a much better source than you, me and most others here throwing a random "5%" up. If someone wants to introduce an even better source into the thread they are welcome to do so.
He may know stuff, but I just see him as a hustler who takes whatever position suits himself at any time. Right now, self-righteous crusader suits him as he awaits sentencing. Anyone who castigates dopers but gives him a free ride is a hypocrite to my mind.

Anyway, back on topic. As I said - he's not a scientist, he's not tested this stuff across many athletes. His own experiences may tell him a general figure, but it's not really a true scientific test.
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,036
0
0
montagna lunga said:
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
Not sure why you want to make the variables uniform?
 
Mambo95 said:
He may know stuff, but I just see him as a hustler who takes whatever position suits himself at any time. Right now, self-righteous crusader suits him as he awaits sentencing. Anyone who castigates dopers but gives him a free ride is a hypocrite to my mind.

Anyway, back on topic. As I said - he's not a scientist, he's not tested this stuff across many athletes. His own experiences may tell him a general figure, but it's not really a true scientific test.
I agree with all (especially the bolded).

I don't actually believe the 10, 15, 20% theory across the board but until there's a journal or respectable study dismissing it, we have to consider that it may not be beyond the realms of possibility for some athletes (I'm a bit more skeptical that it could be that high for the top athletes).
 
Mambo95 said:
...
I don't know why people lap up every word he says but condemns every cyclist with a slight link to doping. He's worse than Armstrong to my mind. The very core of the problem.
OT, we have gone over this a million times, we are OK if the actual doper confesses and is actually repentant. Everybody deserves a second chance.
 
Jun 16, 2009
3,052
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
A ha! good question!:D

I would say FTP wattage per kilo is the best scientific answer.

Other opinions may vary. :)
Its a more significant question in this thread too.

There seem to be a number of people that see a comments such as "increase of 5%" and immediately think that it means that doping makes you 5% stronger than somebody ELSE.

With regard to the original question it is of course obvious that in the general cycling population it would be easy to beat a doped average rider. for instance, if I were to dope sufficiently to get a 5% advantage, I would STILL be riding C grade/Cat 3 these days.

The interesting part is that this becomes less clear the further you go up the the rankings. When you get to ProTour level, people then make the assumption that two riders from different genetic backgrounds etc will automatically be the same level if they are not doped and therefore the doper would be 5% better than the non-doper. For many reasons - and a lot of these were written earlier - it is easy to see that in fact there are numerous physically gifted riders that are not doing all they can to reach their physical limit whilst others do. Therefore, it is possible that those riders when doped are still only hitting the level of other riders who are clean.

But is it all that likely in the longer term?

I personally think that around 2000 a lot of the bunch was clean but as the years went on, many of the super dedicated, hard trainers saw they were consistently getting beaten and just gave in. (Note that is NOT an Armstrong reference. He wasn't the only race winner in that period - people were busy winning every other race while he won the Tours).

I am starting to believe that there are some very strong clean riders in the ranks at the moment and that they are starting to do well and win races. Now that a number of the big dopers are out of the field it is allowing clean guys to win and there is some encouragement from that (although obviously it is also letting weaker doped riders to win too so...)
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,235
0
0
The hardest part of finishing a GT would be to not finish outside the time limit on any given day, for 3 weeks. In a climbing time trial, that gets pretty difficult if you're a sprinter, and you don't dope. Imagine the climbing speed deficit to deal with, in percents...
With an AdH style ITT, I can see how many clean riders would certainly fail to finish inside the time limit. This time limit will be set around the LeMond/Fignon times, I suppose. Just living 20 years later doesn't make a mediocre pro ride up the speed of a late 80's winner.
 
Aug 4, 2009
175
0
0
Cloxxki said:
The hardest part of finishing a GT would be to not finish outside the time limit on any given day, for 3 weeks. In a climbing time trial, that gets pretty difficult if you're a sprinter, and you don't dope. Imagine the climbing speed deficit to deal with, in percents...
With an AdH style ITT, I can see how many clean riders would certainly fail to finish inside the time limit. This time limit will be set around the LeMond/Fignon times, I suppose. Just living 20 years later doesn't make a mediocre pro ride up the speed of a late 80's winner.
Perhaps the root cause of all this "mess" is time limits? e.g. no one believes they can ride at the level of The Professor and LeMonster?
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
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.
Are you talking about power or speed? Because a 5% increase in sustainable speed is anything but conservative. It's Lancetastic!

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.
Isn't that exactly what you would expect if it has become more difficult for small fish to get away with EPO?

Cloxxki said:
The hardest part of finishing a GT would be to not finish outside the time limit on any given day, for 3 weeks. In a climbing time trial, that gets pretty difficult if you're a sprinter, and you don't dope. Imagine the climbing speed deficit to deal with, in percents...
With an AdH style ITT, I can see how many clean riders would certainly fail to finish inside the time limit. This time limit will be set around the LeMond/Fignon times, I suppose. Just living 20 years later doesn't make a mediocre pro ride up the speed of a late 80's winner.
That is complete nonsense!
 
Jun 25, 2009
3,091
0
0
Cloxxki said:
The hardest part of finishing a GT would be to not finish outside the time limit on any given day, for 3 weeks. In a climbing time trial, that gets pretty difficult if you're a sprinter, and you don't dope. Imagine the climbing speed deficit to deal with, in percents...
With an AdH style ITT, I can see how many clean riders would certainly fail to finish inside the time limit. This time limit will be set around the LeMond/Fignon times, I suppose. Just living 20 years later doesn't make a mediocre pro ride up the speed of a late 80's winner.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/tour04/?id=results/stage16

Two got eliminated, the slowest who didnt, went up 11.32 slower than Armstrong, probably a 'proper' alpe d'huez ascent (start of the tt wasnt at the start of the official climb) of 49 minutes.

The best i can find for Fignon was 41.50 at the end of a mountain stage in 1989, i think Lemond on that day did 43 something.

Actually, assuming Lemond and Fignon started at the same time as Indurain in 1991 then we have 40.56 for Fignon and 41.42 for Lemond.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
BTW, I have a blood doping study in which six 32½-34 min 10km runners were given 900ml blood transfusions. The gains were 2.1-4.0%. Pre infusion hct's were 40-43% and increased by 5-6 points post infusion. The tests were carried out at altitude (both pre- and post infusion of course). The blood had been drawn and frozen 8 weeks earlier.
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,235
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
BTW, I have a blood doping study in which six 32½-34 min 10km runners were given 900ml blood transfusions. The gains were 2.1-4.0%. Pre infusion hct's were 40-43% and increased by 5-6 points post infusion. The tests were carried out at altitude (both pre- and post infusion of course). The blood had been drawn and frozen 8 weeks earlier.
That's a minute on average when applied to their 10k times. Not world record breaking, but also not something you gain anywhere else when already on top form.
Please share this study with us, if you can?
900ml, that's a lot, isn't it? Was all added to the body, or was old blood also drawn upon transfusion?
 
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.;)
And racing less. It's all about narrowing your focus on specific targets.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
BTW, I have a blood doping study in which six 32½-34 min 10km runners were given 900ml blood transfusions. The gains were 2.1-4.0%. Pre infusion hct's were 40-43% and increased by 5-6 points post infusion. The tests were carried out at altitude (both pre- and post infusion of course). The blood had been drawn and frozen 8 weeks earlier.
Do you have a copy of this study?

The Hct increase seems a bit low. Was the blood spun and to what concentrate?

As far as the improvement I would expect it to be not as great in running as it is in cycling as the impact is a limiter.
 
Aug 13, 2009
11,354
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
Try googling "The effects of red blood cell infusion on 10 km race time".
Thanks. I have heard of this study but have not looked at it. A few notes.

The only took out 1 unit of blood The spun it out to 300 ml of RBC. For most people this will only be a small increase in Hct, maybe taking someone from 40 to 43....or even less. The study is valuable but there are a few points.

-The level of Hct increase is minimal. Prior to the Biopassport some riders would boast from 40 to 55 or even higher.
-Maintaining a high Hct during training is a huge plus. They did not do this in the study
-Increasing Hct, especially to very high levels over 50, and you begin to hit dimishing returns. A full program includes steroids to build muscle, HGH and test for recovery, and Clen to cut weight and maintain muscle mass.
-It is interesting to note the wide variances in improvement. Some runners improved twice as much as others.

Taking these points into consideration and 10-15% improvement for a full program is a possibility. A huge amount for a full time Pro
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
BTW, I have a blood doping study in which six 32½-34 min 10km runners were given 900ml blood transfusions. The gains were 2.1-4.0%. Pre infusion hct's were 40-43% and increased by 5-6 points post infusion. The tests were carried out at altitude (both pre- and post infusion of course). The blood had been drawn and frozen 8 weeks earlier.
Hold it. A 2-4% change not for VO2Max but for final times? So someone who can run a 33:20 10K could now run a 32:00. That is like moving up one class in running ability. At 4% it is a hair under 13 seconds per mile. That is freaking huge.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
Race Radio said:
Thanks. I have heard of this study but have not looked at it. A few notes.

The only took out 1 unit of blood The spun it out to 300 ml of RBC. For most people this will only be a small increase in Hct, maybe taking someone from 40 to 43....or even less. The study is valuable but there are a few points.
No, they took out 2 units (450 ml) of blood, separated the RBC's and reinfused those packed cells 11 weeks later.

Average Hct increased from 41.6% to >47%.

-The level of Hct increase is minimal. Prior to the Biopassport some riders would boast from 40 to 55 or even higher.
This isn't prior to the bio-passport though and we know that Floyd "only" had 1 litre of blood administred in two or three separate transfusions for the Tour. So a transfusion of packed cells from 900 ml of blood is a lot.

-Maintaining a high Hct during training is a huge plus. They did not do this in the study
-Increasing Hct, especially to very high levels over 50, and you begin to hit dimishing returns. A full program includes steroids to build muscle, HGH and test for recovery, and Clen to cut weight and maintain muscle mass.
I don't know how effective "recovery therapy" is and while it shouldn't be underrated, it is by all acounts considerably less effective than competing with a considerably elevated O2 carrying capacity in an endurance sport. I imagine it depends a lot on the riders natural recovery though.

-It is interesting to note the wide variances in improvement. Some runners improved twice as much as others.
I suppose it's possible that mr 2.1% had a very good day pre-infusion while mr. 4.0% had a bad day, but large differences in response from person-person seems to be in line with EPO studies. It should be noted that the worst responder and the best responder were only separated by a mere 15s in the pre-infusion race and 1 point in natural Hct.

Taking these points into consideration and 10-15% improvement for a full program is a possibility. A huge amount for a full time Pro
You are comparing apples (reduction in time) to oranges (increase in power) unless you actually think an elite rider can improve by 6-9 minutes in a ~1h TT.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
Now, I'm talking about reduction in time, so 2-4% is certainly no joke. On the other hand, the elite would probably see lesser improvements, two units might be a bit over the top today (one can hope...) and perhaps the altitude makes O2 doping even more significant? But then there's also the other drugs to factor in.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts