If it starts at 5%, what is it in the 3rd week of a GT? One goes backwards and the other builds on their advantage with blood transfusions.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.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.
Darryl Webster said:A ha! good question!
I would say FTP wattage per kilo is the best scientific answer.
Other opinions may vary.
Hi Rip, sorry it wasn't clear, the "standard deviation" is what makes the MEASURE of rider differences in each variable uniform...Rip:30 said:Not sure why you want to make the variables uniform?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.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.
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.
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.
Tyler'sTwin said:Try googling "The effects of red blood cell infusion on 10 km race time".
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.
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.
-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