Allen Lim

[JA.Tri]

Lim is also a spokesman for Saris Cycling Group, the company that sells Powertap hubs. They market him as a power training guru and he has a number of articles and videos regarding power training on their website.

The Landis admission puts his power training knowledge credibility at risk (at minimum) and his honesty at risk (at worst).

Seems like he's going to have some 'splaining to do to his corporate masters as well as Novitzsky.

Ageed. Much discussion on Landis' credibility however not much on Lim's. Interestingly Lim has much vaunted knowledge/understanding of: physiologyower training: powertap: interpretation thereof and yet he was unable to discern difference between PED effects and non-PED training gains.

 

[JA.Tri]

The imponderable is: what percentage of the peloton is doping?

Recent revelations (microdosing...) suggest that the percentage doping is >>> the percentage caught/identified.

With parties such as Lim called to account there is a significant chance to identify the magnitude of the problem and then possibly formulating a constructive solution. Not for a minute do I suggest that either matter will be satisfactorily addressed.

 

[mikkemus23]

Would love to hear the tapes og read the prints when Lim is interrogated by Novitzki. I think we will hear the cracking sounds all across the Atlantic.

 

[Roland Rat]

Is it me or have the riders on Garmin with Lim gone very quiet recently. Nothing from Wiggins for a few weeks now.

 

[scribe]

Not trying to be a wise guy, but the psychology of everyone involved from the athletes, to the coaches, to the fans, may be one of the most important aspects of the doping problem.

Lim obviously rationalized his behavior and watching that interview where he looked flummoxed it appears that he thought he could escape scrutiny.

If this guy really believes half of that power of positive thinking, EPO is a placebo, and core cooling and hydration, over what Pro cyclists normally do, are as impactful as doping he's literally insane.

That crazy interview seemed to smash him in the face with a reality he'd been denying.

in a world where it is likely all the top cyclists are on dipping programs, all of those limisms actually would provide additional edge.

 

[Anonymous]

in a world where it is likely all the top cyclists are on dipping programs, all of those limisms actually would provide additional edge.

Exactly. It isn't as if any of his other ideas and methods are ineffective if you are doping. They just help even more. And to suggest that, as involved in Landis' life as he was, he would not have known about the systematic doping Landis was doing seems a little hard to believe.

 

[dsut4392]

Lim is also a spokesman for Saris Cycling Group, the company that sells Powertap hubs. They market him as a power training guru and he has a number of articles and videos regarding power training on their website.

The Landis admission puts his power training knowledge credibility at risk (at minimum) and his honesty at risk (at worst).

Seems like he's going to have some 'splaining to do to his corporate masters as well as Novitzsky.

Not at all. Put's his marketability at risk, as being associated with "cheating" doesn't sell well, but TBH his method of "cheating" was a scientific approach to achieving the best training outcome with his athletes. His power and rice cakes have achieved very good results, it just happens the rice cakes weren't exactly kosher.

Power measurement is a powerful [pun intended] tool for measuring progress and controlling training effort, and is perfectly valid whether in isolation or in conjunction with PEDs.

 

[gree0232]

I'll agree there's a system. We can debate if it "works"; it is catching some dopers, but not all, and possibly not even a majority. Whether it is making the peloton cleaner seems to be conjecture and hope, not supported by much evidence.

What the system is unequivocally doing is putting on a show that it works, and seeming to catch dopers, and putting on the appearance of making the peloton cleaner. From the UCI's point of view, that is more than enough.

It's my opinion that the system is broken -- it doesn't catch enough of the dopers to significantly affect the culture, except to beat up on the riders even more than was historically the case. It continues to reinforce the arms race that the best connected, most scientific of the dopers are the least likely to get popped, and the most likely to reap the rewards. I don't see how we can claim it is "working", except by assertion and wishful thinking.

-dB

So how do you fix the system?

And please bear in mind that this the 'system' for cycling is the most robust and comprehensive anti-doping system in professional cycling.

Yet other sports with far less restrictive or invasive systems, do not seem to have the same problems that cycling does. Why?

Here is a list of the riders caught doping:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

As you can see it has caught quite a few riders, the question then becomes, if the system is effectively catching these guys, why is it that the perception is that the system is failling? How many footballers are going down in comparison?

So I come back to where I have always been: make a case, provide some back up. I posted the power readings from Floyd's 'day' and some of Dr. Lim's comments from after that day where he offers an explanation.

What should Dr. Lim have seen? It is easy to look back with hindsight and say, "this guy should have ....," but the reality is that there are panels of experts looking at rider profiles and apparently not finding the 'majority' of dopers.

We can twist anything into suspicion and accussation, but when we are publically demanding someone come forward, we should probably have something a little better than hindsight as a basis.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

In the days after Floyd's positive test I seem to remember Lim claiming that Floyd had climbed at an average of 360w on statge 17. And that was totally plausible because in training he could hold 360w for 8 hours, or something ridiculous.

At 70kg 360w for 1hr is enough to hang in the pack at an elite race, and I am sure there are some lesser pro riders who TT at this power/weight ratio.

The idea that one of your "students" can generate that kind of power for 8 hours, and you having no idea that such a performance might be "enhanced" is pretty daft...(even though i think it was a BS comment anyway) To me it says more that Lim was in the know over the doping, and just wanted to throw out a bone along the lines of "nothing out of the ordinary"/ "freak natural talent" / "hardest training" smokescreen

 

[Ferminal]

So how do you fix the system?

And please bear in mind that this the 'system' for cycling is the most robust and comprehensive anti-doping system in professional cycling.

Yet other sports with far less restrictive or invasive systems, do not seem to have the same problems that cycling does. Why?

Here is a list of the riders caught doping:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

As you can see it has caught quite a few riders, the question then becomes, if the system is effectively catching these guys, why is it that the perception is that the system is failling? How many footballers are going down in comparison?

In my mind, any system which relies on catching dopers rather than stopping doping is broken.

The lag in detection science vs doping science means that you will never have a 100% positive rate (i.e. every doped rider tests positive). As long as a positive test is the only thing which can force a sanction, and that doping does not guarantee a positive, the system must not be about positive tests.

A healthier system would be one which combined the reliance on detection with preventative action. A preventative measure is not "increasing the risk" via greater sanctions on the individual cyclist. A preventative measure would mean removing the pressure for cyclists to dope, eradicating from the sport those who promote, initiate, facilitate and provide incentives for doping. When the cyclist tests positives, almost always these people/collectives are still in place to ensure that the next cyclist starts using PEDs.

Of course there is no silver bullet, but any system which relies solely on detecting doping will never be "not broken".

Cycling has a doping culture and until you address that you will never be able to say the sport is clean or that there is fewer GC contenders doping than previously etc. It's easy to throw around words such as "the peloton is clean(er) now" but if you actually look at it 1) There's no change which would have caused PED use to fall and 2) There is just as much circumstantial evidence of doped riders as there was previously.

 

[Epicycle]

I still wonder if Floyd has his jour sans on stage 16 because something went wrong with his doping program. Wouldn't be the first time. And you have to look at the Dauphine that year too. Floyd soft pedaled 3 tough mountain days after finishing second in the TT. Him and Vino both looked like guys who made withdrawals mid-race.

 

[thehog]

I still wonder if Floyd has his jour sans on stage 16 because something went wrong with his doping program. Wouldn't be the first time. And you have to look at the Dauphine that year too. Floyd soft pedaled 3 tough mountain days after finishing second in the TT. Him and Vino both looked like guys who made withdrawals mid-race.

On pure fascination level I really would like to know what happened on those two stages in relation to the doping program. I’m certain of the boost pre-stage 17 but what type of boost was it and what caused the jour sans – doping should flatten out the fade.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

On pure fascination level I really would like to know what happened on those two stages in relation to the doping program. I’m certain of the boost pre-stage 17 but what type of boost was it and what caused the jour sans – doping should flatten out the fade.

to me stage 17 looked like a good old fashioned dose of amphetamine.

I heard that decent water consumption, exertion and sweat can theoretically get that stuff out of your system sufficiently to pass a test.

 

[rikdewy]

to me stage 17 looked like a good old fashioned dose of amphetamine.

I heard that decent water consumption, exertion and sweat can theoretically get that stuff out of your system sufficiently to pass a test.

The old "chargez" of speed (meth) AND the testosterone patch/gel the night before.... just a little too much!

 

[scribe]

On pure fascination level I really would like to know what happened on those two stages in relation to the doping program. I’m certain of the boost pre-stage 17 but what type of boost was it and what caused the jour sans – doping should flatten out the fade.

A bonk is a bonk is a bonk. I think his doping regimen across the board magnified his bounce back the second day. Plus, the psychological factor of having the tour won and then lost the next day, propelled him along that much more.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So how do you fix the system?

And please bear in mind that this the 'system' for cycling is the most robust and comprehensive anti-doping system in professional cycling.

Yet other sports with far less restrictive or invasive systems, do not seem to have the same problems that cycling does. Why?

Here is a list of the riders caught doping:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

As you can see it has caught quite a few riders, the question then becomes, if the system is effectively catching these guys, why is it that the perception is that the system is failling? How many footballers are going down in comparison?

So I come back to where I have always been: make a case, provide some back up. I posted the power readings from Floyd's 'day' and some of Dr. Lim's comments from after that day where he offers an explanation.

What should Dr. Lim have seen? It is easy to look back with hindsight and say, "this guy should have ....," but the reality is that there are panels of experts looking at rider profiles and apparently not finding the 'majority' of dopers.

We can twist anything into suspicion and accussation, but when we are publically demanding someone come forward, we should probably have something a little better than hindsight as a basis.

The Wiki article you present is called a List of Doping Cases in Cycling.

You should read it as the vast majority named were not caught by "the system" - most confessed after their careers ended or were caught by Police action.

It is not a "perception", but a reality that the "system' fails- thank you for proving 'our' case.

 

[BikeCentric]

So how do you fix the system?

And please bear in mind that this the 'system' for cycling is the most robust and comprehensive anti-doping system in professional cycling.

Yet other sports with far less restrictive or invasive systems, do not seem to have the same problems that cycling does. Why?

Here is a list of the riders caught doping:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

As you can see it has caught quite a few riders, the question then becomes, if the system is effectively catching these guys, why is it that the perception is that the system is failling? How many footballers are going down in comparison?

So I come back to where I have always been: make a case, provide some back up. I posted the power readings from Floyd's 'day' and some of Dr. Lim's comments from after that day where he offers an explanation.

What should Dr. Lim have seen? It is easy to look back with hindsight and say, "this guy should have ....," but the reality is that there are panels of experts looking at rider profiles and apparently not finding the 'majority' of dopers.

We can twist anything into suspicion and accussation, but when we are publically demanding someone come forward, we should probably have something a little better than hindsight as a basis.

And now you reveal that you know nothing about the analysis of files created from training with a power meter. Why are you posting here? You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please keep it up though, you are comedy gold.

Moderators: why do we allow someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about to fill up the board with crap? It's one thing to allow "alternative points of view." It's another thing entirely to allow someone who doesn't have any knowledge of the subject to obfuscate and spin. This guy Gree is simply like a Fox News "reporter," fair and balanced all right (if you're on crack).

 

[Digger]

Wiggins isn't really the topic of this discussion is he? Did you miss the post I made stating that everyone STAY ON TOPIC?

Or maybe you missed the post on how to use the ignore feature?

I was responding to this post:

"This actually kinda proves the point Wiggins and VdV doing much better, neither suspected of doping, no indications of abnormalities in the bio passpor, but steadily improvring results."


But I take your point.......

 

[BikeCentric]

Not at all. Put's his marketability at risk, as being associated with "cheating" doesn't sell well, but TBH his method of "cheating" was a scientific approach to achieving the best training outcome with his athletes. His power and rice cakes have achieved very good results, it just happens the rice cakes weren't exactly kosher.

Power measurement is a powerful [pun intended] tool for measuring progress and controlling training effort, and is perfectly valid whether in isolation or in conjunction with PEDs.

You either missed the point or lack knowledge of power training and power file analysis.

The point is that any "expert" on power training (or even a layman) can easily see the large power fluctuations that are created from hard training with doping and would have to question the data if they were in fact a so-called "expert."

Which means that Lim is either not truly an expert or is a liar.

 

[131313]

You either missed the point or lack knowledge of power training and power file analysis.

The point is that any "expert" on power training (or even a layman) can easily see the large power fluctuations that are created from hard training with doping and would have to question the data if they were in fact a so-called "expert."

Which means that Lim is either not truly an expert or is a liar.

When Lim put out the numbers from the infamous TDF stage, I remember thinking "wow, I'm not that far off". At this exact point in time, I could hit those w/kg numbers in training on similar terrain, at least while fresh. Obviously, after a couple of weeks of racing is another matter.

That begs the question, at least to me, as to the veracity of those numbers. I've never seen an actual power file from that day, or any others, from Flandis. We've just heard what Lim said the numbers were. Maybe his numbers really were unbelievable?

At this point, I think that's a reasonable question and I'd like to see the files. I don't think they aren't doctored as easily as one would think.

 

[BikeCentric]

When Lim put out the numbers from the infamous TDF stage, I remember thinking "wow, I'm not that far off". At this exact point in time, I could hit those w/kg numbers in training on similar terrain, at least while fresh. Obviously, after a couple of weeks of racing is another matter.

That begs the question, at least to me, as to the veracity of those numbers. I've never seen an actual power file from that day, or any others, from Flandis. We've just heard what Lim said the numbers were. Maybe his numbers really were unbelievable?

At this point, I think that's a reasonable question and I'd like to see the files. I don't think they aren't doctored as easily as one would think.

I agree, and for me a big issue with that performance as well was the fact that it came the day after a bonk. Lim "explained" that by stating something along the lines of "when you're racing while bonked you actually don't fatigue yourself very much at all because you simply can't go very hard."

This statement was something that did not ring true in my own amateur experience and I am curious what you think about it at your high level of fitness? My experience is that training and especially racing while in a glycogen depleted state really digs you into a deep hole of fatigue and delays recovery even more than normal hard training.

Therefore, I was really shocked to see Floyd perform the way he did the day after that bonk where he lost something like 10 minutes on a climbing stage. As a matter of fact I watched the infamous stage with several of my old team-mates at the time and we all just looked at each other and basically said "let's hope he doesn't test positive." We did not believe even as it was happening. Sad.

 

[131313]

I agree, and for me a big issue with that performance as well was the fact that it came the day after a bonk. Lim "explained" that by stating something along the lines of "when you're racing while bonked you actually don't fatigue yourself very much at all because you simply can't go very hard."

This statement was something that did not ring true in my own amateur experience and I am curious what you think about it at your high level of fitness?

Actually, to a certain extent that has been my experience. I've only had the total "bonk" on 2 occassions but in both instances I actually recovered in one day. The again, that's bonking in a 5 day stage race, not a Grand Tour. And yeah, it really didn't seem believable at the time.

I'd like to see Lim pony up those files!

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Actually, to a certain extent that has been my experience. I've only had the total "bonk" on 2 occassions but in both instances I actually recovered in one day. The again, that's bonking in a 5 day stage race, not a Grand Tour. And yeah, it really didn't seem believable at the time.

I'd like to see Lim pony up those files!

There is muscle fatigue, achieved by pushing past a previous point, and there is depletion of glycogen stores, or more specifically, not managing the process of ingesting enough glycogen at a rate sufficient to replace that which is being utilized.

The "bonk" is simply reaching that depleted state. Once there, it is true that furthering whatever level of muscle fatigue had been hit is unlikely.

Simply adding glycogen (and hydration, fats, etc) will replace and store what had been depleted.

An analogy I have hear is that if you have a Porsche GT3, and you run out of gas, despite the temporary immobility the car does not become something lesser when you re-add fuel again. It is still a GT3.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

A bonk is a bonk is a bonk. I think his doping regimen across the board magnified his bounce back the second day. Plus, the psychological factor of having the tour won and then lost the next day, propelled him along that much more.

Overheated. Badly. Difficulty with getting teammates or cars getting fluids to cool.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

And now you reveal that you know nothing about the analysis of files created from training with a power meter. Why are you posting here? You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please keep it up though, you are comedy gold.

Moderators: why do we allow someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about to fill up the board with crap? It's one thing to allow "alternative points of view." It's another thing entirely to allow someone who doesn't have any knowledge of the subject to obfuscate and spin. This guy Gree is simply like a Fox News "reporter," fair and balanced all right (if you're on crack).

It's already been said. Why do guys like YOU keep responding to him? He is NOT the problem. YOU are. Anyone who gives a frying flig knows what this clown is doing, yet you compulsively respond to him as if defeating him intellectually is some sort of achievemnt.

Said it before, I'll say it again, people need a short term ban for responding to trolls. Trolls quickly die of starvation if they can't find some idiot to engage them. And yet you can't figure out that your engagement derails what little is going on in this thread. Try this out for a day: stfu.