At what point did cycling become "clean"?

[Tinman]

2) There are the blood values. This graph illustrates the trend very well:

What's with the 0-0.2 values for the 2 outside periods. Ie. why is there no data on this? Methodology changes? Or just not reported? Looks odd.

And is there data on the sample tested. How has the sampling methodology changed over the years? Which we know it has. And how these changes may (I said "may") affect the results.

And changes in the testing technology/methods itself and how this may affect testing result/accuracy.

Has this data been published in a formal paper with subsequent discussion?

 

[Tinman]

It also shows % of samples, not % of riders

Exactly. One of the points i raised earlier in this thread.

The raw data should be released, and crowd-sourcing of the analysis would result if a far more rigorous analysis imo.

Yes, or the data published somewhere reputable and subject to "peer" review, or as you may infer in this case "clinic" scrutiny .

 

[Ferminal]

Also that 1.99 is good but 2.00 is bad (admittedly its an improvement on the 50% era).

 

[Tinman]

And for the large elephant in the room:

What do we know about "more recent doping techniques" and the effect on elevated retics?

This graph tells us nothing about more or less doping, or more or less clean. It tells us something has changed.

 

[D-Queued]

Who in their right mind would suggest Frank Schleck as a clean rider?

...

Not me.

Frank is a one time 3rd place finisher, a two-time top 5 (up one spot thanks to Lance), and a three time top 10 TdF finisher. All accomplished in the 'dark' era.

In a 'cleanish' Tour, he should be a hands-down favorite.

If he isn't, then he is a good reference for establishing the level of doping.

Again, the comparison with Z in that 2012 TT does lend support to Garmin's claims of a clean team.

Other performances, though, raise questions regarding claims of clean performances by other riders.

In the '09 Tour, for example, Schleck was only one second behind Wiggins in the final classification and just 42 seconds behind a disqualified Armstrong.

Dave.

 

[Tinman]

All accomplished in the 'dark' era.

One could argue that today is 'darker' than 1998-2005 or so. We knew damned well then that EPO was happening big time. Maybe not exactly how. But we knew a lot more then about what was happening then than we do now about what is happening now.

It's possible it's darker now than it ever was in the past 20 years.

 

[Tinman]

Sorry for the frequency of my posts in this thread.

Thought I'd dig out some basic links supporting that we have no real reason to be optimistic about cycling being clean. I am pretty sure these links have been discussed in the past, but many readers now may not have seen before (admit myself being one of those).

Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping, Ashenden et al 2011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951

Tyler Hamilton’s Guide to Using Anabolic Steroids and EPO in Cycling, Oct 2012
http://thinksteroids.com/articles/tyler-hamiltons-guide-anabolic-steroids-epo-cycling/

Cyclists Find New Method for Using an Old Doping Tool, May 2010, includes pessimistic UCI quote from Rossi
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26micro.html?ref=sports&_r=1&

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Tyler Hamilton’s Guide to Using Anabolic Steroids and EPO in Cycling, Oct 2012
http://thinksteroids.com/articles/tyler-hamiltons-guide-anabolic-steroids-epo-cycling/

If only it was that simple...

http://thinksteroids.com/articles/tyler-hamiltons-guide-anabolic-steroids-epo-cycling/
But cyclists know that the biological passport has not eliminated doping. Doping simply requires a little more effort. The goal is to maintain a physiological range of reticulocytes between 0.5% and 1.5%. Blood doping can be masked by micro-dosing with EPO after blood infusions to keep the reticulocyte percentage in range.

This is now even better for potential dopers. Ryder Hesjedal's retics dip below 1.5% on only 2/8 occassions - they have established the physiological fingerprint (JV) for his mean retics being 1.58% and as long as he's within (1.58%-0.3/0.5) to (1.58% + 1%) he is fine (from here). Lowest retics as released by JV for Ryder was 1.13% (JV says Ryder was sick), highest was 1.93% (OOC). This is based on a very limited data set. If we had the complete Ryder dataset, I am sure a more robust analysis could be conducted.

Back in November 2007, Millar hit 1.8 and had to be retested and scurried back to 0.7 a couple of days later.

Here's the rule in 2008:

http://www.2009tourdefrancenews.com/article/0,6610,s-6-523-17647-4,00.html
Reticulocytes are immature red blood cells. <...> Values below 0.4% and above 1.4% are considered suspicious by the UCI. Our team average is 0.95 +/- 0.35.

Rules have clearly changed since. The team average (which I realise is useless) back in 2008 for Garmin was 1.3% - but Ryder was a member of the team then too. They mention Millar's wayward 1.8 as an anomaly requiring scrutiny, but 1.93 is given a pass by Captaintbag based on the rule that an acceptable upper range of retics is baseline% + 1, as long as it's < 2%.

 

[cathulu]

I've ridden uphill with a tailwind - it makes it harder, ime, due to the lack of cooling. This was on a 7%, 16km climb I've done every now and then. Much more pleasant with a slight headwind.

Depending on the grade of the climb, I'm also dubious of the assistance of the tailwind too - are there stats on gradient of the tailwind climb(s) in question, or duration? Takes me an hour to do that climb but a pro would do it in 35-40 minutes so probably not as damaging having no cooling and more wind from their speed leading to more cooling also.

Tailwind is definitely faster. However in the race pack it is harder because there is no where to hide.

 

[function]

What's with the 0-0.2 values for the 2 outside periods. Ie. why is there no data on this? Methodology changes? Or just not reported? Looks odd.

And is there data on the sample tested. How has the sampling methodology changed over the years? Which we know it has. And how these changes may (I said "may") affect the results.

And changes in the testing technology/methods itself and how this may affect testing result/accuracy.

Has this data been published in a formal paper with subsequent discussion?

The below link covers that graph as well as commenting on the reduced power outputs, not mean outputs as you mentioned earlier, but during key points when the contendors would be riding hard.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html

 

[Tinman]

The below link covers that graph as well as commenting on the reduced power outputs, not mean outputs as you mentioned earlier, but during key points when the contendors would be riding hard.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html

great link, website and comments to the article. Will have a good read. Thanks. On cursory glance hasn't got all the answers but very good nevertheless.

Anyone got the quoted UCI paper itself?

Would be really good if UCI published more of the data, and I suspect would help them also with the fans. I wonder if UCI have considered what they can and should not publish, and "balance" gaining trust via transparency with fans with keeping methodology etc away from athletes.

 

[function]

great link, website and comments to the article. Will have a good read. Thanks. On cursory glance hasn't got all the answers but very good nevertheless.

Anyone got the quoted UCI paper itself?

Would be really good if UCI published more of the data, and I suspect would help them also with the fans. I wonder if UCI have considered what they can and should not publish, and "balance" gaining trust via transparency with fans with keeping methodology etc away from athletes.

The paper is Zorzoli & Rossi 2010

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21204287

 

[Tinman]

The paper is Zorzoli & Rossi 2010

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21204287

Unfortunately don't have an account.

Also just posted, captainbag's latest calculations and speculations

http://captaintbag.tumblr.com/post/35680353926/why-cant-dopers-microdose-to-6-7-watts-kg

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The paper is Zorzoli & Rossi 2010

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21204287

Still makes me laugh when you consider the graph shows 2010 data but the paper where the graph comes from was submiited for publishing November, 2010.

Like. November and December noone dopes so it's fine not to test or include any testing figures.

el oh el.

 

[Tinman]

Still makes me laugh when you consider the graph shows 2010 data but the paper where the graph comes from was submiited for publishing November, 2010.

Like. November and December noone dopes so it's fine not to test or include any testing figures.

el oh el.

Without reading the paper and subsequent discussion it's impossible to draw conclusions. Data cut off may be the same every year.

But I think the time has come for UCI to think much more carefully about how to really generate trust, and transparency is the largest part of that. And that includes making this type of data, or at least the publication thereof (in a different format of course to counter copyright) available more broadly, eg on its website.

 

[Von Mises]

In the 90's with EPO the big guys were able to climb like the skinny guys. Now the really skinny guys, even the ones who weren't exceptional climbers to begin with can climb but also ITT like nothing I've ever seen before.

That's the part that worries me. Everyone looks to the climbing and says "see not as fast as Pantani" but the improvement in climbing coupled with the phenomenal strength in time trailing is - bizarre.

If 57 kg rider can come TOP 3 in TT (okey, in prologue) only two seconds shy of the greatest of all time (Merckx), what would you say? Actually 57 kg Van Impe did this... And Van Impe had also several TOP 10-s in longer TT-s and I am not counting mountain TT-s.
Another lightweight Luis Ocana was even better, he won several TT-s in Grand Tours. You can also look Hampsten and Millar, who were able to get TOP 10 places in TT-s too. And I am not even talking about HInault or Lemond, both of them were lighter than Wiggins or Froome, both of them were dominant TT-ers of their era.

Once again, have you really never seen how skinny riders can TT. If you wish, I can continue bringing up names of past, who were skinny, but still very-very good at TT-ing.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ok not sure where good data is for rider weights, but Wiki says 74kg for Lemond? Even if he actually was lighter than Wiggins, he's also a darn sight shorter, so the amount of that weight which is bone and connecting tissue is lower.

To explain Wiggins, it invariably comes back to comparing him to Hinault or Lemond.

And I just look at the post trying to do that and my face screws up in a WTF grimace, and I think... "Seriously? Lemond? Hinault? Seriously?".

ETA: Hinault was 68kg @ 1.74m. Wiggins is 69kg @ 1.90m - one of them is ridiculously skinny. The other is almost solid for his height.

 

[Von Mises]

Ok not sure where good data is for rider weights, but Wiki says 74kg for Lemond? Even if he actually was lighter than Wiggins, he's also a darn sight shorter, so the amount of that weight which is bone and connecting tissue is lower.

To explain Wiggins, it invariably comes back to comparing him to Hinault or Lemond.

And I just look at the post trying to do that and my face screws up in a WTF grimace, and I think... "Seriously? Lemond? Hinault? Seriously?".

ETA: Hinault was 68kg @ 1.74m. Wiggins is 69kg @ 1.90m - one of them is ridiculously skinny. The other is almost solid for his height.

Lemonds racing weight was also 67-68. But you are right, they were not so skinny (though lighter) than Wiggins or Froome, they were shorter. Point is, you do not have to be Cancellara or Indurain to be good at TT. In history there are plenty of good TT-rs who were light (and skinny).

Btw, I do not believe that Wiggins is 69, I believe his heavier.

Btw 2, I believe that blood manipulations has gone down in general, but one doping area where I am still suspicious is weight manipulations. So, in some way I even partly agree with the Hog, but I just do not agree that there have not been light and skinny TT-rs before Wiggins and Froome

 

[Bumeington]

Ok not sure where good data is for rider weights, but Wiki says 74kg for Lemond? Even if he actually was lighter than Wiggins, he's also a darn sight shorter, so the amount of that weight which is bone and connecting tissue is lower.

To explain Wiggins, it invariably comes back to comparing him to Hinault or Lemond.

And I just look at the post trying to do that and my face screws up in a WTF grimace, and I think... "Seriously? Lemond? Hinault? Seriously?".

ETA: Hinault was 68kg @ 1.74m. Wiggins is 69kg @ 1.90m - one of them is ridiculously skinny. The other is almost solid for his height.

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html Here Lemond claims 68kg when VO2 tested and as low as 61kg at race weight

 

[Dear Wiggo]

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html Here Lemond claims 68kg when VO2 tested and as low as 61kg at race weight

At 61kg / 1.74m, Lemond's BMI is 20.14.
At 69kg / 1.90m, Wiggins BMI is 19.11.

Wiggins is significantly "skinnier" than either Hinault or Lemond. Even if you bump his weight up to 72kg, Wiggins is "skinnier".

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Yes, that does make sense. Under normal conditions.

But, have you ever seen such an obvious example of artificial restraint - when all the other top GC contenders were gassed?

Shouldn't Froome have been even somewhat fatigued on at least one of those occasions?

Dave.

HAHAHA. even by clinic standards this is ridiculous.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

In the 90's with EPO the big guys were able to climb like the skinny guys. Now the really skinny guys, even the ones who weren't exceptional climbers to begin with can climb but also ITT like nothing I've ever seen before.

That's the part that worries me. Everyone looks to the climbing and says "see not as fast as Pantani" but the improvement in climbing coupled with the phenomenal strength in time trailing is - bizarre.

oh really? I remember gewiss breaking the ttt record in 1995 tour with half of them skinny as a stick and not even helmets or skinsuits on. in the 90s there was almost no track influence on road cycling save boardman, who dominated a lot despite riding very uneven odds against those guys. nowadays science of equipment, positions etc has improved so much and yet we still don't see the ridiuclous lance armstrong final tour timetrialsl. froome is 70 kg and wiggins is 72 kg. that isn't light for any cyclist.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Forget the result for one moment. Watch the race again. 4 guys rode 200km on the front. I've never seen anything like it. I thought it was non-human like. The tactics were poor but their strength was obvious. Then was backed up with 1-3 in the ITT.

I'm sorry but just started to shake my head at that point. Actually I think I gave up at that point!


But I don't want to get into the Olympic road race here. Not the thread.

they had 4 very strong riders(incredible rouleurs) that road only to the fullest after the final box hill, where after that they broke 1 by 1 by the lead group which wasn't in perfect harmony either(only swiss guys helping, who were already in break before and castroviejo). and a 1-3 in itt is nothing exceptional either. especially considering martin was out form and cancellara was injured for instance and contador was suspended, so yeah then those 2 are the best/one of the best itt guys.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

oh really? I remember gewiss breaking the ttt record in 1995 tour with half of them skinny as a stick and not even helmets or skinsuits on.

Good example. Gewiss are the shining light of cleanliness from that era, no doubt.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Like all the haters around here have being saying for ages, when Armstrong is busted cycling will be clean. As laughable now as it was then. Oh well, that's what you get when choir boys try to interpret reality.

you mean by haters, yourself I guess.