"clean", "suspect", "miraculous" and "mutants"

[Shardi]

Is there any old 90's dragon who is laying lower than Indurain, during all the Armstrong turbulence?

Lots of talk about Riis' and Pantani's 60% hct during this time, but what about actual measurements conducted on Indurains blood?

Most 90's guys were abit bulky with muscles supported by their thick blood. But Indurain was huge. His blood hct had to support that massive body. I'm not buying into the lung capacity stories explaining his prowess. The blood hct must correspond to that huge muscle mass to yield aerobic efforts of that caliber.

 

[LaFlorecita]

it is only my opinion but without the full bagarre on galibier(which was of tremendous caliber), alberto would have beaten or came few seconds close to marco's record time on alpe. also more than a dozen riders under 40 minutes for sure. voeckler had a 38 minutes on alpe that day in his legs. the power of his legs fucced his mind though, he thought he was immortal

Jens I think you are wrong this time you must think Froome can ride Alpe in 35 minutes

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Hampsten Alpe d'Huez 1992:
Turn 10 till finish: 19 minutes 50 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0MLnCDjx4rw#t=3922s

Indurain/Capuccino ~ the same.

Hampsten total climb ~ 44 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-6dzWSfs3Yk#t=88s

Indurain/Capuccino:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-6dzWSfs3Yk#t=334s
~ 43.20 minutes

Pretty hard stage:
Montgenevre, Galibier, Croix de Fer, Alpe d'Huez
The day after capucino's raid on Sestriere.

Sastre 2008 turn 10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Cjhingeoxms#t=139s
~ 20 minutes
Galibier/Croix de Fer/Alpe d'Huez

Schleck/Sanchez/vande Velde et all ~ 20.20/20.30

Total climb for Sastre:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Cjhingeoxms#t=139s

combined with
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cjhingeoxms

[watch the grey haird sunglassed man]

makes around 40 minutes 20 seconds.

 

[hiero2]

Speaking of mutants, just wondering out loud when Miguel Indurain is going to be exposed.

I know a few years ago Thomas Davy made mention of systematic doping on Banesto, but I believe he later retracted his original statements and the whole controversy went nowhere.

He is the last of the great riders from the EPO era that need to be stripped of his Teflon veneer.

I disagree that he should be stripped - but I thought he had already been "convicted" in the court of evidence - albeit circumstantial - just not prosecuted by any AD org. I know he as much as admitted he doped in a radio interview I mentioned and linked to some time ago in another thread.

 

[JimmyFingers]

http://journalvelo.com/

This been posted here? Decent debunking of the Vayer article, too many variables ignored, standardised quantitative data. Tabloid stuff, obviously help sell the rag but very little of substance to it.

Also this:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10151435341793639&id=608243638&from_feed=1&p=10

Basically Vayer is a very poor mathematician, his methods are entirely unscientific and his conclusions highly questionable.

 

[Ferminal]

Well, Vayer's numbers are bull (no more reliable than the good doctor's) but what was not-normal in the data about Armstrong 1999? Normal =/= clean, as Santambrogio reminded us oh so recently. Landis 2006 on the other hand, was Alpe d'Huez seriously given a "normal" interpretation?

 

[Netserk]

Well, Vayer's numbers are bull (no more reliable than the good doctor's) but what was not-normal in the data about Armstrong 1999? Normal =/= clean, as Santambrogio reminded us oh so recently. Landis 2006 on the other hand, was Alpe d'Huez seriously given a "normal" interpretation?

I think it was the average that was normal (due to La Toussuire). AFAIK

 

[Ferminal]

Yeh, I imagine Beret was quite high too.

 

[JimmyFingers]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is why I say conclusions drawn from performance alone, particularly from watching on the telly and with almost no accurate quantitative data, are fatally flawed from the offset.

 

[martinvickers]

Well, Vayer's numbers are bull (no more reliable than the good doctor's) but what was not-normal in the data about Armstrong 1999? Normal =/= clean, as Santambrogio reminded us oh so recently. Landis 2006 on the other hand, was Alpe d'Huez seriously given a "normal" interpretation?

Vayer's work is useful, but not quite as useful for the purpose he suggests it is, that's all.

The 'numbers' he gives give very good broad trend information - they are also useful, possible, at the very 'exotic' end of the spectrum...we can argue all day about 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 and 6.0 - but Pantani numbers, for example, rightly ring alarm bells.

But the bands he choses are clearly highly subjective, and frankly unscientific - "this is what Greg LeMond" did, is really no scientific basic for comparison, yet it's clear he is bascially used in that manner - the solitary marker of what is possible clean. I fear that is rather more to do with selling a book than science.

I think the work looks like a really interesting and useful guide to performance and doping trends, and is to be lauded for that. Using it as evidence in the 'gray areas' against individual riders, however, is folly. Not least because it would, bizarrely, let a few obvious charletans off the hook.

Won't stop it becoming the textus receptus of the clinic, mind...

 

[Netserk]

Yeh, I imagine Beret was quite high too.

I would've loved to see what Menchov could do with another bag. He should definitely have been able to beat Klöden.

 

[Netserk]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is why I say conclusions drawn from performance alone, particularly from watching on the telly and with almost no accurate quantitative data, are fatally flawed from the offset.

I think it's very useful. IMO it should be seen the same way a doping test is. Positive = doper (with few exception). Negative = Perhaps doper.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Won't stop it becoming the textus receptus of the clinic, mind...

Well the methodology is practically identical.

See I'd go further than you: I think Vayer's work is sensationalist, inaccurate and misleading. It falls very short of providing any realistic template for clean or dirty performances. Fail

 

[Ferminal]

This clinic chap sounds like a real ignoramus.

 

[martinvickers]

I think it's very useful. IMO it should be seen the same way a doping test is. Positive = doper (with few exception). Negative = Perhaps doper.

Netserk, in your world, cyclist winner=doper, cyclist not winner probably=doper.

 

[martinvickers]

This clinic chap sounds like a real ignoramus.

He's certainly given to paranoia, and a fair dash of wishful thinking.

 

[JimmyFingers]

This clinic chap sounds like a real ignoramus.

Dumb as a post but he means well

 

[Ferminal]

His PPD ratio and hype surrounding him is a lot closer to "mutant" though.

 

[Netserk]

Netserk, in your world, cyclist winner=doper, cyclist not winner probably=doper.

How did you come to that? And what do you mean by 'winner'? Does a .2 win make a cyclist a 'winner'?

 

[martinvickers]

How did you come to that? And what do you mean by 'winner'? Does a .2 win make a cyclist a 'winner'?

Netserk, it was an attempt at reductio ad absurdum; it's not supposed to be literally accurate.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I think it's very useful. IMO it should be seen the same way a doping test is. Positive = doper (with few exception). Negative = Perhaps doper.

You're trolling me right?

So positive performance i.e. winning they're doped, crashed and burn they're clean.

But what about the ones with the bad bags?

 

[Berzin]

I disagree that he should be stripped - but I thought he had already been "convicted" in the court of evidence - albeit circumstantial - just not prosecuted by any AD org.

I never said stripped-just ignored, with details. How much EPO was used, who monitored the drug program, excetera.

Same with the ONCE team of the mid-to late 1990's. They too have managed to escape the type of scrutiny we've seen involving other riders and teams of that era.

 

[Netserk]

You're trolling me right?

So positive performance i.e. winning they're doped, crashed and burn they're clean.

But what about the ones with the bad bags?

I don't think you understood my point.

Tested positive: Doped*
No positive: Could be clean. Could be doped.

Inhuman performances: Doped*
Human performances: Could be clean. Could be doped.

*With the minor possibility of a false positive.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I don't think you understood my point.

Tested positive: Doped*
No positive: Could be clean. Could be doped.

Inhuman performances: Doped**
Human performances: Could be clean. Could be doped.

*With the minor possibility of a false positive
**With the minor possibility of a freak of nature

Just added a small caveat for you. Apart from that I have no problem with your paradigm .

 

[Netserk]

Just added a small caveat for you. Apart from that I have no problem with your paradigm .

That was basically the reason why the latter also had a *