• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Donkeys to racehorces. The effect of PEDs on cycling performance

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Elagabalus said:
That's my view as well. I think some on here are very reluctant to give any rider any credit at all.

There are people here who assume that very successful riders who doped would have been very successful without the dope. There are people here who assume that very successful riders who doped would have been nobodies in a clean peloton. There isn't really hard evidence to support either of those views in most cases, because while we know that different riders respond differently to doping products, that's about all we know.

Riis is something of an exception, in that we know when he got the good gear and we know that it coincides with him going from a not particularly notable domestique to a GT contender. Even in his case there are some other factors which muddy the water however - his dramatic weight loss at a time when that was unusual being just one. But he's probably the strongest evidence we have.
 
Aug 4, 2009
177
0
0
Visit site
peterst6906 said:
One of the earliest things we learn to do in science (without deliberately doing so) is how in a statistically valid way, do we eliminate the outliers in order to find the general trends that can be used as a basis for comparison and discussion. It's much easier to talk about the average, because a large sub-set of a population can be examined.
However, this question also encompasses the issue of potential - ie. the potential for someone to respond to PEDs.

In that debate it's worth also including the outliers at 3-4 SDs from the mean.

To include all of the population suggests that it's generally not possible to turn donkeys into thoroughbreds, however there is always the potential that a very, very small number of riders who are the outliers in their response to dope, are able to gain a much greater advantage because they are genetically/behaviourally disposed to respond better. It's very difficult to know who those outliers are because, for someone to reach the pro-peleton on the basis of PED response, they would have to start with doping very, very early (as a young teenager), otherwise they will have already established themselves as an elite athlete (which is also outlier in terms of the total population). The likelihood that someone is an outlier twice (ie. elite athlete who then has an elite response to PEDs) is exceedingly small, though if the population being studied is large enough, they must exist.
So is it possible? Not for the average rider, but there must be a very, very small number of people for whom it is possible. For the World Tour, the rider's are already the elite of the elite by being there in the first place. To win at that level clean or doped requires a lot of natural talent to begin with.

If there were 670 riders in the sampling population, there would be ONE "outlier" at THREE sigma. One "elite of the elite" over the other 99.85%. One, and thats just at three sigma!
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
1
0
Visit site
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Was it Kohl who said that there are some pro riders who wouldn't be good enough to even turn pro without dope? Jacsche?

Kimmage had a little dig at Riis in Rough Ride saying he didn't appear to be of pro quality at the start of his career.

Kohl also said he wouldn't be top 10 at the Tour without the juice. Neither would I, it's all about physiology, "level" playing field or not.
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
Visit site
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Was it Kohl who said that there are some pro riders who wouldn't be good enough to even turn pro without dope? Jacsche?

Kimmage had a little dig at Riis in Rough Ride saying he didn't appear to be of pro quality at the start of his career.


Jaksche got a contract from his first employer due to the fact of not winning a race but placing higher than his employer thought he should without medical help. The manager saw he had talent and thought he would be a beast with proper medical help. I am guessing he just didn't respond to dope as well as others.
 
andy1234 said:
Maybe we could also create a new definition of donkey? Apparently donkey now means a non GT contender, rather than just an ordinary rider.

It doesn't leave much scope for defining everybody else beneath that level though :rolleyes:

montagna lunga said:
If there were 670 riders in the sampling population, there would be ONE "outlier" at THREE sigma. One "elite of the elite" over the other 99.85%. One, and thats just at three sigma!

With the above - I think we should just make the following definition:
Racehorse = Contador
Donkey = All others

Case closed... Flo, Pistolero - someone care to second this?

Zinoviev Letter said:
There are people here who assume that very successful riders who doped would have been very successful without the dope. There are people here who assume that very successful riders who doped would have been nobodies in a clean peloton. There isn't really hard evidence to support either of those views in most cases, because while we know that different riders respond differently to doping products, that's about all we know.

Riis is something of an exception, in that we know when he got the good gear and we know that it coincides with him going from a not particularly notable domestique to a GT contender. Even in his case there are some other factors which muddy the water however - his dramatic weight loss at a time when that was unusual being just one. But he's probably the strongest evidence we have.

I think that's the great thing about us not really knowing - it's easy to argue the riders you don't like were only successful due to the dope while the riders you like would clearly have made it in a clean peloton.

One of the best indicators of how difficult it is to ascertain is plainly how much weird stuff silly, dopey riders have consistently shown themselves willing to ingest purely because they hope/have heard it'll give them an edge.
 
andy1234 said:
I'm sure you won't be the only poster to back pedal on this.
Donkey to Racehorse is hardly an ambiguous statement

You may well have use it as hyperbole, but I'm not sure the same can be said of other posters.

Did I ever say it was ambiguous or even meant to be ambiguous? I am not back pedaling by the way I am explaining to others here that you shouldn't take everything they read to literally.

Regards
GJ
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Visit site
Krebs cycle said:
Of course I have seen the studies, I worked on two and I was also a subject in both. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that EPO can produce the magnitudes of performance enhancement being suggested. Based on the evidence I don't believe it is possible and I'm an expert in the field of elite endurance performance. I'm asking you or anyone else how YOU think it is possible, but you keep repeating something I've already stated is highly improbable.


Yes, possible, but still invokes the response improbable "outlier" phenomenon.


Mid 90s? Seriously?


Also possible but there seems to be lots of evidence floating around that suggested hcts in the 50s was the norm.

Hold up. You said that Riis was about as good as an average US pro. That means there were literally hundreds of riders who already had 5-7% higher sustainable power even without doping, and top pro riders probably had 10% higher sustainable power. So again, you are invoking the highly improbable occurance that none of those hundreds of riders had an improvement greater than 7% but Riis, on his own, got 12-14%. Even then, that would only make him on par (which I suppose you could argue allowed him to win once). Now take that even further to what LA achieved. 7 wins in a row? Not possible.


How is possible then that you are forgetting that elite endurance athletes tend to mature over a period of many years? He was domestique for Fignon for several seasons and once he became a leader in his own right it still took him 3yr of high placing finishes before winning. If it is possible to achieve that 12% increase in sustainable power in a couple of months of doping and he didn't change his training behaviours according to you, then why did it take him 4yrs?

Doping works incredibly quickly, not overnight but a few months and a large increase will be noticable.
Whats all this outlier talk. You would have to have all the details of the riders and there performances before you can start that kind of talk. To invoke science it must be in a scientific manner,not your opinion, that just isnt science.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html.
have a read.Thats science at work, not opinion of outliers etc when you have no data to work with.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
Visit site
....does anyone here know how the early onset of cancer would affect an endurance athlete....and at which point does that onset become a problem...

Cheers

blutto
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
Visit site
blutto said:
....does anyone here know how the early onset of cancer would affect an endurance athlete....and at which point does that onset become a problem...

Cheers

blutto

I would argue that it's a problem the moment it begins to form, even if you don't know about it.

However, psychologically it would be a problem as soon as you did know about it.

A more sophisticated answer would suggest that, in the absence of knowledge, the disadvantages of a growing tumor and the body's response are as variable as a response to drugs:: we can't know. It's both individual and cancer dependent.
 
Mar 19, 2009
571
0
0
Visit site
You guys give drugs WAY too much credit for making athletes. What about ALL the people that take drugs and don't do squat ?

I say it's 99 percent mental. Actually though, I believe it's ALL mental, but that freaks people out and they get very defensive about it... lol. What about genetics.. what about what about what about ? Yes... questions and answers are a lovely dance that goes know-where .... wink wink. Study some quantum physics and call me the morning .... ;)
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
Visit site
lostintime said:
You guys give drugs WAY too much credit for making athletes.

Agreed.

What about ALL the people that take drugs and don't do squat ?

Total losers. Better to be a loser without drugs than a loser with drugs.

When I was young I had a policy at nightclubs to never ask the ugliest girl back to my place at the end of the night. If she said no, I would have no-one to fall back on and I would have to draw conclusions about myself.

Much better to just assume I could have always had someone else if one of the "pretty girls" said no.

If you take drugs and lose, especially at the amateur level, that's just like asking the ugliest girl out and getting a rejection. Total and complete failure.

I say it's 99 percent mental. Actually though, I believe it's ALL mental, but that freaks people out and they get very defensive about it... lol.

OK. Nothing to discuss since you've drawn your conclusions.

What about genetics.. what about what about what about ?

Yep, OK. What about genetics?

What about, what about, what about?....

Study some quantum physics and call me the morning .... ;)

I fail to see what Quantum Mechanics has to offer to this discussion, however if I am wrong, please enlighten me. More than happy to discuss it via pm.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Visit site
andy1234 said:
I'm sure you won't be the only poster to back pedal on this.
Donkey to Racehorse is hardly an ambiguous statement

You may well have use it as hyperbole, but I'm not sure the same can be said of other posters.

If I remember correctly, your hero Lance used the exact comparison in relation to Potato Head.
 
Jun 25, 2012
283
0
0
Visit site
lostintime said:
You guys give drugs WAY too much credit for making athletes. What about ALL the people that take drugs and don't do squat ?

I say it's 99 percent mental. Actually though, I believe it's ALL mental, but that freaks people out and they get very defensive about it...

We know as a fact, that certain PED makes all people better. thats just a fact.

I do agree on you with one thing, most of these PED users are good athletes, no doubt about it, still they are just that 1-5% better with PED (thats alot my friend)
 
Frosty said:
Ideally there should be some good examples from people who have tested positive for EPO and then come back racing clean.
Perhaps Ivan Basso is a good enough example of this. He tested positive, served out his 2yr ban, and at some point starting training with Aldo Sassi who is well known and respected for his anti-doping stance.

Of course anyone who thinks that doping can turn an average rider into a GT winner will just claim that Basso has continued doping upon his return or that he was not average like Riis or LA but actually was a genuine racehorse who was just never able to respond to PEDs.


Sassi convinced Basso is racing clean

Ivan Basso's coach, Professor Aldo Sassi, is convinced that the Giro d'Italia race leader is racing clean and claims physiological calculations prove it.

Sassi manages the Mapei Sports Service centre near Milan and coaches Basso, Cadel Evans, Michael Rogers, Charly Wegelius and several other riders

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sassi-convinced-basso-is-racing-clean
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
Krebs cycle said:
I am referring to group data on the physiological characteristics of pro-level cyclists and also group data on studies of the effects of EPO on performance. We can examine the effect that EPO has on performance in a step test for example. If the argument is that this has no bearing on performance in a GT, eg EPO did not improve your PPO on a step test but it did improve your GT performance, then that needs some explanation. How is that possible?

EPO enhances aerobic performance, if you get a response it will be detected on short duration performance tests such as TTs and step tests, there is an abundance of evidence which shows this. There is no evidence anywhere though which indicates that it "enhances recovery" and thus somehow improves GT performance without making any difference in a TT or step test.

Given the stated goal of your first post, physiological studies have no bearing. The study would have to be a historical cohort study and would require compiling a results dataset for the cohort group along with variables such as age, years pro, etc (if it were more recent biopassport values could in principle be used). One could try exploratory data analyses to identify outliers, though it would likely require using a prior model. There is, for example, the famous case of Sumu corruption that was discovered via such a statistical analysis of a historical cohort study.

By enhancing recovery, I spoke loosely - I was referring to the use of PEDs to reduce the accumulated fatigue accrued over the course of a GT. Whether the effects of this fatigue could be extracted from historical results (say placing over the course of a GT) is another question - there are obvious confounding factors throughout.
 
Mar 19, 2009
571
0
0
Visit site
peterst6906 said:
I fail to see what Quantum Mechanics has to offer to this discussion, however if I am wrong, please enlighten me. More than happy to discuss it via pm.

While I am by no means that well versed in QM ..... I do know enough to know I am in awe of life itself.... and that nothing is set "in stone" ... let alone our DNA and the way our bodies function. Our emotion .... energy-in-motion .... is EVERYTHING. . . as it creates our total experience of what we call "reality". This Gregg Braden video is pretty good about e-motion and DNA. Of course it is just one that appeals and makes sense to me, but we each have our understanding of it of course.

What does all this have to do with sport ? Sport is life. Nothing special above and beyond any other aspect of life... yet special in it's own way of course :) We can easily forget that there is no one reality ... we each hold our own truths of what reality is. And it ever changes.....

Yeah .. I know .... this appears a bit beyond the scope of a cycling forum ... or is it ? I happen to love sport and metaphysics ! As it's all about how we relate to ourselves ... and how that translates into our experience of reality. As I said .. sport IS life !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5XnHIykolI&feature=relmfu
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
I was requested to respond to this here:
Krebs cycle said:
Ok well that is twice I've asked you to explain the relevance of Dr Punto and his 54% rule and twice you have dodged the question but instead responded with a quasi-condescending remark about my inferior knowledge of cycling history. You're the cycling historian, that's why I am asking you to explain its relevance to the debate. I respect your knowledge in that area, the least you can do is respect my knowledge and experience of elite sport physiology.

edit: take it to the other thread I created specifically so as not to derail this one.

I did not dodge the question.
I told you to search the word Punto under my name here as I had already posted about it and the Punto reference was answered by someone else here too.
As for respect - it is earned.

I certainly don't claim to know cyclings history - I was not condescending about your knowledge - it was about how you ignored my answer to check wiki, get a wrong answer and claim it backed your position.

However here is one Punto reference I posted before:
The Festina riders who were heavily juiced gave their team Doctor Eric Rijkaert the nickname "Dr. Punto" - because he was unable to get the best out of the PED's and take risks like Dr. Ferrari.

The Fiat Punto :eek:
m8k6xg.jpg
 
peterst6906 said:
I fail to see what Quantum Mechanics has to offer to this discussion...

Personally I think a discussion of Quantum Doping is way overdue. Just imagine how many stages you could win by being in the peloton and a break-away AT THE SAME TIME. What if you had a whole team time-space-shifted Contadors? Wow - the possibilities are endless...

As a matter of fact I personally believe the Schlecks are the worlds first quantum doped rider - maybe that was what Franks transfer to Fuentes was all about? However, that would also be an indication you can only dope yourself so far... Unless it's simply because the technique hasn't been perfected yet...
 
rhubroma said:
I move this to the appropriate thread.
I don't think Armstrong was a donkey, just that he clearly benefited in an extraordinary way from the pharmacological products.

One point to remember is that doping also has a "therapeutic" aspect (in the Italian lexicon this is emphatically clear, curarsi, literally to "take care of oneself" from the verb curare , to cure (a disease) or look after yourself in the sense of helping the body heal, recover, feel healthy, etc. In fact an Italian cyclist doesn't go to his doctor to "dope," but to "look after himself" and "be cared for": curarsi. Here one encounters a physiological justification of doping, as an enshrined therapeutic precept. Indeed Fuentes said as much in his own defense, that he was not harming the athletes who sought his services, but actually taking care of their health. Ferrari et all would have felt the same way. The brutality of cycling at the professional level, according to them, requires such treatments, in order to replenish and maintain the rider's diminished bio-levels inflicted upon the body by the exhausting and agonizing training and racing regiment, during which the body is pushed to physiological extremes. So argues the doping specialists.

Given this philosophy, it is easy to comprehend how many a rider who may have gone into a doping program with uneasiness of mind and a guilty conscience, is easily persuaded by the medical experts that in fact what he does is not only ethically unproblematic, but even vital to his good health!

In this justification framework it is easy to see also how the market takes over in establishing the value and costs of treatment, and a corporate mentality establishes a kind of managerial hierarchy, for which the CEO rider/s with the highest salary, in being monitored, assisted and treated by the best medic, collects the biggest year end bonus. For Lance that was 7 straight Tour de France's. Furthermore, he himself said his Tours weren't won during the race but all the discipline and rigor and quantity-quality miles he put into his training regime before the event. Having the best doping program out there, the Texan gave himself the possibility to train the way he did, in ruthless and maniacal fashion to become the sport's premier workout demon: although it would have otherwise been impossible to recuperate without Ferrari's expertise, methods and "help." Thus probably, and I'm sure he thought this to be the case at the time, Ferrari allowed Lance to literally out-train his rivals. Armstrong's entire mission was to make himself invincible and he rather did for 7 years. Bruyneel in an interview said as much, recalling how Lance's pre-game power output and resistance, which they had trained and built up to perfection on the Ferrari system, meant that he had fair certainty that without bad luck, crash or illness, Armstrong was a shoe in at the start of the Tour for overall victory. Now some of this was certainly willpower, some physiology, but the part that put him beyond the others (hence the critical one), wasn't these two, but Ferrari's incomparable methods. He simply bought that, though, for which his achievement, if not his entire credibility, becomes extinguished: for herein lies the fraud. It wasn't a level playing field, this is the greatest myth to dispel at once. He played the dirty game better through money and stacking the odds in his favor, which is noteworthy but certainly not admirable, while taking his fans and all of cycling for a ride.

I don't think consequently Ulrich, or any of his other rivals, had that quality of a program, and thus couldn't match Lance in the preparation phase and so couldn't match him on the roads of France in July either. That's how he won I believe. They were all on solid programs and trying to learn Lance's little secrets, and making headway (like Basso especially till he got popped), but without a Ferrari (or the natural class of a Contador, who also doped of course), they remained slightly off the back.

It was a remarkable achievement. Too bad it was all fabricated on a fraud, a fraud, not because the others were clean riders, but because Lance used the power of sheer bucks to buy his superiority and in the process made a mockery of fair-play even among the dopers. Then he intimidated and bullied Lemond and anybody who called him to task on it. Which is naturally reprehensible.

Thanks for re-posting this, I appreciate your insight. It's along the same lines as the benefits that steroids give to a bodybuilder.

One thing however, which was pointed out in the other thread, was that Floyd admitted that there wasn't any sort of a secret weapon being used by the team as a whole. So what is the exclusive use of Ferrari really worth? Floyd was even doing the whole program himself at Phonak. Admittedly, he said it was a PITA, but he went on to win the Tour. What advantage does a Ferrari plan really have over Fuentes or anybody else?
 
GJB123 said:
People need to let go of the donkey to racehorse-metaphor. People who used that (and I am one of them) use that as a hyperbole. It is not meant to depict the truth, it is meant to make a point. The point being that non GT-contenders were transformed into GT-winners (and some of them no less than 7 times ;)) through the use of large scale doping.
lol thanks GJB. I thought it was implied that "donkey" referred to average level pro-rider, ie: someone who is good enough to get selected to ride any of the three GTs (esp TdF) but is not the team captain and is therefore not a GC contender. The discussion does not concern sprinters, lead out men and TT specialists, the likely role is therefore all terrain domestique. Maybe there is some confusion regarding the other terms so lets just define them....

Donkey: average pro-rider / all terrain domestique / mtn domestique
Racehorse: anyone inside the top 20
GC contender: the top 10
Champion: multiple podium placer or winner.

You'll notice here there is a slight departure from what we may have been using the term racehorse for. I hope the above makes it a little more clear though.

Lets take a look at published data for male pro cyclists....

Table II. Absolute and relative power output values (mean ± SD) at the individual lactate threshold (reproduced from Padilla et al.,[38] with
permission)
Variable Flat terrain Time trialist All terrain Uphill
WLT (W) 356 ± 31 357 ± 41 322 ± 43 308 ± 46
WLT (W/kg) 4.67 ± 0.25 5.0 ± 0.2 4.73 ± 0.48 4.91 ± 0.5
WLT (W/kg–0.32) 89.0 ± 6.7 91.0 ± 8.0 83.4 ± 10.0 81.0 ± 10.8
WLT (W/kg–0.79) 11.6 ± 0.69 12.25 ± 0.64 11.47 ± 1.23 11.71 ± 1.29
WLT (W/m–2 FA) 962.5 ± 59.0 1009.7 ± 65.0 933.7 ± 110.2 940.7 ± 10.3
WLT (%Wmax) 77 ± 2.0 78 ± 3.0 74 ± 7.0 76 ± 3.0
FA = frontal area; WLT = power output at lactate threshold; Wmax = maximal power output.

The Science of Cycling
Physiology and Training – Part 1
Sports Med 2005; 35 (4): 285-312
Notice the variability in power output that exists even at this level which is a relatively homogeneous population. In all cases the SD is around 10%. So what that means is that the riders at the top are already about 10% better than the average. (although the problem with this data is that it is possible some of the subjects are doping and some are not??)

Now look at the effects of EPO on max watts in a study of recreational athletes....

Effects of prolonged low doses of recombinant human
erythropoietin during submaximal and maximal exercise
Eur J Appl Physiol (2002) 86: 442–449

The mean increases in power output coincident with VO2max for the cyclists among the EPO+IV and EPO+OR groups were 27 (23) and 21 (19) W at
week 4, 25 (31) and 19 (27) W at week 8, and 25 (29)
and 15 (17) W during the week 12 test.
What you'll notice here is that the increase in watts is LESS THAN the SD in watts presented in the table for pro-cyclists. The SD of the increase in watts here with EPO is high, but I worked on this study and I was a subject also and I know for a fact a lot of the subjects trained harder than they normally would. Even so, even if we take the SD and add it to the average, we still only see an increase of 40 or 50 watts, which is STILL close to the SD of the pro-cyclists.

Now, we don't have such data on performance changes due to EPO in pro-cyclists, however, there is over 30yrs of sport science literature on a wide variety of topics which indicates very clearly that the more trained you are, the harder it is to improve performance. I believe that highly trained pro-cyclists are on better doping programs than these studies, but I do not believe that someone who is already highly trained, can get performance enhancements in the range of 15-25%. 5-10% yes, but 15-25% is really pushing the limits of statistical probability to 1 in many thousands.

My argument is that to become a GC contender you must first be born with the right genetics, then you must train appropriately for many many years. These two factors combined account for about approx 95% of the performance variability. The last 5% is due to PEDs which could elevate an average rider to racehorse, a racehorse to GC contender, a GC contender to champion, maybe even average to contender or racehorse to a champion if they had a stellar response to the PEDs. The difference between categories is probably only about 2-4%, hence a 5% improvement in performance can easily make the difference here. However, to go from being an average rider to a champion probably requires about a 10% improvement on its own, but even moreso when you take into account the fact that the GC contenders might already be getting a 5-7% increase in performance from PEDs, therefore, the average rider might need a 20% or more enhancement. It is simply out of this world and beyond (my) belief anyway.

People are entitled to their opinions, so believe what you want.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
The Festina riders who were heavily juiced gave their team Doctor Eric Rijkaert the nickname "Dr. Punto" - because he was unable to get the best out of the PED's and take risks like Dr. Ferrari.
Thanks doc now it makes sense. It still does not answer the obvious question: why were Ferrari's clients not regular top 10 finishers, podium placers or dominating GT winners over many years? Sure some of them busted in and out of the top 10, but none of those names ever dominated like Indurain, Armstrong, Ullrich and Contador. Riis was able to win once, so surely if Armstrong also used the same doctor his starting point must have been better than Riis to have won 7x in a row?
 

TRENDING THREADS