Donkeys to racehorces. The effect of PEDs on cycling performance

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I bolded the part where yo said a 5-10% gain was possible, and then where you said "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%" I don't think you read your own argument. My maths is not so good, but your arguments are much worse. Wait, how does 10+5-7% = 20%???? Look up the word "convoluted" and get back to me...:rolleyes:
.....oh great, a budding lawyer with a chip on his shoulder doing his thang to impress the local yokels.... ok ok you're a world class arguer and will make a real ace number one cracker jack lawyer...oh and you're real smart too.....consider this your pat on the back, now go bother somebody else( maybe you can go join forces with our resident serial forum stalker CoachFergie and go beat some other thread senseless with your finely tuned arguing skills )...the point that Mr. Krebs was making was simple enough for even a lummox such as myself to understand....and I can also understand the implications that it has for legions of haters that populate this site, you included...so sorry that the air has been let out of one the major mindless contentions youse base your hate on...

...ok...LA is not the sweetest guy in the world...we get that...and ok...he most likely used PED''s...we get that too...he was part of a lot of other related bad stuff...and we get that as well....that being said, there is still one heck of story here that does not reduce itself to simple-minded broad brush strokes...and I for one would love to hear more of the complexities involved... and Mr Kreb's was trying to do just that...not perfectly perhaps but it was a very reasonable try considering the context...so thank you Mr Kreb's for your contribution, some of us appreciated it....

Cheers

blutto
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
Krebs cycle said:
Respected and esteemed members of the clinic, I decided to start a thread on this topic so as not to derail other threads with the debate.

I would like to remove the emphasis on LA and discuss the debate as it could apply to any of the top GT riders over the past 20yrs. The top 3 GT winners based on results are Indurain, Armstrong and Contador, closely followed by Ullrich. Then there are a bevy of regular top 10 finishers including Pantani, Rominger, Zulle, Virenque, Zulle, Riis, Beloki, Basso, Mancebo, Landis, Leipheimer, Kloden, and in more recent years we have the Shlecks, Evans, Menchov, Sastre, Valverde.

The debate is whether or not an average level pro-cyclist, the so called "donkey", can simply bypass more naturally gifted pro-level cyclists, the "thoroughbreds", whom are also doping. Furthermore, how gifted does one really need to be in order to win clean?

Discuss

your title is misleading. I thought this was going to be about women's cycling
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
blutto said:
.....oh great, a budding lawyer with a chip on his shoulder doing his thang to impress the local yokels.... ok ok you're a world class arguer and will make a real ace number one cracker jack lawyer...oh and you're real smart too.....consider this your pat on the back, now go bother somebody else( maybe you can go join forces with our resident serial forum stalker CoachFergie and go beat some other thread senseless with your finely tuned arguing skills )...the point that Mr. Krebs was making was simple enough for even a lummox such as myself to understand....and I can also understand the implications that it has for legions of haters that populate this site, you included...so sorry that the air has been let out of one the major mindless contentions youse base your hate on...

...ok...LA is not the sweetest guy in the world...we get that...and ok...he most likely used PED''s...we get that too...he was part of a lot of other related bad stuff...and we get that as well....that being said, there is still one heck of story here that does not reduce itself to simple-minded broad brush strokes...and I for one would love to hear more of the complexities involved... and Mr Kreb's was trying to do just that...not perfectly perhaps but it was a very reasonable try considering the context...so thank you Mr Kreb's for your contribution, some of us appreciated it....

Cheers

blutto
Gotta say, I agree with most of this. What Krebs is saying is interesting. I believe it was Lemond himself, outside the forum, who first used the phrase "Donkey into racehorse", regarding EPO, and pointed implicitly at Armstrong. Shortly thereafter it made its appearance here, first brought to us I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) by Race Radio. Several key Clinicians immediately latched onto the phrase and it became Clinic cant, which they defended vociferously. I'm glad to see it challenged if only because, in my view, it lowers the quality of discourse here.

Hi, blutto. :)

Boeing said:
your title is misleading. I thought this was going to be about women's cycling
:confused: What could it possibly have to do with women's cycling? It isn't only Asian women you shouldn't knock.
 
131313 said:
I'm having a hard time believing it's a coincidence that this corresponded with the advent of EPO.



First off, who ever said is was "easy"? Procuring the best doping methods and buying of the UCI is hardly "easy". Secondly, you're putting it all on the response to the dope, and assuming that there's no difference in the doping regimes. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that more money buys a better program, even to the point that it would buy a sub-optimal program for your rivals. It's not an accident that LA paid Ferrari an obscene amount of money. If it were "easy", why would he pay him at all? Also, in the case of LA it's alleged to buy more leeway from the governing body. It's like letting one team have an extra 20 more HP in an F1 race (allegedly).



Please. Stop. You aren't making any sense. Again, can you point to a domestique with that pedigree (basically none) pre-EPO era who goes onto win the tour? Guys with that ability riding as domestiques still end up with high overall placings, simply because they're there at the end of the mountain stages. They're still placing top 20 (or way higher), not consistently in the very bottom of the results.



I think you don't know what you think you know, simply because 1) you don't *know* the details of the doping regimes being used and 2) you relying on studies of limited relevance to the subject at hand.* Ultimately, the best measure of performance is performance itself, and in this case the results are unequivocal: no riders have made the sort of transformation that Riis or Armstrong have made prior to the advent of EPO.

*for sake of clarity, what I mean by this is that you don't know the combinations and interactions of the substances being used, nor do you even know the substances being used. Neither do I. But that's the point. What if we find out that there was experimental gene therapy available which precipitated the magical increase in pedaling efficiency (yes, I know this is far-fetched, but again that's the point: we don't know).
I agree with this. Armstrong didn't pay, as you say, all that money to Ferrari for nothing. And I recall an article in Tutto Bici after Riis won that Tour entitled something like "How Chemicals have Transformed Cycling," which basically outlined the ways in which the author believed the Dane used massive amounts of PEDs to win his Tour.

The idea of from "donkey to race horse" is not derived from the English language, because in cycling lingo it comes from Italian and French. At any rate, in Italy it was said back in the 80's and 90's that doping can't transform a "donkey into a race horse," in the sense that you have to have a decent engine to work with in the first place.

Having said that, the sophistication and quality curve of doping from the early 90's till today has surged dramatically, for which I don't believe someone like Riis would have won a Tour in the pre-EPO era, nor Armstrong certainly his 7 before the likes of medic cum businessman Ferrari entered the sport. This is the point I think that is critical here and this is why their era has obscured and mystified the whole GC order, since we can't believe what we saw with our own eyes. Krebs insistence, therefore, on the statistical data, without any knowledge whatsoever of what guys like Riis and Armstrong actually did off the bike (hopefully the USADA will help clarify this) to become champions, means that he has no basis for drawing the conclusions he puts forth: which seems to suggest that their doping regimes made relatively little Impact on their achievements, that it was more a combination of physical ability and determination that produced the stellar results, given that everybody was doing it, which means that the playing field was more or less level.

My point has always been, no offence, that this is a load of BS and I wonder if he is being deliberately specious or involuntarily deceptive.

I had previously outlined why I think the market forces, the expertise of certain medics and the persona of Lance, combined in a unique synthesis that galvanized their individual properties and released their potential to produce a formidable and unique cocktail - with even the possibility of cutting edge pharmaceuticals that only he had privileged access to, which was then injected into Armstrong (and none other) that gave him the decisive edge to be able to do what he did. Before his era, such would not have been possible, and thus he would not have been the champion he became. Well much of that came down to sheer money and the power over the cycling market he came to occupy. Given the image he produced of himself as the super clean cancer survivor that dominated the hardest bike race in the world longer than anyone before, the type of rider he was before he hooked up with Ferrari et al and the gargantuan profits he banked: Lance is the greatest sport fraud of all time.

I got no comment on what I previously wrote, but I stand by my arguments.
 
Fatclimber said:
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?
Sorry I hadn't seen your post when I posted above.

Only Lance knows. Certainly Floyd, or anyone else, would have known all the details, except, perhaps the Hog. And certainly LA kept a little something for himself, once again he didn't pay all that money to Ferrari for nothing.
 
andy1234 said:
A partial list of names is indeed on the other thread. If they and the others want to join the conversation, the door is open.

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:
I used donkey and for me it means non GT contender. Non GT contender itself is ambiguous term, it could mean 55th place, 15th place or maybe even occasional top 10 (if you got lucky, got into right break etc). But in the context of Armstrong I meant that in clean peloton he would not be contender.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
rhubroma said:
I agree with this. Armstrong didn't pay, as you say, all that money to Ferrari for nothing. And I recall an article in Tutto Bici after Riis won that Tour entitled something like "How Chemicals have Transformed Cycling," which basically outlined the ways in which the author believed the Dane used massive amounts of PEDs to win his Tour.

The idea of from "donkey to race horse" is not derived from the English language, because in cycling lingo it comes from Italian and French. At any rate, in Italy it was said back in the 80's and 90's that doping can't transform a "donkey into a race horse," in the sense that you have to have a decent engine to work with in the first place.

Having said that, the sophistication and quality curve of doping from the early 90's till today has surged dramatically, for which I don't believe someone like Riis would have won a Tour in the pre-EPO era, nor Armstrong certainly his 7 before the likes of medic cum businessman Ferrari entered the sport. This is the point I think that is critical here and this is why their era has obscured and mystified the whole GC order, since we can't believe what we saw with our own eyes. Krebs insistence, therefore, on the statistical data, without any knowledge whatsoever of what guys like Riis and Armstrong actually did off the bike (hopefully the USADA will help clarify this) to become champions, means that he has no basis for drawing the conclusions he puts forth: which seems to suggest that their doping regimes made relatively little Impact on their achievements, that it was more a combination of physical ability and determination that produced the stellar results, given that everybody was doing it, which means that the playing field was more or less level.

My point has always been, no offence, that this is a load of BS and I wonder if he is being deliberately specious or involuntarily deceptive.

I had previously outlined why I think the market forces, the expertise of certain medics and the persona of Lance, combined in a unique synthesis that galvanized their individual properties and released their potential to produce a formidable and unique cocktail - with even the possibility of cutting edge pharmaceuticals that only he had privileged access to, which was then injected into Armstrong (and none other) that gave him the decisive edge to be able to do what he did. Before his era, such would not have been possible, and thus he would not have been the champion he became. Well much of that came down to sheer money and the power over the cycling market he came to occupy. Given the image he produced of himself as the super clean cancer survivor that dominated the hardest bike race in the world longer than anyone before, the type of rider he was before he hooked up with Ferrari et al and the gargantuan profits he banked: Lance is the greatest sport fraud of all time.

I got no comment on what I previously wrote, but I stand by my arguments.
Regarding the bold, I didn't take it that this was Krebs' point; I took Krebs to mean simply that any multiple Tour winner would have to have a strong base of native ability and be among, say, the top 20% of riders to begin with, in order for doping to give him such a decisive edge as Armstrong enjoyed. And as I said earlier I think this is an interesting point and worth discussing. I'm not sure it really applies to Armstrong, however, for the very reasons you, rhubroma, state.

Armstrong did have an exclusive, expensive deal with Ferrari. There is a great deal of significance in this. He had, as well, a unique, sweetheart arrangement with the UCI. Also highly significant.

Tailwind/Armstrong even had investors/contacts inside Amgen. Not to mention Northrop-Grumman. How does the latter play into this? Inside the U.S. military-industrial establishment, many people regarded Armstrong's domination of the Tour favorably, and as a matter of national prestige - even, to some extent, as the projection of U.S. soft power in Europe and the world.

When you take all that into account, and given the results he got, it certainly stands to reason to think he had some "magic juice" no one else had access to. (Of course, with the protection of the UCI - and also probably ASO, who were making money from him - he really didn't need any magic juice, just a little more of the regular juice everyone else used.)

As for whether he'd have ever won a Tour without the enhancement and protection: that's really a way of asking if he was somehow deserving, from a sporting standpoint, of any part of his success, I think. And the sad thing is, there's no way of answering that question with any certainty. In the end it doesn't really matter, though. Because none of those Tours was a real contest.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
rhubroma said:
Krebs insistence, therefore, on the statistical data, without any knowledge whatsoever of what guys like Riis and Armstrong actually did off the bike
snip

which seems to suggest that their doping regimes made relatively little Impact on their achievements, that it was more a combination of physical ability and determination that produced the stellar results,
How about you keep me out of whatever it is you think I am insisting on unless you respond to my posts directly. You have twisted what I have been saying and coming up with something rather different. I never said the doping regime made little impact. Never. Not once. Nada.

One last time. What I am doing is challenging the concept that any average pro-level rider can be elevated to 7x consecutive winner on PEDs alone. I accept the possibility that it could happen if the average rider somehow had a MASSIVE response to the doping regime, since it is a MASSIVE change in performance. A better than average rider would not require such a massive response to PEDs though. Since the actual change in performance that occurred for LA is simply unknown, I am deferring to statistics which dictates the probability of the former must be lower than the probability of the latter.
 
Maxiton said:
Tailwind/Armstrong even had investors/contacts inside Amgen. Not to mention Northrop-Grumman. How does the latter play into this? Inside the U.S. military-industrial establishment, many people regarded Armstrong's domination of the Tour favorably, and as a matter of national prestige - even, to some extent, as the projection of U.S. soft power in Europe and the world.

When you take all that into account, and given the results he got, it certainly stands to reason to think he had some "magic juice" no one else had access to. (Of course, with the protection of the UCI - and also probably ASO, who were making money from him - he really didn't need any magic juice, just a little more of the regular juice everyone else used.)

As for whether he'd have ever won a Tour without the enhancement and protection: that's really a way of asking if he was somehow deserving, from a sporting standpoint, of any part of his success, I think. And the sad thing is, there's no way of answering that question with any certainty. In the end it doesn't really matter, though. Because none of those Tours was a real contest.
Don't forget this aspect of soft domestic power because it's massive. And only one of many reasons to suppose that many of the stateside cynics weren't bucking the myth too hard back then.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
aphronesis said:
Don't forget this aspect of soft domestic power because it's massive. And only one of many reasons to suppose that many of the stateside cynics weren't bucking the myth too hard back then.
Thanks. I agree it's massive, and maybe decisive, too, but I didn't want to overstate the point.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Maxiton said:
As for whether he'd have ever won a Tour without the enhancement and protection: that's really a way of asking if he was somehow deserving, from a sporting standpoint, of any part of his success, I think. And the sad thing is, there's no way of answering that question with any certainty. In the end it doesn't really matter, though. Because none of those Tours was a real contest.
If I robbed a bank is it correct because I could have earn that monnay by work?

There is no reason to consider if Lance or any dopers deserve their cheated wins.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Alot of if buts and maybes in this thread. I did post this earlier, but studies show a massive improvement with epo. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.htmlNow they were not elite cyclists by any means but it shows you can turn a donkey into a racehorse at a middle level.The conservative estimate on elite athletes is around 5%minimum gain. But that remember is the conservative estimate.

Just a simple and by no means 100% accurate way to see what that means, on a climb of an hour a 5% gain would be 3minutes.
So then the obvious 10% is 6 minutes.

Forget the conservative estimate for the minute and go with the 10% gain and at elite level that is certainly donkey to racehorse in anyone's book.


The evidence is there . It shows in who has won tours and the state of cyclings upper echelons for so long. Why people would talk down the benefit of it is beyond me as even circumstantial evidence shows the benefit.....Grand tour wins for many.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Krebs PM'd me with an olive branch, and I gladly accepted. Obviously, his expertise far surpasses mine, but I still find the idea of Armstrong being transformed by a doping program plausible simply because of the dramatic transformation. Then again, it could very well be that in a completely clean world, Armstrong could have undergone the change needed to compete for Tour wins. I honestly don't believe he would have won 7 in that scenario, but maybe he is physiologically superior enough to have pulled it off? He was certainly never a "donkey" regardless. He was an immensely talented rider who would have probably won many classics if that is what he had dedicated himself to accomplishing.

But the reality is that we will never know. He doped as did his competition. In that world, he won 7 Tours, and if they strip him, they will have a hard time finding a person to give the titles to. I do wish a study of doping could take place so we could know more specifics about how it affects people, and whether its linear or there are people who benefit more. Unfortunately, the people we need to test all claim to not dope...most even when they are caught.

I'll end with that because I certainly don't have the data to make a case either way, and even if I did, it is highly unlikely that I would understand it.
 
noddy69 said:
Alot of if buts and maybes in this thread. I did post this earlier, but studies show a massive improvement with epo. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.htmlNow they were not elite cyclists by any means but it shows you can turn a donkey into a racehorse at a middle level.The conservative estimate on elite athletes is around 5%minimum gain. But that remember is the conservative estimate.

Just a simple and by no means 100% accurate way to see what that means, on a climb of an hour a 5% gain would be 3minutes.
So then the obvious 10% is 6 minutes.

Forget the conservative estimate for the minute and go with the 10% gain and at elite level that is certainly donkey to racehorse in anyone's book.


The evidence is there . It shows in who has won tours and the state of cyclings upper echelons for so long. Why people would talk down the benefit of it is beyond me as even circumstantial evidence shows the benefit.....Grand tour wins for many.
The improvement is measured as a percentage increase in output. It doesn't directly correspond to a percentage reduction in time spent riding.
 
Mar 25, 2011
244
0
0
I'm involved in a study into EPO use, most of which I can't talk about, but I can say there have been some very large gains in performance seen. However, not much can be drawn from this as participants are from a wide range of sports and the tests are limited. The problem is getting participants that are relevant and willing to take part. Such studies take a long time, in this case 3 months, and athletes obviously can't compete for a period after this. No professional athlete at the top of their career, or even anywhere but right at the tail end of it, is likely to take part as it would have a massive effect on their career.

The problem of relevant participants as well is huge. Seeing large gains in, say, a 5K run in basketball players is not indicative of how EPO is likely to affect cyclists or marathon runners, but you are unlikely to get a large enough group of athletes from a single sport wanting to participate. It's even less likely that they will all be of a high standard.

Next you have the biological variation inherent in human samples. It all adds up to a very difficult thing to do a decent study on, almost impossible involving professional athletes.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Krebs PM'd me with an olive branch, and I gladly accepted. Obviously, his expertise far surpasses mine, but I still find the idea of Armstrong being transformed by a doping program plausible simply because of the dramatic transformation. Then again, it could very well be that in a completely clean world, Armstrong could have undergone the change needed to compete for Tour wins. I honestly don't believe he would have won 7 in that scenario, but maybe he is physiologically superior enough to have pulled it off? He was certainly never a "donkey" regardless. He was an immensely talented rider who would have probably won many classics if that is what he had dedicated himself to accomplishing.

But the reality is that we will never know. He doped as did his competition. In that world, he won 7 Tours, and if they strip him, they will have a hard time finding a person to give the titles to. I do wish a study of doping could take place so we could know more specifics about how it affects people, and whether its linear or there are people who benefit more. Unfortunately, the people we need to test all claim to not dope...most even when they are caught.

I'll end with that because I certainly don't have the data to make a case either way, and even if I did, it is highly unlikely that I would understand it.
How was or is Armstrong physiologically superior. Who exactly has he been compared against. As far as I can see its only his paid for defence team that argues this point. As far as the majority who are not paid for are concerned its a load of rubbish and scientifically completely unsound.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....this is an official like apolgy to the poster formally known as TFF....I went way overboard with what should have a mature response to parts of your posts that I disagreed with...the response degenerated into something quite stupid....much sorries of the humblest kind!!!!

...and as a measure of my heartfelt remorse I arranged to have an olive tree delivered to your home....which reminds me...the tree is apparently 40 ft tall and because we wanted to get it there asap we decided to air drop...so please TFF, make sure all kids, pets and other paraphenalia are taken off the front lawn...while the air crew has guaranteed that they can hit a postage stamp with their drop just to be prudent you may want to leave the house for the remainder of the morning...we wouldn't want to add injury to insult now would we....

Cheers

blutto
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Krebs cycle said:
How about you keep me out of whatever it is you think I am insisting on unless you respond to my posts directly. You have twisted what I have been saying and coming up with something rather different. I never said the doping regime made little impact. Never. Not once. Nada.

One last time. What I am doing is challenging the concept that any average pro-level rider can be elevated to 7x consecutive winner on PEDs alone. I accept the possibility that it could happen if the average rider somehow had a MASSIVE response to the doping regime, since it is a MASSIVE change in performance. A better than average rider would not require such a massive response to PEDs though. Since the actual change in performance that occurred for LA is simply unknown, I am deferring to statistics which dictates the probability of the former must be lower than the probability of the latter.
For fun, I'll help keep this alive for one more round! Specifically,
the concept that any average pro-level rider can be elevated to 7x consecutive winner on PEDs alone.
The answer to this is yes, they could, IF the rest of the peloton was clean. Since the rest of the riders were not clean, then the answer is no. So, in reality, no. The differences would have been down to something like the top 10% of the riders, and differences made between them. In the case of history, I believe the quality of the program contributed equally with the quality of the rider. In my opinion, Lance had a better program than the other podium contestants. However, he was probably also more intelligent and focused. Which by itself means he probably took a more business-like approach to the whole thing, and conferred an advantage, as well. So it is hard to say. While I like to think that LA had a better program, and he would not have won 7 times without that, I am admittedly second-guessing about things I have no 1st hand knowledge of.
 
Krebs cycle said:
How about you keep me out of whatever it is you think I am insisting on unless you respond to my posts directly. You have twisted what I have been saying and coming up with something rather different. I never said the doping regime made little impact. Never. Not once. Nada.

One last time. What I am doing is challenging the concept that any average pro-level rider can be elevated to 7x consecutive winner on PEDs alone. I accept the possibility that it could happen if the average rider somehow had a MASSIVE response to the doping regime, since it is a MASSIVE change in performance. A better than average rider would not require such a massive response to PEDs though. Since the actual change in performance that occurred for LA is simply unknown, I am deferring to statistics which dictates the probability of the former must be lower than the probability of the latter.
Ok, I will directly respond to your post.

In challenging a "concept that any average pro-level....." you are making a rather large assumption that I don't believe was ever put out here, at least not by the serious posters on this forum. You thus address a moot point, because most understand that doping alone does not make a Tour champion out of someone, however the actual change in the performance of LA is quite well known.

Before he hooked up with Ferrari and JB in their consolidated bond, he couldn't climb or time trial that well at the hardest bike race in the world. While he surely was on EPO and testosterone and HGH before cancer, afterword the Armstrong "system," in the ways I have previously suggested, began to gain momentum and was consummated with a brutal effectiveness. The PEDs program devised for him was stratospheric. It allowed him to train excessively the way he did, without being driven into exhaustion. Lance and co. obtained the perfect synthesis between treatment and effort, which put him in the position to achieve a practical invincibility.

My point has been that the chemicals allowed his potential to be released, through artificial means, in ways that elevated his performance status to an exaggeratedly high attainment. Lance thus became the image of athletic metamorphosis through a maximum application of a PEDs/workout program personified, orchestrated under a full proof system only he had access too. And behind this was money and power. The fact that all his rivals were repeatedly defeated and then got popped, one way or another, but not Lance, is proof of this.

In this case an exception to your statistical notion is produced: namely, that the probability of the former becomes higher than the probability of the latter.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
rhubroma said:
Ok, I will directly respond to your post.

In challenging a "concept that any average pro-level....." you are making a rather large assumption that I don't believe was ever put out here, at least not by the serious posters on this forum. You thus address a moot point, because most understand that doping alone does not make a Tour champion out of someone, however the actual change in the performance of LA is quite well known.

Before he hooked up with Ferrari and JB in their consolidated bond, he couldn't climb or time trial that well at the hardest bike race in the world. While he surely was on EPO and testosterone and HGH before cancer, afterword the Armstrong "system," in the ways I have previously suggested, began to gain momentum and was consummated with a brutal effectiveness. The PEDs program devised for him was stratospheric. It allowed him to train excessively the way he did, without being driven into exhaustion. Lance and co. obtained the perfect synthesis between treatment and effort, which put him in the position to achieve a practical invincibility.

My point has been that the chemicals allowed his potential to be released, but this was through artificial means, in ways that elevated his performance status to an exaggeratedly high attainment. Lance thus became the image of athletic metamorphosis through a maximum application of a PEDs/workout program personified. And behind this were money and power.

In this case an exception to your statistical notion is produced: namely, that the probability of the former becomes higher than the probability of the latter.
Just one point really. The chemicals surely enhanced his potential, not released.It would only be without any drugs that you would realise your true potential. The whole drug issue is that you exceed your potential artificially not attain it which is how you worded that.
 
noddy69 said:
Just one point really. The chemicals surely enhanced his potential, not released.It would only be without any drugs that you would realise your true potential. The whole drug issue is that you exceed your potential artificially not attain it which is how you worded that.
I was talking about the combination of the two: in this sense releasing the potential of what extremely effective doping combined with effort can produce. But I don't want to get into an issue of semantics.
 
Jul 10, 2009
129
0
0
noddy69 said:
Alot of if buts and maybes in this thread. I did post this earlier, but studies show a massive improvement with epo. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.htmlNow they were not elite cyclists by any means but it shows you can turn a donkey into a racehorse at a middle level.The conservative estimate on elite athletes is around 5%minimum gain. But that remember is the conservative estimate.

Just a simple and by no means 100% accurate way to see what that means, on a climb of an hour a 5% gain would be 3minutes.
So then the obvious 10% is 6 minutes.

Forget the conservative estimate for the minute and go with the 10% gain and at elite level that is certainly donkey to racehorse in anyone's book.
Doesn't change it much, but...

5% improvement in sustainable power (in top level) would mean a bit over 2 minutes in an hour long climb of 7% grade. The same could be achieved by reducing about 4kg of weight.
(assumptions 70kg rider, with 6.8kg bike, CdA 0.3, crr 0.004, power 450W or about 6.4W/Kg as a starting point)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
red_flanders The Clinic 12

ASK THE COMMUNITY