Donkeys to racehorces. The effect of PEDs on cycling performance

[blutto]

leading question....?

...yes it addresses the accepted idea often used inthese here parts that some athletes...read...LA...were donkeys that were magically turned into racehorses....having been around folks who ended up with cancer you can with some hindsight see that the effects do not appear like a bolt of lightning....there is a gradual buildup of symptoms the most common of which is a sense of malaise that can be characterized by fatigue and the inability to recover from excertion...

...so imagine this donkey/racehorse with a major underlying problem...and remember the timeframe of this problem...would have neatly interfered with a key part of a racer's development would it not...

...not that this proves anything one way or the other because we can never know but it does throw into question the very simplistic way in which this argument is usually framed...

..so the question is how long before cancer is obvious do the effects kick in...surely there is an oncologist on duty here somewhere....I mean we have Quantum Doping specialists hanging with us...

Cheers

blutto

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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....

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....

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.

I just highlighted the problematic points in your post, and also the one instance where you contradict yourself. I wonder if I should post that post you made a couple of years ago when you said that Armstrong was nothing special (because lets be honest here, that is who we're talking about, we are just using code names like "champion.")

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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?

Again with the straw man. Nobody here has written that except you, and now you pretend that someone did so you can make a point? You might very well be a scientificator, but making coherent arguments is not your forte.

 

[131313]

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.

Krebs, WRT Riis you really aren't disagreeing with what I wrote. I posited a 14% (roughly) increase in sustainable power. When you through the whole bag of tricks at it, including manipulating his endocrine system in a fashion that allows him to train and compete at an artificially low weight, and consider that he's both an outlier and/or predisposed to be a better responder, and you have your donkey to racehorse (admitting of course that professional donkeys are actually very fast compared to the average jacka$$). So, that just puts Riis at the upper bound of the limits you yourself have set.

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.

I'm going to ask one last time: show me one single Tour champion who made the sort of magical transformation made by Bjarne Riis. Just one.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I just highlighted the problematic points in your post, and also the one instance where you contradict yourself. I wonder if I should post that post you made a couple of years ago when you said that Armstrong was nothing special (because lets be honest here, that is who we're talking about, we are just using code names like "champion.")

mate you are nothing but a troll. you haven't even read my post properly. go away until you can contribute something to the discussion on your own instead of trolling my posts. No wonder you need to keep changing your username, its a typical troll thing.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

mate you are nothing but a troll. you haven't even read my post properly. go away until you can contribute something to the discussion on your own instead of trolling my posts. No wonder you need to keep changing your username, its a typical troll thing.

No, I read your post in its entirety, and I am trained in making arguments. Your argument is so filled with holes, I wonder if you're cheesemaker from Switzerland. You blovate about your qualifications but provide no relevant, subject specific data. You talk about pros and then provide limited information about a study (which you took part in, you continue to make sure everyone knows) that involved amateur (at best) subjects. I am not a scientist. Nor do I pretend to even understand some of the information that has been provided here by others in the past regarding the subject of doping and physiology. I do have a mother who has a masters in biology (yea, I know, your PhD makes you more of a scientificator) and taught and conducted a lot of research, and an uncle who has his doctorate in some kind of thing that deals with nuclear material and stuff that gave him a front row seat at ground control for several shuttle missions, and what I know from having many conversations with them is that they rely on actual data and information when making a scientific argument. You don't. You rely on half info and lots of opinion. You may call me pointing that out as "trolling," but the truth is that I am just pointing out something called "reality." You don't like that, but maybe you should improve the content of your posts as opposed to trying to sweep my criticism away. Just a suggestion, but you're the doctor.

 

[Cavalier]

I asked krebs to post either data or proof of his professional qualification, a post he conveniently ignored. I'm beginning to think his claims of expertise and working with Mike Ashenden are, politely, a load of crap. I've never met a person with a PhD who forms arguments less coherently - something of rather crucial importance given that getting a PhD is reliant upon that very thing.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I'm going to ask one last time: show me one single Tour champion who made the sort of magical transformation made by Bjarne Riis. Just one.

Well this is sort of my point. No-one has except Riis and Armstrong. If it was so easy as many people are claiming then I would expect that it should be nigh on impossible for an average rider to ever dominate over a multiple year period, because there should have been other more naturally gifted riders to challenge them (LA especially). It keeps going back to the unlikely probability that Riis and Armstrong had stellar PED responses far beyond anything seen in the studies, but their rivals only had weak responses.

Besides, Riis didn't dominate. we could argue that he went from being average to a contender and got lucky one year with a win. I'm assuming you mean the transformation occurred from 1992 to 1993. Riis admitted that he took EPO from 1993 to 1998. So yes of course, PEDs improved his overall performance. I've never disputed this, but prior to 1993 he rode as domestique for Fignon so how can we possibly know what he was really capable of in those years? If he was riding undoped at that time in a peloton that was already onto EPO + steroids, then you might argue that he was doing pretty damn well.

It really seems to me that the people who I am arguing with are all using results of racing as their "proof" whereas I am using data from published studies combined with my own professional experience of working with elite athletes and coaches. I think they each have their place, but I find it more difficult to place faith in results of races that are tainted by doping because there are more unknown variables at work.

 

[Krebs cycle]

There happy now? Anyone who knows anything about altitude training in Australia knows that the altitude chamber is located in the Dept of Physiology at the AIS. where do you think Ashenden did his PhD and those EPO studies were carried out?

 

[Krebs cycle]

No, I read your post in its entirety,

so why did you make the mistake of bolding the bit where I said 5-10% improvement, then ignore the bit where I said an average rider might need that much just to be on par with a better rider, but they would need ANOTHER 5-7% to be on par with a better rider on PEDs.

10 + 5 = 15.

If making coherent arguments is not my strong point, then I guess basic comprehension and math are not yours.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Well this is sort of my point. No-one has except Riis and Armstrong. If it was so easy as many people are claiming then I would expect that it should be nigh on impossible for an average rider to ever dominate over a multiple year period, because there should have been other more naturally gifted riders to challenge them (LA especially). It keeps going back to the unlikely probability that Riis and Armstrong had stellar PED responses far beyond anything seen in the studies, but their rivals only had weak responses.

Besides, Riis didn't dominate. we could argue that he went from being average to a contender and got lucky one year with a win. I'm assuming you mean the transformation occurred from 1992 to 1993. Riis admitted that he took EPO from 1993 to 1998. So yes of course, PEDs improved his overall performance. I've never disputed this, but prior to 1993 he rode as domestique for Fignon so how can we possibly know what he was really capable of in those years? If he was riding undoped at that time in a peloton that was already onto EPO + steroids, then you might argue that he was doing pretty damn well.

It really seems to me that the people who I am arguing with are all using results of racing as their "proof" whereas I am using data from published studies combined with my own professional experience of working with elite athletes and coaches. I think they each have their place, but I find it more difficult to place faith in results of races that are tainted by doping because there are more unknown variables at work.

That's the problem, you aren't. You are using studies that do not involve the subjects being discussed and personal opinion. Again, you whip your your scientificamastic qualifications and make weak arguments using limited data produced from people who are not nearly as physiologically gifted as the people you are hanging that data on. So you will have to forgive the skeptical responses when people notice the weakness of your argument.

It isn't that your argument isn't plausible. It's that you continue to say people are making statements that they aren't. You have produced straw man after straw man, and then backed it up with weak "data." I would think if you were approached by a student looking to write a thesis on the subject, and he brought you the same information and arguments you are bringing here, you would suggest that he go do a significant amount of work. Significant. Work.

 

[fatsprintking]

Well this is turning into somethng of a steaming turd of a thread!

Krebs, I am pretty much with you on much of what you say, and feel that you are right on the fact that the there is a maximum in the amount of shift you are going to get with PED's that cannot overcome genetic inferiority.

The issue now though is really the way you have approached the arguement. To be honest you really are in a situation where you need to come out and say - My name is Joe Shmo and these are the research papers I have been involved in.

As soon as you played the Phd card, you created a bit of a no win situation for yourself if you were not willing to put your actual name to this. It would be kinda like me saying that I am a professional cyclist who has ridden on teams with Lance Armstrong, but not being willing to say who I am - people would be pretty sus that I was full of it, as you run the risk of by demanding respect for your expertise without really putting anything on the table which would convince people that you are actually speaking as a professional and not some guy who has a copy of "high performance cycling" open in front of them. Its just my opinion, but unless you are going to say who you are, you should really tone some of your language re your expertise.

Also Bjarne Riis displayed his most exceptional performance the year after he won the tour int he 97 Amstel Gold, where he rode away from the field in the last 40km. Given that he was the current tour champion would ensure that he was simply not given a free pass re this, but rather that he individually rode away from the field. It is interesting that he essentially crashed and burned in the tour and then never recovered his form after such a dominant performance. As I have said before I think the situation with Riis is more complicated that it is often simplistically explained, but the fact is that he remains a pretty unique case.

 

[Krebs cycle]

That's the problem, you aren't. You are using studies that do not involve the subjects being discussed and personal opinion. Again, you whip your your scientificamastic qualifications and make weak arguments using limited data produced from people who are not nearly as physiologically gifted as the people you are hanging that data on. So you will have to forgive the skeptical responses when people notice the weakness of your argument.

It isn't that your argument isn't plausible. It's that you continue to say people are making statements that they aren't. You have produced straw man after straw man, and then backed it up with weak "data." I would think if you were approached by a student looking to write a thesis on the subject, and he brought you the same information and arguments you are bringing here, you would suggest that he go do a significant amount of work. Significant. Work.

I shouldn't have to explain why focusing on race results alone is bad idea. There are just too many unknown forces at work. Instead of simply trolling my posts, how about you go away and actually read some of those articles. You'll learn a whole lot more about performance in cycling if you do that than by reading books about the doping culture.

 

[spetsa]

You are claiming that I am blatantly lying, so you are also nothing but a troll. Did you just make up an alias because you're too gutless to post this under your real name? I ignored your post because it was a blatant troll and I don't have to prove anything to a coward like you. But anyway.....

There happy now? Anyone who knows anything about altitude training in Australia knows that the altitude chamber is located in the Dept of Physiology at the AIS. where do you think Ashenden did his PhD and those EPO studies were carried out?

So anyway, what are you qualifications? What athletes have you worked with at the elite level? Have you ever been involved in anti-doping research?

What elite athletes have I have I worked with? Cadel Evans, 10 years ago when he was a 15 year old that showed no GT promise....Oh wait, that was you

 

[Krebs cycle]

Can I say one last thing. I'm getting tired and frustrated at having to repeatedly explain myself. There is no need for trolling remarks or personal abuse and as far as I can tell, there are no LA fanboy idiots ruining a good discussion. So at least we should all be happy about that. I would love to sit down and discuss this with any of you over a beer because at least we can all agree on one thing.....

Lance Armstrong executed the biggest doping fraud in the history of sports and we all want to see him go down.

 

[Ferminal]

Could we stop worrying about each other and move the discussion somewhere closer to where it was in the first 40 posts.

 

[Bicycle tramp]

This article suggests that for some doping regimens and some people, sustained power improvements in the range of 10-15% are possible. Surely that must be in the bottle-carrier to contender range?

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html

The cleverer dopers would also be strategic, amplifying the advantages by providing performance boosts when most effective. It's not just about those extra W/kg, but when they are delivered.

Whole team doping confers further advantages - the "champ" can be protected and rested more easily.

To me, there's not much doubt that a programme developed by an expert in the science, and applied strategically to a team can deliver a "champ" from an also-ran.

 

[Cavalier]

e: apologies Ferminal, edit window was open and this was posted before I saw your response. Delete if you wish.

You are claiming that I am blatantly lying, so you are also nothing but a troll. Did you just make up an alias because you're too gutless to post this under your real name? I ignored your post because it was a blatant troll and I don't have to prove anything to a coward like you. But anyway.....

s/s snipped

There happy now? Anyone who knows anything about altitude training in Australia knows that the altitude chamber is located in the Dept of Physiology at the AIS. where do you think Ashenden did his PhD and those EPO studies were carried out?

So anyway, what are you qualifications? What athletes have you worked with at the elite level? Have you ever been involved in anti-doping research?

Not remotely a troll, and nor am I an alias. What I am is an interested observer on here, and have been for many years. But then I'm not making widespread assertions, and constantly failing to back them up with empirical evidence. IF you hold that qualification, and IF you've been party to EPO studies as you claim, you should know there is an enormous variance in individual response. Posting flat % gains as though they're uniform amongst everyone is the sort of thing I'd expect from an undergraduate.

Two other things: Accusing me of being gutless and not posting my real name is amusing considering you blanked out the one on the PhD screenshot you posted.
And me? I'm unimportant. I've had recent reason to converse with Dr Ashenden, but that's as far as my e-peen goes. I'm not waving it around in an attempt to make my anecdotal evidence more believable.

Can you try posting actual statistical evidence to backup your assertions in future? That'll prevent you responding like a two-year old when someone asks you for evidence, and will prevent me having to post at all requesting it.

 

[mastersracer]

I would like to ask some - hopefully - substantive questions.

1. You say that well-controlled studies of the effects of PEDs can be used to establish norms of reaction and extrapolate to professional cyclists. This seems patently false for a number of reasons. For example, norms of reaction assume a common genotype (it is held constant) while the phenotypic trait and environmental variables are manipulated. In this case, however, that assumption is known to be false. Further, suppose that the so-called donkey to racehorse has some rare allele or combination of alleles that occur at a rate of 1/10,000,000. A quick reflection on the sampling methodology of a typical controlled experiment reveals that the chance such a genotype is a test subject is vanishingly small. After all, such individuals are by definition exceedingly rare. One cannot, therefore, extrapolate from a sample that with vanishingly small probability contains such a subject.

2. Riders are known not to take a single PED, but instead use EPO, HGH, testosterone, and, more recently, a variety of peptides. Suppose that a combination of such drugs interacts with differential effects on various genotypes, which seems reasonable. Controlled studies have not examined this complex relationship between combinations of drug protocols and phenotypic traits. Norms of reactions for such combinations are simply not known for a single genotype.

 

[131313]

Well this is sort of my point. No-one has except Riis and Armstrong.

I'm having a hard time believing it's a coincidence that this corresponded with the advent of EPO.

If it was so easy as many people are claiming then I would expect that it should be nigh on impossible for an average rider to ever dominate over a multiple year period, because there should have been other more naturally gifted riders to challenge them (LA especially). It keeps going back to the unlikely probability that Riis and Armstrong had stellar PED responses far beyond anything seen in the studies, but their rivals only had weak responses.

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).

Besides, Riis didn't dominate. we could argue that he went from being average to a contender and got lucky one year with a win. I'm assuming you mean the transformation occurred from 1992 to 1993. Riis admitted that he took EPO from 1993 to 1998. So yes of course, PEDs improved his overall performance. I've never disputed this, but prior to 1993 he rode as domestique for Fignon so how can we possibly know what he was really capable of in those years? If he was riding undoped at that time in a peloton that was already onto EPO + steroids, then you might argue that he was doing pretty damn well.

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.

It really seems to me that the people who I am arguing with are all using results of racing as their "proof" whereas I am using data from published studies combined with my own professional experience of working with elite athletes and coaches. I think they each have their place, but I find it more difficult to place faith in results of races that are tainted by doping because there are more unknown variables at work.

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).

 

[Krebs cycle]

Not remotely a troll, and nor am I an alias. What I am is an interested observer on here, and have been for many years. But then I'm not making widespread assertions, and constantly failing to back them up with empirical evidence. IF you hold that qualification, and IF you've been party to EPO studies as you claim, you should know there is an enormous variance in individual response. Posting flat % gains as though they're uniform amongst everyone is the sort of thing I'd expect from an undergraduate.

I've already discussed on several occasions why I think the individual variance that has been demonstrated in published studies is not enough to account for the performance gains that some people are suggesting. To begin with I never mentioned my background but then people immediately starting treating me like I was a n00b with no knowledge of cycling performance. So I mention that I'm qualified and have experience working with elite athletes. But you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't on this forum, so then you wade into the discussion, add nothing, then accuse me of lying straight off the cuff. So I post a copy of my qualification and still you feel the need to personally attack me. I should not have to post my real name, nor should I have to post proof that I worked on a couple of EPO studies because the data stands on its own. What I can add is the knowledge that on the studies I was involved in, a lot of the subjects trained harder than usual. If you know Asho, then ask him yourself if that is true or not.

I cannot understand why such a simple concept as "gee if LA can win 7 tours on the dope, maybe he would have won at least once anyway if nobody was doping". That is what created this entire furore. A lot of people have aggressively denied that this is even remotely possible on the grounds that LA was only ever an average pro-level rider with no potential for racing GTs. If you are comparing GC contenders to other GC contenders, then yes PEDs make a huge difference, because the differences in performance are so small, but the leap from average pro-rider to 7x TdF champion is huge on its own, but the effect of PEDs on their own is not that huge even when you consider the variability in response. I suppose I'll have to hunt down every study on this and post the results. You could too of course to prove me wrong instead of taking a cheap shot and accusing me of lying.

All I'm saying is that IMO it takes a lot more than PEDs alone to make the jump from average pro-level rider to 7x TdF champion.

 

[Bicycle tramp]

Dr Punto's excuse, when confronted with Dr Ferarri's handiwork - "You can't turn a donkey into a racehorse".

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I shouldn't have to explain why focusing on race results alone is bad idea. There are just too many unknown forces at work. Instead of simply trolling my posts, how about you go away and actually read some of those articles. You'll learn a whole lot more about performance in cycling if you do that than by reading books about the doping culture.

How about you quit coming up with straw man arguments? I never focused on race results alone in any of this. Again, that is something you made up so that you could make a point that appears legitimate, but in reality is just the evidence that you are incapable of actually producing a logically, well thought out argument. How about you go read some books and do some studies that prove the drivel you keep pushing instead of throwing your penis on the table every chance you get because you think people will be impressed. I know lots of PhD's and hate to tell you this, but I don't the vapors when someone tells me they have one.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

so why did you make the mistake of bolding the bit where I said 5-10% improvement, then ignore the bit where I said an average rider might need that much just to be on par with a better rider, but they would need ANOTHER 5-7% to be on par with a better rider on PEDs.

10 + 5 = 15.

If making coherent arguments is not my strong point, then I guess basic comprehension and math are not yours.

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...

 

[Cavalier]

I've already discussed on several occasions why I think the individual variance that has been demonstrated in published studies is not enough to account for the performance gains that some people are suggesting.

Let's say that, for the benefit of the argument, there's two riders, both of which have a natural ability level undoped, which is on a scale of 1-100. But both are doping, though with different doctors with different ability levels, capable of differing programs, which deliver different results.

Rider A: Has a natural ability level of 80.
Rider B: Has a natural ability level of 75. He's consequently a water carrier for Rider A, and nothing else.

Rider A's doctor is conservative, inexpensive, and not willing to take risks. He prescribes a moderate amount of EPO, not on a strict regimen with other drugs, and to which Rider A isn't genetically predisposed. He gains a modest 3 points, giving him an ability level of 83.

Rider B's doctor is thoroughly versed in doping, and prescribes an intensive program, to which Rider B is genetically predisposed to respond to. Rider B shows phenomenal gains, and his ability level increases by 12 points, giving him an ability level of 87.

Rider A's now a far better rider, but Rider B is now better. Tables have turned. Rider A is still highly regarded, but is a key lieutenant now as opposed to being a team leader, which is now Rider B's job.

If you wanted to go a step further, you could even give both riders names?

There's no way that an argument could be made showing why that's not plausible. PEDs will make an enormous difference on performance depending on what PEDs are used, the frequency with which they're used, and the quantity of them, particularly in comparison with another who isn't using them as much.

There is, consequently, no reason to suggest Armstrong would have won a single tour given the accusations now in play of a systemic doping network on a scale which hasn't been seen before - not even with Festina.