Doping gives a 40% advantage according to cyclists

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-police-confirm-focus-on-drug-trafficking-in-us-postal-investigation

He (Italian public prosecutor Benedetto Roberti) revealed that numerous professional cyclists he has questioned claimed that athletes who don’t dope have an output of 40 per cent below those who do.

“That’s what they say. Unfortunately that’s the system,” Roberti said. “The sport relies on sponsors and sponsors don’t pay the teams unless they win and to win they need to use banned substances.”
Not sure if it's true but that explains why some racers (Vockler comes to mind) say they are not surprised when a TDF TOP10 gets "popped" !
 
Oct 28, 2010
1,578
0
0
imo 40% is a bit exaggerated, it might be possible in the times of Bjarne Riis but not nowadays.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
All sportsmen, including cyclists, say they give 110% (sometimes more) when they compete. They're not exactly reliable mathematicians.
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
The races are too tough. They need to reduce the kilometres. It’s impossible to think that they can complete these races as they are without using banned substances. If they reduce the lengths I know people will say they’ll still dope, but at least they would have less reason to.
What a stupid statement. Almost as stupid as suggesting that doping gives a 40% increase in power.
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
I think there are several statements in that article that are exaggerated in the least. Apart from the 40%, which I don't believe for a second, the "stages are too long" is also ridiculous.

IF 40% is correct it would mean a much bigger difference in the races and even with the blackest view of the peloton there's plenty of evidence at least a few riders are clean. How on earth would the even get out of the neutral zone with the rest? Why didn't we see an explosion of average speed when EPO came. Yes, it definitely increased, but power improvements of 40% would mean a lot!!!

Same goes for the distance argument - sorry, but they were even longer before the "game changing" dope came along. As argued by many so many times in here: It would be a bit slower, but they'd still get there in the end...

Sorry, I like the accusations I see to be just a tiny bit realistic.

EDIT: Just saw Altitude said pretty much the same thing above, only he got there first because I just had to babble...
 
Oct 28, 2010
1,578
0
0
Kvinto said:
imo 40% is a bit exaggerated, it might be possible in the times of Bjarne Riis but not nowadays.
tried to recognize what means 40%, i'm stupid :( it's not "a bit exaggerated" it's no way, it's Cavendish for Maglia Rosa
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,921
0
0
athletes who don’t dope have an output of 40 per cent below those who do.
What does that even mean?

Does it mean the power output, as measured in total watts, is 40% lower for clean riders than for doped riders?
 
Kvinto said:
tried to recognize what means 40%, i'm stupid :( it's not "a bit exaggerated" it's no way, it's Cavendish for Maglia Rosa
I agree that 40% is probably exagerated.

But

EPO was the biggest thing in doping. Its been over 20 years since then. I think drugs have moved on even further.

The days where a gt guy could get a little boost up a climb by doping are long gone.

I think its very possible that if cav lost some weight and went on a doping programme while others didnt (thats the key here, others need to stop doping. If they are, then they are both getting the advantage) you would see Cav up there.
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
The 'they dope because the stages are too long/hard' argument dates back roughly as far as the Tour itself, back when stages were well over 300km, gears hadn't been invented, round wheels were for poufs and real men killed bears with their teeth while drinking flagons of battery acid. Without stopping for a p!ss.


I wonder if this chap thinks that the 100m should be reduced in length as well?
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
I can't believe we've jumped on the hyperbole of an Italian prosecutor. I thought we did things better than that here.
 
Apr 13, 2010
1,238
0
0
BotanyBay said:
I can't believe we've jumped on the hyperbole of an Italian prosecutor. I thought we did things better than that here.
Doh, completely forgot about that. "We're doing soooo mcuh, everybody else is doing nothing. It's so unfair on us Italians".
 
The Hitch said:
I agree that 40% is probably exagerated.

But

EPO was the biggest thing in doping. Its been over 20 years since then. I think drugs have moved on even further.

The days where a gt guy could get a little boost up a climb by doping are long gone.

I think its very possible that if cav lost some weight and went on a doping programme while others didnt (thats the key here, others need to stop doping. If they are, then they are both getting the advantage) you would see Cav up there.
No, never.

Let's take Moncoutie (as that's the only climber generally regarded clean on cyclingnews.com, though there are many more) as an example. He was at times this Vuelta in the top-5 in mountainstages, and not because of a breakaway. Cav would never be able to do that. Otherwise it would be possible for a domestique to reach the level of Moncoutie quite easily by doping, and because, according again to general consensus, 90% of the peloton dopes, it would be impossible for Moncoutie to perform like he does.
 
Mar 10, 2009
272
0
0
I'm not sure it is exaggerated. Let say someone's natural maximum output is 900W, on a flat unassisted sprint this is worth about 58km'h

You add 40 % more power (360W) and this comes to 1260W. This is worth about 67km'h in an unassisted sprint. They've just put themselves in with a chance at getting a US pro contract as a sprinter in that with the assistance of the peleton they can now hit over 70km'h.

Likewise, if an A grade racer can hold 400W in a timetrial over 40km's he would do it in about 53.40mins at abt 45km'h. You add 40% power he can now hold 560W and do it in 47.30mins at 50.5km'h. Now he is a world class timetrialist even though he only dropped close to 6mins.

It sounds more realistic to me than what I first thought. Didn't that Festina guy that got done say something like there are Pro's out there so full of dope that they wouldn't even make good elite ameteur riders without them.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
This article points to research in none elite athletes illustrating performance output improvement up to 54% from epo use.
In elite athletes my guess would be Epo users make a gain of up to 20% max in potential wattage FTP and it should be understood that as higher speeds are attained theres an expedential increase in resistance that is met.
20 % extra watts does NOT equate to a 20 % increase in speed..probably something more in the region of 5%..the "visible" kind of gain but by not necessarily obvious to the un informed.
Still a phenominal advantage when one considers that the gap in abilities of clean elite performers is reckoned to 1..1.5% at best.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
JPM London said:
Doh, completely forgot about that. "We're doing soooo mcuh, everybody else is doing nothing. It's so unfair on us Italians".
He was painting with a wide brush on the 40% statement. And I can't believe any of us here fell for it. That statement was just grandstanding. Heck, I'm on his side, but paisano, bruddah, we can't engage with that.
 
Mar 10, 2009
272
0
0
Arnout said:
No, never.

Let's take Moncoutie (as that's the only climber generally regarded clean on cyclingnews.com, though there are many more) as an example. He was at times this Vuelta in the top-5 in mountainstages, and not because of a breakaway. Cav would never be able to do that. Otherwise it would be possible for a domestique to reach the level of Moncoutie quite easily by doping, and because, according again to general consensus, 90% of the peloton dopes, it would be impossible for Moncoutie to perform like he does.
With a 40% increase in power, Moncoutie would probably be as good as Armstrong at his peak. Remember also that most of the elite pro's who are sprinters probably climb faster than Elite Cat 1 climbers. You just become better at what you're naturally good at. 40% increase in power doesn't mean 40% increase in speed or time.
 
Darryl Webster said:
This article points to research in none elite athletes illustrating performance output improvement up to 54% from epo use.
In elite athletes my guess would be Epo users make a gain of up to 20% max in potential wattage FTP and it should be understood that as higher speeds are attained theres an expedential increase in resistance that is met.
20 % extra watts does NOT equate to a 20 % increase in speed..probably something more in the region of 5%..the "visible" kind of gain but by not necessarily obvious to the un informed.
Still a phenominal advantage when one considers that the gap in abilities of clean elite performers is reckoned to 1..1.5% at best.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html
Sustained improvements of up to 20% output seem possible. Indurain had a one hour output of 508 HP. For real humans (and 140-150 lb Tour heavywweights), maybe 400ish is possible.

Dave.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
D-Queued said:
Sustained improvements of up to 20% output seem possible. Indurain had a one hour output of 508 HP. For real humans (and 140-150 lb Tour heavywweights), maybe 400ish is possible.

Dave.
"508 HP"? As in, horse power? Damn. I wish I could afford a car with that sort of output.
 
That's Big Mig to you, the man who had the incredible bad luck of peaking and trouncing the competition during the unregulated EPO years, only to be trounced himself when he was about to get TDF#6 by Mr. 60%! Tough, eh !
 
Sep 13, 2010
546
0
0
Mambo95 said:
All sportsmen, including cyclists, say they give 110% (sometimes more) when they compete. They're not exactly reliable mathematicians.
110% is old school. I divide by 0 when I race.

BTW, 40% is the difference between a cat. 3 and Pro Tour. I think only Powercranks can give you that advantage. :rolleyes:
 
Mar 10, 2009
272
0
0
la.margna said:
stages are too long, races too tough: ridicolous
40% advantage: ridicolous, somewhere around 5-10%
5 to 10% increase in power is next to nothing in speed and time differences. 5 to 10% extra training ability, recovery, or sustainability of your Threshold, perhaps.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS