Doping gives a 40% advantage according to cyclists

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
NashbarShorts said:
Arnout, not sure exactly what your point is. Sounds like you're saying the INCREASES in speed peaked at '98, but then held steady until just recently. That does not speak well for the argument that doping was "the prior generation".

Merckx...perhaps he could stay away if not for the EARPIECES used nowadays. Also, as for cyclists getting fat post-retirement b/c they are accostumed to eating lots of food? I'd argue that. If anything it seems most cyclists have internalized a lifestyle where they are hyper-sensitive about weight gain. Many retired cyclists I see are still very lean.
No no, 1998 was the peak and after that it declined again, slowly but steadily, until 2010 where average speed dropped below 40 again.
 
Aug 2, 2010
1,502
0
0
about this 40% stuff..

doping gave a much more higher % of advantage to anquetil, merckx, hinault.. "the" dopers.. anphetamine (and much more) users in a time were it was something new and only in the range of some cyclists..

dont forget, training is much more efficient and riders much more especialized, just like team work, smaller stages, etc. it's only natural (to some extent obviously) that the average speed is increasing (without the explosion of epo era obviously).
 
Sep 9, 2009
6,391
0
0
c&cfan said:
about this 40% stuff..

doping gave a much more higher % of advantage to anquetil, merckx, hinault.. "the" dopers.. anphetamine (and much more) users in a time were it was something new and only in the range of some cyclists..

dont forget, training is much more efficient and riders much more especialized, just like team work, smaller stages, etc. it's only natural (to some extent obviously) that the average speed is increasing (without the explosion of epo era obviously).
So basically you're saying that Merckx was a nobody without PEDs because they gave him such a huge performance boost (relative to his competitors)?
 
Aug 2, 2010
1,502
0
0
Ferminal said:
So basically you're saying that Merckx was a nobody without PEDs because they gave him such a huge performance boost (relative to his competitors)?
no.. merckx was the best. but with the peds, he became the greatest god of cycling. without them, still the best all rounder, but in the maximum with half the victories and much lesser gts or much lesses monuments.

basically.. he was the best.. but peds made the difference to others much bigger.
 
But Armstrong would still have at least 4-5 TdFs? Bettini/Rebellin/Di Luca all their classics and monuments? Why would riders as good as these guys take the "risk" when their record would be almost as good without doping?

I think you're missing the difference between a $100,000 doping program from a doctor and buying a few vials of EPO, there's a reason why doctors like Ferrari get paid so much (again, why pay 50-100k for barely no improvement).

The overall doping expenditures of Lance would have been enormous, in the millions if you're counting donations. For someone who loves his money so much I'm surprised that he spent so much on doping when it had hardly no effect.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Ferminal said:
But Armstrong would still have at least 4-5 TdFs? Bettini/Rebellin/Di Luca all their classics and monuments? Why would riders as good as these guys take the "risk" when their record would be almost as good without doping?

I think you're missing the difference between a $100,000 doping program from a doctor and buying a few vials of EPO, there's a reason why doctors like Ferrari get paid so much (again, why pay 50-100k for barely no improvement).

The overall doping expenditures of Lance would have been enormous, in the millions if you're counting donations. For someone who loves his money so much I'm surprised that he spent so much on doping when it had hardly no effect.

The Hitch has informed me i missed the sarcasm of this post. it needs a :rolleyes:

nothing more to see here.:D
 
Benotti69 said:
Au contraire it made someone who would never win a GT into a GT winner. That is a given. All the evidence is their. You want to ignore that fine. But for others reading this. LA was and is not a GT winner with PEDs.

It is crazy that people who follow the sport cannot see this simple situation by examining the TdF and it winners over the last 30 years.
Read his post. He was clearly being sarcastic. He was sarcastically mocking those who think Lance was spending millions on something that supposedly doesnt give too big an advantage.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
The Hitch said:
Read his post. He was clearly being sarcastic. He was sarcastically mocking those who think Lance was spending millions on something that supposedly doesnt give too big an advantage.
If so I apologise. I wasn't sure. I need to see a :rolleyes: for the sarcasm nowadays.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
For all the peeps who think a 40% advantage over clean is a "wildy exaggerated" claim, I'd say just go back and reference the Tyler Hamilton program that was discovered from Fuentes/OP paperwork. The man was on EPO, HGH, anabolics, double transfusions, cortisone, and female hormones. Assuming each one of those things had some efficacy, and the effects are cumulative, I'd say it adds up to huge advantage over a guy who has a bowl of muesli and then goes out training...
 
The Hitch said:
And time improvements in marathon, where its always the same distance, and same equipment (with the exception of that etheopian who won the olympics bare foot) can be put down mostly to doping i would say.
Well the marathon record has come down from 2.09.28 in 1970 to 2.06.05 in 1998 and to 2.03.59 now which is not a huge change percentagewise. As the top of the alltime bests is dominated by east africans and they wouldnt have competed that much back in 1970 then i dont think you dont need doping to account for the improvement if they do have a genetic advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=MAR/detail.html

Besides there is the impact of better training and nutrition. Quite how important these are is anyone's guess but they must account for some of the times coming down.

To be a touch pedantic the distance may be the same but the route does change. Some are faster than others due to being flatter. However, the marathon organisers know this and so a lot of the top ones are fast ones and this factor probably doesnt matter.
 
Frosty said:
Well the marathon record has come down from 2.09.28 in 1970 to 2.06.05 in 1998 and to 2.03.59 now which is not a huge change percentagewise. As the top of the alltime bests is dominated by east africans and they wouldnt have competed that much back in 1970 then i dont think you dont need doping to account for the improvement if they do have a genetic advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=MAR/detail.html

Besides there is the impact of better training and nutrition. Quite how important these are is anyone's guess but they must account for some of the times coming down.

To be a touch pedantic the distance may be the same but the route does change. Some are faster than others due to being flatter. However, the marathon organisers know this and so a lot of the top ones are fast ones and this factor probably doesnt matter.
Interesting, seems like steady (small) progress the whole way down.

The ladies on the other hand...
 
Ferminal said:
Interesting, seems like steady (small) progress the whole way down.

The ladies on the other hand...
Have not raced the event until fairly recent decades and so you perhaps you shouldnt judge the record until after the mid-80s? It wasnt an Olympic event until 1984, world champs until 1983. Not as many women run the marathon, especially in Africa it seems.
 
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
NashbarShorts said:
For all the peeps who think a 40% advantage over clean is a "wildy exaggerated" claim, I'd say just go back and reference the Tyler Hamilton program that was discovered from Fuentes/OP paperwork. The man was on EPO, HGH, anabolics, double transfusions, cortisone, and female hormones. Assuming each one of those things had some efficacy, and the effects are cumulative, I'd say it adds up to huge advantage over a guy who has a bowl of muesli and then goes out training...
when i was a moderate 2nd cat in the late 90s I had a threshold power of 300 watts at a weight of 60kg. If i could get an extra 40per cent through peds I would have 420watts which is good enough for pro tour and at 7watts/kg would make me a GT contender. As I wasn't the most gifted athlete at my club I have conclude that the 40 per cent claim is Bull s**t
 
Sep 9, 2009
6,391
0
0
NashbarShorts said:
For all the peeps who think a 40% advantage over clean is a "wildy exaggerated" claim, I'd say just go back and reference the Tyler Hamilton program that was discovered from Fuentes/OP paperwork. The man was on EPO, HGH, anabolics, double transfusions, cortisone, and female hormones. Assuming each one of those things had some efficacy, and the effects are cumulative, I'd say it adds up to huge advantage over a guy who has a bowl of muesli and then goes out training...
Find me the Tyler Hamilton 8.5W/Kilo performance and I'll agree.
 
Frosty said:
Well the marathon record has come down from 2.09.28 in 1970 to 2.06.05 in 1998 and to 2.03.59 now which is not a huge change percentagewise. As the top of the alltime bests is dominated by east africans and they wouldnt have competed that much back in 1970 then i dont think you dont need doping to account for the improvement if they do have a genetic advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=MAR/detail.html

Besides there is the impact of better training and nutrition. Quite how important these are is anyone's guess but they must account for some of the times coming down.

To be a touch pedantic the distance may be the same but the route does change. Some are faster than others due to being flatter. However, the marathon organisers know this and so a lot of the top ones are fast ones and this factor probably doesnt matter.
I will correct you on the point that East Africans didnt run as much till the 30's. Abde Bikila won the marathon in Rome 64.

But the rest of what you say is well put, and quite frankly, annoying to someone like myself who enjoys the simplicity of doping = big gains. :eek:

Also ill add another variable - pacemakers, which i dont think existed in the 70's but exist today to help set records. So thats another non doping reason for speed improvement.

We know that there has been doping in marathon. If cyclists can do it, marathoners should have no prolblem getting away with epo, especially in the 90's. So why has there been such a slow proggression.

Are we to believe that there isnt doping in marathon, that epo only gives small advantages?

Maybe, the progress from 2.09 to 2.04 is bigger than it seems? I calculate thats 19.57 and 20.43km/h. That is a pretty big difference in speed if you are maintaining it for over 2 hours.

And if 209 to 204 seems like a normal progression, because other sports have had similar progressions, we should take into account that other sports should have similar doping timelines.

Also I feel Haile was not at the limit when he broke 2.04 in Berlin. He sprinted for the line, way faster than his average speed throughout the race, and even then , took a bit of a breath, before rising up and celebrating. Spread his effort more evenly and he could go faster.
 
The Hitch said:
I will correct you on the point that East Africans didnt run as much till the 30's. Abde Bikila won the marathon in Rome 64.
Yes he won the marathon but were they generally in the sport as much?

The Hitch said:
But the rest of what you say is well put, and quite frankly, annoying to someone like myself who enjoys the simplicity of doping = big gains. :eek:

Also ill add another variable - pacemakers, which i dont think existed in the 70's but exist today to help set records. So thats another non doping reason for speed improvement.

We know that there has been doping in marathon. If cyclists can do it, marathoners should have no prolblem getting away with epo, especially in the 90's. So why has there been such a slow proggression.

Are we to believe that there isnt doping in marathon, that epo only gives small advantages?
Dunno, the normal equation that is put on here is more red blood cells = more oxygen to the muscles = going faster, so you would assume that there would be the potential for this in running as well as cycling. Running is an impact sport and running faster increases the impact so could lead to injury but its not as if we are talking about huge increases in speed. Seems odd that no-one has gone a lot faster.

The Hitch said:
Maybe, the progress from 2.09 to 2.04 is bigger than it seems? I calculate thats 19.57 and 20.43km/h. That is a pretty big difference in speed if you are maintaining it for over 2 hours.
Yes, but its not 40% or anywhere near it.

The Hitch said:
And if 209 to 204 seems like a normal progression, because other sports have had similar progressions, we should take into account that other sports should have similar doping timelines.
It seems to me that its only east africans who have got faster. Caucasians havent - in the mid 80s Charlie Spedding and Steve Jones were running about 2:08 yet the fastest time this year seems to be Ryan Hall (US) in 2:08:41. Surely some europeans should be running faster given the advances in nutrition and training? Maybe people are just resigned to the kenyans and ethiopians winning or people just dont want to do run the marathon as much. Some people say that westerners are too weak as they dont do as much exercise and are driven round everywhere. Its tempting to draw that conclusion but when i was young (32 now) people might have been driven to places but they still ran around all over the place - the car just got them there.

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=2010/sex=M/all=n/legal=A/disc=MAR/detail.html

The Hitch said:
Also I feel Haile was not at the limit when he broke 2.04 in Berlin. He sprinted for the line, way faster than his average speed throughout the race, and even then , took a bit of a breath, before rising up and celebrating. Spread his effort more evenly and he could go faster.
He's always had a good sprint which is one thing i dont understand. From my limited understanding i would have thought that a good distance runner would have muscles full of long-twitch fibres which allow fantastic stamina but which dont allow space for any short-twitch fibres giving a good sprint. Sort of like how Paula Radcliffe runs.
 
Frosty said:
He's always had a good sprint which is one thing i dont understand. From my limited understanding i would have thought that a good distance runner would have muscles full of long-twitch fibres which allow fantastic stamina but which dont allow space for any short-twitch fibres giving a good sprint. Sort of like how Paula Radcliffe runs.
This is even more visible in Bekele. He is known to have run the last 400m of a 10 000m race, in 50 seconds. All he ever does in the 10 000m these days is jog the first 9600m and sprint the 400. I always believed such an awesome kick for a 165m paper thin guy, who focuses on long distance and loses tons of calories in the preceeding 9km, has something to do with drugs.
 
Ninety5rpm said:
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?
Or more likely that it is 40% higher for dopers? ie 28.6% lower for non-dopers;)

in any case the real figure in terms of power output gain over say 1h is most likely never higher than 20%. (plus have to qualify that, is it on a TT or on the last climb of a mountain stage, etc)
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
PotentialPro said:
I was searching around trying to see if anyone had ever posted how to train and use HGH properly and found this article...
I had seen that before, but a good re-read. What I found particularly interesting is that the guy really didn't have any problems EXCEPT for steroids, and minor headaches w/ EPO -- which he admitted was an individual thing.

Also, his moment of self-reflection comes during a 600k ride where he says, "I used to have a life". But this is too simplistic. He planned on doing the ultra-endurance events (qualifiers for PBParis) separate from his foray into PED use. Agreed, doing 600k rides is not normal. But it has nothing to do w/ whether PEDs can be used safely and effectively.

I have to conclude that from his own experience, medically-superived use of HGH, test, and EPO was highly effective, safe, performance-boosting, and bestows the used w/ overnite recovery from 200k efforts! When big money team contracts and endorsements are added to the mix, its a no-brainer to see the allure for pro cyclists. :(
 
Oct 7, 2010
123
0
0
NashbarShorts said:
I had seen that before, but a good re-read. What I found particularly interesting is that the guy really didn't have any problems EXCEPT for steroids, and minor headaches w/ EPO -- which he admitted was an individual thing.

Also, his moment of self-reflection comes during a 600k ride where he says, "I used to have a life". But this is too simplistic. He planned on doing the ultra-endurance events (qualifiers for PBParis) separate from his foray into PED use. Agreed, doing 600k rides is not normal. But it has nothing to do w/ whether PEDs can be used safely and effectively.

I have to conclude that from his own experience, medically-superived use of HGH, test, and EPO was highly effective, safe, performance-boosting, and bestows the used w/ overnite recovery from 200k efforts! When big money team contracts and endorsements are added to the mix, its a no-brainer to see the allure for pro cyclists. :(
I agree that its easy to see results, and with it wanting more.

Now here is the next part in the equation. You can find everything on the internet these days right? Try to find how to use HGH, EPO, CERA or anything that we have heard about properly. You can find instructions on how to mix HGH for instance, but you really cant find the trial and error of what to do. I had found a few bodybuilding forums, but that is a joke. I think what this points to is that doping is very underground. You are going to be taught by a peer, or someone in the know. Very few doctors stateside have that kind of knowledge, sure they might be able to setup via trial and error. I also wonder if the ethical dilemma for stateside doctors is different than in other parts of the world, thus less implications of helping athletes cheat? I realize the story I posted above says otherwise, but the Doc involved was not deep into performance enhancing qualities. Is it really left up to that athlete to push the envelope, and be their own lab rat, and with that what are the risks involved?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS