Doping gives a 40% advantage according to cyclists

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Escarabajo said:
Maybe you have better numbers to share. If you have it I'd like to save it in my files.
Thanks.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html
You can do a search on it, there's plenty of information out there. A 54% increase in time to exhaustion in untrained individuals means little in terms of % of power increase.

The average US Cat 3 bike racer would be a legitimate TDF contender with a 40% increase in power. The numbers are ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous though is the suggestion that the stages are too long. Most every bike racer will tell you, there's nothing worse than a 70 or 80 mile road race. It almost always invariably ends up being 3 hours all out. Compare that to something like Philly, which is 10 minutes of racing each lap for 7 laps, until the actual racing starts at the end. Shorter stages are not the answer.
 
131313 said:
You can do a search on it, there's plenty of information out there. A 54% increase in time to exhaustion in untrained individuals means little in terms of % of power increase.

The average US Cat 3 bike racer would be a legitimate TDF contender with a 40% increase in power. The numbers are ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous though is the suggestion that the stages are too long. Most every bike racer will tell you, there's nothing worse than a 70 or 80 mile road race. It almost always invariably ends up being 3 hours all out. Compare that to something like Philly, which is 10 minutes of racing each lap for 7 laps, until the actual racing starts at the end. Shorter stages are not the answer.
Fair enough.

Honestly speaking I have always worked with the 10-20% increase numbers, so I was surprised with the 40% increase statement. Of course we have to take into account that cyclists might not be the best mathematicians :D. Having said that, I have always thought that the gap could be greater than 20% for the third week of the Tour when you factor in the recuperation percentage. But this is just an opinion. So that's why I wanted to read more about other studies related with these numbers (although it would be very hard to find unless you do these studies with cyclists actually riding the GT's, and we all know how clean they are).

Thanks for the opinion.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Escarabajo said:
Fair enough.

Honestly speaking I have always worked with the 10-20% increase numbers, so I was surprised with the 40% increase statement. Of course we have to take into account that cyclists might not be the best mathematicians :D. Having said that, I have always thought that the gap could be greater than 20% for the third week of the Tour when you factor in the recuperation percentage. But this is just an opinion. So that's why I wanted to read more about other studies related with these numbers (although it would be very hard to find unless you do these studies with cyclists actually riding the GT's, and we all know how clean they are).

Thanks for the opinion.
The ongoing issue may be that samples were of 'untrained individuals'.

A couch-potatoe may actually gain 40%, a trained athlete maybe only 10%.

Sort of the same thing if you asked a sample group to go for a brisk walk for 2hrs a day. Couch potatoes, massive response. Athletes, virtually nil response.

Not to equate EPO to fast-walking, but more of a comment on sample groups and so-called objective results.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Bottom line is that if EPO, HGh, Autogenous Tranfusions either idividualy or in a combination give just 3..5 % advantage in actual performance thats more than enough ( tactical mistakes accepting) to make it impossible for a clean rider to win against a doped elite in Grand Tours.
There cant be many here think it gives less than that ?
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
Bottom line is that if EPO, HGh, Autogenous Tranfusions either idividualy or in a combination give just 3..5 % advantage in actual performance thats more than enough ( tactical mistakes accepting) to make it impossible for a clean rider to win against a doped elite in Grand Tours.
There cant be many here think it gives less than that ?
Only the 'special' ones. And you're being conservative.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Also, I think you have to bear in mind that haemotacrit is supposed to FALL over the course of a 3wk stage race.

So take rider A...clean and starting w/ a hct of 38. By week 3, it has fallen considerably. On the other hand, rider B, starts w/ artificially inflated hct of 50, and going into week 3...it is still at 50.

Many of you seem hung up on power #'s (40% increase in power?, impossible!), but I think there are lot of other variables involved as well. Such as the ability to recover 100% overnite and never experience a hct dropoff...
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
NashbarShorts said:
Also, I think you have to bear in mind that haemotacrit is supposed to FALL over the course of a 3wk stage race.

So take rider A...clean and starting w/ a hct of 38. By week 3, it has fallen considerably. On the other hand, rider B, starts w/ artificially inflated hct of 50, and going into week 3...it is still at 50.

Many of you seem hung up on power #'s (40% increase in power?, impossible!), but I think there are lot of other variables involved as well. Such as the ability to recover 100% overnite and never experience a hct dropoff...
this is exactly why I can't look at the UCI biopass as an anti-doping tool. My contention is that may even lead riders to more frequent doping. It takes a lot of 'work' to make your hct look stable over a whole season. Try keeping a pig at 47% for a whole year. That's a lot of intervention...
 
Escarabajo said:
Fair enough.

Honestly speaking I have always worked with the 10-20% increase numbers, so I was surprised with the 40% increase statement. Of course we have to take into account that cyclists might not be the best mathematicians :D. Having said that, I have always thought that the gap could be greater than 20% for the third week of the Tour when you factor in the recuperation percentage. But this is just an opinion. So that's why I wanted to read more about other studies related with these numbers (although it would be very hard to find unless you do these studies with cyclists actually riding the GT's, and we all know how clean they are).

Thanks for the opinion.
My statement.


NashbarShorts said:
Also, I think you have to bear in mind that haemotacrit is supposed to FALL over the course of a 3wk stage race.

So take rider A...clean and starting w/ a hct of 38. By week 3, it has fallen considerably. On the other hand, rider B, starts w/ artificially inflated hct of 50, and going into week 3...it is still at 50.

Many of you seem hung up on power #'s (40% increase in power?, impossible!), but I think there are lot of other variables involved as well. Such as the ability to recover 100% overnite and never experience a hct dropoff...
You said it much better than I did. And of course you will never find this study unless a true clean athlete that rides the Tour will help in the testing.

Other than that we can only compare max numbers from elite riders from the 80's (5.8-6.0 Watts/kg) to the 90's max outputs from some elite riders (6.4 - 6.8 watts/kg) for the third week of the Tour. This shows only a max of 18% between elite's only. No more data availbale.
 
Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
Escarabajo said:
...And of course you will never find this study unless a true clean athlete that rides the Tour will help in the testing..
The Italian anti-doping team Amore & Vita did something like this last year. They were not invited to ride the Giro, so instead did a publicity ride called "The Giro before the Giro". They rode the whole Giro route -- the day before each stage, I think -- with full support, team cars, etc. The catch was that they rode it clean. And they had medical personnel accompanying the team to record drop in hct, etc. The team owner said he specifically wanted to show how performance DETERIORATES over the course of a 3-week ride...

I never heard the outcome of this event. Sadly, it probably generated little publicity. But it must have rec'd some attention in the Italian press. Anyone who speaks Italian wanna do a google search?
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
No Italian, but man I'd love to see that study...

Let's see what the biopass is missing/hiding. Someone in the bella azurra must be able to help us out.
 
NashbarShorts said:
The Italian anti-doping team Amore & Vita did something like this last year. They were not invited to ride the Giro, so instead did a publicity ride called "The Giro before the Giro". They rode the whole Giro route -- the day before each stage, I think -- with full support, team cars, etc. The catch was that they rode it clean. And they had medical personnel accompanying the team to record drop in hct, etc. The team owner said he specifically wanted to show how performance DETERIORATES over the course of a 3-week ride...

I never heard the outcome of this event. Sadly, it probably generated little publicity. But it must have rec'd some attention in the Italian press. Anyone who speaks Italian wanna do a google search?
Totally useless as cycling with 9 guys is much more demanding than with 190.
 
Darryl Webster said:
Bottom line is that if EPO, HGh, Autogenous Tranfusions either idividualy or in a combination give just 3..5 % advantage in actual performance thats more than enough ( tactical mistakes accepting) to make it impossible for a clean rider to win against a doped elite in Grand Tours.
There cant be many here think it gives less than that ?
Thats exactly what my thoughts have been for a while. The % increase which doping gives>>>>> the % increase which could help a mediocre rider become a gc guy.

If this is true, and a lot of evidence suggests that it is, then the "everyone dopes" position becomes through logic, dominant. Because if doping is giving a sufficiently high advantage, then those who dope are automatically propelled onto a different playing field entirely.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
The Hitch said:
Thats exactly what my thoughts have been for a while. The % increase which doping gives>>>>> the % increase which could help a mediocre rider become a gc guy.

If this is true, and a lot of evidence suggests that it is, then the "everyone dopes" position becomes through logic, dominant. Because if doping is giving a sufficiently high advantage, then those who dope are automatically propelled onto a different playing field entirely.
There's the 'level playing field' the apologists keep talking about. It makes me ill to think of kids with talent trying to bust into this sport...
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
Darryl Webster said:
Bottom line is that if EPO, HGh, Autogenous Tranfusions either idividualy or in a combination give just 3..5 % advantage in actual performance thats more than enough ( tactical mistakes accepting) to make it impossible for a clean rider to win against a doped elite in Grand Tours.
There cant be many here think it gives less than that ?
It should be noted that a 3.5% increase in speed is more than a 10% increase in power. So it's not that conservative....
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
It should be noted that a 3.5% increase in speed is more than a 10% increase in power. So it's not that conservative....

Increase in PERFORMANCE doesnt mean increase in speed, it can also mean increase in recovery capacity and ability to concentrate if your not having to ride at yor limit.Riding at your limit takes a lot of concentration and fatiuge causes accidents.
Somat we witnessed from Pharmstrong who rode pretty much clean in this yrs TDF ( to many eyes on him)....how good was he!! LOL
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Darryl Webster said:
Increase in PERFORMANCE doesnt mean increase in speed, it can also mean increase in recovery capacity and ability to concentrate if your not having to ride at yor limit.Riding at your limit takes a lot of concentration and fatiuge causes accidents.
Somat we witnessed from Pharmstrong who rode pretty much clean in this yrs TDF ( to many eyes on him)....how good was he!! LOL
i doubt he rode 'pretty much' clean, but on a much reduced intake than previous years.:D

Pharmastrng and clean in the same sentence seems wrong:D
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
late to the debate the effects of EPO

Have not combed through all the discussion but I have a problem with the basic premiss. EPO doe not increase power output, it merely allows riders to ride at their power limits for longer. The physical effect of EPO is to increase the ability of the blood to transport oxygen. It does not increase muscle size or output. Testosterone will do that but it is much more detectable.
Guys in the Pro peloton are pretty much the genetically gifted bike riders at the outset. If a rider can sustain 400 watt output for 20 minutes without EPO then maybe he can sustain 400 watts for an hour after EPO.
That just means the hill needs to be longer before they get dropped and not that they can suddenly climb steeper hills faster. Their power won't go from 400 watts to 560.
 
Aug 29, 2009
16
0
0
Master50 said:
Have not combed through all the discussion but I have a problem with the basic premiss. EPO doe not increase power output, it merely allows riders to ride at their power limits for longer. The physical effect of EPO is to increase the ability of the blood to transport oxygen. It does not increase muscle size or output. Testosterone will do that but it is much more detectable.
Guys in the Pro peloton are pretty much the genetically gifted bike riders at the outset. If a rider can sustain 400 watt output for 20 minutes without EPO then maybe he can sustain 400 watts for an hour after EPO.
That just means the hill needs to be longer before they get dropped and not that they can suddenly climb steeper hills faster. Their power won't go from 400 watts to 560.
Your hypothetical rider has increased the power he can sustain for 60 minutes. You would also find he can sustain a higher power for 20 minutes, and so on. EPO has therefore increased his power - but this will be limited to how much O2 the muscles use. To get to 560 W will take (probably) a combination of methods- the full programme.
 
Master50 said:
Have not combed through all the discussion but I have a problem with the basic premiss. EPO doe not increase power output, it merely allows riders to ride at their power limits for longer. The physical effect of EPO is to increase the ability of the blood to transport oxygen. It does not increase muscle size or output. Testosterone will do that but it is much more detectable.
Guys in the Pro peloton are pretty much the genetically gifted bike riders at the outset. If a rider can sustain 400 watt output for 20 minutes without EPO then maybe he can sustain 400 watts for an hour after EPO.
That just means the hill needs to be longer before they get dropped and not that they can suddenly climb steeper hills faster. Their power won't go from 400 watts to 560.
The increase in power on the same climbs changed from the 80's to the 90's, so I don't understand your statement??

Maybe some riders with more muscles need more oxygen that they don't have that EPO can provide. Just a thought. But the power outputs have improved up after the 80's. That is a fact.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9

ASK THE COMMUNITY