Doping in XC skiing

[dukoff]

I generally agree with this estimate (and with your interpretation of tyler‘s gains) , though, in the 90’s the epo advantage could probably be pushed another couple % up by those willing to take the extra health risk - as there was no epo test to fear. Still, your argument that natural selection trumps blood doping remains a convenient hypothesis. notwithstanding your other numbers below
.
Taken at face value, these numbers (except the last one - waxing) are not unrealistic even plausable (based on personal experience and some reading) but there are 3 problems with your numbers. Problem 1 - selection of proper ski STIFFNESS is lacking. Wrong stiffness accounts for more than a perfect wax. Problem 2 - they never are fixed values but ranges, particularly over the developments in the 90s. Speaking of waxing (also see trond‘s and wch posts), even at the elite level, the difference may exceed 5% in extreme cases as was illustrated by northug vs. legkov times in the individual 15 k skate in val di fiemme. A perfectly gliding northug was 7% faster than legkov who (as we now know for a fact) was skating on bare plastic bases starting at km 2. If northug was fitter that day than anyone by 1-2% (which he probably was), the rest of the difference must have been in the skis. Problem 3 is that the factors above are RANDOM variables. the elementary common sense and statistics tell us that they can NOT always line up in the direction beneficial to norway only , much less for over 10 years ! There are days when even norwegian servicemen make mistakes. besides, even if we assume that Norway somehow held a stone-grinding + waxing secret for a while, it can not be permanent in the era of hyper communication/mobile professional/cross-hiring. thinking otherwise is fitting facts to a forgone conclusion.

all these considerations make your simple natural selection theory.. well, a convenient unproven theory. all that, while new questions about the norwegian 90's are either shoved aside, ignored or met with threat of court action.

I'm not exactly sure if I follow your argument completely.

I call it waxing, but you may include of course selection of skis into that too. If talking about stiffness this really also enters another interesting element of efficiency and technique. A runner with poorer technique will need to select softer skis, which again will mean more wax resistance, less glide downhill, and more loss of wax. So these things are interrelated.

If putting grinding aside, I don't think one can say ski preparation can account for 5%. I mean certainly that is possible to achieve, but I don't see it realistic as a difference you are able to achieve very often.

What you compare of Northug and Legkov I think is in great deal a result of the fact that Northug felt in his best possible form that day, and the evening before, and while I haven't heard what happened to Legkov, I think there is more to it than just the skis.

Actually when I estimated 0-1.5% on waxing, I considered the relay in Vancouver where Hjelmeset had poor skis on his leg. It's a situation where you certainly don't give up, so it's a matter of full effort regardless. He lost 30s on 28min. Well that is 1.8%. Actually, when I look again, that was his loss on the leg, but Bauer was eating up a deficit, so towards Bauer it was 51s, 3.0%. But that should be a good vs bad waxing. It depends what one shall consider, good vs bad, good vs great..? It depends on the argument what number is appropriate to use, but it can range from 0 to 3% at least.

Now about these things being random, I don't exactly get what you meant by that. Certainly Norway had bad wax-days, but it's not like we won every race. Still I don't think it can be considered just an opinion or hypothesis that we've had a better hit rate on achieving good skis. This has been quite repeatedly commented by race commentaries and competitors up through the years.

In 1992 there really existed an "unfair" advantage due to grinding. In 1994, we also had an advantage of being a home event, with the experience you have of the local snow to hit an optimal ski preparation for every race. The latter is not really quantifiable for the specific races, but I don't think it's realistic to dismiss it.

 

[Discgear]

Still I don't think it can be considered just an opinion or hypothesis that we've had a better hit rate on achieving good skies. This has been quite repeatedly commented by race commentaries and competitors up through the years.

In 1992 there really existed an "unfair" advantage due to grinding. In 1994, we also had an advantage of being a home event, with the experience you have of the local snow to hit an optimal ski preparation for every race. The latter is not really quantifiable for the specific races, but I don't think it's realistic to dismiss it.

It seems you are refering to two opinions that have been pushed hard by the Norwegians.

First, I don't at all agree that the waxing was predominantely in favor of the Norwegians. You could always cherry pick a race here and there to support almost every stand point. Swedes, Germans, Italians and in latter years russians have been very succesful in waxing, which has for a long time been quite obvious in sprint.

And this stone grinding thing, which norwegian skiers said was for a long time a vell kept secret - which explained their dominance in Albertville and Lillehammer - that's pure nonsense I'm afraid. In a recent interview Vegard Ulvang stated [my translation]:
"Norway was first with stone grinding the skies, a secret we kept for ourselves in almost three years between 1991 and 1994. i would like to apoligize to Torgny Mogren and the others for doing that." (http://www.expressen.se/sport/langdskidor/jag-hoppas-att-petter-inte-vinner-for-mycket/?sida=1)

Last year the Swedish expert commentator in Swedish Television Anders Blomqivst (former skier in the national team) said in a program about waxing, that the stone grinding technique was in use already in the 80s by the Swedish elite skiers.

Dr Kuzmin's thesis from 2006 doesn't agree that stone grinding is a major advantage. (http://pure.ltu.se/portal/sv/publications/investigation-of-the-most-essential-factors-influencing-ski-glide(14090510-c0e9-11db-834c-000ea68e967b).html)

 

[python]

Indeed, one of the early anecdotes about the greatness of Dählie was that he held the world record of VO2Max 96 ml/kg/min. Later, after the widespread missuse of EPO came to public knowledge, we heard from the Norwegians that something was wrong with the test and that his VO2Max was significantly lower.

that bjørn dæhlie is an exceptional aerobic beast, goes without saying. however, it’s not that there was something ‘wrong with the test’, but simply that there are slightly different procedures for staging the vo2 max test, some of which may result in different numbers. I recall reading some critique of different procedures where an overlap between vo2 max and vo2 peak might have occurred.

regardless, in xc skiing some solid research seems to indicate that it is NOT the absolute vo2 in L divided by straight body mass in kg (like, say, in cycling) that is important, but the vo2 divided by body weght to the power of 2/3. Iow, the featherweights, which bjørn dæhlie was not, are somewhat disadvantaged…also, if one was the world beater like bjørn dæhlie certainly was, the big engine, while all-important, has to be supported by the exceptional gross efficiency, for which, as far as i know, me do not have bjørn dæhlie data.

xc skiing efficiency in general is LOWER than in cycling (appr 15% skating vs. 20%) and thus is hugely sensitive to small changes. the elite gross mechanical efficiency must combine several components, such as metabolic efficiency, good technique, good skis etc)

… A good reason for High Altitude Training is to use it for explaining high blood values achieved by other means.

a better phrase would be ‘masking blood doping’ . in that regard, as was noted elsewhere and in tyler’s book, altitude simulation also helped Ferrari clients beating the epo test. But this was not necessary in the 90’s. we also do know for a fact that Norwegians had mobile altitude simulators in the 90s.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

Dr Kuzmin's thesis from 2006 doesn't agree that stone grinding is a major advantage.

That is true; he doesn't. On the other hand, Dr. Kuzmin doesn't even agree in applying glide wax:

It is important to understand that the two interacting surfaces, the base and the snow, do not need any additional lubricant than what is always present – namely water.

A hard sell point to any team...

 

[dukoff]

The quote above may seem obvious. The figures are amazing, though. Dæhlie’s skis were close to 4 pct faster than 2nd place de Zolt’s and more than 10 pct faster than 4th place finisher Prokurorov’s.

1. Dæhlie, glide speed 16,4 m/s
2. de Zolt, glide speed 15,8 m/s (-3,7%)
3. Vanzetta, glide speed 15,1 m/s (-7,9%)
4. Prokurorov, glide speed14,7 m/s (-10,4%)

1. Dæhlie, finish time 2.03.41,5
2. de Zolt, finish time 2.04.39,1 (+0,8%)
3. Vanzetta, finish time 2.06.42,1 (+2,4%)
4. Prokurorov, finish time 2.07.06,1 (+2,8%)

These were very valuable data points. It certainly fits well into their claim of 1992 being the peak of this edge.

Here is a graph referencing this study:

I haven't bothered before, but now since there is factual evidence, even linking this to 1992, I will post a translation of Dæhlie talking about the stone grinding:

Note that he does not claim that stone grinding was new, neither that it was not used successfully in xc. He says they were the first to discover structures that worked outside the limited conditions already known.

From Dec 1989 to the olympic games in Albertville 1992, we had indisputably better skis than other nations. Skis which on a 50km could mean 2 min faster race time, maybe more.

Bjørn Dæhlie (40) has for a half hour talked about his merits. Now he will talk about the best kept secret in Norwegian cross country sport, of which parked the competition:

The discovery was made in an insignificant test run at the outskirts of the American national park in West Yellowstone at the turn of month November-December 1989. A race which did not get publicity in the Norwegian newspapers. Dæhlie went for the first time on stoneground skis which he together with Vegard Ulvang and Pål Gunnar Mikkelsplass had been shipped to test out in USA.

- I beat Vegard and Pål Gunnar "by a mile". We immidiately had the analysis clear: My stoneground skis gave a fantastic glide on zero-temp snow. Earlier it was known that stoneground skis were only good for one condition; warm and klister.

Dæhlie, Ulvang and Mikkelsplass immidiately realized they knew something they were all alone about, which would revolutionize the cross country sport. We sat on a secret. When we went to bed that evening we agreed on one thing: This discovery must not get to our competitors. This also became an industry secret in the Norwegian cross country camp til after the olympic games in Albertville 1992.

The ski-king explains the difference on stoneground skis and standard prepared skis:

- In the 50km in Albertville 1992 I ran past Torgny Mogren and thought "poor kid". We raced on the same ski-brand and I knew what he had under his skis. He went on steel-scraped skis with grooves. I had stoneground skis which Olympiatoppen had contributed with large research capital to develop after our discovery in West Yellowstone in 1989.

Norway took all five gold medals for men in cross country in the 1992 olympics.

- We had a huge advantage over our competitors. Over 10km it could make out half a minute. We hadn't told anything to the ski producers for these three years, and it led to a realy bad atmosphere between them and us, says Dæhlie.

http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/artikkel.php?artid=502908

Just mark that Dæhlie's comment of running past Mogren is interestingly enough of the exact same race as the study of glide-speed.

 

[Discgear]

These were very valuable data points. It certainly fits well into their claim of 1992 being the peak of this edge.

Here is a graph referencing this study:

Note that he does not claim that stone grinding was new, neither that it was not used successfully in xc. He says they were the first to discover structures that worked outside the limited conditions already known.
http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/artikkel.php?artid=502908
Just mark that Dæhlie's comment of running past Mogren is interestingly enough of the exact same race as the study of glide-speed.

The problem with this scientific study within the context of the thread, is that it's based on only one occasion. Everyone familiar with X-Country skiing is well aware of how different the success of skipreperation could shift day to day. A good example is Johan Olsson who won the 50 km on Sunday with superskiis in exactly the same conditions as the relay that was held two days before, when he had an awful glide.

Also the VG article from 2008 is problematic since the source Björn Dählie has all to win about explaining how he could crush proven dopers for such a long time. Once again, the stone grinding argument is supported only by the Norwegians. Notable is also how Dählies version differs from Ulvang who claimed the advantage was from 1991 to 1994 and Dählie claims the period was from 1989 to1992. You would expect Ulvang or Dählie to remember at which occasion such a fantastic discovery was made.

And again, the Norwegians are not going to reveal the blood values. Not the present and not the past. So far it has been quite a few articles about this in Swedish media. We'll have to wait and see if the Norwegian medias going to comment on this.

 

[Tubeless]

The problem with this scientific study within the context of the thread, is that it's based on only one occasion. Everyone familiar with X-Country skiing is well aware of how different the success of skipreperation could shift day to day. A good example is Johan Olsson who won the 50 km on Sunday with superskiis in exactly the same conditions as the relay that was held two days before, when he had an awful glide.

Also the VG article from 2008 is problematic since the source Björn Dählie has all to win about explaining how he could crush proven dopers for such a long time. Once again, the stone grinding argument is supported only by the Norwegians. Notable is also how Dählies version differs from Ulvang who claimed the advantage was from 1991 to 1994 and Dählie claims the period was from 1989 to1992. You would expect Ulvang or Dählie to remember at which occasion such a fantastic discovery was made.

And again, the Norwegians are not going to reveal the blood values. Not the present and not the past. So far it has been quite a few articles about this in Swedish media. We have to wait and see if the Norwegian medias going to comment on this.

+1

It is interesting to note that none of the Norwegian posters want to openly discuss even the POSSIBILITY that some of their heros were indeed EPO users. During the 1990s it was simply not possible to win without doping. EPO's effect was well know and it was easily available, there was no EPO test and there were no Hb limits. There was a significant money to be made and no chance to get caught. We now know that several winners (Fauner, Myllyla, Smirnov) were doped to the gills. And Dahlie, Alsgaard and Ulvang were beating them repeatedly and consistently. Anyone who thinks that "high morals" prevented these guys from doing whatever it takes to win is sadly naive - or Norwegian.

It seems the skiing community in Norway is still in denial. During this thread we've been lectured about:

- altitude training
- ski grinding
- "natural selection"

as truly unique Norwegian advantages for beating EPO dopers without doping.

In cycling, the truth has finally come out - even Lance Armstrong, the hero of Americans who was tested "500 times" and was never caught doping finally admitted "it was simply not possible" to win without doping. And Armstrong's heydays were during the era of Hkr limits and EPO tests.

Many in cycling recognize that before the sport can move forward, it has to face its past. UCI has a significant problem with McQuaid and Verbruggen whose hands are dirty from the EPO era still controlling the head office. FIS's problem is potentially worse, as the main man is none other than Vegaard Ulvang. If you ever thought that FIS was going to participate in opening the past files, blood values and all, think again.

 

[Trond Vidar]

+1

It is interesting to note that none of the Norwegian posters want to openly discuss even the POSSIBILITY that some of their heros were indeed EPO users. During the 1990s it was simply not possible to win without doping. EPO's effect thinks that "high morals" prevented these guys from doing whatever it takes to win is sadly naive - or Norwegian.

It seems the skiing community in Norway is still in denial. During this thread we've been lectured about:

We are here discussing it now some of us just don't think it's as likely as you lay it out. They may have doped.

We may have "lectured" you, but so have you with the constant assumption that they all were doping. And you seem to assume that all athletes start out at the same level.

No one has answered why I cannot become the next Michael Jordan, or the likeliness that the next MJ will come from Norway. Can we dope up to rule basketball?

 

[dukoff]

Also the VG article from 2008 is problematic since the source Björn Dählie has all to win about explaining how he could crush proven dopers for such a long time. Once again, the stone grinding argument is supported only by the Norwegians. Notable is also how Dählies version differs from Ulvang who claimed the advantage was from 1991 to 1994 and Dählie claims the period was from 1989 to1992. You would expect Ulvang or Dählie to remember at which occasion such a fantastic discovery was made.

The discovery was made December 89, which is the 1990-season, and the first world championship was the following year, in 1991-season. The developments would obviously continue for years. But it was completely secret until 1992. After that it would be first a sharper, then a gradual diminishing edge as other caught up. But the advantage of being 2 years ahead in development would obviously not disappear overnight. It's not like they gave away all the structures they had developed to other nations. So there is no contradiction in any of this.

The importance for this discussion is not only that it's Dæhlie who has the best glide. Also significant is the magnitude of this differences between the skiers. As the text puts it:

"It is likely that ski and wax choices affecting snow drag force have a significant role in determining race performance even at the elite level in races as important as the Olympics. World Cup skiers of many teams have access to the best skis available and the hlep of professionals dedicated to ski preparation and waxing. It is surprising to find such substantial effects on performance because of ski friction under these circumstances."

The numbers shows clearly how an advantage of 4% could exist even between the top 2 finishers. It proves to be a factor which in magnitude seriously diminishes the value of a doping advantage compared to the expertise of ski preparation.

It also shows how racers which fall below the mean trend overperforms compared to their glide, and those above the mean underperforms.

 

[Discgear]

No one has answered why I cannot become the next Michael Jordan, or the likeliness that the next MJ will come from Norway. Can we dope up to rule basketball?

I don't live with the illusion that ball sports are free from dope either. But it should raise some concerns, that the Norwegian success - within the Winter Olympic sports - have mainly come in endurance sports: Biathlon, X-country, Nordic Combination, Speed Skating and the endurance disciplines within Alpine skiing - Downhill and Super G.

And not only that, it started to take off in the beginning of the dirty 90s.

All Norwegian top athletes are supported by Olympiatoppen. Their medical expert Ola Ronsen gives advice in a document called Hemoglobin tests , erythropoietin and doping (2010):

The molecular structure of rhEPO is almost identical to the natural EPO hormone and leaves the body rapidly -- a half time of 16 hours after subcutaneous administration. Moreover, if used properly, the effects of the drug would last three to four weeks, while the actual drug will have left the body completely within one week of the last injection. This leaves a two to three weeks ”open window” where performance is enhanced and there is no drug present. Standard doping control procedures are based on detecting the banned drug in the body of the athlete, thus detection of this substance has been very difficult under the present doping control procedures.
While recognizing that they were not able to detect all use of rhEPO, FIS was now able to limit the extent of the cheating and also therefore the medical risk involved. These risks include intravascular thrombosis, which can lead to the potentially fatal complications of strokes, heart attacks and pulmonary emboli. In 1996 the first limits were set at 185 g/l in men and 165 g/l in women based on population norms plus 3 standard deviations. However, as of the season 2000/2001, the limits have been lowered to 175 g/l and 160 g/l for men and women, respectively.

.......

It must be emphasized that all relevant information from FIS and National sports federations about all aspects of doping -- i.e. medications and methods used to artificially increase performance -- should be given to the athletes and coaching staff by the team physician.

http://www.olympiatoppen.no/fagomraader/helse/fagstoff/hoeydemedisinfysiologi/page990.html

 

[dukoff]

I don't live with the illusion that ball sports are free from dope either. But it should raise some concerns, that the Norwegian success - within the Winter Olympic sports - have mainly come in endurance sports: Biathlon, X-country, Nordic Combination, Speed Skating and the endurance disciplines within Alpine skiing - Downhill and Super G.

And not only that, it started to take off in the beginning of the dirty 90s.

And you would feel like commenting the following graph?

(This is men's only)

 

[Discgear]

And you would feel like commenting the following graph?

(This is men's only)

Since you are including also Sweden I really don't see the point. For sure, back in the days when Europe was haunted by wars, we were fairly competitive in the peaceful north.

Sweden was quite succesful in the 3 Winter Olympics in the 1980s, with 6 golds in XC. (male)

In the 5 Winter Olympics from 1992-2002 Sweden collected the astonishing amount of 0 golds in XC (male)


If you wash out Sweden from that diagram with only male contestants, it will look quite differently from 1980.


On the other hand:

Norway wasn't very succesful in the 3 Winter Olympics in the 1980s with 0 golds in XC. (male)

In the 5 Winter Olympics from 1992-2002 Norway collected the astonishing amount of 16 golds in XC (male)


So I have to ask you once more, what was your point?

 

[Trond Vidar]

I don't live with the illusion that ball sports are free from dope either.

That was not my point. Sorry I was unclear. Can I dope up to beat MJ, given that I have the same height as him? Or would you say it is likely that there are others factors too?

 

[Trond Vidar]

All Norwegian top athletes are supported by Olympiatoppen. Their medical expert Ola Ronsen gives advice in a document called Hemoglobin tests , erythropoietin and doping (2010):

According to the evening news today, Ola Rønsen has been given the task of collecting all data from the nineties for the Norwegian Skiing Federation. It should be ready before the WC in Holmenkollen.

http://translate.google.no/translat...iforbundet-har-startet-innsamling-1.10935523

Should be interesting. NSF press handling on this issue has been really abysmal so far.

 

[Walkman]

These were very valuable data points. It certainly fits well into their claim of 1992 being the peak of this edge.

Here is a graph referencing this study:

I haven't bothered before, but now since there is factual evidence, even linking this to 1992, I will post a translation of Dæhlie talking about the stone grinding:

Note that he does not claim that stone grinding was new, neither that it was not used successfully in xc. He says they were the first to discover structures that worked outside the limited conditions already known.


http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/artikkel.php?artid=502908

Just mark that Dæhlie's comment of running past Mogren is interestingly enough of the exact same race as the study of glide-speed.

Would you recognize Mogren as superior to the norwegians since he managed to win the 50KM in both 1991 and 1993. I mean, 30 seconds in 10K is 2,5 min in 50K and yet Mogren won!

 

[Discgear]

That was not my point. Sorry I was unclear. Can I dope up to beat MJ, given that I have the same height as him? Or would you say it is likely that there are others factors too?

Professional basketball is a dirty game, and there's probably quite a few players who got their fair share of growth hormone. But of course talent is the base in all sports. No, I'm sorry but I don't think you could dope to become a MJ and no, I don't think I could have doped to become a Dählie with my limited talent. But as I said earlier, it should raise some concerns, that the Norwegian success from the 90s - within the Winter Olympic sports - have mainly come in endurance sports: Biathlon, X-country, Nordic Combination, Speed Skating and the endurance disciplines within Alpine skiing - Downhill and Super G, since we now know the impact of EPO.

According to the evening news today, Ola Rønsen has been given the task of collecting all data from the nineties for the Norwegian Skiing Federation. It should be ready before the WC in Holmenkollen.

http://translate.google.no/translat...iforbundet-har-startet-innsamling-1.10935523

Should be interesting. NSF press handling on this issue has been really abysmal so far.

Interesting indeed, since XC boss Vidar Lofshus earlier stated that they will not go public: Vi har kontroll på blodverdiene til løperne, men har ingen liste vi er interessert i å offentliggjøre. Det er ikke en sak for allmennheten.

Transl: We do have control on the blood values of our skiers, but we have no intention to go public. This is not anything for the general public.
http://www.nettavisen.no/sport/vinter/article3580860.ece

So they changed their mind about going public with the current team, but will release the 90s skiers.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't live with the illusion that ball sports are free from dope either. But it should raise some concerns, that the Norwegian success - within the Winter Olympic sports - have mainly come in endurance sports: Biathlon, X-country, Nordic Combination, Speed Skating and the endurance disciplines within Alpine skiing - Downhill and Super G.

That's a bit daft, on the basis that it should not be surprising that Norwegians have the most success in the sports that are most popular in Norway. Luge or Bobsleigh aren't popular in Norway, so why would they be successful at that in the Olympics? It's like noting that the Americans pick up a lot of gold medals in basketball or baseball, or that Mongolia's best performances are in wrestling.

Undoubtedly there has been plenty of doping in Norway's cross-country skiing history. But just because they're successful at the endurance events doesn't mean that it must be dope. The different forms of skiing aren't called "Nordic" and "Alpine" just for the hell of it.

 

[python]

According to the evening news today, Ola Rønsen has been given the task of collecting all data from the nineties for the Norwegian Skiing Federation. It should be ready before the WC in Holmenkollen.

http://translate.google.no/translat...iforbundet-har-startet-innsamling-1.10935523

Should be interesting. NSF press handling on this issue has been really abysmal so far.

it is an interesting news and perhaps is a small step in the right direction... BUT
, read Rønsen in its original (as quoted) or translate it to any of the other 4 nordic languages - it reads the same between the lines - he left too many 'buts' and preconditions to expect anything but another white wash. I will however be curious to see the data, particularly b/c he promised to go beyond the 90's.

 

[Tubeless]

The discovery was made December 89, which is the 1990-season, and the first world championship was the following year, in 1991-season. The developments would obviously continue for years. But it was completely secret until 1992. After that it would be first a sharper, then a gradual diminishing edge as other caught up. But the advantage of being 2 years ahead in development would obviously not disappear overnight. It's not like they gave away all the structures they had developed to other nations. So there is no contradiction in any of this.

The importance for this discussion is not only that it's Dæhlie who has the best glide. Also significant is the magnitude of this differences between the skiers. As the text puts it:


The numbers shows clearly how an advantage of 4% could exist even between the top 2 finishers. It proves to be a factor which in magnitude seriously diminishes the value of a doping advantage compared to the expertise of ski preparation.

It also shows how racers which fall below the mean trend overperforms compared to their glide, and those above the mean underperforms.

Using a single speed test to imply that ski grinding / waxing could make a 4% difference consistently in all types of snow conditions through multiple years of racing is .... a ridiculous argument to try to explain away the steady, "always on" benefits from taking EPO.

Skis can make a difference, but it's typically a case where bad skis ruin a good race - rather that good skis give you the victory. Even a 1% difference is skis is considered significant by the ski service teams.

I've heard that ski grinding story from multiple sources - and only the Norwegians consistently claim it was a big deal. It is interesting how the timing fits perfectly with the onset of early use of EPO (which was introduced in the late 1980's).

 

[dukoff]

Using a single speed test to imply that ski grinding / waxing could make a 4% difference consistently in all types of snow conditions through multiple years of racing is .... a ridiculous argument to try to explain away the steady, "always on" benefits from taking EPO.

Skis can make a difference, but it's typically a case where bad skis ruin a good race - rather that good skis give you the victory. Even a 1% difference is skis is considered significant by the ski service teams.

I've heard that ski grinding story from multiple sources - and only the Norwegians consistently claim it was a big deal. It is interesting how the timing fits perfectly with the onset of early use of EPO (which was introduced in the late 1980's).

You're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth. I'm talking about 1992 here, and for this race it shows exactly what I say, that can not be denied.
We dominated 1992 Olympics, but these neutral data shows a rediculous advantage. So it clearly explains this gold medal. And just the magnitude of the advantage is such that it's hard to claim this would not indicate a likely advantage, of some magnitude, held also during the other races.

 

[dukoff]

Would you recognize Mogren as superior to the norwegians since he managed to win the 50KM in both 1991 and 1993. I mean, 30 seconds in 10K is 2,5 min in 50K and yet Mogren won!

I can't really say that as I don't know the details around these races. But as always it's not much value in just looking at single xc races. Skis makes such a huge difference so you never know any particular outcome. But his history of performances are not really all up there, I think we can say. And in 1993 Mogren was surely also on stoneground skis.

 

[Tubeless]

You're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth. I'm talking about 1992 here, and for this race it shows exactly what I say, that can not be denied.
We dominated 1992 Olympics, but these neutral data shows a rediculous advantage. So it clearly explains this gold medal. And just the magnitude of the advantage is such that it's hard to claim this would not indicate a likely advantage, of some magnitude, held also during the other races.

Ok, on that specific test, you're claiming it was due to superior skis (flex, grind, wax) and not due to some other factors? How can you eliminate the following to narrow it down to just skis:

1. Downhill technique. Perhaps Dahlie was just superior in his downhill position, more even on his skis, and more aerodynamic than others?

2. Skating while going downhill. This was a freestyle race. There are few downhills where skiers don't skate the corners or try to increase the speed also while going down. So due to superior energy (perhaps due to great blood values), Dahlie simply worked harder in that downhill section than his competitors?

What percentages would you allocate to these two possible interference factors for your conclusion that Dahlie's skis were 4% faster?

Terminal speed at the end of a downhill is hardly a proof of anything. There's also a Finnish stydy (referred to in Rusko's book) from Lahti 1988 that proved top skiers beat the mid-fielders in every section of the course. That study did not suggest the reason was superior ski grinding.

 

[blueskies]

This is just ridiculously conspiratorical.

I realize now that there is zero point in "discussing" this as the accusing party is so conspiratorically minded that whatever argument or piece of evidence that doesn't fit into their world view, just changes the aspects of the conspiracy or who were involved.

For the rest of us who were not actually part of the elite skiing team, we realize that there's a possibility that doping has occured in some shape, but there is little to none evidence of it occuring other than the fact that we were able to win in the 90s. However, just how much norwegians won is often exaggerated and the results in the world cup, especially by Dæhlie were better than in the championships.

On the other hand, there are several pieces of evidence or arguments that go against the conspiracy theory of team wide doping in norwegian XC skiing as well as all other winter sports, where Olympiatoppen is singled out as the doping HQ (those poor cyclists obviously didn't get to join the party, and Steffen Kjærgaard had to go to USP to get on the juice). For those of us who know the individuals behind things like Olympiatoppen etc, this is just ridiculous and any serious attempt at discrediting the theory is like banging a head into a wall of ignorance and stupidity. However, that doesn't change the fact, that it's a serious possibility that individuals and small rings within the organized elite may have doped. Just to make that clear; it's a possibility, but it's a claim that shouldn't be made without sufficient evidence.

- (Edited because of initial inaccuracy): During the 2002 olympics, the norwegian medical staff applied pressure for FIS to test for NESP because of rumours in the waxing camp that some racers from russia, belarus and Mühlegg was using this, even though FIS thought it was impossible for the racers to make use of the drug at that stage. This wasn't a PR stunt or anything like that, it was because they, a long with sweden and others, really wanted to get dopers caught. The theory is that there's been an Omerta also in XC skiing. That one team went after another doesn't go along with that theory at all. If there was team wide doping in norwegian XC skiing, getting any other team caught would be horrible, as Armstrong would surely agree on.

(Sitat Svein Tore Samdal:
– Vi var helt sikre på at enkelte var dopet. Vi maste på det internasjonale skiforbundet i OL i 2002. Vi var sikre på at russerne var dopet. Det begynte å gå rykter fra skiskytterleiren om at russiske og hviterussiske smørere hadde fortalt nordmennene om et nytt middel de holdt på med. De kalte det NESP. Det var ikke i testregimet til skiforbundet eller skiskytterforbundet. Vi ba FIS om å teste for det, men de trodde ikke at det gikk an å bruke. Det ble testet på siste dag av mesterskapet, og da ble Müelegg, Lazutina og Danilova tatt. Det var på grunn av maset til helseteamet til Norge, sier Samdal.
Source/Kilde: http://www.tv2.no/sport/vintersport/langrenn/samdal-hoeye-blodverdier-er-ikke-doping-3994660.html)

- If the theory that a clean racer will never be able to beat several doped racers is true, you're also saying that Per Elofsson (Lahti 2001) and Torgny Mogren were doping. More claims that lack any kind of evidence.

- Many of the known dopers came from countries that traditionally didn't dominate the sport, such as Smirnov from Kazakhstan and the italians and austrians, while a traditionally strong nation such as Finland has seen very few good performances after their doping scandal.
- Is it not possible that many of the doped racers would never be competitive if it wasn't for the doping? If that's the case, it's meaningless to use the argument that one has to do EPO to win. In a sport where both efficiency and equipment preparation is extremely important, it's not inconceivable that the team that had most recruits, bigger traditions and spent most money on the sport, were able to beat doped up italians and kazakhs, with who knows what kinds of talent.

If, as the theory suggests, norway gained success because of doping, why hasn't that success diminshed today? The answer is obviously, that norway is still doping, and taking well more than half of the golden medals in XC and biathlon means that we're doping more than ever. This is another part of the conspiracy theory that lacks evidence and that needs to be backed by evidence to be deemed plausible by people that are not conspiracy nuts.

Here's the thing, Norway was the more successful skiing nation in the 90s. The italians, finns and austrians are now gone, and they are really gone. The swedes are still here, and they are along with Russia the nation with the most consistent results after Norway. The theory of doping in norwegian XC during the 90s emerges because people don't believe in any explanation of success during that period that doesn't involve doping, and I suspect that the lack of swedish success in the years between Mogren and Elofsson is an important explanation for this. If Mogren and Elofsson, who both won in highly doping infested periods, had peaked at the same time as Dæhlie and Alsgaard, the competition between the four of them would have been immense. In reality, Sweden didn't have any top, top athletes in this period, doped or not..Still Niklas Jonsson came within seconds of Dæhlie on the 50k in Nagano.

If Norway/Sweden together had been able to compete and win during the 90s against the italians and Smirnov and some of the russians and the others, and not only norway, then it would have been much more plausible to argue that the traditional skiing nations could compete with dopers, if not dominate them, but seeing as norway stood out, it's instead claimed that norway must have doped the most. Well.. it's not lack of doping that stopped Sweden from joining the party in the mid 90s, it's distribution of talent with regards to time.

As is so well established both in cycling, XC and a number of other sports, huge doping programs leave traces.., and programs like these in norway AND sweden, which the theory is entirely dependant of, wouldn't have happened without something substantial coming out, sooner or later. I hope you can agree that in ten years time, someone must surely have talked, right? Or are scandinavians so much better at applying industrial doping than other nations?

 

[Tubeless]

This is just ridiculously conspiratorical.

I realize now that there is zero point in "discussing" this as the accusing party is so conspiratorically minded that whatever argument or piece of evidence that doesn't fit into their world view, just changes the aspects of the conspiracy or who were involved.

For the rest of us who were not actually part of the elite skiing team, we realize that there's a possibility that doping has occured in some shape, but there is little to none evidence of it occuring other than the fact that we were able to win in the 90s. However, just how much norwegians won, is often exaggerated and the results in the world cup, especially by Dæhlie were even better than in the championships.

On the other hand, there are several pieces of evidence or arguments that go against the conspiracy theory of team wide doping in norwegian XC skiing as well as all other winter sports, where Olympiatoppen is singled out as the doping HQ (those poor cyclists obviously didn't get to join the party, and Steffen Kjærgaard had to go to USP to get on the juice). For those of us who know the individuals behind things like Olympiatoppen etc, this is just ridiculous and any serious attempt at discrediting the theory is like banging a head into a wall of ignorance and stupidity. However, that doesn't change the fact, that it's a serious possibility that individuals and small rings within the organized elite may have doped. Just to make that clear; it's a possibility, but it's a claim that shouldn't be made without sufficient evidence.

- One of the reasons that Kyrö hate norwegian cross country skiing so much, is that the norwegian team pushed forward for FIS/WADA to apply an extended test already in Lahti 2001, which eventually got the finnish team caught. This wasn't a PR stunt or anything like that, it was because they, a long with sweden and others, really wanted to get dopers caught. The theory is that there has been an Omerta also in XC skiing. That one team went after another doesn't go along well with that theory at all. If there was team wide doping in norwegian XC skiing, getting the finnish team caught or any other team would be horrible, as Armstrong would surely agree on.

- If the theory that a clean racer will never be able to beat several doped racers is true, you're also saying that Per Elofsson (Lahti 2001) and Torgny Mogren were doping. More claims that lack any kind of evidence.

- Many of the known dopers came from countries that traditionally didn't dominate the sport, such as Smirnov from Kazakhstan and some of the italians. Others among the known dopers, the finns, have seen very few good performances after their doping scandal. Same is true for Austria.
- Is it not possible that many of the doped racers would never be competitive if it wasn't for the doping? If that's the case, it's meaningless to use the argument that one has to do EPO to win. In a sport where both efficiency and equipment preparation is extremely important, it's not inconceivable that the team that had most recruits, bigger traditions and spent most money on the sport, were able to beat doped up italians and kazakhs, with who knows what kinds of talent?

If, as the theory suggests, norway gained success because of doping, why hasn't that success diminshed today? The answer is obviously, that norway is still doping, and taking well more than half of the golden medals in XC and biathlon means that we're doping more than ever. This is another part of the conspiracy theory that lacks evidence and that needs to be backed by evidence to be deemed plausible by people that are not conspiracy nuts.

Here's the thing, Norway was the more successful skiing nation in the 90s. The italians, finns and austrians are now gone, and they are really gone. The swedes are still here, and they are along with Russia the nation with the most consistent results after Norway. The theory of doping in norwegian XC during the 90s theory emerges because people don't believe in any explanation of success in that period that doesn't involve doping, and I suspect that the lack of swedish success in the years between Mogren and Elofsson is an important explanation for this. If Mogren and Elofsson, who both won in highly doping infested periods, had peaked at the same time as Dæhlie and Alsgaard, the competition between the four of them would have been immense. In reality, Sweden didn't have any top, top athletes in this period, doped or not..Still Niklas Jonsson came within seconds of Dæhlie on the 50k in Nagano.

If Norway/Sweden together had been able to compete and win during the 90s against the italians and Smirnov and some of the russians and the others, and not only norway, then it would have been much more plausible to argue that the traditional skiing nations could compete with dopers, if not dominate them, but seeing as norway stood out, it's instead claimed that norway must have doped the most. Well.. it's not lack of doping that stopped Sweden from joining the party in the mid 90s, it's distribution of talent with regards to time.

As is so well established both in cycling, XC and a number of other sports. Huge doping programs leave traces.., and programs like these in norway AND sweden, which the theory is entirely dependant of, wouldn't have happened without something substantial coming out, sooner or later. I hope you can agree that in ten years time, someone must surely have talked, right? Or are scandinavians so much better at applying industrial doping than in other nations?

We are indeed starting to go in circles. The arguments both ways are circumstantial and we will not resolve them here. But it's important that the claims and counter-claims are clear.

The main lesson we can learn from cycling is that during the wild 1990's and beyond (until the biological passport was implemented), it was simply not possible to be competitive without doping. I've yet to hear any rational arguments why cross-country skiing would be any different.

Doping has always been part of the sport, but EPO and HgH truly changed how easy it was to do the doping. No need for team doctors, or the complicated storing and transporting of blood. Injections could be self-administered. Secrecy was improved. There was no chance to get caught as there was no test for either EPO or HgH for a long while. An invitation to dope. Only the dumb would have not joined the party.

The EPO test did not stop doping, just made it more difficult again for individuals to do it on their own. The 4-year stretch when Germany dominated men's world cup (from 2004 to 2007) was most likely aided by a sophisticated team blood doping program via Humanplasma - continuous blood transfusions to keep up an elevated blood volume at all times. Smigun, Mae and Veerpalu had their own autologous blood transfusion program in Estonia through 2010 - aided by HgH. Austria's 2006 scandal in Torino is well documented. Some are no doubt continuing to micro-dose EPO and HgH, but with limited effect - Russians certainly look suspect.

The small FIS anti-doping budget is not helping catch anyone whose own national anti-doping organization is not actively trying to keep the sport clean. Think Putin will instruct the Russia's Anti-Doping organization to air publicly anyone caught doping? I am afraid Russia is not the only nation where the national anti-doping organization's main function is to prevent a scandal that will taint the reputation of the country.

 

[dukoff]

Ok, on that specific test, you're claiming it was due to superior skis (flex, grind, wax) and not due to some other factors? How can you eliminate the following to narrow it down to just skis:

1. Downhill technique. Perhaps Dahlie was just superior in his downhill position, more even on his skis, and more aerodynamic than others?

2. Skating while going downhill. This was a freestyle race. There are few downhills where skiers don't skate the corners or try to increase the speed also while going down. So due to superior energy (perhaps due to great blood values), Dahlie simply worked harder in that downhill section than his competitors?

What percentages would you allocate to these two possible interference factors for your conclusion that Dahlie's skis were 4% faster?

Terminal speed at the end of a downhill is hardly a proof of anything. There's also a Finnish stydy (referred to in Rusko's book) from Lahti 1988 that proved top skiers beat the mid-fielders in every section of the course. That study did not suggest the reason was superior ski grinding.

Tucking position/aerodynamics was considered:

Mass and ski frictional force were found to have the greatest potential influence on glide speed while air drag force differences due to tucking technique and initial speed at the top of the hill were less influential on glide at the bottom of the hill. Correlation analysis using each skier's characteristics, found skier mass to be unrelated to performance in this race. Thus snow drag force was by far the most influential factor determining downhill glide speed in this 50 km race.

Gregory & Street are expert researchers on sport kinematic energy analysis and movement patterns, so I think their conclusions should hold some merit. They did measure the initial speed on top of the hill and found it to be an unrelated factor to the bottom speed. If it was true the difference was due to a doped runner pushing 4% more than everyone, he would also be seen distinguishable by speed at the top of the hill, which did not occur.

In 1988 of course we would not see this huge difference, the Norwegians didn't have this grinding advantage at that time.

Of course I concur one shall be a bit careful not just to grab out such a number of 4% for any purpose. For example in classic the glide would perhaps easily have only half the significance as in free technique. And even in free, the friction will not be as significant going uphill.

So if I was to do a calculation, I would be conservative, and perhaps give this a 2% advantage in free and 1% in classic.

Again, I would apply such advantage for 1992 only.