Doping in XC skiing

[JMBeaushrimp]

That's the whole point. The clean skiers have to be really good and have the equipment just right to be able to beat dopers specifically peaking for big events with hematocrits in the mid 50's.

on an unrelated note, how was it possible that the women part of the USSR/Russia teams was so much better than their male counterparts

The international talent pool in womens' sport (pick any sport) is much more shallow than the mens'.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

But things had started to change in that time frame (2001-2002) cutting into the advantage of the dopers. Hb limits were introduced. EPO test was around. The Finns were caught positive for plasma expander - not EPO - and it's possible the Finns had used the less effective autologous blood transfusion, vs. EPO for fear of testing positive. Plasma expanders were banned in 2001 - but the Finns believed incorrectly that FIS would not be testing for them.

No, they have admitted EPO use. Now, if you stop ignoring my recommendation that you read the FIS-study, you'll find that the conclusion is that EPO was the more common method of blood boosting back then.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

One thing that is never discussed in these types of discussions is what someone could have achieved without doping.

So let's say EPO gives a 5% boost but a 5% boost from what? It's almost like it's assumed that everyone would be at the same level if it wasn't for doping. That's an assumption that I simply don't buy.

I don't know who cheated and who was clean in 92 or 94 for example (except the cases that are known). But assuming that everyone that beats or is equal to known dopers are also doping is a logical fallacy. I don't think it's possible to draw that type of conclusion just based on who beat who in a specific race.

One that we can look at however is how the italians resuts varied with their documented increase in crit values. All four italians went from being well outside the top 10 or even top 20 during december 92 to having almost exclusively top 10 results in january and february.

If we instead look at the other top riders Dählie, Ulvang and Smirnov who many people think were clean we see that they were all good all season long. If anything their results were perhaps even better in the beginning of the season than during january and february.

But what does that mean? Were the italians simply doping for the world championships while the others were doping all season long? Or was it simply that they were merely top 30 riders who had to dope to be as good as the top of the sport?

I'm not saying I know the answer but I think it demonstrates that the notion that to beat a doper you have to dope is not as certain as some people might think.

What is the basis for saying EPO gives a 5% boost in sustainable speed in XC skiing? Are their any studies to back this up? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering.

 

[BullsFan22]

What is the basis for saying EPO gives a 5% boost in sustainable speed in XC skiing? Are their any studies to back this up? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering.

It's just a scando trying to defend other scandos, which is fine. Russians defend other Russians, Italians and Spaniards (duh!!) defend their countrymen and women, so too...just about everyone else. I am hoping there was at least some clean skiers that performed well despite people around them being doped, but who knows. I am willing to think that right now and even before, the Swedes might, and I say 'might,' because I am not 100%, might be clean because they always, and I mean ALWAYS ski technically better as a team than any other nation, Norway, Russia, Finland, etc included. Generation after generation, they just keep producing excellent skiers, technically speaking, and the last couple of years have really nailed their waxing and other ski preparation. I think Italians, Russians, Finns, Norwegians have all sort of taken a backseat the last few years to the Swedes who have developed distance and sprint racers. It's actually quite alarming how much Italy has regressed (apart from one or two skiers) in recent years. Ok, they might not have the talent pool they once had, but the EPO era has certainly a thing to do with it, likewise with the Finns and to some extent the Russians, but they will always be there because they arguably have the biggest talent pool, simply because there are so many of them and they push each other to the limit over there, it's the only thing they can do.
I hope I made sense. Sorry if I didn't!

 

[ingsve]

What is the basis for saying EPO gives a 5% boost in sustainable speed in XC skiing? Are their any studies to back this up? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering.

I have no idea. I was just using the number that people were throwing around as a hypothetical number. The actual number isn't what's important, my point was that since we don't know the atheletes natural ability we also can't say anything about the boosted ability in comparison to others.

 

[Tubeless]

No, they have admitted EPO use. Now, if you stop ignoring my recommendation that you read the FIS-study, you'll find that the conclusion is that EPO was the more common method of blood boosting back then.

The only admission was by Myllyla that he used EPO during his career, and he wasn't specific when and how often. The skiers and team management has insisted, consistently, that all they took was Hemohes in Lahti 2001 - a plasma expander. No one believes this is all they took, but there has been no admission to anything else.

The ongoing court case is focused on events that pre-date the 1998 news story by STT, the Finnish news agency so it's unlikely any new details will come up about the Lahti doping scandal of 2001.

 

[ingsve]

Well, the germans stepped up in 02-03 and if you look at fig. 1 in the FIS-study presented in the TS, you'll find that 02-03, 03-04 and 04-05 are clearly the cleanest years from the 90's to 2007. Mean retics were 1.1% and mean Hb was below 15.0 g/dl in two of those years. So dominating (which is a bit of a stretch imo) in that period of time isn't THAT fishy. Certainly not like dominating in the 90's.

As for 05-06 and 06-07, they were clearly fine years for transfusions, as evident by Hb jumping and retics dropping, but it should be noted that the germans as a team declined significantly post 04-05. In fact, they went from having 3 guys in the top 5 to having just one in the top 17 in 05-06 and 1 in the top 13 in 06-07. For comparision, Sweden had 4 top 10'ers in -06 while Norway had 3 in -06 and 6(!) in -07.

The one german top guy was world cup winner Tobias Angerer, who was blacklisted by FIS if you believe the rumours... But one guy at the top doesn't really imply a team-wide program. Certainly not with some novel drug only they had access to. On the other hand, they were suspiciously succesful at the 2007 worlds, but that is probably a better indication of good, old autologous blood doping if anything...



Okay, this is something I find difficult to believe, both because I've never heard about any drug like that - not even in cycling - and for reasons I've already explained. Did they all grow a moral compass after -05, except for Angerer, or did everyone else start using this super-secret drug that has somehow remained unknown?



I really don't see the connection to doping here. I believe all teams do high-intensity workouts and I know the swedes certainly do a quite a bit of it. The germans do a lot of distance training in the summer.



Well, thats interesting, but don't you find it strange then that no study has managed to show that HGH improves aerobic capacity?
Nevertheless, HGH is probably the easiest drug to aquire, use and get away with so I'm guessing most of the dopers are on it.

Comparing the germans in 2004 and in 06 and 07 is a bit misleading. You have obviously looked at the overall world cup but there were some rather significant changes to the world cup between those years. In the later years there were relatively more sprint races than distance races in the overall world cup so the later years will have more riders in the top 10 who were doing good in sprints. The germans were mainly strong in distance races and if you only look at the distance cup the drop isn't as dramatic. Also in the distance races there has been more and more mass starts which are a lot closer since there is a lot of drafting. This means stronger riders won't get full effect of their strength since it's easier for weaker riders to just follow and then sprint for places. Overall I think the main germans have been about as strong during most of those years with mainly age and other natural factors etc being significant in the variations in those years.

 

[RdBiker]

The only admission was by Myllyla that he used EPO during his career, and he wasn't specific when and how often. The skiers and team management has insisted, consistently, that all they took was Hemohes in Lahti 2001 - a plasma expander. No one believes this is all they took, but there has been no admission to anything else.

The ongoing court case is focused on events that pre-date the 1998 news story by STT, the Finnish news agency so it's unlikely any new details will come up about the Lahti doping scandal of 2001.

Actually Kari-Pekka Kyrö was asked if "Finnish skiers used Hemohes to hide EPO use in Lahti 2001" and he answered "correct". Other than that he refused to comment since the court case is ongoing and he isn't allowed to talk about things related to it. I think some new info might surface since Kyrö is one of the (major) testifiers and worked in 1998-2001. He has hopefully detailed the doping use in the team during those years so I'm waiting for the case to open and the info to be released.

BUT other than that there obviously have been no other confessions on EPO use in Lahti 2001. But I think it's safe to assume the whole Finnish national team (= top3-5) were on EPO from at least 1994. That's when Myllylä won his first medals but it might be earlier. IF we believe Kyrö then the Norwegians were on EPO a few years before that so they would've started pre1992. And oh, Daehlie started winning in 1991.

 

[RdBiker]

I have no idea. I was just using the number that people were throwing around as a hypothetical number. The actual number isn't what's important, my point was that since we don't know the atheletes natural ability we also can't say anything about the boosted ability in comparison to others.

A study done on young men showed that EPO use increased power output at VO2max by up to 16% and up to 50% at lower workloads. I'll dig up the article when I can find it again.

I don't know how that translates to performance increases for top level athletes but I guess the increase in performance can be more than 5%. If we add blood doping to that (which some here say has it's own benefit even with EPO use) we might get an even bigger performance gap between a clean and a doped athlete.
What if Daehlie's body responded well to EPO and he got a 10% boost from it?

 

[MustIski]

Back to those V02 max figures. It is reported that Harri Kirvesniemi's training season VO2max in 1998 was 89 ml/kg/min. How possible it is that someone in his forties could have that high number without doping? Doesn't vo2max drop when one becomes older? Can anyone estimate how much could Kirvesniemi's vo2max been when he was for example 30 years old?

Kyrö has said quite a lot about doping in finnish team. One revelation was that before 1998 only mens team had a doping program. Kyrö became head coach in summer 1998 and before that he was trainer of womens team and earlier youth team. According to him women and youth skiers were not doped. So in nineties doping wasn't as widespread among female skiers as it was with men. Kuitunen and Jauho were doped in Lahti 2001 and most likely Kaisa Varis also. Kyrö hasn't (yet) revealed when doping with female skiers started. So it seems that 1980s and early 1990s finnish female skiers where doped but it stopped. The reason most likely was a generation change. Old stars (Matikainen, Rolig, Hämäläinen/Kirvesniemi) ended their careers and the new generation wasn't good enough to challenge the world's elite. Doping started again when more talented young skiers came through the ranks. I emphasize that this is just my theory.

I would like to ask the experts what do they think about drug named Actovegin? A russian skier Nikolai Pankratov was caught with this substance when crossing the border to Switzerland. Officials are now investigating the case.

FIS is planning to test plasticizers:
http://translate.google.com/transla...o-fis-plant-doping-tests-auf-weichmacher.html

 

[sadfitty]

It's just a scando trying to defend other scandos, which is fine. Russians defend other Russians, Italians and Spaniards (duh!!) defend their countrymen and women, so too...just about everyone else. I am hoping there was at least some clean skiers that performed well despite people around them being doped, but who knows. I am willing to think that right now and even before, the Swedes might, and I say 'might,' because I am not 100%, might be clean because they always, and I mean ALWAYS ski technically better as a team than any other nation, Norway, Russia, Finland, etc included. Generation after generation, they just keep producing excellent skiers, technically speaking, and the last couple of years have really nailed their waxing and other ski preparation. I think Italians, Russians, Finns, Norwegians have all sort of taken a backseat the last few years to the Swedes who have developed distance and sprint racers. It's actually quite alarming how much Italy has regressed (apart from one or two skiers) in recent years. Ok, they might not have the talent pool they once had, but the EPO era has certainly a thing to do with it, likewise with the Finns and to some extent the Russians, but they will always be there because they arguably have the biggest talent pool, simply because there are so many of them and they push each other to the limit over there, it's the only thing they can do.
I hope I made sense. Sorry if I didn't!

Yes, the Norwegians have taken the backseat, only winning 5 golds in Vancouver. The superior Swedes on the other hand took home a staggering 3 golds.

 

[ingsve]

Yes, the Norwegians have taken the backseat, only winning 5 golds in Vancouver. The superior Swedes on the other hand took home a staggering 3 golds.

Well, you can't just look at the results like that. It doesn't give a fair picture of how things actually are. Right now I would say that Sweden has a slight upper hand on Norway in a lot of aspects. Norway have two major advantages. First of all they have much greater numbers of skiers which means there will always be someone who is very talented. Sweden on the other hand has fewer riders coming up but the ones that do still perform at a very high level so in that respect the swedes are better at developing the talents that they do have. Whatever they are doing they are doing it right.

The other thing that Norway has is Petter Northug who is a unique rider. However he is very alone at the top. In traditional distance races Norway is far from where they once were and the only reason they are still as present in the results is because of the number of mass starts.

On th womens side it's more even. Norway still has the advantage of greater numbers but they also have a few more excellent talents than on the mens side. Sweden does very well with all the riders that they have inspite of having fewer to chose from. So again they seem to be better at what they are doing to get those results with worse starting conditions.

 

[RdBiker]

Back to those V02 max figures. It is reported that Harri Kirvesniemi's training season VO2max in 1998 was 89 ml/kg/min. How possible it is that someone in his forties could have that high number without doping? Doesn't vo2max drop when one becomes older? Can anyone estimate how much could Kirvesniemi's vo2max been when he was for example 30 years old?

Short googling found this article:
http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/VO2max.html
- "The average rate of decline is generally accepted to be about 1% per year or 10% per decade after the age of 25."
- "However in comparison, master athletes who continue to keep fit only show a decrease of 5-6% per decade or 0.5-0.6% per year"

In 1998 Kirvesniemi was 40 so that would make that at 30 he was at ~94ml/kg/min
When looking at Kirvesniemi's medals it seems that blood doping worked better for him than EPO and/or age started to catch up with him since his medals are from the 80s. His placings began dropping in the 90s.

Kyrö has said quite a lot about doping in finnish team. One revelation was that before 1998 only mens team had a doping program. Kyrö became head coach in summer 1998 and before that he was trainer of womens team and earlier youth team. According to him women and youth skiers were not doped. So in nineties doping wasn't as widespread among female skiers as it was with men. Kuitunen and Jauho were doped in Lahti 2001 and most likely Kaisa Varis also. Kyrö hasn't (yet) revealed when doping with female skiers started. So it seems that 1980s and early 1990s finnish female skiers where doped but it stopped. The reason most likely was a generation change. Old stars (Matikainen, Rolig, Hämäläinen/Kirvesniemi) ended their careers and the new generation wasn't good enough to challenge the world's elite. Doping started again when more talented young skiers came through the ranks. I emphasize that this is just my theory.

These comments from Kyrö tell a lot:

- "We understood then that you're not gonna get a chance with these clean methods."
- "In that world you then try to coach these Kati Pulkkinens...it's total BS. They could've been as talented as the star skiers back then but they still were minutes behind"

He could be just covering his back by saying they didn't use EPO when he was coaching them but the results show pretty clearly that they couldn't be on anything good

http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhgPSWDl0dzYcD1H8cbq5TqzlbAcCg

 

[Tubeless]

Short googling found this article:
http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/VO2max.html
- "The average rate of decline is generally accepted to be about 1% per year or 10% per decade after the age of 25."
- "However in comparison, master athletes who continue to keep fit only show a decrease of 5-6% per decade or 0.5-0.6% per year"

In 1998 Kirvesniemi was 40 so that would make that at 30 he was at ~94ml/kg/min
When looking at Kirvesniemi's medals it seems that blood doping worked better for him than EPO and/or age started to catch up with him since his medals are from the 80s. His placings began dropping in the 90s.

Kirvesniemi was a classic specialist - he never got comfortable with the skating technique. This limited his success in the 1990's, though he remained remarkably consistent in classic races throughout his career.

Looking back at the results from early 1990's, it seems the Finns were late to discover the power of EPO and probably continued to use autologous blood doping most likely until the 1994 Lillehammer Olympics.

Anecdotal evidence: Finns did well in the early races at the 1992 Albertville Olympics but their performance dropped markedly towards the end - a typical pattern for getting blood transfused a day before the first race. EPO-dopers would have been resupplying in between races and kept their speed through the last races - 50km for men and 30km for women. Finns were far off the pace by then.

Which countries were at the top consistently? Norway (though curiously only Dahlie & Ulvang), Soviet Union and Italy, plus Muehlegg. Bjorn Dahlie's winning margin on 50km over the 3rd place guy was over 3 minutes. Best Finn (Isometsa) was more than 8 minutes behind.

http://www.fis-ski.com/uk/604/1228.html?event_id=4366&cal_suchsector=CC

The Albertville games would have acted as a wake-up call for many who had not yet discoverd the power of EPO. At Lillehammer in 1994, it's pretty clear the rest of the Norwegian team picked up the EPO knowledge from Dahlie & Ulvang, the Finns switched from blood transfusions to EPO and several other teams had learned how to keep up their "special" conditioning throughout the games.

http://www.fis-ski.com/uk/604/1228.html?event_id=4451&cal_suchsector=CC

 

[RdBiker]

Kirvesniemi was a classic specialist - he never got comfortable with the skating technique. This limited his success in the 1990's, though he remained remarkably consistent in classic races throughout his career.

Looking back at the results from early 1990's, it seems the Finns were late to discover the power of EPO and probably continued to use autologous blood doping most likely until the 1994 Lillehammer Olympics.

Anecdotal evidence: Finns did well in the early races at the 1992 Albertville Olympics but their performance dropped markedly towards the end - a typical pattern for getting blood transfused a day before the first race. EPO-dopers would have been resupplying in between races and kept their speed through the last races - 50km for men and 30km for women. Finns were far off the pace by then.

Which countries were at the top consistently? Norway (though curiously only Dahlie & Ulvang), Soviet Union and Italy, plus Muehlegg. Bjorn Dahlie's winning margin on 50km over the 3rd place guy was over 3 minutes. Best Finn (Isometsa) was more than 8 minutes behind.

http://www.fis-ski.com/uk/604/1228.html?event_id=4366&cal_suchsector=CC

The Albertville games would have acted as a wake-up call for many who had not yet discoverd the power of EPO. At Lillehammer in 1994, it's pretty clear the rest of the Norwegian team picked up the EPO knowledge from Dahlie & Ulvang, the Finns switched from blood transfusions to EPO and several other teams had learned how to keep up their "special" conditioning throughout the games.

http://www.fis-ski.com/uk/604/1228.html?event_id=4451&cal_suchsector=CC

Interesting info. Thanks! We could probably make a time line for EPO use based on certain people dominating races in WCs and OGs. If one assumes that every top skier doped in some way or other:

- Gunde Svan - medals 1984-1991. 80s so he was probably just blood doping. Is there any info why he finished his career at 29 years of age? Others turned to EPO and he didn't want to?
- Bjorn Daehlie - medals 1991-1999. EPO. Got some back problems from a roller-ski crash or something like that so probably nothing to do with new PEDs
- Vladimir Smirnov - medals 1988-1995. Did the Soviets use EPO already in 1988? or did Smirnov just switch from blood doping to EPO on the fly? Did he have to have EPO in 1991 as to keep up with the Norwegians?
- Mika Myllylä - 1994-1999. He was only 24 in 1993 but even so his best finish in the WCs was 17th even though he finished 4th at a race in the early season. Admitted to EPO
- I glanced briefly and didn't notice too many Italians in 1991 but in 1993 they appeared to have many good placings, especially a 2. place in relay.

Norway - 1991
Soviet Union/Russia - 1991
Italy - 1993
Finland - 1994
Sweden - ?

Sweden's a little mystery here since the first very good placings come with Elofsson in 2001. Did it took them so long to adopt EPO? It's also possible that Elofsson didn't use EPO but when I think of that I vividly remember his duel with (and him dropping) EPO-Isometsä in Lahti

 

[Tubeless]

Interesting info. Thanks! We could probably make a time line for EPO use based on certain people dominating races in WCs and OGs. If one assumes that every top skier doped in some way or other:

- Gunde Svan - medals 1984-1991. 80s so he was probably just blood doping. Is there any info why he finished his career at 29 years of age? Others turned to EPO and he didn't want to?
- Bjorn Daehlie - medals 1991-1999. EPO. Got some back problems from a roller-ski crash or something like that so probably nothing to do with new PEDs
- Vladimir Smirnov - medals 1988-1995. Did the Soviets use EPO already in 1988? or did Smirnov just switch from blood doping to EPO on the fly? Did he have to have EPO in 1991 as to keep up with the Norwegians?
- Mika Myllylä - 1994-1999. He was only 24 in 1993 but even so his best finish in the WCs was 17th even though he finished 4th at a race in the early season. Admitted to EPO
- I glanced briefly and didn't notice too many Italians in 1991 but in 1993 they appeared to have many good placings, especially a 2. place in relay.

Norway - 1991
Soviet Union/Russia - 1991
Italy - 1993
Finland - 1994
Sweden - ?

Sweden's a little mystery here since the first very good placings come with Elofsson in 2001. Did it took them so long to adopt EPO? It's also possible that Elofsson didn't use EPO but when I think of that I vividly remember his duel with (and him dropping) EPO-Isometsä in Lahti

There are a few general trends to consider. First, when did teams switch from blood transfusions to EPO - and secondly when did they switch back when EPO testing came along in 2001-2002. Finally, the introduction of Hb limits in 1997 (18.5 g/l for men) and in 2001 (17.5 g/l for men) started to limit the advantage of the dopers. But back in the 1990's when there was no Hb limits, and no test for EPO, the only thing holding back success was the know-how and access to EPO.

Blood transfusions were common in the 1980's - but logisitically much more difficult to arrange than an easy EPO injection into the arm. It's also unlikely the skiers would have drawn multiple blood bags to reinfuse during the Olympics or World Championships - something that was required to do well at the cycling grand tours. Hence this is one trend you can use to gauge who was on EPO and who was not.

Races were still very close at the World Championships in 1989 in Lahti, and in 1991 in Val di Fiemme, suggesting no one was on EPO yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIS_Nordic_World_Ski_Championships_1989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIS_Nordic_World_Ski_Championships_1991

Compare these results to the Olympics in 1992 in Albertiville and results suddenly got grazy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-country_skiing_at_the_1992_Winter_Olympics

The Swedes were probably doing blood transfusions, along with most others during the 1980's - it wasn't even a banned method until 1985. But there's a reason to believe they stayed off EPO - and it's an interesting question as to why. One possibility is this - 7 Swedish orienteering racers died between 1987 and 1992, and it's widely believed they over-dosed on EPO.

http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001212

This could have scared off the Swedish athletes from EPO, even as other nations learned its power and how to adjust the dosages to safe(r) levels.

 

[sadfitty]

Well, you can't just look at the results like that. It doesn't give a fair picture of how things actually are. Right now I would say that Sweden has a slight upper hand on Norway in a lot of aspects. Norway have two major advantages. First of all they have much greater numbers of skiers which means there will always be someone who is very talented. Sweden on the other hand has fewer riders coming up but the ones that do still perform at a very high level so in that respect the swedes are better at developing the talents that they do have. Whatever they are doing they are doing it right.

The other thing that Norway has is Petter Northug who is a unique rider. However he is very alone at the top. In traditional distance races Norway is far from where they once were and the only reason they are still as present in the results is because of the number of mass starts.

On th womens side it's more even. Norway still has the advantage of greater numbers but they also have a few more excellent talents than on the mens side. Sweden does very well with all the riders that they have inspite of having fewer to chose from. So again they seem to be better at what they are doing to get those results with worse starting conditions.

Ok, how about this: Norway has been the best nation in the world cup every single year since 1996/1997. Sweden has been top 3 a total of 4 times during the same period.

BTW, doesn't having a greater number of skiers at a high level, including the greatest, mean that Norway is a better skiing nation Sweden?

 

[Trond Vidar]

I've been on runs and rollerskies with Bjørn Dæhlie when I was younger, on summer skicamps that he attended on. The man was in fantastic shape. I was a good junior at the time (early nineties), and used to beat i.e Jens Arne Svartedal (not many others made it to top senior level from my year).

Back to Dæhlie. Personally I think he was clean. There is something about that man that not many has. An insane will to win, talent and structure when it comes to training.

the web archive still has an article which I like: http://web.archive.org/web/19990209200527/http://www.krs.hia.no/~stephens/bjorn.htm

When the other skiers face a treadmill test, they generally pre-determine a value that they expect to achieve, something inhuman like 84 ml/min/kg. When and if they reach that improbably high value, they are FINISHED. Daehlie sets no such limits. "I have watched him during a test, when the going was getting really tough. He might plateau at 85 ml/min/kg for 2 or 3, 20 second readings (on a treadmill at a steep 10% slope). Everyone else stops at that point. Dæhlie keeps running, and amazingly, the values climb some more, to 86, 87, 88 ml/min/kg. When he is finally finished we have had to hit the emergency stop so we could collect him from the back end of the treadmill, where his shoulder was being rubbed raw by the belt sliding below his exhausted body." The Dæhlie difference is his absolute killer instinct. He never backs down. Whe you see Dæhlie fling his body across the finish line and collapse in a heap, that isn't theatrics. It is the only way he knows how to race. Combine that ability to maximally extend himself with his genetic gifts and years and years of training, then you have most of the ingredients for the most successful XC skier ever.

In order to not to sound like the typical Norwegian fanboy I am completely convinced that Johan Olav Koss was juiced.

 

[Cloxxki]

Good input!

Would athletes be told their VO2 readings WHILE running the test? That's like asking them to stop at any time.
I did some treadmill tests, unfortunately without oxygen measurement. I would hit my max heartrate, stay there for some time, as my body would run out of power. Same on the ergotrainer. For not a million Euro's could I have held on 5 seconds longer maintaining cadance. On the treadmill, 2 steps more up that incline would have been a crash.

 

[workingclasshero]

Good input!

Would athletes be told their VO2 readings WHILE running the test? That's like asking them to stop at any time.
I did some treadmill tests, unfortunately without oxygen measurement. I would hit my max heartrate, stay there for some time, as my body would run out of power. Same on the ergotrainer. For not a million Euro's could I have held on 5 seconds longer maintaining cadance. On the treadmill, 2 steps more up that incline would have been a crash.

they are usually told, yes, unless they specifically ask for it not to be done.

so the fella running the test will stand there shouting

"keep working, you're approaching 85! looking good. shall we increase the pace? [waiting for thumb up] OK, you want more speed. ok, we're up to a speed which is going to require you pushing 90ml! use your arms, remember to breath, remember to breath! still looking strong! can you do another minute? new o2 reading in 20 seconds. work work work! come on, now 91, keep on, can you go another 30, [test leader sees that the athlete's about to die], last 30 now, remember to breath, this is the final 100meters of the olympics, keep going son, you can do it, just 10 more"

this is how the dude who tested daehlie's 96 does it anyway

 

[Trond Vidar]

I am pretty sure the staff could read in realtime, but not tell the atlethes. I did the same test almost two decades ago and was not told anything during the run. My only communication form was thumb up or down when they indicated to steepen the incline and speed.

 

[BroDeal]

they are usually told, yes, unless they specifically ask for it not to be done.

so the fella running the test will stand there shouting

"keep working, you're approaching 85! looking good. shall we increase the pace? [waiting for thumb up] OK, you want more speed. ok, we're up to a speed which is going to require you pushing 90ml! use your arms, remember to breath, remember to breath! still looking strong! can you do another minute? new o2 reading in 20 seconds. work work work! come on, now 91, keep on, can you go another 30, [test leader sees that the athlete's about to die], last 30 now, remember to breath, this is the final 100meters of the olympics, keep going son, you can do it, just 10 more"

this is how the dude who tested daehlie's 96 does it anyway

Sounds like an iffy way to test to me. It makes me wonder how comprable the results would be to testing that was not done with that kind of encouragement and feedback about the numbers. It is like a game played by people trying to set a record.

 

[ingsve]

Ok, how about this: Norway has been the best nation in the world cup every single year since 1996/1997. Sweden has been top 3 a total of 4 times during the same period.

BTW, doesn't having a greater number of skiers at a high level, including the greatest, mean that Norway is a better skiing nation Sweden?

The question isn't which nation that has the best results but rather what nation are more skilled at running a national team and coaching skiers. Norway will almost always win the nations ranking because they have so many skiers they can start with the maximum 8 in every race and even fill in replacements when someone skips a race. Sweden doesn't have the same number of riders so they start with what they have that is elligible to start with. Eventhough they have fewer riders to work with than Norway they still manage to get very good results. This means that the quality of the swedish training coachig etc is better while the norwegian quality is better.

Also keep in mind that I'm talking about the last few years and not 10 years back. Sweden used to be behind but they recruited norwegian leaders to improve what they were doing and right now they have gone passed norway in management and training skills it seems.

 

[Tubeless]

Sounds like an iffy way to test to me. It makes me wonder how comprable the results would be to testing that was not done with that kind of encouragement and feedback about the numbers. It is like a game played by people trying to set a record.

I've done the cross-country skiing specific VO2Max test several times. During the test you can choose to know how you're doing, or you can tell the testers to not inform how long you've survived (each successive level corresponds to a particular theoretical VO2Max number - your actual measured number can be higher if your efficiency is poor). But you can't continue past your physical capacity via simple will power.

The test is designed to fill you with lactate until you can't stay on your feet any longer. Most of the cross-country skiing test machines use a wide treadmill and it's done ski walking with poles - or optionally running with poles towards the end. Both the incline and the the speed of the treadmill increase at 2-3 minute intervals. You're hooked up to a harness which will save you from crashing if you can't bail out when it's time to stop.

It should be noted that there's a short version of the test (10-15 mins) and a long version of the test (25-32 mins). In the short version, the speed and the incline increase more quickly - and generally you can reach a higher VO2Max number. The longer test is designed to last long enough to get the "true" capacity after a long warmup and a steady progression - each level lasts typically 3 mins and heart rate & lactate sample is taken at the end of each level, in addition to the detailed analysis of inhaled / exhaled gases.

 

[Tubeless]

I've been on runs and rollerskies with Bjørn Dæhlie when I was younger, on summer skicamps that he attended on. The man was in fantastic shape. I was a good junior at the time (early nineties), and used to beat i.e Jens Arne Svartedal (not many others made it to top senior level from my year).

Back to Dæhlie. Personally I think he was clean. There is something about that man that not many has. An insane will to win, talent and structure when it comes to training.

the web archive still has an article which I like: http://web.archive.org/web/19990209200527/http://www.krs.hia.no/~stephens/bjorn.htm

When the other skiers face a treadmill test, they generally pre-determine a value that they expect to achieve, something inhuman like 84 ml/min/kg. When and if they reach that improbably high value, they are FINISHED. Daehlie sets no such limits. "I have watched him during a test, when the going was getting really tough. He might plateau at 85 ml/min/kg for 2 or 3, 20 second readings (on a treadmill at a steep 10% slope). Everyone else stops at that point. Dæhlie keeps running, and amazingly, the values climb some more, to 86, 87, 88 ml/min/kg. When he is finally finished we have had to hit the emergency stop so we could collect him from the back end of the treadmill, where his shoulder was being rubbed raw by the belt sliding below his exhausted body." The Dæhlie difference is his absolute killer instinct. He never backs down. Whe you see Dæhlie fling his body across the finish line and collapse in a heap, that isn't theatrics. It is the only way he knows how to race. Combine that ability to maximally extend himself with his genetic gifts and years and years of training, then you have most of the ingredients for the most successful XC skier ever.

In order to not to sound like the typical Norwegian fanboy I am completely convinced that Johan Olav Koss was juiced.

Dahlie was the undisputed king during the dirtiest doping period in cross-country skiing. Did he do it clean? Frankly, that would be physically impossible. The EPO era was exclusionary - especially when there were no limits on Hb or Hkr - you had no chance to be in top 10 unless you were on it.

I don't want to make this into a big dispute, since we'll likely never settle the debate - no one's going to come up with the conclusive evidence at this stage.

But the comparison to Armstrong is not far off the mark: consistently beating known / admitted dopers during the EPO era was simply not possible by just eating your wheaties. Contrast the following popular claims about the two athletes:

- Most dedicated training ethic ("I'm on my bike 7 hours a day - what are you on?")
- Best technique ("Lance increased his cadence to 110 to be able to use his physical capacity")
- Best equipment ("Endless hours spent in the wind tunnel")
- Most gifted athlete ("Lance won early, youngest world champ ever")
- Dedication, attention to detail, pursuit of perfection ("relentless focus, singular goal, total team effort")

Here's a good example. 10km classic from 1998 Nagano Olympics. Height of the EPO era - everyone knew about its benefits, and there was no EPO test in sight. Hb limit was still a ridiculously high 18.5 g/l and plasma expanders were legal. An educated guess is that the first clean athlete was USA's John Bauer in 41st place, 9% behind the winner. Who's on top? The great Bjorn Dahlie.

http://www.fis-ski.com/uk/604/610.html?sector=CC&raceid=1279