Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

Page 1250 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
DFA123 said:
Was it that overnight? He's lost 4-5kg from joining team September 2009 and La Vuelta September 2011, so 2 years and two off seasons to do it in. End of 2010 he was not showing much form, but then he was not leader, Wiggins was, so the way Sky use domestiques it wouldn't have been allowed anyway. I don't actually think 2011 Vuetla is the race to look at to prove transformation anyway. His only race in 2010 he could actually race for himself was National TT Championships and he was 2nd to Bradley Wiggins and Geraint Thomas in 3rd so was already in progress end of 2010. That is where his engine is first identified by Sky without being distorted by the duty of being a domestique.

2010 National TT Championships was where you first saw Wiggins, Froome & Thomas as you see them today in my opinion, not La Vuelta so much. Froome's weight loss and form over first 12 months at Sky got him 2nd behind Wiggins already and another 12 months of weight loss he was transformed into La Vuelta rider we see today, just a little heavier perhaps? However you look at it, it took two years, but identifiable progress at National TT Froome clearly already had the engine in 2010 similar to Wiggins & Thomas.
I agree the process wasn't overnight, but I think there was still a huge leap in performance from anything before the 2011 Vuelta, to what he did in that race. Pretty much every pro rider has eye-catching results here and there throughout their career. But suddenly being one of the strongest throughout three weeks in a GT, is a big change from the odd one-off impressive performance.

I agree that the TT improvement goes hand in hand with the weight loss. I don't see any great mystery there. If you increase your power at threshold from 5.5w/kg, for example, to 5.9w/kg, that's going to impact every aspect of your training. Instead of being at your limit all the time in races and training rides you'll be pretty comfortable and able to put in a lot more quality work in TT sessions, instead of using them basically to recover. It's going to change the whole way you train, and the quality of work that you can do.

Also, the change in mentality from being a domestique to GT contender is naturally going to lead to a greater focus on TT. There is more obvious need to work on things like aerodynamics when that could actually win you a GT. And losing a few kgs could have a direct impact on drag as well - both in terms of a smaller frontal area, and increased flexibility to be able to sustain power in a lower position.

The big question remains how a rider managed to achieve what has always been cycling's holy grail: significantly decreasing weight while maintaining power. Whether he did that slowly, over the course of a year, or rapidly in the weeks before the Vuelta; it still requires an explanation that is difficult to understand without the use of prohibited agents.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
samhocking said:
DFA123 said:
Was it that overnight? He's lost 4-5kg from joining team September 2009 and La Vuelta September 2011, so 2 years and two off seasons to do it in. End of 2010 he was not showing much form, but then he was not leader, Wiggins was, so the way Sky use domestiques it wouldn't have been allowed anyway. I don't actually think 2011 Vuetla is the race to look at to prove transformation anyway. His only race in 2010 he could actually race for himself was National TT Championships and he was 2nd to Bradley Wiggins and Geraint Thomas in 3rd so was already in progress end of 2010. That is where his engine is first identified by Sky without being distorted by the duty of being a domestique.

2010 National TT Championships was where you first saw Wiggins, Froome & Thomas as you see them today in my opinion, not La Vuelta so much. Froome's weight loss and form over first 12 months at Sky got him 2nd behind Wiggins already and another 12 months of weight loss he was transformed into La Vuelta rider we see today, just a little heavier perhaps? However you look at it, it took two years, but identifiable progress at National TT Froome clearly already had the engine in 2010 similar to Wiggins & Thomas.
I agree the process wasn't overnight, but I think there was still a huge leap in performance from anything before the 2011 Vuelta, to what he did in that race. Pretty much every pro rider has eye-catching results here and there throughout their career. But suddenly being one of the strongest throughout three weeks in a GT, is a big change from the odd one-off impressive performance.

I agree that the TT improvement goes hand in hand with the weight loss. I don't see any great mystery there. If you increase your power at threshold from 5.5w/kg, for example, to 5.9w/kg, that's going to impact every aspect of your training. Instead of being at your limit all the time in races and training rides you'll be pretty comfortable and able to put in a lot more quality work in TT sessions, instead of using them basically to recover. It's going to change the whole way you train, and the quality of work that you can do.

Also, the change in mentality from being a domestique to GT contender is naturally going to lead to a greater focus on TT. There is more obvious need to work on things like aerodynamics when that could actually win you a GT. And losing a few kgs could have a direct impact on drag as well - both in terms of a smaller frontal area, and increased flexibility to be able to sustain power in a lower position.

The big question remains how a rider managed to achieve what has always been cycling's holy grail: significantly decreasing weight while maintaining power. Whether he did that slowly, over the course of a year, or rapidly in the weeks before the Vuelta; it still requires an explanation that is difficult to understand without the use of prohibited agents.
which is where I think the world of body building cross fertilizes with the world of aerobic endurance sports...
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Re: Re:

rick james said:
what makes you think you are entitled to the full story?
Froome does. He keeps telling us that once we have the full story we'll understand his position, and his supposed innocence. So it is only fair to assume that he is just champing at the bit to get it out there. Unless of course he isn't telling the truth...
 
Re: Re:

Mamil said:
rick james said:
what makes you think you are entitled to the full story?
Froome does. He keeps telling us that once we have the full story we'll understand his position, and his supposed innocence. So it is only fair to assume that he is just champing at the bit to get it out there. Unless of course he isn't telling the truth...
what more could he do? ;)
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Was it that overnight? He's lost 4-5kg from joining team September 2009 and La Vuelta September 2011, so 2 years and two off seasons to do it in. End of 2010 he was not showing much form, but then he was not leader, Wiggins was, so the way Sky use domestiques it wouldn't have been allowed anyway. I don't actually think 2011 Vuetla is the race to look at to prove transformation anyway. His only race in 2010 he could actually race for himself was National TT Championships and he was 2nd to Bradley Wiggins and Geraint Thomas in 3rd so was already in progress end of 2010. That is where his engine is first identified by Sky without being distorted by the duty of being a domestique.

2010 National TT Championships was where you first saw Wiggins, Froome & Thomas as you see them today in my opinion, not La Vuelta so much. Froome's weight loss and form over first 12 months at Sky got him 2nd behind Wiggins already and another 12 months of weight loss he was transformed into La Vuelta rider we see today, just a little heavier perhaps? However you look at it, it took two years, but identifiable progress at National TT Froome clearly already had the engine in 2010 similar to Wiggins & Thomas.
The 2010 national TT champs? Seriously, come on... The Sky trio were the only 3 full pros in the field, so Froome beat those household names Michael Hutchinson and Matthew Bottrill (no disrespect intended to them) into 4th and 5th places. If Froome hadn't finished top 3 there it would have been a tremendous embarrassment.

And even beyond that, one half-decent TT and Froome is suddenly a future crusher of worlds, despite all the ordinariness both sides of that? Not buying it for a second.
 
Re: Re:

gillan1969 said:
DFA123 said:
samhocking said:
DFA123 said:
Was it that overnight? He's lost 4-5kg from joining team September 2009 and La Vuelta September 2011, so 2 years and two off seasons to do it in. End of 2010 he was not showing much form, but then he was not leader, Wiggins was, so the way Sky use domestiques it wouldn't have been allowed anyway. I don't actually think 2011 Vuetla is the race to look at to prove transformation anyway. His only race in 2010 he could actually race for himself was National TT Championships and he was 2nd to Bradley Wiggins and Geraint Thomas in 3rd so was already in progress end of 2010. That is where his engine is first identified by Sky without being distorted by the duty of being a domestique.

2010 National TT Championships was where you first saw Wiggins, Froome & Thomas as you see them today in my opinion, not La Vuelta so much. Froome's weight loss and form over first 12 months at Sky got him 2nd behind Wiggins already and another 12 months of weight loss he was transformed into La Vuelta rider we see today, just a little heavier perhaps? However you look at it, it took two years, but identifiable progress at National TT Froome clearly already had the engine in 2010 similar to Wiggins & Thomas.
I agree the process wasn't overnight, but I think there was still a huge leap in performance from anything before the 2011 Vuelta, to what he did in that race. Pretty much every pro rider has eye-catching results here and there throughout their career. But suddenly being one of the strongest throughout three weeks in a GT, is a big change from the odd one-off impressive performance.

I agree that the TT improvement goes hand in hand with the weight loss. I don't see any great mystery there. If you increase your power at threshold from 5.5w/kg, for example, to 5.9w/kg, that's going to impact every aspect of your training. Instead of being at your limit all the time in races and training rides you'll be pretty comfortable and able to put in a lot more quality work in TT sessions, instead of using them basically to recover. It's going to change the whole way you train, and the quality of work that you can do.

Also, the change in mentality from being a domestique to GT contender is naturally going to lead to a greater focus on TT. There is more obvious need to work on things like aerodynamics when that could actually win you a GT. And losing a few kgs could have a direct impact on drag as well - both in terms of a smaller frontal area, and increased flexibility to be able to sustain power in a lower position.

The big question remains how a rider managed to achieve what has always been cycling's holy grail: significantly decreasing weight while maintaining power. Whether he did that slowly, over the course of a year, or rapidly in the weeks before the Vuelta; it still requires an explanation that is difficult to understand without the use of prohibited agents.
which is where I think the world of body building cross fertilizes with the world of aerobic endurance sports...
OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.

It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.
 
Re: Re:

Mamil said:
rick james said:
what makes you think you are entitled to the full story?
Froome does. He keeps telling us that once we have the full story we'll understand his position, and his supposed innocence. So it is only fair to assume that he is just champing at the bit to get it out there. Unless of course he isn't telling the truth...
Is his mind you already do, except the AAF, which you'd know once the case is resolved.
Whats the worry? Give it time. ;)
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.

It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.
That's not clear at all. We already know that some riders in the blood doping era respond much better than other riders to certain products and cocktails. If Froome is a "super-responder" to something that he wasn't previously taking, or was taking sub-optimally for his physiology, then it's quite logical that he would gain considerably more relative to his peers. In fact, I would go as far to say him being a super-responder to something fairly common and accessible is the most likely reason behind his big improvement.
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
samhocking said:
OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.

It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.
That's not clear at all. We already know that some riders in the blood doping era respond much better than other riders to certain products and cocktails. If Froome is a "super-responder" to something that he wasn't previously taking, or was taking sub-optimally for his physiology, then it's quite logical that he would gain considerably more relative to his peers. In fact, I would go as far to say him being a super-responder to something fairly common and accessible is the most likely reason behind his big improvement.
So Froome's genetics is the reason Froome is winning then is basically what you are saying? No other team in cycling has a rider capable of responding to common doping in cycling as much as Froome? Nobody in cycling had a rider that could respond as much as Wiggins, nobody in cycling had a rider that could respond as much as Thomas last month? You might be right, just seems a coincidence, they are all British riders on one team. Who would have thought they all super-responded and all got singed by the same team in the same year and no other team has one?
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
DFA123 said:
samhocking said:
OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.

It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.
That's not clear at all. We already know that some riders in the blood doping era respond much better than other riders to certain products and cocktails. If Froome is a "super-responder" to something that he wasn't previously taking, or was taking sub-optimally for his physiology, then it's quite logical that he would gain considerably more relative to his peers. In fact, I would go as far to say him being a super-responder to something fairly common and accessible is the most likely reason behind his big improvement.
So Froome's genetics is the reason Froome is winning then is basically what you are saying? No other team in cycling has a rider capable of responding to doping as much as Froome? Nobody in cycling had a rider that could respond as much as Wiggins, nobody in cycling had a rider that could respond as much as Thomas last month? You might be right, just seems a coincidence, they are all British riders. Who would have though they all super-responded and all got singed by the same team in the same year lol!
Sure, it's partly genetics being a super responder. Having great genetics which give you a big natural engine, but also still with room to bump up certain values to the limits allowed under the bio-passport, is the ideal physiology for a modern rider.

And it's partly having the resources and world class doctors (Leinders, for example), who can design a highly specific programme around an individual riders physiology. To optimize the impact that doping would have on their performance.

And it's not just British riders who appear to be super-responders. Perhaps though it is British riders who arrive late to the party and so their transformations are glaringly obvious.
 
Leinders comes from within existing cycling teams of 10-20 years ago though? Why does Leinders contribution to Sky, 20 years later work so well with Sky riders, but not Rabobank riders at the time? He was at Rabobabnk for years and years. At Sky 9 months? Rabobank never won Tour de France with him.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Leinders comes from within existing cycling teams of 10-20 years ago though? Why does Leinders contribution to Sky, 20 years later work so well with Sky riders, but not Rabobank riders at the time? He was at Rabobabnk for years and years. At Sky 9 months? Rabobank never won Tour de France with him.
Elephant in the room
Chicken
 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
TourOfSardinia said:
Liz D. https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/44446354
"He hasn't had a fair process," Deignan said. "People have made up their minds not based on the full story."
Just give me the full story Liz - I'd be happy with that ...
(Transparency zero).
what makes you think you are entitled to the full story?
Given that a) Deignan and Froome share the same legal representation and b) this interview was conducted by Orla Chennaoui whose hard hitting journalistic credentials include the Cycling Smugcast's 'At Home With the Froomes' featurette, can someone offer me even one good reason why I should waste my time listening to the original interview or even reading secondhand summaries of it?
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
samhocking said:
Leinders comes from within existing cycling teams of 10-20 years ago though? Why does Leinders contribution to Sky, 20 years later work so well with Sky riders, but not Rabobank riders at the time? He was at Rabobabnk for years and years. At Sky 9 months? Rabobank never won Tour de France with him.
Elephant in the room
Chicken
Having the worlds most advanced Leinders doping program clearly wasn't that advanced then as he didn't even get to Paris lol!
 
Re: Re:

TourOfSardinia said:
samhocking said:
Leinders comes from within existing cycling teams of 10-20 years ago though? Why does Leinders contribution to Sky, 20 years later work so well with Sky riders, but not Rabobank riders at the time? He was at Rabobabnk for years and years. At Sky 9 months? Rabobank never won Tour de France with him.
Elephant in the room
Chicken
Indeed. And extreme weight loss wasn't the go to strategy throughout most of Leinders career. It was all about huge doses of EPO and blood bags. The doping game changed with the introduction of the bio-passport.

Also, as unpopular as this opinion is in the clinic, doping is not the only factor that decides who wins a bike race.
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Having the worlds most advanced Leinders doping program clearly wasn't that advanced then as he didn't even get to Paris lol!
Huh? Rasmussen was never popped, despite practically glowing in the dark and being so strong as to beat a fully-juiced Contador. Sounds like he had a pretty good program to me.

If only he had been less careless in his whereabouts reporting...
 
Re: Re:

DFA123 said:
samhocking said:
OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.

It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.
That's not clear at all. We already know that some riders in the blood doping era respond much better than other riders to certain products and cocktails. If Froome is a "super-responder" to something that he wasn't previously taking, or was taking sub-optimally for his physiology, then it's quite logical that he would gain considerably more relative to his peers. In fact, I would go as far to say him being a super-responder to something fairly common and accessible is the most likely reason behind his big improvement.
Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?

To my, admittedly limited and mostly anecdotal, knowledge...drugs do what drugs do. There's a balance to be struck between positive results and side effects, and yes personal tolerance to side effects is certainly a thing in the bodybuilding world for example. And yes, getting the right dose and combinations of products takes a bit of practice, mostly trial and error if you like. But again..what is a 'super response'?

If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.

Testosterone....again only used very sparingly for cyclists. In the bodybuilding world its a free for all, the more you take the bigger you get, and the more troublesome the side effects (actually bodybuilders just take even more drugs to combat the side effects but thats another story!). But most of the effects above a certain dose (rapid weight gain) would be undesireable for cyclists. They're just taking minimal doses to aid recovery. So again, any kind of 'super response' to Testosterone wouldn't be a good thing for a cyclist.

Same goes for HGH, and most anabolic steroids really, most of the benefits to cyclists would only be seen at relatively modest doseages. Go higher, or have a 'super response' and its generally not good.

No idea on Salbutamol...but Clenbuterol which i understand to act similarly, you wouldn't want a 'super response'. Get the dosing wrong on this and the side effects are awful. In the bodybuilding world lots of people have used this and vowed never again because they can't stand the side effects when using in quantities significant enough to get any desireable effects. Such known side effects would not be good for a cyclist.

I really dont understand the 'super responder' theory, but maybe someone can enlighten me. Im not trying to be smart here, just curious :confused:
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Re: Re:

silvergrenade said:
Is his mind you already do, except the AAF, which you'd know once the case is resolved.
Whats the worry? Give it time. ;)
Indeed. We patiently await an outcome at his lordship's pleasure :D
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
DFA123 said:
samhocking said:
OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.

It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.
That's not clear at all. We already know that some riders in the blood doping era respond much better than other riders to certain products and cocktails. If Froome is a "super-responder" to something that he wasn't previously taking, or was taking sub-optimally for his physiology, then it's quite logical that he would gain considerably more relative to his peers. In fact, I would go as far to say him being a super-responder to something fairly common and accessible is the most likely reason behind his big improvement.
Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?

To my, admittedly limited and mostly anecdotal, knowledge...drugs do what drugs do. There's a balance to be struck between positive results and side effects, and yes personal tolerance to side effects is certainly a thing in the bodybuilding world for example. And yes, getting the right dose and combinations of products takes a bit of practice, mostly trial and error if you like. But again..what is a 'super response'?

If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.

Testosterone....again only used very sparingly for cyclists. In the bodybuilding world its a free for all, the more you take the bigger you get, and the more troublesome the side effects (actually bodybuilders just take even more drugs to combat the side effects but thats another story!). But most of the effects above a certain dose (rapid weight gain) would be undesireable for cyclists. They're just taking minimal doses to aid recovery. So again, any kind of 'super response' to Testosterone wouldn't be a good thing for a cyclist.

Same goes for HGH, and most anabolic steroids really, most of the benefits to cyclists would only be seen at relatively modest doseages. Go higher, or have a 'super response' and its generally not good.

No idea on Salbutamol...but Clenbuterol which i understand to act similarly, you wouldn't want a 'super response'. Get the dosing wrong on this and the side effects are awful. In the bodybuilding world lots of people have used this and vowed never again because they can't stand the side effects when using in quantities significant enough to get any desireable effects. Such known side effects would not be good for a cyclist.

I really dont understand the 'super responder' theory, but maybe someone can enlighten me. Im not trying to be smart here, just curious :confused:
I think it's a bit of blurring between Super-Responders from training and if those Super-Responders dope too. Basically their fitness increases unexpectedly faster than most. They do not obtain higher fitness from doping to a normal responder, just can get there more quickly.

It's a bit of a red-herring in doping. There's a percentage of any exercise/medical study that always has a percentage of super-responders in the results. One would expect the same percentage to exist in cycling across all teams too in my opinion, unless cycling somehow filters them out earlier in their career and they never make it. Perhaps Froome not coming through classical European Junior > Senior > Pro road racing palamares manages to creep into World Tour lol!
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
DFA123 said:
samhocking said:
OK, well the how is the big mystery for everyone lol. Clearly it isn't EPO, Testosterone, HGH, Corticosteroids and Salbutomol because all teams have access to that to loose weight and gain power/keep power anyway.

It's only an observation, i'm not claiming or disproving anything, simply nobody can possibly know, yet we have thousands of posts claiming such transformations by Froome must be from doping. Doping might explain the transformation, but it doesn't explain why a transformation is only available to Froome/Sky when one would assume more talented/gifted racehorses in other teams with proven palamares unlike Froome can't dope and beat Froome with arguably better riders to work their doping on.
That's not clear at all. We already know that some riders in the blood doping era respond much better than other riders to certain products and cocktails. If Froome is a "super-responder" to something that he wasn't previously taking, or was taking sub-optimally for his physiology, then it's quite logical that he would gain considerably more relative to his peers. In fact, I would go as far to say him being a super-responder to something fairly common and accessible is the most likely reason behind his big improvement.
Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?

To my, admittedly limited and mostly anecdotal, knowledge...drugs do what drugs do. There's a balance to be struck between positive results and side effects, and yes personal tolerance to side effects is certainly a thing in the bodybuilding world for example. And yes, getting the right dose and combinations of products takes a bit of practice, mostly trial and error if you like. But again..what is a 'super response'?

If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.

Testosterone....again only used very sparingly for cyclists. In the bodybuilding world its a free for all, the more you take the bigger you get, and the more troublesome the side effects (actually bodybuilders just take even more drugs to combat the side effects but thats another story!). But most of the effects above a certain dose (rapid weight gain) would be undesireable for cyclists. They're just taking minimal doses to aid recovery. So again, any kind of 'super response' to Testosterone wouldn't be a good thing for a cyclist.

Same goes for HGH, and most anabolic steroids really, most of the benefits to cyclists would only be seen at relatively modest doseages. Go higher, or have a 'super response' and its generally not good.

No idea on Salbutamol...but Clenbuterol which i understand to act similarly, you wouldn't want a 'super response'. Get the dosing wrong on this and the side effects are awful. In the bodybuilding world lots of people have used this and vowed never again because they can't stand the side effects when using in quantities significant enough to get any desireable effects. Such known side effects would not be good for a cyclist.

I really dont understand the 'super responder' theory, but maybe someone can enlighten me. Im not trying to be smart here, just curious :confused:
I think there are various ways a rider could be a 'super-responder', but the most straight forward is if they are naturally quite low in some physiological markers. The classic one regarding Armstrong was the haematocrit. Although it obviously changes at times, he was naturally around 40%, so he could take a large amount of EPO and still be under the 50% UCI limit. Another rider with a natural haematocrit of around 48%, could take much less EPO without risking tripping the wire by going over 50%. Any big fluctuations could be easily explained away by dehydration, altitude training and various other 'reasons'.

In the era of the bio-passport, where there are set limits for various things, a rider who is naturally quite low can benefit more from taking drugs to get his numbers up to the passport limits, than a rider who is naturally much closer to the limits. So, in that sense, a super responder would be someone who has a competitive power at lactate threshold, but with a big buffer to improve certain values before they hit the passport limits. Of course you have to explain any big jumps under the passport system, but cases like Kreuziger's proved how limited it is in front of a court. Things like altitude training, and even the legendary Bilharzia could be used as justifications.

Slightly differently I guess, a super-responder could also refer to a rider who just has a great response to a particular drug or cocktail. You're right that EPO works pretty much the same for everyone if taken in the same quanitites, and things like clen have to be carefully managed within a strict range. But the combination of other less potent things (who knows what... maybe even tramadol, sabutamol?) could certainly have a different impact on some rides than others. I doubt there is some magic bullet, but every rider is physiologically different and will respond slightly differently to some stimuli. And if one rider has stumbled across (or been shown the way by a doctor) a combo that works well for them, or, more likely, that helps to cover a particular weakness in their current performance (e.g. recovery, power at vo2 max, losing too much power with weight loss), that will benefit them more than a rider who has different weaknesses.
 
Re: Re:

brownbobby said:
Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?
brownbobby said:
If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.
If you are fit and have a relatively low natural haematocrit level EPO is going to be more beneficial for you than it will be for someone who is fit and has a relatively high natural haematocrit level. You've more to gain, allowing for the 50% limit that used to exist before the ABP. So LA, he was said to be a super responder to EPO because he was believed to have a relatively low natural haematocrit level whereas, say, JV, whose haematocrit level was relatively high, was not such a super responder.

While the term might have had some meaning in the days of the 50% rule, it's really not clear what meaning it has today other than a belief among some that some athletes 'respond' better to doping than others, allowing them to explain the performance differences between assumed doping programmes. Eddy Merckx, for instance, was clearly a super responder to amphetamines given his superiority over others who had access to the exact same drugs. Or so the logic goes. Basically, you replace any notion of innate athletic ability with a genetic propensity to respond better to particular drugs.
 
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
brownbobby said:
Genuine question...maybe covered before (i've obviously heard the stories about Armstrong etc) but what exactly is a super responder?
brownbobby said:
If we take EPO for example...it works. Full stop. There's no super response, with fairly basic and simple medical supervision you get the dose right and raise your HCT to the desired level. There's a sweetspot of what that level is. There's no magical response where someone's level jumps way higher than someone elses, that would be counterproductive. So, you get the dose right, you get the levels right, that's it. One rider might need to take less than another to get to the right levels, but there's no 'super response'. EPO does what it does, same for everybody unless they have some kind of contraindication to its use.
If you are fit and have a relatively low natural haematocrit level EPO is going to be more beneficial for you than it will be for someone who is fit and has a relatively high natural haematocrit level. You've more to gain, allowing for the 50% limit that used to exist before the ABP. So LA, he was said to be a super responder to EPO because he was believed to have a relatively low natural haematocrit level whereas, say, JV, whose haematocrit level was relatively high, was not such a super responder.

While the term might have had some meaning in the days of the 50% rule, it's really not clear what meaning it has today other than a belief among some that some athletes 'respond' better to doping than others, allowing them to explain the performance differences among assumed doping programmes. Eddy Merckx, for instance, was clearly a super responder to amphetamines given his superiority over others who had access to the exact same drugs. Or so the logic goes. Basically, you replace any notion of innate athletic ability with a genetic propensity to respond better to particular drugs.
I think you're in danger of conflating the careers Froome with Merckx there.... ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS