Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[samhocking]

Yep I agree. I think the main point I was trying to make is there is more than likely a percentage of super-responders in the peloton. Froome could well be one, but then there will be others too. Simply implying the rider winning the most, must be the best super-responder because everyone is doping is probably a factor in results, but as DFA123 says there are multiple factors to winning bike races consistently. I'd say the doping factor , assuming your competitors are doping with you probably explains very little in itself.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Yep I agree. I think the main point I was trying to make is there is more than likely a percentage of super-responders in the peloton. Froome could well be one, but then there will be others too. Simply implying the rider winning the most, must be the best super-responder because everyone is doping is probably a factor in results, but as DFA123 says there are multiple factors to winning bike races consistently. I'd say the doping factor , assuming your competitors are doping with you probably explains very little in itself.

I think this is particularly relevant to Froome, because it's something that is so often disregarded when it comes to evaluating his performances. You simply don't stay at the top of the sport for six years solely because of a doping programme or because you are super responder. Those things might get you a seat at the top table, but there are a whole host of other genetic, psychological and tactical factors which go towards determine who wins - let alone who dominates GTs for a generation.

The only caveat is unless there is some kind of protection from the UCI, or a motor ( ) which are complete game changers. But, as far as I can see, there remains no evidence of either with regards to Froome.

 

[brownbobby]

Re: Re:

Yep I agree. I think the main point I was trying to make is there is more than likely a percentage of super-responders in the peloton. Froome could well be one, but then there will be others too. Simply implying the rider winning the most, must be the best super-responder because everyone is doping is probably a factor in results, but as DFA123 says there are multiple factors to winning bike races consistently. I'd say the doping factor , assuming your competitors are doping with you probably explains very little in itself.

I think this is particularly relevant to Froome, because it's something that is so often disregarded when it comes to evaluating his performances. You simply don't stay at the top of the sport for six years solely because of a doping programme or because you are super responder. Those things might get you a seat at the top table, but there are a whole host of other genetic, psychological and tactical factors which go towards determine who wins - let alone who dominates GTs for a generation.

The only caveat is unless there is some kind of protection from the UCI, or a motor ( ) which are complete game changers. But, as far as I can see, there remains no evidence of either with regards to Froome.

Good stuff. I think too often, and hence the reason for querying it, people throw in the phrase 'super responder' without really thinking about what it means.

Its a very neat and convenient way to fill in some of the missing gaps in the search for answers to the Froome puzzle.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Yep I agree. I think the main point I was trying to make is there is more than likely a percentage of super-responders in the peloton. Froome could well be one, but then there will be others too. Simply implying the rider winning the most, must be the best super-responder because everyone is doping is probably a factor in results, but as DFA123 says there are multiple factors to winning bike races consistently. I'd say the doping factor , assuming your competitors are doping with you probably explains very little in itself.

I think this is particularly relevant to Froome, because it's something that is so often disregarded when it comes to evaluating his performances. You simply don't stay at the top of the sport for six years solely because of a doping programme or because you are super responder. Those things might get you a seat at the top table, but there are a whole host of other genetic, psychological and tactical factors which go towards determine who wins - let alone who dominates GTs for a generation.

The only caveat is unless there is some kind of protection from the UCI, or a motor ( ) which are complete game changers. But, as far as I can see, there remains no evidence of either with regards to Froome.

Good stuff. I think too often, and hence the reason for querying it, people throw in the phrase 'super responder' without really thinking about what it means.

Its a very neat and convenient way to fill in some of the missing gaps in the search for answers to the Froome puzzle.

Definitely. I certainly think there could be some validity in the theory that Froome responds better than average to a certain program - or, perhaps, more concretely, that he has found a specific thing that works really well for him personally. Just like I think Contador probably did or Nibali probably does. But just like with those two, there are undoubtedly many other non-Clinic factors contributing to Froome's dominance.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

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.

I thought the argument was that Leinders was hired because of his ability to get TUEs - the butter on his head, or whatever it was - rather than any notion that his knowledge of doping was the equal of Ferrari (Sky didn't need a new Ferrari, they had access to Cecchini through Sciandri). Though why Sky needed someone with butter on their head in order to get TUEs is not so easily explained, given the UCI apparently gave them out like snuff at a wake.

The more recent argument for the hiring of Leinders (and others such as Bartalucci at the same time) is that he had better knowledge of récup than anyone else they could find. That, though, was somewhat scuppered by the introduction of the no needles policy shortly after he was hired.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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.

I thought the argument was that Leinders was hired because of his ability to get TUEs - the butter on his head, or whatever it was - rather than any notion that his knowledge of doping was the equal of Ferrari (Sky didn't need a new Ferrari, they had access to Cecchini through Sciandri). Though why Sky needed someone with butter on their head in order to get TUEs is not so easily explained, given the UCI apparently gave them out like snuff at a wake.

The more recent argument for the hiring of Leinders (and others such as Bartalucci at the same time) is that he had better knowledge of récup than anyone else they could find. That, though, was somewhat scuppered by the introduction of the no needles policy shortly after he was hired.

In saying all that they were using needles on Wiggins per his injections. Leinders most certainly had Ferrari like levels of experience as we later found out through various Rabobank riders. Additionally and it would need to be 100% fact checked I don’t think Leinders ever have a rider test positive whilst at Rabo or Sky. That’s a good record.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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.

I thought the argument was that Leinders was hired because of his ability to get TUEs - the butter on his head, or whatever it was - rather than any notion that his knowledge of doping was the equal of Ferrari (Sky didn't need a new Ferrari, they had access to Cecchini through Sciandri). Though why Sky needed someone with butter on their head in order to get TUEs is not so easily explained, given the UCI apparently gave them out like snuff at a wake.

The more recent argument for the hiring of Leinders (and others such as Bartalucci at the same time) is that he had better knowledge of récup than anyone else they could find. That, though, was somewhat scuppered by the introduction of the no needles policy shortly after he was hired.

In saying all that they were using needles on Wiggins per his injections. Leinders most certainly had Ferrari like levels of experience as we later found out through various Rabobank riders. Additionally and it would need to be 100% fact checked I don’t think Leinders ever have a rider test positive whilst at Rabo or Sky. That’s a good record.

Different kinds of injections compared to known recovery products.

 

[wansteadimp]

On the early days of Sky, do we have any idea what went on in 2010?

Wiggins' 2009 while at Garmin was the real transformation, but I understand that he was really under BC team that would become the basis for Sky. So presumably we was on the juice.

Then 2010 happens it looks like 2009 was a one off. I can't believe he stopped doping with a new team - it was basically the same crew doping him at BC.

Then 2011 happens and everything is back to 2009 and better?

Was there a key member of the BC team that didn't join Sky (or someone that was key that stayed at Garmin)?

2010 certainly looks like the expertise dropped off - presumably Leinders was brought in to fill the knowledge gap for 2011?

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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.

I thought the argument was that Leinders was hired because of his ability to get TUEs - the butter on his head, or whatever it was - rather than any notion that his knowledge of doping was the equal of Ferrari (Sky didn't need a new Ferrari, they had access to Cecchini through Sciandri). Though why Sky needed someone with butter on their head in order to get TUEs is not so easily explained, given the UCI apparently gave them out like snuff at a wake.

The more recent argument for the hiring of Leinders (and others such as Bartalucci at the same time) is that he had better knowledge of récup than anyone else they could find. That, though, was somewhat scuppered by the introduction of the no needles policy shortly after he was hired.

In saying all that they were using needles on Wiggins per his injections. Leinders most certainly had Ferrari like levels of experience as we later found out through various Rabobank riders. Additionally and it would need to be 100% fact checked I don’t think Leinders ever have a rider test positive whilst at Rabo or Sky. That’s a good record.

Different kinds of injections compared to known recovery products.

?? It’s still a needle used after the no needles policy. You’d use the same needle for intramuscular with kenalog and into the roll of fat on your stomach to microdose EPO. Blood doping is still a needle connected into the tubing of the bag. I’m not seeing a difference, needles were continued to be used. Leinders “could” have assisted with that as was outlined by the Rabo riders whom Leinders injected personally.

 

[thehog]

I would add, it wasn’t just TUEs Leinders was proficient at - very useful for keeping riders testing positive or tripping the passport:

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) does not come out of the report well. In a testimony provided by Steven Teitler, manager of legal affairs for Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands, he says that UCI chief medical officer Mario Zorzoli told him that the UCI would contact Rabobank if a suspect anti-doping result was reported.

“Zorzoli confirmed that when a blood test reflected a suspicious result, UCI would contact a Rabobank team doctor, either Dr Leinders or another doctor, to discuss the potential cause of the result.”

Teitler implied that this was a way of the UCI controlling the team’s doping without any results ever being published. “Riders and staff would have the idea that the UCI was basically on top of them and they had to be careful with what they would do in terms of doping,” he said.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I would add, it wasn’t just TUEs Leinders was proficient at - very useful for keeping riders testing positive or tripping the passport:

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) does not come out of the report well. In a testimony provided by Steven Teitler, manager of legal affairs for Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands, he says that UCI chief medical officer Mario Zorzoli told him that the UCI would contact Rabobank if a suspect anti-doping result was reported.

“Zorzoli confirmed that when a blood test reflected a suspicious result, UCI would contact a Rabobank team doctor, either Dr Leinders or another doctor, to discuss the potential cause of the result.”

Teitler implied that this was a way of the UCI controlling the team’s doping without any results ever being published. “Riders and staff would have the idea that the UCI was basically on top of them and they had to be careful with what they would do in terms of doping,” he said.

But as with the TUEs given out like candy at the school gate, the UCI contacted just about everyone who returned dodge results to 'warn' them they were on the case. Verbruggen even confirmed this as UCI policy.

 

[thehog]

I would add, it wasn’t just TUEs Leinders was proficient at - very useful for keeping riders testing positive or tripping the passport:

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) does not come out of the report well. In a testimony provided by Steven Teitler, manager of legal affairs for Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands, he says that UCI chief medical officer Mario Zorzoli told him that the UCI would contact Rabobank if a suspect anti-doping result was reported.

“Zorzoli confirmed that when a blood test reflected a suspicious result, UCI would contact a Rabobank team doctor, either Dr Leinders or another doctor, to discuss the potential cause of the result.”

Teitler implied that this was a way of the UCI controlling the team’s doping without any results ever being published. “Riders and staff would have the idea that the UCI was basically on top of them and they had to be careful with what they would do in terms of doping,” he said.

But as with the TUEs given out like candy at the school gate, the UCI contacted just about everyone who returned dodge results to 'warn' them they were on the case. Verbruggen even confirmed this as UCI policy.

Agreed. Having Leinders in a new team with his experience on this front would have been pivotal. Sky choose well. As Leinders had a direct line to Zorzoli to know if any of their riders flew too close to the sun.

 

[samhocking]

I would add, it wasn’t just TUEs Leinders was proficient at - very useful for keeping riders testing positive or tripping the passport:

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) does not come out of the report well. In a testimony provided by Steven Teitler, manager of legal affairs for Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands, he says that UCI chief medical officer Mario Zorzoli told him that the UCI would contact Rabobank if a suspect anti-doping result was reported.

“Zorzoli confirmed that when a blood test reflected a suspicious result, UCI would contact a Rabobank team doctor, either Dr Leinders or another doctor, to discuss the potential cause of the result.”

Teitler implied that this was a way of the UCI controlling the team’s doping without any results ever being published. “Riders and staff would have the idea that the UCI was basically on top of them and they had to be careful with what they would do in terms of doping,” he said.

Would be interesting to know the context and date of that event. It sounds more like the UCI warning to any team doctor over too high hematocrit in a rider, rather than a positive result perhaps? Anyway, I don't see Leinders having the success with Rabobank that is comparable to his success at Sky. I don't see how he got more effective as a doctor while all other doctors less-effective since Sky arrived? Alternatively, how did a doping doctor who's expertise was doping to excess and anti-doping evasion, get so much more effective once bio-passport came in than other teams doctors. Even when Sky cam along, Ferrari was still active with riders in the peloton and it was Ferrari that arguably helped Armstrong to his victories over Rabobank & Leinders. Why didn't a Ferrari rider beat a Sky Leinders rider considering that had been roughly the status quo for all of Armstrong success for Leinders? Is Leinders simply the most expert doping doctor possible to use in cycling in 20011/2012?

 

[fmk_RoI]

I would add, it wasn’t just TUEs Leinders was proficient at - very useful for keeping riders testing positive or tripping the passport:

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) does not come out of the report well. In a testimony provided by Steven Teitler, manager of legal affairs for Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands, he says that UCI chief medical officer Mario Zorzoli told him that the UCI would contact Rabobank if a suspect anti-doping result was reported.

“Zorzoli confirmed that when a blood test reflected a suspicious result, UCI would contact a Rabobank team doctor, either Dr Leinders or another doctor, to discuss the potential cause of the result.”

Teitler implied that this was a way of the UCI controlling the team’s doping without any results ever being published. “Riders and staff would have the idea that the UCI was basically on top of them and they had to be careful with what they would do in terms of doping,” he said.

Would be interesting to know the context and date of that event. It sounds more like the UCI warning to any team doctor over too high hematocrit in a rider, rather than a positive result perhaps? Anyway, I don't see Leinders having the success with Rabobank that is comparable to his success at Sky. I don't see how he got more effective as a doctor while all other doctors less-effective since Sky arrived? Alternatively, how did a doping doctor who's expertise was doping to excess and anti-doping evasion, get so much more effective once bio-passport came in than other teams doctors. Even when Sky cam along, Ferrari was still active with riders in the peloton and it was Ferrari that arguably helped Armstrong to his victories over Rabobank & Leinders. Why didn't a Ferrari rider beat a Sky Leinders rider considering that had been roughly the status quo for all of Armstrong success for Leinders? Is Leinders simply the most expert doping doctor possible to use in cycling in 20011/2012?

The UCI typically warned people who were in the 'grey area' of the EPO test result, the safety margin meant to protect them from false positives. Thus we get the story of LA and his disappearing Tour de Suisse (or whatever it was) positive.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Why didn't a Ferrari rider beat a Sky Leinders rider considering that had been roughly the status quo for all of Armstrong success for Leinders?

Super responders.

 

[Huapango]

I would add, it wasn’t just TUEs Leinders was proficient at - very useful for keeping riders testing positive or tripping the passport:

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) does not come out of the report well. In a testimony provided by Steven Teitler, manager of legal affairs for Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands, he says that UCI chief medical officer Mario Zorzoli told him that the UCI would contact Rabobank if a suspect anti-doping result was reported.

“Zorzoli confirmed that when a blood test reflected a suspicious result, UCI would contact a Rabobank team doctor, either Dr Leinders or another doctor, to discuss the potential cause of the result.”

Teitler implied that this was a way of the UCI controlling the team’s doping without any results ever being published. “Riders and staff would have the idea that the UCI was basically on top of them and they had to be careful with what they would do in terms of doping,” he said.

Would be interesting to know the context and date of that event. It sounds more like the UCI warning to any team doctor over too high hematocrit in a rider, rather than a positive result perhaps? Anyway, I don't see Leinders having the success with Rabobank that is comparable to his success at Sky. I don't see how he got more effective as a doctor while all other doctors less-effective since Sky arrived? Alternatively, how did a doping doctor who's expertise was doping to excess and anti-doping evasion, get so much more effective once bio-passport came in than other teams doctors. Even when Sky cam along, Ferrari was still active with riders in the peloton and it was Ferrari that arguably helped Armstrong to his victories over Rabobank & Leinders. Why didn't a Ferrari rider beat a Sky Leinders rider considering that had been roughly the status quo for all of Armstrong success for Leinders? Is Leinders simply the most expert doping doctor possible to use in cycling in 20011/2012?

My theory: somebody came along who is better at preparing riders than Ferrari. I don't think we know who (or what substance) it is yet. I think there's a behind-the-scenes scientist/pharmacist/doctor in British Cycling who has created a cocktail that other teams haven't been able to copy.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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.

I thought the argument was that Leinders was hired because of his ability to get TUEs - the butter on his head, or whatever it was - rather than any notion that his knowledge of doping was the equal of Ferrari (Sky didn't need a new Ferrari, they had access to Cecchini through Sciandri). Though why Sky needed someone with butter on their head in order to get TUEs is not so easily explained, given the UCI apparently gave them out like snuff at a wake.

The more recent argument for the hiring of Leinders (and others such as Bartalucci at the same time) is that he had better knowledge of récup than anyone else they could find. That, though, was somewhat scuppered by the introduction of the no needles policy shortly after he was hired.

In saying all that they were using needles on Wiggins per his injections. Leinders most certainly had Ferrari like levels of experience as we later found out through various Rabobank riders. Additionally and it would need to be 100% fact checked I don’t think Leinders ever have a rider test positive whilst at Rabo or Sky. That’s a good record.

Different kinds of injections compared to known recovery products.

?? It’s still a needle used after the no needles policy. You’d use the same needle for intramuscular with kenalog and into the roll of fat on your stomach to microdose EPO. Blood doping is still a needle connected into the tubing of the bag. I’m not seeing a difference, needles were continued to be used. Leinders “could” have assisted with that as was outlined by the Rabo riders whom Leinders injected personally.

You need to review the no needles policy, this has all been discussed before. I didn't think EPO microdosing was classed as recovery, I'm thinking more intravenous injections like blood bags.

Either way, the no needles policy doesn't actually ban needles.

 

[thehog]

Why didn't a Ferrari rider beat a Sky Leinders rider considering that had been roughly the status quo for all of Armstrong success for Leinders?

Super responders.

Vaughters went someway to explaining the “responders” theory. It’s one area I do agree with him on.

There are a few arguments on that. I’ll start with physiological and we’ll go to psychological,” he begins.

Take two riders of the same age, height, and weight, says Vaughters. They have identical VO2max at threshold—a measure of oxygen uptake at the limit of sustainable aerobic power. But one of them has a natural hematocrit of 36 and one of 47. Those riders have physiologies that don’t respond equally to doping.

It’s not even a simple math equation that, with the old 50 percent hematocrit limit, one rider could gain 14 percent and another only three. Even if you raise the limit to the edge of physical sustainability, 60 percent or more, to allow both athletes significant gains, it’s not an equal effect, Vaughters says.

He goes on to explain that the largest gains in oxygen transport occur in the lower hematocrit ranges—a 50 percent increase in RBC count is not a linear 50 percent increase in oxygen transport capability. The rider with the lower hematocrit is actually extremely efficient at scavenging oxygen from what little hemoglobin that he has, comparatively. So when you boost his red-cell count, he goes a lot faster. The rider at 47 is less efficient, so a boost has less effect.

“You have guys who train the same and are very disciplined athletes, and are even physiologically the same, but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour,” Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.”

It’s basically a Darwinian selection based adaptations to modern pharmacology. On the psychological side, Vaughters says that the playing field becomes tilted even among dopers because not everyone dopes to the same degree.

 

[DFA123]

I would add, it wasn’t just TUEs Leinders was proficient at - very useful for keeping riders testing positive or tripping the passport:

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) does not come out of the report well. In a testimony provided by Steven Teitler, manager of legal affairs for Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands, he says that UCI chief medical officer Mario Zorzoli told him that the UCI would contact Rabobank if a suspect anti-doping result was reported.

“Zorzoli confirmed that when a blood test reflected a suspicious result, UCI would contact a Rabobank team doctor, either Dr Leinders or another doctor, to discuss the potential cause of the result.”

Teitler implied that this was a way of the UCI controlling the team’s doping without any results ever being published. “Riders and staff would have the idea that the UCI was basically on top of them and they had to be careful with what they would do in terms of doping,” he said.

Would be interesting to know the context and date of that event. It sounds more like the UCI warning to any team doctor over too high hematocrit in a rider, rather than a positive result perhaps? Anyway, I don't see Leinders having the success with Rabobank that is comparable to his success at Sky. I don't see how he got more effective as a doctor while all other doctors less-effective since Sky arrived? Alternatively, how did a doping doctor who's expertise was doping to excess and anti-doping evasion, get so much more effective once bio-passport came in than other teams doctors. Even when Sky cam along, Ferrari was still active with riders in the peloton and it was Ferrari that arguably helped Armstrong to his victories over Rabobank & Leinders. Why didn't a Ferrari rider beat a Sky Leinders rider considering that had been roughly the status quo for all of Armstrong success for Leinders? Is Leinders simply the most expert doping doctor possible to use in cycling in 20011/2012?

My theory: somebody came along who is better at preparing riders than Ferrari. I don't think we know who (or what substance) it is yet. I think there's a behind-the-scenes scientist/pharmacist/doctor in British Cycling who has created a cocktail that other teams haven't been able to copy.

I think there are few potential flaws in this theory. Perhaps the biggest being that various riders who had their big intial gains at Sky, have subsequently left the team and maintained that level. Porte being the most prominent example. Perhaps Uran and Gerrans are two others. So either they know what constitued the special Sky programme and have continued with it after leaving the team - in which case it is now surely common knowledge amongst many teams in the peloton. Or they have gone onto a similar program with similar results - in which case the Sky program isn't that special.

The other issue with this is that why would the special program - which seems to be based around weight loss - only work with a few riders. Or why did they only trial it with a few riders. Why didn't they turn EBH into a GT winner, or Cummings?

 

[DFA123]

Why didn't a Ferrari rider beat a Sky Leinders rider considering that had been roughly the status quo for all of Armstrong success for Leinders?

Super responders.

Vaughters went someone to explaining the “responders” theory. It’s one area I do agree with him on.

There are a few arguments on that. I’ll start with physiological and we’ll go to psychological,” he begins.

Take two riders of the same age, height, and weight, says Vaughters. They have identical VO2max at threshold—a measure of oxygen uptake at the limit of sustainable aerobic power. But one of them has a natural hematocrit of 36 and one of 47. Those riders have physiologies that don’t respond equally to doping.

It’s not even a simple math equation that, with the old 50 percent hematocrit limit, one rider could gain 14 percent and another only three. Even if you raise the limit to the edge of physical sustainability, 60 percent or more, to allow both athletes significant gains, it’s not an equal effect, Vaughters says.

He goes on to explain that the largest gains in oxygen transport occur in the lower hematocrit ranges—a 50 percent increase in RBC count is not a linear 50 percent increase in oxygen transport capability. The rider with the lower hematocrit is actually extremely efficient at scavenging oxygen from what little hemoglobin that he has, comparatively. So when you boost his red-cell count, he goes a lot faster. The rider at 47 is less efficient, so a boost has less effect.

“You have guys who train the same and are very disciplined athletes, and are even physiologically the same, but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour,” Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.”

It’s basically a Darwinian selection based adaptations to modern pharmacology. On the psychological side, Vaughters says that the playing field becomes tilted even among dopers because not everyone dopes to the same degree.

I seem to recall some stat going around that in the 1990s free for all, Ugrumov increased his haematocrit from 33% to 60% with EPO. Now that is a super responder.

He still lacked the racing nous to actually turn nearly a 90% boost to HCT levels into victories though.

 

[fmk_RoI]

The other issue with this is that why would the special program - which seems to be based around weight loss - only work with a few riders.

Super responders (The answer that just keeps on giving.)

But seriously, my ma went to Weight Watchers and she said that some of the ones down there the weight would just fall off them while others you had to hack it off with a chisel. So, you know, weight loss, it's all down to your metabolism. And how big your bones are. Someone like LA, he could lose the weight with night time fasting, while someone like, say Berzin, he only had to look at a slice of cake and he'd whack on a kilo.

 

[thehog]

Why didn't a Ferrari rider beat a Sky Leinders rider considering that had been roughly the status quo for all of Armstrong success for Leinders?

Super responders.

Vaughters went someone to explaining the “responders” theory. It’s one area I do agree with him on.

There are a few arguments on that. I’ll start with physiological and we’ll go to psychological,” he begins.

Take two riders of the same age, height, and weight, says Vaughters. They have identical VO2max at threshold—a measure of oxygen uptake at the limit of sustainable aerobic power. But one of them has a natural hematocrit of 36 and one of 47. Those riders have physiologies that don’t respond equally to doping.

It’s not even a simple math equation that, with the old 50 percent hematocrit limit, one rider could gain 14 percent and another only three. Even if you raise the limit to the edge of physical sustainability, 60 percent or more, to allow both athletes significant gains, it’s not an equal effect, Vaughters says.

He goes on to explain that the largest gains in oxygen transport occur in the lower hematocrit ranges—a 50 percent increase in RBC count is not a linear 50 percent increase in oxygen transport capability. The rider with the lower hematocrit is actually extremely efficient at scavenging oxygen from what little hemoglobin that he has, comparatively. So when you boost his red-cell count, he goes a lot faster. The rider at 47 is less efficient, so a boost has less effect.

“You have guys who train the same and are very disciplined athletes, and are even physiologically the same, but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour,” Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.”

It’s basically a Darwinian selection based adaptations to modern pharmacology. On the psychological side, Vaughters says that the playing field becomes tilted even among dopers because not everyone dopes to the same degree.

I seem to recall some stat going around that in the 1990s free for all, Ugrumov increased his haematocrit from 33% to 60% with EPO. Now that is a super responder.

He still lacked the racing nous to actually turn nearly a 90% boost to HCT levels into victories though.

I like that story. Like a early EPO days Froome. I think we can throw Riis into that category. Handy rider who became a GT champ!

These days you don’t just get EPO for your donkey but super weight loss drugs for racehorse type transformations (see Froome).

 

[red_flanders]

The other issue with this is that why would the special program - which seems to be based around weight loss - only work with a few riders. Or why did they only trial it with a few riders. Why didn't they turn EBH into a GT winner, or Cummings?

I think in EBH you have the career arc of a naturally talented rider who has decided not to dope. His results are probably about what a clean rider can hope for, at least classics-wise, which seems to be his skill set. Who knows, however, what a full program would have allowed him to do.

 

[DFA123]

The other issue with this is that why would the special program - which seems to be based around weight loss - only work with a few riders. Or why did they only trial it with a few riders. Why didn't they turn EBH into a GT winner, or Cummings?

I think in EBH you have the career arc of a naturally talented rider who has decided not to dope. His results are probably about what a clean rider can hope for, at least classics-wise, which seems to be his skill set. Who knows, however, what a full program would have allowed him to do.

Yeah, I'd like to think so as well. By all indications he was a massive natural talent, so his results seem in line with something close to the limit of what might be possible clean. Who knows though, maybe he's no different to other dopers, but just lacks something mentally.

 

[Merckx index]

Quite a while back, I posted some studies of EPO that showed that different individuals (not elite athletes, FWIW) exhibited different increases in HT to the same dose. So beyond the fact that a lower natural HT allowed a greater increase in the 50% era (and even after that, allowed a larger % increase--e.g., going from 40 to 42 is a 5% increase, whereas going from 48 to 50 is about 4%), some people just get more of a boost from a given dose than others. Then, on top of this, as thehog noted in his post about Vaughters, there tends to be a negative correlation between natural HT and events downstream that convert oxygen intake into power. So even if two riders get the same boost from EPO, the one with the lower HT tends to get greater oxygen utiliization and power increase. Only a rough correlation, but the point is, these are the kinds of things that can make big differences in how much power increase two riders on the same program might get. Even if you skip the reticulocyte stage, and just transfuse without EPO to raise your HT, there can still be differences in the increase in oxygen delivery to tissues and the resulting power increase.

Wrt warning riders about suspicious blood values, remember that the precursor of the biological passport was the off-score, and it was standard practice to warn riders when their off-scores were high. One of the most notable examples of this was Tyler in 2004. He failed the transfusion test in the Olympics that year, but because the B sample was messed up, didn't get sanctioned. Then in the Vuelta, he failed again, and this time did get banned. But before all that, back in April or May, he had a suspicious off-score, and was called in by UCI to talk about that.

You can certainly look at the off-score, then the passport, as a way for UCI to control doping rather than eradicate it. In fact, since the passport depends on a significant increase from a baseline, it's always going to be possible to blood dope to some degree under the radar. Again, I posted some links a while back to Ashenden's studies demonstrating this. But just a warning--"while we can't prove you're transfusing, we think you are, and we're watching you very closely"--has to be considered a worthwhile deterrent.