Future stars into the unknown?

[pmcg76]

There has been a lot of talk recently on here about how doping effects performances in regards to natural talent, development, one day potential v stage race potential, Lance etc, etc.

So, I got the old Winning magazines out last night for a look, this would be the 92/93 era just as Lance was turning pro at the start of the EPO era. Looking through the results, some young riders simply jumped out at me. Alex Zulle rode on trial with ONCE in late 91, he finished 3rd in the then more prestigious Tour of Catalonia behind Indurain, Delgado!!! His first full season as a pro 92 at 23yo. For those who will say Zulle doped, he said himself he didnt dope in his first season as a pro

Results 1992
2nd Sicilain Week, 1 stage win
1st Catalan Week(Ahead of Alcala/Delgado/Roche)
4th Tour of the Basque Country(Behind Rominger)
1st Tour of Asturias(Ahead of Rominger/Ugrumov)
4th Prologue Vuelta
2nd Prologue Tour de France(Yellow jerser wearer)
TT stage, Tour of Catalonia(ahead of Indurain/Rominger)
3rd Tour of Piedmont
5th Milan-Turin
4th GP des Nations
13th Tour of Lombardy
1st Tour of Burgos
1st Escalada Montjuich

That is a staggering set of results as a neo-pro and I guess these are the kind of results we talk about when looking for stage racing potential. He was competing with top names like Indurain, Delgado, Rominger, Roche, Alcala, Breukink in the races he won right from the start.

Another neo-pro who also stood out the same year but was nowhere near as successful, Beat Zberg who was the same age as Lance 20/21.

1st Etoile de Besseges
6th Tirreno-Adriacto
13th Milan-San Remo
4th Tour du Pont
4th Dauphine Libere
5ht Tour of Switzerland
5th Classique des Alpes
6th Tour of Lombardy
1st Tour of Romanga

Another series of staggering results in top races for a neo-pro, he seemed to have huge stage race potential, he beat LeMond in the TT at Du Pont(LeMond won overall) unfortunately Zberg never backed these results up but was a moderate pro. Zberg started with the Swiss Helvetia team directed by Paul Koechli who also had Laurent Dufaux, Fabian Jeker, Rolf Aldag and Heinrich Trumheller. What happened?

Other new-pros who were pulling up results were Heinrich Trumheller, 19 who was German Champion and finished 4th at the Tour of Switzrland, he moved to Castorama in 93 and his career didnt last much longer. Stephane Heulot won a stage at Etoile De Besseges and Paris-Nice and was the next big French rider, Mikel Zarrabeitia, 3rd in 94 Vuelta, Pavel Tonkov who was only signed up by Lampre for the Giro but finished 7th overall in his first GT at 23. Antonio Martin was another new name finishing 2nd at Murcia, 3rd at Catalonia behind Indurain/Rominger and 6th in Asturias. He would finish 11th in his first Tour but was then tragically killed in an accident during the winter season.

Another sidenote, Richard Virenque finished 25th in his first Tour, age 22 having worn both the yellow and polka-dot jersey.

All thie evidence backs up the idea that these guys all showed the potential early on to be top stage race riders, unfortunately a lot of them never lived up to their potential as they were entering the worst of the EPO era. This is why doping distorts the playing field and we never know the whole truth.

Lance of course was also a top newcomer in 92/93 winning stages in Burgos, the Tour, Laigueglia Trophy, Pre-Worlds race in Italy 92, Thrift Drug Classic 92/93, First Union GP 92, US Pros 93, 2nd in Zurich classic and of course the Worlds in 93. All top preformances in one day races or stages in multi-day races. His top results in stage races were 1st at West Virginia Classic, 2nd at Du Pont in 93, 11th in 92. The strength at those races was not the highest. Noted non-stage racer Malcolm Elliot was 3rd at WVMC and 5th at Du Pont in 93. Compare his results with Zulle, Zberg or even some of the others, if you were coaching him at the time, what direction would you have been pointing him in.

I hope the comparison illustrates why so many people are sceptical about how he became the rider he eventually became. Various people like Chris Carmichael, Davis Phinney and others all raved about how big a talent Lance was yet I never seen Lance and winning or even potentially contending the Tour mentioned in one single article

A lot of the threads here are going in circles, facts are dpoing leads to uncertainty, it simply distorts the truth and we dont know what is real or not real, whether its potential, ability or doping making the difference. Its sad for the sport. I just wanted to illustrate the potential of various riders and look at how their careers panned out in the EPO era, I know its not necessarily 100% related to doping but I am sure it was a major factor in many career trajectories at the time.

Finally, a question for the Dutch guys, whatever happened to Eddy Bouwmans, 14th and best young rider at the Tour in 92, he also had some other decent results but then just faded into obscurity.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

All of those guys also took EPO.

Lance responded better to EPO and took more of it than Zulle - who had way more talent. After getting cavity searched and roughed up by the gendarmerie in 98 there was no way Zulle was risking taking the stuff on French soil in the 99 race. Lance did - as the positive samples from that year show.


There is a reason why from the start of the EPO era pro teams were looking for guys with lower VO2 max - must have something to do with how individuals respond to the drug.

So many genuine talents of that era must have gotten a lot less out of EPO than formerly average guys like Lance. Must have really hurt them to see him dominating them like that.

 

[Beech Mtn]

All of those guys also took EPO.

Lance responded better to EPO and took more of it than Zulle - who had way more talent. After getting cavity searched and roughed up by the gendarmerie in 98 there was no way Zulle was risking taking the stuff on French soil in the 99 race. Lance did - as the positive samples from that year show.


There is a reason why from the start of the EPO era pro teams were looking for guys with lower VO2 max - must have something to do with how individuals respond to the drug.

So many genuine talents of that era must have gotten a lot less out of EPO than formerly average guys like Lance. Must have really hurt them to see him dominating them like that.

Room for improvement. You're already riding at this high level with low oxygen delivery. How much better will you be with the benefits of EPO added? The guy with the high VO2 Max has less room for improvement = gets less benefit from the EPO. In my opinion.

 

[Jonathan]

After getting cavity searched and roughed up by the gendarmerie in 98 there was no way Zulle was risking taking the stuff on French soil in the 99 race. Lance did - as the positive samples from that year show.

That implies Zülle was immensely competitive without EPO; he could have won the '99 Tour if he hadn't fallen at the infamous Passage du Gois. While I hold Zülle in very high regard, that just seems to go against the spirit of those times.

 

[Escarabajo]

All of those guys also took EPO.

Lance responded better to EPO and took more of it than Zulle - who had way more talent. After getting cavity searched and roughed up by the gendarmerie in 98 there was no way Zulle was risking taking the stuff on French soil in the 99 race. Lance did - as the positive samples from that year show.


There is a reason why from the start of the EPO era pro teams were looking for guys with lower VO2 max - must have something to do with how individuals respond to the drug.

So many genuine talents of that era must have gotten a lot less out of EPO than formerly average guys like Lance. Must have really hurt them to see him dominating them like that.

One known example is Steven Rooks. It looks like he took EPO but he did not feel it did much for him. That was because of his high hematocrit level to begin with. But it is important to note that at that time riders were not aggressive with EPO doses and probably went softly about it. So you would not expect big changes on such a healthy athlete.

Having said that, the reason for looking for athletes with lower natural talent (Low VO2 max, low crit levels) is because they would require higher effort to keep up with the most talented riders and therefore they would develop a higher Lactate threshold. I am not expert on this but it does make sense. Once EPO is introduced into their bodies they would feel very strong having developed a high Lactate Threshold. Maybe somebody with better knowledge can help me on this.

 

[pmcg76]

One known example is Steven Rooks. It looks like he took EPO but he did not feel it did much for him. That was because of his high hematocrit level to begin with. But it is important to note that at that time riders were not aggressive with EPO doses and probably went softly about it. So you would not expect big changes on such a healthy athlete.

Having said that, the reason for looking for athletes with lower natural talent (Low VO2 max, low crit levels) is because they would require higher effort to keep up with the most talented riders and therefore they would develop a higher Lactate threshold. I am not expert on this but it does make sense. Once EPO is introduced into their bodies they would feel very strong having developed a high Lactate Threshold. Maybe somebody with better knowledge can help me on this.

Thats my point really, EPO and such drugs made cycling unfathomable. There is no level playing field when EPO is involved, that is the misnomer that so many people fall for.

Take a guy like Riis who done nothing for the first 5 years of his career and then compare his credentials with new-pro Zulle and ask who was more likely to win the Tour in 96. I think 99.9% of people would have chosen Zulle. Even in 92 Zulle was being touted as the next great Tour champion.

Put Lances early career against Zulle's, assume both were clean at the time and then ask, which one of these guys will win 7 Tours and which one will be a dominant classics rider. Its a no-brainer but thats not how it turned out.

 

[BroDeal]

That implies Zülle was immensely competitive without EPO; he could have won the '99 Tour if he hadn't fallen at the infamous Passage du Gois. While I hold Zülle in very high regard, that just seems to go against the spirit of those times.

No it said that he was not willing to take stuff in France. It does not imply that he did not take stuff before the race. The fact that all the random prologue samples were positive yet there were so few positives during the rest of the race compared to 1998 implies that the riders used EPO within three days of starting the race but few used EPO during the race. The riders had not yet figured out that their wives should carry their monther-in-law's stash.

We can probably also assume the same thing about the use of products like testosterone, so Zulle might have been at quite a large disadvantage.

 

[Polish]

parking cars and pumping gas...

Zulle started using EPO before Lance lol. With ONCE in the early 90's
Venga Venga Venga.

An EPO doped Zulle was on the TdF podium in 1995,
Lance was an hour and a half behind.....

1996, the dopiest year ever, Lance could not even finish
within the time limit at the TdF.

What was Lance to do?
Go back to Texas and become a house painter?
PaintStrong?
I don't think so!

1999 was payback time between Lance and Zulle.
Although I think reading tide tables and bike handling skills
had a bigger influence on the outcome in 1999 than EPO did.
Maybe Alex left his reading glasses in the Team Bus?

 

[BikeCentric]

Zulle started using EPO before Lance lol. With ONCE in the early 90's
Venga Venga Venga.

An EPO doped Zulle was on the TdF podium in 1995,
Lance was an hour and a half behind.....

1996, the dopiest year ever, Lance could not even finish
within the time limit at the TdF.

What was Lance to do?
Go back to Texas and become a house painter?
PaintStrong?
I don't think so!

1999 was payback time between Lance and Zulle.
Although I think reading tide tables and bike handling skills
had a bigger influence on the outcome in 1999 than EPO did.
Maybe Alex left his reading glasses in the Team Bus?

Polish did you forget to put on your Troll mask this morning? You're slipping out of character and actually making a lot of sense here!

 

[BikeCentric]

There is a reason why from the start of the EPO era pro teams were looking for guys with lower VO2 max - must have something to do with how individuals respond to the drug.

Those riders that aren't as genetically gifted with a naturally high VO2 max have more room to "raise the roof" on their performance when using blood boosting drugs. The scientific consensus is that the human lungs are not the limiting factor when it comes to providing oxygen to working muscles in endurance sports; rather the limiting factor is in the blood (i.e. hematocrit) or in the cells (% of Type 1 vs. Type 2 muscle fibers, enzyme production, mitochondrial density, etc.). Therefore blood boosters oftentimes give more relative benefit to a rider with naturally lower VO2 max and/or larger framed riders who have more muscle mass to fuel with oxygen.

I do not have a degree in Exercise Phys. (although I did take a few undergrad classes in it), so I could be slightly off on the science but the above is paraphrased from several studies that I've read and I think the overall gist of it is pretty accurate.

 

[Digger]

Wasn't there a correlation between EPO efficacy and the more muscular the rider was? I.e. Indurain being the first prime example. Robert Millar commented on the changing physiques of the early 90s, calf and quad sizes becoming huge in comparison to the 80s. But it is strange to see the legs of the riders in Hell of the North from 1976, and then compare them to Lance and Ullrich for example. They are bodybuilders legs.

 

[BikeCentric]

Wasn't there a correlation between EPO efficacy and the more muscular the rider was? I.e. Indurain being the first prime example. Robert Millar commented on the changing physiques of the early 90s, calf and quad sizes becoming huge in comparison to the 80s. But it is strange to see the legs of the riders in Hell of the North from 1976, and then compare them to Lance and Ullrich for example. They are bodybuilders legs.

Yes I read that as well.

 

[Escarabajo]

... The scientific consensus is that the human lungs are not the limiting factor when it comes to providing oxygen to working muscles in endurance sports; rather the limiting factor is in the blood (i.e. hematocrit) or in the cells (% of Type 1 vs. Type 2 muscle fibers, enzyme production, mitochondrial density, etc.). Therefore blood boosters oftentimes give more relative benefit to a rider with naturally lower VO2 max and/or larger framed riders who have more muscle mass to fuel with oxygen.

....

You are not that far off. Here is my guide to VO2 max:
http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/VO2max.html

Pay attention to the Presentation Theory.

Factors Affecting VO2 Max

There are many physiological factors that combine to determine VO2 max but which of these are most important? Two theories have been proposed:

Utilization Theory
This theory maintains that aerobic capacity is limited by lack of sufficient oxidative enzymes within the cell's mitochondria (3). It is the body's ability to utilize the available oxygen that determines aerobic capacity. Proponents of this theory point to numerous studies that show oxidative enzymes and the number and size of mitochondria increase with training. This is coupled with increased differences between arterial and venous blood oxygen concentrations (a-vO2 difference) accounting for improved oxygen utilization and hence improved VO2max.

Presentation Theory
Presentation theory suggests that aerobic capacity is limited not predominantly by utilization, but by the ability of the cardiovascular system to deliver oxygen to active tissues. Proponents of this theory maintain that an increase in blood volume, maximal cardiac output (due to increased stroke volume) and better perfusion of blood into the muscles account for the changes in VO2max with training.

So what plays the greater role in determining an athlete's VO2 max - their body's ability to utilize oxygen or supply oxygen to the active tissues?

In a review of the literature, Saltin and Rowell (7) concluded that it is oxygen supply that is the major limiter to endurance performance

 

[SirLes]

Difficult to compare Zuelle with Armstrong as Zulle was born 5/68 so was 24 during the 92 season. Armstrong 9/71 so was only 20 during the 92 season. You would need to look at Armstrong's results in 96- by which time EPO use was rampant (to say nothing of the cancer issue).

This of course does not mean Armstrong did not benefit from drug use just that the comparison doesn't, imo, shed much light on anything.

With regards the differing effects of EPO on riders, I remember at the time wondering why so many riders could stay together for so long, unlike previously.

I would not be surprised if it was proved that EPO use "levelled the playing field" at the expense of those with innate natural talent.

 

[pmcg76]

Difficult to compare Zuelle with Armstrong as Zulle was born 5/68 so was 24 during the 92 season. Armstrong 9/71 so was only 20 during the 92 season. You would need to look at Armstrong's results in 96- by which time EPO use was rampant (to say nothing of the cancer issue).

This of course does not mean Armstrong did not benefit from drug use just that the comparison doesn't, imo, shed much light on anything.

With regards the differing effects of EPO on riders, I remember at the time wondering why so many riders could stay together for so long, unlike previously.

I would not be surprised if it was proved that EPO use "levelled the playing field" at the expense of those with innate natural talent.

I actually took Armstrongs results from the 92/93 period, if you want to go into 94, he doesnt have any better stage race results and as I pointed out in my very first post (if you think a year or two is that significant) compare Lances results with Zberg in his first year as a pro, they were the same age yet Zberg produced in races like the Dauphine/Switzerland/Tirreno-Adriacto.
Heinrich Trumheller, even younger than Lance at 19 but Top 5 in Tour of Switzerland in 92, German Champion first season as a Pro.

You seem to be suggesting there is a huge difference between a rider who is 21/22 and someone who is 23/24. Maybe if Zulle had turned pro earlier and had been a pro for a few seasons by the time he was 23, there might be a big difference. In early 96 Armstrong himself admitted he would never be a Tour competitor, he just didnt have it. You really are clutching at straws with the age thing. I can get many more examples easily.

Actually just go compare Lance stage race results in 95 when he was 23/24 to Zulle in 92 at 23/24 and remember Lance had been a pro for 3 years at that stage.

 

[Escarabajo]

I actually took Armstrongs results from the 92/93 period, if you want to go into 94, he doesnt have any better stage race results and as I pointed out in my very first post (if you think a year or two is that significant) compare Lances results with Zberg in his first year as a pro, they were the same age yet Zberg produced in races like the Dauphine/Switzerland/Tirreno-Adriacto.
Heinrich Trumheller, even younger than Lance at 19 but Top 5 in Tour of Switzerland in 92, German Champion first season as a Pro.

You seem to be suggesting there is a huge difference between a rider who is 21/22 and someone who is 23/24. Maybe if Zulle had turned pro earlier and had been a pro for a few seasons by the time he was 23, there might be a big difference. In early 96 Armstrong himself admitted he would never be a Tour competitor, he just didnt have it. You really are clutching at straws with the age thing. I can get many more examples easily.

Laurent Fignon won his first Tour de France when he was 23 yrs old.

 

[SirLes]

I wasn't mounting a defence of Armstrong just wasn't sure the comparison with Zuelle was the best example to choose as I would have thought that the age difference could be a factor.

Certainly the change in Armstrong from classics to stage racer is interesting. To my mind both the "myth" and the "it was doping" are too simplistic however there are far too many LA dominated threads on this board and this one doesn't need to get dragged down that road does it?

My original comment wasn't intended to start yet another LA discussion, it was actually to try to sideline him so other riders like Zberg could get more airtime.

I will go and have a look at some results from that time. I had a quick glance at the to 20s from the TdF about that time the other day and it is remarkable the speed with which the names change.
It reminds me of when in natural history there are mass exinctions in a very short space of time followed by a completely new wave of different species.


I always wondered why that was

 

[pmcg76]

I wasn't mounting a defence of Armstrong just wasn't sure the comparison with Zuelle was the best example to choose as I would have thought that the age difference could be a factor.

Certainly the change in Armstrong from classics to stage racer is interesting. To my mind both the "myth" and the "it was doping" are too simplistic however there are far too many LA dominated threads on this board and this one doesn't need to get dragged down that road does it?

My original comment wasn't intended to start yet another LA discussion, it was actually to try to sideline him so other riders like Zberg could get more airtime.

I will go and have a look at some results from that time. I had a quick glance at the to 20s from the TdF about that time the other day and it is remarkable the speed with which the names change.
It reminds me of when in natural history there are mass exinctions in a very short space of time followed by a completely new wave of different species.


I always wondered why that was

My initial point was that doping so distorts things that its hard to draw a conclusion on anything, who it benefits, who it doesnt, by how much etc. To me, the easiest way to assess natural talent is to look at a rider early in their career, especailly before the EPO years.

Then look how their respective careers progressed during the EPO area, It could be argued EPO didnt benefit Zulle much, it didnt benefit Zberg at all but did benefit Lance big time but I repeat, its impossible to know. Its all guesswork.

 

[SirLes]

My initial point was that doping so distorts things that its hard to draw a conclusion on anything, who it benefits, who it doesnt, by how much etc. To me, the easiest way to assess natural talent is to look at a rider early in their career, especailly before the EPO years.

Then look how their respective careers progressed during the EPO area, It could be argued EPO didnt benefit Zulle much, it didnt benefit Zberg at all but did benefit Lance big time but I repeat, its impossible to know. Its all guesswork.

I certainly think there is mileage in looking at those crucial early years of EPO use to ascertain it's varied effects. It really was an extraordinary time. But as you say, lack of credible evidence and number of variables mean we will never know.

Actually, I'm not even sure the riders at the time really knew either in any sort of quantifiable sense.