History - doping - asterisk performances - have we crossed the line?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Yes, I understand that the ABP can be beaten, I have never denied that (funny that in the other thread you trolled me for referring to "science" yet the very evidence you are referring to here is also published in the scientific literature). However, if the ABP can be beaten, then please explain why the top GC contenders from around 2007-2009 are going minutes slower up HC and cat 1 climbs from 2010 onwards???

There are two possibilities IMO:
1. you can beat the ABP but you don't get the same performance benefit as previously, so you slow down a little bit even though you are still doping.

2. all of the best riders in the world over the past 3yrs are physiologically inferior to those from before 2008 and those that cross over that time point are all having bad seasons year after year

Possibility #1 is the opinion expressed by Olaf Schumacher, Rob Parisotto and Anne Gripper publicly.

As far as the UCI is concerned, the ABP probably is an exercise in public relations but as far as people like those I just mentioned and also including Michael Ashenden and John Fahey (WADA president), it certainly isn't. The ABP is bigger than cycling.
3. Science in Sport do quick and simple calculations based on VAM, and the riders know the maximum power they are allowed to sustain on climbs for the performance to be believable. Wiggins generates this power by pedalling at 100-110 rpm uphill. Blood boosted to the max. Froome, who has not been in the spotlight before, gets anxious / overexcited and has a dig on stage 16 but it's too early, the speed of the ascent will be too high, so is told to pull back. He spends most of the Tour and the Vuelta checking his power meter.

On stage 16, towards the top, where the change in pace is going to have little impact on the overall ascent speed, Wiggins himself moves to the front, finally, and closes down Nibali, who attacked earlier. Wiggins appears to be making Froome suffer and looks fine.

On stage 17 Froome has the "beckon" moment where he's asking for Brad to speed up. This is a guy who has trained with Brad, so I have no doubts Froome knows what Brad is capable of. But it's good tactically for Wiggins to leave Froome out there, looking conspicuous. Perhpas feign a bit of tiredness. Make Froome look like the alien.

3 days later Wiggins smashes Froome in the TT, proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that he has more W/kg than Froome. It's much harder to quickly and simply estimate power based on speed and atmospheric conditions, but cycling power models have done so, and esimate Brad's power at 6.9W/kg for 64 minutes in the final TT.

Not normal.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
The other way around the VAM limits is to do what Contador does: sprint uphill every now and then, recover a bit, then go again. VAM is calculating average power, not normalised power like a power meter could.

Until Norway get their 97ml/m/kg juniors on scene, VAM will be limited to the "physiologically possible" based on a VO2max of around 85-90 and an efficiency of 22-23%, thanks to Science of Sport website and Ferrari's blog and the phenomenon that VO2max tends to be inversely correlated with efficiency.

What is NOT physiologically possible, is to do this same VAM maximum speed up every single mountain on every single stage.

Then smash the final TT.

Not normal. Definitely chemically assisted.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
3. Science in Sport do quick and simple calculations based on VAM, and the riders know the maximum power they are allowed to sustain on climbs for the performance to be believable.
Sorry I stopped here because this is such a crock of sh!t I just couldn't go any further. Tin foil hat crackpot looney theory at its finest.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Sorry I stopped here because this is such a crock of sh!t I just couldn't go any further. Tin foil hat crackpot looney theory at its finest.
Seems pretty soundly reasoned to me. Hypothesis, data, analysis, conclusion. Where is the crackpot looney bit? And therein lies the problem here...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Sorry I stopped here because this is such a crock of sh!t I just couldn't go any further. Tin foil hat crackpot looney theory at its finest.
Another PhD level rebuttal of my posts. Consistent. Let me draw a few more dots for you...

1. Team Sky meet with ASO pre-Tour and promise "no nasty surprises".
2. Teams listen in on each other's radios.
3. Team Sky (with power meters) are riding to a power that prevents escape via attack - ie they are riding at the physiologically accepted limit, and in case an attacking rider doesn't have a power meter, Mick Rogers is on race radio explaining why a rider can't stay away.

1. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sky-meeting-with-aso-is-routine-team-says
However when a blog on Skysports let slip that the British team of Bradley Wiggins and Mark Cavendish had made a presentation to ASO ahead of this year’s Tour de France, it raised eyebrows – especially when the blog mentioned that part of the presentation was to ensure they ‘won't get any nasty surprises’.

Why would Team Sky need to justify their performances this season and why should they choose to present Bradley Wiggins’ power details and training data ahead of race he’d yet to start? In the subsequent 24 hours social media has been ablaze with innuendo and rumour, cultivating all from Sky’s success but also from the thickened air of suspicion cast by USADA investigation into Lance Armstrong and a motley crew of doctors.
2. http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/09/news/kamikaze-contador-blows-apart-vuelta_237654
“I told the guys on the radio, ‘full gas!’ That’s all I wanted to say, because sometimes teams listen in on your ear-piece,” Contador said.
3. http://wwos.9msn.com.au/mobile/article.aspx?id=8503300&sectionid=&_sp=2078&_s=28a13f2b-0adb-4441-bd9d-b8d302db3653
Cycling has changed a bit, because we're riding up these climbs now ... and we're talking numbers and power and things," Wiggins said.

"For someone to attack, with the power we're riding now, and go away - we've seen why that is now, perhaps, in recent years.

"The Tour is lot more human, with everything the UCI is doing now.

"Maybe people want to see these incredible 220km lone breaks in the mountains - maybe that's not realistic any more."

Wiggins said Australian teammate Michael Rogers could say with confidence that if they rode at a certain pace, no-one could surge away.

"This week, we were riding tempo at the front on some of these climbs, at 450 watts, and Michael Rogers is the man with all the numbers, the road captain," he said.

"Someone would attack and Mick would say [over race radio - DW] 'just leave him, he can't sustain (it), it's not possible to sustain.

"If we're riding at 450 watts, someone is going to have to sustain 500 watts to stay away on a 20-minute climb, which is only possible if you have another couple of litres of blood.

"That's the reality of it.
"
ETA: I have not done the calcs to work out how much additional blood you would need to sustain 500W (ie 50W more). I'll look at doing that in the coming weeks. CaptainBag has a post on it somewhere I can use as a foundation.
 
Jul 27, 2010
260
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
3. Science in Sport do quick and simple calculations based on VAM, and the riders know the maximum power they are allowed to sustain on climbs for the performance to be believable. Wiggins generates this power by pedalling at 100-110 rpm uphill. Blood boosted to the max. Froome, who has not been in the spotlight before, gets anxious / overexcited and has a dig on stage 16 but it's too early, the speed of the ascent will be too high, so is told to pull back. He spends most of the Tour and the Vuelta checking his power meter.

On stage 16, towards the top, where the change in pace is going to have little impact on the overall ascent speed, Wiggins himself moves to the front, finally, and closes down Nibali, who attacked earlier. Wiggins appears to be making Froome suffer and looks fine.

On stage 17 Froome has the "beckon" moment where he's asking for Brad to speed up. This is a guy who has trained with Brad, so I have no doubts Froome knows what Brad is capable of. But it's good tactically for Wiggins to leave Froome out there, looking conspicuous. Perhpas feign a bit of tiredness. Make Froome look like the alien.

3 days later Wiggins smashes Froome in the TT, proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that he has more W/kg than Froome. It's much harder to quickly and simply estimate power based on speed and atmospheric conditions, but cycling power models have done so, and esimate Brad's power at 6.9W/kg for 64 minutes in the final TT.

Not normal.
So, you're saying that everyone is, at least mostly, off the juice except for Team Sky, who just keeps it at tempo up the climbs and drops everyone by making sure to stay within the accepted power output of a clean cyclist? That seems a little far-fetched to me.

And 6.9W/kg? Really? I sure as hell don't believe that number one bit.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Fowsto Cope-E said:
So, you're saying that everyone is, at least mostly, off the juice except for Team Sky, who just keeps it at tempo up the climbs and drops everyone by making sure to stay within the accepted power output of a clean cyclist? That seems a little far-fetched to me.
I'll try to spell it out more clearly.

1. The physiological limit is based on a superman of a rider - not a clean, above average rider, but a superman.
2. Everyone is doping at the tour - if not everyone, then the top 30-40 on GC and the top 5-10 in each points competition at least.
3. Team Sky dominated those doping riders from March to August, 2012, by doping as well. Having arrangements with ASO, et al and constantly "explaining" their performances (450W on the front for each climb) helped keep everything perceived as clean.

Fowsto Cope-E said:
And 6.9W/kg? Really? I sure as hell don't believe that number one bit.
Calculate the power for 50km/hr for 53.5km @ 190cm tall into a headwind.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Yes, I understand that the ABP can be beaten, I have never denied that (funny that in the other thread you trolled me for referring to "science" yet the very evidence you are referring to here is also published in the scientific literature). However, if the ABP can be beaten, then please explain why the top GC contenders from around 2007-2009 are going minutes slower up HC and cat 1 climbs from 2010 onwards???

There are two possibilities IMO:
1. you can beat the ABP but you don't get the same performance benefit as previously, so you slow down a little bit even though you are still doping.
You'll like this, Krebs Cycle, it's a link to a study...

In February, 2011: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21336951
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Sep;111(9):2307-14. Epub 2011 Feb 20.
Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping.
Ashenden M, Gough CE, Garnham A, Gore CJ, Sharpe K.

Abstract

The Athlete Blood Passport is the most recent tool adopted by anti-doping authorities to detect athletes using performance-enhancing drugs such as recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). This strategy relies on detecting abnormal variations in haematological variables caused by doping, against a background of biological and analytical variability. Ten subjects were given twice weekly intravenous injections of rhEPO for up to 12 weeks. Full blood counts were measured using a Sysmex XE-2100 automated haematology analyser, and total haemoglobin mass via a carbon monoxide rebreathing test. The sensitivity of the passport to flag abnormal deviations in blood values was evaluated using dedicated Athlete Blood Passport software. Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.
(Sysmex ring a bell? It should)

This was just rhEPO - no speed bags or HgH or anything else to help your parameters settle down. Like an actual transfusion, or drinking lots of water before your second blood test on the last day of the Giro.

http://wwos.9msn.com.au/mobile/article.aspx?id=8503300&sectionid=&_sp=2078&_s=28a13f2b-0adb-4441-bd9d-b8d302db3653
"If we're riding at 450 watts, someone is going to have to sustain 500 watts to stay away on a 20-minute climb, which is only possible if you have another couple of litres of blood."
ie another couple of litres of blood more than what Team Sky Tenerife Trio are riding with.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Here's how easy it is to beat the ABP:

And thank you for demonstrating your complete misunderstanding of how the ABP works. That is the EPO off-score. It uses a set threshold which is the same for everyone. This is not how the ABP works which uses within subject difference scores to determine individual thresholds.

Do some real homework on the subject if you really are interested in learning about it....
http://www.haematologica.org/content/91/3/356.long

As I said above and I will repeat and I agree with you, Michael Ashenden's own research shows that EPO microdosing can give a 10% increase in total Hbmass without it being flagged by the ABP. Therefore, the ABP is limited and cannot stop blood doping, however, numerous studies have shown that it is possible to increase total Hbmass by 5-10% from altitude training alone. ie: it is certainly enough to make a difference but not enough to produce the performance levels from pre 2009. The increases in total Hbmass from transfusions and unrestricted EPO use were more likely in the range of 20-30% since they were infusing red cells only, not whole blood.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
And thank you for demonstrating your complete misunderstanding of how the ABP works. That is the EPO off-score. It uses a set threshold which is the same for everyone. This is not how the ABP works which uses within subject difference scores to determine individual thresholds.
1. It is called the OFF-hr Score (OFFS), not the EPO off-score.
2. It is the way the ABP works, which involves looking at the Hgb and off score values to detect abnormalities.

Here's what the UCI-produced "study" on the ABP says, (c) 2010: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21204287

Only the HGB and Off-hr score are taken into account by the Bayesian model in order to define a possible anti-doping rule violation.
Krebs cycle said:
Do some real homework on the subject if you really are interested in learning about it....
http://www.haematologica.org/content/91/3/356.long
This is a study - a proof of concept, if you like. Here's the official WADA guidelines if you want to brush up on the nomenclature: http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Science_Medicine/Athlete_Biological_Passport/WADA-ABP-Operating-Guidelines_v3.1-EN.pdf

Krebs cycle said:
As I said above and I will repeat and I agree with you, Michael Ashenden's own research shows that EPO microdosing can give a 10% increase in total Hbmass without it being flagged by the ABP. Therefore, the ABP is limited and cannot stop blood doping, however, numerous studies have shown that it is possible to increase total Hbmass by 5-10% from altitude training alone. ie: it is certainly enough to make a difference but not enough to produce the performance levels from pre 2009. The increases in total Hbmass from transfusions and unrestricted EPO use were more likely in the range of 20-30% since they were infusing red cells only, not whole blood.
Numerous altitude training studies? Strange that you did not link them, you usually do so as your "explanation". Let's see if we can find any...

Here's one study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19294411
Precis: 3 weeks at 3000m for > 14hr/day LHTL protocol. 3.3% increase in Hb mass. That's averaged, definitely less than 5%. Nowhere near 10%

Here's another study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10502083
Precis: We conclude that red blood cell production is not stimulated in male endurance athletes who spend 23 nights at a simulated altitude of 3000 m.

And one more: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10502082
Precis: We conclude that in elite female road cyclists, 12 nights of exposure to normobaric hypoxia (2650 m) is not sufficient to either stimulate reticulocyte production or increase haemoglobin mass.

So an athlete can live non-stop at an altitude of 3000m and train poorly as a result of adapatation issues, with the hope that he might respond to altitude induced hypoxia (some athletes decrease Hgb mass, some increase, avg change = +3.3% but in 2 other studies there's no change) and have that Hgb mass start to wear off as soon as they leave altitude...

OR

microdose EPO on an on-going basis for a guaranteed increase in Hgb mass of 10% - without any additional "work" such as over-hydrating pre-test or other unmentioned dope-test beating measures. These measures would allow an athlete to do larger doses of EPO, but stay within the limits.

You have a PhD in this, Krebs Cycle, but let me know if I'm moving too quick for you.

Brad Wiggins threatened to release his blood values from 2012. So strange that he didn't.

Sir David "white knight" Millar is Mr Clean "Tour stage winner 2012" on Team Squeaky Clean Garmin - no blood values released.

JV claims everyone tested high at the Giro start, has 8 other team members on his Giro team, will not / has not released any of his other rider's blood values to back up his claim. No other team doctor backs up his claims - and apparently none of the team managers / owners have a clue as to what is going on.

ABP proves nothing.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
1. It is called the OFF-hr Score (OFFS), not the EPO off-score.
2. It is the way the ABP works, which involves looking at the Hgb and off score values to detect abnormalities.
Yeah whatevs tryhard. You made a schoolboy error and are too gutless to admit it, so you deflect and start crapping on about semantics. When the EPO test was being developed by Rob Parisotto and Michael Ashenden at the AIS in 1999 and early 2000, it was referred to as the EPO on score or the EPO off score. I couldn't care less what the "official" name is now, it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about how it works and you can't admit it.

Deny all you like. It does NOT look at a single blood sample (which is clearly what you were implying above). It uses serial measurements over time. The linked study explains that very clearly.

Dear Wiggo said:
Numerous altitude training studies? Strange that you did not link them, you usually do so as your "explanation". Let's see if we can find any...

Here's one study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19294411
Precis: 3 weeks at 3000m for > 14hr/day LHTL protocol. 3.3&#37]I'm not too much of gutless wonder to admit that yes I made a small mistake here when I said 6-10%. From personal communication with the authors of those studies I know that individuals have gotten increases in the range of 6-10% but I didn't doublecheck the published mean data from every study that has been done over the past 5-7yrs.

Nevertheless, lets take a look at your uninformed and ignorant stab in the dark here.....

Dear Wiggo said:
Here's another study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10502083
Precis: We conclude that red blood cell production is not stimulated in male endurance athletes who spend 23 nights at a simulated altitude of 3000 m.

And one more: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10502082
Precis: We conclude that in elite female road cyclists, 12 nights of exposure to normobaric hypoxia (2650 m) is not sufficient to either stimulate reticulocyte production or increase haemoglobin mass.
Ah yes, Well done... quoting Michael Ashenden's PhD studies. I think you need to look a little closer at those abstracts that you just posted but obviously didn't take care to read the methodology closely enough. Asho used about 8hrs per night LHTL for those studies. But it wasn't until years later that the AIS started using longer exposures... ie: >12hrs per day

In the mid-1990s, Finnish scientists reported increased red cell mass following 3&#8211]Subsequent attempts by our group failed to reproduce these findings (2). In 2004, Rusko (11) suggested that an adequate hypoxic stimulus required >12 hr/day, >2,000 m, >3 wk. Indeed, since 2006, using the optimized CO-rebreathing technique (9), we have consistently observed mean increases in Hbmass of 3–5% after exposures of 14 hr/day, 3,000 m, 21 days in elite athletes (3, 6, 10, 12)[/b] and furthermore demonstrated this response as reproducible (10). We also quantified that individual variation of the Hbmass response to this hypoxic dose is of similar magnitude to the mean increase (10). We therefore disagree with the assertion of Siebenmann that “the presence of an effect on Hbmass crucially depends on the random composition of the subject groups,” as our nonresponders can usually be explained by illness, injury, or training stress. By using duplicate measures, we have demonstrated a mean increase in Hbmass of ∼1% per 100 h to both simulated (3, 6) and natural altitude (4). On the basis of these findings we would expect a 4–5% increase in Siebenmann's study.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/112/10/1797.long
Citation #2 (in bold above) is the first 23 nights @ 3000m study you linked to. Note the statement CONSISTENTLY observed mean increases of 3-5%. Average increases.... that means that some athletes were in the range of 6-10% so even without doublechecking the published results of those studies, I wasn't far off.


Now lets turn to your next bogus statement that you took a wild stab at and got wrong also....
dear wiggo said:
So an athlete can live non-stop at an altitude of 3000m and train poorly as a result of adapatation issues, with the hope that he might respond to altitude induced hypoxia (some athletes decrease Hgb mass, some increase, avg change = +3.3% but in 2 other studies there's no change) and have that Hgb mass start to wear off as soon as they leave altitude...
For starters, again you obviously didn't read the methods, in fact you didn't even read the TITLE because all those studies used LHTL.... get it? TRAIN LOW. Do I need to spell it out what that means?

Anyway, lets look at some other work at the AIS on longer LHTL blocks with elite runners.....

Improved running economy and increased hemoglobin mass in elite runners after extended moderate altitude exposure.

There is conflicting evidence whether hypoxia improves running economy (RE), maximal O(2) uptake (V(O)(2max)), haemoglobin mass (Hb(mass)) and performance, and what total accumulated dose is necessary for effective adaptation. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of an extended hypoxic exposure on these physiological and performance measures. Nine elite middle distance runners were randomly assigned to a live high-train low simulated altitude group (ALT) and spent 46+/-8 nights (mean+/-S.D.) at 2860+/-41m. A matched control group (CON, n=9) lived and trained near sea level ( approximately 600m). ALT decreased submaximal V(O)(2) (Lmin(-1)) (-3.2%, 90% confidence intervals, -1.0% to -5.2%, p=0.02), increased Hb(mass) (4.9%, 2.3-7.6%, p=0.01), decreased submaximal heart rate (-3.1%, -1.8% to -4.4%, p=0.00) and had a trivial increase in V(O)(2max) (1.5%, -1.6 to 4.8] Hypoxic exposure of approximately 400h was sufficient to improve Hb(mass), a response not observed with shorter exposures. Although total O(2) carrying capacity was improved, the mechanism(s) to explain the lack of proportionate increase in V(O)(2max) were not identified

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18069063
Hey look at that... a 5% increase in total Hb mass but only a trivial increase in VO2max and no correlation between the two.

So according to the actual facts and not your made up BS, an athlete could conceivably do LHTL using an altitude tent on and off in a periodised manner for months and combine it with real altitude training and get about a 5% increase in total Hbmass.

It's pretty obvious you're moving way too slow dude. You're so slow that you're 6yrs behind on the biopassport work that was published in 2006 and 12yrs behind on the total Hbmass with altitude work.

First you troll me in another thread, then you come in here and make a schoolboy error about the ABP, then you crap on about "doing a calculation to determine how much more blood someone would need to increase their power by 50W" which is an absolute load of rubbish because we know that the error in such an exercise is way too high for any results to be meaningful, then you come up with some crackpot theory about riders being told to "soft pedal" on purpose so it's not too obvious they are doping, then you post links to a bunch of studies and come to a series of erroneous conclusions because you didn't bother to read the methods or search harder for more recent studies, then I suppose you thought I wouldn't pick you up on the fact that you're completely full of sh!t??
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Robust discussion!

Half time score Wiggo 1, Krebs 1. Looking forward to the second half.

Maybe Brailsford can interview the real Wiggo from the sidelines at half time? Or we might have to trust Pat to do the post match interview in another 5 years...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
So according to the actual facts and not your made up BS, an athlete could conceivably do LHTL using an altitude tent on and off in a periodised manner for months and combine it with real altitude training and get about a 5% increase in total Hbmass.
Ahhhh so you are now saying altitude hypoxia-induced increases in Hgb mass accumulate over time? Even though your new favourite study indicates 21 contiguous days at altitude for > 14hr/day for a measly 3%-5% increase. Or how about 46 +/- 8 days. A month and a half. Seriously? How about all the tours Sky were caning on the lead up to the Grand Boucle.

3%.

Pretty sure you said 5-10%. :eek: Lemme see. Is 3% less or more than 5%. Or 10% even. Dayam. I think it's less. Well waddaya know. Sorry junior, you're gonna have to try much harder!!

Oh, and once the athlete returns to sea level or "low" his Hgb doesn't return to "normal"?

Or after living low for 3 weeks before and during the Tour de France, or any other race leading up to the Tour, his Hgb mass just miraculously stays elevated.

How convenient.

I don't believe in miracles, though, so I'll stick with the tried and true, undetectable and ever more reliable micro-dosing of EPO. 10% increase in Hgb mass. No altitude anomalies like reduction in VO2max like the ones your study observed.

- BOOM -

You know. Occam's razor and all that.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Yeah whatevs tryhard. You made a schoolboy error and are too gutless to admit it,
There's no error. I quoted directly from the study as published by the UCI doctors. If there is error, take it up with them.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
'...'As I said above and I will repeat and I agree with you, Michael Ashenden's own research shows that EPO microdosing can give a 10% increase in total Hbmass without it being flagged by the ABP. Therefore, the ABP is limited and cannot stop blood doping, however, numerous studies have shown that it is possible to increase total Hbmass by 5-10% from altitude training alone. ie: it is certainly enough to make a difference but not enough to produce the performance levels from pre 2009. The increases in total Hbmass from transfusions and unrestricted EPO use were more likely in the range of 20-30% since they were infusing red cells only, not whole blood.
Krebs cycle said:
'...'I'm not too much of gutless wonder to admit that yes I made a small mistake here when I said 6-10%. From personal communication with the authors of those studies I know that individuals have gotten increases in the range of 6-10% but I didn't doublecheck the published mean data from every study that has been done over the past 5-7yrs.'...'Citation #2 (in bold above) is the first 23 nights @ 3000m study you linked to. Note the statement CONSISTENTLY observed mean increases of 3-5%. Average increases.... that means that some athletes were in the range of 6-10% so even without doublechecking the published results of those studies, I wasn't far off.'...'
Where you appear to be flailing frantically and failing miserably is the interpretation of those data. But of course that may be a simple communication difficulty, due to your message being lost among all the insults which make up the majority of your posts.

What those data show is that only an excellent altitude responder, after an appropriate block of LHTL, can hope to get similar Hbmass increases to that which can be achieved by micro dosing "under the radar". The gap between the clean, talented altitude responder and the sophisticated doper has decreased. But the number of people who can achieve that improvement clean is still much smaller than the number who can achieve it by charging.

So, when a whole lot of people are performing at the level of pre EPO champions, what is the most reasonable conclusion?

HTH
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Citation #2 (in bold above) is the first 23 nights @ 3000m study you linked to. Note the statement CONSISTENTLY observed mean increases of 3-5%. Average increases.... that means that some athletes were in the range of 6-10% so even without doublechecking the published results of those studies, I wasn't far off.
And some of those athletes LOST HGB MASS. Check the results.

Lost mass.

As in had some, went LHTL, and then had LESS.

Unlike our friend micro-dosed EPO, which is a guaranteed +10% Hgb mass. That was an AVERAGE of 10%, averaged over 10 subjects. With 2 injections a week.

Your study averaged 3-5%.

EPO micro-dosed 10% average pwns your 3-5% average into the ground.

And the EPO micro-dosing, which continues through the Tour? Yep, it maintains your Hgb mass. Unlike that altitude training potluck random effect business that once you hit sea level goes - P O O F - and disappears because the hypoxic stimulus is now GONE.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Ahhhh so you are now saying altitude hypoxia-induced increases in Hgb mass accumulate over time? Even though your new favourite study indicates 21 contiguous days at altitude for > 14hr/day for a measly 3%-5% increase. Or how about 46 +/- 8 days. A month and a half. Seriously? How about all the tours Sky were caning on the lead up to the Grand Boucle.

3%.

Pretty sure you said 5-10%. :eek: Lemme see. Is 3% less or more than 5%. Or 10% even. Dayam. I think it's less. Well waddaya know. Sorry junior, you're gonna have to try much harder!!

Oh, and once the athlete returns to sea level or "low" his Hgb doesn't return to "normal"?

Or after living low for 3 weeks before and during the Tour de France, or any other race leading up to the Tour, his Hgb mass just miraculously stays elevated.

How convenient.

I don't believe in miracles, though, so I'll stick with the tried and true, undetectable and ever more reliable micro-dosing of EPO. 10% increase in Hgb mass. No altitude anomalies like reduction in VO2max like the ones your study observed.

- BOOM -

You know. Occam's razor and all that.
Are you 5yrs old or something? This is so pathetic its not worth a proper response.

Going back to the original point....

The UCI's own doctor Mario Zorzoli published a paper in 2010 which showed that the incidence of extreme blood profiles declined markedly after 2008. A little while after, Asho published a paper showing that microdosing doesn't get flagged by the ABP and you can even get an increase in total Hbmass of around 10% (nb: after 12 weeks). Seems like a lot, but in reality its only marginally higher than what can be achieved via LHTL, because the studies show you can increase total Hbmass by 5% in as little as a month. Neither are anywhere near what could be achieved via transfusions or large doses of EPO though. And around the same time Olaf Schumacher publishes a paper which shows that autologous transfusions DO get flagged by the ABP.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21382045

Meanwhile, the entire peloton is going minutes slower up every major climb.

So what does that tell us? Well it tells me that microdosing just ain't as good as a transfusion or large dose of EPO at enhancing performance. It also tells me that the gap between dope fiend and talented clean athlete has narrowed. And yet again, I will remind you that these are the opinions of anti-doping researchers Olaf Schumacher and Rob Parisotto, former UCI anti-doping chief Anne Gripper and the late Aldo Sassi. My guess is that Asho also believes it also otherwise he wouldn't have devoted the last 10yrs of his life to the cause.

I think these people are better informed than your sorry ****.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
I Watch Cycling In July said:
Where you appear to be flailing frantically and failing miserably is the interpretation of those data. But of course that may be a simple communication difficulty, due to your message being lost among all the insults which make up the majority of your posts.

What those data show is that only an excellent altitude responder, after an appropriate block of LHTL, can hope to get similar Hbmass increases to that which can be achieved by micro dosing "under the radar". The gap between the clean, talented altitude responder and the sophisticated doper has decreased. But the number of people who can achieve that improvement clean is still much smaller than the number who can achieve it by charging.

So, when a whole lot of people are performing at the level of pre EPO champions, what is the most reasonable conclusion?

HTH
I have always maintained that Wiggins and co could be doping. In fact I've always maintained that anyone could be doping. I'm happy to admit that Sky could be doping. However, times have changed and I can accept the fact that there are multiple lines of evidence which indicate their performances this year can be explained by non-doping mechanisms. That was not so during Armstrong's era which is why times have changed. It is the crackpot loonies in here who are the ones frothing at mouth like rabid dogs at the slightest suggestion this could possibly be true.

I'm over trying to play nice and subsequently getting trolled by internet nasties, so I'll give as good as I get thanks.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
i hate to interject, but that study seems to reflect on the outdated transfusion techniques...quoting:

...multiple transfusions of 1-2 units
...

sophisticated dopers stopped doing this at least since 2008. instead, just like microdosing epo more frequently , they moved on to 1/2 and 1/3 units more frequently.

when you show me a study catching THAT, I will take it more seriously.
 
python said:
i hate to interject, but that study seems to reflect on the outdated transfusion techniques...quoting:

...multiple transfusions of 1-2 units
...

sophisticated dopers stopped doing this at least since 2008. instead, just like microdosing epo more frequently , they moved on to 1/2 and 1/3 units more frequently.

when you show me a study catching THAT, I will take it more seriously.
Has the logistics issue Tyler touches upon in his book been sorted for those advanced dopers? Motomen again? I seem to remember Tyler telling about a single Fuentes transfusion after stage 5 in the Giro only.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Cloxxki said:
Has the logistics issue Tyler touches upon in his book been sorted for those advanced dopers? Motomen again? I seem to remember Tyler telling about a single Fuentes transfusion after stage 5 in the Giro only.
of course, the logistics issue is a huge impediment for a more frequent transfusion schedule. but don't forget, tyler described a pre-bloodpassport transfusion technique that always involved a full unit and was required to beat only one rule - a 50% haematocrit limit. a decade old method.

we can only guess as to the logistics some sophisticated dopers use today. but it could be reasonably assumed that it would a method based on multiple half-units derived through 'siberia' (freezing rbc in off-season) in combination with close cooperation of a dedicated and competent personal support. it is relatively easy to move a bunch of deep frozen half-units close to the site of the race (say monaco if it is le tour) and shuttle them as needed by a carrier in advace of the pre-arranged transfusion schedule.

then, the only major difference between the tyler/fuentes method and the one i assumed, would be that instead of shuttling 2-3 full bbs from madrid 'siberia', they would shuttled 4-6 half-units from a much closer location.

a sophisticated doper with resources can do it. risky ? sure. but doping has always been about taking a chance.
 
May 8, 2009
837
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
1. It is called the OFF-hr Score (OFFS), not the EPO off-score.
2. It is the way the ABP works, which involves looking at the Hgb and off score values to detect abnormalities.
<snip>
Abnormalities is the off-score deviating too much from the rider's mean value, not going over 134 like you seem to think.

Maybe this has been addressed but I didn't feel like reading another bigring vs krebs duel.
 
Jul 27, 2010
260
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
I'll try to spell it out more clearly.

1. The physiological limit is based on a superman of a rider - not a clean, above average rider, but a superman.
2. Everyone is doping at the tour - if not everyone, then the top 30-40 on GC and the top 5-10 in each points competition at least.
3. Team Sky dominated those doping riders from March to August, 2012, by doping as well. Having arrangements with ASO, et al and constantly "explaining" their performances (450W on the front for each climb) helped keep everything perceived as clean.


Calculate the power for 50km/hr for 53.5km @ 190cm tall into a headwind.
I'm sorry, but Team Sky didn't sandbag and still drop everyone else. That's ridiculous. And if you only derived that calculation from speed, height, and the fact that there was a headwind, that doesn't seem particularly accurate.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Hiero: I asked this question and you missed it or ignored it. I'll ask one more time.

If you take away the athlete's biological passport, what indication do you have that we are out of the dark era?

Slower speeds? So slow noone can attack for the duration of the Tour on any mountain, but Wiggins puts 2:25 into 5th place in the final 53.5km TT?
I apologize for not answering before. Slower speeds, more riders having spoken out, the opinions of the scientists and many riders who are involved. Omerta is not dead yet, but it is under serious fire, and we could never say that before. But, in my opinion, the bio-passport is a big part of the recovery. Of course, it could get completely bollixed up, and it appears to me the UCI is trying to do exactly that.

Today is not like 1999, or 2005. Instead of a few people speaking out, and those few being labeled as the fringe (and they WERE a fringe, since they were small in numbers), we have many people speaking out, and many people watching, and many people aware. The people who put numbers together, like busybeehive, and that French guy who does the climbing watts calcs, are giving us numbers consistent with a reduction in the impact of PED's.

People and personalities are a clue. Now that many people are speaking, we are hearing from more than a few riders who say - "Hey! I was affected and forced to make that choice!" But these are, so far, all PAST instances. No recently current riders have spoken such.

And, I think most people are basically honest. Or, at least, not all people are scheming. What this means to us, is that I do not think it is likely that ALL, or even MOST riders currently in the pro peloton are liars and cheats. It is difficult to get to ALL. SOME will want to compete clean. In the past, as we know, there would be friction against that SOME talking about it. Today, I believe we can reasonably believe that the friction (Omerta) is less powerful. We see evidence of that.

But I'm rambling. What if we were without the bio-passport. Hmmm. I'm not sure, that without the bio-passport, we would be where we are. I'm not sure, without the bio-passport, if we have enough evidence the peloton is clean.

But, we DO have the bio-passport. So why the question?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B The Clinic 3
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS