How can you tell a rider is clean?

[issoisso]

Lemond claims the introduction of EPO and other PED's in the early 90's was his downfall. But, Indurain's power to weight ratio in 1991 was about .5 w/kg less than GL's the year before, and even in 1992 it was almost .8 w/kg lower than GL's in 1990. Is this right?????

Nope, that's the average power of the GC winner in the mountains. These were the pre-1994 years in which Induráin let the climbers gain time and didn't worry much about them on most mountain stages. it's only natural that it's slightly lower than previous years.

In 1993 when Induráin had to dig extremely deep to hang onto Rominger and 94 and 95 when he dropped even the climbers, he actually went to his full extent in the mountains, but not in 91 or 92

This is not a defense of LeMond, btw

 

[ChrisE]

Nope, that's the average power of the GC winner in the mountains. These were the pre-1994 years in which Induráin let the climbers gain time and didn't worry much about them on most mountain stages. it's only natural that it's slightly lower than previous years.

In 1993 when Induráin had to dig extremely deep to hang onto Rominger and 94 and 95 when he dropped even the climbers, he actually went to his full extent in the mountains, but not in 91 or 92

This is not a defense of LeMond, btw

Nope????

You just repeated what I wrote. I wrote Indurain's pre 93 numbers could have been skewed due to riding conservatively in the mountains in my previous post. And I have noted twice that Rominger showing up in 93 was a big deal in terms of how Indurain rode.

Still, that is common practice for GC riders to ride somewhat conservatively in the mountains, some more than others. I wouldn't think they would be that far off one year to the next with the same "strategy" of a GC rider.

I haven't studied the stages but Indurain broke away with Chiapucci in 91 to take the jersey, and I would assume rode at least with Lemond the rest of the tour. So, why the low number?

In 92, it is about 10% less than what GL did in 90. I'm sure he was shadowing Bugno, who we all know wasn't clean.

The numbers in this timeframe just seem strange to me. YMMV.

 

[issoisso]

Nope????

You just repeated what I wrote. I wrote Indurain's pre 93 numbers could have been skewed due to riding conservatively in the mountains in my previous post. And I have noted twice that Rominger showing up in 93 was a big deal in terms of how Indurain rode.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you

I haven't studied the stages but Indurain broke away with Chiapucci in 91 to take the jersey, and I would assume rode at least with Lemond the rest of the tour. So, why the low number?

Bugno didn't attack Induráin and Induráin only really broke away on the Tourmalet stage. As for riding with LeMond, he completely blew up with constantly attacking to try to gain time back and ended up losing many minutes in the later mountain stages.

In 92, it is about 10% less than what GL did in 90. I'm sure he was shadowing Bugno, who we all know wasn't clean.

The numbers in this timeframe just seem strange to me. YMMV.

Surely you don't mean 92? There's no data on the graphic for 92

There is data for 93, though....and it's miles higher

 

[ChrisE]

There is data for 93, though....and it's miles higher

Oh, the post I quoted omitted the top graph from post #43....that is the one I am mainly referring to.

That shows Indurain at 4.92 w/kg in 1992, vs a 5.7 for GL in 1990....the magic number tossed around in this thread was 6.0 w/kg which Indurain didn't exceed until 94.

 

[issoisso]

Oh, the post I quoted omitted the top graph from post #43....that is the one I am mainly referring to.

That shows Indurain at 4.92 w/kg in 1992, vs a 5.7 for GL in 1990....the magic number tossed around in this thread was 6.0 w/kg which Indurain didn't exceed until 94.

uhm, hadn't noticed that graph. The second one I trust, as I know the origin. The first one though, I'm not sure I trust that blog.

Still interesting, though

 

[BigBoat]

There's no DOUBT anybody with 5.0 w/kg or less in the Tour after 90' would have been ripped to shreads! It took Lemond & Fingon 42 mins to do Alp D'huez the last time in 1989...And in 1991 a jacked Indurain who weighed 25 pounds more (ATLEAST that much more) climbed it in the upper 30s! 39:45 to be exact!

 

[ChrisE]

There's no DOUBT anybody with 5.0 w/kg or less in the Tour after 90' would have been ripped to shreads! It took Lemond & Fingon 42 mins to do Alp D'huez the last time in 1989...And in 1991 a jacked Indurain who weighed 25 pounds more (ATLEAST that much more) climbed it in the upper 30s! 39:45 to be exact!

OK, so if that graph is to be trusted and you speak the truth, then Indurain didn't win the 92 TdF.

Some possible conclusions:

1) That first graph for 91 and 92 is bs.
2) GL's performance fell off after 90, and he lost due to that more than PED's becoming prevalent in the peloton in 91-93.
3) Indurain was possibly clean, at least early in his 5 year run.
4) Indurain was possibly clean during his career. His VO2 max was the highest ever with GL's, is it possible he performed at the same power/weight in 93 as GL did in 90, and higher as he matured as a GT rider?

 

[Escarabajo]

OK, so if that graph is to be trusted and you speak the truth, then Indurain didn't win the 92 TdF.

Some possible conclusions:

1) That first graph for 91 and 92 is bs.
2) GL's performance fell off after 90, and he lost due to that more than PED's becoming prevalent in the peloton in 91-93.
3) Indurain was possibly clean, at least early in his 5 year run.
4) Indurain was possibly clean during his career. His VO2 max was the highest ever with GL's, is it possible he performed at the same power/weight in 93 as GL did in 90, and higher as he matured as a GT rider?

II won't say that Indurain was completely clean all his career, but I have read that he had a lot of talent since early on. He had to face some heavy dopers from 2003 on. IMHO, I believe that the big key for his success was just excelling in his time trialing. He did not show to suffer that much on the mountains. He just followed wheels (Drafting). He didn't win any mountain stages (If my memory is working OK). Besides we would have to review the race program for 1992. Other Than that I believe that your points 2 and 3 could be correct.

Note that the second plot that is the most popular one did not have any values for 1992. Maybe the power estimates were too low and people from the blog did not want to show them. Besides if you look at the numbers of riders exceeding the max power on the last mountain, that would be the only year in which there were no riders in the plot. We have to check that race route for that year.

Remember that early dopers were probably on a conservative doses program because of risk of death. They probably had heard the news of other athletes dying in their sleep and did not want to take the risk. So if some riders had natural talent like Motet, Hampsten they still could be competitive.

Another point to make is that the calculations are only related to mountains which are relatively easy to estimate, not for time trials. So this does not mean that he did not dope heavily for the time trials. Remember what Manzano said about the time trials, that it was the most critical time for doping.

 

[Oldman]

There's no DOUBT anybody with 5.0 w/kg or less in the Tour after 90' would have been ripped to shreads! It took Lemond & Fingon 42 mins to do Alp D'huez the last time in 1989...And in 1991 a jacked Indurain who weighed 25 pounds more (ATLEAST that much more) climbed it in the upper 30s! 39:45 to be exact!

I appreciate the technical analysis but one damning element consistently pops up, particulary with Indurain and Lemond; both went into somewhat quiet and remote training regimens prior to the Tour. Lemond claimed to almost abandoned the sport and trained by himself prior to '89's dramatic win. It seems difficult to believe that any rider can train by himself and then stage a phenomenal win ala' Museuw's Roubaix. They also can't win all season long. Those indicators seem to point out jacked riders.
As for a clean rider...a slow, progressive buildup to a peak within their pedigree is the only "honest" win from my experience. Does anyone have good candidates for that profile? Andy Hampsten comes to mind...and Mottet.

 

[ChrisE]

II won't say that Indurain was completely clean all his career, but I have read that he had a lot of talent since early on. He had to face some heavy dopers from 2003 on. IMHO, I believe that the big key for his success was just excelling in his time trialing. He did not show to suffer that much on the mountains. He just followed wheels (Drafting). He didn't win any mountain stages (If my memory is working OK). Besides we would have to review the race program for 1992. Other Than that I believe that your points 2 and 3 could be correct.

Note that the second plot that is the most popular one did not have any values for 1992. Maybe the power estimates were too low and people from the blog did not want to show them. Besides if you look at the numbers of riders exceeding the max power on the last mountain, that would be the only year in which there were no riders in the plot. We have to check that race route for that year.

Remember that early dopers were probably on a conservative doses program because of risk of death. They probably had heard the news of other athletes dying in their sleep and did not want to take the risk. So if some riders had natural talent like Motet, Hampsten they still could be competitive.

Another point to make is that the calculations are only related to mountains which are relatively easy to estimate, not for time trials. So this does not mean that he did not dope heavily for the time trials. Remember what Manzano said about the time trials, that it was the most critical time for doping.

Yes, I agree Indurain's numbers could be skewed the first 2 years until a TTing climber showed up in 93 that he had to shadow. But, even his 94/95 numbers may seem possible if he was that talented, and his numbers indicate that. Remember in 93 his number was the same as GL in 90. Romingers were obviously more than that since he was lighter.

You could say this about Indurain in all his years because he was so heavy and mostly rode conservatively in the mountains. I disagree about his doping only for the time trials, if he doped at all.....you don't take "chances" like that in the mountains where you could lose chunks of time if your opponents are doped.

91 is an interesting year; GL's numbers had to be well into the 4's.

Hampsten came in 4th in 92, which I would normally find highly suspicious, and won Alpe du Huez the day after a monster stage (recovery). But, the low 92 numbers make this seem possible clean. Maybe the route in 92 was so brutal riders rode more conservatively. That was the year of the carnage to Sestriere in the heat. Didn't GL abandon that day????

Correction on what I wrote upthread about Mottet....it was Leblanc that won the worlds in 94, not Mottet.

 

[ChrisE]

I appreciate the technical analysis but one damning element consistently pops up, particulary with Indurain and Lemond; both went into somewhat quiet and remote training regimens prior to the Tour. Lemond claimed to almost abandoned the sport and trained by himself prior to '89's dramatic win. It seems difficult to believe that any rider can train by himself and then stage a phenomenal win ala' Museuw's Roubaix. They also can't win all season long. Those indicators seem to point out jacked riders.
As for a clean rider...a slow, progressive buildup to a peak within their pedigree is the only "honest" win from my experience. Does anyone have good candidates for that profile? Andy Hampsten comes to mind...and Mottet.

I think you need to relook at Indurain's palmares, and Lemond's prior to his return. Both rode most of the year with good results. Hell Indurain won the Giro twice.

 

[quarterpounder]

Someone clearly suffering while competing against a cheat who is later suspended, for example. I don't know. Hence starting a thread to discover what you didn't already know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUXL7XkVi7c

 

[karlboss]

Dopers return positive tests, have paper chains leading to doping doctors, are dobbed in by eye witnesses etc. Easy to spot.

Highly suspicious...sudden improvement, heresay link to persons known to dope. Not too hard to spot.

Suspicious. Anyone who performs?

Clean...there is no evidence, can't prove a negative. Imagine what you would have to do to 100% be convinced someone was clean...lock them in a room with a bike to train on, follow them 24 hours a day with a camera.

These graphs folk are referring to...there is a problem with them, the data isn't taken from powermeters, its from times up hills. Race situation winds and road surfaces, and gradients aren't accounted for. We see LA knock the ball out of the park, but few of you mention that his performance on one climb was a timetrial. As far as I'm concerned from this graph alone everyone named could be clean or dirty. Other info is more telling.

Further more the results look more marked than they are, as we only look at the top of the graphs.

My question for you is this. How tall can a person grow without drugs? Personally how tall is the tallest person you know personally? The tallest ever was 8'11.1" Think about that. I'm guessing he is about 2 feet taller or 20% than anyone you know. So if that's possible, what else is. Maybe the strongest clean guy you know on a bicycle, is 20% short of what is possible.

If our friend Ambrose has posted accurate numbers, maybe he is our strongest friend and there really are people out there 20% better.

 

[ChrisE]

Dopers return positive tests, have paper chains leading to doping doctors, are dobbed in by eye witnesses etc. Easy to spot.

Highly suspicious...sudden improvement, heresay link to persons known to dope. Not too hard to spot.

Suspicious. Anyone who performs?

Clean...there is no evidence, can't prove a negative. Imagine what you would have to do to 100% be convinced someone was clean...lock them in a room with a bike to train on, follow them 24 hours a day with a camera.

These graphs folk are referring to...there is a problem with them, the data isn't taken from powermeters, its from times up hills. Race situation winds and road surfaces, and gradients aren't accounted for. We see LA knock the ball out of the park, but few of you mention that his performance on one climb was a timetrial. As far as I'm concerned from this graph alone everyone named could be clean or dirty. Other info is more telling.

Further more the results look more marked than they are, as we only look at the top of the graphs.

My question for you is this. How tall can a person grow without drugs? Personally how tall is the tallest person you know personally? The tallest ever was 8'11.1" Think about that. I'm guessing he is about 2 feet taller or 20% than anyone you know. So if that's possible, what else is. Maybe the strongest clean guy you know on a bicycle, is 20% short of what is possible.

If our friend Ambrose has posted accurate numbers, maybe he is our strongest friend and there really are people out there 20% better.

I agree the readings each year unto themselves are subjective, over the course of time I think they may say alot. The variables you list become more important over a shorter time period studied. These graphs are over a 10+ year time period, over say 10 or 20 climbs a year.

I do not think it is a coincidence that the numbers go up from 93-98, then dip down in 99. The fact that Festina happened in 98 may have had something to do with this. Then they start creeping up again.

If proven clean athletes were tested over a period of time on a powermeter we would know the ultimate truth, as you say. Until then, studying the performances of the peloton over long periods of time is the only thing we have.

 

[Escarabajo]

...

These graphs folk are referring to...there is a problem with them, the data isn't taken from powermeters, its from times up hills. Race situation winds and road surfaces, and gradients aren't accounted for. We see LA knock the ball out of the park, but few of you mention that his performance on one climb was a timetrial. As far as I'm concerned from this graph alone everyone named could be clean or dirty. Other info is more telling.

...

I agree with you that we need power meters to really know the truth.

Race situation winds and road surfaces, and gradients should be accounted for in every calculation. Otherwise is flawed. Especially gradients which takes up to 70%-80% of the power riding uphill. That's why is so easy to calculate power outputs uphill.

I'll say this again, if people make mistakes doing the calculation is because they are sandbagging which results in a conservative calculation. If we were to know the truth from actual power meters we would probably be surprised of the numbers. I bet that they would be higher.

 

[issoisso]

I agree with you that we need power meters to really know the truth.

Race situation winds and road surfaces, and gradients should be accounted for in every calculation. Otherwise is flawed. Especially gradients which takes up to 70%-80% of the power riding uphill. That's why is so easy to calculate power outputs uphill.

I'll say this again, if people make mistakes doing the calculation is because they are sandbagging which results in a conservative calculation. If we were to know the truth from actual power meters we would probably be surprised of the numbers. I bet that they would be higher.

The numbers above are Antoine Vayer's. Every time a rider has published his power meter data it's been amazingly close to Vayer's numbers. It's why I trust his figures.

 

[Escarabajo]

The numbers above are Antoine Vayer's. Every time a rider has published his power meter data it's been amazingly close to Vayer's numbers. It's why I trust his figures.

I meant the formulas out there from different blogs.

But I apreciate your input on the numbers.

 

[ChrisE]

Back on the numbers of Indurain, he lost by 14 minutes in 96 to a surely doped Riis, at 32 years of age. This, after dominating a probably doped field in 94 and 95, and even before that.

If Indurain was doped say 94 and 95 or even from 91 on, why at 32 years of age in 1996 did he decide to stop doping, or be on a lesser program that allowed him to dominate before? If he was clean in 91 - 95 and beat dopers, what happened in 96 which is 2-3 years after the introduction of EPO?

The era when Indurain won and the quick fall in 96, still at an age where he should still dominate, is strange to me.

 

[R.0.t.O]

Back on the numbers of Indurain, he lost by 14 minutes in 96 to a surely doped Riis, at 32 years of age. This, after dominating a probably doped field in 94 and 95, and even before that.

If Indurain was doped say 94 and 95 or even from 91 on, why at 32 years of age in 1996 did he decide to stop doping, or be on a lesser program that allowed him to dominate before? If he was clean in 91 - 95 and beat dopers, what happened in 96 which is 2-3 years after the introduction of EPO?

The era when Indurain won and the quick fall in 96, still at an age where he should still dominate, is strange to me.

Indurain was sick during that Tour (bronchitis) and generally suffered a lot in the first week, which took its toll on him later in the race. There was also no flat ITT early in the second week as would have been standard at the time - instead there was a mountain TT to Val d'Isere - which made it difficult for Indurain's normal tactics to take an early lead and defend. Then of course both he and Rominger missed the 'Grand Escape' on the road to Pamplona: nearly 9mins of his 14min deficit were on that stage. In the final ITT he was second only to Ullrich, and put well over a minute into Riis.

But of course it was a big surprise at the time to finally see Indurain fail. With hindsight you see an emerging generation: Ullrich and the Telekom team; Virenque and the Festina team. Pantani was injured as I recall. With hindsight again, you'd tend to say that those teams (and later US-Postal) were taking doping to a new level of sophistication, but that may or may not have been the dominant issue in the decline of Indurain.

 

[Greisty]

It's simple: if I like the rider, he's clean. If I don't like him, he's a juicer.

God, I don't know why we're even having this debate.

 

[Cerberus]

These graphs folk are referring to...there is a problem with them, the data isn't taken from powermeters, its from times up hills. Race situation winds and road surfaces, and gradients aren't accounted for. We see LA knock the ball out of the park, but few of you mention that his performance on one climb was a timetrial. As far as I'm concerned from this graph alone everyone named could be clean or dirty. Other info is more telling.

Some of the graphs include a many riders and performances. While one performance could be skewed by a tailwind for example it's just not plausible that suddenly, around the time EPO is introduced, tailwinds become dramatically more common in the Tour de France.

My question for you is this. How tall can a person grow without drugs? Personally how tall is the tallest person you know personally? The tallest ever was 8'11.1" Think about that. I'm guessing he is about 2 feet taller or 20% than anyone you know. So if that's possible, what else is. Maybe the strongest clean guy you know on a bicycle, is 20% short of what is possible.

If our friend Ambrose has posted accurate numbers, maybe he is our strongest friend and there really are people out there 20% better.

The comparison isn't valid. People gain abnormal height due to certain defects in their body. The 8'11" guy for example had "hypertrophy of his pituitary gland which results in an abnormally high level of human growth hormone.". Such gigantic height kills the victims of cause.

If a comparable performance enhancing condition existed then if it had no serious side effects it would spread to the entire human population through natural selection. If it also carried serious side effects, it would be diagnosed and recorded by modern science. If it had I'd have head about it, just like I've heard about the conditions that make people abnormally tall, or abnormally small.

The fact is that science tells us that EPO can give very large performance gains. You cannot cancel out that fact by dreaming up a hypothetical super mutation, based on the fact that some people are really tall.

 

[ChrisE]

Indurain was sick during that Tour (bronchitis) and generally suffered a lot in the first week, which took its toll on him later in the race. There was also no flat ITT early in the second week as would have been standard at the time - instead there was a mountain TT to Val d'Isere - which made it difficult for Indurain's normal tactics to take an early lead and defend. Then of course both he and Rominger missed the 'Grand Escape' on the road to Pamplona: nearly 9mins of his 14min deficit were on that stage. In the final ITT he was second only to Ullrich, and put well over a minute into Riis.

But of course it was a big surprise at the time to finally see Indurain fail. With hindsight you see an emerging generation: Ullrich and the Telekom team; Virenque and the Festina team. Pantani was injured as I recall. With hindsight again, you'd tend to say that those teams (and later US-Postal) were taking doping to a new level of sophistication, but that may or may not have been the dominant issue in the decline of Indurain.

I assume you got that from Wikipedia; I haven't looked real hard for the details of the performances in each stage. Indurain's wiki entry says he developed bronchitis after the prologue, and he uncharacteristically lost the prologue.

Even so here we have a guy who won the tour in 95, world TT in 95, DL in 96, Olympic TT in 96, then abruptly retires at the end of 96 at the age of 32, when his TdF performance could have been explained by bronchitis. That makes no sense, unless like you imply he saw the "new" doping methods and wanted no part of it.

 

[Escarabajo]

... That makes no sense, unless like you imply he saw the "new" doping methods and wanted no part of it.

I think he was Conconi's client and that does not help him much unfortunately.

 

[hfer07]

There's no DOUBT anybody with 5.0 w/kg or less in the Tour after 90' would have been ripped to shreads! It took Lemond & Fingon 42 mins to do Alp D'huez the last time in 1989...And in 1991 a jacked Indurain who weighed 25 pounds more (ATLEAST that much more) climbed it in the upper 30s! 39:45 to be exact!

Alpe d'Huez 1986:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oIkVNykuuE
Alpe d'Huez 1989:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgtxhgrL-1s
Alpe d'Huez 1992:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPwXM3tjFAg

From here down are "the records"
Alpe d'Huez 1995:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx_MtxNBCz8
Alpe d'Huez 1997:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3M7ZJlqZ6U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raeXnUvpglU&feature=related
Alpe d'huez 2001
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak--ACL2LXU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTiQj4cTqXU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6i1MG5Mxdk&feature=related

 

[BroDeal]

Even so here we have a guy who won the tour in 95, world TT in 95, DL in 96, Olympic TT in 96, then abruptly retires at the end of 96 at the age of 32, when his TdF performance could have been explained by bronchitis. That makes no sense, unless like you imply he saw the "new" doping methods and wanted no part of it.

He saw that in 1997 there would be a 50% hematocrit limit and wanted no part of that.