How good would you have to be to win the Tour undoped?

[elapid]

Again, there is almost no research what are the effects of EPO or blood doping on performances of top athtletes.

There is no research on "top" athletes (assuming you mean professional) because this is impossible. EPO and blood doping are illegal performance enhancing drugs/practices. Any use of either EPO and blood doping in professional athletes, even for research purposes, would result in banning of the athlete from professional competition.

There is plenty of research in cyclists of varying abilities below the professional level, one which shows an improvement in FTP of 54%.

 

[cyclingmad]

Benchmark

Where from these numbers come? What is the source? And why Lemond, Hinault or Merckx should be used as benchmark?
I have seen very little first hand sources about FTp or VO2max of top athletes. Mostly just internet rumours. Only first hand source what I have found is about Bjorn Daehlie. Erlend Ham, Norwegian physiologist said that he measured Daehlies off season VO2max at 96, as it was off season Ham speculated that Daehlies peak Vo2max could be as high as 100.



Where from this 20% comes? Scientific reasearch or speculation.
Again, there is almost no research what are the effects of EPO or blood doping on performances of top athtletes.
Tucker&Dugas have reffered on EP study from 2006, what showed that 4 week EPO course raised peak power output 13%. But these were not top athletes, so Tucker&Dugas assumed that gain for top athletes would be lower.
(What was the dosage and frequence during this 4 week trial is another matter).

Lindstedt&Conley pointed that blood doping experiments on higly trained runners in mid 80-s. 3times x 500 ml blood had increase of VO2max of 6,7%. (Linsted&conleys point was actually to show that oxygen delivery and utilization capacity can be very different. Delivery increased 30% but VO2max only 6,7%).

But again, where from you get this 20%?

Mercx is a good benchmark to use as he rode in a time where EPO wasn't available and when blood doping wasn't done. He also achieved a 1 hour Wattage in 1975 (after his peak) of over 450 Watts. I have a source for this result which I will check. 450/72Kg is around 6.4 Watts per Kg so the limits mentioned in the above post are not supported by these facts

 

[cyclingmad]

wrong post

The Tour de France is all bout FTP (all out 1- hour sustainble watts). Upper range for human aerobic FTP is about 5.7 watts per kilo at anything below 175 pounds.... Lemond was a total undoped freak as was Hinault and these dudes raced just before epo use started on the Tour. Lemond had an FTP at 390 watts at his absolute peak with V02 max at about 92-94 at 68 kg.

AFTER epo came out in the late 80s guys started passing out and dying in their sleep to to heart not getting enough 02. They figured out they needed to take aspirin before bed and keep their crits below 55% to stay safe. Once epo use became safe and widespread all the pros started it it and this point was about 1991-1992.

Lemond still got a 7th in the first epo Tour with no epo...Hinault and Merckx, Coppi might have been SLIGHTLY more talented then Lemond but probably not. The next year Lemond DNF'd the Tour and he never finished it again despit being in his early 30s (physiological peak). Fingon who also didnt do epo got a couple of top 30 finishes.

Blood doping with your own blood to raise crit has the exact same effect. Going to just the 50% crit limit gives some guys 20%. Lance probably gets 20%. He's clearly a very very good responder to just a slight rise in hematocrit. You'd never beat Lance if you were totally clean and he had his crit just up a little bit with blood doping. Even if you were Bernard Hinault or Merckx.

I replied to the wrong post this is the post where Wattage limits were mentioned and contradicted by Mercx performance

 

[Cerberus]

There is no research on "top" athletes (assuming you mean professional) because this is impossible. EPO and blood doping are illegal performance enhancing drugs/practices. Any use of either EPO and blood doping in professional athletes, even for research purposes, would result in banning of the athlete from professional competition.

There is plenty of research in cyclists of varying abilities below the professional level, one which shows an improvement in FTP of 54%.

Actually I recognize the 54% number. I believe it's the increase in a Time to Exhuastion test, not a Functional Threshold Power test. VOmax has been shown to increase by 7-9% though, Aorobic performance (not sure what's meant exactly by this, could be FTP) by 9-17% and the performance in a Watt-max test increased by an average of 13%. So your FTP won't increase by 54%, but it might increase by well above 10% which is still huge.

 

[Escarabajo]

Mercx is a good benchmark to use as he rode in a time where EPO wasn't available and when blood doping wasn't done. He also achieved a 1 hour Wattage in 1975 (after his peak) of over 450 Watts. I have a source for this result which I will check. 450/72Kg is around 6.4 Watts per Kg so the limits mentioned in the above post are not supported by these facts

Good note. If you can find the source of the calculation I'd apreciate it if you share it with us..

 

[Jonathan]

Good note. If you can find the source of the calculation I'd apreciate it if you share it with us..

Comparing this with your post in the other thread about undoped riders, would you expect the wind to have played a large role in Merckx' performance?

 

[elapid]

Actually I recognize the 54% number. I believe it's the increase in a Time to Exhuastion test, not a Functional Threshold Power test. VOmax has been shown to increase by 7-9% though, Aorobic performance (not sure what's meant exactly by this, could be FTP) by 9-17% and the performance in a Watt-max test increased by an average of 13%. So your FTP won't increase by 54%, but it might increase by well above 10% which is still huge.

Thanks - you are correct.

 

[Escarabajo]

Comparing this with your post in the other thread about undoped riders, would you expect the wind to have played a large role in Merckx' performance?

It would at the beginning of the Tour. Probably not after 2 or 3 weeks of riding. But a mark of 6.4 Watts/kg without the EPO and Human Growth Hormone is a high mark. I would be interested to find out, because Chris Boardman did it with a lighter bike and better aero position, so would the difference in speed equates to the difference in weight and position? We would also have to check for the altitude difference.
We'll see.

 

[cyclingmad]

Number

It would at the beginning of the Tour. Probably not after 2 or 3 weeks of riding. But a mark of 6.4 Watts/kg without the EPO and Human Growth Hormone is a high mark. I would be interested to find out, because Chris Boardman did it with a lighter bike and better aero position, so would the difference in speed equates to the difference in weight and position? We would also have to check for the altitude difference.
We'll see.

The Merckx number calculated was 6.4 in a lab. Outside he did around 6.3 for his 1 hour record that Boardman broke. Sorry still need to give source information and need to dig it out as I am getting these off the top of my head.

The point about the wind and bike for that matter is that if you are estimating outside power the number will be relatively lower as you will underestimate power lost through the frame and bike design.

The bike design will allow a faster speed for less power not neccessarily increase the watts produced. Outside you would actually perform better than a lab cause you are racing and have no attached equipment.

One other reason current riders perform better later in the tour than historic is technology and nutritional knowledge. In the 70s very little support was provided some riders smoked and drank alcohol after the stages. The leaders worked harder day after day Merckx in 66 went for all jerseys for example.

 

[cyclingmad]

references

Comparing this with your post in the other thread about undoped riders, would you expect the wind to have played a large role in Merckx' performance?

Following on this thread again. I can confirm the following for 1 hour records. I dont have the weight of anquetil or Coppi but Boardman was 68 Kg and Merckx 72 Kg for their records.

Coppi did 45.871km in 1942
Anquetil did 47.493 in 1962
Merckx did 49.431 in 1972 in Mexico City
Boardman did 49.441 in Manchester in 2000 following new UCI rules for the hour record to use a normal style bike.

Merckx effort in Watts for his Mexico City was 366. Bassett and Kyle in 1999 developed a model for estimating equivalent sea level power for performances in altitude based on reduction in aerobic capacity using field measurements of power. Using their formula they calculate an effort of 429 Watts for this performance right on 6watts per Kg.

Merckx did no altitude conditioning so this probably meant he underperformed.

In sport-shocschule in Koln Germany on April 24 1975 Merckx produced 455Watts for 1 hour on a stationary bike. 1975 was well after his late 60s tour peak so may have been capable of even better numbers. This effort provides a performance of 6.4 Watts per KG

Boardman produced an effort of 442 Watts for 68 Kg in 96 with the superbike. He was also at his peak for this record when compared with the 49.441 performance on Merckx style bike. This effort looks like a 6.5 W/Kg effort.

I dont have permission to name the source of this data but if you enter search strings with some of these dates and names you will find this same information on the internet in a public domain.

In a lab it is hard to perform as well as outside the lab so these field estimates look conservative. How hard can you push yourself with a crowd and target or rivals when compared with in a lab on a stationary bike.

The difference between Boardmans 56 km/hr record and 49 is largely equipment. Looking at the progression of the hour record including Coppi and Anquetil it wouldn't surprise me to see a rider do over 50 km now on a standard bike.

Comparing a 50 kph performance for 1 hour on a standard bike with a last week of the tour TT for 48:30 at 50 kph with hightech aero equipment this looks quite realistic given that the equipment would be worth 4-5kph.

No power data is available from the Annecy TT but the low aero drag with todays equipment could mean these performances required a power output as low as 350 Watts which look well within the limits most people believe possible unassisted.

I believe for a 1 hour performance 6.5 W/Kg is possible undoped. For distances less than this a higher ratio could be achieved. For lighter riders their ratio will be higher than heavier riders like Merckx as they can have out of proportion lung sizes and cycling specific muscles.

 

[DarkWing]

how can we be sure that merckx was clean?
How about blood doping?

 

[red_explosions]

There's simply no way on earth a clean rider could win the tour against blood-doped riders. The real world benefits of illegal oxygen transfer are just way too big.

 

[Digger]

how can we be sure that merckx was clean?
How about blood doping?

He wasn't clean.

 

[Jonathan]

Why Merckx?

The idea behind using Eddy Merckx as the maximum one can achieve being clean is the anecdotal evidence that before roughly 1990, doping increased a rider's performance relatively little. I'm thinking about what Dutch former pro Peter Winnen has often repeated: before EPO, you could beat a doped rider. Perhaps it was easier to reach a certain level and maintain it, the maximum performance wasn't stretched too significantly. I'm treading carefully here, since I also suspect that steroids and testosterone, which may have been available, could produce more significant effects, but Winnen maintained otherwise, although I never heard him talk about specific drugs. What also makes the picture more complicated is the use of blood transfusions.

So when comparing pre-EPO with EPO-period riders, the most optimistic thing to do is to use Eddy Merckx as benchmark for the maximum clean performance. That doesn't mean he was clean or anyone can do what he did, but anyone below his limits could be just be pushing himself to his full limits as far as we know, because it was supposedly so difficult to make a real difference with doping. Another assumption is probably that blood doping through transfusion took place mainly in the eighties. I consider the repeated comparisons with Merckx to be indications that the experts are willing to give riders the benefit of the doubt even when this is not immediately apparent.

After all, the 'Merckx line' gives a lot more room for high performances than the 'Millar Line' used on usenet RBR a few years back!

 

[BigBoat]

Mercx is a good benchmark to use as he rode in a time where EPO wasn't available and when blood doping wasn't done. He also achieved a 1 hour Wattage in 1975 (after his peak) of over 450 Watts. I have a source for this result which I will check. 450/72Kg is around 6.4 Watts per Kg so the limits mentioned in the above post are not supported by these facts

Merckx wasnt that high for power... You have to remember he did it at Mexico City which is at altitude...It doesnt take as many watts up there to ride at extremely high speed due to thinner air. Also the track is like glass and he did it on a super light bike tucked down low. Although he might have tested indoors...Dont know if there's any reputable data link out there that has his true FTP (non stop for a whole 60 flaming minutes.) Doing that indoors stopped would require a cold room and big fan...Hard to do and his power would be slightly lower than outside.

.......At 59% most guys would get 20% more sustainable power for SURE! But not all. The "averages" take into account everybody. Some guys might not even get 10% if they only raised their crit to 50%. Some might have seen 20% even just at 50% crit.

 

[cyclingmad]

Long post

Merckx wasnt that high for power... You have to remember he did it at Mexico City which is at altitude...It doesnt take as many watts up there to ride at extremely high speed due to thinner air. Also the track is like glass and he did it on a super light bike tucked down low. Although he might have tested indoors...Dont know if there's any reputable data link out there that has his true FTP (non stop for a whole 60 flaming minutes.) Doing that indoors stopped would require a cold room and big fan...Hard to do and his power would be slightly lower than outside.

.......At 59% most guys would get 20% more sustainable power for SURE! But not all. The "averages" take into account everybody. Some guys might not even get 10% if they only raised their crit to 50%. Some might have seen 20% even just at 50% crit.

I made another post that dragged on a bit that covers this. But to answer your doubts about his Mexico City record you are right his power was 366. I used a formula to estimate what that would be worth at sea level and got 429. Indoors he was measured reliably to produce 455 Watts and that figure was after his peak of form. So 455 is his FT power.

The thing to note about the Mexico city record is that it was on a 1972 style track and bike so not superlight perfect surface and aero clothing etc.

Studies show more of the improvements in speed in the last 30 years are due to technology than increased performance.

Merckx tested positive for doping once for stimulants that is it. 6.4 W/Kg is possible for 1 hour

 

[Von Mises]

One other reason current riders perform better later in the tour than historic is technology and nutritional knowledge. In the 70s very little support was provided some riders smoked and drank alcohol after the stages. The leaders worked harder day after day Merckx in 66 went for all jerseys for example.

It wasnt just 70s. Lemond himself has told that when he arrived to Europe, he was surprised how unprofessional and unhealthy (eating, drinking, partying) large parts of peloton was).

 

[DarkWing]

Mercx is a good benchmark to use as he rode in a time where EPO wasn't available and when blood doping wasn't done. He also achieved a 1 hour Wattage in 1975 (after his peak) of over 450 Watts. I have a source for this result which I will check. 450/72Kg is around 6.4 Watts per Kg so the limits mentioned in the above post are not supported by these facts

how can you be sure blood doping wasn't done ?
I'm not saying you are wrong, but is there any evidence supporting that?
Could be why merckx was so dominating - maybe he was one of the few using blood doping?

 

[elapid]

how can you be sure blood doping wasn't done ?
I'm not saying you are wrong, but is there any evidence supporting that?
Could be why merckx was so dominating - maybe he was one of the few using blood doping?

As far as I know, blood doping was being investigated in the early to mid 80s, most famously by the 1984 US Olympic cycling team. I am not sure if it was being used beforehand, but there are unproven allegations that Finish middle distance runner Lasse Viren's sudden rise to win the 5,000 and 10,000 m events at the 1976 Olympics was because of blood doping. Regardless it seems as though autologous blood transfusions occurred after Merckx's time and definitely after his peak. Note that blood doping was not made illegal until 1986.

 

[poupou]

how can you be sure blood doping wasn't done ?
I'm not saying you are wrong, but is there any evidence supporting that?
Could be why merckx was so dominating - maybe he was one of the few using blood doping?

But if they already had the blood transfusion technique to dope why not use it with other riders, especially after Merckx retirement, we should have got Cannibale 2, isn't it?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

To the original question:

You need to be better than the 12 minutes Epo-Lance was behind at the Giro (if i can trust the interview by this "Blood-Expert", that Lance was clean back then).

Or you need to be better than the 28 minutes Cunego was down at the Giro, because i think he is clean now. Why? 1.) Because he dropped in performance while being at or getting close to the max. Level of performance (its around the age of 28). And 2.) Who else would tatoo anti-doping on his skin?

I only can remember one guy possible to out-race his world-class opponents by 9 minutes since the Epo-Era started. It was Ulrich in 1997 (doped to 50% like everybody else). That means he would have finished at least 3 minutes back to Virenque in 1997 if he was clean. Now who is as good nowadays?

Contador. He might be possible to race clean and finish in the Top-5. But would he "risk" to ride clean? No way, he want to win, and of course since he is a pro, he wants to make money.

P.S.: I am not a fanboy of AC. Just want to answer the origin Question.

That was my first post since aprox. 3 Weeks, coz am tired of all the BS by pipo like "BPC" and "runningboy". So may i am not right on the issue but i like to discuss the matter without the fanboys disturbing me and others who want to learn something.

Good-bye and Amen

 

[gregod]

How good would you have to be to win the Tour undoped?

Just ask Lance....hahahahahaha.... But seriously, folks, take my wife, please. I'm here all week Don't forget to tip your waitress....

 

[Jonathan]

To the original question:

You need to be better than the 12 minutes Epo-Lance was behind at the Giro (if i can trust the interview by this "Blood-Expert", that Lance was clean back then).

Or you need to be better than the 28 minutes Cunego was down at the Giro, because i think he is clean now. Why? 1.) Because he dropped in performance while being at or getting close to the max. Level of performance (its around the age of 28). And 2.) Who else would tatoo anti-doping on his skin?

This is assuming both were clean: Armstrong did his first GT in years, at the age of 37, and was able to gain 16 minutes on Cunego, who is nine years younger and very, *very* talented. You have to respect that. If we'd make an alternative GC consisting of clean riders, Armstrong's Giro performance might be more remarkable than his Tour.

 

[elapid]

That was my first post since aprox. 3 Weeks, coz am tired of all the BS by pipo like "BPC" and "runningboy". So may i am not right on the issue but i like to discuss the matter without the fanboys disturbing me and others who want to learn something.

FoxyBrown, I hear you on BPC. But runningboy simply disagreed with you. He put forward some good arguments, as you did too. We can all learn from these discussions, as long as we are prepared to learn and not assume it is a teacher-student type of relationship. The latter is only beneficial when someone like Krebs Cycle is tells us about CO rebreathing test for hemoglobin mass because of their expertise in the area. So keep posting and discussing.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Back to the topic:

IF WE ASSUME Epo-Lance was clean at the Giro...
Thats the Question here.

Anyway, lets take him for an example here. 12 minutes down does not sound much, but the original Question was how much more a talented rider has to be to beat the doped contenders.

Armstrong lost time on EVERY mountain stage and TT at the Giro (of course it dont matter to be doped or undoped when you race "wind-safed" in the peloton at a flat stage). It was 6 mountain stages and 2 ITT where he lost time. As you all know, the attacking at the mountains only start at the last hill. That means he lost at least an Avg. of 2 mins per Hour if we assume the attacking starts with one hour to go at the beginning of a last hill or that the Avg.-TT took one hour for the winner.

The conclusion is: You must be VERY VERY TALENTED to over come a deficit of at least 3%. Since the Epo-Era, as far is i remember the only guy (almost) capable of doing this was Ulrich in 1997. I havnt calculated Contador, but if i take 3% out of his mountain and TT stages this year, HE MIGHT have finished in the Top-5.

So the clear answer is: To win vs. your doped world class contenders you need to be better then AC. In the history of cycling maybe 3 riders would be capable of doing this: Merckx, Hinault and Lemond. Ulrich and AC would have come close. Epo-Lance?.... Well, just look at his results before being doped. His best TdF-Finish was 36th. He finished mountain stages with climbers like Zabel, 28 minutes down. He is not even close to the top riders (remember: Talent shows early!), he is just the world champion in responding best to doping products.