How much doping really helps?

[DenisMenchov]

I was wondering how much does doping helps riders? Even the most doped riders seem to be in a big trouble on those mountains. I mean is this what we really want to watch? We (spectators and fans) forced the riders to dope. Everyone of us will say that stage 15 in 2007 Tour was great. And that yesterdays Giro was NOT. So we want to watch cyclist go to mount Etna, to do Zoncolan and Crostis but is it normal??? Could it be too much for a HUMAN???

How much does doping helps? 5 minutes on Tourmalet??? or is it only 1? I believe that none of us really knows....

 

[Benotti69]

It can help a guy who never stood a chance of winning a 3 week GT win the biggest 7 times in a row.

 

[DenisMenchov]

Ok, but how much is that in his performance??? What those it really does to his body? How many minutes he gain??

 

[Benotti69]

Ok, but how much is that in his performance??? What those it really does to his body? How many minutes he gain??

Research it. Indurain took 6 minutes out of Gunderson in a TdF TT while Gunderson was world champ. Gunderson was taking minutes out of rivals in some TTs after '99. You could argue 8 minutes over a long TT. But you could argue you lots.

But there is no answer without serious study of athletes over a long period and then everybodys bodies will react differently to different substances.

So the situation is to ban it all and let them ride on their natural ability. Not fair but thats the way we are born, so we cant alter that fact except with training hard wok and a better mental capacity than rivals.

 

[spalco]

A couple things
- you're assuming riders today are less doped than in 2007, which may be so or not, but I'm not convinced
- cycling was a very popular sport for 90+ years without EPO, why should it suddenly be not as exciting anymore if cyclists were doped less?
- I don't know if doped riders suffer less than clean riders, the former can just go faster than the latter, but I don't think it matters to the viewer if that speed is 40 or 35km/h

 

[The Hitch]

No exact number to it. Some more than others.

I personally believe that the number is sufficient that it is neccesary to dope to compete for the GC at GT's

Others believe that it helps a little but not enough to offset some riders who can compete while clean due to extreme talent.

Others believe it doesnt help at all. As proven by the fact that some riders do a "anti doping advert" then win big races

. Others believe you get more of an advantage from knowing you are clean which apparently gives you some sort of a mega boost.

 

[9000ft]

It depends on the individual person. If the CH clinic forum posters hate the person for whatever reason, doping makes a HUGE difference. If the CN clinic forum posters like the person, the difference is more subtle.

 

[Cobblestoned]

It can help a guy who never stood a chance of winning a 3 week GT win the biggest 7 times in a row.

Wow, it only took one post for you to make it another Lancethread.

The good old: Lance, the only one exclusive good responder - story.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Research it. Indurain took 6 minutes out of Gunderson in a TdF TT while Gunderson was world champ. Gunderson was taking minutes out of rivals in some TTs after '99. You could argue 8 minutes over a long TT. But you could argue you lots.

But there is no answer without serious study of athletes over a long period and then everybodys bodies will react differently to different substances.

So the situation is to ban it all and let them ride on their natural ability. Not fair but thats the way we are born, so we cant alter that fact except with training hard wok and a better mental capacity than rivals.

I know the Indurain overtaking Armstrong is THE haters porn, next to some Lance-crashing videos.

Just watch the other people in results surrounding that very young stomping Armstrong.

To bring in Indurain is a brilliant move. NOT.
He was the absolute benchmark and uber-TTer - and full of EPO and good support.
But great rider and great, proud man of course.

 

[skippy]

With 2910 posts in about 12 months there is a chance that the majority of the posted comment is hateful towards one individual !
Eating and sleeping must come second best to hating that Tall Poppy who used to be called "Mr Millimetre " because of his focus and dedication which was such that he rarely did anything without giving it 150% attention .
Preparation was a key ingredient and a Positive Mental Attitude was another , so having prepared like no other athlete he was able to know that a good result would be the outcome .
Not a fanboy or supporter but i do know the difference between a dedicated athlete and a blowhard who is obsessed with downing those of whom he is jealous !
Get a life mate , squatting in the clinic has warped your outlook !

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Not much.

Comparing the Avg. Speeds of the 80s (harder, longer, heavy bikes than in the 90s), 90s (harder, longer, heavy bikes than in the 00s) and 00s there is just a slight improvement in km/h, with records broken in around 2003-2005. Also much of doping is placebo. And the disadvantage of mixing too many products you saw on Marzano, who almost died. The clever rider only took Epo, nothing else and had lots of talent (like Ullrich).

One exception is Armstrong. His change is beyond everything what ever happened. He even tops Ben Johnson. Maybe Armstrong is THE human body which gains the most out of chemicals.

 

[JPbianchi]

I was wondering how much does doping helps riders? Even the most doped riders seem to be in a big trouble on those mountains. I mean is this what we really want to watch? We (spectators and fans) forced the riders to dope. Everyone of us will say that stage 15 in 2007 Tour was great. And that yesterdays Giro was NOT. So we want to watch cyclist go to mount Etna, to do Zoncolan and Crostis but is it normal??? Could it be too much for a HUMAN???

How much does doping helps? 5 minutes on Tourmalet??? or is it only 1? I believe that none of us really knows....

Well, in cycling, the epo helps to recover faster, because of your emoglobin being higher close to the limit of 50%, so the following day you are ready to perform again without too much damage. For the classic probably you need more punch and need different drugs. I recall that Mapei director who just passed away, thought it could helps between 10-15% of your performance (which is huge!)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Well, in cycling, the epo helps to recover faster, because of your emoglobin being higher close to the limit of 50%, so the following day you are ready to perform again without too much damage. For the classic probably you need more punch and need different drugs. I recall that Mapei director who just passed away, thought it could helps between 10-15% of your performance (which is huge!)

Which shows that riders are not necessarily mathematicans.
Just for example, in 1986 Herrara had an Avg.-Speed of 19,8 km/h on his way up Alpe d Huez, without Epo, Extra-Blood, HGH and whatever (only pure Amphetamins and some else little pills, but surely no steroids), but he certainly had a heavy bike.

Now what would 15% mean? A Avg.-Speed of 22,8 km/h. In Minutes: Instead of Herraras 41.50 ride, the ride would be 36.15. Hillarious.

On a lighter bike Pantani, full pumped to 50+% hct still needed 37.35 for his record 11 years later.

Doping helps, but it´s wayyy overrated by those addicted riders who are just sad junkies.

 

[Benotti69]

Doping helps, but it is way overrated??????

Watch Indurain steam past Robert Millar in the Pyrenees and then say it is overrated?

Watch Riis stop on an Alp climb like he was out for a sunday spin then steam past everyone like they were going backwards!

Overrated? most definitely not.

The thing with doping is some benefit more than others from using PEDs, some get better doping programs than others. It might not be 15% but it does affect the outcome of races, of that there is no doubt.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Doping helps, but it is way overrated??????

Watch Indurain steam past Robert Millar in the Pyrenees and then say it is overrated?

Watch Riis stop on an Alp climb like he was out for a sunday spin then steam past everyone like they were going backwards!

Overrated? most definitely not.

The thing with doping is some benefit more than others from using PEDs, some get better doping programs than others. It might not be 15% but it does affect the outcome of races, of that there is no doubt.

As you can read in my posts, i have no doubt about that. But all the BS of 10% here, 15% there is complete nonsense.

I think it was Kohl who described it best: At the top, 1% is the difference between a also ran and a champion. Epo surely destroyed the CG´s as Winnen and others mentioned. The most powerful drug in cyclings history, and later the scientific used blood transfusions (which i personally think is more dangerous and unethical than Epo).

OTOH, some riders and teams counter effected the "good" improvements by Epo. Marzano and the sick Kelme-Docs are a good example.

Järmann was clever. He saw with the beginning of Epo he couldn´t compete anymore, so he was forced to take Epo, no more, no less. Addicts like Virenque, you couldn´t help anyway.

As in real life all sorts of people exist. For one Köchli, there is one mad Prof. like Conconi.

 

[ultimobici]

With 2910 posts in about 12 months there is a chance that the majority of the posted comment is hateful towards one individual !
Eating and sleeping must come second best to hating that Tall Poppy who used to be called "Mr Millimetre " because of his focus and dedication which was such that he rarely did anything without giving it 150% attention .
Preparation was a key ingredient and a Positive Mental Attitude was another , so having prepared like no other athlete he was able to know that a good result would be the outcome .
Not a fanboy or supporter but i do know the difference between a dedicated athlete and a blowhard who is obsessed with downing those of whom he is jealous !
Get a life mate , squatting in the clinic has warped your outlook !

And no one else prepared carefully from 99 to 2005? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Mr Millimetre was not the first obsessive rider and won't be the last. He was the rider who brought back the Merckxian team philosophy though, which I for one was disappointed by.

To the OP's question though, general doping (pre-EPO etc) made a tiny but nonetheless significant difference. It wouldn't lift a average rider to the top level but it would help a top rider against his counterparts. Modern medically supervised doping (EPO, HGH & Blood doping) is a very different kettle of fish. It does have the ability to lift that average rider to the top. Claudio Chiappucci is a case in point. Before EPO he was a nobody and only had his moment of glory in 1990's Tour by dint of being in a break that got 10 minutes on the favorites. His subsequent peformances are completely out of step with his prior history. The 1990 Tour result allowed him to afford the services of Conconi and get the "help" he required to stay at the top table. Without that leg-up he'd have been a footnote in cycling as a domestique, IMO.

 

[poupou]

Chiappucci, Riis, or Armstrong are the most famous transformation of an average rider to a winner!
Sure, EPO and blood doping has changed the game, with them unbelievable improvements became possible like a gruppetto rider becoming a winner of the biggest mountain stages, beating real climbers.

 

[andy1234]

Chiappucci, Riis, or Armstrong are the most famous transformation of an average rider to a winner!
Sure, EPO and blood doping has changed the game, with them unbelievable improvements became possible like a gruppetto rider becoming a winner of the biggest mountain stages, beating real climbers.

You can call Armstrong a fraud, a liar and a doper, but he was never an average rider.

 

[ultimobici]

You can call Armstrong a fraud, a liar and a doper, but he was never an average rider.

Tour rider? Yep. He was a one-day classics guy plain & simple. In that role he was among the best of his generation. But his "transformation" into GT winner extraordinare was as a result of his work with Ferrari. To go from Indurain taking 6 mins plus out of you to becoming Indurain beggars belief.

 

[andy1234]

Tour rider? Yep. He was a one-day classics guy plain & simple. In that role he was among the best of his generation. But his "transformation" into GT winner extraordinare was as a result of his work with Ferrari. To go from Indurain taking 6 mins plus out of you to becoming Indurain beggars belief.

Nobody needs this debate again, but the Indurain stat is misleading.
Indurain's TTing made everyone look average.

Riis and Chiappucci were average professionals earlier in their careers.
Armstrong was a top tier rider from the start.

 

[poupou]

Armstrong was a top tier rider from the start.

As GT rider?
Come on, compare with real champion like Mercks, Hinault, Lemond or Fignon. They all were seen as GT contender in their first TDF.
Lance retired after 2nd mountain stage in 1993, losing more than 21' and 28' in that 2 stages.
In 1994, he left TDF after havong lost 20' on the first mountains.
In 1995, he finished TDF (36th, 1:28:06), he was 43 at 7.3km prologue, 19th (5' gap)on 54 ITT, he lost 18' 18' 28' 32' on mountain stages and more than 6' (43th) in the last 46ITT.

Difficult to seen him as a top GT rider for his 3rd TDF!

 

[spalco]

As you can read in my posts, i have no doubt about that. But all the BS of 10% here, 15% there is complete nonsense.

I think it was Kohl who described it best: At the top, 1% is the difference between a also ran and a champion. Epo surely destroyed the CG´s as Winnen and others mentioned. The most powerful drug in cyclings history, and later the scientific used blood transfusions (which i personally think is more dangerous and unethical than Epo).

OTOH, some riders and teams counter effected the "good" improvements by Epo. Marzano and the sick Kelme-Docs are a good example.

Järmann was clever. He saw with the beginning of Epo he couldn´t compete anymore, so he was forced to take Epo, no more, no less. Addicts like Virenque, you couldn´t help anyway.

As in real life all sorts of people exist. For one Köchli, there is one mad Prof. like Conconi.

Intersting that you mention Järmann, because he does make it sound like it's more effective than you think, in fact he specifically says "10%".

http://www.jaermann.ch/Tagebuch/Doping.pdf (German)

Durch das Hinzukommen von EPO wurde das Training viel härter und umfangreicher. Zuvor hatte es natürliche Leistungsdifferenzen gegeben, doch
die wurden nun verwischt. EPO hob alle Profis auf dasselbe Niveau, den Unterschied konnte man nur noch durch das Training machen. Ich wusste, dass andere Mittel im Umlauf waren. Doch auf diese ist der Rennfahrer nicht angewiesen. Aus meiner Sicht gibt es nur ein Mittel, das nützt: EPO. Allein damit lassen sich Rennen gewinnen. Man könnte es vielleicht so sagen, aus dem Bauch heraus: EPO macht dich 10 Prozent schneller, und alles andere zusammen bringt noch ein halbes Prozent zusätzlich. Zugegeben, ich weiss nicht, wie viel mir andere Dopingmittel noch gebracht hätten. Ich stelle nur fest, dass ich eine sehr gute Muskulatur habe, ohne dass ich dafür viel tun musste. Ich sehe nicht ein, weshalb ich mit Anabolika noch mehr Muskeln hätte zulegen sollen. Aber der Unterschied zwischen einer Hochform mit und ohne EPO war enorm. Bei mittelmässiger Form lässt sich selbst mit EPO nicht viel ausrichten, doch wenn die Form da ist, kann man superschnell fahren. Das ist ein unglaubliches Gefühl: eine Steigung, die man sonst mit 20 km/h erklimmt, plötzlich mit 25 km/h erklimmen zu können.

My amateurish translation:

With the introduction of EPO training became much harder and more extensive. Before that there were natural differences in perfomance, but they were blurred now. EPO put all pros on the same level, the only way to make a difference was through training now. I knew other substances were used. But you don't depend on them. In my opinion there's only thing that works: EPO. With that alone you can win races. You could maybe say from the gut: EPO makes you 10% faster, everything else together brings another half percent in addition to that. Admittedly, I don't know how much other PEDs could've helped me. I'm just noting that I have very good musculature without having to do much for it. I don't understand why I should get more muscles with anabolics. But the difference between a topform with EPO and without was enormous. With a average form you can't do much even with EPO, but when you have the form you can be super-quick. That's an incredible feeling: a climb you'd usually go up with 20km/h you can now suddenly scale with 25km/h.

 

[andy1234]

As GT rider?
Come on, compare with real champion like Mercks, Hinault, Lemond or Fignon. They all were seen as GT contender in their first TDF.
Lance retired after 2nd mountain stage in 1993, losing more than 21' and 28' in that 2 stages.
In 1994, he left TDF after havong lost 20' on the first mountains.
In 1995, he finished TDF (36th, 1:28:06), he was 43 at 7.3km prologue, 19th (5' gap)on 54 ITT, he lost 18' 18' 28' 32' on mountain stages and more than 6' (43th) in the last 46ITT.

Difficult to seen him as a top GT rider for his 3rd TDF!

Its interesting that you miss off Indurain in your list of GT greats, who were seen as contenders from their first TDF.
Indurain wasn't an automatic GT choice, but he did OK in the end.

If you describe Armstrong as an average rider, as you did in your previous post, maybe you should state "average GT rider" if that is what you mean.

 

[Cloxxki]

Is Järmann saying that your good days make more of a difference for an EPO'd rider than a clean one?
So while an average EPO day would be 10% (say 22kph over 20kph), a good day would lift it to 25kph? That's a humongous boost. Although you'd think top riders would be trying their full best, it sounds a bit like placebo effect on top of the physical?

Then the GC riders sure had a lot of good days. Or knew well how to trigger them.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Intersting that you mention Järmann, because he does make it sound like it's more effective than you think, in fact he specifically says "10%".

As i said earlier: A rider doesn´t make a Mathmatican. I used Järmann as example for being clever not to take all BS, but the necessariy stuff. No more, no less.

I tought my example of Herrara made it clear, that history has shown that times didn´t got faster by 10% in the Epo-Era. If that´s too small sample sizes for you, just look at the Avg.-Speeds of the decades. No big jumps there as the riders made you to think.