blackcat said:
Once again I have to wonder your source of information. How do you know all these things?
Once again I have to wonder your source of information. How do you know all these things?
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
but long term, the sport is compromised. Doping is an exponential externality. It is not worth to see no evil and give a pass to Armstrong, and dine on corporate America, because they disappear with the golden calf. You need sustainable growth. Doping expediency, is short term gain, for long term pain.Parrot23 said:
Cycling is in a unique position, it has GT's that go for three weeks, where the authorities could supervise teams, like the Japanese keirin carnival operations, where they sequester riders.
If you quarantine all riders, for three weeks, and even better, four weeks, bring them in a week early for testing and keep them at the Grande Depart. So, no 30 injections per stage, no insulin, no testo, no blood refills, no recovery doping, euphemistically known as recovery therapy.
The UCI can do this, and institute an inverted Red Queen effect. If the recovery doping is prohibited because the logistics are not possible, and you have a a total body hemoglobin test, then perhaps, perhaps then, you will have a clean winner.
But, I have not seen nor heard, of Vaughters pursuing such a Machiavellian play on the ASO and UCI, to institute this. The UCI spent 5.3 million euro last year, on the blood passports, that really do nothing, and just create a barrier to entry, for those with less resources to purchase the sophisticated expertise of the Ferrari types.
NB. If JV was pursuing such a Machiavellian play, I should NOT have heard, he would be doing it quiet, and behind the scenes. But, the performances of Wiggins and Vande Velde, would compromise him in executing such a strategy, because they do not come across as credible for the status quo.
If I was JV: I would whip Vande Velde, and Wiggins into shape, and tell them in no uncertain terms, they are not going to dope, but I will work on this strategy, to institute a Tour, where every rider is supervised by security for the 3 (hopefully 4) weeks. And this would be the level playing field he could work towards. As it is, it is a pretty $hitty pact, "oh be clean guys, suffer in the gruppetto, get your two years on minimum, then we will find the next greatest talent for your spot after you never cracked the A team". That is not palatable to the alpha.
So, where is the macro strategy of Vaughters? Where is his play on restricting the gains of Contador and Armstrong. He has worked on the micro, the internal program to get the gains in the wind tunnel, and allocating resources to the TTT where you can see definite gains from your investment. JV would say he is investing in the blood passport, and that is his macro contribution.
Nup, does not cut it. The blood passport is an expensive waste.
If I was the UCI I would invest that 5.3 million euro, into supervision of the 3 GTs. I think they would cost around 2 million euro per GT.
If you can possibly create a clean winner at the Tour, via 2 means, a total hemoglobin test, plus a 198 rider supervision 24/7 intra-tour, then this will be one massive inverted Red Queen effect. It could even open the monuments to the possibility of winning clean.
This is what you have to pursue JV. Quit the bs about the Tour and it can be won clean. Work towards that goal, on a macro and political level. Do not kid yourself, and us, that is will occur in this current dynamic.
Get the recovery drugs out. Get the hemoglobin to natural start level. A smart politician can do this. No one thinks JV is stupid, if anyone can do it, you probably could. There are few, if any, who have the motivation to pursue this strategy.
It has to be wiser, to allocate that blood passport money, to a more potent program. I know most riders, and even most riders who are doping, would prefer to ride clean, if it was an even playing field. There are only a few draggers, like Armstrong, who wish to get an advantage with their medical program.
A smart politican will build the constiuencies, to get this done. The French will want a Tour winner, but even with their (mega-charged) swim sprint team, they are reticent to really pull the trigger on a big time medical program. Moreau in 2007 was the last guy to show some spark, and if he had a big time program, he probably could have got on the podium. Big time program avec the recovery 30 injections.
So the French are the first constituency. Build via the paths of least resistance, and keep building. The ASO would love to present to their nation a French Tour winner. This is how they will do it. There are no riders now, no espoirs or under 25 riders, Rolland, di Gregorio, Coppell, they are not quite Tour calibre winners. And Roman Feillu's brother is a solid journeyman, nothing more.
Get Wiggins and Vande Velde to ride clean, because you need the credibility. Then present this model to the UCI and ASO. This should have a definite trickle down effect. I would love to see the Schlecks go backwards faster than the Maginot line. Wipe that smug look of their faces.
My solution is macro and political. Hurt Armstrong via enforcement of the prohibition of the recovery programs. Wiggins and Vande Velde would be for that, as Steffan is not pulling out a bag of tricks with insulin and 29 other doses working on the CNS and cardiac and blood system. And even tho Wiggins crit rose, I doubt he and Vande Velde have rolled the dice on intra-tour transufion refills. Perhaps just some O2 drug micro-dosing. So, no refills to Armstrong, Contador, the Schlecks and other GT competitors, then relatively, that is one big advantage for Wiggins and Vande Velde correct?
Gotta be smarter than the rest.
And that smartness is not planning logistics for the blood transfusions with refrigerated panniers.blackcat said:
What I find odd is Levi going from middling TT rider through the first TT of the 07 Tour to world class, stage winning, medaling TT rider.
Power numbers
The following link provides power data on Chris Anker Sorenson on Verbier who was doing the pace setting over the first couple of K.
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/2009-tour-de-france-files.aspx
With the number of variables it isn't possible to reliably calculate the power of the climb using estimates for weight wind rolling resistance etc then convert to a projected v02 max value.
The power number shows a better estimate of actual values posted by riders on this climb. Given Contador is about 3-4 Kg lighter than Chris Anker Sorenson his output in this period was probably significantly less than this.
As mentioned by other members in previous posts a 15 min climb is quite different from a 40 min climb and use of anaerobic effort. I need to provide references but understand Elite riders can maintain 92% of VO2 in a 1 hour TT.
Also measurements taken on all elite athletes show that an athlete can maintain VO2 between 6-10 mins. Elite climbers in studies generally show much higher VO2 values compared to TT specialists and values in the 80s have been recorded without doping.
The % of V02 effort assumption is substantially off as AC was probably at 96-98% effort rather than 90%. This makes a substantial difference to the calculation.
The distances given especially on new climbs generally aren't perfect so an error of a few percent is possible here too. Bike computers and GPS generally have variance from this so power data files are much more reliable.
I didn't ride the Verbier stage personally this year but was chatting on the Petit St Bernard climb with another rider about the Verbier climb and he said there was a tailwind and was easier. This is another factor showing the V02 max in the Vayer calculation is considerably overstated. It was written with the intention to show doping and is not particularly well prepared.
One big factor using V02 calculations and comparing them to a race is that athletes generally are better on the road than in tests. If you look up the training peaks data from last years tour you will find Adam Hansons test data showed a 400 FT value yet managed 420 for an hour in the race.
These calculations and supposed science to prove doping is pretty unreliable. Contadors VO2 is probably around early 80s who knows what he can do in a race situation. This is all quite possible without doping. He is an exceptional climber and although he won the race convincingly it isn't as suspicious as some previous wins.
There are some athletic performances science just doesn't explain well and that adds to the excitement of the sport.
The following link provides power data on Chris Anker Sorenson on Verbier who was doing the pace setting over the first couple of K.
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/races/2009-tour-de-france-files.aspx
With the number of variables it isn't possible to reliably calculate the power of the climb using estimates for weight wind rolling resistance etc then convert to a projected v02 max value.
The power number shows a better estimate of actual values posted by riders on this climb. Given Contador is about 3-4 Kg lighter than Chris Anker Sorenson his output in this period was probably significantly less than this.
As mentioned by other members in previous posts a 15 min climb is quite different from a 40 min climb and use of anaerobic effort. I need to provide references but understand Elite riders can maintain 92% of VO2 in a 1 hour TT.
Also measurements taken on all elite athletes show that an athlete can maintain VO2 between 6-10 mins. Elite climbers in studies generally show much higher VO2 values compared to TT specialists and values in the 80s have been recorded without doping.
The % of V02 effort assumption is substantially off as AC was probably at 96-98% effort rather than 90%. This makes a substantial difference to the calculation.
The distances given especially on new climbs generally aren't perfect so an error of a few percent is possible here too. Bike computers and GPS generally have variance from this so power data files are much more reliable.
I didn't ride the Verbier stage personally this year but was chatting on the Petit St Bernard climb with another rider about the Verbier climb and he said there was a tailwind and was easier. This is another factor showing the V02 max in the Vayer calculation is considerably overstated. It was written with the intention to show doping and is not particularly well prepared.
One big factor using V02 calculations and comparing them to a race is that athletes generally are better on the road than in tests. If you look up the training peaks data from last years tour you will find Adam Hansons test data showed a 400 FT value yet managed 420 for an hour in the race.
These calculations and supposed science to prove doping is pretty unreliable. Contadors VO2 is probably around early 80s who knows what he can do in a race situation. This is all quite possible without doping. He is an exceptional climber and although he won the race convincingly it isn't as suspicious as some previous wins.
There are some athletic performances science just doesn't explain well and that adds to the excitement of the sport.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
Levi could always kick a chrono. Had domestic results back in 98 and probably earlier. But he did give a positive control at the US National Crit champs I think, circa 96 or 97. But in Europe, "form" is but a euphemism, for timing your medical program. It is no coincidence Voigt has won 934 Criterium Internationals on the trot. He is smart, and marshals resources, and would have some chrono efforts leading up to the race.Nick C. said:What I find odd is Levi going from middling TT rider through the first TT of the 07 Tour to world class, stage winning, medaling TT rider.
Back in 2001 in the Vuelta, I think Levi was on the podium of two tts, maybe three. I think there was a prologue, and another three chronos! One may have been uphill. Anyhow, he was on the podium, perhaps second, in two of the chronos. Then in the Worlds tt later in the month, he was either 4th or 5th. Levi could always tt when he got his physiological (see: blood) parameters right. Always kicked it, in Dauphine, in the prologues and the chrono at Dauphine.
But without the transfusion or the medical program awry, like in 2006, well, that just goes to show, how potent the doping is. But I do not think Levi is getting much an advantage on his competition. Albeit, his best results have been on USPS or Disco/Astana, when Bruyneel had his Spanish docs and their 30 injections per stage (may well be apocryphal by now!).
Then there are other reasons why a rider will freewheel in a chrono, and save energy and conserve. Different objectives. Not every rider is au bloc. One cannot assume everyone in red lining at 100%.
I was just going off Levi's TDF results where he was a consistent 12-20 2-3 minutes back. I came across Schumacher 6 something minutes back in 2007. In 2006 and before most of the field would be like 5 minutes back and the top three or five would be w/in 2 minutes.
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
ok, but there are about 30 different races in the Tour. And not just the jerseys. Every individual stage. Then the specific transition stages that the stage hunters like Gerrans and Moncoutie mark in the race book before the Tour.Nick C. said:
There may only be 30 riders going au bloc in the first tt. And less in the final tt. Most will be au bloc in a prologue. In 2006, obviously Gonchar pulled out the chrono bike in training the month before the Tour, and stuck on the 55x11, because he turned a freaky gear in the chrono. He was on the Freiburg transfusions, but he focussed on this discipline, marshaled resources, and won both chronos convincingly.
Schumacher followed the MO in 2008.
Now, Cancellara probably could not compromise his Tour like the aforementioned, Riis was counting on Cancelllara to be the number one engine on CSC and still pull up cat 1 climbs. So he had to go into the mtns in the month before the Tour.
Schumacher was also on a tear in about 2004-5 when he was at Skil-Shimano. He won a truckload of short chronos and prologues.
Ceteris paribus, if everyone had the same tt preparation, the same energy expenditure, and the same incentive to ride the tts during the Tour, ripping out just one result, would be instructive. As it is, it is highly flawed. I did previously, because I just wanted to demonstrate how talented Casar and Moncoutie are.
- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,599
- 6,854
- 28,180
What about Stéphane Goubert? Do you have any trust in the AG2R guys? What about Le-Mevel this year?blackcat said:
Is the 20% Gap shrinking? Only fewer and fewer at the top?
Just a thought.
blackcat said:
Long time follower (so I am much more familiar with these issues than most novice commenters), only recently started commenting. But still not an "expert."
That said, two ... questions ..., I guess, rather than points:
(1) That 20% figure - what evidence is there that it is that high, aside from (a) studies under "ideal" circumstances, and/or not using professional cyclists, or (b) self serving statements by untrustworthy sources such as Ferrari? I realize that studies using professional cyclists aren't possible for obvious reasons - I guess my question is, how can we state these kind of figures with any kind of precision? Of course I realize that this uncertainty cuts both ways (for what it's worth, I am one of the people who think that it's likely that most of the leading lights of the peleton still dope).
(2) Isn't likely that a "a sophisticate[d] program will [can] defy the controls" will provide a boost in output much smaller than a "a comprehensive medical program" that would be detectible given current controls?
As I said, I'm still inclined to agree that winning the tour clean versus dopers is extremely unlikely, but given the above 2 questions, it doesn't seem likely to me that current doping techniques can at the same time avoid detection and give gains anywhere near 20%.
(On the other side of the coin, even a couple of percentage points in output can be decisive, and focusing purely on output ignores recovery issues, where doping also has an impact.)
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
Le Mevel and Casar got their time this year in breakaways. And the Tour was not designed to produce major time gaps this year. That goes to evidence FOR Wiggins and Vande Velde. It suggests there was the potential they could defend high classement. Have zero confidence in the old Casino (AG2R) team. But Goubert is the best prospect. He is the best classement rider from AG2R thru the year, then come Tour time, there are others on the same squad, who ride much higher than him. Defies rational belief, that he gets worse and others get better.Escarabajo said:
blackcat said:
But there are a lot of assumptions (many have which have been questioned) behind those numbers. Moreover, historically there has been a pretty steady progression of performance among endurance athletes. Yeah, sure, in retrospect it's easy (and all most certainly accurate) to attribute some of that to doping - but there does seem to be (apart from doping) to be a real progression here (not just among cyclists). Why? hard to be sure - better training routines? Yes, I know, haha, "training," except there HAVE been real advances in training methods. Again, I think there is TOO MUCH evidence to avoid the conclusion that a big part of it is doping - but I just think that trying to get any kind of a percentage estimate of the benefits of doping from comparing Lemond's output numbers with the output numbers of current riders is ... really almost in the realm of speculation. Just way too many variables and uncertainties about the numbers.
But the recovery factor as you say could easily maginify what would otherwise be a much smaller edge.
As for Armstrong's pre cancer (or pre Ferrari) Grand Tour performance, I am less persuaded by that than are some others (though for other reasons I accept the very high probablity that he was/is a doper). For one thing, not all athletes mature at the same rate. Mind you, my starting point is a believer in the "can't make a donkey a thoroughbred" argument. Yes, I'm aware of the counter argument - I won't go into a lengthy refutation here, but the short version would be that, while differences in an athletes ability to benefit from doping are large enough that being a good responder might well be the difference between winning and losing, I think that (in a peleton where all the leaders likely dope) it wouldn't be enough to make a medicocre rider a champion. (It's certainly possible that a mediocre rider who was doping could win if he was the only doper, but that's not the situation).
A related question - I am familiar with the studies showing a somewhat high standard deviation for responding to EPO. Are there similar studies vis a vis responding to transfusions with one's own blood (seemingly currently the primary doping method of choice in the peleton)?
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
not aware. Armstrong was not a natural GT rider without the Ferrari program, that is the raw fact. But how many are natural now, it is impossible to tell. Perhaps Lovqvist, as shown in the Giro, where he defended for about 2 weeks before detaching in the third week with a jour sans. He is about 26.LMaggitti said:
The riders who are clean, are only showing some GC potential later now, they are in the autobus for the start of their career. Two decades ago in Lemonds era, it would be obvious when the rider was 22 and 23, in his first GTs, how they could rider for a classification position.
Now it is all down to the medical program. You dont have any idea how the rider can compete clean.
LMaggitti said:
Bjarne Riis. In 1991, at 27, he came in 107th in the Tour. Two years previously, he came in 95th. He won the Tour when he was 32 in 1996. If this is not mediocre, I don't know what is.
Piotr Ugrumov - very average rider until the onset of EPO. His two years of note were when he was 32 and 33, which so happen to coincide with his work with Ferrari and Conconi.
At the age of 29, Piotr came in 45th in the Tour, but 'matured late' and came 2nd in the Tour at the age of 33.
- Jul 25, 2009
- 1,072
- 0
- 0
blackcat said:
The concept makes sense, as does the idea that blood doping favors heavier riders. But I look at this years TDF results and have some questions.
AC-26-61, AS-24-67, LA-37-75, BW-29-76?, FS-29-67, AK-34-63, VN-24-65, CVV-33-69, RK-23-65, CLM-28-61
Might these guys generally be younger and thinner than the TDF top ten has been for a while? (spot the biggest outlier)
If so, is that 'real' or just due to breakaways?
Aren't there a few riders in here that showed serious GC promise by 23?
This is only one race, are there any changes in age weight trends showing up in other races?
LMaggitti said:
+1
- Mar 13, 2009
- 16,853
- 2
- 0
the thinner and younger is a result of riders getting popped. Bring back Dekker, Vino, Levi for the full Tour, Hamilton, Landis, Ullrich, Mayo, Basso, then the age thing is restored to normal. I do not think there is a trend.I Watch Cycling In July said:
I think those potential gains still hold. They are sill hitting the same times on climbs, it has not limited their ability to hit those wattages. They have moved on, they get the same O2 delivery potential, some how, some way. I do not know how, but it has not changed at the top.
- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,599
- 6,854
- 28,180
I remember of this being true in the 80's. I would hear some cycling experts on the radio saying that you would quickly see who would have potential very early in their lives. I remember these same commentators saying that a peak for a cyclist was between 23 and 26 years old. Now you see riders peaking after 30 years old. This is so strange. It sounds like if some talented riders were riding hard early in their careers, then give up and turn to doping because they are tired of being beaten so many times. That was the time when I first saw the Tour with a group of young talents like Fignon, Lemond, Delgado, Millar, Herrera, and maybe some others that I am missing.blackcat said:
Just a thought.
- Jun 16, 2009
- 19,654
- 2
- 0
Isn't vaughters a bit of a hipocrit by having a major anti doping stance and then wanting to sign a guy like alberto contador who deson't have the cleanest record in the peleton.
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
- Jul 2, 2009
- 3,406
- 1
- 13,485
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 2
- 0
scribe said:
Vino and Lance also retired....funny how those retirements don't last for long in our sport.
Fact is Ulrich was never sanction, but he is tied to OP as is AC.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
scribe said:
Race Radio said:
scribe said:
Ok then...how about David Millar?
BUT JV has the right to pursue any rider and he has said on this forum that any rider who they are in serious discussions with must allow them access to their UCI profile.
I think a lot of people are forgetting that if even one rider gets busted on Garmin that its game over. Unlike almost all other teams.
- Jul 9, 2009
- 7,858
- 1,270
- 20,680
Race Radio said:
Yes but Ulrich for whatever reason has been tied much more closely than Contador has. Maybe he was just one of the suckers who took the fall, or maybe he was guilty of being german at the wrong time, but Contador has been "UCI cleared", so if a DS wants to look into hiring him, it's ok.
If, however they sign him and then he goes down then they either didn't do their homework or they are as dirty as he is. If a DS is willing to take a risk on a rider such as Contador (or a lot of others at this point) then I say they should be held acountable to a very high level. They should be held acountable and not be allowed to skate off saying "well he told us he was clean".
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram