Is the Peloton really Cleaner? A Way to Find Out

[Krebs cycle]

LeMonds SRM idea.

what was Lemond's SRM idea? I assume it was something along the lines of putting SRMs on every rider in the prologues and ITTs. As long as the SRMs are all properly calibrated and rider bodyweight measurement is compulsory then its a better idea actually that a simulated TT. Still would require enormous logistics to make sure the SRMs are always calibrated and can only ever be used to target the out of competition testing as opposed to being evidence of doping unto itself.

 

[sittingbison]

what was Lemond's SRM idea?...

see post #12 by big ring

 

[BigBoat]

The simplest way to avoid all or most of these issues, of course, is to put the riders on a machine, but riders and teams tend to be secretive about this information. Suppose, though, that power output on a machine were part of a GT? Suppose instead of a prologue, riders had to go all out on a simulated climb at some defined and perfectly even grade, say, 8%? The test could be set up so that each rider had to climb a set distance, so time gaps could be recorded. Since this exercise would constitute a stage in the GT—basically, a mountain ITT--and there would be noticeable time gaps, there would be a lot of incentive to go all out. Bingo, we have very clear power data for the entire peloton (or at least the GC contenders), which could be directly compared for different riders, and for the same rider at different times. If organizers agreed, the exact same test could be run at every GT.

The average normalized power during any sustained period of a race (prologue is a good one) will give the performance values of the riders. There doesn't need to be an ergometer (I think that's what your referring too??) test done to see that.

If each rider had power meters on their bikes kept by the organizers (the bikes kept & maintained by the organizers with 4 power meters for each rider to go on each bike) there would be no tampering and we could see the same consistent results. Of course, that's if you trust the organziers or the UCI (if you left it to them. )

I think we do see this on the training peaks website, but of course there's the possibility there of slope or offset tampering since the team is maintaining the bikes & power files. Super easy to set the slope at a slightly higher # to give a slightly low reading throughout a grand Tour.

Also there's the issue of not being able to prove somebody is doped based on performance.

ie ( I could say that I can produce 6.5 watts per kilo over 60 mins and my physiology allows for it on sheer power of will & my Vegan diet.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Actually in 2001 you had to average around 6,2 watt/kg to become second.
Those were the numbers Jan Ullrich was able to produce in 2001. And he had a blistering form this year.
However, in 1997 he was able to produce 6,7 Watt/Kilo and more in 1997 or 1998.
So the difference in Ullrichs performance was somewhere betwenn 5 and 8%.
The typical boost you gain from blood manipulation.
And indeed we have indications that Ullrichs blood value was 42 in 2001 comapred to 48-49 in 1997. (There are reports that Ullrich never was about 50)

Therefore we must assume that in comparison to 2001 the field is not really cleaner today. In 2001 Epo was not used commonly in the peleton just by some teams and riders (Postal, Armstrong)
I think the same is true for 2012.
There is no wide spread use in the peleton of blood manipulation as in the 90es or from ca 2003 to ca 2009
I think right now we are back in 2001. There is certainly some blood manipulation within the peleton (Sky) but it's not widespread. And for gifted riders it is possible to achieve decent results even without blod manipulation.
The question is where are we going from now?
Will the process of a cleaner field continue, or will we follow the same pattern as we did at the beginning of the millenium?
Will the druged ones get clean, or will the clean ones drug again?
That's the big question.
Personaly i fear that it will be like in 2001 again.
As the rest was running behind Postal in those days, they will be running behind Sky now. In 2-3 years, the whole peleton will be on the blood juice again. It happened before, and it will happen again.

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

Agree on SRM.
Agree on attempting to illicit a real value via exclusion.
Definitely agree on neutral medical staff.
Independent testing - definitely. Add some transparency here too.
UCI: administers & promotes. Not so keen. Something else is required in there, from both a reality POV (sock height? zipped up jerseys? UCI approved clothing? really?)

Then there's the race organiser's themselves.

When I look at the relationship between ASO and UCI - ASO picked up every single cycling "globalisation" project as well as television rights to the Tour of California - I think a little more is required to clean things up. Particularly considering ASO's Patrice Clerc got the boot pre-LA comeback.

More needs to be done to make the sport sustainable for the riders & teams (eg: via profit sharing of TV broadcast rights).

Nice post.

Neutral medical staff. Unlimited and immediate access to team buses/hotels. All ProTour teams must sign up to have a cycling body (I can't bring myself to say UCI) medical person with them, paid for out of TV rights packages, sponsorship etc. Any funny stuff - whole team suspended, not individual rider.

SRM's with all data published - plus HR data. There's a whole new audience for cycling right there if you have that stuff. Brilliant to see, and wouldn't be giving away any so-called 'secrets'.

No connection allowed with any non-sanctioned doctor. If connection is found to have been made - automatic assumption of guilt.

Riders sign up to the code or forfeit professional licence. Riders and DS's must confess to previous doping before they sign the code or have lifetime ban from all aspects of the sport if they are subsequently proven to have falsified information.

Confidential 'ethics hotline' where everyone can snitch on everyone else. This is the first port of call for reporting suspected dopers

Independent dope testing organised by WADA. No UCI (bah!) intervention.

If national federations do not sign up - they are excluded from holding or competing in sanctioned races.

There are three important principles behind this system:-

1. You treat everybody like kids. It's just the way it is.
2. Guilty until proved innocent.
3. Omerta will see you banned for life.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

Power meters for all riders, with information made public via live TV and to media.

All teams to release physiological testing (ramp resistance, 1, 5 and 20 min intervals) of riders from 2x each year. Tests to be accompanied by blood values taken at appropriate intervals in the run up to the tests to prove no obvious boosting prior to test.

That way if a rider is 5% over his "fresh" test result for a 5 min attack in the third week of a GT, or has a power output that does not correspond with his V02 max suspicions can be raised.

If there is one thing riders don't seem to like it's being called out publically for suspicious performances - would this also give them an incentive to stay "credible"?

An independent "Credible Performance Panel" of sports scientists, ex pros, anti doping experts to consider all performances and recommend suspicious riders for enhanced testing by non UCI testing agency.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

HR could be used in some way to show that riders didn't deliberately hold back on the baseline tests.

 

[the big ring]

Power meters for all riders, with information made public via live TV and to media.

All teams to release physiological testing (ramp resistance, 1, 5 and 20 min intervals) of riders from 2x each year. Tests to be accompanied by blood values taken at appropriate intervals in the run up to the tests to prove no obvious boosting prior to test.

That way if a rider is 5% over his "fresh" test result for a 5 min attack in the third week of a GT, or has a power output that does not correspond with his V02 max suspicions can be raised.

If there is one thing riders don't seem to like it's being called out publically for suspicious performances - would this also give them an incentive to stay "credible"?

An independent "Credible Performance Panel" of sports scientists, ex pros, anti doping experts to consider all performances and recommend suspicious riders for enhanced testing by non UCI testing agency.

Physiological testing in the lab is pretty ordinary for some. Personally go really poorly at it, and test much better on the road.

Just sayin'.

 

[ebandit]

interesting

all very interesting but what modern sport incl cycling needs is for the powers to be

wada usada ioc uci etc to stop faffing around and address the problem square on

forget trying to control as much of the sport as possible and just concentrate on their core responsibilty

introduce 100% independent testing / sanctioning which is 100% transparent

make the bio passport scheme tougher and effective

make athletes / teams 100% accountable with more rigid rules of what methods can be employed

make these athletes / teams detail online all non food products used

a clean sport not just talk talk

 

[Cookster15]

all very interesting but what modern sport incl cycling needs is for the powers to be

wada usada ioc uci etc to stop faffing around and address the problem square on

forget trying to control as much of the sport as possible and just concentrate on their core responsibilty

introduce 100% independent testing / sanctioning which is 100% transparent

make the bio passport scheme tougher and effective

make athletes / teams 100% accountable with more rigid rules of what methods can be employed

make these athletes / teams detail online all non food products used

a clean sport not just talk talk

+1

Also, a stage on a machine would make for lousy TV

 

[Bumeington]

When JV and some others claim the peloton is much cleaner, to the point where doping is not essential to winning, one of their main lines of evidence is that power stats on climbing stages are lower than they used to be. Just today, JV claimed that his rider Talansky averaged about 5.9 watts/kg on the final climb of the most recent Vuelta stage, and that JRod/Contador averaged about 6.1 watts/kg. The latter value, he said, was about what the 15th placed rider would do on a typical TDF stage in 2001.

I haven’t made the calculations to confirm this, but will take him at his word. But one of the problems in making comparisons like these, of course, is that there are so many variables that can’t be controlled in comparing different performances. A different climb; different terrain in the stage leading up to the climb; unevenness in the gradient of the climb; different race tactics; different weather conditions; and maybe some others. All of these factors can easily add 10% or more uncertainty to power calculations, which obscures a lot of the real differences in power that we are trying to determine.

The simplest way to avoid all or most of these issues, of course, is to put the riders on a machine, but riders and teams tend to be secretive about this information. Suppose, though, that power output on a machine were part of a GT? Suppose instead of a prologue, riders had to go all out on a simulated climb at some defined and perfectly even grade, say, 8%? The test could be set up so that each rider had to climb a set distance, so time gaps could be recorded. Since this exercise would constitute a stage in the GT—basically, a mountain ITT--and there would be noticeable time gaps, there would be a lot of incentive to go all out. Bingo, we have very clear power data for the entire peloton (or at least the GC contenders), which could be directly compared for different riders, and for the same rider at different times. If organizers agreed, the exact same test could be run at every GT.

I realize this doesn’t sound like real, outdoor competition, and the fans would object. One way to get around this is to have this “stage” be just one part of a two-stage day, perhaps run in the morning of the opening day, with the regular prologue run in the afternoon or evening. Since the latter is usually short, a short or medium-distance climb earlier in the day would not put an undue burden on the riders. It would have to be long enough to result in serious time gaps, and to get meaningful power data, but not so long that it would take too much out of the riders for the later stage. It would also be a wonderful way to set the stage for the GT. The rider with the highest watts/kg would be considered the favorite, at least on the climbing stages.

Another possibility is to have a real stage, on some climb that is fairly even in gradient and fairly well-protected from at least the worst wind conditions. This same stage would be held every year—again, perhaps part of a two-stage day—so that valid comparisons could be made over time. There might still be some weather factors, but by running the same stage year after year, with a couple of hundred riders, it should be possible to estimate how much they were affecting results.

I have long been puzzled that it’s been so difficult to establish if riders are cleaner today, and if they are, to what degree. A test like this should be able to determine power output to a variability of 1-2%, considerably less than what a typical transfusion is thought to supply. Furthermore, by tracking data over time, we might be able to augment the ABP; a suspiciously large increase in power over a fairly short time might be a sign to target some rider. Riders like the Sky bunch can get away with such increases now precisely because the differences in actual riding conditions can sufficiently muddle the situation so that no one is sure. JV will argue that Sky dominates because the peloton is cleaner. Is he right? Data under more controlled conditions that supported this would be much more credible.

I assume Vaughters numbers come from Talansky's SRM in which case the whole discussion is pointless. Ok so AC and JRod's numbers will be estimates based on Talansky's number, but if this is an SRM number, the estimates will be much more accurate than 10%

 

[Scatto]

You're proposal already is an Olympic discipline, called track racing. There's also the hour record where conditions are nearly the same.

BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeme_Obree#Attitude_to_doping

 

[Benotti69]

Actually in 2001 you had to average around 6,2 watt/kg to become second.
Those were the numbers Jan Ullrich was able to produce in 2001. And he had a blistering form this year.
However, in 1997 he was able to produce 6,7 Watt/Kilo and more in 1997 or 1998.
So the difference in Ullrichs performance was somewhere betwenn 5 and 8%.
The typical boost you gain from blood manipulation.
And indeed we have indications that Ullrichs blood value was 42 in 2001 comapred to 48-49 in 1997. (There are reports that Ullrich never was about 50)

Therefore we must assume that in comparison to 2001 the field is not really cleaner today. In 2001 Epo was not used commonly in the peleton just by some teams and riders (Postal, Armstrong)
I think the same is true for 2012.
There is no wide spread use in the peleton of blood manipulation as in the 90es or from ca 2003 to ca 2009
I think right now we are back in 2001. There is certainly some blood manipulation within the peleton (Sky) but it's not widespread. And for gifted riders it is possible to achieve decent results even without blod manipulation.
The question is where are we going from now?
Will the process of a cleaner field continue, or will we follow the same pattern as we did at the beginning of the millenium?
Will the druged ones get clean, or will the clean ones drug again?
That's the big question.
Personaly i fear that it will be like in 2001 again.
As the rest was running behind Postal in those days, they will be running behind Sky now. In 2-3 years, the whole peleton will be on the blood juice again. It happened before, and it will happen again.

I think La Vuelta has answered that!

 

[roundabout]

I assume Vaughters numbers come from Talansky's SRM in which case the whole discussion is pointless. Ok so AC and JRod's numbers will be estimates based on Talansky's number, but if this is an SRM number, the estimates will be much more accurate than 10%

I am reasonably certain that those values came from timing the climb. And nothing else.

 

[Benotti69]

I assume Vaughters numbers come from Talansky's SRM in which case the whole discussion is pointless. Ok so AC and JRod's numbers will be estimates based on Talansky's number, but if this is an SRM number, the estimates will be much more accurate than 10%

That is assuming JV is truthful and the srm meter is calibrated truthfully.

I say this because this is pro cycling we are disussing.

 

[zigmeister]

Power meters are big difference today to show actual statistics and quantify power for climbing and race stages. (assuming no drift/correct calibration by mechanics, zeroing etc..) Of course, a lot of teams/riders refuse to release those numbers like some teams do online, like Training peaks, on Velonews articles etc..

Even then, there are so many variables on a particular day that affect power output requirements the meter is reporting/storing as data. Wind, drafting, tire pressure, how much water in their bottles etc...

Comparing that information to a rider in 1996, really has no validity IMO.

 

[silverrocket]

I'm not giving up on the idea of a field test done on the track as part of a stage race.

- Does not have to be very long, training guidelines suggest that even a 5-6min TT is a full TT in a microcosm. Yes, I race track and road, so am aware of how boring even a 10km TT is, but over any distance a TT on a track with screaming fans will be less boring than a test on a stationary bike with a few coaches hovering around.
- 2 riders at the same time (works in the pursuit), can get it done in one day. Integrate it with sign-on, introductions, opening race ceremonies.
- my proposal was to do this field test on the track instead of on a stationary bike, so I was actually intending that all power data was also being gathered as a baseline. It is not all about time, so small time gaps aren't a problem. Could have this data displayed instantly for the fans, using wireless technology. How's that for transparency?
- the idea is to make it part of the event, so a spectacle for the fans. I imagine something where the riders immediately do a "regular" prologue right after their laps on the track. It is almost the inverse of a Paris-Roubaix or Olympic running marathon that ends on a track but largely takes place on open roads. The idea is to use the track portion to gather baseline data under controlled conditions.
- track experience will not be a factor in a solo race around the bottom of the track. Controlling effort over the distance comes into play, but it is even simpler than doing so in a prologue on the open roads.
- to make the time gaps more meaningful and thus promote full effort, one could use the track times to rank the riders, and the rankings converted into standardized time gaps. This is a combination of the popular omnium scoring system and the set time gap system used in TdF team time trials once.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

Another thing I'll add, with some of the measures proposed:

Obviously fighting doping is a sisyphean task and despite real efforts from some, it is difficult to assert that the sport is cleaner than in 1998.

Nevertheless some of what is proposed here seems to be borderline to me: There's only so much control you can exert on riders, which arguably are under quite a restrictive regime with the "whereabouts" system and the like. Someone mentioned "automatic assumption of guilt" for instance.

I know it is all in good faith and that cycling lost many golden opportunities for auto-regulation, but the end -even if it is cleaning the sport- cannot justify all means.

Instead on focusing on increasingly drastic measures whose efficiency is doubtful, we should go back to basics: a genuine reform of the governing body would go a long way helping the anti-doping commitment.

This is not specific to this sport, by the way: FIFA, IOC, UCI are all well known as monster entities, combining the most caricatural inefficiencies of public organisations with gigantic piles of money.

I'm not too optimistic in general on that happening and what lies in the future for doping, where enhancements will be incorporated directly to the athletes.