JV1973 said:I think it's very hard to quantify the differences things like cortisone and testosterone make. Both were available and used in the 1980's, but yet i don't think were overly effective. Even if they did help, it wasn't to the degree that a clean rider could not win, which is what happens with o2 vector doping.
With both test and cortisone, it probably varies from athlete to athlete. Am athlete with low natural testosterone would probably benefit quite a bit from supplemental. Conversely, someone with high test probably would not. Using it to the point of actually gaining muscle mass is a mixed bag too. More muscle, more weight.
Cortisone, same thing. It's anti-inflammatory properties can help you "feel" fast, but it's a catabolic hormone, and that has big downsides on performance too.
I am over simplifying, but these doping agents are not that effective. It's still cheating and I'm sure there are some performance gains to be had, but it's not game changing, like o2 vector stuff. With this stuff, "just say no" is totally viable, and winning races clean viable as well.
With 15% increases in hemoglobin? forget about it...
Interesting indeed, thanks!
On a critical note: you're saying test and cortisone provide, if any, only marginal gains. So you seem to be implying that marginal gains are not decisive in determining the outcome of a GT, correct?
According to Sky, marginal gains ARE decisive, allowing them to be way ahead of the field.