Klöden named in Freiburg report

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Leopejo said:
I used to consider the Mapei developmental team clean (an illusion most probably). For sure, it was a wonderful "academy" for young promises like Rogers, Cancellara, Pozzato, Allan Davis, Evans (?),...

The not so clean Sinkewitz was part of it too :p
Not. I raced against them in 2002 @ Vuelta a Cuba (Pipo' was on that squad) and they were illusionists even in February. We all were?
 
Mar 31, 2009
156
0
8,830
BigBoat said:
Larsson of Saxo Bank did a bloody (pun intended!) 486 watts for 31 minutes at Amgen California race and he did not win that TT. Any clean rider of 77 Kilos would never ever get above 400 watts undoped. NO WAY he'd get it to 420 no matter how talented.
I think your numbers are wrong. On a forum where people discuss training with powermeters, you can find lots of people with functional threshold power (FTP) in the 300-400 Watt range. FTP is defined as maximum sustainable power for an hour. For the 31 minutes you mention, one would be able to put out a bit more. I would expect a professional to be significantly better. So 420W for 30 minutes should be 'easy' and I cannot see 486W being impossble.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t-467526-15-7.html

Now, this list contain amateurs, some in their forties etc. I highly doubt a majority of people on that list are doping. I myself weigh 66kg and have an FTP of 300W - that with 2x2 hours of (hard) training a week - what I can afford with 60-70 hours of work and family. I would very much expect professionals, who has training as their sole task to be significantly better than myself.
 
Welcome back, Joe. As you can see, no bubbles of illusion to burst around here.

Leopejo said:
BigBoat may be a troll, but it's refreshing to have a troll with new arguments. I never heard before of using power meters as doping busters. :p
Actually, Lemond brought this up at Interbike where he tried grilling Lance and Catlin. Saying wattage should be part of bio profiling.

Hematology, or total blood volume testing, has been discussed as being a primary way to curb blood doping as it would be extremely difficult to beat. The problem is, like wattage testing, that it would take some time to determine a profile. Probably several tests over months, maybe 2 years. Good reason to start now if you ask me.
 
Mar 10, 2009
420
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Actually, Lemond brought this up at Interbike where he tried grilling Lance and Catlin. Saying wattage should be part of bio profiling.
I don't know. That is kind of saying "ride up the Alpe d'Huez. Next year, or next summer at the Tour, you can beat your time by 10 % only". Isn't the whole goal of training methods to improve your wattage more than your competitors? Or am I interpreting it wrong?

What I was "complaining" about was the old "they are going so fast that they must be doping" argument getting this new spin of "now that we have power meters we realize that they must be doping" (more or less the troll's actual words a few days ago).
 
It's too late and I'm too tired to find links, but the gist of it is this: You really don't produce a whole lot more power differences between the age of about 22 and 32. And your power output doesn't change a great deal once you're fit and at a pro level. So if you're putting out 365w in April one year, and 380w in July, with all the tests about the same between (with maybe an off-day in there), it won't raise a red flag. But if you're putting out 355w in June of 2009, and 365w in July of 2010, and then somehow 440w in July of 2011, something's amiss. Thus the need for long term profiling. Conceptually, the only way to defeat such a test would be to fake the results with consistency over the course of many months, or be doped the same amount every test. Not knowing when you're going to get tested makes that nearly impossible.

Same with blood volume profiling, which would be even more difficult to defeat over the long term. You couldn't "top off" after blood doping or taking EPO with water or saline, as the volume itself wouldn't change, only the ratio. You'd have to somehow keep the same amount of extra red blood cells in your system all the time - be constantly doped - as you'd never know when you're going to get tested. This would be a mammoth undertaking to defeat, especially over several months, or years.

With Repoxygen it's still unknown how much it actually causes your bone marrow to change your body's natural EPO production long term, but appears to be controllable. Thus, it too could fall prey to the blood volume testing.

Stem-cell gene doping I have little clue about. Anything that in theory alters your DNA and does things like change the way your ATP is produced, or how your immune system reacts to foreign bodies - with no clinical studies or understanding of side effects to go on - is just downright scary sh*t if you ask me. Still unknown how much of this is out there, or how effective it truly is. I have a friend who is an MD/PhD geneticist. Next time we talk I'll see if I can find out more, though he tends to speak in heavy medical language and it's hard to keep up.
 
dimspace said:
its in reference to a QUOTE by wiggins where he stated how much things have improved regarding doping in the pelaton in that he can acually now keep up with people..

nothing dark.. actually positive for once.. :p

i think this is brads point.. his improvement is because of training, but also because he beleives the pelaton is cleaner..
Kurt Asle Arvesen said something similar about last years tour. There he could actually follow up a few mountains and help out for once where he previously had no chance of doing so. He took that as a sign that the peloton was cleaner than it was in previous years and I would say that it's even cleaner this year.

I heard reference to some discussions from the Gazetta or some other italian newspaper or TV coverage that had discussed that the pelotons speed in the mountains this year in the giro was quite a bit lower compared to what it had been in other years. I didn't hear any specific numbers though.
 
Mar 10, 2009
420
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
It's too late and I'm too tired to find links, but the gist of it is this: You really don't produce a whole lot more power differences between the age of about 22 and 32. And your power output doesn't change a great deal once you're fit and at a pro level. So if you're putting out 365w in April one year, and 380w in July, with all the tests about the same between (with maybe an off-day in there), it won't raise a red flag. But if you're putting out 355w in June of 2009, and 365w in July of 2010, and then somehow 440w in July of 2011, something's amiss. Thus the need for long term profiling. Conceptually, the only way to defeat such a test would be to fake the results with consistency over the course of many months, or be doped the same amount every test. Not knowing when you're going to get tested makes that nearly impossible.
This is conceptually wrong. It is nothing more and nothing less than saying "if your performance is too strong, you'll get banned". Wattage is not a physiological parameter: it is your output, your performance - ultimately, sport is all about raising it.

The last time something like this happened was in 1930, when Alfredo Binda was paid to stay out of the Giro: he was too strong to make for an interesting race. But he was paid with the equal of the overall winner's prize plus some stage victory prizes.
 
Leopejo said:
This is conceptually wrong. It is nothing more and nothing less than saying "if your performance is too strong, you'll get banned". Wattage is not a physiological parameter: it is your output, your performance - ultimately, sport is all about raising it.

The last time something like this happened was in 1930, when Alfredo Binda was paid to stay out of the Giro: he was too strong to make for an interesting race. But he was paid with the equal of the overall winner's prize plus some stage victory prizes.
Well, what I think he is getting at is that there are diminishing returns on training. If you are unfit and start training you will see huge improvements in your outputs but the better you get the less effect training has on your output. Basically it's logarithmical in nature.

So, when you reach the point where the curve starts to flatten out you won't see dramatic changes in performance anymore but rather a slow increase if anything. So if you suddenly gain 20% output in a years time it implies that something fishy is going on.
 
Mar 10, 2009
420
1
0
ingsve said:
Well, what I think he is getting at is that there are diminishing returns on training. If you are unfit and start training you will see huge improvements in your outputs but the better you get the less effect training has on your output. Basically it's logarithmical in nature.

So, when you reach the point where the curve starts to flatten out you won't see dramatic changes in performance anymore but rather a slow increase if anything. So if you suddenly gain 20% output in a years time it implies that something fishy is going on.
I absolutely agree with this.

I just don't agree with using it as antidoping criteria.

Besides, where would you put the cutoff? After all, the fluctuations in power during a season, and between seasons, are quite large; while the difference between a succesful season and a disappointing one is often quite limited.

And what wattage would you test? It's not that you can make them have a 60 minutes all-out test many times a year. And how will you account for previous days' training or race loads? For shorter distances the anaerobic component becomes important, but some riders don't train it at all in the first months, while others do. Etc. etc. All these are a confounding factor.
 
Mar 10, 2009
420
1
0
Oh and they are already doing something that I agree with: if a rider has a sudden increase in performance, they will soon start to target him more, as we have seen in past years. They don't need wattage data for that.
 
I don't think you could create a definite limit to go over so that you can suspend anyone based on wattage. It would have to be something similar to the bio passport where you look at blood values and see if you find anomalies and then direct your actions accordingly.

Cause they're not going to suspend anyone directly based on anomalous blood values in the bio passports are they? Or are they?
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
I think it could be a good idea to use power output as an indicator, just the way the blood passport works. You need baseline information to evaluate performance (this goes for any job out there in the world that has a desire to 'improve'/'become more efficient').

This is what happens on Wall Street, in International Development and in IT. This is also what cycling teams do to measure the improvement of their riders, especially when they are still young and are being trained by their team to become a really good pro. If your output in your first pro year measures x, in the second y, and in the third z, you see improvement. Still there is only a % improvement that is physically/humanly possible, which could probably be testified by independent physiologists/doctors. Since teams already use this method to evaluate performance, I don't see why it can't be used against doping...

The UCI could thus administer a FT test, a full out test for 20 minutes, and use that as a baseline to test future output against. Obviously, riders need to be tested for substances prior to the test. It's in the riders interest to get the highest possible result on the test, because otherwise future gains would seem improbable. If the test is repeated every year, UCI does not only get a good view of blood values, but also actual performance of riders.

I don't think any of this would be enough to suspend anyone, but at least it gives a good overview of the average pro rider, as well as inidvidual capacities, and deviations from it. Tracking, suspecting, targeting and uncovering cheats becomes easier...
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Leopejo said:
I absolutely agree with this.

I just don't agree with using it as antidoping criteria.

Besides, where would you put the cutoff? After all, the fluctuations in power during a season, and between seasons, are quite large; while the difference between a succesful season and a disappointing one is often quite limited.

And what wattage would you test? It's not that you can make them have a 60 minutes all-out test many times a year. And how will you account for previous days' training or race loads? For shorter distances the anaerobic component becomes important, but some riders don't train it at all in the first months, while others do. Etc. etc. All these are a confounding factor.
Bro deal, others, etc >>> quick sub max 20 min tests is all they would need. You dont need an FTP test. I might come into December with 325 and train it to 340-350 at best clean. If I took a blood refill for a race, my sustainable power might go from 350 on Friday to 430 on Saturday! With other drugs the effect is less but with HGH, insulin, or IGF-1 the power gains would be measurable too and I'd easily drop my clean self. There are trainers that train guys who dope, these trainer's and physioloists could catch their guys on wattage profiles alone..

Cheers :)
 
Mar 10, 2009
420
1
0
BigBoat said:
Bro deal, others, etc >>> quick sub max 20 min tests is all they would need. You dont need an FTP test. I might come into December with 325 and train it to 340-350 at best clean. If I took a blood refill for a race, my sustainable power might go from 350 on Friday to 430 on Saturday! With other drugs the effect is less but bro, with HGH, insulin, or IGF-1 the power gains would be measurable too. There are trainers that train guys who dope, these trainer's and physioloists could catch their guys on wattage profiles alone..
Oh, and if you climb the Alpe d'Huez in 37 minutes I don't need any wattage tests to tell me that there is something fishy.
 
ingsve said:
Kurt Asle Arvesen said something similar about last years tour. There he could actually follow up a few mountains and help out for once where he previously had no chance of doing so. He took that as a sign that the peloton was cleaner than it was in previous years and I would say that it's even cleaner this year.

I heard reference to some discussions from the Gazetta or some other italian newspaper or TV coverage that had discussed that the pelotons speed in the mountains this year in the giro was quite a bit lower compared to what it had been in other years. I didn't hear any specific numbers though.
Don't worry. Some riders and teams--you know who--will see some riders and teams cleaning up as an opportunity to gain an even larger advantage by using the old ways, just like they did in 1999 after Festina. In July they will be ready to blaze.
 
The problem I see with using power output as a testing method is what would stop people from simply not doing their max effort during the test? With blood tests it's hard to fake it unless you prepare for it in advance but when you're on the trainer and get hooked up you simply just don't give it all you got and the test is useless...
 
Mar 10, 2009
420
1
0
ingsve said:
The problem I see with using power output as a testing method is what would stop people from simply not doing their max effort during the test? With blood tests it's hard to fake it unless you prepare for it in advance but when you're on the trainer and get hooked up you simply just don't give it all you got and the test is useless...
They'll make power meters compulsory during races :p
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
If they did not go all out for a test then the amount of watts tey produce while doped in a race would be even more out of wack!
 
ingsve said:
The problem I see with using power output as a testing method is what would stop people from simply not doing their max effort during the test?
A few things. First, the numbers on the actual test would be very accurate. Let's say you sandbagged and your numbers were 312w. But then a week later you rode up Alpe d'Huez in 38 minutes after 200km of mountains. Officials could roughly translate this into your wattage output of something akin to 390-420w of output. It may not be as accurate as the lab test, of course, but it would still give a number that's akin to an eye-popping gain of 20%, drawing up an immediate red flag.

This might work once, and your "312w" day attributed to an off day. But because you wouldn't have access to the output data while doing the test - you couldn't watch the digital meter and every time it gets to 312w, say you're tired and stop - it would be really hard to get on the thing and soft pedal the same amount every time you take the test.

I should point out that I don't see wattage output as the sole way to suspend a rider, but it could be a very valuable tool to isolate probably cheaters. And more importantly over time you could build a very credible profile. The more data you have, the more accurate the profile.

Couple this with hematology testing, and testing for the usual doping products, all in a longitudinal profile, over time you'd have very, very accurate profile for an athlete that would be extremely difficult to defeat with doping.
 
Mar 10, 2009
420
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
A few things. First, the numbers on the actual test would be very accurate. Let's say you sandbagged and your numbers were 312w. But then a week later you rode up Alpe d'Huez in 38 minutes after 200km of mountains. Officials could roughly translate this into your wattage output of something akin to 390-420w of output. It may not be as accurate as the lab test, of course, but it would still give a number that's akin to an eye-popping gain of 20%, drawing up an immediate red flag.
First problem. UCI doesn't use analyticcycling. I and you could easily calculate an approximate power given time checks and a few data. But it wouldn't hold "in court". And many people tend to have lower wattage outputs on a stationary ergometer than on the bicycle; especially than on a bicycle climbing a hill.

This might work once, and your "312w" day attributed to an off day. But because you wouldn't have access to the output data while doing the test - you couldn't watch the digital meter and every time it gets to 312w, say you're tired and stop - it would be really hard to get on the thing and soft pedal the same amount every time you take the test.
You are perhaps underestimating the perceived effort capacity of cyclists. Surely they won't target that 312 W. But they will target the 90 % of their effort.

I should point out that I don't see wattage output as the sole way to suspend a rider, but it could be a very valuable tool to isolate probably cheaters. And more importantly over time you could build a very credible profile. The more data you have, the more accurate the profile.
This is true, but I see it quite complicated and invasive and gaining very little insight. The spikes mentioned in this thread are hardly realistic. All that you would catch are those whose performance suddenly turns higher than expected. And these are already targeted by UCI. Be sure that Boasson Hagen will soon get more visits by the vampires than what he was used to.

Couple this with hematology testing, and testing for the usual doping products, all in a longitudinal profile, over time you'd have very, very accurate profile for an athlete that would be extremely difficult to defeat with doping.
Let's translate this into other sports where this is easier to do. Should WADA collect all times from track & field or swimming events and use them as their antidoping criteria? "Your time in that 1500 m event was 3 % faster than your expected time. We can only explain it with doping, therefore you are out".
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
If it's supposedly all so unreliable (the watt output) why do riders and teams use it to measure performance and performance improvements over the years.

If you go to Robert Gesink's website, you can find three consecutive years of data including HR, power, altitude, time etc. When you put all those sheets (if they were transparent) on top of each other, you can actually see how much he has improved over those three years, when he did that training ride (hill intv 10x 6 mins or so) on the same road, in the same period.

http://www.robertgesink.nl/dagboek/dagb61.html

it actually seems to be quite accurate, and that's even outside real testing conditions (inside on a hometrainer)
 
Mar 10, 2009
420
1
0
Bala Verde said:
If it's supposedly all so unreliable (the watt output) why do riders and teams use it to measure performance and performance improvements over the years.

If you go to Robert Gesink's website, you can find three consecutive years of data including HR, power, altitude, time etc. When you put all those sheets (if they were transparent) on top of each other, you can actually see how much he has improved over those three years, when he did that training ride (hill intv 10x 6 mins or so) on the same road, in the same period.

http://www.robertgesink.nl/dagboek/dagb61.html

it actually seems to be quite accurate, and that's even outside real testing conditions (inside on a hometrainer)
Basso has the same (starting last year) - all power data from rides and races published. He also publishes his power-time curve, which they periodically test in some fashion (it is a reduced time test, but I don't know more) and is similar to the idea of this thread. Armstrong (IIRC) announced the same, but never came to it. Are we to conclude that these riders certainly don't dope? Can we hypothesize their doping by watching at those exercise files?
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
No, but your argument (in your last post) was that they aren't accurate, not that those who publish or use these files are non dopers per se.

I used it as an example of how teams and riders use this data to measure performance and lay down baseline indicators against which they measure, monitor and evaluate performance. If it works for them, it could well work for WADA or UCI. In that case riders just need to do a test, in a similar way as they do doping tests. In a controlled environment once or twice per year, in the same period (ie winter when the season is slow). That would be a valuable addition to a blood passport, and wouldn't cost a lot of energy (instead of doing it alone, or with their team doctor, they can also use the UCI test results)

Secondly, as you mentioned before, you can't convict someone purely based on these watt outputs in court. But just as you can't convict someone for his/hers fingerprints being found inside the house where a murder has been committed, it will sure count as circimstantial evidence. Ie, if you don't have an alibi, how come your fingerprints are all over the place?

Ie if the doping tests haven't found anything (yet, compare it with the murder weapon that killed someone in CSI ;) how come your watt outputs have increased 20%?

On top of that, it could well be preventive, in that it will discourage people to seek out doping products, because testing methods might be unable to detect and deliver, watt outputs reveal 'inhuman' performance jumps...

But i could be mistaken :confused:

read performance as in 'data output with an SRM and software' as opposed to 'actual results in races'.
 
Mar 10, 2009
420
1
0
Bala Verde said:
No, but your argument (in your last post) was that they aren't accurate, not that those who publish or use these files are non dopers per se.
No, never said nor meant that they aren't accurate. :confused:

I used it as an example of how teams and riders use this data to measure performance and lay down baseline indicators against which they measure, monitor and evaluate performance. If it works for them, it could well work for WADA or UCI. In that case riders just need to do a test, in a similar way as they do doping tests. In a controlled environment once or twice per year, in the same period (ie winter when the season is slow). That would be a valuable addition to a blood passport, and wouldn't cost a lot of energy (instead of doing it alone, or with their team doctor, they can also use the UCI test results)
I don't see it the same, but let's agree to disagree.

Secondly, as you mentioned before, you can't convict someone purely based on these watt outputs in court. But just as you can't convict someone for his/hers fingerprints being found inside the house where a murder has been committed, it will sure count as circimstantial evidence. Ie, if you don't have an alibi, how come your fingerprints are all over the place?
Having a good performance is what you are striving to in sport. It's a bit counter intuitive to condemn someone based on their performance. Get suspicions, yes. But nothing else.

Ie if the doping tests haven't found anything (yet, compare it with the murder weapon that killed someone in CSI ;) how come your watt outputs have increased 20%?
Because I trained, I changed training methods, I am a year older, etc. etc.

On top of that, it could well be preventive, in that it will discourage people to seek out doping products, because testing methods might be unable to detect and deliver, watt outputs reveal 'inhuman' performance jumps...
Better yet, let's give all the athletes an individual minimum time they can use to climb Alpe d'Huez. You can climb it in 39', your teammate in 40'30". That would make for some interesting racing during the Tour...
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
Leopejo said:
No, never said nor meant that they aren't accurate. :confused:
Sorry, i skimmed your reply, so I accused you of somethign you didn't say.:eek:


Having a good performance is what you are striving to in sport. It's a bit counter intuitive to condemn someone based on their performance. Get suspicions, yes. But nothing else.
I agree. However, you want to level the playing field. That's why the UCI decided to maintain a minimum bike weight, and it's generally accepted by all teams and riders. We are also not talking about condemning great performances. The fact that peoples wattages are more or less within a certain range does not prevent the occurrence of great or heroic performances. What you are almost seem to be suggesting is that we need doping, (I am trying to spice up the discussion) in order to let athletes continuously surprise us and set new records.

I think you mentioned swimming before. Swimming (and correct me if I am wrong) is a sport that requires few tactics and strategies, especially the 50m or 100m free (the most important Olympic distance). Swimming requires a good technique, and the 100m even a good turningpoint, and especially an amazing start. However, the last decade swimming times on those distances have rarely been improved. And if the improved, it was by 100ths of seconds, invisible to the eye, and almost impossible to measure. Untill recently. Why, because athletes started to wear 'sharskin' swimming suits, by which they went so much faster, that time after time swimming records got beaten by seconds. Pieter vd Hoogenband's coach said that the records from the last decades have become obsolete... This is not because swimmer have been able to measure higher watt outputs, I bet they have remained almost the same amongst the top competitors. I therefore think it's safe to say, that had we not had those suits, the next 10-20 years we might not have seen many improvements.

If the odd one or two athletes would have set new records, beating the old ones with seconds, I am sure that 'yearly performance results measured by watt outputs', compared against those new WR, would actually have stood up against the test of scrutiny in court. At least as far as circumstantial evidence. In other words, if the tests are taken correctly by UCI, they sure seem to have some value in court...


Because I trained, I changed training methods, I am a year older, etc. etc.
Even if Haussler and Hagen improve their results in a race, that does not mean that their watt outputs have become so much better. Haussler, formerly seen as a pure sprinter, has adjusted his training, and also his tactics. Instead of waiting for the bunch sprint, he picks his escapes, and with the improved conditioning of surviving hills as well as his stamina for long escapes he has become a better rider. I really sincerely doubt that his watt outputs have improved by over 10%!

If you get a year older, improvements neither jump up 'abnormally'. By this reasoning, the blood passport has zero to nill value either. 'Your Hematocrit has gone up by over 10%',... 'Well', says the athlete 'I have gotten a year older' or 'My training schedule changed'... Heck even doping testing has zero value,... "you've got higher testosterone levels'... 'Well, I have become more of a man since I am a year older'...


Better yet, let's give all the athletes an individual minimum time they can use to climb Alpe d'Huez. You can climb it in 39', your teammate in 40'30". That would make for some interesting racing during the Tour...
Again, you are confusing tested performance in a lab setting with actual performances in a stage race. Watt outputs in a lab setting could serve as a guideline to discover anomalies.

If UCI would force all riders to use an SRM, we would soon see which rider's output values are 'abnormal'. Since they are in competition, ie in the TdF, on the Alpe.. I bet the GC contenders will give it all they got, wham, baseline info set...
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY