LeMond I

[Albatros]

EPO improves performance by 54% in a laboratory trial

This great study, published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology earlier this year, evaluated the effects of EPO use on performance during cycling. We'll try to break the study down as simply and clearly as possible:

Who was tested?

They had 16 reasonably fit cyclists take part in the study. The pre-testing VO2max tests showed an average VO2 of about 3.90L/min and a Peak Power Output of 325 W. By no means world-class cyclists, but fit athletes. This does have some implications for the application of the data, which we'll get to later.

How were they tested?

The testing involved an 13-week period, where the 16 athletes were split into two groups. The control group received placebo injection, whereas the 8 cyclists in the EPO group received a dosage of EPO on a schedule worked out over the 13-week period. One potential problem with the study was that the EPO group could not be blinded that they were receiving EPO, for ethical reasons. What this means is that everyone receiving EPO KNEW that they were, and there's good reason to believe that simply knowing you're receiving a drug improves performance as well! The control subjects were blinded, so they did not know whether they were on EPO or not, which does partly offset this problem.

Measures of performance?

All the athletes were tested BEFORE and AFTER the injections doing two performance-trials:
Peak Power Output testing - here, the subjects start off riding at a low power output and the workload increases every 90seconds until exhaustion. Basically, the cyclist has to go harder and harder until they cannot push anymore! The test is used to measure VO2max and also a Peak Power Output
This was followed by a Trial to Exhaustion at 80% of the previously determined Peak Power Output. In this trial, the cyclist rides at ONE power output - 80% of their maximum, and they ride until exhaustion. This test is used as a measure of endurance performance. This trial was done after 4 weeks and again after 11 weeks of the trial.
The results: A 54% improvement in performance

We don't wish to go into all the blood analysis and DEXA work done - they measured all kinds of things, but this is a post about performance. And the main finding was that EPO use improved time to exhaustion by an enormous 54% within 4 weeks! Peak Power Output improved by 13% in the first four weeks of the trial. The graph below shows the results:http://www.sportsscientists.com/search?q=epo

It think we can be reasonably confident that EPO is worth at least a 10% improvement in performance in elite cyclists. An amount IMPOSSIBLE to for a clean rider to compete with , especially in events were tactics play very little part..time trials.

That is what I have read, from 10 to 20.

 

[Albatros]

There's a sizeable difference between 10% and 20%. Regardless, you're still not right. Before you bandy about untrue statements, check the factual accuracy of them. EPO isn't a 'take this and you go X faster' tool. It increases time to exhaustion, and recovery.

Check Darryl Webster post. Again, it is something that I have read here on these forums and other sources on the internet.

What is the percentage gain according to you?

 

[AcademyCC]

Below is a quote taken from JV in a previous thread. Quite a good attempt to put a % on it i think.

'From a o2 uptake standpoint the percentage gain is about half of the increase in total hemoglobin mass. So, in modern day where the bio-passport would prevent any huge jumps in Hb, say you increased from 14g/dl to 15g/dl (this all assumes that plasma volume is totally stable, which is a very big assumption and almost impossible...but anyway..)..This would bring about a total Hb increase of 6.7%, so the o2 carrying capacity increase and corresponding power increase would be about half of that, so 3.35%. Of course, in 1996, you could go from 14g/dl to 19g/dl quite easily, yielding a power increase of more like 13%! There is some diminishing return after about 16g/dl however because the red cells become so crowded they can no longer deliver oxygen as efficiently, so maybe "only" 10%.

Ok, so there's the clinical math. One thing not taken into consideration into this is that Hb is a protein that would, in theory, serve as a lactate buffer. So, there is also some undetermined anearobic advantage in addition to just the o2 carrying increase. In a race where repeated anearobic efforts are required and recovery from those efforts are required, over and over, there will be some culmulative advantage as well.

Also, an old Finnish study (if you can find it) found that athletes with higher Vo2 maxes benefitted less from EPO use than those who started with lower Vo2 maxes. The more talented athlete were (generally) benefitting less. Another observation of that study was that ectomorphic body types showed less increase than mesomorphic types. So, the variables on the exact advantage are endless and vary person to person (A BIG counterpoint to the argument that just letting everyone dope is fair). I read this study in about 1995 and haven't seen it anywhere since, so i cant find a link, sorry...

in any case, my guess is, in a 40km time trial scenario, I think the current day anti-doping efforts blunt any advantage of blood doping to very minimal and would be easily displaced by better aerodynamics, training, etc... The risk vs reward would no longer make any logical sense in modern day, if the effort was strictly o2 based. However, in a race requiring multiple anearobic efforts, this advantage would, theoretically, increase. How much? I don't know.

JV'

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Plenty of quotes around that figure. I have read from 10 to 20%

Anyway, let's change it to 10% only. He rode at speeds similar to the best riders who were taking EPO and riding with more aerodynamic bikes (and technique) .

I assume you are conveniently ignoring that there was no flat TT of similar length since 89 in the Tour?

Did you forget the post I had about Kellys TT from 1985? Let me remind you.

Pretty easy for a record to stand when you exclude Prologues and there hasn't been as short a flat TT since 89.
Lemonds average was 54.55 km/h (34.093 mph) over 24.5km - just over 10 years later Armstrong does 53.9 km/h over 59 kms!!

Even back in 1985 Sean Kelly did a 20.9km (13 ml) TT @ 52.2km/h - on an ordinary bike with just a disk wheel.

 

[GJB123]

Unlike you lot, I don't care about names. Mentioning Armstrong when talking about Lemond it is likely to occur, but it is entirely circumstancial.

Armstrong was another big doper, just the same as everyone who won the Tour de France before and after.

Regarding what you mention. Yes, those other riders could have been doping with EPO too. It is a possibility as EPO was already available.

What it is unbelievable is that Lemond average speed took so long to beat when according to many here EPO gives you around a 20% boost and aerodynamics have also improved. He rode that stage anything but aerodynamically by the way.

Okay, so first there were only early adopters like Lemond as you stated and now the whole friggin' peloton was using EPO in 1989, hence the the high average across the peloton in 1989 final ITT.

Perhaps they should have had a largely downhill, short ITT with wind in the back much earlier than 1989. As it is, there have hardly been comparable ITT's since then, so you are still talking out of your *ss. But hey, don't let the facts or logic get in the way of some good old-fashioned trolling.

I am done with you. No more feeding the troll.

Regards
GJ

 

[Cavalier]

snip sportscience info

Performance% increase doesn't equate to a net% speed increase. That's simply not possible from EPO only. A 10% speed increase is not possible from that product alone.

 

[Cavalier]

Check Darryl Webster post. Again, it is something that I have read here on these forums and other sources on the internet.

So prove it. You're the one making the claim it's a 10% (from 20%!) speed increase. You're the one claiming you've read it, both here and elsewhere - so either pony up or admit you're talking a load of rubbish.

What is the percentage gain according to you?

In speed increase? Dependant on a host of other conditions. It's not a flat % gain, depends on the individual, and isn't best measured as you're trying to.

 

[Big Doopie]

Also, an old Finnish study (if you can find it) found that athletes with higher Vo2 maxes benefitted less from EPO use than those who started with lower Vo2 maxes. The more talented athlete were (generally) benefitting less. Another observation of that study was that ectomorphic body types showed less increase than mesomorphic types. So, the variables on the exact advantage are endless and vary person to person (A BIG counterpoint to the argument that just letting everyone dope is fair). I read this study in about 1995 and haven't seen it anywhere since, so i cant find a link, sorry...

in any case, my guess is, in a 40km time trial scenario, I think the current day anti-doping efforts blunt any advantage of blood doping to very minimal and would be easily displaced by better aerodynamics, training, etc... The risk vs reward would no longer make any logical sense in modern day, if the effort was strictly o2 based. However, in a race requiring multiple anearobic efforts, this advantage would, theoretically, increase. How much? I don't know.

JV'

fascinating stuff. i hadn't seen the original post. tx.

and, yes, the above really goes to the heart of the fact that the natural hierarchy is therefore completely upended -- destroying the fun of following cycling.

the itt benefits are also interesting. confirms what i have always thought. after all itts were the only thing lemond remained competitive in with the onslaught of epo, but he couldn't compete in races "requiring multiple anaerobic efforts".

 

[the big ring]

Anaerobic as in out of the saddle sprinting uphill, repeatedly?

 

[7_7_7_7]

Lemonds average was 54.55 km/h (34.093 mph) over 24.5km - just over 10 years later Armstrong does 53.9 km/h over 59 kms!!

Even back in 1985 Sean Kelly did a 20.9km (13 ml) TT @ 52.2km/h - on an ordinary bike with just a disk wheel.

Lemond's average speed was in fact 54.545 kmh (33.892 mph) over 24.5km (15.22 miles). Won in a time of 00:26:57.

Sean Kelly's time trial from Carrick On Suir To Clonmel in 1985 over 20.921km (13 miles) was won in a time of 00:24:09. His average speed is often quoted (on certain websites) as 52.173 Kmh (32.418 mph) Which is incorrect.

Kelly's average speed for that time trial was in fact 51.978 kmh (32.298 mph).

Average Speed Calculator :

http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/bike/speed_distance_time_calc.html

 

[blutto]

precisely. marie was only 33 seconds back. without aerobars.

indurain on the other hand was about 2 1/2 mins back. only 3 years later he destroyed lemond by 4 mins. gee, i wonder what happened in between...

...so earlier in that Tour Indurain is within one second of Gl in the prologue....beats GL in the 39 km TT...and wins a mtn top stage...all the whilebusting a gut being a faithful helper for Delgado....if fact in one stage he lost 10 min after killing himself for Degado...remove those 10 min and he was contending for the win...( and lets not even talk about the 1990 Tour where Indurain beat GL in all the TT's and beat him in a mtn top finish...and all the time busting a gut being a faithful helper...)

....so what exactly is your point?...that selective use of the facts is somehow a great way to prove a point?...sorry it makes you look like someone who has a very weak position that has to resort to the lowest of cheap debating tactics to eke out a worthless point....

Cheers

blutto

 

[Race Radio]

Lots of clogging the toilet with babble but still no evidence of LeMond doping.

Maybe if they close their eyes and wish real hard?

 

[montagna lunga]

Lots of clogging the toilet with babble but still no evidence of LeMond doping.

Maybe if they close their eyes and wish real hard?

what else do you expect here? balanced, flat-affect discourse?

 

[blutto]

Lots of clogging the toilet with babble but still no evidence of LeMond doping.

Maybe if they close their eyes and wish real hard?

...yes you are absolutely correct on that point...but, on the other hand, if this were a proper type police investigation (and don't we all wish this were the case for this sport ) you would have the basis for a case...because we have motive ( a great drive to win on both a personal and monetary level ), access to means and a prize....and we have, as Albatros has pointed out, a history of drugs in this race that spans decades and decades...so one should be skeptical, it is only prudent...

Your super duper little friend

blutto

 

[Benotti69]

...yes you are absolutely correct on that point...but, on the other hand, if this were a proper type police investigation (and don't we all wish this were the case for this sport ) you would have the basis for a case...because we have motive ( a great drive to win on both a personal and monetary level ), access to means and a prize....and we have, as Albatros has pointed out, a history of drugs in this race that spans decades and decades...so one should be skeptical, it is only prudent...

Your super duper little friend

blutto

Blutto, i agree with,

history of drugs in this race that spans decades and decades...so one should be skeptical, it is only prudent

but would expect more than looking peachy at the Giro to point to Lemond's doping.

Someone would've come out by now to take him to task for his hypocrisy if he was a doper.

Armstrong has tried so hard to find a way to cast doping aspersions on Lemond and apart from minions in here failing miserably there has been nothing.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...so earlier in that Tour Indurain is within one second of Gl in the prologue....beats GL in the 39 km TT...and wins a mtn top stage...all the whilebusting a gut being a faithful helper for Delgado....if fact in one stage he lost 10 min after killing himself for Degado...remove those 10 min and he was contending for the win...( and lets not even talk about the 1990 Tour where Indurain beat GL in all the TT's and beat him in a mtn top finish...and all the time busting a gut being a faithful helper...)

....so what exactly is your point?...that selective use of the facts is somehow a great way to prove a point?...sorry it makes you look like someone who has a very weak position that has to resort to the lowest of cheap debating tactics to eke out a worthless point....

Cheers

blutto

Just to help you out:
"so earlier in that Tour Indurain is within one second of Gl in the prologue"
Prologue: 1. Breukink 4. LeMond @6s 10. Indurain @ 10s

"beats GL in the 39 km TT"
A Mountain TT? Ok.

"remove those 10 min and he was contending for the win"
Final GC - 1. G.LeMond, 87h38m35s 17. M.Indurain @ 31m21s.

....so what exactly is your point?...that selective use of the facts is somehow a great way to prove a point?...sorry it makes you look like someone who has a very weak position that has to resort to the lowest of cheap debating tactics to eke out a worthless point....
Indeed.

 

[Big Doopie]

....so what exactly is your point?

um. that you are once again wrong.

but (seriously?) that indurain's dramatic improvement mirrors the arrival of epo in the peloton. the luxembourg TT was ridiculous to say the least.

and by the signs of your own description lemond could never have been on epo in 1989 -- cuz he was actually weaker than in 1986.

thanks for clarifying my point. much appreciation.

and -- as others have continuously pointed out --the fact remains re: this thread:

still nothing. nada. zippo.

sorry sociopath chamois sniffers.

 

[GJB123]

...yes you are absolutely correct on that point...but, on the other hand, if this were a proper type police investigation (and don't we all wish this were the case for this sport ) you would have the basis for a case...because we have motive ( a great drive to win on both a personal and monetary level ), access to means and a prize....and we have, as Albatros has pointed out, a history of drugs in this race that spans decades and decades...so one should be skeptical, it is only prudent...

Your super duper little friend

blutto

Really? Access to what means? You have no case if you can't prove that.

Regards
GJ

 

[blutto]

Really? Access to what means? You have no case if you can't prove that.

Regards
GJ

....access in this case means walking into a doctor's office and getting a magic thingee to treat something like say, anemia....actually pretty simple, and very doable don't you think?....

Cheers

blutto

 

[GJB123]

....access in this case means walking into a doctor's office and getting a magic thingee to treat something like say, anemia....actually pretty simple, and very doable don't you think?....

Cheers

blutto

And you know that how? Do you have proof for that?

 

[Benotti69]

....access in this case means walking into a doctor's office and getting a magic thingee to treat something like say, anemia....actually pretty simple, and very doable don't you think?....

Cheers

blutto

Are you talking about a doping doctor?

 

[Big Doopie]

Just to help you out:
"so earlier in that Tour Indurain is within one second of Gl in the prologue"
Prologue: 1. Breukink 4. LeMond @6s 10. Indurain @ 10s

"beats GL in the 39 km TT"
A Mountain TT? Ok.

"remove those 10 min and he was contending for the win"
Final GC - 1. G.LeMond, 87h38m35s 17. M.Indurain @ 31m21s.

....so what exactly is your point?...that selective use of the facts is somehow a great way to prove a point?...sorry it makes you look like someone who has a very weak position that has to resort to the lowest of cheap debating tactics to eke out a worthless point....
Indeed.

and let's see: Stage 5 Dinnard-Rennes 73km ITT

Lemond -- 1st
Indurain -- 12th @ 3'32"

ouch.

3 years later Indurain had gained over 7 1/2 mins in performance relative to lemond...

and what arrived in the peloton over those 3 years...?

 

[blutto]

...and going back to the post to RR...here is something from the very esteemed Mr Webster ( I really wouldn't have gone here but for Mr Webster's unimpeachable creds on this forum and the fact he, of all people, introduced it )

"Given the performance gains from using EPO apparently being of the order 5 to 10 % ( estimates vary) who and when do forumiites think may have been the first EPO users?
It occurs to me that its unlikly to have been widespread in the first season(s) of use cus those first users would lose there advantage.

Gert Jan Thenisse and Stevan Rooks in 89 would seem to me to be the most likely candidates.

Any one think of any other nominees for this dubious " trailblazer " honour? "

....a very interesting way of looking at things especially given the very specific date-marked history that is being examined here...and something that is what a real type police investigation would in good consience have to take into account would it not...they call this circumstantial evidence and I believe is admissible in a court of law...

...just being skeptical here given the history of the sport in question...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Race Radio]

Always the same, LeMond doped because well, he just had to have doped, no evidence but yeah he definitely doped.

They seem to ignore the people in the know like Laurent Fignon who said it was possible to win clean in the 80s even though he doped himself.

Like Willy Voet who said there were clean top riders like Charly Mottet despite naming countless people who did dope.

Like Paul Koechli, who ran a clean team in Helvetia/La Suiise without any needles and said LeMond won the Tour clean. Before people say that was because he was his manager, Koechli never said Hinault won the tour clean and he was his manager too. Bernard Tapie, owner of the team said the only guys he knew that definitely didnt dope were LeMond and Bauer, not Hinault, not Bernard.

Like Peter Winnen who says it was possible to win clean in the 80s but everything changed with EPO.

These posters are not just refuting other posters, they are refuting guys from that period who were involved in cycling, people who have said they doped themselves or that doping was present.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...and going back to the post to RR...here is something from the very esteemed Mr Webster ( I really wouldn't have gone here but for Mr Webster unimpeachable creds on this forum )

"Given the performance gains from using EPO apparently being of the order 5 to 10 % ( estimates vary) who and when do forumiites think may have been the first EPO users?
It occurs to me that its unlikly to have been widespread in the first season(s) of use cus those first users would lose there advantage.

Gert Jan Thenisse and Stevan Rooks in 89 would seem to me to be the most likely candidates.

Any one think of any other nominees for this dubious " trailblazer " honour? "

....a very interesting way of looking at things especially the very specific date-marked history that is being examined here...and something that is what a real type police investigation would in good consience have to take into account would it not...they call this circumstantial evidence I believe...

Cheers

blutto

I am assuming you mean 1988
When Rooks finished 2nd and Theuinesse finished 11th (even though he got a 10 min penalty for doping)

So, now you are saying this "magic thingee" was available in 88?