Money Laundering & Doping In Italy. Armstrong, Menchov named

[D-Queued]

Sorry 2008. 2010 was the year that they began sanctioning riders based on biopassport data. From memory Ashenden said the panel gave 5 positives to the UCI but then the UCI only acted on 2.

2 is better than none however and as I've stated before, the goal of anti-doping tests can only ever be to discourage doping by having the threat of catching the cheats, not to catch every single one of them which will never happen. Same logic applies to speed cameras, you won't catch everyone who speeds, but you discourage everyone from speeding all the time.

Two is a wonderful number.

Wahoo, success.

Odd, though, how 'two' reaffirms Phat's claim of 1-2% of the Peloton are doping.

Two is also a good way to count success.

You count it as two positives. That is one way to measure success.

If Tyler is right, and 80% of the Peloton are doping, then a second way of looking at success is that the Passport shielded 156 of the 2010 TdF dopers from testing positive.

Now that is a real success. Sacrifice two so that 156 can ride 'clean'.

Dave.

 

[Krebs cycle]

If Tyler is right, and 80% of the Peloton are doping, then a second way of looking at success is that the Passport shielded 156 of the 2010 TdF dopers from testing positive.

Dave.

Is Tyler talking about 80% doped in 2010-2012? or is he referring to 1999-2009?

What I don't seem to recall anyone (who is certain that nothing has changed in pro cycling) explaining is why they are going slower up the major climbs in the past 2-3yrs?

If you believe that 80% of the peloton are doping in 2012, then what are your thoughts on the new "slow era"?

 

[MarkvW]

Is Tyler talking about 80% doped in 2010-2012? or is he referring to 1999-2009?

What I don't seem to recall anyone (who is certain that nothing has changed in pro cycling) explaining is why they are going slower up the major climbs in the past 2-3yrs?

If you believe that 80% of the peloton are doping in 2012, then what are your thoughts on the new "slow era"?

I think the peloton contains the same huge percentage of cheaters. Padua is probably going to validate that (once again).

I think that the riders are going slower because EPO/CERA (the big home run drug so far) is now detectable when taken in larger quantities). The riders have to rely on blood bags and microdosing--marginal gains compared to the 'old' EPO days.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Is Tyler talking about 80% doped in 2010-2012? or is he referring to 1999-2009?

What I don't seem to recall anyone (who is certain that nothing has changed in pro cycling) explaining is why they are going slower up the major climbs in the past 2-3yrs?

If you believe that 80% of the peloton are doping in 2012, then what are your thoughts on the new "slow era"?

Strange that you are trying to make a distinction between 2010-2012 vs 1999-2009, associating the first 2 years of the ABP with the dirty era of Armstrong et al being doped to the gills. Particularly telling given your attempt earlier to change the ABP start date from 2008 to 2010.

I wonder if you are telegraphing a msg about to be broadcast from elsewhere - will be interesting to see.

I thought it interesting that Brad's "Why I don't dope" letter had most of your talking points in it - including the laughable l'Avenir stage win. Ai carumba.

Wiggins speed up the climbs compared to 2006-2008 is dramatically improved, so "slow era" by comparison to other climbers is true, but the best comparison - to the rider himself, is completely incorrect. Wiggins 2.0 is flying compared to Wiggins 1.0.

And he's not being pushed at all - in the Tour noone could keep up with him, so looking at his speed or VAM up the climbs is misguided. Wiggins never really looked stressed or under pressure - even when Froome went, Wiggins looked unperturbed. And he was pedaling at around 100rpm too - so again, not a good indication of his true climbing potential.

 

[Ferminal]

I'd say the times set on Pampeago, Angliru, Verbier, Joux Plane, Peyresourde in the past 18 months have been rather impressive.

 

[ultimobici]

Off topic I know but really? Skoda has won more in rally than Ferrari have in racing? F1 is just the tip of the iceberg for Ferrari, plenty of endurance/GT/Sportscar titles in there, like Le Mans, and older races like the Mille Milgia and its ilk

More successful in that they won their group at the RAC Rally 17 years running. Always find it amusing when they are presented in the classic British mickey taking way.

 

[Krebs cycle]

I think the peloton contains the same huge percentage of cheaters. Padua is probably going to validate that (once again).

I think that the riders are going slower because EPO/CERA (the big home run drug so far) is now detectable when taken in larger quantities). The riders have to rely on blood bags and microdosing--marginal gains compared to the 'old' EPO days.

In Armstrong's era the best cyclists in the world could hold 6.5-6.8 w/kg for 30-40min on big climbs. In 2011/12 the world's best cyclists appear to be holding around 6.0-6.2 w/kg, but if the incidence of doping is just as high (in the top 10-20 GC riders), and the available evidence shows that microdosing and/or "small" blood bags can give you about 10% extra at VO2max power, that would equate to about 5.5-5.8 w/kg if they were clean.

If that were true then Andy Coggan got his power profile tables real badly wrong and the entire "world class" category in those tables can only be data from doped riders. It would also suggest Aldo Sassi was off his rocker when he quotes 6.0-6.2 w/kg as being the upper limit for clean riders.

 

[Ferminal]

No one is really doing >6.0 on longer climbs recently. It happened in the 2011 Dauphine, maybe Cobo on Angliru.

Best distance effort we have seen in the last 3 years is imo Tourmalet (which I don't think was >6.0 either, but >50'). Further back the 2009 Giro and Tour, for pretty obvious reasons. 2009 Ventoux is a great benchmark for next year.

From what little we have of the ITTs I think Froome cracked it in the Vuelta?

 

[sittingbison]

As I asked on the power thread, is it possible to determine LeMond Badger and Fignons W/kg for the same cols?

And understand they rode those without any major team assistance like LA and Wiggo. And that there should be natural progressions in performance after 25 years due to diet, scientific training, equipment etc.

 

[M Sport]

In Armstrong's era the best cyclists in the world could hold 6.5-6.8 w/kg for 30-40min on big climbs. In 2011/12 the world's best cyclists appear to be holding around 6.0-6.2 w/kg, but if the incidence of doping is just as high (in the top 10-20 GC riders), and the available evidence shows that microdosing and/or "small" blood bags can give you about 10% extra at VO2max power, that would equate to about 5.5-5.8 w/kg if they were clean.

If that were true then Andy Coggan got his power profile tables real badly wrong and the entire "world class" category in those tables can only be data from doped riders. It would also suggest Aldo Sassi was off his rocker when he quotes 6.0-6.2 w/kg as being the upper limit for clean riders.

Everything I have ever read calculated Greg Lemond at 5.7-5.8 w/kg. I would say he was the epitome of a clean 'world class' rider.

 

[Cloxxki]

Everything I have ever read calculated Greg Lemond at 5.7-5.8 w/kg. I would say he was the epitome of a clean 'world class' rider.

Wow, that low, really?
That would explain why my sports doc got so revved up during a medical VO2max test (on tennis shoes no less). He didn't see such figures very often, and my 81kg made the Watts result seem extra rare. I know that when I was doing OK, few were able to match my outright pace, but I didn't know all the pro's were doping at the time. A couple kg of body fat I didn't need could have been dropped easily, boosting my number by a few tenths. I could have quit a job and do some actual training hours.
Such low figures for LeMond would also explain the Alpe d'Huez times I remember to have seen for him (40+?). I never did an all-out effort, let alone solo, but the time I had in my mind was too close to him to make it seem like a competitive time for him. But the EPO era was just SO much faster...
That said, I think some riding buddies I've ridden with may have approached LeMond for outright VO2. They'd climb right away from me. Then, I don't know for a fact they were clean, some improved a lot one year to the other. Yet, they still lost big time to world class pro's.

6.8/5.8 makes for a 117% performance. And from riders likely less talented than Lemond. Actually, tested to be at least 10% less powerful at VO2max.
That does open the window to a 30% boost between a clean and doped good responder like Armstrong. Mind boggling. Can see that would be addictive and mess with your mind. Just 10% would have done so much for me, especially factoring in the ability to train harder, recover faster, also during (MTB) races... My legs were usually well strong enough, short climbs were where I could make the gap. Ships, doping zucks so bad...

 

[Tinman]

In Armstrong's era the best cyclists in the world could hold 6.5-6.8 w/kg for 30-40min on big climbs. In 2011/12 the world's best cyclists appear to be holding around 6.0-6.2 w/kg, ...

It would also suggest Aldo Sassi was off his rocker when he quotes 6.0-6.2 w/kg as being the upper limit for clean riders.

Unless Sassi was basing the 6.0-6.2 on what he knew of Evans (and Evans really was an outstanding clean athlete even over and above LeMond)? But you've seen the Evans data...

 

[WinterRider]

No one is really doing >6.0 on longer climbs recently. It happened in the 2011 Dauphine, maybe Cobo on Angliru.

Best distance effort we have seen in the last 3 years is imo Tourmalet (which I don't think was >6.0 either, but >50'). Further back the 2009 Giro and Tour, for pretty obvious reasons. 2009 Ventoux is a great benchmark for next year.

From what little we have of the ITTs I think Froome cracked it in the Vuelta?

Ventoux? The race was over (except for 4th). Contador and Andy were soft pedaling the whole way up, and Franck and Lance were playing tactics too. The only one working all out was Wiggins. So it might be a benchmark for Wiggins, but not for anyone else.

 

[D-Queued]

Is Tyler talking about 80% doped in 2010-2012? or is he referring to 1999-2009?

What I don't seem to recall anyone (who is certain that nothing has changed in pro cycling) explaining is why they are going slower up the major climbs in the past 2-3yrs?

If you believe that 80% of the peloton are doping in 2012, then what are your thoughts on the new "slow era"?

Did you forget to add a smiley face?

So what changed from 2009 to 2010?

If doping went from 80% of the peloton down to 1-2% in one year, don't you think it would have been so obvious that everyone in the Clinic would be applauding?

If we saw doping drop just by half over a decade, we might still be profoundly impressed.

As Tyler, and many others have observed, our doctors are better than your doctors.

After all, Clentador had this to say about finally being banned for his 2010 positive:

In June 2011, he said: "From the beginning of the season I've been the rider who's had the most doping tests, and I've been tested in all the races I've been in.

"The idea victory could be taken away if I win, I just find ridiculous."

Yes, just like your delineation between 2009 and 2010. Just ridiculous.

Dave.

 

[Ferminal]

Ventoux? The race was over (except for 4th). Contador and Andy were soft pedaling the whole way up, and Franck and Lance were playing tactics too. The only one working all out was Wiggins. So it might be a benchmark for Wiggins, but not for anyone else.

So they should beat the 2009 time with ease then? How much quicker could they go? Thirty seconds, a minute?

Didn't Andy and Bertie go up quicker than Armstrong and Marco? I'd hate to see a "clean" bunch rival that...

 

[acoggan]

In Armstrong's era the best cyclists in the world could hold 6.5-6.8 w/kg for 30-40min on big climbs. In 2011/12 the world's best cyclists appear to be holding around 6.0-6.2 w/kg, but if the incidence of doping is just as high (in the top 10-20 GC riders), and the available evidence shows that microdosing and/or "small" blood bags can give you about 10% extra at VO2max power, that would equate to about 5.5-5.8 w/kg if they were clean.

If that were true then Andy Coggan got his power profile tables real badly wrong and the entire "world class" category in those tables can only be data from doped riders. It would also suggest Aldo Sassi was off his rocker when he quotes 6.0-6.2 w/kg as being the upper limit for clean riders.

There seems to be some confusion re. how I generated my power profiling tables. A full description can be found here:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/cycling/power-profiling.aspx

(Note that the article above links to the previous version of the tables. The logic, however, is unchanged.)

 

[Gregga]

Ventoux? The race was over (except for 4th). Contador and Andy were soft pedaling the whole way up, and Franck and Lance were playing tactics too. The only one working all out was Wiggins. So it might be a benchmark for Wiggins, but not for anyone else.

Not so soft pedaling imho, Schleck very close to the "not normal" 2002 Armstrong !
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5537

Mont Ventoux depuis Saint Estève (courses en ligne)
1994 Pantani 46'00''
2000 Pantani et Armstrong 49'00''
2002 Armstrong 48'30''
2009 Andy Schleck 48'55''

Mont Ventoux depuis Bedoin (courses contre la montre)
1958 Gaul 1h02'09''
2000 Vaughters 56'50''
2004 Mayo 55'51''

 

[roundabout]

That's a bit weird. I think Wiggins finished about 20 seconds back of Schleck, so about 8 or 9 people did the climb quicker than Rumsas in 2002.

And Schleck and Contador didn't look like they were giving everything.

I would guess that conditions were different in 2009. I can't really think of a reason why so many people would beat the time of the 3rd best rider in 2002. Or at least why Wiggins could be faster than Rumsas, who was on hell knows what.

 

[M Sport]

Wow, that low, really?

Such low figures for LeMond would also explain the Alpe d'Huez times I remember to have seen for him (40+?).

I know, low compared to what today's riders are being quoted at. Just a point I should make though is that when these historical comparisons get done they normally allow for a bike weight which is fixed across the years i.e. I saw one comparison of Lemond, Armstrong, Pantani etc that used a bike weight or 9kg. I would argue that Lemond's bike would have been heavier, less aero wheels and less advanced drive train and tyres than what Armstrong would have had. Therefore you could probably up by a few percent (better mathematicians than me will be able to calculate the exact percentage).

Lemond's time up Alpe D'Huez is 48 mins, the cut off for clean riders is a few places in front of him.

 

[Ferminal]

That's a bit weird. I think Wiggins finished about 20 seconds back of Schleck, so about 8 or 9 people did the climb quicker than Rumsas in 2002.

And Schleck and Contador didn't look like they were giving everything.

I would guess that conditions were different in 2009. I can't really think of a reason why so many people would beat the time of the 3rd best rider in 2002. Or at least why Wiggins could be faster than Rumsas, who was on hell knows what.

2002 after the Pyrenees v 2009 end of the race. Shouldn't be much difference there.

2002 5:43' v 2009 4:39'

Anyone remember the Wind?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I know, low compared to what today's riders are being quoted at. Just a point I should make though is that when these historical comparisons get done they normally allow for a bike weight which is fixed across the years i.e. I saw one comparison of Lemond, Armstrong, Pantani etc that used a bike weight or 9kg. I would argue that Lemond's bike would have been heavier, less aero wheels and less advanced drive train and tyres than what Armstrong would have had. Therefore you could probably up by a few percent (better mathematicians than me will be able to calculate the exact percentage).

Lemond's time up Alpe D'Huez is 48 mins, the cut off for clean riders is a few places in front of him.

Pretty sure Lemond's best time up Alpe D'Huez is 41 mins. It's definitely way better than 48.

 

[Cloxxki]

Pretty sure Lemond's best time up Alpe D'Huez is 41 mins. It's definitely way better than 48.

That's what I thought too.
I was seeing myself attack a time well under 50 mins (remember I was 80+ kg), purely based on the times Lance and Pantani were riding. It seemed reasonable. I wanted to ride the time limit, basically. Just with 2 weeks less racing, and not the whole stage as a warm-up. But finishing a few minutes behind LeMond, obviously I am not comfortable with that.
Realistically, on an equal bike, we should probably estimate Lance at 43-44 minutes the very best? Especially if his "train" was riding clean. Although some might end up riding away then, being lesser responders, more natural talents.

 

[D-Queued]

I know, low compared to what today's riders are being quoted at. Just a point I should make though is that when these historical comparisons get done they normally allow for a bike weight which is fixed across the years i.e. I saw one comparison of Lemond, Armstrong, Pantani etc that used a bike weight or 9kg. I would argue that Lemond's bike would have been heavier, less aero wheels and less advanced drive train and tyres than what Armstrong would have had. Therefore you could probably up by a few percent (better mathematicians than me will be able to calculate the exact percentage).

Lemond's time up Alpe D'Huez is 48 mins, the cut off for clean riders is a few places in front of him.

Don't think the drivetrain or tires would have made much of a difference. And, for climbing, LeMond's 32 spoke tubulars probably not as much of a disadvantage as you might think.

LeMond ran Campy Record 8 sp, 53x39 chain rings, downtube shifters, Mavic GP4 (pretty sure) tubular 32 spoke rims (pretty sure with Vittoria Corsa Extra tires), Time Magnesium pedals.

Lance may have had an extra cog or two, but otherwise the drivetrain and tyres not hugely refined other than for the ergo shifters. Newer brakesets are much lighter, though.

LeMond used White Record pulleys with ball bearings while Lance used Shimano pulleys with bushings that would have a bit more resistance. LeMond had TTT stem and bars re-branded as Scott (decent) with the old Cello-Tape as compared to Armstrong's cork wrap.

LeMond was also the first in the peloton to use Carbon (Calfee re-branded) and Titanium (Merlin re-branded) framesets. Both are/were decent performers.

Dave.

 

[M Sport]

Pretty sure Lemond's best time up Alpe D'Huez is 41 mins. It's definitely way better than 48.

The list could be wrong but it's not the only place I have seen the same time.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8032

If they have made an error and he went faster it would be 1989, but no way 41 minutes.

 

[Frosty]

The list could be wrong but it's not the only place I have seen the same time.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=8032

If they have made an error and he went faster it would be 1989, but no way 41 minutes.

That list is a selection of times rather than giving everyone's fastest time.

Lemond probably did 41.42 in 1991 in stage 17 as Bugno is down as having a 39.44 and Lemond is at +1.58.

Lemond probably did 43.09 in 1989 as he was 1.19 to Fignon who did a 41.50 (assuming in both cases they started the climb together).

FWIW the 1991 didnt involve that much climbing until the alpe - the course is relatively similar to next year's lead up to the alpe i think, although they go up twice next year.

Dunno why the 1986 time is so slow relatively speaking. It was a hard stage before then but still seems a bit surprising they didnt go a bit faster.

Another example of the list missing people/times out is that Evans did 40.13 in 2006 (@1.39 to Landis who did 38.34).