My Blood Values Then, and Now

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure why you have such a huge boner for famous cyclists - it seems to me here that the issue at hand is doping's possible effects on the body, not how famous or influential someone was on the road. Granted, I didn't read the article from Outside or hear any broadcast on NPR; this is the first time I've heard of any of this. But that's beside the point; any criticisms of this guy claiming to be bigger than he was, founded or not, are beside the point. The point is that it is interesting, for those of us that are interested in the phenomenon of doping in cycling at all levels and not just the ones where the 'big boys' ride, to actually hear a rider discuss and analyze what doping has done to him. In fact, it's almost more interesting to hear from an 'anonymous' cyclist because that speaks alot more to the pervasiveness of doping and the urge to dope at all levels of the sport. That has little to do with anyone's palmares. I think a lot of people here are fans of cycling, and not just famous cyclists. This topic therefore interests them.

And Mike Sayers hardly won me over with his lucid and reasoned response, some of which I have sampled here:

'You sucked then and you still suck now and the only reason you were a blip is because you cheated and lied. You are continuing to insult every Pro in America with your lies about you being an equal. Enjoy your crappy life. I hope it only goes downhill from here.'

Or, more poignantly:

"The only thing he has brought to cycling is helping the general public equate cycling with dopers and cheaters. Thanks Papp. Just take, take, take. That is what guys like you do becasue (sic) you don’t respect any part of the sport. You never brought anything to this sport but trouble, so please for the love of God, just go away. Stop talking."

Yes. 'Stop talking'. That should be the name of the goddamn book on the subject of omerta in cycling. Geez.

Pure class that Sayers guy.

 

[elapid]

I like Mike Sayers saying "I know that 5 minutes after I retire the cycling world will forget about me." I didn't know he was until this thread (may be that's a reflection on me?), so it will take me a lot quicker to forget about him and I won't be waiting until he retires. Blip.

 

[Anonymous]

I like Mike Sayers saying "I know that 5 minutes after I retire the cycling world will forget about me." I didn't know he was until this thread (may be that's a reflection on me?), so it will take me a lot quicker to forget about him and I won't be waiting until he retires. Blip.

I'll bet if you went around asking Euro pros who Mike Sayers is, you would get a quite a few blank stares. I would suggest he was being a bit optimistic in putting "cycling world" in that sentence.

 

[Bala Verde]

I'll bet if you went around asking Euro pros who Mike Sayers is, you would get a quite a few blank stares. I would suggest he was being a bit optimistic in putting "cycling world" in that sentence.

perhaps even more about the 'forgetting' part, because that implies that he has left any impression for others to remember.

Is he a brother of Tom Sawyer(s)?

 

[Escarabajo]

perhaps even more about the 'forgetting' part, because that implies that he has left any impression for others to remember.

Is he a brother of tom sawyer(s)?

lol.

...................

 

[blackcat]

dare say Tyler and Landis have done more damage than Papp ever could, and you do not see Sayers "going" those guys. How about Armstrong, any fingers about cheating there? Nope.

 

[craig1985]

Joe,

Full respect for you posting on here and I wish you the best. Here in The Clinic, I'm more of a reader then a poster, trying to become more imfortative before shouting off some random broadside rant with absolute zero fact or reason behind it.

If you don't mind, I have a some questions for you, but I just want you to explain this bit from your wiki page:

Papp described in detail how synthetic testosterone helped him to recover during multi-day stage races similar to the Tour de France. He was a witness in the USADA arbitration hearing examining Floyd Landis' positive result for testosterone from the 2006 Tour de France. USADA used his testimony to refute earlier claims made by Landis' attorneys that testosterone couldn't help Landis win the 2006 Tour and that he'd be crazy to use it if he knew he might be tested.

"It's such a false statement that it makes me angry," Papp said. "Why am I here? I'm not getting anything out of being here. I have everything to lose from being here."

Papp rebutted both Landis theories — saying it was easy to stay below the threshold of a positive test with the gel and claiming the gel helped him greatly in recovering between stages. He said it was easy to get away with having allowed amounts of testosterone in his system if he timed it right. After leaving doping control, he could simply go to a private place and discreetly rub the gel into his chest.

During the Landis hearing, Papp acknowledged systematically doping under the guidance of medical professionals in the United States, Europe and Latin America. He admitted to using at various times EPO, HGH, cortisone, insulin, thyroid hormone, anabolic steroids and amphetamines. The testimony, while not fundamental to the arbitration panel's decision to uphold Landis's conviction, contradicted the claims of Landis and his legal team. In an interview published in VeloNews: The Journal of Competitive Cycling . Landis asked interviewer Neal Rogers, "Why did they [USADA] bring in Joe Papp? Who the f--k is that guy?"

Can you expand on who you were called up to testify?

 

[HelmutRoole]

...I didn't know he was until this thread (may be that's a reflection on me?), so it will take me a lot quicker to forget about him and I won't be waiting until he retires. Blip.

Sayers has been a pro in North America since the early 90s. If you don't follow cycling in N. America closely, you've probably never heard of him. Some of his early racing was with Prime Alliance as Jonas Carney's leadout man, then Health Net, now BMC. I believe he played a hand in pulling Health Net together but I might have him mixed up with someone else. Not quite quick enough to win sprints. Not light enough to win stages races. But, very good in the last few Ks of any sort of race. Good tactical sense. Well respected in the States by other pro riders. Never without a contract. A cyclist's cyclist.

Reading between the lines of the Sayers piece, I inferred that he wasn't upset with the doping per se but rather the magnitude of it on Papp's behalf. I'd speculate there are a few clean pros currently plying the roads in North America with the vast majority doping some of the time and a few doping all the time. It sounds as though Papp -- and I don't believe he's made statements to the contrary -- falls into the later category and that's what has upset Sayers, Hartley, et al. I don't know what category Sayers and Hartely fall into.

The thing that amazes me is that Papp doped as much as he did without testing positive until so late in his career. It points to several things. One is, testing is a joke. The other, more revealing, is that Papp was not limited by dope but by talent. He was taking as much, if not more, dope as any Pro Tour rider but without the Pro Tour results. It speaks to the talent at that level to include Armstrong... Now if he could just get his fruitcake fanboys in line.

 

[Steampunk]

The thing that amazes me is that Papp doped as much as he did without testing positive until so late in his career. It points to several things. One is, testing is a joke. The other, more revealing, is that Papp was not limited by dope but by talent. He was taking as much, if not more, dope as any Pro Tour rider but without the Pro Tour results. It speaks to the talent at that level to include Armstrong... Now if he could just get his fruitcake fanboys in line.

I think this statement is suggestive of the ongoing popular misunderstanding of how doping works. Doping doesn't make you stronger; it allows you to train harder and recover faster (which makes you stronger). Doping doesn't make you faster on its own. It's not as simple as saying that he who dopes most is the fastest. Yes: talent surely plays a role, but I don't think comparing pharmaceuticals is a useful way of determining who the fastest cyclists are.

 

[blackcat]

I think this statement is suggestive of the ongoing popular misunderstanding of how doping works. Doping doesn't make you stronger; it allows you to train harder and recover faster (which makes you stronger). Doping doesn't make you faster on its own. It's not as simple as saying that he who dopes most is the fastest. Yes: talent surely plays a role, but I don't think comparing pharmaceuticals is a useful way of determining who the fastest cyclists are.

it does. If your o2 delivery is a limiter in your ability, you can solve that.

And if you dont think o2 delivery is not important, you should study chronos over the past decade. And Helmut knows his stuff well, if you have read him over at CF, the guy knows more than everyone here combined, and writes a mean short story.

 

[Race Radio]

Landis asked interviewer Neal Rogers, "Why did they [USADA] bring in Joe Papp? Who the f--k is that guy?"[/I]

Funny, If we did not know Landis' history and only had this year to go on we would ask the same question of Landis who has shown his true ability this year.

 

[elapid]

Sayers has been a pro in North America since the early 90s. If you don't follow cycling in N. America closely, you've probably never heard of him. Some of his early racing was with Prime Alliance as Jonas Carney's leadout man, then Health Net, now BMC. I believe he played a hand in pulling Health Net together but I might have him mixed up with someone else. Not quite quick enough to win sprints. Not light enough to win stages races. But, very good in the last few Ks of any sort of race. Good tactical sense. Well respected in the States by other pro riders. Never without a contract. A cyclist's cyclist.

Reading between the lines of the Sayers piece, I inferred that he wasn't upset with the doping per se but rather the magnitude of it on Papp's behalf. I'd speculate there are a few clean pros currently plying the roads in North America with the vast majority doping some of the time and a few doping all the time. It sounds as though Papp -- and I don't believe he's made statements to the contrary -- falls into the later category and that's what has upset Sayers, Hartley, et al. I don't know what category Sayers and Hartely fall into.

The thing that amazes me is that Papp doped as much as he did without testing positive until so late in his career. It points to several things. One is, testing is a joke. The other, more revealing, is that Papp was not limited by dope but by talent. He was taking as much, if not more, dope as any Pro Tour rider but without the Pro Tour results. It speaks to the talent at that level to include Armstrong... Now if he could just get his fruitcake fanboys in line.

Thanks, HelmutRoole. As I said, it may have been more a reflection on me that I didn't know who Sayers was. I admit I do not follow the North American scene, which explains why I do not know of Sayers. Regardless, thanks for the info.

 

[Anonymous]

I know who both he and Hartley are, and neither impresses me as someone who should be throwing "you never were" stones at anyone. Just because they ride in Pro races doesn't mean they win many.

In fact, I remember seeing a picture of Sayers a couple of years ago, and he looked like a roided out freak. I don't know that he was/is, but he sure protested pretty loudly about someone who didn't implicate him in any way. Shakespeare had something to say about that.

 

[HelmutRoole]

I think this statement is suggestive of the ongoing popular misunderstanding of how doping works. Doping doesn't make you stronger; it allows you to train harder and recover faster (which makes you stronger). Doping doesn't make you faster on its own. It's not as simple as saying that he who dopes most is the fastest. Yes: talent surely plays a role, but I don't think comparing pharmaceuticals is a useful way of determining who the fastest cyclists are.

Well of course doping alone won't make you strong, but doping combined with 70-plus hard races a season sure will.

Yes, test and steroids will help you recover and train harder, but there is also an immediate effect. The same process that creates protein synthesis, which greatly drives recovery by pushing nutrients across the muscle cell membrane, also drives oxygen into the muscle with the nutrients. Combine that w/EPO and the effect has got to be pretty amazing.

That's steroids and test. Raising your RBCs with EPO will make you faster post haste.

 

[Anonymous]

I mean, anyone with that particular facial hair sculpt would have to be a prick.

 

[HelmutRoole]

Thanks, HelmutRoole. As I said, it may have been more a reflection on me that I didn't know who Sayers was. I admit I do not follow the North American scene, which explains why I do not know of Sayers. Regardless, thanks for the info.

No worries.

Is Sayers hypocritical about doping? Draw your own conclusions. HealthNet was rumored to be rife with doping. Their GC threat, Nathan O’Neill, tested positive for the amphetamine phentermine and I don't see mention of that in his column.

Here's the link: http://velonews.com/article/13630

 

[East Sycamore]

I think this statement is suggestive of the ongoing popular misunderstanding of how doping works. Doping doesn't make you stronger; it allows you to train harder and recover faster (which makes you stronger). Doping doesn't make you faster on its own. It's not as simple as saying that he who dopes most is the fastest. Yes: talent surely plays a role, but I don't think comparing pharmaceuticals is a useful way of determining who the fastest cyclists are.

Is that really true? It seems like it must make you faster / stronger in addition to the training and recovery aspects. I mean who would win the stage - a completely rested, top form, dope free Eddy Merckx at the peak of his career or the 1996 Bjarne Riis at Hautacam 2 weeks into a grand tour? I think we can all agree that Eddy was by far the more talented rider, but I think on that day (at 60%), Riis would have given him a run for the money.

Now take away the doping, have them equally rested and following the same training - who wins? I don't think it would even be close.

 

[issoisso]

Is that really true? It seems like it must make you faster / stronger in addition to the training and recovery aspects. I mean who would win the stage - a completely rested, top form, dope free Eddy Merckx at the peak of his career or the 1996 Bjarne Riis at Hautacam 2 weeks into a grand tour? I think we can all agree that Eddy was by far the more talented rider, but I think on that day (at 60%), Riis would have given him a run for the money.

Adjusted for differing weights of riders, Riis put in 480 watts and Merckx didn't make 400 in his career. Riis would win by at least 5 minutes.

 

[East Sycamore]

Adjusted for differing weights of riders, Riis put in 480 watts and Merckx didn't make 400 in his career. Riis would win by at least 5 minutes.

That about sums it up, doesn't it? I didn't realize Merckx was so bad, especially compared with a one-time tour winner like Riis...

 

[issoisso]

That about sums it up, doesn't it? I didn't realize Merckx was so bad, especially compared with a one-time tour winner like Riis...

To put it into perspective, adjusting for weight, no one pre-1990 went above 400 watts. ever. Only LeMond achieved it. once.

Nowadays having 40 guys climbing above 400w is normal.

For reference, respected coach Fred Grappe assures us that current equipment versus 1980 equipment is worth a gain of about 10 watts.

 

[Cobber]

I mean, anyone with that particular facial hair sculpt would have to be a prick.

+1

He looks like he would be more comfortable on MTV's "Tool Academy" than on a bike!

 

[East Sycamore]

To put it into perspective, adjusting for weight, no one pre-1990 went above 400 watts. ever. Only LeMond achieved it. once.

Nowadays having 40 guys climbing above 400w is normal.

For reference, respected coach Fred Grappe assures us that current equipment versus 1980 equipment is worth a gain of about 10 watts.

I take it LeMond went over 400 on the final TT in 1989?

Out of curiosity, what did Merckx or Hinault max out at?

 

[cromagnon]

"adjusting for weight, no one pre-1990 went above 400 watts"

I am not flaming just confused. "Adjusting for weight" suggests a relative measure e.g. watts/kg, the next bit "no one pre-1990 went above 400 watts" refers to an absolute value.

Do you mean no one got much above 5.5 watts/kg pre 1990?.

BTW Kirsten Armstrong is 58 kg and she held 325 watts for about 35 mins. Would that beat Merckx on a climb? Not a flame just wondering if todays cancer is so much better than the cancer in the old days that even our chicks would beat the legends of the past. That would be freaky and weird.

 

[Cerberus]

To put it into perspective, adjusting for weight, no one pre-1990 went above 400 watts. ever. Only LeMond achieved it. once.

Nowadays having 40 guys climbing above 400w is normal.

For reference, respected coach Fred Grappe assures us that current equipment versus 1980 equipment is worth a gain of about 10 watts.

But is doping the only difference? I have no doubt that better doping is a large part of the story, but hasn't training methods improved also? I'm pretty sure that training methods have changed, though I'm not sure how large a difference that makes.

 

[issoisso]

I take it LeMond went over 400 on the final TT in 1989?

Out of curiosity, what did Merckx or Hinault max out at?

No TTs are considered, just climbs
Merckx, don't know. Hinault maxxed out at 391watts, I forget the race but it was a GT in the early 80s.

"adjusting for weight, no one pre-1990 went above 400 watts"

I am not flaming just confused. "Adjusting for weight" suggests a relative measure e.g. watts/kg, the next bit "no one pre-1990 went above 400 watts" refers to an absolute value.

Since riders have different weights, these are not the real powers, but the power of a rider of 70 kg with an 8kg bike producing the same exact performance. Otherwise saying "x watts vs y watts " would not be comparable because weights would not be the same

Notice however that Vayer ONLY terms acceptable for comparison long mountain climbs, and only those longer than 30 minutes, as for shorter ones (such as Verbier 2009) much higher levels of effort are not only possible but normal.

Do you mean no one got much above 5.5 watts/kg pre 1990?.

Note this graphic that shows the years since the LeMond/Fignon/Delgado era

Yellow bar = number of riders in that Tour that passed 410watts on climbs
Blue Line = Average power of Tour winner on that year's stage-finishing climbs.

The effects of EPO and blood doping are clearly visible from that graphic.

BTW Kirsten Armstrong is 58 kg and she held 325 watts for about 35 mins. Would that beat Merckx on a climb? Not a flame just wondering if todays cancer is so much better than the cancer in the old days that even our chicks would beat the legends of the past. That would be freaky and weird.

No idea, sorry.

But is doping the only difference? I have no doubt that better doping is a large part of the story, but hasn't training methods improved also? I'm pretty sure that training methods have changed, though I'm not sure how large a difference that makes.

According to Grappe, the difference given by the new training methodologies is not in the "quality" of the peak level that a rider achieves, but in that it allows the rider to control and time that peak. You can therefore fine tune your form much more accurately.