My Blood Values Then, and Now

[HelmutRoole]

There are so many different factors involved in working out power watts and comparing them, as we saw from the controversy surrounding precisely how much power Contador had at this years tour. It's probably even harder than blood profiles, so don't be fooled by handy little charts that supposedly explain everything.

It's like global warming in that respect. Consider how many scientists endorse the concept and the one or two on the Fox News dole who don't. I think it's widely regarded as fact that wattage within the peloton post 1990- (EPO-) era has gone up and can't be explained by higher cadence, better training methods and equipment.

BPC is in the later group who thinks it hasn't.

BPC, unless someone is paying you, I don't understand what you have to gain by waging these disinformation campaigns. It reminds of the health care debates here in the United States.

 

[Anonymous]

It's like global warming in that respect. Consider how many scientists endorse the concept and the one or two on the Fox News dole who don't. I think it's widely regarded as fact that wattage within the peloton post 1990- (EPO-) era has gone up and can't be explained by higher cadence, better training methods and equipment.

BPC is in the later group who thinks it hasn't.

BPC, unless someone is paying you, I don't understand what you have to gain by waging these disinformation campaigns. It reminds of the health care debates here in the United States.

Go to your UserCP and edit your ignore list to include BPC. It works and life is better on the forum.

 

[issoisso]

There are so many different factors involved in working out power watts and comparing them, as we saw from the controversy surrounding precisely how much power Contador had at this years tour. It's probably even harder than blood profiles, so don't be fooled by handy little charts that supposedly explain everything.

Which is why when Chris Sörensen did what nobody does: posted his wattage readings from the Tour online, Vayer jumped to compare his calculations to the accurate measurements.

The difference was 1.7%. negligible. We can accept the calculations as correct.

As for Contador, that's a completely different matter. People were trying to use as comparison a climb that was shorter than 30 minutes. Which can't be done unless you're comparing it to other climbs of similarly short distance/climbing time.

 

[cromagnon]

I should have flamed actually because "Adjusting for weight no one pre-1990 went above 400 watts" is a meaningless statement mixing relative and absolute values together. Excused if English is not your first language (which it can't possibly be unless you've had a serious head injury lately).

 

[Anonymous]

It's like global warming in that respect. Consider how many scientists endorse the concept and the one or two on the Fox News dole who don't. I think it's widely regarded as fact that wattage within the peloton post 1990- (EPO-) era has gone up and can't be explained by higher cadence, better training methods and equipment.

BPC is in the later group who thinks it hasn't.

BPC, unless someone is paying you, I don't understand what you have to gain by waging these disinformation campaigns. It reminds of the health care debates here in the United States.

Hey Helmut, still got the belt I see. Glad to have the King of the Squared Circle here.

Seriously, ignore BPC. He is NOTHING but a troll. Think Dr House from a pro Lance perspective. He just wants to disrupt. Discussion is not on his list of priorities.

 

[HelmutRoole]

Hey Helmut, still got the belt I see. Glad to have the King of the Squared Circle here.

Seriously, ignore BPC. He is NOTHING but a troll. Think Dr House from a pro Lance perspective. He just wants to disrupt. Discussion is not on his list of priorities.

Actually, I find the guy interesting. Always have. It's not the disinformation that's intriguing, although he's gotten better at it, but the motivation behind it. I don't understand what's driving the guy. It's not the truth. That's for sure. He spends on average 10 hours a day on this site and others like it spreading disinformation. What does he have to gain by running interference like that?

Although he's gotten better at disinformation, the one thing that hasn't changed is his love for Lance Armstrong and his defense of him as a clean rider. The "Logistics" thread started under the pseudonym East Sycamore is a classic example of this. His logic is: since busts at race sites involving blood doping are rare then blood doping itself is rare; and since people state that Lance Armstrong doped using this method they are therefore likely wrong. Now, he doesn't connect the dots as I've done, but the conclusion is obvious. He's narrowed his focus, trying to pick off indirectly one issue at a time by planting seeds of doubt. It's fairly sophisticated.

Another example is in this thread. Several posts up he states that he's "pro science" and goes further, stating in this grammatically corrected version that, "It's the people (who) believe they have solved everything from their laptop," who are to blame for the disinformation. Fact is the man in question holds a PhD and spends the bulk of his day studying these types of issues and has spent a significant portion of his life gaining the knowledge to reach logical conclusions on these types of issues. His livelihood is measured by them. He is peer reviewed. He has nothing to gain by lying or fudging the numbers and yet BPC would have some believe that it's this man who's the nut job hacking away on a laptop when in fact it's BPC.

No. I won't put him on my ignore list. I'll keep monitoring him. Keep calling him out. I watch Fox News for the same reason,

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, I find the guy interesting. Always have. It's not the disinformation that's intriguing, although he's gotten better at it, but the motivation behind it. I don't understand what's driving the guy. It's not the truth. That's for sure. He spends on average 10 hours a day on this site and others like it spreading disinformation. What does he have to gain by running interference like that?

Although he's gotten better at disinformation, the one thing that hasn't changed is his love for Lance Armstrong and his defense of him as a clean rider. The "Logistics" thread started under the pseudonym East Sycamore is a classic example of this. His logic is: since busts at race sites involving blood doping are rare then blood doping itself is rare; and since people state that Lance Armstrong doped using this method they are therefore likely wrong. Now, he doesn't connect the dots as I've done, but the conclusion is obvious. He's narrowed his focus, trying to pick off indirectly one issue at a time by planting seeds of doubt. It's fairly sophisticated.

Another example is in this thread. Several posts up he states that he's "pro science" and goes further, stating in this grammatically corrected version that, "It's the people (who) believe they have solved everything from their laptop," who are to blame for the disinformation. Fact is the man in question holds a PhD and spends the bulk of his day studying these types of issues and has spent a significant portion of his life gaining the knowledge to reach logical conclusions on these types of issues. His livelihood is measured by them. He is peer reviewed. He has nothing to gain by lying or fudging the numbers and yet BPC would have some believe that it's this man who's the nut job hacking away on a laptop when in fact it's BPC.

No. I won't put him on my ignore list. I'll keep monitoring him. Keep calling him out. I watch Fox News for the same reason,

Oh, I agree that they guy is a good troll. Really good actually. The only problem is that he only wants to disrupt. It isn't about Lance at all in my opinion. It is about him getting attention and causing as much havoc as possible. When his posts are quoted and responded to, it only strokes his ego because it is obvious from the way he crafts his barbs, and uses incorrect grammar that he wants to hook people. He is really good at it, but responding only keeps the problem going. There are Lance fans who can discuss this stuff and be frustrating, but he isn't here to actually discuss anything. That isn't his shtick.

Funny, as for Fox news, I can't listen for more than 2 or 3 minutes before I want to throw a brick through the TV. I think they should be called out on being trolls just like The Drugster.

 

[East Sycamore]

Actually, I find the guy interesting. Always have. It's not the disinformation that's intriguing, although he's gotten better at it, but the motivation behind it. I don't understand what's driving the guy. It's not the truth. That's for sure. He spends on average 10 hours a day on this site and others like it spreading disinformation. What does he have to gain by running interference like that?

Although he's gotten better at disinformation, the one thing that hasn't changed is his love for Lance Armstrong and his defense of him as a clean rider. The "Logistics" thread started under the pseudonym East Sycamore is a classic example of this. His logic is: since busts at race sites involving blood doping are rare then blood doping itself is rare; and since people state that Lance Armstrong doped using this method they are therefore likely wrong. Now, he doesn't connect the dots as I've done, but the conclusion is obvious. He's narrowed his focus, trying to pick off indirectly one issue at a time by planting seeds of doubt. It's fairly sophisticated.

Another example is in this thread. Several posts up he states that he's "pro science" and goes further, stating in this grammatically corrected version that, "It's the people (who) believe they have solved everything from their laptop," who are to blame for the disinformation. Fact is the man in question holds a PhD and spends the bulk of his day studying these types of issues and has spent a significant portion of his life gaining the knowledge to reach logical conclusions on these types of issues. His livelihood is measured by them. He is peer reviewed. He has nothing to gain by lying or fudging the numbers and yet BPC would have some believe that it's this man who's the nut job hacking away on a laptop when in fact it's BPC.

No. I won't put him on my ignore list. I'll keep monitoring him. Keep calling him out. I watch Fox News for the same reason,

I started the logistics thread as an honest question because I was curious how things actually worked these days, it was not an attempt to prove that blood doping doesn't happen. I think you'll see that BPC then tried to hijack the thread in that direction.

I just wanted to state for the record that I am not in any way related to BanProCycling or any of his other aliases. I don't know what I could do to prove it, but there you have it.

 

[WonderLance]

Oh, I agree that they guy is a good troll. Really good actually. The only problem is that he only wants to disrupt. It isn't about Lance at all in my opinion. It is about him getting attention and causing as much havoc as possible. When his posts are quoted and responded to, it only strokes his ego because it is obvious from the way he crafts his barbs, and uses incorrect grammar that he wants to hook people. He is really good at it, but responding only keeps the problem going. There are Lance fans who can discuss this stuff and be frustrating, but he isn't here to actually discuss anything. That isn't his shtick.

You constantly accuse others of trolling but here, once again you have disrupted another tread. Well done.

 

[skidmark]

I'm starting to feel like this whole forum is just one bored person having arguments/agreeing with his/her multiple personalities, and a few other random people who post occasionally. That would be as simple an explanation as the various theories about identities being put forth by most people here.

Either way it's pretty hilarious. Keep up the good work everyone.

Oh, and if I can offer my opinion: everyone should stick to the topic at hand, and if you have to make a comment about someone else, at least do it in the context of making an on-topic comment.

Of course, I have nothing to say about the topic at hand right now, I just wanted to see my own writing on the internet. It makes me feel good.

 

[gregod]

+1

No I'm very pro-science, that's why I don't like people pretending they have worked everything out when the scientists are telling us its a lot more difficult than that. It's the people that believe they have solved everything from their laptop that are more like the analogies you have given.

+1. I basically said the same thing only much less concisely in another thread.

 

[flyor64]

I'm starting to feel like this whole forum is just one bored person having arguments/agreeing with his/her multiple personalities, and a few other random people who post occasionally. That would be as simple an explanation as the various theories about identities being put forth by most people here.

Either way it's pretty hilarious. Keep up the good work everyone.

Oh, and if I can offer my opinion: everyone should stick to the topic at hand, and if you have to make a comment about someone else, at least do it in the context of making an on-topic comment.

Of course, I have nothing to say about the topic at hand right now, I just wanted to see my own writing on the internet. It makes me feel good.

+1 on the whole post . It would be hilarious if a few of us were drawn completely in by one or two folks with multiple personalities.

I'm still enjoying the thread though...just waiting for Joe's next post on what he's discovered. It is intriguing to say the least.

 

[Steampunk]

Sigh: this was a pretty good thread...

I was reading an article in the most recent WIRED magazine the other evening about the rising influence on the placebo effect in big pharma trials (which has them, understandably, quite worried). There was a passing reference to placebo in sports enhancement, and I wondered about its effect and possible application as part of a doping regimen and one that might help cyclists to test clean...

 

[elapid]

Sigh: this was a pretty good thread...

I was reading an article in the most recent WIRED magazine the other evening about the rising influence on the placebo effect in big pharma trials (which has them, understandably, quite worried). There was a passing reference to placebo in sports enhancement, and I wondered about its effect and possible application as part of a doping regimen and one that might help cyclists to test clean...

FoxyBrown is quite passionate about the placebo effect. He/she produced a number of articles showing that there was no difference in performance enhancement between HGH and a placebo.

However, this information was gained by a layperson searching the internet, so it is obviously not pertinent or relevant or sufficient enough evidence for the trolls, who cannot produce any refutable evidence despite their apparent pro-science claims.

 

[Escarabajo]

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.

This is some information that you might find helpful.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

By the way, I agree with HelmutRoole on his explanation of this same post. Very nice reading.

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

 

[Escarabajo]

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

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

Here is what I have for Lemond for the 1989 TT. Taken from another thread:

Lemond did a lot for cycling, but now just comes across as bitter and hateful.
And I'm still waiting for a reasonable answer to how it is that basically every cyclist in the last 40 years has been a doper, but he, au naturally, out time-trialed them all (also in spite of huge advancements in aerodynamic technology). Get real.

Does tailwind means anything to you?

I will help you with the power calculations:

Greg Lemond ITT 1989: 420-430 Watts (5.8-5.9 W/kg)
Lance Armstrong 2004 Alpe d'Huez: 466 Watts (6.5 W/kg)
Contador - Verbier 2009: 413 W- 434 W (6.8- 7.1 W/kg)
Pantani – Alpe d’Huez 1997: 403 W (7.2 W/kg)

Here I am not taking into account the time to exhaustion which is a big factor on the power that an athlete can perform. In other words it is harder to maintain a high power for longer times. Look at the short time for the ITT for Greg Lemond. That is completely believable. Now look at the numbers on Watts/Kg that all other athletes have. Above 6 W/kg the numbers start being seriously suspicious.

Now here is a link at Greg's take on his numbers:
http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

In this link Greg also is explaining how the power decreases over time. This means that over a period of three weeks of riding in the Tour de France the riders will experience fatigue and decrease in VO2 max. Something that is not happening with the other three athletes apparently.

As a late note, this topic has been discussed in the past in this forum so that was the reason why I did not want to reply to you, but since you have been so insistent on this topic now I took the time to reply to you.

I hope this helps.

Note: here is a link on how to do the calculations and a chart on the exhaustion times for athletes. Or you can just Google the topic all you want.
http://swiss2.whosting.ch/mdetting/sports/

The key is Watts per kilogram, the time of the exercise and the day at which the effort is taking place. In other words is not the same to do 400 watts at the beginning of the tour as opposed to the end of the tour. Is not same to compare one long climb like the Hautacam to the Verbier. And the power output is very strong function of the weight in the climbs. So for guys like Riis and Ulrich was not as hard to put out the 400+ watts as opposed to guys like Pantani or Piepoli.

This thread went off topic again. I am now part of the hijacking. My apologies.

 

[Escarabajo]

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.

It was discussed already by Jonathan Vaughters himself about the weight differences. I am not sure how much trainning differences would affet the values though (Not taking into account doping). Read the "I think Vaughters really wants to sign Contador:" thread to get a lot of the forists opinions. Below are just three opinions on your question:

*Points to Fred Grappe's recent demonstration that 2009 equipment vs 1980 equipment is worth 10 watts at most*

Jonathan Vaughters comments:

Ok, I know I'm nuts for even bothering here, but here goes:

My major point had to do with the percentage of anearobic work done in a 20 minute efforts vs a 40 min effort. The bike weight, etc etc, probably does only account for 20 watts assuming a perfectly steady effort (which is an invalid assumption if you've ever watched a bike race). However, the amount of power produced beyond what is produced aerobically in a 20 minute effort is considerable, it is not in a 40 minute effort - in my experience!

So, that was my point. If you fellows would like to keep going on about how we dope Brad and Christian, then have at it. It's really silly, as they aren't, but whatever, I've spent enough time trying to fight windmills for today. Have at it boys.

Sorry that I no longer have your respect - JV

Here is my humble opinion on the suject:

dminishing returns. The harder JV makes his case, the more conspiratorial it becomes.

Blackcat, I think you made an important point here. He is giving way too many explanations. Why? Is he reading our forums or is he just hiding something?
Well I have made the calculations for Contador and Wiggins again changing the 4 Kgs (Which I believe is way too much). These are my results:

Contador (Tailwind Case): 415 Watts to 449 Watts. 34 Watts increase
Wiggins (Tailwind Case): 443 Watts to 475 Watts. 32 Watts increase.

Just remember that we are assuming the same times, otherwise what’s the point of making the calculations. IMHO the actual weight gain, comparing to the nineties would be half the number that I calculated, which is around 15 Watts. I just don't see that much weight improvement from the nineties.

I currently working in a probabilistic model using all errors involved in the calculations on the Power Outputs. That way we will evaluate and cover all the ranges of possibilities of their performance in Verbier: wind, rolling resistance, weight, drafting time, etc. I’ll put those results in the other thread about the Power Calculations by the Critics are Wrong.

So Conclusion:

1- Fred Grappe: 10 watts
2- Jonathan Vaughters: 20 Watts
3- My calculation: 15 watts.

 

[thehog]

How does this compare to Wiggins blood values?

 

[MarkvW]

Not So Quick

and here we have a typical version of the "you were never any good that's why you doped" dismissal of whistleblowers that restores omerta.

Thank you for illustrating this so effectively.

There is another way of viewing it. Mr. Papp seeks to make money from cycling, even now. It is a fair and legitimate response to assert that he should have nothing to do with cycling. I can understand why others remain angry.

Papp's astonishingly hypocritical and attention-seeking behavior at the Landis hearing is what disgusted me. If he were just a doper, or even a doper/dealer, I could understand his behavior and trust in his present good faith. But now, I just see him only as an attention-seeking self-promoter.

Maybe I'll trust Papp's self-reported medical history later. For now, I'm reserving my judgment and viewing him as just another person touting his website.

 

[Anonymous]

There is another way of viewing it.Mr. Papp seeks to make money from cycling, even now.

Yup, Joe's rolling in it. There are magazines offering him insane amounts of money for interviews, tv companies wanting to make a film of his life, hell, i even heard recently theres a sponsor interesting in getting him back riding again.

NOT

Joe would make more money starting a cycle tour company. Sorry, someones already beaten him to that one

I think Joe's got more pressing concerns to be honest.

 

[MarkvW]

Yup, Joe's rolling in it. There are magazines offering him insane amounts of money for interviews, tv companies wanting to make a film of his life, hell, i even heard recently theres a sponsor interesting in getting him back riding again.

NOT

Joe would make more money starting a cycle tour company. Sorry, someones already beaten him to that one

I think Joe's got more pressing concerns to be honest.

Yeah. He does. Like restoring his integrity.

 

[Neworld]

If you want excellent customer satisfaction, you should recommend prednisone as a general solution for the world's problems

Or a slurry of Prozac and Yohimbine
NW

 

[D-Queued]

How does this compare to Wiggins blood values?

Interesting thread to resuscitate.

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.

(not picking on this post...)

Some mouthy guy on another forum summed up some wattages as follows:

From memory (hard to look it all up):

Eddy Merckx, one hour recorded at 450 watts while training for his hour record
Chris Boardman, measured at 460-470 watts during his hour record
Tomy Rominger, calculated (measured?) at around 465 watts during his hour record
Miguel Indurain, calculated at 509.5 watt average during his hour record

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.



...

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.

...

Merckx training for the hour likely represents what was possible in a one-day shot through a combination of the right training, peaking, and... whatever.

The EPO era shows what can be accomplished now over three weeks.

Dave.

 

[Merckx index]

The EPO era shows what can be accomplished now over three weeks.

Yes, but this figures shows a couple of other things that surprise me:

1) The Tour winners in the five years or so preceding LA showed more power on climbs than he did. Indurain? A better climber than LA? Riis? Ullrich, who couldn't stay with LA on climbs when they raced together?

2) There were fewer climbers over 400 watts in the early LA years (through 2002) than in the immediately preceding years. Why would that be? Did the Postal train burn the legs off the climbers before they got to the big hills? Did LA make sure that riders on comparably good programs got found out (Mayo??)?

Then why the large increase beginning in 2003? Just random fluctuations, or the availability of new, non-detectable forms of EPO? Or return to blood transfusions?

 

[D-Queued]

Yes, but this figures shows a couple of other things that surprise me:

1) The Tour winners in the five years or so preceding LA showed more power on climbs than he did. Indurain? A better climber than LA? Riis? Ullrich, who couldn't stay with LA on climbs when they raced together?

2) There were fewer climbers over 400 watts in the early LA years (through 2002) than in the immediately preceding years. Why would that be? Did the Postal train burn the legs off the climbers before they got to the big hills? Did LA make sure that riders on comparably good programs got found out (Mayo??)?

Then why the large increase beginning in 2003? Just random fluctuations, or the availability of new, non-detectable forms of EPO? Or return to blood transfusions?

Hemassist? A great responder? Whatever Actovegin did? ... the Kitchen sink? ... throwing other guys under the bus? ... arranged testing times? ...'sidebar agreements'?

Dave.