My Blood Values Then, and Now

[Lanark]

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?

I don't think either is really surprising. 1997 saw the introduction of the 50% hematocrit rule, causing an initial drop in performance.

The 1998 Tour had the Festina case, that caused a shockwave that still caused waves the next year. A lot of team directors and soigneurs spend quite some time in prison (and French prisons are no joke), I know that at some French teams the DS were searching the luggage of their riders because they sure as hell didn't want to go to jail because one of their idiot riders was caught with EPO.

It's safe to assume that in 1999 EPO use was more something that was done before the Tour, not during the Tour. Of the 200 or so samples that were tested from that year, only 15 or so contained EPO (most from Armstrong himself), while at that point there was no reason to hide EPO use by microdosing (you only had to be sure you were below 50%), giving a strong indiciation that people didn't use mich EPO during that Tour.

2000 saw the introduction of the EPO-test, although it wasn't used during that Tour. We know from the Landis-confessions that Ferrari at this point advised Armstrong to stop using EPO, I'm sure the other big cyclists got the same message from their docters.

It makes sence though that there would be some kind of transition-phase, if you want to use blooddoping, you have to find out when to draw the blood, how to get it to France, how to use it, when to use it etc (there probably wasn't anyone who had used blooddoping for 15 years. Ferrari's early experience with Moser and blooddoping was probably a huge help during this phase). The same for microdosing EPO, they had to learn how much they could savely use etc. Basically after the Festina case and the introduction of the EPO the riders had to re-learn how to beat the system.

A couple of years ago I read an interview with the head of the Lausanne lab, who pretty much confirmed this. 1999 and 2000 saw a big reduction in EPO use, but after that those numbers started to rise. Probably by 2003 Fuentes was active, causing a huge increase in performance of all other athletes. I wouldn't be surprised if the introduction of the CERA-test and the blood passport caused a similair short term drop in performance, untill they learn how to beat those tests.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

In case someone is missing what's going on. This thread originally started months ago, and now appears to be drifting along, picking up where the previous conversation had drifted to.

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?

In addition to what Lanark just posted, keep in mind that climbing power isn't everything. In the final 55km ITT in 2007Levi Leipheimer's speed was faster than any ITT Miguel Indurain ever rode. As a matter of fact, so was Cadel's, and if my math is correct, Karpets and Contador were close as well. And if we look at the 2009 ITT at Annecy (not an easy 40km course, with a cat 3 climb in the middle) Contador blitzed it at a whopping 50kph average. Something else Indurain never did on such a course in his entire career.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

he should bow out just after uniballer

 

[steevo]

Comparing miles per hour is unfair. Think of how much time is spent in wind tunnels now for both riders and equipment.

Same thing with pure watts. "riders doin over 400 watts" can be a misleading metric. Maybe riders now are lighter by 10 kilos and are doing 390 on every climb. Were the leaders of the tour last year doing 400 watts? They weigh like 63 kilos which is like 6.3 w/k

 

[D-Queued]

In case someone is missing what's going on. This thread originally started months ago, and now appears to be drifting along, picking up where the previous conversation had drifted to.


In addition to what Lanark just posted, keep in mind that climbing power isn't everything. In the final 55km ITT in 2007Levi Leipheimer's speed was faster than any ITT Miguel Indurain ever rode. As a matter of fact, so was Cadel's, and if my math is correct, Karpets and Contador were close as well. And if we look at the 2009 ITT at Annecy (not an easy 40km course, with a cat 3 climb in the middle) Contador blitzed it at a whopping 50kph average. Something else Indurain never did on such a course in his entire career.

Sacrilege! Forget about doping, he should do time for his irreverence and for defiling a deity.

Going faster than Indurain goes way past suspicious, and well into the obvious.

Dave.

 

[compete_clean]

Comparing miles per hour is unfair. Think of how much time is spent in wind tunnels now for both riders and equipment.

Same thing with pure watts. "riders doin over 400 watts" can be a misleading metric. Maybe riders now are lighter by 10 kilos and are doing 390 on every climb. Were the leaders of the tour last year doing 400 watts? They weigh like 63 kilos which is like 6.3 w/k

Riders 'in general' are undoubtedly lighter which makes the wattage numbers even more suspicious. the combination of lighter bikes and more gears has allowed a slightly different composition of top cyclist to emerge. Mid 80s top tour riders would look like brutes next to those of the podium more recently.

Exclude Indurain, he was a freak and the recipient of perfect timing.

 

[Big GMaC]

wattage numbers are normalised to a 70kg rider with an 8kg bike

 

[ultimobici]

Riders 'in general' are undoubtedly lighter which makes the wattage numbers even more suspicious. the combination of lighter bikes and more gears has allowed a slightly different composition of top cyclist to emerge. Mid 80s top tour riders would look like brutes next to those of the podium more recently.

Exclude Indurain, he was a freak and the recipient of perfect timing.

Lighter bikes are a red herring. Lemond's 89 bike was 8kg dead with Mach2CD2 rims which were far from the lightest in Mavic's range. 7.5kg would have been attainable then with GL330's. Peugeot were riding Vitus Carbone 3 frames in 83 which were easily sub 8kg as well.

As for the riders, a friend and I were talking about this today as it happens. I reckon that the demise of the time bonuses along the route and at stage finishes on the flatter stages released riders from having to mix it up with the Green Jersey contenders. As a result they didn't need to be as much of an all rounder as the likes of Hinault, Lemond & Fignon. None of them were like Contador, Schleck or Sastre. Put them into an 80's Tour peloton and they'd never make it out of the first week!

Remember this? Hinault, Eddy Plankaert & Guido Van Calster sprinting for the points/bonus seconds at the end of a stage in 1981.

 

[compete_clean]

which were far from the lightest in Mavic's range. 7.5kg would have been attainable then with GL330's. Peugeot were riding

330's? I had GEL280s for racing. OTOH, there is no way my fully outfitted 753 was 8kgs. it was at least 19lbs.

 

[mitchman]

Joe
I could careless about you and your BV's.....

when are your 15min.s up?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Joe
I could careless about you and your BV's.....

when are your 15min.s up?

You write carelessly anyway. For me, I could not possibly care less about any other question in the entire world, than the amount that I care about what *itchman thinks about Joe and his blood values.
Score for *itchman is a double fail.
Is your native language the same as C'stoned or do you have no excuse.
Please be sure to stop by again in another couple of weeks to reassure us that you are better than us even though you are only semi-literate.*

*Smilie face means I was only joking, so don't get mad, putz.*

 

[D-Queued]

Joe
I could careless about you and your BV's.....

when are your 15min.s up?

r u 4 real?

Stupid post award candidate?

Care enough to read the thread. More to post. And, even more to slag someone.

pitchman, pitchman, what is your pitch?

Dave.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

As a result they didn't need to be as much of an all rounder as the likes of Hinault, Lemond & Fignon. None of them were like Contador, Schleck or Sastre. Put them into an 80's Tour peloton and they'd never make it out of the first week!

Great photo!

This is all why I say we need to have a change in Tour course reflecting years past. This could include time bonuses, cobbles in the first weak, and ITT distances like the Indurain years, where total distance often well over 200km, not the 50-80km we're seeing these days.

Imagine if the 2012 Tour went over the Pavé near Roubaix, then had a 60km ITT, plus a 40km TTT, plus a mountain ITT climb of another 40km, plus another 55km ITT at the end. Not that we need this every year, but one year it would be good.