Power Data Estimates for the climbing stages

[Eshnar]

Where did I say anything about Pantani having no talent?

You didn't say that, I was speaking generally with RR and Sundayrider.

Must be a lot to be depressed about. That's why he spent so much money at Fuentes even though it was his "talent" that made the difference in the 90's.

He was doping. Did I ever dare to deny that He was doping before and after '99. But before '99 he was also training properly. After, not.

 

[roundabout]

It seemed like you were suggesting that he doped as much as the rest, so it wasn't the doping that made him ride away by minutes (occasionally) from other dopers.

And he could still win stages in the Tour and perform like he did on the way to Briancon despite not training properly. Could it be that there was still some potent stuff left over at team Martinelli that allowed Garzelli to win a Giro?

What stopped him from showing he was the best climber without having a 52% hematocrit?

 

[Eshnar]

It seemed like you were suggesting that he doped as much as the rest, so it wasn't the doping that made him ride away by minutes (occasionally) from other dopers.

the "minutes" he occasionally took from the others were in mlost cases caused by his attacking style and other contingent factors, as the fact that many many times he attacked at the base of the climb and there was no organised team chasing him, the leaders were all by themselves. But yes, I believe there's no reason to think the difference between him and the others was too huge to be only due to natural talent. Let's not forget that Pantani failed a LOT of times. He didn't win 7 GTs like someone seems to think. He was certainly a superstrong climber, who used to attack whenever he could and sometimes eventually win spectacularly.

And he could still win stages in the Tour and perform like he did on the way to Briancon despite not training properly. Could it be that there was still some potent stuff left over at team Martinelli that allowed Garzelli to win a Giro?

Good days happen. Especially when your primary problem is in your mind. They are pretty rare, though. And in fact Pantani's good days were very rare and sparse.

What stopped him from showing he was the best climber without having a 52% hematocrit?

The fact he wasn't training properly may have played some role? You may be talented and doped, but if your opponents are doped too, and are training well, then it would be surprising for you to win regularly.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Interesting that his offseason values fall well within the normal range. It seems that for Pantani we can rule out the one physiological parameter known to enable a greater than normal response to EPO, a lower than normal HT.



Gooner was the one who made the assertion that the existence of differential responders had been established by the Clinic. When I challenged him, he was the one who brought up the Ullrich thread.

I'm not going to start a new thread, because I have no reason to believe your response to it will be any different from your response to the earlier thread. You're silent when asked for evidence for your claims, just as you were silent when asked to support your contention that Moncoutie is not clean.

To the mods: I won't bring up this subject of Ullrich again, except as relevant to this thread.

Yes,RR. Please support that claim about Moncoutie because as hrotha said he was "our dear International Prototype Meter"

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

What stopped him from showing he was the best climber without having a 52% hematocrit?

La roba.

Or do we think Gibo Simoni doped less?

 

[roundabout]

He stopped failing in 1998. Would have won 3 GTs consecutively.

Did the double. Won the Les 2 Alpes stage by 2 minutes. 5 (!!!) over Julich and co. And he got those 2 minutes on an "easy" last climb. Apart from Piancavallo where Zülle and Guerini (?) almost caught him, I can't really recall a single high mountain stage where Pantani showed any signs of weakness in 1998-1999 in GTs.

So no, your first 2 paragraphs are as wrong as they can be.

And you didn't really answer my question so I'll post it again, why couldn't Pantani show that he was the best climber after 1999? Maybe, just maybe it wasn't as easy as you think and he was not *that* talented?

 

[roundabout]

La roba.

Or do we think Gibo Simoni doped less?

Oh please, don't start with that crap again.

But hey, Gibo did also win the Giro bio. Talentless hack who lost a minute in about 5k to the dear pirate the day before the famous test.

 

[Eshnar]

He stopped failing in 1998. Would have won 3 GTs consecutively.

Did the double. Won the Les 2 Alpes stage by 2 minutes. 5 (!!!) over Julich and co. And he got those 2 minutes on an "easy" last climb. Apart from Piancavallo where Zülle and Guerini (?) almost caught him, I can't really recall a single high mountain stage where Pantani showed any signs of weakness in 1998-1999 in GTs.

all those minutes are inflated, as I said before. In the Les 2 Alpes stage the favourites group was an attack after another on the Galibier group. Ullrich was responding to the attacks by himself. At something like 50 kms out. And when these scenarios happen and the last climb is shallow, then the gaps often encrease dramatically, as it happens in a lot of Mortirolo/Aprica stages. Let's mention it was raining too, another factor which increases the gaps. Certainly an impressive performance, but to say it was impossible it's stretching it.

So no, your first 2 paragraphs are as wrong as they can be.

And you didn't really answer my question so I'll post it again, why couldn't Pantani show that he was the best climber after 1999? Maybe, just maybe it wasn't as easy as you think and he was not *that* talented?

but I did answer he was depressed. Are you gonna challenge that too? The guy did not even last 5 years after he was busted. U gonna say he wasn't depressed?

 

[Lanark]

He stopped failing in 1998. Would have won 3 GTs consecutively.

Did the double. Won the Les 2 Alpes stage by 2 minutes. 5 (!!!) over Julich and co. And he got those 2 minutes on an "easy" last climb. Apart from Piancavallo where Zülle and Guerini (?) almost caught him, I can't really recall a single high mountain stage where Pantani showed any signs of weakness in 1998-1999 in GTs.

So no, your first 2 paragraphs are as wrong as they can be.

And you didn't really answer my question so I'll post it again, why couldn't Pantani show that he was the best climber after 1999? Maybe, just maybe it wasn't as easy as you think and he was not *that* talented?

While we're on the subject of Matt Rendel, didn't he place his DQ in the 1999 Giro as the moment he started doing cocaine?

Seems that could be pretty detrimental to his performance after that.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Oh please, don't start with that crap again.

Crap?
You may think so, it seems coke and sport at the top dont really mix. Ask Maradona, Gascoigne. In combination with his disturbed personality that doesnt really mix well.

But hey, I am not defending Pantani here, he should have been taken of his bike and gotten help, maybe he would be alive now.

The Gibo comparison is handy, Gibo got even faster over the years.

 

[roundabout]

but I did answer he was depressed. Are you gonna challenge that too? The guy did not even last 5 years after he was busted. U gonna say he wasn't depressed?

Was depressed, didn't train properly. Could still beat Armstrong.

I am the one who is confused here.

What's the evidence that he was that good? Let's hear it. Should be good after your last 2 posts claiming that he wasn't a superman.

 

[roundabout]

Crap?
You may think so, it seems coke and sport at the top dont really mix. Ask Maradona, Gascoigne. In combination with his disturbed personality that doesnt really mix well.

But hey, I am not defending Pantani here, he should have been taken of his bike and gotten help, maybe he would be alive now.

The Gibo comparison is handy, Gibo got even faster over the years.

He went from being doped like Pantani to doping like Berzin cubed?

1999 Giro was ridiculous. Pantani won 4 stages. Lost a 5th by half a wheel to a guy who used to win GT bunch sprints and I have zero doubt that he would have won in Aprica.

But of course he did it on a level playing field.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Yes,RR. Please support that claim about Moncoutie because as hrotha said he was "our dear International Prototype Meter"

I'm sure he got that from JV.

But to be clear, I am always pounding on the guys about their blood values, just like you guys do here. I question them about any detail I don't like. Keep 'em on their toes.

But, as I've said here before, the worst passport values I've ever seen, actually come from a guy you all think is clean. And so do I. Sometimes blood profiles don't tell the whole story. you have to put them into context of how the rider is performing and what environmental elements he's exposed to (i.e. - hot weather causes more plasma expansion, a sudden cold weather can cause plasma jetting...a transatlantic flight often causes plasma jetting as well, conversely overheating will cause huge plasma retention.. altitude, which causes plasma jetting very quickly after exposure) and on and on....

It's a complex thing the human body.

 

[Ferminal]

Rr did pantani work with brunyeel? If not how could he have doped considering you said current teams are clean because they don't work with Ferrari and brunyeel?

When did Martinelli stop facilitating?

 

[Race Radio]

Rr did pantani work with brunyeel? If not how could he have doped considering you said current teams are clean because they don't work with Ferrari and brunyeel?

When did I write this? Or are you just trolling?

regardless, Pantani worked with Ferrari

 

[Race Radio]

Pantani was a chemical invention. Very few riders were willing to boost over 60%. Pantani went to 64%
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/06/drugs-work-but-by-how-much-look-at.html

He was also was at 60.1% after Milano-Terino
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/oct00/oct21news.shtml

Rendell says it best

There is incontrovertible evidence that Marco’s entire career was based on r-EPO abuse, which was both effective and, until 2001, undetectable by tests used in professional cycling. Is it reasonable to suppose that the most successful period of his career, from 1998 until 5 June 1999, depended on anything else?”

 

[horsinabout]

Pantani was a chemical invention. Very few riders were willing to boost over 60%. Pantani went to 64%
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/06/drugs-work-but-by-how-much-look-at.html

He was also was at 60.1% after Milano-Terino
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/oct00/oct21news.shtml

Rendell says it best

And this generation of tour winners are not?

I expect the new generation drugs are not being tested for either?

 

[Race Radio]

And this generation of tour winners are not?

I expect the new generation drugs are not being tested for either?

Do you really think riders these days are able to boost from a 40 to a 64? A quick read of this thread makes it obvious that outputs are far lower then 15 years ago.

What new generation drugs are you referring to?

 

[horsinabout]

Do you really think riders these days are able to boost from a 40 to a 64? A quick read of this thread makes it obvious that outputs are far lower then 15 years ago.

What new generation drugs are you referring to?

Well I don't know that's why I am asking the questions. But I don't believe in a clean era if that is what you are inferring.

In bold, no idea mate!

Edit: I think that (output being down) may indicate that the peloton is cleaner?

But I still ask the question about the tour winners.

 

[The Hitch]

When did I write this? Or are you just trolling?

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1254303&postcount=1345

 

[Nicko.]

When did I write this? Or are you just trolling?

regardless, Pantani worked with Ferrari

Probably referring to this:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1254303&postcount=1345

Which IMO is borderline trolling.

Edit: as I said...

 

[Gregga]

As this post is for a few days about Pantani , yes he beat Armstrong in 2000, only once in Courchevel but had a crap beginning of Tdf. That year there was rumours of EPO testing and Armstrong switched to transfusions. Before leaving after the stage in Morzine, Pantani had very good days, has someone here heard of his program ? Was he still on EPO despite the uncoming tests or did he also switch to transfusions ? This stunning Alps stages in 2000 for Pantani are still a mystery for me.

 

[Ferminal]

Maybe the level playing field theory applies in the clean(er) era. Doping =/= successes are purely the result of doping. No one has an idea whether or not the current order would be maintained if all were clean.

 

[Eshnar]

Was depressed, didn't train properly. Could still beat Armstrong.

I am the one who is confused here.

did he win the 2000 Tour? No, he just won a stage. Hardly '98-'99 level. Are all the people who won a stage against Armstrong to be considered superior dopers than him?

What's the evidence that he was that good? Let's hear it.

There isn't, otherwise we won't be arguing about this all the time Where's your evidence he wasn't that good?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Pantani was a chemical invention. Very few riders were willing to boost over 60%. Pantani went to 64%
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/06/drugs-work-but-by-how-much-look-at.html

He was also was at 60.1% after Milano-Terino
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/oct00/oct21news.shtml

Rendell says it best

Again, where in Rendells book is Pantani's value 64%?
''The graph below is a rough summary of the information from Rendell's book. ''

That is really a bad job, again, by the scienceofsports - cycling - is - now - so - much - cleaner hacks. Also they totally disregard the other graph on the same page in the Rendell book, Rendell himself does it too in his conclusion.

The 60.1 is ''explainable'', and the only proof of 60% there is, with the Worlds in Columbia, a rise of 4 is not uncommon at high altitude, what would put Pantani at 56. The defense of Pantani in the court case couldnt explain the rest of the 6 hct points - of course not - above the norm so he was convicted.

But if you have proof of the 64% I would like to see it, also the working with Ferrari stuff.
http://www.dr.dk/forms/published/pl...ngGuid={238AF641-E947-48A8-81E6-522C36EAC02D}
[with good old Hein at the end ]

Of course he was a great EPO responder/user, there is no doubt about that.
Compare his numbers from the ddlab with the Gewiss fellas:
http://archives.lesoir.be/les-curieuses-statistiques-de-gewiss_t-19990313-Z0GH9P.html
ARIATIONS DES HÉMATOCRITES
CHEZ GEWISS EN 1994-1995
15.12.94 24.5.95
Vladislav Bobrik (Rus)42.7 53
Bruno Cenghialta (Ita)37.2 54.5
Francesco Frattini (Ita)46 54
Giorgio Furlan (Ita)38.8 51
Nicola Minali (Ita)41.7 54
Piotr Ugrumov (Rus) 32.8 - 60
Alberto Volpi (Ita)38.5 52.6
14.1.95 24.5.95
Evgueni Berzin (Rus)41.7 - 53
14.1.95 9.8.95
Ivan Gotti (Ita)40.7 - 57
14.1.95 10.7.95
Bjarne Riis (Dan)41.1 - 56.3

Rominger
1989 38.8
feb 1992 39
dec 1995 40
jun 1996 56

Pantani:
jan 1994 43.5
feb 1994 45.3
mar 1994 40.7
may 1994 54.5
june 1994 52.6 and 58

1995 shows the same pattern
june/Flumserberg: 56 hemaglobine 18

Source: the Death of Marco Pantani, pages 313/319

Selective use of numbers/graphs by the Science of Sport fellas? Oh yeah, Verbiers 2009 was perfectly normal.