Tadej Pogacar and Mauro Giannetti

[pastronef]

What do you mean by this? That the culture is rotten to its core?

no, I mean pro sport is not what we wish it to be.

 

[Extinction]

Moser did beat Fignon at the 84 Giro. in 89 Moser already ended his career and the 89 Giro was won by Fignon
Moser did his hour record in 84 in Mexico City 51.151 (with disc wheels)
he went there again in 1994 and did beat his own record (using the Obree position, and maybe EPO)

Sorry, it's been 10 years since I've had this discussion and clearly my memory has betrayed me. I've simply gotten the time table and events all mixed up. Moser was doing transfusions (and without a doubt EPO in 94), but after 85 Conconi started experimenting with first generation EPO (sometime in the late 80s). I stand by this, apologies for my dementia. 🤷

PS: By 1990 it was Bugno, who led the Giro from start to finish, and then Chiappucci, Fondriest and Pantani. From Nove Firenze (in translation):

Doping: Conconi in the "storm"!
Nove editorial team from Florence: Local news in real time
Nine from Florence Editorial Team
October 26, 2000 1:56 PM
The final spritzer
Criminal association, promoted, organized and constituted by Prof. Francesco Conconi, who allegedly administered and supplied doping drugs (especially erythropoietin, Epo) to an undetermined number of athletes involved in sports competitions, distorted through the artificial increase of the athletes' competitive performance. The list of athletes subjected to treatment - according to the investigations - is said to be 63 names, among which we note the skier Manuela di Centa, and the cyclists Marco Pantani, Gianni Bugno, Claudio Chiappucci and Maurizio Fondriest. This is the final summary of the investigation on doping conducted by the Ferrara PM Pierguido Soprani and the Carabinieri of the NAS of Florence led by Col. Stefanucci, commander for Central Italy of the Anti-adulteration Unit, who today notified Conconi and seven other people - mostly his collaborators - of the notice of the closure of the preliminary investigations and the parallel information of guarantee.

 

[Oldermanish]

When I was watching Pog riding in the last 50 KMS, it was looking like Combloux ITT from Jonas as if the bike was slowing the rider down. 😅

I'm more and more convinced that that involves another kind of fuck3ry - maybe some genetic modification, CO self- poisoning or... total immunity granted by UCI/ADA so you don't really care about getting caught.

So watching Tadej when he was a neo-pro there were no hugely deep pockets. He came to the Tour of California looking 14 years old and killed every pro there on the hills. That talent came with him, not a lab experiment. As for CO use...it's been part of allergy and asthma testing for decades. I used it in a short test and had a headache for an hour. That's an anecdotal situation but hard to see what long term benefit it could serve.
As for the UCI; they always seemed to be absent when weird sh*t happens.

 

[E_F_]

hard to see what long term benefit it could serve.

Yeah how would increasing hematocrit possibly help an endurance athlete? It boggles the mind...

 

[Sciatic]

I just wanted to chime in with this theory, because until a athlete is proven guilty he should be considered clean.


I am pretty surprised none of you are discussing gene doping, you seem to obsess about EPO and GH.

Right now EPO & blood bags are a heck of a lot cheaper, more easily available, and safer than any possible gene doping technique.

 

[Sciatic]

Actually, I believe I've gotten the date wrong and confused events. Conconi, I've been told by someone who was on a CONI federation team back in the 80s, definitely began experimenting with first generation EPO after it was synthetically produced in 1985. A well know Italian sports journalist who I have ridden with has confirmed this for me. So for Moser EPO would have been administered in the 89 Giro when he beat Fignon, whereas Conconi was giving him blood transfusions for the 84 Mexico City hour record. Sorry for the confusion. Here's an article in Italian on the history of EPO doping (from the faculty of motoric science of the University of Verona): https://www.corsi.univr.it/documenti/OccorrenzaIns/matdid/matdid625177.pdf

The phase 1 and phase II clinical trials of the first EPO product took place in 1986 with the results published in this Jan 1987 article in New England Journal of Medicine. Production of EPO for use in renal failure patients would have begun in 1987 or 1988. Because it was an injection or IV given at the research center, it would have been very difficult (although I suppose not impossible (for a cycling doc to get their hands on EPO used in the trials. So likely the 1st possible use probably was in '87-'88. The MDs who ran the trials and published here were the founders of Amgen.

Correction of the Anemia of End-Stage Renal Disease with Recombinant Human Erythropoietin​

Authors: Joseph W. Eschbach, M.D., Joan C. Egrie, Ph.D., Michael R. Downing, Ph.D., Jeffrey K. Browne, Ph.D., and John W. Adamson, M.D.
Published January 8, 1987
N Engl J Med 1987;316:73-78

 

[pihi42]

Understood, however, you have a strange moral compass riddled with causistry. What's not banned is not doping, as Hinault once said, only if you live in world without "values" or understanding of what doping is. ..

Philosophically speaking sport ideally should be about genetics over pharmachalogy and tech advantage (which, within the market construct, can't be regulated).

Well, I sincerely disagree. Sport is not about admiring the genetics of some rare specimens. Rather it is about working with what you have and making the most of it. As an engineer I always like challenges and I dislike any "lucky starting conditions" - such as being born a king, having billionare parents or rare genetics.
Yes, what is not banned is not doping. Using your brain to gain an advantage is exactly what is the basis of Homo Sapiens. We didn't compete with lions with our muscles but with our intellect.
I have nothing whatsoever against using anything that works. I'm all for strict adherence to the rules, the common moral principles as not destroying other people. I'm also all for innovation and don't fear pharmacological, physical, genetical, psychological, .. other methods.
(please don't ask about motors - it is silly - using motors in cycling comp is like using computers in a human chess match - changes the whole point of it)
While most people accept using wind tunnels and fluid dynamics to engineer new helmets, bikes, skinsuits, positions etc, most people also frown at anything administered using a syringe. Not me. Medicine/pharmacy is 80% of our quality of life; our genetics has actually gotten worse since the dark ages.
Going into the future, we're going to rely on it more and more. People will start using neural implants, prostethics, aestethic surgery, genetic modification more and more.
So for sport to not turn into modern luddism, the thinking and acceptance will need to adapt as well.

 

[Netserk]

Collusion is the basis of humans. Sociality rather than intelligence is the foundation for our success.

 

[AverageWatts]

Right now EPO & blood bags are a heck of a lot cheaper, more easily available, and safer than any possible gene doping technique.

The theory here is that the UAE has substantial financial power, and they need an edge—not just a group of the old same/the same old bags. I doubt anyone involved really cares about safety; they just want a winner, the athlete included.

When it comes to athletes, they'll do almost anything. Champions are often willing to shorten their lives by 10 years just to win a medal. I think more people who watch sports could benefit from understanding the mindset prevalent in bodybuilding.

It’s all a freak show, and you could say that the champion sacrifices the most by engaging in risky behavior.

The real issue is the default attitude among average sports fans: the belief that someone who wins in sports has achieved something of lasting value.

 

[Sciatic]

The theory here is that the UAE has substantial financial power, and they need an edge—not just a group of the old same/the same old bags. I doubt anyone involved really cares about safety; they just want a winner, the athlete included.

When it comes to athletes, they'll do almost anything. Champions are often willing to shorten their lives by 10 years just to win a medal. I think more people who watch sports could benefit from understanding the mindset prevalent in bodybuilding.

It’s all a freak show, and you could say that the champion sacrifices the most by engaging in risky behavior.

The real issue is the default attitude among average sports fans: the belief that someone who wins in sports has achieved something of lasting value.

I think marine lugworms would still be the way to go for teams wanting to “go above and beyond.”

 

[Raest]

Well, I sincerely disagree. Sport is not about admiring the genetics of some rare specimens. Rather it is about working with what you have and making the most of it. As an engineer I always like challenges and I dislike any "lucky starting conditions" - such as being born a king, having billionare parents or rare genetics.
Yes, what is not banned is not doping. Using your brain to gain an advantage is exactly what is the basis of Homo Sapiens. We didn't compete with lions with our muscles but with our intellect.
I have nothing whatsoever against using anything that works. I'm all for strict adherence to the rules, the common moral principles as not destroying other people. I'm also all for innovation and don't fear pharmacological, physical, genetical, psychological, .. other methods.
(please don't ask about motors - it is silly - using motors in cycling comp is like using computers in a human chess match - changes the whole point of it)
While most people accept using wind tunnels and fluid dynamics to engineer new helmets, bikes, skinsuits, positions etc, most people also frown at anything administered using a syringe. Not me. Medicine/pharmacy is 80% of our quality of life; our genetics has actually gotten worse since the dark ages.
Going into the future, we're going to rely on it more and more. People will start using neural implants, prostethics, aestethic surgery, genetic modification more and more.
So for sport to not turn into modern luddism, the thinking and acceptance will need to adapt as well.

There is a rather obvious contradiction in the bold part. Genetical modification (which you state in the second bold part that you are OK with) is definitely NOT working with "what you have" but rather taking what you have and changing it into something that it is not.
There is another, perhaps more subtle, contradiction. You are against destroying other people yet you don't mind pharmacological or genetical "enhancements". Yet such enhancements are inherently dangerous. EPO has killed cyclists, genetic engineering will surely kill more (if/when it is applied). How many of those that took EPO did so because they felt they had no choice? This is a rhetorical question. Many is the answer. Others quit not wishing to partake, leaving behind lucrative careers or the only profession (or dream) they've had since their teens. Isn't that a kind of destruction? Not of the body perhaps but of the psyche? A poster above, mentioned bodybuilding. This is effectively what you are advocating for. A freak show where athletes abuse substances and their body for essentially, a pittance. Very few bodybuilders can make a living out of the sport and yet that doesn't stop them from killing themselves trying. Imagine what people will do when there is a lot more money involved and zero oversight.

 

[Oldermanish]

Yeah how would increasing hematocrit possibly help an endurance athlete? It boggles the mind...

Have you even looked at the effects of exposure? Short term (5minutes) of low level brings on nausea, vomiting...When you see the movie scenes where a distraught individual connects his car tailpipe to a hose into the cab and runs the engine; how long does that concentration take to cause harm? 5-10 minutes, depending on concentration. By harm; I mean death.
To your point; how could it possibly increase hematocrit? Test results are inconclusive as the subject is dead.

 

[noob]

Instead of asking for Walsh how about Juliet Macur? She seems to be still around. And on New York Times. She could do it as a follow up on the Lance story...

 

[Ripper]

Have you even looked at the effects of exposure? Short term (5minutes) of low level brings on nausea, vomiting...When you see the movie scenes where a distraught individual connects his car tailpipe to a hose into the cab and runs the engine; how long does that concentration take to cause harm? 5-10 minutes, depending on concentration. By harm; I mean death.
To your point; how could it possibly increase hematocrit? Test results are inconclusive as the subject is dead.

I think @Monoxidator might have some studies for you

 

[Extinction]

Well, I sincerely disagree. Sport is not about admiring the genetics of some rare specimens. Rather it is about working with what you have and making the most of it. As an engineer I always like challenges and I dislike any "lucky starting conditions" - such as being born a king, having billionare parents or rare genetics.
Yes, what is not banned is not doping. Using your brain to gain an advantage is exactly what is the basis of Homo Sapiens. We didn't compete with lions with our muscles but with our intellect.
I have nothing whatsoever against using anything that works. I'm all for strict adherence to the rules, the common moral principles as not destroying other people. I'm also all for innovation and don't fear pharmacological, physical, genetical, psychological, .. other methods.
(please don't ask about motors - it is silly - using motors in cycling comp is like using computers in a human chess match - changes the whole point of it)
While most people accept using wind tunnels and fluid dynamics to engineer new helmets, bikes, skinsuits, positions etc, most people also frown at anything administered using a syringe. Not me. Medicine/pharmacy is 80% of our quality of life; our genetics has actually gotten worse since the dark ages.
Going into the future, we're going to rely on it more and more. People will start using neural implants, prostethics, aestethic surgery, genetic modification more and more.
So for sport to not turn into modern luddism, the thinking and acceptance will need to adapt as well.

I don't even know where to begin, so I shall limit myself to a few casual observations. According to the IOC Athletes' Rights and Responsibilities: 2. Be part of a transparent, fair and clean sporting environment, particularly one that fights against doping and competition manipulation...This is the basis of what constitutes "fair play". It is built into the guiding principles of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Olympic Charter. So, yes, sport is "officially" (note the quotation marks) about relying upon genetics as the primary deteriminant of excellence, within the context of transparency during preparation and practice in the sporting environment. Hard work, using your mind, etc., to overcome natural handicaps is all fine and to be encouraged of course. But by your logic we may as well allow them to put anything in their bodies that is deemed pharmachologically beneficial to performance enhancement, so long as it's not banned and hence against the "rules" at the time. The obvious problem with this philosophy, which is riddled with cynicisim and moral causistry, is that it doesn't meet even the basic criteria of "fair play" or the fight against doping by any standards, not to mention the potential health risks involved. And it's one thing to take access to medical advancements for legitimate health reasons, entirely another for the purposes of doping. This is so basic that it shouldn't be necessary to restate; while doping, yes, exists even before taking a substance is prohibited, based on the rule of retroactive testing. Anything else is vapid sophistry. For the rest see Raest's most excellent post.

You are advocating a kind of pharmachological relativism, a "Far West" of the sport environment, in which ethical standards only need to meet a criteria of "if it will improve my performance and isn't prohibited (yet), then it is just and even virtuous to use it", in a carte blanche driven, frenzied quest to reach ever further performance horizens. Well I'd say this accurately describes the present state of affairs. Let anyone make what they want of it, but no philosophy of ethics (save Machiavelli's of course) has ever approved of it. If the antithesis of modern sport luddism in the medical sense means adhearing to this Machiavellian state, which it largely already has, then I'm definitively out thank you. Pogacar may even be the catalyst for my exit, out of sheer boredom and lack of enthusiasm.

Unfortunately there are those who are simply better than us, who were simply born with superior genetics and, all other things being equal, should come out on top. We must accept this, but what you promote is rising to the challenge through any means available, just because it's available, which sanctions a "the ends justify the means" principle. It is dangerous and potentially immoral. But, hey, I'm following the rules, so my conscience is clean isn't that right? All the other stuff is performance science and tech related, which, as long as it doesn't constitute illicit practice, shall be consented (even if the market has distorted the effects and outcomes to such a degree, through unequal access and distribution, that it makes me wonder about the fate of sport). But I wouldn't want your take on things to be the applied mental habits behind the principles that govern us. Oh God, no. The world, including that of sport, is already in a perilous enough state.

PS: When you have been on a group training ride and someone out of the blue falls down and dies on the spot, because his heart could no longer pump blood that turned sludge, you might gain a different perpective (or raced clean against dopers who got busted, depriving you of the actual result you deserved on the day). Just a thought or perhaps a cautionary anectode to the disappointed idealist inside every cynic.

 

[glassmoon]

Teddy is popular and brings in a lot of money and fans... nothing will happen until he f-ks up with someone high up or get too greedy for the rest of the peloton to accept.
How are the next few WCH looking - I think he could potentially win 4 in the row?

 

[peterfin]

My predicion is that we will know more when this thread has more post than the Pogacar fans thread.

 

[Nick2413]

Have you even looked at the effects of exposure? Short term (5minutes) of low level brings on nausea, vomiting...When you see the movie scenes where a distraught individual connects his car tailpipe to a hose into the cab and runs the engine; how long does that concentration take to cause harm? 5-10 minutes, depending on concentration. By harm; I mean death.
To your point; how could it possibly increase hematocrit? Test results are inconclusive as the subject is dead.

The protocol I’ve seen is take it in small doses where they hold a couple breathfuls for 30 sec each and it takes several hours to leave the bloodstream so basically functions like a more effective version of altitude training.

 

[E_F_]

Instead of asking for Walsh how about Juliet Macur? She seems to be still around. And on New York Times. She could do it as a follow up on the Lance story...

Considering The New York Times' role in bringing UFO BS into the mainstream, I think we'd more likely get a story on Pogi's extra-terrestrial origins, than any doping bust, unfortunately.

 

[rghysens]

How are the next few WCH looking - I think he could potentially win 4 in the row?

Yes.
Kigali is basically a continuous Oude Kwaremont-Paterberg-Koppenberg loop with fewer cobbles, but a double climb of the Xorret de Cati 2/3 along the way. Montreal is the same course he won on twice, but 50km longer, and in 2027 we´ll have the course Hinault won on in 1980 and where only 15 riders finished.

 

[Oldermanish]

I think @Monoxidator might have some studies for you

Yes...I'm sure it might have some minor, short term effacy as it stresses the sh*t out of your cardio-pulmonary system. And how could anyone get hurt trying this out on a local level?
Just sleep in a pressurized room for altitude acclimation. It's legal, still.

As for a UAE staff willing to do anything to achieve a win: I totally agree that is a possibility. There's that willingness and the likely consequences dealing with UAE ownership should they fail. It's not like they adhere to a stringent code of ethical behavior on a national level when royalty "owns" the operation.

 

[Stablo]

I'm beginning to feel like it's more plausible than not... I don't really see how bio-doping is capable of producing these (jumps in) numbers.

Somehow im starting to feel this way too. Would explain the how effortlessly Poggie drives all the others off his wheel, while looking very fresh after absolute monster performances and basically never getting tired. To get an extra 60-100w for some periods of time would help a lot 😉.

KERS was in F1 almost 20 years ago, by now one would think you could add that kind of energy harvesting system to a much smaller device. UAE:s unlimited resources might be enough to get some really hightech "motor", that collects energy from breaking etc. and allows you to use extra watts regularly during the race. Would explain Teddys meteoric rise too. Imho on a level playing field Tadej wouldn't be even a top5 rider, nothing before UAE indicated to that direction. Now his not only top5, but the super dominant number one and has a season we have never seen in modern cycling.

Im totally 50/50 motor vs regular doping or both in Poggies and UAE:s case. Here is an interesting documentary on the motor topic: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...s-investigates-hidden-motors-and-pro-cycling/
For example Greg Lemond is sure there is and has been motors in pro cycling. The documentary is seven years old and the technology has surely taken leaps since then.

 

[Casual cyclist]

One thing we can say is that the numbers produced by Pogacar this season are mightily impressive even if you believe that he is doping. No other rider in history, doped or otherwise, has managed to produce those sorts of numbers before. Whatever magic cocktail they have found has managed to produce record speeds on long and medium mountain climbs.

Visually what strikes me this season is that when he attacks, some other riders can only hold his wheel for 15/20 seconds before they simply have to let go. Most don't even bother responding to his attacks. Yet he can sustain this speed for several kilometres thereafter. Yet at the end of the race he still looks as fresh as a daisy. After Sundays gruelling ride he took off his helmet and he was barely sweating! Whatever you think is behind these performances its incredible the number of super human rides he has produced this season.

Good observations right there. No sweat means no body heat which implies that either the power production of the body was low or the efficiency of said body was much closer to 100% than previously believed. Incidentally, in his first superhuman performance in that 2020 TDF TT that robbed Roglic of the yellow jersey, he actually did look labored and sweaty towards the end of the climb. He blitzed that one as we know, but that performance looked normal for a good biologically doped climber assuming he started the climb fresh. The clearly abnormal part of that TT was the flat one where he went faster than specialists while sitting in a "coal miner" position, in blatant disregard of that pesky air resistance.

What I am curious about is how many W/kg for how long he would have to de before most people here begin drawing a line between what's possible and what's not with the help of a good old biological doping. Would, say, 10W/kg for an hour be sufficient for that? I get an impression that most people even here tend to still give too much credit to the level of decency and intelligence of the current monopolized system and to the powers of today's science which is considered capable of producing some miraculous "genetic doping", for example. Were something like that real we wouldn't have, for instance, the high jump record of 2.45 standing for decades with nobody capable to even get close.

An hypothetical example from a different field. If it had been "officially" (i.e. in a TV program and on major online resources) announced (I am not talking about distant future here) that the first expedition to Mars successfully landed, complete with "footage" of the silo tower "Starship" standing on the background of yellow-orange sky and some yellowish hills, how many people here would have called BS right away as opposed to starting to muse about "them" having finally solved the technical problem associated with possibility of such a voyage.

 

[Casual cyclist]

Somehow im starting to feel this way too. Would explain the how effortlessly Poggie drives all the others off his wheel, while looking very fresh after absolute monster performances and basically never getting tired. To get an extra 60-100w for some periods of time would help a lot 😉.

KERS was in F1 almost 20 years ago, by now one would think you could add that kind of energy harvesting system to a much smaller device. UAE:s unlimited resources might be enough to get some really hightech "motor", that collects energy from breaking etc. and allows you to use extra watts regularly during the race. Would explain Teddys meteoric rise too. Imho on a level playing field Tadej wouldn't be even a top5 rider, nothing before UAE indicated to that direction. Now his not only top5, but the super dominant number one and has a season we have never seen in modern cycling.

Im totally 50/50 motor vs regular doping or both in Poggies and UAE:s case. Here is an interesting documentary on the motor topic: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...s-investigates-hidden-motors-and-pro-cycling/
For example Greg Lemond is sure there is and has been motors in pro cycling. The documentary is seven years old and the technology has surely taken leaps since then.

I don't even think anything as fancy as regenerative braking would be needed. I'm sure that the source of energy used is the good old li-ion cells. They have a high enough energy density for what's needed here. As you said, no more than an occasional 100W is really needed. If one wants this for, say, total of 30min, it is only 25 Wh worth of energy, or simply just two or three 18650 cells with a total mass of less than 100 to 150 grams. As I have already pointed out, it seems that the motor itself has evolved recently. In 2020 and 2021 it was likely just a good old brushless motor the use of which necessitated either a bike change or rainy cold weather. This year, it looks like some distributed EM propulsion system with better heat dissipation was installed making the use of it easier and less conspicuous. What helps hiding it better now is also the proliferation of battery powered stuff on the bikes -- from shifters to wireless transponders. In a nutshell, there is a lot of EM activity now associated even with normal bikes. Recall a recent story about some malicious tampering with signals sent and received by team cars, allegedly conducted by rival teams. On this background, how conspicuous an occasional activity of a poultry two 18650 cells is going to be?

 

[Extinction]

Good observations right there. No sweat means no body heat which implies that either the power production of the body was low or the efficiency of said body was much closer to 100% than previously believed. Incidentally, in his first superhuman performance in that 2020 TDF TT that robbed Roglic of the yellow jersey, he actually did look labored and sweaty towards the end of the climb. He blitzed that one as we know, but that performance looked normal for a good biologically doped climber assuming he started the climb fresh. The clearly abnormal part of that TT was the flat one where he went faster than specialists while sitting in a "coal miner" position, in blatant disregard of that pesky air resistance.

What I am curious about is how many W/kg for how long he would have to de before most people here begin drawing a line between what's possible and what's not with the help of a good old biological doping. Would, say, 10W/kg for an hour be sufficient for that? I get an impression that most people even here tend to still give too much credit to the level of decency and intelligence of the current monopolized system and to the powers of today's science which is considered capable of producing some miraculous "genetic doping", for example. Were something like that real we wouldn't have, for instance, the high jump record of 2.45 standing for decades with nobody capable to even get close.

An hypothetical example from a different field. If it had been "officially" (i.e. in a TV program and on major online resources) announced (I am not talking about distant future here) that the first expedition to Mars successfully landed, complete with "footage" of the silo tower "Starship" standing on the background of yellow-orange sky and some yellowish hills, how many people here would have called BS right away as opposed to starting to muse about "them" having finally solved the technical problem associated with possibility of such a voyage.

You are too intelligent for me, can you restate that in layman's terms? Thanks