The Sky-Con-O-Meter. Predictions on how much more ridiculous they can get

[Franklin]

Any objection in starting with Greg Lemond's threshold PB?

I have an objection. We simply do not know if Greg is the best a man can do.

In fact Hinault claims a similar or higher VO2 (1 point, besides, a Langlaufer was even higher) and a fit Fignon rode roughshod over Greg in 1984. And many people realize that Greg was a wheelsucker in 1989 (smart and understandable!) and was weaker than Fignon. Wattage wise had Fignon had the same material he would have crushed Greg by minutes.

Greg certainly was one of the best riders ever, but there is no medical or physiological reason to say he is the pinacle of a cycling human.

 

[Cloxxki]

I have an objection. We simply do not know if Greg is the best a man can do.

In fact Hinault claims a similar or higher VO2 (1 point, besides, a Langlaufer was even higher) and a fit Fignon rode roughshod over Greg in 1984. And many people realize that Greg was a wheelsucker in 1989 (smart and understandable!) and was weaker than Fignon. Wattage wise had Fignon had the same material he would have crushed Greg by minutes.

Greg certainly was one of the best riders ever, but there is no medical or physiological reason to say he is the pinacle of a cycling human.

The skier delivered the test when on EPO or blood doping most likely. The test results are indeed effected.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

I have an objection. We simply do not know if Greg is the best a man can do.

In fact Hinault claims a similar or higher VO2 (1 point, besides, a Langlaufer was even higher) and a fit Fignon rode roughshod over Greg in 1984. And many people realize that Greg was a wheelsucker in 1989 (smart and understandable!) and was weaker than Fignon. Wattage wise had Fignon had the same material he would have crushed Greg by minutes.

Greg certainly was one of the best riders ever, but there is no medical or physiological reason to say he is the pinacle of a cycling human.

Good points, it would be stupid not to take Fignon and Hinault as a benchmark for what is supposedly humanly possible.

Great footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG6Q2nFF0mI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2VgKY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpotMliQuX8

3 benchmarks

 

[Franklin]

Good points, it would be stupid not to take Fignon and Hinault as a benchmark for what is supposedly humanly possible.

Great footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG6Q2nFF0mI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2VgKY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpotMliQuX8

3 benchmarks

Oh thank you for those clips! *Swoon*

 

[martinvickers]

Nah you suggested it was inconieveable that LA and Hog did not know "every scintilla" of their rivals' medical programmes. In Hamilton's and Mayo's case, they evidently did not, and I think there were other examples.

I re-read what I wrote, and you are correct, i expressed my self very poorly. I appreciate Armstrong could not possibly know exactly what specific others were doing - he's a doper, not a clairevoyent - but I'd be amazed if he was not at the absolute cutting edge more generally, and knew it - I think he knew every drug that was available, every routine, every trick, even if he didin't know which of those his rivals were on - but you are absolutely right that he was clearly paranoid that someone, somewhere, knew something he didn't.

 

[martinvickers]

It would seem likely that since those kind of numbers are 100% sure to arouse suspicion and questions, that few would choose to lie about them and incur the waste of time, energy and effort answering them.".

Surely if they are 100% sure to arouse suspicion and questions, then if they are dodgy, it would make most sense simply not include them? In other words, if wiggins were a doper, and these numbers were a clear red flag on the issue, why would he publish it at all?

Why would he leave such obvious breadcrumbs?

 

[King Of The Wolds]

Surely if they are 100% sure to arouse suspicion and questions, then if they are dodgy, it would make most sense simply not include them? In other words, if wiggins were a doper, and these numbers were a clear red flag on the issue, why would he publish it at all?

Why would he leave such obvious breadcrumbs?

Quite. The fact that he and Rogers give us these tit bits, but stop short at issuing their full files suggests, to my mind, that my theory re: trying to tell the opposition how good they are, is far more likely.

Neither of us really know, of course, but the fact that people believe every word suggests it's working, whether that was the intention or not. Convincing the opposition that you can't be beaten - a veritable marginal gain, right there.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

it would be stupid not to take Fignon and Hinault as a benchmark for what is supposedly humanly possible.

In every sport, training methods are still improving. Sports science is a very young science, remember, and even in sciences which have been known about for much longer, like chemistry and physics, improvements are still being made all the time, so you'd expect that advances are still fairly significant. To state that what Fignon and Hinault were capable of 25 years ago, is as far as we can humanly go, is to suggest that sports science hasn't advanced, at all, within that time period, which is clearly nonsense.

 

[will10]

I think some of the misunderstood science that I've read on this forum these past months are a good indication as to why Wiggins is unlikely to release his blood profile data.

Besides, why on earth do a bunch of people on an Internet forum think they will spot something that the bio-passport panel have missed?

They seemed to miss a few things in Lance's data.

 

[martinvickers]

They seemed to miss a few things in Lance's data.

When did the blood passport start?

 

[Joachim]

Will, On the contrary, that was presented in the USADA file as evidence, IIRC.

Don't get me wrong, I find the whole UCI/Lance donation/TdS/Landis telling Hamilton that Lance grassed him up things massively suspect. I also think Lance's re-entry into the sport to be suspect, and you are correct in that the requirement for data was waived in his case demonstrating just what a cash cow the man was, and how rules were bent accordingly.

I'm not sure if the bio-passport committee were complicit in this or whether it just didn't get as far as them.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

In every sport, training methods are still improving. Sports science is a very young science, remember, and even in sciences which have been known about for much longer, like chemistry and physics, improvements are still being made all the time, so you'd expect that advances are still fairly significant. To state that what Fignon and Hinault were capable of 25 years ago, is as far as we can humanly go, is to suggest that sports science hasn't advanced, at all, within that time period, which is clearly nonsense.

So, watts per kg have changed as well?

''My wattage, relative to VO2 Max...a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way...I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts. The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l'Alpe d'Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You've got times going back many, many years. But what was learned recently, in the last 5 years, was that when you start the Tour de France, you start with a normal hematocrit of, say, 45 percent. By the time you finish, it's probably down 10 or 15 percent. Which means my VO2 Max dropped 10 or 15 percent. So that's why I was never producing the same wattage. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you've recovered. My last time trial in '89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was.

Of course, in the '90s drugs came on the scene, so the wattages have gone out. There are some things that are just not explainable, people with VO2 Maxs in the low 80s producing 500 watts. A physiologist friend of my said that for a person to do that, 500 watts, he has to have to have nearly 100 milliliters of Oxygen. There are a lot of questions there for me.''

http://bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

So, when Ritchie Porte is making Ivan Basso make doing 420 watts [=6w/kg] Porte is doing 372 watts. U really want to make me belief a domestique like Porte is able to equal or better Hinault/Fignon/LeMond due to sports science? Yes, bikes got better, nutrition got better but let's not forget the dope.

I'm not sure if the bio-passport committee were complicit in this or whether it just didn't get as far as them.

They couldn't even prove Contadope had a transfusion...

 

[will10]

When did the blood passport start?

Start of the 2008 season IIRC.

Will, On the contrary, that was presented in the USADA file as evidence, IIRC.

Don't get me wrong, I find the whole UCI/Lance donation/TdS/Landis telling Hamilton that Lance grassed him up things massively suspect. I also think Lance's re-entry into the sport to be suspect, and you are correct in that the requirement for data was waived in his case demonstrating just what a cash cow the man was, and how rules were bent accordingly.

I'm not sure if the bio-passport committee were complicit in this or whether it just didn't get as far as them.

By the UCI's own guidelines, a biopassport irregularities case should've been opened against Lance in 2009/2010. Ashenden's comments on the matter are somewhat illuminating.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-file-was-ever-sent-to-any-of-us-experts.aspx

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

By the UCI's own guidelines, a biopassport irregularities case should've been opened against Lance in 2009/2010. Ashenden's comments on the matter are somewhat illuminating.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-file-was-ever-sent-to-any-of-us-experts.aspx

To add to that:
http://endurancesupport.com/bloedprofiel-lance-armstrong/
[google translate]

''BLOOD PROFILE LANCE ARMSTRONG
*
Peter Janssen and Hans Strijbosch
*
*
BLOOD VALUES OF ARMSTRONG
The New York Daily News, the blood levels of Lance Armstrong published when the USADA his indictment Armstrong bases. Across the board, his blood profile fairly stable at two suspicious fluctuations after which additional suspicious because of the time they occur.
The increase in Ht, Hb and RBC between 31/5 and 16/6 is very suspicious. The Ht even increasing by 7.5 percentage points. Which can not be explained by a high altitude training of two weeks at an altitude of 2400 meters. The decrease in the number of reticulocytes at 16/6 is not in line with expectations. Because of the altitude training is an additional production of Retis more obvious.
The increase of Ht, Hb and RBC during the round between 11/7 and 14/7 is also highly suspicious. Because during a large round these values &#8203]http://endurancesupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2011-05-14-dopingverdenkingen-op-straat-2.jpg[/img]
The UCI shall investigate how this list at L 'Equipe ended.
The blood profile of Lance Armstrong until just before the start of the Tour de France 2010 should be reviewed by the UCI panel of experts. The result of this is a risk factor for Armstrong, 4.
Given the marked fluctuations in 2009, it is incomprehensible that Armstrong was not much higher estimated.
Possibilities
The UCI dare or do not tackle Armstrong.
Not want to address means that the UCI Armstrong consciously protects.
Do not dare approach may mean that the UCI is afraid of possible legal consequences.
It may be that the range in which the riders can operate so large that a controlled manner can be continued with blood doping. This could mean that the fluctuating values ​​of Armstrong not large enough to explain to him positively.

*
THRESHOLDS COMPARED WITH THE HIGHEST / LOWEST VALUES OF ARMSTRONG.
*
*Thresholds Highest / Lowest Values ​​Armstrong
Hematocrit> 50% 45.7
Hemoglobin> 170 g / L 160
OFF-score> 133 112
Reticulocytes # High> 120 70.5
Reticulocytes # Low <20 9.21
Reticulocytes% High> 2.4% 1.49
Reticulocytes% Low <0.4% .51
*
Table thresholds used by the UCI and the highest and lowest values ​​that Armstrong scores.
Armstrong exceeds the thresholds thus not once. The bandwidth is much too large.
It is now abundantly clear that without exceeding the limits of the threshold values ​​to exceed the EPA there can be used. The individual blood profile, the smaller bandwidths. So it is difficult to manipulate. However, the above-described example of Armstrong shows that the individual blood profile is not sufficiently precise. It is namely not picked.''

The whole bio-passport is a hoax, stay between the [very broad] parameters and you will be fine.

 

[thehog]

Well I never. Sky fans becoming supporters of the UCI.

Cycling really did die on the 24th December 2012

 

[red_flanders]

Surely if they are 100% sure to arouse suspicion and questions, then if they are dodgy, it would make most sense simply not include them? In other words, if wiggins were a doper, and these numbers were a clear red flag on the issue, why would he publish it at all?

Why would he leave such obvious breadcrumbs?

I would feel very comfortable defending the numbers if they were legit, wouldn't you? My point was (is) that I think it very unlikely that someone would exaggerate those numbers up into the suspicious realm. Way too much flak and folks are much less likely to put themselves knowingly in a position to have to defend a lie.

Not saying it can't happen, just not as likely.

 

[Joachim]

By the UCI's own guidelines, a biopassport irregularities case should've been opened against Lance in 2009/2010. Ashenden's comments on the matter are somewhat illuminating.

Indeed, but you don't even need to read beyond the heading of the Ashenden article to see that this is another UCI cover up rather than bio committee ineptitude.

We all know where the root of the problem lay. Old habits die hard.

 

[Joachim]

They couldn't even prove Contadope had a transfusion...

Partially validated test for plasticisers. Grey area. Exploited by UCI to take the heat off Contador. Given that they tried to cover his dope bust, and then accepted his meaty excuse, nor put any pressure on the Spanish fed its a near miracle he got done for anything.

 

[martinvickers]

I would feel very comfortable defending the numbers if they were legit, wouldn't you?

Absolutely -and very UNcomfortable defending it if they were not. Even uncomfortable mentioning it if they were not, surely.

So why would anyone voluntarily issue suspicious information if it were accurate numbers gained by non-legit means?

Why leave a trail of breadcrumbs?

My point was (is) that I think it very unlikely that someone would exaggerate those numbers up into the suspicious realm. Way too much flak and folks are much less likely to put themselves knowingly in a position to have to defend a lie.

Not saying it can't happen, just not as likely.

Don't disagree.

 

[DirtyWorks]

So why would anyone voluntarily issue suspicious information if it were accurate numbers gained by non-legit means?

Why leave a trail of breadcrumbs?

We can refer back to the time Wonderboy posted blood profiles only to alter the results at a later date.

-They can't keep the lies straight
-When doping is the norm for some inside the Pro Cycling bubble, they aren't suspicious values.
-When the UCI is protecting some riders supplement ther elaborate system designed to never test positive, there's no suspicious values.
-The sport is flush with enablers. When Ryder's test results from his 2012 Giro win were published, they utterly failed the 'normal response to stage racing' blood results and nothing was mentioned beyond some discussion in a thread.

 

[BroDeal]

To add to that:
http://endurancesupport.com/bloedprofiel-lance-armstrong/
[google translate]



The whole bio-passport is a hoax, stay between the [very broad] parameters and you will be fine.

So much win in that list with Wiggins right next to Vino. The bio-passport gave everyone a heads up on Wiggins two years in advance.

Also, Brailsford hired Rogers knowing full well that he was one of the twenty dodgiest riders in the peloton.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Just a thought about comparing times over years, for example the 5 year gap from 2007 to 2012. I know others have made a similar point, but this isn't Keirin racing where the tech has essentially been frozen in time, the bikes and drive train are constantly evolving, even if there is a minimum weight limit.

On top of that huge variable which makes them incomparable are a host of others. Climatic conditions from everything from air temperature and road temperature to wind strength and direction, humidity, air density etc. The individual parcours of the two stages: I haven't researched but where they identical, so the riders where climbing after the same km, or how about the stages preceding the one we are comparing?

All equals infinitesimal variables which would require vast amounts of quantative data to analyse and compare, and I doubt even with that the results would be a long way short of conclusive.

I have argued before that comparing riders performances from different seasons is hugely inconclusive and this is another massive red herring. Different eras, different riders, different peloton, different weather, different bikes, different clothing, different training, different nutrition, different drugs too.

Cycling is a hotbed of innovation, don't ignore a basic truism because it fits your argument.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Just a thought about comparing times over years, for example the 5 year gap from 2007 to 2012. I know others have made a similar point, but this isn't Keirin racing where the tech has essentially been frozen in time, the bikes and drive train are constantly evolving, even if there is a minimum weight limit.

On top of that huge variable which makes them incomparable are a host of others. Climatic conditions from everything from air temperature and road temperature to wind strength and direction, humidity, air density etc. The individual parcours of the two stages: I haven't researched but where they identical, so the riders where climbing after the same km, or how about the stages preceding the one we are comparing?

All equals infinitesimal variables which would require vast amounts of quantative data to analyse and compare, and I doubt even with that the results would be a long way short of conclusive.

I have argued before that comparing riders performances from different seasons is hugely inconclusive and this is another massive red herring. Different eras, different riders, different peloton, different weather, different bikes, different clothing, different training, different nutrition, different drugs too.

Cycling is a hotbed of innovation and everything evolves from year to year, don't ignore a basic truism because it fits your argument.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Oh one more variable. 'Mental state'. I take it everyone knows rule 5?

 

[thehog]

Just a thought about comparing times over years, for example the 5 year gap from 2007 to 2012. I know others have made a similar point, but this isn't Keirin racing where the tech has essentially been frozen in time, the bikes and drive train are constantly evolving, even if there is a minimum weight limit.

On top of that huge variable which makes them incomparable are a host of others. Climatic conditions from everything from air temperature and road temperature to wind strength and direction, humidity, air density etc. The individual parcours of the two stages: I haven't researched but where they identical, so the riders where climbing after the same km, or how about the stages preceding the one we are comparing?

All equals infinitesimal variables which would require vast amounts of quantative data to analyse and compare, and I doubt even with that the results would be a long way short of conclusive.

I have argued before that comparing riders performances from different seasons is hugely inconclusive and this is another massive red herring. Different eras, different riders, different peloton, different weather, different bikes, different clothing, different training, different nutrition, different drugs too.

Cycling is a hotbed of innovation and everything evolves from year to year, don't ignore a basic truism because it fits your argument.

Says the guy who claimed Sky not riding as fast as Pantani equals clean.