Timing of EPO in early 90's that doesn't add up..

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re:

Cookster15 said:
we saw incredible feats like Indurain's extraterrestrial Luxembourg TT.
Though truly remarkable, remarkable performances are from all era's. This is not proof of doping...

Also time diffferential beside Indurain was pretty small, how does that match with large-scale usage.. Indurain a super responder among peers? Indurain the one who went farthest in hema at that moment?

I'm convinced he was using Epo then and there, but pointing towards a single result and then going "AHAH!" is futile.
 
Re: Re:

Franklin said:
Cookster15 said:
we saw incredible feats like Indurain's extraterrestrial Luxembourg TT.
Though truly remarkable, remarkable performances are from all era's. This is not proof of doping...

Also time diffferential beside Indurain was pretty small, how does that match with large-scale usage.. Indurain a super responder among peers? Indurain the one who went farthest in hema at that moment?

I'm convinced he was using Epo then and there, but pointing towards a single result and then going "AHAH!" is futile.
I only quoted Luxembourg as an example not a single point of evidence. Of course Indurain was using EPO then. Like everyone else. But not everyone else at that time had these stats:-

28bpm resting heart rate
Max HR 195
VO2 Max 88
Lung capacity 7.8 litres
Capable of sustaining 550 watts for a 1 hour ITT
Said to be capable of recovering from max HR to below 60bpm inside 60 seconds. Unbelievable recovery!

He was a physiological freak. EPO just kept him ahead of the pack all on the same gear.
 
Re: Re:

Franklin said:
So the most plausible general timeline:

- Pioneering 1988-1990 (perhaps 1989?)
- Finetuning through Italian doctors 1988-1990.
- Changing the game 1990-1995
- Pioneering Team doping: 1987-1990 (proven for PDM, almost certainly true for Reynolds and Carrera)
- Spread to "universal" team doping 1990-1996
With pretty much everything starting 1988/1990, that's more a timespot than a timeline. Not exactly helpful, now is it?
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Helpful? We can go overthink it all we want, but 1988-1990 is when EPO showed up )hit the market and the stories started in the Netherlands) and 1990-1995 is when team wide blood charging became ubiquitous. What else do you expect? There's overwhelming support for this timeline, whereas alternative scenario's are implaussible (later adoption) or unlikely (abuse of clinical trials).

As for the team wide doping organisation: PDM is established by both anecdotes as written diaries of that period. Could there be other teams on that same track? There's no data or evidence, so we would have to look at teams that are surprisingly strong and where riders over-performed. Carrera and Reynolds (later Banesto) a good candidate considering the persistent rumors and later evolution of the team. Another suspect team would be LVC (riders suddenly becoming really good, then fading away when leaving LVC). Renault-Systeme U is less plausible. It's possible, but the riders actually did well at other teams and the medical staff was pretty much old school (as far as I can see....). But that's conjecture, so we can be certain about PDM, have strong suspicions about Carrera and Reynolds. We all have some thoughts about other teams but the lack of stories and written material makes me dismissive of claims (though if it were the case I wouldn't be shocked). And due to the lawsuits and testimonials we can most certainly conclude that after 1995 every top team had a covert operation going on (either actively supported or blanketed).

The timeline (it's not a timespot) is as it is. EPO simply is one half of the story, the other half is team wide structures and stronger rider control. It's the combination that changed everything.

If you are interested in a more general Blood doping timeline it becomes much harder as the info on the 70ies is sketchy at best (we have some indications on for example Zoetemelk) and no data at all.
 
Re:

Franklin said:
As for the team wide doping organisation: PDM is established by both anecdotes as written diaries of that period.
You really had to go there, didn't you? PDM's peioneering use of EPO is documented by one anecdote, IIRC, Rooks saying he took to EPO "after 1989." Where are the EPO diaries you talk about?
 
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Franklin said:
As for the team wide doping organisation: PDM is established by both anecdotes as written diaries of that period.
You really had to go there, didn't you? PDM's peioneering use of EPO is documented by one anecdote, IIRC, Rooks saying he took to EPO "after 1989." Where are the EPO diaries you talk about?
Where do I say PDM pioneerd EPO? Uhm... nowhere. Read before claiming and then blasting full barrel.

I said PDM pioneered a team wide program.

- Evidence by statements
- Evidence by notes from the staff from those days (Blood bags, not EPO)
- Evidence by the Intralipid scandal.

Epo certainly got into that mix.. and if that was in the PDM years or the Festina (same team) era is anyones guess. But it's the combination that gets the revolution going.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Re: Re:

Franklin said:
fmk_RoI said:
Franklin said:
As for the team wide doping organisation: PDM is established by both anecdotes as written diaries of that period.
You really had to go there, didn't you? PDM's peioneering use of EPO is documented by one anecdote, IIRC, Rooks saying he took to EPO "after 1989." Where are the EPO diaries you talk about?
Where do I say PDM pioneerd EPO? Uhm... nowhere. Read before claiming and then blasting full barrel.

I said PDM pioneered a team wide program.

- Evidence by statements
- Evidence by notes from the staff from those days (Blood bags, not EPO)
- Evidence by the Intralipid scandal.

Epo certainly got into that mix.. and if that was in the PDM years or the Festina (same team) era is anyones guess. But it's the combination that gets the revolution going.
You need to know your place here. Fmk is the lead authority in the world - everyone else knows nothing and will get condescended too from a great height.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Re: Re:

Cookster15 said:
Of course Indurain was using EPO then. Like everyone else. But not everyone else at that time had these stats:-

28bpm resting heart rate
Max HR 195
VO2 Max 88
Lung capacity 7.8 litres
Capable of sustaining 550 watts for a 1 hour ITT
Said to be capable of recovering from max HR to below 60bpm inside 60 seconds. Unbelievable recovery!

He was a physiological freak. EPO just kept him ahead of the pack all on the same gear.
These same figures are published now-and-then relating to Indurain, but it would be interesting to know how much there is solid evidence behind the data (same goes with the 90+ Vo2Max figures of LeMond, Merckx etc.)

The only reliable Vo2Max figure of Indurain published by the actual lab where it was measured is a high 1994 figure of 6.4 l/min which still corresponds to mediocrish relative figure of 78 ml/kg/min. Too bad that it isn't clear whether this is OFF- or IN-Season figure. The same paper where this figure is published also estimates that his power output during the one hour world record attempt was 510 Watts.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.531.5396&rep=rep1&type=pdf
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re: Re:

fmk_RoI said:
Franklin said:
- Evidence by notes from the staff from those days (Blood bags, not EPO)
So now you want to conflate blood transfusions and EPO and use evidence of one as proof of the other? You must have some great roses.
Where do I say that oh great sage? I will publically laud your intense posting skills if you point out where I said that. Then again, it's the third strawman you erected, so I am afraid that's even beyond your masterly skills.

Sarcasm off.

You are a caricature. You simply refuse to read, clearly demonstrated by multiple times saying things clearly NOT written down like that. When confronted you simply try to make some other idiotic comment, called out on it, try to erect the next strawman. You are not acting in good faith. Some reflection and distance would do you good.

Back to the subject at hand:

EPO is NOT the whole story. It's epo+team organisation that changed the 90ies. Those two "collided" at the same timeframe. Nobody is going to give us "September 12th 4o çlock, Indurain started his first EPO course", but we do know that EPO (and blood enrichment etc.) and team programs got fused around 1990.

All we can do is look at developments on EPO (1989 seems a very plausible pioneering era due to rumors and availability), and at organized team doping (PDM second half eighties).

So when did team programs get cross-pollinated with individual EPO to become go structural team wide EPO? Impossible to say.

- In 1994 Gewiss Ballan went full genius, but claiming they are the first is hard without evidence. Also, it seems to be a bit late.
- Was PDM pioneer even there? this is uncertain, especially since during the key years 1991-1992 the Intralipid scandal broke the teams spine and got some continuity issues which lead to a rebuild with the infamous Festina team. However the first rumors of EPO did involve a rider of PDM, which is worrisome.
- Banesto? Possible, but once again we lack evidence either way. Was it just Big Mig and his Captains on the full program? Was it everyone? Did this eveolve (seems likely)? If it did evolve, when can we speak of a "modern EPO team?" Impossible to say.
- ONCE? Manolo Sainz...This team would turn out to be crucial, Both Bruyneel and Breukink went through that team and both created their own GT powerhouse teams.

Considering the people involved and what we know about the team, ONCE certainly is one of the first getting the "team wide program" right. In 1994 Gewiss went full genius. In 1996 Riis went from Gewiss to T-Mobile and with Jan Ulrich broke Banesto.

The riders saying that in 1995 everything changed certainly have a point. By that time EVERY team owner understood the game and scrambled for team programs. This madcap dash also meant leakage outside the shell, so media got involved and eventually governing instances and justice departments woke up and reacted.

By the turn of the century the "cowboys" were outed (TVM, Festina, riders like Pantan etc.) and the likes of Bruyneel and Breukink started to take over.

We will never be able to pinpoint dates, or be "certain"things happened in an exact year. but the general picture of the evolving team programs and EPO usage are quite clear. There's no compelling evidence to have an early alternative timeline (early adoption of EPO mid eighties, Epo being team wide end eighties). on the other hand a later timeline is highly implausible due to the confessions of riders which pretty much shows that pre-90 EPO wasn't a widespread known factor.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
Re: Re:

Aragon said:
Cookster15 said:
Of course Indurain was using EPO then. Like everyone else. But not everyone else at that time had these stats:-

28bpm resting heart rate
Max HR 195
VO2 Max 88
Lung capacity 7.8 litres
Capable of sustaining 550 watts for a 1 hour ITT
Said to be capable of recovering from max HR to below 60bpm inside 60 seconds. Unbelievable recovery!

He was a physiological freak. EPO just kept him ahead of the pack all on the same gear.
These same figures are published now-and-then relating to Indurain, but it would be interesting to know how much there is solid evidence behind the data (same goes with the 90+ Vo2Max figures of LeMond, Merckx etc.)

The only reliable Vo2Max figure of Indurain published by the actual lab where it was measured is a high 1994 figure of 6.4 l/min which still corresponds to mediocrish relative figure of 78 ml/kg/min. Too bad that it isn't clear whether this is OFF- or IN-Season figure. The same paper where this figure is published also estimates that his power output during the one hour world record attempt was 510 Watts.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.531.5396&rep=rep1&type=pdf
VO2 max is probably given too much weight due to Lemond as this says nothing about the power-output.

Everyone who keeps on repeating that number skips over the fact that Lemond the majority of his career got outgunned by an aging Hinault and by Fignon. If Fignon had the brains and attitude of Gre 1989 simply would not have happened. Watt per Watt Fignon was much stronger. Indeed, even in 1986 Lemond got really lucky that Hinault got a bad case of "I am god and will ride away like Merckx". Even though Greg was stronger that tour, the gap Hinault sat on was awful... had he defended it it would have been really, really close (as evidence by the pure wattage matchups in the TT's).

So we have three guys overlapping who are really close. If Vo2 max is THE important marker that implies that:

1. Fignon and Hinault had comparable and probably higher VO2 max. We have Hinault quoting some unlikely number when interviewd by a US magazine, but there's a lot of downplaying Lemond from the badger, so that's highly suspect. We never hear of Fignon having an insane VO2 Max (indeed every cyclist seems to stand in the Shadow of Greg on that Value).
2. A high VO2 is probably not uncommon. We have three guys (sharing teams for a good part of their career!), two of them French. Now it could be a freak accident that the highest VO2 maxes of the sporting world coincidentally (Fignons and Gregs Hiring are unconnected)landed at the same place and time, but that is a stretch.

I find it a bit more likely that VO2 is very important, but that there also is the factor "Horsepower" and perhaps a few more. A high VO2 helps, but the highest VO2 max also clearly isn't simply the best rider. Because yes, Greg was one of the greatest, but even during his era he wasn't the strongest. That label must go to the idiot who didn't use an aero helmet and a Tri-bar :lol:
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
@Frankin, perhaps a bit unfair on Fignon in your fun facts.... maglia rosa and 15th overall in the 1982 giro as a 21 year old...plus a criterium international...plus a probable certain classics win but for the broken B/B.....then 7th in the 1983 Vuelta before the Tour......he was added to the team as its leader (albeit untested) after Hinault's withdrawal....so if the fun fact is donkey to race horse then I think you're way off the mark...

compare and contrast with our friend Froome who was only added to the Vuelta team not as its leader but because a team mate dropped out....and was probably languishing in the top 700 of the workd rankings and about to lose his spot on the team...using froome as the benchmark of donkey to racehore, Fignon doesn't really derserve to be included.....
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
May 26, 2009
3,687
1
0
gillan1969 said:
@Frankin, perhaps a bit unfair on Fignon in your fun facts.... maglia rosa and 15th overall in the 1982 giro as a 21 year old...plus a criterium international...plus a probable certain classics win but for the broken B/B.....then 7th in the 1983 Vuelta before the Tour......he was added to the team as its leader (albeit untested) after Hinault's withdrawal....so if the fun fact is donkey to race horse then I think you're way off the mark...

compare and contrast with our friend Froome who was only added to the Vuelta team not as its leader but because a team mate dropped out....and was probably languishing in the top 700 of the workd rankings and about to lose his spot on the team...using froome as the benchmark of donkey to racehore, Fignon doesn't really derserve to be included.....
Of course Fignon was a thoroughbred then and there (talk about coming up fast^^), but many (most) experts thought he was a flash in the pan. Whereas Miguel Indurain was lauded from the start. Or super-doper jan Ulrich who was a star from his first season.... clearly people get it spectacularly wrong.

My point is that people are way to easy with the "Donkey-to-racehorse" mantra. Somehow Miguel Indurain (ais seen as a similar trajectory as Bjarne Riis, which is quite silly... I never read an article claiming second year Bjarne was a future GT star.

On Froome... The guy was 25 or 26 when he almost won the Vuelta. That's still really early career and certainly ahead of the classical peak 29-31 years old. Is he a Fignon in trajectory? No. but he also isn't Riis/Rominger.

Is it a Donkey made Race horse? Or is he a really good rider who started relatively late as a teen (true enough) and did have some health issues (disputable)?

I honestly find it impossible to simply say; DONKEY, when we are talking about such a young rider.

And no, I do not think he's a clean rider (you can check my opinion of DB on how believable I find the drivel coming out of Ineos/Sky) . I simply find the whole "donkey/Race-horse"discussion quite subjective and often more based on sentiments than on how contemporaries saw the rider.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Franklin said:
gillan1969 said:
@Frankin, perhaps a bit unfair on Fignon in your fun facts.... maglia rosa and 15th overall in the 1982 giro as a 21 year old...plus a criterium international...plus a probable certain classics win but for the broken B/B.....then 7th in the 1983 Vuelta before the Tour......he was added to the team as its leader (albeit untested) after Hinault's withdrawal....so if the fun fact is donkey to race horse then I think you're way off the mark...

compare and contrast with our friend Froome who was only added to the Vuelta team not as its leader but because a team mate dropped out....and was probably languishing in the top 700 of the workd rankings and about to lose his spot on the team...using froome as the benchmark of donkey to racehore, Fignon doesn't really derserve to be included.....
Of course Fignon was a thoroughbred then and there (talk about coming up fast^^), but many (most) experts thought he was a flash in the pan. Whereas Miguel Indurain was lauded from the start. Or super-doper jan Ulrich who was a star from his first season.... clearly people get it spectacularly wrong.

My point is that people are way to easy with the "Donkey-to-racehorse" mantra. Somehow Miguel Indurain (ais seen as a similar trajectory as Bjarne Riis, which is quite silly... I never read an article claiming second year Bjarne was a future GT star.

On Froome... The guy was 25 or 26 when he almost won the Vuelta. That's still really early career and certainly ahead of the classical peak 29-31 years old. Is he a Fignon in trajectory? No. but he also isn't Riis/Rominger.

Is it a Donkey made Race horse? Or is he a really good rider who started relatively late as a teen (true enough) and did have some health issues (disputable)?

I honestly find it impossible to simply say; DONKEY, when we are talking about such a young rider.

And no, I do not think he's a clean rider (you can check my opinion of DB on how believable I find the drivel coming out of Ineos/Sky) . I simply find the whole "donkey/Race-horse"discussion quite subjective and often more based on sentiments than on how contemporaries saw the rider.
Comparing Rominger to Riis or even Froome. Seriously? I know that Rominger was likely an early adapter to EPO due to his relationship with Ferrari, but he had way better results than Riis/Froome.

Only took up cycling at 21, was pro by 25 in 86. In only his second GT, the 87 Giro. 6th in prologue, 6th to Terminillo alongside all the favourites, 2nd in San Marino TT, 2nd on infamous stage to Sappada. Was in 2nd overall and wearing white jersey into final week, but then collapsed and abandoned.

88 Giro, 2nd prologue, 4th first mountain stage, collapsed stage 12, but won a stage not long after, 6th in mountain TT, 3rd in final TT. 2nd and 3rd on TT stages at 88 Tour de France. Throw in the fact that he finished on the podium at Tirreno-Adriatico 87/88, Trentino 87/88, Romandy 88 plus winning Giro D'Emilia.

Rominger hardly fits the coming from nowhere to GT dominator a la Riis/Froome. He demonstrated that he could TT and climb, but always seemed to have an off day where he would lose a packet of time. Whether that was down to his supposed pollen allergies, hard to know. As I said, he was an early Ferrari disciple so that always leaves a question mark. I would still put him miles ahead of Froome interms of showing potential.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Sep 17, 2013
135
1
0
Franklin said:
gillan1969 said:
@Frankin, perhaps a bit unfair on Fignon in your fun facts.... maglia rosa and 15th overall in the 1982 giro as a 21 year old...plus a criterium international...plus a probable certain classics win but for the broken B/B.....then 7th in the 1983 Vuelta before the Tour......he was added to the team as its leader (albeit untested) after Hinault's withdrawal....so if the fun fact is donkey to race horse then I think you're way off the mark...

compare and contrast with our friend Froome who was only added to the Vuelta team not as its leader but because a team mate dropped out....and was probably languishing in the top 700 of the workd rankings and about to lose his spot on the team...using froome as the benchmark of donkey to racehore, Fignon doesn't really derserve to be included.....
Of course Fignon was a thoroughbred then and there (talk about coming up fast^^), but many (most) experts thought he was a flash in the pan. Whereas Miguel Indurain was lauded from the start. Or super-doper jan Ulrich who was a star from his first season.... clearly people get it spectacularly wrong.

My point is that people are way to easy with the "Donkey-to-racehorse" mantra. Somehow Miguel Indurain (ais seen as a similar trajectory as Bjarne Riis, which is quite silly... I never read an article claiming second year Bjarne was a future GT star.

On Froome... The guy was 25 or 26 when he almost won the Vuelta. That's still really early career and certainly ahead of the classical peak 29-31 years old. Is he a Fignon in trajectory? No. but he also isn't Riis/Rominger.

Is it a Donkey made Race horse? Or is he a really good rider who started relatively late as a teen (true enough) and did have some health issues (disputable)?

I honestly find it impossible to simply say; DONKEY, when we are talking about such a young rider.

And no, I do not think he's a clean rider (you can check my opinion of DB on how believable I find the drivel coming out of Ineos/Sky) . I simply find the whole "donkey/Race-horse"discussion quite subjective and often more based on sentiments than on how contemporaries saw the rider.
Come on. Froome had done exactly nothing noteworthy, before he came out of absolutely nowhere to claim 2nd in that Vuelta. His team was getting rid of him, so high were their thoughts of him.
No matter how hard anyone tries to rewrite history, the vroomster will remain the biggest donkey to racehorse story in cycling history.
Claiming otherwise seems to me a result of unchecked biases.
 
Reactions: red_flanders
Arrowfarm said:
Franklin said:
gillan1969 said:
@Frankin, perhaps a bit unfair on Fignon in your fun facts.... maglia rosa and 15th overall in the 1982 giro as a 21 year old...plus a criterium international...plus a probable certain classics win but for the broken B/B.....then 7th in the 1983 Vuelta before the Tour......he was added to the team as its leader (albeit untested) after Hinault's withdrawal....so if the fun fact is donkey to race horse then I think you're way off the mark...

compare and contrast with our friend Froome who was only added to the Vuelta team not as its leader but because a team mate dropped out....and was probably languishing in the top 700 of the workd rankings and about to lose his spot on the team...using froome as the benchmark of donkey to racehore, Fignon doesn't really derserve to be included.....
Of course Fignon was a thoroughbred then and there (talk about coming up fast^^), but many (most) experts thought he was a flash in the pan. Whereas Miguel Indurain was lauded from the start. Or super-doper jan Ulrich who was a star from his first season.... clearly people get it spectacularly wrong.

My point is that people are way to easy with the "Donkey-to-racehorse" mantra. Somehow Miguel Indurain (ais seen as a similar trajectory as Bjarne Riis, which is quite silly... I never read an article claiming second year Bjarne was a future GT star.

On Froome... The guy was 25 or 26 when he almost won the Vuelta. That's still really early career and certainly ahead of the classical peak 29-31 years old. Is he a Fignon in trajectory? No. but he also isn't Riis/Rominger.

Is it a Donkey made Race horse? Or is he a really good rider who started relatively late as a teen (true enough) and did have some health issues (disputable)?

I honestly find it impossible to simply say; DONKEY, when we are talking about such a young rider.

And no, I do not think he's a clean rider (you can check my opinion of DB on how believable I find the drivel coming out of Ineos/Sky) . I simply find the whole "donkey/Race-horse"discussion quite subjective and often more based on sentiments than on how contemporaries saw the rider.
Come on. Froome had done exactly nothing noteworthy, before he came out of absolutely nowhere to claim 2nd in that Vuelta. His team was getting rid of him, so high were their thoughts of him.
No matter how hard anyone tries to rewrite history, the vroomster will remain the biggest donkey to racehorse story in cycling history.
Claiming otherwise seems to me a result of unchecked biases.
Love the way Froome manages to pervade so many threads which start out with no relevance to him whatsoever, maybe he should have his own thread....oh wait :lol:
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
Arrowfarm said:
Franklin said:
gillan1969 said:
@Frankin, perhaps a bit unfair on Fignon in your fun facts.... maglia rosa and 15th overall in the 1982 giro as a 21 year old...plus a criterium international...plus a probable certain classics win but for the broken B/B.....then 7th in the 1983 Vuelta before the Tour......he was added to the team as its leader (albeit untested) after Hinault's withdrawal....so if the fun fact is donkey to race horse then I think you're way off the mark...

compare and contrast with our friend Froome who was only added to the Vuelta team not as its leader but because a team mate dropped out....and was probably languishing in the top 700 of the workd rankings and about to lose his spot on the team...using froome as the benchmark of donkey to racehore, Fignon doesn't really derserve to be included.....
Of course Fignon was a thoroughbred then and there (talk about coming up fast^^), but many (most) experts thought he was a flash in the pan. Whereas Miguel Indurain was lauded from the start. Or super-doper jan Ulrich who was a star from his first season.... clearly people get it spectacularly wrong.

My point is that people are way to easy with the "Donkey-to-racehorse" mantra. Somehow Miguel Indurain (ais seen as a similar trajectory as Bjarne Riis, which is quite silly... I never read an article claiming second year Bjarne was a future GT star.

On Froome... The guy was 25 or 26 when he almost won the Vuelta. That's still really early career and certainly ahead of the classical peak 29-31 years old. Is he a Fignon in trajectory? No. but he also isn't Riis/Rominger.

Is it a Donkey made Race horse? Or is he a really good rider who started relatively late as a teen (true enough) and did have some health issues (disputable)?

I honestly find it impossible to simply say; DONKEY, when we are talking about such a young rider.

And no, I do not think he's a clean rider (you can check my opinion of DB on how believable I find the drivel coming out of Ineos/Sky) . I simply find the whole "donkey/Race-horse"discussion quite subjective and often more based on sentiments than on how contemporaries saw the rider.
Come on. Froome had done exactly nothing noteworthy, before he came out of absolutely nowhere to claim 2nd in that Vuelta. His team was getting rid of him, so high were their thoughts of him.
No matter how hard anyone tries to rewrite history, the vroomster will remain the biggest donkey to racehorse story in cycling history.
Claiming otherwise seems to me a result of unchecked biases.
Thank you. What utter nonsense to suggest anything else. He literally defines the phrase. He had done NOTHING.

Revolting to see Fignon’s name in the same breath, no matter how many caveats.
 
brownbobby said:
Arrowfarm said:
Franklin said:
gillan1969 said:
@Frankin, perhaps a bit unfair on Fignon in your fun facts.... maglia rosa and 15th overall in the 1982 giro as a 21 year old...plus a criterium international...plus a probable certain classics win but for the broken B/B.....then 7th in the 1983 Vuelta before the Tour......he was added to the team as its leader (albeit untested) after Hinault's withdrawal....so if the fun fact is donkey to race horse then I think you're way off the mark...

compare and contrast with our friend Froome who was only added to the Vuelta team not as its leader but because a team mate dropped out....and was probably languishing in the top 700 of the workd rankings and about to lose his spot on the team...using froome as the benchmark of donkey to racehore, Fignon doesn't really derserve to be included.....
Of course Fignon was a thoroughbred then and there (talk about coming up fast^^), but many (most) experts thought he was a flash in the pan. Whereas Miguel Indurain was lauded from the start. Or super-doper jan Ulrich who was a star from his first season.... clearly people get it spectacularly wrong.

My point is that people are way to easy with the "Donkey-to-racehorse" mantra. Somehow Miguel Indurain (ais seen as a similar trajectory as Bjarne Riis, which is quite silly... I never read an article claiming second year Bjarne was a future GT star.

On Froome... The guy was 25 or 26 when he almost won the Vuelta. That's still really early career and certainly ahead of the classical peak 29-31 years old. Is he a Fignon in trajectory? No. but he also isn't Riis/Rominger.

Is it a Donkey made Race horse? Or is he a really good rider who started relatively late as a teen (true enough) and did have some health issues (disputable)?

I honestly find it impossible to simply say; DONKEY, when we are talking about such a young rider.

And no, I do not think he's a clean rider (you can check my opinion of DB on how believable I find the drivel coming out of Ineos/Sky) . I simply find the whole "donkey/Race-horse"discussion quite subjective and often more based on sentiments than on how contemporaries saw the rider.
Come on. Froome had done exactly nothing noteworthy, before he came out of absolutely nowhere to claim 2nd in that Vuelta. His team was getting rid of him, so high were their thoughts of him.
No matter how hard anyone tries to rewrite history, the vroomster will remain the biggest donkey to racehorse story in cycling history.
Claiming otherwise seems to me a result of unchecked biases.
Love the way Froome manages to pervade so many threads which start out with no relevance to him whatsoever, maybe he should have his own thread....oh wait :lol:
he's relavant to every thread on PEDs because he is THE yardstick of donkey to racehorse...he is a point of reference...
........a bit like sea level ;)
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
This Indurain-related Wikipedia paragraph is actually very interesting:
According to the University of Ferrara, who conducted tests on Induráin, his strength came from his body's superior physiology. His blood took 7 litres of oxygen around his body per minute... His cardiac output was 50 litres a minute; a fit amateur cyclist's is about 25 litres. Induráin's lung capacity was 7.8 litres... His VO2 max was 88 ml/kg/min...
I'd be interested if anyone has the original source for this data and whether this information is accurate and conducted in the same series of tests for two reasons:

1) If it is accurate, it shows an enormous aerobic capacity, because 88 ml/kg/min is considered a very rare figure for someone with a body mass of 80 kg, because absolute Vo2max doesn't tend to scale linearly but allometrically with mass exponent of c:a 2/3. Therefore this relative figure is as unique as a figure of 97 ml/kg/min for a 60 kg cyclist.

2) The figure is very likely an un-blood doped one because if the 50 l/min output is accurate, one can calculate that each liter of his blood "left" only some 140 millilitres of oxygen on average (0.140 x 50 = 7 litres) to his muscles and therefore his resting Hb concentration (Hct) was around 12.5-13.0 g/dl (37-40 %).

I've tried to locate the original source, but there are available almost exclusively some random Internet pages where the data are just reprinted from other webpages. From the digitized archives it seems that the first mentions are from around 1993 but the cardiac output figure isn't mentioned in connection to the rest of the data. One exception is a rare 1995 article by J. Wilcockson ("Jump.to Vital Indurain Statistics").

The unlikely 50 l/min cardiac output is some five litres higher than the second highest one mentioned in the literature and his Hb concentration (Hct) should've evidently been even some 10 % lower in the 1994 test with Vo2max of 6.4 l/min if his cardiac output was in the same range at that time.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI
- I claim vaguely for a reason that 52 % was in the (what the physiologist of the 1970s considered) "normal range" at 7000 feet and not necessarily the mean natural value established today...
Old (and somewhat off-topicish) issue, but I stumbled upon a paper from 1948 in which hematocrits of México City residents were measured and the mean Hct for males was 51.2 %.


Assuming that figures of that caliber were considered to be the normal México City values even two-and-half decades later, it is not an outlandish claim to presume that the 52 % "target" Hct for Eddy Merckx for his 1972 hour record attempt was indeed only a question of altitude adaptation and not "real" blood doping regardless of the method he used in the end.
 
Reactions: fmk_RoI

ASK THE COMMUNITY