Using Power to detect doping

[davidg]

Rather than wander off-topic on the other thread, here is one dedicated to this subject. Whilst the current blood/urine tests are prone to abuse, I am not convinced that power is any better in a practical sense.

LeMond wants to see SRM-type power meters employed to measure riders' power outputs. "In SRMs, we have a quantitative way to do that, but unfortunately there have only been a few riders who have ever given out that personal information," bemoans LeMond. "I talked to [now former] ASO boss Patrice Clerc about having everyone on an SRM that's sealed. It would be controlled and calibrated by doctors, the police – but not the teams.”

I can see a number of companies compaining about unfair practice. SRM is known as the standard, but Powertap also has good accuracy figures. So what does a team like Silence or Garmin do when they are sponsored by PT. If you insist on it being SRM, then you create an unfair market. And if you allow PT to be used on the basis of comparison to SRM, do the other players then complain. How far down the pro-ranks does it extend, do you include continental pro teams also. I am not sure of how many teams are in the bio-passport, but assuming the same ones would be involved that is a lot of market capital tied up. Multiply that by how many bikes each rider has and you have created an anti-trade practice.

"You'd get a continuous output of power recorded during a Tour stage and then if you found someone who had a VO2 Max of 80 and he was doing 500 watts for 30 minutes, you'd know that that was statistically and mathematically impossible to do. So then he's positive – boom! – he's out – that's doping. That's it – it's simple."

Last year there were climbers doing 450 watts but weighing 58-60kg – that's nearly 8 watts per kilo. That's impossible – unless we've all had some kind of genetic mutation over the past 15 years.”

I believe that is a throw-away comment. I have never seen 8W/Kg at threshold quoted. The figure increases over shorter timespans with top sprinters hitting well over 20W/Kg.

And where do you get the VO2 figures from. That only comes from lab testing so is reliant upon the rider doing the test to the max. Plenty of figures being bandied around on this forum, but few are backed up by any data.

How do you detect doping in track riders and other disciplines?

In short, I see it as an active test which would be prone to manipulation, rather than a blood test which is passive. I think a better developed blood test that can be applied to any rider from pro to junior is a better way to go.

Maybe Lemond has interests in SRM, now that he has fallen out with Trek.

 

[ElChingon]

The Power Passport now?

I'm thinking its not going to pan out, anyone can soft peddle to get lower numbers.

 

[Eldrack]

It's an interesting idea but I think the problem is that the relationship between various performance metrics isn't completely understood. Also if you dope yourself up for the baseline test then when you put out a brick outhouse load of power in the TdF no one gets suspicious...

Really I think the money would be better spent paying scientists to come up with better ways of detecting drugs in the blood.

 

[stephens]

I posted this in the other thread but you're right, it's a good idea to break out the discussion into it's own thread.

"You'd get a continuous output of power recorded during a Tour stage and then if you found someone who had a VO2 Max of 80 and he was doing 500 watts for 30 minutes, you'd know that that was statistically and mathematically impossible to do. So then he's positive &#8211]

The big problem I have with statements like this is: how do we know for sure what someone's VO2 Max is? How do you test that in a fair way? And are the assumptions you make from that test really applicable on race day, in the heat of the battle? Is there absolutely no room for anyone to perform on race day better than in a lab test? Come on...

It's also quite clear that two people can have the same V02 max but one guy can ride 5mph faster before he hits his vo2 max than the other guy or operate at his vo2 max for much longer than the other guy is capable of 'suffering' through. Maybe one guy is better at dealing with lactate and lactic acid than another. Are we going to measure everyone's lactate/anerobic threshold and how they perform at that also? In a lab? Is that accurate compared to months later under the physical and mental conditions of an actual race? Some doctors don't even believe in threshold and think lactate accumulation is continuous, ...blah, blah, blah... the whole thing is such a mess.

 

[JayZee]

I would be very interested in hearing what some training/exercise physiology experts think of GL's oft repeated idea. To me it seems that at the very most such data could only indicate riders that need to be looked at more closely, much like the blood passport plan is claimed to do. But to use it as absolute evidence of doping seems fraught with trouble.

It would be very interesting to see more riders power data from actual racing.

 

[slcbiker]

Seems like I've seen studies that say the SRM and Powertap measurements are pretty close to each other. So not much of a problem there. But cost is still an issue going down beyond the pro ranks.

Certainly it seems like there are plenty of things beyond doping that could affect power output. Say a rider changes his bike position. Or does alot of weight or sprint training. How does one decide if the power gain is due to that or doping?

 

[BroDeal]

I would be very interested in hearing what some training/exercise physiology experts think of GL's oft repeated idea. To me it seems that at the very most such data could only indicate riders that need to be looked at more closely, much like the blood passport plan is claimed to do. But to use it as absolute evidence of doping seems fraught with trouble.

It would be very interesting to see more riders power data from actual racing.

Lemond seems to be pushing a full spectrum approach that would use lots of different kinds of data, including power, blood and hormone profiling, random testing etc. All this would be handled by an independent organization.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It would be one piece of the puzzle. That's all. Not the single key.

Conceptually it would need to be profiled over a long term. The theory is that the way to beat it would mean you would have to put out consistent numbers. Which means you'd need to be to be doped up all the time, every time they test you, and every major ride.

I agree though that it's going to be a problem when getting below the pro ranks, because of cost. Same with CO testing and any sort of hematology blood volume tests - which I think are the biggest key to curbing doping, as neither thinning ("draining off", which isn't often draining of blood, but injecting saline to lower HCT) nor plasma expanders, PFCEs and HBOCs can defeat it, as your overall blood volume would be high. You'd need to dope in the morning, then race, then just before doping control extract a large volume of blood, and know exactly how much to remove. Then you'd be drained physically, and need to re-inject, all of which would require perfect timing every time, and would be very, very stressful on the body.

At least this is is how blood volume tests I understand to work. I'm not completely sure on Ashenden's CO test. I'll have to look into it.

 

[stephens]

The crazy thing is that it would still all just be circumstantial evidence of secondary effects instead of first hand evidence of doping.

 

[BroDeal]

The crazy thing is that it would still all just be circumstantial evidence of secondary effects instead of first hand evidence of doping.

A huge percentage of people, maybe even most, who are sitting in prison are there because of circumstantial evidence.

 

[stephens]

And what a shame that is, as well. I'm glad they started using dna testing, since the number of people they've had to set free because of it shows how bad the original "evidence" was.

 

[BroDeal]

And what a shame that is, as well. I'm glad they started using dna testing, since the number of people they've had to set free because of it shows how bad the original "evidence" was.

Actually a large number of people who have been set free were there in the first place because of direct evidence, namely being misidentified by witnesses. And it is the circumstantial evidence, usually DNA, that set them free.

 

[BigBoat]

Really I think the money would be better spent paying scientists to come up with better ways of detecting drugs in the blood.

No way in hell thats going to happen with any accuracy bro. There are too many doping methods out there, and too many new drugs that come out all the time.

If you could not shift your FTP (all out 1-hour power) that would help slow down the dope a lot! Its really really easy to suspect somebody of doping. A clean rider would struggle to make a 4% gains in FTP power after June. A rider who takes 600cc of packed red cells with the plasma spun off might get a 20% power increase! With wattage monitoring there's no way in hell they could do this.

Do not condemn V02 max either. Its very important in cycling due to efficient clipless pedaling and in fact it is THE number 1 indicator. Now some say that in running people with lower V02 maxes have won and thats true but in running your economy (stride efficiency) is huge and in fact $hitty runners with lots of watts could get their asses kicked not because they generate less 02 assimilation but because they suck at running stride.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

BigB, I think the point in question is that if a rider manages to dope during his VO2 Max test, then during subsequent FTP tests, the numbers will be consistently high.

The same in a sense applies to blood volume, but that would be much harder to match, and much more strenuous on the body to be constantly removing and re-inserting blood.

Gene doping, that's another problem all together.

Another method to consider is by using a plant, or mole. That is, get a police (military bg?) physician to pose as a doping doctor, and infiltrate the system and break it open.

 

[BigBoat]

BigB, I think the point in question is that if a rider manages to dope during his VO2 Max test, then during subsequent FTP tests, the numbers will be consistently high.

The same in a sense applies to blood volume, but that would be much harder to match, and much more strenuous on the body to be constantly removing and re-inserting blood.

Gene doping, that's another problem all together.

Another method to consider is by using a plant, or mole. That is, get a police (military bg?) physician to pose as a doping doctor, and infiltrate the system and break it open.

This happend before with Conte, he told all. this has happend many times, bro; there are thousands if not millions of dopers. You know what they say... one in 10 people are sexually molested as children. Yet society considers this an issue to be stopped!

If you total body hemoglobin right before the baseline testing then they cannot come in blood doped. 02 carriers and other drugs need to be infused and cannot be done daily. If you weekly or daily track power files you will catch them REST ASSURED. I could catch them and I'm not Don Catlin. LOL

Stuff like Slin, HGH, IGF-1 does not directly increase power and couldnt really be stopped.

The real reason doping has not been stopped is not that its physically impossible to be done but simply because human desire cannot be stopped. As long as money and profit is to be made CORRUPTION will run rampent. Even Wall street which was a bear market until March has had that, guess what; people wanted MORE. EVERYBODY on this earth that is not brain damaged wants to earn more for themselves or run on some kind of power trip to benefit their own pleasure. YES >> even Mother Teresa. LOL

As long as you have this human nature cheating and doping wont be stopped. To get something for yourself means somebody else has something less. Usually.

 

[Not Riding Enough]

It would be one piece of the puzzle. That's all. Not the single key.

Conceptually it would need to be profiled over a long term. The theory is that the way to beat it would mean you would have to put out consistent numbers.

This is the key. There doesn't need to be sanctions based only on this but having it published could help in it self. Would also be interesting for all of us.

 

[davidg]

My original point was that there is already enough controversy regarding current doping controls, even though they are supposedly conducted to a standard.

With power measurement, there is more than one method, eg SRM, powertap, ergomo etc, and to choose only one would be considered a restraint of trade to the other companies. I dont think it could ever proceed on this basis alone.

Unless someone has some other thoughts.

 

[elapid]

My original point was that there is already enough controversy regarding current doping controls, even though they are supposedly conducted to a standard.

With power measurement, there is more than one method, eg SRM, powertap, ergomo etc, and to choose only one would be considered a restraint of trade to the other companies. I dont think it could ever proceed on this basis alone.

Unless someone has some other thoughts.

The important factor would be to ensure that power measurements were compared using the same power meter for each individual. For example, cyclist A uses PT and all of their power measurements should be done using that same PT. Power measurements should not be done using a PT on ride 1 and an SRM on ride 2. Power meters (especially SRM, PT and perhaps Quarq, not so much Polar and iBike) are accurate and reliable from ride to ride, but not when compared to each other.

 

[davidg]

... same power meter for each individual.

Good point, I guess that would work

 

[BigBoat]

You would have to use the SRM which uses the cranks. If riders during the race are changing wheels with the powertap that might F- up the case in court by changing variables.

THE power taps and such loose watts in the dirtiness of the mechanical exchange but they do tend to read accurate or even more accurate.

Another option >>> Everybody could ride the same exact bike (like in Nascar.) SRM/Record Cannondales for example. But the bikes could be badged as different bikes for advertising.

 

[Anonymous]

You would have to use the SRM which uses the cranks. If riders during the race are changing wheels with the powertap that might F- up the case in court by changing variables.

THE power taps and such loose watts in the dirtiness of the mechanical exchange but they do tend to read accurate or even more accurate.

Another option >>> Everybody could ride the same exact bike (like in Nascar.) SRM/Record Cannondales for example. But the bikes could be badged as different bikes for advertising.

I'd think that compliling good data combining different bikes and/or wheels in the same race could get messy.

The idea of one bike would help keep things consistent but I'd think that cycling would be in big trouble without the money all the different manufactures generate in the sport.

I'm not sure this is a good analogy but the Indy Racing League in America has only one engine manufacturer (something I'm completely against) but they don't seem to have a problem with restraint of trade issues over it.
But I'd be against the idea in cycling for the same reason. It stifles innovation.

 

[Anonymous]

I think this is a very intersting thread that needs more attention.
If there are people that want to take Lemond's idea seriously there's a lot that needs fleshed out.

There's interesting posts here that need elaborating or challenged and a lot of questions I'm not capable of answering that need answered.

" I am not sure of how many teams are in the bio-passport, but assuming the same ones would be involved that is a lot of market capital tied up"

What about that? Is it just flat out to expensive for the sport to handle? How far down the ladder racing levels can you expect to able to go?

"How do you detect doping in track riders and other disciplines?"

Is it all about the ability to ride in the mountains?

Wouldn't these devices have to be redesigned to be tamper proof? Does that not guarantee that they will be very expensive?

Think of all the bikes carried around in the race.

Baseline testing. How many times per year? What time of year? What is fair to the athlete in terms of what races they prepare for or what time of year to peak? Tamper proof baseline equipment and facilites to test every rider in the pro peleton? Where are these labs? What countries or even what continents? Is all the equipment consistent? Who pays travel expenses?

One last thing.

Ever go out on a ride and you feel fantastic for no good reason? You think back and can't account for why you feel good? You've done nothing different. Or you may have thought before you get on the bike "I'm doing this but I'm not really up for it" then you find you've just kicked **** for an hour.
I wonder how much that would show on a power tap.
Do I get banned because I had a good day?

again, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there isn't a problem.

 

[BigBoat]

I think this is a very intersting thread that needs more attention.
If there are people that want to take Lemond's idea seriously there's a lot that needs fleshed out.

There's interesting posts here that need elaborating or challenged and a lot of questions I'm not capable of answering that need answered.

" I am not sure of how many teams are in the bio-passport, but assuming the same ones would be involved that is a lot of market capital tied up"

Like 600 riders. Wada's lame idea that the UCI agreed to because they knew the top teams with the BIG MONEY that pay them would easily dope around it by taking blood out before controls and hemodiluting on albumin and regular saline.

What about that? Is it just flat out to expensive for the sport to handle? How far down the ladder racing levels can you expect to able to go?

The passport? Its lame and dis-allows lower budget operations to use epo or blood dope while allowing the top teams with the big money to keep doping. Pro Cycling is all about hook ups, status quo, popularity and having BIG MONEY from a big budget.

"How do you detect doping in track riders and other disciplines?"

Is it all about the ability to ride in the mountains?

You could look at peak 15 second power, peak 5 second power, etc. Sprinters are freaks and some can do quite well clean. You would not be able to stop doping among track sprinters to some degree, but again just look for the variations.

Wouldn't these devices have to be redesigned to be tamper proof? Does that not guarantee that they will be very expensive?

Its peanuts to F- the power meters up and toy with the files. The government or WADA would have to run the operation, not a special interest group like UCI.

Think of all the bikes carried around in the race.

Things would have to be re-organized.

Baseline testing. How many times per year? What time of year? What is fair to the athlete in terms of what races they prepare for or what time of year to peak? Tamper proof baseline equipment and facilites to test every rider in the pro peleton? Where are these labs? What countries or even what continents? Is all the equipment consistent? Who pays travel expenses?

Baselines at peak fitness (e.g. June). Total body hemoglobin test right before the V02 max test. Your power files throughout the year (leading up to the baseline) would be tracked to make sure your not F-ing around with stuff. All they need is a couple of tests so you can hit your max

One last thing.

Ever go out on a ride and you feel fantastic for no good reason? You think back and can't account for why you feel good? You've done nothing different. Or you may have thought before you get on the bike "I'm doing this but I'm not really up for it" then you find you've just kicked **** for an hour.
I wonder how much that would show on a power tap.
Do I get banned because I had a good day?

again, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there isn't a problem.

A good day maybe you can put on 15 watts more than normal on a good day for 30 minute power. Were talking about 80-120 watts 48 hours out from a big blood refill in the top riders who are starting with high values undoped. Again you'd have to allow for some doping but its peanuts compared to what their doing now.

 

[Anonymous]

A good day maybe you can put on 15 watts more than normal on a good day for 30 minute power. Were talking about 80-120 watts 48 hours out from a big blood refill in the top riders who are starting with high values undoped. Again you'd have to allow for some doping but its peanuts compared to what their doing now.

What about that? Is it just flat out to expensive for the sport to handle? How far down the ladder racing levels can you expect to able to go?

The passport? Its lame and dis-allows lower budget operations to use epo or blood dope while allowing the top teams with the big money to keep doping. Pro Cycling is all about hook ups, status quo, popularity and having BIG MONEY from a big budget.


No, the power tap program

Baseline testing. How many times per year? What time of year? What is fair to the athlete in terms of what races they prepare for or what time of year to peak? Tamper proof baseline equipment and facilites to test every rider in the pro peleton? Where are these labs? What countries or even what continents? Is all the equipment consistent? Who pays travel expenses?

Baselines at peak fitness (e.g. June). Total body hemoglobin test right before the V02 max test. Your power files throughout the year (leading up to the baseline) would be tracked to make sure your not F-ing around with stuff. All they need is a couple of tests so you can hit your max

So, this would be for the grand tour riders only? The June baseline would be useless for races of the following year.
where are you doing the tests? No way the riders come to one place. Make an Aussie rider come to italy to test and I'm thinking jet lag is a problem.
This all starts to sound like a legistics nightmare and/or so expensive it wouldn't even fit in to an F-1 budget, let alone cycling.

 

[davidg]

Some good stuff here guys.

Sounds great to just throw the comment out there, that it is the way to go, but the more you look at it, the more it seems to be a totally impractical approach to the problem.

I think the only merit it has is as an indicator along with other observed values like VAM to perhaps suggest who should be targetted. On this basis, the detection methods have to improve as the definitive ruling on whether a rider has doped.

For example, it is OK to have a rule that says you cannot use EPO, or blood dope, but can you have a rule that says your W/Kg cannot be 7 at FTP. Yes we know that currently that means the rider will (most certainly) have doped, but somewhere there could be someone who is genetically made that way.