Were the 80s any cleaner than whenever?

[slcbiker]

I guess it is somewhat of a semantic difference, but I'd say aerobic power is more what I would characterize as endurance or power endurance. And recovery is not really power either.

I wouldn't have thought that EPO was the big drug for Marion Jones. Wasn't she on some sort of custom steroid from BALCO? Since sprints under 200M and arguably under 400M are anaerobic efforts, I'd be pretty suprised if the benefits of EPO outweighed the benefit of a good steroid.

To put it another way, when I think of power, I think of max watts. I don't think EPO has too much of an effect on that. Probably less than steroids. Where it does work is allowing a higher percentage of max watts for a longer time. Which is, of course, much more important for most road cyclists.

 

[Velodude]

I guess it is somewhat of a semantic difference, but I'd say aerobic power is more what I would characterize as endurance or power endurance. And recovery is not really power either.

I wouldn't have thought that EPO was the big drug for Marion Jones. Wasn't she on some sort of custom steroid from BALCO? Since sprints under 200M and arguably under 400M are anaerobic efforts, I'd be pretty suprised if the benefits of EPO outweighed the benefit of a good steroid.

To put it another way, when I think of power, I think of max watts. I don't think EPO has too much of an effect on that. Probably less than steroids. Where it does work is allowing a higher percentage of max watts for a longer time. Which is, of course, much more important for most road cyclists.

Jones was taking designer steroids (from BALCO). It was her former husband and PED partaker, CJ Hunter, who claimed that Jones was also taking EPO to 2000.

She failed an A sample urine test for EPO in 2006 but the B sample proved negative.

A highly trained sprinter can only achieve maximum watts for about 6 seconds. The fast finishers in a sprint race are slowing down slower than the others.

A higher sustainable aerobic power is more beneficial for a cyclist than drag race watts. You will not see top velodrome sprinters being competitive in a road race. Conversely, top stage race sprinters are usually endurance velodrome track racers.

Miguel Indurain had the greatest respect for stage race sprinters to be able to unwind their power at the end of a stage race.

 

[ChrisE]

Can't actually site anything specific (Dr Mas is going to lose his sh*t over that), but I was talking to Ashenden in regards to refining the EPO test pre-Sydney games and his contention was that it increased cyclists' power 10-15%.

Imagine that! 10% more power? And better O2 carrying potential, and better recovery! Wow, that's some evil sh*t....

Look fellows, I am not debating that EPO has no benefit. I am debating its effectiveness far outweighing the effectiveness of steroids, of which my debate is opinion only. I admit that.

Does everybody agree that if somebody was strictly taking EPO, and then they took roids on top of that, they would be stronger than with EPO alone? I think (hope) we can all agree on that, else why the cocktail of PED's of the modern regimen. I think we can all agree that the introduction of EPO was in conjunction with roid use that was already prevalent.

So, my original assertion that if roids came after EPO then roids would take the rider "to the next level". There are no controlled tests comparing the two, so who knows what is more effective because they are most effective when taken together.

What I do know is that roids or test or "strengthening" PED's offer a great benefit to cyclists. I do admit it is amusing hearing some of you in here that don't know shyt about taking these drugs or the effect they have play them down as ineffective, for the sole reason to support an agenda. For my amusement I end back up on big dookie's ignore list, which I hope I can live with.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Look fellows, I am not debating that EPO has no benefit. I am debating its effectiveness far outweighing the effectiveness of steroids, of which my debate is opinion only. I admit that.

Does everybody agree that if somebody was strictly taking EPO, and then they took roids on top of that, they would be stronger than with EPO alone? I think (hope) we can all agree on that, else why the cocktail of PED's of the modern regimen. I think we can all agree that the introduction of EPO was in conjunction with roid use that was already prevalent.

So, my original assertion that if roids came after EPO then roids would take the rider "to the next level". There are no controlled tests comparing the two, so who knows what is more effective because they are most effective when taken together.

And no-one is arguing that steroids would have no benefit.

However (and I think we can all agree ) is that for a sport like cycling a blood boosting product would offer far more of a benefit than steroids.
If you are struggling with this notion than you need only look at the results of what happened once EPO was introduced in the late 80's and as it started to become widespread.

What I do know is that roids or test or "strengthening" PED's offer a great benefit to cyclists. I do admit it is amusing hearing some of you in here that don't know shyt about taking these drugs or the effect they have play them down as ineffective, for the sole reason to support an agenda. For my amusement I end back up on big dookie's ignore list, which I hope I can live with.

Interesting statement - care to elaborate?

 

[ChrisE]

And no-one is arguing that steroids would have no benefit.

However (and I think we can all agree ) is that for a sport like cycling a blood boosting product would offer far more of a benefit than steroids.
If you are struggling with this notion than you need only look at the results of what happened once EPO was introduced in the late 80's and as it started to become widespread.


Interesting statement - care to elaborate?

Agreed, EPO introduction on top of roids (you conveniently failed to mention that) had a great benefit when introduced into cycling. Cyclists didn't toss these other PED's in the trash in 1990 or whenever EPO came around. Our beloved LA even allegedly got in trouble for roids in the early/mid 90's. WTF was he doing messing around with those?

No, I don't care to elaborate how I know this. Don't you trust me?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Agreed, EPO introduction on top of roids (you conveniently failed to mention that) had a great benefit when introduced into cycling. Cyclists didn't toss these other PED's in the trash in 1990 or whenever EPO came around. Our beloved LA even allegedly got in trouble for roids in the early/mid 90's. WTF was he doing messing around with those?

No, I don't care to elaborate how I know this. Don't you trust me?

No, nothing convenient - it was deliberate.

Your original point appears to be trying to suggest that both would have excellent benefits - as I stated steroids would give strength, while good the benefits of EPO as a blood booster would be far more significant.

 

[ChrisE]

No, nothing convenient - it was deliberate.

Your original point appears to be trying to suggest that both would have excellent benefits - as I stated steroids would give strength, while good the benefits of EPO as a blood booster would be far more significant.

So, if EPO had been around for years and in 1990 roids started being used, and thus speeds increased, the role that roids played in that speed increase would be still be played off as secondary to EPO? I'm not sure I agree, obviously.

But, since that was not the case and Greg Lemond couldn't beat anybody on EPO (ie the 18th beer instead of the 1st), I do understand the difficulty some of you have in hypothetically reversing history.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So, if EPO had been around for years and in 1990 roids started being used, and thus speeds increased, the role that roids played in that speed increase would be still be played off as secondary to EPO? I'm not sure I agree, obviously.

If?
EPO = Blood booster.
Steroids = Strength.

EPO > Streroids.

But, since that was not the case and Greg Lemond couldn't beat anybody on EPO (ie the 18th beer instead of the 1st), I do understand the difficulty some of you have in hypothetically reversing history.

I am glad you finally admitted what your agenda is - but history does not support it, not even after 18 beers.

 

[ChrisE]

If?
EPO = Blood booster.
Steroids = Strength.

EPO > Streroids.


I am glad you finally admitted what your agenda is - but history does not support it, not even after 18 beers.

More power needs more energy, right? They compliment eachother.

Everybody knows that I am skeptical that a clean rider can beat a roided rider on a consistent basis. My opinion is clear and consistent as long as I have posted here, and I admit this is what I think and thus my "agenda" as you say. And, I don't give a shyt who that clean rider is. Others can't admit their agenda, or look critically at the situation, because of where they fall on the anti-LA scale. They cover their ears and state their opinion as fact, and throw hissy fits with ignore features when somebody writes something they don't like. We are talking 80's PED use, and that obviously leads to this discussion. I have nothing to hide on what I think.

Do you believe when EPO was introduced it was used in conjunction with other PED's? Simple yes or no question. I will respond after you answer.

BTW, you say EPO was introduced in the late 80's. I was corrected in a thread awhile back that it had to be 1993 else it soils Andy Hampsten's reputation by finishing 4th in 1992. This whole web of what fan favorite could beat what PED at what point in history is all pretty confusing. What makes it even more confusing is I didn't even know Hampsten was ****ed off at LA, thus causing calendar gymnastics.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

More power needs more energy, right? They compliment eachother.

Has anyone suggested that other PEDs stopped being used with the introduction of EPO?
I would doubt that.

The discussion from what I have seen is the effectiveness of the 2 different PEDs.

Everybody knows that I am skeptical that a clean rider can beat a roided rider on a consistent basis. My opinion is clear and consistent as long as I have posted here, and I admit this is what I think and thus my "agenda" as you say. And, I don't give a shyt who that clean rider is. Others can't admit their agenda, or look critically at the situation, because of where they fall on the anti-LA scale. They cover their ears and state their opinion as fact, and throw hissy fits with ignore features when somebody writes something they don't like. We are talking 80's PED use, and that obviously leads to this discussion. I have nothing to hide on what I think.

Your opinion is clear & consistent - and it is wrong.

"They/others" - who? What opinions did they state as fact?

Do you believe when EPO was introduced it was used in conjunction with other PED's? Simple yes or no question. I will respond after you answer.

Of course EPO is used with other PEDs - however that was not your original point.

BTW, you say EPO was introduced in the late 80's. I was corrected in a thread awhile back that it had to be 1993 else it soils Andy Hampsten's reputation by finishing 4th in 1992. This whole web of what fan favorite could beat what PED at what point in history is all pretty confusing. What makes it even more confusing is I didn't even know Hampsten was ****ed off at LA, thus causing calendar gymnastics.

You were "corrected" and then just accepted that, hmmm, why do I think that may not be an accurate summary of what happened.

 

[Krebs cycle]

However (and I think we can all agree ) is that for a sport like cycling a blood boosting product would offer far more of a benefit than steroids.
If you are struggling with this notion than you need only look at the results of what happened once EPO was introduced in the late 80's and as it started to become widespread.

EPO = Blood booster.
Steroids = Strength.

EPO > Streroids.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Mar;93(3):914-9. Epub 2007 Dec 26.
Effects of graded doses of testosterone on erythropoiesis in healthy young and older men.
Coviello AD, Kaplan B, Lakshman KM, Chen T, Singh AB, Bhasin S.

Hemoglobin and hematocrit increased significantly in a linear, dose-dependent fashion in both young and older men in response to graded doses of testosterone (P<0.0001).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18160461

yes I am sure we all agree that wrt blood boosting.....
EPO > steroids

however we should also acknowledge that wrt blood boosting alone....
steroids > no steroids

Furthermore, we know that the testosterone:cortisol ratio is dramatically reduced during a single bout of ultra endurance exercise, and we also know that cyclists in GTs experience marked drops in bodyweight, so given that steroids counteract the catabolic effect of cortisol, it is extremely likely that steroid use during a GT will aid recovery and benefit performance in the latter stages ie: during the ITT where everyone loves to compare riders performances against each other from year to year.

Thus wrt PERFORMANCE it really is a bit of an unknown as to exactly how much steroids influenced performance in the 80s prior to EPO. In the 90s the testing procedures for steroids were improved and therefore, it got more risky to be using them throughout a GT whereas in the early 80s especially it was very probable that steroids were being employed during a GT itself as opposed to only during the preparation phase (which was of course widespread through the 90s and 2000s)

 

[blutto]

...here is a little quote to chew on...

EPO was certified as medicine in 1989, but the French newspaper Le Monde reported already at jan.1988, that it was obtainable at the black market as a product in test phase. The Danish physician Søren Kragbak has reported, that in 1989 a Swedish medical company had contacted the Danish Cycling Union, with the request to make a secret EPO test study on selected riders. This was however rejected, since DCU considered it too dangerous. Instead the test programme was allegedly run in collaboration with the Swedish Cross Country team.

Cheers

blutto

 

[Polish]

However (and I think we can all agree ) is that for a sport like cycling a blood boosting product would offer far more of a benefit than steroids.
If you are struggling with this notion than you need only look at the results of what happened once EPO was introduced in the late 80's and as it started to become widespread.
?

The part I bolded in your post is simplistic.
You know that, right? You were just being silly?
Forgot to add a face?

If I may be simplistic too, let me add that comparing one decade to the next is aided when you add a few more variables.

How about:
1) Technology
2) Training
3) PEDs
4) Riders themselves.

Why were the 80's faster than the 70's?
Technology/Training/PEDs/Riders themselves...

Why were the 90's faster than the 80's?
Technology/Training/PEDs/Riders themselves...

Why were the 00's faster than the 90's?
Technology/TrainingTrainingTraining/PEDs/Riders themselves...

These graphs of TdF speeds represented as a 10year moving average and actual yearly winning speeds are helpful (thank you StyrbjornSterki)

 

[Animal]

Deflect, obfuscate, misdirect, argue. That's all you do, you fool. You don't even have a point any more.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Mar;93(3):914-9. Epub 2007 Dec 26.
Effects of graded doses of testosterone on erythropoiesis in healthy young and older men.
Coviello AD, Kaplan B, Lakshman KM, Chen T, Singh AB, Bhasin S.

Hemoglobin and hematocrit increased significantly in a linear, dose-dependent fashion in both young and older men in response to graded doses of testosterone (P<0.0001).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18160461

Fascinating stuff - thanks for that info

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...here is a little quote to chew on...

EPO was certified as medicine in 1989, but the French newspaper Le Monde reported already at jan.1988, that it was obtainable at the black market as a product in test phase. The Danish physician Søren Kragbak has reported, that in 1989 a Swedish medical company had contacted the Danish Cycling Union, with the request to make a secret EPO test study on selected riders. This was however rejected, since DCU considered it too dangerous. Instead the test programme was allegedly run in collaboration with the Swedish Cross Country team.

Cheers

blutto

You know, it would satisfy my hunger if you put in a link to your piece.

When I checked the piece you quote I get led back to some unsourced blogs??

But I found this on CN:

Kragbak denies and doubts that Refshammer really has said that he offered EPO to the track riders in 1991. According to him, the Danish Cycling Union was offered EPO from a Swedish medical company in 1989. They wanted to test the product on the riders but the Danish Sports federation turned the offer down, since EPO was considered to be too dangerous.

Spot the difference?

I already stated that IMO EPO was introduced in the late 80's - we had a good discussion trying to establish this in a different thread here - but of course you'd know that as you were part of it, trying as you do to establish that it was readily available in 89 because LeMond kicked your ass back in the day.

 

[blutto]

Deflect, obfuscate, misdirect, argue. That's all you do, you fool. You don't even have a point any more.

...yeah its funny... really got a laugh once when someone on the forum suggested he change his handle to Dr. Obfuscation...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Suedehead]

...here is a little quote to chew on...

EPO was certified as medicine in 1989, but the French newspaper Le Monde reported already at jan.1988, that it was obtainable at the black market as a product in test phase. The Danish physician Søren Kragbak has reported, that in 1989 a Swedish medical company had contacted the Danish Cycling Union, with the request to make a secret EPO test study on selected riders. This was however rejected, since DCU considered it too dangerous. Instead the test programme was allegedly run in collaboration with the Swedish Cross Country team.

Cheers

blutto

Well then, EPO don't work.The swedish skiers went from worlds best before epo to being beaten by the Italians etc after epo was introduced. Curiously this swedish epo didn't quite raise the blood value of the skiers like other epo, so no surprise the skiers had no sudden velocity increase. And amgen had no known problem that another pharmaceutical infringed their patent so soon after they started selling it. And of course said pharmaceutical being snubbed told the danish doctor that then we give it to our country men the skiers instead. But then maybe amgen only had a north american patent, and the sly swedes just used it enough to not raise eye brows, micro dosing 12 years before anybody else.

 

[ChrisE]

Of course EPO is used with other PEDs - however that was not your original point.

You were "corrected" and then just accepted that, hmmm, why do I think that may not be an accurate summary of what happened.

I'm sorry, I think I originally wrote something to the effect that if roids came after EPO they a would be considered "game changers", since they increased performance in combination with EPO more than just EPO alone. That was what has started this whole discussion.

I was being sarcastic about the Hampsten comment, because I see the pretzel logic amongst the kool kids in excusing their heroes in the face of damning evidence. More sarcasm - I guess Hampsten was better than GL because GL started losing in 1991 after the introduction of EPO, while AH still did well. Could GL only compete with roided up riders, and AH could compete with EPO/roided up riders? Which is it, fanboys?

Now back on topic, you have admitted that when EPO was introduced it was used in conjunction with other PED's. So, how much of an increase in output did EPO contribute to whole increase %? 80%? 60%? You don't know that answer because that leads to my other point; no controlled studies have been done comparing different PED regimens. It is all "opinion", whether "informed" or not whatever the fark that means on a subject that can only be proven by experiment.

Finally, back to GL....since EPO only contributed an unknown % to the overall output increase, could GL beat a rider on EPO only? It obviously took a cocktail to beat him, right?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm sorry, I think I originally wrote something to the effect that if roids came after EPO they a would be considered "game changers", since they increased performance in combination with EPO more than just EPO alone. That was what has started this whole discussion.

Yes, that is what you were trying to say - it is still baloney.

I was being sarcastic about the Hampsten comment, because I see the pretzel logic amongst the kool kids in excusing their heroes in the face of damning evidence. More sarcasm - I guess Hampsten was better than GL because GL started losing in 1991 after the introduction of EPO, while AH still did well. Could GL only compete with roided up riders, and AH could compete with EPO/roided up riders? Which is it, fanboys?

And I was being sarcastic about sarcastic (& irrelevant) Hampsden comment, I apologize and realize I should have added a

As for the rest - I have no idea what you are on about.

Now back on topic, you have admitted that when EPO was introduced it was used in conjunction with other PED's. So, how much of an increase in output did EPO contribute to whole increase %? 80%? 60%? You don't know that answer because that leads to my other point; no controlled studies have been done comparing different PED regimens. It is all "opinion", whether "informed" or not whatever the fark that means on a subject that can only be proven by experiment.

And I clearly stated it was my opinion - what is your point?

This may come as a shock to you - but you are never going to find a peer reviewed study on PEDs among professional riders as it being a sanctionable offence the Pro riders won't divulge that information.

Some of us have used common sense and logic to view the available data, but as you say YMMV

Finally, back to GL....since EPO only contributed an unknown % to the overall output increase, could GL beat a rider on EPO only? It obviously took a cocktail to beat him, right?

I have no idea what the above means, that is your agenda, not mine.

Chris, its quite simple.
If you want to debate the issues then bring better facts or information - if you just want to just troll, then troll someone who actually made the comments that you appear to be attributing to me.
In other words troll better.

 

[ChrisE]

BS.

WE don't have facts on this. And who said anything about professional riders in a study? There are zero studies comparing the effects of various PEDs, whether riders, monkeys, or whatever. Thus I can call your posts baloney as well. So nah nah.

Also, I always thought you could read English. My apologies.

Doc, it's quite simple. If you want to debate the issues then bring better facts or information or learn to troll better. Else we can just state our opinions and move on.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

BS.

WE don't have facts on this. And who said anything about professional riders in a study? There are zero studies comparing the effects of various PEDs, whether riders, monkeys, or whatever. Thus I can call your posts baloney as well. So nah nah.

Also, I always thought you could read English. My apologies.

Doc, it's quite simple. If you want to debate the issues then bring better facts or information or learn to troll better. Else we can just state our opinions and move on.

I am happy to state my opinion, and have no problem backing up that opinion.

I stated my opinion - did you just the "move on"?
No, then you decided to add irrelevant and off topic information, and then you decided to (attempt to) attribute views or comments that I did not make and often do not share.

You want to discuss the info, then discuss the info - you want to try troll me than troll better.

 

[Krebs cycle]

This may come as a shock to you - but you are never going to find a peer reviewed study on PEDs among professional riders as it being a sanctionable offence the Pro riders won't divulge that information.
.

Dr I think chrisE has a fair point here which is aloing the lines of why I posted this thread in the first place. Even though the sport science literature is 98% on recreational/well trained/sub-elite and 2% elite athlete population, we can get a feel from studies on trained individuals for what we might expect in an elite population. I don't believe there is that much difference in the underlying physiological mechanisms between trained and elite humans that we cannot make an educated guess.

But the point that chrisE makes which is the crux is that there are no studies whatsoever on any population which examine the effect of steroids on endurance cycling performance. My gut feeling agrees with you that it is very unlikely that the benefit from steroids alone is as good as the 90s era cocktail of EPO + HGH + IGF-1 + steroid hormone, but we cannot say with any level of certainty exactly how much steroids contributed to GT cycling performance enhancement in the 80s because we just don't know.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr I think chrisE has a fair point here which is aloing the lines of why I posted this thread in the first place. Even though the sport science literature is 98% on recreational/well trained/sub-elite and 2% elite athlete population, we can get a feel from studies on trained individuals for what we might expect in an elite population. I don't believe there is that much difference in the underlying physiological mechanisms between trained and elite humans that we cannot make an educated guess.

But the point that chrisE makes which is the crux is that there are no studies whatsoever on any population which examine the effect of steroids on endurance cycling performance. My gut feeling agrees with you that it is very unlikely that the benefit from steroids alone is as good as the 90s era cocktail of EPO + HGH + IGF-1 + steroid hormone, but we cannot say with any level of certainty exactly how much steroids contributed to GT cycling performance enhancement in the 80s because we just don't know.

You think 'ChrisE' has a fair point?
Of course he doesn't - he has an agenda, please do not confuse the two.

That is why he mentions riders names as opposed to debating the information at hand.
I realize this comes across as abrasive, but why should I (and you) sit on my hands and not encourage a mature and proper debate on the information.

You started a thread here in good faith to explore the possibility of a 'cleaner Tour', you and I are quite content at looking at the information objectively and coming to our own conclusions, others aren't which is why I have no hesitation in calling out their BS.

To get back to the point - steroids obviously have a benefit, they help in strength and muscle development. But for a sport like cycling this IMO will (at best) plateau out at cardiovascular limit.
Which is why EPO as a PED that enhances the cardiovascular is the PED for a sport like cycling.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

'...'To get back to the point - steroids obviously have a benefit, they help in strength and muscle development. But for a sport like cycling this IMO will (at best) plateau out at cardiovascular limit.
Which is why EPO as a PED that enhances the cardiovascular is the PED for a sport like cycling.

androgens stimulate erthyropoesis

Hemoglobin and hematocrit increased significantly in a linear, dose-dependent fashion in both young and older men in response to graded doses of testosterone (P<0.0001)

The point appears to be that steroids like testosterone increase hemoglobin, as well as improving strength.