Where can we rate the EPO/blooddopers? If even possible.

Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
First a few sources:
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/mar99/mar15.shtml
On Friday, L'Equipe published a table of hematocrit levels of the Gewiss riders. Since 1997, a value over 50 per cent is now considered illegal under UCI rules. Tests done from December 1994 to May 1995 showed that many Gewiss rider were over this limit and increased their readings over this time. The results showed that Riis went from 41.1 to 56.3, Gotti from 40.7 to 57 and Berzin from 41.7 to 53. The Russian Ugromov was the rider with the highest reading - 60 per cent. It was also the period that he was very strong in the mountains of the Tour de France.
Followed by
the Secret Race page 157 said:
Your hematocrit rises with 3 points, what comes down to 3 % more power.
I must say the above statement by Hamilton is the core of this topic.

Moving on with Matt Rendells book ''the Death of Marco Pantani'' and his dblab.wdb graphs on page 317.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=6cnywqLVzuIC&pg=PT151&lpg=PT151&dq=dblab.wdb&source=bl&ots=jKyRIwPdAt&sig=XNL5afftyYahvq1r6Q_VHmYeq9o&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=p1ZVUt6FEoGCtAbSl4DwAw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dblab.wdb&f=false
Pantani's baseline HCt is around 43.4 there. His average HCT in the 1994 and 1995 Tour is according to that file around 57.5

Next source is the climbing times:
http://tour-manager.freehostia.com/climbingtimes.htm

What I am getting at is where/how or can we rate EPO/blooddoped riders?

For instance Ivan Gotti.

His Htc rises from 41 to 57, according to Hamilton this would mean a 16% increase of power. Lets go back to Alpe d'Huez 1995, Gotti comes in ninth almost 3 minutes down on Pantani. What would be Ivans time when he didnt use EPO? Would that be 16% slower? So around 46 minutes?

How about Pantani?

He went from ~43 to 57.5, a rise of 14.5 in power.
That would give him a time of 42 minutes 10 seconds. Still a very respectable time that would Pantani near Delgado/Fignon times of 1989. Around 5.8w/k but no way in hell he could have done that in the third week of a GT cleanish given the fact in normal circumstances hct gives a drop over a three week GT. Lets assume his hct had dropped to 40 or 39, quite normal, what would his time have been then? Three or four % less power would put him on 44 minutes? Still not bad. Just a tiny bit slower and certainly no GT winner material. Top ten possibly but when you are 2 minutes down on Pensec for instance you need to be a good TT'er...

How about Riis?

In his Gewiss days he had a Hct rise of around 15, from 41 to 56. In his Telekom time he supposedly did the Tour with a Hct of 64. Did that show of in the performance?
Yeah, it did. Take Hautacam 1994 versus 1996 for instance.
Hautacam 1994, the Big Mig show:
Miguel Indurain 35 min 24 seconds
Bjarne Riis 37 min 43 sec

Hautacam 1996, the Bjarne show:
Bjarne Riis 34 minu 35 sec

1996 vs 1994 an 8% gain in power, that would equate to 181 seconds faster, well, thats not so far of.

What would a 'clean' Bjarne have done there? Well, 64 minus 41 makes 23% less power. That would put Bjarne on 42 minutes and about 30 seconds. More interestingly, that would put him on about 5w/k, pack fodder, like he was when he was a dom for Fignon. Not bad at all but dear Bjarne would not have lead his own Cycling World Tour Team with those numbers. I know a few others who would have though.

It also works the other way around.
See Ullrich 1996 Hautacam versus 2000 Hautacam.
1996: 36 minutes 8 seconds
2000: 39 minutes 44 seconds

Thats a 10% difference. What hct was Jan on in 1996? 59? 60? What is his natural hct? A median 43? That would give him at least 16% advantage in power in comparison to clean Jan.

Of course there are other variables to reckon with [and please correct me where you think I am wrong]. Insuline and other growth hormones that were/are abused in the peloton, a pint of blood extra in your body also seems to come in very handy every now and then - because now way in hell Armstrong clean is going to do clean a 41 minute on the alpe -, also lighter bikes will have had their influence, also the course of the race is very much of influence, but I thought it would be interesting to try to place known/suspected dopers in a historical context and to find some sort of explanation why Lucho Herrera is listed as number 165 on the historical Alpe d'Huez list:
http://www.fillarifoorumi.fi/forum/showthread.php?38129-Ammattilaispy%F6r%E4ilij%F6iden-nousutietoja-(aika-km-h-VAM-W-W-kg-etc-)&p=2041611#post2041611

:mad:
 
Apr 21, 2012
410
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
It also works the other way around.
See Ullrich 1996 Hautacam versus 2000 Hautacam.
1996: 36 minutes 8 seconds
2000: 39 minutes 44 seconds
Interesting !

Riis' transformation from dom to GT winner matches very well as by now we've got informations about the riders' Hct in the mid nineties.

I find it much more complicated in the LA era : in 2000 for example (rumours of EPO test, fear of police raids) what was Ullrich on, what was Pantani on ? Both had a good third week while LA had a significant decline (Courchvel, Morzine). The only thing we know is that LA had a transfusion before the Ventoux, but why was he so strong a week before on Hautacam and not Pantani/Ullrich, did LA had 2 blood bags as Ullrich had only one ?
 
Just a gentle reminder that EPO/whatever-is-used-now does not have the same effect on every athlete. If JV1973 is to be believed, he was not assisted by EPO like an Armstrong.

Fundamentally, the human-scale performance premise has been destroyed by EPO and the HCT rule, the Testosterone ratio rule and what has come after it. That's just Olympic sports. Other sports with no IOC telling them how to act have it as bad if not worse.

There's no good answer to your questions.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
Gregga said:
I find it much more complicated in the LA era : in 2000 for example (rumours of EPO test, fear of police raids) what was Ullrich on, what was Pantani on ? Both had a good third week while LA had a significant decline (Courchvel, Morzine). The only thing we know is that LA had a transfusion before the Ventoux, but why was he so strong a week before on Hautacam and not Pantani/Ullrich, did LA had 2 blood bags as Ullrich had only one ?
Yes, that also riddles me. There are not a lot of data points for Armstrong. Yes, he lost some of his weight in comparison to his linebacker body of 1994 till 1996, but where did he get his power? It sure as hell was in the blood.

Ullrich and Pantani in 2000? Well, they were on minutes after Hautacam, and remember Pantani looking at his computer on the way to Hautacam and just shrugging his head: NOT NORMAL.

What they were on? Beats me to be frankl. If Ullrich had a bloodbank why did he need to go to Fuentes? Pantani? They would have been closer to home I think.

I recall you mentioning the spike in Pantani's performance had the signs of a bloodbag before.

Ullrich didn't like the rain. Even when he was as jacked up as anyone else in 1998 the rain was his undoing.
Good point, and a good variable. Also important: Jan did not eat enough and always needed a chaperone to tell him to eat.
Just a gentle reminder that EPO/whatever-is-used-now does not have the same effect on every athlete. If JV1973 is to be believed, he was not assisted by EPO like an Armstrong.
Yeah, he had other training techniques which set that record on Ventoux, the snake oil salesman. But to be fair, he did not get the advantage EPO brought others, he must have been taken a lot of beetrootjuice.
There's no good answer to your questions.
Perhaps not. But we can speculate. Guys like Vayer know the difference between clean Virenque's and pumped up Virenque's, yet their pumped up VO2 maxes were not enough. There are limits to what doping makes possible. Hopefully those field men will eventually write a nice scientific piece on it.
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
What would a 'clean' Bjarne have done there? Well, 64 minus 41 makes 23% less power.
interesting thread but math doesn't quite work like this. If Hamilton is to be believed, 41 -> 64 = 23% increase. But that means 64 -> 41 would be a ~19% decrease. The power difference is only 19% of the inflated figure.

But I suspect that Hamilton's statement is an oversimpliciation, which assumes that HCT is around 50. Rather you should look at the percentage increase in HCT relative to base HCT, and divide by 2 (don't remember where I read this). So in this case, (64 - 41) / 41 / 2 = .274 or 27.4% boost in power.
 
Probably also worth noting that neither Pantani or Ullrich had many race miles in their legs come Tour time in 2000, they'd both been out for a year IIRC.

Not just about doping, you have to be training and peaking as well.
 
hrotha said:
Whatever you think of JV, that people with high natural hematocrits like him benefit less from EPO is obvious.
This. Also, when making that statement, didnt he actually qualify it by saying that he did not benefit as much "in a GT context". I remember him saying that it was recovery and protein resynthesis issues that was his undoing in longer races. Could be wrong tho, both factually and my memory playing tricks on me.

In other words, oxygen carrying capacity is helluva important, but in the end one must have (=get) the whole package. Some parts of it are genetical, some trainable, still others chemical, and it's their interaction that counts.
 
Oct 17, 2012
331
0
0
red_flanders said:
Probably also worth noting that neither Pantani or Ullrich had many race miles in their legs come Tour time in 2000, they'd both been out for a year IIRC.

Not just about doping, you have to be training and peaking as well.
According to Matt Rendall's book after Pantani's bust in the 99 Giro, he went on a mental and physical decline due to coke, alcohol and other stuff and was never the same rider again. All the PEDs in the world would not have got him back to his 98 form.
 
Spencer the Half Wit said:
According to Matt Rendall's book after Pantani's bust in the 99 Giro, he went on a mental and physical decline due to coke, alcohol and other stuff and was never the same rider again. All the PEDs in the world would not have got him back to his 98 form.
Definitely a character worthy of emulation. Maybe we can celebrate him at the Giro or something. :confused:

Dave.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
proffate said:
interesting thread but math doesn't quite work like this. If Hamilton is to be believed, 41 -> 64 = 23% increase. But that means 64 -> 41 would be a ~19% decrease. The power difference is only 19% of the inflated figure.

But I suspect that Hamilton's statement is an oversimpliciation, which assumes that HCT is around 50. Rather you should look at the percentage increase in HCT relative to base HCT, and divide by 2 (don't remember where I read this). So in this case, (64 - 41) / 41 / 2 = .274 or 27.4% boost in power.
Well, that is very interesting. If you ever can find the source for that I would be much obliged. It is probably an oversimplification on the part of Hamilton but nevertheless for me a very interesting angle.

The problem of course is we dont know the baselines for the riders, or what their hct's were in those days, just those in the Ferrara files are known.
 
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
Well, that is very interesting. If you ever can find the source for that I would be much obliged. It is probably an oversimplification on the part of Hamilton but nevertheless for me a very interesting angle.

The problem of course is we dont know the baselines for the riders, or what their hct's were in those days, just those in the Ferrara files are known.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=501372&postcount=12
 
red_flanders said:
Probably also worth noting that neither Pantani or Ullrich had many race miles in their legs come Tour time in 2000, they'd both been out for a year IIRC.

Not just about doping, you have to be training and peaking as well.
No. Ullrich missed the Tour in 1999, but it wasn't a major injury. He came back in August, I think.

What he did in early 2000 I can't recall, but probably it was Jan being post 97 Jan.
 
roundabout said:
No. Ullrich missed the Tour in 1999, but it wasn't a major injury. He came back in August, I think.

What he did in early 2000 I can't recall, but probably it was Jan being post 97 Jan.
Thanks for the clarification. You get the point though, in July 2000 it had been how long since he'd raced a GT to win? IIRC he was sandbagging before the Tour indicating that everyone needed to calm down (about his chances to win) as it had been too long without the necessary training and racing.
 
Apr 21, 2012
410
0
0
roundabout said:
He did win the 1999 Vuelta.

He was okish in the TdS in 2000.
5th, actually +2:07 behind Camenzind.
Interesting, that would mean he wasn't recovering from blood withdrawal...
So, was in on EPO before/during the TdF ?
 
D-Queued said:
Definitely a character worthy of emulation. Maybe we can celebrate him at the Giro or something. :confused:

Dave.
Sadly the Italians have not come to the same confusion, though there is an element of pathos in Pantani's story: that tragic component of the ancient Greek world, which even among the most hardened of moralists is something that defies the purely rational critique.

So it is with every extinguished artist.
 
rhubroma said:
Sadly the Italians have not come to the same confusion, though there is an element of pathos in Pantani's story: that tragic component of the ancient Greek world, which even among the most hardened of moralists is something that defies the purely rational critique.

So it is with every extinguished artist.
Probably not the thread for it, but this reminds me of another, closer-to-home cycling community confusion.

Not long ago, a local group was putting together a fund that would provide financial support awards to youth cyclists.

There was very fierce lobbying by an influential part of that community to have the award named after someone that had a long-time involvement with cycling youth.

Sounded good.

But, then somebody pointed out some minor detail of a conviction for child molestation or something like that. Oddly, that didn't completely make the lobby effort disappear even though cooler heads ultimately did prevail.

All of which is to say that cyclists can be idiots.

Dave.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
D-Queued said:
Probably not the thread for it, but this reminds me of another, closer-to-home cycling community confusion.

Not long ago, a local group was putting together a fund that would provide financial support awards to youth cyclists.

There was very fierce lobbying by an influential part of that community to have the award named after someone that had a long-time involvement with cycling youth.

Sounded good.

But, then somebody pointed out some minor detail of a conviction for child molestation or something like that. Oddly, that didn't completely make the lobby effort disappear even though cooler heads ultimately did prevail.

All of which is to say that cyclists can be idiots.

Dave.
what, they wanted to name it after genavieve jeanson's coach? :eek:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY