Alex Hutchinson calls out CANOVA over study confirming EPO works on Kenyan runners

rekrunner wrote:

I never doubted that. I would say it was very lucrative for Ferrari to sell his "services" to Lance and his teammates.

The former rather than the latter wrote:

Then trust in the fact that he doped Lance rather than convincing him that he didn't need to.

You can charge for coaching too you know.

rekrunner wrote:

I never doubted that. I would say it was very lucrative for Ferrari to sell his "services" to Lance and his teammates.

The former rather than the latter wrote:

Then trust in the fact that he doped Lance rather than convincing him that he didn't need to.

He could have just injected him with placebo distilled water labelled as EPO and made more money. But he didn't.

rekrunner wrote:

According to Lance's expert -- a clean Lance even beats a dirty peloton:

"Therefore Armstrong would have achieved the same level of performance without resorting to doping, also thanks to his talent which was far superior to the rivals of his era."

Desperate words from a desperate man. Since Lance is the most high-profile doping case in the history of professional cycling, IMO, he's trying to distance himself from LA.

If this was true, why didn't he also say the same thing about two of his prized pupils, Berzin (Giro winner) & Riis (96 TdF), when he was the team doping doctor with Gewiss–Ballan back in the 90s?

Or working with the Spanish Athletic Federation?

Even the Italian authorities finally had enough of his unscrupulous doping practices with athletes:

Watered down whisky for full price wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I never doubted that. I would say it was very lucrative for Ferrari to sell his "services" to Lance and his teammates.

He could have just injected him with placebo distilled water labelled as EPO and made more money. But he didn't.

Claims of placebo for Armstrong/Ferrari are such nonsense, from what LA has said repeatedly his sponsors were obsessed with results. If Ferrari didn't deliver performance enhancement, he would've been gone.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Watered down whisky for full price wrote:

He could have just injected him with placebo distilled water labelled as EPO and made more money. But he didn't.

Claims of placebo for Armstrong/Ferrari are such nonsense, from what LA has said repeatedly his sponsors were obsessed with results. If Ferrari didn't deliver performance enhancement, he would've been gone.

Exactly. Ferrari knew that only dope would deliver real results.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Watered down whisky for full price wrote:

He could have just injected him with placebo distilled water labelled as EPO and made more money. But he didn't.

Claims of placebo for Armstrong/Ferrari are such nonsense, from what LA has said repeatedly his sponsors were obsessed with results. If Ferrari didn't deliver performance enhancement, he would've been gone.

"No longer confined to Earth...now we have learned to fly:"

Just found this, pretty overwhelming; wattage and speeds collapsed after 2006 (Armstrong retired just as newer more effective testing methods came in). Let's just see Rek & JO spin this.

https://bicycles.stackexchange.com

Let's just see Rek & JO spin this.

Or this,

https://wattmatters.blog/home/2018/7/20/alpe-dhuez-tdf-fastest-ascent-times-1982-2018

Something happened after 1989, now what could that have been?

Jon will likely claim carbon bikes and better pedals/shoes.

Watts are Watts though

Subway Surfers wrote:Something happened after 1989, now what could that have been?

As I mentioned not too long time ago the Dutch researchers who have a taken more skeptical approach on how rHuEPO affects performance, there is a pretty new research paper about Paris-Nice which is prestigious stage race and about one of its ascents (Col d'Eze) where time trial W/kg and VAM figures (no draft effect affecting the figure) are estimated from different editions of the race throughout the decades.

To make the long story short, there is no clear improvement in the EPO-era. Of course there are some items different in the different editions (amount of ascent/length slightly different). I have taken only a precursory look into the material and even if one can find items explaining surprisingly low EPO-era performance, it is strange why the high W/kg figures just don't jump into your face if rHuEPO could've been available all through the year.

The study can be located by google using terms "Lodewijkx" and "col d'eze" and one of the first links is researchgate.

Say what??? LA, Riis, Pantani, Ullrich - all prolific EPO users who have won the Tour & other GTs during the EPO-abuse era. You're in the extreme minority that believe this. Trying running this through over at "The Clinic" forum and see what happens. Lol.

That was summary of the study, not my opinion. Instead of having even to contact anyone, at least you could take a look at the material before your borderline hysterical metamorphosis.

Did you really not read and understand the words before and after the part you bolded, before posting your reaction?

Ferrari says 3-6% performance improvement, but again I ask, what is meant by performance improvement here? Overall time, Peak Power, Time to Exhaustion, VO2max, ? Generally I think few doubt an effect for cycling grand tours, well except another group of Dutch experts in another study. My main reasons for doubting effects in running do not apply to cycling, but I also haven't given cycling much thought. My non-expert opinion, based on several testimonies of dopers, is that EPO doesn't make you stronger on the day of an effort, but makes you stronger the day after -- something important for the grand tours. I have not seen any expert opinion on the additional benefit of doping during a grand tour (and for that matter, the benefit of EPO doping OOC).

Placebo is still performance.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Watered down whisky for full price wrote:

He could have just injected him with placebo distilled water labelled as EPO and made more money. But he didn't.

Claims of placebo for Armstrong/Ferrari are such nonsense, from what LA has said repeatedly his sponsors were obsessed with results. If Ferrari didn't deliver performance enhancement, he would've been gone.

I'm no insider, but I understood the teams were in charge of getting and administering the drugs. Ferrari was just in charge of the planning.

Watered down whisky for full price wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I never doubted that. I would say it was very lucrative for Ferrari to sell his "services" to Lance and his teammates.

He could have just injected him with placebo distilled water labelled as EPO and made more money. But he didn't.

I know.

Magic Coach wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I never doubted that. I would say it was very lucrative for Ferrari to sell his "services" to Lance and his teammates.

You can charge for coaching too you know.

rekrunner wrote:

Placebo is still performance.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Claims of placebo for Armstrong/Ferrari are such nonsense, from what LA has said repeatedly his sponsors were obsessed with results. If Ferrari didn't deliver performance enhancement, he would've been gone.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Your link didn't work -- I don't find anything about wattage and speed. In any case, I understood 3-6% for cycling, from Ferrari, and from cyclist testimonies -- what do you think I'm going to say? Probably had a lot to do with both Lance retiring, and cycling introducing the ABP in 2007 acting as a huge deterrent. Outside of the Dutch study unable to find a benefit, I do not have more to say.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Just found this, pretty overwhelming; wattage and speeds collapsed after 2006 (Armstrong retired just as newer more effective testing methods came in). Let's just see Rek & JO spin this.

https://bicycles.stackexchange.com

Let's just see Rek & JO spin this.