So what you're saying is that all these cyclists and cycling teams were completely wasting their time doping up and evading the testers, they could have not bothered and been even better?
Hell, Armstrong could have won 10 TDF titles clean if it wasn't for the detrimental effects of EPO and blood doping.
Aragon wrote:
Could you be kind and specify where and how exactly he gained advantage to other 50-90 % EPO users in Peloton.
Both the UCI and USA Cycling made sure he never tested positive.
Other riders had to dope in fear of being tested positive. What happened when a good cyclist left USPS? They tested positive.
The other thing we know is the performance effects of EPO vary for complex reasons. For whatever reason, like Rasmussen, and Pantani at least, they find a killer combination of PEDs and it turns them into super heroes. Others aren't so lucky.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Aragon wrote:Could you be kind and specify where and how exactly he gained advantage to other 50-90 % EPO users in Peloton.
Both the UCI and USA Cycling made sure he never tested positive.
Other riders had to dope in fear of being tested positive. What happened when a good cyclist left USPS? They tested positive.
The other thing we know is the performance effects of EPO vary for complex reasons. For whatever reason, like Rasmussen, and Pantani at least, they find a killer combination of PEDs and it turns them into super heroes. Others aren't so lucky.
Riis is actually a great example.
Jon Orange wrote:
So what do you think EPO actually does?
Why doesn't the human body just produce more red blood cells if it's such an advantage?
If EPO increases oxygen uptake, it must increase glycogen uptake too? So why don't they hit the wall?
Why don't they over heat?
Why doesn't that disturb homeostasis?
Awkward questions none of you can answer without talking pseudoscience.
The best hematocrit, is the natural one. That is real science, real physiology.
You could make the exact same argument about steroids.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Both the UCI and USA Cycling made sure he never tested positive.
Other riders had to dope in fear of being tested positive. What happened when a good cyclist left USPS? They tested positive.
The other thing we know is the performance effects of EPO vary for complex reasons. For whatever reason, like Rasmussen, and Pantani at least, they find a killer combination of PEDs and it turns them into super heroes. Others aren't so lucky.
Valid while totally unproven assumption.
Riis and Armstrong both had Giro/Tour stage wins prior to taking EPO (latter actually competing against EPO users), so it isn't necessarily true that "killer combination" made them good. And as I understand it, Riis was mostly a support rider with very little own career interests until mid 1990s.
Aside from that, there is no evidence that any positive doping US Postal doping test was covered up. As many doping/health check tests (Hct/OffScore/EPO) were based on thresholds, it was also customary for UCI to warn any athletes who were close to these limits at least roughly in period 2000-2005.
To the claim that many famous cyclists tested positive after leaving US Postal, only Hamilton and Landis come to mind. There could be another factor than corruption for this. CIRC-report claims that Michele Ferrari was very conservative in his approach to doping whereas Dr. Fuentes was very aggressive with a wide range of products (while Landis apparently not his client). Another link connecting the two riders was team Phonak, which had many other doping problems, particularly in 2004 (Pérez, Camenzind).
Reinhold Messner
The others are cyclists, not climbers
Abdoujaparov wrote:
Not sure why you consider Riis a great climber. His Tde F success was mostly due to his time trailing. The year he won he was quite fortunate to have a monster stage over the Galibier shortened to less than 30 miles due to snow. On that stage he basically time trailed away from Miguel Indurain and built a big enough lead that kept him ahead all the way to Paris. Never had much success in the Giro or Vuelta. Won the Amstel race over rolling Dutch countryside. Bungno or Chiapucci would be likely comparisons.
Agree that an undoped Riis wouldn't have been a notable rider in the slightest but in that tour he did have a "legendary" stage win at Hautacam where he was quite incredible. He definitely won that race in the climbs.
If we're considering Riis we should be considering Ullrich also. Totally dominant in 1997 including an awesome stage win in Andorra.
Jon Orange wrote:
So what do you think EPO actually does?
Why doesn't the human body just produce more red blood cells if it's such an advantage?
Why doesn't doesn't your body have a 300 hp electric motor?
Charly Gaul was the first to come to my mind. While there has always been doping, it was much less effective "back in the day." Mostly amphetamines if I recall correctly.
In "modern" history Pantani is the obvious choice. I think to be a "climber" it means that you basically suck at TT and the flats. People like Armstrong and Ullrich, while they won mountain top finishes, gained the most time on the strength of there time trial abilities.
i chose D2 wrote:
When was Lance nowhere to be seen? When he had cancer, or before that when he won the world championship as a 21 year old?
Lance was the number one ranked junior triathlete in the country and won two sprint national championships in his teens.
Before Cancer, Lance was more of a one-day classics rider (and a damn good one too). It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility to draw a parallel of Lance before cancer to someone like Peter Sagan. Solid sprinter who could survive hills reasonably well... Sagan is actually quite a bit better. Maybe if he looses 15 pounds and works on his time trail a bit more (he's no slouch there...winning the ITT on stage 6 of the '15 Tour of California), he'll win the Tour 7 times as well (Sagan already has one grand tour title - '15 Tour of California).
Not that he was no where to be seen, Lance just changed to a completely different type of rider. Almost like when Dixon went from running 3:53 in the mile to winning the New York Marathon twice and gong sub 2:09. Not often is there an athlete that's elite in one discipline and can morph themselves into an elite athlete in another discipline...Lance obviously is not evidence that it can happen as he was artificially enhanced, but you get the idea.
trollism wrote:
So what you're saying is that all these cyclists and cycling teams were completely wasting their time doping up and evading the testers, they could have not bothered and been even better?
Hell, Armstrong could have won 10 TDF titles clean if it wasn't for the detrimental effects of EPO and blood doping.
Yes to the first part. But people believe what they are constantly told don't they?
You won't see any physiologists debating this issue with me under their real name. Firstly, they don't have enough well rounded knowledge and secondly, they just wouldn't dare risk their oh so precious reputation. They would rather accept pseudoscientific dogma, than debate the issue.
I think winning the Tour 7 times after coming back from cancer is enough proof of his ability, don't you?
Rough playa wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:So what do you think EPO actually does?
Why doesn't the human body just produce more red blood cells if it's such an advantage?
If EPO increases oxygen uptake, it must increase glycogen uptake too? So why don't they hit the wall?
Why don't they over heat?
Why doesn't that disturb homeostasis?
Awkward questions none of you can answer without talking pseudoscience.
The best hematocrit, is the natural one. That is real science, real physiology.
You could make the exact same argument about steroids.
Indeed. I'm 53 and I'm pretty sure I produce enough testosterone naturally.
Contador, Froome, Heras should be considered.
Jon Orange wrote:
Rough playa wrote:You could make the exact same argument about steroids.
Indeed. I'm 53 and I'm pretty sure I produce enough testosterone naturally.
To live yes, but not to compete against dopers. The human body doesn't produce more rbcs due to genetics.
Armstrong and Riis both had naturally very low Hct, so they could dope their way up.
When it comes to greatest talent in cycling, without a doubt:
- climber: Pantani
- overall rider: Ulrich
Jon Orange wrote:
The best hematocrit, is the natural one. That is real science, real physiology.
So natural selection works primarily on ability to bike well during your 20's?
dope works wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Indeed. I'm 53 and I'm pretty sure I produce enough testosterone naturally.
To live yes, but not to compete against dopers. The human body doesn't produce more rbcs due to genetics.
A healthy human body produces the right amount of RBCs. The idea that more is better is the most profoundly bad science.
Unfortunately, the more self aggrandizing exercise physiologists haven't figured this out yet.
Jon Orange wrote:
dope works wrote:To live yes, but not to compete against dopers. The human body doesn't produce more rbcs due to genetics.
A healthy human body produces the right amount of RBCs. The idea that more is better is the most profoundly bad science.
Unfortunately, the more self aggrandizing exercise physiologists haven't figured this out yet.
The right amount to just basically live but we're talking about 'becoming" an outlier through going beyond your natural capabilities.
The proof is in the Yorkshire pudding. All of those guys had performances go through the roof and regressed whenever they went off the sauce.
No real surprise that a guy born with a natural Hct pushing 60 was a multiple gold medallist, no?
No. Your natural healthy hematocrit is what it is supposed to be. No more, no less. Because your performance level is determined by your fuel efficiency.
Having more RBCs is not an advantage. Having a higher plasma volume will give you more endurance and this will actually reduce your hematocrit although the amount of RBCs remains the same.
This should be common knowledge. However we are constantly fed folklore about drugs.
Why do you think no exercise physiologist will discuss this here? Either they don't know or they don't dare.
I hereby declare exercise physiologists as the cause of the continuing drug problem in sport.
Jon Orange wrote:
No. Your natural healthy hematocrit is what it is supposed to be. No more, no less. Because your performance level is determined by your fuel efficiency.
Having more RBCs is not an advantage. Having a higher plasma volume will give you more endurance and this will actually reduce your hematocrit although the amount of RBCs remains the same.
This should be common knowledge. However we are constantly fed folklore about drugs.
Why do you think no exercise physiologist will discuss this here? Either they don't know or they don't dare.
I hereby declare exercise physiologists as the cause of the continuing drug problem in sport.
Nope. The reason physiologists don't argue with you on here is because they don't want to have a mindless discussion with an internet expert with zero schooling.