So when someone says "It's called trusting an expert. Why don't you try it?" -- looks like one reason is "desperate words from a desperate man". I guess what most people do is pick the expert that says what they like, and find reasons to ignore the expert who might know better. This is particularly easy when the experts don't always agree. I guess two reasons Ferrari didn't talk about Berzin and Riis: 1) Ferrari said this as a response to something Lance said. Did Berzin and Riis say anything? 2) They doped more in the 90s, with up to 30% blood increases, so saying "smaller doses and altitude achieve the same increase" doesn't apply to riders and teams that took larger doses.
Tour de Dope wrote:
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?
rekrunner wrote:
I do not have more to say.
Liar.
I'm not arguing placebo, but saying your argument doesn't quite work. Performance enhancement can be psychological (placebo) or physiological, both of which would keep Ferrari employed.
Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Placebo is still performance.
That makes absolutely no sense.
rekrunner wrote:
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.
Those testimonies are one reason so many people believe in enhanced recovery from EPO doping, whatever the mechanisms are. In other words, EPO doping goes beyond the effects of blood transfusions and altitude training.
Enhanced recovery ability literally helps you in your daily training too.
Last but not least, some EPO users (e.g., Eddy) reported that EPO also aids in avoiding the slowdown at the end of a long race.
rekrunner wrote:
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).
Didn't Canova say that EPO helps shortening the base phase, i.e. brings you quickly up to 90%? See his Jeptoo comments.
Looks reasonable that speeds improve then level off. Doping is probably one part, along with improvements in the bike, aerodynamics, nutrition, maybe even bigger and more focused teamwork and better drafting. Someone should look into this.
Subway Surfers wrote:
https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/7661/why-arent-tour-de-france-riders-going-any-fasterHopefully this works
I'd appreciate if you could quote from endurance athletes or from other original sources thatc laim that endurance people used rHuEPO during OFFseason to enhance recovery to increase training load or found it otherwise beneficial to keep hematocrit high all around the year, because I can't recall any cyclist themselved making this claim, and - to the contrary - there is a lot of data about them having their Hct's in the low 40's in January-February and then around 60's in May-September.
There is truth in the recovery claim in the sense that it might enhance recovery during multiweek stage races if submaximal heart rate is slightly lower because any given effort is now lower relative to Vo2MAX and physiological stress is correspondingly lower.
I'm a professional scientist, and what Canova writes is reasonable and intelligent. It might be wrong on some points (I don't know), but it's all arguable/debatable, and one can distinguish in it certain main themes.
What a lot of the rest write is simply thought experiment based on little knowledge and less reasoning. JonO is clearly just a moron.
rekrunner wrote:
I'm not arguing placebo, but saying your argument doesn't quite work.
Performance enhancement can be psychological (placebo) or physiological, both of which would keep Ferrari employed.
Is placebo your new go to word? So let us have a stock-take, whenever someone points out a study showing epo works, you surmise that it is simple hobby-jogger gains not repeatable with well-trained runners. When people point out the massive gains in 1990s running WRs you claim it is altitude training, although pre-1990 runners lived and trained at altitude as well. Then when we point out epo era wattage gains in the TdF etc, you say placebo. But the only placebo study mentioned was the one of 39+ min 10k runners who improved by 20-odd seconds. Now I'm an aging cripple who can barely walk in the morning, due to 20+ years of injuries but even I improved my 3k fitness by 30s in five days and 40s in 12 days early this year before falling apart. People die trialling the placebos.
BTW, I like Placebo too
https://youtu.be/96d8kq7bOOABike technology seems to have stopped improving up the Alpe d'Huez after 2001?
rekrunner wrote:
Doping is probably one part,]
Correct.
Kiprop was caught with EPO during the base period (November 2017 iirc) -> he found it beneficial.
Canova explained Jeptoo's EPO doping with her being injured and needing to get quickly into shape.
While he was wrong about Jeptoo being clean in Boston, he apparently thinks EPO helps shortening the base period.
Original thread:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=7954747&id=7968430#7968430whatabunchoflouts wrote:
I'm a professional scientist, and what Canova writes is reasonable and intelligent. It might be wrong on some points (I don't know)
What he writes about mutations during a brief altitude stint, to enhance O2 affinity of Hb, is clearly wrong.
For cycling.
finally getting it wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Doping is probably one part,]
Correct.
For two reasons I am not convinced at all:
1) While different doping methods and their effect are described in great length and detail in the official inquiries (CIRC report, USADA/USPS report) and in biographies and memoirs of team doctors and cyclists, there exists like a sentence or two about rHuEPO being used as a recovery drug which is strange if one of its key mechanisms was to increase training load and performance by up to a few percents.
2) There might be other reasons to find taking rHuEPO "beneficial" OFFseason than the alleged improved recovery, such as fear of anemia caused by malnutrition or overtraining (athletes take B12 and iron shots regularly so why not the "real" regulator of RBC production) or to increase Hct before storing blood for later reinfusion. As there are some competitions (with money prices) going on all around the year, there is even no season devoted 100 %to training.
Correct...3 secs in a 1500 isn't a 3% but ~1.4%. And at the elite level that could be considered a game changer for many. A 3:32/3:31 guy could could break 3:30 moving into 3:29 territory. Ramzi's PB was 3:29.14 - improving 2 -3 secs from 3:32/3:31 is significant in the context of where it put him at world-level competition. Ashenden also mentions:
"Dr Ashenden: —but I can guarantee you that if you changed someone’s time by two or three seconds it is going shift from a bronze medal to a gold medal, for example."
Even more significant with a doped athlete going from bronze to gold. A gold medal at the Olympics is huge in terms of sponsorship, fame, monetary value, etc. Many dopers/doping coaches would probably think the benefit of 2-3 seconds in the 1500 and moving into the medal hunt or moving up in the medals is worth the risk.
I didn't introduce "placebo" into this discussion. You implied that "placebo" did not mean performance enhancement. My comment about placebo effect being something real and positive, has nothing to do with all that other stuff. EPO studies are fine, some better than others, but there are limitations, and cautions that have to be considered when interpreting the results in other conditions, or with different subjects, not represented by the study. Regarding 1990 WRs, "training at altitude" was one point of many I made. I also claimed that WR results, or at least large performance gains, should be more widely distributed. "Training at altitude" is also a common suggestion I have, if increasing blood parameters is your primary goal. My comments about placebo had nothing to do with wattage -- I kind of agreed with all the posters there that wattage demands increased with average speed.
It would not shock me if someone produce a bike technology graph with a similar curve. But a I saw a lot more reasons in your link, and thought of a couple more I didn't see (but didn't look that long either).
Subway Surfers wrote:
Bike technology seems to have stopped improving up the Alpe d'Huez after 2001?
Doped to the Max wrote:
Even more significant with a doped athlete going from bronze to gold. A gold medal at the Olympics is huge in terms of sponsorship, fame, monetary value, etc. Many dopers/doping coaches would probably think the benefit of 2-3 seconds in the 1500 and moving into the medal hunt or moving up in the medals is worth the risk.
Because the outcome of PED use in the real world is always very uncertain, are you here admitting that mere expectation of some 1.0-1.5 % improvement is enough rationale for someone to take rHuEPO/blood dope particularly when the detection window of rHuEPO is so short and the ABP-program so insensitive?
rekrunner wrote:
For cycling.
finally getting it wrote:
Correct.
Yeah, a doping triathlete only benefits in one discipline.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06