So what's he on now, lads?
Comments
-
andyp wrote:Gazzaputt wrote:All ifs and buts nothing proven in concrete.
This tour Lance has stuck a very large 2 fingers up to the doubters and conspirators.
Some people just can't face facts. EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. What more evidence do you need exactly? Video footage of him injecting himself? /quote]
Yes0 -
donrhummy wrote:Pokerface wrote:I am a MASSIVE Lance fan. Have followed him since 1999. A few years back read his books and they inspired me to get back on my bike and start cycling again (and lost 80 pounds in the process!).
And as big a fan as I am, I have no doubt whatsoever that he was doping back in the day. Whether EPO or his own blood - doesn't matter. The way I look at it though - is so was everyone else - and he was STILL better than them.
These days - I suspect he's doing it with hard work. The amount he is being tested (and the tests that exist)( - make it hard to believe he could get away with doping today.
Your arguments do NOT hold up with respect to science. Look at the power outputs he has from this year and compare them to those of his TDF victories. If you're correct that he WAS doping but now is not, then EPO (and any other drugs) has next to zero effect. Science says this isn't the case.
Those drugs have a HUGE impact on the ability of a rider to:
1. Recover MUCH quicker from hard efforts - both within a ride and from day to day
2. Output a much higher level of watts than their natural VO2 would allow
3. Sustain higher levels for longer periods
Perhaps the most important gain from those drugs is that a rider can do a 100% effort for hours on end and the next day be 100% recovered, as though they'd simply rested the day before. See this: http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywor ... est_1.html
So are you saying then, that he was doping back then and is still doping now? Or that he never doped and still isn't?0 -
Not so. It was thought that many riders were claiming for cortisone TUEs for saddle sores whilst actually taking cortisone injections into their muscles. Phillipe Gaumont, the ex-Cofidis rider explained how he'd rub rock salt onto his balls - yes - until they were red and sore. Then he'd get a TUE letter for the cortisone cream. Armed with the letter the rider would then inject cortisone and use it for its fatigue-relieving effects on the legs, nothing to do with the saddle sore but if he tested positive for cortisone, he could say it was the cream.donrhummy wrote:In 1999, there were traces of a corticosteroid in his sample. He was able to give a medical certificate showing the use of it to treat a saddle sore and the UCI then gave him a medical waiver for it. There is no proven performance gain from that drug0 -
iainf72 wrote:Il Principe wrote:You Lance doubters are all so pathetic. I hope you never get called up for jury service!
Just done it.
You're looking at a postiive test as the only evidence. But if you took everything into account I would challenge anyone to be absolutely certain. You may choose to believe but ultimately that's up to you.
It is the only evidence. What else do you have that is not circumstantial, uncorroborated or hearsay?0 -
andyp wrote:There is also a major difference between guilt established in a court of law and guilt established via a sporting sanction.
And even on that weaker standard he was never sanctioned.0 -
aurelio wrote:Quote:
"OK, with the admission that I'm making my predictions after four stages have already been completed; that I take no account for the effect of crosswinds on the bunch; and that I assume Autologous Blood Transfusions done in "micro-dose" form will remain undetectable through the end of the 2009 Tour de France"
http://joepapp.blogspot.com/2009/07/200 ... micro.html
I like Joe but I don't see how micro-doseing blood affects much of anything. Mico, meaning very small. You have to take on enough to affect crit level.
The term micro-dosing came about when they were using mico doses of EPO to affect the ratio of old and new blood cells in stored Autologous blood. Doses so small they weren't detectable until the second half of last year.0 -
Indeed he wasn't. Which begs the question, why?jackhammer111 wrote:And even on that weaker standard he was never sanctioned.0 -
andyp wrote:Gazzaputt wrote:All ifs and buts nothing proven in concrete.
This tour Lance has stuck a very large 2 fingers up to the doubters and conspirators.
Some people just can't face facts. EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. What more evidence do you need exactly?
If he had EPO in his urine why didn't they sanction him?0 -
-
donrhummy wrote:Pokerface wrote:I am a MASSIVE Lance fan. Have followed him since 1999. A few years back read his books and they inspired me to get back on my bike and start cycling again (and lost 80 pounds in the process!).
And as big a fan as I am, I have no doubt whatsoever that he was doping back in the day. Whether EPO or his own blood - doesn't matter. The way I look at it though - is so was everyone else - and he was STILL better than them.
These days - I suspect he's doing it with hard work. The amount he is being tested (and the tests that exist)( - make it hard to believe he could get away with doping today.
Your arguments do NOT hold up with respect to science. Look at the power outputs he has from this year and compare them to those of his TDF victories.
Ok.. let's look at them.. do you have them?
The EPO era is over.
EPO was never about max power output. It was about sustaining near VO2 max for longer periods of time.
Lance used to sleep in an tent with an oxygen deprived atmosphere for 2 months before the tour. This year he did high altitude training instead so he could be with family and friends.0 -
andyp wrote:
Indeed he wasn't. Which begs the question, why?jackhammer111 wrote:And even on that weaker standard he was never sanctioned.
Because the problems with the 99 samples were so obvious.
Did you read the UCI commissioned independent review?0 -
Doesn't employing an old crony of Verbruggen's to do the report make the phrase 'UCI commissioned independent review' a complete misnomer?
Whilst I admire your single minded devotion to the cause Jackhammer, surely even you have to review the evidence occasionally and admit that Armstrong's 'innocence' simply doesn't add up?
I also assume that you know how little effect hypoxic tents and training at altitude have when compared to autologous (undetectable) blood doping? [/i]0 -
Nothing wrong with the sample/ tests at all. However as they were tested as part of a research program they did not meet all the criteria for sanctions to be brought. For example, there were no separate 'B' samples, not that this really matters given that given the number of positive samples, the statistical significance of the findings is still sky high. See also:jackhammer111 wrote:the problems with the 99 samples were so obvious.
"there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
Dr Michael Ashenden.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong
"It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.
...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "
http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=171280 -
Pity that the science shows that such a 'cover story' doesn't actually hold water. (See below). Similarly, I had to laugh when I saw that film of Landis' hypoxic chamber in the film 'Bigger, stronger faster'. As if Landis really sleeps in a concrete drain pipe in his back yard! Genevieve Jeanson is another one who claimed that she lived in a 'hypoxic tent nearly 300 days per year' and that this was why she had a hameocrit level of 56%. Of course the real reason was Epo abuse!jackhammer111 wrote:Lance used to sleep in an tent with an oxygen deprived atmosphere for 2 months before the tour. This year he did high altitude training instead so he could be with family and friends.
http://www.velonews.com/article/13360
Sports Med. 2001;31(7):533-57.
The effect of altitude on cycling performance: a challenge to traditional concepts.
Hahn AG, Gore CJ.
Living and training at altitude, or living in an hypoxic environment (approximately 2500 m) but training near sea level, are popular practices among elite cyclists seeking enhanced performance at sea level. In an attempt to confirm or refute the efficacy of these practices, we reviewed studies conducted on highly-trained athletes and, where possible, on elite cyclists.
...Our analysis of the relevant literature indicates that, in contrast to the existing paradigm, adaptation to natural or simulated moderate altitude does not stimulate red cell production sufficiently to increase red cell volume (RCV) and haemoglobin mass (Hb(mass)). Hypoxia does increase serum erthyropoietin levels but the next step in the erythropoietic cascade is not clearly established; there is only weak evidence of an increase in young red blood cells (reticulocytes). Moreover, the collective evidence from studies of highly-trained athletes indicates that adaptation to hypoxia is unlikely to enhance sea level VO2max.
Effects of a 12-day live high, train low camp on reticulocyte production and haemoglobin mass in elite female road cyclists
Ashenden MJ, Gore CJ, Martin DT, Dobson GP, Hahn AG.
The aim of this study was to document the effect of "living high, training low" on the red blood cell production of elite female cyclists. Six members of the Australian National Women's road cycling squad slept for 12 nights at a simulated altitude of 2650 m in normobaric hypoxia (HIGH), while 6 team-mates slept at an altitude of 600 m (CONTROL). HIGH and CONTROL subjects trained and raced as a group throughout the 70-day study. Baseline levels of reticulocyte parameters sensitive to changes in erythropoeisis were measured 21 days and 1 day prior to sleeping in hypoxia (D1 and D20, respectively). These measures were repeated after 7 nights (D27) and 12 nights (D34) of simulated altitude exposure, and again 15 days (D48) and 33 days (D67) after leaving the altitude house.
There was no increase in reticulocyte production, nor any change in reticulocyte parameters in either the HIGH or CONTROL groups. This lack of haematological response was substantiated by total haemoglobin mass measures (CO-rebreathing), which did not change when measured on D1, D20, D34 or D67. We conclude that in elite female road cyclists, 12 nights of exposure to normobaric hypoxia (2650 m) is not sufficient to either stimulate reticulocyte production or increase haemoglobin mass.0 -
What review was that? Because I only read the UCI-commissioned review that was written by a friend of UCI boss Hein Verbruggen, the same Vrijman who was on a legal retainer fee from the UCI. The same report was twice sent to the UCI for review and subsequently edited. So that's not independent, what's the independent review you talk about jackhammer111?jackhammer111 wrote:Did you read the UCI commissioned independent review?
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) called the UCI's report "farcical". You can read WADA's full statement here. It's worth a read as it's a catalogue of UCI c0ck-ups and ends with the statement that "Mr. Vrijman’s report is fallacious in many aspects and misleading".0 -
You seem to be overlooking the fact that the stresses of riding a Grand Tour should cause a rider's haemocrit to go through the floor, and this is a major reason why everyone says that it is the last week of the Tour that is the real test. Repeated micro dosing can keep a rider’s haemocrit at a much more 'optimum' level.jackhammer111 wrote:I like Joe but I don't see how micro-doseing blood affects much of anything. Mico, meaning very small. You have to take on enough to affect crit level. The term micro-dosing came about when they were using mico doses of EPO to affect the ratio of old and new blood cells in stored Autologous blood. Doses so small they weren't detectable until the second half of last year.
A similar thing happens with hormones like testosterone, again affecting recovery and performance, which is why rider's like Landis use small doses of testosterone throughout a big Tour, knowing that if they keep an eye on their T/E ratios, no expensive IRMS test is likely to be done.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Nothing wrong with the sample/ tests at all. However as they were tested as part of a research program they did not meet all the criteria for sanctions to be brought. For example, there were no separate 'B' samples, not that this really matters given that given the number of positive samples, the statistical significance of the findings is still sky high. See also:jackhammer111 wrote:the problems with the 99 samples were so obvious.
"there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
Dr Michael Ashenden.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden
UCI experts do not believe in Armstrong
"It may be that Lance Armstrong never officially tested positive, but according to Robin Paris Otto, one of UCI's anti-doping experts and the man who in 2000 developed the first analytical method for the detection of EPO, there is evidence that the opposite is true.
...He adds that the results which showed that the American was doped in1999 must be considered to be valid from a scientific point of view . "The methods used were valid. It is clear that the question mark concerning whether Armstrong was doped really is more of a legal than scientific nature. So there is scientific evidence that he was doped in1999 and that he took epo. To deny it would be to lie. "
http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128
That there was EPO in the samples can be argued from a scientific point of view.
That those samples were actually Lances can NOT be argued sceintifically. That is a procedural question that had many many problems.
"they did not meet all the criteria for sanctions to be brought." Case closed.
Which brings me back to.... So what? That was ten years ago in the EPO era. Get over it. Nobody dopes EPO any more.
The idea that he won seven tours by outdoping the competition is hogwash.0 -
jackhammer111 wrote:That there was EPO in the samples can be argued from a scientific point of view.
That those samples were actually Lances can NOT be argued sceintifically. That is a procedural question that had many many problems.
"they did not meet all the criteria for sanctions to be brought." Case closed.
Which brings me back to.... So what? That was ten years ago in the EPO era. Get over it. Nobody dopes EPO any more.
The idea that he won seven tours by outdoping the competition is hogwash.
So you concede he doped now? You've changed your stance suddenly.0 -
If that is 'hogwash', what are we to make of the claim that the reason he went from being a Tour no-hoper (one finish in his first 3 rides, and that one and half hours down on the winner) to being a dominant multiple 'winner' was that he almost died of cancer. Yeah, right! :roll:jackhammer111 wrote:The idea that he won seven tours by outdoping the competition is hogwash.
I suppose that it was just a 'coincidence' that his Tour 'winning' comeback coincided with him teaming up with Michele Ferrari, the top specialist in the use of Epo?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/arch ... /25_1.html0 -
Perhaps you are arguing that using autologous blood doping is not actually doping...jackhammer111 wrote:The idea that he won seven tours by outdoping the competition is hogwash.
Once it was known that a test for Epo had been developed, most dopers moved on to undetectable autologous blood doping. An instant text message between Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters includes some interesting details of how such doping was managed in Armstrong's teams.
Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's very complex how the avoid all the controls now, but it's not any new drug or anything, just the resources and planning to pull of a well devised plan
Cyclevaughters: it's why they all got dropped on stage 9 - no refill yet - then on the rest day - boom 800ml of packed cells
FDREU: they have it mastered. good point
Cyclevaughters: they draw the blood right after the dauphine
FDREU: how do they sneak it in, or keep it until needed
FDREU: i'm sure it's not with the truck in the frig
Cyclevaughters: motorcycle - refridgerated panniers
Cyclevaughters: on the rest day
Cyclevaughters: floyd has a photo of the thing
FDREU: crazy! it' just keep going to new levels
Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's complicated, but with enough money you can do it
FDREU: they have enough money. Floyd was so pissed at them this entire tour
Cyclevaughters: anyhow - i just feel sorry for floyd and some of the other guys
Cyclevaughters: why would lance keep doing the shit when he clearly has nothing to prove - it's weird
FDREU: I know. me to. they all get ripped into for no reason
FDREU: he's done now, thank god. but they will prove next year for Johan's sake that they are the greatest
Cyclevaughters: and then lance says " this guy and that guys are pussies"
FDREU: they won't stop
FDREU: I agree
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
Secondary confirmation of the use of a motorcycle with refrigerated panniers to transport the packs of "800 ml of packed cells" for team 'Disco' comes from Dr. Prentice Steffen, who said the following in an interview printed in L'Equipe on 6 October 2005:
...Unpleasant people like Lance Armstrong dope and nice people like Tyler Hamilton also dope.
... Before going to the start of the Tour, the riders of certain teams, during their training camps, took EPO (which disappears from the urine within three days, even 12 hours when small doses are used) and took their hematocrits up to around 60. Then a doctor withdraws their blood, saving it in special containers, to lower their blood parameters into the accepted range (50) so that they pass with difficulty the medical controls before the Tour. Then, as the teams well know, during the race the vampires (2) can arrive any day but always between 7 and 8 in the morning. After that time, there is no more testing and the riders were able to reinject their own blood. They were racing the stage with an enormous advantage- their hemotrocrit in the 55 to 58 range during the race- then in the evening at the hotel, someone again withdraws their blood so that they sleep without risk (3) and, especially, they escape the possible tests the next morning.
L'EQUIPE:
This practice was used every evening during the three weeks of the Tour?
STEFFEN:
No, just for important stages in the mountains or maybe for a time trial. It's so simple to do and there's no risk of being caught unless the police intervene. The blood was shuttled by motorcycle in a refrigerated compartment...0 -
aurelio wrote:
You seem to be overlooking the fact that the stresses of riding a Grand Tour should cause a rider's haemocrit to go through the floor, and this is a major reason why everyone says that it is the last week of the Tour that is the real test. Repeated micro dosing can keep a rider’s haemocrit at a much more 'optimum' level.jackhammer111 wrote:I like Joe but I don't see how micro-doseing blood affects much of anything. Mico, meaning very small. You have to take on enough to affect crit level. The term micro-dosing came about when they were using mico doses of EPO to affect the ratio of old and new blood cells in stored Autologous blood. Doses so small they weren't detectable until the second half of last year.
.
Do you not think the Passport program takes that into account? Why do you think they tested Lance 3 times in 48 hours? Looking for short spikes.
Plus Autologous doping involves centrifuges, deep freezers, injections a people to keep quiet.
For what? a 2 percent increase in crit?
So far the racing among the climbers seems pretty even to me. Other than Alberto's short little stunt no attacks have lasted very long. I see nothing that makes me suspicious like the performances of Kohl, Piepoli, and Ricco from last year.
here's a scenario.
needle sticks, blood bags, microdosing epo plasma expaders drain blood into coke cans more needle sticks hgh injections portable blood testing labs go train act normal more needle sticks drain blood out put blood back no to much drain some into coke cans flush it down the toilet more needle sticks altered genes more blood bags more needle sick (sic) who knows where to hide the tracks slink down the hall secret door hidden refrigerators pay off the cops pay off uci pay off the team mates pay off the massuse who notices you blew out a vein with a needle stick... oh.. and win the race.0 -
jackhammer111 wrote:The EPO era is over.
So obviously Colom, Pfannberger, Rebellin et al missed this memo?
I'm no expert but your knowledge of blood doping does seem a bit limited.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
So, are you now arguing that whilst Pharmstrong did Epo / blood dope his way to his 7 'wins', he is now trying to ride clean? After all, there was no 'passport program' in operation all the time he was 'winning' the Tour.jackhammer111 wrote:
Do you not think the Passport program takes that into account?aurelio wrote:You seem to be overlooking the fact that the stresses of riding a Grand Tour should cause a rider's haemocrit to go through the floor, and this is a major reason why everyone says that it is the last week of the Tour that is the real test. Repeated micro dosing can keep a rider’s haemocrit at a much more 'optimum' level.
On the other hand...
How clean is the Tour de France?
7/8/2009
JOHN LEICESTER
The Associated Press
...no one is naive enough to believe that the program has fully closed the net on the smartest cheats or those who can afford the help of crooked doctors.
"It's clear that riders have learned to dope within the passport," says Michael Ashenden, one of the nine experts the UCI uses to analyze riders' blood.
Correctly manipulating transfusions and mini-doses of EPO requires a certain amount of know-how but not a PhD.
"I could write it down on a post-it note," Ashenden says.0 -
How does someone win 7 tours, dope in every one and not get caught. especially when you think of all the riders that are getting caught :?0
-
aurelio has all bases covered it seems to me.
- That Lance is tested 3 times in 48hours is not a big deal. Take it towards an extreme - rider A got tested 10 times in one day and no positives. Is this a big deal? No. Can he still be the most hardocre doper? Yes.
- It is highly unlikely that should Lance or another GC rider be found for doping that it will be in the first and maybe even 2nd week, especially on flat stages, and especially in the case of this Tour, because there have been no particularly difficult stages so far that would necessitate doping.
- He is always going on about it but it could be that Alberto could be tested as much or more and he wouldn't mention it because of his character. Lance thinks these things lend him credibility and IMO sees them as victories or points so that at the end of the year he can say I was tested 5000 times.
My opinion is that Lance always had the motivation, support and financial resources to have the highest and most advanced doping regime both in terms of what he took, how he took it and the matter of overcoming tests.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Homer J wrote:How does someone win 7 tours, dope in every one and not get caught. especially when you think of all the riders that are getting caught :?
Ullrich doped from 96 to 06 and only got caught because of Puerto. Basso was praised by the UCI for his "normal" blood profile.
It wasn't that difficult not to get caught.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Reuters.
His new ploy is to have his stuff sent to him by way of cuddly toys...
Forget EPO, I think he is on steroids
Seriously though this is not the physique of a climber (I know he has lost some since this was taken before any mentions it).
Full gallery here if you are that way inclined: http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ ... /index.htmContador is the Greatest0 -
aurelio wrote:
Perhaps you are arguing that using autologous blood doping is not actually doping...jackhammer111 wrote:The idea that he won seven tours by outdoping the competition is hogwash.
Straw man alert!! I implied no such thing.aurelio wrote:Once it was known that a test for Epo had been developed, most dopers moved on to undetectable autologous blood doping. An instant text message between Frankie Andreu and Jonathan Vaughters includes some interesting details of how such doping was managed in Armstrong's teams.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html
You must think I just fell off the turnip truck.
"It was a gossipy conversation between two people," he said. "There's nothing in it that I could prove in court, just stuff I'd heard." The conversation had been printed out by Frankie Andreu's wife and submitted to the SCA arbitration, according to Vaughters.
Vaughters said he could not be sure if Floyd Landis really had photographs of the alleged doping practices. "I regret saying Floyd said anything to me in that IM because it was a friend of Floyd's," he continued. "In fact, everything I wrote in that IM was something I heard from somewhere else."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andreu- ... -practicesaurelio wrote:Secondary confirmation of the use of a motorcycle with refrigerated panniers to transport the packs of "800 ml of packed cells" for team 'Disco' comes from Dr. Prentice Steffen, who said the following in an interview printed in L'Equipe on 6 October 2005:
...Unpleasant people like Lance Armstrong dope and nice people like Tyler Hamilton also dope.
... Before going to the start of the Tour, the riders of certain teams, during their training camps, took EPO (which disappears from the urine within three days, even 12 hours when small doses are used) and took their hematocrits up to around 60. Then a doctor withdraws their blood, saving it in special containers, to lower their blood parameters into the accepted range (50) so that they pass with difficulty the medical controls before the Tour. Then, as the teams well know, during the race the vampires (2) can arrive any day but always between 7 and 8 in the morning. After that time, there is no more testing and the riders were able to reinject their own blood. They were racing the stage with an enormous advantage- their hemotrocrit in the 55 to 58 range during the race- then in the evening at the hotel, someone again withdraws their blood so that they sleep without risk (3) and, especially, they escape the possible tests the next morning.
L'EQUIPE:
This practice was used every evening during the three weeks of the Tour?
STEFFEN:
No, just for important stages in the mountains or maybe for a time trial. It's so simple to do and there's no risk of being caught unless the police intervene. The blood was shuttled by motorcycle in a refrigerated compartment...
yet again.
"In a statement, Dr Steffen apologised for any personal comments he made about Armstrong and others: "It was inappropriate for me to suggest that 'the bad guys, like Armstrong, dope, and the good guys, like Hamilton, dope too.' I do not know Lance Armstrong personally and have I never witnessed him taking banned substances. I based my assumptions about Mr. Armstrong on rumours I had heard, instead of on anything remotely factual and I want to issue this public retraction of comments."
You should read the rest as well.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/fir ... ber-9-2005
I'm not arguing that doping didn't happen or may still happen to a lesser degree, but the days of getting a clear advantage that forces the competition to follow are done. They can sanction riders not based soley on their blood values.
I say again... The idea that he won seven tours by outdoping the competition is hogwash. Assuming Dr Ferrari was a doping doctor (he won all of his court appeals), he would not have been the only one. Making him out to be a genius is absurd. One could argue that someone could win 1 or maybe 2 tours on a doping advantage, but 7? And to come back after 3 years of no racing and at his age, and with vastly improved monitoring, be among the strongest proves the point.0 -
^^^---- Which all sort of goes towards my supposition that they were all on the juice to some degree - but he was the best rider of the bunch. Meaning - if they were ALL clean - he would still have won. I see it as a level playing field back then. Not sure what's going on now.0
-
Stage 15 Tour de France 2005. Look at the numbers below. I am pretty sure Hincapie benefited by being one of Lance's best friends in order to dope severelyThe Pla d’Adet climb was, according to VeloNews, 862 metres of vertical ascent. Both Landis’ coach, Allen Lim, and other sources put Hincapie’s race weight at 79.5 kg (he’s 6′3″ tall, remember) while suggesting that Pereiro’s weight was around 68 kg. For comparison, let us assume both riders had UCI-minimum weight, 6.8 kg bikes and were carrying no other weight. Using rough timings from live coverage, both took around 32 minutes for the climb, or 1920 seconds.
Recall that the basic calculation for wattage is as follows:
(weight of bike and rider (kg) x 9.8 x elevation gain (metres)) / time (seconds) = power (watts)
For Hincapie, the calculation would be as follows:
(86.3 x 9.8 x 862) / 1920 = 380 watts
For Pereiro, as follows:
(74.8 x 9.8 x 862) / 1920 = 329 watts
Adding 10% for drag and resistance, as per Lim’s calculations, would give a total of 418 watts for Hincapie and 362 watts for Pereiro.
For Hincapie to climb with Pereiro, he not only had to sustain his power output for over half-an-hour, but also generate just over 15% more power to propel his extra weight up the climb at the same speed.Using Armstrong’s race weight of 72 kg, and a climbing time of 29 minutes (1740 seconds) gives the following equation:
(78.8 x 9.8 x 862) / 1740 = 382 watts (add 10% for a total of 420 watts)
Armstrong’s and Hincapie’s power outputs were therefore quite similar in absolute terms. With his lighter weight, however, Armstrong was able to climb faster. His 5.8 watts/kg ratio was also quite impressive, demonstrating why he won this and six other Tours. Interestingly, in the final ITT of the 2005 Tour, Lim calculated that Armstrong generated an average of 410 watts during his 1h 11′46″ winning ride, or 5.7 watts/kg. The only other rider to produce over 400 watts in the ITT was Jan Ullrich.Contador is the Greatest0
