So what's he on now, lads?

jackhammer111 - banned

aurelio wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

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.

Do you not think the Passport program takes that into account?

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.

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.

I argue that the playing field had always been even during the last 10 years.
He thinks he can ride clean against clean riders and the mini dopers now that EPO injections are out of the equation. He is that good.

I never said Ashenden wasn't a smart guy. I see his comment as a messege to the riders that the Passport panel, which he is on, is not naive and the riders need to concider the risks versus the rewards.

jackhammer111 - banned

frenchfighter wrote:

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 severely

The 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.

You want to give us the source on this?

Several problems, the most obvious of which is that race weight is a closely guarded secret and riders game each other all the time about weight. Lance says he lost 2 more kilos after the Giro. Ever consider he might not be telling the truth? Is the some rule that says riders can't lie about their weight? Is there some weigh in in cycling I've missed? Without reliable wieght none of those numbers are the least bit reliable.

This is racing. It's not a watts contest. By stage 15 of any tour riders are varying degrees if tired and varying degrees from any breaking point they might have. So many intangibles.

Good thing too. If not, why not just do 21 VO2 max tests and give the trophy to the highest average scrore.

aurelio_-_banned

jackhammer111 wrote:

I argue that the playing field had always been even during the last 10 years.

Doping does not create a level playing field. Different riders respond to doping to different degrees. For example, someone with a natural haemocrit of 39% has much more to gain from boosting it to the UCI's 50% limit (or beyond...) than someone whose natural haemocrit is 49%.

With doping you just can't tell who would have won if everyone had raced clean instead, which is why doping makes a mockery of the 'sport'.

Pokerface

aurelio wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

I argue that the playing field had always been even during the last 10 years.

Doping does not create a level playing field. Different riders respond to doping to different degrees. For example, someone with a natural haemocrit of 39% has much more to gain from boosting it to the UCI's 50% limit (or beyond...) than someone whose natural haemocrit is 49%.

With doping you just can't tell who would have won if everyone had raced clean instead, which is why doping makes a mockery of the 'sport'.

By that logic - that doping basically just brings everyone up the same level (in your case a 50% hemocrit level) - wouldn't that actually make things a true level playing field? Not in the sense of fair play of course - just that everyone would have the same levels - rather than giving the advantage to the guy that has the higher naturally higher level?

aurelio_-_banned

Pokerface wrote:

By that logic - that doping basically just brings everyone up the same level (in your case a 50% hemocrit level) - wouldn't that actually make things a true level playing field? Not in the sense of fair play of course - just that everyone would have the same levels - rather than giving the advantage to the guy that has the higher naturally higher level?

In a way that is what doping does, but in so doing it over-rides the importance of natural ability, having the power to transform also-rans like Armstrong and Riis (at least in terms of Tour winning ability) into potential multiple 'winners'.

There are even bigger issues at stake though. Modern doping is so effective that a clean rider either is forced to dope or accept that they will not be successful, and no rider should have to make that choice, especially given the potential risks.

---

Two years ago, author Jean-Francois Quinet published "The Secrets of the Festina Affair," which detailed drug use among riders in recent Tours. Quinet said he found that "close to 100 percent" of the riders were using banned substances.

Further, Quinet said, team doctors have become more savvy than the UCI in dealing with illegal substances.

"The drugs they are currently giving to their cyclists might not even be ones for which a test has been developed," Quinet said. "Their M.O. is to stay a few steps ahead of the testing."

One way some riders have attempted to stay ahead is using EPO, an endurance-boosting hormone that is produced naturally in the kidneys and is undetectable by current tests. But its use brings serious risks.

Quinet said he was able to document 80 riders in the 1980s and 1990s who died because of EPO-related heart problems.

http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarc ... 24010.html

---

The Times
24 February 2009.
World in motion: why we need to know what killed Frederiek Nolf

You may not have heard of Frederiek Nolf, but he is dead, so now is probably your last chance. He was five days short of his 22nd birthday

Cyclingnews.com
June 3, 2003
Salanson dies

French Professional Fabrice Salanson (Brioches la Boulangère) was found dead today in his hotel room just hours before the start of the Deutschland Tour (Tour of Germany), according to German wire reports. The 23 year old was found by his roomate Sebastien Chavanel at 8:30am local time on the floor, with one leg on the bed. He died in his sleep between 2:30 and 4:00am

cyclingnews.com
January 11, 2003
Denis Zanette dead from heart attack

32 year old Italian professional Denis Zanette has died as a result of a heart attack, suffered while visiting the dentist on Friday, January 10.

---

Marco Ceriani (Italy)

Died May 5, aged 16

An elite amateur, Ceriani experienced a heart attack during a race, was admitted to hospital in a coma, and failed to recover consciousness.

Marco Rusconi (Italy)

Died November 14, aged 24

Rusconi was leaving the party of a friend last November when he collapsed and died in a shopping centre car park.

Jose Maria Jimenez (Spain)

Died December 6, aged 32

Died from a heart attack in a psychiatric hospital in Madrid. Had retired two years previously but consistently claimed a comeback was imminent.

Michel Zanoli (Netherlands)

Died December 29, aged 35

Zanoli, who retired in 1997, was 35 when he suffered a fatal heart attack.

Johan Sermon (Belgium)

Died February 15 2004, aged 21

Suffered an apparent heart failure in his sleep. Had reportedly gone to bed early to prepare for an eight-hour training ride.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/fe ... g.cycling1

rokkala

I heard he is powered by hopes and dreams?

jackhammer111 - banned

aurelio wrote:

Two years ago, author Jean-Francois Quinet published "The Secrets of the Festina Affair," which detailed drug use among riders in recent Tours. Quinet said he found that "close to 100 percent" of the riders were using banned substances.

Ummm... that book was published ten years ago.

Festiva was 1998.

Get a grip on reality. The era of team systematized doping, primarily EPO based is over.

jackhammer111 - banned

aurelio wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

I argue that the playing field had always been even during the last 10 years.

Doping does not create a level playing field. Different riders respond to doping to different degrees. For example, someone with a natural haemocrit of 39% has much more to gain from boosting it to the UCI's 50% limit (or beyond...) than someone whose natural haemocrit is 49%.

You act as though these are fixed values. Lance used to do his sleeping in a tent oxygen deprived for 2 months before the tour but he knew his crit would go down during the race.

In a one day race someone with a 39 doesn't stand much of a chance against a 49, But in 3 week races physiology changes and people react differently. It's called evolution. We are not the same. Lance's natural physiological adaptations happen in the third week. Sastre is also know for being stronger in the 3rd week. It's not anything unheard of.

That's why this years riders should be very concerned that this years race may come down to one long climb on day 20.

dave_1

aurelio wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

I argue that the playing field had always been even during the last 10 years.

Doping does not create a level playing field. Different riders respond to doping to different degrees. For example, someone with a natural haemocrit of 39% has much more to gain from boosting it to the UCI's 50% limit (or beyond...) than someone whose natural haemocrit is 49%.

With doping you just can't tell who would have won if everyone had raced clean instead, which is why doping makes a mockery of the 'sport'.

bullshit...

dave_1

Pokerface wrote:

aurelio wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

I argue that the playing field had always been even during the last 10 years.

Doping does not create a level playing field. Different riders respond to doping to different degrees. For example, someone with a natural haemocrit of 39% has much more to gain from boosting it to the UCI's 50% limit (or beyond...) than someone whose natural haemocrit is 49%.

With doping you just can't tell who would have won if everyone had raced clean instead, which is why doping makes a mockery of the 'sport'.

By that logic - that doping basically just brings everyone up the same level (in your case a 50% hemocrit level) - wouldn't that actually make things a true level playing field? Not in the sense of fair play of course - just that everyone would have the same levels - rather than giving the advantage to the guy that has the higher naturally higher level?

exactly...and also...some people have better power to weight ratio than others so benefit more from say climbing more in training than a rider with a not so good power to weight ratio...better responder to training

mididoctors

Dave_1 wrote:

aurelio wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

I argue that the playing field had always been even during the last 10 years.

Doping does not create a level playing field. Different riders respond to doping to different degrees. For example, someone with a natural haemocrit of 39% has much more to gain from boosting it to the UCI's 50% limit (or beyond...) than someone whose natural haemocrit is 49%.

With doping you just can't tell who would have won if everyone had raced clean instead, which is why doping makes a mockery of the 'sport'.

bullshit...

that can't possibly be true... think about it

if your argument is doping is a zero sum game and ASSUMING you are right then it can only have a null effect if everyone does it.

take the tour

even if we assume everybody of note on GC was juiced up (not that unreasonable) the race is distorted because the effect non doped riders have on the race..(doomed breakaways etc) is reduced/nullified... even if the non doped riders are in a minority their inability to effect the race by even coming to the front and impacting the pace of the bunch is a distortion of what would be...

if it is equal for all the race only works if all do it.. for the level playing field argument too work you have to make two assumptions

1) doping is a zero sum game relative to any other doped rider..there is no reshuffling in the ranking of their abilities.. thats a stretch

2) everyone in the bunch must be using a equally effective doping regime... that's a bigger stretch.


why should everyone's doping regime be equal?... a certain counter argument goes certain riders are better because their training regime isn't? what is it about doping that intrinsically neutralizes the effect it has independent of who is doing it or how they are doing it..

the argument is even more spurious given there is no transparency of who is doing what and how..... its conducted in secret for FFS!!!!!!

that position just doesn't hold... you can ride a 9000 strong sportif through it.

aurelio_-_banned

Dave_1 wrote:

aurelio wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

I argue that the playing field had always been even during the last 10 years.

Doping does not create a level playing field. Different riders respond to doping to different degrees. For example, someone with a natural haemocrit of 39% has much more to gain from boosting it to the UCI's 50% limit (or beyond...) than someone whose natural haemocrit is 49%.

With doping you just can't tell who would have won if everyone had raced clean instead, which is why doping makes a mockery of the 'sport'.

bullshit...

So you are still arguing that (50 - 39 ) = (50 - 49). :roll:

On top of that different riders are prepared to push the doping envelope further than other riders, even at a risk to their health.

Also, the paper 'Testing for recombinant human erythropoietin in urine: problems associated with current anti doping testing' done by the Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre and published in June last year found that the same, strictly controlled Epo doing program produced a 32% variation in the resultant increase in areobic power.

Willy Voet`s book also gives some interesting information regarding the vastly differing responses riders have to doping. One example was the way Kelly responded so poorly to a usually very effective steroid program that it`s use earned Voet the nickname of `The Blocker`.

Gazzaputt

frenchfighter wrote:

mmm Lance

Homer J

I bet some pro cyclists don't even know what a dead lift/ bent over row is

disgruntledgoat

Homer J wrote:

I bet some pro cyclists don't even know what a dead lift/ bent over row is

I bet they don't know about magic climbing wheels or that you can train in the rain either.

skavanagh.bikeradar

You can train in the rain?!!!!

disgruntledgoat

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

You can train in the rain?!!!!

shhhh... that's the secret to his success! Remeber? Ullrich would get up in the morning look out the window and go "sod it, not going out in that!"

dave_1

aurelio wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

aurelio wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

I argue that the playing field had always been even during the last 10 years.

Doping does not create a level playing field. Different riders respond to doping to different degrees. For example, someone with a natural haemocrit of 39% has much more to gain from boosting it to the UCI's 50% limit (or beyond...) than someone whose natural haemocrit is 49%.

With doping you just can't tell who would have won if everyone had raced clean instead, which is why doping makes a mockery of the 'sport'.

bullshit...

So you are still arguing that (50 - 39 ) = (59 - 49). :roll:

On top of that different riders are prepared to push the doping envelope further than other riders, even at a risk to their health.

Also, the paper 'Testing for recombinant human erythropoietin in urine: problems associated with current anti doping testing' done by the Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre and published in June last year found that the same, strictly controlled Epo doing program produced a 32% variation in the resultant increase in areobic power.

Willy Voet`s book also gives some interesting information regarding the vastly differing responses riders have to doping. One example was the way Kelly responded so poorly to a usually very effective steroid program that it`s use earned Voet the nickname of `The Blocker`.

and some riders respond better to training than others as their build is more suited, their adjustment at altitude better-a natural advantage...and anyway, all this debate by you assumes Lance A and others are doping which you don't know and they may not be this year.. and the rider with the lower crit levels go to altitide, use oxygen tents...they get to 50% , they get that number different ways and so your arguement is weak. Also, you have not decided yet on whether you believe Wiggins is clean and yet he is riding up there in top 5....so you have questions to answer too.

Also, why do you only come on here to talk cheating？Why have you no will to look at the bigger picture...you assume everyone at the top of GC is doped but you have no real proof. Your evidence is ripped to shreds on here every week...e.g. Colint pulled you up on your comments on the LA foundation last week and you did not address all the points he raised. Likewise you post an IM message which was hearsay gossip..."Aurelio", you definitely don't like winners in any sport...tht is the truth about you-a jealous bitter person

zippypablo

and some riders respond better to training than others as their build is more suited, their adjustment at altitude better-a natural advantage..

that's the way it's suposed to be. Natural advantage is absolutely fine, are you suggesting it's ok to dope as a leveller?

aurelio_-_banned

Dave_1 wrote:

.. the rider with the lower crit levels go to altitide, use oxygen tents...they get to 50% , they get that number different ways and so your arguement is weak.

Seeing as you clearly aren`t actually reading the thread, a repost for your benefit...

Pity that the science shows that the `altitude training` 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!

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.

jackhammer111 - banned

mididoctors wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

aurelio wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

I argue that the playing field had always been even during the last 10 years.

Doping does not create a level playing field. Different riders respond to doping to different degrees. For example, someone with a natural haemocrit of 39% has much more to gain from boosting it to the UCI's 50% limit (or beyond...) than someone whose natural haemocrit is 49%.

With doping you just can't tell who would have won if everyone had raced clean instead, which is why doping makes a mockery of the 'sport'.

bullshit...

that can't possibly be true... think about it

if your argument is doping is a zero sum game and ASSUMING you are right then it can only have a null effect if everyone does it.

take the tour

even if we assume everybody of note on GC was juiced up (not that unreasonable) the race is distorted because the effect non doped riders have on the race..(doomed breakaways etc) is reduced/nullified... even if the non doped riders are in a minority their inability to effect the race by even coming to the front and impacting the pace of the bunch is a distortion of what would be...

if it is equal for all the race only works if all do it.. for the level playing field argument too work you have to make two assumptions

1) doping is a zero sum game relative to any other doped rider..there is no reshuffling in the ranking of their abilities.. thats a stretch

2) everyone in the bunch must be using a equally effective doping regime... that's a bigger stretch.


why should everyone's doping regime be equal?... a certain counter argument goes certain riders are better because their training regime isn't? what is it about doping that intrinsically neutralizes the effect it has independent of who is doing it or how they are doing it..

the argument is even more spurious given there is no transparency of who is doing what and how..... its conducted in secret for FFS!!!!!!

that position just doesn't hold... you can ride a 9000 strong sportif through it.

you overcomplicate most of this. The GC is not about the whole peloton, it's about ten or so guys that can win. It was mostly the same ten guys for years.

EPO was the drug of choice. How hard is it to get injected. The idea that EPO doesn't work for some people is absurd. There's no endurance athlete that doesn't benefit from better oxygen delivery.

zippypablo

but some people adapt to EPO better than others so it's not a level playing field

deejay

zippypablo wrote:

but some people adapt to EPO better than others so it's not a level playing field

And some people don't need EPO because the cancer drugs can be a far superior, PED.

jackhammer111 - banned

iainf72 wrote:

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.

You read EPO in a story and you assume it's the same as before 08. It is not.

Who would be so stupid after 08 that they would inject performance doses of EPO into their bodies. That's not what happened here.

They may have had reason to think mini doses couldn't be detected or that mico injections of EPO into stored blood, to affect young/old blood cell ratios, was still safe.

Now everyone knows it's not safe.

UCI smartly does not give details about these cases. They found EPO. They aren't saying how much, as they should not.

Nobody is doing the large doses of EPO that affected last years Tour podium. It's now easy to detect.

mididoctors

jackhammer111 wrote:

you overcomplicate most of this. The GC is not about the whole peloton, it's about ten or so guys that can win. It was mostly the same ten guys for years.

EPO was the drug of choice. How hard is it to get injected. The idea that EPO doesn't work for some people is absurd. There's no endurance athlete that doesn't benefit from better oxygen delivery.

well lets assume your second point.. doping is zero sum game... is true

the notion the GC race is not influenced by the Peloton as a whole strikes me as a strange if not uniformed thing to say

GC contenders rely on the peloton's internal politics and differing goals to control the race thus minimizing their efforts...

irrespective of the guys at the top of the classement are always the same

hypothetical example

the amount of effort (of say)astana have to make is dictated by the ability of Ag2r presently and the various relative strengths of break away riders to the sprinter teams...

lets say a break away of non dopers is held at a certain gap by Ag2r then some doped up sprinter squad comes on the front in the final 40km..

the ease at which that doped sprinter squad can replicate these efforts day after day will aid Ag2r and in turn Astana... the effect of a doping regime is felt throughout the peloton with some winners and some losers..

the longer astana and other GC contender teams can sit in before critical stages the better it is..

conversely the ease at which Astana can stop Ag2r getting a man into a break and upsetting the applecart is also telling

it all adds up

no?

you are claiming the behavior of the peloton whether it in part dopes or not is a zero sum game..

you might as well argue doping doesn't work.. because in effect that is what you claiming without realising it.

HERE IS THE THING

you don't need to bother with argument about whether rider X gets more advantage than rider Y if they both use product Z... even conceding to you that your argument about doping being a level playing field is true(which it almost certainly is not) you still require everyone to do it

you have rules or you don't..

if some follow the rules and others don't its not the result you would of had if all of them did. can't be... the sport is premised on the effect of drafting on mass

mididoctors

and furthermore note Astana in the above example can be clean and still benefit from other teams doping regime!

jackhammer111 - banned

aurelio wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

.. the rider with the lower crit levels go to altitide, use oxygen tents...they get to 50% , they get that number different ways and so your arguement is weak.

Seeing as you clearly aren`t actually reading the thread, a repost for your benefit...

Pity that the science shows that the `altitude training` 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!

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.



Hmm.. is that the same gore that was a critic of coyle? small world eh?

I few minutes of google finds many studies that find just the opposite. Each of these quotes is from a different study.

"Under the sea-level condition, there was a significant increase in absolute and relative VO2peak, improved (~4%) economy at lactate threshold, and time-adjusted peak power (7%). There was a considerable variation between Ss (-6% to +25%). Simulated sea-level also resulted in a greater arterial saturation (SaO2) at rest and VO2peak, and significantly less desaturation (4% versus 8%) from rest to VO2peak. The individual variability in VO2peak change was not related to sea-level arterial saturation or any other SaO2 variable analyzed."

"Both groups demonstrated similar improvements in time-trial cycle exercise performance and physiologic adaptations during constant-work rate exercise from pre- to post-intermittent altitude exposures. Thus, data from all Ss were combined. Seven days of intermittent altitude exposures resulted in a 16% improvement in time-trial cycle exercise performance from pre- to post-exposures. During the two constant-work rate exercise bouts, there was an increase in exercise arterial O2 saturation, a decrease in exercise heart rate, and a decrease in exercise ratings of perceived exertion as the study progressed."

"There were significant differences between arterial oxygen saturation values between weeks 1 and 3, and weeks 4 and 7."

Implication. "An increase in submaximal VO2 (1-10%) occurred in all cyclists following altitude training."

"Implication. This study showed that hypoxic sleeping was related to an improvement in running economy."

I found this interesting one too: "Viagra Boosts High Altitude Exercise Up To 45% For Some Cyclists"

On the podium UCI looks for winner wood.

Homer J

Michael Jackson slept in an Oxygen tent and look what happened to him :shock:
BTW my nan was on epo(for medical reasons), the difference it made was incredible.

Homer J

Gazzaputt wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Frenchy, you got a hardon for Lance or what, bet you got these pics all over your room

jackhammer111 - banned

mididoctors wrote:

jackhammer111 wrote:

you overcomplicate most of this. The GC is not about the whole peloton, it's about ten or so guys that can win. It was mostly the same ten guys for years.

EPO was the drug of choice. How hard is it to get injected. The idea that EPO doesn't work for some people is absurd. There's no endurance athlete that doesn't benefit from better oxygen delivery.

well lets assume your second point.. doping is zero sum game... is true

the notion the GC race is not influenced by the Peloton as a whole strikes me as a strange if not uniformed thing to say

I didn't say only 10 guys were doing it. I'm saying even doped the rest of the field can't beat the same top ten guys.

It didn't take an genius to come up with an EPO program. If Johans teams changed over time. You don't think secrets would have moved to other teams as riders did? The idea that Ferrari was some evil genius is absurd. Lances domination lasted 7 years. There is no way that happened because of some secret program that gave him an unfair advantage.

He's back, under a much more severe testing system, and how's he doing?

His results are because he's a better athlete and better racer.