| Author |
 Topic  |
|
DK-IT
National Champion
Italy
403 Posts |
 Posted - 14/08/2009 : 15:16:39
|
I personally believe Sastre was a rocket "downclocked" to last longer 
--- Voigt for president ! --- |
 |
|
|
SaxoTheBest
National Champion
Belgium
838 Posts |
|
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
Posted - 14/08/2009 : 17:32:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by SaxoTheBest
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kohl-confirms-manager-bribed-anti-doping-labs
Interesting piece of news. First of all it confirms the theory I have repeated multiple times throughout the last 3 years, that todays doped riders, have started to use micro dossage. Instead of using doping once in a while, they dope each day 365 days a year. In that way the dossage become so small, that the doping test has problem to trace it, and moreover it also give more "constant" values in the biological passport. As we all remember, the biological passport is designed to measure sudden fluctuations in the values, and if you only dope with micro dossage, then its increasingly hard to proof.
In regards of the biological passport it however still is an effecient weapon to detect the cheaters. In example the passport will detect if you make a sudden big blood transfusion, so in all circumstances it make doping a lot more difficult for the cheaters.
The second part of interesting news from Kohl, is that not only the Spanish labs are helping to counter check samples from doped riders (to stay below the radar), but now also a lab from central Europe! Hopefully the Austrian police can help to identify this rotten lab. 
¤ Winner of the Golden League Fantasy Game 2008 |
Edited by - KD teammate on 14/08/2009 17:34:08 |
|
|
|
Heppu
Stagiaire
Finland
10 Posts |
Posted - 14/08/2009 : 19:05:20
|
Thanks KD teammate for clarifying your starting points and thinking. I agree basicly with you. Only slight difference which I see is that the practically free doping era of 90´s set bar so high in endurance sports that all who show similar capacity today ought to be suspected. This is a kind of benchmark for me. And I understand that in the links what you gave also prof. Schumachers thinking goes along these lines. Free use of epo and HGH supported (with some cautiousness) with insulin and testosterone and boooooom! First epo users were caught - if I remember right - only in 2002.
Still today HGH can be used pretty freely and now it can be supported more easily by powerful IGF-1 as first commercial IGF -product was taken into use during 2007. And that sad example (Kohl) of buying cooperation from dopinglabs adds doubts on todays riders´shoulders. It was Macchiavelli who already noted that if people are not coerced to be decent, they won´t be. High rewards of doping are of course the reasons behind it.
Heppu |
|
|
|
Forstoppelse
Stagiaire
Denmark
19 Posts |
Posted - 16/08/2009 : 13:30:22
|
Great summaries, KD.
What is worth remembering about Contador is that he was an excellent ITT'er in the U23's, too. He has always been superb on 10-20 kilometers and always loses time from an ITT's 25th kilometer. Of course, he may have been doped since his youthier days. What I found the most disturbing was his 3 watts development from Peyresourde in 2007 to the Peyresourde-like Col de Romme this year. That, I didn't like.
What I haven't seen mentioned in the statistics and comments of this years puissances was the shortness of the climbs. Excluding Mont Ventoux, the longest climbing time of the best was 27 minutes - this on Col de Romme. Hautacam, Luz-Ardiden, Alpe d'Huez, Plateau de Beille, Col d'Aubisque and whatever climb, they're all 10-15 minutes longer in climbing time than Col de Romme. Forgotten about the Verbier climb was of course the wind at the bottom of the climb, the climb's shortness and most of all that Contador climbed the last 10 minutes of Verbier with just 440 watts - that is not in the real monster-zone when it's just 10 minutes of a 20 minutes climb.
What I find hard to believe is Andy Schleck being five seconds faster than Armstrong and Pantani on Mont Ventoux in 2000. Of course, 2000 was, looking at Cyclismags puissances, one of the lesser doped years in recent history but how on Earth would Andy Schleck be able to reach that level without... well, I don't know. |
|
|
|
OctaBech
National Champion
Denmark
898 Posts |
Posted - 16/08/2009 : 14:26:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Forstoppelse
Great summaries, KD.
What is worth remembering about Contador is that he was an excellent ITT'er in the U23's, too. He has always been superb on 10-20 kilometers and always loses time from an ITT's 25th kilometer. Of course, he may have been doped since his youthier days. What I found the most disturbing was his 3 watts development from Peyresourde in 2007 to the Peyresourde-like Col de Romme this year. That, I didn't like.
What I haven't seen mentioned in the statistics and comments of this years puissances was the shortness of the climbs. Excluding Mont Ventoux, the longest climbing time of the best was 27 minutes - this on Col de Romme. Hautacam, Luz-Ardiden, Alpe d'Huez, Plateau de Beille, Col d'Aubisque and whatever climb, they're all 10-15 minutes longer in climbing time than Col de Romme. Forgotten about the Verbier climb was of course the wind at the bottom of the climb, the climb's shortness and most of all that Contador climbed the last 10 minutes of Verbier with just 440 watts - that is not in the real monster-zone when it's just 10 minutes of a 20 minutes climb.
What I find hard to believe is Andy Schleck being five seconds faster than Armstrong and Pantani on Mont Ventoux in 2000. Of course, 2000 was, looking at Cyclismags puissances, one of the lesser doped years in recent history but how on Earth would Andy Schleck be able to reach that level without... well, I don't know.
But how does one define an excellent time trialist? Is it all about power and time? Because then he's amazing, but if it's about style and balance then Contador is left wanting, despite his great victories.
Dunno why you are more alarmed by Andy when Contador never showed problems following and more often easily took time on a sweat soaked Andy.
Anyway, they are both monitored by Damsgaard. ):
- Professional Couchrider |
|
|
|
Forstoppelse
Stagiaire
Denmark
19 Posts |
Posted - 16/08/2009 : 18:31:54
|
| I am not more alarmed by Andy than Contador, I'm just more interested in Andy. I don't believe nor hope that Andy is or has been doping, I'm just wondering. I would love if the blood values would be published again this year. |
|
|
|
OctaBech
National Champion
Denmark
898 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 00:47:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Forstoppelse
I am not more alarmed by Andy than Contador, I'm just more interested in Andy. I don't believe nor hope that Andy is or has been doping, I'm just wondering. I would love if the blood values would be published again this year.
Agreed and it would also be nice if they named the riders this time around.
Not that I would be able to understand the values, but just the signal value would mean a lot.
- Professional Couchrider |
|
|
|
sander
Hors Categorie
Belgium
2339 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 13:10:26
|
I don't see a problem in putting names on the blood values either. Bradley Wiggins did it, so why couldn't Saxo show they are willing to do it too. It would be a confirmation that they really want to fight doping as much as possible.
Winner of the Vuelta Fantasy Game 2007 |
|
|
|
SaxoTheBest
National Champion
Belgium
838 Posts |
|
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
Posted - 27/08/2009 : 14:37:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Forstoppelse
What I haven't seen mentioned in the statistics and comments of this years puissances was the shortness of the climbs. Excluding Mont Ventoux, the longest climbing time of the best was 27 minutes - this on Col de Romme. Hautacam, Luz-Ardiden, Alpe d'Huez, Plateau de Beille, Col d'Aubisque and whatever climb, they're all 10-15 minutes longer in climbing time than Col de Romme. Forgotten about the Verbier climb was of course the wind at the bottom of the climb, the climb's shortness and most of all that Contador climbed the last 10 minutes of Verbier with just 440 watts - that is not in the real monster-zone when it's just 10 minutes of a 20 minutes climb.
What I find hard to believe is Andy Schleck being five seconds faster than Armstrong and Pantani on Mont Ventoux in 2000. Of course, 2000 was, looking at Cyclismags puissances, one of the lesser doped years in recent history but how on Earth would Andy Schleck be able to reach that level without... well, I don't know.
I agree that we have a lot "explaining factors" of why Contadors "power ratio by weight" was so extremely high at the Verbier mountain in 2009. One of the purposes with my long post at page 18, was to highlight that we should be aware of those factors, before we try to conclude anything from the calculated numbers. So my basic recommendation still is, not to compare the average of the ratios for each year, but instead to try an analyse each stage, and then check if the power ratios can be explained by the circumstances.
As mentioned earlier we have a lot of factors to impact the power ratios (and to sum up, here are the most important to check):
1) What was the "racing tactic" at the last mountain?
A) Did the selection of the favourite group only happen at the last mountain, or even at an earlier point of the stage (to wear them down)?
B) Did the favourites get advantage of "wind suck" at the first part of the last mountain, due to a compact peleton arriving together?
C) Did the favourites get advantage by launching "exploding" domestique riders in front of them to up the pace?
D) Did we have an early strong breakaway, who forced the favourite group to work harder than normal at the first part of the climb?
E) At what point of the final mountain did the favourites open up to go full gas, and out at solo attacks?
F) When the favourites attacked, was it then with the style of yoyo-attack, or did they launch a more efficient time trial rythm?
G) Did the yellow jersey let his competitors decide the pace (to ride defensivly), or did he attack to go full out at his personal max?
2) How did the rest of the course affect the strength of the riders at the last mountain?
A) In case it was an ITT after a restday, the circumstances would be optimal. First question is, what the riders did the previous day?
B) Next we should consider the course of the specific day being analyzed. Did we have several hard mountains, or just one final hard one?
C) Did the last mountain end with a summit or a descent (where some additional tactical considerations could impact the pace)?
3) How did the weather conditions impact the power ratio?
A) How strong was the wind, and from what directions was it blowing?
B) Did we have fog/rain to slow down the riders?
C) Did we have high temperatures to slow down the riders (due to less effecient body cooling)?
4) What were the mountain specific factors?
A) Was the mountain short (15min-30min) or long (above 30min)?
B) As a general rule: The steeper the mountain, the less positive effect we have from "wheel-sucking". So how steep was the mountain?
C) What was the average altitude of the mountain (since this heavily impact air density, and also the maximum of the power ratio)?
D) Did we have a rough/smooth road surface?
So as you can probably imagine from the list above, we have so many factors that its an impossible job to compare power ratios! Basicly even if we compare power ratios for the same mountain in different years, we still need identical: Racing tactic, course before the last mountain and weather conditions, in order to conclude if one ratio one year, indeed mean the rider was stronger compared to a previous one.
To give a short example, I found out after looking at the power ratios from 2006, that the power ratio of Michael Rasmussen at the last mountain of a stage (not surprisingly) would be around 0.5 W/kg lower, in those stages where he had been out all day long in early breakaways. And this effect of riders getting weared down can be even bigger, if the rider runs out of fuel (like Landis did at La Toussuire).
In regards of the comparison of Mount Ventoux power ratios from 2000 to 2009, you should also be extremely careful. The racing tactic of Pantani in 2000 was only to launch his attack with 6km to go, and Armstrong only launched his attack with 3km to go. So there was a lot of "waiting game" going on, and moreover the early breakaway was caught rather early at the slope, meaning that the favourite group didnt have any pressure to accelerate the tempo. I am aware we also had the favourites riding slower than their potential at the midsector of the climb in 2009. But the difference in racing tactics combined with other weather conditions, can easily explain why the ratios for this mountain had the same level in 2009 as in 2000. So we cant really conclude anything from that observation alone.
A final comment about Contadors power ratio at the Veribier mountain 2009:
Earlier I mentioned how some optimal racing tactics, and the parcourse before the mountain, all helped Contador to get a high power ratio.
At the first 2.7km the entire peleton was compact with a power output of 7.86 W/kg (550st.W), and had advantage of "wind suck".
Then Contador attacked and raced the next 2km with 7.64 W/kg (535st.W), where Andy Schleck in comparison posted 7.00 W/kg (490st.W).
The following 2km Contadors power droped to 6.43 W/kg (450st.W), while Andy Schleck droped to 6.00 W/kg (420st.W).
For the final 2km Contadors power droped to 6.14 W/kg (430st.W), while Andy Schleck maintain his previous output of 6.00 W/kg (420st.W).
If we calculate the power for all 8.5km of the mountain, then we get the "polluted numbers": Contador=7.00 W/kg and A.Schleck=6.73 W/kg
If we only calculate the power for the final 5.7km where Contador attacked, then we find: Contador=6.74 W/kg and A.Schleck=6.33W/kg.
The numbers above were calculated by Frederick Portoleau (www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5184), and show how powerfull the first acceleration is when a GC favourite attack, and then for how long it can be sustained in the red zone, before reaching a more long lasting rythm. In the numbers above we however also notice, the great bennefit of a compact+exploding peleton, at the first part of the mountain. The peleton travels with calculated values of 550st.W, but please note that these are the "calculated values". If we measure the actual power with a SRM computer, then both the riders in the front line use a little less than that (due to "no wind drag from behind"), and the favourites in the middle of the peleton use a lot less (due to "wind suck"). So the calculated numbers gets polluted, and will show a too high power output, compared to the real numbers.
To proof my point about the "polluted" numbers from traditional power calculations, in a situation with "wind suck", one can just take a look at the SRM measured power numbers for Chris Anker Sørensen at the Verbier climb. As you probably recall, he was one of the Saxo riders setting a blistering high tempo in the front of the peleton at the first 2.7km of the mountain. The standard calculation above showed a theoretical power of 7.86W/kg (550st.W), but the SRM computer at his bike instead measured "just" 7.36W/kg (515st.W), for the 1.6 kilometer he raced in front of the peleton (before exploding). www.srm.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420&Itemid=260&lang=en
In regards of Contadors performance at Verbier 2009, then its however interesting to compare it with the values obtained by the riders, when they climbed the same mountain in Tour de Suisse 2008. In that race we were also lucky to have comparable racing tactics and parcourse. In 2008 the stage was 188km (and took 5h29min to ride), while the stage in 2009 was 208km (and took 5h04min to ride).
As previously explained, the racing tactic by the peleton and Contador in 2009, was to ride the mountain with 100% right from the bottom. And we had comparable racing tactics in 2008, where a compact peleton arrived at the bottom, and with Highroad+CSC launching a blistering high tempo at the first 4.5km of the mountain, to catch an early breakaway at the slopes (and as a consequence minimizing the peleton to 30 riders). After the first 4.5km (with 5km to go), we then had the first favourite attack by F.Schleck, and from that point it was mano el mano all the way to the summit.
Without looking into the weather conditions, we therefor had very similair circumstances to impact the power ratios in Tour de Suisse 2008 and Tour de France 2009, and hence it open up for an interesting comparison. Only detail to note, is that the mountain in 2008 was prolonged with an additional 1.2km at 5.4%. Meaning the Verbier mountain in total was 9.7km=7.24% (instead of 8.5km=7.61%).
So what were the power numbers from Verbier in 2008 (calculated for 9.7km)? As the fastest we had Kirchen+Klöden at 6.36W/kg(445st.W), and close behind Andy Schleck at 6.28 W/kg (439st.W). I dont know if the weather conditions were different between 2008 and 2009, but at least I think its safe to conclude, that the riders also in 2008 succeeded to post some high power numbers, at this particulair mountain. 
Note 1: I just found out, that when Portoleau calculated the riders power to 550 standard watt, at the first section of Verbier in 2009, he apparently made the mistake to assume that the mountains average gradient of 7.6% also could be used for this part of the mountain! After having a closer look at the mountain profile (www.climbbybike.com/profile/Verbier_profile.jpg), this is however not the case!
When using the correct gradient of 6.93% for the first 2.7km of Verbier (shown in the graphic from km.17-19.7), then the calculation by Portoleau will instead "just" show 510 standard watt = 7.28 W/kg (Ferrari=7.00 + correction=0.28) for this first section. And then the remaining 5.8km at 8.13% will subsequently show 490 standard watt = 7.00 W/kg (Ferrari=6.72 + correction=0.28). All in all this corresponds to a value for the 8.5km at 496st.W=7.09W/kg. The article from Portoleau showed, that based on his height data, the power for the 8.5km ended at 490st.W=7.00W/kg. Since we have no reason to believe this calculation contained an error, we can calculate backwards with the Ferrari formula, and then find a correction value of 0.28W/kg to be added (to get the numbers Portoleau got). Based on all that we can assume that Portoleaus overall power value for the mountain is correct. But in regards of the section values he listed, we can be as good as certain, that he did a mistake in his calculation! I discovered the mistake when counter checking each section values with Ferrari's formula. To see further details for the calculation, then check the last note 3 in this post. 
Note 2: As a last counter check, then my focus was to try and see if the uploaded gradients (www.climbbybike.com/profile/Verbier_profile.jpg), could be confirmed by Chris Ankers measured SRM profile of Verbier (www.srm.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420&Itemid=260&lang=en). The SRM measured gradients are listed below, and could indeed confirm the gradients uploaded by Climbbybike (meaning that Note 1 above, indeed found a serious mistake in the calculation posted by Cyclismag). Here are the calculated SRM gradients (with the uploaded gradients from Climbbybike shown in parenthesis):
Foothill 300m.....: (818m - 820m)/300m = 0.7% (climbbybike=0.8%)
0.0 km -2.7 km: (1007m - 820m)/2700m = 6.9% (climbbybike=(1001m-814m)/2700m=6.9%)
2.70km-4.65km: (1165m-1007m)/1950m = 8.1% (climbbybike=(1161m-1001m)/1950m=8.2%)
4.65km-6.65km: (1322m-1165m)/2000m = 7.9% (climbbybike=(1327m-1161m)/2000m = 8.3%)
6.65km-8.50km: (1462m-1322m)/1850m = 7.6% (climbbybike=(1473m-1327m)/1850m = 7.9%)
--------------------------------------------------------
Average 8.5km: (1462m - 820m)/8500m = 7.6% (climbbybike=(1473m-814m)/8500m = 7.8%)
Final 5.8km.....: (1462m-1007m)/5800m = 7.8% (climbbybike=(1473m-1001m)/5800m = 8.1%)
--------------------------------------------------------
0.25km-1.87km: 108m/1620m = 6.67% (measured accurately for the section of the 8.5km mountain, where Chris Anker made a powerfull leadout of 7.37 W/kg)
When reading the SRM graph, the altitude in height meters could only be noted with an accuracy of +/-5m. So the calculated gradients from the SRM profile, can still be +/-0.25 wrong for a distance with 2km. In spite of this uncertainty, the gradients are still accurate enough to confirm the height profile from Climbbybike. Finaly it should be noted, that the height profile from Climbbybike only list the height development for each kilometer, and hence the values inbetween had to be calculated with the average gradient for that specific kilometer (meaning a further uncertainty attached to the calculated values from Climbbybike). With all this being said, I believe the SRM calculated gradients are the most accurate ones!
Note 3: When using the SRM calculated height profile from note 2, then the measured time gaps from Portoleau at the different sections of Verbier, will instead result in these new power values (when using the Ferrari formula):
Verbier, 1.part (2.70km=6.93% =>187m)*: T=05:57 => VAM=1886m/h, and Ferrari=7.00W/kg + correction=0.28W/kg = 7.28W/kg (510st.W) (instead of 7.86W/kg=550st.W)
Verbier, 2.part (1.95km=8.10% =>158m)*: T=04:35 => VAM=2068m/h, and Ferrari=7.36W/kg + correction=0.28W/kg = 7.64W/kg (535st.W) (instead of 7.64W/kg=535st.W)
Verbier, 3.part (2.00km=7.85% =>157m)*: T=05:32 => VAM=1702m/h, and Ferrari=6.11W/kg + correction=0.28W/kg = 6.39W/kg (447st.W) (instead of 6.43W/kg=450st.W)
Verbier, 4.part (1.85km=7.57% =>140m)*: T=04:51 => VAM=1732m/h, and Ferrari=6.28W/kg + correction=0.28W/kg = 6.56W/kg (459st.W) (instead of 6.14W/kg=430st.W)
Verbier, total (8.5km=7.55% =>642m)*: T=20:55 => VAM=1842m/h, and Ferrari=6.68W/kg + correction=0.28W/kg = 6.96 W/kg (487st.W) (instead of 7.00W/kg=490st.W)
Verbier, final (5.8km=7.84% =>455m)*: T=14:58 => VAM=1824m/h, and Ferrari=6.55W/kg + correction=0.28W/kg = 6.83 W/kg (478st.W) (instead of 6.74W/kg=472st.W)
¤ Winner of the Golden League Fantasy Game 2008 |
Edited by - KD teammate on 29/08/2009 11:16:27 |
|
|
|
Culkasi
Hors Categorie
United Kingdom
4081 Posts |
|
|
Fausto
Elite Rider
Denmark
221 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2009 : 22:49:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Culkasi
Danish blood-scientiest speculates that Army was doped during the tour, based on his blood values
http://sporten.tv2.dk/article.php/id-24780172.html?forside
Culkasi
This is the same type of allegations, that Michael Rasmussen was confronted with, when he in 2007 published his UCI-test. I believe he also had an increase from around 40 to 43.
I think it is fair to say, that it is a remarkable increase, but it can not be considered as evidence as of yet, despite the experiences with UCI pass port and the Antidoping programmes of Saxo, Astana and the likes. |
|
|
|
CrossRacer
National Champion
USA
322 Posts |
|
|
KD teammate
Hors Categorie
Denmark
5683 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2009 : 21:44:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by CrossRacer
quote:
Originally posted by Culkasi
Danish blood-scientiest speculates that Army was doped during the tour, based on his blood values
http://sporten.tv2.dk/article.php/id-24780172.html?forside
Testing results through the Tour:
http://cdn-community2.livestrong.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/10/c981f7be-e46c-4245-aa9d-d61ae110a264.Full.jpg
The test results from Armstrong are not suspicious by the first catch of the eye. He is a good level below of all UCI health limits. In example his hematocrit fluctuate from 39% to 45%, with an average value of 42%. This a good level below the limit of 50%. The reason why the Danish expert is not satisfied, is the fact that Armstrongs hematocrit didnt drop during the Tour de France (42.8-->41.3-->40.7-->43.1-->41.7-->43), like it did during the Giro (43.5-->40-->38.2). Earlier a study of Damsgaard indicated that during a hard 3-week race, the hematocrite of a rider would normaly decrease.
My general point of view is, that many media and experts enjoy to speculate in all sorts of directions. It would however suit them if they start to ellevate their stories to a more scientific level. The problem is, that we cant use the data uploaded by Armstrong to conclude whether or not he is doped/clean. There are techniques out in the field to dillute your blood values, and alternative doping methods that wont impact the natural hematocrit/hemaglobin.
Of course the values uploaded by Armstrong are interesting for us all as a base of reference. In particulair if someone has access to compare his values from 2009 with his values in 1999-2005. To be honest, I am amazed that nobody asked him to permit for that publication of old values to happen. I guess most of you know, that he never will approve such publication, because it would clearly reveal that his values in 2009 dont in any way correlate with his levels posted in 1999-2005 (and hence, at some point of time has been manipulated). The fact is, that the doping methods has developed a lot from 1999 to 2009. So a historical study of Armstrongs past values could be very interesting to have a look at.
Beside from that, I think we really cant conclude anything based upon the uploaded blood values from Armstrong in 2009. His variation in hematocrite during the Tour de France can be explained by how dehydrated he was, when the sample was taken. Its a well known fact, that top riders limit their water intake to the absolute necessary amount, so at the tough mountain stages with warm weather, they often arrive with higher hematocrit levels, compared to after a flat stage. This effect alone (combined with the accuracy of measurements) can explain the values of Armstrong during the Tour.
Basicly the numbers from Armstrong reveal nothing about a possible use of EPO or EPO-similair products! But with that being said we still dont know whether or not he used other doping methods (not impacting natural hemaglobin/hematocrit). Another point of uncertainty is, that the product HES can be used to artificialy lower your hematocrit and hemaglobin values. According to a Norwegian scientist (www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_parent=1&id=28&id_nyhed=21690) the use of HES can however not lower the hematocrit values from 50 to 43 (or hemaglobin from 17 to 14), but only lower the values to a smaller degree. Once again we however cant know from that fact alone, whether or not Armstrong was clean/doped in the Tour.
¤ Winner of the Golden League Fantasy Game 2008 |
Edited by - KD teammate on 03/09/2009 22:21:05 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Doping affairs in Cycling since 1980
