# Power #'s of clean riders



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

For those of you who study pro level power, what is the range we should be seeing from riders who are certifiably clean? Is there a power to weight ratio that is generally considered to be the ceiling to human physical ability without drugs? 

I am also interested in seeing power to weight numbers from some of the riders who are believed to be clean. Looking on Saris' site you can look at some of Vande Velde's power and it generally shows his climbing power to be in the 5-5.5 w/kg range.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

I here it is 5.8 watts/kilo for a lighter weight small man.

Nobody can get over 420 watts at 60 minute-power(FTP).

So a larger man always will have a lower FTP/KILO.

Lance had about 6.7 watts/kilo at FTP whereas Rasmussen had close to 8 watts/Kilo jacked on Hemopure®.

However, who will win a dead flat 60 km TT?

A 130 pound man with 450 watts.

Or a 165 pound man with 500 watts?

The man with 500 watts of course! Weight makes almost no difference at all at high speeds. Even on a 7% uphill, if the riders are at 20 mph, losing 10 pounds only lower your power output from 600 watts-583 for example.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

Apparently Boardman did his hour record at 435W/68kg, i'd be surprised if Cancellara isn't at least 450W FTP.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

F1nut said:


> The man with 500 watts of course! Weight makes almost no difference at all at high speeds. Even on a 7% uphill, if the riders are at 20 mph, losing 10 pounds only lower your power output from 600 watts-583 for example.


What? Make sense.


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

Not questioning the veracity of your statements, but I'd interested in a source for the number for Rasmussen.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

mendo said:


> Not questioning the veracity of your statements, but I'd interested in a source for the number for Rasmussen.


Greg Lemond's reference towards: Rasmussen 2007. Before he was removed.  Lemond was at the tour de france in 2008 talking to team directors and that was the general knowledge of what had gone down. Lemond states this publicly and it was never refuted by anyone. Lemond said he talked with the ASO on removing themselves from the UCI. ASO never refuted this and all these statements were made public.

I used the Krutzinger Speed/Power calculator on a smooth road 75 degrees with no wind. 

There is no tangable power data on the hour record holders.  

This is a source of estimation

Boardman's 1996 ride: 462 watts.

Indurain had 510 watts in this particula Basque-Study. 
Lets remind outselves how un-real Indurain was in long Tour de France TT's. :aureola: I dont believe Boardman had the capacity to take Mr. Indurain on during the Superbowl of cycling.

Remember, all the top power men peak out their fitness/doping for the Tour de France. Not the hour record. 

Aha! I found Indurain's *real FTP*: 505 watts. 5.65 liter per minute of oxygen at that too. 
(High Performance Cycling, Asker E. Juakendrup, PHD) page 85


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

iliveonnitro said:


> What? Make sense.



A man who goes from 140-130 pounds will require 17 less watts at 20 miles per hour on a 7% grade.

Please make specific refutes. What does not make since?

500 watt man at 165 pounds being faster on a flat road?

450 watt man at 130 pounds being slower on a flat road?


Thanks for your time.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2008)

F1nut said:


> A man who goes from 140-130 pounds will require 17 less watts at 20 miles per hour on a 7% grade.
> 
> Please make specific refutes. What does not make since?
> 
> ...



We actually don't have enough information to know which one of them would be fastest. In order to know that some holes would have to be filled in. Are they using the same frames, helmets, and tires? Are they aerodynamically identical but yet different sizes? Maybe the 500watt guy can produce that power because his position allows him too but the more aerodynamic position of the 450 watt rider gives him an advantage.


And going back to the earlier posts, any discussion of W/kg and what is realistic has to include a time frame. I can hit 8.0 and so can most people, hitting that for any length of time that's something. Big differences between say 5.0 for an hour and something over 6.0 for an hour.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

kytyree said:


> We actually don't have enough information to know which one of them would be fastest. In order to know that some holes would have to be filled in. Are they using the same frames, helmets, and tires? Are they aerodynamically identical but yet different sizes? Maybe the 500watt guy can produce that power because his position allows him too but the more aerodynamic position of the 450 watt rider gives him an advantage.


I think it's fair to assume that the poster was referring to all things being equal and no abnormal discrepancies, e.g. suppose these were 2 average professional cyclists. Of course we could also delve into what rider A did the night before or whether rider B had breakfast, but that really would render a meaningful discussion pointless.



> And going back to the earlier posts, any discussion of W/kg and what is realistic has to include a time frame. I can hit 8.0 and so can most people, hitting that for any length of time that's something. Big differences between say 5.0 for an hour and something over 6.0 for an hour.


Poster made references to FTP, so an hour is assumed.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

chase196126 said:


> For those of you who study pro level power, what is the range we should be seeing from riders who are certifiably clean? Is there a power to weight ratio that is generally considered to be the ceiling to human physical ability without drugs?
> 
> I am also interested in seeing power to weight numbers from some of the riders who are believed to be clean. Looking on Saris' site you can look at some of Vande Velde's power and it generally shows his climbing power to be in the 5-5.5 w/kg range.


I'd guestimate the breakpoint is somewhere around 6.0 w/kg. Certainly the 6.5 or so that Armstrong and co. have stated is a prerequisite to win a GT appears to be an entirely enhanced number.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

function said:


> Apparently Boardman did his hour record at 435W/68kg, i'd be surprised if Cancellara isn't at least 450W FTP.


If those are Boardman's numbers how come he couldn't climb worth much of anything? That should have given him a power/weight right up there with the best.

Also, I know Boardman's reputation but realistically these numbers are from a time when one could dope with all but 100% immunity. Who's to say these are really clean numbers?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

kytyree said:


> In order to know that some holes would have to be filled in. Are they using the same frames, helmets, and tires?
> And going back to the earlier posts, any discussion of W/kg and what is realistic has to include a time frame. I can hit 8.0 and so can most people, hitting that for any length of time that's something. Big differences between say 5.0 for an hour and something over 6.0 for an hour.


:thumbsup: I used identical eguipment. Krutzinger calculator.

I'm talking about FTP/Kilo Values if you were reading. FTP is called your functional threshold power output, and its what we compare for 60 minute power values.

Pharmstrong was at around 6.6 or so(2005)
Rasmussen closer to 8; in 2007 before being removed.... Maby he was only at 7.5 but he was jacked right up there.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> If those are Boardman's numbers how come he couldn't climb worth much of anything? realistically these numbers are from a time when one could dope with all but 100% immunity. Who's to say these are really clean numbers?


*NONE of these numbers we are talking about are achieved without massive amounts of illegal drugs/*

Boardman was a proloque specialist for the Tour de France. He had a high VO2 max and a high 5-20 minute power but not a strong FTP/Kilo. Its FTP power/kilo that wins the grand Tours since you have all the slow, steep mountain climbs. _The slower your traveling, the bigger the percentage influence gravity makes up._ If your climbing a steep mountain at 450 watts, that might only be 12-15 mph. *Also, the man wasnt good at recovering from day to day from what I've read.*

I actually talked about whats accepted as possible without doping in my first post if you bothered to read the thread instead of wizzing on down here... These are things you have to read into; before you question. :thumbsup: 

Lemond had around 5.8 watts per Kilo (I took his best ever Alp/D'huez climb. He could hold about 390 watts at 67.2 kg. I considered Lemond to be clean but who F- Knows for sure! 


UNDOPED NUMBERS:

Someone rasmussen's size; being able able to hold just 330 watts un-doped at FTP would be *HUGE* for him, HUGE. *Thats national level power output in itself*. Armstrong with that highest recorded VO2 max test had a lactate threshold(roughly 20 minute power) of about 403 watts.(Coyle) So his FTP was 390 range presumably un-doped in September 1999. Or atleast I'd like to think he could get up to that without cheating.

Fully doped Rasmussen had about 7.5-8 per Kilo at 58kg so were talking 435-460 range for FTP. Before being removed. 

Fully doped Pharmstrong was around 6.6 or 6.7... But... Lance is a heavier man at 74 kg. So... 488-500 watts range for Pharmstrong. Yes, these are FTP numbers. Sad but true. 

2005 was Lance's best year performance wise. The rumor was that Pharmstrong was actually at 520 for FTP. THe only explanation I could have for Lance gaining power from 1999-2005 (age 28-34) is improvement in the doping methods used by Michelle Ferrari (trial and error). _So lance at 74 kilos would have been 7 watts/kilo in 2005. _ A big man like him producing that is more impressive than the Chicken's riding in all honesty.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2008)

F1nut said:


> :thumbsup: I used identical eguipment. Krutzinger calculator.



So your assumption then is that one guy who outweighs another by 35 pounds somehow is identical in aerodynamics and rolling resistance?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

F1nut said:


> Rasmussen closer to 8; in 2007 before being removed.... Maby he was only at 7.5 but he was jacked right up there.


That just doesn't seem realistic. If we take 6.0 as the natural human limit and 6.7 as the advantage one can gain by a full-on blood boosting program, Ras would have had to have been getting a doubling of the typical doping gains. When Basso was soft-pedaling to winning the Giro he was probably in the range of 6.5-6.7 based on his climbing speeds and weight. I would think anyone with a number even approaching 7.0 would simply be toying with other riders anytime the race went uphill.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> If those are Boardman's numbers how come he couldn't climb worth much of anything? That should have given him a power/weight right up there with the best.
> 
> Also, I know Boardman's reputation but realistically these numbers are from a time when one could dope with all but 100% immunity. Who's to say these are really clean numbers?


That's actually not true, Boardman used to win many 1 day hilly events, he was in fact a very strong climber, but he just didn't do well in GTs, he's been quoted as saying that it was due to poor recovery.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I'd guestimate the breakpoint is somewhere around 6.0 w/kg. Certainly the 6.5 or so that Armstrong and co. have stated is a prerequisite to win a GT appears to be an entirely enhanced number.



A smaller man requires a higher FTP/Kilo to win since their total power output will be less for the Flat, long Individual Time trials.

Larger men like Pharmstrong and Indurain had less FTP/Kilo than Chicken Rasmuseen but slightly higher FTP power values since they are bigg.

In all honesty Rasmussen would have won that 2007 TdF but it was sick and gross and they made the right descision to take him away  The TV man that busted chicken on his wherabouts was total BS, totaly. Think about it, governing bodies dont listen to the WADA drug testers (Pharmstrong's positive samples) But yet LISTENED TO SOME TV REPORTER!!


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

function said:


> That's actually not true, Boardman used to win many 1 day hilly events, he was in fact a very strong climber, but he just didn't do well in GTs, he's been quoted as saying that it was due to poor recovery.


Boardman had a high VO2 max. Your VO2 max is the ceiling for FTP so boardman could train it up if he wanted. And he did for the Hour record.

Yes, He couldnt recover well


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> That just doesn't seem realistic. If we take 6.0 as the natural human limit and 6.7 as the advantage one can gain by a full-on blood boosting program, Ras would have had to have been getting a doubling of the typical doping gains. When Basso was soft-pedaling to winning the Giro he was probably in the range of 6.5-6.7 based on his climbing speeds and weight. I would think anyone with a number even approaching 7.0 would simply be toying with other riders anytime the race went uphill.


Read some of my earlier posts.

When I started playing with the Krutzinger calculator I WAS JUST LIKE YOU. I didnt believe it either.

Even at low speed (15 mph) aerodynamics plays a large role.

Were not even taking into account drafting. And if your a rider like I am, you know how important that is!!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

F1nut said:


> *NONE of these numbers we are talking about are achieved without massive amounts of illegal drugs/*
> I actually talked about whats accepted as possible without doping in my first post if you bothered to read the thread instead of wizzing on down here... These are things you have to read into; before you question. :thumbsup:


I actually wasn't responding to you at all but to Function's post which as a response to a question about what is possible clean makes my response completely sensible.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Ah ha! You guys carry on. Okay I've contributed a whole chapter I'm done for now...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

F1nut said:


> Think about it, governing bodies dont listen to the WADA drug testers (Pharmstrong's positive samples) But yet LISTED TO SOME TV REPORTER!!


I don't think you're remembering correctly. Rasmussen was removed by his team not a "governing body".


----------



## ECXkid04 (Jul 21, 2004)

anybody know what contador's #s would be like? seems like many people think hes cleaner than recent GT champs - but he was right there w. ras in 2007...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

ECXkid04 said:


> anybody know what contador's #s would be like? seems like many people think hes cleaner than recent GT champs - but he was right there w. ras in 2007...


Which again, to me, suggests Ras' numbers are being grossly overestimated. I've not seen the number estimates from that Tour, but from this year's Giro they were quite pedestrian compared to the numbers required to win a GT just a few years ago. IIRC, he was somewhere around 400 watts on the long climbs, not sure what he weighs. Menchov was putting out ~420 watts and is a obviously a bigger rider.

It's a French cycling magazine that does the estimates, they might even be here somewhere.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Number have dropped for this year. "Clean" evans LOL was at 5.7, Vande Velde reportedly 5.5 or so. and Sastre 6,5 or so for the Last TT. That on Sastre doesnt mean anything though I just guessed his Power in that last TT at over 49km/hr on the flats... And 135 pounds/61 Kilos.

If you go to 53* 12 . com you have Michelle Ferrari's VAM values both from the Tour and Vuelta

Top PRO Riders are VERY secure with their numbers and dont like to give out information.

FYI, its not possible to do over 5.8. That was Lemond's FTP/KILO and he won 3 TdF titles with that two-decades ago....

Human Physiology doesnt chage in 20 years, it takes many thousands of years to even notice differences. If there was some kind of recent genetic mutation than Sastre's number would be possible.
The abilities of what the ancient Romans had was probably closer to us than what modern day heavily blood-doped athletes are at.

Rasmussen wouldn't have won the Finall 2007 TT, as my model does predict. He would have been top 5 though. 
-At 129 pounds LOL


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

F1nut said:


> Number have dropped for this year. "Clean" evans LOL was at 5.7, Vande Velde reportedly 5.5 or so. and Sastre 6,5 or so for the Last TT. That on Sastre doesnt mean anything though I just guessed his Power in that last TT at over 49km/hr on the flats... And 135 pounds/61 Kilos.
> 
> If you go to 53* 12 . com you have Michelle Ferrari's VAM values both from the Tour and Vuelta
> 
> ...


I thought you were done with this thread?

Anyways, Pinotti won the Italian national championships with 5.2w/kg (clean). Top power/weight ratios of clean cyclists is estimated to be between 5.5-5.8w/kg. No one except the clean athletes know. Even Lemond could be hiding something, as EPO started a couple years before his last TdF win. Maybe there is just no evidence, and he knows it.

I would suspect that the usual European cyclist who hits the 5-5.2w/kg mark would never know what their natural peak FTP would be, as they typically hit the top-middle of the European ranks and get involved in the doping culture before maxing out their natural levels.

VandeVelde could very well be clean now. Previously doped riders can retain much of the benefits that doping brought to their bodies. No doubt CVV could have been at 6w/kg in the Lance days, but dropped to 5.5(ish) after becoming clean. Much harder to hold 5.5w/kg by getting there naturally.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*improvements in performance from EPO: Published stuff*

First F1 nut - thanks for taking the time for the very interesting posts...

Regarding how much Chicken or LA could improve with EPO Here’s some more info on what is know for certain regarding EPO use.

One of the only peer reviewed studies (published last year in J of Applied Phys) showed a 9-16% increase at max power and a 50% (yes that's not a typo) increase at sub max levels from just EPO injections no blood transfusions or other sophisticated doping so LeMond's claim that he felt doped riders had advantages of 30% isn't that far off...

That 50% figure is what really jumped out at me... According to authors some of the subjects could ride twice as long at tempo pace vs non EPO...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Old_school_nik said:


> First F1 nut - thanks for taking the time for the very interesting posts...
> 
> Regarding how much Chicken or LA could improve with EPO Here’s some more info on what is know for certain regarding EPO use.
> 
> ...


I can't recall were those trained cyclists or sedentary subjects?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

F1nut said:


> Lemond was at the tour de france in 2008 talking to team directors and that was the general knowledge of what had gone down. Lemond states this publicly and it was never refuted by anyone. Lemond said he talked with the ASO on removing themselves from the UCI. ASO never refuted this and all these statements were made public.


Just because no one refuted a statement, public or not, does not make it true! What kind of standard of proof is that? It's ridiculous.

There's a guy down on the corner who says all kinds of crazy things. No one refutes him, because none of it deserves a response, and trying to argue with a crazy man is always a losing proposition.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Old_school_nik said:


> First F1 nut - thanks for taking the time for the very interesting posts...
> 
> Regarding how much Chicken or LA could improve with EPO Here’s some more info on what is know for certain regarding EPO use.
> 
> ...



Ya!... And your repeatability of hard anerobic efforts shoots through the roof too... Think of all the accelerations and attacks you have follow during a race...


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> There's a guy down on the corner who says all kinds of crazy things. No one refutes him, because none of it deserves a response, and trying to argue with a crazy man is always a losing proposition.


Well... I get plenty of responses. And I have sources too! Proof!
Launching personal attacks now... Ad hominem attacks have already been discussed on this forum. Quite Frankely, I better be done I'm not here to be mean to people. I'm here to engage in a conversation with other nice people that understand and condone mass systamatic doping. Not approve of it or pretend it doesnt exist!


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

F1nut said:


> Well... I get plenty of responses. And I have sources too! Proof!
> Launching personal attacks now... Ad hominem attacks have already been discussed on this forum. Quite Frankely, I better be done I'm not here to be mean to people. I'm here to engage in a conversation with other nice people that understand and condone mass systamatic doping. Not approve of it or pretend it doesnt exist!


I fail to see the personal attack here. I am merely questioning your standard of proof, which is fanciful and absurd. Criticizing and belittling me for questioning you just underscores my point. Just because you heard something, especially second and third hand, and nobody told you it was incorrect, does not make it true. Here's some information for you: the Earth is flat. As long as no one responds to this post refuting that the Earth is flat, you must believe it to be true.

Also, you wrote that you "I'm here to engage in a conversation with other nice people that understand and condone mass systamatic doping." I've never heard anyone admit that here before. It goes counter to your other posts, so I am thoroughly confused.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> Here's some information for you: the Earth is flat. As long as no one responds to this post refuting that the Earth is flat, you must believe it to be true.
> 
> Also, you wrote that you "I'm here to engage in a conversation with other nice people that understand and condone mass systamatic doping." I've never heard anyone admit that here before. It goes counter to your other posts, so I am thoroughly confused.


1.) Greg Lemond did not assertain that the earth is flat! He simply suggested that 8 watts per kilo is not likely possible...:idea: 

2.) Last I checked, we were talking about how much top athletes are affected by doping... comparing me with the, "guy down on the corner who says all kinds of crazy things."  ?

What evidence have you that 130 pound Rasmussen was not putting out 435-460 watts at FTP during that 2007 Tour de France. Find some please, instead of comparing me to a crazy, mumbling street man. :blush2:


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

F1nut said:


> 1.) Greg Lemond did not assertain that the earth is flat! He simply suggested that 8 watts per kilo is not likely possible...:idea:
> 
> 2.) Last I checked, we were talking about how much top athletes are affected by doping... comparing me with the, "guy down on the corner who says all kinds of crazy things."  ?
> 
> What evidence have you that 130 pound Rasmussen was not putting out 435-460 watts at FTP during that 2007 Tour de France. Find some please, instead of comparing me to a crazy, mumbling street man. :blush2:


Not saying you are wrong. Not saying Lemond is wrong. Don't care either way. All I'm saying is that "Lemond states this publicly and it was never refuted by anyone" is not proof of anything. It's a perfect example of a negative proof fallacy. Also, it's possible that it was refuted by someone, perhaps by many people, but you never heard about it. Maybe you've even purposely chosen not to research if anyone has refuted it. It's flawed reasoning and it makes your argument sound silly and unrefined.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Greg Lemond was talking about lactate Threshold numbers (20 minute power). So 20 minutes is about 110% of someone's FTP So rasmussen was at 420 or so then... With his 58kg...

This is a blog scripted full interview with Lemond Now, I dont believe this is "fake" or manufactured... And quite frankely, its a great read so enjoy!!

"N_ow last year Contador and Rasmussen did nearly 8 watts-per-kilo. A scientist in Holland calculated that you needed nearly a 98 vo2 Max with a sustainable 93 or 94 milliliters of oxygen.

If you’ve got an 82 vo2 Max, or let’s say 80, for a world class cyclist lactic threshold will be 95% of that. So you’re sustaining let’s say 76 milliliters of oxygen. For somebody that’s 72 kilos or 68, on that you’d probably be able to sustain 360 watts. -(*refering to lance*)...

A body, chemical efficiency, Delta 25, nobody is over 26 or 27%. To make huge improvements you’d have to get to 75% which is virtually impossible. I know my physiology. I know what I’m talking about. 



So when I went to the Tour, I just said, you know, you’ve got to think outside the box. I said, talking to Michael Ashenden and other real physiologists who know stuff, you don’t need to have or find some product in the human body."_



-Greg Lemond.

He must be a "crazy man on the street corner."


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

"My research on Lance Armstrong was flawed"
-Ed COyle...

LMFAO

I quess one could say Michael Ashenden is another source of mine.This Is A Legit-Interesting article From Daily News


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> I can't recall were those trained cyclists or sedentary subjects?



Damn, I don't recall I believe they were elite amateurs though so you can assume very trained because its always been hard to pay athletes enough to not train or de-train. I'll check back if they were sedentary.

Nik


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

F1nut said:


> Greg Lemond was talking about lactate Threshold numbers (20 minute power). So 20 minutes is about 110% of someone's FTP So rasmussen was at 420 or so then... With his 58kg...
> 
> This is a blog scripted full interview with Lemond Now, I dont believe this is "fake" or manufactured... And quite frankely, its a great read so enjoy!!
> 
> ...


I think Lemond got his numbers from a preliminary Cyclismag article which they later revised downward.They tend to attach a fixed weight number to rider and bike and not take into account that Rass is 125 pounds


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Oh okay, find me something from the article I'd be interested. Read that Lemond article, its gOOd


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

F1nut said:


> FYI, its not possible to do over 5.8. That was Lemond's FTP/KILO and he won 3 TdF titles with that two-decades ago....


What? So what you are saying is that if GL had a 5.8, then that is the maximum for any cyclist ever? You are assuming some very big things here. The first being that GL was clean. The second being that GL was the stongest rider ever, I'm pretty sure that Merckx would beg to differ, and Anquetil. The third being that modern training methods would do nothing to increase that number for Greg. So obviously there have been zero gains on this front in the last 20 years.
GL was good, but he was not the best ever.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

I dont know about the 5.8 figure to tell you the truth. Here is a quote directly from Lemond: 

"My wattage, relative to VO2 Max…a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way…I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts. The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l’Alpe d’Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You’ve got times going back many, many years. But what was learned recently, in the last 5 years, was that when you start the Tour de France, you start with a normal hematocrit of, say, 45 percent. By the time you finish, it’s probably down 10 or 15 percent. Which means my VO2 Max dropped 10 or 15 percent. So that’s why I was never producing the same wattage. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you’ve recovered. My last time trial in ’89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was."

Here is the source: http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html

That means that he could both break 420 watts and do over 5.8 w/kg (over 6.5 to be exact!)


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

6.5! That's physically impossible!
He must have doped!

Can we stop talking about guessed at power outputs now?
F1, your numbers are a joke. 330W FTP is low Cat1 output.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

chase196126 said:


> I dont know about the 5.8 figure to tell you the truth. Here is a quote directly from Lemond:
> 
> "My wattage, relative to VO2 Max…a VO2 Max of 92 or 93 in a fully recovered way…I think I was capable of producing 450 to 460 watts. The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l’Alpe d’Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390. That was the historic norm for Hinault and myself. You’ve got times going back many, many years. But what was learned recently, in the last 5 years, was that when you start the Tour de France, you start with a normal hematocrit of, say, 45 percent. By the time you finish, it’s probably down 10 or 15 percent. Which means my VO2 Max dropped 10 or 15 percent. So that’s why I was never producing the same wattage. And then there a lot of other factors that help performance if you’ve recovered. My last time trial in ’89, I averaged about 420, 430 watts, which would match or be slightly down from what my real VO2 Max was."
> 
> ...


The latter part doesn't make sense, you're not going to be able to ride at your VO2max for very long, certainly not the duration of a TT, furthermore his numbers must be estimates since there weren't power meters at the time. The 380 or 390 up Alp d'Huez if his VO2max power was ~450 makes some sense but again must be an estimate. I don't see how if his power at VO2max was ~450, which he would presumably know from lab testing, that he could have held 420/430 for the duration of a TT at the end of the Tour?

What did Lemond weigh? His Alp d'Huez power is pretty pedestrian compared to Armstrong & Co, especially since wasn't he a pretty big rider?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

chase196126 said:


> I dont know about the 5.8 figure to tell you the truth. Here is a quote directly from Lemond:
> 
> The truth is, even at the Tour de France, my Tour de France climb times up l’Alpe d’Huez yielded a wattage of around 380 and 390.
> Here is the source: http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
> ...


Were talking about FTP/KILO

The 420 watts is his 20-minute lactate threshold.

FTP(Funtional Threshold Power) is how many watts someone can sustain for 60 minutes. So 1 hour power is what were trying to compare.

Alp' D'Huez for Greg was 380-390 for 45 minutes, so his FTP was around 375 range. If someone really wants to ( Like Greg) they can sustain around 105% of FTP power for 45 minutes. 

So Greg's FTP/Kilo was 375/67 kilos or 5.6 on Alp D' Huez. Greg has stated he weighed 148 pounds for the Tour. (He mentions in the Fora.TV interview that he had been down to 120 pound after getting shot... Yikes!)

Fully rested, he could get to 5.8 watts per Kilo at FTP.

If you look at some Alp'D'Huez times, it is difficult to compare performances before 1990 or so since the bike tech changed rapidly during this period and equipment was enhanced. Like clipless pedals for example! 

NEVER compare times on Mt. Ventoux, the winds there are tropical-storm/hurricane force.  

Lemond had-has an extremely high VO2 max, once recorded at nearly 93ml/kilo-min. VO2 max is basically someone's ceiling for all sustainable power values. So... Greg was probably one of, if not the most talented rider to swing a leg over a bike.

Pharmstrong... Not even close. Dont go there either.:mad2:


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

I see you are starting to connect the dots. Am I right?

Ramsussen I will maintain, was at 420-435 range at FTP for 2007. Thats 7.5/KILO for him. He had been BUSTED before with Hemopure® I have no F- Idea why they did not santion him in 2002. He was clearly a risk for his own health and young family.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

F1nut said:


> I see you are starting to connect the dots. Am I right?
> 
> Ramsussen I will maintain, was at 420-435 range at FTP for 2007. Thats 7.5/KILO for him. He had been BUSTED before with Hemopure® I have no F- Idea why they did not santion him in 2002. He was clearly a risk for his own health and young family.


Ramsussen was not BUSTED for Hemopure, which why he wasn't sanctioned in 2002. If you actually read the article you posted, you would have known that.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

When friends of a rider/ Team Employees confess-tell the real truth, that should be taken seriously. But... The UCI is corrupt anyway and doesnt want to catch anyone unfortunately.

If you watch The Video of Jorg confessing You can actually see the official at 0:12 laughing as Jorg talks about how 100% of the riders on all 6 ProTour/Division one/II teams he was on were doped. Really funny huh... Something for them to laugh about.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

*Since you are clearly to lazy to read my SOURCES I will copy and paste the article so you do not have to waste the energy to click with your finger.*


_"The box was packed full of silver Mylar packages labeled with 'Biopure.' Once you opened them there were clear plastic IV sets with what looked like blood inside. The box was packed full of these. That's all I know. I don't have first-hand knowledge of where they came from or who delivered them to Whitney, but I do know what was in the box."_

-Whitney Richards


According to labels, the bags were filled with a hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier (HBOC) known as Hemopure, manufactured by the U.S.-based Biopure Corporation. The product is made from hemoglobin molecules that have been removed from the red cells of cow’s blood.




Richards said he and Rasmussen developed a friendship when the Dane came to the U.S. to prepare for the 2001 world mountain-bike championships in Vail. Rasmussen won the world cross-country title in 1999, then started his transition to road racing in 2001 when he signed a stagiaire contract with CSC.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Jesus Manzano almost died from Oxyglobin® on the first mountain stage of Tour de France 2003. 

He had SEVERAL heart attacks in the Medivac-Chopper. I think it was 6? Someone get that info I dont have the energy left to find it.

I have NO F- Idea why no one is testing positive for artificial blood. Pro Cycling is treading on thin water if they give complete sample gathering/delivering control to the UCI.


*Ron Kiefel, who rode in the Tour seven times*: _"If there are no controls, guys will just go out there and kill themselves." _


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

F1nut said:


> *Since you are clearly to lazy to read my SOURCES I will copy and paste the article so you do not have to waste the energy to click with your finger.*


I read the article, but it doesn't say what you want it to say. Sorry. Rasmussen was not busted. He never came close to being sanctioned in 2002. As far as I know, the UCI never even knew about the Hemopure. Sorry, but that's the what the article says. I'll cut and paste the section you conveniently ignored:



> Richards was offended, so much so that he contacted VeloNews later that same year (2001) However, he asked that the conversation be off-the-record, declining to be named and asking that Rasmussen also not be mentioned in any way that he might be recognized. Because of those restrictions, VeloNews did not publish his story.
> 
> Several years later, after being put in contact with Sunday Times of London reporter David Walsh, Richards again offered details of the story, but continued to insist that neither he nor Rasmussen be identified.
> 
> ...


Where does it say Ras was BUSTED? Where does it say that anyone informed the UCI or any cycling federation? How can a guy be sanctioned when no one even knows about what he did?

If you are going to play fast and loose with the facts, don't make it so damned obvious. Don't post a source article that totally conflicts with what you claim it says. Why can't you just stick with what you know and what you believe? Why do you have to cherry pick stuff out of articles? Why do you have to claim things are facts when they aren't?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

mtbbmet said:


> That's physically impossible!
> He must have doped!
> 
> 330W FTP is low Cat1 output.


330 at FTP for the 128-130 pound Rasmussen which I was reffering to would be National level power even under the current system of heavy doping. Thats 5.6 watts of FTP per kilo.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

mohair_chair said:


> I read the article, but it doesn't say what you want it to say. Sorry. Rasmussen was not busted. He never came close to being sanctioned in 2002. As far as I know, the UCI never even knew about *the Hemopure*. Sorry, but that's the what the article says.
> 
> 
> Where does it say Ras was BUSTED? Where does it say that anyone informed the UCI or any cycling federation? Why do you have to claim things are facts when they aren't?


1.) I live in F-Midwest USA and *I knew about the Hemopure® *


2.) The VELONEWS ARTICLE posted is not fact? So.... Its false journalism then, the man who told of His Friend Rasmussen's blood bags labeled as Hemopure® !! LMFAO  

Lets see... Should I believe "_mtbbmet_" or The VeloNews Article

LMFAO 

You cite the man not wanting Rasmussen to be ID'd BEFORE he admitts to being Rasmussen friend, BEFORE he tells the story of Rasmussen's bags of Hemopure® in the shoe-box, BEFORE he gives Rasmussen's reaction to the Hemopure® being dumped down the sink: 

"Do you know who much I paid for that?"  

LMFAO again

When your friend comes out about the ARTIFICIAL BLOOD he wanted you to transport for him, thats BUSTED.  

But... In the world of UCI cycling it doesnt mean sanctioned.

_"If you are going to play fast and loose with *the facts*, don't make it so damned obvious."_

I posted the links to all these articles and facts.... People on here should be capable of reading it....:aureola: 

*I want to ask you: What do you believe? All i see is you defamating my comments, I see you making no proposals of yourself. I'm F- serious too, what are you trying to propose? Give me a dam* proposal or I'm arguing no more with you on this.*


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2008)

Just so we can all get this straight, you're citing an article from 2007 describing for the first time the story of Chicken and his hemopure and then questioning why he wasn't sanctioned 5 years prior to that?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

These things were completely known 4 years ago, but yes.... Whitney Richards was hesitant in coming forth........ I must admit that much!

The UCI does not actively pursue admissions of guilt. Journalists do.

Davide Cassani was a means towards some tiny justification in a sport where cheaters get cheated by cheaters.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2008)

4 years ago or 2002?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

kytyree said:


> 4 years ago or 2002?


 I slipped up on that one statement ok... :blush2: Its difficuly to keep track of all my lunatic comments.

They knew in 05... For SURE in 06. The governing world body of cycling would have to have been asleep at the conrols or corrupt to not know that tale by 2006. They allowed him to race 2006 and 2007.  

*What DO YOU GUYS THINK SHOULD HAVE BE DONE EH? Sanctioning, nothing, etc. What?

Seriously, What do gou guys think went down, what should be done*? 
Lance would just say, "its time for us all to evolve."


I'm dissolutioned with competitive racing... Maby I should just do it for relaxation like Lemond.... I can sit and get fat then too. Yeah! :thumbsup:

If anything... The fact that Richards was scared to come forth does not reflect brightly on cycling. Or something to the effect Dick Pound would say....


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Reading through your last 10 posts, you slipped up on a couple of things.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

As the dope testing has scared more people the watt/kg numbers in Ferrari's postings on races on his site have drifted much closer to the 6 level or less on some stages. So i think it's reasonable to assume the clean level is even lower than that because it's sure not a clean sample.


----------



## fuzz-tone (Sep 29, 2008)

Even though I think the "doping control by wattage output" is a bad idea, you'd have to ban riders from using power meter displays during races to have any control. Regardless of doping, every rider would know that there was a line they weren't allowed to cross without being suspected of wrongdoing. They'd just watch the meter all day making sure to stay in the clear. I wonder how much races would slow down if this happened.

Then there is the matter of the logistics of this testing. Will every rider have an SRM on their bike (like the timing devices), and every rider's data will be downloaded every day, or would there be "random wattage checks"? Who will calibrate these monitors? etc etc etc 

I think the laws around doping need to be treated like the laws for the death penalty. 100 guilty people getting away with it is better than 1 innocent person going down for something they didn't do.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

mtbbmet said:


> Reading through your last 10 posts, you slipped up on a couple of things.


You have done nothing but look for flaws in the thousands of words I have posted on this topic! Tell us, what do you believe should be done? What do you believe happend?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

fuzz-tone said:


> Regardless of doping, every rider would know that there was a line they weren't allowed to cross without being suspected of wrongdoing.


But... They would still be limited to their natural levels! Think of the Unjacked, drug-less riders this would benefit. :idea:

Not only that... If they had *no power *display on their bikes they would have *NO clue *where that fine line was... And... Radio ear pieces are silly as well. Common! Where's the bicycle race in the bicycle race when you are being directed by a camera helicopter!

Why jack illegal, dangerous, expensive controlled substances when you dont need them? Most pro racers are not rich! IF you dont need something you dont buy it!

Not only that... If they measured total blood volume on the riders that would stop much of it...


----------



## Aquamarinos (Mar 27, 2008)

F1nut, maybe you should stick with F1, that is after all- a sport. Why follow cycling when they cheat even in F1?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Why follow cycling when they cheat even in F1?[/QUOTE said:


> I try to shed helpful light? :mad2:


----------



## Aquamarinos (Mar 27, 2008)

You try to shed a helpful light???

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!

You have to be kidding me!


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Aquamarinos said:


> You try to shed a helpful light???
> 
> Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!
> 
> You have to be kidding me!


If you disagree with a poster it may be helpful to point out why you disagree with him and supply evidence to support your position. 

The 5th grade playground stuff adds little to the discussion.


----------

