# LeMond and Carmichael



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Does anyone know what has gone on between these two in the past up till now?

Being that they're both the same age, competitive contemporaries, and that Carmichael couldn't carry LeMond's jockstrap, I wonder if Carmichael hides when he sees LeMond, because he knows that LeMond knows what is obvious to everyone, that he's a fraud.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

What was that formula in 'It's Not About The Bike', which Lance said Chris came up with, when Lance was training post-cancer. It was meant to be some kind of mathematical equation, but was the greatest pile of bulls*** in reality. Much like all of Chris' work though. Carmichael is some fraud. He has made a fortune on the back of Ferrari.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

If they had any interaction, it would strike me as very weird. 

Think Joe Montana and Joe Pisarcik.

It's the same with Bob Roll. There was some article in Road Bike Action recently where Roll was taking shots at LeMond. 

I wonder what the hell happens when Roll runs into LeMond at the Tour or wherever. Roll knows Pharmstrong is a fraud and yet he's LA's boy.

Does LeMond just laugh at these guys? Do they look him in the face?

BTW, I don't know the formula but it's funny how Floyd was very dismissive of Carmichael's contribution as opposed to Ferrari's.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*well well well*



lookrider said:


> If they had any interaction, it would strike me as very weird.
> 
> Think Joe Montana and Joe Pisarcik.
> 
> ...


I would respect Bob Roll more than Greg any day of the week. WHY? Because Bob wanted to win and was not gullible enough to think he would win a GT on a nod and a wink.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Absolutely, but look at those two fools Phil Ligett and Paul Sherwen also. The way they ignore is a disgrace to their profession. And what's worse about Bob Roll, and these two, is that they actually cycled professionally, and they know exactly what goes on.
Graham Watson is another who I see took a swipe at Greg a couple of months ago - of course Graham this would have nothing to do with the money you make from Lance's photographs.
Unfortunately, I believe that Greg is an extremely sensitive person, so does not laugh at these people when he sees them. I would imagine he feels hurt and let down with the way he has been castigated as being bitter and jealous, even mentally unstable in some cases, when he has only spoken the truth from the outset. To all these people though, I think of how Karma can be a right bit**. Maybe Floyd getting done, was payback for all the sh** he did with USP. Even Vaughters alluded to this.
The truth will always come out eventually though, of that there can be little doubt. And then Greg can be vindicated.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*question*



Digger28 said:


> Absolutely, but look at those two fools Phil Ligett and Paul Sherwen also. The way they ignore is a disgrace to their profession. And what's worse about Bob Roll, and these two, is that they actually cycled professionally, and they know exactly what goes on.
> Graham Watson is another who I see took a swipe at Greg a couple of months ago - of course Graham this would have nothing to do with the money you make from Lance's photographs.
> Unfortunately, I believe that Greg is an extremely sensitive person, so does not laugh at these people when he sees them. I would imagine he feels hurt and let down with the way he has been castigated as being bitter and jealous, even mentally unstable in some cases, when he has only spoken the truth from the outset. To all these people though, I think of how Karma can be a right bit**. Maybe Floyd getting done, was payback for all the sh** he did with USP. Even Vaughters alluded to this.
> The truth will always come out eventually though, of that there can be little doubt. And then Greg can be vindicated.



If Greg is looking for the truth abouit doping, WTF does he care about being vindicated.......

How about those iron injections and vindication.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

ttug said:


> If Greg is looking for the truth abouit doping, WTF does he care about being vindicated.......
> 
> How about those iron injections and vindication.


Don't the believers join a church rather than remain lone voices in the wilderness?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

ttug said:


> I would respect Bob Roll more than Greg any day of the week. WHY? Because Bob wanted to win and was not gullible enough to think he would win a GT on a nod and a wink.


Win a GT on a nod and a wink???????

I don't know what you're talking about..


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh yeah*



lookrider said:


> Don't the believers join a church rather than remain lone voices in the wilderness?


the wilderness is a church. Its the religion that made the church membership.

if you think being honest makes you a loner, oh well.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*huh*



lookrider said:


> Win a GT on a nod and a wink???????
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about..


You dont recall Hinault and Greg waiting.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

Why was this thread even started? Is this new news? Was it due to the obession with Lance and anyone connected to him? 

Its amussing how a few people here think a select few were COMPLETLY clean, yet none of the successful guys today can be clean since some make more power than LeMond did. 

If you think its such a dirty sport....why follow it?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

ttug said:


> You dont recall Hinault and Greg waiting.


Oh, that. That's another thing that points to GL being the antithesis to Pharmstrong and dopers in general.

When you're as talented as GL you can be both generous _and_ prodigal with your talent.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

ttug said:


> the wilderness is a church. Its the religion that made the church membership.
> 
> if you think being honest makes you a loner, oh well.


You were asking why GL may feel it important to be vindicated, and I'm suggesting that he doesn't want to be alone in knowing the truth and have it become mainstream rather than have Pharmstrong and his people be the mainstream...

You do know what happened to the biggest truthteller?

I think it goes to show that the more truth you tell, the greater the consequences will be and that rises proportionally.

But you have to bear your cross, face up to that fact, and strive to be honest no matter what the consequences for this life here on earth....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Why was this thread even started?


Because there are a couple of insiders here and I was curious if they knew what was going on inside the community. You know that sometimes the media can skew a story and there are some here who know people in places like Boulder and San Diego..



Bry03cobra said:


> Is this new news?


Is that some kind of new criteria for posting here?



Bry03cobra said:


> Was it due to the obession with Lance and anyone connected to him?


Well, fan is derived from fanatic.:lol: 

Anyway, wtf difference does it make why someone posts something relevant to doping in cycling?

I love how these questions disturb you..





Bry03cobra said:


> Its amussing how a few people here think a select few were COMPLETLY clean, yet none of the successful guys today can be clean since some make more power than LeMond did. ?


It's not amusing that you smear a guy based on nothing because of your Pharmstrong idolatry.



Bry03cobra said:


> If you think its such a dirty sport....why follow it?


$hit! you sound like Lance to Bassons.....


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*oh man*



lookrider said:


> You were asking why GL may feel it important to be vindicated, and I'm suggesting that he doesn't want to be alone in knowing the truth and have it become mainstream rather than have Pharmstrong and his people be the mainstream...
> 
> You do know what happened to the biggest truthteller?
> 
> ...


If you are trying to create a metaphor between Christ and Greg Lemond, now I have to tip my hat to you because:

THAT is a voice alone in the wilderness.

WHY?

Because comparing the savior of all mankind and a cynical guy whose record got beat and really never did a thing but target a few better cyclists who may have doped is not going to make it. Greg had another GT win, he gave it away after getting conned by a man like Hinault and that not a promise worth anything. ESPECIALLY WHEN Greg had to fight tooth and nail within HIS OWN TEAM to get a GT win after he WAITED for the AGING CHEESE EATING SURRENDER MONKEY.

He lost that TDF right there and anyone who has watched it knows, Greg knew it, Hinault knew it and the whole world saw it.

I do however applaud Gregs efforts, however self serving they are, I am not an Armstrong fan either. Golly, wouldnt it be swell to do this for any rider as opoposed to following on the most visible on the planet who JUST SO HAPPENS to have beat his record? BUMMER huh?


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

ttug said:


> If Greg is looking for the truth abouit doping, WTF does he care about being vindicated.......
> 
> How about those iron injections and vindication.


What's your point about the iron injections?
Do you believe he doped?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Dudes,

LeMond is angry at doping doctors, not Carmichael who's just some Yahoo. Who cares if he rides the dopers butts.

LeMond's career ended because of doping doctors, not the epo users themselves. Remeber Team Gewiss' 1-2-3 at Fleche Wallonne in 1994??

Jacking EPO and corticoids on your own gives limited benefit ( Maybe 20% power increase at FTP and 15% up in VO2 max) but having a really knowledge-able doping doctor like Ferrari, or Fuentes who has the know-how to beat the controls, lower b-HCG levels to pass controls, lower T/E, etc, etc. Doing all the ishy stuff testing can detect may give like a 30% increase!!

My point is, when these specialist doctors got involved, thats when LeMond wouldnt do well anymore at all the races. Remember, how he finished 7th in the first EPO Tour de France; 1991. He had an SRM on his bike the whole time through all these early EPO years. Only he knows what it read and how the races changed.

I'd bet the house LeMond has the Power data from races from each year; 1990,1991, 1992,1993, 1994 and all the SRM's sealed in a bags in drawers somewhere..... Maybe as some kind of ammo incase someone tries to sue him for what he's said at all these sports conferences on doping.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

F1nut said:


> Dudes,
> Jacking EPO and corticoids on your own gives limited benefit ( Maybe 20% power increase at FTP and 15% up in VO2 max) but having a really knowledge-able doping doctor like Ferrari, or Fuentes who has the know-how to beat the controls, lower b-HCG levels to pass controls, lower T/E, etc, etc. Doing all the ishy stuff testing can detect may give like a 30% increase!!
> 
> I'd bet the house LeMond has the Power data from races from each year; 1990,1991, 1992,1993, 1994 and all the SRM's sealed in a bags in drawers somewhere..... Maybe as some kind of ammo incase someone tries to sue him for what he's said at all these sports conferences on doping.


It's strange you'd call 20% 'limited benefit', a 20% benefit would turn me, some middling amateur, into a pro capable of winning (FTP 340W -> 408W). Now, consider what would happen to someone who is already at pro level... EPO and blood doping use turned it around, the doctors were needed to acquire, conceal and make sure cyclists weren't dying in their sleep. I'm sure Lemond qualms are not only with doctors...

Oh and you don't have to keep the SRMs stored in sealed bags ;} you can just download the data and preserve it for posterity...


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

function said:


> It's strange you'd call 20% 'limited benefit', a 20% benefit would turn me, some middling amateur, into a pro capable of winning (FTP 340W -> 408W). Now, consider what would happen to someone who is already at pro level... EPO and blood doping use turned it around, the doctors were needed to acquire, conceal and make sure cyclists weren't dying in their sleep. I'm sure Lemond qualms are not only with doctors...
> 
> Oh and you don't have to keep the SRMs stored in sealed bags ;} you can just download the data and preserve it for posterity...


Were you using that example as yourself?

340 Watts is not some middling amateur! Thats a big number to hold for 1-hour, Large. How much do you weigh?!!!! Are you using anything? Most cat 1's can hold about that range. I'm a cat 2 and I can hold 304 right now at 150 pounds. These are big numbers, this is like comparing apples to oranges! Doped versus non-doped! There are guys who win Pro TT's here in the USA with about 380-400 at 150 pounds, no doubt using EPO most of them.

LeMond's whole idea of keeping the SRM's un-tampered with gave me that idea on the sealed bags.  But seriously, he seems very coniving or thoughtful to put it differently; like he would do that.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

No i'm not on drugs  i'm 175lbs/6ft so about 4.3W/kg, this is very amateur power levels, i have friends who are my weight and putting out 360-380W and also amateurs. My point is that i'm an amateur and even with 20% improvement at my weight, i'd be capable of winning pro races since 408W would put me at almost 5.2W/kg. Even 15% would put me at near 400W for an hour. EPO can turn donkeys into horses!

This also brings me onto the matter of your magical 420W number, considering that there are amateurs at 340-380W (at 80kg), why is it really hard to believe that the world TT champion can't put out over 420W (Cancellara at 80kg)?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Its impossible to get that high, there is limits! Anyways, Thats what I keep reading on the Cuttingedge muscle threads and NO ONE on there who is racing clean has over 360 or so and its in somebody who weigh 175 pounds.

And... There is a lot of doped up amatuers out there! Just read throught The Cuttingedge Muscle threads. There is one guy on there who races cat 4 and he's already doing Novedex Testosterone and other stuff. Its really sick anyways, but entertaining to read; to say the least.

I like to use the example of LeMond beating Indurain by a margin in that 1989, predominantly dowhill final TT of the Tour. Indurain weighed in at 180 pounds (175 or so for the Tour) and he couldnt take LeMond (148 pound) in a false flat declining TT before EPO!! LeMond had a super freaky un-doped VO2 max of 92.5, Maybe even 94....

Anyways, I'm having a spirited start to my year being able to hold 370 watts for 5 minutes or so, and my racing weight is around the 140 pounds range... So I need to lay off on the food.... I might be even more than 150 now too which isnt good.... My 1-minute power is awful but my FTP and VO2 max are pretty good. I might be able to do more than 370 though LOL, I'll have to test it one of these days.... I know my FTP was last at 304.

I'm hoping for 330 watts in peak condition at FTP. That would require over 400 at MAP. Dont know if I'll get that far but it would be great to be top 5 in those as*hollistic cat p/1/2 races with the drug users and all....


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

Of course there are limits, but i doubt that it's at 420W and i also find it strange that you even think that 360W is unclean for an amateur. 

Regarding the TT I personally would not have read that TT as evidence that Lemond has a higher power output than Indurain. They were riding for 2 different objectives, Lemond was within a few seconds of the yellow jersey and Indurain was completely out of contention! That would make for a totally different motivation after 3 weeks of racing.

Anyway, good luck with your training and don't set wattage (360W!!) limits for yourself!


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

function said:


> Of course there are limits, but i doubt that it's at 420W and i also find it strange that you even think that 360W is unclean for an amateur.
> 
> Regarding the TT I personally would not have read that TT as evidence that Lemond has a higher power output than Indurain. They were riding for 2 different objectives, Lemond was within a few seconds of the yellow jersey and Indurain was completely out of contention! That would make for a totally different motivation after 3 weeks of racing.
> 
> Anyway, good luck with your training and don't set wattage (360W!!) limits for yourself!


Yeah, :thumbsup: 

Indurain was 17th overall, you cant tell me someone doesnt ride hard for a top 15 in their first Tour de France on one more quick 25k jaunt! Common! :idea:


360 watts for FTP is HUGE. Get on a bike and try to hold 360 watts for 1 hour!! Sheesh! 60 minutes strait at 360 watts!? Thats a big power output for even someone who weighs 180 pounds!

I could get that high at my 140 pounds If I had dr. Lamborgini teaching me how to hook my IV around a picture frame in the hotel room and transfuse myself!


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

F1nut said:


> Its impossible to get that high, there is limits! Anyways, Thats what I keep reading on the Cuttingedge muscle threads and NO ONE on there who is racing clean has over 360 or so and its in somebody who weigh 175 pounds.
> 
> And... There is a lot of doped up amatuers out there! Just read throught The Cuttingedge Muscle threads. There is one guy on there who races cat 4 and he's already doing Novedex Testosterone and other stuff. Its really sick anyways, but entertaining to read; to say the least.
> 
> ...



F1, I really like your ability to discuss and bring things to the table here, but I think that the numbers stated here are pretty low, particularly the 360 watt one. Do you know the V02 of the person/s with the 360 FTP? 

The reason I as is I had my FTP measured at the beginning of December and was at 355 watts (Tested by Max Testa and his staff at TOSH here in Salt Lake City). My 20 minute power is between 380-390, and during the summer I did a TT at a USAC regional camp (the one in Boise) and I held 480 watts for just under 4.5 minutes. (I am happy to send copies of test results if you want proof. With any of this data I am happy to back it up, save for VO2 results, those I have unfortunately misplaced) My weigh currently is 71 kilos, 69 in season. As an 18 year old high school student I don’t have the money to dope if I wanted to! 

For a reference my VO2 when it was last measured (September of 2007, the end of my first year racing) was 78.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

BTW, I just looked at that Cutting Edge Muscle forum. I cant even describe how scary that place is... Reading some of the threads on cyclists is even more disturbing... Why people do that to themselve...


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

F1nut said:


> 360 watts for FTP is HUGE. Get on a bike and try to hold 360 watts for 1 hour!! Sheesh! 60 minutes strait at 360 watts!? Thats a big power output for even someone who weighs 180 pounds!


Chase above is already pretty much at 360W and is even lighter than me! I'm sure i'll get to 360W by next year (this is my 2nd year of serious training). You need to set your goals higher!!

I think one of the problems with your arguments is that you seriously underestimate what is physiologically possible.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

chase196126 said:


> F1, I really like your ability to discuss and bring things to the table here, but I think that the numbers stated here are pretty low, particularly the 360 watt one. Do you know the V02 of the person/s with the 360 FTP?
> 
> The reason I as is I had my FTP measured at the beginning of December and was at 355 watts (Tested by Max Testa and his staff at TOSH here in Salt Lake City). My 20 minute power is between 380-390, and during the summer I did a TT at a USAC regional camp (the one in Boise) and I held 480 watts for just under 4.5 minutes. (I am happy to send copies of test results if you want proof. With any of this data I am happy to back it up, save for VO2 results, those I have unfortunately misplaced) My weigh currently is 71 kilos, 69 in season. As an 18 year old high school student I don’t have the money to dope if I wanted to!
> 
> For a reference my VO2 when it was last measured (September of 2007, the end of my first year racing) was 78.



*I said its not possible to do over 420 watts at FTP for ANYONE! *

You weigh 150 pound with a VO2 max of about 80 and _your at 355 watts for FTP_. Okay thats high, very high. IF what you say is actually true, your VO2 max was higher than 78 if you did 355 watts for 60 minutes strait with 148 pounds of weight!!!!!!! Maybe like 85-90. Get it tested again when your in good shape and see what it is!

NO doubt, assuming what you say is actually true; you have "talent." I would definitely AVOID disclosing personal information like that on here or offering to send personal information out like that from a forum marked, "doping!" Anyone who is winning sh**-loads of races around Idaho at 18 years old, Gee Wonder who?  

I never said what wasnt or was possible for "amateur". I said the highest I observed in an amateur was 360 and it was on some forum. Now, someone could claim they are Godzilla and they have an FTP of 1,672 for all I care. But, thats the highest I saw on there on that particular forum. Doesnt mean there is some amateur grinding away out there with a higher FTP than Cadel Evans! It just means nobody can get past 420 for 1-hour without doping thats all.  With full-doping I guess there isnt much limit. Except your own mortality.

Also, in reference to myself, I weigh in at 140 pounds in the summer and have RIGHT NOW an FTP of 304. There is no way I get up to 360 watts for 60 minutes strait without IV's or EPO! Doesnt mean others have higher VO2 maxes naturally and can get to that, I wouldnt! Maybe I could get it up to 330 or 335 and I'll F- Try! Like 20 minutes *4 intervals at 95-100% FTP. Maybe 105% 20's towards the end in April. I'll see.

PS, Leipheimer has over 385 watts at 63 Kilos, he jacked through the roof!!


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

I am excited to get my VO2 tested again! I would really love to see where it is at, because I have improved drastically, even from the summer, and at the time of my last test I had been off my bike for nearly a month. My 3rd season should be interesting


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

Digger28 said:


> What's your point about the iron injections?
> Do you believe he doped?


Yes, I believe he doped, just like many others of that generation did. Of course at that time, some of the "doping" was not illegal. Oh well.

IMO, they all dope, and those who claim they dont win GTs.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

function said:


> Chase above is already pretty much at 360W and is even lighter than me! I'm sure i'll get to 360W by next year (this is my 2nd year of serious training). You need to set your goals higher!!
> 
> I think one of the problems with your arguments is that you seriously underestimate what is physiologically possible.


Chase would be winning F- Loads of races with a 355 watt FTP at 150 pounds. Thats a huge HUGE number!  He wouldnt win a national championship but he is sweeping up stuff junior in his locality for sure! Thats almost 5.2 w/kg! If he's un-doped thats a great number anyways.

He can hold 480 watts for 5 minutes!! F-#$%*&#%*$& !!!!! Get on a bike and try to hold 480 watts for 5 minutes!!!


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

ttug said:


> Yes, I believe he doped, just like many others of that generation did. Of course at that time, some of the "doping" was not illegal. Oh well.
> 
> IMO, they all dope, and those who claim they dont win GTs.



F-#&^#$)^#^$ !!!!!! I could get higher than LeMond's FTP/Kilo with EPO and cow blood IV's and corticoids!!! There is no way in F- that man took EPO. Now F-Way!!!!!! He couldnt make the EPO team for 1993 worlds!! He won that F- race in 1989!!!!!!

He couldnt F- Finish 6 stages of the Tour de france. The man had a VO2 max of 92.5 for F-sakes!!!

They are NOT all jacked either! There is ENTIRE TEAMS racing the thing without dope! Bassons did it in 1999 and there was others!


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

*I think 420 W is well within undoped human capability*

Hey y'all,

Chase is clearly very talented - a VO2 Max of 78 is enormous- the same as Indurain, if you look at the scientific paper written about his hour record. Yeah, I know, on the internet you'll find Indurain had a VO2 of 88, however Padilla et al say he had a VO2 of 78ml/kg/min. 

Actually, there are some pretty interesting papers regarding the tour and the hour records.

Also, cutting edge muscle is a scary forum!

Anyway, Chris Boardman was considered to be clean rider- and his estimated power for one of his hour records was 430 W or something. At the end of his career he set the athletes hower record, estimated power of 400W. He was 69kg, for a power to weight of 6.23 W/kg for the higher power ride, 5.8 W/kg for the athletes records.

Two other interesting numbers I found in a paper by Alejandro Lucia et al: (1) on a mountain time trial up Mt Ventoux, Bahamontes managed 6.1 W/kg (estimated from his speed- on a steep mountain this will be pretty accurate assuming that the famous wind was not pushing him up really fast). This was in 1958 so it was pre EPO! 
(2) in 1905 R Pottier raced up the Ballon d'Alsace at 20km/hr on a 44 lb bike to record the tours first mountain win. He did this at 5.8W/kg (total power 368 W for a 63kg man).

For a comparison, in the 1999 Dauphine libere Lance rode up Ventoux at around 5.7W/kg, but obtained 6.4 W/kg for his 2001 Alpe d'huez ride. I don't think this indicates doping.

Pantani managed 6.9W/kg in 1997 (this I believe was due to his 60% Hct).

I'm inclined to believe that many recent TdF performances are actually within the plausible bounds of natural human capability.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

1.) Chase if he's real; needs to delete that very personal information. He has a VO2 max of like 85 to hold 480-500 watts for 4.5 minutes at 150 pounds. He's a super 4k pursuit rider if he does that!

2.) NO WAY is it possible for someone to do OVER 5.8 watts/kilo at FTP totally clean. That won 3 Tour de France titles and came from a guy with a VO2 max of 93!! 

Now, we have Evans in the 5.7-5.8 range and Sastre at 6.1. With Cancellara doping that in the TT he was jacked through the roof. AT bare minimum Funtion stated his FTP at 447. Thats totally impossible! 


How come Contadoper has never blown over 88 into the machine!! Contadoper was at 5.9 on the Angliro and that WAS NOT CLEAN. ASTANA!!! I had Contadoper at 6.6=7.3 range on Plateu Beille in the 2007 Tour de France, that takes a VO2 max of like 98. He loses 46 watts as he goes from age 24-age 25?? Pharstrong had 6.7 watts per kilo in his day. If he had 5.8 in the Dauphine, he was not trying or half-jacked and trying.

Lance's undoped, out of shape FTP.Kilo is like 4.4 with his winter weight of 80kg and FTP at 330-340. He would never break 5.2 totally clean. He was a flatlands punchy attacker, not a Grand Tour rider! And he wasnt clean in 1993 at all for that. Probably not in 1989 either...

380 is a very high total FTP un-doped but on any hill bigger than climbing away from the beach he loses to lighter weight riders!

When you have a group of talented kids, the most agressive "leader" will dominate and move forward. Lance was a super-responder to drug therepy, that did it too.


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

Copied from other thread, since you appear not to have seen it there
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curiousity ; you like to show power related to VO2 max values quite frequently. What version of the metabolic conversion equations are using to convert back and forth between these 2 units? What was your source for the version of the equations you are using?

This is not to imply that any of your numbers are correct or incorrect, only that I think it would add a lot of value to your statements if you would fill in some of the blanks, so to speak, in between your correlation of power to VO2 max so we can all be better enlightened instead of having it presented to us in black box format where we're not sure how you've developed those figures.



F1nut said:


> 1.) Chase if he's real; needs to delete that very personal information. He has a VO2 max of like 85 to hold 480-500 watts for 4.5 minutes at 150 pounds. He's a super 4k pursuit rider if he does that!
> 
> 2.) NO WAY is it possible for someone to do OVER 5.8 watts/kilo at FTP totally clean. That won 3 Tour de France titles and came from a guy with a VO2 max of 93!!
> 
> ...


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

First of all I am certainly a real person (I know that is what all people say on the internet, but I will say it anyway) F1, if you would like shoot me a pm and I can send you a link to my USA cycling results page. 

I don’t really understand why it is bad to share my stats here. I understand your concern, but I really don’t have a problem letting people know where I am at, especially if it aids a discussion. If in theory someone were to ever look me up in the future, it is pretty obvious that this forum is not pro doping.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Circlip said:


> Curiousity ; you like to show power related to VO2 max values quite frequently. What version of the metabolic conversion equations are using to convert back and forth between these 2 units? What was your source for the version of the equations you are using?


And please let us know where you are getting the numbers in the first place. So and so's VO2 was...


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Circlip said:


> Copied from other thread, since you appear not to have seen it there
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Curiousity ; you like to show power related to VO2 max values quite frequently. What version of the metabolic conversion equations are using to convert back and forth between these 2 units? What was your source for the version of the equations you are using?
> 
> This is not to imply that any of your numbers are correct or incorrect, only that I think it would add a lot of value to your statements if you would fill in some of the blanks, so to speak, in between your correlation of power to VO2 max so we can all be better enlightened instead of having it presented to us in black box format where we're not sure how you've developed those figures.


*Hey dudes*,

Its all about measuring total oxygen consumption of the body. Heat production can be predicted from oxygen consumption this way, using multiple regression. Its statistics. You then know, how many calories per liter of oxygen is typical. They use this when measuring an animal or human’s basal metabolic rate in either an open or closed circuit respiratory system. Respirometry is what its called. Anyways, statistically one can predict how many joules of energy a certain animals body gets from a certain unit of oxygen. 

There is a direct method of measuring BMR, and that puts the organism in a chamber. Anyways, statistically a human burns about 5,000cal per liter of oxygen consumption, so if you know how much energy the person is getting from oxygen uptake, that’s converted directly to power. A good thing to look at is this: https://dspace.uta.edu/handle/10106/982 University of Texas Arlington did a study to compare oxygen consumption at different power outputs on elliptical trainers. Obviously if you know someone’s mean efficiency, and their total oxygen consumption, than you have their total power output on a machine. (Or bike in our case) Its not absolute but its really good. 
calories per minute meter on an elliptical trainer with a power meter on it. Oxygen consumption is almost directly related to total power output in the body.

For example, Lance Armstrong had 5.9 liters of oxygen per minute like in his highest ever VO2 max test at 72kg according to Coyle; than that’s about 29,500 calories per minute at his best ever un-doped VO2 max. 1 calorie per minute = 0.0697333333 watts
If his mean delta efficiency is say, 23% then 23% of that goes into the pedals. So that’s about 493 watts. If you take the listed threshold percentage Coyle gives, that’s 81% of maximal oxygen consumption. So lance can produce 403 watts with 5.1 liters per minute of O2. *81% of 5.9 however is about 4.779*. So Lance’s threshold (sustainable power according to Coyle) is 383 watts.

What I cant figure out is if Coyle was listing Lance's 20-minute power or 1-hour FTP percentage of VO2 max. Whatever it was, its 383 watts or so. A little bit less than that actually, I had a rough estimate that was a little on the upside.

_He took the page down. The VO2 max test that was up for years is now gone_. That was Lance's highest ever VO2 max test.

That’s rough, I’ll get into something more detailed tomorrow. There is statistics out there that show exact joules produced with a given amount of oxygen in a stereotypical subject. If you go in and have your BMR tested, they will likely just measure your oxygen consumption at rest with no food in your stomach(while awake) and use the multiple regression.


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

chase196126 said:


> I don’t really understand why it is bad to share my stats here. I understand your concern, but I really don’t have a problem letting people know where I am at, especially if it aids a discussion. If in theory someone were to ever look me up in the future, it is pretty obvious that this forum is not pro doping.


On the contrary IMO I believe it shows maturity and intelligence on your part to learn about and understand some of the harsh realities of the sport as it currently exists, so that you will reduce the likelihood of being blindsided by some team or team doctor's program in the future trying to convince you it's "all just regular vitamins". Sounds like you have your head on straight - congrats. Every strong young rider such as yourself who is coming up through the ranks with this attitude is one step closer to cleaning up the sport.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Hey, I also know that Albero Contodoper's highest ever VO2 max was about 88ml/kg-min and he weighs 61 kg. So he has a Maximal Aerobic Power of 415 watts if You weigh him in at 134 pounds like is advertised on his Team's website.

So maybe he can sustain about 350 watts at FTP with a freaky high 60- minute threshold percentage of 85%. Thats 5.73 watts per Kilo for Alberto. I dont know ANY people who can keep up 85% of VO2 max for 1-hour though. He climbed the Angiliro with 5.9 watts per kilo average after a few hours of racing. So you know there was some doping going on there.

His 6.6 watts per Kilo in the 2007 Tour de France obviously was enhanced.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

I guess what I'm not getting is how you get from the "maybe x %" or "say x %..." type statements to the "obviously enhanced." 

Basically what your "no one can sustain this or that" comes off like is that humans have already ridden bikes up these various stages as fast as they will ever be able to do cleanly and therefore anyone who ever does it faster is obviously doped up. Do you feel the same about any other sporting achievement? Running records? Swimming records? Were Bolt and Phelps obviously doping because they were faster than anyone before them?

Is human athletic achievement really reducible to a bunch of laboratory calculations and if so, why even run the race? Just award the prize to the guy with the highest VO2 max for his weight because obviously no one who's clean can beat him...


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

F1nut said:


> Anyways, statistically a human burns about 5,000cal per liter of oxygen consumption, so if you know how much energy the person is getting from oxygen uptake, that’s converted directly to power. A good thing to look at is this: https://dspace.uta.edu/handle/10106/982 University of Texas Arlington did a study to compare oxygen consumption at different power outputs on elliptical trainers.


Please don't take this the wrong way (yet) since you must understand that I'm a staunch anri-doping supporter. However, the best way to make any case is with proper information and facts, or at least reasonable assumptions. I'm not going to read all 65 pages in detail, but with some quick review the study you linked above is with "healthy" subjects, not elite athletes, and the maximum wattage employed in the study was 176 watts. Mabe there are some constants involved that scale linearly to elite athletes and higher power outputs or maybe not. In any case, without answering more about those issues I really can't consider this paper useful for the purposes we are discussing.

Furthermore, your use of the figure of 5,000cal/liter of O2 that was referred to as a "standard" by the authors of this paper was drawn from another reference source listed on pg. 63 of this PDF. Without seeing more about the specific details of how this standard was developed, and again how if or if it scales linearly from "healthy" to "elite" subjects, and at work rates ranging up to very high (for a given duration) then I simply can't be convinced to accept this 5,000cal/liter of O2 assumption.



F1nut said:


> Obviously if you know someone’s mean efficiency, and their total oxygen consumption, than you have their total power output on a machine.


Which brings us to the next point. Once again, I'm not stating you are right or wrong, but if you want to further your credibility, you'll need to show us some sources for the figures you are using for mean delta efficiency, preferably with a more relevant study than the one you linked above, or else it really won't tell us anything. When you first wrote this post you quoted 24% as L.A.'s efficiency, then a few minutes later edited your post in a few areas, including changing the efficiency you list to 23% in your text below. It's not a big difference, but it begs the question of whether you really have any valid information about the efficiency of any elite level cyclists, or whether you are just solving for whatever values support the rest of your numbers? Since correct assumption of efficiency rate is a key underpinning of all your other calculations, I'm hoping you can back it up without circular references back to other assumptions.



F1nut said:


> For example, Lance Armstrong had 5.9 liters of oxygen per minute like in his highest ever VO2 max test at 72kg according to Coyle; than that’s about 29,500 calories per minute at his best ever un-doped VO2 max. 1 calorie per minute = 0.0697333333 watts
> If his mean delta efficiency is say, 23% then 23% of that goes into the pedals. So that’s about 493 watts. If you take the listed threshold percentage Coyle gives, that’s 81% of maximal oxygen consumption. So lance can produce 403 watts with 5.1 liters per minute of O2. *81% of 5.9 however is about 4.779*. So Lance’s threshold (sustainable power according to Coyle) is 383 watts.


Sorry to put the burden of proof on you, but if you are the one throwing out the figures and want them to be credible, then you'll also need to take responsibility for filling in the blanks. I wish you success in your explanations, since I can then assign appropriate credibility to your posts.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

F1nut said:


> Chase would be winning F- Loads of races with a 355 watt FTP at 150 pounds. Thats a huge HUGE number!  He wouldnt win a national championship but he is sweeping up stuff junior in his locality for sure! Thats almost 5.2 w/kg! If he's un-doped thats a great number anyways.
> 
> He can hold 480 watts for 5 minutes!! F-#$%*&#%*$& !!!!! Get on a bike and try to hold 480 watts for 5 minutes!!!


Well, i can't do 480W, but i can do 467W for 5minutes and 400 for just over 10minutes. I'm now convinced that you're not really aware of what is physiologically possible even more so by professional athletes.


----------



## fuzz-tone (Sep 29, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> Is human athletic achievement really reducible to a bunch of laboratory calculations and if so, why even run the race? Just award the prize to the guy with the highest VO2 max for his weight because obviously no one who's clean can beat him...


Well said.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Is human athletic achievement really reducible to a bunch of laboratory calculations and if so, why even run the race? Just award the prize to the guy with the highest VO2 max for his weight because obviously no one who's clean can beat him...


The reality is the Tour over the last 15 years has become exactly that. The guy with the biggest engine, who doesn't get caught trying to increase the horsepower of that engine, wins. 

We have been told repeatedly that some DS' are so great at tactics but the reality is outside of TT's Armstrong would spend about 20km of the Tour at the front. It is these 20km and the TT's that win the race. If a rider can perform, and recover, for these efforts he wins.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> I guess what I'm not getting is how you get from the "maybe x %" or "say x %..." type statements to the "obviously enhanced."
> 
> Running records? Swimming records? Were Bolt and Phelps obviously doping because they were faster than anyone before them?
> 
> Is human athletic achievement really reducible to a bunch of laboratory calculations and if so, why even run the race? Just award the prize to the guy with the highest VO2 max for his weight because obviously no one who's clean can beat him...


Now, you cant do it with sprinters because they are not completely aerobic. You cant measure efficiency or economy on a swimmer very accurately, even if they are going a long distance.

You can take power output from oxygen comsumption in aerobic sports. Read my above post.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> Is human athletic achievement really reducible to a bunch of laboratory calculations and if so, why even run the race? Just award the prize to the guy with the highest VO2 max for his weight because obviously no one who's clean can beat him...


To a lot of people, athletic achievement is always associated with having a romantic human struggle side, but the reality is for individual sporting events, the athlete with the biggest engine usually wins, so for things like a time trial, mountain stages or some track events, you can do a really good job of predicting the top 10. Coaches at the pro level are able to predict their rider's TT times before they even turn a pedal. Why run the race? Because sometimes you get lucky, someone has a bad day, misses an important break or crashes, but if you don't have the engine, you're not going to be even in contention for lady luck to give you that last 'push'. Otherwise, we'd all be able to go pro...


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

function said:


> To a lot of people, athletic achievement is always associated with having a romantic human struggle side, but the reality is for individual sporting events, the athlete with the biggest engine usually wins, so for things like a time trial, mountain stages or some track events, you can do a really good job of predicting the top 10. Coaches at the pro level are able to predict their rider's TT times before they even turn a pedal. Why run the race? Because sometimes you get lucky, someone has a bad day, misses an important break or crashes, but if you don't have the engine, you're not going to be even in contention for lady luck to give you that last 'push'. Otherwise, we'd all be able to go pro...


Nice take - I think luck plays a much bigger part then we all think... Let’s do a fun mental exercise.

Say we have an athlete that we can make an exact copy of – say with our Star Trek like transporter. We copy this athlete just before the start of the TdF. What factors are going to determine the winner? (If you want you could create your 20 teams like this each with 9 riders and run the race that way)

Just for fun – Let’s say we conduct the same experiment with the following tweak. Our magical transporter machine can reduce the VO2M of one of the athletes by say 5 points. Can the athlete (or team) with the lower vo2m beat their identical twin?

Oh and since we have such great technology – we can guarantee that the race will be run totally clean (that is, no banned substances will be used or can be used during the race).

If you took a few minutes to run this mental exercise you quickly realize why we run races – we run races to observe and be entertained by the spectrum of variability for the entire event. For example: remember when Beloki went down and Lance scooted around him in the field, or remember when Kerri Shrug vaulted with a broken foot, how about Phelps getting 8 Golds because a teammate swam like the fastest ever 100m split… and I won’t even mention the hundreds of foot/basket/baseball moments. As humans we love the infinite potential of variability – our very nature is built for this… 

…so It isn’t just the dope boys – not only was LA the best prepared (cough, cough) athlete of our time he was also the luckiest. I for one would love to see LA, Contrador, Rasmussen, Floyd, Ulrich, Vino, Pantani… you name em, flying up the alpe with their hearts popping out of their chests (safely and properly doped of course, I am not a sadist after all). This doesn’t make me wrong it just makes me human…

It will be an interesting year for our sport indeed – I for one can’t wait for it to start.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> (safely and properly doped of course, I am not a sadist after all). This doesn’t make me wrong it just makes me human…
> 
> It will be an interesting year for our sport indeed – I for one can’t wait for it to start.


I don't agree with this take at all.

Here's the problem. Sure these guys are physical specimens but there's hundreds if not thousands of them around the world.

The problem here is that despite Pharmstrong's propaganda, he's not all that special. I'm not saying he's not a gifted athlete,but among other gifted athletes, he's just ordinary.

A while ago I was saying on these forums that I could run a 5k with not much training in 17 minutes. That's a fairly mediocre time, but the response from many on these forums was they thought that was some kind of special thing, that they didn't know anyone who could run that fast with very little training, maybe 20-25 miles a week. I responded that there are hundreds if not thousands of High School boys who can run that fast if not faster. A couple of people who are good athletes themselves and one guy who was a HS cross country coach concurred with me.

I previously thought Armstrong was clean, but then I'm reading Outside magazine and one of LA's sycophants is talking (impressed) about how LA jumped in a charity 5k with no warmup and ran 18:20 or something like that. For the average 35 year old Joe, that's a good time; when you're one of the greatest endurance athletes of all time it's not so hot. Before a 5k a while ago, one of my friends had like 4 beers and ran that time fairly easily. I mean, it's not impressive at all for an in shape endurance legend to run that time.

Then these 2:50 and 3 hour marathons which many here are so impressed with. You know if the guy had run 2:30 or 2:35 that would be impressive, remember this guy is supposed to be a genetic freak.

Some of the people here who protest Armstrong and the other dopers realize that some of these guys are completely ordinary without the dope. The others who go ga ga over the guy are like .150 hitters who think a .250 hitter is a hall of famer.

The result of all this doping is very boring racing. Before EPO, even the best guys would crack. Now you have guys who would be average like LA, but are super responders to the drugs, getting upwards of a 20% advantage.

Pharmstrong's 170lbs but he can climb like the guys who weigh 140 or less, it's a joke.

These dopers without morals are ruining it for the clean honest athletes with the support of the armchair quarterbacks who subscribe to the cult of personality just so they can get their rocks off.

Meanwhile we're losing out on potentially dramatic sporting spectacle where the greatest riders may crack, exactly like the average joe does on some insane climb. That unpredictability would make the Tour exciting.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

function said:


> To a lot of people, athletic achievement is always associated with having a romantic human struggle side, but the reality is for individual sporting events, the athlete with the biggest engine usually wins, so for things like a time trial, mountain stages or some track events, you can do a really good job of predicting the top 10. Coaches at the pro level are able to predict their rider's TT times before they even turn a pedal. Why run the race? Because sometimes you get lucky, someone has a bad day, misses an important break or crashes, but if you don't have the engine, you're not going to be even in contention for lady luck to give you that last 'push'. Otherwise, we'd all be able to go pro...


It might be more of a romantic struggle if we had humans competing instead of Lab rats which is what Pharmstrong is.

There's a lot fewer bad days for the top guys these day. How many "bad days" did Pharmstrong have, like 2? And despite all his crying, Joux Plane and the TT he lost to Ullrich weren't really that bad. 

A bad day is what we all know to be bad, not being able to even turn the cranks over on some insane ascent or walking on the side of the road like Mark Allen did in a couple of Ironman's. Running a 6 and a half minute pace and then dropping off to a 12 minute pace, now that's a bad day. Coming in second in a long TT by less than two minutes to another doped up powerhouse like Ullrich isn't a bad day. 

Completely cracking and blowing up is a bad day, and you don't only lose 2 minutes, you lose like 10 or 15 at least. Maybe more like a half hour.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Some of the people here who protest Armstrong and the other dopers realize that some of these guys are completely ordinary without the dope. The others who go ga ga over the guy are like .150 hitters who think a .250 hitter is a hall of famer.
> 
> The result of all this doping is very boring racing. Before EPO, even the best guys would crack. Now you have guys who would be average like LA, but are super responders to the drugs, getting upwards of a 20% advantage.


I agree with that and made a post earlier stating that a 20% improvement for an average rider like me would make me capable of winning a pro race. And there were plenty of kids like me in highschool...


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

I seriously think some of you have let your bias cloud your ability to think rationally

>>The problem here is that despite Pharmstrong's propaganda, he's not all that special. I'm not saying he's not a gifted athlete, but among other gifted athletes, he's just ordinary.<<

Dude, are you high? Propaganda did not win 7 TdF – even prepared (cough, cough) he is a one of a kind athlete. His 7 TdF victories are in no way ordinary. And just exactly what propaganda are you talking about – he rarely talks about his TdF victories or his cycling career for that matter.

>>Here's the problem. Sure these guys are physical specimens but there's hundreds if not thousands of them around the world.<<

Let’s apply some critical thinking here – say there are 10,000 athletes that can run a 17 minute 5k here in the U.S (BTW I seriously doubt this number but am giving you the benefit of the doubt). Now that is a lot of guys but if there are 10 million runners here in the US (~3% of the entire U.S. population) that is only .01% of the entire running population. LA - who is not a runner - goes out and runs a 18:20 with no training and no warm up in a non-competitive event and you punk it as not impressive. Maybe not impressive to you but impressive to 9999 runners out of 10,000. You sound fairly knowledgeable with regard to running so you know running is a lot more about efficiency than cycling – so just because you are a genetic freak does not mean you can run a sub 2:30 marathon. It is just not a relevant example.

I was once upon a time an elite (un-dopped) athlete – I had a couple top 25 times in the world – I never won nationals or NCAA’s, never made it to Olympics and at the time was very disappointed in my career – I was unimpressive to about 20 guys (including myself) in the entire world – today I do not feel the same.

Cheers and go Gators


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

safetyguy said:


> And just exactly what propaganda are you talking about – he rarely talks about his TdF victories or his cycling career for that matter.


What's the address of the rock you've been living under? L.A. has had a paid PR circus pushing his agenda 24x7 for ages. Everything from fully bound hardcover titles, to an endless stream of carefully orchestrated press conferences. The fact that he pays others to tell the world he's the greatest thing since sliced bread just so it doesn't come out of his own mouth doesn't absolve him and his management of running a propaganda machine. Nice for his sponsors but enough is enough.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> I seriously think some of you have let your bias cloud your ability to think rationally


I'm all ears, why am I not thinking rationally?



safetyguy said:


> Dude, are you high?


Actually no dude. I worked in the transportation business for 15 years and was regularly drug tested so I didn't want to lose my job. If you know where I..... ah forget it..



safetyguy said:


> Propaganda did not win 7 TdF – even prepared (cough, cough) he is a one of a kind athlete.


Then the propaganda worked on you if you think his "preparations" were only incidental to his success. They are and were the major factor which made him.



safetyguy said:


> His 7 TdF victories are in no way ordinary.


No kidding, he is after all the only guy who's "won" seven.. 



safetyguy said:


> And just exactly what propaganda are you talking about – he rarely talks about his TdF victories or his cycling career for that matter.


Oh it's all in his books and interviews, also this nonsense about how he has to "suffer everyday" or his day is not complete. Gimme a break...Maybe if one is completely out of shape and they push themselves hard on their first workouts back, it's suffering, otherwise it's mostly boring. That kind of stuff is directed clearly at the armchair joes who dread working out and to whom running a couple of miles is an ordeal. Everybody who has any athletic inclination whatsoever, knows that after you start getting in shape there isn't all that much "suffering" unless you're not going good or are overtrained.

Also after Joux Plane he was talking this bs about how it was his hardest day on the bike, gimme a break again. Your hardest day in this kind of thing is laying down on the side of the road. What about all of those sucky finishes and dropouts of his pre cancer tours, like the one he said he couldn't breathe in '96.

That's the propaganda, how he trains harder than everyone else he's more prepared, all this nonsense. 

Talent reveals itself relatively quickly and you can't turn a sows ear into a silk purse unless you're using drugs. It also doesn't take this hours and hours of training that LA likes to say he does. More BS. That's what the drugs help also, recovery from some ridiculous amount of training that's impossible naturally. Thats why all these Flo Jo's and Armstrongs start hitting their strides in their late 20's. If they were the most talented they would have been the best at younger ages like LeMond, Hinault, Fignon, Merckx....Not that some of them didn't dope but there's doping and then there's doping.



safetyguy said:


> >>Here's the problem. Sure these guys are physical specimens but there's hundreds if not thousands of them around the world.<<
> 
> Let’s apply some critical thinking here – say there are 10,000 athletes that can run a 17 minute 5k here in the U.S (BTW I seriously doubt this number but am giving you the benefit of the doubt). Now that is a lot of guys but if there are 10 million runners here in the US (~3% of the entire U.S. population) that is only .01% of the entire running population.


Even if it's only a thousand, that's a lot of people. The guys in the grupetto are called the laughing group BTW even though they are fantastic riders.




safetyguy said:


> LA - who is not a runner - goes out and runs a 18:20 with no training and no warm up in a non-competitive event and you punk it as not impressive.


No, I said no warmup, he had been training for his first NYC Marathon. It's not impressive to anyone who understands these things. And besides, Armstrong got paid to run in Tri's until his late teens, so yes, he is a runner as much as any other recreational runner is. And from where I come from, there are recreational runners in their 30's and 40's with full time jobs who run marathons at a 6 minute pace or faster which is in the 2:30's.



safetyguy said:


> Maybe not impressive to you but impressive to 9999 runners out of 10,000.


Now let's engage in some critical thinking. Sarah Palin for goodness sakes was impressive to millions of people, what the heck does that mean. How many people play minor league baseball, Double A, Triple A, whatever, a very small percentage of the population. We've never heard of most of these guys who don't make it to the Major Leagues but that doesn't mean they don't have a lot of talent. To even hit an 80mph fastball you need a little talent, to even throw over 80 you need to have a very strong arm. You realize an 80mph fastball is nothing for the majors (horrendous) but I would wager that a very small percentage of the population could pitch a ball more than 20 times over that speed or even once for that matter.. Heck you have guys in College and the minors who throw over 90 and never make it. So there are a decent number of very talented people out there who no one is ever going to know of. 



safetyguy said:


> You sound fairly knowledgeable with regard to running so you know running is a lot more about efficiency than cycling – so just because you are a genetic freak does not mean you can run a sub 2:30 marathon. It is just not a relevant example.


Are you a runner? I'd guess a swimmer with your Florida connections. Anyway, running isn't so much about effieciency to the extent you make it sound. Frank Shorter who was noted for a not very high VO2 max still had something like a 73, and who knows if he went all out on the test.



safetyguy said:


> I was once upon a time an elite (un-dopped) athlete – I had a couple top 25 times in the world – I never won nationals or NCAA’s, never made it to Olympics and at the time was very disappointed in my career – I was unimpressive to about 20 guys (including myself) in the entire world – today I do not feel the same.
> 
> Cheers and go Gators


Congratulations, you sound like the type of elite athlete who Lance ripped off. Seriously, you had top 25 times and you are probably not a household name. What percentile were you in? Even if Pharmstrong were among the top 25 in the world clean, (which I doubt) we would only be vaguely aware of his name.

Evidently you're not a runner because believe me, even in my mediocre mid 40's I can run an 18:20, 5k hungover, and that's without running regularly for the past couple of years. I went to the gym the other day, turned on the treadmill, and ran 3 miles at 8.7mph, less than 7 minutes a mile, and that was a warmup to a weight training session. I hadn't run for 6 months before that, and like I'm saying, for someone who can run, it's nothing special. It's not like I'm skinny either, I'm 5'9" and 180 after the holidays. The old people and the other people on the treadmills were impressed though, so what.

If you are a runner, you're not the one thinking rationally. Did I mention the number 10,000? Anyway, every HS track and cross country team in the country has a couple of kids who can run 17 minutes for a 5 k and that's not an impressive time for a HS runner, it's very average among competitive runners *and not the population as a whole* which is what you were basing your argument on.

My argument is this, LA is obviously one of the top couple hundred cyclists in the world, what, are there 189 or something like that in the Tour? That's pretty impressive. He's just not special among Pro's without drugs and in fact with drugs he still dropped out of the tour and had mediocre finishes.

Think about it, even the Lantern Rouge is an incredible rider but I don't see people even noticing him. Bassons another great rider (very similiar VO2 max to Pharmstrong's alleged number) who got nothing but contempt from dopers like LA...


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

Silly me of course Ballester, Walsh, lEquipe, Le Monde – no that is not propaganda – everything they write is the unbiased truth. What a Gobbles Armstrong is trying to use his propaganda machine to help cure cancer and give hope to cancer patients – how dare he (not to mention clear what he no doubt considers his good name).

I would characterize what he has as a very good marketing and communications team – it has worked.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> Silly me of course Ballester, Walsh, lEquipe, Le Monde – no that is not propaganda – everything they write is the unbiased truth.


First of all, no one was talking about the guys you mentioned. We were talking about the stuff LA said and his team, publicists and writers put out.

Ballester, I believe he is a prominent journalist who hadn't written about sports prior to LA, I may be wrong. I do know Armstrong smeared him though.

Walsh; an award winning sports writer who outed Michelle Smith. Btw, if you're a swimmer you'd know her. Are you a swimmer?

Le Monde is one of the most prominent, respected papers in the World and not the tabloid Pharmstrong and his people have stated.



safetyguy said:


> What a Gobbles Armstrong is trying to use his propaganda machine to help cure cancer and give hope to cancer patients – how dare he (not to mention clear what he no doubt considers his good name).
> 
> I would characterize what he has as a very good marketing and communications team – it has worked.


Yes, it has worked, your defense of him is clear evidence of it. 

BTW, how the heck do Pharmstrong's charitable activities absolve him of guilt of his sporting fraud? His foundation would be much smaller had he not taken a lot of PED's, no?

See what Stephanie Mc Ilvaine had to say about his giving hope to cancer patients..

Hey, what do you think of the great philanthropical work of the robber barons?


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

>>I'm all ears, why am I not thinking rationally?<<

OK I will play cause I kind of like your stick... You are not thinking rationally because on the one hand you say LA is gifted but in the very same sentence say he is ordinary amongst gifted riders. Please give me an example of another "ordinary" athlete who has won 7 TdF.

And no - I do not literally think you are "high" but hope you realize I am using this as a figure of speech in a friendly conversation. I sincerely hope it stays this way.

I do not know you from Adam and there is a lot I want to say in reply but don't have the time tonight - I do however want to make one comment: You mentioned Flo Jo in passing and am sure meant no disrespect - however this is one of those rare occasions where the person you are talking to (me) actually knew Flo Jo and her family extremely well. You and I could sit down and have a beer sometime over her. I have a feeling you would have liked her. Let me just say she was an amazing person and very gifted athlete, her passing was tragic. Now she was a runner - and I would ask you to please not group her amongst known dopers.

Cheers, (and I am having one for Flo tonight)

Gators #1 - and I am in CA....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

safetyguy said:


> >>I'm all ears, why am I not thinking rationally?<<
> 
> OK I will play cause I kind of like your stick... You are not thinking rationally because on the one hand you say LA is gifted but in the very same sentence say he is ordinary amongst gifted riders. Please give me an example of another "ordinary" athlete who has won 7 TdF..


BTW, my shtick is to keep it real. Most people can't handle straight talk so it becomes a shtick.

It's like almost every single guy in the NBA is extraordinarily gifted for HS, probably gifted for college, but may be just average for the Pro's. That's just the way it is. Then you have guys like Jordan, Lebron James, Bird, Magic, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson. These were unique players. What I'm saying is that without drugs, LA is a good pro at best, and that's being generous.



safetyguy said:


> And no - I do not literally think you are "high" but hope you realize I am using this as a figure of speech in a friendly conversation. I sincerely hope it stays this way...


I knew you were joking but it was meant to denigrate my opinion, and IMHO mine is much more informed and accurate than yours.. Also I don't get insulted easily.



safetyguy said:


> I do not know you from Adam and there is a lot I want to say in reply but don't have the time tonight - I do however want to make one comment: You mentioned Flo Jo in passing and am sure meant no disrespect - however this is one of those rare occasions where the person you are talking to (me) actually knew Flo Jo and her family extremely well. You and I could sit down and have a beer sometime over her. I have a feeling you would have liked her. Let me just say she was an amazing person and very gifted athlete, her passing was tragic. Now she was a runner - and I would ask you to please not group her amongst known dopers....


Of course her death was a great shock and tragedy. I'm going to end here. Good night.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

lookrider said:


> I'm all ears, why am I not thinking rationally?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no dude. I worked in the transportation business for 15 years and was regularly drug tested so I didn't want to lose my job. If you know where I..... ah forget it..


FWIW - I am drug tested all the time - not sure what relevance this has after all LA is drug tested all the time too!



> Then the propaganda worked on you if you think his "preparations" were only incidental to his success. They are and were the major factor which made him.


I did not in any way say they were incidental – in fact I would agree with you that his preparations were the major factor in his 7 wins. However I sure would like you to agree that luck had a lot to do with it – that guy was surely the luckiest TdF winner of all time too. Just one blown tire, or one crash during a sprint finish could have cost him a tour victory.



> No kidding, he is after all the only guy who's "won" seven..


Agreed this makes him both gifted and extra ordinary – a point which you seem to be hung up on. You must agree that with me that there is no such thing as an ordinary 7x TdF winner.



> Oh it's all in his books and interviews, also this nonsense about how he has to "suffer everyday" or his day is not complete. Gimme a break...Maybe if one is completely out of shape and they push themselves hard on their first workouts back, it's suffering, otherwise it's mostly boring. That kind of stuff is directed clearly at the armchair joes who dread working out and to whom running a couple of miles is an ordeal. Everybody who has any athletic inclination whatsoever, knows that after you start getting in shape there isn't all that much "suffering" unless you're not going good or are overtrained.


I do not agree with you here in the least – in the best of my shape I suffered considerably every day I trained – but then again I do like to suffer – but tried and try to not let it show.



> Also after Joux Plane he was talking this bs about how it was his hardest day on the bike, gimme a break again. Your hardest day in this kind of thing is laying down on the side of the road. What about all of those sucky finishes and dropouts of his pre cancer tours, like the one he said he couldn't breathe in '96.


I am not sure we were watching the same races – there were many times it looked to me as if LA was suffering. And I am not really sure how pained of an expression you want from the guy. Looks like he suffers to me – he says he is suffering, others who race say they suffer – yet you know better and say they aren’t “really” suffering.



> That's the propaganda, how he trains harder than everyone else he's more prepared, all this nonsense.
> 
> Talent reveals itself relatively quickly and you can't turn a sows ear into a silk purse unless you're using drugs. It also doesn't take this hours and hours of training that LA likes to say he does. More BS. That's what the drugs help also, recovery from some ridiculous amount of training that's impossible naturally. Thats why all these Flo Jo's and Armstrongs start hitting their strides in their late 20's. If they were the most talented they would have been the best at younger ages like LeMond, Hinault, Fignon, Merckx....Not that some of them didn't dope but there's doping and then there's doping.


See previous post regarding Flo Jo - However please provide me with supporting details that outline how there are better prepared and harder training cyclist that LA. It is true in general that athletes used to win races at earlier ages - this is for so for all sports - however in the last few years athletes are winning and improving well in to their mid thirties these days - are all improving late blooming athletes doped? And I am quite surprised at you obvious bias towards LA as a doper but not towards say Merckx - I suppose his doping was a lesser type of doping - please explain there is doping and there is doping.



> Even if it's only a thousand, that's a lot of people. The guys in the grupetto are called the laughing group BTW even though they are fantastic riders.
> 
> No, I said no warmup, he had been training for his first NYC Marathon. It's not impressive to anyone who understands these things. And besides, Armstrong got paid to run in Tri's until his late teens, so yes, he is a runner as much as any other recreational runner is. And from where I come from, there are recreational runners in their 30's and 40's with full time jobs who run marathons at a 6 minute pace or faster which is in the 2:30's.
> 
> Now let's engage in some critical thinking. Sarah Palin for goodness sakes was impressive to millions of people, what the heck does that mean. How many people play minor league baseball, Double A, Triple A, whatever, a very small percentage of the population. We've never heard of most of these guys who don't make it to the Major Leagues but that doesn't mean they don't have a lot of talent. To even hit an 80mph fastball you need a little talent, to even throw over 80 you need to have a very strong arm. You realize an 80mph fastball is nothing for the majors (horrendous) but I would wager that a very small percentage of the population could pitch a ball more than 20 times over that speed or even once for that matter.. Heck you have guys in College and the minors who throw over 90 and never make it. So there are a decent number of very talented people out there who no one is ever going to know of.


Politics aside (kinda like doping aside eh) we agree that not only is Sarah Palin an extraordinary, talented and gifted person – so are most athletes who can compete at the div1A level and run 2:30 marathons or for that matter run a 17 min 5k.



> Are you a runner? I'd guess a swimmer with your Florida connections. Anyway, running isn't so much about effieciency to the extent you make it sound. Frank Shorter who was noted for a not very high VO2 max still had something like a 73, and who knows if he went all out on the test.


I am a lousy runner - and I disagree with you here as I stated running (as is swimming) is much more about efficiency than cycling – I think this is well established.



> Congratulations, you sound like the type of elite athlete who Lance ripped off. Seriously, you had top 25 times and you are probably not a household name. What percentile were you in? Even if Pharmstrong were among the top 25 in the world clean, (which I doubt) we would only be vaguely aware of his name.
> 
> Evidently you're not a runner because believe me, even in my mediocre mid 40's I can run an 18:20, 5k hungover, and that's without running regularly for the past couple of years. I went to the gym the other day, turned on the treadmill, and ran 3 miles at 8.7mph, less than 7 minutes a mile, and that was a warmup to a weight training session. I hadn't run for 6 months before that, and like I'm saying, for someone who can run, it's nothing special. It's not like I'm skinny either, I'm 5'9" and 180 after the holidays. The old people and the other people on the treadmills were impressed though, so what.


Again I am one of the worst runners who ever ran – really. Seriously lookrider – I would pay for the 6- 8 shots of tequila and have you be hungover the next morning just to watch you run a 18:20 5k. I would be much impressed if you could do this – respect to you if you can do this.

I


> f you are a runner, you're not the one thinking rationally. Did I mention the number 10,000? Anyway, every HS track and cross country team in the country has a couple of kids who can run 17 minutes for a 5 k and that's not an impressive time for a HS runner, it's very average among competitive runners *and not the population as a whole* which is what you were basing your argument on.
> 
> My argument is this, LA is obviously one of the top couple hundred cyclists in the world, what, are there 189 or something like that in the Tour? That's pretty impressive. He's just not special among Pro's without drugs and in fact with drugs he still dropped out of the tour and had mediocre finishes.
> 
> Think about it, even the Lantern Rouge is an incredible rider but I don't see people even noticing him. Bassons another great rider (very similiar VO2 max to Pharmstrong's alleged number) who got nothing but contempt from dopers like LA...


You are right I am not thinking rationally here as I had more that one drink to Flo Jo... any how I pretty much agree with you here even the Lantern Rouge is an "incredible rider." But really, are you going to say that LA is not special amongst pros even after having beaten the best and and so called more gifted/talented pros (who were doped)? Please make note of the fact that I have never said LA was not doped or that winning doped is a good thing – I don’t really want to have that discussion (right now anyhow, ok maybe after a few more drinks) – but LA is a very gifted and talented athlete. You don’t (and you obviously don't) have to like the guy to acknowledge this.

So cheers again.... and good night.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

function said:


> I agree with that and made a post earlier stating that a 20% improvement for an average rider like me would make me capable of winning a pro race. And there were plenty of kids like me in highschool...


Not many people riding and racing every week though... With cycling, you have a subgroup of young white males. Lots of older WHITE people too. THats just the way it is. Hopefully someday that changes.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Circlip said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way (yet) since you must understand that I'm a staunch anri-doping supporter. However, the best way to make any case is with proper information and facts, or at least reasonable assumptions. I'm not going to read all 65 pages in detail, but with some quick review the study you linked above is with "healthy" subjects, not elite athletes, and the maximum wattage employed in the study was 176 watts. Mabe there are some constants involved that scale linearly to elite athletes and higher power outputs or maybe not. In any case, without answering more about those issues I really can't consider this paper useful for the purposes we are discussing.
> 
> Furthermore, your use of the figure of 5,000cal/liter of O2 that was referred to as a "standard" by the authors of this paper was drawn from another reference source listed on pg. 63 of this PDF. Without seeing more about the specific details of how this standard was developed, and again how if or if it scales linearly from "healthy" to "elite" subjects, and at work rates ranging up to very high (for a given duration) then I simply can't be convinced to accept this 5,000cal/liter of O2 assumption.
> 
> ...



I moved it over to the, "more on VO2 max thread."


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*dont belive it*



F1nut said:


> F-#&^#$)^#^$ !!!!!! I could get higher than LeMond's FTP/Kilo with EPO and cow blood IV's and corticoids!!! There is no way in F- that man took EPO. Now F-Way!!!!!! He couldnt make the EPO team for 1993 worlds!! He won that F- race in 1989!!!!!!
> 
> He couldnt F- Finish 6 stages of the Tour de france. The man had a VO2 max of 92.5 for F-sakes!!!
> 
> They are NOT all jacked either! There is ENTIRE TEAMS racing the thing without dope! Bassons did it in 1999 and there was others!


High V02, does not a champion make. Sorry.

There ARE entire teams who dope. I could not care less what his max was. Greg was indeed a talent, but, if you use Geregs logic on Greg, Greg doped. Thats a tiny little fracture in the crusade he is on.

Ever think about that?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

First you say



safetyguy said:


> Silly me of course Ballester, Walsh, lEquipe, Le Monde – no that is not propaganda – everything they write is the unbiased truth. .


Then I said this about LA's propaganda and marketing team, ie his books, and cancer campaign.

Quote:
Then the propaganda worked on you if you think his "preparations" were only incidental to his success. They are and were the major factor which made him. 

"Preparations" understood to mean doping. Then you write....



safetyguy said:


> I did not in any way say they were incidental – in fact I would agree with you that his preparations were the major factor in his 7 wins.


So you admit that Pharmstrong was doped to the gills, which was the main ingredient to his success but you call Walsh and the other journalists liars?

You can't have it both ways here but a lot of the Pharmstrong apologists do just that. They attack the messengers while essentially agreeing with the message that LA is as dirty as they come.

Why the attacks on Walsh et. al.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

ttug said:


> High V02, does not a champion make. Sorry.
> 
> There ARE entire teams who dope. I could not care less what his max was. Greg was indeed a talent, but, if you use Geregs logic on Greg, Greg doped. Thats a tiny little fracture in the crusade he is on.
> 
> Ever think about that?


  

Oxygen consumption is directly correlated with energy output, along with total muscular efficiency thats doing the work; so oxygen consumption ability gives a champion cyclist their ability; nothing else accept artificial oxygen from artificial sources. Like freezers, bags, IV's, EPO, Bovine heamoglobin, etc, etc. 

LeMond had a VO2 max of 6.306 liters/ minute.

Thats 31, 530 calories per minute. Thats 2,199 watts to reach VO2 max. *1 calorie per minute = 0.0697333333 watts*

If LeMond had Pharmstrong's efficiency exactly, (23.01%) Thats 508 watts to reach LeMond's recorded VO2 max. An elite cyclist can sustain about 76-80% of VO2 max for an hour, so thats 386-406 watts. Almost exactly correlating LeMond's times on Alp D'Huez. If he could train it up to 85% of VO2 max, then thats 432 watts! Not a few can sustain 85% of VO2 max for 1-hour strait.

I'd give LeMond a sustainable power of 395 watts over 1-hour based on that VO2 max power output of his... So 395/67.5kg = 5.85 w/kg

LeMond's times on Alp D'Huez reguired about 5.5 w/kg in 1986 and 5.9 w/kg in 1989. SO he might of had over ~5.8 but not by much if he did....!

Tell me who, without EPO or extra blood; has a VO2 max over 92.5 ml/kg-min on a d$mn bicycle! And LeMond's highest ever VO2 max test was offseason to boot!


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Bry03cobra said:


> Why was this thread even started? Is this new news? Was it due to the obession with Lance and anyone connected to him?
> 
> Its amussing how a few people here think a select few were COMPLETLY clean, yet none of the successful guys today can be clean since some make more power than LeMond did.
> 
> If you think its such a dirty sport....why follow it?


I think Evans might be clean.


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

F1nut said:


> Oxygen consumption is directly correlated with energy output, along with total muscular efficiency thats doing the work; so oxygen consumption ability gives a champion cyclist their ability; nothing else accept artificial oxygen from artificial sources. Like freezers, bags, IV's, EPO, Bovine heamoglobin, etc, etc.
> 
> LeMond had a VO2 max of 6.306 liters/ minute.
> 
> ...


F1 - take the existing 1 hour (UCI) record for today and determine the power output required for that effort (you should be able to get pretty close the riders total weight, so you will have distance, time and weight - don't forget the bike weight - especially from 1942 - and please no lectures from the penut gallery concerning wind temperature and other unknown variables this is just an exercise to estimate power numbers). Then take a look at say Merckx's record (stood for over 28 years) and then way back to Coppi's record of 1942 (which stood for 14 years). You seem to be pretty good with the power numbers. Now using your own criteria and based on power outputs give us your opinion on who was doping. (If you want to for fun, estimate Lemonds power during his winning TT ride - hint try breaking the course down into parts if you can find the profile)

Cheers


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Everybody who has any athletic inclination whatsoever, knows that after you start getting in shape there isn't all that much "suffering" unless you're not going good or are overtrained.


This right here tells me of your knowledge of athletic training. You can stop now.
Even your idol knows this not to be true.

"It doesn't get easier, you just go faster."
Greg Lemond.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Evidently you're not a runner because believe me, even in my mediocre mid 40's I can run an 18:20, 5k hungover, and that's without running regularly for the past couple of years. I went to the gym the other day, turned on the treadmill, and ran 3 miles at 8.7mph, less than 7 minutes a mile, and that was a warmup to a weight training session. I hadn't run for 6 months before that, and like I'm saying, for someone who can run, it's nothing special. It's not like I'm skinny either, I'm 5'9" and 180 after the holidays. The old people and the other people on the treadmills were impressed though, so what.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I thought you were off of work because of a back injury.
> And for the record, that 18:20 was for a course that the organizer describe as "incredibly hilly".


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Here are some recent numbers from Ryder Hesjedal. On Tuesday he broke JV's record up Haleakala (10,023ft over 56.84km).
He averaged 350W over 2 hours and 48 min.
Ryder is fast, but by no means a grand tour contender. He is also nowhere near is peak form. I will also bet a few bob that he is clean as they come.
What do you suppose his FTP is if he can hold 350W for almost 3 hours?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> F1 - take the existing 1 hour (UCI) record for today and determine the power output required for that effort (you should be able to get pretty close the riders total weight, so you will have distance, time and weight - don't forget the bike weight - especially from 1942 - and please no lectures from the penut gallery concerning wind temperature and other unknown variables this is just an exercise to estimate power numbers). Then take a look at say Merckx's record (stood for over 28 years) and then way back to Coppi's record of 1942 (which stood for 14 years). You seem to be pretty good with the power numbers. Now using your own criteria and based on power outputs give us your opinion on who was doping. (If you want to for fun, estimate Lemonds power during his winning TT ride - hint try breaking the course down into parts if you can find the profile)
> 
> Cheers


Eddie Merckx: 
Before I go further, Merckx was a doper. He tested positive 3 times. He tested positive for Reactivan in 1969, Iodinated glycerol in 1973 and pémoline in 1977, yet another banned amphetamine.

Now, somebody on Amphetamines doesnt gain that much of a performance advantage, but I just want to point out, before going further, Eddie Merckx was using stimulant drugs. Probably no more advantage than you get from 10 cups of coffee.

For his hour record, Eddie Stood 5 feet 11 inches tall. He weighed 160 pounds. He averaged 49.431 km/hr. He was at an Altitude of: 2,240 meters when he did this on the presumably smooth track surface. 

Assuming an air density of 0.905 at altitude.

Him and his bike then weighed 81kg

It was 75 degrees.

His frontal area was about 0.6, This was 1970's.... Maybe he had as high as 0.7 but probably not. So 420 watts if he had a really crappy drag coefficient. At 160 and 5'11'' he is about average for drag. 0.6 is average.

meter = 3.2808399 feet.

He was at 7,350 feet or so altitude then. He liked to pedal at about 80 RPM's it appears, from videos of him "hammering."

I had *363 watts.* Using Analytical cycling which is specific for TT stuff.

If you give him a frontal area of really low, Like 0.5 it only took 303 watts. _You dont get that without a TT bike though_. He was going about 30.65 mph at 7,200 feet in Mexico City. there's no air resistance up there!

Now, this might seem, "low," but you have to remember it was at 7,000+feet for the record. He probably lost some of his 02 capacity.

Maybe at sea level he could get it up to 370-390 watts. 

Altitude 
Feet	Meters % FTP
0 0 100%
1000 300 99%
2000 610  98%
3000 910 96%
4000 1220 95%
5000 1520 93%
6000 1830 92%
7000 2130 90%
8000 2440 88%
9000 2740 86%
10,000 3050 83%
11,000 3350 81%
12,000 3660 78%
13,000 3960 75%
14,000 4270 72


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

*The current UCI record is by Ondřej Sosenka, (49.700km (30.882 mi).*

Sosenka was using a 54 x 13 gearing, a 3.2 kg wheel and 190 mm cranks.










His average power was 493 watts assuming he maintained a constant 49.7km/hr.

I bet his drag was similar to Merckx's considering he is BIGG.

This was in Moscow.* Moscow is at an altitude of 179 meters.*
In the past, the man has failed a heamatocrit test. Indicating blood doping or r-EPO use. He also has tested positive for meth.

He weighs apparently, 85 kg and is 200 cms tall. So a big drag. He is 6 feet 6 inches tall.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

mtbbmet said:


> Here are some recent numbers from Ryder Hesjedal. On Tuesday he broke JV's record up Haleakala (10,023ft over 56.84km).
> He averaged 350W over 2 hours and 48 min.
> Ryder is fast, but by no means a grand tour contender. He is also nowhere near is peak form. I will also bet a few bob that he is clean as they come.
> What do you suppose his FTP is if he can hold 350W for almost 3 hours?


330ish. Somebody can hold their FTP all day practically. I was doing intervals today at 90-100% FTP and it was easy on 10 cups of coffee bro.

How much does this little dude weigh in? He must be below 65kg. Also, dont trust what the pros claim their numbers are. He could be much higher in races when he's jacked through the roof.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

I'll do Coppi in a minute... This guy was a total freak that climbed Alp D'Huez in 45 minutes when it was still a gravel road and on a scooter of a bike too. We'll see what his FTP was for the hour.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

*(45.798 km) in 1942.......*

42 pound bike then....

He did it at Milan... 120 meters above the sea....

* 329 watts.*

I've gotta go.. That doesnt seem right, I'll do it again later. Tchuss!


----------



## safetyguy (Mar 17, 2006)

F1 - not bad... think you are definately in the ball park - however I think you should use "in the drops" instead of the TT position - There was no TT position back then (Sosenka rides in the drops too). I think if you use the "drops" you will get around 450w. BTW are you using kreuzotter?

Point to ponder for all - Sosenka beats Merckx by ONLY 269 meters 30+ years later. How does a guy on speed beat a guy on epo?


----------



## bikesarethenewblack (Dec 30, 2008)

ttug said:


> If you are trying to create a metaphor between Christ and Greg Lemond, now I have to tip my hat to you because:
> 
> Because comparing the savior of all mankind


You lost me right there.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

You know, I much prefer we just let the riders line up and ride and find out who the fastest is. We could leave the determination of who is doping and cheating to those organizing the races. If the rider is allowed to ride and his results allowed to stand after whatever testing the organizers decide upon, then we should unequivocally accept that the rider was a legal, fair participant of the race. Then we can all enjoy cycling again as a sport instead of a science project and we can stop pretending to be private detectives, prosecutors, and judges.

After all, the officials had ten plus years to say Lance was a cheater and didn't. Who am I (or you!) to do so? Should your word be more accepted by the public than that of the officials?


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2009)

F1nut said:


> 330ish. Somebody can hold their FTP all day practically. I was doing intervals today at 90-100% FTP and it was easy on 10 cups of coffee bro.
> 
> How much does this little dude weigh in? He must be below 65kg. Also, dont trust what the pros claim their numbers are. He could be much higher in races when he's jacked through the roof.



Two things:

First by definition no one can hold their FTP all day.

Second if riding at or near your FTP is easy your intervals are either too short or your FTP is set to low.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

safetyguy said:


> F1 - not bad... think you are definately in the ball park - however I think you should use "in the drops" instead of the TT position - There was no TT position back then (Sosenka rides in the drops too). I think if you use the "drops" you will get around 450w. BTW are you using kreuzotter?
> 
> Point to ponder for all - Sosenka beats Merckx by ONLY 269 meters 30+ years later. How does a guy on speed beat a guy on epo?


Read through my posts bro, One word: *ALTITUDE*.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2009)

Digger28 said:


> Absolutely, but look at those two fools Phil Ligett and Paul Sherwen also. The way they ignore is a disgrace to their profession. And what's worse about Bob Roll, and these two, is that they actually cycled professionally, and they know exactly what goes on.



Not sure how you formed that opinion of Ligget and Sherwen but the interview here paints an entirely different picture of their opinion on doping. I have also seen Sherwen quoted elsewhere as naming the continued doping the most disappointing thing about the last season.

http://www.rouleur.cc/menumagazine/menuissue11


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

kytyree said:


> Two things:
> 
> First by definition no one can hold their FTP all day.
> 
> Second if riding at or near your FTP is easy your intervals are either too short or your FTP is set to low.


No, I said he could do about 330 for 2.5 hours if his FTP is higher. I got the question wrongly stated, I think he held 350 for 2.5 hours and so his FTP was about 380-390 or so. Its a little different with every person.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Ligget and Sherwin are not really doping appologists, they just completely ignore it and consider the dopers the only dopers as is the commercial requirments of it all!


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

F1nut said:


> Read through my posts bro, One word: *ALTITUDE*.


I used Analytical Cycling with standard drag coefficients, like being on a road bike.

I like to use Krutzeotter for Outdoor TT's with the hills and all.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

F1nut said:


> Read through my posts bro, One word: *ALTITUDE*.


I re-did Fausto Coppi and gave him crappy 0.6 drag since he was on an iron vice of a bike and didnt have good clothing.

*He had about 395 watts*.

Nobody could get past about 390 watts and 5.8 watts per kilo before EPO and blood manipulation it appears. Anyways, interesting.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2009)

F1nut said:


> Ligget and Sherwin are not really doping appologists, they just completely ignore it and consider the dopers the only dopers as is the commercial requirments of it all!



Not sure how you can claim they completely ignore something when they have talked at length about the subject numerous times using a variety of media types.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

kytyree said:


> Two things:
> 
> First by definition no one can hold their FTP all day.
> 
> Second if riding at or near your FTP is easy your intervals are either too short or your FTP is set to low.


NO I'm not saying it was totally easy, I was breathing hard. I just started riding again and I had about 304 watts average in a 1-hour TT 2 weeks ago. Now its like tempo to ride at that after half a dozen or so FTP interval rides. My heart rate was like 170 or so or about 85% of max. IF you drink half a pot of coffee it really helps make it feel less dificult. 

Cheers.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

kytyree said:


> Not sure how you can claim they completely ignore something when they have talked at length about the subject numerous times using a variety of media types.


They hint at it but shy away from what they really want to say. Like when I watched the Giro D Lombardie or whatever that 1-day classic was that Cunego won, Ligget said quote, "If thats how well he goes on vitamins than dopers beware." So they hint hint at it but they should be activists not shying away. They want TV ratings so they follow general opinion which is starting to sway towards most people believing everyone but their hero is jacked out there.


*By Phil Liggett
July 24, 2007*
_Alexandre Vinokourov’s positive blood test announced Tuesday has
stunned everyone from riders to organizers. Since his crash, he has
been portrayed as a limping hero of what, so far, has been a
marvellous Tour. Now, he seems to have been caught introducing
homologous blood into his system just before the time trial he won in
demonstrative fashion.

His Astana team has withdrawn at the invitation of the organizers and
Vinokourov was suspended by Astana pending the confirmation of his
positive test in his B analysis. It is very unusual for the second
test not to confirm the first. In short, Vinokourov, one of the most
respected riders in the peloton, will now leave the sport in disgrace.

British rider David Millar, himself a reformed drug taker, has been
leading the campaign to clean up the sport. His comment during his
own Saunier Duval team’s press conference in Pau, sums up the
feelings of most: “I just feel like crying right now.”

Paul, Bob and I are, for once, speechless. We are all very upset with
such a stupid action at a time the sport looked to be putting its own
house in order. It is incomprehensible that Vinokourov could do such
a thing when he must have known he was under suspicion because of his
dealing with disgraced doctor Michele Ferrari in Italy. He must have
known he would be tested at every opportunity and the time trial was
the perfect occasion.

Tomorrow we will know more._


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

Here is the actual data from Hesjedal's ride. 

http://connect.garmin.com/activity/1746967

Click on the power button to view his power data. 349 was his average for 2.5 hours according to his garmin unit. From looking at the 1st hour of data it would appear his FTP is roughly 380-400, with a weight of 72 kilos (in season, no idea what he weighs right now) that puts him at roughly 5.2-5.55 watts/kg


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

chase196126 said:


> Here is the actual data from Hesjedal's ride.
> 
> http://connect.garmin.com/activity/1746967
> 
> Click on the power button to view his power data. 349 was his average for 2.5 hours according to his garmin unit. From looking at the 1st hour of data it would appear his FTP is roughly 380-400, with a weight of 72 kilos (in season, no idea what he weighs right now) that puts him at roughly 5.2-5.55 watts/kg


Yeah, Thats about right. 390 watts at 72. He has more talent than Lance if he's clean.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2009)

F1nut said:


> Ligget and Sherwin are not really doping appologists, they just completely ignore it





F1nut said:


> They hint at it



Well do they hint at it or completely ignore it? Make up your mind.


Do they need to state your particular personal opinion a certain number of times each race broadcast to make you happy?


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

chase196126 said:


> Here is the actual data from Hesjedal's ride.
> 
> http://connect.garmin.com/activity/1746967
> 
> Click on the power button to view his power data. 349 was his average for 2.5 hours according to his garmin unit. From looking at the 1st hour of data it would appear his FTP is roughly 380-400, with a weight of 72 kilos (in season, no idea what he weighs right now) that puts him at roughly 5.2-5.55 watts/kg


I would figure his FTP is 400-420, note at the 1hr mark he's still riding at around 400W and this is at least around 6000ft with diminished oxygen. Incidentally the peak is at 10000ft and note the subsequent power drop.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

For you numbers geeks, from Carmichael: "good day of training for lance.. 45min climb after 4hrs in his legs, solid pace, 359avg watts for 46:44, not bad for old  "


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> For you numbers geeks, from Carmichael: "good day of training for lance.. 45min climb after 4hrs in his legs, solid pace, 359avg watts for 46:44, not bad for old  "


Impressive.

He does 495 during his top shape of the Tour, a 38% improvement. Sure, it is training and in the early season.....but that is a HUGE jump for a highly trained professional athlete. 

I need to get some of THAT Ferrari Orange Juice.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

I think you missed that the 359 was after 4hrs of riding and on a 46min climb. It wasn't a test or a TT.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> I think you missed that the 359 was after 4hrs of riding and on a 46min climb. It wasn't a test or a TT.


Pharmstrong has done 460 average for 38 minutes after 5 hours of racing, up Alp D'Huez in 2001. F-$$$$$$ 35% improvement doesnt come from the human body. It comes from freezers, and biotech firms like:

Nycomed
Baxter Healthcare
Hemosol
Biopure
Synthetic Blood International
Alliance Pharmaceutical Corp
Biopure)
Sanguine Corp
Curacyte
Amgen


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> I think you missed that the 359 was after 4hrs of riding and on a 46min climb. It wasn't a test or a TT.


And the 495 was after an easy day during the Tour? If it wasn't a test, however informal, Chris would not have posted it

However you want to spin it his level of improvement..... 37%, 20%, even 15% is a HUGE improvement for a highly trained professional athlete.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

3% is a good improvement for ANYONE.

2 weeks ago I had an FTP of 304. Now its 313 after 6 hard FTP interval workouts. 6-8 weeks of specific training will peak you FTP.

The fitter you get the harder it is to see gains. It gets exponentially harder to see gains unless your getting jacked, than you see HUGE gains like any pro or masters 35+ cheater or cat 1-2 amatuer cheater that does drugs gets.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> And the 495 was after an easy day during the Tour? If it wasn't a test, however informal, Chris would not have posted it


And since he certainly knows more about all this stuff than you guys, if he thought it was so low that it would mean Lance must have been a doper before and will need to again to be competitive, he wouldn't have posted it. Therefore, either Carmichael is totally stupid, or the numbers simply do not provide you with the evidence you believe they do.



> However you want to spin it his level of improvement..... 37%, 20%, even 15% is a HUGE improvement for a highly trained professional athlete.


At this stage, he's just a guy whose been retired for a few years, who was on a training ride in Hawaii. We should assume his fitness will improve greatly, and then the rest is just the difference between the effort he will expend in the TdF vs. what he expends while riding around in Hawaii in early January.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

He's an F-$$$$$ retired Doper that came back out of rehab for some more.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> And since he certainly knows more about all this stuff than you guys, if he thought it was so low that it would mean Lance must have been a doper before and will need to again to be competitive, he wouldn't have posted it. Therefore, either Carmichael is totally stupid, or the numbers simply do not provide you with the evidence you believe they do.


Your trust is cute, but misguided. Chris knows more about what, "Extract of Cortisone"?

Considering the confusion Lance had with Lemond's questions in Las Vegas they appear to not realize how absurd some of his numbers are. Good thing Garmin and Columbia are and that is why if they saw a 37% jump in watts with a 48 Hct (Lance's own numbers) that rider would be sitting, not riding

Continue to beLIEve in miracles....


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> We could leave the determination of who is doping and cheating to those organizing the races.


"Organizing the races" ? You mean the ASO? 

They said Lance was a liar, a cheat, and a fraud when his 99 samples tested positive for EPO.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> I thought you were off of work because of a back injury.
> And for the record, that 18:20 was for a course that the organizer describe as "incredibly hilly".


What all uphill? The Boston Marathon is very hilly too and some very fast times are run there. What's the point?

Yes I have a 6 percent disability according to workers compensation. That's for herniations at two vertebrae, 5% for the first and 1% for each additional level.

Anyway, there are a lot of athletes with these kinds of injuries and as a matter of fact, the first winner of the NYC marathon was on total disabililty from the NYFD because of a back injury. Many times running doesn't aggravate it. 

As for LA's suffering melodramatic nonsense. I didn't say that you don't have to push yourself and it's never uncomfortable. But the thing is this, if you're going good you're not in absolute agony as this whole suffering thing suggests. These guys winning marathons are suffering? not most of them, there may be some discomfort but for the most part they're in control. The people hitting the wall or bonking are suffering a lot more than these elite athletes are.

Even Armstrong has alluded to it getting easier when he says coming off a layoff he feels like he's pulling an anchor, as opposed to the "no chain" comments he's made when he's going good, ie doped up.:ciappa:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> This right here tells me of your knowledge of athletic training. You can stop now.
> Even your idol knows this not to be true.
> 
> "It doesn't get easier, you just go faster."
> Greg Lemond.


LeMond advocates a high quality, low volume style of training which I think he's correct on. Of course that can cause more "suffering" than riding moderately for hours on end.

Anyway, I stand by my opinion that this whole suffering thing Pharmstrong was always going on about was melodramatic nonsense in that every serious athlete is dealing with physical discomfort at times and LA was just putting this stuff out there to cover for his doping..


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

LeMond was doing 1.5 hours a pop motorpacing and 6-7 hour rides in the mountains training for Grand Tours. 

YOu need recovery ability and being used to saddle time for stage racing.

*You can PEAK your sustainable power ouput (FTP) on just 90 minute rides 4 times a week EXTREMELY LOW VOLUME, this is what LeMond advocates for on the average criterium/ TT rider. Wont win you a Tour de France title though. *

This training gave him a 390 watts FTP and he won the Tour de France 3 times with this. This is fact. He used the first SRM powermeter in 1990 and he was stronger in 1991. He lost in 91' because half the field was jacked on EPO and he still managed 7th.

As the field became more and more jacked on modern day medicine the non-doper continued to fall further and further behind until he pulled over on stage 6 of the 1994 tour de france, a shadow of himself overtrained from riding against Dr. conconi and Dr. Ferrari's EPO, hGh, insulin, corticoids 100 times a year.

"Champions" of the 1990's owe *ALL* their credit to massive drug programs and super-response to drugs above and beyond their competitors. Pharmstrong certainly does with 4 out of 5 VO2 max recordings below 80. He weighed 75kg for all those tests and he can consume 5.9 liters of O2 in one minute. He cant get down to 72kg without 2 weeks of racing 120 miles per day. He needs IGF-1 and hGh to recover during the Tour to achieve this. 

The whole USPO team's urine from 2000 was fake. Who knows how he'll cheat this year. Pharmstrong was a doper. Is a doper. Always will be a doper.


If one wants to succeed in modern day European Pro racing, they MUST break the law and use illegal controlled substances. The physical and circumstancial evidence STRONGLY suggests this. Cycling's image is dirty and it has become an unpopular sport.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

F1nut said:


> LeMond was doing 1.5 hours a pop motorpacing and 6-7 hour rides in the mountains training for Grand Tours.
> 
> YOu need recovery ability and being used to saddle time for stage racing.
> 
> ...


Yes, LeMond was worried about high volumes because all that training drives cortisol levels up, and HGH and testoterone down. Obviously you can't avoid high volume training if you're a Tour rider but LeMond also felt the best training was racing rather than hiding away in some mountain outpost and taking drugs.

Even in bodybuilding this guy Dorian Yates was training 45 minutes 4 days a week at the end of his Mr. Olympia years, rather than this 6 day a week double split nonsense. Arthur Jones, the Nautilus founder thought you can get better results by training 2 or at most 3 days a week doing like 10 sets total, something like 20 minute workouts.. That is torture training though...


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

bigpinkt said:


> Your trust is cute, but misguided. _Chris knows more about what, "Extract of Cortisone"?_
> 
> Considering the confusion Lance had with Lemond's questions in Las Vegas they appear to not realize how absurd some of his numbers are. Good thing Garmin and Columbia are and that is why if they saw a 37% jump in watts with a 48 Hct (Lance's own numbers) that rider would be sitting, not riding
> 
> Continue to beLIEve in miracles....


Good one! Only cost $20k to wriggle out of that one.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

F1nut said:


> LeMond was doing 1.5 hours a pop motorpacing and 6-7 hour rides in the mountains training for Grand Tours.
> 
> YOu need recovery ability and being used to saddle time for stage racing.
> 
> ...


I think that you've done a very nice job of summing up what's happened to pro cycling with that post. I completely agree with what you've said. It's been a little depressing to witness, since I fell in love with bike racing in 1984, and it remains my #1 passion to this day. Greg LeMond has been a great inspiration to me as a cyclist, and sadly, so has Lance Armstrong. 
It's also been interesting following all of the discussion of drug/doping and the possible physical benefits vs.dangers, but little has been discussed about the risks for us as a society of (hopefully) enlightened human beings. Athletes have signed start lists and racing licenses in full understanding and agreement that certain products and procedures are banned and subject to certain sanctions/punishments, but continue to chose to lie, cheat, whine, and decieve for the chance to obtain fame and fortune. What about the cost of this type of sickness/social ill? What has happened to human values, and why do we continue to honour and reward the cheats,liars and decievers in our society?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

piano said:


> I think that you've done a very nice job of summing up what's happened to pro cycling with that post. I completely agree with what you've said. It's been a little depressing to witness, since I fell in love with bike racing in 1984, and it remains my #1 passion to this day. Greg LeMond has been a great inspiration to me as a cyclist, and sadly, so has Lance Armstrong.
> It's also been interesting following all of the discussion of drug/doping and the possible physical benefits vs.dangers, but little has been discussed about the risks for us as a society of (hopefully) enlightened human beings. Athletes have signed start lists and racing licenses in full understanding and agreement that certain products and procedures are banned and subject to certain sanctions/punishments, but continue to chose to lie, cheat, whine, and decieve for the chance to obtain fame and fortune. What about the cost of this type of sickness/social ill? What has happened to human values, and why do we continue to honour and reward the cheats,liars and decievers in our society?


Yup, you've nailed it.:thumbsup: 

The physical decline is inevitable for all of us, but the spiritual/moral decline is very sad. Cheating's bad enough, but being a cheating apologist is awful. I've done some bad stuff, but there's no rationalizing it. I'm responsible, and it's bad no matter how you slice it.. I have a lot of regrets and shortcomings.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

piano said:


> It's also been interesting following all of the discussion of drug/doping and the possible physical benefits vs.dangers, but little has been discussed about the risks for us as a society of (hopefully) enlightened human beings. Athletes have signed start lists and racing licenses in full understanding and agreement that certain products and procedures are banned and subject to certain sanctions/punishments, but continue to chose to lie, cheat, whine, and decieve for the chance to obtain fame and fortune. What about the cost of this type of sickness/social ill? What has happened to human values, and why do we continue to honour and reward the cheats,liars and decievers in our society?


Why? It should be obvious that athlete behavior exactly mimics typical human behavior. The drive to ignore drug bans or find new substances that are undetectable is the same drive that has motivated innovation of cultural, political, economic, and technological advancement. In other words, it's just the way we humans are: someone in a place of power above us places a "rule" on us, we agree to it in principle in order to be left alone, and then we go right out and violate that rule in as sneaky of a way we can devise in order to get to where it is we wish to be. Then the rules are reevaluated. Sometimes they are changed (prohibition, raising speed limits, increased human/civil rights) and sometimes the powers that be just develop new ways to detect violations (red light cameras, drug tests, whatever) and enforce the rules and the cat and mouse game continues.

But athletes are no more prone to "cheating" than anyone else. It's just the way we humans are, and it's the reason we aren't still living in caves.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Why? It should be obvious that athlete behavior exactly mimics typical human behavior. The drive to ignore drug bans or find new substances that are undetectable is the same drive that has motivated innovation of cultural, political, economic, and technological advancement. In other words, it's just the way we humans are: someone in a place of power above us places a "rule" on us, we agree to it in principle in order to be left alone, and then we go right out and violate that rule in as sneaky of a way we can devise in order to get to where it is we wish to be. Then the rules are reevaluated. Sometimes they are changed (prohibition, raising speed limits, increased human/civil rights) and sometimes the powers that be just develop new ways to detect violations (red light cameras, drug tests, whatever) and enforce the rules and the cat and mouse game continues.
> 
> But athletes are no more prone to "cheating" than anyone else. It's just the way we humans are, and it's the reason we aren't still living in caves.


Cheating equals innovation?

I don't cheat on my taxes, do you?

When I was a kid all of us would go up to the movies, pay for one ticket, and one of us would open the rear door for 5 of us to get in. I told my father and his response was, you're stealing. That's it...

Your post is kind of scary.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

piano said:


> I think that you've done a very nice job of summing up what's happened to pro cycling with that post. I completely agree with what you've said. It's been a little depressing to witness, since I fell in love with bike racing in 1984, and it remains my #1 passion to this day. Greg LeMond has been a great inspiration to me as a cyclist, and sadly, so has Lance Armstrong.
> It's also been interesting following all of the discussion of drug/doping and the possible physical benefits vs.dangers, but little has been discussed about the risks for us as a society of (hopefully) enlightened human beings. Athletes have signed start lists and racing licenses in full understanding and agreement that certain products and procedures are banned and subject to certain sanctions/punishments, but continue to chose to lie, cheat, whine, and decieve for the chance to obtain fame and fortune. What about the cost of this type of sickness/social ill? What has happened to human values, and why do we continue to honour and reward the cheats,liars and decievers in our society?


Hmmmm.... Maybe lack of eduacation on the sports or businesses involved, good public relations on their part, and false trust maybe from looks, or simple desire to blindly believe in something like people need to believe in god or a religion.

I think the resistance to what we are saying is enormous if we cant even win over a tiny little forum... Just goes to show....


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> But athletes are no more prone to "cheating" than anyone else. It's just the way we humans are, and it's the reason we aren't still living in caves.


Cheating is why we are no longer living in caves? Equating doping to running a red light? Some of the more inventive excuses for dopers. 

There are millions of people who chose to live their lives in a moral and ethical manner. They are the engine of our society, not the cheaters.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Your post is kind of scary.


Because your reading of it is too simplistic. Human history has been basically a battle between those who make and enforce rules and the rest of the people who are subject to them. The fact that many, many things are legal or culturally acceptable now than used to be, proves that definitions change over time. And the reason they changed is that enough people violated the rule that it became acceptable.

Of course I'm not saying that all "cheating' is good or talking about sneaking into the cinema. I'm just explaining that perhaps the drive of elite athletes to push the boundaries of physical achievement and being willing to break the rules or the spirit of the rules to do so is the same drive that accounts for the sort of cultural evolution of rules and what is possible over time.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

The idea of not getting rewarded for hard work is something that drives ANY market economy down. Its called a recession or a meltown when people steal from other people. Example: 

Person A grows a crop, they want to get compensation for their hard work. Likewise they expect that if you work you want to get paid as well. In a market based economy, if a neurosurgeon saves someones life, he would like to get paid... a lot more than someone who's work is not as stressful, difficult, time consuming etc. this is the concept which we should be arguing for, not anarchy. Allowance of Doping is anarchy, not innovation.

*Anarchy*; "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

Now, when you have lack of intervention; people will cheat and cause problems to the market..... All we are saying is that there is a lack of intervention.

Total Anarchy isnt the solution, and neither is a weak governing body. We can agree on this, I know we can.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

pacificaslim said:


> Why? It should be obvious that athlete behavior exactly mimics typical human behavior. The drive to ignore drug bans or find new substances that are undetectable is the same drive that has motivated innovation of cultural, political, economic, and technological advancement. In other words, it's just the way we humans are: someone in a place of power above us places a "rule" on us, we agree to it in principle in order to be left alone, and then we go right out and violate that rule in as sneaky of a way we can devise in order to get to where it is we wish to be. Then the rules are reevaluated. Sometimes they are changed (prohibition, raising speed limits, increased human/civil rights) and sometimes the powers that be just develop new ways to detect violations (red light cameras, drug tests, whatever) and enforce the rules and the cat and mouse game continues.
> 
> But athletes are no more prone to "cheating" than anyone else. It's just the way we humans are, and it's the reason we aren't still living in caves.



So you are saying is that if one cheats by doping in a sporting event, then what they are doing is actually good for the advancement of that sport, and that it's acceptable because it's simply the natural evolution? And since sports is really a reflection of society, then it's a good thing to cheat because that,metaphorically speaking, will lead us out of the stone age ? Because that's exactly what your argument implies.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

piano said:


> So you are saying is that if one cheats by doping in a sporting event, then what they are doing is actually good for the advancement of that sport, and that it's acceptable because it's simply the natural evolution? And since sports is really a reflection of society, then it's a good thing to cheat because that,metaphorically speaking, will lead us out of the stone age ? Because that's exactly what your argument implies.


No, I'm saying nothing of the sort and it is absolutely not what my argument implies. God, I wish everyone had to take a logic class in school. I simply stated that the _drive_ is the same. Sometimes there are positive benefits and sometimes there are negative benefits, but the drive, the human instinct to "beat the system" and "push the boundaries" is the same.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> No, I'm saying nothing of the sort and it is absolutely not what my argument implies. God, I wish everyone had to take a logic class in school. I simply stated that the _drive_ is the same. Sometimes there are positive benefits and sometimes there are negative benefits, but the drive, the human instinct to "beat the system" and "push the boundaries" is the same.


There are plenty of people that push the boundaries without needing to cheat, or as you call it "beat the system"


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Didn't say there weren't. 

Though some guys in this thread are convinced that the fastest clean cycling has already taken place and anyone who rides any faster today or in the future can only do so by taking performance enhancing substances.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Didn't say there weren't.
> 
> Though some guys in this thread are convinced that the fastest clean cycling has already taken place and anyone who rides any faster today or in the future can only do so by taking performance enhancing substances.


Man, what a backtrack, is that the word? 

I think reasonable people made their indictments and exonerations based on the *EVIDENCE.*

*Anyone* who rides faster today? A little hyperbole?


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

Hey, I'm one who actually believes boundaries can be broken without cheating. But it's a minority opinion around here! 

Go back a few pages or scan some other threads and you'll see what I'm talking about. A bunch of times or power numbers are posted. Anyone whose numbers are higher than, say, Lemond, is deemed to have gotten there via cheating. It is inconceivable to these guys that anyone could ride faster clean.

Therefore, what they are in effect saying is that we've reached the wall and that if anyone ever breaks the boundary, they must have done so via cheating. If so, what a shame.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> Didn't say there weren't.
> 
> Though some guys in this thread are convinced that the fastest clean cycling has already taken place and anyone who rides any faster today or in the future can only do so by taking performance enhancing substances.



No, not drawing "limits," I'm observing VO2 max values. If someone has alway recorded certain oxygen consumption values and threshold percentages then its highly unlikely they beat themself by a significant margin without doping.

They'd do it on a yearly basis if it was an official anti-doping effort Pacifisist, not one test. December value with a blood test in conjuntion, then a June value with a blood test in conjuntion.

Very simple, if someone's heamatocrit is over lets draw it at 46% for male cyclists, if they have under a 46% RBC's and they then do a VO2 max test. All you need is two tests for these European riders. One in December (unfit) and one in June (Fit). You might get a guy with a 72 VO2 max in December and then an 82 VO2 max in June. If in July at the Tour de France, they are producing lets say, 15% more power then their VO2 max value in June then thats doping. That would allow for a margin of doping most likely, but its a heckava lot better than whats happening right now.

There are physiologists out there that are so good (Michael Aschenden) they can literally tell if someone has blood doped based on a quick submaximal test on the bike with a power meter and O2 consumption measured. This guy has done tests to measure the effects of all different kinds of doping, from Artificial blood (HBOC's, which are not even effective!) to blood doping with human blood.

Almost all cyclists that dont smoke will be in the 40-44% heamatocrit range. So have out of competition blood testing and set it at 46% heamatocrit. No one who trains hard will ever get it to 50% unless their living in Nepal!

The situation right now is widespread Dynepo use (Human exact EPO) to keep it "naturally" at the 50% limit, then they bring it up to 51-55% range for the races by doping with their own blood.

It takes knowledge and know-how to do this and the majority on pro teams will not be able to dope with their own blood. Not even in the ProTour. They can use EPO (most of them) to a 49.9% heamatocrit but they wont be able to blood dope with their own blood like some of the top stars of the Euro calendar.

The reason I say certain values are impossible is based on what I'm seeing, no one testing higher than an 88 VO2 max (Basso, Contadoper.) Evans has tested with a 91 VO2 max but that could have easily been doped. Even with these values, they all do 5.6- 5.7 watts per kilo at FTP with high thresholds which is a considerable amount lower than the race values.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> Hey, I'm one who actually believes boundaries can be broken without cheating. But it's a minority opinion around here!
> 
> Go back a few pages or scan some other threads and you'll see what I'm talking about. A bunch of times or power numbers are posted. Anyone whose numbers are higher than, say, Lemond, is deemed to have gotten there via cheating. It is inconceivable to these guys that anyone could ride faster clean.
> 
> Therefore, what they are in effect saying is that we've reached the wall and that if anyone ever breaks the boundary, they must have done so via cheating. If so, what a shame.


It appears you are missing, or twisting the point. It is certainly possible for riders to have higher numbers, Improvement is certainly possible......but 20% improvement? This is a huge increase. I do not see anyone saying that improvement is not possible, just not to the extreme levels exhibited Riis, Armstrong, et al.

The experts do not agree with you

Allen Lim said

_*All I’ll say is that 6.7 watts per kg at threshold is not physiological or humanly possible, unless you’re a hybrid human horse or a grey hound human dog or another species. I don’t even think Frankenstein could hold 6.7 watts per kg at threshold. Though, I must say that, unlike most artificially manipulated creatures of science, Frankenstein did have a uniquely low carbon footprint as he was made of recycled body parts and was activated with a clean bolt of lightning. But that’s a totally different story. 

To win the Tour de France you need to be able to hold 5.9 to 6.0 watts per kg for 30 to 45 minutes at a time, 3 to 4 times over the course of a 5 to 6 hour day in the mountains. My sense is that if you can do more, something is wrong. *


_


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

So when we talk about improvements, what % improvement would be considered natural over the course of a career? Many people say that you reach your "peak" as a cyclist in your late 20's early 30's. How much of an improvement would you see in power from, say age 21 to age 30?


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

pacificaslim said:


> Hey, I'm one who actually believes boundaries can be broken without cheating. But it's a minority opinion around here!
> 
> Go back a few pages or scan some other threads and you'll see what I'm talking about. A bunch of times or power numbers are posted. Anyone whose numbers are higher than, say, Lemond, is deemed to have gotten there via cheating. It is inconceivable to these guys that anyone could ride faster clean.
> 
> Therefore, what they are in effect saying is that we've reached the wall and that if anyone ever breaks the boundary, they must have done so via cheating. If so, what a shame.


Like the magical 420W "human limit" value which gets thrown around like fact


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*nope*



F1nut said:


> I re-did Fausto Coppi and gave him crappy 0.6 drag since he was on an iron vice of a bike and didnt have good clothing.
> 
> *He had about 395 watts*.
> 
> Nobody could get past about 390 watts and 5.8 watts per kilo before EPO and blood manipulation it appears. Anyways, interesting.


Eddy trained in a simulated environment when he set the hour. He made a mask that would simulate the altitude, and yes he trained on a trainer with the mask on. He used a 52x14 gear ratio, estimates have him at ~110rpm at that ratio for the record and he slowed a tad before he finished. He wanted to make a point of killing Ritters shorter distance records.

He did NOT have aero equipment, and carped endlessly that Moser did when he broke his record. However, Eddys bike was a custom machine.

As to the 390 number, well thats a crock. How many watts did Eddy generate in his TDFs and Giro wins on the climbs??? The numbers you are using are GUESSES, good ones, but as Coppi did not have a wind tunnel and we d NOT have wind data on Eddy in his prime, especially after he broke his leg and could not climb better as before, these are guesses which in part, are wrong.

However, yeah, they all doped in one way or another.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

F1 Nut, I guess the problem I have as a cycling fan with the idea of vo2 testing to find dopers is that it assumes that people are going to perform as well in that june test as they would in actual racing conditions. It would seem to me that humans have proven over and over again that strange, super-human performances can come out of nowhere when in the heat of battle. It just doesn't seem to me that calculations and lab tests can really ever directly correlate to actual racing condition performances. It would be a shame to declare someone a cheater just because he was so much better in the race than he was on a freakin' trainer in some lab somewhere a month before. 

And since we have the vo2 numbers for all the cyclists in June, what are we going to say when the TdF finish list doesn't resemble the vo2 ranking list at all? Can we just say that some guys just weren't "suffering" enough and therefore didn't perform up to potential? Or are we going to be willing to say that a guy who was #89 on the vo2 list but finished 6th just really gave it his all?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

pacificaslim said:


> It would be a shame to declare someone a cheater just because he was so much better in the race than he was on a freakin' trainer in some lab somewhere a month before.


If you have a 20% improvement and a sudden increase of Hct......well you better not be riding for Garmin or Columbia.



pacificaslim said:


> And since we have the vo2 numbers for all the cyclists in June


We do? Please provide.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

chase196126 said:


> So when we talk about improvements, what % improvement would be considered natural over the course of a career? Many people say that you reach your "peak" as a cyclist in your late 20's early 30's. How much of an improvement would you see in power from, say age 21 to age 30?


Until the introduction of EPO Tour riders were thought to peak in their early 20's. Lance was the oldest modern winner. Merckx won his last Tour at 29 and said "the wear and tear was beginning to show" With widespread use of EPO and HGH riders who routinely dropped out, or barely finished, Tours early in their careers suddenly were winning. Experienced, professional, riders were seeing 20%+ improvements in power.....and trying to explaining it away by saying it was from "High Cadence Pedaling" and hiding the fact that they were working with the sports most notorious doping doctor.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> We do? Please provide.


That was F1nut's testing idea: test everyone in June for Vo2 max.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

chase196126 said:


> So when we talk about improvements, what % improvement would be considered natural over the course of a career? Many people say that you reach your "peak" as a cyclist in your late 20's early 30's. How much of an improvement would you see in power from, say age 21 to age 30?


VO2 max tends to "peak" in the early 20's. It can be maintained at that for a long time with hard training but eventually will start to fall off late 20's to early 30's depending on genetics. FTP percentage of VO2 max will keep increasing after early 20's and until early 30's. Thats why pros tend to peak in late 20's early 30's, they are using as much time as possible to train up FTP percentage before VO2 max starts to decline.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

The whole idea is that you take an unfit VO2 max in December, and then a fit VO2 max in June. Or an unfit in February, then a fit in September if a rider has a different program.

Simple, blood test them, then test VO2 max.

The 420 watts is a personal belief. 

Just to give you an idea, evans appears to have had about 400 watts for this years Tour de France at 150 pounds, maybe 390. Sastre had 375 or so at 135 pounds blood doped. Nathan O'Neill has been at at 400 for FTP at 150 pound doped . A really big guy isnt going to put out a lot more watts. Thats why big guys dont do as well at climbing.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

function said:


> Like the magical 420W "human limit" value which gets thrown around like fact


do you think that 495 or even 510 is achievable clean? 

We are not talking about a 1-2% improvement, we are talking about 20% over the best riders in the history of the sport. No matter how you look at it that is huge.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Look*



pacificaslim said:


> That was F1nut's testing idea: test everyone in June for Vo2 max.


It's really very simple but there is so much resistance from people who don't even think doping is wrong or is just something that occurs in the natural course of human events. 

Here's the thing. Up until 2005 and even later, we had Pharmstrong, Ferrari, and the whole cycling world talking about this 6.7 watts per kilogram magic number which we know is unachievable. Then we have Operacion Puerto where Hamilton's doping schedule indicated he got 14 transfusions before the TdF.

When the heck is someone going to get in Pharmstrongs face and demand a straight answer on 6.7? WTF.

It's also amazing that there is not one tough guy Pro cyclist who will come out on the record and say Lance doped thru all his tour wins and that's it. Call BS on the guy for goodness sake.

The more you go back over LeMond's story about the FL phone call, the more it makes sense.

People won't even face reality because Tyler's a "nice" guy and woe unto anyone who says anything negative about St. Lance because he's giving everyone with cancer so much Hope.

I'm not crazy about disqualifying someone with a big jump in VO2 max in the absence of a positive doping control, but something has to be done if you don't want to keep cycling in the same realm as bodybuilding. I mean, who thinks those guys are real?


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Apparently*



bigpinkt said:


> Until the introduction of EPO Tour riders were thought to peak in their early 20's. Lance was the oldest modern winner. Merckx won his last Tour at 29 and said "the wear and tear was beginning to show" With widespread use of EPO and HGH riders who routinely dropped out, or barely finished, Tours early in their careers suddenly were winning. Experienced, professional, riders were seeing 20%+ improvements in power.....and trying to explaining it away by saying it was from "High Cadence Pedaling" and hiding the fact that they were working with the sports most notorious doping doctor.


You missed this "explanation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/nov/18/lancearmstrong-cycling-tourdefrance-donaldmcrae

_What about Michele Ferrari? You have a long-term bond with him, and being linked with him doesn't look too good?

Yeah. But more was made of that relationship than actually existed. And these are family friends. And I'm not going to kick a family friend out of my life. There are those relationships but look at the real data. The fact of that matter is that nobody had more scrutiny than me. It began in 1999 and it went all the way. This is what happens. The press asks questions, the testers start coming to the athletes house, the police start looking into it … and guess what the performance usually drops. The scrutiny only increased on me every year and my performance increased. I would have been a fool in 2005, the seventh tour, I would have been crazy to go out and cheat. I had all the money I already needed and the seventh win was insignificant - it makes absolutely no sense._

So Lance, there wasn't much to that relationship,*but* he's a family friend?

He was still using Ferrari in 2004 to produce his 470 watts at threshold 6 months before the Tour.

They had a whole chapter on Ferrari's involvement in LA's War. How stupid, how docile does this arrogant prick think we are?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Right now Lance is at 359..... Strait out of Chris' mouth...

Lance's FTP potential clean is 363 watts. Lance did his highest VO2 max tests in 1999 and here they are:

71,5 in Spring of 1999, and 81.2 in September 1999.

Oxygen per Kilo is what was taken. With that "83.8," 72kg bodyweight was factored in. Lance did not weigh anywhere near 72 kilos for any of those tests. I have 75 Kilos as a typical weight for him. Taking the highest score is like a golfer taking their best ever round and using that as their normal!

If you take the average VO2 max test Lance did, its about 75. Very normal for an un-doped pro making $20,000 a year on a US continental team or a guy thats just riding for free.

With 
thats 5625 ml of oxygen per minute. 5.6 liters is about 28028 calories per minute using linear regression. Thats 1955.58 watts using Conversion World.com

Lance's Delta Efficiency (body to bike) Is 23.02%. *Thats 450 watts you guys.*

No way Lance's lactate threshold is over *365 watts *with that. Its listed as 81% of his VO2 max. 81% of his VO2 max is like 4556ml of oxygen. 

The lower the intensity, the more fats burned. No way is Lance getting better than 4,800 calories per liter O2 consumption at threshold.

Lance just did 359 watts for a 45 minute, "effort" according to Carmichael. He's already at the limit for his FTP.

He rode Leadville with over 420 watts for FTP. Super easy to use EPO and then go to altitude (Leadville 8,000 feet) and maintain a high crit.

He's still got some aerobic memory from doping last summer no doubt about it. 

Maybe he could get it to 370 cleanly since someone can typically get a bit LT for 1-hour.


No way he was 2nd at Leadville with a 360!!! Maybe a 420! Mountain biking is not clean and there was some top mountain bikers in that race....


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

F1nut said:


> The lower the intensity, the more fats burned.


Do you mean, more fats as a % of total energy expended?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Now, Lance's % at LT has been listed in the range of 77-81% depending on fitness obviously. His out of Shape FTP is 345 range. 


And... Previously this year he claimed he was doing 20 min intervals at 380-400 watts repeats on a 3 hour ride. No way he does that without a 400 watt FTP!! 

Now, Chris Carmichael says he did 359 for 45 minutes. So, If he's now at lets call it 360, think of how his loss of power *coincides* With the start of the Tour down Under and blood testing.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Do you mean, more fats as a % of total energy expended?


Yep!!

Fat Facts


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

F1nut said:


> Right now Lance is at 359..... Strait out of Chris' mouth...
> 
> No way he was 2nd at Leadville with a 360!!! Maybe a 420! Mountain biking is not clean and there was some top mountain bikers in that race....


What?
Now you are talking stupid. Apparently you know it too, since you have edited it out of your post.
What top level riders were there? What do you base this 420W on? What do you base the "mountain biking is not clean" on? All of the positives? The fact that American MTB'ers get fed over in Europe?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

mtbbmet said:


> What?
> Now you are talking stupid. Apparently you know it too, since you have edited it out of your post.
> What top level riders were there? What do you base this 420W on? What do you base the "mountain biking is not clean" on? All of the positives? The fact that American MTB'ers get fed over in Europe?


I disluded the Moutain bikers arnt all clean because it had nothing to do with the post. I'll put it back in if you want? Yes, Lots of people use EPO. Is that not a fact?! Do I need to start listing off United States doping suspensions from mountain biking?!

I;ll start with this Clown Jason Sagger and his "missed" urine sample!! Ha b$tch take that!


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

Chelsea Redwood's Phentermine! I guess she needs help losing weight for the DOWNHILL racing, just like those NFL Linemen on the MN VIkings NFL football team!!! LMFAO seriously!


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

_"What?

What top level riders were there?" _


Manuel Prado's a big name in MT'biking....

Nate Whitman... Wiens is pretty good too!

There are lots of super-strong montain bikers out there also not a few jacked on EPO.

Look at what Mountain biking has produced in Cadel Evans. And he might not be on drugs. Wouldnt that be a shock?!


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

F1nut said:


> _"What?
> 
> What top level riders were there?" _
> 
> ...


Srsly?
Manny Prado and Nate Whitman? I actually had to look those guys up. Neither are full time pro's. Whitman races at as a Master at nationals.
Wiens is fast, for a guy in his 40's.
I'll give you that EPO may be used in Europe, but it is not an issue with domestic racing. It is certainly not common practice.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

F1nut said:


> Do I need to start listing off United States doping suspensions from mountain biking?!


Yes please.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

"The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) announced Saturday that Chelsea Redwood of Big Bear Lake, Calif., an athlete in the sport of cycling, has accepted a sanction for *inadvertently committing a doping violating* involving the prohibited substance phentermine. 

Redwood, 34, tested positive for phentermine at the U.S. Mountain Bike National Championships on September 26, 2004 in Mammoth Mountain, Calif. Although she disclosed the use of phentermine for weight loss at the time of the test, *Redwood was unaware it is a prohibited stimulant* under Union Cycliste International (UCI) rules. UCI is the international federation for the sport of cycling. "

Wow, you had to dig pretty deep for that one. That is compelling evidence to your case.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> "The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) announced Saturday that Chelsea Redwood of Big Bear Lake, Calif., an athlete in the sport of cycling, has accepted a sanction for *inadvertently committing a doping violating* involving the prohibited substance phentermine.
> 
> Redwood, 34, tested positive for phentermine at the U.S. Mountain Bike National Championships on September 26, 2004 in Mammoth Mountain, Calif. Although she disclosed the use of phentermine for weight loss at the time of the test, *Redwood was unaware it is a prohibited stimulant* under Union Cycliste International (UCI) rules. UCI is the international federation for the sport of cycling. "
> 
> Wow, you had to dig pretty deep for that one. That is compelling evidence to your case.


Cool, these means I can use EPO as long as I say I was unaware it was against the rules.

Ignorance is not an excuse.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
I never said it was an excuse, neither did she as she accepted her suspension. But using her case as an example that doping is a major problem in domestic moutain biking is about as idiotic as your post.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

mtbbmet said:


> Srsly?
> Manny Prado and Nate Whitman? I actually had to look those guys up. Neither are full time pro's. Whitman races at as a Master at nationals.
> Wiens is fast, for a guy in his 40's.
> I'll give you that EPO may be used in Europe, but it is not an issue with domestic racing. It is certainly not common practice.


I didnt say it was, I said not less than a few....

40 year old *Mike Janelle* died of a heart attack after over 20 years of competing... Someone who has been going that long suddenly, "discovers" they have a heart condition.... Yeah right.

*Sagger* missed his urine sample...

*Jonathan page* does quite a few Mountain bike races in the US, he recently missed a test at a Beligian Cross race... Gets a lot of sympothy.  I love how these dopers get everyone on a hook to feel sorry for them, what a bunch of sociopaths....

Then there is *Chelsea Redwood *LOL! :thumbsup: 

*Roid Landis* used to be a pretty good mountain biker STILL IS, and apparently an experienced doper already as his early years on USPO involved, "injecting entire vials of Growth hormone." According to Clinger in court testimony.

I cant disclude Chris Sheppard's EPO use either, since he came down to the US to race quite often.

There is doping in Mountain biking. Not a lot of money involved, but EPO isnt uber-expensive. All anyone needs is a portable Heamotocrit tester and about $10,000 U.S. to stay jacked all summer long with a constant supply.


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

I have to leave the computer for some hours, I'll be bAck.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Do you even know the story of Sager missed test?
Mike Janelle? Do you even have a shred of evidence to support that? I'm sure his widow would like to know if you do.
Page doing a few MTB races does not make him a mountain biker.
Redwood is another poor example.
Landis is not, but who knows how long he was on the program.
Shep is the only top level pro domestic racer I can think of that has been done.
I am not saying MTB is squeeky clean, but it is hardly dirty. Your weak examples illustrate that.


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

F1, the 359 number Carmichael is quoting is not an FTP: it's a number from a regular workout ride, taken during a climb after 4 hours in the saddle.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

F1nut said:


> All anyone needs is a portable Heamotocrit tester and about $10,000 U.S. to stay jacked all summer long with a constant supply.


Who are you? Rick Crawford?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

The effort wasnt a full hour long, 45 minutes. These pros are fit enough to give a full effort after 4 hours of riding. He;s quote, "in pretty good shape right now." What else does he have to do besides train? 

I give him 360 watts for FTP right now. That stands. That doesnt matter though because once he blood dopes with his own blood in the freezer his FTP will be like 440 and his VO2 max 96. 

When he fully jacks for the Tour he'll have close to what he had before minus 5% or so since they cant go all the way to 60% heamotocrit anymore since the blood testing is closer to the start of the stages. LOL, when will UCI just F-$$$$$$ do the testing on the start line and quit this bloody hell?


----------



## F1nut (Nov 28, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Who are you? Rick Crawford?


LOL


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

*Man, give it up!*



pacificaslim said:


> F1, the 359 number Carmichael is quoting is not an FTP: it's a number from a regular workout ride, taken during a climb after 4 hours in the saddle.


Saying Armstrong was at 359 watts during a climb after 4 hrs in the saddle is like saying Michael Johnson just ran 23 seconds for a 200 meters in training during his comeback and "it's not bad for an old guy." That doesn't mean anything at all competitively as far as LA is concerned unless Carmichael thinks it indicates Pharmstrong is in good shape. In that case Carmichael is delusional.

Carmichael is an idiot according to Landis, and Pharmstrong's FTP was 470 watts 6 months before the 2004 tour. Ferrari said he had to lose 5.5 kilos and increase his power by 30 watts in order to get to 6.7 watts/kg. That's more than a 6% increase in wattage combined with a 12lb weight loss for an already highly trained guy.

No problem!:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

F1nut said:


> The effort wasnt a full hour long, 45 minutes. These pros are fit enough to give a full effort after 4 hours of riding. He;s quote, "in pretty good shape right now." What else does he have to do besides train?
> 
> I give him 360 watts for FTP right now. That stands. That doesnt matter though because once he blood dopes with his own blood in the freezer his FTP will be like 440 and his VO2 max 96.
> 
> When he fully jacks for the Tour he'll have close to what he had before minus 5% or so since they cant go all the way to 60% heamotocrit anymore since the blood testing is closer to the start of the stages. LOL, when will UCI just F-$$$$$$ do the testing on the start line and quit this bloody hell?


Really, they can have a tent right next to the start where they can give their sample and then hang till the depart. Just test the top 20 or 30 before the mountain stages and time trials.


----------

