# Ricco on Armstrong--that's gotta leave a mark.



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

“Armstrong? He was a champion, but with drugs he became what he became. Jan Ullrich was more talented. He was the true talent, not the American.”

Riccardo Ricco

Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2014...our-without-doping_356359#9cSaWSooIZBwccUk.99


----------



## n2deep (Mar 23, 2014)

More sour grapes, there is nothing relivent in the referenced article.. Same ole BS: yes I doped but I didn't inhale like the others, Lance sucks, I will never do it again,, yatta, yatta, yatta. I think I'll take a nap..


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doesn't that depend on if your main rivals are riding a Grand Tour clean? If they are not, then no, you won't win, if all the GCs are clean, then somebody has to win it. 



> “You can [race a grand tour clean]. I did in 2006 at the Tour de France. Winning it clean? A one-day classic, yes. A grand tour, no.”


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

> “If I could do it again? I would not make the same errors I made,” he said. “I would not dope gain, or *I’d do it in a different way.”*


Seems like the same mentality as Lance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Ricco was 3 years old when Jan won the Tour. 

Jan is a chemical invention, just like Lance.


----------



## Mandeville (Oct 18, 2014)

Ricco apparently hasn't been keeping up with current events. Ullrich freely admitted after he retired that he doped throughout his career including during the Tour and Olympics where he won a Gold and Silver Medal. Blood samples of Ullrich that were from 1998 were tested positive for doping. Ullrich said Armstrong should be able to keep his Tour tittles and added the same thing that Armstrong said about doping which was everyone was doing it and you had to do it to stay competitive.

Ricco was right though in stating that Ullirich was a very talented cyclist.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Why is Ricco in the news? 



Italian Riccardo Riccò, who is serving a 12-year doping ban, attacked cycling’s credibility at *the launch his book*, “A Funeral in Yellow — The Confessions of The Cobra.” 
Read more at Ricco: It's impossible to win a grand tour without doping - VeloNews.com


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Ricco: It's impossible to win a grand tour without doping - VeloNews.com



Easy to see the truth in that as a statement to me...


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Sometime in the future, it would be interesting to discover who had the more scientific doping methods, Big Jan or Lance. This way, we could discover which rider had more "natural" talent. Same goes for Big Mig. Doping wasn't as advanced in the early to mid 90's, 
We could take some naturally gifted riders and test them as a baseline, and then dope them up to the level of other riders. Results would be interesting.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Ricco's homeboy tested positive, again: Santambrogio tests positive for testosterone during EPO ban | Cyclingnews.com

This is the second Amore e Vita rider to get popped this week and the third this year.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Why is Ricco in the news?


Same reason Lance is, to capitalize on this "post-doping" era PR and madness.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Ullrich was the product of East Germany and their special sports schools - no question which was the most advanced. Peter Becker was his trainer at the Berlin sports school with Ullrich and as a pro after. 



MR_GRUMPY said:


> Sometime in the future, it would be interesting to discover who had the more scientific doping methods, Big Jan or Lance. This way, we could discover which rider had more "natural" talent. Same goes for Big Mig. Doping wasn't as advanced in the early to mid 90's,
> We could take some naturally gifted riders and test them as a baseline, and then dope them up to the level of other riders. Results would be interesting.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> Ullrich was the product of East Germany and their special sports schools - no question which was the most advanced. Peter Becker was his trainer at the Berlin sports school with Ullrich and as a pro after.


It's not only about who has the 'more advanced' doping program. Things like personal & financial connections came into play big time.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

deviousalex said:


> Things like personal & financial connections came into play big time.


Connections where? To pharmaceutical companies, to corporations, to trainers, to drug-testers, to overseeing organizations? The possibilities are endless.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> Connections where? To pharmaceutical companies, to corporations, to trainers, to drug-testers, to overseeing organizations? The possibilities are endless.


To the UCI. While lance was getting advanced notice of "surprise" tests Jan was getting real surprise tests from his own team. One of them resulted in a positive, 6 month ban, and getting kicked off Telekom. 

Access to the best methods is key. Most teams did not bring drugs into France in 99, USPS had Motoman. Most teams were scared to use EPO in 2000 because of the new test, Lance had transfusions. There is a reason lance paid millions to Ferrari, he was the best. 

Another huge advantage is how your body responds to the dope of the day. Both Jan and lance were super responders. Low Hct/high Vo2


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> To the UCI. While lance was getting advanced notice of "surprise" tests Jan was getting real surprise tests from his own team. One of them resulted in a positive, 6 month ban, and getting kicked off Telekom.
> 
> Access to the best methods is key. Most teams did not bring drugs into France in 99, USPS had Motoman. Most teams were scared to use EPO in 2000 because of the new test, Lance had transfusions. There is a reason lance paid millions to Ferrari, he was the best.
> 
> Another huge advantage is how your body responds to the dope of the day. Both Jan and lance were super responders. Low Hct/high Vo2


How many people got tours of the testing labs and got sit down by lab techs to be explained how their anti doping test works?

Not to mention having Thomas Weisel's private equity fund let Hein Verbruggen get in Silicon Valley IPO's and establishing financial dependence on the success of Postal.

This has been discussed in length on previous posts in this forum.


----------



## jajichan (Jul 9, 2014)

Fireform said:


> “Armstrong? He was a champion, but with drugs he became what he became. Jan Ullrich was more talented. He was the true talent, not the American.”
> 
> Riccardo Ricco
> 
> Read more at Ricco: It's impossible to win a grand tour without doping - VeloNews.com


Everybody said that. Even Ligget and Sherwin. 

It was widely accepted. At the time, it was said that Armstrong simply "worked harder".


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I'd like to think it's as simple as some riders responding more to blood doping than others. We'd have to see pre doping blood values, which perhaps don't even exist. An athlete who ran a lower H&H would have more room to improve with blood doping.

For whatever reasons, my H&H run higher. I think my 2008 numbers would have had me flagged by the UCI if I were a pro. I'd probably have a stroke before improving my FTP with EPO.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Would Jan have ever won anything if he hadn't been doped to the gills ever since he was 11 years old??
.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Would Jan have ever won anything if he hadn't been doped to the gills ever since he was 11 years old??
> .


No, but now that we know everyone doped we pretend that it is not about doping.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ricco was 3 years old when Jan won the Tour.
> 
> Jan is a chemical invention, just like Lance.


exactly

and I'm sure Jan's (and other other cyclist from the East Bloc) 'chemical enhancement' started at quite an early age


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

and a guy who basically got dope busted shortly after his suspensions for dope busts (3x) really isn't the one who should be pointing any fingers


----------



## Bluenote (Oct 28, 2012)

Who cares what Ricco "My hematocrit is higher than my IQ" thinks? Yes, let's take pearls of wisdom from the genius who thought sticking his blood in the fridge was a good idea.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Would Jan have ever won anything if he hadn't been doped to the gills ever since he was 11 years old??
> .


It's pretty well agreed that nobody would have won in that era without doping. Jan was supremely talented. One thing the eastern bloc countries did very well was identify and develop talented athletes. No world championship athlete is "made of dope", can't turn a donkey into a racehorse, as they say.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I'd like to think it's as simple as some riders responding more to blood doping than others. We'd have to see pre doping blood values, which perhaps don't even exist. An athlete who ran a lower H&H would have more room to improve with blood doping.
> 
> For whatever reasons, my H&H run higher. I think my 2008 numbers would have had me flagged by the UCI if I were a pro. I'd probably have a stroke before improving my FTP with EPO.


There are several sources for Pre-EPO and off season Lance that show his Hct was in the 39 range. Being able to boast from 39 to 50 is huge. Both lance and Jan also were densely muscled, perfect for absorbing all that extra O2 flying around your blood. 

Jan was a good sprinter as an amateur but he showed no ability to climb. He was a chemical invention made from EPO, HGH, Test, Thyroid medicine, and Clen


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I have to agree that drugs can turn almost anyone into a superstar. "Natural ability" may have enabled old time superlatives but nowadays this seems to be largely overshadowed by the tremendous gains possible with pharmaceuticals. The argument that you still have to get out there and ride/suffer doesn't make that much sense anymore either, because clearly these individuals will suffer less than a non-doped athletes. One could in fact say that the only people to suffer unbearably would be the clean athletes because they have to push themselves into the red to keep up.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

I disagree. It turns everyone better, but just a better version of what their own potential is. (as another poster said 'you can't turn a donkey into a race horse) It will turn elite athletes into super elite, it will turn recreational ones into super recreational. They may win that Cat 5 crit they have been finishing mid pack


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> I disagree. It turns everyone better, but just a better version of what their own potential is. (as another poster said 'you can't turn a donkey into a race horse) It will turn elite athletes into super elite, it will turn recreational ones into super recreational. They may win that Cat 5 crit they have been finishing mid pack


It took Kohl from racing the autobus home in the GTs to podium. 
Took Riis from nobody to GT winner. 
do we really have to pick up piles of POS italian/spanish riders that suddenly win GT stages? 
What was Riis "GT version" before massive doping? 
Kohls version?


----------



## jajichan (Jul 9, 2014)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Jan was a *good sprinter* as an amateur but he showed *no ability to climb*. He was a chemical invention made from EPO, HGH, Test, Thyroid medicine, and Clen


Wow, who knew that PEDs changed muscle fiber makeup from fast-twitch to slow-twitch?! :mad2:


----------



## jajichan (Jul 9, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> I have to agree that drugs can turn almost anyone into a superstar. "Natural ability" may have enabled old time superlatives but nowadays this seems to be largely overshadowed by the tremendous gains possible with pharmaceuticals. *The argument that you still have to get out there and ride/suffer doesn't make that much sense anymore either, because clearly these individuals will suffer less than a non-doped athletes. *One could in fact say that the only people to suffer unbearably would be the clean athletes because they have to push themselves into the red to keep up.


But how about a doped athlete?

It's absolutely ridiculous and blatantly incorrect to say that ped users didn't bust their butts day in and day out. If anything, they trained HARDER than non-doped riders because their recovery was so much better. That's how they got so good. That's how performances were so much higher; their ability to train and recover that much better. 

Your entire post is completely wrong.


----------



## jajichan (Jul 9, 2014)

den bakker said:


> It took Kohl from racing the autobus home in the GTs to podium.
> Took Riis from nobody to GT winner.
> do we really have to pick up piles of POS italian/spanish riders that suddenly win GT stages?
> What was Riis "GT version" before massive doping?
> Kohls version?



They were all already supremely elite athletes, bud. The difference between a mid-pack and podium at that level is in the low-end of single digit percentages.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> I disagree. It turns everyone better, but just a better version of what their own potential is. (as another poster said 'you can't turn a donkey into a race horse) It will turn elite athletes into super elite, it will turn recreational ones into super recreational. They may win that Cat 5 crit they have been finishing mid pack


The entire concept of natural muscle ability was debunked over a decade ago. There is no such thing as slow twitch vs fast twitch muscle. The doping crowd has kept anachronisms like this alive for illicit reasons. Your premise has zero scientific basis.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

jajichan said:


> They were all already supremely elite athletes, bud. The difference between a mid-pack and podium at that level is in the low-end of single digit percentages.


Riis improved a sh!tload more than low-end of single digit percentages. TT times shows that.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

DrSmile said:


> The entire concept of natural muscle ability was debunked over a decade ago. There is no such thing as slow twitch vs fast twitch muscle. The doping crowd has kept anachronisms like this alive for illicit reasons. Your premise has zero scientific basis.


Ok. Now I know I can safely ignore your opinions on the subject.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jajichan said:


> Wow, who knew that PEDs changed muscle fiber makeup from fast-twitch to slow-twitch?! :mad2:


It appears you do not understand how oxygen vector doping works. Riders with greater muscle mass benefit more from increased RBC then those without. Jan and Lance were perfect examples of this. Ferrari structured his program around it. It was the reason Armstrong came to his first training camp after he started working with Ferrari "Looking like a linebacker" 

Add in the high Vo2/low Hct combo and it is understandable why they received disproportional benefits from doping.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you do not understand how oxygen vector doping works. Riders with greater muscle mass benefit more from increased RBC then those without. Jan and Lance were perfect examples of this. Ferrari structured his program around it. It was the reason Armstrong came to his first training camp after he started working with Ferrari "Looking like a linebacker"
> 
> Add in the high Vo2/low Hct combo and it is understandable why they received disproportional benefits from doping.


I accept that some respond better than others. But among the pros, it seems that even mid pack guys on the sauce will surge to the front.


den bakker said:


> It took Kohl from racing the autobus home in the GTs to podium.
> Took Riis from nobody to GT winner.
> do we really have to pick up piles of POS italian/spanish riders that suddenly win GT stages?
> What was Riis "GT version" before massive doping?
> Kohls version?


This. The fact that mid pack racers continue to test positive (without winning GC) makes me question whether the peloton is clean.


----------



## jajichan (Jul 9, 2014)

den bakker said:


> Riis improved a sh!tload more than low-end of single digit percentages. TT times shows that.


True or false: Riis was already an elite level athlete.


----------



## jajichan (Jul 9, 2014)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you do not understand how oxygen vector doping works. Riders with greater muscle mass benefit more from increased RBC then those without. Jan and Lance were perfect examples of this. Ferrari structured his program around it. It was the reason Armstrong came to his first training camp after he started working with Ferrari "Looking like a linebacker"
> 
> Add in the high Vo2/low Hct combo and it is understandable why they received disproportional benefits from doping.


And it appears you don't know jack about anything. 

Plus, Armstrong didn't stop "looking like a linebacker" until he had chemo.

Oh, and that was after Ferrari, too.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

jajichan said:


> True or false: Riis was already an elite level athlete.


yes. 
so? 
is the point of discussion here whether you could take a joe sixpack in in a chewed tobacco covered pickup and make him a pro? In that case I clearly overestimated contributors to this thread. 
How many 6watt/kg+ threshold efforts did Riis do before Gewis? How many 6.5+ after? fractions of percents?


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

I think part of the reason you're still seeing so many mid-pack riders get popped is that the ProTour is contracting. Fewer teams, fewer slots for riders, and fewer chances to make a good living off of cycling. Riders are desperate, and are taking "stupid" chances to earn or hold a place at the top level of the sport. Just because they finish in the autobus doesn't mean they didn't ride hard. The amount of work a good domestique does for the team is pretty astounding. You try riding back to the cars for bottles, catching up to the peloton with a bunch of extra weight on your body, and then going to the front to ride tempo multiple times in a stage. Falling back to the autobus after all of that is a sign you did your job to the best of your abilities.

The peloton isn't clean. It's obvious. The Iglinsky brothers certainly had used EPO many times before they got caught, as well as other doping methods. They obviously flew under the radar until what was likely targeted testing (keyed by the Passport or intelligence) finally caught up with them. If you think it's just the dirty Eastern Bloc riders, think again. Your favorite team (whoever they may be) probably has a handful on the roster. The vast majority of the peloton doesn't get tested, and a careful and measured doping regime will likely avoid detection. The guys who are tested more frequently and not getting popped are either naturally gifted or micro-dosing/huffing Xenon while they ride up Mount Teide. Who knows?

What I believe is the peloton is "*cleaner*" than it once was. It certainly isn't completely clean, nor do I expect it ever will be. However, as long as they continue to make progress in detection of those who cheat, the racing will see a little more plausible to me.

As for Ricco, he's probably the one rider awful enough to make people sympathize with Lance. Artisan doping? I can just imagine him sitting on the front porch, with his centrifuge that he made out of an old butter churn, lovingly crafting each blood bag to sell at the farmers market...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jajichan said:


> And it appears you don't know jack about anything.
> 
> Plus, Armstrong didn't stop "looking like a linebacker" until he had chemo.
> 
> Oh, and that was after Ferrari, too.


It appears you do not know Jack about anything

Pre Chemo Armstrong finishing his first Tour. Prior to working with Ferrari he was not even able to finish the Tour. 










Riis, Armstrong, Berzin, None of them ever would have won a Grand Tour with a level playing field. Best drugs, best response, highest willingness to take risk.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jajichan said:


> True or false: Riis was already an elite level athlete.


He was an elite level bottle carrier who won the Tour because he was willing to take twice as much drugs as the rest of the team


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

jajichan said:


> But how about a doped athlete?
> 
> It's absolutely ridiculous and blatantly incorrect to say that ped users didn't bust their butts day in and day out. If anything, they trained HARDER than non-doped riders because their recovery was so much better. That's how they got so good. That's how performances were so much higher; their ability to train and recover that much better.
> 
> ...


But, they were able to train that much harder because of the drugs they were taking. The testosterone and HGH helped rebuild muscle faster, the cortisone kept the pain away that would otherwise be unbearable, so the training could continue.

In a way, they were suffering less, because after hard efforts, they weren't hurting as much and could get right out there and do another hard effort the next day. A clean rider might be hurting enough from similar workouts that he would need to go easy for a few days before making another such hard effort.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Riis, Armstrong, Berzin, None of them ever would have won a Grand Tour with a level playing field.


I totally agree. This is what Lemond has maintained for years. He probably knows what he's talking about. The difference between winning the Tour and finishing 15th is one bad day. Doping can easily get rid of one bad day.


----------



## CrankyCarbon (Dec 17, 2014)

atpjunkie said:


> I disagree. It turns everyone better, but just a better version of what their own potential is. (as another poster said 'you can't turn a donkey into a race horse) It will turn elite athletes into super elite, it will turn recreational ones into super recreational. They may win that Cat 5 crit they have been finishing mid pack


Actually there have been some examples over the years of amateurs rising up the ranks from Cat 5 to 2.
I can't find some old articles but this I read in the past. He had a blog at one time in which he outlined everything and his rise up the ranks to winning. I can't find it now but it was very interesting.
=> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/s...-cycling-reaches-into-amateur-ranks.html?_r=0


----------



## CrankyCarbon (Dec 17, 2014)

found it ==> In search of relevance, a Cat. 3 turns to EPO and HGH - VeloNews.com


interesting statement at the top of the article
"doping at a non-professional level is nothing new. In fact, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s suspension lists for cyclists include many more unknowns than stars. But why? Why cheat to win a Cat. 4 road race?"


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

den bakker said:


> It took Kohl from racing the autobus home in the GTs to podium.
> Took Riis from nobody to GT winner.
> do we really have to pick up piles of POS italian/spanish riders that suddenly win GT stages?
> What was Riis "GT version" before massive doping?
> Kohls version?


they were still elite professionals

they weren't pack fodder in a Cat 3 race

and as Lemond testified, all of a sudden the autobus guys were not getting dropped. My guess is there were some overachievers in the ranks. Guys who didn't have the genetic gifts of the top of the top but had crazy ambition and disciplined work ethics. 
Guys who had made it to the top more on will than being winners in the genetic lottery. When they got the dope, they made the absolute most of it. 

Riis wasn't exactly a 'nobody' 
GT Stage winner, a 5th. 14th and 3rd at the tour before winning it. 6th at the worlds.
That's not autobus, water carrier stuff


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

DrSmile said:


> The entire concept of natural muscle ability was debunked over a decade ago. There is no such thing as slow twitch vs fast twitch muscle. The doping crowd has kept anachronisms like this alive for illicit reasons. Your premise has zero scientific basis.


where did I mention anything about fast vs slow twitch?

if you don't think some people are born with superior physical traits for athletics I can't really help you. It can be seen as early as grade school, something which the Eastern Bloc took very seriously


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

CrankyCarbon said:


> Actually there have been some examples over the years of amateurs rising up the ranks from Cat 5 to 2.
> I can't find some old articles but this I read in the past. He had a blog at one time in which he outlined everything and his rise up the ranks to winning. I can't find it now but it was very interesting.
> => http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/s...-cycling-reaches-into-amateur-ranks.html?_r=0


that's a 5 to a 2. We don't see any of them joining the Pro Tour.

many amateurs without dope can go from a 5 to a 2 or a 1 without dope. When I was 40 I was racing some cx races against young guys who were fairly new to the sport. While I race age group and have essentially staved off aging as best I can they have gone from 3-4's to the tops in the Elite level.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> they were still elite professionals
> 
> they weren't pack fodder in a Cat 3 race
> 
> ...


Riis could not even make the Danish national team. He turned Pro for Roland was as dropped from them as well. He then did some work for Fignon, even though he was not on his team, and Fignon rewarded him with a tiny contract to fetch bottles. He also started doping like a junkie

He started using EPO and suddenly he was 5th at the Tour, after finishing 107th the year before. 

Chemical invention


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> where did I mention anything about fast vs slow twitch?
> 
> if you don't think some people are born with superior physical traits for athletics I can't really help you. It can be seen as early as grade school, something which the Eastern Bloc took very seriously


You can't help me because there are no such physical traits. They have all been debunked. The ones there are relate to arbitrary doping regulations, for example hematocrit. People commonly assume that a lower hematocrit makes you a better natural cyclists. This is untrue. It does make you a better doper because you gain more performance at the 50% hematocrit level.

I teach epigenetics at my school, the average person tends to forget epigenetics exist... Here is a nice little article regarding epigenetics and athleticism:

Science of Running: Epigenetics in Athletics Part 1: What the heck is epigenetics?


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

CrankyCarbon said:


> Actually there have been some examples over the years of amateurs rising up the ranks from Cat 5 to 2.


Some examples? You realize everyone in cat 2 started in cat 5 right? Those professional triathletes and mtn bikers that kick my butt all the time in cat 4 here also started in cat 5.


----------



## CrankyCarbon (Dec 17, 2014)

deviousalex said:


> Some examples? You realize everyone in cat 2 started in cat 5 right? Those professional triathletes and mtn bikers that kick my butt all the time in cat 4 here also started in cat 5.


Well, I stopped racing in '87ish which is the year I think they introduced Cat 5.

I don't see why they let Pro's in other cycling disciplines race a lower category.

15 years ago - the last time I did a local training race of Race A & B (any category except mine I guess) - the ref restricted me from doing anything BUT sitting on the back and going for a ride in circles. I wasn't even in shape. Haven't done once since.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> Riis wasn't exactly a 'nobody'
> GT Stage winner, a 5th. 14th and 3rd at the tour before winning it. 6th at the worlds.
> That's not autobus, water carrier stuff


you believe he was clean when he got 5th? 
jesus. 

but let's try again: how many 6w/kg threshold long climbs before doping, how many 6.5w/kg after?


----------



## Mandeville (Oct 18, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> The entire concept of natural muscle ability was debunked over a decade ago. There is no such thing as slow twitch vs fast twitch muscle. The doping crowd has kept anachronisms like this alive for illicit reasons. Your premise has zero scientific basis.


My pardon but I've just now lightly perused this thread for the first time but upon seeing your post quoted above I wanted to be clear and confirm my understanding of what you are saying. 

Are you claiming that there are no such thing as muscles that's composition include slow twitch fibers and separately muscles that are composed in part of fast twitch fibers, (two types of fast twitch fibers?)

Thanks.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Hiro11 said:


> Doping can easily get rid of one bad day.


Plenty of cyclists still imploded while doping.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Mandeville said:


> My pardon but I've just now lightly perused this thread for the first time but upon seeing your post quoted above I wanted to be clear and confirm my understanding of what you are saying.
> 
> Are you claiming that there are no such thing as muscles that's composition include slow twitch fibers and separately muscles that are composed in part of fast twitch fibers, (two types of fast twitch fibers?)
> 
> Thanks.


The related pertinent question to this is:

Can fibers be epigenetically changed from one type to another?

If this is true, the concept of genetically distinct fibers falls apart.. What is present may be differentiated, but it is differentiated by functional need, not genetic bias.

These are the supporting references that these subtypes can be exchanged and are therefore not separate and distinct:

Nature vs. nurture: can exercise really alter fiber type composition in human skeletal muscle? | Journal of Applied Physiology

*"It is now generally recognized that skeletal muscle fibers do not exist in three discrete forms at the subcellular level, but rather in a continuum based on the multitude of combinations of myosin heavy and light chain isoforms, polymorphic expression of protein isoforms, metabolic potential, and Ca2+ handling characteristics."*

Science of Running: Epigenetics in Athletics Part 1: What the heck is epigenetics?

*"The fiber type are classified largely based on the type of Myosin Heavy Chain protein’s they have. This is where you get the classification system commonly seen that splits muscle fibers into type I, type IIa, IIx, etc...found that unloading or loading a muscle resulted in epigenetic changes that altered expression...and resulted in an epigenetic change that shifted the expression of various MCH forms."*

Effects of endurance training on muscle fibre ATP-ase activity, capillary supply and mitochondrial content in man.

"Correlation of capillary supply, myofibrillar ATP-ase activity and mitochondrial content (determined semiquantitatively of individual muscle fibres indicators that the capillary supply to a given fibre *is more closely related to its mitochondrial content than to the fibre type as determined on the basis of myofibrillar ATP-ase activity.*"

Some specific recent studies:

Mosole S et al., Long-term high-level exercise promotes muscle reinnervation with age. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 73(4):284-94, 2014 Apr. *"...seniors with a long history of high-level recreational activity up to the time of muscle biopsy had ... a higher percentage of fiber-type groups (reinnervated muscle fibers) that were almost exclusive of the slow type."
*
Li, D et al, Hyperplasia and Cellularity Changes in IGF-1-Overexpressing Skeletal Muscle of Crucian Carp. Endocrinology. 155(6):2199-2212, June 2014. *"...our transcriptional expression and protein assays indicated that the overexpression of IGF-1 stimulated a significant shift in the myofiber type toward a more oxidative slow muscle type."*

Spletter, M and Schnorrer F, Transcriptional regulation and alternative splicing cooperate in muscle fiber-type specification in flies and mammals[white star]. Experimental Cell Research. 321(1):90-98, February 2014. *"...regulated alternative splicing of sarcomeric proteins in both flies and mammals can directly instruct the physiological and biophysical differences between fiber-types." *

Guth, L and Roth, SM. Genetic influence on athletic performance. Current Opinion in Pediatrics. 25(6):653-658, December 2013. *"...few genes are consistently associated with elite athletic performance, and none are linked strongly enough to warrant their use in predicting athletic success."*

Epigenetically this all makes very clear sense. The body regulates itself according to its needs, given the available resources. The human body is a dynamic, constantly changing and replenishing organism. The findings in professional athletes are associative, not genetically causative, which is a common scientific research mistake.

The take home message is that muscle type and performance can be manipulated and changed, which really shouldn't come as a surprise in this forum, because that is what doping is all about!


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

spade2you said:


> Plenty of cyclists still imploded while doping.


Tyler Hamilton clearly speaks against this being the case for doped athletes in his book. 

"...I hadn't yet learned how my body reacted to a transfusion. When you have more RBCs, your body doesn't obey the same rules: you can go harder than you think you can. Your body might be screaming in the same old way, but you can push through it if you ignore all those signals and just ride."

"...the red egg - which I found out later was testosterone - had gone into my bloodstream and kicked off a cascade of beneficial changes: added fluid to my muscles, repaired tiny injuries, created the feeling of well being. It wasn't just me going up that hill, it was an improved me. A more balanced me...a healthier me."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

DrSmile said:


> Tyler Hamilton clearly speaks against this being the case for doped athletes in his book.


He can say this all he wants. Did Big Mig not implode in '96? Weren't there MULTIPLE Lanterne Rouge who were dopers? Zulle had a heck of an off day in the '98 Giro doped to the gills before the Festina SNAFU. Plenty of dopers still had that had a bad day or two that took them out of contention, not just the Kelme riders who got the wrong blood.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

DrSmile- Floyd had a bad day on Stage 16 of the '06 Tour because he wasn't doping? Is this what you're saying? 

Certain doping protocols will help you recover faster or perform at a level that can help to prevent a bad day, but nothing is foolproof. Doped athletes crack too. Sometimes you get the mix wrong, or the body doesn't respond as predicted.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Alaska Mike said:


> DrSmile- Floyd had a bad day on Stage 16 of the '06 Tour because he wasn't doping? Is this what you're saying?
> 
> Certain doping protocols will help you recover faster or perform at a level that can help to prevent a bad day, but nothing is foolproof. Doped athletes crack too. Sometimes you get the mix wrong, or the body doesn't respond as predicted.


I'm saying that when dopers say they suffer just as much as the non-dopers, this is categorically untrue, and really it's untrue by definition. It is an invention of their psyche to justify their actions.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

DrSmile said:


> I'm saying that when dopers say they suffer just as much as the non-dopers, this is categorically untrue, and really it's untrue by definition. It is an invention of their psyche to justify their actions.


all based on a statement by Hamilton. 
Given that almost everyone discovers they can go further and harder than they thought it is truly a bizarre trust you put on the old cheat. Well it cannot be an invention of his psyche.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

I think they get used to a certain limit, mentally and physically. When they discover the doping allows them to push through it, they move to that next level.

Better performance through chemistry.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Am I the only one who liked Lance Armstrong right up until the point when Ricardo Ricco zinged him?


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Ricco is a disgusting excuse for a human being.
LA never stooped so low as cheating in a Gran Fondo to beat recreational riders out of a cheap medal. 
A couple of my English friends were in a Fondo in Italy and saw Ricco taking shortcuts, running other riders off the road, elbowing riders, all for a minor placing. He has also rode in Fondos despite being banned and asked not to by organisers.
Ricco commenting on anyone else's ethics is ridiculous.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

den bakker said:


> you believe he was clean when he got 5th?
> jesus.
> 
> but let's try again: how many 6w/kg threshold long climbs before doping, how many 6.5w/kg after?


no. I think he was dirty, all I am saying is he didn't come out of nowhere. He'd been in the hunt for years. Before that he was Fignon's main guy @ GTs helping on both the flats and the mountains.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

DrSmile said:


> You can't help me because there are no such physical traits. They have all been debunked. The ones there are relate to arbitrary doping regulations, for example hematocrit. People commonly assume that a lower hematocrit makes you a better natural cyclists. This is untrue. It does make you a better doper because you gain more performance at the 50% hematocrit level.
> 
> I teach epigenetics at my school, the average person tends to forget epigenetics exist... Here is a nice little article regarding epigenetics and athleticism:
> 
> Science of Running: Epigenetics in Athletics Part 1: What the heck is epigenetics?


so you are telling me that kid who could run faster, throw harder, jump higher than average didn't exist? I have said nothing about hematocrit. There are some kids who are just more gifted athletes from the get go. They are the ones who appear to be man among boys at the middle school level. This isn't due to better training programs as grade schoolers. It is why there are starters and bench warmers


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> so you are telling me that kid who could run faster, throw harder, jump higher than average didn't exist? I have said nothing about hematocrit. There are some kids who are just more gifted athletes from the get go. They are the ones who appear to be man among boys at the middle school level. This isn't due to better training programs as grade schoolers. It is why there are starters and bench warmers


All evidence I have presented shows that these genetic "predispositions" are far outweighed by natural epigenetic changes, never mind supernatural ones brought on by doping. Using pre-teens is a poor analogy because the prepubescent growth spurt is quite variable and represents transient individual differences. By that logic most athletes should be 7th grade girls!

Whenever you see an athlete do super-natural feats, the natural tendency is to think this is due to genetic predisposition. Sadly this discounts the main causes of the performance, either incredibly hard training, pharmacological enhancement, or more likely a combination of both.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> no. I think he was dirty, all I am saying is he didn't come out of nowhere. He'd been in the hunt for years. Before that he was Fignon's main guy @ GTs helping on both the flats and the mountains.


before 93 no one considered him for a GT, even the danes had more hopes for Soerensen (ha). never Riis. For good reason. Of course starting to suddenly chop 5 minutes off an 1hour TT can change perspectives.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

DrSmile said:


> All evidence I have presented shows that these genetic "predispositions" are far outweighed by natural epigenetic changes, never mind supernatural ones brought on by doping. Using pre-teens is a poor analogy because the prepubescent growth spurt is quite variable and represents transient individual differences. By that logic most athletes should be 7th grade girls!
> 
> Whenever you see an athlete do super-natural feats, the natural tendency is to think this is due to genetic predisposition. Sadly this discounts the main causes of the performance, either incredibly hard training, pharmacological enhancement, or more likely a combination of both.


yeah because most 5th and 6th graders who are better athletes than all their peers are training like hell and/ or doping... even back in the 60s and 70s. Funny how those same kids typically go on to be the best athletes in middle, high school and college. They were the stars on their CYO hoop team, stars in youth soccer and it just kept up that way, and I'm not talking about the Todd Marinovich - been trained since I was a baby types. 
Funny how shoe sponsors and colleges and east bloc countries scour these kids to find their future people. 

Did you play youth sports as a kid? High School Sports? College?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

den bakker said:


> before 93 no one considered him for a GT, even the danes had more hopes for Soerensen (ha). never Riis. For good reason. Of course starting to suddenly chop 5 minutes off an 1hour TT can change perspectives.


no argument on that point. All I am saying is he wasn't completely out of the blue (and I believe he was doping while serving Fignon)

again he was an elite level athlete made more elite


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> no. I think he was dirty, all I am saying is he didn't come out of nowhere. He'd been in the hunt for years. Before that he was Fignon's main guy @ GTs helping on both the flats and the mountains.


Huh? When was that? 

In 89 Riis was the 7th man on System U. Fignon's main guys were Simon and Marie. In 1991 he was 8th man on Castorama. Vichot, LeBlanc and Simon were his main guys

Prior to EPO Riis's job was to grab bottles and get dropped


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Prior to EPO Riis's job was to grab bottles and get dropped


How much did they pay him to get dropped?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> no argument on that point. All I am saying is he wasn't completely out of the blue (and I believe he was doping while serving Fignon)
> 
> again he was an elite level athlete made more elite


yep he was pro before 94. congrats.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Did he stop doping in 1998 when he was getting dropped again?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Did he stop doping in 1998 when he was getting dropped again?


he has answered that himself so you don't need to troll around. or find someone bothering.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> he has answered that himself so you don't need to troll around. or find someone bothering.


I'm sure he was being truthful, too. (I know, REALLY CLASSSY!!!!)


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> I'm sure he was being truthful, too. (I know, REALLY CLASSSY!!!!)


I'm sure you really care.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Did he stop doping in 1998 when he was getting dropped again?


Thanks for proving my point. Riis was never the same after they introduced the 50% hct limit. Before he was willing/able to dope up to 64%. That is how he won the Tour, took twice as much EPO and HGH as the rest of the team. Turned his blood into slug. As soon as he was not able to take such a risk he dropped to 11th

Chemical Invention


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for proving my point. Riis was never the same after they introduced the 50% hct limit. Before he was willing/able to dope up to 64%. That is how he won the Tour, took twice as much EPO and HGH as the rest of the team. Turned his blood into slug. As soon as he was not able to take such a risk he dropped to 11th
> 
> Chemical Invention


yup.

which is I guess why he says "will" is an important characteristic in a racer.
He was willing to risk his life to be competitive
The 50% hct was his demise, he needed another 10%


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I thought the 50% rule came out in 1999.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> I thought the 50% rule came out in 1999.


Nope. 1997 Paris-Nice was the first race with the 50% rule in place


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Ricco is a disgusting excuse for a human being.
> LA never stooped so low as cheating in a Gran Fondo to beat recreational riders out of a cheap medal.
> A couple of my English friends were in a Fondo in Italy and saw Ricco taking shortcuts, running other riders off the road, elbowing riders, all for a minor placing. He has also rode in Fondos despite being banned and asked not to by organisers.
> Ricco commenting on anyone else's ethics is ridiculous.


Armstrong won the 10 and under Kids fun Cascade Classic race in 1998 so he's even stooped lower than Ricco.


----------



## Horze (Mar 12, 2013)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Would Jan have ever won anything if he hadn't been doped to the gills ever since he was 11 years old??
> .


Jan was the 1997 TdF champion.


----------

