Tom Danielson=Doper.

warren wrote in message news:020920042117208750%


I think David Millar hit the nail on the head, when he said " Doping will
not turn a donkey into a race horse"

Dave

whatever that means. the potential 7-8% increase in VO2max seen in
studies indicates a huge boost in ability.

What does that change in Vo2max mean for LT power, sub LT power, and
power at VO2max?


I don't know, one might guess a proportional increase. Even if it has
no effect on LT and sub-LT power (not likely), the result is still a
huge advantage.

How much power does Armstrong put out during a TT compared to a
domestique on the 6th best team in the Tour?

A 5% difference (W/kg) would be significant.

"Dave H" wrote in message .. .
"PedalChick" wrote in message
om...
(crit pro) wrote in message
. com...
It will come out.


Crit pro/Commander/Decanio - read this article and explore your
motivations regarding all this doping stuff:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2004/827/3

Yeah, doping in sport is bad. I would be kind of mad if I found out
that everyone faster than me is on drugs. However, I know it's not
the case and I can accept my mediocrity, try and work harder but
realize my own genetic limitations.

I think you need to take a break for a while, regroup, calm down.
Your ranting is undermining your legitimate cause.


I think David Millar hit the nail on the head, when he said " Doping will
not turn a donkey into a race horse"

Dave


Of course not. That requires gene manipulation. Doping will only
turn a donkey into a racing donkey.

Millar has shown that doping can turn you into a turkey, though.

-RJ

In article , Amit
wrote:

warren wrote in message news:020920042117208750%


I think David Millar hit the nail on the head, when he said " Doping
will
not turn a donkey into a race horse"

Dave

whatever that means. the potential 7-8% increase in VO2max seen in
studies indicates a huge boost in ability.

What does that change in Vo2max mean for LT power, sub LT power, and
power at VO2max?


I don't know, one might guess a proportional increase.

7% increase in VO2max may only add a few % to power output and speed on
the road. What gives you the idea that 7% increase in VO2max results in
"a huge boost" in ability?

Even if it has
no effect on LT and sub-LT power (not likely), the result is still a
huge advantage.

How much power does Armstrong put out during a TT compared to a
domestique on the 6th best team in the Tour?

A 5% difference (W/kg) would be significant.

So what tells you that 7% more VO2max equates to something like 5% more
power? I'm just asking.

-WG

warren wrote:
In article , Amit
wrote:

warren wrote in message news:020920042117208750%


I think David Millar hit the nail on the head, when he said " Doping
will
not turn a donkey into a race horse"

Dave

whatever that means. the potential 7-8% increase in VO2max seen in
studies indicates a huge boost in ability.

What does that change in Vo2max mean for LT power, sub LT power, and
power at VO2max?


I don't know, one might guess a proportional increase.

7% increase in VO2max may only add a few % to power output and speed on
the road. What gives you the idea that 7% increase in VO2max results in
"a huge boost" in ability?

Even if it has
no effect on LT and sub-LT power (not likely), the result is still a
huge advantage.

How much power does Armstrong put out during a TT compared to a
domestique on the 6th best team in the Tour?

A 5% difference (W/kg) would be significant.

So what tells you that 7% more VO2max equates to something like 5% more
power? I'm just asking.

I don't have any data or citations to add to this discussion. However
I can say with conviction that there were many people around here that
were absolutely agog at the gains that Adam Bergman made in a very
short amount of time when he made the jump from pretty good local
rider to top flight domestic pro.

So I guess a lot depends on how you define 'donkey' and 'race horse'.
But there is a LOT of space in between 'pretty good local rider' and
'2nd on NRC points and climbing among the best at the T of Georgia
and a major player in the Oly selection race'.

Now that's not the best data point since we don't know what else he
was taking besides EPO, and undoubtedly some of that improvement was
due to focusing on his riding. But like Jacques Anquetil said, mineral
water was not the key ingredient.

Bob Schwartz

warren wrote in message ...

I don't know, one might guess a proportional increase.

7% increase in VO2max may only add a few % to power output and speed on
the road. What gives you the idea that 7% increase in VO2max results in
"a huge boost" in ability?


With respect to power output, I consider 5% to be significant (say the
difference between pre-season and peak form) and 10% to be a "leap",
like say the difference between Cat 1 and Pro.

Thus, I consider a 7% boost in VO2max power to be huge.


A 5% difference (W/kg) would be significant.

So what tells you that 7% more VO2max equates to something like 5% more
power? I'm just asking.

That's not what I'm saying, just that (as I say above) a 5% difference
is pretty big, roughly what a racer might experience over the course
of a year.

Of course if you really let yourself slide that variation can be much
more.

-Amit

In article , Bob Schwartz
wrote:

warren wrote:
In article , Amit
wrote:

warren wrote in message news:020920042117208750%


I think David Millar hit the nail on the head, when he said " Doping
will
not turn a donkey into a race horse"

Dave

whatever that means. the potential 7-8% increase in VO2max seen in
studies indicates a huge boost in ability.

What does that change in Vo2max mean for LT power, sub LT power, and
power at VO2max?


I don't know, one might guess a proportional increase.

7% increase in VO2max may only add a few % to power output and speed on
the road. What gives you the idea that 7% increase in VO2max results in
"a huge boost" in ability?

Even if it has
no effect on LT and sub-LT power (not likely), the result is still a
huge advantage.

How much power does Armstrong put out during a TT compared to a
domestique on the 6th best team in the Tour?

A 5% difference (W/kg) would be significant.

So what tells you that 7% more VO2max equates to something like 5% more
power? I'm just asking.

I don't have any data or citations to add to this discussion. However
I can say with conviction that there were many people around here that
were absolutely agog at the gains that Adam Bergman made in a very
short amount of time when he made the jump from pretty good local
rider to top flight domestic pro.

So I guess a lot depends on how you define 'donkey' and 'race horse'.
But there is a LOT of space in between 'pretty good local rider' and
'2nd on NRC points and climbing among the best at the T of Georgia
and a major player in the Oly selection race'.

Now that's not the best data point since we don't know what else he
was taking besides EPO, and undoubtedly some of that improvement was
due to focusing on his riding. But like Jacques Anquetil said, mineral
water was not the key ingredient.

I don't disagree with you. My points for Amit were that VO2max is only
one of several, or a part of other abilities that may not be a
meaningful way of defining ability at the top levels. The difference
between a domestique (donkeys) riding in the back half of the pro
peloton compared to the GC guys up front (race horses) is probably much
more than a 7% difference in VO2max, and there are other measures that
would define the relative differences, and probably better too.

One rider at VO2max of 70 vs. 75 = 7% difference. I think the actual
ranges are much wider.

-WG

In article , Amit
wrote:

warren wrote in message
...

I don't know, one might guess a proportional increase.

7% increase in VO2max may only add a few % to power output and speed on
the road. What gives you the idea that 7% increase in VO2max results in
"a huge boost" in ability?


With respect to power output, I consider 5% to be significant (say the
difference between pre-season and peak form)

I think it's commonly much more than that.

and 10% to be a "leap",
like say the difference between Cat 1 and Pro.

Thus, I consider a 7% boost in VO2max power to be huge.

The problem is that a 7% change in VO2max doesn't mean there is a 5% or
10% change in power unless you are talking about one specific range of
power output, nor a change in actual speed of 5%. I also think you'll
find much more than a 7% range of VO2max within the peloton.

A 5% difference (W/kg) would be significant.

So what tells you that 7% more VO2max equates to something like 5% more
power? I'm just asking.

That's not what I'm saying, just that (as I say above) a 5% difference
is pretty big, roughly what a racer might experience over the course
of a year.

Personally, I see 10-15% change in LT power from pre-season to peak and
I'm told this is not unusual at all. My power during sprints lasting
about 15 seconds went from around 1050 watts in January-February to
1350 watts in July, and still in the 1300 watt range this week, i.e.
near 30% difference.

Of course if you really let yourself slide that variation can be much
more.

It's not "sliding". It's a normal annual training cycle that has
well-planned peaks.

-WG

warren wrote in message ...

I don't disagree with you. My points for Amit were that VO2max is only
one of several, or a part of other abilities that may not be a
meaningful way of defining ability at the top levels. The difference
between a domestique (donkeys) riding in the back half of the pro
peloton compared to the GC guys up front (race horses) is probably much
more than a 7% difference in VO2max, and there are other measures that
would define the relative differences, and probably better too.

One rider at VO2max of 70 vs. 75 = 7% difference. I think the actual
ranges are much wider.


Warren, just to clarify. I don't disagree with the above, but the only
data I've seen shows about a 7% increase in VO2max with EPO use, I
don't have data about how it affects other parameters an I didn't try
to guess.

So my point was, if EPO raises VO2max by that amount, leaving all
other parameters unchanged (not a realistic assumption), even that is
a big advantage.

I agree performance is not solely dependent on VO2max, thus two riders
with a pretty big VO2max difference might actually be well matched.

So, getting back to the original point. It's reasonable that EPO can
give a rider a boost which is equivalent to turning a "donkey" into a
"race horse" (using your definitions above).

-Amit

On Wednesday 08 September 2004 10:48, Amit wrote:
It's reasonable that [medication] can give a rider a boost which is
equivalent to turning a "donkey" into a "race horse"

Belgian doctors agree. I must find time to translate the article Bart sent
me.

In article , Amit
wrote:

warren wrote in message
...

I don't disagree with you. My points for Amit were that VO2max is only
one of several, or a part of other abilities that may not be a
meaningful way of defining ability at the top levels. The difference
between a domestique (donkeys) riding in the back half of the pro
peloton compared to the GC guys up front (race horses) is probably much
more than a 7% difference in VO2max, and there are other measures that
would define the relative differences, and probably better too.

One rider at VO2max of 70 vs. 75 = 7% difference. I think the actual
ranges are much wider.


Warren, just to clarify. I don't disagree with the above, but the only
data I've seen shows about a 7% increase in VO2max with EPO use, I
don't have data about how it affects other parameters an I didn't try
to guess.

So my point was, if EPO raises VO2max by that amount, leaving all
other parameters unchanged (not a realistic assumption), even that is
a big advantage.

I agree performance is not solely dependent on VO2max, thus two riders
with a pretty big VO2max difference might actually be well matched.

So, getting back to the original point. It's reasonable that EPO can
give a rider a boost which is equivalent to turning a "donkey" into a
"race horse" (using your definitions above).

Okay.

-WG