"Never Tested Positive"

That cyclismag article is a nice piece. It is obvious the game changed after EPO appeared in 1991. However, one cannot glean a 20% gain attributed to EPO. Other factors ignored are bicycle tech improvement, training regimen improvement, leaner athletes and effects of other performance enhancing drugs put into use at the same time. All that said, it appears EPO has a great effect.

I wonder since EPO is so effective why haven't endurance running times dropped much more than they have? We have seen only a 2% improvement. Is cycling the only dirty endurance sport?

babylou said:

I would love to see some scientific proof to back that claim.

20% may be high, but research has shown a 5 - 13% gain in Vo2Max using EPO. That research has not been able to use the hematocrit increases that riders were at in the mid 90s because of concern for the health of the test subjects. We know from Dr. Ferrari's records that Ugramov was racing at 60%. Ivan Gotti was at 58%, and Riis was at 56%. So we can conclude the upper range of increase for cyclists in the 90s was higher than current research shows.

In addition, there is no research that shows what gains might be made by use of the drug cocktails that became common. Only people like Dr. Ferrari have that information, but we can again assume that the effects are greater than just taking EPO alone.

Empirically we can look at the increase in sustained power on climbs. That shows a huge gain, which in some cases does hit 20%.

Armstrong gained 60 - 80 watts when he began working with Ferrari. He went from the upper 300s to the mid 400s.

But even if the gains were only 10% that is a enormous number for people competing at the top end and hoping a change in training might give them an extra 1 - 2%.

Frigo's Luggage said:

I don't know the staistics. But one of the cycling mags quoted a doped rider as saying the difference between a rider on epo and a rider without epo is like the difference between a man and a women.

Future Tour winner?

JohnO said:

I'm not one to think that LA was perfectly clean, but there was another factor very prevalent in his wins.

He had a team united behind him, at the same time that Ullrich did not. Vino was going off on pointless solo charges, and Zabel focused exclusively on sprints. If Ullrich had the same 8 dedicated supporters that LA had, he might have won in 2003. The same fractious war of personalities was seen on other teams, and still is - witness Di Luca's outburst on the Giro prologue this year.

There is more to cycling that just shooting up dope.

Zabel worked for Ullrich as well as looking after himself in the sprints. I think it is a weak argument to say that he worked against Ullrich. And given that Ullrich was unlikely to beat Armstrong even with one extra helper, all Zabel's stage wins and green jerseys were much more valuable to team management.

Didn't Vino & Ullrich only ever ride one Tour on the same team (2005)? In 2003, Ullrich was on Team Bianchi and did have 8 riders working for him. In 2004, Vino did not ride (injured). In 2005, Vinokourov was told to attack by his DS to try to provoke Armstrong to chase. But Armstrong didn't feel the need to chase as Vino was too far back on GC so the plan failed.

babylou said:

I wonder since EPO is so effective why haven't endurance running times dropped much more than they have? We have seen only a 2% improvement. Is cycling the only dirty endurance sport?

well that is a good question...
I had a look in the world record (men) for 10,000m and noticed that while it took athletes 25 years to go from 28 to 27 min it only took them 10 (give or take) to reach the low 26mins... Also the vast majority of times below 2:10 in mens marathons have been set post 1991...
That is of course circumstancial evidence (if evidence at all) but there is a pattern.
I think that a possible explanation is that cycling is far more energy efficient than athletics.

DV1976 said:

well that is a good question...
I had a look in the world record (men) for 10,000m and noticed that while it took athletes 25 years to go from 28 to 27 min it only took them 10 (give or take) to reach the low 26mins... Also the vast majority of times below 2:10 in mens marathons have been set post 1991...
That is of course circumstancial evidence (if evidence at all) but there is a pattern.
I think that a possible explanation is that cycling is far more energy efficient than athletics.

Runners race less marathons than cyclists..... also weather conditions, pace setters etc play a crucial part in World record and fast times.... championship races are notoriously slow and based on individual tactics (not team) and not fast times...... this is of course in stark contrast to the sprinting events which are rife with steroids and dominated by the Americans who loved the needle...

LOL. I always enjoy checking in and watching you foaming at the mouth about the big bad Americans. Pathetic xenophobe.

IH8LANCE said:

LOL. I always enjoy checking in and watching you foaming at the mouth about the big bad Americans. Pathetic xenophobe.

I can't help if I'm right all the time.....

JOHAN BRUYNEEL, the leader of Lance Armstrong’s Discovery cycling team, not only set an unprecedented record of seven consecutive Tour de France victories as a team director, but was the only team director in history to ever go undefeated in the Tour -- seven victories in seven attempts.

Born in 1964 in Izegem, Belgium, he was introduced to cycling by his father, began racing as an amateur in his teens, and went on to win several national championships in his cycling-mad country.

Though his list of major victories as a cyclist can’t compare to legends such as Armstrong, he did make a name for himself on the bike -- mainly with surprising, thrilling wins based on tactics and grit as much as outright physical ability. He turned pro in 1986 and over the course of a 12-year career won several races respected by cycling cognoscenti but less well-
known to the general public (such as the Tour de L’Avenir in 1990 and the GP des Nations in 1992). But he gained the greatest fame and respect as a rider for his exploits in the race he most cherishes, the Tour de France. In 1993, in a dramatic solo breakaway launched in honor of the recent death of his father, Bruyneel won what ended up being the fastest-ever stage:
30.7-mph average. In 1995, he was the only rider in the entire pack who was able to stay on the wheel of 5-time Tour winner Miguel Indurain during a vicious attack, then came around the legend at the line to win the stage and ownership of the hallowed yellow jersey for a day.

At home in Madrid, Spain, where he lives with his wife, Eva Maria, and their toddler, Victoria Andrea, he relishes time with his family, and his next challenge: winning the Tour de France without Lance Armstrong, a feat he’s already preparing for by signing such upcoming talent as American Tom Danielson (who won last year’s Tour of Georgia with Lance working as
a kind of super-lieutenant) and Yaroslav Popovych, who won the white jersey signifying best young rider in last year’s Tour de France.

whiteboytrash said:

Runners race less marathons than cyclists..... also weather conditions, pace setters etc play a crucial part in World record and fast times.... championship races are notoriously slow and based on individual tactics (not team) and not fast times...... this is of course in stark contrast to the sprinting events which are rife with steroids and dominated by the Americans who loved the needle...

You don't know jack sqaut. Huge prize money is awarded for world records. Typically $100K-$1M for a world record set during a major record. These guys are balls to the walls trying to get this jackpot.

Why have Americans dominated sprints? We can go with your Americans cheat and all the rest are angelic like in cycling where only Americans are known to cheat. Or, maybe, just maybe, it was because the USA had the vast majority of people descended from East Africa that had the opportunity to train and compete on a high level.

babylou said:

You don't know jack sqaut. Huge prize money is awarded for world records. Typically $100K-$1M for a world record set during a major record. These guys are balls to the walls trying to get this jackpot.

Why have Americans dominated sprints? We can go with your Americans cheat and all the rest are angelic like in cycling where only Americans are known to cheat. Or, maybe, just maybe, it was because the USA had the vast majority of people descended from East Africa that had the opportunity to train and compete on a high level.

No you don't know [censored].... name three marathon runners who have competed in more than 2 marathons in a year in the last 10 years.... none. [censored]. Now tell me how many times has the 10,000m world record been broken at a major championship since 68 ? Never. How many times has the marathon world record been broken at the Games ? Never. [censored]. Balls to the walls indeed.

Point 2: Maybe because all the East African decedents (who many don’t immigrate and also run for east African countries without winning) use the juice. Period. End of story. BALCO; you're own man admitted he feed steroids to all of your sprinters. [censored].

DV1976 said:

well that is a good question...
I had a look in the world record (men) for 10,000m and noticed that while it took athletes 25 years to go from 28 to 27 min it only took them 10 (give or take) to reach the low 26mins... Also the vast majority of times below 2:10 in mens marathons have been set post 1991...
That is of course circumstancial evidence (if evidence at all) but there is a pattern.
I think that a possible explanation is that cycling is far more energy efficient than athletics.

Of course the majority of marathon times below 2:10 have been set since 1991. Statistically, this trend would appear for any athletic endeavor.

Running is much more of a linear event in terms of aerobic power/weight in relation to speed. If EPO provided a 10% boost in sustained power then marathoners should drop their time by near 10%. Since EPO, the marathon world record for men has dropped 1.5%. Either EPO is not worth as much as many claim or there are no runners cheating. I gotta believe some runners are cheating so I think the EPO effect is overblown.

There are other observations that lead me to believe EPO is worth maybe 1-2%. Of course 1-2% is huge; likely the difference between a gold medal and not even qualifying for the Olympics.

babylou said:

Running is much more of a linear event in terms of aerobic power/weight in relation to speed. If EPO provided a 10% boost in sustained power then marathoners should drop their time by near 10%. Since EPO, the marathon world record for men has dropped 1.5%. Either EPO is not worth as much as many claim or there are no runners cheating. I gotta believe some runners are cheating so I think the EPO effect is overblown.

However, running is far less efficient ues of energy/power compared to cycling. Thus, the 10 or 20 or whatever % boost from Epo may not deliver the same benefits in long distance running times.

For cycling, one of the big benefits from a higher haematocrit with Epo is the ability to back up day after day in a GT. Hence the better recovery may contribute substantially to the faster ave times in GTs in recent years. This is not the case with marathon running.

patch70 said:

However, running is far less efficient ues of energy/power compared to cycling. Thus, the 10 or 20 or whatever % boost from Epo may not deliver the same benefits in long distance running times.

For cycling, one of the big benefits from a higher haematocrit with Epo is the ability to back up day after day in a GT. Hence the better recovery may contribute substantially to the faster ave times in GTs in recent years. This is not the case with marathon running.

I would also add that in a marathon, you're not that close to your VO2max, compared to a 25 minute climb on the bike, where your heart rate is almost pegged. It would seem that the advantages of EPO would increase comparatively as the intensity and oxygen demands increased. But then again, I am totally talking out of my ass here.

kennf said:

I would also add that in a marathon, you're not that close to your VO2max, compared to a 25 minute climb on the bike, where your heart rate is almost pegged. It would seem that the advantages of EPO would increase comparatively as the intensity and oxygen demands increased. But then again, I am totally talking out of my ass here.

The gains of EPO in marathon running are in the training not so much on race day.... train like a [censored] for 12 months in your mountain hideaway then come out and blitz the field....... that’s the difference..... right you are in cycling EPO is two fold... you climb your balls off but you also recover like the Terminator does after being shot 487 times.......

For runner, EPO or blood doping has certainly effect on recovering. A good example was Lasse Viren who was able to win 2 gold medals on J.O.
Running is traumatic, every stride is damaging for muscles, but EPO just allows more power to be used. For low athletes EPO is more efficient we have seen some strange performance for unknow runner as it was one times in Brasil with a man winning a marathon with a times arount 2:10 , seemed no tired and did a "wheel" on the finish line. Very unusual.

babylou said:

Or, maybe, just maybe, it was because the USA had the vast majority of people descended from East Africa that had the opportunity to train and compete on a high level.

I meant West Africans, not East Africans.