EPO? Yes of no?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Low pressure chamber, sleeping capsule. Used by Lance. Artificial way to increase red blood cells.But these sort of things are known to the riders, and are not some classified secret that gives rise to unfair advantage to some riders...

As far bike equipment, bikes and equipment are examined and deemed ok or not. They are out there for the whole world to see. Using covert methods for physical enhancement is a whole other world.
Equipment technology is constantly evolving. I am not saying there have not been instances of cheating using illegal equipment, but it is difficult and rare that someone gets away with it. +1

It would also seem that an equipment or clothing advantage (like the dimpled swimsuit controversy (http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-gaming/article/2008-03/can-swimsuit-be-too-good)) may give a slight percentage of advantage, but to be a larger advantage it would more likely be a very radical difference in equipment one would think.


The difference in using PED's is typically a 10% advantage over natural efforts among similar genetic capabilities. Me taking all the PED's that I could and still live will not help me against a pro cyclists because my genetics are not prime for cycling. So to be clear the comparison is among similar genetic capabilities. 10% +/- is a huge advantage and the other huge advantage in human physiology is a faster recovery time. One could have a miserable day one day and drop the whole field the next day if that sounds familiar. Equipment and clothing does not have that capability without it being something really radical and even then I would be skeptical of the discussion.

It would also seem that an equipment or clothing advantage (like the dimpled swimsuit controversy (http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-gaming/article/2008-03/can-swimsuit-be-too-good)) may give a slight percentage of advantage, but to be a larger advantage it would more likely be a very radical difference in equipment one would think.


The difference in using PED's is typically a 10% advantage over natural efforts among similar genetic capabilities. Me taking all the PED's that I could and still live will not help me against a pro cyclists because my genetics are not prime for cycling. So to be clear the comparison is among similar genetic capabilities. 10% +/- is a huge advantage and the other huge advantage in human physiology is a faster recovery time. One could have a miserable day one day and drop the whole field the next day if that sounds familiar. Equipment and clothing does not have that capability without it being something really radical and even then I would be skeptical of the discussion.

I agree with the 10% estimate however the other advantages are getting in form much more quickly, pre -season, and as you stated faster recovery which is a big advantage in a mulit-stage race.

The DarkLord wants to know where technology gave an unfair advantage.

Didn't Lemond barely eke out a TDF win in 1989 when he used aero bars in the time trial, and Fignon didn't have them?

How is this conceptually different from gaining an advantage by using PEDs?

The DarkLord wants to know where technology gave an unfair advantage.

Didn't Lemond barely eke out a TDF win in 1989 when he used aero bars in the time trial, and Fignon didn't have them?

How is this conceptually different from gaining an advantage by using PEDs?

If Fignon didn't use aero bars then it was because he choose not to, not because he didn't have access. Almost all aspects of racing bikes are regulated by UCI, eg. if your wheeltype hasn't been approved by the UCI, then it isn't allowed in UCI regulated races. There are several reasons for this regulation but the primary reason is no one can race with equipment that gives them an unfair advantage.

--
Regards

If Fignon didn't use aero bars then it was because he choose not to, not because he didn't have access. Almost all aspects of racing bikes are regulated by UCI, eg. if your wheeltype hasn't been approved by the UCI, then it isn't allowed in UCI regulated races. There are several reasons for this regulation but the primary reason is no one can race with equipment that gives them an unfair advantage.

--
Regards

That's correct. The bars could have been used by anyone. Fignon also chose to ride without a helmet (and let his his ponytail flop in the wind). Besides, a lot of the advantage of Lemond's aero bars went out the window when he kept looking down, putting the "point" of his aero helmet straight into the air.

I also recall Thierry Marie winning a prologue on a bike that had a strange fairing behind the seat. The UCI immediately outlawed it (after the fact). Now, there are all kinds of restrictions on equipment.

That's correct. The bars could have been used by anyone. Fignon also chose to ride without a helmet (and let his his ponytail flop in the wind). Besides, a lot of the advantage of Lemond's aero bars went out the window when he kept looking down, putting the "point" of his aero helmet straight into the air.

I also recall Thierry Marie winning a prologue on a bike that had a strange fairing behind the seat. The UCI immediately outlawed it (after the fact). Now, there are all kinds of restrictions on equipment.With all these restrictions enforced by the UCI, do you guys believe that we have probably reached the pinnacle of cycling equipment?

As very many are, have and will.
I wonder how many others have retired and are now thinking, "I am glad all the attention is on Lance and the current field instead of me" knowing full well they are just as guilty.

Just saying :)
I don't think there are so many.

Most of the guys Lance raced against (ie. those who tried to beat him in the TdF) have either been busted since then, or retired and confessed. Zulle was caught once, came back clean and a lesser rider and owned up after retirement, Pantani is dead, Ullrich has been ruined (unfairly), Virenque finally confessed to have seen more needles than a junkie....also his teammates such Heras, Hamilton, Landis, Andreu.....only Lance still denies everything, and his fans, many of whom are American, new to cycling, and those from the cancer community continue to believe the Armstrong myth.

I don't think there are so many.
I have to admit that I am one of those Americans that is fairly ignorant to professional cycling and its history. I am one of those who would rather be involved with sports than to watch or keep up with sports history. I hope you are right that fewer have used PED's than I speculate. That would be a nice thought in today's time, but since I have been involved with the aspect of PED's and have known many athletes competing at high levels since the 80's in a variety of sporting events that have used I guess I am just skeptical.

Please forgive my pessimistic views. :)

Some of this comes from knowing a little too much. (I should use past tense)

I have been asked about the Marion Jones saga. I have told those people (I admitted that I was speculating again of course) that in most race highlights that I saw of Marion Jones it wasn't like she dropped the whole field. The other girls were milliseconds behind her. If she was using something it makes me think they must have been on something too.

The more obvious times (was speculating until the news was revealed) was watching the TDF stage when Landis came back the day after having a horrible day and looked awesome and last year's stage when Vino came back after having a bad crash and a bad stage to look awesome. Immediately I wondered to myself and then the news was revealed.

My concern is more for the athlete than the appearance of the sport in the public's eye. I hope the athlete's that are tempted to use or are using will come to a turning point and cherish training and competing naturally. Things of corrupted human nature seems to step in the way of this, but public humiliation seems to teach a hard lesson and some times a hard lesson is needed. I was on the verge of this, but fortunately got an eye opener before that had to happen in my life. Still I suffered some shame and other negative things for cheap trophies.

Yojimbo, so you know that I understand your view and agree with what you are saying. There are and have been grey areas. Most every highly competitive athlete has a desire to seek an edge through various training programs and/or equipment use. Powermeters seem to have helped some with high percentage increases and some have put faith in certain types of cranks, but most of this stuff is can be purchased and used by a lot of athletes. Showing up on the day of the event with something radical that no one has seen or has access to it may an unfair advantage, but it sounds like most authorities will regulate this with set rules.

I don't think there are so many.

Most of the guys Lance raced against (ie. those who tried to beat him in the TdF) have either been busted since then, or retired and confessed. Zulle was caught once, came back clean and a lesser rider and owned up after retirement, Pantani is dead, Ullrich has been ruined (unfairly), Virenque finally confessed to have seen more needles than a junkie....also his teammates such Heras, Hamilton, Landis, Andreu.....only Lance still denies everything, and his fans, many of whom are American, new to cycling, and those from the cancer community continue to believe the Armstrong myth.Landis and Hamilton are also still in denial.

The DarkLord wants to know where technology gave an unfair advantage.

Didn't Lemond barely eke out a TDF win in 1989 when he used aero bars in the time trial, and Fignon didn't have them?

How is this conceptually different from gaining an advantage by using PEDs?Dude, accept it. You don't have an argument here. Cheating through use of PEDs cannot be equated to an unfair advantage with technology because there are regulatory authorities concerning the latter, while they are way behind when it comes to busting PED use.

That's correct. The bars could have been used by anyone. Fignon also chose to ride without a helmet (and let his his ponytail flop in the wind). Besides, a lot of the advantage of Lemond's aero bars went out the window when he kept looking down, putting the "point" of his aero helmet straight into the air.

I also recall Thierry Marie winning a prologue on a bike that had a strange fairing behind the seat. The UCI immediately outlawed it (after the fact). Now, there are all kinds of restrictions on equipment.


Fignon also calimed he had saddle problems during the race and changed several times and if I remember correctly was in tears at the end.
So was it losing or was his a** just hurting that made him cry?

Pictured below is one of the most infamous examples of hardware used for cheating in cycling. Hamilton used it, Landis used it and it should be banned.

I have to admit that I am one of those Americans that is fairly ignorant to professional cycling and its history. I am one of those who would rather be involved with sports than to watch or keep up with sports history. I hope you are right that fewer have used PED's than I speculate. .
when i said "there are not so many" I meant that there are very few recently retired pros sitting at home thinking "I'm glad all the attention is on Lance, it means I got away with doping".

In fact, Lance is the one who got away with it (although it is proven his '99 urine sample had EPO in it, and he also did the old saddle sore / cortisone trick many times - once having to get a doctor to backdate a prescription), while many of his rivals have been disgraced. Some have admitted their dishonesty, others still deny, but have failed tests.

The Lance predicament is as follows. You either believe that a guy with previously average ability (especially in stage races) came back from cancer alittle less heavy, and, totally clean, delivered crushing victories against guys of equal (in some cases arguably superior) ability, who are now known to have been using some extremely powerful PED's ... or you believe that he doped better than they did.

You believe that the 1999 urine EPO positive sample is a fraud or you believe Lance was doping.

You believe Lance when he says he never doped, or you believe his ex teammates, ex team staff, ex doctors who say he did.

You believe Lance when he says he never doped, or you believe his ex teammates, ex team staff, ex doctors who say he did.As we digress a little off topic, you are right and as one who has, with regret, admitted to using and has tried to convince many locals not to go down that road, it aggrivates me to see those who flat out sit in denial or falsehoods as they sit on the legal stands or in the media. But knowing human nature I doubt LA will throw away his current easy street endorsements. For me it is time to move on from LA history to looking at how can I be a better person today and the next. Who can I help in a positive influence to the wonderful challenges of training in a natural state.

With all these restrictions enforced by the UCI, do you guys believe that we have probably reached the pinnacle of cycling equipment?

UCI isn't formed to run a geek show of funny bikes, but run races (among other things). A lot of people forget that cycling is a spectatorsport, and those spectators really don't want to see a bunch of recumbent bikes with carbon fairings at a TT, even though such a recumbent may be faster and use more advanced technology.

When Monsieur Lampion in France or Fraulein Müller in Germany turns of the TV, that is when Pro cycling is annihilated. Fraulein Müller perhaps only follows Tour de France, so when she turns on the TV once a year, she probably doesn't want to see men in phantom suits in superman position on something that only vaguely resembles what she think a bike should look like.
And Monsieur Lampion doesn't care one bit ceramic bearings and deep carbon rims, he wants to see the drama of men toughing it out on the pavé.

Technology doesn't give better races, and every geek gizmo UCI allows like TT bikes and helmets, 2000 Euro carbon wheels and dimpled face masks, only serves to create an alienating distance between spectators and riders.

Pro Tour race equipment restrictions are a good thing, even if it dampens technology advancements in the carbon fairing recumbent industry.

--
Regards

With all these restrictions enforced by the UCI, do you guys believe that we have probably reached the pinnacle of cycling equipment?There probably still will be advances in equipment, but anything major will be implemented in a "available for all" basis to ensure fairness.

What I was getting at on that post was Lance wasn't "cheating" back then (assuming the reports are true). The rules have changed and people are still doping and it is officially cheating.
This is incorrect. EPO was specifically banned in 1990, if I remember correctly. The ban was worthless because it was undetectable. The first attempt to limit its use was the 1997 season when the 50% limit on hematocrit was put into place. The test for EPO, which only has a 72 hour window of detection after injection, was first used in the 2000 Olympics. It was first used in pro cycling in 2001. Using a smaller than usual dose of EPO shrinks the detection window, so it can still be used without tripping the EPO test. From at least 2003, riders were using protease on their fingers to destroy all EPO in a urine sample.

There are many in pro cycling who follow the belief that it isn't doping unless you get caught. Virenque used that logic to defend his actions. Dr. Ferrari, Armstrong's infamous doping doctor, also espouses this philosophy.

Fignon also calimed he had saddle problems during the race and changed several times and if I remember correctly was in tears at the end.
So was it losing or was his a** just hurting that made him cry?
Fignon had saddle sores for the last part of the 1989 TdF. He could not sit properly on the saddle. He also had, I think, somewhat of an off day for the final ITT. He experimented with aero bars before the final time trial but rejected using them. There was a lot of misunderstanding as to their potential benefit. Hinault, while commentating on the race, supposedly told the listeners that Lemond would go faster if he would get off the bars and open his chest up for better breathing.

Fignon had saddle sores for the last part of the 1989 TdF. He could not sit properly on the saddle. He also had, I think, somewhat of an off day for the final ITT. He experimented with aero bars before the final time trial but rejected using them. There was a lot of misunderstanding as to their potential benefit. Hinault, while commentating on the race, supposedly told the listeners that Lemond would go faster if he would get off the bars and open his chest up for better breathing.


I am going from memory but I do remember him changing saddles several times but still had the race well in hand until the ITT.I don't remember him having an off day but remember Lemond having a great day.
Of course that was a long time ago and I was very, very young almost a newborn. :rolleyes:

That's correct. The bars could have been used by anyone. Fignon also chose to ride without a helmet (and let his his ponytail flop in the wind). Besides, a lot of the advantage of Lemond's aero bars went out the window when he kept looking down, putting the "point" of his aero helmet straight into the air.


The cycling nerds at MIT wind-tunnel tested that an aero helmet pointed down is MORE aero that pointed straight ahead.. this is due to the vents on the front no longer being exposed.