Lemond doubts Bertie!!!

[johnnyh]

perhaps he is pissed off that the fella got caught...

 

[Chuffy]

He was also severely pissed off when Moreni failed a test in 2007 resulting in all of his Cofidis team being withdrawn from the Tour. Wiggins don't dope.

That's what I believe, but the tricky thing about belief is that it relies on faith. I think the best I could say is that I trust Wiggy (and Garmin), probably more than any other rider in the peloton.

As I understood it, VO2 max doesn't change much, so it gives you a baseline for theoretical performance. Lemond has also talked in the past about measuring the wattage produced by riders and measuring that against VO2. What I think he's aiming at is a theoretical performance baseline for each rider, which would be used in a similar way to the passport. If someone is riding beyond their theoretical limits, day in, day out, then that would raise suspicions while not being outright proof in itself.

When EPO came in, towards the end of Lemond's career, he has said that he was producing the same wattage, but was being dropped by guys who he knew he should be able to ride off his wheel. I daresay that some might say that it's the sour grapes of an old pro, but Lemond was one of the first to start quantifying performance. If anyone knows what they're talking about, it's him.

 

[RabbitFood]

Just read all of Wiggos Twitter the more i learn about him the more I love him he is great, good taste in music too and love his comments about other riders

 

[NickM]

Lemond seems certain that the VO2 max is a sound method of detecting doping - is there any reason it isn't being used?

Looking at the Wikipedia page, it says that VO2 max improves with training. So isn't it possible that your VO2 max will alter depending on your condition? And if you peaked for a major sporting event wouldn't your VO2 max be highest at that point? I find it confusing.

VO2max does respond to training, but all professional cyclists are highly trained and have been for years, so their VO2max doesn't vary much unless artificilly boosted. It is perpetually elevated close to their genetic potential; it's a qualification for the job.

That's why the "physiological passport" is a good idea.

Oh, and 50% haematocrit may be adjudged "safe" by the UCI, but it is hardly "normal":

http://www.abcc.co.uk/Articles/haematocrit.html

 

[Skip Madness]

Thanks for the clarifications. It looks like the best thing to do is integrate it into the biological passport so that, as Chuffy says, it can be used to highlight suspicious performances and target additional testing accordingly, even if it can't be used as proof of a positive on its own.

 

[Chuffy]

Thanks for the clarifications. It looks like the best thing to do is integrate it into the biological passport so that, as Chuffy says, it can be used to highlight suspicious performances and target additional testing accordingly, even if it can't be used as proof of a positive on its own.

I don't have the link to hand but Lemond was critical of the proposed testing regime (subsequently abandoned) which LA was supposed to undergo with Don Catlin because it didn't include this extra dimension.
I suppose the problem with creating a properly measured potential performance baseline is that it would be invaluable in the wrong hands, it would be almost like in F1 where the teams know, to the last drop, how much fuel is in a rival's car. In F1 that doesn't matter, but in a GT you could tell your rider exactly how far and how fast he needs to go to drop a rival.

Plus you could (in theory at least) be much more precise in tailoring a route to suit specific riders. In fact, with enough accurate data and good modelling software you could run the whole Tour on a laptop.

I don't think these are insurmountable problems and if the information adds strength to the fight against doping then I think it's worth trying.

 

[NickM]

...with enough accurate data and good modelling software you could run the whole Tour on a laptop...

I think it will be a long time before that becomes feasible. Physiological modelling is not nearly sophisticated enough yet; and it doesn't take account of crucial factors like recovery and mental strength at all.

I'd like to see the science behind Lemond's assertion that Contador has to have 99.5ml/min/kg of VO2. I'm not persuaded that predictive formulae can pinpoint the required VO2 for an exercise task with such seeming precision.

However, I do agree with Lemond when he says that it is necessary to ask the questions which Contador declined to answer.

 

[Chuffy]

I think it will be a long time before that becomes feasible. Physiological modelling is not nearly sophisticated enough yet; and it doesn't take account of crucial factors like recovery and mental strength at all.
I'd like to see the science behind Lemond's assertion that Contador has to have 99.5ml/min/kg of VO2. I'm not persuaded that predictive formulae can pinpoint the required VO2 for an exercise task with such seeming precision.
However, I do agree with Lemond when he says that it is necessary to ask the questions which Contador declined to answer.

Absolutely. Cycling has no right to expect to be taken on trust and too often if something smells too good to be true then that's the way it turns out to be. Wiggy alluded to it in a post-race interview last week. He said that he knew people would assume he was on drugs (because of his much improved performance) but that he understood that attitude because he knew how it was in cycling. Markedly different to Contador's snappy 'next question' responses. You could also look at the way Landis and Rasmussen dealt with doping related questions.

 

[onthe_road]

Let's say for modelling purposes that AC is doping big time.
Next question is how much do Astana/Bruyneel know about it?
And there is a torrent of questions after that one.

 

[Hont]

I think given Garmin's stance, testing and ethos I would say that there is no chance that Wiggins is doping. The team was setup to prove that you can be a successful pro-cycling team without doping. They have more data on their riders than any testing agency is likely to have and will know if anything is not right. In addition we understand from David Millar's comments that the British Track team have a similar mentality, further indicating where Bradley is coming from.

Astana are a different matter and I can see why Greg Lemond is looking at Contador, as he looks suspiciously easy in comparison to everyone else. At the top of the Col de Romme Frank Schleck was breathing like I breath when climbing - trying to suck in air through any orifice that will oblige, yet Bertie was out of the saddle looking around.

However, there is a danger in making calculations from timing someone up a hill. We don't really know what power Contador was putting out as we don't know what the wind was doing, we don't know how much he actually weighed on the day, we don't know how full his water bottle's were or how much benefit he was getting from the motocycles ahead. Hell someone might have pushed him for 50 metres when the cameras weren't on him.

What we do know is that his blood values will be very carefully looked at and we may not have heard the end of this. I want to believe that he's a freak of nature but it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be something less than natural.

 

[Kirstie]

It's a running battle with drugs cheats and I don't think it's something that will ever be solved once and for all.

I remember watching Floyd Landis on the stage after he made his big breakaway in the alps in 2006, and his skin was grey - he looked like a drug addict who had ODd. Similarly, I hate to say it but Armstrong looks like a heroin addict, it's the sunken, dead eyes that really give it away for me. Contador is still looking healthy IMO. I hope they're all clean but it's unlikely.