**** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

[Saucy]

Even with my cynical attitude about doping in this sport, (and I admit its very cynical) I'm still surprised at Hamilton. He seemed like one of the more thoughtful riders in the peloton. Cycling places a lot of presure on cyclists to dope so I can understand why he did it, but I would have thought Hamilton would at least be smart enough to not get caught.

And blood doping? That is serious stuff. EPO, HGH I could see him resorting to, but blood doping? Its shocking. You can't just self-administer this can you? You would need a donor, a doctor, medical experts...I can only conclude that Phonak team doctors had involvement with this.

I haven't read all the links to the medical discussions about this testing procedure but the ones I have read, the medical experts and Pound seem very confident that the testing is sound. Tyler should save his euros and retire instead of going through a protracted legal battle. I would eventually love for him to speak out about the doping problem but I don't see him doing that.

 

[antoineg]

I'd have to disagree with you on that too. Otherwise, the leaders could attack at will and the peloton wouldn't reel them in. We know that not to be the case. The peloton often "rests" (goes below capacity) when non tour threats break away from the pack, but it goes gung ho when a gc contender goes. This tells you that it is running sub par. Do you think that they take performance enhancing drugs on the fly? How would they know when a gc contender is going to attack? They simply respond while they are riding, or don't when they are not. They don't know when to dope or when not to.

If the riders can go faster with drugs but are already going faster with drugs as you claim, then you are admitting that the peloton does not run to capacity. That's the nature of the peloton. The race is not an all out race for many of the riders. Even the leaders get to have refuge from the wind in the peloton.

Does anyone have any information about individual time trial speeds (average, preferably, instead of winner) for various events and years? No offense, gntlmn, but I'll bet that data would put the nail in your rhetorical coffin.

 

[philoakley]

I'd have to disagree with you on that too. Otherwise, the leaders could attack at will and the peloton wouldn't reel them in. We know that not to be the case. The peloton often "rests" (goes below capacity) when non tour threats break away from the pack, but it goes gung ho when a gc contender goes. This tells you that it is running sub par. Do you think that they take performance enhancing drugs on the fly? How would they know when a gc contender is going to attack? They simply respond while they are riding, or don't when they are not. They don't know when to dope or when not to.

If the riders can go faster with drugs but are already going faster with drugs as you claim, then you are admitting that the peloton does not run to capacity. That's the nature of the peloton. The race is not an all out race for many of the riders. Even the leaders get to have refuge from the wind in the peloton.

I think that you have to review what the peloton's capacity is. Full capacity would in its purest sense be flat out all day, every day. Having an easy day in the tour (usually between the Alpes and the Pyrenees) reflects the fact that most of the peloton is tired. Those who escape probably sat in the bus during the mountain stages (ie they could not go flat out) The peloton is therefore not sub-par but is taking a rest because it physically has to.
I am not admitting the peloton does not run at full capacity, anything but. I am arguing that the capacity of the bunch has been enhanced by doping. It seems from your theory that you expect the peloton to get faster every year. You still haven't convinced me as to why the pace on the mountains has increased despite riding harder on the flat stages.

 

[philoakley]

I'm with you on this now. Earlier I said I wanted to get more information before I conclude about Tyler, and I think I have enough now. I agree. He's a doper, and it's a good thing for his family that they caught him. Once he gets sensitized to foreign blood, he can be more easily killed instantly with the wrong transfusion. I think this is great for the sport. These dopers don't realize that no matter how highly people think of them while they secretly dope, they are not greater than the sport of cycling. It's too bad they don't realize that ahead of time. He deserves every bit of bad press he gets now. I hope he loses that Olympics gold. I think he doped then too, and sample b would have confirmed it if it weren't damaged in freezing.

So if Tyler is a doper, do you think his domestiques are clean? But if only 1-5% are doping then most of them must be clean by your reasoning. This is despite the fact that they work their backsides of until the last few km's of mountain stages to set the pace for the doper.

 

[philoakley]

Does anyone have any information about individual time trial speeds (average, preferably, instead of winner) for various events and years? No offense, gntlmn, but I'll bet that data would put the nail in your rhetorical coffin.

Average speeds have increased. Sean Yates in 1988 did 52kms at 49.3 kmh without tri-bars. Now 52-53 kmh is not unheard of. However, I would be in complete agreement with Gntlmn here that training and technology have made big differences. Tri bars give big increases whilst the specifc training for the hour record over the years has been of immense benefit in increasing the speed of time trials. My issue is one of the speed of the grand tours which in my opinion has increased due to improved recovery rates which are explained by doping rather than training.

 

[sportzgurl]

Sportzgurl, I just read one of your earlier posts. No offense, but you should really try to learn who Greg Lemond is. I know you're young and its before your time, but he is one of the most talented riders ever in the sport. Its worth finding out about the history of the sport and the riders. It will add to your enjoyment of the threads on this site.

As far as the "stomach flu". Well, when a whole group of riders bail on a race, including riders from different teams who have eaten at different hotels, you can take "stomach flu" or "food poisoning" to mean: "The ****'s gonna hit the fan, let's get the hell out of here before it sprays in our face". I'm amazed that the peloton has never come up with anything more creative. But I guess they have to pick an illness that's:

1) Contagious/communicable - to explain why so many riders fell ill at the same time.
2) Temporary in nature - to explain why riders can walk away and enter the next race (when their "vitals" are in an acceptable range).
3) Severe enough - that the rider couldn't continue to race. A rider can still race with a head cold, for example, but not with a stomach ailment.

So "stomach flu" it is. Its been used for years now - an old standy. The dopers have gotten good use out of it.



I agree. Its official: Tyler's a doper. You're done Tyler! You and me are sooo over!! Wow, what a disappointment. Are there any heroes in this sport?

And who does Phonak think they're kidding? Calling the Olympic B Test a "Negative" when the test simply failed on a technicality? Tyler's camp must be pretty dizzy they're doing so much spinning. And who is going to believe any results from a task force set up by Phonak and Hamilton? Its not an objective source. The IOC and UCI testing is objective and I will believe that before I believe anything from the Phonak camp.

I tell you what, tomorrow i will do my best to find out who Greg Lemond is and what he did, i promise!!

When Tyler was first under investigation, everybody said that they didn't think he would do that. That he was one of the most honest riders in the peloton etc etc. Even Lance Armsrtong said he was surprised to hear it. So if Tyler can dope then what does it say about the rest of the peloton?

I agree with what you said about everything else though. Well put!

About Vuelta though, could the UCI be on the verge of a major bust on blood doping? Cos a hell of alot of riders have "the ***** gonna hit the fan" virus! I mean lets say that most of the riders that pulled out were covering their butts, theres big names in that list!! Floyd Landis for one. All i can say is thank god Jan Ullrich wasn't there!! So im off to read up about Lemond!!

 

[gntlmn]

I think that you have to review what the peloton's capacity is. Full capacity would in its purest sense be flat out all day, every day. Having an easy day in the tour (usually between the Alpes and the Pyrenees) reflects the fact that most of the peloton is tired. Those who escape probably sat in the bus during the mountain stages (ie they could not go flat out) The peloton is therefore not sub-par but is taking a rest because it physically has to.
I am not admitting the peloton does not run at full capacity, anything but. I am arguing that the capacity of the bunch has been enhanced by doping. It seems from your theory that you expect the peloton to get faster every year. You still haven't convinced me as to why the pace on the mountains has increased despite riding harder on the flat stages.

The data I have seen thus far on this thread has everything to do with the flat stages, not the mountains. There have been comments about the mountains, but no hard data. So my comments have been limited to the speeds in the overall, which would include the mountains, but not focusing only on the mountains. Bike weights have come down too. Someone commented that they used to weigh the same as they do now. Well, that may be, but that's not the same bike. Those bikes were mushier.

 

[gntlmn]

I think that you have to review what the peloton's capacity is. Full capacity would in its purest sense be flat out all day, every day. Having an easy day in the tour (usually between the Alpes and the Pyrenees) reflects the fact that most of the peloton is tired. Those who escape probably sat in the bus during the mountain stages (ie they could not go flat out) The peloton is therefore not sub-par but is taking a rest because it physically has to.
I am not admitting the peloton does not run at full capacity, anything but. I am arguing that the capacity of the bunch has been enhanced by doping. It seems from your theory that you expect the peloton to get faster every year. You still haven't convinced me as to why the pace on the mountains has increased despite riding harder on the flat stages.

No, I don't think that it should go faster every year. A lot of that has to do with rider attitude and whether they want to reel in various attacks.

It's kind of hard to support the contention that the peloton is going faster because it is doping. All you have to do, as I stated before, is to imagine how the race would change if the objective were not for one rider to win, but for the peloton to reach the finish line at a faster pace. Then this argument, that the peloton is going faster because it is doping, becomes moot. The peloton can go faster in any given year by shifting riders around within itself. It has no motivation to finish at a greater average speed except to influence the lead gc people's standings. This can result in completely different tactics depending on how the race unfolds. Thus the peloton can change speed.

What they were complaining about in this year's Tour was that the peloton was moving too slowly. Remember those first several stages when the riders kept crashing and crashing and crashing. If you didn't get in a crash, it was almost a miracle. When speeds picked up, and riders thus spread out more, then there were fewer crashes.

If we are going to analyze the average speed of the peloton, then we need to look at the average speed of the peloton. We have not done that. We have looked at the average speed of the 1st place riders in each tour. The speed of each first place rider has a lot to do with both the peloton and the riders on that person's team. So what I am saying is that we don't know yet about the average speed of the peloton because we don't have these numbers. Put them up, and then we can analyze them.

When you put up the average speed of the winner, and then I refute that to say that that is influenced by speed of the peloton, you cannot refute me by asking why the speed of the peloton keeps increasing. How do you know? You have not provided me with the data to confirm that the speed of the peloton is increasing. You have only provided the winning times, not the peloton times. There's a big difference.

It's not at all easy to see this. You can't even look at the final gc every year and know what power outputs each rider put out. Some made far better use of the draft during the race. Others were better domestiques but faded quite a bit when they were "resting" before their next helper session. Others didn't finish at all. How do you conclude faster peloton speeds? I don't see any concrete conclusions on this here.

 

[gntlmn]

So if Tyler is a doper, do you think his domestiques are clean? But if only 1-5% are doping then most of them must be clean by your reasoning. This is despite the fact that they work their backsides of until the last few km's of mountain stages to set the pace for the doper.

When a rider gets caught doping, he is guilty when he got caught. The rest is speculation (ie, when did he start, who else is doping, etc). Someone else from Phonak was caught doping this year too. In fact, an entire team could get caught doping, and it still wouldn't budge the 1% number.

 

[sportzgurl]

I have a question for you. Its a bit off topic but im not sure where else to say it!!

One of our NZ cyclists has just been caught with a high testosterone level. They officials say that there are two possible explanations for this: 1 he took it to dope or 2 He has a medical condition. They mentioned testicular cancer.

We all know that LA had testicular cancer. In his first book LA says that he had funny symptoms for a long long time before he told anybody about them. These included a swollen testicle. To me this means he had the cancer for a while before he did anything about it. Why wasn't he picked up as having a high testosterone level during the time he was 'unwell'? I just thought thats all. Im sure there is some explaination for it. They did test for testosterone then didn't they or is that just a new invention? So if anybody can tell me why he wasn't found with a high level then that would be great . Of course there is always the fact that he didn't have the cancer when he was tested but he did race with symptoms, so that would mean he was tested with symptoms. Shed some light on this for me if you can! Thanks

 

[philoakley]

No, I don't think that it should go faster every year. A lot of that has to do with rider attitude and whether they want to reel in various attacks.

It's kind of hard to support the contention that the peloton is going faster because it is doping. All you have to do, as I stated before, is to imagine how the race would change if the objective were not for one rider to win, but for the peloton to reach the finish line at a faster pace. Then this argument, that the peloton is going faster because it is doping, becomes moot. The peloton can go faster in any given year by shifting riders around within itself. It has no motivation to finish at a greater average speed except to influence the lead gc people's standings. This can result in completely different tactics depending on how the race unfolds. Thus the peloton can change speed.

What they were complaining about in this year's Tour was that the peloton was moving too slowly. Remember those first several stages when the riders kept crashing and crashing and crashing. If you didn't get in a crash, it was almost a miracle. When speeds picked up, and riders thus spread out more, then there were fewer crashes.

If we are going to analyze the average speed of the peloton, then we need to look at the average speed of the peloton. We have not done that. We have looked at the average speed of the 1st place riders in each tour. The speed of each first place rider has a lot to do with both the peloton and the riders on that person's team. So what I am saying is that we don't know yet about the average speed of the peloton because we don't have these numbers. Put them up, and then we can analyze them.

When you put up the average speed of the winner, and then I refute that to say that that is influenced by speed of the peloton, you cannot refute me by asking why the speed of the peloton keeps increasing. How do you know? You have not provided me with the data to confirm that the speed of the peloton is increasing. You have only provided the winning times, not the peloton times. There's a big difference.

It's not at all easy to see this. You can't even look at the final gc every year and know what power outputs each rider put out. Some made far better use of the draft during the race. Others were better domestiques but faded quite a bit when they were "resting" before their next helper session. Others didn't finish at all. How do you conclude faster peloton speeds? I don't see any concrete conclusions on this here.

I seem to think that you said in an earlier submission that the speed of the winner had increased because the speed of the peloton (flat stages particualrly) had gone up?

 

[philoakley]

When a rider gets caught doping, he is guilty when he got caught. The rest is speculation (ie, when did he start, who else is doping, etc). Someone else from Phonak was caught doping this year too. In fact, an entire team could get caught doping, and it still wouldn't budge the 1% number.

This is complete nonsense. A doped rider is guilty of doping whether he is caught or not. Don't you think that if a whole team got caught (ie 100%) that your 1% figure is obviously wrong and that your assertions are also wrong. You seem to misunderstand the percentages caught with the underlying doping problem.

Answer me this. If you are the team leader and you are doping. If I am your domestique, how am I supposed to keep up with you if I am clean? If all the Phonak team is doping to keep up with their leader, how do the other teams keep up with Phonak? This is oversimplified I know but I think it illustrates my argument.

 

[gntlmn]

I have a question for you. Its a bit off topic but im not sure where else to say it!!

One of our NZ cyclists has just been caught with a high testosterone level. They officials say that there are two possible explanations for this: 1 he took it to dope or 2 He has a medical condition. They mentioned testicular cancer.

We all know that LA had testicular cancer. In his first book LA says that he had funny symptoms for a long long time before he told anybody about them. These included a swollen testicle. To me this means he had the cancer for a while before he did anything about it. Why wasn't he picked up as having a high testosterone level during the time he was 'unwell'? I just thought thats all. Im sure there is some explaination for it. They did test for testosterone then didn't they or is that just a new invention? So if anybody can tell me why he wasn't found with a high level then that would be great . Of course there is always the fact that he didn't have the cancer when he was tested but he did race with symptoms, so that would mean he was tested with symptoms. Shed some light on this for me if you can! Thanks

I'm not at all an expert with testicular cancer. But I do know that testosterone level in the body is regulated not by the testicles but by a gland in the brain, I believe in the pituitary gland or the hypothalamus. Therefore, if a guy loses one, the other one works more to make up for it. If one starts to generate more, and the level increases, the level is picked up by the brain gland, and it slows down the production from the healthy one.

If a guy does steroids, then the brain senses that the testosterone is too high. It sends a message to the testicals to slow down. Over time, they shrivel up. Long term abuse of steroids might lead to failure or to permanent impairment of the testicles and to resultant rebound effects after stopping their use, among other things to include more body fat and less muscle than he had to begin with.

 

[gntlmn]

This is complete nonsense. A doped rider is guilty of doping whether he is caught or not. Don't you think that if a whole team got caught (ie 100%) that your 1% figure is obviously wrong and that your assertions are also wrong. You seem to misunderstand the percentages caught with the underlying doping problem.

Answer me this. If you are the team leader and you are doping. If I am your domestique, how am I supposed to keep up with you if I am clean? If all the Phonak team is doping to keep up with their leader, how do the other teams keep up with Phonak? This is oversimplified I know but I think it illustrates my argument.

What I am saying is that one team represents only a very small teeny tiny fraction of the entire number of pro riders.

 

[gntlmn]

I seem to think that you said in an earlier submission that the speed of the winner had increased because the speed of the peloton (flat stages particualrly) had gone up?

The speed of the winner is influenced greatly by the peloton. This doesn't mean that the average speed of the peloton went up. I know this is pretty hard to conceptualize, but it is not a given that because the peloton influences the lead rider to greater advantage one year as compared to the other, that that results in a faster peloton. That's not necessarily the case.

That's why I brought up the fact that the speed of the peloton can be increased if the average speed of the peloton were the objective. It is not. Placing riders on the podium is what teams try to do, not to increase the average speed of the peloton.

Do we know what the average speed of the peloton is? NO! So we cannot compare the speeds of the lead riders and conclude that the peloton rode faster. Even if it did ride faster, unless you have rules whereby the peloton is actually a race unit (ie, is measured against a standard for a prize), then it is not really even in a race. If it goes faster one year and not the next, then you don't know what the motives were for the faster speed unless you analyze all the elements. And then it becomes very complicated. First you have to have a race where the average speed of the peloton is the objective. We don't have that. Therefore analyzing it's constituents to determine the whole makes no sense.

The Tour is much more complex than that. If they had another element like I suggested, like a prize for the average speed of the peloton with appropriate penalties for riders DNFing beating a certain standard, then you might be able to see changes year to year in peloton speed. But we are not analyzing a RACING peloton. It doesn't race, only it's individual riders--not the group as a whole.

 

[sportzgurl]

I'm not at all an expert with testicular cancer. But I do know that testosterone level in the body is regulated not by the testicles but by a gland in the brain, I believe in the pituitary gland or the hypothalamus. Therefore, if a guy loses one, the other one works more to make up for it. If one starts to generate more, and the level increases, the level is picked up by the brain gland, and it slows down the production from the healthy one.

If a guy does steroids, then the brain senses that the testosterone is too high. It sends a message to the testicals to slow down. Over time, they shrivel up. Long term abuse of steroids might lead to failure or to permanent impairment of the testicles and to resultant rebound effects after stopping their use, among other things to include more body fat and less muscle than he had to begin with.

Thanks. I never thought of the other one regulating the level. But then why would the guy on the interview say that the other reason his level may be high is cos of a medical condidtion and he said that it could be testicular cancer. Oh well you have given me a fair reason as to why LA wasn't picked up so I wont make you talk about shriveling manly bits anymore cos you might not sleep tonight!!

 

[philoakley]

The speed of the winner is influenced greatly by the peloton. This doesn't mean that the average speed of the peloton went up. I know this is pretty hard to conceptualize, but it is not a given that because the peloton influences the lead rider to greater advantage one year as compared to the other, that that results in a faster peloton. That's not necessarily the case.

That's why I brought up the fact that the speed of the peloton can be increased if the average speed of the peloton were the objective. It is not. Placing riders on the podium is what teams try to do, not to increase the average speed of the peloton.

Do we know what the average speed of the peloton is? NO! So we cannot compare the speeds of the lead riders and conclude that the peloton rode faster. Even if it did ride faster, unless you have rules whereby the peloton is actually a race unit (ie, is measured against a standard for a prize), then it is not really even in a race. If it goes faster one year and not the next, then you don't know what the motives were for the faster speed unless you analyze all the elements. And then it becomes very complicated. First you have to have a race where the average speed of the peloton is the objective. We don't have that. Therefore analyzing it's constituents to determine the whole makes no sense.

The Tour is much more complex than that. If they had another element like I suggested, like a prize for the average speed of the peloton with appropriate penalties for riders DNFing beating a certain standard, then you might be able to see changes year to year in peloton speed. But we are not analyzing a RACING peloton. It doesn't race, only it's individual riders--not the group as a whole.

This is a simple issue which is being over complicated.

If, as you acknowledge, that the speed of the winner is influenced by the speed of the peloton, then if the average speed of the winner is increasing (which it has beyond all doubt, i provided the data for this yesterday) the peloton must be getting faster. Or are you saying that the increase of the average speed of the winner is attributable to speeds in the mountains? If so, then this is an even more questionable performance.

If you look at average speeds of flat stages (partculalrly in the first week) they are faster. I can show the data on this but it will take some time and will involve a large spreadsheet.

As for the structure of the peloton and moving riders within it as a reason for increased pace. The pattern of racing in the peloton has been pretty much unchanged for the last 15 years.

The average speed of the winner has undoubtedly benefitted from the pace of the flat stages and also increased speed in the mountains. Just having watched the pattern of the racing over the years and the average speed of the winner demonstrates this beyond doubt. You do not need to over complicate this.

 

[gntlmn]

This is a simple issue which is being over complicated.

If, as you acknowledge, that the speed of the winner is influenced by the speed of the peloton, then if the average speed of the winner is increasing (which it has beyond all doubt, i provided the data for this yesterday) the peloton must be getting faster. Or are you saying that the increase of the average speed of the winner is attributable to speeds in the mountains? If so, then this is an even more questionable performance.

If you look at average speeds of flat stages (partculalrly in the first week) they are faster. I can show the data on this but it will take some time and will involve a large spreadsheet.

As for the structure of the peloton and moving riders within it as a reason for increased pace. The pattern of racing in the peloton has been pretty much unchanged for the last 15 years.

The average speed of the winner has undoubtedly benefitted from the pace of the flat stages and also increased speed in the mountains. Just having watched the pattern of the racing over the years and the average speed of the winner demonstrates this beyond doubt. You do not need to over complicate this.

Lance Armstrong's team in 1999 was said to be very weak, and yet that tour was the fastest ever up to that point, I believe. Now his team is very strong. Wouldn't we expect his time to have improved as his teammates have gradually been improving due to having better riders in the mix? This can happen even though the peloton's average speed stays roughly the same. It sure blew away the other teams in the mountains this year. The "peloton", if you want to call it that, was pretty withered and fragmented through the Pyrenees and Alps. I'm not so sure it was going faster.

 

[philoakley]

Lance Armstrong's team in 1999 was said to be very weak, and yet that tour was the fastest ever up to that point, I believe. Now his team is very strong. Wouldn't we expect his time to have improved as his teammates have gradually been improving due to having better riders in the mix? This can happen even though the peloton's average speed stays roughly the same. It sure blew away the other teams in the mountains this year. The "peloton", if you want to call it that, was pretty withered and fragmented through the Pyrenees and Alps. I'm not so sure it was going faster.

Here's the average speed for the main stages in the Alps and Pyrenees in the 2004 Tour:

La Mongie (197.5 km) 39 kmh
Plateau de Beille (205.5km) 33.8kmh
Villard de Lans (180.5km) 38.61 kmh
Grand Bornand (204.5km) 33.0 kmh

33.8 kmh for the Plateau de Beille stage is very fast. I made the point yesterday that the pace of the big mountain stages has increased by around 1kmh since the early 1990's. I think the front of the bunch was going very fast in the 2004 Tour.

In 2002 , the Palteau de Beille stage was 199.5 km won at an average speed of 33.3kmh. In 1998, 170 km at 32.3kmh (won by Pantani)

 

[gntlmn]

Here's the average speed for the main stages in the Alps and Pyrenees in the 2004 Tour:

La Mongie (197.5 km) 39 kmh
Plateau de Beille (205.5km) 33.8kmh
Villard de Lans (180.5km) 38.61 kmh
Grand Bornand (204.5km) 33.0 kmh

33.8 kmh for the Plateau de Beille stage is very fast. I made the point yesterday that the pace of the big mountain stages has increased by around 1kmh since the early 1990's. I think the front of the bunch was going very fast in the 2004 Tour.

In 2002 , the Palteau de Beille stage was 199.5 km won at an average speed of 33.3kmh. In 1998, 170 km at 32.3kmh (won by Pantani)

That can be explained by the attitude of the peloton. When it decides to react is not a function so much of how much energy it has as how it fits with the tactics of the race. This means, as I said earlier, that it is not the limitation of the peloton's long distance capability that dictates the race but how it decides to ride.

Now if each stage every day were a time trial over the entire course of the race, every stage included, then it would be easy to compare differences year by year. But with the peloton and the fact that its objective is not to race but to influence the placing's of the top gc contenders or to reel in daily stages to allow other riders besides breakaways to sprint for the stage win, the comparison is meaningless.