What's new

Rhys Ifans to play Wiggo in film bio...

It's not unreasonable that doping has some relevant effect in performance. But much does talent and skill. Look at Coppi's 1950's ascent of Alpe d' Huez at 41:00 - so you say he doped? Even if he did - the only thing they had in 1952 was amphetamines. Meth is not going to get you a 41 on the Alp d' Huez.

I google searched for you. His time was 45:22. Pantani`s record time is 37:35 (don`t think it is known if it was precisely the same distance).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d%27Huez
I *think* that equates to around a 20-25% increase in power (W/kg). I`d put little of that down to technological differences, training etc and most of it down to Pantani`s haemocrit level (64% in 95!) People like Coppi, Merckx would be competitive today, as they knew how to train (and had talent and skill, like you mentioned), so I doubt modern training methods would have made much difference to them.
Hematocrit+levels.jpg

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/06/drugs-work-but-by-how-much-look-at.html
Drugs:- He created his own mix, renowned as "la bomba," that included amphetamine pills, cola and caffeine.
http://history.top10-digest.com/the-history-of-doping-in-cycling-10-prominent-cyclists-who-were-accused-2/

Precisely the performance gain from doping is hard to know, but I think Hamilton cites how he went from 2nd at the T De F one year on a full program and with a broken/cracked collarbone, to 94th the next year when cut out of the loop. But don`t forget, PED`s aren`t just for pure performance gains, they also prevent performace deterioration from the effects of fatigue during grand tours. Performances that don`t decline over three weeks and get better in final TT`s...

as anyone who is even slightly 'mod' related would understand the tight connection of certain pharms with the culture - would also KNOW that he is straight up, by the same token.

Interesting argument. Anyway, time will tell.
 
Back
Top Bottom