ppanther wrote:
Looking at the graph, why did Ullrich not manage to beat Armstrong at least once? He did higher numbers 1997/1998 than Armstrong at his wins. When was the hematocrit limit introduced?

Cyclevaughters: believe me, as carzy as it sounds - Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%

FDREU: when in 2000-2001

Cyclevaughters: so, that's when you start thinking... hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%--- yeah moreau in 2000-2001

Cyclevaughters: anyhow - whtever

FDREU: After 1999, you know many things changed. lance did not

"(Evans) hovered more around 420 watts, and often between 390 and 410 watts, which for us indicates that he did not dope," the report concluded

I read it as 410 is suspicion, 430 mira and 450 mutant. So 420 is plum in the middle.

TheManxMissile wrote:
I wasn't saying 200 watts should have been the limit, but that the limits while based on certain tests are hardly perfect and to me, without spending money to read the report, seem almost randomly selected.
You misunderstood my point. Wasn't saying 450 isn't mutant etc. but that the article is not very credible in my eyes, and that if they had picked 200 as mutant, the credibility would not have changed. Of course that is a slight exaggeration to make a point.

I shall re-phrase my point. The article is not absolute or credible, as it is not published in a peer-reviewed Journal or similar publication. It is only accessible by paying directly for the report, which screams of soft science. It is about as credible as anything written about Watts in Lance Armstrongs auto-biographies.

BritPCMFan wrote:
I read it as 410 is suspicion, 430 mira and 450 mutant. So 420 is plum in the middle.



I read that as "Evans didnt dope as much as the others but still generally was at a suspect level. Often he often at levels just below suspect, because his old school and only dopes up certain events rather then microdosing the whole season."

And the other big problem with that conclusion. Wattage is only a part of it.

Lots of the PEDs are weight loss. That in itself doesn't cause you to go to "freak" wattage figures as its possible for anyone to go down to almost no body fat. Its only the oxygen boosters that cause you to go to impossible figures. The other stuff merely shortcuts you to a physical peak. It increases your current output, but it doesn't put beyond your max potential.

Alesle wrote:
I read it much the same way as Spilak23. Someone who averages above 410 watts (I'm assuming it's per 78 kg including bike or something like that) is suspicious. A single stage performance above 410 watts is a suspicious performance, but can be explained by other factors (e.g. tailwind). The Evans comments to me reads as he occasionally hit the 420 watts mark, but more often was in the 390-410 watts range. That is, some suspicious performances, but averages at a plausible level.

I'm not sure I'd conclude that he was clean, but he did perform at a level where it wasn't inconceivable that a clean rider could have challenged for the win.

Aquarius wrote:
One thing I've learnt from philosophy is that you can [b]never prove the non existence[/b] of something

BritPCMFan wrote:
EDIT: And that makes alot of sense when you look at the graph a page or two back. 2011 is right bang on 410. 2012 is just a little above that, but so is 2010. Thats with Contador. He won, got stripped for drugs. Clenbut. Which is weight loss. Probably explains why his so pissy about it, he wasnt actually blood boosting that year. Near mutant the year before though XD

Aquarius wrote:

Ullrich in 1996 was already a bit like Froome would be in 2012, paid to end second but most likely able to win it for himself, had he been allowed to.
In 1997 he was pure class, erm, I mean pure PED. It was the last time the actual classy Ullrich could be seen on a bike.
In 1998, no matter that his figures and Pantani's were quite high, he was only a shadow of his former self. Already he was too heavy at the start, and most likely he took it easy on the PED aspect.

In 1999 he won the Vuelta, but probably with a lower level than Armstrong at Le Tour.
In 2000 : too fat at the start, ending 2nd was quite an achievement. EPO tests were introduced in September or so, so everyone slowed down on EPO again.
In 2001 he was strong (nothing 1997 like), but Armstrong was stronger. He only finished 5th or so in some TT. Ullrich 1997 was in another dimension in TT.
2002 : injured, not at the Tour.
2003 : Armtrong was weaker than usual, but Ullrich has his preparation perturbed by Team Coast folding, etc. That's when he came the closest to winning it again, but had Armstrong not had bad days in the hot weather, Ullrich wouldn't even have been close after a disastrous first Alpine stage.
2004 : again, peaking too late. His form had been worrying all before Le Tour. He was dropped in the first Pyrénées stage, and was lucky to end 4th.
2005 : same shit, different year. Ready too late, horrible first mountain stage (bad blood bag at work). It went better as the race went on, but Armstrong (and Basso) were stronger.
2006 : seemed to be more in shape than during the previous 4 years. Then Operacion Puerto ended it all.

Bad preparation, weak mental, amateur management and antidoping progress prevented him from ever being his former self again after 1997.
Too bad, he was/is much more ok as a guy than the Texan, as far as I can tell.

Farmer Sam wrote:
Chris Froome wants to dominate the Tour for the next 7 years. Who does he think he is? Lance Armstrong...?

Spilak23 wrote:
Demare won't race the Tour, La Vuelta or the WC

acac wrote:


why?