Armstrong in Context
Martin
J. Savage
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Box 351560,
Seattle, WA 98195, USA
savage [AT] phys.washington.edu
(Dated: September 9, 2012 - 22:38) , Modified: December
28, 2012 - Alpe D'Huez section)
Abstract
This article
attempts to put Lance Armstrong’s performances and successes in the Tour
de France (TdF) in context. Results for various components of the TdF,along
with those from other professional cycling events, are presented.
Armstrong’s performances are compared to those of others occurring before,
during and after his years of participation in these events.
"Finally, the last thing
I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the
skeptics: I’m sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I’m sorryyou
don’t believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is the
greatest sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You
should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people.
I’ll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are
no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it. So Vive
le Tour forever!"
Lance Armstrong (24 July 2005) - Farewell speech
at the Champs-Elysees podium, after winning his 7th Tour de France, quoted in
”Paris salutes its American hero” by Caroline Wyatt in BBC News [1].
I. Introduction
During the last few years we have seen a number of
accomplished cyclists, such as Bjarne Riis and Jonathon Vaughters, claim that
they used EPO, and/or other Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) and/or blood
transfusions (that I collectively denote as Illegal Performance Enhancing
Technologies (IPETs)) in order to be more competitive in professional cycling
races. Further, we have seen an array of cyclists banned from competing for a
number of years through testing positive for banned substances found in their
blood. Soon after these admissions or positive tests, the cycling governing
bodies have typically moved to strip such cyclists of the titles that were
acquired during that period, and have awarded these titles to the second-placed
finishers. I find this to be a “double-edged sword” as these actions do punish
those who have admitted using, or found to have used, IPETs, but these actions
do assume that the second place finisher was not using IPETs. For those that
have confessed to using IPETs, but who did not test positive, this is clearly
an unreasonable assumption, as this scenario provides a clear demonstration of
the limitations of the testing at that time. This somewhat logically flawed
punishment (which, for any given event, could repeat itself until the title is
awarded to the last placed finisher until he/she admits to using IPETs)
provides strong motivation for other such cyclists to remain silent.
The most recent significant event, however, is that
Lance Armstrong is no longer fighting charges that he used IPETs during his
multiple appearances in the Tour De France. The discussions that I am reading
and seeing in the press and in the editorial pages, such as those of the
Seattle Times, suggest somewhat of a lack of understanding of the environment in
which Armstrong was competing. However, it is important to realize that certain
aspects of this environment can be deduced from the results of each stage of
the TdF and from the records for various other events. I have assembled data
from the TdF and other events and attempted to present them in a way that
illustrates interesting trends that I attribute to the Natural Ability,
Preparation, Recovery (NAPR) of the cyclists. While the ability of the cyclist
is dictated entirely by biology and environment, both their preparation and
recovery can be modified by IPETs.
I wish to stress that this is obviously not the first
study of the performance of professional cyclists, or professional athletes in
general. One recent study focusing on the use of EPO in professional cycling
with a well-defined statistical analysis can be found in Ref. [2]. Further, I am
not claiming to use new techniques, and in fact, I have employed relatively
unsophisticated statistical analyses throughout. Being a physicist and not a
statistician, I am guided by the belief that if you can’t see it, it isn’t real, and as such have attempted to produce plots that
exhibit, or do not exhibit, signatures of “interesting” behavior.
II. Individual
Performances
In this section, events that isolate individual
performances are analyzed, i.e. that do not have potential contamination from
contributions from other cyclists to the measured performances.
A. All-Time Fastest Individual Ascent Speeds
A quantity that has been discussed previously [3] is the all-time
individual fastest ascents. The data given in Ref. [3] is shown in
Fig. 1 along with further results from the Verbier climb in
the 2009 tour. [In 2007, there were a number that set the fastest ascent speed, but
only Soler’s time is shown. The peloton (Pereiro, Arroyo, Valverde,
Schleck, Evans, Horner, Menchov, Boogard, Rasmussen, Zubeldia,
Halgand, Leipheimer, Contador, Popovych, Cobo) went up the Marie-Blanque
(not the climb on which Soler’s record was set) at the same ascent
rate.] .
FIG. 1: The
all-time fastest ascents in units of vertical distance per unit time
(m/hr). (dynamical figure with data)
My observations are that
1.
Contador holds the
record for the all-time fastest ascent.
2.
Excluding Contador’s
performance, the data suggests a peak in climbing rates between 1992 and 1998.
3.
Armstrong’s best
climbs were ~ 5% slower than Riis.
4.
Excluding
Contador, the fastest ascents were accomplished by Riis, Pantani and Leblanc.
5.
In 2007, a
significant number of cyclists climbed with Soler’s rate (comparable to
Armstrong’s fastest ascent rate).
6.
In 2009, Armstrong
climbed up to Verbier with an ascent rate that was approx 2% less than his
previous best.
7.
More data would be
helpful for this quantity, particularly the ascent rates for each cyclist in
each TdF.
Information relevant to this data is:
1.
It is reported
that Riis, Pantani and Leblanc have tested positive for, or admitted to using,
IPETs.
2.
Contador was
suspended for “eating tainted Spanish meat”, and Ullrich was linked to
Operation Puerto.
3.
Removing the
performances of cyclists linked to doping (i.e. eliminating all ascent rates
greater than 1800 m/hr, along with Ullrich) leaves Armstrong the record holder,
followed by Soler (and a number in the peloton in 2007) and then by Indurain.
B. All-Time Fastest Ascents up Alpe D’Huez in the Tour de France
A quantity that is related to the Fastest Ascent rates
discussed in Section A, is the fastest
average speed for the climb up the Alpe D’Huez during the TdF. The all-time
fastest climbs [4] up Alpe D’Huez
are shown in Fig. 2. While obvious,
it is important to keep in mind that all other ascent rates are slower than
these, but it becomes increasingly difficult to determine the slower speeds in
each year from the available data.
FIG. 2: The
fastest ascents of Alpe D’Huez. The data has been standardized to the 13.8
km distance. The horizontal red line corresponds to the “magical” 40
minute climb time. Note that the 2004 ascent was an individual time-trial
and not part of a road race. (dynamical figure
with data)
FIG. 3: The
upper-envelope of the fastest ascents of Alpe D’Huez in the TdF. The data has
been standardized to the 13.8 km distance. The horizontal red line
corresponds to the “magical” 40 minute climb time. Note that the 2004
Armstrong speed was achieved in an individual time-trial and not in a road
race.
There are a number of ways to consider this data in
efforts to identify underlying trends. One way is to simply consider the
average ascent rates as a function of year in which they were accomplished,
from which one observes that
1.
The fastest
average ascent rates, that exceeded the “magic” 40 minute speed, were
accomplished between 1991 (Bugno and Indurain) and 2008 (Sastre)
2.
The 5 fastest
ascents were accomplished by Pantani (1997, 1994, 1995) and Armstrong (2004,
2001)
3.
The cyclists that
have ascended faster than the “magic” 40 minute speed are (in order of best
performance of each) Pantani, Armstrong, Ullrich, Landis, Kloden, Virenque,
Mayo, Azevedo, Indurain, Zulle, Riis, Sastre, Bugno, Guirini, Gonzales,
Karpets, Moncoutie and Basso.
Information that is relevant to these observations:
1.
The 2004 ascent
was an individual time-trial and not a road race.
2.
Cyclists in the
sub-40-minute category who are reported to have either tested positive or who
have admitted to IPETs are Pantani (haemocrit level of 60.1 in 1995), Ullrich
(identified in Operation Puerto in 2006), Landis (admitted to IPETs), Virenque
(admitted to IPETs), Mayo (2007, tested positive for EPO, retired), Riis
(admitted to EPO), Zulle (admitted to EPO, haemocrit once found to be 52.3%.).
Viewing the same data in decadel slices, while
examining the performance as a function of the age of the cyclists, gives rise
to the plots shown in Fig. 4.
FIG. 4: The
fastest ascents of Alpe D’Huez broken down by decade. (dynamical figures
with data)
While limited by statistics, there are some
interesting trends, a summary of which is shown in Fig. 5):
1.
The 1980’s saw
significant age dependence in the ascent speeds (that may or may not be
statistically significant). The oldest (age > 32 years) cyclist in this category is Hinault.
2.
The 1990’s saw
some remarkable climbing speeds, with significant gaps to the next set of
cyclists, and age seemed not to be an important factor.
3. The 2000’s too saw remarkable climbing speed, with
more cyclist climbing well, but with approximately the same number going under
40 minutes as in the previous decade. The oldest (age > 32 years) cyclists with climbs in this category are Armstrong and Sastre. This decade included the
2004 time-trial.
4.
In the 2010’s, the
climbing rates, so far, are all slower than the 40-minute speed, but already 5
cyclists (Contador, Danielson, Hesjedal, Rolland and Sanchez) have accomplished
some of the faster times in one TdF alone. The oldest (age > 32 years) cyclists with climbs in this category are Danielson and Sanchez.
FIG. 5: A
summary of the fastest ascents of Alpe D’Huez broken down by decade. The size
of the 68% confidence interval for the mean is not “cleanly” defined due
to the small number of measurements performed in each decade (the 5
fastest per decade).
To highlight the performances: If Armstrong, Pantani
and Lemond had ridden Alpe D’Huez in the same race, but at their respective
fastest speeds, Armstrong and Pantani would have finished approximately 11
minutes ahead of LeMond - or a distance of 3.3 km on the 13.8 km climb.
An aside: I had not realized this until now, but
the Alpe D’Huez stage that I saw on the mountain in 1991, where Indurain,
Bugno and one other cruised by me effortlessly it appeared, with Indurain
in yellow, was the first sub 40 minute climb in history !! Lemond and
Fignon appeared to be at their outer limits when the came by me. I was attending
a Les Houches Summer School that year, and took a day off with one other
attendee to see this stage, after watching a number of them on the TV
there.
C. All-Time Fastest Winning Individual Time-Trial Speeds in the Tour de France
Performance in an individual time-trial (ITT) is good
measure of particular capabilities of a cyclist that are distinct from their
climbing abilities. The all-time 10 fastest winning ITTs in the TdF over
distances greater than 20 km can be found in Ref. [5], and are shown
in Fig. 6 as a function of year and distance.
FIG. 6: The
all-time 10 fastest winning individual time-trials as a function of year (left
panel) and distance (right panel). (dynamical figure
with data)
Winning ITT means that it is the fastest performance
in that given event, but these 10 fastest are not the all-time fastest ITT
performances. It is also interesting to consider the performances as a function
of age, as shown in Fig. 7.
FIG. 7: The
all-time fastest winning individual time-trials as a function of age. (dynamical figure
with data)
One can observe from the data that:
1.
The fastest 10
winning ITTs have all occurred since 1988, starting with LeMond’s all-time
fastest record of 54.545 km∕hr over a short
course of d ~ 24.5 km.
2.
After Lemond’s
record, the next 9 times have occurred over distances d > 45 km.
3.
The second fastest
winning ITT was accomplished by David Millar.
4.
The third fastest
winning ITT was accomplished by Armstrong, significantly faster than the fourth
fastest by Leipheimer and the fifth fastest by Indurain.
Information that is relevant to these observations
are:
1.
LeMond’s
introduction of aero-bars in 1989, along with subsequent studies of
aero-dynamics, spurred significant improvements in technology.
2.
Of the cyclists
appearing in the top-10 (LeMond, Millar, Armstrong, Leipheimer, Indurain,
Honchar, Rominger and Ullrich), Millar (confessed to using EPO), Honchar
(tested positive for IPETs in 2007), Ullrich (identified in Operation Puerto in
2006).
1.
Ignoring Millar’s
performance, Armstrong is the record holder for d > 45 km, followed by Leipheimer.
2.
Ignoring Ullrich’s
performance, Indurain holds the record for the longest ITT.
3.
Ignoring Honchar’s
performance, Leipheimer is the record holder for the oldest cyclist in the
top-10 winning ITT performances, as seen in Fig. 7, followed by Rominger
with a speed ~ 5% slower over a distance ~ 10% shorter.
D. All-Time Fastest Prologue Speeds in the Tour de France
Most TdF’s begin with a Prologue before starting the
race proper. The Prologue is usually between 5 km and 10 km, although there have been a few number of longer and
shorter ones which have been omitted from this analysis.
FIG. 8: The
winning speed in the Prologue. The vertical dashed line corresponds to the
1989 TdF in which Lemond introduced aero-bars into the time-trial.(dynamical figure
with data)
Figure 8 shows the winning speed in the Prologue as a function
of year. The year that Lemond introduced aero-bars into the sport is shown by
the vertical dashed line. While the winning speed is quite informative, a
further interesting cut on the data is the number of riders exceeding a certain
speed. To illustrate this point, Fig. 9shows the number
of riders producing an average Prologue speed exceeding vmin = 51.5 km∕hr.
FIG. 9: Riders
with speed exceeding vmin = 51.5 km∕hr. The vertical
dashed line corresponds to the 1989 TdF in which LeMond introduced
aero-bars into the time-trial.
What I observe in the data is:
1.
The winning
Prologue speed as a function year does not exhibit any clear structure or trend
beyond a slow increase.
2.
The performances
of Boardman in 1994 and 1998 were exceptional, and are the fastest two Prologue
speeds of all time.
3.
In general, the
winning speeds exhibit scatter from year to year at the 10% level. However,
Cancellara’s speeds 2004, 2007, 2010, and 2012 show very little scatter during
this 8 year period. In these years he is significantly faster than all the
others in the field.
4.
The speed of the
last placed rider in the 2012 Prologue (Roy Curvers, rider 198) would have
placed him second in the 1985 Prologue. His speed was only 0.28 km∕hr slower than Hinault’s winning speed.
5.
There is clear
structure in the distribution of the number of cyclists exceeding vmin = 51.5 km∕hr, with the maximum in 1998,
but showing an enhancement between 1994 and 2005.
E. The One-Hour World Record
An event that is not part of the TdF is the one-hour
record (OHR), which has a long history. The data for the OHR can be found in
Ref. [6], and is shown in
Fig. 10.
FIG. 10: The
world one-hour record (average speed in km/hr). The left panel shows all
data while the right panel shows the record starting from 1950. (dynamical figure
with data)
This is quite a remarkable data set, going all the way
back to 1893. After the initial turn-on during the early 1900’s, the record
underwent essentially linear improvement until the mid-1990’s, at which point
the record increased by ~ 10% within the space of two
years, with the current record held by Boardman, with two remarkable
performances. In the recent past, Moser set the record in 1984 (twice),
breaking Merckx’s record which had stood since 1972. Then Obree took the record
in 1993 with his distinct aero position, soon followed by Boardman and retaken
by Obree in 1994. These performances were not inconsistent with the (approx)
linear increase in average speed from previous decades. Then in 1994 things
changed. The record was then shattered by Indurain, Rominger and Rominger in
1994, and finally retaken by Boardman in 1996 - setting a record that remains
today. These last four records were truly outstanding and off the curve. Much
was happening in cycling around this time period. Aerodynamics was being
studied more scientifically, and aero-bars, disk-wheels, aero-helmets,
skin-suits and so on were being introduced and used in the sport. The one-hour
record is where these were being used very effectively.
Because of the aerodynamic improvements, the record
was reset in 2000 to the 1972 Merckx record, and all future attempts at the OHR
must be performed on equipment that is essentially that used by Merckx. This
resetting removed all of the records set in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
It is important to attempt to quantify the
technological advances. A study has attempted to do just this [7], in which they
simulate the impact of wind-resistance as a function of rider position, the
impact of altitude on the ride, and so on, and summarize with [ 7] (quote):
"In summary,
by using field crank dynamometer measurements, the present study extended
the mathematical modeling approach used in previous studies thatcompare hour
record performances. After adjusting for differences in altitude and
aerodynamic factors between cyclists, several conclusions can be drawn.
Theearlier record holders who used traditional round tube track bicycles
(Bracke, Ritter and Merckx) averaged sea level powers of about 402 W.
However, Merckx’s1972 performance (429 W) stands out above the others. The next
series of record holders, who all used various aerodynamic improvements
(Moser, Boardman,Obree) averaged sea level powers of about 403 W, or about the
same. The aerodynamic improvements during this era resulted in a record
distance increase of about 10%. The last three challengers (Indurain, Rominger, and
Boardman) averaged 446 W, a large increase in power compared with the
previous record holders. During this period, the available bicycle
aerodynamic improvements did not change as markedly. The increased power of these cyclists, resulted in
a distance increase of about 7%. In other words, since Bracke’s era, about
60% of the improvement in the hour record distance has come from
aerodynamic advances and about 40% from higher power outputs. The
combination has produced the recent meteoric rise in the hour record.
Finally, future hour records at altitude should be possible, especially if
the current champions use indoor velodromes at higher elevations, where
the conditions of the track are constant."
The red highlighted sentences in this summary are
interesting. I conclude that:
1.
It is likely that
developments in technology led to an increase in the OHR speed in the mid
1990’s. However, the performances by Indurain, Rominger and Boardman appear anomalous.
Further information relevant to this record:
1.
It is reported
that Sosenka failed a haemocrit test in 2001, and ended his career in 2008
after being suspended for the use of IPETs.
III. Collective
Performances
In this section, events that depend at some level upon
the collective performance of more than one cyclist are analyzed. Performances
in this category cannot be uniquely assigned to a given cyclist, and are more
suggestive of the average NAPR of a team, or of the peloton as a whole.
A. Average Winning Speeds in the Tour de France
The most obvious quantity to examine is the overall
average winning speed of the TdF as a function of year and age. A complete set
of data for the TdF overall classifications and details of the stages can be
found in Ref. [8], from which the
winning speeds can be extracted, as shown in Fig. 11.
FIG. 11: The
average speed of the winner of the Tour de France versus year. (dynamical figure
with data)
In addition to exploring the changes in average speed
with time, it is also interesting to explore the age dependence of the data as
a function of decade, the distributions for which are shown in Fig. 12.
FIG. 12: The
average speed versus age of the winner of the Tour de France for each decade.
Taking the averages of the results shown in Fig. 12, an estimate of
the evolution of the average speed as a function of age can be determined, and
is shown in Fig. 13.
FIG. 13: The
average speed of the winner of the Tour de France versus age in each decade.
The ellipses denote approximate 68% confidence regions for the mean.
There are number of interesting trends in the average
winning speed data:
1.
The average
winning speed of the TdF increased year-by-year, on average, until Armstrong
retired, and, on average, has continued to decline since.
2.
There appears to
be a local maxima in the winning speed between 1960-1965.
3.
Hinault had
outstanding average speeds in 1981 and 1982, comparable to the speeds of
Indurain’s victories.
4.
Delgado had an
outstanding average speed in 1988, and like Hinault’s 1981 and 1982 victories, is
comparable to those in the Indurain era.
5.
The year-to-year
variation in winning speeds seems to have been reduced starting sometime in the
Indurain era.
6.
The speed of
Landis’s victory in 2006 was consistent with Armstrong’s winning speeds, and
slower than Armstrong’s final victory.
7.
The winning speed
of Contador in the TdF immediately after the Landis victory was noticeably
slower than all TdF’s since Indurain, but bounced back the following year with
the Sastre victory.
8.
The average speed
distribution with age didn’t vary significantly between 1950 and 1980. In the
1980’s the average speed increased somewhat and the year-to-year variation
reduced throughout the decade, but the significance of the differences with
previous decades is consistent with differences among previous decades. The
1990’s saw an increase in both the average winning speed and the average age of
the winner (see Fig. 13), along with a
reduction in year-to-year variations. This trend continued, but slowed, during
the 2000’s.
9. While contributing, Armstrong is not solely
responsible for the older-faster trend, as is clear from the data in Fig. 12.
10. When they won the TdF, both Evans and Wiggins were
older and, on average, faster than Indurain in any of his 5 victories.
1. Average
Winning Speeds in the Tour de France: Multi-Tour Champions
Let us focus on the greatest cyclists of the modern
era - those who have won 5 or more TdF’s. Given the hunting accident which
deprived LeMond the chance to win 5, and given his other accomplishments,
LeMond has been added to this elite group of cyclists for further
consideration. The average winning speed data for these multi-tour champions
are shown in Fig. 14.
FIG. 14: The
average speed versus age of the ≥ 5 times winners of the Tour de
France and Greg LeMond (a 3 times winner).
My observations are:
1. Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault and LeMond all had
comparable NAPRs. Within the uncertainties of the measurements, their
performances are essentially indistinguishable. Lemond was at the high end of the group.
2.
Both Indurain and
Armstrong are different from the other four. Their victory speeds exhibit the
older-faster trend seen in the decadel data (which is, of course, significantly
correlated with this data).
3.
Indurain’s winning
speeds of his 5 consecutive victories are 38.7, 39.5, 38.7, 38.4, and 39.2
km/hr, which have a spread of just 1.1 km/hr.
4.
Armstrong was
older on average during is victories, but one must keep in mind that he won 7
and not 5, which will skew his average age high. He was also noticeably faster
than the other multi-tour champions, ~ 7% faster than
LeMond and 4 years older.
5.
As evidenced by
the shape of the 68% confidence intervals in Fig. 14, Anquetil, Lemond
and Armstrong all exhibited the older-faster trend in their victories, while
Hinault, Merckx and Indurain had no clear trend with age (but Hinault and
Merckx had fluctuations).
B. Fastest Team-Time-Trial Speeds in the Tour de France
The team time-trial (TTT) is a clean measure of the
performance of the capability of each team in the TdF (ignoring crashes). It is
well known that a strong team is currently a requirement for winning the TdF,
and has been for decades. The fastest winning TTTs in the TdF can be found in
Ref. [5] (he does seem to
have overlooked the US Postal performance in 2004 as the fourth fastest TTT),
and are shown in Fig. 15 as a function of year and distance. Winning speed
means that it is the fastest time to win the TTT, and this data does not
represent the all time fastest TTT’s.
FIG. 15: The
fastest winning team time-trials as a function of year (left panel) and as a
function of distance (right panel). (dynamical figure
with data)
FIG. 16: The
fastest team time-trials as a function of year, including several
teams slower in each event. The number of teams shown for each year varies
from 5 to 20 due to incomplete data.
In Fig. 16 we show the first several teams in each of the fastest
years.
One observes that
1.
The fastest
winning TTT of all time have occurred since 1985, with most of them being
accomplished before Armstrong’s return in 1999.
2. Discovery Channel (Armstrong’s team) holds the record
for all-time fastest TTT, which was accomplished over the longest distance of
the fastest TTTs. This is an outstanding performance.
3.
The second fastest
winning TTT was accomplished by Gewiss-Ballan, again over a long course.
4.
In each of these
years, the winner is only marginally faster than second and lower places, and
importantly, not ~ 10% faster.
A survey of the internet shows some relevant
information regarding doping at the team level, which would certainly be
somewhat isolated by the performance in the TTT. The following information is available:
1. It is reported that the Gewiss-Ballan team was heavily
involved in doping [9], with team
doctor Michele Ferrari. From Ref. [9]: Haemocrit
levels of cyclists on Gewiss-Ballan taken in Dec 1994 and May 1995 were: Riis :
41.1 and 56.3, Gotti : 40.7 and 57, Berzin : 41.7 and 53. Argentin was a member of
this team.
2. Team Carrera has been implicated in doping. To quote
Ref. [10] : In March 2000 the Italian Judge Franca
Oliva published a report detailing the conclusions of an investigation
into a number of sports doctors including Professor Conconi. This official
judicial investigation concluded that the riders of the Carrera team were administered
EPO in 1993. The riders included Stephen Roche, Claudio Chiappucci, Guido
Bontempi, Rolf Sorensen, Mario Chiesa, Massimo Ghirotto and Fabio
Roscioli. 1993 is 7 years after the 1987 victory.
3.
Argentin, Riis and
Sorenson rode for Team Ariostea.
IV. Summary
The results of a number of individual and collective
performances in the Tour de France, and other events, have been examined in an
effort to put Lance Armstrong’s performances and accomplishments into context.
Fig. 17 is a combination of plots that summarizes aspects of
individual performances as a function of year for a selection of events,
FIG. 17: A
summary of individual performances as a function of year for (starting top left
and moving clockwise) the one-hour record, the all time fastest ascent
rates, the number of cyclists exceeding 51.5 km∕hr in the TdF
prologue, and the all time fastest average ascent speeds up Alpe D’Huez.
The vertical red dashed line denotes the year of Armstrong’s return to
cycling, 1999, and the start of the Armstrong era. [Recall that the rapid
reduction in the one-hour record was due to a reset to the 1972 Merckx
record in 2000. Further, the ascent up Alpe D’Huez in 2004 was an
individual time-trial and not a road stage.] (dynamical figures
with data)
while Fig. 18 summarizes collective performances as a function of
year.
FIG. 18: A
summary of collective performances as a function of year for the winning average speed
of the TdF (left panel) and the fastest winning team time-trials (right
panel). (dynamical figures
with data)
Looking at the data shown in Fig. 17, there is the
clear trend that cyclists NAPR exhibited a peaking between the years of 1990
and 2005, with peaks occurring in the vicinity of 1996. Given that humans do
not change biologically on such short time-scales, and one expects that
superior training and dietary techniques are not deliberately discarded, one is
led to deduce that IPETs were being extensively used during this period. Such
manipulations to cyclists NAPR were peaking when Armstrong returned to
professional cycling in 1999. Armstrong’s individual performances did not
exceed those of the record-setting cyclists in the previous 9 years, such as
Pantani, Riis, and Boardman. In fact, it is in the collective events, such as
the average winning speed of the TdF and the team time-trial, that Armstrong’s
performances were exceptional compared to the previous years. His final TdF was
the fastest of all time, and the Discovery Channel team time-trial performance
was truly outstanding. In each year that Armstrong won the TdF, he was clearly
dominant, but it is clear from the data, that this might not have been the case
if he had competed with the same NAPR just 5 years earlier (due to
NAPR-modifications of competitors).
It appears that a new generation of IPETs were being
explored in the late 1980’s, and fully exploited in the 1990’s. Of course, EPO
is the prime candidate for this IPET, but this cannot be extracted from the
data we have analyzed. The substantial reduction in performance variability
that was already complete by ~ 1991, and has been in place
since, suggest that variables dictating performance are being manipulated to an
approximately standard set of values, significantly reducing the impact of
natural-ability on performance (see Ref. [11]).
So what can one conclude from all of this information?
1.
The fact that the
performance of cyclists exhibits a broad peaking in the mid 1990’s is
consistent with IPETs being used extensively in cycling during that period. The
use of IPETs was not isolated to individuals, but appears to have been
pervasive throughout professional cycling. The fact that speeds and climbing
rates are reducing as a function of time points toward the success of stricter
doping controls in the sport.
2. The reduced variability in performance indicates that
natural ability, while obviously required, has been reduced in its impact upon
determining success, and this appears to have been the case since the beginning
of the 1990’s. (Comments about how EPO can reduce the impact of natural
differences on performance among different riders, along with other
discussions, can be found in Ref. [11].)
3. The data are consistent with Armstrong, upon his
return, not doing anything obviously different from other elite cyclists in the
TdF, though obviously, he just did it a little better. This is the “level
playing field” scenario.
4.
The data are consistent
with the assertions made by LeMond regarding doping in cycling.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the data analyzed
in this work is but a small fraction of what could potentially be analyzed. One
of the interesting features that was touched upon only in the analysis of the
TdF prologue data, is the complete distribution of riders speeds in each event.
If, in fact, IPETs that minimize the impact of natural ability in performance
are being used, this trend should be clearly evident in the distribution of
speeds in any given single event.
To close, the data that has been analyzed in this work
points to the combined natural ability, race preparation and recovery of
post-1999 Armstrong being consistent with, but slightly better than, other
elite cyclists competing at that time. The strength of Armstrong’s performances
in the collective events suggests that his preparation and recovery methods
were shared with his team-mates.
My Thoughts (given
these observations and conclusions)
1.
If one is
convinced that IPETs were used extensively during the period from the late
1980’s forward to today, it makes little sense to remove titles from those who
confess to using IPETs, as there is a high probability that the runner up, who
would be awarded the title, was also using IPETs in essentially the same way. I
suggest that it was a mistake to strip Riis of his 1996 TdF title because each
of the 9 riders below him in the general classification (GC) were also likely
using IPETs. Further, it is likely desirable to create an environment in which
offenders from the past can confess to using IPETs in past events as this may
help in the development of future anti-doping protocols.
2.
Stripping
Armstrong of his titles, and awarding them to the runner ups, has the same
problem discussed in the previous bullet-point. Given the data as presented
here, and the fact that multiple members of his teams have admitted to using
IPETs, it seems that there is high likelihood that the runner’s ups (through
many placings in the GC) were also using IPETs.
3. If titles are stripped from Armstrong, then, in
fairness, similar investigations should be launched against Indurain, as his
performances have similarities to those of Armstrong. This could be
generalized to all TdF winners since 1990.
Acknowledgements
This was written
as a result of many interesting discussions, arguments and
email-exchanges about doping in sport among John Costello, Jon Gates,
Chance Reschke, Mike Taxay, Charlie Varela and I, along with others, throughout
the last several years. I would like to thank them for their help in
shaping this article.
References
[1] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong
[2] http://ou-nl.academia.edu/HeinLodewijkx/Papers/1188905/
Some_empirical_notes_on_the_epo_epidemic_in_professional_cycling
[3] http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.html
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d’Huez,
which is claimed to have been adjusted to the 13.8 km
distance, http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/tour04/?id=results/stage16
, http://le-grimpeur.net/blog/archives/52
[5] The
Official Tour de France Records book, by Chris Sidwells, ISBN:
978-1-78097-009-7.
[6] http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/oct96/records.html
[7] http://kent.academia.edu/LouisPassfield/Papers/527974/Comparing_cycling_world_hour_records_1967-1996_modeling_with_empirical_data
[8] http://www.letour.fr/2012/TDF/HISTO/us/palmares.html
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewiss-Ballan
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrera_(cycling_team)
[11] The
Doping Dilemma.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma , and
for a reproduction (without images) see
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-08-29/#feature
Article © Martin J. Savage 2012
